As we all know, two years ago there was Russian-Georgian war inspired by Russian government and president. Recently about 20% of Georgian territory remains occupied by Russian forces. Russia violates the Mevedev-Sarkozy cease-fire agreement. Russia showed its real face again. The whole world has to understand, that Russia doesn’t obey any international agreement. I really hope that the territorial integrity of Georgia will be restored.

1. In 1416 metropolitan of Moscow Photius and cathedral (meeting) of the Russian bishops exposed anathema against metropolitan of Kyiv Gregory Tsamblak. The Moscow church did not recognize the separate metropolis of Kyiv in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and regarded itself as it successor. Gregory was charged with abuse of spiritual power. Photius called him as “a rebel, set up by unfair meeting”. He said: “We consider him as rejected, and excommunicated, and cursed”. The Ukrainian bishops and Constantinople have ignored the curse of Moscow.

2. In XV century the patriarch Gregory III of Constantinople with the consent of pope Pius III ordained the metropolitan of Kyiv Gregory Tsamblak. The Patriarch of Moscow Iona, which has self-proclaimed Russian autocephalous church, has not recognized the metropolitan in Kyiv and exposed anathema against him. He called Gregory as a traitor to Orthodoxy, he called on all the bishops to sever all relations with the metropolitan of Kyiv. Part of Ukrainian bishops have supported the metropolitan. As a consequence, it was the final division of metropolis for Kyiv one and for Moscow one. In 1469 the patriarch of Constantinople Dionysyus I approved Gregory on the cathedra of Kyiv.

3. In 1690 the cathedral (meeting) led by patriarch of Moscow Joachim put the anathema against “heretical cult of bread” – the assertion that the bread and wine become body and blood of Christ, Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox conformed. It was forbidden to read theological works written by Ukrainians, which “have a common vision with the pope and the Western Church”. Among them, there were books written by Petro Mohyla, Kyrylo Stavrovytsky, Luka Baranovych and others. In Ukraine and in several orthodox countries the anathema was never recognized. Because of this, new Moscow patriarch Adrian exposed the anathema against all books of Kyiv Pechersk Laura, published in Ukrainian language.

4. In 1708 the Russian Orthodox Church has put anathema against Ukrainian Hetman Ivan Mazepa because of “betrayal of Christ and the betrayal of great Czar”. This was proclaimed by the Ukrainian bishops in the presence of Peter I in Hlukhiv. They have torn the diplomas and awards of Hetman, and they have learned the doll of Mazepa in the streets. Later, the executioner “executed” the doll on the place. The bishops of Moscow have threatened with excommunication all who wanted to join the Hetman in its “work against God”. In 2009, the Kyiv Patriarchate said: “Russian Orthodox Church established a committee to examine to put away anathema from Hetman. However, in June 2010, the Patriarch of Moscow Cyril asked the authorities of Kyiv to change the name of the street bearing the name of Ivan Mazepa on the name Lavrska. He thinks that the street leading to one of the largest Orthodox shrines, cannot bear the name of the apostate of church.

5. In 1997 the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church has anathematized the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kyiv Patriarchate Filaret. The cathedral (meeting) said: “The monk continued fragmentation of the profane, including religious blasphemy without sacred dignity, had the courage to appoint himself as “Patriarch of Kyiv and of all “Rus-Ukraine” continued his criminal acts to harm Orthodoxy in Ukraine. Filaret did not recognize the anathema. He sees this anathema as an act caused by political reasons. Do not recognize officially the Patriarchate of Kyiv, many people continue to communicate with Filaret, including representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. From 10 to 15 million of Ukrainians recognize Patriarch Filaret as their patriarch.

July 14, 2010, Kyiv hosted an international conference of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), where was announced the need for large-scale propagation of CSTO among the Ukrainians for “brain washing”.
In the pro-Russian government that was established in Ukraine after the victory of Yanukovych in the presidential elections last winter, most politicians want the further cooperation with Russia, to reach an economic, political and military integration.
So, what about the economic integration it’s already too late for openly pro-Russian politicians as the President of Ukraine Mr. Yanukovych is, because Ukraine is part of the World Trade Organization ( WTO) since 2008. And as Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus are not parts of this international organization, Ukraine can not join the Russian project of customs union. It’s a good news for Ukraine. We must say thank you to Yushchenko that Ukraine joined the WTO and he has saved our economic independence.
Concerning the political integration, Ukraine is not a part of the European Union (EU) nor the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). As the EU shows no political will on the Ukrainian question about possible Ukraine joining the EU, gives every opportunity to Russia for maneuvering to put Ukraine in its sphere of interest (CIS and other projects). Rejecting Ukraine, the EU can have a volatile area near its eastern borders. Otherwise, the EU could show its true face to the people of the EU on double standards concerning a European country as Ukraine. Like this, it will reduce the image of the EU in the eyes of people around the world as an organization/country struggling for democracy and freedoms of people.
Regarding military integration, Ukraine is still a neutral country, but that may change. In 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest, Romania, under pressure from Russia, France and Germany, NATO has rejected the application of Ukraine to grant the Membership Action Plan (MAP). So, the population of Ukraine is frustrated, the people of Ukraine were expecting the backing of the expected the granting of MAP, but NATO member-countries refused it. After the complete failure feels forgotten by the West and does not believe in the values announced by the EU. What it gives to the EU and NATO? Above all, NATO risks to lose Ukraine as an active partner (Ukraine takes part in all operations of the NATO from “Active Endeavour” to Afghanistan). Because it is not in the interest of Ukraine to cooperate so deep with NATO without membership. So, the new pro-Russian president of Ukraine Victor Yanukovych pushes Ukraine into the hands of Russia. That is to say, he and his team will promote the CSTO and therefore, as the military bloc is opposed to NATO and the West, in my opinion it is a bad sign/message for European and American politicians. Otherwise, in the future Ukraine may join the CSTO and become a rival to NATO.
Instead of conclusion. The EU and the U.S. must put themselves a question “do they want Ukraine as a stable and predictable partner or they want to have a zone of instability and Ukraine who plays like Russia?”.

Ex-chairman of the SBU Valentyn Nalyvaychenko considers as a serious threat to Ukraine’s national security activities of some foreign intelligence services.
In an interview to the Mass media Mr. Horoshkovsky said that the detained in February 2010, Russian intelligence officer Vladimir Alexandrov convicted by the Ukrainian court under the Article of espionage.
However the head of the SBU doesn’t consider a threat to national security of Ukraine the return of a number of FSB employees to Ukraine, in the Black Sea Fleet.
Deputy Russian ambassador to Ukraine Vsevolod Loskutov is agree with Mr. Horoshkovsky, who claims that Russian special service officers work in every military unit and will serve on the Black Sea fleet and it is an absurd to speak about the threat to national security of Ukraine.
Experts recall that the FSB employees’ return to Ukraine was possible after the introduction of a new government.
Even before the presidential election about 20 officers of Russian security services which were ensuring the security of the Black Sea Fleet, in December last year left Ukraine.
But this May, the SBU and FSB have agreed on their return.
Experts remind that for the second half of 2009 and in 2010 the Security Service of Ukraine arrested at least 10 spies, including Russians.
According to former head of the SBU Mr. Nalyvaichenko, the biggest is not disappeared.
This threat to the territorial integrity of Ukraine still remains.

Top secret

Order No. 0078/42 22 June 1944

The People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs and the People’s Commissariat of Defense of the USSR
Moscow

The undercover intelligence discovered: the last time in Ukraine, particularly in the region of Kyiv, Poltava, Vinnytsia, Rivne and in other regions, there is obvious hostile atmosphere against the Red Army and Soviet government. In some districts and regions Ukrainian people opposes to exercise the events of party and of government about the restoration of kolkhozes and (forced) delivery the meal for the needs of the Red Army. To disrupt the construction of collective farms, they kill cattle. To disrupt the food supply for the Red Army, they bury the bread in the ground. In many regions of Ukraine the hostile elements consisted mostly of people seeking refuge from the mobilization to Red Army, were organized in the “green” woods groups that explode and attack military convoys and small military units, as well as they are murdering the representatives of local soviet government. Some Red Army soldiers and commanders fell under the influence of the semi-fascist and Ukrainian soldiers mobilized by the Red Army in the liberated regions of Ukraine have begun to degrade and to call on enemy.
What is written above shows that the Ukrainian population has been on the path of sabotage against the Red Army and Soviet power and sought to return the German occupiers. Therefore, to eliminate and control the Red Army soldiers mobilized and commanders of the liberated areas of Ukraine, I order:

1. To deport all Ukrainians who lived under German occupation to the distant regions of the USSR.
2. Run the expulsion:
a) Above all, Ukrainians who have worked and served for the Germans;
b) Expel the rest of the Ukrainians, who are familiar with life during the German occupation;
c) begin deportation after when the harvest will be delivered to the State for the purposes of the Red Army;
d) expulsion should be carried out only at night and suddenly, to prevent the cases of escape, and not introduce them to family members who are in the Red Army.
3. Establish control over the soldiers of the Red Army and the commanders from the occupied areas:
a) create special files for each person in the responsible departments;
b) check all the letters not by censorship but by a special department;
c) attach one undercover officer for 5 commanders and soldiers.
4. 4. To fight against the Anti-Soviet bandits, 12th and 25th punitive divisions of NKVD should be transferred.

To announce this order down to the level of regiment commanders inclusive.

The People’s Commissioner for Internal Affairs of the USSR, Beria
Deputy Commissioner of the popular defense of the USSR, Marshal of the Soviet Union Zhukov
True: 4th Department Head colonel (Fedorov)

On materials of Chuev F.: Soldiers of the Empire: Interviews. Memoirs. Documents. – Moscow, 1998

This past week saw another key success in Russia’s resurgence in former Soviet territory when pro-Russian forces took control of Kyrgyzstan.

The Kyrgyz revolution was quick and intense. Within 24 hours, protests that had been simmering for months spun into countrywide riots as the president fled and a replacement government took control. The manner in which every piece necessary to exchange one government for another fell into place in such a short period discredits arguments that this was a spontaneous uprising of the people in response to unsatisfactory economic conditions. Instead, this revolution appears prearranged.

A PREARRANGED REVOLUTION

Opposition forces in Kyrgyzstan have long held protests, especially since the Tulip Revolution in 2005 that brought recently ousted President Kurmanbek Bakiyev to power. But various opposition groupings never were capable of pulling off such a full revolution — until Russia became involved.

In the weeks before the revolution, select Kyrgyz opposition members visited Moscow to meet with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. STRATFOR sources in Kyrgyzstan reported the pervasive, noticeable presence of Russia’s Federal Security Service on the ground during the crisis, and Moscow readied 150 elite Russian paratroopers the day after the revolution to fly into Russian bases in Kyrgyzstan. As the dust began to settle, Russia endorsed the still-coalescing government.

There are quite a few reasons why Russia would target a country nearly 600 miles from its borders (and nearly 1,900 miles from capital to capital), though Kyrgyzstan itself is not much of a prize. The country has no economy or strategic resources to speak of and is highly dependent on all its neighbors for foodstuffs and energy. But it does have a valuable geographic location.

Central Asia largely comprises a massive steppe of more than a million square miles, making the region easy to invade. The one major geographic feature other than the steppe are the Tien Shan mountains, a range that divides Central Asia from South Asia and China. Nestled within these mountains is the Fergana Valley, home to most of Central Asia’s population due to its arable land and the protection afforded by the mountains. The Fergana Valley is the core of Central Asia.

To prevent this core from consolidating into the power center of the region, the Soviets sliced up the Fergana Valley between three countries. Uzbekistan holds the valley floor, Tajikistan the entrance to the valley and Kyrgyzstan the highlands surrounding the valley. Kyrgyzstan lacks the economically valuable parts of the valley, but it does benefit from encircling it. Control of Kyrgyzstan equals control of the valley, and hence of Central Asia’s core.
Moreover, the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek is only 120 miles from Kazakhstan’s largest city (and historic and economic capital), Almaty. The Kyrgyz location in the Tien Shan also gives Kyrgyzstan the ability to monitor Chinese moves in the region. And its highlands also overlook China’s Tarim Basin, part of the contentious Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region.

Given its strategic location, control of Kyrgyzstan offers the ability to pressure Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China. Kyrgyzstan is thus a critical piece in Russia’s overall plan to resurge into its former Soviet sphere.

THE RUSSIAN RESSURGENCE

Russia’s resurgence is a function of its extreme geographic vulnerability. Russia lacks definable geographic barriers between it and other regional powers. The Russian core is the swath of land from Moscow down into the breadbasket of the Volga region. In medieval days, this area was known as Muscovy. It has no rivers, oceans or mountains demarcating its borders. Its only real domestic defenses are its inhospitable weather and dense forests. This led to a history of endless invasions, including depredations by everyone from Mongol hordes to Teutonic knights to the Nazis.

To counter this inherent indefensibility, Russia historically has adopted the principle of expansion. Russia thus has continually sought to expand far enough to anchor its power in a definable geographic barrier — like a mountain chain — or to expand far enough to create a buffer between itself and other regional powers. This objective of expansion has been the key to Russia’s national security and its ability to survive. Each Russian leader has understood this. Ivan the Terrible expanded southwest into the Ukrainian marshlands, Catherine the Great into the Central Asian steppe and the Tien Shan and the Soviet Union into much of Eastern and Central Europe.

Russia’s expansion has been in four strategic directions. The first is to the north and northeast to hold the protection offered by the Ural Mountains. This strategy is more of a “just-in-case” expansion. Thus, in the event Moscow should ever fall, Russia can take refuge in the Urals and prepare for a future resurgence. Stalin used this strategy in World War II when he relocated many of Russia’s industrial towns to Ural territory to protect them from the Nazi invasion.
The second is to the west toward the Carpathians and across the North European Plain. Holding the land up to the Carpathians — traditionally including Ukraine, Moldova and parts of Romania — creates an anchor in Europe with which to protect Russia from the southwest. Meanwhile, the North European Plain is the one of the most indefensible routes into Russia, offering Russia no buffer. Russia’s objective has been to penetrate as deep into the plain as possible, making the sheer distance needed to travel across it toward Russia a challenge for potential invaders.

The third direction is south to the Caucasus. This involves holding both the Greater and Lesser Caucasus mountain ranges, creating a tough geographic barrier between Russia and regional powers Turkey and Iran. It also means controlling Russia’s Muslim regions (like Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan), as well as Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The fourth is to the east and southeast into Siberia and Central Asia. The Tien Shan mountains are the only geographic barrier between the Russian core and Asia; the Central Asian steppe is, as its name implies, flat until it hits Kyrgyzstan’s mountains.

With the exception of the North European Plain, Russia’s expansion strategy focuses on the importance of mountains — the Carpathians, the Caucasus and Tien Shan — as geographic barriers. Holding the land up to these definable barriers is part of Russia’s greater strategy, without which Russia is vulnerable and weak.

The Russia of the Soviet era attained these goals. It held the lands up to these mountain barriers and controlled the North European Plain all the way to the West German border. But its hold on these anchors faltered with the fall of the Soviet Union. This collapse began when Moscow lost control over the fourteen other states of the Soviet Union. The Soviet disintegration did not guarantee, of course, that Russia would not re-emerge in another form. The West — and the United States in particular — thus saw the end of the Cold War as an opportunity to ensure that Russia would never re-emerge as the great Eurasian hegemon.

To do this, the United States began poaching among the states between Russia and its geographic barriers, taking them out of the Russian sphere in a process that ultimately would see Russian influence contained inside the borders of Russia proper. To this end, Washington sought to expand its influence in the countries surrounding Russia. This began with the expansion of the U.S. military club, NATO, into the Baltic states in 2004. This literally put the West on Russia’s doorstep (at their nearest point, the Baltics are less than 100 miles from St. Petersburg) on one of Russia’s weakest points on the North European Plain.

Washington next encouraged pro-American and pro-Western democratic movements in the former Soviet republics. These were the so-called “color revolutions,” which began in Georgia in 2003 and moved on to Ukraine in 2004 and Kyrgyzstan in 2005. This amputated Russia’s three mountain anchors.

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine proved a breaking point in U.S.-Russian relations, however. At that point, Moscow recognized that the United States was seeking to cripple Russia permanently. After Ukraine turned orange, Russia began to organize a response.

THE WINDOWS OF OPPORTUNITY

Russia received a golden opportunity to push back on U.S. influence in the former Soviet republics and redefine the region thanks to the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the crisis with Iran. Its focus on the Islamic world has left Washington with a limited ability to continue picking away at the former Soviet space or to counter any Russian responses to Western influence. Moscow knows Washington won’t stay fixated on the Islamic world for much longer, which is why Russia has accelerated its efforts to reverse Western influence in the former Soviet sphere and guarantee Russian national security.

In the past few years, Russia has worked to roll back Western influence in the former Soviet sphere country by country. Moscow has scored a number of major successes in 2010. In January, Moscow signed a customs union agreement to economically reintegrate Russia with Kazakhstan and Belarus. Also in January, a pro-Russian government was elected in Ukraine. And now, a pro-Russian government has taken power in Kyrgyzstan.

The last of these countries is an important milestone for Moscow, given that Russia does not even border Kyrgyzstan. This indicates Moscow must be secure in its control of territory from the Russian core across the Central Asian Steppe.

As it seeks to roll back Western influence, Russia has tested a handful of tools in each of the former Soviet republics. These have included political pressure, social instability, economic weight, energy connections, security services and direct military intervention. Thus far, the pressure brought on by its energy connections — as seen in Ukraine and Lithuania — has proved most useful. Russia has used the cutoffs of supplies to hurt the countries and garner a reaction from Europe against these states. The use of direct military intervention — as seen in Georgia — also has proved successful, with Russia now holding a third of that country’s land. Political pressure in Belarus and Kazakhstan has pushed the countries into signing the aforementioned customs union. And now with Kyrgyzstan, Russia has proved willing to take a page from the U.S. playbook and spark a revolution along the lines of the pro-Western color revolutions. Russian strategy has been tailor-made for each country, taking into account their differences to put them into Moscow’s pocket — or at least make them more pragmatic toward Russia.

Thus far, Russia has nearly returned to its mountain anchors on each side, though it has yet to sew up the North European Plain. And this leaves a much stronger Russia for the United States to contend with when Washington does return its gaze to Eurasia.

THIS REPORT IS PUBLISHED WITH A PERMISSION OF STRATFOR

I have found some interesting info on NATO and threats to the world’s stability etc.
But here, I’d like to write only about the threat with the name of Russia.

So, here’s the chronology of recent facts of intimidation by Russia, presented by the Strategic Studies Group, Foundation for Liberal Research and Studies in Madrid:

January 2009 – Threats to cut the logistics route into Afghanistan
January 2009 – Gas embargo on Ukraine
December 2008 – Russia delivers latest generation anti-air defense systems to Iran
November 2008 – Russian strategic bombers land in Venezuela
November 2008 – Russian naval maneuvers with nuclear ships in the Caribbean
November 2008 – Threats to deploy missiles in Kaliningrad
February 2008 – Threats to point missiles at Ukraine
August 2008 – The invasion of Georgia
February 2007 – Threats to point nuclear missiles at Poland and the Czech Republic
February 2007 – Threats to withdraw from the INF Treaty
April 2007 – Cyberattack of Estonia
January 2007 – Energy embargo against Belarus
June 2007 – Threats to point nuclear missiles at Europe
January 2005 – Russia cuts Ukraine gas supply

Make right conclusions!

The « successful » politic of Kremlin caused the remoteness of former « brother-countries » towards Russia. Tired of always being cadets… According to data from the Policy Research Institute BISS, 54% of Belarus citizens don’t want to build a united state with Russia. 5 years ago, no one in Moscow could imagine such results, even in a nightmare. According to the experts from the Institute of Political and Military Analysis, which answers questions from the Security Council of Russian Federation and for the Russian Parliament, Russia has already lost all its allies in the ex-USSR territory.
So, it’s not us, Ukrainians, those « bad », which « betrayed » Mother-Russia ? Recently, all former satellites started to turn their back on Kremlin. The most Moscow « wins », the most we turn our back on it.
Cubans didn’t appreciate that the country which gave us socialism stopped the economic support. Vietnamese didn’t like that the Russian naval base was closed – that’s still money. Serbs expected the Russian « brothers » to help them, but they remember the way their country was first bombed, and then torn into pieces – Moscow didn’t help at all. The ardent Hugo Chavez is such angry that with his socialist interior, he feels another nature of Kremlin’s oligarchs. Lukashenka – another « enemy » of Russia is even closer to him.
The former Republics of USSR – Baltic states, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia – we just don’t have to recall, they’re already considered as enemies. It’s obvious that in these countries we focus on saying that citizens are not against Russians and Russia, and that they respect their culture. And there is a lot of Russians living there… What’s going on ? Maybe it’s time to look back in the mirror ? Sadly, Russia never wanted to do that.
Experts:
« Russia has an ally : Nicaragua »
Stanislav Kulchytsky, professor and doctor in History Sciences :
You are mistaken when you say that Russia has no friends. We have one, Nicaragua. But Russia, i mean its government, doesn’t want to be friend with anyone. Even the satellite countries, such as Belarus, are cautious with Kremlin’s actions.
Few times ago, I came back from Armenia. The country is totally dependent from Russia, at 100%. It’s the gas and all the economy of the country… And Armenia is in a really hard situation when it has common borders with Azerbaijan and Turkey. The Russian border-keepers control the Armenian-Turkish border.
And here is an officer from the Defense Minister who comes and declares « Armenia is in our pocket ». It’s an open effrontery. The imperial tone, the manners of a boss in a foreign country cause a negative reaction. Recall the recent « do demon » of Ukraine caused by Russian propaganda.
« The Kremlin’s politic is like an ax, clumsy »
Rustem Zhangozha, orientalist :
Statements about the eternal friendship and fraternity in Middle Asia, we do like it. It’s obvious. But the Kremlin’s politic is like an ax, clumsy. We’re not immortal. Berdimuhammedov (President of Turkmenistan), Karimov (President of Uzbekistan) will go away. But in the citizen’s memory will remain, for example, the behavior of Moscow citizens towards the Tajikistani.
The fact they have the image of « stupid people » is not the question. In Dushanbe, a citizen of Moscow who tries to get along in Tajik language will probably look stupid. But people will remember how their relatives was bitten in Moscow, how they were humiliated and killed. In order to arrange the relationships with countries in Middle Asia, we just have to behave with them as equal partners. They have a very nice and old culture, an amazing way of thinking. Here is the point.
« I’m sorry, but the new generation of Russian diplomats sucks »
Alexeï Fedorov, Russian Human Rights keeper :
It’s obvious that in politic there’s no eternal friends. There’re interests. But, thank God, we don’t have real enemies. I focus on the word « enemy » that I won’t use. The economic interests are necessary. The ones who haven’t common interests with Kremlin are considered as « enemies ».
Politicians of all « our former » countries just know only one thing : haggling. And too strict. It’s a practice like that. To me, as a Russian citizen, I’m ashamed of it. The new generation of Russian diplomats are not very encouraging. I’m sorry but they suck. Compared to them, the employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of USSR were much more professional. They vigorously promoted ideas they believed in. They knew about what and with whom they were talking. The ones these days don’t make a difference between European Union and European Parliament. They think about Extreme-Orient when they never visited it.
The arrangement of diplomatic relationships with neighbors would be such a fantastic option, but still impossible : our government listens to the opinions of public and non-governmental organizations. It’s way more efficient. Because the personal relationships with Ukrainians and Belarusians are huge.

There were explosions at the subway stations “Lubyanka” and “Park of Culture” in Moscow.
Dozens of people died. The final number of victims is being specified, but according to different sources at least 37 people died.
Spokesman of the FSB (Federal Security Service) said that explosions were committed by Islamist suicide bombers.
Ministry of Urgent Situations has reported that the number of injured rises up to 63 people.
The first explosion took place around 7:52 a.m. at the metro station “Lubyanka”. At 8:36 another explosion was heard at the station “Park of Culture”.
However, the Ministry of Urgent Situations of Russia Federation has denied the information which was spread by some mass media that there was third explosion.
Moscow police has increased its level of vigilance.
The representative of Moscow Prosecutor’s office said they have already launched criminal case on “terrorism”.
This is the worst terrorist attack in the Russian capital for over 6 years.
Last terrorist act in the metro was made in early 2004, when 42 people have died.

PS. I express my condolences to the families of dead and injured people, and to all Russian people.

There is nothing wrong, but the fact that it’s not only the year of Russia in France, but also a year of Kyivan Rus’ in France. At the first glance, it’s difficult to understand what’s the problem. But the problem is that for French people the word Rus’ and Russia are synonyms. So in this way the historical truth is distorted. Since Ukraine is the heart of Rus’, and is the place where began Kyivan Rus’. Kyiv was its capital, as is now the capital of Ukraine.
On the Louvre’s request to send exponents, Ukrainian museums refused to provide this exhibition with their exponents, organized by Louvre under the name of “Holy Russia”. In such a way Ukrainians are boycotting the historical injustice.
The French people believe in “twins” Ukraine and Russia. They do believe that this two nations are fraternal (see the same people). But let’s imagine the situation if the French said that the Roman Empire is the Motherland of France? And the Italians, Spaniards, Romanians and other nations are fraternal or are the same people?
In my opinion, the French people are so arrogant to learn more on this question. For them, pro-Russian information of the French government and mass media are the only truth.
The attitude to my state and people insults me.

On the map:
blue – the CIS countries (Russia, Belorus, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan)
yellow – Ukraine (not a CIS member)
red – Georgia (not a CIS member)
green – Turkmenistan (not a CIS member)

All believe that Ukraine is a member-state of the CIS. But it is not like this. After singing the agreements on the CIS creation in 1991, Ukraine parliament has never ratified the Charter of this organization. So, in accordance with the international law, Ukraine is not a CIS member. I want to provide you with a data from the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine:
ABOUT THE STATUS OF UKRAINE IN CIS
December 8, 1991, the President of Ukraine signed an Agreement on Establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States, according to this Agreement Ukraine became one of the founding-states of the CIS. This agreement was ratified by the Parliament of Ukraine on December 10, 1991, with the restrictions.
December 20, 1991, the Parliament of Ukraine made statement on “Adoption of an agreement on Commonwealth of Independent States by Ukraine”. According to the last paragraph, this statement is an official interpretation of the aforementioned Agreement.
December 21, 1991, Ukraine signed a Protocol to the Agreement on Establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States, which is its integral part.
In these documents, which are crucial for Ukraine on its participation in the CIS, there is nothing mentioned about the associated membership in the CIS.
Moreover, there is no possibility of associated membership in the Agreement mentioned above and it’s Protocol.
January 22, 1993, by decision of the Council of the CIS the Charter of the CIS was adopted. Ukraine didn’t sign this decision.
According to the part one of Article 8 of this Charter “according to the decision of the head of states only those countries can join the CIS as it’s associated member which have intension to participate in particular ways of the organization’s activities which are defined by the Associated Membership agreement”.
The Associated membership Agreement in accordance with the Charter of the CIS Ukraine didn’t sign.
By the article 7 of the Charter is stipulated that “the founder-states of the Commonwealth are the states, which signed and ratified the Agreement on establishing the CIS and the Protocol thereto”.
The member-states of the Commonwealth are the founder-states which accepted the obligations of the CIS Charter, within one year after its adoption by the Heads of States.
Thus, Ukraine is the one of the founder-states of the Commonwealth of the Independent States, but not a member-state of the CIS, and it is concluded to be the one not signing the decision of the adoption of the CIS Charter.