By Dmitry Trenin, Global Affairs Journal (Russia), 3/21/22 (English translation via Google Translate); Dmitry Trenin is Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center

February 24, 2022 – the beginning of a special military operation in Ukraine – opened a new period in Russian history and became a turning point in modern international politics. Russia’s relations with the West, which had been steadily deteriorating over the previous decade, have finally collapsed. In response to actions in Ukraine, the West threatens to turn Russia into an international outcast, consistently blocks its foreign economic relations, and tries to influence Russian society by isolating it from the outside world.

Against the background of the consolidation of the West around the United States, Russia and China are drawing closer together. Coalitions of great powers are being formed in the world, opposing each other on the most important issues of the world order and fundamental values. Globalization is being replaced by regionalization, the world is splitting into opposing military-political, financial-economic and technological blocs. Politics dominates the economy. The well-known formula of thirty years ago is turned inside out: It’s geopolitics, stupid!

In this virtual military situation, the “re-edition” of the Russian Federation is inevitable. The main direction of government measures is the mobilization of all available resources and the maximum expansion of economic freedoms within the country while simultaneously supporting socially vulnerable segments of the population. But these are only the first urgent measures. The country needs fundamental changes: blocking the channels that feed corruption; reorientation of big business to national interests; a new personnel policy to significantly improve the quality of public administration at all levels; social solidarity; the return of fundamental – not monetary – values ​​as the basis of life. These changes, in turn, are impossible without overcoming the remaining elements of offshore oligarchic capitalism, wide rotation and improvement of the ruling elite,

The most important front of confrontation is taking place within Russian society. It is possible to cope with an external challenge only under the condition of self-purification and self-determination. It is necessary to defeat not only theft and embezzlement, but also cynicism, primitive materialism, unbelief; become citizens in the full sense of the word; decide for what a person lives and a country exists – and without what, if this thesis is expanded, life and existence become meaningless; refuse to lie to others and to ourselves. Hopes for such a turn arose during the “Russian spring” of 2014, but they were not realized, which gave rise to disappointment. Now there is a second chance. We must learn the lesson of history: the Russian state is practically invincible from the outside, but it is crumbling to the ground,

Not “second cold”

In Russia’s foreign policy, there has been a transition from the confrontation (confrontation) with the collective West that began in 2014 to an active hybrid war with it. Hybrid war is a sharp confrontation, including armed conflicts (so far indirect) of varying degrees of intensity, with the exception of a general nuclear war; economic, financial and technological blockade; information war; cyber attacks; terrorism; subversion and so on. A hybrid war is not a Cold War II, because the Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union, and the rest of the world has changed a lot over the past decades. But, like the Cold War, hybrid confrontation is an acute form of struggle for a new world order.

The transition from confrontation to a hybrid war means that the time for maneuvers and attempts to convince “partners”, “colleagues” is over, the viscous confrontation with them has been replaced by a sharp confrontation. The degradation of relations over the past two decades has gone from the so-called value gap in the 2000s to to a trust deficit in the 2010s and open hostility in the early 2020s. The United States and its allies (the Russian Foreign Ministry has defined a list of “unfriendly states”) are now not opponents, but opponents of Russia. The West is cutting ties with Russia – both with the state and with society – in all areas. This gap is permanent. The West will not “understand”, will not “soften” and will not “be kind” to Russia. For Western countries, Russia, called a threat and declared an international pariah, has become the most important factor in internal consolidation around the United States, and as such it will be indispensable for the foreseeable future. In any case, the return of relations between the Russian Federation and the West to the past (be it before February 2022 or before February 2014 – you can continue) is definitely impossible.

The goals of the opposing sides are the most decisive. For the West, led by Washington, the main goal is not just to change the political regime in Russia, but also to eliminate Russia as a large independent entity on the world stage, ideally locking it into internal conflicts and contradictions. For Russia, the main goal is to become a self-sufficient and independent of the West in economic, financial and technological terms, a great power, one of the centers and leaders of the emerging new polycentric world order. These goals leave no room for strategic compromise.

Objectively, many tasks of Russia coincide with the aspirations of a number of non-Western states – not only China, but partly India, other members of the BRICS group. At the same time, the world “non-West”, unlike the West, is not a coalition united by common interests and values. The interests of the various countries of this part of the world system are very different, the contradictions between them – for example, between India and China, India and Pakistan, Iran and the Arab countries – are strong and lead to conflicts. More importantly, unlike Russia (and Iran), the rest of the leading countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America remain deeply integrated into the American-centric financial and economic system, and many are politically and ideologically dependent on the United States.Under these conditions, Russia should not count on significant assistance and support from non-Western partners – their actual neutrality, that is, non-participation in anti-Russian sanctions, will be enough. Russia will mostly have to rely on its own strength.

Strategically important Asia

Nevertheless, Russia’s relations with Asia’s two largest powers, China and India, are of major strategic importance. The rise of the PRC naturally led to its confrontation with the United States, which seeks to maintain, if not dominance, then primacy in the world system. At the same time, thanks to the progressive development of Russian-Chinese relations over the past three decades, the quality of partnership between Moscow and Beijing has become unprecedentedly high. The sharp confrontation between the United States and Russia, as well as the escalating confrontation between America and China, are objectively leading to a new type of alliance – “without borders”, but also without strict obligations – between Russia and China. In the context of an economic war with the West, Beijing for Moscow for the foreseeable future is the most important partner in the field of finance, technology, and economics.

Russia’s relations with India are based on long-standing traditions of friendship and mutual sympathy. The growth of the importance and role of India in the world is in the interests of Russia. The increase in the economic power of India, its technological development expand the potential for interaction with Russia. At the same time, the contradictions between Delhi and Beijing, as well as the political and economic rapprochement between India and the United States against the backdrop of a hybrid war between the US and Russia and ever closer cooperation between the Russian Federation and China, pose a serious challenge to Russian-Indian relations. An urgent task is to strengthen the strategic partnership between Moscow and Delhi in order to bring it to the level of Russian-Chinese cooperation. As politics begins to dominate the economy,

Most of the international organizations in which Russia participates are dominated by the United States and/or its allies. Typical examples are the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the Council of Europe. The exit of the Russian Federation from the Council of Europe is a long overdue step. Even the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which originated in the Soviet Union, is under the decisive influence of Western countries. The exception is the United Nations, where Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has the right to veto. It makes sense for Moscow, which has an active position in the UN and its institutions, to focus much more on organizations of non-Western countries – BRICS, SCO, RIC, as well as organizations in which Russia plays a leading role – the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Treaty Organization. security. On all these platforms, it is necessary to develop and promote the global agenda, the outlines of which were outlined in the joint Russian-Chinese statement of February 4, 2022. These theses should be turned into a global platform for the interaction of interested states.

Foreign Policy Tasks

The priority tasks of Russia’s foreign policy in the new conditions seem to be quite obvious: (a) strategic deterrence of the adversary – the United States and its NATO allies, preventing, despite the active hybrid confrontation with them, sliding into a nuclear war; (b) creating favorable conditions for Russia’s self-development, relying primarily on internal resources and maintaining/reorienting its foreign economic relations during the outbreak of the economic war with the West; maximum assistance to Russian business within the country and in foreign economic activity; (c) development of close coordination and interaction with the main ally of the Russian Federation – Belarus; development of economic integration and strengthening of military cooperation with the countries of the EAEU and the CSTO; (d) further expansion of areas of practical interaction and strengthening of mutual understanding with the main strategic partners of the Russian Federation – China and India; (e) active development of ties with Turkey, Iran, and other countries of Asia, Latin America, and Africa that have not joined the sanctions regime against Russia; (f) gradual formation, together with partners in the SCO and BRICS, and other interested states, of the foundations of a new international financial architecture that does not depend on the US dollar.The conditions of a hybrid war do not leave much room for cooperation with unfriendly states – the actual enemies of Russia.

Nevertheless, it is worth maintaining, as far as possible, a situation of strategic stability with the United States and the prevention of dangerous military incidents with the United States and NATO countries. This requires the reliable functioning of communication channels with the US and NATO authorities responsible for defense and security. In solving other global problems – such as climate change, fighting epidemics or preserving nature in the Arctic – the emphasis will have to be placed on national programs and cooperation with friendly states. 

In the Ukrainian direction, the task of Russia’s foreign policy after the end of the military conflict is the formation of new relations between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, reliably excluding the transformation of Ukraine into a threat to Russia’s security; recognition by Kiev of the status of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation and the independence of the republics of Donbass. A promising goal is the formation of a new geopolitical reality (community) in the east of Europe based on friendly relations between Russia, Belarus, the Donbass republics, as well as relations acceptable to the Russian Federation with Ukraine.

In the context of a sharp reduction in contacts with Western countries (North America, Europe, the Anglosphere), it is necessary to redistribute Russia’s foreign diplomatic resources from the west to the east and south, starting with the neighboring CIS countries, where the diplomatic activity and effectiveness of Russia’s foreign policy are clearly insufficient.

It is time to start strengthening the expert and analytical base of Russian foreign policy, especially in the countries of the former Soviet Union, as well as Russia’s neighbors in Eurasia. Many failures, miscalculations and failures of Moscow’s foreign policy in the Ukrainian direction since the 1990s. are rooted in superficial, apex ideas about the political, social and ideological realities of modern Ukraine. Correcting the situation requires the creation of world-class centers for studying the processes taking place in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Kazakhstan, as well as in the Transcaucasus.

Along with this, it is necessary to shift the focus of foreign policy information and propaganda from Western countries, where a strong anti-Russian consensus has been formed in societies, to non-Western countries, the development of meaningful, respectful dialogues, primarily with the societies of states that have taken a neutral position in the global hybrid war. This applies primarily to the leading states of Asia, Latin America and Africa (China, India, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Nigeria, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Algeria). In addition to advocacy resources, Russian research centers dealing with these regions should receive incentive support. 

With the change in the situation, the need to formulate a new guiding idea for the foreign policy of Russia in the 21st century has become even more obvious – primarily for the Russian Federation itself, its close friends and for the outside world: neutrals and situational allies.Pragmatism as a strategy is no longer acceptable in the current conditions; he descends to the level of tactics.

We need a modern-sounding “Russian idea” based on a set of values ​​that are organic for the people of Russia, and which includes a number of goals and principles: the sovereignty of states; the indivisibility of international security; justice based on law; co-development; maintaining cultural diversity; dialogue of civilizations. The main task in the ideological direction is the implementation of the declared values ​​and goals in the practical policy of the Russian state within the country, as well as in the international arena.

The original article at Wall Street Journal is behind a paywall, so I’ve only been able to see a couple of excerpts and summaries by other outlets such as the one below from RT. A few thoughts come to mind.

First, if this report is true, then German Chancellor Schotz, after Zelensky’s refusal, should have publicly declared that Germany’s official position on Ukraine’s membership in NATO would be to veto it. The fact that he did not shows that at the moment of truth, Schotz chose to defer to a provocative agenda and the ridiculous position of Ukraine’s president, at the expense of Europe’s long-term stability and security. Ditto for Macron of France. Neither had the backbone to be a true statesman in the runup to this war.

Another thing this report reveals is that Zelensky – far from being the one-dimensional superhero he is being made out to be in western media – is an arrogant fool who wildly misjudged his leverage and the people of his country are paying a horrible price for it. – Natylie

Zelensky rejected peace offer days before Russian offensive – WSJ

RT.com, 4/3/22

German chancellor Olaf Scholz had offered Volodymyr Zelensky a chance for peace just days before the launch of the Russian military offensive, but the Ukrainian president turned it down, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has reported.

Scholz had made what the US outlet described as “one last push for a settlement between Moscow and Kiev” less than a week before the Russian forces were sent into Ukraine on February 24.

The chancellor told Zelensky in Munich on February 19 “that Ukraine should renounce its NATO aspirations and declare neutrality as part of a wider European security deal between the West and Russia,” the paper writes. The daily also claims that “the pact would be signed by Mr. Putin and Mr. Biden, who would jointly guarantee Ukraine’s security.”

However, Zelensky rejected the offer to make the concession and avoid confrontation, saying that “[Russia’s President Vladimir] Putin couldn’t be trusted to uphold such an agreement and that most Ukrainians wanted to join NATO,” the WSJ reports, without revealing its sources for the information.

“His answer left German officials worried that the chances of peace were fading,” the report points out…

Read full article here.

By Fred Weir, Christian Science Monitor, 3/31/22

Editor’s note: This article was edited in order to conform with Russian legislation criminalizing references to Russia’s current action in Ukraine as anything other than a “special military operation.”

Anna Afanasyeva, a fifth-year nursing student at St. Petersburg’s Pediatric University, admits she was feeling vague anti-war emotions as she went about her business in the city center March 2. But she says she had no intention of participating in any protests.

Nevertheless, she suddenly found herself grabbed by police near the Gostiny Dvor metro station in downtown St. Petersburg, where no rally even seemed to be happening, and thrown into a police van along with several other people.

She spent two nights in police detention before being taken to court. A sympathetic judge considered the charge of participating in an illegal assembly, noted that Ms. Afanasyeva had no previous record, and let her off with a light fine. That was just the beginning of her troubles.

“Without even waiting for the court decision, my university summarily expelled me,” she says. “There was no due process according to the rules for expelling a student. I was just told to leave. I am trying to solve this, hopefully without suing the university. If I go that way I can lose a year or more of studies. … I am just so upset about all this. I’ve heard that there is a blanket order to expel all students who participate in anti-war activities, and I just fell victim to it.”

Welcome to Russia in the second month of the “special military operation” in Ukraine, where the social and political atmosphere – never very receptive to dissenting opinions – is rapidly chilling. Military conflict can have harsh effects on any society, proscribing criticism and tarring anti-war sentiments as treason. But for many Russians trying to find their feet and feel their way through frightening political restrictions not seen in the lifetimes of most, the dangers remain the source of deep uncertainty.

Timur, another St. Petersburg student, was briefly detained by police for alleged illegal protesting and let go. But he has been expelled from his university. The vice rector called Timur into his office and told him that “you are the kind of person who would stab us in the back and spit on the graves of our soldiers. … You are not wanted here.” Timur has retained a lawyer to appeal the expulsion, and faces military conscription if he can’t get the decision reversed. “I really want to finish my studies,” he says.

According to the Latvia-based online news service Zerkalo, a dozen members of Russia’s National Guard from the southern region of Krasnodar refused to deploy to Ukraine in late February on the grounds that their duties were confined to Russian territory, and were immediately fired. They appealed to lawyers and sued for reinstatement.

One of the lawyers, Mikhail Banyash, says that of the original 12 guardsmen, most have quit and only 3 are still pressing the case.

“The pressure they have been subjected to testifies that their case is sound,” says Mr. Banyash. “But it’s a complicated case, and I can’t predict how it might turn out.”

“True patriots” vs. “scum and traitors”

The tone has been set by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who recently adopted rhetoric that hasn’t been heard in Russia for a very long time. Apparently referring to Russians with a pro-Western point of view as internal enemies, he said: “The collective West is trying to divide our society using, to its own advantage, combat losses and the socioeconomic consequences of the sanctions, and to provoke civil unrest in Russia and use its fifth column in an attempt to achieve this goal. … But any nation, and even more so the Russian people, will always be able to distinguish true patriots from scum and traitors and will simply spit them out like an insect in their mouth, spit them onto the pavement.”

So far the police crackdown on people who allegedly express opposition to the ongoing military operation has been relatively mild by Russian standards. According to the protest-monitoring group OVD-Info, about 15,000 people have been detained by police since the operation began, the majority of them receiving administrative fines rather than prison sentences.

The main impact to date of the crisis has been the shock and emotional dislocation that has been disproportionately suffered by more youthful, educated, and professional Russians, with many thousands quitting their jobs or even leaving the country. Critical media voices, both independent and mainstream, have been effectively silenced, with Novaya Gazeta being the last independent outlet to close its doors.

Ironically, the same segment of society has also been affected most immediately and deeply by the intensifying Western-imposed sanctions regime, as a result of being cut off from family, property, work, and travel to the West.

Polls suggest popular support is actually consolidating behind Russian authorities as the conflict intensifies, though Lev Gudkov, director of the independent pollster Levada Center, says that under-30s tend to be far more skeptical of official claims than their elders.

“Russian youth are far more negative toward the military operation, those between 15 and 30,” who make up about 15% of the population, he says. “They are scared of the consequences of war, particularly young men who face the prospect of military service. … Perhaps half of the youth are opposed to the operation, but many are also indifferent, who don’t want to notice events. But on the whole, there seems little appetite for public protest.”

“I don’t believe that I should hide”

For the moment, at least, many politically active young people seem to think that they can adapt to the situation and navigate around the increasingly draconian laws against “fake news” concerning the special military operation.

Nikita, a liberal political activist, publishes carefully calculated criticism on social media, but says he would rather his full name not appear in a U.S. newspaper “under these circumstances.” Still, he’s happy to discuss the dangerous ambiguities that regulate any sort of political speech in Russia today.

“We are faced with new rules. We just don’t know where the boundaries are, or what it’s going to be like tomorrow,” he says. “I am just not sure what I can say. Will I be punished or not? On the first day [of the operation] I posted a note on one of my social media pages that I believe in diplomacy, but not the diplomacy of the tank. It doesn’t seem to have been noticed, but who knows? … I think we just have to wait, survive, until this operation ends. Then we will see what Russia has changed into, what is the new Russia? Then we’ll have a better idea about how to go forward.”

Egor Kotkin is a left-wing activist who has no problem with speaking plainly. He has long lived an openly gay lifestyle in Moscow, and says he finds Russians to be generally much more tolerant and open-minded than their leaders.

A promotional writer for IT companies, Mr. Kotkin says he never watches TV, has generally opposition-minded co-workers, and mainly encounters pro-Kremlin views through his partner’s family and his relationship with his mother. She is a big fan of Mr. Putin, he says.

“My mother has formed a relationship, through the media, with Putin and the regime. She sees them as part of her life; she trusts them on a personal level. I try not to touch that, because it would spoil my relations with my mom. I guess a lot of families are like that,” he says.

“I don’t believe that I should hide. But we seem to be living under something like martial law. So, anything can change.”

Some of you may be aware of the video (embedded below) that went viral on social media of this American veteran who went to Ukraine to volunteer in the fight against Russia. He described his harrowing experience and warned others that going to fight as a foreign volunteer fighter in Ukraine was “a trap.” His name is Harry Hoeft and Alex Rubinstein of The Grayzone spoke to him.

https://twitter.com/KaczynskiOhana/status/1503737123261800452

US veteran who volunteered to fight for Ukraine describes ‘suicide mission’

By Alex Rubinstein, The Grayzone, 3/30/22

A decade after Henry Hoeft joined the US Army at age 18, he was back on the battlefield, but this time as a volunteer for a foreign military engaged in a proxy war against a powerful foe. After answering the Ukrainian government’s call for foreign fighters this February, however, the American veteran quickly decided he was being sent on a “suicide mission” against the Russian military.

After escaping with his life, claiming his own allies had threatened to shoot him in the back, Hoeft posted a viral message advising other Westerners against joining the fight in Ukraine. Within days, he was at the center of a global information war, with the military for which he had volunteered publicly branding him a Russian agent.

It was not the first time Hoeft had placed himself in the middle of controversy. Years before his ill-fated mission in Ukraine, his passion for guns and the Second Amendment led him into the ranks the Boogaloo Boys, an enigmatic militia-style organization that confounds even self-styled extremism experts. 

Members of the Boogaloo Boys uphold a staunchly anti-communist, anarchistic perspective that incorporates political positions and symbols familiar to both radical right and leftist movements. They have marched in support of Black Lives Matter, to the obvious discomfort of many liberal social justice activists, and protested coronavirus lockdowns, usually while openly toting assault rifles and sporting the Hawaiian shirts that have become their trademark. 

Hoeft was a prominent figure in the Ohio chapter of the Boogaloos and appeared at the Ohio statehouse in Columbus to deliver introductory remarks at an armed “unity rally.” There, he emphasized the group’s non-partisan politics and defended a transgender activist from insults.

But Hoeft said it was not his former affiliation with a militia-style organization that drew him back into the field of armed combat. Instead, it was the emotional impact of news flashing across his Facebook timeline about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine this February and being taken in by heart-rending stories of civilian suffering. He was a father now, and he saw his own child in the faces of Ukrainian youth fleeing for their lives from the Russian military onslaught.

So the moment Ukrainian President Vlodymyr Zelensky implored Westerners to travel thousands of miles across the ocean to join his country’s fight, Hoeft mobilized. “Every friend of Ukraine who wants to join Ukraine in defending the country please come over, we will give you weapons,” Zelensky appealed days after the full-scale war erupted.

When he arrived in Ukraine, however, he was forced to confront the dispiriting reality of a rag-tag volunteer paramilitary thrust into a proxy war against a powerful military machine. After about a week, he decided he had signed up for his own death.  

“They’re trying to send us to Kiev with no fucking weapons, no kit, no plates. The people who are lucky enough to get weapons are only getting magazines with like 10 fucking rounds,” Hoeft complained in a viral video rant from the field. “People need to stop coming here. It’s a trap and they’re not letting you fucking leave.”

Hoeft went on to make a series of explosive claims, including that the passports of Westerners trying to leave Ukraine were being torn up; that foreigners were being sent to the front lines without rifles; and that the Georgian Legion was threatening to shoot those who refused. 

Once it became clear that Hoeft’s account was undermining Kiev’s public relations campaign, the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine denounced him on its official Twitter account, branding the American as a stooge of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and posting his photo beside the caption “Made in Russia.”

Next, Georgian Legion fighters joined the social media assault, denouncing Hoeft and branding him as a liar. “Whatever may or not be circling right now from Henry,” one American volunteer claimed in a video published by Daily Wire reporter Kassy Dillon, “it is completely false.”

Finally, the corporate media trained its sights on Hoeft.

“Ukraine’s foreign fighters ridicule American Boogaloo Boy who RAN AWAY,” a headline from the Daily Mail tabloid said. “A Boogaloo Boi Tried to Join the Foreign Legion In Ukraine — It Didn’t End Well,” claimed Rolling Stone. And via the aggregator Raw Story: “Boogaloo Boi’s attempt to fight in Ukraine ends in disaster and him fleeing.”

Amidst the corporate media’s taunting, Hoeft agreed to an interview with The Grayzone. He told this reporter that he was determined to set the record straight about his connection with the Boogaloo Boys, his political views, and most importantly, the serious dangers volunteers face on the Ukrainian battlefield. 

“There’s no such thing as glory in death,” Hoeft told The Grayzone. “You’re going to die in a trench and you’re going to get left there and it’s gross and it’s bad.”

“We can possibly stop a world war”

When Henry Hoeft signed up for the Ukrainian Foreign Legion in late February 2022, he was convinced his experience as an army veteran trained in infantry tactics and mortar fire would make him a valuable asset. Tens of thousands of foreigners who flocked to Ukraine, pouring across the Polish border with the quiet assent of NATO governments, and zealous encouragement from Kiev, apparently felt the same.

“Being a veteran that has a specific skill set, I felt like I could put it to better use there in Ukraine than sitting here on my couch while watching women and children be targeted by Russian forces,” Hoeft told The Grayzone.

A few days before shipping off to Ukraine, he told The Columbus Dispatch, his hometown paper, about the raw emotion that was driving his decision: “Russia is firing on civilian structures, and there are kids who died. The fact that so many veterans across countries are stepping up, that’s very inspiring to me. We feel like if we can hold Putin for long enough, we can possibly stop a world war.”

Today, Hoeft says, “I still feel the same way. But I never had an intention of going to Ukraine on a suicide mission. I have a child. I have work. I have school. My original intent wasn’t even to be a frontline combat soldier. I intended to volunteer, which I did, and provide training, medical supplies and support.”

Hoeft submitted to the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, DC a copy of his passport and proof of his military experience, the sole requirements of foreigners looking to fight for Ukraine.

Once he arrived in Poland, getting over the border was “a very easy process,” he said. “It was very fast paced. It took us probably five, ten minutes to get into Ukraine.”

But as Hoeft explained to The Grayzone, getting out was not so easy. 

Inside the Georgian National Legion

After entering Ukraine, Hoeft and a few fellow volunteers made their way to Lviv. “In the town center of Lviv, they’re recruiting people from a bunch of different groups. You had Georgians, Ukrainians from local militias, and you also had more hostile groups like Azov and stuff like that,” Hoeft recalled.

Since the Ukrainian Foreign Legion required a contract, Hoeft opted to join the Georgian Legion, which was conveniently stationed nearby. 

Incorporated into the Ukrainian military, the Georgian Legion runs three bases with hundreds of fighters. Previously a unit that fought on the front lines against Donbass, the Georgian Legion is now headquartered in the West where it is led by Mamuka Mamulashvili, a veteran of four previous wars with Russia, including Georgia’s disastrous invasion of South Ossetia.

Mamulashvili and a small group of men he led during the Maidan coup d’etat have been accused by fellow Georgian fighter Alexander Revazishvili of carrying out a dastardly false flag massacre in Kiev’s central square. According to Revashishvili, Mamulashvili ordered his snipers to open fire on a crowd, killing 49 protesters in a cynical attempt to escalate the conflict by pinning the blame on the government they were seeking to topple.

Photos from both 2017 and 2018 posted on Facebook by Mamulashvili show the Georgian hard-man inside the US Capitol rubbing elbows with some of the top figures on the House Foreign Relations Committee. They included then-Rep. Eliot Engel, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, former Rep. Sander Levin, Rep. Doug Lamborn, and former Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. He posted more photos showing him visiting Senate offices, including that of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee…

Read full article here.