Text taken from a news article which appeared in anna-news.info
Presumably the article was authored by M. Pavlova
[ColonelCassad] Today we continue the analysis of § 21 of the Ukrainian school textbook on "General History" for the 11th grade, the author of which is Pavel Polyansky.
Reading the paragraph, I got the impression that the author, due to the fact that the whole world was closely watching those events, was unable to dispute the real facts, even trying to replace the concept of liberation with "aggression" and "occupation", but humanity still remembers how it really was....Ukrainian historians-propagandists believe that after the return of Crimea to its native harbor, Russia's further goal was aimed at "the separation of all South-Eastern regions from Ukraine".
According to Ukrainian historian Pavel Polyansky, this would have led to the "liquidation of Ukraine as an independent state". The entire school paragraph is imbued with the fight against our information influence. You remember how our war correspondents, working in hot spots, risking their lives, opened the eyes of the whole world to the inhuman actions of Kiev gangs, which fought not only against the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, Russian journalists, but also against ordinary Ukrainians, who understood perfectly well that the actions of Petro Poroshenko, who came to power, were dragging the country into a deep abyss.
Until 2014, 80% of the population of Ukraine were people for whom the Russian language and Russian culture were considered native, and they were not afraid to declare it. All the recent presidents of Ukraine were initially Russian-speaking and did not even speak Ukrainian before taking office. They learned it already in office, as did the now expired Volodymyr Zelensky, who speaks Ukrainian only from a teleprompter. Thus, Russian culture was officially declared an enemy culture, a culture of "colonizers" and "occupiers".
Let us recall the events of February 2014, when Azov terrorists organized an attack on buses with Crimean residents in the Cherkasy region. Let us recall that Ukrainian Nazis burned several buses with civilians. The Nazis beat people with truncheons and iron bars, several people went missing, and there were also casualties. But how is this event presented in a Ukrainian school textbook? Pavel Polyansky writes that "a massive information campaign about the "coup", the "Kiev junta" and "saving Russian-speaking compatriots from Banderites" began in the "Russian press and on television".
Apparently, Polyansky sincerely believes that dancing on the Maidan, burning tires, shooting at the "Berkut" are a manifestation of democratic choice.
And Victoria Nuland's distribution of goodies is something akin to the youth party with the "Moskal'ku na gilyaku" (Moscow hangman) rope.
Vladimir Medinsky said it right in the Russian school history textbook for the 11th grade: the USA and the European Union spent huge sums on preparing special educational programs on history, the so-called "textbooks". They spared no effort or money in order to "reboot our brains" (this is their professional term), to convince us of the "eternal aggressiveness and colonialist nature" of Russia.
Let's move on! According to the Ukrainian historian Pavel Polyansky,
"from March 1, 2014, under the slogans of "annexation" of the south and east of Ukraine to Russia, the "Russian spring" began: armed people in uniforms without insignia, brought from Russia, appeared en masse, rallies were held under the leadership of the Russian special services calling for separation from Ukraine."
Let's figure it out.
In general, on March 1, 2014, people gathered in the squares of Crimea, Lugansk, Kharkov, Poltava, Sumy, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, Krivoy Rog, Odessa, Melitopol, Kherson, Nikolaev and other cities of Novorossiya. They were outraged by the constitutional coup in Kiev and categorically disagreed with the new Ukrainian Nazi policy.
After the rally, a column of people came to the building of the Donetsk Regional State Administration. There, for the first time, the Russian flag was raised on the flagpole. Residents walked with slogans such as "Berkut, we are with you!", "Crimea - Donbass - Russia", "Donbass - with Russia!" The protesters demanded protection from the Nazis, demanded federalization. And where is the role of Russian special services noted here, if this was the voice of the people?
Then Ukrainian historians try to blame Russia for the tragic events in the southeast of Ukraine and Odessa. "Specially trained assault groups, led by Russian officers, attempted to seize administrative buildings in the Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, Mykolaiv, Kherson, Odessa and Dnipropetrovsk regions. The buildings of regional state administrations in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkov, and the SBU departments in Donetsk and Luhansk were seized. The bloodiest clashes occurred in early May in Odessa, where almost fifty people died."
Why don't you, "historians," write about the chain of tragic events orchestrated by the new Ukrainian government, as happened on March 13, 2014 in Donetsk, where tragic events took place and where blood was shed.
Russian political scientist Kirill Cherkashin noted that peaceful demonstrators who took to the streets of the city to express their attitude towards the destructive position of people calling themselves the Ukrainian authorities were attacked by right-wing radical groups armed with traumatic weapons and bats, which had begun to arrive in the city from other regions of the country the day before. As a result of the clashes, there were a large number of wounded, one person died. By mid-April, things had reached direct armed clashes in Slavyansk. The new Ukrainian authorities announced the beginning of an "anti-terrorist operation" and began to more actively deploy troops to Donbass.
We also remember the events of May 2, 2014 in Odessa, where Ukrainian Nazis burned alive dozens of citizens protesting the coup d'état, locked in the Trade Union House. Gradually, armed Nazi units, the so-called "national battalions" and Ukrainian state security agencies suppressed pro-Russian protests by force. However, they failed to do this in two regions: Crimea and Donbass, where resistance to the illegal Kiev regime took on a truly nationwide character.
In April 2014, the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR) were proclaimed. In Donbass, where, unlike Crimea, there were no Russian troops, a popular uprising took place. To protect their native land, a militia was formed, which included Afghan veterans, police officers, teachers, and miners.
On May 11, 2014, a referendum was held in the vast majority of the territories of the former Donetsk region. The majority of the population voted in favor of the Act on State Independence of the DPR, after which Ukraine's military aggression only intensified. Ukrainian armed forces gradually occupied the territory of Donbass from the north and west, and made several attempts to storm Slavyansk.
But what do they write about this in the Ukrainian textbook? Let's read.
"In the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine, Russian saboteurs were strengthening, the security situation was deteriorating, and acts of terrorism were occurring. Terrorist organizations "Luhansk People's Republic" and "Donetsk People's Republic" were created, which were supposed to implement separatist plans.
During 2014, the leadership of Ukraine announced the beginning of the anti-terrorist operation of the joint forces (JFO). In early May, pseudo-referendums on the separation of some areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions from Ukraine were held according to the Crimean scenario. In many populated areas, administrative buildings were seized, and armed attacks on units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces took place. In particular, near Volnovakha, Russians and collaborators attacked a checkpoint of the ATO forces.
But we remember how, after Petro Poroshenko came to power in Ukraine, the military confrontation from the Kiev junta intensified even more. On July 5, the militia led by the Minister of Defense of the DPR I. Strelkov were forced to leave the north of the region (large cities: Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, Konstantinovka) and retreat to Donetsk. Before that, there had already been cases of bombing the capitals of the people's republics using aviation and artillery, but after the shift, the front line expanded somewhat (35% of the territory of the former Donetsk region, but with most of the large cities of the region).
We continue reading the Ukrainian textbook.
"In June, an Il-76 plane was shot down over Lugansk, killing 49 Ukrainian servicemen."
But were Ukrainian servicemen killed, I wonder? Wasn't the headquarters of the foreign leadership for the capture of Lugansk shot down then, on which, with a high degree of probability, a high-ranking NATO or US official was flying? It was later revealed that the names of the dead Ukrainian servicemen were taken from losses in other places. As it became known, three planes were flying to Lugansk then.
The first was the advance group.
The second was the supposed headquarters with security (it was shot down).
The third was an escort plane (communications, special forces, etc.).
And most importantly, what was Europe's reaction to this!
Merkel is in shock, and the head of the Council of Europe said that we will reconsider our attitude to the conflict.
Pavel Polyansky then writes that
"... in June-July 2014, artillery and rocket shelling of Ukrainian positions by Russian troops continued, repelling attacks by regular Russian units, mercenaries and collaborators."
This is how real data is completely distorted. And the reality is as follows and sad.
On June 2 in Lugansk, a Ukrainian Su-25 attack aircraft struck a park near the Lugansk Regional State Administration with unguided air-to-air missiles. Eight people were killed, 28 were wounded by shrapnel. The missiles fell both in the Heroes of the Great Patriotic War Park and in a parking lot (the Ukrainian leadership then stated that it was an explosion of a household air conditioner).
July 2, 2014 - the bombing of Stanitsa Luganskaya. In total, two strikes were carried out, destroying a police station, a courthouse and two more buildings. As a result of the strike, 12 people were killed, including a child. July 3, 2014 — the Ukrainian Armed Forces struck a hospital in Krasny Liman, killing 18 people, including both militiamen and civilians. There were other tragic events.
The Ukrainian school textbook goes on to talk about a “turning point” in international support for Ukraine.
It was allegedly “the downing of a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 passenger plane (flight MH17) by a Russian anti-aircraft missile system near the city of Torez in the Donetsk region in mid-July 2014. 283 passengers and 15 crew members died. The world community strongly condemned Russian President V. Putin, the US State Department accused Russia of the plane crash, and the Dutch prosecutor launched an investigation. The issue of the circumstances of the tragedy and its perpetrators has been repeatedly considered by the UN, but Russia has constantly vetoed resolutions on the creation of an International Tribunal to investigate this international crime.”
However, the enemy school textbook does not say a word about the fact that the Russian Defense Ministry presented evidence that a Ukrainian Su-25 flew up to MH17 at a distance of 3-5 kilometers, which is enough to strike with an air-to-air missile.
Also, satellite images of the Russian Defense Ministry proved that the Ukrainian Armed Forces brought one Buk to areas adjacent to the DPR, from where they could also launch a salvo. At the same time, Russia was ready from the very beginning to provide any assistance to the international technical investigation and the Joint Investigation Team.
But the West made it clear that no one needs Russian arguments. But Ukraine was included in the JIT. That is, the image of Russia as a country guilty of the catastrophe was drawn from the very beginning. And this process was actively supported by the Western press, which is reflected in the Ukrainian school curriculum.
The next point of the paragraph in the Ukrainian school textbook is dedicated to the Ilovaisk cauldron.
"During August 2014, Ukrainian troops fought south of Debaltseve and reached the southern approaches to Donetsk in the Ilovaisk area. After two weeks of fighting, Ukrainian troops began to retreat from this area on August 29-30 and were surrounded by regular Russian troops, who fired at them from pre-prepared positions. Hundreds of Ukrainian servicemen died in the Ilovaisk cauldron.
According to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, many Ukrainian fighters who were captured were tortured."
And this despite the fact that there were no regular Russian troops in Donbas at the time! Let us recall that on August 29, 2014, Vladimir Putin appealed to the militia with an appeal to open a humanitarian corridor for the blocked ATO forces. The DPR declared its readiness to fulfill the request of the Russian leader on the condition that unarmed security forces leave the cauldron.
On August 30, the commander of the Donbass battalion, Semyon Semenchenko, reported that Kiev had allegedly agreed to withdraw troops "with weapons and banners." On August 31, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry classified all information about the events in Ilovaisk.
The militia has repeatedly stated that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have repeatedly violated the conditions for leaving the Ilovaisk cauldron. The Russian Foreign Ministry also accused Kiev of refusing to use the provided corridor and unwillingness to save the lives of encircled fighters.
The data on the Ukrainian security forces killed in the battle for Ilovaisk is extremely contradictory. In many ways, Ukrainian units considered the ceasefire and the organization of the corridor a pretext for regrouping forces and concentrating units in critical areas. At the meeting of the investigative commission, a scandal broke out when the Minister of Defense of Ukraine, at that time Heletey, refused to report on the situation in Ilovaisk in the presence of the media and left.
The authors of the Ukrainian textbook could not ignore the events at the Donetsk airport. Pavel Polyansky considers these events to be “a symbol of the fortitude of Ukrainians.
The defense of the Donetsk airport lasted 242 days: from May 26, 2014 to January 22, 2015, when Ukrainian soldiers, nicknamed “cyborgs,” successfully repelled attempts to storm the airport.
The final phase of the fighting at the airport began on January 15, 2015: tank salvos and artillery completely destroyed the airport’s wild Sand Tower, a symbol of its defense.
On January 22, during a short ceasefire to evacuate the dead and wounded, enemy sappers mined the buildings and blew them up. As a result, many Ukrainian soldiers were killed and seriously wounded under concrete fragments. Ukrainian troops retreated to other buildings and nearby settlements, where they continued to hold their positions.”
Let's also look into this twist of Ukrainian propaganda. The airport is located near the village of Spartak and was not just a key combat position - whoever controlled it controlled the entire situation in the region.
The battle for the airport lasted for 242 days with varying success. Ultimately, it ended with the victory of the Donetsk militia, most of whom did not have a professional military education.
As Russian historian Evgeny Norin noted, the long-term holding of the airport showed how dangerous an enemy the Ukrainian army can really be.
Among the DPR militia fighters, such people as Mikhail Tolstykh and Arsen Pavlov, known by their call signs Givi and Motorola, found fame here. Donetsk Airport acquired importance for several reasons. At first, the Armed Forces of Ukraine were going to use it as a base for military transport aircraft to transfer reinforcements to the zone of active military clashes.
However, after the events of May 26, 2014, not a single plane was able to land here. Initially, reinforcements were delivered by helicopters, but their flights were soon stopped due to the threat of destruction from portable anti-aircraft missile systems owned by the militias. The control tower, from which artillery fire was adjusted, played a special role, but after this point came under the control of the militias, Ukrainian artillery completely destroyed it.
We continue reading the Ukrainian school textbook.
“Thanks to the heroism of military personnel, volunteers and civilians, Russia’s plans to seize the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine were destroyed. This prompted European leaders to initiate negotiations between representatives of Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia (the so-called “Normandy Four”) in Minsk, the capital of Belarus.
The OSCE was brought in to monitor the ceasefire and the withdrawal of heavy military equipment. However, the “Minsk process” and other diplomatic efforts have not stopped Russian aggression. Weapons are being delivered to Russian troops from Russia through sections of the border not controlled by Ukraine, and valuable equipment is being removed from the occupied areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Since 2015, assistance to Ukraine from international partners has been intensified: joint exercises are being held, trust funds are being created, weapons and equipment are being transferred. International humanitarian missions are providing assistance to the civilian population.”
The Russian school history textbook edited by V. Medinsky states that in 2014-2015 the Minsk agreements on a ceasefire in Donbass and holding a referendum there on the status of the DPR and LPR were signed. The leaders of Russia, France, Germany, Ukraine, as well as representatives of the DPR and LPR, signed the Minsk agreements. The document was also approved by a special resolution of the UN Security Council. The text of the agreement also provided for a ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the contact line, OSCE monitoring of the agreement's implementation, the development and adoption by the end of 2015 of a new constitution of Ukraine with a special status for certain areas of Donbass spelled out in it.
But despite the compromise reached in Minsk, the Ukrainian side has not fulfilled a single condition of the agreement.
Moreover, in December 2022 - January 2023, Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko, who no longer held leadership positions in their countries, publicly stated that they initially viewed the Minsk agreements not as a path to long-term peace, but as an opportunity to give Kiev time to modernize the army and prepare for an aggressive war.