Once Upon A Time in the Council of Europe...

In 1999 Vladimir Zhirinovsky accurately predicted NATO's war plans.

In the late 1990s, the political landscape of Europe, particularly the East, was changing rapidly. The fall of the Soviet Union had allowed former Soviet bloc countries to join NATO, with the 1999 enlargement of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic being particularly important in the organization's Eastward expansion. Then, as today, Russia viewed the enlargement of NATO as a betrayal, and more importantly, as a security threat.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky in 1999:

In 1999 the late Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky addressed his country’s concerns frankly and with incredible foresight. He predicted, correctly, that NATO would seek to press eastward through Ukraine and Belarus, and into Transcaucasia (Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan). He predicted, both in this speech as well as other publications, that NATO would focus on the strategic warm water port region of Crimea. He argued that the West was not simply taking advantage of opportunities but instead actively pursuing a policy of aggression and provocation, pointing out the historical militarist imperialism that underlies the global elite’s rise to power. Zhirinovsky seemed to have a sort of geopolitical crystal ball that allowed him to see the West’s future provocation of Russia and the indirect strategy of bombing nearby regions that would be employed.

Zhirinovsky’s predictions have been spectacularly accu rate. In 2014, Russian-backed forces began taking control of the Crimean peninsula, while the 2008 Russo-Georgian War was a direct result of the West’s policy of supporting Georgia against the pro-Russian separatist territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The conflict he predicted between Armenia and Azerbaijan is ongoing to this day. Only yesterday, the President of Azerbaijan raised the flag of his country over the center of Karabakh and thereby ostensibly confirmed control over the region.

Zhirinovsky also predicted much of the chaos in the Middle East. Opposed to the spread of islamic radicalism and viewing the Islamic State as a serious security threat, Russia began to offer military support to Syria in hopes that the Assad regime would be able to quell the rise of the Islamic State and stabilize the region. It is widely suspected that proposals from the NATO leadership in 2013 to launch air strikes against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad were aimed at scoring a symbolic victory against Russia, which is still militarily active in the region.

Zhirinovsky’s speech has been incredibly prescient in its predictions of Western behavior. By placing the speech in the context of the rapidly evolving East-West geopolitical scenario, it is possible to see how his accurate predictions of NATO’s behavior arose from a place of understandable suspicion and pragmatism.

This leads me to address a critical misunderstanding most Americans have when they hear certain members of the Russian leadership express regret or criticism about the collapse of the Soviet Union. It's a common misconception, especially in the West, to interpret such remarks as a yearning for the return of a totalitarian communist state. However, such interpretations quite frankly misunderstand and misrepresent the heart of the matter.

Zhirinovsky was in no way a communist. He criticized the ideology consistently, with a characteristic intensity that earned him a lasting reputation in Russian politics. What then, one might wonder, underpins his criticism of the Soviet Union's dissolution? The answer lies not in a longing for the oppressive structures of the past, but rather in a profound understanding of the geopolitical, economic, and social upheavals that followed the collapse.

From a Russian perspective, the post-Soviet era wasn't just about newfound freedom; it was also about economic hardships, the rise of oligarchs exploiting a fledgling market economy, and the loss of geopolitical influence. When Russian leaders lament the fall of the Soviet Union, they often refer to these consequences, many of which reverberate to this day. Casting Russian views on the Soviet Union's end as mere nostalgia for totalitarianism is not only misleading—it's a disservice to genuine understanding.

This is also one of the reasons President Vladimir Putin is so popular in his country. He exposed corrupt oligarchs that were colluding with the West to exploit the Russian economy and benefit themselves. The video below showcases Putin's approach to his presidential responsibilities, presenting an interesting alternative to Western narratives.

To the Soviets, the end of the Cold War was a promise of peace. It was perceived as a mutual step back from the brink, a de-escalation to be met with cooperation and mutual respect. The West, however, saw it as a unilateral victory and solid Soviet defeat. The rapid expansion of NATO, even into territories that historically leaned towards Russia, coupled with rhetoric from American politicians claiming outright victory over the Soviets, shows just how deeply the Soviets were deceived. The dissolution of the Soviet Union, in this context, wasn't the internal implosion it’s often depicted to be, but rather the result of deliberate geopolitical maneuvers carried out by the Western powers.

The aftermath of the Soviet Union's dissolution and the geopolitical motivations behind NATO are a glaring example of this deception. The prevailing narratives presented by the main educational institutions and media outlets in NATO countries have the intentional tendency to distort the realities of global conflicts. Time and again, these simplified tales are peddled to the masses, obscuring the deeper truths and manipulating public perceptions to serve their interests while killing off the very people they’re deceiving.

As humans, it's imperative that we challenge these misleading narratives, seeing through their veneer to understand the actual motivations and machinations at play. If we don't, then we only have ourselves to blame.

-The Shultz Report by M. Shultz