How Kievan Rus became Bandera Ukraine. Part of 3. German-American influence

How Kievan Rus became Bandera Ukraine. Part of 3. German-American influence

Galician-German stage

The Galician-German stage coincided with the grandiose events of 1917 that unfolded in the open spaces of Russia of the year, which provided an invaluable service to the Galician Ukrainizers. An old acquaintance of the Grushevsky cadet Milyukov, who takes his views on the “Ukrainian issue” well, becomes Foreign Minister of the Provisional Government and March 2 1917 states that the Ukrainians of Galicia, if they wish, can unite with the Ukrainians populating Russia, thereby recognizing for the first time at the level of Government existence of two different nations - Russian and "Ukrainian".

Given that almost all the “Ukrainians” were outside of Russia, their leaders were not slow to leave Austrian Galicia and quickly move to Kiev, establishing the Central Council, headed by the Austrian citizen Grushevsky. By appointing themselves members of their own (from 18, the heads of the 12 CRs were Austrian subjects), they begin their energetic efforts to create a “independent Ukraine”. At the same time, they do not unite Galicia with Russia, but join the lands of the South-Western Territory to Galicia.

So, as a result of the collusion of the short-sighted part of the Russian elite with the “Mazepians”, they were given the opportunity to detach part of the Russian lands from Russia. All further activity of the Central Council was to consolidate the captured rights and push the “Ukrainian question” to the international level, while the Germans and Austrians enthusiastically supported the aspirations of their puppets, as they had long dreamed of rejecting these lands from Russia.

The leaders of the Central Council for international recognition of the educated "state" come to an agreement with the German command, sign a separate "peace treaty" with it. Under this agreement for the supply of grain and meat to Germany, the latter committed itself to fight against the Bolsheviks and occupy Ukraine. The signing of this “treaty” made the Bolsheviks agree to the disgraceful Brest Peace and abandon Ukraine, while the German-Austrian troops occupied Ukraine in a short time, taking the Crimea, Rostov, and Belgorod.

Later, the head of the German headquarters on the eastern front, General Max Hoffman, wrote: “Ukraine is nothing more than an ephemeral creation ... In fact, Ukraine is the business of my hands, and not the creation of the conscious will of the Russian people. No one else, like me, created Ukraine to be able to make peace with it. ”

The ensuing chaos and anarchy in the open spaces of the South-Western Territory are quickly swept away by the successively established “Ukrainian” regimes and sham “states” of the civil war, which with each new “government” only intensified the propaganda of “Ukrainian independence” without any support among the population. All this bedlam ends with the victory of the Bolsheviks, who, on the basis of their ideological goals, began a new phase of Ukrainization.

At the same time, the Galician Ukrainians undergo a mutation towards Nazism and begin to create structures of the corresponding orientation. Of all the independent organizations, the Ukrainian military organization (1920), which together with other nationalist groups in the year 1929, creates the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) headed by the former Austrian officer Konovalets, acquires the greatest importance.

From the very beginning, the OUN focuses on Germany, receives ideological and financial support from it and unites extremist-minded Galicians, who have decided to defend their ideas through terrorism and banditry.

The ideology of these fascist militants remains Ukrainians, who took the extreme nationalist form, in which Dmitry Dontsov added fascist and Nazi elements.

According to Dontsov, the nation should be built on a hierarchical principle - at the head is the leader, who has an asset at his disposal - “an initiative minority - the elite of the nation”. This ideology, which from the very beginning represents one of the varieties of fascism, included the entire relevant set: the mythologization of the national stories, the cult of struggle and power, the totalitarian structure of power, racism and anti-Semitism. Thus, the Ukrainians raised by the Poles in the process of evolution were vaccinated with fascist, irreconcilable Ukrainian nationalism.

After the liquidation of the Soviet special services Konovalets OUN led Bandera, and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army - the captain of the Wehrmacht Shukhevych (both became "heroes" in today's Ukraine). They were representatives of a young growth, educated in the spirit of Nazi ideology. In the 30-s, directed by Germany, they killed Poles, unworthy, in terms of the latter-day “Aryans”, to live on the lands of Galicia.

The Nazi occupation of Poland and the Soviet Union, untied the hands of OUN executioners in the ethnic cleansing in Galicia and Volhynia, where they destroyed more than one hundred thousand innocent Poles, thousands of Jews and Russians, as well as their relatives who disagree with their racial approach to the formation of the “Ukrainian nation” ". With the defeat of fascism, Dontsovsky nationalism also collapsed, without external support, having no chance to capture the minds of Little Russians.

Soviet stage

The Soviet stage of promoting Ukrainians had its own goals, but at the same time it took much from the Galician predecessors. The main goal of the Bolsheviks was the world revolution, in which Russia, with its material and human resources, was given the place of a springboard. In their opinion, neither the Russian people nor the Russian culture should have dominated, so it was necessary to weaken the Russian colossus by dividing it into “fraternal” nations, each of which needed its own history and its own language.

At that time, the Bolsheviks did not have their own groundwork in this matter, but under their conclusions the concept of Grushevsky, cultivated by the Poles and its ideology of “two separate nations”, a special Ukrainian language and an independent culture, went well. In the absence of the best, they took the ideology of the Ukrainians as a basis and adapted it to justify the class struggle of the “Ukrainian people” for liberation from the tsarist “prison of nations”. Moreover, they invited the chief ideologue of the Ukrainians of Grushevsky to the Soviet Union, where he wrote his pseudoscientific works and even became an academician until the end of his life.

In April, the 1923 of the year the Congress of the RCP (b) announced the party’s course of “indigenization”, and the conference of the CP (b) U announced the start of the “Ukrainization” policy. The Bolsheviks took up the Ukrainization seriously and on a large scale; it was most intensively taking place under the direct supervision of Lazar Kaganovich, a man of sharp wit and indomitable will, who implemented the decision of the party with his characteristic energy and resourcefulness.

The main emphasis was placed on the introduction of the “Ukrainian language” invented in Galicia, the search and exaltation of “popular” writers, as well as heroes from the Cossacks and the promotion of folklore. Ukrainization was total, everything fell under it - state institutions, office work, schools, universities, the press, theaters, and not wanting to Ukrainianize or not passing the exam in the Ukrainian language were fired without the right to receive unemployment benefits.

Due to the shortage of personnel, ex-Petliurists were involved in the implementation of Ukrainization, and about fifty thousand enlightened Galicians were transferred from Galicia to work in the field, and they were distributed to senior positions for brainwashing.

During this period, the bearers of the ideology of Ukrainians were the party and administrative apparatus of Soviet Ukraine, a small layer of intellectuals and, of course, the “Varangians” from Galicia. The common people did not want to become "Ukrainians", did not speak the Ukrainian language, and were not interested in Ukrainian culture, and the violent forms of re-forging into Ukrainians caused him only irritation and sharp rejection.

The whole process of Ukrainization 30-s lasted about ten years, and, having met the passive resistance of the people, gradually died out. This was evidently due to the fact that Stalin understood the futility of the world revolution and, being surrounded by his worst enemies, decided to build a stronghold against capitalism in the form of a powerful Russian state.

The Soviet stage of Ukrainian advancement also ended in defeat, but its tactical successes were more serious than on the Galician stage. The toponym "Ukraine" was adopted as the name of almost a state (so far the republic with the right to secede from the Union), an independent ethnos was legalized, and the nationality "Ukrainian" appeared in the passport. Almost no one spoke Ukrainian, but everyone was obliged to study it, and many learned that there is such a “genius” poet like Taras Shevchenko, and they began to erect monuments everywhere.

Ukrainian-American stage

The Ukrainian stage in the advancement of Ukrainians began in the period of Gorbachev's perestroika, and until today has been purposefully imposed on the people of Ukraine by all Ukrainian elites, regardless of their political tint. Such a movement had to be created practically from scratch, since in Ukraine until the end of the 80-s, even in Galicia, there were no movements for “Ukrainian” independence, except for certain marginal groups of Ukrainian intelligentsia, the existence of which the majority of the people had no idea.

In the wake of perestroika, a nationalist scum emerges and spreads in Galicia, which no one took seriously, but the party nomenclature, anticipating the ideological collapse of the Soviet Union, is already beginning to fuel these sentiments in its own interests.

With the aim of seizing power, she, without disdaining to collude with the nationalists, begins to support the pseudo-national independence movement and, using the image of the enemy in the face of another people (“Muscovites have eaten our bacon”), adopts the ideology of Ukrainians developed over the decades postulate - the existence of an independent "Ukrainian nation".

After the collapse of the Union, having received the state that fell into its hands, the new, already “Ukrainian” elite accepts Ukrainians as a national-state ideology to rally the “Ukrainian nation” and to cover up the looting of state property that has begun. self-consciousness of the people.

The methods are still the same: falsifying history, imposing "peace", creating a separatist church, a national liberation struggle against the Muscovites, denying their Russianness, advertising pseudoheroes and traitors. Despite all the efforts, the majority of the population of Ukraine did not perceive the ideas of Galician nationalism and never considered and still does not consider Bandera to be its hero. This pseudo-heroism is imposed by the authorities, and it seems that everyone believes in this nonsense.

Since independence, the United States has been hard at work in the Ukrainian direction and is using Ukrainian nationalism for its own purposes as a means of putting pressure on Russia in a global confrontation with it. For this, the third decade has eroded the foundations of Ukrainian society with the help of specially created funds and support for anti-Russian elites, introducing Russophobia and hatred of everything Russian.

Despite the targeted imposition of Ukrainian identity, it was not so easy to create a “Ukrainian nation”. The proposed new identity was perceived by the majority of the people as something alien, unnatural to their national identity. With all the efforts of the United States to bring to power through democratic elections, candid nationalists did not work at all, the nationalist idea was not supported in society.

To solve this problem, we had to find other ways, form and train the “Ukrainian nation” combat core from the population of Galicia, which was Ukrainized by Austrian terror, create training centers for militants all over Ukraine and prepare a coup d'état. Taking advantage of Yanukovych’s refusal to sign the Euro-Association, such a coup was accomplished and for the first time nationalists came to power in Ukraine, under the leadership of the United States, realizing the task of finally turning Ukraine into an anti-Russian state and integrating it into Euro-Atlantic structures.

With the coming of the ruling regime established by the Americans, in four years Ukraine has transformed into a Nazi state with all its attributes of violence, suppression of any dissent, support for nationalist radicals and unleashing a civil war against its own population.

As a result of the centuries-old activity of external forces, in order to destroy Russian unity in the Russian lands, an anti-Russian state was created, used by the West as a springboard for containing Russia and assimilating Russian civilization by the West. The most interesting thing is that only the state has been created and political elites have been formed, supported by a part of the population. The bulk of the population did not accept the ideology of nationalism and Nazism, imposed by force, and is forced to endure the ruling regime, since so far there are no forces capable of dislodging it.

The question of the future of Ukraine at this stage is in limbo. None of the conflicting contradictions, political, ethnic, economic, social or territorial, has been resolved. Having become a bargaining chip in the confrontation between Russia and the West and becoming a loyal vassal of the latter, the ruling regime is not able to take the Ukrainian society out of a systemic crisis, and this issue will have to be solved by external forces.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    3 August 2018 06: 34
    Even my late grandfather, during Brezhnev’s time, said, return to the borders of 1654, and let them sit in them. So that bad thoughts in the minds of saloids about how they feed Russia do not even arise ... as practice has shown, he was right, oh, right ....
    1. +6
      3 August 2018 10: 03
      A wonderful very accurate text of Apukhtin is a bit overshadowed by a fake illustration at the beginning of this part of the article. There was no Ukraine in 1654. Apukhtin himself writes about this. In 1654, Little Russia reunited with Russia (part of the occupied Russian territories rebelled in Poland). The Russian people reunited, and only the Russian. So in the documents of those years. So the Cossacks, Bogdan Khmelnitsky called themselves. The reunification of Ukraine with Russia is already a communist Ukrainianizing zombie formula. And in 1654, other territories were reunited with Russia, not the ones on the fake map.
      In the Zaporizhzhya Sich, located on the territory of the Crimean Khanate, it also never occurred to anyone to call themselves a Ukrainian in the ethnic sense. Ukrainians were invented only after a quarter of a millennium. In addition to the island of Khortitsa, a very small territory can be attributed to Sich. So the territory of Sich is also not suitable for the role of fake Ukraine in 1654 in a fake picture.
      1. +6
        3 August 2018 12: 32
        Quote: Nikolai S.
        fake illustration at the beginning of this part of the article. There was no Ukraine in 1654.

        Such a Ukraine in its current form as it is now-fascist, we do not need. It must be destroyed as quickly as possible
      2. +3
        3 August 2018 14: 44
        The illustration is inaccurate only in terms of linking real historical events to the territorial map of present Mazepia.
        But the territory of the Zaporizhzhya Army in the XNUMXth century never had exact administrative boundaries, and could NOT have such, like any pirate unrecognized entity.
  2. +4
    3 August 2018 07: 52
    The first and second parts came out in the “History” section, the third part was already in “Opinion”. By the way, I would like the sections on the site more in line with their thematic meaning, and in a dual situation, they would be duplicated in sections for which they are equally suitable.
    The question of the future of Ukraine at this stage is in limbo. None of the conflicting contradictions, political, ethnic, economic, social or territorial, has been resolved.
    Probably, the problem of Ukraine is not today and did not begin yesterday. Definitely blaming only the Bolsheviks is hardly correct, there was an idea, the Soviet Union, and on this idea it was necessary to distinguish "fraternal peoples" from Russia, as a "centuries-old union". In principle, the USSR took place, a superpower on this idea was built. Much has become a victim of ideology, a lack of experience for the new social system, in which this experience in the evolution of development was much less than that of capitalism. Yes, instead of "Ukraine" it would be better to have the republic "Little Russia", yes, probably, the USSR itself would have been better organized according to the principle of economic regions, with a geographically-economic basis for dividing the country than on the basis of nationality, initially provoking separatism. In today's Russia, the same bomb was also laid, making “republic” of autonomy. As for Ukraine, so historically in life, Ukraine without Russia, a boat without a rudder and sail, there will definitely be mazepa, petlyura, Makhnovists or Bandera, and, of them, this national shame will also make national “hero”. Paraphrasing the old Soviet anecdote, the two (Russia and Belarus) are already a "partisan detachment", and three (Russia, Belarus, Ukraine) are a "partisan detachment" with a traitor ... Of course, this is just a bitter joke, we lost Ukraine by that the same scheme as the Soviet Union, we were outplayed ideologically, our younger and less experienced social system lost to Terry Schuler, capitalism. In the meanness, hypocrisy and hypocrisy, the leaders-owners of capitalism, the Anglo-Saxons, have no equal. We lost because, wanting to quickly build communism, we accepted someone to the party without hitting, increasing the number of “communists”, and the opportunists opportunists discredited the ideas of communism, betrayed the party, having only one “idea”, their skin, their well-being. Ukraine will have to return sooner or later, and only a new party, free from shifting chameleons, will be able to do it, a system free from the lobby of transnational monopolies and the rules of the game created for the masters of world capitalism. Ukraine is the Russian land, it is the root of Russia. What the States did in Ukraine cannot be “understood and forgive”; they crossed the “red line”, but this was possible because of our weak and Western-dependent power, picked up from the dustbin of capitalist history.
  3. +2
    3 August 2018 12: 17
    The term Kievan Rus was coined by Stalin in order to raise the authority of Ukraine of the "then" times. The then times have sunk into oblivion, and this muck has so settled in the brains of the ruling class and part of the intelligentsia that it is reproduced to this day.
    The time to abandon this terminology in relation to Ukraine, so as not to mess up the already filthy brains of the post-Soviet generations, has long come.
    1. +2
      3 August 2018 12: 33
      Quote: Apollo
      The term Kievan Rus was coined by Stalin
      Is Joseph Vissarionovich author of this term?
      The term Kievan Rus is used only as a designation of the Kievan principality during the period of fragmentation of the end of 18 by the historians - the beginning of 19 century, but Sergei Solovyov introduced him into scientific circulation as a special period of Russian history in the History of Russia since ancient times, 1851-1853 In Solovyov’s theory, the first period of Russian history is Dnieper or Kiev, the second is Vladimirsky or Verkhnevolzhsky, the third is Moscow, the fourth is imperial with the center in St. Petersburg. That is, with the shift of the capital of the country, its history also changed. This term was finally established in the Soviet historiography in the 30-ies. 20 c. in the works of academician B.D. Grekov. Now in Russia it is not used, preferring Ancient Russia or simply Russia.
      1. +1
        3 August 2018 14: 24
        So the first just does not deny the following.
        It was in the 1930s that the term "Kievan Rus" from the original designation of the historical period of Ancient Russia, through the efforts of the communist grief "historians" you mentioned, eventually turned into the present ... TOPOPONIM!?!
        Moreover, this was done clearly intentionally ...
        PS And at the end of insanity, it remained to be recognized by the states as "Cracow ... Poland", "Kyoto ... Japan" and "Constantinople ... Turkey" :-)))
        1. 0
          3 August 2018 16: 41
          Quote: Sharikov Polygraph Poligrafovich
          So the first just does not deny the following.
          Just denies, if we say that it was Stalin who coined this term and did not use it. What is now coming up with in the former Ukraine, the “commies-for-historians” obviously cannot surpass, however, your good “dog's heart” will not reach the greatness of Polygrafovich's thinking.
  4. +2
    3 August 2018 12: 29
    Even with current trends, the third part of this “saga” in the “History” section was embarrassed to place, realizing that this epic work has no relation to history. And that’s good.
    1. +3
      3 August 2018 14: 07
      Apparently you live especially happily at the Chocolate Pots today :-)))
      And that’s good ...
      But maybe this is just one of you so good ?!
      1. +1
        3 August 2018 14: 58
        As for me, when someone lives on the topic of the article, it has absolutely nothing to do. Or "there was no strength to be silent"?
    2. 0
      3 August 2018 14: 31
      The author, by the way, precisely for these views of his, the last 3 years at a very respectable age polished the shkonku ...: - (((
      1. +1
        3 August 2018 15: 01
        Dear Sharikov, I do not need French information about the author and his views. Even without you, I know who the author is and his thorny life path.
        1. +2
          3 August 2018 21: 51
          Let’s respect, why do you want to get NOT chili about the so-called VPN titles in browsers ...
          Tse I like you schiriy french schiromu frenchuzovі kazhu :-)))
  5. +2
    3 August 2018 14: 53
    Quote: Per se.
    Is Joseph Vissarionovich author of this term?

    Learn the History of the CPSU (b).
    The adoption of the concept of "Kievan Rus" in the state-political sense - as the official naming of the East Slavic state of the IX-XII centuries. with the capital in Kiev, - happened only in Soviet times. In this sense, "Kievan Rus" was first used in Soviet history textbooks written after 1934, together with the Short History of the CPSU (B.).

    Textbooks were written at the direction of Stalin and went through his personal editing. Academician B.D. Grekov, who was responsible for preparing the sections until the 1939th century, simultaneously prepared his main works: Kievan Rus (1944) and Culture of Kievan Rus (1929), which received Stalin Prizes. Grekov followed Grushevsky (since XNUMX a member of the USSR Academy of Sciences) used the concept of "Kiev state", but for the first time identified it with Kievan Rus. Since then, the concept of "Kievan Rus" began to be used precisely in this - Stalinist - meaning.
    1. +3
      3 August 2018 16: 41
      Learn the History of the CPSU (b).

      And this is not in the history of the CPSU (b)
      There are on the Internet in the mass of publications in the same form copied from each other without any opportunity to find the source of this text. And nowhere is there a single reference to the sources used to create the news.
      And the funny thing is, everyone writes Grekov’s words
      Grekov wrote: “I consider it necessary to once again point out that in my work I am dealing with Kievan Rus not in the narrow territorial sense of the term (Ukraine), but in the broad sense of the“ Rurikovich empire ”corresponding to the West European empire of Charlemagne, which includes itself a vast territory on which several independent state units subsequently formed.

      So nowhere I can not find where the Greeks wrote it. Looking, looking, and to no purpose. Neither direct nor partial coincidence, nor a reference to a monograph or at least something. Maybe the forum users will succeed.
      Now I’m looking for in “Kievan Rus” in 1939
      A bunch of resources use these words, but it’s nowhere indicated where they came from.
      This is just to make it clear that any information should be tried to verify.
      1. +2
        3 August 2018 17: 52
        And you will not find it, because it seems to be a compilation, moreover, edited.
        We take the book of Grekov.
        1. +3
          3 August 2018 17: 53
          We open on page 11, the second paragraph from above.
          1. +3
            3 August 2018 17: 58
            Then page 81.

            Maybe, of course, there is some kind of his report or article where he gives separate explanations on this issue, but I see this as completely meaningless, since in those years no one could even think of declaring Kievan Rus with Ukraine.
    2. 0
      3 August 2018 16: 49
      Quote: Apollo
      Learn the History of the CPSU (b).
      I have already noted above, find the difference between the “coined” term, and the “used” it. Invented and first used the term Solovyov, everything else is off topic. I also expressed my attitude towards the isolation of Belarus and Ukraine from Russia.
  6. +2
    3 August 2018 19: 55
    They still share, share history, and write about the "stolen by the neighbor" (that the Russian Federation that Ukraine)
    but here it is, the "neighbors stole" part of the territory from the neighbor - they separated it into a separate "neighborhood" and that’s it.
    In general, everything is somehow simple, more like stamps than a serious application. To Ukraine, and so most of all, claims (they stole, all of ours, you are ours too, but not ours, return, come back ...), though the reverse claims are no less (the author wrote about them)
    It is important that the historical center of that great ancient state, whose inheritance is claimed by the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, etc. (and now located in Ukraine, Kiev) is no longer an integral part of Russia, which the Russian Federation itself.
    They have lost and are losing all influence. And the propaganda is that they themselves are "radishes" will not really help this matter.
    Even with such labors, there is no way in which you can at least do something.
    Become the very center of gravity, not repulsion.
    1. +3
      3 August 2018 21: 45
      And there was nothing voluntary in this world ...
      Almost everything, everywhere and always voluntary-compulsory ...
      Maybe someone from Oleg’s squad in 882 asked the opinions of the then Kuyan: do they want to become Russia, or do NOT want ?!
      Or maybe they asked the opinions of the Kuyang authorities of the Russian Empire in 1686: do they want them to be bought from the noble-minded pscheks, or DO NOT they want ?!
      After all, as you know, a good word, confirmed by a revolver, always comes better than just a kind word :-)))
      And therefore - DO NOT PROMISE IN ADVANCE ...
      1. +1
        3 August 2018 22: 32
        Sharikov, you, instead of honestly confessing, first of all to yourself, that everything, about .... kakali, the train left and learn from what happened, are trying hard to somehow attach to the moment not your accomplishments, to which you, in general then you have one touch - you have them - see above.
        1. +1
          4 August 2018 00: 25
          Got it ... Faith in countless and continuous pEREMOKHI DOES NOT let you in :-)))
          By the way, it’s interesting: what are your accomplishments ?!
  7. 0
    4 August 2018 07: 52
    The map is not entirely correct. Chernivtsi region and Budzhak became part of Ukraine in 1940.
  8. 0
    6 August 2018 12: 21
    Firstly, not "German", but "German". Secondly, we should talk about two centers of influence: "Western European" and "North American", i.e. mainly Germany and the USA, and possibly the USA and Germany (prioritization is the prerogative of the author). The third. Kievan Rus is neither an object nor a subject of geopolitics. The objects here are precisely the relatively small Austro-Hungarian Galician (Uniate) region, which swallowed a huge part of (Orthodox) Russia and, in fact, Russia itself. Part of Russia becomes “Bandera,” that is, pro-German and pro-American, and therefore anti-Russian. At the same time, we see that the Brzezinski project (he is not the founder here, but the last one) is being implemented: Russia is being disintegrated at the expense of Russia itself. Thus, the “Bandera” becomes not some mythical state of ukrov, but Russia.
  9. 0
    6 August 2018 21: 24
    Quote: A vile skeptic
    Learn the History of the CPSU (b).

    And this is not in the history of the CPSU (b)

    The history of the CPSU (b), it is something more than a textbook or a book in the understanding of the layman. This is a huge array of documents published over the historical period. You need access to documents on the history of the CPSU (b).
    1. 0
      8 August 2018 08: 39
      with "A short course in the history of the CPSU (b)"

      Hello. It seems to me, as an average person, that the message indicates a specific textbook, and not "an array of documents published over the historical period." But this is not a complaint to you, you just did Ctrl + C Ctrl + V when you composed the message.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"