Better that many should live, even if one must die!

Multiple ‘Angels’ of the west against the Tyrant!

Throughout history, there has never been a time when all people were united at all times. Wouldn't it be a remarkable sight to witness? Unfortunately, people are inherently diverse, possessing different views, desires, and stances. Among the numerous factors contributing to these differences, I believe that three stand out as the main causes: personality, intelligence, and morality. These three aspects are intricately interconnected and nearly impossible to disentangle.

Today, I want to delve into the relationship between the United States and Russia, their respective leaders, and the falsehoods that have been propagated to both nations.

In many Western countries, you will encounter a narrative that often portrays Russia as an aggressor, labeling it as malevolent and calling for sanctions. This rhetoric primarily originates from Western voices, particularly the United States, along with its allies in Canada and Germany (France, despite echoing this narrative, remains somewhat undecided which hole it wants to squeeze itself.) But do these countries possess any moral authority to criticize Russia on any matter? And what exactly constitutes moral authority?

The concept of moral authority hinges on the connection between the actions of a country (person) and the outcomes they produce. Therefore, a nation with a more substantial history of human rights violations, whether through warfare (e.g., Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.) or the mistreatment/torture of innocent people (Abu Grhaib), should not be heard or believed - when discussing Russia's actions.

Nevertheless, many Americans and Europeans continue to believe in the narratives fed to them by the US and British elites. Today, rather than delving into propaganda and the daily workings of intelligence agencies like the CIA, I aim to provide a balanced perspective from both sides – highlighting the shortcomings of both nations. The time has come for you to choose where you stand, as failing to do so may lead you to be dragged in a place you might not want to be.

Let's now examine the case of Vladimir Putin while drawing comparisons to Western leaders. As a leader of a nation, you assume a responsibility that most individuals cannot fathom. This responsibility is - why millions vote for you, as opposed to just a handful. Your citizens entrust you with their fate, making you a truly unique figure, or at least you should be.

Unfortunately, leaders of countries are sometimes compelled to make morally questionable decisions, or even engage in actions that are outright criminal, all in the name of the greater good of their nation, clichéd as it may sound. My goal in this article is to help you discern that not all forms of evil are equal, and some individuals who commit immoral acts are far worse than others. In the realm of politics, the ability to distinguish between the lesser evils becomes crucial. Your freedom and your life depend on it.

Multiple ‘Angels’ of the west against the Tyrant!

Countries like Canada, the UK, Australia, and the United States operate based on principles that can be compared to certain characteristics often associated with psychopathic and narcissistic individuals. Before I delve into the details of this comparison, I'd like you to consider what these countries share in common: language, culture, and mindset. The colonial legacy, which the US inherited from Britain, has played a significant role in shaping the behavior of these nations and, in some cases, has contributed to acts of brutality worldwide.

Vladimir Putin is frequently accused of staying in power indefinitely, but is that really the case? If we closely examine Western politics, we find the same names recurring year after year, decade after decade. The dynasties of the Bushes, Clintons, and long-serving senators and congressmen, who often have no term limits, have become deeply entrenched, thanks in part to their close ties to the military-industrial complex.

Comparing Putin's rule to the extended tenures of key Western politicians reveals that Putin's time in power is comparatively short. Therefore, the argument that he rules "forever" loses its validity, as both sides are equally guilty of this phenomenon.

Furthermore, figures like Kissinger, Soros, Gates maintained influential positions for decades.  Putin cannot possibly consolidate power to the same extent as these individuals.

Especially in a world where figures like the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas, despite differing moral and political views, maintain close relationships and partnership . This raises the question of what they have in common, perhaps the realization that they are all players in a larger game. In a corrupt environment, individuals tend to stick together for survival, especially when they recognize their shared predicament.

In the corporate world, you can find families that have wielded significant political influence for generations and almost always you will find them in the west. Now that we've established that power consolidation is more pronounced in the West than in Vladimir Putin's case, let's discuss the moral compass of these powerful figures.

Putin is accused of eliminating his opponents and those who stand in his way. However, if we analyze the West, we find that power is concentrated in the hands of a few to such an extent that even third-party candidates refrain from running because they believe they have no chance of success. In what kind of democracy do individuals decide not to run as third-party candidates due to the foregone conclusion that they will lose? This raises questions about the nature of democracy itself.

Regarding opponents, it's arguable that there are none in the US, particularly since the assassination of Kennedy. Leaders are often handpicked, as exemplified by the successive reigns of the Bushes, Obamas, and Clintons. When a true outsider like Trump emerges, the two supposedly opposing parties unite against him. True opposition in the US is met with imprisonment or even assassination, as seen in the cases of JFK and RFK.

Putin has faced accusations of eliminating his political opponents, but the reality is that the only individual who truly challenged his authority was Boris Nemtsov, and tragically, he was assassinated. However, the situation is far more complex than it may seem. Boris Nemtsov was associated with the faction of Western-influenced figures in Russia. While I held deep respect for Boris Nemtsov both as a person and as a politician, we were both misguided in our beliefs. At that time, similar to me, Boris firmly believed in the Western world. He believed that the United States would come to Russia's aid in constructing a brighter future. I genuinely believed in this ideal, just as Boris did. Regrettably, individuals like us failed to grasp the reality. But Putin did!

Putin perceived something that we did not — that the seemingly angelic face of the United States was a facade. They were not interested in assisting Russia but rather in disassembling it and delivering it into the hands of corporate elites and their puppets, (Russia is rich! And corporate world loves the riches ) Much like they did with Yeltsin and as they continue to do - in Ukraine with Zelenski.

Speaking of Ukraine, what remains of it will essentially be surrendered to Black rock and Vanguard, if it isn't already. Putin foresaw this outcome when Russia's aspirations to join NATO were rebuffed. He also recognized that Russia and he himself would eventually become adversaries of the United States. That is where the united states ship was sailing from the very beginning.

He made this clear during the Munich conference when he stated: Friends, NATO is advancing toward Russia's borders, despite the guarantees and promises we were given that it wouldn't happen. Yet it is happening! No leader, peaceful or otherwise, would accept such actions right on their borders.

Russia had remained remarkably silent for a significant period. Putin perceived the danger, while his opponent Nemtsov saw potential friend in the U.S.

Nemtsov's explanation for why the U.S. wouldn't embrace Russia into its fold was largely rooted in self-doubt. He believed, wrongly, that this was about ‘his country’ not having democracy in it. He still viewed the U.S. through the lens of the dreamland depicted in movies. Boris Nemtsov was nowhere near as astute as Putin, but the problem lay in the fact that Nemtsov was a well-intentioned individual. Unfortunately, good intentions don't always lead to good outcomes, as the road to hell is said to be paved with good intentions.

Initially, Nemtsov enjoyed a great deal of freedom. He organized rallies and public protests. However, things went too far, and Putin was left with a difficult decision. He understood that if Nemtsov were to gain power, he might open Russia's doors to the Americans, much like Nemtsov's mentor, Yeltsin, did. And we all know how that turned out for Russia – it was in dire straits and on the verge of disintegration, it was Yeltsin who bought the Oligarchs in Russia and the money came from the west.

From Putin's perspective, he saw a similar scenario unfolding – a well-intentioned individual like Nemtsov who loved Russia but had a skewed perception of the true nature of the United States. It was akin to a narcissistic relationship, with the empath (Nemtsov) thinking that if something wasn't right, it must be their fault, while the narcissist (the U.S.) espoused ideals of fairness, freedom, and democracy but implemented highly unconstitutional laws in it’s own country.

So, what was Putin to do? Allow figures like Nemtsov to potentially jeopardize his country simply because their intentions were virtuous? Nemtsov had been warned multiple times, but he didn't hear those warnings and tragically met his end. Some may argue that, regardless of the severity of the situation, taking someone's life is never justified. However, here lies the conundrum: sometimes, it's a matter of choosing the lesser evil – sacrificing one for the sake of many. Let me elaborate on this point:


The US has engaged in assassinations and regime change in numerous countries, such as Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ecuador, Venezuela, and more. When a country pursues its own interests, which may not align with those of the US, it often faces sanctions and interference. This is what a narcissist does in a relationship. It must be what I want or it won’t be at all.

The US politicians often say words like: ‘Good for America’. This raises questions about the definition of "good" as defined by the US, which often amounts to pursuing the interests of a few American corporations and their allied leaders in Congress. Not the nation.

Putin was aware of the historical pattern of the United States engaging in activities such as overthrowing governments, initiating regime changes, and carrying out assassinations. He understood that if he allowed CIA-sponsored non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and opposition groups backed by Western nations to flourish and enjoy their freedom, he could face a fate similar to many Latin American, Middle Eastern, or even some European leaders who were either ousted or killed by American elites. Furthermore, he feared that his country could end up in the hands of private entities of the west.

In my view, Putin took the actions he deemed necessary to safeguard his country. It's worth noting that no Russian leader since World War II had taken such measures before him. To save his country! For Putin, it was a matter of national security. Time will tell whether his decisions were justified. But let’s see if he had good reason to worry.


This is a small list of International leaders killed by the US most of them with some exceptions wanted to do good for their countries.

Mohammad Mosaddegh
Jaime Roldós Aguilera
Muammar Gaddafi
Saddam hussein
Amilcar Cabral
Sylvanus Olympio
Felix Moumié
Ruben Um Nyobè
Eduardo Mondlane
Patrice Lumumba
Thomas Sankara
Zurab Jvania
Bard Patarkatsishvili
Qasem Soleimani


It appears that Putin indeed had valid concerns about his country's security. In assessing the situation, I suggested that we should consider which option represents the lesser evil. To do this, let's take a straightforward look at the number of casualties or the body count involved. If we speculate that people close to Putin die in mysterious circumstance, than we have to treat the other side equally  and list the people who died under mysterious circumstances such as three gunshot wounds in the head rolled as - suicide,  oh I have plenty for you from the United States presidents.

Putins and FSB’s alleged kill list. 
Boris Nemtsov,
Berezovski,
Politkovskaia,
Litvinenko
Yuri Voronov,
Ravil Maganov,
Alexander Subbotin,
Mikhail Watford


Foreign Regime changes carried out by Russia FSB: NONE!
The only 2 stories you find about Russia trying to change the regime anywhere in the world is - Georgia - in 2008, the west told the world that Russia attacked Georgia. Many people knew from the very beginning that this was wrong! But some bought the lies..
I come from Georgia, and I've conducted multiple interview and research with various sources, including a Georgian general, who concur that it was, in fact, Georgia that initiated hostilities and provoked Russia's response. Contrary to popular belief, Russia not only refrained from attempting to change the regime but also wasn't the instigator of the conflict.

And of course the second Story - Is the false claim that has been widely disapproved - that Russia attempted to influence elections in the US. ‘Russiagate’


The kill list of the Clintons, Bushes and Obama: 
Seth Rich
Vince Foster
Jerry Parks
Kathy Ferguson
Bill Shelter
Ed willey
Bruce Ivens
Mary Caititrin Mahoney
Jonny Franklin Lawhon
Ron Brown
Shelley Kelly
Charles Misner
Susan Colemn
Danny Cassolaro
C Victor Raiser II
Herschel Friday
Paul Tulley
Paula Gaber
Ed Cauley
John Wilson
Paula Wilcher
John Walker
Stanley Heard
Steven Dickenson
Candy Baugh
Stanly Huggins
Florence Martin
Kevin Ivers
Don Henry.
Dr. Mark Hausknecht
President Kennedy
Robert Kennedy
Jeffrey Epstein (No one should feel sorry for this one)

The list is too big so I’ll stop here, while Clintons contributed the most to the list, Bushes are not behind. Their crimes I will document in a separate article called - (Bush crime Family article #2 ). But I think I made my point. Each and every case is documented and I have substantial amount of documentations to prove something is way off. Just as a reference, this list goes on to mention 24 more “suicides”.

So if you are sane, if you are able to make conclusions or at least think enough to know 2+2=4 Then there is no argument that Putin looks like an angel with Wings when compared to the west. I would argue most of the killing done by Putin is because of the western influence.
Now let us discuss their deeds as leaders of the modern world. 

ACTIONS TOWARDS THE COUNTRY:

Putin passed a law prohibiting the use and growth of genetically modified seeds, plants, and animals in Russia for any reason, except in cases when done for the purposes of scientific research,

The US the the biggest  user of the GMOs (70.9mha) Brazil and Argentina follow next.

Russia has implemented a ban on transgenderism in schools and throughout the country, while allowing gay bars and outlets to continue operating, sending the message that personal choices in one's private life are respected as long as they don't directly affect children.

In contrast, the United States permits biological men in women's facilities and insists that everyone else must accept it, often resorting to cancel culture as a means to enforce this acceptance.

THE US uses Fluoride in their water (proven to be a hazard for health in big capacity)

Russias water is clean!

Washington post article.

Chemicals that are banned in EU and Russia but are still in use in the US - E171), (E924), (E927a), (E217).

Russia still offers some of it’s citizens a generous one-month vacation (equivalent to four weeks), whereas in the U.S., it's a challenge to secure even a single week of vacation. Citizens often find themselves working tirelessly, paying taxes for government services that don't always meet expectations, and struggling to maintain their property.

In a commendable move, Russia forgave trillions of dollars in debt owed by African countries. On the other hand, the U.S. has heavily exploited African resources like cobalt.

Russia has expressed a desire to join NATO, emphasizing its role in European culture and the importance of cooperation for global safety. However, the U.S. staunchly opposes this idea, citing concerns about Russia's size and the potential for a challenge.

This highlights a fundamental issue with how the U.S. views the world—a belief that everyone is out to harm them. This mindset is reminiscent of a psychopath/narcissist  and reflects a sense of weakness, as it focuses on perceived threats rather than collaboration. The U.S. often struggles with trust because of its own history of breaking promises, justifying actions in the name of its "best interest" without clear explanation, often against the will of the majority, be it in wars or Covid mandates.

Essentially what’s happening here is that Putin is wedging war not against Ukraine but against Globalists. Unfortunately Ukraine is an ignoramus volunteer and an unfortunate victim.

Having addressed the idea that some may have been influenced to hold negative views of Russia without a solid basis, let's try engage in a more open and informed conversation. And maybe, just maybe it is time we opened our eyes!