Stalin In Ottoman Anatolia: His Spiritual, Religious And Historical Quests

The Good and Bountiful Genies of Bet Pas'el Khirbet Farwan, Syria c. 191 CE

Mikhail Kutuzov in 1812, Sergei Shoigu in 2024, and Aleksey Kivshenko's Historical Painting of the Military Council in Fili, a suburb of Moscow

Many Russians were astounded yesterday morning, when reading in the news that during searches conducted in the residences of the former Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Dmitry Bulgakov, who was arrested on charges of corruption on 26th of July, a small number of very bizarre frames and paintings were found.

The historically true: Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies Mikhail Kutuzov at 'the Council in Fili', 1812

The mystically allegorical: Sergei Shoigu, former Minister of Defense of Russia and currently Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation as an atemporal replica of General Kutuzov

Contents

I. Introduction

II. Brief description and possible parallels

III. Shoigu's lengthy tenure exceeded by far that of President Putin

IV. Long 'reigns' come with indulgence in corruption and extravagance

V. An attempt to inculpate or a mystical allegory?

VI. Appendices

Содержание

I. Введение

II. Краткое описание и возможные параллели

III. Длительное правление Шойгу намного превзошло президентство президента Путина

IV. Длительное «правление» сопровождается потворством коррупции и расточительству

V. Попытка инкриминировать или мистическая аллегория?

VI. Приложения

I. Introduction

The most mysterious of those paintings is based on a historical painting, which was created by the famous 19th c. Russian painter Aleksey Kivshenko (1851-1895) in 1879, and known as 'the Council in Fili'. This great masterpiece of Modern Russian Art represents the artist's impression of a historical event, namely a military council that took place (1812) in a suburb of Moscow, prior to Napoleon's temporary occupation of the Russian city (14 September – 19 October 1812). The extraordinary summit occurred immediately after the Battle of Borodino, which was a Pyrrhic victory for the French army.

Created 67 years after the event, the painting had an enormous success; Kivshenko, who was already known for his numerous, fascinating works and representations of significant historical events of the Russian past, had to repeat the painting twice, which clearly means that his artwork generated an overwhelming and exceptional enthusiasm. This situation was basically due to the primordial importance of the historical event.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies, Infantry General Mikhail Golenishchev-Kutuzov had then to take a most critical decision: the orderly retreat of the Russian army from Moscow. The meeting (13 September 1812), which is known through several historical sources, started with the dilemma formulated by General Leonty Bennigsen, namely to give battle against the French army in an unfavorable position or to surrender. Kutuzov sided finally with the minority opinion and took the decision to abandon Moscow, which was finally proven correct, because Napoleon could not hold his position for long.

Then, how should we today, 212 years after the event and 145 years after the painting, interpret a bizarre painting in which a group of top Russian statesmen and military desire to be and are effectively depicted as exchanging roles with the historical personalities who saved the Russian Empire before two centuries?

In the painting found in Bulgakov's house, Sergei Shoigu, the former Minister of Defense of Russia, and now Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, is depicted as the Russian commander Mikhail Kutuzov. Shoigu's former deputy Ruslan Tsalikov plays General Mikhail Barclay de Tolly. The painting also features former deputy defense ministers Timur Ivanov, Tatyana Shevtsova and other officials.

Several other bizarre paintings were found in the arrested statesman's house, but the atemporal replica of the said historical painting raises more questions, due to the potential symbolisms or parallels that can be drawn. If the potentially allegorical but effectively incomprehensible artwork was found in 2005 or in 2012, no one would pay much attention, and the eventually innocuous representation would be taken as the result of a certainly bold, yet counterproductive, imagination of a group of top level Russian officials, eventually characterized by their narcissism.

It is clear that many Russians are -truly speaking- under terrible shock because of the revelations, and their comments about this, most weird, story are very negative. With no doubt, Kutuzov is almost a holy person for the Russians because, although he did not mark a real victory over Napoleon, he forced him to advance following Pyrrhic victories during a prolonged war of attrition which led finally to the collapse of the French Army. How a defeat at the battlefield can possibly be transformed into a victory in the long perspective is a most fatalistic turn of events for historians to possibly fathom. But it was known since the time of the Battle of Kadesh (May 1274 BCE) between the Hittite Emperor Muwatalli II and the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses III.

On the other hand, many of the persons depicted on the bizarre paintings have recently lost their positions or even been arrested. Bulgakov was arrested only 4-5 days ago, following allegations of bribery, but he is only the last of several similar cases.

II. Brief description and existing parallels

As the mystery of these eventually absurd but potentially meaningful pictures is beyond imagination, several friends contacted me to make some inquiries. They asked me what this meant in reality and whether this initiatory and hypothetically purposeful painting denoted a hidden desire of Shoigu to "take Putin's place".

What follows here includes parts of my responses; it is actually difficult to answer such a question because there are many parameters involved in this regard; but in general, I never thought that Sergei Shoigu would be interested in taking Putin's place. In addition, the painting does not hint at anything of the sort. Kutuzov did not imagine, even for a second, not to be loyal to the Russian czars whom he served.

First and foremost, it is essential for any non-Russian to comprehend that Russians have no conventional thought. Historically, it is very common in Russia to evaluate one man as higher and as more important than the czar, the secretary general or the president.

If one goes to Russia and speaks with the average people, one will understand that what they narrate as «History of Russia» is not what is taught in the West about this topic. By this, I don't mean discrepancies at the level of historical facts and narratives, but a totally distinct perspective of the time and a markedly different evaluation of the human deeds.

There are effectively some parallels between Kutuzov (1745-1813) and Shoigu (born in 1955).

Kutuzov served (as military officer and diplomat) three czars (Catherine II, Paul I, and Alexander I).

And Shoigu was a minister under four presidents (Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, and Medvedev). 

Prince Mikhail Illarionovich Golenishchev-Kutuzov-Smolensky (Михаил Илларионович Голенищев-Кутузов-Смоленский) belonged to an ancient noble family of German-Prussian extraction. The Golenishchev-Kutuzov branch consisted of the descendants of Gabriel, who left Prussia (1252-1263) and became the founder of the Kutuzovs.

Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu (Сергей Кужугетович Шойгу) belonged to a Turkic Tuvan family, as his father (Kuzhuget Shoigu, 1921-2010) was first Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Tuvan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Tuvan ASSR. Shoigu's mother (Alexandra Yakovlevna Shoigu, 1924–2011) was a Ukrainian-born Russian, who was detained by the German occupation forces during World War II and had a traumatic experience from this event.

en.wikipedia.org

Kuzhuget Shoigu - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tuvans - Wikipedia

Mikhail Kutuzov was a multilingual, as he was fluent in Russian, German, French and English; on later occasions he also studied Ottoman Turkish, Polish, and Swedish.

Sergei Shoigu is also a multilingual, who speaks Tuvan, Russian, and another seven languages including Chinese, Japanese, Turkish, English, etc.

III. Shoigu's lengthy tenure exceeded by far that of President Putin

All the people know that Vladimir Putin has been president since the year 2000 (with an interval of four years (2008-2012), when he served as prime minister; however, few people remember today that Shoigu was a minister since 1991. Only last May, he was removed from the position of Minister of Defense and promoted/rewarded as «Secretary of the Security Council of Russia».

This means that Shoigu was a minister for 33 years! When the positions are so important, a person creates his own small state within the state; this is normal and inevitable.

As a matter of fact, Yeltsin appointed Shoigu as Minister of Emergency Situations in April 1991. All the same, at the time, Yeltsin was only the «President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic», not the «President of the Russian Federation». This means that Yeltsin was under Gorbachev who was then the «President of the Soviet Union». In other words, Shoigu was at the very beginning a minister of USSR, not Russia! He was appointed before the August 1991 coup attempt, which failed and led to the rise of Yeltsin, resignation of Gorbachev, and demise of the USSR. 

en.wikipedia.org

Sergei Shoigu - Wikipedia

And what was Vladimir Putin at the time?

In June 1991, in (then) Leningrad, he was appointed as head of the Committee for External Relations of the Mayor's Office. So, you cannot compare. 

en.wikipedia.org

Vladimir Putin - Wikipedia

In fact, better than any other Russian, Sergei Shoigu epitomizes the transition from the USSR to today's Russia. Consequently, although he was not a career military man but an apparatchik and part of the Soviet nomenklatura, he had progressively become a major pole of power. And because of his success, which guaranteed Putin’s success, it was surely unthinkable for anyone to remove him. 

However, the uneasiness of the Russians with the ongoing fake war in Ukraine and the disclosure of several financial scandals and cases of bribery in the Russian army and the Ministry of Defense generated another environment.

IV. Long 'reigns' come with indulgence in corruption and extravagance

Last April, the Russian deputy defense minister Timur Ivanov was arrested. 

The Moscow Times

Arrested Russian Deputy Defense Minister Accused of Accepting $12 Mln Bribe, Lawyer Says - The Moscow Times

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Timur Ivanov has been accused of accepting a bribe “in the form of services” valued at more than 1 billion r

This occurred only little time after Putin’s re-election. 

One month after the arrest, Sergei Shoigu was removed and replaced by Andrey Belousov, who is provenly a very good economist, a well-experienced statesman, and a former First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia.

en.wikipedia.org

Andrey Belousov - Wikipedia

At the time, many people said that Putin placed an economist at the top of the Ministry of Defense, because he wanted to make a more effective programming of the military industrial production in view of the continuation of the war in Ukraine. It may be.

But personally, I was absolutely convinced that the reason for this appointment was the desire to effectuate an extensive control of earlier business transactions, carry out a thorough examination of past deals, identify practices of corruption, and uncover all cases of bribery that the «Shoigu establishment» allowed or tolerated or supported or covered deliberately. In the face of the collateral damages caused by the Russian military operations in Ukraine, it would be unacceptable that top officials accumulated illegal benefits. 

Almost four months after the aforementioned case of Timur Ivanov, the arrest of Bulgakov rang the bell for the part of the Russian establishment that was exposed to such inexcusable weaknesses at wartime and for ministers who indulged themselves in corruption and extravagance.

en.wikipedia.org

Dmitry Bulgakov - Wikipedia

and

The Moscow Times

Former Russian Deputy Defense Minister Arrested on Corruption Charges - The Moscow Times

Former Deputy Defense Minister Dmitry Bulgakov has been arrested on corruption charges, Russian law enforcement authorities announced on Fri

And with the frames and paintings found in his house yesterday, we learned that Bulgakov viewed Shoigu as Kutuzov!

Of course, Kutuzov is more important than Alexander I for the Russians. Czar Alexander I acknowledged personally that Russia owed the final victory to Kutuzov. This means that, with all similarities taken together as coincidental (!!), Bulgakov and his associates, friends and subordinates viewed Shoigu like a 'god'. Several Russian friends interpret this approach as absolutely true; they even consider it as the result of extreme narcissism of all persons involved. 

What follows is a selection of comments that I found in Russian social media (I translated them into English):

1. «This is blasphemy against the memory and exploits of our ancestors»!

2. «They came up with this a long time ago and are successfully stealing it»

3. «A finished script for a film. How far human stupidity and impudence go»!

4. «They are very far from Kutuzov and others; but there is plenty of time for self-admiration»

5. «A gang of thieves assembled»

6. «Where is Timur Ivanov»?

From the following web pages:

А такие портреты нашли дома у задержанного экс-замминистра обороны Дмитрия Булгакова во время обысков.

and

Минутка статистики по одному из шедевров золотой коллекции задержанного замминистра обороны Булгакова.

V. An attempt to inculpate or a mystical allegory?

As a matter of fact, it would not make sense for Shoigu and his close associates to envision that he would take Putin’s place (let alone to conspire with this target in mind); in addition, the picture says the opposite. Kutuzov was already more important than the czar.

All the same, there is another dimension too; these pictures may have been placed in Bulgakov's home after his arrest in order to inculpate him, Shoigu and others in some way. This would however seem rather to be a puerile attempt, because there can be far worse and far more effective ways to inculpate someone than the revelation of the narcissistic visions and the grandiose imaginations of a group of corrupt and not corrupt officials.

If there is a symbolism, it means that the true ruler is («was»?) Shoigu; but even in this case, it is a very unusual type of praising and self-praising for some top officials. In real terms of boastfulness, such an atemporal replica of Aleksey Kivshenko's legendary painting adds nothing on the table.

I believe that, if some people want truly to unveil a real and serious purpose in this painting, they must rather view it as a mystical allegory – not a mere symbolism. In this case, the otherwise bizarre artwork becomes meaningful.

What are the major points of an allegorical mysticism in this regard?

I will brief enumerate a few.

1- Reminiscent of the French invasion of the Russian Empire, the present war in Ukraine reveals that the Russian Federation is under attack.

It matters little whether some Western idiots believe that we have to deal with a Russian invasion of Ukraine; there was never such an event, because Ukraine is an integral part of Russian territory that criminal Anglo-Saxon gangsters brutally and illegally detached from Russia at the time of the Soviet collapse.

Yuval Harari was very correct when saying that "Gorbachev saved us from nuclear war"; but his truth ends there. What truly happened in 1989 is not the continuation of a development that started in 1985. In fact, Gorbachev was openly threatened by George Herbert Bush with imminent nuclear attack if he did not rapidly dissolve the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The truth was enveloped in thousands of lies, endless smiles, and hypocritical hand shakings, because this was beneficial for both, the US and the Soviet Union/Russia. I cannot further expand now on this topic, because I would digress.

So, as it happened in the 1810s and the 1940s, Russia has been under attack since the late 1980s.

2- Similarly with Kutuzov's ingenious strategy and tactics, the Russian state withdrew from lands for quite some time now.

The formation of the Ukrainian pseudo-nation after 1991 was an entirely orchestrated fabrication, involving the creation of a bogus-idiom named 'Ukrainian language', the pseudo-translation of thousands of toponyms and personal names into their hypothetically Ukrainian forms, the compilation of a distorted 'History of Ukraine', the diffusion of heinous anti-Russian racism, and the subtle disfigurement of the Orthodox faith of the local population into a charlatanesque form of Anti-Christian Catholicism.

3- Similarly with what happened during the French Invasion of the Russian Empire, the military proved to be the backbone of the Russian nation.

In this regard, the lengthy tenure of Sergei Shoigu reflects perfectly well the long military career of Mikhail Kutuzov.

4- The partly withdrawal from the Western Russian lands, as implemented by the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies, can be mirrored in Moscow's agreement for a separate, 'independent' Ukrainian state. The concession made is very similar to the decision taken at the Military Council in Fili.

5- Sergei Shoigu's contribution to the final victory may be analogous to Kutuzov's strategy which brought the final victory after many rather insignificant defeats.

6- Last but foremost, the final defeat of Napoleon in Russia ended with the subsequent demise of his regime; the allegory is very clear as regards the combined Anglo-Saxon world that has attacked USSR-Russia since 1945 – or if you prefer 1985.

---------------------------

Download the article in PDF:

Patreon

Mikhail Kutuzov in 1812, Sergei Shoigu in 2024, and Aleksey Kivshenko's Historical Painting of the Military Council in Fili, a suburb of Mos

Get more from Megalommatis on Patreon

Rare photos for the Capital of Palestine - Alquds 1920 which is 29 years before the born of the Israeli occupation.

Painted clay figure of an equestrienne, ca 7th-9th century AD. Excavated from Tomb No.187, Astana Turfan, Xinjiang

Wall of the Temple of Horus in Edfu, built by the Ptolemids between 237 and 57 BCE.

Beef with dead British Archeologists. Part 1 - The Hittite Discovery

The Hittites can be said to have an overwhelming amount of mention in historical sources compared to other civilisations that were discovered in the 19th century so why were they considered a fictive people until the 20th century? In my humble opinion I put the blame for this squarely on the British. The British while greatly helping historical understanding through stealing everyones stuff have also had a constant infection of "gentlemen scholars" which had the main goal of beating their personal rivals within their fields. This may be what happened with the Hittites.

Lets lay the groundwork: What proof did we have before the year 1900 that the Hittites existed?

Over 60 mentions in the Old Testament

The discovery of their capital of Hattusa in 1834 that is identified later in 1886

The discovery of the Tel-el-amarna letters that have communication between the Hittites and Egypt.

The Kadesh inscriptions

The Ramesseum

The three seperate inscriptions of the Hittite-egypt peace treaty. The Egyptian one being by one of the most investigated areas of Egypt the temple complex of Luxor. Another inscription in Akkadian and a third in Hittite (classical neo-hittite was however not readable at this time).

What proof did we have that they did not exist:

The consensus of mostly British "orientalists", egyptologists and archeologists. Their reason being... that they had discredited all the mounting evidence so far and were very stubborn as to not give credit to their rivals. They were convinced they were right simply because they viewed themselves as superior historians and that their rivals that were supporting the evidence were wrong and inferior. This is the problem with the wealthy class of “gentlemen scholars” who typically have an ego larger than the Achaemenid empire.

Now is it known for sure that the contemporary British experts of the early 1900s contempt for one another was the reason for the slow discovery of the Hittites? Of course not, not entirely, Hittitotology is a quite young field of study some blame can be put on that aswell as the lack of interest in the topic but even so there is quite a lot of proof of the rift that this topic created among these experts and they were very reluctant to give any credit whatsoever to profound discoveries during the 19th century. It was most likely an example of confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories, they discarded evidence for the Hittites for another unknown other unidentified civilisation simply because they had already preached the Hittites non-existance for years and did not want to contradict themselves.

Here's some proof though! (I would cite the source that compiled these but they should be boycotted for closely supporting genocide so they get no mention)

In 1909, Egyptologist Dr. Melvin Kyle recalled in The Hittite Vindication an earlier conversation with an esteemed colleague, writing: “In 1904, one of the foremost archaeologists of Europe said to me: ‘I do not believe there ever were such people as the Hittites ….’” (It seems likely this individual was Sir Ernest Alfred Thomson Wallis Budge, the famous Egyptologist.)

Archaeologist John Garstang wrote in 1929 that “25 years ago [1904] some of the foremost orientalists did not believe in the existence of a Hittite nation” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia).

Evolutionary geologist George Frederick Wright noted how the Hittites were used not only as an example of an error in the Bible but also as proofof the general falsity of the book itself. He wrote, “[T]he numerous references in the Bible to this mysterious people were unconfirmed by any other historical authorities, so that many regarded the biblical statements as mythical and an indication of the general untrustworthiness of biblical history” (“The Testimony of the Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures,” 1910; emphasis added throughout).

Anyway enough about my personal beef with dead British archeologists this will be a recurring topic on this blog.

Folio from a Manuscript of the Qur'an. Iran, Shiraz, 1550-1575. Ink, colors and gold on paper.

Italy 🌹 🇮🇹 Cinque Terre