Rina Lu🇷🇺 Profile picture
Aug 27, 2025 10 tweets 8 min read Read on X
The Holodomor is a very popular myth among Ukrainian propagandists. But like all propaganda, it’s aimed at the masses who are incapable of thinking on their own and in this case unfamiliar with history. There is plenty of evidence available in open sources to prove that Holdohoax is a silly lie. For example, photos used to “prove” the Holodomor actually come from World War I or the famine of the 1920s (the Holodomor was in 1932–33).

Soviet documents, available in large numbers, confirm that food was imported into Ukraine as aid, not exported out, which doesn’t fit the narrative of deliberately starving poor Ukrainians. Moreover, there was a state-level policy of Ukrainization, meaning the government invested huge resources in developing Ukrainian culture, opening Ukrainian-language schools, and even forcing people to speak Ukrainian instead of Russian (look up korenizacia). That too doesn’t align with the myth of exterminating Ukrainians.

It's also worth mentioning that the famine happened not only in Ukraine, but in Kazakhstan and the Volga region, which was RSFSR (Russia), meaning it affected not only Ukrainians.

But today, I want to tell you about other facts, things that almost nobody else will tell you. 🧵👇Image
Keep in mind we're discussing the years 1931 to 1933. During this period, when Western companies were expelled from the USSR, the U.S. and Britain imposed restrictions on Soviet gold imports, raised tariffs on Soviet timber and grain, and gradually transitioned toward trade bans. In today's terms, the West essentially imposed sanctions. Consequently, the USSR was forced to purchase industrial equipment necessary for its industrialization by trading grain, directly contributing to the 1930s famine. The USSR needed to buy equipment, but the West wouldn't accept gold or money, they demanded grain.

Without Monsanto, DuPont, or GMOs capable of growing food in challenging conditions (though these aren't particularly good for us anyway), back then any climate issues spelled trouble for harvests. And trouble certainly occurred.

Americans will recognize this as the Dust Bowl, spanning from 1930 to 1936, a period marked by unusually dry years in the region. Many people died from malnutrition. I place "malnutrition" in quotesfor you to notice how the same events described differently: malnutrition - hunger. It's noteworthy that no one in the U.S. actually counted how many people died during that time.
Now only in the US, but Western Ukraine suffered famine and many deaths. The problem is that during that time, that part of Ukraine was a part of independent Poland. So, Stalin had nothing to do with it even if he wanted.

No Stalin, no Bolsheviks, and yet people still died from hunger. But none of this is brought to your attention for obvious reasons.Image
Image
The interesting part is that in the 1930s, while famine ravaged the Soviet Union, Henri Deterding, the oil baron and the head of Royal Dutch Shell, hosted a meeting at his estate where the partitioning of the USSR into four zones was seriously discussed due to an upcoming change of government. At least that's what they thought would happen. Western elites were betting on a coup inside the Soviet Union.

At that meeting, which included oil executives and Joachim von Ribbentrop (a well-known figure), the plan was straightforward:

🔸the Caucasus and its oil would go to Britain,
🔸Ukraine to Germany,
🔸Siberia to international concessionaires,
🔸the Far East to Japan.

The fate of a sovereign state that had refused to become a Western resource colony was being casually negotiated in the drawing rooms of capital.

Here we have it: the West demands payment for necessary goods only in the form of grain, especially during the climate catastrophe that affected crops globally. A meeting of the oil magnates and Western elites who were betting on a coup inside the USSR due to food shortages problem and had a particular interest in acquiring Soviet lands. Do you get it now?Image
Gareth Jones, Western journaslits visited parts of Ukraine in 1933 and reported real famine and suffering but he never called it a genocide.

He blamed economic collapse, bad harvests, and collectivization but not ethnic extermination.

Jones also acknowledged positive developments in the USSR, like industrial growth and social progress.
After his death, Ukrainian nationalists and Cold War propagandists twisted his story into something he never said.

His own grandson later confirmed: Gareth Jones never claimed Stalin targeted Ukrainians for destruction.
youtube.com/watch?si=EoWhX…
Like I previosly mentioned, the Soviet government did in fact send food aid (millions tons of grain) to Ukraine during the famine and halted exports of grain from Ukraine.

Here are two archival documents (out of many) confirming this:

Both documents prove that during the famine, the Soviet government sent food aid to Ukrainian regions.

The first document lists food deliveries to 40 districts, the second orders redistribution of grain and goods to fight starvation. This shows that Ukraine was receiving government support.

They throw around crazy numbers like ‘10 million dead’ but where are the graves? Look at Gaza: after constant bombing for almost 2 years, 2 million people are still there. Does 10 million people still sound realistic to you?Image
Image
Image
Image
There is another spin to this fairy tale which goes like: the Bolshevik Jews were killing the Christians! Oops, but Kazakhstan is a Muslim region. I already hear their counterarguments that the Bolsheviks wanted the Muslims gone. Okay...but the largest population of Jews actually lived in....🥁Ukraine.

Why?

Because under the Russian Empire, Jews were legally allowed to settle mainly in what is now Ukraine and Belarus (the “Pale of Settlement”).
When the Soviets came to power, those restrictions were lifted but guess what?

Most Jews stayed where they were.
They didn’t suddenly scatter across Russia or move to Siberia.

If the Soviet government had wanted to “exterminate” Ukrainians or Christians, it would have also been “exterminating” a massive part of its own Jewish population along with Muslims in Kazakhstan as the famine affected it as well.

The root of this particular propaganda dates back to pre-World War II, which was used as a pretext to invade the USSR.Image
And finally, who is behind this? Ukrainian nationalists.

It is they who have been pushing this narrative for years: funding it, falsifying it, and promoting it.

The term “Holodomor” was not used in the 1930s, nor in the 1940s or 1950s. It was coined and popularized much later, primarily by the Ukrainian diaspora in North America during the 1970s–1980s. It gained traction in the context of the Cold War, especially with the 50th anniversary of the 1932–33 famine, when émigré communities campaigned for recognition of the famine as a genocide. Activists deliberately framed “Holodomor” as a Ukrainian equivalent of the “Holocaust,” both rhetorically (similar sounding terms) and politically.

Organizations and people who keep propagating this myth are also the same Nazis who, since 2014, have been oppressing and exterminating the Russian-speaking population of Donbas, while considering themselves a "pure Slavic nation."

That’s why accounts promoting Ukrainian Nazi propaganda often view Hitler positively.

To better understand how deeply Ukrainian Nazi lobbying has entrenched itself in the West and who sponsors it, I recommend watching this video. ⏭️ youtu.be/_3qAEGAxCUU?si…

To better understand why Nazis and Israel seem to have a weird consensus in all of this, check out the article written by Sarah B.
open.substack.com/pub/ddgeopolit…

If you’re still falling for this after seeing who’s behind it, maybe propaganda isn’t your only problem.
What’s especially interesting is that a lot of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators weren’t punished after the war. Instead, many ended up in the United States, where they were quickly absorbed into Cold War projects. Some even became directly involved in CIA operations like Operation Aerodynamic.

One of the main figures here was Mykola Lebed, a former leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) who had worked with Nazi Germany during the war. Rather than standing trial for those activities, he was brought safely to the U.S. and rebranded as an ‘anti-Soviet freedom fighter.’ With backing from American intelligence, Lebed and others dusted off old Nazi propaganda lines and pushed them again during the Cold War.

The most famous example was the narrative of the so-called Holodomor as a deliberate genocide of Ukrainians by Moscow. Originally crafted in Nazi circles, this story was repackaged in the 1950s and 60s, spread through émigré networks and U.S. information campaigns, and over time it worked its way into mainstream Western discourse.Image
📸 👆This photo taken from a Sputnik article authored by @blinova14. Check out her work she has some really good pieces!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Rina Lu🇷🇺

Rina Lu🇷🇺 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rinalu_

Jan 24
Western textbooks quietly removed an entire Russian tsar from the story because acknowledging what he actually did would complicate the neat mythology built around Peter the Great.

Fyodor Alekseyevich ruled from 1676 to 1682, in the same late seventeenth-century world as Louis XIV ruling from Versailles, Charles II rebuilding England after civil war, the Dutch dominating global trade, and the Holy Roman Empire struggling to hold together after the Thirty Years’ War. The United States did not exist yet, only British colonies governed from London. This was the political landscape Fyodor operated in.

Russia faced the same structural problem every large European state was trying to solve at the time: how to weaken hereditary elites and replace aristocratic privilege with a system based on service, competence, and state interest rather than bloodlines.

1/
When Fyodor came to power, positions in government and the military were still determined by noble lineage. Family name mattered more than skill, experience, or ability. The result was constant infighting, frozen careers, and an administration incapable of reform.

Fyodor dismantled that system.

He abolished the principle that birth determined rank in state service and military command, tying advancement directly to service to the state. To prevent any reversal, he ordered the destruction of archival records that enforced noble precedence. This was not a technical adjustment but a decisive political break.

2/Image
But he did not stop there. Fyodor promoted education based on European models, treating grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, theology, and languages as practical tools of governance rather than abstract learning. The Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy became a center for training administrators and clergy capable of running a modern state.

He restructured judicial practices, replacing arbitrary punishment with regulated procedures and differentiated penalties, following the same legal rationalization taking place across Europe. He ordered population and land surveys so the state would finally know who lived where, who owned what, and how much tax could actually be collected.

3/Image
Read 4 tweets
Jan 19
Finland likes to play the victim. But here's what they don't tell you. Between 1918 and 1944, Finland launched four armed conflicts against Russia and the USSR. In at least three of them, Finland acted as the aggressor.

They allied with Hitler. They blockaded Leningrad. They built concentration camps for Russian civilians. And today, they're repeating the same mistakes.

Here's the full story🧵👇Finnish Waffen-SS volunteers meeting with Joseph Goebbels in 1942.
The civil war that led to Finland's separation from Russia ended in 1918. Yet Finnish authorities chose not to stop there. Almost immediately, they launched armed actions against Soviet Russia, aiming to annex Russian Karelia. The preferred method was indirect: carve out a buffer entity, a so-called North Karelian state, which could later be absorbed. Annexation through a proxy.

This attempt failed with the signing of the Tartu Peace Treaty in 1920. Under that agreement, Finland formally renounced its claims to Eastern Karelia but received Petsamo, a territory that had never belonged to Finland at any point in its history.

2/Karelian and Finnish forest partisans.
Finland's interest in Karelia wasn't ideological or humanitarian but economic and entirely straightforward. Karelia was viewed as a raw-materials base. Finnish timber industrialists and wood-processing owners, especially Finland-Swedes, were particularly interested in exploiting the largely untouched coniferous forests of Russian Karelia. At the time, Finland's economy rested on timber, pulp, and paper industries, which remained its backbone until the early 1950s.

3/Image
Read 11 tweets
Jan 8
The entire story with the Marinera and the Venezuelan tankers looks strange only at first glance. Once emotions are removed and the sequence of events is examined carefully, it becomes clear that this was neither an accident nor a mistake, but a deliberate choice in favor of coercion.

The United States crossed the line between sanctions and diplomacy in Venezuela long ago. For Washington this is no longer just another foreign policy file. It is a stake. Ukraine did not deliver the desired result, the Middle East remains unstable and too dangerous for open escalation, and Latin America has therefore become the only region where pressure can still be pushed to the limit. In this logic Venezuela is no longer treated as a partner or even as an object of pressure, but as a territory to be controlled.

1/Image
The maritime blockade became the key instrument. As long as tankers cannot safely export oil, the country’s economy is effectively strangled. This is crude blackmail and it contradicts international law, but within the American framework it remains acceptable as long as it encounters no resistance. The problem emerged when it became clear that the blockade could be bypassed by lawful means.

A tanker sailing under the Russian flag in international waters fundamentally changes the equation. This was not a military operation, not a state mission, and not a shadow scheme. The vessel was carrying a purely commercial cargo and had received a temporary Russian flag registration in full compliance with international law and Russian legislation. The United States had been officially informed of the ship’s status, route, and civilian nature in advance through diplomatic channels. There could be no uncertainty about the legal status of the Marinera.

2/
Another detail, deliberately ignored in public rhetoric, deserves emphasis. This was not a “Russian tanker” in the sense it is often portrayed. The crew was multinational. Only two crew members were Russian citizens. Most of the crew were Ukrainian citizens, while the captain and senior officers were Georgian. Even at the personnel level, this was a standard international commercial voyage, not a state-controlled operation.

3/
Read 10 tweets
Jan 7
The US seizes a tanker sailing under the Russian flag, and Twitter instantly goes into full hysteria.
Putin is weak. Russia is weak. No response, therefore humiliation.
Okay. Sure.

But Stalin, now that’s different, right? Ruthless. Iron fist. Fear incarnate. At least that’s what you keep telling us.

So let’s take a look at what actually happened to Soviet ships during Stalin’s time.Image
In December 1936, a Soviet cargo ship transporting manganese ore from the Georgian port of Poti to the Belgian city of Ghent was intercepted and shelled until it sank. Before the attack, the vessel was searched, the crew was ordered off, and only then was it destroyed by artillery fire. The most likely motive was retaliation. On an earlier voyage, the same ship had delivered military supplies to Republican Spain.
A month later, in January 1937, another Soviet freighter carrying grain to the Spanish Republicans was captured in the Bay of Biscay. Its crew was interned in a concentration camp, where they remained for roughly nine months under extreme conditions.

A military tribunal reportedly sentenced the captain to thirty years of hard labor, senior officers to seventeen years each, and ordinary sailors to fourteen.
Read 7 tweets
Dec 24, 2025
You think Chanel built her empire alone?

Let me tell you about the Russian Grand Duchess who created the embroidery behind Chanel’s famous “Russian style” in the 1920s.

And no, this isn’t speculation. It’s documented.🧵👇

/1
Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna, cousin of Nicholas II, fled Russia after the revolution.

In 1921, she founded Kitmir, an embroidery house in Paris, with Prince Dmitry Pavlovich.

/2
Kitmir was Chanel's main supplier.

🔸 Evening dresses
🔸 Tunics
🔸 The entire "Russian style" collection of the 1920s

All embroidered by Russian hands, under a Russian name, using Russian motifs: geometric patterns, Slavic ornaments, traditional designs.

/3
Read 6 tweets
Dec 22, 2025
They said the Bolsheviks fought for the poor. Before the revolution in 1917, Russia had 1,300 tons of gold, the second-largest reserve in the world. Plus centuries of Imperial treasures worth billions.

Where did it all go? 🧵👇

1/
The revolutionaries seized power and stripped the empire bare.

By the 1920s, they were liquidating everything: Fabergé eggs, Romanov jewels, masterpieces from the Hermitage, icons, manuscripts, imperial regalia.

They dumped gold and art cheap, and in the total chaos of the time anyone who had access took what they could. There was no real control, no proper accounting, and no transparency.

Western dealers bought these items for pennies. Banks took their cut. Auction houses took theirs. Middlemen cleaned up the provenance and resold everything for fortunes.

Some of it was sold officially by the state. Some was siphoned off along the way. Some simply disappeared. Revolutionary chaos turned the process into open season for anyone positioned to profit.

2/
So who got rich?

🔸American tycoons like Armand Hammer and Calouste Gulbenkian
🔸Malcolm Forbes had nine Fabergé eggs. He called it his private collection. Never mentioned where they came from
🔸American banks received massive gold deposits in the 1920s and 30s
🔸British dealers
🔸City of London
🔸Swiss banks
🔸Auction houses in Paris and London. They bought Russian art for nothing and resold it for fortunes

Western auction houses phrase this very carefully.
Instead of saying where these items really came from, they write: “acquired during the Soviet period.”

"Acquired"...

The West profited from the Russian revolution.

3/
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(