• Iranian General wants to 'slap West in face' with evidence of US-Daesh links
• False flag snipers murdered 100s of protesters in 2014 Kiev riots to force coup (Russian TV news)
• 'Ukraine on Fire': How US, Not Russia, Destroyed Ukraine - Oliver Stone Documentary Finally Available (VIDEO)
• A Dynamic Analysis of Ukraine Politics: The Crooks, the Clowns and the Nazis
• Putin Delivers Landmark 'State of The Union' Speech: Puts The Smack Down on US, Shows Off Latest Russian Nuclear Weapons

Now, on to the most important defence issue.

I will speak about the newest systems of Russian strategic weapons that we are creating in response to the unilateral withdrawal of the United States of America from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the practical deployment of their missile defence systems both in the US and beyond their national borders.

I would like to make a short journey into the recent past.

Back in 2000, the US announced its withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Russia was categorically against this. We saw the Soviet-US ABM Treaty signed in 1972 as the cornerstone of the international security system. Under this treaty, the parties had the right to deploy ballistic missile defence systems only in one of its regions. Russia deployed these systems around Moscow, and the US around its Grand Forks land-based ICBM base.

Together with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the ABM Treaty not only created an atmosphere of trust but also prevented either party from recklessly using nuclear weapons, which would have endangered humankind, because the limited number of ballistic missile defence systems made the potential aggressor vulnerable to a response strike.

We did our best to dissuade the Americans from withdrawing from the treaty. All in vain. The US pulled out of the treaty in 2002. Even after that we tried to develop constructive dialogue with the Americans. We proposed working together in this area to ease concerns and maintain the atmosphere of trust. At one point, I thought that a compromise was possible, but this was not to be. All our proposals, absolutely all of them, were rejected. And then we said that we would have to improve our modern strike systems to protect our security. In reply, the US said that it is not creating a global BMD system against Russia, which is free to do as it pleases, and that the US will presume that our actions are not spearheaded against the US.

The reasons behind this position are obvious. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia, which was known as the Soviet Union or Soviet Russia abroad, lost 23.8 percent of its national territory, 48.5 percent of its population, 41 of the GDP, 39.4 percent of its industrial potential (nearly half of our potential, I would underscore), as well as 44.6 percent of its military capability due to the division of the Soviet Armed Forces among the former Soviet republics. The military equipment of the Russian army was becoming obsolete, and the Armed Forces were in a sorry state. A civil war was raging in the Caucasus, and US inspectors oversaw the operation of our leading uranium enrichment plants.

For a certain time, the question was not whether we would be able to develop a strategic weapon system - some wondered if our country would even be able to safely store and maintain the nuclear weapons that we inherited after the collapse of the USSR. Russia had outstanding debts, its economy could not function without loans from the IMF and the World Bank; the social sphere was impossible to sustain.

Apparently, our partners got the impression that it was impossible in the foreseeable historical perspective for our country to revive its economy, industry, defence industry and Armed Forces to levels supporting the necessary strategic potential. And if that is the case, there is no point in reckoning with Russia's opinion, it is necessary to further pursue ultimate unilateral military advantage in order to dictate the terms in every sphere in the future.

Basically, this position, this logic, judging from the realities of that period, is understandable, and we ourselves are to blame. All these years, the entire 15 years since the withdrawal of the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, we have consistently tried to reengage the American side in serious discussions, in reaching agreements in the sphere of strategic stability.

We managed to accomplish some of these goals. In 2010, Russia and the US signed the New START treaty, containing measures for the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms. However, in light of the plans to build a global anti-ballistic missile system, which are still being carried out today, all agreements signed within the framework of New START are now gradually being devaluated, because while the number of carriers and weapons is being reduced, one of the parties, namely, the US, is permitting constant, uncontrolled growth of the number of anti-ballistic missiles, improving their quality, and creating new missile launching areas. If we do not do something, eventually this will result in the complete devaluation of Russia's nuclear potential. Meaning that all of our missiles could simply be intercepted.

Despite our numerous protests and pleas, the American machine has been set into motion, the conveyer belt is moving forward. There are new missile defence systems installed in Alaska and California; as a result of NATO's expansion to the east, two new missile defence areas were created in Western Europe: one has already been created in Romania, while the deployment of the system in Poland is now almost complete. Their range will keep increasing; new launching areas are to be created in Japan and South Korea. The US global missile defence system also includes five cruisers and 30 destroyers, which, as far as we know, have been deployed to regions in close proximity to Russia's borders. I am not exaggerating in the least; and this work proceeds apace.

So, what have we done, apart from protesting and warning? How will Russia respond to this challenge? This is how.

• Russiagate absurdity leads to greater capacity to target any critic of the US government
• Should Russiagate really be known as Intelgate?
• The comprehensive guide to and history of the 'Russiagate' hoax

What Strikes Fear Into Ukraine: Sputnik Publishes Evidence by Georgian Snipers

Adding a new twist to the story about the 2014 Maidan shootings, a Sputnik correspondent has met with the purported snipers. The agency has obtained the records of interrogation of Koba Nergadze and Aleksandre Revazishvili. Both Georgian nationals, they are ready to testify in a Ukrainian court.

In a strange coincidence, former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was deported from Ukraine immediately after Sputnik announced it was going to publish the results of its investigation - and just a day after Saakashvili was to testify in court in the case of the snipers.

The questioning of Nergadze and Revazishvili by lawyers Alexander Goroshinsky and Stefan Reshko was conducted in accordance with the Constitution, the Criminal Code and the Advocacy Law of the Ukrainian Republic.

Both lawyers currently represent the interests of former members of the Berkut police commando unit at the Svyatoshinsky District Court in Kiev.

Nergadze and Revazishvili officially pledged to provide "truthful evidence (clarifications) to the lawyer, and later in a court of law."

The alleged snipers offer a detailed account of themselves and their life in Georgia. Both are onetime staunch supporters of Saakashvili. Nergazde served as an agent with the so called "Sonderkommando", while Revazishvili was a member of the "Free Zone" organization. They used to intimidate and beat up opposition members and organize provocations. Nergadze spent some time in Greece, Germany and Lithuania where he was trained, among other things, to "work with protesters, namely obtain information, organize people and provoke conflict situations."

They arrived in Ukraine on orders from Mamuka Mamulashvili, then a military adviser to Saakashvili and now the commander of the "Georgian Legion" which is fighting on Kiev's side in Donbass.

As transpires from the evidence given by the snipers, they discussed the planned shooting spree on Maidan with Andrei Parubiy, who is now Speaker of the Verhovnaya Rada, and with Sergei Pashinsky, the current head of the Ukrainian parliament's defense and security committee.

The snipers were taking instructions from Christopher Brian, a former US Army officer. Pashinsky, accompanied by several unidentified men, personally brought weapons to the Kiev Conservatory and Hotel Ukraina. On February 20, 2014 - the day of the mass shooting on Maidan - Pashinsky was seen firing away an assault rifle, while "Maidan commander" Vladimir Parasyuk - who later served with the Dnepr battalion and is now a Verhovna Rada deputy - was shooting with a Saiga carbine.

For their "tour of duty" on Maidan, Negradze and his group were paid $10,000 with a promise of another $50,000 upon their return home.

Nergadze and Revazishvili are presently hiding in Armenia fearing for their lives. Their decision to go to court and meet with journalists is an attempt to attract public attention to their case and avoid revenge by their former "colleagues."

Their fears are not groundless. Nergadze and Revazishvili told Sputnik many of those who took part in the Maidan shooting have down line died under strange circumstances.

Record of Interrogation (Questioning) of Aleksandre Revazishvili

Record of Interrogation (Questioning) of Koba Nergadz

Aleksandre Revazishvili's Statement to the Judicial Authorities of Ukraine

Koba Nergadze's Statement to the Judicial Authorities of Ukraine

Plane Tickets Confirming Koba Nergadze and Aleksandre Revazishvili's Arrival in Kiev During Maidan Unrest