Netherlands:Death Penalty

During a considerable period of its existence the Netherlands were  under the influence of Spain, where the death penalty was widely used. However, in the 16th century the Dutch began the fight for independence, and in 1549 launched the creation of the Dutch Republic, which lasted almost until the occupation of the territory by the French troops in 1895.

Large-scale persecution of homosexuals was registered during the existence of the Dutch Republic, who used to be punished with death, starting from Utrecht sodomy trials in 1730. That year the state survived a large epidemics of diseases of the cattle, which was preceded by a flood and an earthquake. All these events were interpreted as manifestations of the God's wrath, the more that the ruins of the nave of the Dome Church served as a place for meetings of homosexuals. As a result, the authorities launched an investigation, several men were arrested and interrogated, analogical meeting points were discovered all over the country and the persecution began. Suspicion also fell on several high-ranking officials, but they escaped. Only in Utrecht there were convicted about 40 men, 18 of whom were hanged. It was also allowed to drown homosexuals in a barrel, after which their remnants were burned and thrown into the sea. Some heterosexual men also became victims of these events, as the situation was used to persecute political enemies.

In general, in the Middle Ages the death penalty was applied on an extensive list of crimes –robbery, arson, murder and rape. Depending on the personality of the convict and his state, the execution could be carried out in various ways. Since the beginning of the French occupation, the French Code of Criminal acts started acting on the territory of the Netherlands, according to which the death penalty could be carried out only through the guillotine. A few years after gaining independence (1815), the Kingdom of the Netherlands established that the death penalty could be carried out by beheading. However, in practice it was exercised through hanging. All executions were public, but their number was decreasing, as the public opinion did not approve of this "barbaric" punishment and the king increasingly pardoned criminals.

The last execution for a criminal offense has occurred on October 31, 1860 – Johannes Nathan was hanged for the murder of his mother. In 1870 the Minister of Justice van Lilaar initiated the removal of the death penalty from the criminal law of the Netherlands as "a cruel and uncivilized form of punishment”. After seven days of debate in the lower and upper houses of the parliament there was adopted an amendment to the Criminal Code according to which the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment.

Six years later, a debate for restoring the death penalty flared up in the Parliament – the Dutch society was outraged at the life sentence to Hendrik Jut, who committed a double murder. His beloved was pregnant, they had no money and he offered her to rob a rich widow, whom she was serving. The murder of the widow and her maid took place in the Hague on the Christmas Eve in 1892 and caused a big scandal (murders were a rarity at the time). Two people were arrested on suspicion (one of them tried to hang himself in the prison cell), but were then released by the police due to lack of evidence. The culprits were arrested after 2.5 years, the evidence was indisputable. Jut's accomplice was sentenced to 12 years in prison, while Jut was transferred to a more secure prison due to the threat of lynching, and died there two years after, at the age of 26. The public outrage over the case was enormous – all newspapers presented a detailed coverage of the court hearings, the brochures about this story sold out in large circulations. Even the street, where the murder had been committed, was renamed, because it's name became strongly associated with the crime (the name was returned only in 1996).

Vagharshapat

Ejmiatsin (Arm: Էջմիածին), Armavir Marz

The Town of Ejmiatsin, now officially known as Vagharshapat is primarily known as the site of the Ejmiatsin Cathedral Compound, which is the headquarter of the Armenian Church.

In addition to the compound, there are the churches of Hripsime, Gayane and Shoghakat.

The town is also known for it's kyufta, a traditional Eastern Armenian dish, and even has a "Kyufta Street", with a number of kyufta specialists.

The relatively unknown city of Etchmiadzin has played a very important role in history and the Christian religion and it is situated close to Yerevan in Armenia in the Armavir province.  Etchmiadzin is the theological capital of Armenia and is also the seat of The Catholicos of All Armenians.  Outside of this very important history, it is a lovely, albeit small town with a rich history, tradition, and many things to do.

The historically-rich city is located about 20 kilometers from the capital city of Yerevan and according to history, two students named Saint Thaddeus and Saint Bartholomew came to Armenia to spread Christianity and wound up in Etchmiadzin.  Before Christianity came to Armenia in 301 AD, the country was Pagan.

Armenia accepted Christianity as a state religion and Saint Gregory the Illuminator, a figure that was once locked up for his religious views and sermons, became the first Armenian Catolicos. Because of these events, Armenia became the first Christian nation in the world and the Armenian church is called Apostolical.

Olga of Kiev

Princess Olga’s life was full of great deeds described in numerous historical records, as well as legendary facts that are still disputed by historians today.

According to the most traditional theory, recorded in the Primary Chronicle, Olga was born in Pskov (currently a city in the northwest of Russia) into a family of Varyag origin. Varyags were also known as Vikings or Norsemen, who came to the territory of current Russia, Ukraine and Belarus during the 8th and 9th centuries. This theory about Olga’s birth also explains the origin of her name, which is derived from the Scandinavian “Helga.” Other historical versions state that Olga was either a daughter of Oleg Veshchy, the founder of the state of Kievan Rus, or had Bulgarian roots.

Oleg Veshchy initiated Olga’s marriage with Prince Igor, who was the son of the Novgorod Prince Rurik, a founder of the Rurik Dynasty of Russian tsars. After the death of Oleg in 912, Igor became the ruler of Kievan Rus. In 945 Prince Igor went to the Slavic tribe of the Drevlyans to gather tributes. After he demanded a much higher payment, the Drevlyans killed him.

The death of the Kievan Prince raised a question about the next ruler of the country. Igor’s son, Svyatoslav, was only three years old, and hence Olga took the power into her hands. Interestingly, she had the full support the Rus army, which attests to the great respect she held among the people.

After killing Igor, the Drevlyans sent their matchmakers to propose that Olga marry their Prince Mal. The Princess took revenge upon her husband’s death, killing all of the ambassadors.

        Image from www.dic.academic.ru

The Old Russian annals describe four types of vengeance organized by Olga. First, she ordered the capture of the 20 matchmakers who had come to Kiev and had them buried alive. The Princess then asked the Drevlyans to send better ambassadors to her, but as soon as they arrived, they were burned in a bathhouse. Soon after that Olga went to the land of the Drevlyans, supposedly to have a funeral feast in memory of her murdered husband. Having made her enemies drunk during the feast, the governess then ordered them all killed. The annals report about five thousand victims in this third act of revenge.

The last vengeance took place in the year 946 when Olga traveled around the land of the Drevlyans in order to gather tributes. She besieged the town of Iskorosten, which refused to pay her. According to legend, the Princess asked that each household present her with a dove as a gift. Then she tied burning papers to the legs of the doves and let them fly back to their homes. As a result, the entire town was destroyed by fire.

Olga’s rule over Kievan Rus officially lasted until her son reached his full age. Having grown up, Svyatoslav preferred to spend most of his time abroad, organizing military campaigns in order to widen and strengthen the borders of his state. 

Olga, left in charge of the internal policies of Kievan Rus, became known for establishing the system of tribute gathering, which is sometimes considered to be the first legal tax system in Eastern Europe. She ordered the creation of centers of trade and taxation. The lands subjugated to Kiev were divided into administrative units, which were controlled by the Princess’s representatives. Olga set fixed amounts of tributes, with a detailed schedule for their gathering.

Princess Olga is also thought to have been the initiator of the first stone city building in Kievan Rus, especially in the cities of Kiev, Novgorod and Pskov.

One of the most well-known among Olga’s actions was her conversion to Christianity. She was one of the first to bring this religion to the pagan society of Kievan Rus. According to the Primary Chronicles, Olga was baptized in Constantinople either in 955 or 957. Her son Svyatoslav didn’t support his mother’s decision and was worried about losing the respect of the army because of Olga’s new faith. 

Apparently, she had a big influence on her grandson, Vladimir the Great, who in 988 made Christianity the official religion of Kievan Rus.

In 957 Olga paid an official visit to the Byzantine emperor, Constantine VII, in Constantinople. Presumably, the negotiations didn’t bring the expected results, since the historical records describe a cold greeting for the

Byzantine ambassadors during their return visit to Kiev.

Western European sources mention that in 959 Olga sent her ambassadors to Otto I, the Emperor of the Roman Empire, asking them to appoint an archbishop and priests to serve in her country. The chronicle accuses the Princess’s envoys of lying, but details in conflicting.

Leonid Melamed

Leonid Melamed, a Russian businessman, scientist and top executive of large companies, was born in Leningrad on 21 June 1961. He started his career as a mechanic-assembly worker at the October Production Association in 1980. He served in the army in 1981-1983, and after demobilization, entered the Novosibirsk Electrotechnical Institute (NETI) where he majored in radio engineering. Graduating in 1987, Melamed chose a career in science and began working as a junior research assistant at NETI. In 1991 he was appointed Rector Assistant Responsible for Commercial Matters. That’s when Melamed’s financial talents were revealed.

In March 1992 Leonid Melamed became one of the founders of the A’lemar Investment Group. Over the next five years he headed a number of large commercial enterprises, but still found time to continue his education and earned his Ph.D. in economics in 1996.

In October 1998 Leonid Melamed was appointed Director General of the federal state unitary enterprise Concern for the Production of Electrical and Thermal Energy at Nuclear Power Plants (Rosenergoatom Concern), which had exercised centralized state control over nine out of the ten nuclear power plants in Russia. In January 2000 Melamed became the First Deputy Chairman of the Board of RAO UES of Russia (The Unified Energy System), the company that provided 70% of electricity generation and about one-third of heat delivery in Russia and controlled 72% of generating capacities and 96% of the total length of Russia’s trunk transmission lines. Leonid Melamed was a close associate of Anatoly Chubais and participated in the elaboration of the Russian power industry reform. The goal of the reform was to create stimulus to increase the efficiency of power companies and provide opportunities to attract more investment to the sector. Anatoly Chubais claimed Leonid Melamed ranged among the most influential and talented financiers of Russia.

In June 2004 Melamed left the position of First Deputy Chairman of the Board of RAO UES of Russia on his own initiative. He remained friends with Chubais, but preferred working as Director General of the A’lemar Investment Group. In 2007 Finance magazine estimated Melamed’s fortune at 90 million US dollars, putting him at number 490 on the list of the 500 wealthiest Russians.

Bulgarian raids in Boeotia in the 10th c.

1. The Historical Context

Already by the late 9th c., Byzantium solidifies its rule over Southern Greece in its entirety, while late-coming populations, especially Slavs, become gradually Hellenised. A firm political and military administration in the form of the thematic institution, as well as a new ecclesiastical organisation and a remarkable financial prosperity has become entrenched and bear fruit. Within this context, we find Boeotia belonging to the Hellas Theme, Thebes being the permanent capital of the latter. The same region was coveted by the adversaries of Byzantium, mostly the Bulgarians but also Arabs, either from Crete or from Africa. These were the enemies that the Empire had to confront. Their raids on Byzantine lands appear to have been short-term and restricted to looting, but there was an ulterior motive about them as well: the conquest of these lands and their annexation. Thus, Cretan and North African Arabs sieged Salonica (904) and pursued their activities as pirates at the Aegean and the coast of Thessaly, Eastern Roumeli (with the lootings of Demetriada and Attica) and the Peloponnese, aiming at subverting the resistance of the Empire, an aim which they would not eventually meet. Instead, the Byzantine state took the offensive by attacking their base at Crete and evicting them from the Eastern Mediterranean.

However, during that century it was mostly Bulgarians who declared their intent and actively sought to conquer the mainland Greek region (sometimes not unsuccessfully) and annex it to their own ‘Kingdom of Bulgarians and Romans’, as they styled it. They were interested in supplanting the “Roman” emperors of Constantinople and establishing their own Bulgarian Empire of Eastern Christendom. The tsars who led these operations had a Byzantine upbringing and were of the same religious denomination, which made them all the more dangerous. This was the context within which their raids at the Southern Greek region and Boeotia is to be examined.

2. Raids in Southern Greece and Boeotia

2.1. Invasion and pillages during the reign of Tsar Simeon (918-927)

The first Bulgarian invasion in the region took place in 918; Bulgarian presence there seems to have lasted for about a decade. Tsar Simeon, would-be ‘King in Christ of Bulgarians and Romans’, didn’t need any pretexts to invade Southern Greece: the area was naturally on a geographical continuum with regard to the Bulgarian dominions in Northern Greece, was highly developed, financially and demographically, was without military defense and at a distance from the (already terrorized) Byzantine capital. Following the victories of the Bulgarians at Anchialos and Katasyrtes in Thrace (917), Simeon could invade Southern Greece unimpeded. His army crossed Thermopyles, entered the Boeotian valley, turned toward the Corinthian coast and occasionally crossed the bay and reached Peloponnese. Terrorised inhabitants left their villages, taking refuge at citadels, fortified towns, the islets of the Corinthian Gulf, or wherever else they could, as we are told by the biographer of Hosios Loukas of Steiris, our only source.

The Boeotian countryside, as well as other parts of Southern Greece, is now seized by the Bulgarian tsar. We don’t know what sort of administrative apparatus Simeon might have been able to establish, or what exactly happened at fortified cities, such as Thebes. There is a marginal note in a manuscript from the library of Arethas, bishop of Caesarea, which records his worries over the fate of the city (δέδοικα μη και ταύτην [την Καδμείαν=Θήβα] Βούλγαροι κατεστρέψαντο: «I'm affraid that the Bulgarians may have destoyed Kadmeia [i.e. Thebes]»). Recent archeological evidence suggests a mid-century devastation that can only be explained by an enemy army invasion, as has been noted by archeologist Charicleia Koilakou. In any case, Bulgarian control on the land must have been restricted to taxation, such that once Simeon died (927) his army left Boeotia and its inhabitants returned safely to their homes, again according to the Life of Hosios Loukas (§47: «ο αλιτήριος Συμεών εξ ανθρώπων γίνεται [δηλ. πέθανε]... ηνίκα και πάντων επί τας οικείας πόλεις τε και κώμας ανασωζομένων...»).

2.2. Invasion during the reign of czar Samuel (986-996)

The second time Bulgarians posed a threat for the Southern Greek region was in between 986 and 996. In all likelihood, there occurred a repetition of what happened during the reign of Simeon. Setting off from their base at Larissa, the Bulgarians led their armies to S. Greece, looting and taking numerous captives. At its very start, the chronicle of Galaxidi relates the facts of one such case: “In the reign of King Constantine Romanos, ferocious and unchristian people called Borgarians entered Greece, massacred the Christians by sword and spear and headed to the Moreas [Peloponnese]”. It appears that in these raids the Bulgarians were not confronted with any powerful local resistance, the only possible exception being the Corinthian Isthmus. Undoubtedly the must have also looted the rich villages and monasteries of Boeotia on this campaign.

In one such raid, upon returning to their base with their booty of goods and people, they encountered the Byzantine army of Nikephoros Ouranos by Spercheios River (996). Their destruction was impressive: only Samuel and his son Radomir were able to escape in the night-time and return to a steadier base, 400 km to the north, at Ochrid. Their whole army was destroyed during that nocturnal onslaught unleashed by the Byzantines. That was the end of the Bulgarian presence in Southern Greece. After a few years, Emperor Basil II succeeded in subjugating the Bulgarian state (1018).

The tour of the victorious emperor in Southern Greece, its end point being Athens before his triumphant return to Constantinople, could be seen as a curtain call of this period. During this tour, Basil most likely visited Thebes, the capital of the Theme of Hellas, even though this is not mentioned anywhere in our sources.

For citation: Kalaitzakis Theophanis, "Bulgarian raids in Boeotia in the 10th c.",
Encyclopedia of the Hellenic World, Boeotia

Kravchuk, Leonid

Kravchuk, Leonid  [Кравчук, Леонід; Kravčuk], b 10 January 1934 in Velykyi Zhytyn, Rivne county, Volhynia voivodeship. First president of independent Ukraine (December 1991–July 1994) and former CPU official. Kravchuk graduated with a degree in economics (1958) from Kyiv University and later (1970) acquired a candidate of economic sciences degree from the CC CPSU’s Academy of Social Sciences of (the advanced school for Soviet Party propagandists and ideologues) in Moscow. His dissertation dealt with the nature of income under socialism and its role in collective-farm production. Kravchuk joined the CPU in 1958 and was initially (1958–60) employed as a lecturer in political economy at a tekhnikum in Chernivtsi. Thereafter he was a full-time CPU functionary, advancing from political-education officer to head of the propaganda-and-agitation department of Chernivtsi oblast’s CPU Committee. In 1970 Kravchuk joined the staff of the CC CPU in Kyiv and worked his way up there from sector chief to head of the propaganda-and-agitation department in 1980 and head of the ideology department in October 1988. On 18 October 1989, at the time of the ouster of CPU First Secretary Volodymyr Shcherbytsky, Kravchuk was appointed an unranked secretary of the CC CPU and promoted to candidate member of the CPU Politburo. In June 1990 he advanced to full Politburo membership and became second secretary of the CPU. In July 1990 he was elected a member of the CC CPSU.

At that time Kravchuk represented the more moderate wing of the CPU leadership that was more attuned to Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika reforms. (Stanislav Hurenko headed the CPU’s more clearly conservative wing.) But Kravchuk was no liberal: he also placed obstacles in the way of the development of the Popular Movement of Ukraine (Rukh) and forbade CPU members to join it. Nevertheless, in keeping with his well-earned reputation for skilful maneuvering, Kravchuk took the unprecedented step of speaking at the inaugural congress of Rukh and was later said to have adopted nine-tenths of the movement’s program into his 1991 presidential campaign. Thus he rode to victory on the wave of popular support for national independence at the time of the election on 1 December 1991, and he endeavored to continue doing so throughout his term of office.

From March 1990 to December 1991 Kravchuk represented a Vinnytsia oblast constituency in the parliamentary Supreme Council of Ukraine (SCU), and from 23 July 1990 he was that legislature’s chairman. Having already resigned as second secretary of the CPU in September 1990, he thus left the leadership of that party to the more conservative Stanislav Hurenko and became, in effect, leader of the ‘national communist’ tendency in the SCU. As such, Kravchuk prevailed on a majority of parliamentary deputies to support adding a second question asking for public support for the Declaration of State Sovereignty (adopted on 16 July 1990) to the referendum sponsored by Mikhail Gorbachev and scheduled for 17 March 1991. This second question received the approval of 80.2 percent of Ukraine’s voters, thus providing Kravchuk leverage in negotiating a looser Union (ie, USSR) treaty. In the negotiations, which began just outside Moscow at the Novo-Ogarevo estate in April, he took a moderate position, advocating a union of sovereign states without dismantling the USSR. Extra-parliamentary pressures for independence and weakening solidarity among the Communists in the SCU, however, resulted in the delayed consideration of the treaty until September, effectively allowing Kravchuk to avoid getting locked into Gorbachev’s plans and to frustrate not only Gorbachev but also Hurenko. From mid-1991 Kravchuk increasingly became a spokesman for national communism.

Kravchuk’s nationalism was severely tested at the time of the abortive Moscow coup of 19 August 1991. He initially neither condemned nor approved the coup, and he did not end his equivocation until two days later. By that time there were calls for Kravchuk’s resignation, which he avoided by resigning first from his Party positions and, on 27 August, from the Party itself. (His official biography claims this happened on 19 August.) The upshot in Kyiv of the coup was the SCU’s approval of the declaration of Ukraine’s independence on 24 August 1991. Thereafter Kravchuk took measured steps to relabel important components of the Soviet Ukrainian state with national designations.

Identified with the cause of independence, Kravchuk easily won the presidential election of 1 December 1991, receiving 61.6 per cent of the vote. The accompanying independence referendum was approved by 90.3 percent of the voters. Armed with these results, Kravchuk met on 8–9 December with Presidents Stanislau Shushkevich of Belarus and Boris Yeltsin of Russia and secured their agreement to supplant the USSR with the Commonwealth of Independent States, thereby forcing Mikhail Gorbachev to resign as Soviet president.

Kravchuk’s term as president of Ukraine was marked by signal successes in building the newly independent Ukrainian state, as well as by notable failures to encourage the transition to consolidating democracy and a full-fledged market economy. While his handling of the external aspects of the state-building project was energetic and resulted in a high level of foreign recognition, this was accompanied by unresolved issues in Ukraine’s relations with Russia, Europe, and the West (particularly the United States).

Kravchuk used nationalism as part of his state-building efforts rather than employing the state for nation-building. The 1992–3 attempt to create a unified Orthodox ‘state church’ crumbled. Kravchuk’s idea of developing a strong state boiled down to having a strong president, advocacy of which only strengthened the resolve of the constitution writers to weaken the presidency and to have a stronger parliament. By co-opting national democrats into the government and encouraging the development of a ‘party of power,’ Kravchuk undermined the formation of a recognizable system of political parties. Similarly, he weakened grassroots democracy by introducing ‘president’s representatives’ on the model of French prefects at the oblast and local levels. Kravchuk’s economic policies were disastrous for market reforms, feeding inflation by extending credit to maintain production and yielding to strikers’ demands for wage increases. He thus sacrificed the economy for political gain, just as he did a series of prime ministers (including Leonid Kuchma).

In the first round of the presidential election held on 26 June 1994, as the incumbent Kravchuk received 37.7 percent of the vote and led a field of seven candidates. He campaigned on a platform emphasizing his statesmanship and patriotism. His nearest rival was Leonid Kuchma, an advocate of improved relations with Russia and of economic reform, who had 31.3 percent. When the two faced each other in a run-off vote on 10 July, however, Kravchuk managed only 45.1 percent to Kuchma’s 52.1. Kravchuk then retired from the presidency, retaining his official salary and most of the other perks of that office, but not from politics. In September 1994 he was elected from a constituency in Ternopil oblast to the parliament of Ukraine, where he joined the Social-Market Choice caucus (led by Volodymyr Shcherban) and became a member of the parliamentary Commission on Issues of Culture and Spirituality.

After retiring from the presidency, Kravchuk also served for two years as president of a foundation in support of the arts. In July 1997 he was appointed head of the State Committee for the Introduction of Administrative Reforms in Ukraine. In January 1998 he joined the United Social Democratic Party of Ukraine (SDP

Bohdan Harasymiw

[This article was written in 2015.]

Prague Spring International Music Festival

The Prague Spring International Music Festival  (Mezinárodní hudební festival Pražské jaro) is an annual music festival focused on classical music. Held in the Czech capital of Prague, it showcases the best performing artists, chamber music ensembles and symphony orchestras from all over the world.

The history of Prague Spring began in 1946. That year, the Czech Philharmonic Orchestra (Česká filharmonie) celebrated its 50th anniversary. Chief conductor Rafael Kubelík thought it would be a good idea to hold a series of concerts featuring the orchestra. That’s how the Prague Spring Music Festival was born. The first festival was held under the patronage of Edvard Beneš, the President of Czechoslovakia.

The inaugural festival was a great success so it was decided to hold it annually. The next year, the Prague Spring International Music Competition was established to encourage young musicians. The competition is intended for artists of all nationalities who are younger than 30 years of age. It is held each year in several disciplines (various instrumental sections, singing or conducting). Past winners of the competition include now famous musicians such as flute player James Galway, cellist Natalia Gutman, cellis Saša Večtomov, and cellist and conductor Mstislav Rostropovich.

From 1952 onward, the festival has always opened on May 12. It is the death anniversary of Bedřich Smetana, a famous Czech composer, pianist and conductor who is widely regarded as the father of Czech music. The opening concert features his cycle of symphonic poems Má vlast (My Homeland). Until 2003, Prague Spring used to close with Symphony No. 9 by Ludwig van Beethoven.

The Prague Spring International Music Festival has a rich and diverse program of concerts featuring the finest performers, ensembles and orchestras from different countries. Past musicians who have performed at the festival include Mstislav Rostropovich, Sviatoslav Richter, Herbert von Karajan, Arthur Rubinstein, Anne-Sophie Mutter, and many more.

The program includes well-known works by famous composers of the past as well as Czech and world premieres of works by contemporary composers. The main venue of the festival is the Rudolfinum, a music auditorium and art gallery situated in Jan Palach Square. Some concerts are held in the Municipal House which has a larger seating capacity.

 Photo: Mezinárodní hudební festival   Pražské jaro

Commonwealth of independent States

On This Day 8 December:

On December 8, 1991, the USSR became history when the Soviet leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus concluded an agreement on the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

The leaders of the three founding states – President of RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) Boris Yeltsin, Leonid Kravchuk of Ukraine and Stanislav Shushkevich of Belarus – met at a government retreat in Belavezha outside of Brest in Belarus to sign the so-called Belavezha Accords.

The document stated that the USSR ceased to exist as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality. However, based upon the historical community of peoples, relations between them, given the bilateral treaties, the desire for a democratic rule of law, the intention to develop their relations based upon mutual recognition and respect for state sovereignty, the parties agreed on the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

The CIS was a free association of former Soviet republics, with common defense forces and a common economic front. Its charter stated that all fifteen members were sovereign, independent nations, meaning they no longer regarded themselves as part of the Soviet Union (established in 1922).

In the end, the dissolution of the USSR and establishment of the CIS was formally endorsed on December 21, 1991, in Almaty, as leaders of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine signed the Protocol to the Agreement on the Establishment of the CIS.

The Soviet government had previously recognized the independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on September 6, 1991 and the three Baltic nations, as well as Georgia, chose not to join the CIS (Georgia joined two years later, in December 1993).

Article cite on Russiapedia.rt.com

Beeldenstorm

   In 1566, during the initial phase of the Dutch Revolt against the Spanish king Philip II, a rabid anti-Catholic movement ran through the provinces. Calvin ists destroyed sculptures and damaged pictures and other sacred dec orations in Roman Catholic churches. This protest seems to have been inspired not only by religious objections against the supersti tious worship of statues but also by opposition to the persecutions of the Catholic Inquisition and by social protest against the poor living conditions in those years.

Historical Dictionary of the Netherlands. EdwART. 2012.

Photo credits belong to the respective owners 

John I of Brabant

(ca. 1254-1294)

   John I "the Victorious" was born probably in Brussels. He became duke of Brabant in 1267. During his reign the first town wall was completed. He improved coinage by making it heavier, and he decreed printing the image of Saint Michael the Archangel on coins, which served as inspiration for the city's seal. In return for services rendered by the townsmen of Brussels at the Battle of Woeringen (5 June 1288), by which Brabant acquired Limburg, John granted urban privileges, including cession to the city both of ducal rights to duties levied at gatesand of taxes imposed on use of the weigh scales and the crane at the port. John also wrote love poems. His reign marked the apogee of the duchy's power under the house of Leuven. Chronicler Louis Van Velthem said, "He loved and honored Brussels above all other cities." John died on 3 May 1294 in the duchy of Bar, now in France, from wounds suffered in a tournament.

Historical Dictionary of Brussels. Paul F. State.