"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." Theodore Roosevelt
The same people that are in charge of both the Covid response and the food and fuel crisis that is now upon us and who are in the process of introducing Central Bank Digital Currencies that will enable them to control us, who are bankrupting their countries (particularly the middle class) with climate change nonsense; these are the people we should believe about Ukraine? Does that make any sense? Or should it be a case of suspending belief and investigating ourselves?
The West is not neutral; NATO is involved in a country that it has no contractual relationship with nor any obligation to. NATO itself is an organisation with no reason to exist; its mission ended when the Berlin Wall came down and, ever since, it's effectively been an American army sitting in Europe with nothing better to do except expand eastwards and aggravate the Russians by welcoming new member countries that border them. NATO (or the United States by any other name) doesn't give a monkey's about Ukraine. It cares about what Ukraine represents, that's all. And what it represents is an excuse and an opportunity.
The US is a country that presumes to lecture us about the importance of borders while leaving its own unprotected. A country that bleats about alleged war crimes while openly practicing a policy known as extraordinary rendition, whereby suspected 'terrorists' can be snatched off the street in some foreign country and then flown to a black site in another foreign country and tortured. A country that ran the Gitmo jail in Iraq, that tortured and killed enemy combatant and innocents alike. A country that runs Guantanamo Bay. A country that thinks that, even though it's signed up to all the usual Human Rights treaties – and the only thing those treaties can all agree upon is that torture is beyond the pale – and yet somehow also believes that it can rely on its own legal opinion that, as long as it's done abroad, it's legitimate. These are all facts; look them up if you don't believe me.
The problem comes with even mentioning such facts, doesn't it? It's misinformation, treasonous even. Facts are no longer facts. Just like the fact that Ukraine has been a piggy bank for the American elites for years. The Bidens, Kerrys and the Clintons have all filled their pockets in Ukraine, which is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. For instance, Hunter Biden's 'laptop from hell' is full of information about his dealings with Burisma, a gas company whose board he graced for the small matter of $1 million a year from 2014-2017 (and half that remuneration thereafter until 2019, once the 'big guy' was out of office), despite having no knowledge of the oil industry. His only qualification for the role was that his father was the VP. Ukraine was also used as a proxy to impeach President Trump and I don't recall President Zelensky blanketing the airwaves with the evidence that existed to disprove that narrative.
So, while we're at it, let's get some facts straight and some questions answered. First off, if the US is so wedded to the concept of inviolable borders, especially Ukraine's, where were they in 2014 when Putin took over Crimea? Supplying meal rations and blankets is the answer.(1) There was no talk of sanctions, illegal seizures of any Russian asset that the West could get its hands on, nor well over $40 billion of military assistance; which, incidentally, is about the size of the entire yearly Russian military budget.
It doesn't start there, though. We have to go back to 2009, and Hillary Clinton's reign as Secretary of State, to see that the Russians, not the Ukrainians, were temporarily the blue-eyed boys. In short order, the US removed military installations in Poland and the Czech Republic that had been home to missiles targeting Russia,(2) launched the 'Russia Reset' which resulted in sharing dual use technology (technology that can be used for good or harm, rather like engineered viruses)(3) and then sold 20% of Uranium One (the primary source of America's uranium supply) to Russia after Russian donors had given the Clinton Foundation at least $145 million (nothing to see here).(4) By way of a digestif, the US then pushed the Iran Nuclear Deal, which established Russia as the major nuclear contractor for that country.(5)
It doesn't seem that Russia was the enemy just a few short years ago, does it? At least, not irredeemably. It seems like the Russians were colluding, if not with America, then with a section of its political class. It wasn't just the Clintons, either. And it wasn't just Ukraine. Hunter Biden was the point man for the Biden family pay for play scheme, which also featured his uncle and aunt and Biden himself. The payments for access came from many different sources; Russia, Romania, Kazakhstan, China and Ukraine to name a few,(6) and totaled many millions of dollars. The Senate even produced an 87 page report, not that anybody was interested in reading it. Had they done so they would have seen that Climate Czar and former presidential candidate John Kerry's son was also a beneficiary.(7) American elites and their offspring were queuing up at the feeding trough.
And how about Ukraine itself? What was the West's official position on this heroic, sovereign nation, which (over the millennia) has spent more time united with Russia than divided from it? Because, in order to have any credibility when lecturing the rest of the world about the absolute need to defend democracy wherever it is threatened, it would be necessary for the US to have some sort of track record of doing so; in Ukraine, if nowhere else. They are not claiming a recent Damascene conversion to the cause; they would have us believe that this conviction is part of their DNA.
Provocation
While this may come as a devastating surprise, I have to report that the US has done the opposite; they have financed a coup, filleted resources and helped to undermine the mandate that President Zelensky was elected on; namely to resolve the continuing war in the Donbass, primarily between neo-Nazi elements in the Ukrainian military and the breakaway republics, and implement Minsk II, an agreement that guaranteed that Luhansk and Donetsk would achieve a good measure of autonomy.(8)
Yes, I did say neo-Nazi and yes, they are all over the place in Ukraine. The Azov Battalion, for one, are proud of their ideology and their street vigilante wing, the National Corps, is deployed across the country and works alongside the police. They are not a fringe movement, they are front and centre (9) and their leader has made no secret of his ideology; he views his mission as to:
“lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival… against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”(10)
Figure 1 Azov Battalion
And the US can hardly claim to be unaware when the leader of yet another neo-Nazi gang, C-14, was a speaker at an event that they themselves organised.(11) There is also the small matter of the US military training them and supplying them with hardware. This has been ongoing for at least five years, even though it is explicitly forbidden by a congressional provision stating that:
“none of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide arms, training, or other assistance to the Azov Battalion.”(12)
This provision has never been enforced, despite being enacted as US law. These groups are not just a modern phenomenon. Ukraine has a long history of Nazism:
“The celebration and glorification of Nazi collaborators and murderers of Jews pervade Ukraine today. Many cities have statues and streets named after them. The birthday of Stepan Bandera, Ukraine’s leading German collaborator of World War II and father of Ukrainian Nazism, is celebrated as a national holiday.
Ukraine is saturated with Nazi militias, organizations, and political parties. Desecration of Holocaust memorials and parades honoring World War II Nazi German dead are regular events.”(13)
Figure 2 US troops training Ukrainian neo-Nazis
Curious, isn't it, that the left side of the American political aisle spends so much time alleging that the more serious domestic terrorism threat is from the neo-Nazis on the Far Right (when it isn't parents protesting against wokeist school curriculums being implemented in secret) is also the party that, along with the simps in the GOP, is funding the fascist Ukrainian version to the tune of over $40 billion, as long as they keep fighting.(14)
It would appear then, that the time-honored 'play both sides' school of foreign policy was being practiced. Whilst the Russians were being granted economically competitive advantages (and providing financial quid pro quos to individuals), official US policy was geared towards training the military of Russia's potential adversaries.
Zelensky
But what of Zelensky? Who is he? He's an ex-actor/comedian (although I think he's still honing his acting skills), who is bankrolled by a Ukrainian oligarch named Igor Kolomoisky, energy baron and a top funder of the Azov and Hunter's old boss – small world, eh? He is from a non observing Jewish family, of which Western media has made much attempting, in their usual simplistic fashion, to persuade us all that a Jew could never be in league with neo-Nazis. He is allegedly anti-corruption (what politician says they aren't?) but is also the beneficiary of offshore accounts of dubious provenance. This is one of the revelations spawned by the release of the Panama Papers.(15) He was elected on a promise to end the Donbass conflict.
What he's actually done whilst in office bears no resemblance to his stated intentions. He made peace with the neo-Nazis almost immediately, influenced no doubt by their threat to string him up from the nearest lamppost if he dared to negotiate with Putin.(16) Zelensky seems to have received the message, loud and clear. Since then, he has co-operated with the neo-Nazis and promoted them to positions of authority within Ukraine.(17)
Since the war began, he first suspended eleven political parties (18) and then passed a law banning them.(19) The leader of the main opposition party, Ivor Medvedchuk, is already imprisoned for treason and his media outlets have been shuttered.(20) Next up, a campaign of kidnapping, torture and assassination by agents of the state, which currently boasts a total of eleven missing town mayors, in addition to the two whose bodies have already been found. They had committed the cardinal sin of negotiating with the Russian invaders.(21) As to Zelensky's culpability; if one says, as he did, that “there would be consequences for collaborators”, governmental sanction is implied. Left wing journalists have also been hunted down and killed.(22)
Extra-judicial beatings and killings by men in camouflaged uniforms are a regular occurrence. This may just be connected to the president's appointment of a man known as 'The Strangler' as head of SBU counter-intelligence.(23) While his stock is high in the West, Zelensky is taking advantage. He even managed to persuade the Spanish to arrest a Ukrainian blogger who had emigrated ten years previously, alleging that his was spreading Russian disinformation and therefore committing treason.(24) It would seem that Zelensky is the latest to learn that he shouldn't let a good crisis go to waste.
He is yet one more example of a phenomenon with which we are becoming increasingly familiar. Whether he was ever truly sincere about attempting to negotiate peace in the Donbass, or simply one more political opportunist, I know not. I do, however, know that he has been sponsored by the same man who provides financial aid to the Azov Battalion, so I'm inclined towards the view that he was almost certainly a charlatan from the get go. In any event, over 70% of ordinary Ukrainians expected him to deliver the very thing that he has set his face against.
But none of that fits the narrative and so it must be memory holed and anybody who dares to mention it must be obliterated. Zelensky, yet one more place man, must be allowed to dust off another green T shirt and lecture another Western entity via Zoom. It doesn't really matter what he says, because he tailors it to whichever gullible drones he is addressing. It could be asking for more weaponry, for the imposition of a no-fly zone, for the EU to seize yet another super-yacht, illegally and on a whim. It's just about staying visible, allowing the Americans to keep beating the war drum for as long as it suits them. And by them, I mean the US, not Ukraine. Nothing about this charade is about the betterment of Ukraine.
The Ukrainian military, as a coherent entity capable of meaningful resistance, only exists in the fevered imaginations of the war mongers on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Ever wondered why it is that Ukraine is supposed to be stomping on the Russian bear and yet their cities are being surrounded, their bases bombed and Russian armored columns many kilometres long can linger with impunity? It's because there is no meaningful opposition, in the air or on the ground. That's why there is no footage of the front – RT (Russian Television) is banned and even the propaganda that Zelensky puts out can't manufacture fields full of smoldering Russian tanks.
The US has clearly been provoking the Russians and not just with the seemingly endless aid packages. There is open talk of training Ukrainian paramilitaries in guerrilla warfare (25) and they even stated that they directly assisted in the destruction of a Russian warship.(26) Then there's America's continual referencing of Ukraine and NATO's alleged open door policy:
“Ukraine entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”(27)
Trump didn't pursue it; Biden, on the other hand, called Putin a killer, levied sanctions on Russia (in 2021), and reaffirmed US commitment to Ukraine. Not only that, in June 2021 the US set out a road-map for Ukraine to join NATO and in November signed a Charter on Strategic Partnership with Zelensky.(28) It wasn't until then that Russian troops began massing on Ukraine's border. Even then, Putin asked for guarantees that, among other things, there would be no more NATO expansion to the east. He didn't get them.(29) None of this information is to be found on the legacy media.
The Donetsk People's Republic alleged that, prior to the Russian invasion, large number of Ukrainian forces mobilized in the Donbass region, perhaps as many as 125,000 troops, with the intention of invading the breakaway republic and then Crimea. Of course, if the Russians were also massed on the other border, there would have been some justification for this course of action.(30) And it wasn't just the fecklessness and calculated immoderations of these actions that pushed Putin's buttons. There were the biolabs, too.
Biolabs
Perhaps you will have heard the strident denials of any such thing. But, nonetheless, they exist and are funded by the US Department of Defense.(31) This unfortunate fact was admitted by government on 8th March this year, only for them to back-track and then play semantics and try out at least three different versions of events, all related to the storage of ancient Soviet bio-weapons; nothing to do with bio-weapon research.(32) However, they were still deeply concerned about the possibility of these labs falling into Russian hands. One wonders why, unless there were dangerous pathogens stored within them, pathogens that the Russians didn't already possess...which there weren't, of course. The government told us so.
The original government statement, before the carefully crafted amendments, was that there were biological research facilities in Ukraine which were funded and operated by the US.(33) One of the later iterations of the State Department obfuscations, was one which insisted that these laboratories were only conducting bio-defense work. The reality is that such labs are referred to as dual use, capable of creating bio-weapons as well as the defense to them. This may all sound rather familiar and indeed it is. The US was doing the self same thing in Wuhan.
The truth? Well, we know that Hunter Biden's firm, Rosemont Seneca, was involved in financing a company called Metabiota, who were themselves involved in Ukrainian biolabs. Biden's company also helped to secure millions in additional funding.(34) The fact of the President's son being involved in funding biolabs that were illegal in America might ordinarily land the father in choppy waters. But if you can just ignore the story and trust the Press to do likewise, it turns out that is no awkwardness at all.
The Russians claim that US pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer and Moderna use labs in Ukraine to test their ability to produce controlled epidemics.(35) This allegation bears some resemblance to purported reality as there are documents in existence that show a Department of Defense contract awarded to one of the Ukrainian labs for the study of Covid-19. Remarkably, it was awarded in November 2019, two months before the pathogen was allegedly identified and three months before it was named.(36)
It's not just the US; the German military is also involved, conducting research on “zoonoses risk management near the EU external border”, which isn't in Ukraine anyway. But I'm sure that explanation is completely true.(37) A famous name in the field bio-weapons research field (Francis Boyle PhD,) someone who drafted legislation on the subject back in the 1980s, also states that the US has a long-standing policy to surround Russia with biological warfare facilities and preposition biological weapons.(38) I have no way of verifying this, but it does sound like the sort of thing they would do, if they could. But it's quite important that all concerned deny any and all involvement in anything to do with bio-weapons, as it's against the law; not that that means much any more.
Dr Robert Malone theorises that the:
“...federal government of the USA...are offshoring risk and legal liability and trying to circumvent congressional oversight concerning activities tha we know we should not be doing.”(39)
This also has the ring of truth about it. Fauci offshored American gain-of-function research in 2014, when there was a moratorium on such research on American soil. And we know about black ops sites in foreign countries, too. We would be able to pin down more truths if the Fourth Estate was interested in pursuing the story but, inevitably, they are not. The question is, did Putin know any of this? I think it's stretching credulity to think that his country's intelligence services are so inept that they couldn't check open source documents on the internet as I just have.
Russian Objectives
To continue the theme of misdirection and outright lies; we are being continually misled as to the success or otherwise of Putin's operation. The usual array of straw men are propped up to be shot down. For the sake of clarity - he didn't target Kiev, he's not trying to get to Poland or Moldova, but if the media says that those were his intentions, he can be portrayed as a failure when those events don't come to pass. Then there's the deification of Vladimir Churchill-Zelensky; not. He is no democrat – his government is now as repressive (if not more so) than Putin's. He is prolonging the war, at America's insistence, and needlessly sacrificing his own people.
Putin, on the other hand, has been pretty clear as to his objectives. He speaks of a special military operation, not the commencement of a war. That's because, in his eyes, the war started in 2014 and on 16th February 2022, the Ukrainians dramatically intensified the shelling of the Donbass.(40) That signaled to Putin that Ukraine was about to implement its stated strategy of retaking Crimea.(41) And, yes. I know that piece of news is nowhere to be found in the legacy media, but it doesn't change the fact that the Ukrainian Foreign Minister announced it to the world just over a year ago.
Putin's purpose is to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine. Additionally, on February 21st, he signed a friendship and assistance agreement with the two republics, allowing them to ask for military assistance if required. And that is pretty much that. Of course, the first objective is opaque. What actions would be required to achieve denazification? Destroying the neo-Nazi battalions in the Donbass would be a start, but the cancer has metastasized across many Ukrainian institutions. Even so, the Russians can rely on all the weaponry and personnel that is available to their enemy to come to them; they are unlikely to have to go looking.
And, on the whole, the Russians are methodically going about their business. Within three weeks of the invasion, Russia had established a de facto no fly zone over Ukraine. In the same time frame, they captured territory the size of the United Kingdom. There have been no effective counter-attacks by the Ukrainians and their Army has been split into fragments. Additionally, two bases in Western Ukraine (Yavoriv and Zhytomyr) were destroyed by hypersonic missiles. These were effectively NATO camps and the primary transit points for the supply of materiel to Ukraine. There were over 200 personnel killed (including British and Americans) and hundreds of additional casualties, not that we've been informed.(42) The Russians are ruthlessly bombarding the Ukrainian Army, who are being sacrificed needlessly. There is no conceivable way that the Ukrainians alone can win. They can delay the inevitable by not surrendering and dying instead, but they cannot win no matter how much aid flows their way.(43)
Figure 3 Equipment losses by 11th April
More Lies
What else awaits us in the empire of lies? The most severe sanctions in history are crippling Russia? Sounds good, but sanctions have never been shown to work long term, in the way that a naval blockade might, and Russia's current account is in fine fettle. Those countries that still need Russian energy – and there are more of them than you might think – will have to pay in rubles, purchased from the Russian Central Bank with dollars.(44) So, the West is going to be propping up the very same currency that they allegedly went to such lengths to destroy. And how are sanctions ever going to stop Putin's operation? They have no impact on what happens on the battlefield. The only definite outcome is one that will inflict hardship on all of us, through raging inflation and shortages.
And still the lies continue. As is usual in these circumstances (see Iraq, see Syria), the threat of chemical weapons must be emphasized; a marker has to be laid down. So we have noted peacenik Liz Cheney warning us that Russian use of chemical weapons would constitute a red line for the US and NATO and, implicitly, would provoke an escalation by same, although the last time I checked, Cheney has no say in any of that.(45)
Then a former British spy, deeply implicated in false flag events in Syria, popped up to warn us that Russia was preparing a chemical attack in Ukraine.(46) These are not isolated soundbites; Biden himself has been at it, too.(47) The problem is that warnings such as these tend to backfire, as they did in Syria. In this case, all it would take would be a false flag attack by the Ukrainians (it's an open invitation, after all) and NATO would potentially be all in. It would be naïve to assume, if that circumstance ever came to pass, that it was as a result of Zelensky having the US over. These things are choreographed backstage in order to provide a pretext for a course of action that was going to be taken anyway. It's notable that the Russians haven't threatened any such thing; all the drama has been created by the West.
Bucha
Other types of false flag operations are already in the bag; the alleged massacre at Bucha chief among them. Once again, when the legacy media tells us that we just absolutely must believe a version of events and it's clear that they are rushing to judgement without checking the facts, we must check for ourselves. Especially when only one side of the story is making the rounds, as news outlets that might give a different version have been banned. So it is with Bucha. Western media is proclaiming that the Russians killed scores of local civilians before they retreated and the Ukrainians retook the town. One or two actual facts wouldn't go amiss.
There is a well documented pattern of behavior by the Ukrainian military. They have set up offensive positions in civilian areas, using the locals as human shields,(48) shot prisoners of war (49) and tortured civilians, especially those who looted or accepted assistance from the Russians.(50) Ukraine is ripe for war crimes. They freed imprisoned criminals with combat experience and armed them, too.(51)
There are already any number of incidences of Ukrainians killing fellow citizens who they suspect of being spies or saboteurs.(52) More specifically, Russian forces left Bucha on 30th March.(53) On March 31st, the local mayor gave an upbeat media interviews. There was no mention of bodies littering the streets.(54) Next, the Ukrainian security forces (SBU) announced that they would conduct a cleansing operation against saboteurs and traitors on April 2nd.(55) Photographs of the dead start appearing on this day. Many pictures show the victims wearing white armbands, a precaution taken by the locals to ensure that the Russians knew that they were not enemy combatants. One might think that these people might be viewed as traitors by the SBU. Lastly, it was Russia that called for an independent investigation by the UN (not Ukraine), a request that was denied by the UK, who refused to allow the council to meet and discuss the proposal.(56)
One might think, given these circumstances and the propensity for Zelensky to spew forth any propaganda that might lead to an escalation of Western involvement (such as the earlier stories about Russia attacking nuclear plants (57) or hospitals and schools), that the much more likely explanation for Bucha involves the home team; it doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to calculate probabilities. One last point – if Russia were the guilty party, why would they not have loaded the bodies on trucks and disposed of them in a mass grave or a furnace or similar? Their withdrawal was orderly and at a time of their choosing; they weren't routed in battle and in headlong retreat.
And what effect might the 'massacre' have? Well, somebody probably killed hundreds of people and so an explanation had to be given. Blaming the Russians adds fuel to the NATO fire, provides yet one more reason why Putin must be stopped and clumsily deflects attention from the detail. But I strongly suspect that this just one more example of bad actors working backwards from the desired endpoint, constructing the threadbare narrative as they go. It isn't as though we have been bereft of false flag events and blatant misdirection.
Nonetheless, this manoeuvre is a clear favorite in the propaganda sweepstakes. It sets up a pathway to a wider conflict beyond Ukraine's borders and has infamous historical precedents. Hitler used his own troops, dressed as Polish soldiers, to fake an incident on the Polish border, which he then used as the thinnest possible pretext to invade and, effectively, kick off World War II. The US themselves manufactured the Gulf of Tonkin incident to deepen their involvement in Vietnam. There are a number of other examples.
NATO Options
There are a couple of other routes open to NATO, if they are hell-bent on expanding the conflict. The first way would be through allowing Sweden and, more particularly, Finland, to join NATO. This is because there is a Russian-Finnish bilateral treaty from 1992, which states:
“that the sides will refrain from the threat of force or the use of force against the territorial integrity or the political independence of the other side, (and) won’t use or allow to use their territory for armed aggression against the other side.”(58)
The Finns have said that joining NATO does not violate that clause. They will argue that they haven't threatened or used force or allowed anyone to attack Russia from Finland and they'd be right. But, looked at in another light, the guarantee of neutrality (in perpetuity) that the clause was clearly intended to provide will be completely undermined by what the reality of NATO membership is, rather than the theory. The theory states, in Article 5, that it's all for and one for all if any of the member states is attacked by a third party. The reality has come to be something rather different. By way of illustration, the current conflict is instructive. No NATO country has been attacked and the alliance, therefore, has no skin in the game and no authority under its own charter to conduct any operations; granted, this didn't stop them in Yugoslavia, Syria or Libya as they found a way to circumvent their own charter, but nonetheless.
The catch all excuse has previously been to use Article 4, which calls for action on behalf of the alliance if “the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the other parties is threatened.” Given Putin's stated aims and the scope of his military adventure, no such threat can be credibly demonstrated. At best, despite the lack of active military capability by Russia, if Putin was disbelieved, four NATO countries (bordering Ukraine) would have been well advised to firm up their own defenses, even though there are hundreds of miles between the front-line and their own territories. These countries are Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania.
In fact, only three of them have become involved (Hungary declined), but they have been joined by five others in providing materiel and other services to a non-NATO member. This is not part of what NATO should do, but as we have seen lately, if laws and treaties don't suit present imperatives, they can be swept aside with impunity. It would be incoherent to excoriate Putin for his lack of faith in the good intentions of NATO or Finland, given that background. A sentient being, not slavishly adhering to an anti-Russian narrative, might also recognize that, by implicitly rejecting neutrality and instead signing up to an alliance whose declared enemy has always been Russia, the Finns could be taken to be (de facto) initiating hostilities against Putin, given NATO's current activity.
Additionally, Article 10, which is misrepresented as a 'come one, come all” open door policy towards aspirant nations, instead requires member countries to decide whether allowing an application would advance the alliance's collective security. It's very difficult to see how acceding to Finland's request would do anything other than place them all at greater jeopardy, given this warning from Russia:
“Finland joining NATO will seriously harm bilateral Russian-Finnish relations and the maintenance of stability and security in the North European region. Russia will be forced to take retaliatory steps both of military-technical and of other nature in order to stop the threats to its national security that emerge as a result.”(59)
There is no credible threat to Finland and there hasn't been since World War II in which, lest we forget, they were perforce aligned with the Nazis. Neither is Sweden in any imminent danger. This despite the NATO secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, finding it difficult to relinquish the spotlight, indicating that NATO is indeed contemplating these applications seriously. He doesn't, however, appear to have asked all the member states, in typical authoritarian style, and this has blown back on him. All member states have to approve; Turkey, in this imbroglio at least, is the only adult in the room and will almost certainly say no.(60) For now, that is.
That still leaves the question of why Sweden and Finland, dedicatedly neutral for decades, decide to suddenly throw their hat in the ring and for Stoltenberg to behave in the manner of a man who's desperate for new friends, to hell with the consequences. If Finland was allowed to join and NATO stationed missiles on their soil, all of them pointing at Russia, Putin would be obliged to follow through on his promise of retaliation. Then, due to Article 5, every other NATO state would be duty bound to weigh in on the side of Finland and, hey presto, we'd have another world war, only this time it'd be between two nuclear powers.
There are several possible explanations, none of them reassuring. You may wish to subscribe to the theory that deems all of leaders and representatives stupid and, if you've ever wasted any of your precious time watching them speak, you would find plentiful evidence in support. I don't buy it, though. They may be out of touch and overly confident in their capabilities, but all the stupidity seems to serve the same purpose; doing us down. I look for other possible causes and it doesn't take much grey matter to find them.
For starters, the female Prime Ministers of both Finland and Sweden are members of the World Economic Forum. If this organisation was something other than what it was, this fact wouldn't be of interest. But the WEF has fingers in a great many pies and its leader is the author of books advocating The Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It would be fair to characterize the two heads of government as dyed-in-the-wool globalists, committed to finding ways to 'vaccinate' us all, combat the non existent climate crisis and utilize 'third way' problem solving. Any crisis that advances that agenda would be ruthlessly exploited. Something like refusing to pay the Russians for electricity would also fit the bill,(61) knowing that the consequences of that action would be more domestic angst capable of exploitation.
There's also the somewhat bizarre 'Polish Option'. From the outset, the Poles have been more involved that they needed to be. First they announced that they would be giving all their MiG-29 fighters to the US. The secret part of the arrangement was the part where the US then gives them to Ukraine. The Poles didn't want to give the Russians an official excuse to come after them.(62) The US then revealed the dastardly plan in a media interview, forcing Poland to rescind its offer, but not before its subterfuge was revealed to all and sundry.
Undeterred, the next Polish gambit involved a suggestion that NATO (or some other international structure, apparently) should conduct an armed humanitarian mission on Ukrainian soil.(63) What could possibly go wrong, other than NATO and Russian troops ending up in a shooting war? It seems that this plan was a little too explicit for the US, as enthusiasm within NATO was tepid, at best. Two months later, the Poles were at it again. This time, the American hand is visibly working the Polish dummy. Not content with the potential for a Finnish conflict to trigger Article 5, Washington has been instructing the Polish general staff to formulate plans to effectively erase the border between them and Ukraine and seize the western part of the country with Zelensky's approval.(64)
This would be a desperate plan, but one that would cause Putin problems. Any further missile attacks on the transportation hubs in western Ukraine, the portal for most of the military assistance being provided by the US, could then be construed as an attack on a NATO member. It doesn't have to make sense; Putin could argue that he is conducting a military operation against Ukraine and the Polish military shouldn't be in the country. It won't make any difference. Neither will the fact that two thirds of US voters oppose US boots on the ground in the Ukraine.(65) The US will be very keen not to lose face and be seen to gift another multi-billion dollar haul of military hardware to a stated enemy.
Forever War Or Proxy War? Or Both?
If an expanded war between Russia and NATO is a possible/probable aim, a proxy war that slowly bled Russia dry, or perhaps just another Forever War in the style of Iraq or Afghanistan is also in the picture. A quick look at each possibility, in turn. Is it possible that the West is attempting to trigger the former? You'd think not, wouldn't you? It's not smart to talk of taking out a major nuclear power. But you'd be wrong. Politicians and commentators in the US have been openly discussing just that.(66)
In their collective madness, they've done what people do when they want to convince themselves that something they really want can actually be achieved without the necessity for any kind of payment; they've selected the pros and ignored the cons. The pros include the fact that, by expanding NATO to Russia's borders, they have come close to nuclear primacy by massively reducing the time that Putin's military would have to respond to incoming nuclear missiles. They've forgotten that both the Russians and the Chinese have developed maneuverable, hypersonic missiles that may well restore parity and also the fact that there will be no winners in a nuclear war. The firestorms that result from nuclear strikes would likely be the biggest problem:
“The firestorms would loft the soot and the smoke into the stratosphere. This would block 70% of the solar energy reaching the earth, which would mean all harvests would end. This would destroy nearly all vegetative life, so that they direct nuclear effects in the northern hemisphere would be accompanied by the death of almost everyone in the southern hemisphere as well. Only a few people would survive...”(67)
While clearly an effective tactic to combat 'global warming', it can be seen that the collateral damage from nuclear conflict might outweigh the benefits. Continuing on a path that has the possibility, however remote, of triggering that outcome is clearly delusional. That doesn't mean it won't happen.
If that scenario is a little too much, what about a forever war instead? A proper one, this time, which would still qualify as a world war, just go easy on the nukes. By definition, this would surely have to be a proxy war, because an openly acknowledged conflict between NATO and Russia that didn't involve the threat of nuclear force, especially if one side were clearly on the way towards losing a conventional war, is illogical in the extreme. If, for instance, Finland did join NATO and then planted a missile field ten miles from their border with Russia and the Russians responded with targeted strikes, what then? Tank battles on the Polish plains, fighter pilots dueling in European skies; a modern upgrade on World War II? And for what? But, once again, just because it seems (or seemed) so unlikely, it doesn't mean it won't happen. The US military is busy predicting that the war will continue for years.(68)(69)
The US Secretary of Defense has made it clear that American policy has pivoted somewhat from their initially ardent insistence that they were helping Ukraine defend its sovereignty against the monstrous Russians. Now, it seems that the crippling of Russia as a world power is the aim.(70) As the Turkish Foreign Minster put it:
“There are countries within NATO that want the Ukraine war to continue. They see the continuation of the war as weakening Russia. They don't care much about the situation in Ukraine.”(71)
It's not as if the US political class is doing much to hide it. Here's Democrat lawmaker Adam Schiff:
“The United States aids Ukraine and her people, so that we can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here.”(72)
Appearances are still important, though. Note that the emphasis is on the US (NATO in all but name) aiding the Ukrainians. Aid can, of course, take many forms and as long as the sketchy elements are unofficial, there's plausible deniability. No-one would want to admit that there are American (and British) boots on the ground in Ukraine, although there undoubtedly are. It's incumbent upon us to understand what the US is actually providing the Ukrainians and how much control they exert over Zelensky.
Good Money After Bad
America is running Ukraine – not assisting, not supporting; running. As I write this, the $40 billion aid package has just passed the US Senate. Only 11 Republican senators voted against (out of 50),(73) to go with 57 in the lower house (out of 211);(74) the uniparty, in all its glory. The US has spent well over that amount in just seven months and the current funding only lasts until September this year.
Ukraine is completely dependent on the US to continue fighting. It's GDP is only $155 billion and the economy is not able to service the costs of the war. Without the money from Biden, Zelensky would have to sue for peace immediately. And what's the money being used for? Weapons, certainly, but these are stockpiles that are already in Europe, part of the existing US NATO commitment to defense of its member countries. Some of it is obsolete, it's of all different calibers and it's a logistical nightmare for the Ukrainian military who, if any can still be found, will be required to learn how to use it all. At least $21 billion will be accounted for in this way (75) and so much materiel has already been sent that the US has depleted its own reserves,(76) which gives the appearance of being an own goal if the stated mission is to run down the Russian military instead.
But the aid will also pay the salaries of Ukrainian officials and military personnel (77) and, I kid you not, their pension contributions because, apparently, the American taxpayer has a duty to do so.(78) It must be a comfort to Jewish American taxpayers to know that their taxes are making a contribution to the pay of neo-Nazis in Ukraine. And all of American is effectively paying for the privilege of increasing their exposure to nuclear war; sounds like a bargain.
Just a reminder; a belligerent in a modern war is a nation which surrenders neutrality and does one or more of the following:
Engages in economic warfare.
Engages in technological warfare.
Engages in kinetic warfare.
It's getting increasingly difficult to see the dividing line between a proxy war and one in which the US is an active participant, as they are already fulfilling at least two of the three above criteria and the risk of further escalation is ever present. One Democrat Congressman went so far as to confirm that the US is at war on television.(79)
Disruption/Distraction
Picking apart all the reasons why involvement in a long running conflict with Russia in Ukraine serves the purposes of the globalists running the western world is tricky. There are a number of obvious motivations, but assembling them in order of precedence is an exercise in guesswork. Nonetheless, 'wins' for Western regimes include the following.
Riches On Offer
The weapons that have already been sent to Ukraine and those that are yet to be dispatched will need to be replaced and that will take yet more money so, in addition to the existing 'aid' packages and the $813 billion defense budget, the American taxpayer – or, more accurately, the children and grandchildren of the current American taxpayer – will be footing the bill once again and favored contractors within the military industrial complex will feast mightily at the trough.(80) If the Ukrainians can manage to last out until September, by the simple expedient of allowing themselves to be used as cannon fodder, there will be another 'aid' package and yet more funds flowing to the likes of Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin.(81) The fact that the materiel that is sent is mostly either blown up on arrival or captured by the Russians and used against Ukraine is not something that CNN or the BBC will be keen to make their lead story.(82)
Silencing Dissent
A foreign escapade of this nature is also a good way of identifying enemies of the regime, the better to demonize and silence them. When a country is at war, dissidents are transformed into traitors. Zelensky is showing the US how it's done and, already, there are political voices calling for unity in a time of (undeclared) war.(83) When combined with recent developments like the establishment of what is effectively an Orwellian Ministry of Truth and the constant attempts to define misinformation as anything the regime doesn't want to be true and therefore wishes to suppress, it isn't difficult to see the direction of travel. I would expect to see more state censorship of alternative viewpoints, whether within the law or without.
Pfizer Document Dump
The FDA is currently obligated to disclose all the documentation which it received from Pfizer and which informed its decision to grant Emergency Use Authorisation. This includes all the clinical trial data. The disclosures are proving to be as scandalous as sceptics anticipated, including the likelihood of faked data and corrupt decision-making; for example, there were 1,200 deaths in the study, out of only 39,000 participants.(84) This will be the subject of another essay. Currently, however, the story is being memory holed and the constant propaganda about the Ukrainian conflict assists in distracting the eye.
For those who doubt whether the regime would spend multi billions of dollars in Ukraine in order to cover up their own domestic malfeasance, consider this; their Covid narrative was already falling apart over issues such as mask and 'vaccine' mandates and it transpires that, in addition to the 74.2 million 'unvaccinated', there are a further 38 million who refused the second dose and a further 119 million who had the second dose but refused the booster.(85) That's 231 million unboosted Americans. These numbers don't indicate a population in thrall to the message that was rammed down their throat by the regime for two whole years. The big question was starting to be asked; are the government stupid or corrupt?
The true history of the Covid 'pandemic', in all its grimness, is an Achilles heel for the globalists. If the entire story were to reach the mainstream consciousness, it would not only be hugely damaging to a number of individuals; it would also lay bare their agenda and serve to undermine any other crisis they either had advocated or were in the process of advocating, such as climate change or the Ukraine conflict.
To Usher In The Great Reset
I believe this to be the biggest game in town and the primary objective of the Ukrainian misadventure. That's not say that NATO expansion, increased censorship, greed and a desire to distract from all things Covid don't have their place in the globalists' hierarchy of needs.
The economic effects of the war will build on the devastation that had already been contrived prior to February. The Ukrainian crop harvest will allegedly be halved, due to the standard current impediments - shortages of diesel and fertilizer – plus the additional burden of a bombed out infrastructure.
Figure 4 Projected Ukrainian harvest yield
The EU is using the war as cover for introducing a complete import ban on Russian oil, which Hungary is currently threatening to veto.(86) This is not going to bankrupt Russia; the ruble is more valuable now than it was before sanctions were imposed and the Russian economy is proving more resilient than wishful thinking 'experts' anticipated.(87) There is reason to believe that, in time, further adaptions will ease the situation further. So, why would the EU embark on a course of action that will exacerbate the energy crisis in Western Europe, while merely bruising the Russians? Because it forces us to use less energy, as it simply won't be available, and that ushers in the Green New Deal, whether we like it or not. One vital cog in the Great Reset is up and running. And if it's viable in the US, it'll be coming to a country near you soon enough. That's the beauty of globalization. Of course, an alternative explanation is that they're stupid; again.
In the past year, the normalcy promised by Biden has proved to be chimera. Instead, economic decline, censorship, societal upheaval and, now, a fuel crisis begetting a food crisis and the risk of an open conflict with a nuclear power have been the order of the day. All of this was avoidable. In the year prior, the lock-downs prompted yet another vast transfer of wealth from the middle class to the elites, to add to the one that occurred in the last financial crisis in 2008/09; this time, the world's 2,365 billionaires got 54% richer, adding over $4 trillion to their coffers,(88) while tens of thousands of smaller businesses were going to the wall.
A war, as well as providing the opportunity to target domestic dissidents, also allows the regime to introduce measures that would be otherwise unacceptable in peacetime. This will inevitably result in the people ceding yet more freedoms to the state, on a 'temporary' basis (until it's not), and in the government imposing harsher measures on the people, such as rationing, censorship and even martial law.(89) Obviously, people with the right ideas should be able to access more resources that the deplorables; the best way to accomplish that would be some sort of social credit system, don't you think? It isn't difficult to see how the various threads of the Great Reset can be woven into just such a reworking of societies across the Western world. But it'll all be worth it, because we have to 'stand' with Ukraine.
Finale
It is clear that the US has turned its face against peace in the Ukraine, a peace that could have been readily obtainable and still might be and, given the fact that America is paying all the Ukrainian bills, it's what Biden wants that counts – not Zelensky.
This screed is not a defense of Putin – Ukraine should have the ability to do whatever it wants, join whatever organisation it wants. Russia should put up and shut up. That is the reality if we are to be defenders of rights. Realpolitik should not be the benchmark – philosophies and abstract rights should be paramount.
I could leave it there, but that would be to ignore the practical reality of what's happened; not what should have happened, what has actually happened. And this alternative universe is populated by fallible human beings, by a history of conflict and by the implicit threat of more. To examine the reality, to analyse cause and effect and apportion blame on that basis, does not invalidate the principle of sovereignty that Putin has trampled over. The moral ambivalence of the Ukrainian government does not excuse Russian actions, but it does explain them. At present, however, in this binary world, any nuanced take on the situation is impossible.
It requires an act of willful self deception to refer to a country that was the subject of a US backed coup just eight short years ago as a democracy, particularly as a further assault on democracy is currently underway. If one closes one's eyes and crosses one's fingers, it is possible to assert that Zelensky's election in 2019 was 'free and fair', but given that the manifesto that formed the centrepiece of his appeal – namely, a cessation of hostilities in the East and a negotiation with Putin – had been abandoned well before Russia's 'special action', any lingering claims to legitimacy have been swept away, along with the political opposition and the free press.
And the Ukraine has been a US client state for well over a decade. This means that America has been complicit in the Ukrainian decision to ignore the Minsk Protocols and to continue military action against the breakaway republics. It's conveniently forgotten now, but the first Trump impeachment attempt in 2019 had as its subject an alleged threat by the President to impede the flow of weapons from the US to Zelensky, weapons that allowed the war to continue. Further, when the neo-Nazis openly threatened Zelensky if he opened negotiations with the Russians, the US did nothing, when they could have backed the President.
The greatest danger will come soon, when the US regime approaches the point where they will no longer be able to hide the fact that the Russians have won. At present, the methodical nature of Putin's operation has enabled the administration and the media to obscure the facts on the ground, but that cannot last indefinitely. There is nothing in the behavior of the political class on this (or any other) issue that suggests that they will simply pack up their tent and go home, tail between their legs. Notwithstanding the advance excuses given to persuade us that wearing down Russia was the mission, rather than a Ukrainian victory, they will still be seen to have gambled and lost. This prospect will not be welcomed, especially in an election year, which means that either another distraction will be required or NATO will go to war with Russia.
The only real glimmer of light is the report that the US Secretary of Defense has taken it upon himself to call his Russian counterpart and request an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine.(90) Why on earth he would do that when the Ukrainians are winning and therefore worth propping up with $40 billion of taxpayers money is anybody's guess. Unless, of course, they aren't winning and are, in fact, on the brink of capitulation. I suspect this to be the case.
On balance, I would be very surprised if the judgement is that the crisis has already outlived its usefulness. The 'aid' package has just been approved, the energy and food crises have not fully landed yet and a more prolonged conflict would help excuse the disasters still to come. Furthermore, domestic strictures have not yet been leveraged and our military leaders have explicitly stated that they expect the conflict to last many more months, if not years. The time is ripe for a false flag event that will provide the pretext for ever deeper NATO involvement. As always, I hope I'm wrong.
The next essay will address the upcoming takeover of your health service by the World Health Organisation, that bastion of democracy and accountability. It's another one of those trivial matters that the media can't be bothered with, what with all the other drama.
Citations
(1) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg93669/html/CHRG-114hhrg93669.htm
(2) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/17/missile-defence-shield-barack-obama
(8) https://asiatimes.com/2022/02/war-looms-as-us-and-kiev-ignore-minsk-ii-protocols/
(9) https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/04/how-zelensky-made-peace-with-neo-nazis/
(10) https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/02/11/the-resurgence-of-nazism-in-ukraine/
(11) https://thegrayzone.com/2018/10/30/c14-ukrainian-nazi-kiev-police-america-house/
(13) https://amgreatness.com/2022/04/25/nazis-in-ukraine/
(14)
(15) https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/reactions-in-ukraine-to-pandora-papers-revelations.html
(16)
(17) https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/04/how-zelensky-made-peace-with-neo-nazis/
(19) https://itd.rada.gov.ua/billInfo/Bills/Card/39307
(23) https://thesaker.is/a-disturbing-trend-in-the-ukraine/
(24) https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-arrests-ukrainian-blogger-accused-by-kyiv-of-high-treason/
(26) https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/us-intel-helped-ukraine-sink-massive-russian-warship/
(27) The_Back_Channel, William J Burns
(28) https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partnership/
(29) https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/17/blame-putin-yes-but-also-blame-biden/
(30) https://stephenlendman.org/2022/01/25/us-controlled-ukraine-prepping-to-invade-donbass/
(32) https://expose-news.com/2022/03/28/why-did-the-us-fund-biolabs-in-ukraine/
(33) https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/03/11/1566-m11.html
(35) https://greatgameindia.com/ukraine-biolabs-controlled-epidemics/
(36) https://expose-news.com/2022/04/13/us-dod-contract-covid-research-ukraine-nov-2019/
(37) https://expose-news.com/2022/04/18/germanys-military-biological-activity-in-ukraine/
(38) https://www.planet-today.com/2022/03/dr-francis-boyle-nato-and-west-have.html
(39)
(40) https://expose-news.com/2022/04/17/putins-demilitarisation-and-denazification-of-ukraine/
(41) https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/03/20/ukra-m20.html
(42) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/russia-exploits-ukraines-western-flank/
(44) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/rickards-ive-never-heard-so-many-lies
(46) https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/24/british-intelligence-ukraine-false-flag/
(49) https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220331-ukraine-russia-video-prisoners-of-war
(52) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/31/world/europe/ukraine-spies-saboteurs.html
(53) https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kyiv-satellite-town-bucha-recaptured-160229620.html
(54) https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3445989-bucha-liberated-from-russian-invaders-mayor.html
(55)
(56) https://amgreatness.com/2022/04/09/who-really-committed-war-crimes-in-bucha/
(57) https://www.rt.com/russia/551210-russian-military-nuclear-station-incident/
(58) https://larouchepub.com/pr/2022/20220513_russian_response.html
(59) Ditto
(61) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/russia-cut-power-supply-finland-tomorrow/
(62) https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/08/whos-paying-these-guys/
(64) https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-threat-of-polish-involvement-in-ukraine/
(66)
.
(67) Ditto
(70) https://expose-news.com/2022/05/04/ukraine-nato-aim-is-to-destroy-russian-military/
(71) https://dailyangle.com/articles/the-biden-austin-forever-war-plan-against-putin
(72)
(73)
(74)
(75) https://www.revolver.news/2022/05/biden-neocons-stop-funding-ukraine-current-thing-forever-war/
(77) https://www.revolver.news/2022/05/biden-neocons-stop-funding-ukraine-current-thing-forever-war/
(79)
(80) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/long-lucrative-bloody-road-world-war-3
(81) http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2022/april/25/the-ukraine-war-is-a-racket/
(82) Ditto
(83)
(85) https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/05/04/74million-unvaccinated-231million-not-boosted-usa/
(86) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/real-reason-behind-eus-drive-embargo-russian-oil
(87) https://southfront.org/the-economist-dispels-russian-economic-collapse-narrative/
(88) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/billionaire-wealth-covid-pandemic-12-trillion-jeff-bezos-wealth-tax/
(89) https://amgreatness.com/2022/04/04/for-the-great-reset-to-succeed-the-elite-need-world-war-iii/
(90) https://nypost.com/2022/05/13/lloyd-austin-wants-russia-ukraine-ceasefire-in-sergei-shoigu-call/
Figure 1 https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/04/how-zelensky-made-peace-with-neo-nazis/
Figure 3 https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2022-04-11/economic-war-against-real-economy
Figure 4 https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/shocking-estimates-show-ukraines-crop-harvest-could-be-halved