Connect with us

Russia

Why did Vladimir Putin (probably) save Volodymyr Zelensky’s life?

Published

on

According to Ukrainian Government officials, a Chechen team led by Chechnya’s leader, an ardent supporter of Vladimir Putin, was about to assassinate Ukraine’s President Volodyrmyr Zelensky, but Russia’s Government passed along to Ukraine’s Government the information that this team were in Ukraine and were intending to assassinate him; and, so, that team were killed by Ukraine’s Government forces.

On February 26th, Reuters headlined “Chechen leader, a close Putin ally, says his forces have deployed to Ukraine” and reported that, “Ramzan Kadyrov, the leader of Russia’s Chechnya region and an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, said on Saturday that Chechen fighters had been deployed to Ukraine and urged Ukrainians to overthrow their government.”

On 1 March, Axios headlined “Zelensky assassination plot foiled, Ukrainian authorities say”, and reported that:

Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council chief Oleksiy Danilov announced during a briefing Tuesday that Ukrainian forces had foiled an assassination plot against President Volodymyr Zelensky, according to a Telegram post from Ukrainian authorities. …

According to the Telegram message, Danilov said that a unit of elite Chechen special forces, known as Kadyrovites, had been behind the plot and had subsequently been “eliminated.”

               •             “We are well aware of the special operation that was to take place directly by the Kadyrovites to eliminate our president,” Danilov said, per the post.

               •             Ukrainian authorities had been tipped off about the plot by members of Russia’s Federal Security Service who do not support the war, he added.

On 2 March, the Washington Post headlined an extremely brief (150-word) news-report “Assassination plot against Zelensky foiled and unit sent to kill him ‘destroyed,’ Ukraine says”, and reported that, “A recent alleged assassination plot against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was foiled over the weekend and the Chechen servicemen sent from Russia were ‘destroyed,’ a Ukrainian security leader said.” Danilov is quoted there as having asserted that he could reveal only “that we have received information from the FSB, who today do not want to take part in this bloody war.” The Washington Post’s modifying the source Ukrainian news-account by referring to it as having been about an “alleged assassination plot” (i.e., expressing doubt regarding the truthfulness of what this Ukrainian official had said) was quite striking for a newspaper (such as the WP) that had previously accepted unquestioningly the statements that the Ukrainian Government has been making about the Russian Government ever since February 2014.

On March 7th, the London Times bannered “This war will be a total failure, FSB whistleblower says”, and reported:

Spies in Russia’s infamous security apparatus were kept in the dark about President Putin’s plan to invade Ukraine, according to a whistleblower who described the war as a “total failure” that could be compared only to the collapse of Nazi Germany. … The report said the FSB was being blamed for the failure of the invasion but had been given no warning of it and was unprepared to deal with the effects of crippling sanctions.

There are two very different plausible ways to interpret (or explain) all of this. Neither way fits the standard press-accounts about Russia’s Government, and about Vladimir Putin in particular. (And that might be the reason why the WP was reluctant to believe this Ukrainian official’s statement there.)

One such possibility is that what has been quoted from the official is entirely true, and that Russia’s FSB (Federal Security Bureau), which is the successor to the Soviet Union’s KGB, was actually violating Putin’s command. Putin had “spent 16 years in the Soviet security service, rising to the rank of KGB lieutenant colonel before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991”, so that Yuri Andropov had been heading the KGB at the time when Putin first entered the organization, and Vladimir Kryuchkov was heading it at the time when an FSB Lieutenant Colonel, Mr. Putin, quit it. (Kryuchkov had just then led the coup-attempt to overthrow the nation’s leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Putin has said that this was the reason why Putin had quit the organization: he rejected what his organization’s leader was trying to do.) 

Consequently, if the news-accounts of this recent assassination-attempt against Zelensky are entirely true, then Putin would, on March 1st, have been actually defeating an FSB action that was in violation of his own command, and, if that is so, then it would have been followed immediately by Putin’s accusing of having committed treason, the FSB’s organization, the management who were above the assassination-attempt’s direct perpetrators, all the way up to the organization’s very top, Alexander Bortnikov, about whom Wikipedia says:

On 22 February 2022, in response to Russia recognising the independence of separatist regions in eastern Ukraine during the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, US President Joe Biden announced he was imposing sanctions on several Russian individuals and banks, including Bortnikov and his son, Denis, who also serves as deputy president of VTB Bank.[9]

U.S. media portray Bortnikov as the man who has “delivered the goods for Putin,” and even as being “Putin’s Top Enabler.” And the BBC headlined on March 3rd “Who’s in Putin’s inner circle and running the war?” and they asserted there that “Kremlin watchers say the president trusts information he receives from the security services more than any other source, and Alexander Bortnikov is seen as being part of the Putin inner sanctum.” There has been no news-report that Putin has, in any way, demoted or otherwise acted against him (far less accuse of treason) — nor against Ramzan Kadyrov.

So: how likely is it that this interpretation of the Ukrainian Government’s public statements about the assassination-attempt is correct, true?

The other (and, in my opinion, far likelier) interpretation is that Putin (and the FSB hierarchy) had saved Zelensky’s life, but had done it in a way that enables Zelensky’s Government to present the matter as having, instead, been a ‘Russian’ attempt to kill him, and therefore as Zelensky’s heroically leading Ukrainians against Russia, and against Putin’s invasion of Zelensky’s country.

This interpretation makes sense to me because the actual overwhelmingly top source of the assassination-danger to Zyenskiyy has been — not only now, but ever since he became elected — Ukraine’s racist-fascist or nazi anti-Russian forces, which have been demanding that Ukraine invade Donbass, and which have supplied the troops to do it

Here is how this danger, the real one, developed, even before Zelensky became President:

On 13 July 2015, the Ukraine Human Rights organization headlined “BLOODY STRUGGLE FOR POWER IN UKRAINE – RIGHT SECTOR PROVIDES ULTIMATUM TO POROSHENKO” and reported: 

In the last few days, the Right Sector, under the leadership of Dmitry Yarosh, attempted to assassinate a political personality, as well as tried political storms. Specially in the Western Ukraine city of Mukachevo the situation was worse. The Right Sector continued on Sunday, 12, July 2015, several police cars were set on fire as they tried to murder the member of the Ukrainian Rada (Parliament) Mikhailo Lanyo. Three people were killed (two of them were members of Right Sector) and thirteen injured (four of them were members of Right Sector).

According to reports, barricades and checkpoints were erected by the “right sector” in several parts of the Ukraine and around Kiev. Around 100 of the right-wing battalions “Azov” and “Aidar” have surrounded the administration building of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry in the central Ukrainian city of Poltava.

On 27 May 2019, the “Weapon News” website headlined “Yarosh has threatened the new President of Ukraine, Zelensky”, and reported that:

Verkhovna Rada Deputy and leader of the “Ukrainian volunteer army” (UDA), formed on the basis of the banned-in-Russia “Right sector,” Dmitry Yarosh, said that the new President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky “can lose life if you betray your country and those [of Yarosh’s forces who were] killed in the Donbass”. About this Jarosch said in an interview with “Obozrevatel”:

“Zelensky in his inaugural speech said that he was ready to lose ratings, popularity, position [by reaching a peaceful settlement with the breakaway Donbass]. No, he will lose his life — will be hanging on some tree on Khreshchatyk, if we betray Ukraine and those people [Yaroshe’s forces] who are in revolution, and the war dead [the Right Sector troops that had been killed fighting against Donbass].”

The leader of the nationalists said that he had several times tried to contact Zelensky, but wasn’t able to. Yarosh said that he is very willing to drive with the new President to the front, where, in the past five years, he’d told him about the fighting.

Tatiana Chornovil said that Zelensky is an agent of Yanukovych [the democratically elected President of Ukraine whom the Right Sector had led in overthrowing in February 2014], and called for a new Maidan [a new Presidential overthrow]. The same statement was made by Vice-speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, Paruby.

On 17July 2015, I had headlined “THE WHO’S WHO AT THE TOP OF THE COUP” and wrote:

U.S. President Barack Obama (via his State Department official Victoria Nuland, and Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt) relied chiefly upon Andrei Parubiy (“the Commandant of Maidan”) to be the CEO of the Ukrainian coup in February 2014, and upon Dmitriy Yarosh to be the coup’s COO — its Chief Operating Officer, which in this case was not so much an executive function as a military-organizing function. Yarosh subsequently emerged to be the COO of Ukraine’s “ATO” or ‘Anti Terrorist Operation,’ the Government’s operation to eliminate the residents in the areas of Ukraine that had voted 90%+ for the man whom Obama’s coup overthrew: Ukraine’s democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych. (If those residents were to vote in future Ukrainian national elections, then a Ukrainian leader like Yanukovych could easily be elected again; so, eliminating the residents in those areas was essential in order to make Obama’s coup stick.) Yarosh was not only the enforcer during the coup itself, but he became the enforcer in its essential follow-through, the “ATO.” (It’s known also as the war against Donbass, or Ukraine’s civil war, among other names or titles of reference.)

Yarosh, who has been the top enforcer during the Maidan demonstrations, and throughout the coup, and in its aftermath through to the ongoing Ukrainian war against the ‘Terrorists’ who reject the Obama-imposed regime, has long been considered one of the top racist-fascists, or ideological nazis, in Ukraine; but, until now, no one has presented any serious case that he’s also an anti-Semite (like the original nazi political party, Hitler’s Nazi Party, were); his public racism has instead always been solely against Russians — which type of racism has become far more acceptable to Europeans and to Americans than is anti-Semitism. …

I previously had headlined about the Russian-hating Yarosh, “Meet Ukraine’s Master Mass-Murderer: Dmitriy Yarosh,” and I described there his key role both during both the February 2014 Ukrainian coup and also the 2 May 2014 massacre of anti-coup demonstrators inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, as well as in the ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign in Ukraine’s former Donbass region by the regime that Obama, with Yarosh’s key assistance, had brought to power in Ukraine. However, I mentioned nothing regarding the possibility of Yarosh’s being not just anti-Russian but also possibly anti-Semitic, because I had found nothing to indicate that he is anti-Semitic, except an alleged transcribed conversation that he had had in Turgenef Restaurant in Kiev on 25 February 2014, which conversation, if it occurred, was held while the February 20-26 coup d’etat that overthrew Yanukovych was ending. Like virtually all top Ukrainian politicians have been, Yanukovych was corrupt, but he had been democratically elected with support from 90%+ of Donbass’s voters, and 75% of Odessa’s and Crimea’s — which is the reason why those regions rejected the coup-regime, and which is also the reason why the post-coup Government wants desperately to kill those people. Yarosh’s highly trained and disciplined paramilitaries had dressed during the coup as if they were state security troops, and they fired down upon the Maidan demonstrators and police, in what’s called in the trade a “false flag” attack — one that’s designed to appear to have been perpetrated by the side you’re intending to defeat, so as to deceive the public about who had caused the violence and thus get your enemy to be blamed (by your own electorate) for the bloodshed, and thereby unite your country to fear your chosen (typically foreign) enemy and so to be willing to invade them. Adolf Hitler had most prominently pioneered the false-flag technique, both in his burning of the Reichstag, and in his setting up the incident that became his excuse to invade Poland in 1939. Dmitriy Yarosh is a proven master of this craft.

That conversation, as transcribed, was between Yarosh, who is the head of the Right Sector party, and his friend Oleg Tyagnibok, who, along with Andreiy Parubiy, headed the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, which had changed its name in 2004 to the “Freedom” or Svoboda Party, at the suggestion of the U.S. CIA, in order to make its members (the members of Ukraine’s leading nazi party) more acceptable to U.S. and European publics, which (because of WW II) don’t have a favorable opinion of its model: Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist Party of Germany. (However, both the Right Sector party and the Svoboda party are often quite blatant about their admiration of Adolf Hitler and of his Party.) In this alleged conversation, which occurred (if it did) two days prior to Parubiy becoming appointed as the coup-regime’s chief of State Security (the SBU) and Yarosh becoming Parubiy’s #2, Tyagnibok suggested to Yarosh that because EU officials “called me an anti-Semite and a Russophobe,” Yarosh would be a good person to enter the Presidential contest instead of Tyagnibok, but Yarosh said he didn’t want that, because he already had all the weapons and his real aim was to be in the position to control Ukraine backstage by virtue of the Right Sector’s military force that he had trained, organized, and controlled. (The major sources of his organization’s funding are unknown, but he must have gotten lots of support from the CIA and associated sources, as well as from billionaires such as George Soros and Ihor Kolomoysky who were big backers of the coup.) He said that his objective was that, “my guys have the SBU.” As things turned out afterward, this is precisely what he became, because Parubiy was quite happy to have his militarily more competent subordinate, Yarosh, actually run paramilitary matters: Yarosh had had decades of experience training and commanding paramilitaries.

As for Parubiy himself, wikipedia notes his key political importance to the Maidan and its aftermath: “He was coordinator of the volunteer security corps for the mainstream protesters.[17] He was then appointed Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine.[6]” So: without both Parubiy (the co-head of Ukraine’s main nazi party) as the political coordinator, and Yarosh (the head of the other, more military, of Ukraine’s two nazi parties) as the military coordinator, Obama wouldn’t have been able to do it; but Obama also needed the State Department’s Victoria Nuland, who gave instructions to America’s Ukraine Ambassador Geoffery Pyatt. And that’s how the coup was done — plus the CIA, of course, working from the U.S. Embassy.

So, that is where the real threat to assassinate Zelensky actually comes from.

This is known to Zelensky. But still the question exists as to WHY Putin would want to protect Zelensky’s life. I think that there is a very reasonable explanation of that:

As everyone knows, Putin has said and repeated, many times, that his invasion of Ukraine is in order to re-establish Ukraine as being a neutral nation, not as being a potential launch-site for U.S. missiles less than 7-minute-flight-time from nuking Moscow. He doesn’t want U.S. missiles in Ukraine any more than America’s President JFK had wanted Soviet missiles in Cuba only 20-minute flight-time from nuking Washington. So, this is Putin’s way of stopping it from happening (given that both the U.S. and its NATO have refused even so much as to merely consider prohibiting Ukraine from joining NATO).

But, ever since Obama’s coup grabbing Ukraine in 2014 (in which Yarosh’s forces were used as the leaders], the propaganda against Russia, and against Russians, has been almost as intense in Ukraine, as the propaganda against Jews was in Nazi Germany, and has been very effective. For example: During 2003-2009, only around 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership, while around 55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.” Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup, “Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes, one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.” That ceaseless and intense post-coup propaganda against Russia had a profound effect.

Putin therefore knows that he will have no other choice than to retain as much of Ukraine’s existing leadership as will be possible consistent with denazifying that country. Consequently, Zelensky himself would probably be the best person to lead such a restored Ukraine. It would free Zelensky from what he knows to be the biggest threat against him — and from what had always been prohibiting him from complying with the Minsk II accords. The nazis had always made clear that they’d kill him if he did any such thing. And this is the reason why Putin has protected Zelensky’s life. But, then, the question arises: Did Putin really allow some of his Government’s own forces to be sacrificed, killed, in order to protect Zelensky? It would be a small price to pay, for the potential gains that are to be won. Similarly, the anti-nazi U.S. President FDR had sacrificed America’s naval forces at Pearl Harbor in order to be able to get America into WW II in time to become able to prevent Hitler from conquering, ultimately, the entire world. This is the way wars are. And the post-WW-II nazi America had started, even as early as 24 February 1990, to make clear to its vassal-nation leaders that though the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact would soon all end, the Cold War on America’s side would secretly continue until Russia itself becomes conquered. Putin knows this; he has mentioned it often.

Regarding the post-war Ukraine: The nazi forces in Ukraine come mainly from the country’s far northwest (around Lviv — the city to which America just recently relocated its Ukrainian Embassy), bordering and near to Poland; and, so, that area will probably become a new country, which will be firmly in America’s orbit (the long-term Obama win from all of this). However, as much of Ukraine as is reliably NOT nazi will probably be the country that Zelensky — or whomever is to lead the post-war Ukraine’s Government — will then be leading. Almost certainly, those borders, and those two new parts of the former Ukraine, will be central topics in the negotiations to establish a peaceful Ukraine — unless, of course, Russia loses this war, in which case the entire world will lose, and U.S.-led nazism (the post-WW-II form of nazism) will ultimately end up consuming everyone.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

Continue Reading
Comments

Russia

Why We Need to Acknowledge Russia’s Security Concerns

Published

on

Image source: kremlin.ru

At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the United States was able to avoid nuclear war over the placement in Cuba of nuclear Short-Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBM), and Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM).  This was done by giving the then Soviet Union a private assurance that the United States would remove its IRBMs from Turkey, 6 months after the missiles in Cuba were removed.  The United States kept its promise. 

In 1990, the United States gave the Soviet Union another private assurance, much like the private assurance given in 1962.  The United States promised the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand one inch eastward if the Soviet Union would allow West and East Germany to reunite, and that the newly united Germany would be able to remain in NATO.

The website National Security Archive goes further than the LA Times article cited above.  Several leaders of the NATO alliance made private and public promises that NATO would not expand towards the East.

While other news stories and articles decry this promise, the National Archives provides both public statements and written memoranda between NATO members about not expanding NATO eastward.

The Soviet Union relying on the history of the United States in keeping its word, agreed to German unification.   

Unlike the private assurance given the Soviet Union in 1962 however, the United States broke its word, and advanced NATO to the very frontiers of Russia.  It is this duplicity that is the seminal moment that resulted in the war between Russia and Ukraine.

Russia’s Paranoia

Russia is the world’s most invaded country in the world.  But the worst invasion was the Mongol invasion which lasted from 1240 AD until 1480 AD.  For 240 years the Mongol Horde brutalized the Russia people beyond belief.  Every spring, the Mongols would raid the Russian countryside, kidnapping your Russian women and young Russian boys for sale in the slave markets of Constantinople.  Indeed, the word slave comes from the root word, Slavic.

It was only by the Duchy of Moscow becoming more brutal than the Horde, were the Russian people able to throw off the yoke of the Tartars.  Ivan the Third, the Prince of Moscow, refused to pay the Tartar tax in 1480, and prevented the Mongol Horde from crossing the Ugra River.  Akmet of the Golden Hordes was supposed to be supported by troops from Lithuania, who had been promised Russian territory by the Tartars.  However, Ivan the Third had thoughtfully provided discontented nobles in Lithuania money and troops, which forced the ruler of Lithuania to stay at home fighting off a rebellion inside his own country rather than invading Russia.

This event, the Battle of the Ugra River, marked the end of Tartar rule of Russia.

In the last 225 years, Russia has been invaded by the West 4 times.  3 of these invasions were of an existential nature.  It should then be no surprise that Russia is sensitive to a large military force near her borders.

The Euromaidan Movement and Overthrow

Of a Democratically Elected Government in Ukraine

After years of watching NATO forces inch closer to her natural, and undefendable, borders, the Euromaidan movement overthrew a democratically elected government over the government’s decision to move into the Russian economic orbit, rather than to the orbit of the European Union.  With the loss of the Crimea to a possible member of NATO and Russia’s last defensible natural obstacle to a government hostile to Russia, Vladimir Putin sent troops to occupy the Crimea, beginning the countdown to war.

The War in Ukraine

To say that Russia has botched its invasion plans would be an understatement.  While Russia planned for a quick knockout blow, the bungling of its logistical abilities has allowed Ukraine to fend off Russia’s initial assault, and Russia has had to reorient its offense to the eastern part of Ukraine, and abandon for the moment Russia’s attempt to capture and occupy the Ukrainian capital Kiev.

However, given Russia’s immense advantage in terms of the number of soldiers, armor, and superior resources, eventually Russia will be able to defeat Ukraine, despite the tremendous amount of military and financial aid being given to Ukraine.  Russia will never give up this fight as it sees the advance of NATO as an existential threat.  And Russia sees a Ukraine tied to the West as a threat to its polity.

World Economic Consequences

The economic damage to the world economy is just now beginning to be felt.  The price for a barrel of oil has skyrocketed and averages well over $100 a barrel, with no end in sight to higher increases.  Grain shipments from Russia and Ukraine have been disrupted.  This is going to cause a serious shortage of grain available to the Middle East and to parts of Southeast Asia in late 2022 and in 2023.  The shortage of grain will cause famine conditions throughout the developing world, fueling violence and political instability with consequences no one can foresee. 

In addition, with Russia being a major exporter of fertilizer, many countries who depend on the fertilizer to feed their populations will not be able to do so.  This is also going to cause major economic and political upheavals world-wide.

Russia is beginning to cut of the supply of natural gas to some European Union countries, and more are sure to follow.  Russia has announced the cut off of gas to Finland after Finland made application to join NATO.

These economic challenges will only spread worldwide, bringing about a global recession that was completely avoidable.

While Russia is not blameless in the worldwide disruptions happening now, the arrogance of the political elite of the West is just as much to blame.

A larger country attacking a smaller country in search of national security is old news in world history.  As recent as 2003, a large country attacked a small one in what it believed was in its interests on national security.  I am speaking of the attack on Iraq in 2003 by the United States.  If the United States can attack a smaller country far from its borders in the name of national security, than why is it wrong for Russia to do the same?

How Russia Moving Closer to China May Cause War in the Indo-Pacific Region

A more serious consequence is Russia moving closer to China, even though China is Russia’s more serious threat in the future.  China has never given up her claim of the territory lost to Russia due to the Treaty of Aigun signed by Russia and China in 1858.

With the United States providing large amounts of military equipment, ammunition and other military aid, the stockpile of munitions for the United States military is being depleted, particularly in Javelins, Stingers, and howitzers (along with ammunition).

China at this time appears to be waiting patiently and observing the trends underway in Ukraine.  If China feels that the military supplies available to the United States military has been depleted, China may copy the Japanese aggression in World War Two in taking advantage of a momentary weakness on the part of Western powers preoccupied with Russia and the war in Ukraine.

A Possible Political Solution to the Crisis

One of the prerequisites of any treaty ending this war has to accept the realpolitik fact that Russia is not going to give up the Crimea, nor the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics.  Russia sees the Crimea as its last natural obstacle to any invasion of southern Russia. 

The people in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions are overwhelmingly in favor of uniting with Russia, and broke away from Ukraine after a democratically elected government was overthrown by violence.   A UN supervised election in these areas would give legitimacy to the political absorption of these areas into Russia.

Compensation to Ukraine should be offered by Russia, with the proviso that Russia respects Ukraine’s decision to turn her face towards the West.

Dr. Julian Spencer-Churchill, an associate professor of international relations at Concordia University at Montreal Canada recently published his views on a political settlement of the Russian-Ukraine War.  This link will take the reader to the article published in RealClearDefense.com.

The reader should keep in mind that China is the real danger to world democracy, not Russia.  An attempt must be made to bring Russia into the European family.  It is imperative that Russia be wooed, not forced to come to terms with the West.  With Russia firmly tied to the West, both economically and politically, the chance for war in the Indo-Pacific Region is reduced significantly.

A case in point for such a policy is the political union between England and Scotland in 1707.

A noble English Lord observed several Scottish Lords celebrating the Act of Union in 1707.  The English Lord approached the Scottish Lords and asked why they seemed to be so happy with the Union.  The English Lord knew some of these Scotsman had fought bitterly for Scottish Independence.  A Scottish Lord replied: “Twas not the marriage we objected to, twas the wooing.”

Continue Reading

Russia

The U.S. doesn’t want to protect Ukraine; it wants to defeat Russia

Published

on

If the U.S. (and its allies) wanted to protect Ukraine, then it (they) would not be doing all they can to prolong Russia’s invasion and destruction of Ukraine. They would not be flooding Ukraine with their weapons to kill Russians. They would not be demanding that Ukraine fight on, which destroys Ukraine even more. But this is what they are doing. 

Is this because they are so stupid that they don’t know that they are destroying Ukraine? Or is it instead because they don’t care about their destroying Ukraine but do care about their defeating Russia?

The U.S. (and its allies) are doing everything they can to defeat Russia. They are also doing everything they can to increase the sales, and profits, and stock-market valuations, of Lockheed Martin and the other corporations whose only or main customers are the U.S. Government and its allied governments which buy their weapons — buy them increasingly now in order for those weapons to be used even more now by their vassal-nations such as Ukraine, and Israel, and Saudi Arabia, against the nations that they also are wanting to defeat, such as Palestine and Yemen, and other countries that the U.S. and its allied governments care nothing about except that they want them to be defeated — to be punished for NOT caving to the U.S. Government and its allied governments, and which nations they condemn while calling themselves ‘the free world’.

How evil is this? Let’s see:

On May 19th, U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law an additional $40.1 billion to Ukraine in order to continue its war against Russia, which Biden and his boss Barack Obama, and Obama’s organizer of the 2014 U.S. coup in Ukraine Victoria Nuland had begun by means of that coup, which had transformed Ukraine from being a peaceful neutralist country on Russia’s border, into becoming promptly a rabidly anti-Russian and pro-U.S. country on Russia’s border that’s in a civil war and that is a prospective future basing-area for U.S. nuclear missiles there (like a 1962 Cuban-Missile-Crisis in reverse) to hit Moscow only a 7-minute flight-time away. It would be a checkmate in the U.S. regime’s long war to add Russia to its conquered prizes, if the plan would succeed.

To place that $40.1B additional expenditure into perspective, the comedian Jimmy Dore headlined on May 19th “ALL DEMOCRATS Vote [in Senate] To Send $40 Billion To Ukraine”, and Dore said “That’s more than three times what the entire U.S. music industry makes in a year,” and he called it “a wealth-transfer to the military-industrial complex.” He said that if this $40.1B addition to the current year’s expenditure on Ukraine’s war were instead to be spent domestically, “that would stop homelessness.” 

I checked those allegations. Here’s what I found:  

The entire U.S. music-recording industry is $11B retail sales per year. (That’s sales; profits would be some percentage of sales, but even if it were ALL of sales, then this $40.1B would be “more than three times” it.)

Annual cost to eliminate homeless in U.S.=$30B.

He wasn’t exaggerating; he was under-stating. This is how evil the U.S. Government actually is.

Mr. Dore also noted that all Democratic Party U.S. Senators and members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted for this additional $40.1B expenditure, and that the overwhelming majority of the Republican ones also did. Are Republicans now even more neoconservative than Democrats are? Not really: it is always the case that a neoconservative bill in the U.S. Congress gets virtually 100% support from the Party in power, and gets an overwhelming majority of the votes of the Party that doesn’t happen to be in power at the time. All the while, America’s ‘defense’-contractors increase their sales and profits and stock-market valuations. So, Dore expressed anger that in the Senate, even Bernie Sanders voted for this. And Glenn Greenwald presented a scathing condemnation of the hypocritical ‘progressive’ Democrat Octavio Ocasio-Cortez’s “complete reversal of everything that she pretended to believe in for years”. He attributed this contradiction of herself to “In 2016, when Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, … instead of accepting responsibility because they themselves had nominated one of the most destructive and outright hated political candidates in modern American history in Hillary Clinton, … they decided to blame everybody else, … especially Putin and Russia. … And so Democrats have been feeding on this anti-Russia antipathy and hatred” ever since. And, so, “there is no viable anti-war [political] left in the United States.”

Though I enormously respect Glenn Greenwald, and everything that he said is true, I think that his analyses suffer from shallowness due to his apparent ignorance of history — his excessive focus on the obvious and recent news, outside of the broader context that’s required in order for there to be a deeper analysis, a scientific understanding, which identifies actual historical causes behind current events. This is not to deny that what Greenwald says is true, but to assert that it lacks the wisdom that ONLY an authentic historical analysis can bring to current events and to public-policy issues. Only by understanding causes can one move forward into the future (if there will be a future) so as to control future events in a constructive way, that will benefit future generations, instead of for future events to continue to degenerate even further into a hell which comes closer with every passing day.

I documented at Greanville Post, on May 19th, “The Secret U.S.-&-UK War Against Europe”, showing that BOTH American political Parties are controlled, at the very top, by a cabal of very closely connected individuals who are basically servants of the billionaire controlling owners of firms (such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics), which corporations’ major or even ONLY customers are the U.S. Government and its allied governments, but especially these controlling individuals are an organization that was started in 1877 by the British aristocrat Cecil Rhodes, and which finally took control over the U.S. Government itself on 25 July 1945, just three months after U.S. President FDR died and became replaced by the naive and manipulable Harry S. Truman, who set America’s Government irrevocably onto its control by “the military-industrial complex” and in league with Britain’s aristocracy, to ultimately control the entire world and obviate altogether the United Nations that FDR had started planning and hoping for back in 1941. (The Republican Dwight Eisenhower was also a key part of the Rhodesists’ American operation.)

This organization by the Rhodesists is the source of the evilness that pervades today’s U.S. Government, and it cannot be overcome unless and until it first becomes widely known-about, and then condemned so that all of today’s U.S. Government becomes replaced, because the corruptness of America’s (and UK’s) Government has, by now, become virtually 100%. And if this assertion doesn’t seem credible, then check the links in this report, which explains (and those links document) the actual source for the 19 May 2022 law to pour an additional $40.1B into Ukraine, which after the 2014 coup is a U.S. vassal-nation that’s self-destructing in order to serve as today’s main battleground (and U.S.-proxy) in the American (and British) aristocracy’s long war to conquer not only Russia, but also Europe, and the entire world.

First, the entire world (especially in Europe) has to recognize and publicly acknowledge the unacceptability of America’s Government, so as to condemn it and to order all of its troops out, ASAP. It is a hostile power, to the publics, everywhere — even in places where its stooges and hangers-on-billionaires are in political control (like a cancer) (such as in Europe). America’s Government is NO DEMOCRACY. No empire can be, and America’s most assuredly IS NOT a democracy. (Nor is UK’s.) It is a hostile occupying alien force, even inside the United States. (And this is widely suspected to be true, even by the American people.) In fact: the U.S. is the world’s #1 police-state. It is a cancer, everywhere that it occupies, and needs to be rooted-out everywhere. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and the majority of America’s Founders, would have viewed this nation, today’s U.S. Government, to be their enemy, because it violates everything that they believed in, and hoped for, about America’s future, and the world’s. Everything.

Continue Reading

Russia

NYT Presents Strong Case for a War-Crimes Prosecution Against Russia

Published

on

Dozens of bodies near the cemetery in Bucha. Photo By Rodrigo Abd. Image source: war.ukraine.ua

Whereas numerous instances of U.S. war-crimes have been documented in some news-reports well enough to be successfully prosecuted in international war-crimes tribunals (but the U.N.-authorized agency the International Criminal Court cannot prosecute U.S. war-crimes but only war-crimes by third-world countries’ leaders), such well-evidenced instances by Russia are far rarer. However, on May 19th the New York Times presented precisely such an instance, under the headline “New Evidence Shows How Russian Soldiers Executed Men in Bucha”. Local security-cameras there recorded the frog-marching to their death of nine Ukrainian men who weren’t in Ukraine’s official armed forces but who had become armed to fight against the invading Russian soldiers in Bucha, and who were then executed by specifically identified Russian soldiers and their corpses abandoned on the ground as Russia’s soldiers left Bucha. Locals also told the NYT’s reporters what they had seen, and it fit with what those security cameras showed. The NYT reported:

The execution of the captured fighters and the homeowner in Bucha “is the kind of incident that could become a strong case for war crimes prosecution,” said Stephen Rapp, former United States ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues. The captives, having been disarmed and taken into custody by the Russians, were “outside of combat,” under the laws of war, Mr. Rapp said. According to the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, such laws mean that prisoners must be treated humanely and protected from mistreatment in all circumstances.

In addition to the soldiers who shot the men, their commanders could be charged if they knew about the killings and failed to act to prevent or punish the conduct, Mr. Rapp said.  

However, Ellen Ioanes at Vox posted on April 9th an excellent article, “Here’s what the ICC can actually do about Putin’s war crimes”, and documented in detail that the consequence would be nothing except bad publicity which the U.S. and its allies could exploit, but even that would entail “a lot of hypocrisy” because:

one of the most vocal nations suggesting Putin be tried at the Hague — the United States — isn’t itself a party to the ICC. The US government voted against the ICC during the Rome Conference in 1998; former President Bill Clinton signed on to the Rome Statute in 2000 but never submitted it to Congress for ratification. Former President George W. Bush in 2002 notified then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan that the US would not ratify the Rome Statute and didn’t have to abide by any of its provisions.

The U.S. Government, and many of its allies (such as the post-U.S.-coup-in-Ukraine’s government ever since 2014) perpetrate war-crimes (such as this) far more heinous than what the NYT reports there, but that doesn’t excuse what these Russian soldiers did. None of these war-crimes will be able to be successfully prosecuted.  

Here is the reason why the ICC, and the U.N. itself, turned out to be this way (Ioanes’s article provided only a superficial account regarding that matter — “A permanent international court is still relatively new,” etc. — but the actual cause, or reason, goes all the way back to answering how and why that has turned out to be the case, and this requires history going back to the 1940s):

Though the United Nations had first been conceived by U.S. President FDR in 1941 only shortly before the U.S. itself famously entered WW II on “a date which will live in infamy”; and though FDR developed, prior to his death on 12 April 1945, a remarkably detailed plan for what the U.N. would be and for what its Charter would need to include, his immediate successor, Harry S. Truman, while he was at the Potsdam Conference with Churchill and Stalin in July 1945, became persuaded by his hero, General Dwight David Eisenhower, that if the U.S. would not conquer the Soviet Union, then the Soviet Union would conquer the United States; and, so, on 25 July 1945, Truman made the decision (which soon thereafter became irrevocable) to set the U.S. Government onto the path of world-domination, to conquering the Soviet Union, and he even decided to demand of Stalin, regarding eastern European countries that the Soviet Union had freed from Hitler’s grip, that “I told Stalin until we had free access to those countries and our nationals had their property rights restored, so far as we were concerned ther’d never be recognition. He seems to like it when I hit him with a hammer.” Stalin was shocked at this turn of events, because he knew, in general terms, what FDR had been intending for the U.N. to be — a democratic federation of all nations which would terminate all imperialisms and be restricted to addressing only international relations (thereby excluding anything that pertains to intranational matters, such as Truman insisted upon) — and he still hoped, even for a few months afterwards, that Truman wouldn’t turn out to be a 180-degree reversal of what FDR had been, but thereafter Stalin gave up altogether on any such hope, and knew that the U.S. was now at war against the Soviet Union. Tragically, Truman, instead of FDR, oversaw, and basically dominated, the creation of the U.N., and so it turned out to be a toothless tiger, nothing like what FDR had intended, which would have been the international democracy of nations and possessed of a practical monopoly of geostrategic weaponry and international armed force, and also including, at the earliest practicable date, an international criminal court, which would try not only the international crimes by the former Axis powers, but the international crimes by the former Allied powers. The U.N. would have been fundamentally different than it is.

And, so, though there do exist international war-crimes cases regarding which the solidly documented historical record is sufficiently complete for an unprejudiced and trustworthy conviction to be possible, it cannot happen unless and until all of the bad history since 12 April 1945 (FDR’s death) has become effectively condemned, repudiated, and reversed, by enough of the world’s nations, so that the needed type of world government (international laws and their enforcement and juridical handling), replacing all of the existing imperialisms, becomes finally instituted (which was FDR’s obsession from 1941 on). However, even today — after all of these many decades of bad history — no one is even so much as talking about this.

One of the experts that Ioanes quoted said “‘It really shows a lot of hypocrisy,’ and encourages the perception of ‘justice for thee, not for me’.” And that (“for thee, not for me”) is, really, a pervasive and total impossibility of justice, for anyone. In its place can only be hypocrisy. Perhaps that’s what “liberalism” (which is certainly NOT progressivism) comes down to: hypocritical conservatism. Rule by the aristocracy (the super-rich), everywhere.

What is bad in the past must be publicly acknowledged (no longer lied about), if ever we are to go forward to an authentically better world. If that fails to happen, the world will only continue to get even worse.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Southeast Asia4 hours ago

Will Indonesia Repeat the History of Population Mobility in Borneo?

Borneo is now in the spotlight due to the Indonesian government’s impending massive migration. Since the Indonesian government announced capital...

Middle East6 hours ago

‘Protracted political impasse’ further polarizing Libya

Despite UN efforts, political, economic and security deadlock continues in Libya, the UN political affairs chief told the Security Council...

Africa8 hours ago

Time is short for Sudan to resolve political crisis

Time is short for Sudan to reach a solution to its protracted political crisis, the Special Representative for the country...

World News10 hours ago

African nations leading the way on ‘food systems transformation’

African countries are at the vanguard of a vital transformation of food systems to simultaneously address food security, nutrition, social...

Defense12 hours ago

AUKUS: A Harbinger to Nuclear Race between India and Pakistan

In the latter half of the 2021, Washington initiated strategic trilateral defence pact with the UK and Australia, colloquially called...

Middle East14 hours ago

Israel admits involvement in the killing of an Iranian army officer

Col. Sayad Khodayee, 50, was fatally shot outside his home in Tehran on Sunday when two gunmen on motorcycles approached...

South Asia16 hours ago

Economic And Political Reform Is Needed In Sri Lanka, Not State Violence

Sri Lanka’s worst economic crisis since independence has highlighted years of political and economic mismanagement and a reliance on state-sanctioned...

Trending