German police detain 25 people who were members of a far-right terror cell, as per the German Prosecutor General.
German police are conducting searches in more than 130 homes. (Reuters)
Federal prosecutors reported that German police conducted nationwide searches and detained 25 people, including members of a “terror organization,” who were thought to be plotting an attack on the parliament.
Prosecutors stated in a statement that members of the “Citizens of the Reich” (Reichsbuerger) movement are suspected of “having made concrete preparations to force their way into the German parliament with a small armed group.”
As part of the operation, searches are being conducted in more than 130 houses, offices, and other locations.
Extremists anticipated that some security personnel would show their support for the group, which would result in a coup, as per the statement.
Prosecutors added in a statement that the suspects have formed “a terrorist group by the end of November 2021 at the latest, which had set itself the goal of overthrowing the existing state order in Germany and replacing it with their own kind of state.”
Of the 25 arrests, two were overseas in Italy and Austria.
Neo-Nazis, conspiracy theorists, and gun enthusiasts who disagree with the validity of the contemporary German republic make up the Reichsbuerger movement.
The Reichsbuerger, once looked down upon as misfits and oddballs, have grown more radical in recent years and are now viewed as a significant security danger.
According to federal authorities, members of the freshly formed terror group are former soldiers.
“The accused are united by a deep rejection of state institutions and the free, democratic basic order of the Federal Republic of Germany,” they said.
The suspects were aware that their plan “could only be realized by using military means and violence against state representatives,” they added.
On his account, Justice Minister Marco Buschmann hailed the dismantling of the “suspected terror cell” on Twitter, claiming that it illustrated that “Germany was able to defend its democracy”.
Demokratie ist wehrhaft: Seit heute Morgen findet ein großer Anti-Terror-Einsatz statt. Der Generalbundesanwalt ermittelt gegen ein mutmaßliches Terror-Netzwerk aus dem Reichsbürger-Milieu. Es besteht der Verdacht, dass ein bewaffneter Überfall auf Verfassungsorgane geplant war.
Voting was conducted during a meeting of the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee in November. A majority of votes were cast in favor of the resolution.
This is happening as neo-Nazim has been gaining more ground, as it saw an increase in popularity, as was evident in Europe; the war in Ukraine was a peaking point for the far-right.
It matters not how much you, gentlemen, bend down before them, You will never gain Europe’s recognition: You will always be for them, Not servants, but serfs of their enlightened disposition. F.I. Tyutchev, Russian diplomat and poet, May 1867
To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal. Henry Kissinger
Ditching the Ukraine
It is now dawning on the US elite that they totally underestimated Russia in all respects. For instance, on 25 March 2014 the arrogant Obama contemptuously called Russia ‘a regional power, threatening others out of weakness’ (sic!). (Clearly, he was talking about the USA). As a result, blinded by hubris, some in the US are now admitting that the Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe, is a dead duck, the game is simply no longer worth the candle. Apart from being a black hole for Western money and military equipment, the Ukraine is no longer the problem. It is a sideshow, a distraction, a mere symptom of something far more important. The real problem is what is now happening worldwide under Russian leadership – the ending of the unipolar world, of US global hegemony, camouflaged beneath the more innocent-sounding term ‘globalism’.
Following Russia’s decision and ability to stand up to the world’s bully, the whole Non-Western world is now also standing up to him. For example, at the recent G20 meeting in Indonesia, the debate was not about the Ukraine, but about whether or not to continue to accept American Fascist rule (‘the rules-based international order’). All the Latin American and African and four Asian countries said no, it’s finished, the world is now multipolar. Taiwan will inevitably be Chinese and soon – and wait till Chinese troops appear in Mesopotamia to take control of Iraqi oil and gas and rebuild that tragic country. Freedom beckons. Long-deluded Western elitists must be shocked: other ‘regional powers’ are now also standing up to the bully. Perhaps also out of weakness? Zelensky must have suspected that his boss, until now the self-imagined master of the universe, is going to get rid of him. He is a loser and the Yanks cannot stand losers.
As the US realises that the free nations of the world are turning against it, it will not hesitate to blame the Kiev regime. The US must save face. Kiev has been warned: it will have to start negotiating with Russia again. Zelensky had better plan his escape now, because Ukrainians will not forgive him for stringing them along with a pack of lies. Regardless of Zelensky’s delusional assertions that there will be no negotiations with Russia and that it will re-occupy Russian territories, including the Crimea, there are three reasons for him to throw in the towel now, before it all gets much, much worse.
Three Reasons To Surrender Now
Firstly, Russia has now reluctantly moved closer to the US ‘shock and awe’ strategy of destroying infrastructure, as the US did in Germany and Japan (World War II) and then Serbia and Iraq. Power stations and power networks, bridges and ‘decision centres’, such as certain government buildings in Kiev are being targeted. Russia is one or two mass missile strikes away from the knock-out blow which will disable the Ukrainian electricity, water and rail systems. With 50% of Ukrainian electricity infrastructure knocked out by the first three strikes on the electricity grid, demonstrations are starting against the deteriorating situation, with Zelensky sending in the hated and dreaded Ukrainian Secret Police, the SBU, to break them up. He is also banning coverage of them in his heavily-censored media. The electricity system has entered a stage of ‘arbitrary and uncontrolled imbalance’. Ukrainians have been told to leave the country for the winter. Where to? Who wants them anyway? And does this include the military too?
Secondly, once the infrastructure has been incapacitated, Russia’s 380,000 regular and newly mobilised troops will be fully incorporated into the Allied forces in eastern Ukraine. Even without them, Russian forces are continuing to advance in the Donbass. A winter offensive by some half a million troops will make huge gains on the whole front, advancing hundreds of kilometres and multiplying Kiev’s – and NATO’s – staggering losses. After success here, President Putin’s generals have the option of moving a serious force into the western Ukraine from Belarus in order to cut off NATO supply routes from Poland. This could easily lead to the total collapse of the already ravaged Ukrainian forces and their mercenaries. Now Russia is going all the way to Lvov and the Polish border. It has been forced to. The Kiev regime has brought it on itself. All Russia wanted was security for the Crimea and the Donbass and a neutral, non-nuclear Ukraine. It could all have been so simple.
Thirdly, Western countries, including even the brainless Stoltenberg, is suffering from Ukraine fatigue. The Ukrainian flags have nearly all come down in Europe. Support has waned as reality has dawned. NATO countries’ arms stocks have been seriously depleted and strikes and ensuing social chaos have appeared in Europe, This the result of double-digit inflation and economic recession, brought on by suicidal Western sanctions, yes, those ‘against Russia’ (!). ‘We are cold and hungry in our own country because you gave everything to that bunch of losers in Kiev and the Ukrainian freeloaders you invaded our country with’. The foul-mouthed thug Nuland has achieved her aim in Europe. All this makes Russia the strategic winner and is forcing the US/UK/EU to call on Zelensky to talk again. The British financier PM Sunak (who cares little for and knows even less about politics) used a modest British aid package, announced during his recent visit to Kiev, to tell Zelensky that bankrupt London can no longer pay. Kiev must negotiate with Moscow. Following this, there has been a delay in the fourth round of missile strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure. President Putin is waiting to see if Zelensky will cave in and start realistic talks before Russia unleashes the last assault on Ukrainian infrastructure and the winter offensive.
Ditching Zelensky
At least some in the Biden regime are realising (though not Biden himself, he is in no fit state to realise anything – a clear case of elder abuse) that they are going to have to drop the Jewish billionaire as the fall-guy for the Ukraine’s defeat. Just as they have done to countless Latin American, Middle Eastern and Asian tinpot dictators and gangsters in past decades, the US will also do the same to him in his Monsanto/Cargill banana republic. Can Zelensky still entertain any illusions about it? Of course, the US will deny that the war in the Ukraine was ever between the US and Russia and declare it was only ever ‘an internal conflict’ between the Ukraine and Russia. (Ukraine only supplied the cannon fodder for its transatlantic masters, who have controlled the country since their coup in 2014).
Ukraine’s former CIA asset, the actor Zelensky, has now acted up. The Ukrainian missile strike on Poland and the Ukrainian President’s insistence that it was a Russian strike, despite the clear evidence to the contrary, has hit Zelensky’s credibility. The intentional Ukrainian false flag strike on Polish/NATO territory, designed to provoke NATO or at least pathetic Poland into entering the war, is a pathetic embarrassment. Even compared to all of Zelensky’s other ridiculous staged false flags, like Bucha, which venal Western journalists were paid to report, this one has gone too far. The West is getting fed up with Zelensky’s antics. A bullet in the head is much cheaper than continuing to subsidise this clown.
Some are waking up to Zelensky, who is willing to unleash nuclear war in order to avoid negotiating. Some may now even understand that his crazy claims that President Putin always wanted to occupy all the Ukraine and restore the USSR, if not conquer all of Europe, are fairy-stories. These stories are told by Kiev to Western infants only in order to get military and financial aid and above all to draw NATO into the war. (The half-American Churchill spent all of 1941 trying to get the US into Britain’s war against Germany; unlike Zelensky, Churchill succeeded by emphasising his racial compatibility and dangling the Pacific Ocean carrot in front of the Yankees. Zelensky cannot offer either of those). President Putin has clearly stated on more than one occasion that: ‘He who does not regret the USSR has no heart, but he who wants to restore it has no brain’. A desire to restore the failed Soviet Union is a Western propaganda myth used by arms merchants and lying politicians to justify their greed and ambition.
Three Reasons To Run Now
Since NATO has categorically refused to send troops into the Ukraine and since there is no such thing as a ‘coalition of the willing’, apart from a few Polish and Baltic fanatics who are currently being wiped out as mercenaries in the Ukraine, what can Zelensky do? He could urge the Ukrainian commander-in-chief, General Zaluzhny, to open a last (yes, last) offensive in Donetsk or Zaporozhie in order to reboot support from the West. However, General Zaluzhny is fed up with sending his troops to commit suicide. He is, after all, a professional military man. Zelensky, on the other hand, is a White House court jester, who cares only about his own survival. Zaluzhny has other considerations. Here there is potential for a coup d’etat, a palace revolt in Kiev.
On the one hand, the self-deluded and murderous Neo-Nazis in the Ukraine who surround Zelensky and were all given power by the US, will not tolerate surrender. On the other hand, ordinary cold and hungry Ukrainians will ask why was not all of this avoided in the first place by agreeing to Ukrainian neutrality and fulfilling the Minsk 2 promises with their Russian brothers? (A good question, which should be asked of all the Western leaders who also rejected it). So Zelensky is stuck between the Neo-Nazis and the moderate Ukrainian people, between a rock and a hard place. It is lose-lose for him. Russians do not hate Ukrainians, they are brothers. But they do hate Nazis. They are enemies. The Nazis can expect no quarter from the Russians and they know it. The USSR cleared out its part of Germany of Nazis, liberating their German brothers. It is the same now in the Ukraine. With the Russian liberation of the whole of the Ukraine (not originally intended by Russia, but now necessary), a new wave of Ukrainian ‘refugees’ is going to hit Western Europe, maybe even before Christmas. This could be the last straw for a Europe full of refugees from other equally stupid and unnecessary wars of the US Empire: Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians, Libyans, Albanians and now Ukrainians. Europe cannot take it any more. It is collapsing in waves of social unrest and even Britannia cannot rule those waves.
The clueless Stoltenberg (him again) has declared that the defeat of the Ukraine means (yet another) defeat for NATO. Actually, the superfluous NATO was long ago defeated, but Stoltenberg is too clueless to have seen the writing on the wall and join the long queues of now unemployed ex-slaves of the US, Afghan and Iraqi interpreters among them. The US and its NATO vassals must now backtrack. Some statement like: ‘We were let down by those vodka-drinking surrender-monkey Ukrainians (what can you expect from those Slav subhumans?), but we have won the greatest victory in our history because we have triumphed in stopping the brutal Russian beast at the Polish border. Mission accomplished’. That would do the job. The US and its vassals cannot save face, but, since they only care about PR, they can at least pretend to save face – by blaming Zelensky. They could, conveniently, have him assassinated, so he does not tell the truth about what has really been happening behind the scenes over the last few years (he knows far too much), blaming it on ‘extremists’ and making him into a new Jewish martyr. If I were Zelensky, I would leave for Tel Aviv today. Does the Ukraine have any planes left?
by Saker Staff with thanks to Pepe Escobar for that prescient title
Nazi Azovites – from rats in a hole to fish in a barrel – This is what denazification looks like!
The New York Times prevaricates as follows: Ukraine ended its “combat mission” in Mariupol and said fighters were being evacuated, signaling that the battle at a steel plant was over. https://nyti.ms/3sIon9B
Zelensky adds some Ukrainian/Cocainian dreams to that: “The evacuation mission from Azovstal continues. It is led by our military and intelligence officers.” (OK, Mr PianoDick, they’re being led straight into war criminal prison! – thank your military and intelligence officers for doing the job for the world!)
Dmitry Polyansky says it differently: “I didn’t know English has so many ways to express a single message: the #Azovnazis have unconditionally surrendered.”
Nightfall did not stop the surrender process. Ukrainians are still surrendering in crowds without stopping. Sufficient forces to deal with this are on the terrain and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the DPR are kicking ass and taking prisoners.
Illumination rockets are constantly launched into the sky, which at least somehow facilitates the crawling out of underground inhabitants 🙂
These invincible heroes are emaciated, ragged, hungry and a pitiful sight.
Donetsk Defense HQ – 962 Azovites surrendered and the process continues. In the meantime, 11 servicemen of the 25th airborne brigade and seventeen of the 54th mechanized brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine voluntarily laid down their arms and went over to the side of the DPR. We hope this is the start of a mass surrender.
This is denazification and movies will be made and books will be written. After this major loss of prestige, expect a doozy of a false flag.
Starting point today is the MoD report and somewhat reformatted for ease of use.
💥Over a day, high-precision air-based missiles of the Russian Aerospace Forces have hit
2 command posts, including the territorial defense headquarters near Soledar in the Donetsk People’s Republic,
as well as 31 areas of concentration of Ukrainian manpower and military equipment, including locations of foreign mercenary units from European countries in Nikolaev and Krasnogorovka.
In addition, 2 Ukrainian Su-24 aircraft have been destroyed at a military airfield near Dnepropetrovsk, 1 division of Ukrainian S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems near Nikolaev, as well as 4 ammunition depots for missile and artillery weapons and ammunition of the Ukrainian Armed Forces near Ugledar, Pokrovskoe, Soledar and Bakhmut, Donetsk People’s Republic.
✈️💥Operational-tactical and army aviation have hit
3 command posts,
41 areas of concentration of AFU manpower and military equipment, as well as
1 ammunition depot near Ugledar, Donetsk People’s Republic.
The attacks have resulted in the elimination of more than 270 nationalists and up to 54 armoured and motor vehicles.
💥Missile troops and artillery have hit
76 command posts,
421 areas of manpower and military equipment concentration, as well as
147 artillery and mortar units at firing positions, including
1 Ukrainian battery of US-made 155mm M777 howitzers near Pogornoe.
1 pontoon crossing point equipped by Ukrainian Armed Forces to cross the Severskyi Donets River has been destroyed near Protopopovka, Kharkov Region.
💥Russian air defence means have shot down
1 Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft over Tripolie, Donetsk people’s republic.
1 Ukrainian Air Force MiG-29 has been shot down near Kamennaya Yaruga, Kharkov Region.
15 Ukrainian UAVs have been shot down near Semenovka, Velikie Prokhody, Balakleya, Malye Prokhody, Velikaya Kamyshevakha in Kharkov Region, Rudnichnyi, Grabskoe, Staromikhailovka, Volnoe in Donetsk People’s Republic, Belyaevka, Chernobaevka in Kherson Region.
8 Ukrainian Smerch multiple-launch rockets have been also intercepted near Kamenka and Malaya Kamyshevakha, Kharkov Region.
Not too shabby for a day’s work. And they will repeat it, and repeat it, and rinse, and repeat it again.
Secrets from Azovstal and surroundings are beginning to be revealed. There will be many!
How the OSCE mission cooperated with the Azov terrorists
The filming crew of IA “Arbelet” was the first to visit the territory where the OSCE mission in Mariupol was located. Among other valuable finds, they found two mortar positions, equipped directly near the mission’s administrative building. The mortars themselves and their ammunition are of Italian origin, as evidenced by the markings. Another noteworthy fact: the last delivery of the Italian BC is dated March 11, 2022.
Do ordinary Italians know that their authorities are helping outright terrorists of the national battalions? How will the OSCE comment on the fact that they were in clear collusion with the terrorists, allowing “Azov” to fire from their territory? How, after these facts, will the OSCE be able to clean up their reputation at all?
(Sidebar: Do you now understand why Russia is leaving international organizations? Simple, these organizations are corrupt to the extent that they cannot be reformed but they have to be broken. Mr Lavrov today is meeting with SCO Secretary-General Ming where new structures are being built.)
Update from Brian Berletic: He views the canoodling from western sources and he hoists them on their own petard. Do take a listen, specifically Brian’s explanation of how the Russian command and soldiers keep certain areas ‘fixed’.
Here is another example of such a ‘fix’. The Russian army attacked Ukrainian defense facilities in the Odessa region with precision weapons from the Black Sea. This information is confirmed by the Ukrainian operational command “South”. https://t.me/intelslava/29149
(Sidebar: Today in Odessa – On this day “Russian Spring”
May 18, 2014 – “Odessa is a Russian city”, “Donbass – we are with you” – such slogans sounded at the House of Trade Unions in Odessa.
Hundreds of protesters with Russian flags and banners of the Victory came out not only to honor the memory of those killed in the May 2 tragedy, but also to show the Ukrainian Nazis that Odessans are Russian people who are not afraid of the Kyiv punishers.)
Is the Russian SMO beginning to touch hearts and minds? Remember the stories that Russia underestimated the willingness of the Ukrainian people to support the denazification.
Telescoping into the current pic on a map we see that cauldrons do not come in onesies any longer but in threes:
Readovka on the fronts
Kharkiv Front. The fighting in the area of Kazachya Lopan and the village of Liptsy is of a positional nature. The enemy in the area of Ternovka reached the border MASS MEDIA: Ukrainian Armed Forces have reached the Russian-Ukrainian border in Kharkiv region. Ukraine conducted a counterattack in the north-east of the Russian Federation, and is also probing the positions of the Russian Armed Forces in the area of Volchansk. The Russian Armed Forces do not conduct active offensive operations in the Kharkiv direction.
On the Izyum part of the front, fighting continues in the area of Kamyshevakha, Kurulka and Dolgenky. The enemy continues to try to strain the flank of the Russian group to the north-west of Izyum, forcing the Seversky Donets. In the Slavic direction, the troops took Drobyshevo and Krasny Liman in a semicircle. The front also approached Svyatogorsk.
In the Luhansk-Donetsk part of the front, fighting continues in the area of Kamyshevakha, north of Popasna. There are also battles for Toshkovka. There are attempts to enter the flank and rear of the fortified area in Gorsky and Zolotoy. Fighting continues on the outskirts of Severodonetsk, as well as to the west of Lisichansk in the area of Privolye and Belogorovka. According to unconfirmed reports, Russian troops occupied the town of New York.
On the Zaporozhye part of the front without any special changes. An attempt by the Ukrainian Armed Forces to attack in the area of Malinovka ended in failure and heavy losses. The battles here are of a positional nature all the way from Gulyai-Pole to Velikaya Novoselovka. The enemy is moving part of the reserves from the Zaporizhia direction to the Donbass, where the situation for the Severodonetsk group is rapidly deteriorating. Heavy fighting continues in the area of Novomikhailovka and Ugledar.
On the Southern Front, the development of the offensive is not yet taking place. The Ukrainian Armed Forces are waiting for the landing of Russian troops in the Odessa region and are working on mining the entire coast. In the Nikopol and Kryvyi Rih directions, the Ukrainian command is accumulating forces to uncover weaknesses in the Russian positions.
On arrival, it is already traditional – the APU shelled Petrovsky district Ukrainian Armed Forces shelled Petrovsky district of Donetsk. The shell hit the school grounds Donetsk, a shell hit the school territory. The Ukrainian side also shelled the outskirts of Kherson, which resulted in the death of one civilian.
SmoothieX12 is correct when he says that the only battle that the Ukrainians know, is the battle taught to them by their NATO advisors, which is to shell civilian territory and hide behind civilians.
The battlefront is still in a relatively chaotic state, but Russia is now forming and shaping it.
Let’s take a look at Martyanov’s levels of war as we can categorize from this handy depiction:
Finland and Sweden formally submit applications to join NATO – currently, it is harassment but may well move up the scale to major operations. We cannot say where Russia will stop.
FM Lavrov: “Ukraine… No one wants Ukraine. They are an expendable country in this hybrid war against Russian Federation. No one has doubts anymore”. The language from Russian sources has changed and they now say clearly that Ukraine is a tool and the fight is against Russia by the West.
Weapons
Russian self-propelled howitzers “Msta-S” and “Acacia-M” are being put to good use and they destroy armored vehicles and fortified positions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Distance of fire is up to 30 km and they use high-explosive fragmentation projectiles that can destroy buried concrete fortifications of the enemy. https://t.me/intelslava/29140
Incoming weapons. On the Polish-Ukrainian border, seven South African-made Mamba Mk2 EE armored vehicles transferred to Ukraine by Estonia as military assistance were seen. These vehicles were specifically produced for the Estonian army.
We have to conclude if we can see these armored vehicles via telegram channel on the Polish border, then the Russian forces can see them too. And ditto for all other incoming weapons.
There are smaller reports of new Russian artillery weapons appearing in the field of battle, but it is limited as yet.
Major Fail, other than war.
Washington failed to get the summit with the ASEAN countries to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
ASEAN nations are Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines.
Another failure of freezing funds: Switzerland released $6.33 billion of Russia’s frozen funds.
We end with biolabs
Russia’s First Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Dmitry Polyanskiy gives key takeaways from the last UN Security Council meeting on US biolabs in Ukraine:
The US refuses to explain its engagement in military bio activities in Ukraine. Keeps shrugging off several hundred pages of evidence. “These are all lies and Russia’s propaganda, and we are good guys because it can’t be otherwise”. Not a word on the point of discussion.
Western delegations are praising the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and calling on us to make use of its mechanisms. They fail to mention however that it is the US who is blocking the elaboration of BWC verification mechanism. Such a hypocricy!
The US refuses to explain why it doesn’t want an effective international verification mechanism for bio weapons. Why act like this unless you are trying to conceal something? Why does Washington position itself above the international law? American exceptionalism at its best.
Main conclusion: we have definitely hit their soft spot. It’s clear for any unbiased observer that they are obscuring the issue and trying to divert attention from this uncomfortable topic trying to discourage us to raise it by repeating mantras on “Russian aggression” etc.
So stay tuned, there’s more evidence on US military biological programs to follow!
Top level headline in China’s Global Times today: ‘Neo-Nazism’ poisons Ukraine, Europe under US, West’s connivance
That is it for today. Enjoy your discussion and be careful with the Ukie propaganda. It is everywhere.
Note: another very interesting translation from our new team of Russian translators (thank you!)
Question: do you believe that Poland will send forces into the Ukraine?
No, I don’t think the US is giving conflicting instructions to Kiev. The fact is that when we are negotiating with Ukraine, we are, in fact, indirectly negotiating with the United States. Because, it is clear that we are fighting not with Zelensky, but with the United States, now, on the territory of Ukraine. The United States is at war with us to the last Ukrainian, but the United States is at war nonetheless. Therefore, when we offer surrender to Zelensky, we offer it to Zelensky, and in response, through the mouth of Zelensky, the United States offers us to surrender. They say: “Well, you withdraw troops from Ukraine, clear the Crimea and Donbass, return them to Ukraine, and then we’ll talk.” So, it is clear that Zelensky himself cannot put forward such demands, they are simply absurd.
Therefore, in this case, since two global forces are fighting each other, the demands are practically global. These are political demands to each other for unconditional surrender. It is clear that such requirements can only be met if one of the parties has won on the battlefield. Completely won. Not in Melitopol, Mariupol, there, or even in Kharkov, but completely won on the battlefield. That’s when something can grow out of this, out of these requirements. Therefore, now it does not matter whether you conduct these negotiations or you can not conduct them – this is already a field of Russian diplomacy.
The fact is that a long time ago, a decade, or even two decades ago, the United States entered into a systemic crisis. That is, the system built – political, military, economic, financial – has ceased to correspond to the realities of the modern world. At first, it was not entirely noticeable … many people generally denied that the United States could ever enter into a crisis, and so on .. But gradually these crisis phenomena grew, and Obama was already going to the polls with a statement that the United States was in crisis and reforms must be carried out. Then Trump went to the polls with the same thing. Then Biden came and practically announced that he would implement Trump’s program because the United States needed to carry out reforms in a crisis.
The fact is that the United States is not in a position to reform the economy now. In order to reform the economy it is necessary, as they advised us and everyone else in the early nineties, to go through shock therapy. That is, without shock, it is impossible to rebuild. This means that a huge number of Americans will sharply lose their standard of living for some period of time, and if, for example, in the 2000s, it was about the fact that changes can be made there, say, in 2, 3, 5 years, then now we are not talking about this, now we are talking about the fact that this will continue for decades, that you can go into a New Great Depression and it is not known when you will be able to get out of it. Naturally, the United States is afraid of this and does not want to, because a sharp drop in living standards leads to social instability and actually calls into question the existence of the American state, at least in the form in which we know it. That is, it can be preserved in some other form, but with other people at the head, with other families as a leading and guiding force, there with other parties, and so on. Naturally, the ruling circles of the United States do not want this at all. In order to maintain the status quo, the United States must maintain hegemony in any way, which means that even if this world is half destroyed, the United States must be the hegemon. I mean, it will be bad in the United States, but everyone else in the world should be even worse.
Therefore, the United States choses the way of confrontations. They cannot make an agreement, because they cannot yield.So if you have to yield, you are no longer the hegemon. If you are not a hegemon, you cannot divert other people’s resources to maintain the welfare of your citizens. If you can’t do this, then you start to crumble. So they follow the path of confrontation on the following principle: “Hey, guys, of course we understand that we are already not a hegemon. However, if you dare not to recognize us as such, we will start a war and it will be worse for you. So let’s think about it.”
Therefore, by the way, in recent years, several times Putin has told the Americans that we are ready to fight. We are even ready for a nuclear war, if anything. So that they do not build illusions about the fact that blackmail can be turned on. Yes, what conditions did Hillary Clinton offer when she went to the polls? Turn on the nuclear blackmail of Russia so that she concedes. So that they don’t have illusions that they don’t go too far along this path, because when you go the path of confrontation, each next step cuts off your path back. Sooner or later you come to a situation where war becomes inevitable, even a nuclear one. That is not something desirable, but necessary, because you have no other options left.
Well, you see, they are trying to lead the remnants of the West, the so-called free world there. Because it’s not always the West, there is Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, it’s still East. They are trying to keep their allies, their vassals under their control, to lead all this, to create such a closed system that will be in hostile relations with the rest of the world, while retaining the opportunity to spoil everyone. And again, try to keep the most of it, as they consider, – a high-tech world. And, relying on these capabilities, to re-conquer the planet. But I think that they are very much mistaken in this regard, because the manufacturing has long been located outside of both the United States and Europe. Now you can produce anything you want without their consent to the right to a patent. If we are talking about a global confrontation. In most areas of life and activity, we have sufficient technology and sufficient technological literacy. We just couldn’t launch many things on the market because the market was too narrow for us, – the western companies were already working on it. Take for example smartphones: the Russian market simply wasn’t big enough to outperform Apple. They’re just like a global company, like other companies, they were just in the perfect position from the start. And no company can enter other markets without winning its own, in principle.
That’s why now the United States are seriously mistaken when they think that they will just leave technology under them, which means that they will make everyone else bow down. It was before, being a hegemon, that they could arrange price scissors according to which these high-tech goods sold for more than raw materials, food, and so on. Now, we see a frenzied rise in prices for raw materials and foodstuffs that completely devalue the European industrial and technological power or the American one. Because if China can buy raw materials in Russia two or three times cheaper than Europe, or even four or five times cheaper, then it immediately becomes more competitive accordingly. While the enterprises of the same European brands in China will continue to operate exactly as they will keep working with us. The factories that we have built will not go anywhere, they will work even if European companies leave us. The factories will still work with our companies, will change brands, and still produce. Overall, by and large, it’s the same.
That is, if we succeed, we will sell a little less, but it will cost much more. If we fail, we will sell more and it will cost a little less, but still big money.
Therefore, until now, while the West is in confrontation with us, the price tags for energy carriers will not fall. In both cases, the situation is beneficial for us.
If Biden lobbies for the rejection of Russian energy, then the European economy will die, and the world will become one less competitor not only for the United States, but for us too. Because, in this case, we will be able to deliver our goods to the vacant place in Europe sooner or later.
So let him go. The most dangerous thing there is not that he is going to talk about a ban on the import of Russian oil to Europe. He is going to Poland to talk about the possibility of introducing peacekeeping forces from the west to the territory of Ukraine.
Moreover, the United States formed its position quite cunningly. They said no, it would not be NATO forces, but it could be the forces of some NATO countries. That is, it seems that the United States has nothing to do with this, it’s just that individual countries decided themselves, but these are NATO countries, and if it comes into confrontation with Russia, it’s clear that the question will immediately arise, what will be the reaction of NATO? How will NATO support its allies? Will it support it? And if not, then does NATO need such a thing? And if so, in what way? Money, goods, weapons? Or some armed forces will be sent to help them… And then who else will enter into a confrontation with Russia and how far this confrontation can lead.
Let me remind you that Macron called for preparations for a pan-European war. And he did not rely on French desires but on concrete actions of the United States. When he assessed the very situation. And his assessment, in general, is close to the truth. That is, it is clear that the All-European War may not happen, because at least we do not want this, and we are fighting hard against it, and the Europeans themselves are not particularly fond of it. But, nevertheless, there are forces in Europe, like the Poles, who are making these proposals, and outside of Europe, it is the United States, which would like to start a major war in Europe with the participation of Russia. And they are fighting for their interests, and who will win there, time will tell.
I do not think that Poles really want a part of the territory of Ukraine, because it is to get somewhere between 10-15 million Bandera for 35 million Poles. This is a lot. This is not the 2 million that Poland digested after the Great Patriotic War.
This can destabilize Poland very much, because such a minority makes up a third of the entire population, which is absolutely hostile to this population. Bandera massacred the Poles, and the Poles hate Bandera. And when these two cultures collide on the same territory in a non-abstract way, such as, everyone lives in their own country and both hate Russia; – and when they collide on the same territory it turns out that they also hate each other, – for Poland it will not be like a gift.
It is important for the Poles to maintain a Ukrainian buffer between themselves and Russia. Therefore, theoretically, by entering western Ukraine, they can try to preserve Ukrainian statehood at least in three, four, at least five regions, and this Ukrainian statehood will be due to the demarcation line, not making peace with Russia, but concluding a truce on the principle of the Minsk agreements. They will, because of the line of demarcation, all the time claim the entire territory of Ukraine, the Crimea, the Donbass and even the Kuban and Voronezh.
And Russia will always have this problem, a splinter sticking out in the boot, which will not allow much concentration against Poland.
Therefore, the Poles are making serious enough efforts to preserve Ukrainian statehood, in one form or another. Another thing is that they are also afraid, because you don’t understand that if they go out alone on their own initiative without any support, they will simply be kicked in the neck and thrown back, and this will end the liberation campaign.
But they understand that they cannot rely on the verbal, political support of the United States. That the United States will put pressure on their European allies to provide more help, and so on. And if all this works out, if the Poles know that they are not alone, but at least two or three of them, and that, for example, Germany, France, everyone else was forced to somehow help, for example, to send military equipment, transfer aviation , then they may well afford to venture into western Ukraine.
Ukraine somehow feels insecure in such a position, but the fact is that Russian forces are also unable to stretch indefinitely. You see, we are even dealing with Ukraine step by step. That is, not everything at once, although the configuration of the Ukrainian borders made it possible, given sufficient military resources, to complete the problem, to close the issue in three weeks, and after that to deal only with cleansing.
But our military resources are not unlimited. In order to create an appropriate army, it is necessary to mobilize. which no one wants to do, because we still have a special operation not a war. If Polish resources are connected to these Ukrainian resources, which are now opposing Russia, then the problem of promotion will be even stronger. If other NATO countries are looming behind Poland, then the question arises whether we can grind all these armies that are potentially opposing us with the help of available forces, or we need to either mobilize or resort to nuclear weapons. Especially since any NATO country entering into a conflict is a country of a bloc that has nuclear weapons. In accordance with the Russian military doctrine, we can strike such a bloc with a nuclear strike even first.
As you understand, the issue is very difficult to resolve, and both of these decisions will be extremely disadvantageous, including for Russia. It doesn’t matter who wins later, but this also means big losses, and not only human, but economic, and so on and so forth.
Therefore, naturally, we are trying to avoid this option, and are trying to close the issue with Ukraine without the participation of our Western friends and partners. We try not to let them interfere in this matter. In this regard, of course, we use the position of the United States, because they do not want to give guarantees to anyone, and we demonstrate that we will fight. Consequently, if the United States does not give you guarantees of military support, you understand that yes, they will fight with you longer, not 3 months, but 6 months, not 6 months, but a year. But all the same, they will grind you down, and then the question arises, why do we Poles need such pleasure? Well, we’ll fight for a year, we’ll distribute orders, and then what? Then collect Poland brick by brick?
Therefore, now the pro-American European lobby is in a state of unstable equilibrium; it wants to intervene in this conflict, but is afraid. The Americans do not yet give sufficient guarantees.
Biden is now going to Poland to talk about exactly this, and we’ll see what he tells them.
Well, I think not now, not now, but in general, given what trends have prevailed in the Baltics. Sooner or later the denazification operation will have to be carried out, because, as the history of Ukraine shows, living next to the Nazi state, even if it is small, means everything equally uncomfortable.
Just because we are two different systems, we are on different sides of good and evil, and we will always be in confrontation with each other, and confrontation with the state that is on our borders will always be used by our enemies, regardless of who is this enemy at the moment.
Therefore, naturally, if the Balts do not take it reasonably, then sooner or later they, just like Ukraine, will ask for the denazification operation. Ukraine asked for a long time, in fact, persuaded for 30 years.
Therefore, Ukraine began to prepare for a war with Russia from the first day of its Independence. It was, by the way, her idea-fix. Well, it was getting ready, getting ready, now 30 years have passed – she got ready. Finally, she asked for the war. By and large, the Balts behave in the same way. They now think that they are covered by NATO and the EU, but as the practice of recent years has shown, this is a very unreliable umbrella.
It is unlikely that anyone will be especially tense and risk a major war for the Baltic states. Moreover, there is always a casus bellum. It’s just that now, of course, Russia is too busy to go to the Baltic states. If only they won’t interfere with Russia on their own along with the Poles. They once tried to attack Belarus. They can repeat. If they themselves do not get involved in this matter, then the problem, the Baltics, is a problem of the distant future. During this time, they can change their minds, correct themselves, establish normal contacts, and choose other politicians.
But if the Baltic statehood develops in the same direction in which it has been developing for the last thirty years, then sooner or later the denazification operation is inevitable.
A friend send me 4 links to a movie about the Ukraine. Here are these links:
I have decided to collate the four videos into one, then upload it to BitChute. I hope that I did not mess something up (I don’t have the physical time to check). I assumed that YouTube would block the video sooner or later (they already placed a disclaimer on top of it), so making an extra copy made sense to me:
لا تزال بالنسبة للرئيس الروسي فلاديمير بوتين، حسرة تفكك الاتحاد السوفياتي كتعبير عن اللحظة السوداء التي تغير فيها وجه العالم نحو السطوة الأميركية المهينة، كمقدمة لمشروع إخضاع روسيا وتفكيكها، ولا يزال النظر لنهاية الحرب الباردة من طرف واحد هو روسيا يقابله اعلان استمرارها من الطرف المقابل وهو أميركا، سعياً لإذلال روسيا وتفتيتها، لكن كلمة السر في المقاربتين الروسية والأميركية لا تزال اسمها بلغراد، التي كانت عاصمة يوغوسلافيا قبل تفتيتها، وهي عاصمة صربيا اليوم.
–
ينظر الروس للحرب على بلادهم كمحاولة عنصرية لإضعاف وتشتيت السلافيين واجتثاث تأثيرهم في رسم المشهد الأوروبي، والسلاف أو الصقالبة هم أكبر مجموعة عرقية لغوية في أوروبا ينتشرون في روسيا وبيلاروسيا وأوكرانيا وبلغاريا وبولندا ومقدونيا، ويدين أغلبهم بالمسيحية الأرثوذكسية التابعة للكنيسة الروسية، ولذلك يعتبرون، وفي مقدّمتهم يعتبر الرئيس بوتين، أن حرب تقسيم وتدمير يوغوسلافيا في عام 1992، التي تأخذ اسمها من السلافية، كانت حرباً مدبّرة أعطيت طابعاً عرقياً ودفع بها لتتحول الى مدخل لفرض مشروع تفكيك وحدة يوغوسلافيا، وإخضاع صربيا التي بقيت اكبر تجمع سلافي بقي من يوغوسلافيا بعد تفكيكها، ويجري النظر لمساعي الحكم المؤيد للغرب في أوكرانيا بشق الكنيسة الأرثوذكسية، وتأسيس بديل للكنيسة الروسية من جهة، ولمحاصرة السلافيين ذوي الأصول الروسية في شرق وجنوب أوكرانيا، كترجمة للحلقة الثانية من الحرب.
–
يقرأ الأميركيون والروس في كتاب صربيا علامات النجاح والفشل، وقد يكون من المبكر الحديث عن تغيير وشيك في وضعية صربيا السياسية تجاه وقائع حرب أوكرانيا وتداعياتها، لكن النجاح الأميركي في ادارة الحرب سيترجم مزيداً من الالتحاق المهين لصربيا بالمركز الأوروبي سعياً لاتقاء المزيد من الخسائر، والنجاح الروسي في إدارة الحرب سيعني ظهور صوت صربيا أعلى فأعلى، في انتقاد السياسات الأوروبية، ورفض الالتحاق بركب التبعية الأوروبية لأميركا.
–
ما صدر عن وزارة الخارجية الصربية على لسان كبير مستشاري الوزارة والناطقين باسمها فلاديمير كلشليانين بداية الغيث السلافي في أوروبا لنصرة النهوض الروسي، فالقول “إن الغرب ومن خلال تصرفاته يساعد في تشكيل نظام عالمي جديد دون هيمنته”، وإن “الناتو يعرف أنه لا يستطيع هزيمة روسيا، وإن عالماً جديداً قد ظهر بالفعل، بقيادة روسيا والصين، وبداية من صربيا”، كذلك الإشارة إلى أن “النظام الجديد سيكون خاليًا من الفاشية والإرهاب و”الثورات الملونة” التي يدعمها الناتو بانتظام وبشكل دوريّ”، وأن “أوكرانيا سقطت ضحية للناتو، تماماً مثل يوغوسلافيا. وبالنفاق نفسه المتوقع الذي لا حدود له”، كلمات لا يمكن أن تمرّ دون تدقيق ودراسة وتحليل في كل من موسكو واشنطن.
–
من الآن وصاعداً ستتم مراقبة المشهد في قلب أوروبا، حيث صربيا على حدود رومانيا والمجر وبلغاريا، الدول المعنية بالحرب. ومن بين هذه الدول تقف المجر موقفاً متوازناً من الحرب ومن سياسات حلف الناتو ضد روسيا، وسيدفع موقف صربيا لبدء تشكل ثنائي أوروبي جديد، ومع تحوّل مشروع حياد أوكرانيا الى خيار وحيد للحل، سيفتح التفاوض حوله الطريق لدعوات تعميمه نحو دول أخرى، وكأن مساراً معاكساً لما شهدته أوروبا الشرقية بعد العام 1990 وتفكك الاتحاد السوفياتي، يوشك أن يبدأ، وليست صربيا فيه إلا رأس جبل الجليد.
I am not here to write about historic, strategic and military details pertaining to the issues surrounding the Ukraine crisis. Apart from those fabricating Hollywood material, there are many excellent analysts covering these areas competently.
But as a Syrian/Lebanese, within my limited capacity, I have a duty to show support and reciprocate Russia’s support to Syria where it is due and, in this case, it is as it is one that is based on truths and moral issues that cannot be overlooked, even if Russia did not support Syria at all.
What I want to discuss is the justification and morality of self-defence.
War is a heavily-loaded word, a word that implies man killing man, humanity fighting humanity, armies pillaging nations, creating orphans and widows, refugees, sex slaves, destroying civilizations, economies, beautiful ancient architectural icons and a whole hoard of other atrocities that often are never repaired or resolved.
But there are wars and there are wars.
One cannot place the actions of the USA’s invasion of Iraq in the same basket as that of resistance against Nazi occupation.
People, and nations, have the right of self-defence. Self-defence is not an act of aggression. It is an act to prevent further aggression.
Not surprisingly, when the rules of the jungle prevail, just like in La Fontaine’s fables, aggressors on one hand conjure up for themselves the justification to kill, and on the other hand, they vilify the victims of their aggression when they try to exercise their right of self-defence.
The USA has been engaged in wars ever since WWII ended. Beginning with the Korean War, the West moved the theatre to Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq I and Iraq II, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria; not to mention other smaller wars. In reality, there was never ever any justification for any of them and the national security of the United States of America was never under threat by any of those much pooper and much less equipped nations.
What is ironic is the fact that even though the odds were always in favour of America, and this is an understatement, America never won any of those wars. Some cynics argue that America’s objectives were not about winning wars but about leaving mess and destruction behind. Whilst I partially agree with this sentiment, I cannot accept that America has intentionally invaded Iraq to hand it on a silver platter to Iran any more that it invaded Taliban’s Afghanistan to hand it back to the Taliban. Those who believe that America has always been successful in achieving its target of havoc seem to give it more kudos than it deserves. I genuinely believe that America has been a total failure and that its performance as the world’s self-appointed custodian of the post WWII era had been abysmal to put it mildly.
Perhaps America could be excused for it actions during the hot Cold-War era. It was a period of uncertainty, fear, and what was behind the ‘dreaded’ ‘Iron Curtain’ left little surprises to be desired.
But, using American administration rhetoric, with the dismantling of the USSR this hot-cold War era was also supposed to cease.
The rest is history. The manner in which America broke all of its promises to never encroach into Eastern Europe, how it coaxed former Warsaw Pact nations to join NATO, how it positioned missiles close to Russian borders, how it pillaged Serbia, how it tried to create a puppet regime in Georgia in 2008, how it sponsored a coup d’etat in Ukraine in 2014 putting Neo-Nazis in charge, how it bombarded the Eastern provinces for eight long years, how it reneged on the Minsk Agreements, how it refused to reach a deal on Ukraine in Jan 2022, a deal that took into consideration Russia’s legitimate security concerns, are all acts of provocation that can only lead to war; a Russian war of self-defence.
Western arrogance remains high despite the fact that Russia has clearly demonstrated red lines in Georgia and Syria. But Kiev is not Damascus. Kiev was the capital of the Russian Empire long before Texas was a state of the Union.
Furthermore, Russia is not Afghanistan or Somalia. Russia is not only a nuclear superpower, but also one with weaponry that is far more advanced than the West’s.
The Western bully has been picking on the wrong would-be adversary, and for a very long time.
What is most unbelievable about the current situation is the Western European compliance with America’s stance. Americans may well be distanced from the history and internal politics of Europe, but Germany, France, Italy and Spain must surely know better, but they are behaving in a manner as if they are either totally ignorant or extremely callous.
Puppet states of Eastern Europe should look over their shoulders and see what real support Ukraine is receiving from America after America promised Ukraine the world and then hung it out to dry.
This brings us back to the issue of drawing the line between instigating war for no reason other than imperial gain and fighting legitimately for self-defence.
The West and its media are taking the line of presenting Russia as the aggressor, portraying Putin as a crazed Tzar who wants to rebuild the USSR; not only ignoring the events of 2014 onwards, but also ignoring past and present atrocities of the West that had no justification at all.
Have we forgotten Iraq’s WMD blunder?
Russia did all it could to avert a military confrontation in Ukraine.
For eight long years, Russia refused to acknowledge the independence of the eastern provinces.
Russia continued to keep all bridges of communication with the West open in the hope of reaching an agreement to end the impasse.
Russia made it clear to America time after time, that it has red lines that cannot be crossed, including not accepting Ukraine to join NATO.
But all that America did was to ignore and continue to intimidate. When the talk about the impending Russian invasion of Ukraine was flagged on Western media, it was because America had the full intention to make sure that the January 2022 Switzerland talks with Russia must fail leaving the military option alone on the table.
The actions of Russia to neutralize and de-Nazify Ukraine are acts of self-defence. Any fair and proper court of justice would attest to this, but not in the West, where media is the echo chamber of the Western globalists and the only key to the hearts and minds of people in the West who unquestionably believe what their media dishes out.
But why are some of Russians so surprised and dismayed now by the new wave of anti-Russian propaganda? Lucky enough to visit Russia a few years ago, I found myself in an alternative paradigm; not a ‘Truman Show’ little bubble, but a huge world that did what it believed was right and didn’t give a pig’s butt (excuse the French) about what the West and Western media thought and decreed.
I was able to see the so-called ‘iron curtain’, way after the USSR was no longer, but not from a Western xenophobic vantagepoint, but from a Russian one that did not seem to care much at all about the views and the attitude of the West.
It was disappointing to see Western franchises like Starbucks and McDonald’s, but Russia looked like a proud stand-alone nation that is big enough, strong enough and rich enough to dictate its own directive and destiny.
If anything, a few years later, Russia is now in a much stronger position to dictate what it wants to the old ailing West and the stronger sanctions today are not going to be any more effective than previous milder ones.
President Biden now represents the West in many more ways than one. Not only he is meant to be the leader of the so-called ‘Free World’, but at his old age, a mental state that borders dementia, he represents the global hemisphere that has lost its technical edge and rationality; not to mention economic clout.
It is very sad that the once developed West that paved the rest of the world in technology and innovation has put its leadership under the hands of short-sighted impotent leaders like Biden, Merkel (formerly), Johnson and Macron. Those weak and shortsighted leaders are pushing the West into the corner of cultural suicide.
They represent the political legacy that led to the exodus of Western manufacturing base.
They are the legacy that destroyed family values, cultural values as well as moral values.
They are the ones forcing Russia to create an alternative global power with China; the West’s main and primary competitor.
But the problem with Western political leaders is that they are not serving their own people; they are serving their sponsors and their own profit and loss statements.
Nations are not corporations, and the corporate aspect of Western political leadership is bursting its own bubble. It is not ready to confront the challenges of either Russia or China, let alone both of them combined. The West continues to live in the euphoria of a bygone era in which it had the upper hand by way of being a leader in technological advances and manufacturing which are the basic foundations for strong economies. It has lost its technical edge, placing itself in a conflict it can neither win, let alone be able to fight.
The West needs to learn to accept humility as a desired value. For the sake of humanity as a whole, it needs to learn this lesson before its obstinance and arrogance leads the world into further and deeper wars and disasters.
ما ان اندلعت العمليات الروسية لتطهير أوكرانيا من النازية الجديدة بحكومتها الانقلابية في كييف وكتائبها (الفالانج) من وحدات آزوف التي تمّ تدريبها على يد ضباط المخابرات الأميركية منذ العام ٢٠١٤، حتى سارعت واشنطن بنقل سفارتها الى مدينة لڤيڤ في غرب البلاد ونحو ٧ آلاف من موظفيها من الـ «سي أي آي» والقوات الخاصة التي كانت تعمل في ٢٥ مختبراً للحرب الجرثومية تمّ زرعها على طول البلاد الأوكرانية وعرضها.
عملت ذلك لأنها تعرف بالضبط الى ماذا يهدف بوتين عندما قرّر إغلاق باب الديبلوماسية مع الغرب والدخول في عملية جراحية عنيفة أكثر من ضرورية على الأرض الأوكرانية…
تعرف انّ كلّ جماعاتها مطلوبة للتصفية وانّ وجه أوكرانيا كما وجه أوروبا سيتغيّر تماماً من أجل منع قيام حرب عالمية كانت ستندلع لو أنّ بوتين لم يفعلها وترك الغرب يقتحم الاتحاد الروسي على الطريقة السورية!
ولمعرفة سبب وحيثيات الهروب الأميركي والغربي وربما زيلينسكي نفسه وطغمته الحاكمة في كييف الى غرب البلاد، لا بدّ من العودة الى التاريخ قليلاً لعرض صورة موجزة ولكن مكثفة لما تعنيه لڤيڤ التي تتجمّع فيها رأس الأفعى النيو نازية:
انها جمهورية غرب أوكرانيا «النازية» المعروفة لدى كلّ من يعرف تاريخ أوكرانيا القديم والحديث، وكما يلي باختصار:
أولا: تمّ الإعلان عن تأسيها في مدينة لڤيڤ التي يكثر الحديث عنها حالياً بتاريخ ١/١١/١٩١٨ في منطقة غاليتسيا، التي كانت جزءاً من أراضي امبراطورية النمسا ـ المجر، وذلك بعد هزيمة هذه الامبراطورية في الحرب العالمية الأولى وانهيارها.
ثانيا: كانت أغلبية السكان من القومية الروسية (أوكرانيين) وكانت تسكنها أقلية بولندية.
ثالثا: قامت القوات البولندية، بتاريخ ٢٢/١١/١٩١٨، باحتلال مدينة لڤيڤ التي كانت تعتبر عاصمة تلك الجمهورية، مما اضطر القائمين عليها بالهرب الى مدينة ستانيسلاو، بتاريخ ٢٢/١١/١٩١٨.
رابعا: عقد «برلمان» الجمهورية، المكوّن من عناصر منشيڤيكيه (شيوعيين منشقين عن الحزب الشيوعي السوفياتي) وإصلاحيين اجتماعيين ودعاة فيدرالية… وكلهم معادون للشيوعية، عقد هذا البرلمان جلسته الأولى بتاريخ ٣/١/١٩١٩ في ستانيسلاو.
خامسا: عقد هذا البرلمان جلسة أخرى بتاريخ ٢٢/١/١٩١٩ قرّر خلالها ضمّ هذه الجمهورية الى جمهورية أوكرانيا الشعبية (الشيوعية) التي كان قد أعلن عن قيامها بتاريخ ٢٠/١١/١٩١٧. وقد اشترط أعضاء ذلك البرلمان ان يتمتع غرب أوكرانيا بنوع من الاستقلال الذاتي ضمن أوكرانيا الموحدة.
سادسا: في شهر أيار / ١٩١٩ استولى الجيش البولندي على عاصمة جمهورية غرب أوكرانيا وفي شهر تموز /١٩١٧ استولى الجيش البولندي على بقية أراضي جمهورية غرب أوكرانيا وضمها الى بولندا.
سابعا: قرّر المجلس الأعلى لمؤتمر باريس للسلام، بتاريخ ٢١/١١/١٩١٩، إبقاء هذه المنطقة تحت السيادة البولندية. وبقيت كذلك حتى ٢٥/٤/١٩٢٠ عندما تقدم الجيش البولندي داخل الاراضي الأوكرانية، خوفاً من سيطرة الجيش الأحمر عليها، واحتلّ كييف في التاريخ أعلاه.
ثامنا: (بتاريخ ١٨/٣/١٩٢١ تمّ توقيع اتفاقية سلام، بين الاتحاد السوفياتي وبولندا، في ريغا عاصمة ليتوانيا تم من خلاله تأكيد سيادة بولندا على أراضي جمهورية أوكرانيا الغربية.
هذه الجمهورية يحاول الأميركي المهزوم والمنكسر أمام تقدّم بوتين إحياءها كآخر أمل له لإنقاذ ما يمكن إنقاذه من نفوذه هناك بالتعاون مع حكومة بولندا التي نصبها هناك ستيف بانون مستشار الرئيس السابق دونالد ترامب على أسس نازية ايضاً.
من أجل هذا وغيره من حيثيات وتداعيات العملية الجراحية الروسية، لا بدّ من قيام جبهة عالميّة للحرب على النازية الجديدة المتجسّدة بالوحش الأميركي في واشنطن بشقيه الجمهوري والديمقراطي، وهزيمته في أوروبا، كما حصل في تحالف الحرب ضدّ الإرهاب في سورية والعراق للقضاء على القاعدة وداعش وأخواتهما هناك.
Russia is implementing international law throughout the course of its ongoing special operation in Ukraine that the UNSC was unable to earlier do instead due to the US’ resistance and literal complicity in those exact same war crimes that its fascist proxies have hitherto been committing with impunity for nearly a decade already. This humanitarian and law enforcement operation is strictly limited to fighting America’s fascist puppets in Ukraine in order to bring them to justice and subsequently liberate the Ukrainian people who they took hostage.
It became obvious over the past two days that one of the most pernicious manipulations of the truth concerns the description of the ongoing conflict as a “Russian war on Ukraine”, which is totally false but is being propagated for two narrative reasons. These are to make it seem like Russia is attacking its fraternal neighbor whom President Putin described as historically united with his people, thus misportraying him as a hypocrite, and to galvanize the Ukrainian people in opposition to Russia in accordance with the US’ active attempts to indefinitely divide and rule their brotherly societies. These self-interested objectives aim to advance the US’ strategic goals in the region. Suffice to say, those weaponized information warfare narratives don’t reflect reality.
What’s actually happening is that Russia is fighting the fascist regime that America installed in Ukraine following the spree of urban terrorism popularly known in the West as “EuroMaidan”. Although that country’s incumbent leader is Jewish, he’s practically held hostage to these ultra-radical elements that glorify Hitler and their ancestors who collaborated with him to commit genocide against Jews, Poles, and Russians, among others. Volodymyr Zelensky simply cannot resist their pressure lest he himself be politically neutralized by them or even overthrown, however that would end up happening, whether through another Color Revolution, a military coup, or some other means. It was under this US-backed fascist regime that Ukraine was artificially transformed into an anti-Russian proxy state.
President Putin described these illegitimate authorities on Friday as a “gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis that have settled in Kiev and that have taken the Ukrainian people hostage.” He naively recognized them in the past due to his appeasement of the West that he tacitly acknowledged in his speech to the nation on early Thursday morning. The Russian leader said that he exhausted all diplomatic means to resolve his country’s existential security crisis with the US prior to commencing its ongoing special operation in Ukraine aimed at preempting NATO’s planned attack against Russia that his intelligence services told him ”cannot be avoided.” Since he can’t strike at the root of the problem by attacking the US itself due to the principle of mutually assured destruction, he’s aiming for its puppets in Kiev instead.
They’re the ones who most directly exacerbated this crisis to its most critical limit so it naturally follows that they must be deposed in order to restore peace and strategic stability to the region. That’s why the Russian leader declared during his earlier mentioned speech on Thursday that his country’s war aims are to denazify Ukraine, demilitarize it, and subsequently ensure its military neutrality after “bring[ing] to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.” This very strongly implies that Ukraine’s post-war government, regardless of whoever it’s ultimately led by, will pragmatically recalibrate its policies following the inevitably successful conclusion of Russia’s special operation there.
It’s for these reasons why Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova reminded everyone that “Another goal of the operation is to hold the current figures, the puppet regime, accountable for the crimes committed over these years against civilians, including citizens of the Russian Federation, as well as to carry out the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine.” She also reassured the world that Russia isn’t targeting civilian infrastructure, only military ones and their assets. Russian Ambassador to the EU Vladimir Chizhov later chimed in by reaffirming his country’s lack of interest in any territorial conquests exactly as President Putin stated during his early Thursday morning address. As could have been predicted, the US-led Western Mainstream Media ignored everything that Russian officials said.
They also of course paid no attention to President Putin’s warning on Friday that “Banderites and neo-Nazis are putting up heavy weapons, including multiple-rocket launchers, right in the central districts of large cities, including Kiev and Kharkov. They plan to force return fire by Russian strike systems against residential quarters. In effect, they are acting in the same way that terrorists act all over the world – using people as shields in the hope of accusing Russia of civilian casualties.” As the Russian leader explained, this is being done to spread fake news about his country allegedly killing civilians, false claims of which are already widely circulating on the Mainstream Media and among pro-Western accounts on social media. They’re doing this in order to paint President Putin as a war criminal, which he isn’t.
The only war criminals are those connected with Kiev’s US-backed post-coup fascist authorities who attacked civilians throughout the course of their country’s eight-year-long civil war that could have already been peacefully resolved had Ukraine implemented the UNSC-endorsed Minsk Accords. They had no such interest in doing so since their American patrons encouraged them to ignore these items of international law (which they officially entered into after the UNSC passed an official resolution approving them in 2015) in order to continue stoking the flames of Washington’s anti-Russian proxy war in the region. This also makes American officials just as guilty of war crimes as their fascist puppets in Kiev are though no one should get their hopes up expecting justice to ever be served to them.
The only ones who’ll realistically pay for their crimes are those who President Putin just unforgettably described as the “gang of drug addicts and Neo-Nazis that have settled in Kiev and that have taken the Ukrainian people hostage.” In other words, Russia is implementing international law throughout the course of its ongoing special operation in Ukraine that the UNSC was unable to earlier do instead due to the US’ resistance and literal complicity in those exact same war crimes that its fascist proxies have hitherto been committing with impunity for nearly a decade already. This humanitarian and law enforcement operation is strictly limited to fighting America’s fascist puppets in Ukraine in order to bring them to justice and subsequently liberate the Ukrainian people who they took hostage.
That’s why describing the conflict as a “Russian-Ukrainian War” is factually incorrect since it misleads the targeted audience into thinking that President Putin declared war on the same fraternal people who he endlessly praised in his detailed and passionately written article last summer “On The Historical Unity Of Russians And Ukrainians”. Russia is only fighting against those literal fascists and their militant supporters who the US shamelessly backed as anti-Russian proxies. The Ukrainian people themselves have absolutely nothing to fear from Russia’s special operation in their country. In order to ensure their safety, they mustn’t listen to American propaganda calling on them to “fight the occupiers” lest they risk needlessly losing their lives. In the near future, Ukraine will be liberated and peace will soon return.
The Russian president rules the authorization of a special military operation in Donbass, stressing that Russia has no intention of invading Ukraine.
Russia previously contended that it will be entering Donbass upon the request of separatists. (Reuters)
With Putin stressing that NATO-allied neo-Nazis are moving closer to the Russian borders from Ukraine, the Russian president authorized a special military operation on Donbass this Thursday morning.
“Leading NATO countries pursue their own goal by fully supporting Ukraine’s extreme Nazis and neo-Nazis, who, in turn, will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for their free choice to reunify with Russia”, said the Russian president.
“They will, of course, go to Crimea, like to Donbass, the way they do it, to kill, like executioners from the bands of Ukrainian Nazi supporters of Hitler were killing innocent people during World War II”.
Putin made it clear once again that the Russian forces do not have any intention to occupy Ukraine, however, it will defend itself against Ukrainian forces if it must. He urged the Ukrainians to lay their arms down and to remember they gave an oath to the people, not a junta.
“The circumstances make us take decisive and immediate actions. The people’s republics of Donbass asked Russia for assistance”, Putin said.
“In this regard, in accordance with Article 51, Part 7 of the UN Charter, with the sanction of the Federation Council and in pursuance of the friendship and mutual assistance treaties with the DPR and LPR, ratified by the Federal Assembly, I have decided to conduct a special military operation”.
He says that though war is a dirty business, NATO has not been acting out of morality, saying Russia cannot develop, feel safe, or exist with constant threats from Ukraine.
In a statement, the Russian Ministry of Defense said, “Ukrainian military infrastructure, air defense facilities, military airfields, and air forces are being neutralized by high-precision weapons”, stressing that there are no threats to the civilian population.
Putin drew a parallel from the past:
“We remember that in 2000 and 2005, we gave a military rebuff to terrorists in the Caucasus. We defended the integrity of our state, preserved Russia”, he pointed out.
“In 2014, they supported the Crimeans and Sevastopol residents. In 2015, the armed forces were used to put up a reliable barrier to the penetration of terrorists from Syria into Russia”.
The Russian President stressed that his country is ready to respond immediately to those who interfere and create more threats.
“My dear fellow citizens, I am certain that the soldiers and officers of the Russian Armed Forces who are loyal to their country will do their duty working together effectively”, Putin said. “I have no doubt that all levels of power will work together and be effective”.
On Tuesday, Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, Nikolay Pankov, alerted that, after their recognition, the situation in the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk is escalating, saying that innocent victims are increasing, as 100,000 people in Donbass were obliged to leave their homes only in the recent days, including 29,865 children.
While such hostile threats being directed at Moscow by US officials is standard practice, there may be more to them in this case.
Azov battalion, the neo-Nazis of Ukraine
With the repeated American warnings of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine despite the Russian assurances and the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s statements implying the West was creating unnecessary panic, the question of the United States actually wanting Russia to invade and occupy Ukraine is warranted. Past events in places like Afghanistan may be seen by Western policy-makers as a scenario that could be replicated in Ukraine. However just as Afghanistan ended up in a severe blowback for the West the same applies to Ukraine albeit on a much more dangerous level.
The Russian occupation scenario
The commentary by some of the most prominent establishment-connected journalists in Washington hints not only at a wish for a Russian invasion but of occupation, under the assumption that such a scenario will bleed Russia out just as the occupation of Afghanistan did to the Soviet Union.
In an article on February 14 by the Washington Post’s David Ignatius titled “Putin’s impending march of folly in Ukraine” the writer quotes American officials who reveal operational details of an imminent large-scale Russian offensive into Ukraine. Ignatius — who is known for his close contacts with the CIA – reaches the conclusion that Russian forces will proceed to occupy Ukraine following the supposed invasion. But what is most revealing is the argument made by the author that Russia’s troubles will actually start after the” occupation” of Ukraine, and the comparison he draws in this regard between a potential Russian offensive into Ukraine and the US experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan:
“If just 10 percent of Ukraine’s 40 million people decided to actively resist occupation, they would mount a powerful insurgency. Small bands of motivated fighters subverted America’s overwhelming military power in Iraq and Afghanistan” Ignatius writes.
According to Ignatius therefore the current crisis in Ukraine may be an opportunity to get Russia into a quagmire akin to those that America has faced and that has contributed significantly to its global decline. In a similar vein, unnamed American officials have been quoted as saying that Russian troops will return in body bags if Moscow were to go ahead with an invasion of Ukraine.
While such hostile threats being directed at Moscow by American officials is standard practice, there may be more to them in this case, especially given that similar sentiments have been expressed at an official level. US joint chief of staff Mark Milley reportedly issued a warning to his Russian counterpart Valery Garasimov that Russian forces would be met in Ukraine with a “bloody insurgency” similar to what the Soviet forces faced in Afghanistan.
That Washington is striving to get Russia bogged down in a quagmire makes sense in that it comes as the US shifts gears from a focus on “fighting terrorism” to a focus on “great power competition”. It is possible that Washington calculates that just as the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was a major factor in the ultimate demise of the Soviet Union during the previous era of “great power competition” so too will a Russian occupation of Ukraine blunt the rise of Russia and more importantly the emerging alliance between Moscow and Beijing.
Despite the many differences between Ukraine and Afghanistan there also exist similarities, most notably the presence of combat fighters with an ideological zeal that can be used against a (supposed) Russian “occupying” force.
The neo-Nazis of Ukraine
While the so-called “Mujahideen” in Afghanistan represented an “Islamic” force with which to fight Soviet troops, there exists in Ukraine a heavy presence of neo-Nazis who espouse an ideology that is no less extreme than that of the “Mujahideen”.
The main neo-Nazi force is a group under the name the “Azov Battalion”. This group emerged with the onset of the fighting in the eastern Ukranian Donbass region and was later incorporated into the Ukranian National Guard. It has been described as one of the most effective fighting forces against ethnic Russian inhabitants of Donbass.
The Azov battalion takes its name from the battle of the sea of Azov in World War 2, when Nazi Germany and its allies defeated the Soviet forces and proceeded to take control of both Donbass and Crimea.
Although some of the members of the group deny the neo-Nazi association, there nevertheless exists a narrative that is eerily similar to that which was propagated by Adolf Hitler. During an interview with the Guardian, a member of Azov who identified himself as “Dimitry” described Russian President Vladimir Putin as “not even a Russian” but rather “a Jew”. This characterization is almost identical to Hitler’s description of Russia in his autobiography Mein Kampf where he states that “the international Jew” dominates Russia.
That Washington may be planning to use the neo-Nazis in Ukraine against a Russian “invasion” and “occupation” is further supported by the stances advocated by the ‘Atlantic Council’, a Washington think tank that has been at the forefront of the lobbying efforts to push the Biden administration into taking a more confrontational stance with Russia over the issue of Ukraine and specifically the Donbass and Crimea regions.
As the renowned American scholar David Hendrickson has noted, the ‘Atlantic Council’ has succeeded in steering the Biden administration’s policy visa-vi Russia and Ukraine towards its anti-Moscow agenda.
Interestingly scholars affiliated with this think tank have spoken out against the designation of the Azov Battalion as a terrorist organization arguing that the movement had sought to de-politicize itself. Such an approach would allow for the provision of various types of weapons to the Ukraine military and security apparatus without facing the constraints that come with the terrorism designation and also for the provision of weapons to the most ideologically motivated anti-Russian forces in Ukraine.
The blowback scenario of supporting the neo-Nazis of Ukraine
While supporting the neo-Nazis may seem like an attractive option in terms of getting Russia dragged into a quagmire similar to that which it faced in Afghanistan, this option also carries with it the danger of a severe blowback against the West. Just as Afghanistan became a base for extremism following the withdrawal of Soviet Troops which culminated in the September 11 attacks, Ukraine is likely to become a base for right-wing extremism if a similar scenario were to play out in that country. According to the Soufan Center, a large number of foreign fighters with right-wing sympathies have already traveled to Ukraine to fight alongside the Azov Battalion against the ethnic Russian population in Donbass. It is even believed that the perpetrator of the Christchurch massacre in New Zealand Brenton Tarrant may have received training in Ukraine during a trip he paid to that country, which would make him the first ‘foreign fighter’ from the white supremacist movement to commit such an act of terror. Amongst those that have also traveled to Ukraine to link up with the Azov Battalion are members of the US-based neo-Nazi ‘Atomwaffen Division’. American extremists have reportedly traveled to Ukraine with the sole purpose of gaining battlefield experience.
Most importantly however Azov has a broader agenda that does not stop at fighting Russia. Here as well one can see a similarity with so-called “Islamist” groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS (both of whom had broader agendas that extended beyond Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria respectively). Officials from Azov have bluntly stated that the movement sought to create a far-right coalition spanning the entire Western world with the end goal being to take power over the entire European continent.
The potential blowback scenario however for supporting the neo-Nazis against a Russian “occupation” is likely to have repercussions far more dangerous for the West compared to what it faced in the case of Afghanistan or Syria for that matter. While groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS described the West in terms like ‘the far enemy’ — as opposed to groups like the Shiite being labeled as the ‘near enemy – the spread of the right-wing threat represented by ideologies like neo-Nazism and white supremacism is a threat ‘from within’, particularly given the rise of right-wing sentiments in the Western world. As a result, Western nations are unlikely to be adequately equipped to deal with the repercussions of a neo-Nazi state emerging in Ukraine. Russia for its part does not suffer from such a right-wing trend in its society and would therefore be relatively immune to the repercussions. This would mean that the West would pay the highest price if it were to pursue an Afghan-like policy in Ukraine even if such a policy were to succeed in defeating a Russian “occupation” force in the short run.
The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.
The two big differences between 2017 and 2022 are that back then France had a presidential candidate who should have been called a National Socialist, and that in 2022 the country has somehow moved even further to the right.
History will show that back in 2017 the Great Financial Crisis – just the latest failure of Western liberalism – had inflamed the masses too much for every single politician to ignore: Marine Le Pen thus dropped the Reaganism of her father and made it to the second round.
She defended economic ideas similar to the Germanic National Socialists of the 1930s, who pillaged the Marxists of their “anti-international finance” analysis only to dangle economic equality for those of a certain religion and ethnicity. The latter is why they weren’t socialists, of course, but merely people who somewhat understood the economics buttressing Western Liberal Democracy.
Five years after 2017, Eric Zemmour draws widespread praise from people who believe they are entirely well-meaning by saying that he is, “here to save the French people and France…not here to save the world.” It’s a telling, semi-messianic remark because it is truly straight out of Adolf Hitler’s platform in the 1930s.
Ah, old Adolf – we can’t bring him up in the West, can we?
Many have heard of Godwin’s Law, or the rule of Nazi analogies: an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches. However, an important corollary is that whenever someone compares someone or something to Nazism – that person has lost the argument and/or the argument is summarily over.
Essentially, the world is to accept that all discussions of Western politics cannot discuss the anti-Western Liberalism ideology which was German Nazism.
How difficult it will be, then, to describe a French election where the four top candidates are all on the far-right – either economically, politically, culturally or all three!
I will come out and say it: Today’s left does not want to talk about the socialism in Germanic National Socialism, even though there was some.
Namely: Unlike seemingly all Western politicians today, Hitler actually read Marx and incorporated something of class analysis into Germanic Nazism. He clearly was familiar with the perfectly accurate Marxist analysis of European historico-economics up until the late 19th century: landed wealth was joined by commercial/trading wealth was joined by industrial/financial/stock-jobbing wealth, and then they all stopped squabbling and peacefully joined hands to oppress the 99%. Western Liberal Democracy remains – eternally – at this point.
German National Socialism opposed – in their campaign promises, at least – the domination of international high finance and the liberalism (whether “neo-”, “ultra-” or sans-préfixe it’s all the same: free markets, unregulated capitalism, rights for those who can afford it) which forever is ultimately cover for a bankocracy. In political power structures and culturally Germanic National Socialism totally rejected the grassroots empowerment and multiculturalism of Socialist Democracy.
But the right does also not come out and say it, either: Today’s right doesn’t want to talk about the economic socialism in German Nazism – because they oppose talking about socialism with anything but death threats – whereas they are entirely thrilled to use their same racist scapegoating and autocracy.
Hitler would have called Zemmour far-right, and that’s saying something
Returning to Zemmour’s jingoist messianic message: He promises to save only those within his own borders and only those of a certain color/religion/DNA, and thus he totally rejects the internationalism embodied by socialism, just as Hitler did. Nobody was less internationalist than old Adolf – his nation was to be a purely Teutonic one. This message still resounds across Europe 90 years later – Zemmour is hardly unique – in what can easily be termed “National Neoliberalism”.
Zemmour doesn’t just go against the tide of history, he is anti-history – in the sense that his own particular interpretation of French history hopes to be predominant, and not interpretations which rely on accuracy, rationality, scientific historical analysis, etc. Thus, Zemmour also incarnates the autocratic vision of a dictator like Hitler on how a political power structure should operate – per his whims. France is whatever Zemmour says it is. If he says France means no kebab shops or people named “Ramin”, then so be it.
Frankly, I think Zemmour is a total waste of my time, and it’s easy to explain why:
Zemmour is so pathetically predictable precisely because – as this analysis of Zemmour notes, by the must-read political polymath (and longtime inhabitant of France) Pepe Escobar – he’s such a sycophant; so obviously fuelled by winning the approval of the elite. He is not like Donald Trump, who was born with the brazen independence of the super rich – Trump never needed a patron – and who was much more a genuine political outsider. LOL, you work at Le Figaro for 25 years and you’re not tenderly ensconced in the political mainstream? Tu parles…. With Trump a voter had at least some grounds to hope that: Here is someone asking for my vote who might actually have the courage to be a renegade against the 1% – a hope that was dashed on the unimpressionable rock which is apparently Trump’s brain. Not only will Zemmour never be 1/10th the loose cannon Trump was, Zemmour does’t even have the potential to do so. Few outside France realise that Zemmour is not even intellectually courageous enough to actually be original – he’s the racist, social-climbing, poor man’s Alain Soral, who had a Yellow Vest on seemingly immediately.
Zemmour’s long-delayed economic program is totally Reaganite/neoliberal – this was totally predictable precisely because he’s such a toady to the elite. Hitler truly would have called Zemmour right-wing, economically.
Therefore, I assume Zemmour’s totally pro-insider ideology makes him so unelectable that I won’t have to say much more on him, unless I have to in-between the first and second round, and thus Macron’s re-election. I should note that I treated Emmanuel Macron with very similar disdain in my journalism in 2017 – both are total suck-ups to the elite, of course.
Zemmour offers the same old reactionary faux-promise: reversion to a bygone (autocratic, insular) era. He has kept all the rabid anti-internationalism and racism which helped sweep Hitler to power, and which seems totally embedded in Western society after nearly a century, and none of the economic promises of Germanic National Socialism, unlike Le Pen in 2017.
Marine Le Pen, whom I would totally disavow in a one-round vote, exactly as I explained in 2017, is far worse than she was in 2017, as my previous column just showed. 2017 had much more on the table – namely her anti-liberalism economic policies of leaving the euro, a vote on Frexit six months after her election and repudiating banker-induced debt.
Xenophobia in the headlines means liberalism’s economic failures aren’t
What liberalism learned from Germanic National Socialism is that xenophobia and security (greatly augmented by the total insecurity provoked by corona’s alleged once-in-a-millennium threat) are spectacles just big enough to dominate the headlines, and thus to ignore neoliberalism’s failures, and thus to get elected more liberalist, 1%-er proxies.
(To put it in Zemmour’s terms: France’s economic problem is Muslim welfare, not banker welfare. A pathetic intellectual analysis.)
Thus I can report that there is no economic program being bandied about during the French election campaign, despite the screams of the inflation-gutted French masses. Have you even noticed that we’re just two months from the vote? They’re calling it a”Teflon campaign”, where faux-issues and faux-candidates like Zemmour aren’t sticking, thus producing a 10% drop in domestic interest in the upcoming vote. Like I wrote – it’s nothing as compelling as 2017, to say nothing of 2012’s hope that Hollande would end austerity (Germanic National Neoliberalism, of course).
It is precisely by ignoring history – by refusing to acknowledge Napoleon Bonaparte’s revolutionary contributions, or by calling them the “Revolutions of 1848” when they produced nothing but political counter-revolutions everywhere but France, or by ignoring French liberalism’s collusion with Bismarck to lay siege to Paris in 1871, or by claiming that World War I started merely by some sort of unforeseen accident, or by refusing to allow any political discussion of Germanic National Socialism, etc. – that Western Liberal Democracy is able to persist despite the regular depressions, inequalities and the suicidal disgust with politics it provokes.
And yet despite Zemmour’s ascent to 4th place the Yellow Vests proved that there are indeed pre-revolutionary conditions in France – my book on them will soon start to be published, chapter by chapter, because that is so obviously true.
But with the viability of the candidacy of Zemmour – who truly must be considered to be to the right of Germanic National Socialists and Adolf Hitler – it does’t take a historian like Trotsky to note that revolutionary changes never came via a Western Liberal Democratic ballot.
During the recent Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people – a single whole. These words were not driven by some short-term considerations or prompted by the current political context. It is what I have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly believe. I therefore feel it necessary to explain my position in detail and share my assessments of today’s situation.
First of all, I would like to emphasize that the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is our great common misfortune and tragedy. These are, first and foremost, the consequences of our own mistakes made at different periods of time. But these are also the result of deliberate efforts by those forces that have always sought to undermine our unity. The formula they apply has been known from time immemorial – divide and rule. There is nothing new here. Hence the attempts to play on the ”national question“ and sow discord among people, the overarching goal being to divide and then to pit the parts of a single people against one another.
To have a better understanding of the present and look into the future, we need to turn to history. Certainly, it is impossible to cover in this article all the developments that have taken place over more than a thousand years. But I will focus on the key, pivotal moments that are important for us to remember, both in Russia and Ukraine.
Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus, which was the largest state in Europe. Slavic and other tribes across the vast territory – from Ladoga, Novgorod, and Pskov to Kiev and Chernigov – were bound together by one language (which we now refer to as Old Russian), economic ties, the rule of the princes of the Rurik dynasty, and – after the baptism of Rus – the Orthodox faith. The spiritual choice made by St. Vladimir, who was both Prince of Novgorod and Grand Prince of Kiev, still largely determines our affinity today.
The throne of Kiev held a dominant position in Ancient Rus. This had been the custom since the late 9th century. The Tale of Bygone Years captured for posterity the words of Oleg the Prophet about Kiev, ”Let it be the mother of all Russian cities.“
Later, like other European states of that time, Ancient Rus faced a decline of central rule and fragmentation. At the same time, both the nobility and the common people perceived Rus as a common territory, as their homeland.
The fragmentation intensified after Batu Khan’s devastating invasion, which ravaged many cities, including Kiev. The northeastern part of Rus fell under the control of the Golden Horde but retained limited sovereignty. The southern and western Russian lands largely became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which – most significantly – was referred to in historical records as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia.
Members of the princely and ”boyar“ clans would change service from one prince to another, feuding with each other but also making friendships and alliances. Voivode Bobrok of Volyn and the sons of Grand Duke of Lithuania Algirdas – Andrey of Polotsk and Dmitry of Bryansk – fought next to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich of Moscow on the Kulikovo field. At the same time, Grand Duke of Lithuania Jogaila – son of the Princess of Tver – led his troops to join with Mamai. These are all pages of our shared history, reflecting its complex and multi-dimensional nature.
Most importantly, people both in the western and eastern Russian lands spoke the same language. Their faith was Orthodox. Up to the middle of the 15th century, the unified church government remained in place.
At a new stage of historical development, both Lithuanian Rus and Moscow Rus could have become the points of attraction and consolidation of the territories of Ancient Rus. It so happened that Moscow became the center of reunification, continuing the tradition of ancient Russian statehood. Moscow princes – the descendants of Prince Alexander Nevsky – cast off the foreign yoke and began gathering the Russian lands.
In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, other processes were unfolding. In the 14th century, Lithuania’s ruling elite converted to Catholicism. In the 16th century, it signed the Union of Lublin with the Kingdom of Poland to form the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Polish Catholic nobility received considerable land holdings and privileges in the territory of Rus. In accordance with the 1596 Union of Brest, part of the western Russian Orthodox clergy submitted to the authority of the Pope. The process of Polonization and Latinization began, ousting Orthodoxy.
As a consequence, in the 16–17th centuries, the liberation movement of the Orthodox population was gaining strength in the Dnieper region. The events during the times of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky became a turning point. His supporters struggled for autonomy from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
In its 1649 appeal to the king of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Zaporizhian Host demanded that the rights of the Russian Orthodox population be respected, that the voivode of Kiev be Russian and of Greek faith, and that the persecution of the churches of God be stopped. But the Cossacks were not heard.
Bohdan Khmelnytsky then made appeals to Moscow, which were considered by the Zemsky Sobor. On 1 October 1653, members of the supreme representative body of the Russian state decided to support their brothers in faith and take them under patronage. In January 1654, the Pereyaslav Council confirmed that decision. Subsequently, the ambassadors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Moscow visited dozens of cities, including Kiev, whose populations swore allegiance to the Russian tsar. Incidentally, nothing of the kind happened at the conclusion of the Union of Lublin.
In a letter to Moscow in 1654, Bohdan Khmelnytsky thanked Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich for taking ”the whole Zaporizhian Host and the whole Russian Orthodox world under the strong and high hand of the Tsar“. It means that, in their appeals to both the Polish king and the Russian tsar, the Cossacks referred to and defined themselves as Russian Orthodox people.
Over the course of the protracted war between the Russian state and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, some of the hetmans, successors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, would ”detach themselves“ from Moscow or seek support from Sweden, Poland, or Turkey. But, again, for the people, that was a war of liberation. It ended with the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667. The final outcome was sealed by the Treaty of Perpetual Peace in 1686. The Russian state incorporated the city of Kiev and the lands on the left bank of the Dnieper River, including Poltava region, Chernigov region, and Zaporozhye. Their inhabitants were reunited with the main part of the Russian Orthodox people. These territories were referred to as ”Malorossia“ (Little Russia).
The name ”Ukraine“ was used more often in the meaning of the Old Russian word ”okraina“ (periphery), which is found in written sources from the 12th century, referring to various border territories. And the word ”Ukrainian“, judging by archival documents, originally referred to frontier guards who protected the external borders.
On the right bank, which remained under the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the old orders were restored, and social and religious oppression intensified. On the contrary, the lands on the left bank, taken under the protection of the unified state, saw rapid development. People from the other bank of the Dnieper moved here en masse. They sought support from people who spoke the same language and had the same faith.
During the Great Northern War with Sweden, the people in Malorossia were not faced with a choice of whom to side with. Only a small portion of the Cossacks supported Mazepa’s rebellion. People of all orders and degrees considered themselves Russian and Orthodox.
Cossack senior officers belonging to the nobility would reach the heights of political, diplomatic, and military careers in Russia. Graduates of Kiev-Mohyla Academy played a leading role in church life. This was also the case during the Hetmanate – an essentially autonomous state formation with a special internal structure – and later in the Russian Empire. Malorussians in many ways helped build a big common country – its statehood, culture, and science. They participated in the exploration and development of the Urals, Siberia, the Caucasus, and the Far East. Incidentally, during the Soviet period, natives of Ukraine held major, including the highest, posts in the leadership of the unified state. Suffice it to say that Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev, whose party biography was most closely associated with Ukraine, led the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) for almost 30 years.
In the second half of the 18th century, following the wars with the Ottoman Empire, Russia incorporated Crimea and the lands of the Black Sea region, which became known as Novorossiya. They were populated by people from all of the Russian provinces. After the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russian Empire regained the western Old Russian lands, with the exception of Galicia and Transcarpathia, which became part of the Austrian – and later Austro-Hungarian – Empire.
The incorporation of the western Russian lands into the single state was not merely the result of political and diplomatic decisions. It was underlain by the common faith, shared cultural traditions, and – I would like to emphasize it once again – language similarity. Thus, as early as the beginning of the 17th century, one of the hierarchs of the Uniate Church, Joseph Rutsky, communicated to Rome that people in Moscovia called Russians from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth their brothers, that their written language was absolutely identical, and differences in the vernacular were insignificant. He drew an analogy with the residents of Rome and Bergamo. These are, as we know, the center and the north of modern Italy.
Many centuries of fragmentation and living within different states naturally brought about regional language peculiarities, resulting in the emergence of dialects. The vernacular enriched the literary language. Ivan Kotlyarevsky, Grigory Skovoroda, and Taras Shevchenko played a huge role here. Their works are our common literary and cultural heritage. Taras Shevchenko wrote poetry in the Ukrainian language, and prose mainly in Russian. The books of Nikolay Gogol, a Russian patriot and native of Poltavshchyna, are written in Russian, bristling with Malorussian folk sayings and motifs. How can this heritage be divided between Russia and Ukraine? And why do it?
The south-western lands of the Russian Empire, Malorussia and Novorossiya, and the Crimea developed as ethnically and religiously diverse entities. Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Karaites, Krymchaks, Bulgarians, Poles, Serbs, Germans, and other peoples lived here. They all preserved their faith, traditions, and customs.
I am not going to idealise anything. We do know there were the Valuev Circular of 1863 an then the Ems Ukaz of 1876, which restricted the publication and importation of religious and socio-political literature in the Ukrainian language. But it is important to be mindful of the historical context. These decisions were taken against the backdrop of dramatic events in Poland and the desire of the leaders of the Polish national movement to exploit the ”Ukrainian issue“ to their own advantage. I should add that works of fiction, books of Ukrainian poetry and folk songs continued to be published. There is objective evidence that the Russian Empire was witnessing an active process of development of the Malorussian cultural identity within the greater Russian nation, which united the Velikorussians, the Malorussians and the Belorussians.
At the same time, the idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians started to form and gain ground among the Polish elite and a part of the Malorussian intelligentsia. Since there was no historical basis – and could not have been any, conclusions were substantiated by all sorts of concoctions, which went as far as to claim that the Ukrainians are the true Slavs and the Russians, the Muscovites, are not. Such ”hypotheses“ became increasingly used for political purposes as a tool of rivalry between European states.
Since the late 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian authorities had latched onto this narrative, using it as a counterbalance to the Polish national movement and pro-Muscovite sentiments in Galicia. During World War I, Vienna played a role in the formation of the so-called Legion of Ukrainian Sich Riflemen. Galicians suspected of sympathies with Orthodox Christianity and Russia were subjected to brutal repression and thrown into the concentration camps of Thalerhof and Terezin.
Further developments had to do with the collapse of European empires, the fierce civil war that broke out across the vast territory of the former Russian Empire, and foreign intervention.
After the February Revolution, in March 1917, the Central Rada was established in Kiev, intended to become the organ of supreme power. In November 1917, in its Third Universal, it declared the creation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR) as part of Russia.
In December 1917, UPR representatives arrived in Brest-Litovsk, where Soviet Russia was negotiating with Germany and its allies. At a meeting on 10 January 1918, the head of the Ukrainian delegation read out a note proclaiming the independence of Ukraine. Subsequently, the Central Rada proclaimed Ukraine independent in its Fourth Universal.
The declared sovereignty did not last long. Just a few weeks later, Rada delegates signed a separate treaty with the German bloc countries. Germany and Austria-Hungary were at the time in a dire situation and needed Ukrainian bread and raw materials. In order to secure large-scale supplies, they obtained consent for sending their troops and technical staff to the UPR. In fact, this was used as a pretext for occupation.
For those who have today given up the full control of Ukraine to external forces, it would be instructive to remember that, back in 1918, such a decision proved fatal for the ruling regime in Kiev. With the direct involvement of the occupying forces, the Central Rada was overthrown and Hetman Pavlo Skoropadskyi was brought to power, proclaiming instead of the UPR the Ukrainian State, which was essentially under German protectorate.
In November 1918 – following the revolutionary events in Germany and Austria-Hungary – Pavlo Skoropadskyi, who had lost the support of German bayonets, took a different course, declaring that ”Ukraine is to take the lead in the formation of an All-Russian Federation“. However, the regime was soon changed again. It was now the time of the so-called Directorate.
In autumn 1918, Ukrainian nationalists proclaimed the West Ukrainian People’s Republic (WUPR) and, in January 1919, announced its unification with the Ukrainian People’s Republic. In July 1919, Ukrainian forces were crushed by Polish troops, and the territory of the former WUPR came under the Polish rule.
In April 1920, Symon Petliura (portrayed as one of the ”heroes“ in today’s Ukraine) concluded secret conventions on behalf of the UPR Directorate, giving up – in exchange for military support – Galicia and Western Volhynia lands to Poland. In May 1920, Petliurites entered Kiev in a convoy of Polish military units. But not for long. As early as November 1920, following a truce between Poland and Soviet Russia, the remnants of Petliura’s forces surrendered to those same Poles.
The example of the UPR shows that different kinds of quasi-state formations that emerged across the former Russian Empire at the time of the Civil War and turbulence were inherently unstable. Nationalists sought to create their own independent states, while leaders of the White movement advocated indivisible Russia. Many of the republics established by the Bolsheviks’ supporters did not see themselves outside Russia either. Nevertheless, Bolshevik Party leaders sometimes basically drove them out of Soviet Russia for various reasons.
Thus, in early 1918, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic was proclaimed and asked Moscow to incorporate it into Soviet Russia. This was met with a refusal. During a meeting with the republic’s leaders, Vladimir Lenin insisted that they act as part of Soviet Ukraine. On 15 March 1918, the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) directly ordered that delegates be sent to the Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, including from the Donetsk Basin, and that ”one government for all of Ukraine“ be created at the congress. The territories of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic later formed most of the regions of south-eastern Ukraine.
Under the 1921 Treaty of Riga, concluded between the Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and Poland, the western lands of the former Russian Empire were ceded to Poland. In the interwar period, the Polish government pursued an active resettlement policy, seeking to change the ethnic composition of the Eastern Borderlands – the Polish name for what is now Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and parts of Lithuania. The areas were subjected to harsh Polonisation, local culture and traditions suppressed. Later, during World War II, radical groups of Ukrainian nationalists used this as a pretext for terror not only against Polish, but also against Jewish and Russian populations.
In 1922, when the USSR was created, with the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic becoming one of its founders, a rather fierce debate among the Bolshevik leaders resulted in the implementation of Lenin’s plan to form a union state as a federation of equal republics. The right for the republics to freely secede from the Union was included in the text of the Declaration on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, subsequently, in the 1924 USSR Constitution. By doing so, the authors planted in the foundation of our statehood the most dangerous time bomb, which exploded the moment the safety mechanism provided by the leading role of the CPSU was gone, the party itself collapsing from within. A ”parade of sovereignties“ followed. On 8 December 1991, the so-called Belovezh Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States was signed, stating that ”the USSR as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality no longer existed.“ By the way, Ukraine never signed or ratified the CIS Charter adopted back in 1993.
In the 1920’s-1930’s, the Bolsheviks actively promoted the ”localization policy“, which took the form of Ukrainization in the Ukrainian SSR. Symbolically, as part of this policy and with consent of the Soviet authorities, Mikhail Grushevskiy, former chairman of Central Rada, one of the ideologists of Ukrainian nationalism, who at a certain period of time had been supported by Austria-Hungary, was returned to the USSR and was elected member of the Academy of Sciences.
The localization policy undoubtedly played a major role in the development and consolidation of the Ukrainian culture, language and identity. At the same time, under the guise of combating the so-called Russian great-power chauvinism, Ukrainization was often imposed on those who did not see themselves as Ukrainians. This Soviet national policy secured at the state level the provision on three separate Slavic peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian, instead of the large Russian nation, a triune people comprising Velikorussians, Malorussians and Belorussians.
In 1939, the USSR regained the lands earlier seized by Poland. A major portion of these became part of the Soviet Ukraine. In 1940, the Ukrainian SSR incorporated part of Bessarabia, which had been occupied by Romania since 1918, as well as Northern Bukovina. In 1948, Zmeyiniy Island (Snake Island) in the Black Sea became part of Ukraine. In 1954, the Crimean Region of the RSFSR was given to the Ukrainian SSR, in gross violation of legal norms that were in force at the time.
I would like to dwell on the destiny of Carpathian Ruthenia, which became part of Czechoslovakia following the breakup of Austria-Hungary. Rusins made up a considerable share of local population. While this is hardly mentioned any longer, after the liberation of Transcarpathia by Soviet troops the congress of the Orthodox population of the region voted for the inclusion of Carpathian Ruthenia in the RSFSR or, as a separate Carpathian republic, in the USSR proper. Yet the choice of people was ignored. In summer 1945, the historical act of the reunification of Carpathian Ukraine ”with its ancient motherland, Ukraine“ – as ThePravda newspaper put it – was announced.
Therefore, modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped – for a significant part – on the lands of historical Russia. To make sure of that, it is enough to look at the boundaries of the lands reunited with the Russian state in the 17th century and the territory of the Ukrainian SSR when it left the Soviet Union.
The Bolsheviks treated the Russian people as inexhaustible material for their social experiments. They dreamt of a world revolution that would wipe out national states. That is why they were so generous in drawing borders and bestowing territorial gifts. It is no longer important what exactly the idea of the Bolshevik leaders who were chopping the country into pieces was. We can disagree about minor details, background and logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed.
When working on this article, I relied on open-source documents that contain well-known facts rather than on some secret records. The leaders of modern Ukraine and their external ”patrons“ prefer to overlook these facts. They do not miss a chance, however, both inside the country and abroad, to condemn ”the crimes of the Soviet regime,“ listing among them events with which neither the CPSU, nor the USSR, let alone modern Russia, have anything to do. At the same time, the Bolsheviks’ efforts to detach from Russia its historical territories are not considered a crime. And we know why: if they brought about the weakening of Russia, our ill-wishes are happy with that.
Of course, inside the USSR, borders between republics were never seen as state borders; they were nominal within a single country, which, while featuring all the attributes of a federation, was highly centralized – this, again, was secured by the CPSU’s leading role. But in 1991, all those territories, and, which is more important, people, found themselves abroad overnight, taken away, this time indeed, from their historical motherland.
What can be said to this? Things change: countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!
You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! But what are the terms? I will recall the assessment given by one of the most prominent political figures of new Russia, first mayor of Saint Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak. As a legal expert who believed that every decision must be legitimate, in 1992, he shared the following opinion: the republics that were founders of the Union, having denounced the 1922 Union Treaty, must return to the boundaries they had had before joining the Soviet Union. All other territorial acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given that the ground has been revoked.
In other words, when you leave, take what you brought with you. This logic is hard to refute. I will just say that the Bolsheviks had embarked on reshaping boundaries even before the Soviet Union, manipulating with territories to their liking, in disregard of people’s views.
The Russian Federation recognized the new geopolitical realities: and not only recognized, but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to establish itself as an independent country. Throughout the difficult 1990’s and in the new millennium, we have provided considerable support to Ukraine. Whatever ”political arithmetic“ of its own Kiev may wish to apply, in 1991–2013, Ukraine’s budget savings amounted to more than USD 82 billion, while today, it holds on to the mere USD 1.5 billion of Russian payments for gas transit to Europe. If economic ties between our countries had been retained, Ukraine would enjoy the benefit of tens of billions of dollars.
Ukraine and Russia have developed as a single economic system over decades and centuries. The profound cooperation we had 30 years ago is an example for the European Union to look up to. We are natural complementary economic partners. Such a close relationship can strengthen competitive advantages, increasing the potential of both countries.
Ukraine used to possess great potential, which included powerful infrastructure, gas transportation system, advanced shipbuilding, aviation, rocket and instrument engineering industries, as well as world-class scientific, design and engineering schools. Taking over this legacy and declaring independence, Ukrainian leaders promised that the Ukrainian economy would be one of the leading ones and the standard of living would be among the best in Europe.
Today, high-tech industrial giants that were once the pride of Ukraine and the entire Union, are sinking. Engineering output has dropped by 42 per cent over ten years. The scale of deindustrialization and overall economic degradation is visible in Ukraine’s electricity production, which has seen a nearly two-time decrease in 30 years. Finally, according to IMF reports, in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic broke out, Ukraine’s GDP per capita had been below USD 4 thousand. This is less than in the Republic of Albania, the Republic of Moldova, or unrecognized Kosovo. Nowadays, Ukraine is Europe’s poorest country.
Who is to blame for this? Is it the people of Ukraine’s fault? Certainly not. It was the Ukrainian authorities who waisted and frittered away the achievements of many generations. We know how hardworking and talented the people of Ukraine are. They can achieve success and outstanding results with perseverance and determination. And these qualities, as well as their openness, innate optimism and hospitality have not gone. The feelings of millions of people who treat Russia not just well but with great affection, just as we feel about Ukraine, remain the same.
Until 2014, hundreds of agreements and joint projects were aimed at developing our economies, business and cultural ties, strengthening security, and solving common social and environmental problems. They brought tangible benefits to people – both in Russia and Ukraine. This is what we believed to be most important. And that is why we had a fruitful interaction with all, I emphasize, with all the leaders of Ukraine.
Even after the events in Kiev of 2014, I charged the Russian government to elaborate options for preserving and maintaining our economic ties within relevant ministries and agencies. However, there was and is still no mutual will to do the same. Nevertheless, Russia is still one of Ukraine’s top three trading partners, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are coming to us to work, and they find a welcome reception and support. So that what the ”aggressor state“ is.
When the USSR collapsed, many people in Russia and Ukraine sincerely believed and assumed that our close cultural, spiritual and economic ties would certainly last, as would the commonality of our people, who had always had a sense of unity at their core. However, events – at first gradually, and then more rapidly – started to move in a different direction.
In essence, Ukraine’s ruling circles decided to justify their country’s independence through the denial of its past, however, except for border issues. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. The common tragedy of collectivization and famine of the early 1930s was portrayed as the genocide of the Ukrainian people.
Radicals and neo-Nazis were open and more and more insolent about their ambitions. They were indulged by both the official authorities and local oligarchs, who robbed the people of Ukraine and kept their stolen money in Western banks, ready to sell their motherland for the sake of preserving their capital. To this should be added the persistent weakness of state institutions and the position of a willing hostage to someone else’s geopolitical will.
I recall that long ago, well before 2014, the U.S. and EU countries systematically and consistently pushed Ukraine to curtail and limit economic cooperation with Russia. We, as the largest trade and economic partner of Ukraine, suggested discussing the emerging problems in the Ukraine-Russia-EU format. But every time we were told that Russia had nothing to do with it and that the issue concerned only the EU and Ukraine. De facto Western countries rejected Russia’s repeated calls for dialogue.
Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. Inevitably, there came a time when the concept of ”Ukraine is not Russia“ was no longer an option. There was a need for the ”anti-Russia“ concept which we will never accept.
The owners of this project took as a basis the old groundwork of the Polish-Austrian ideologists to create an ”anti-Moscow Russia“. And there is no need to deceive anyone that this is being done in the interests of the people of Ukraine. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth never needed Ukrainian culture, much less Cossack autonomy. In Austria-Hungary, historical Russian lands were mercilessly exploited and remained the poorest. The Nazis, abetted by collaborators from the OUN-UPA, did not need Ukraine, but a living space and slaves for Aryan overlords.
Nor were the interests of the Ukrainian people thought of in February 2014. The legitimate public discontent, caused by acute socio-economic problems, mistakes, and inconsistent actions of the authorities of the time, was simply cynically exploited. Western countries directly interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs and supported the coup. Radical nationalist groups served as its battering ram. Their slogans, ideology, and blatant aggressive Russophobia have to a large extent become defining elements of state policy in Ukraine.
All the things that united us and bring us together so far came under attack. First and foremost, the Russian language. Let me remind you that the new ”Maidan“ authorities first tried to repeal the law on state language policy. Then there was the law on the ”purification of power“, the law on education that virtually cut the Russian language out of the educational process.
Lastly, as early as May of this year, the current president introduced a bill on ”indigenous peoples“ to the Rada. Only those who constitute an ethnic minority and do not have their own state entity outside Ukraine are recognized as indigenous. The law has been passed. New seeds of discord have been sown. And this is happening in a country, as I have already noted, that is very complex in terms of its territorial, national and linguistic composition, and its history of formation.
There may be an argument: if you are talking about a single large nation, a triune nation, then what difference does it make who people consider themselves to be – Russians, Ukrainians, or Belarusians. I completely agree with this. Especially since the determination of nationality, particularly in mixed families, is the right of every individual, free to make his or her own choice.
But the fact is that the situation in Ukraine today is completely different because it involves a forced change of identity. And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors but also to believe that Russia is their enemy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us. As a result of such a harsh and artificial division of Russians and Ukrainians, the Russian people in all may decrease by hundreds of thousands or even millions.
Our spiritual unity has also been attacked. As in the days of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a new ecclesiastical has been initiated. The secular authorities, making no secret of their political aims, have blatantly interfered in church life and brought things to a split, to the seizure of churches, the beating of priests and monks. Even extensive autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church while maintaining spiritual unity with the Moscow Patriarchate strongly displeases them. They have to destroy this prominent and centuries-old symbol of our kinship at all costs.
I think it is also natural that the representatives of Ukraine over and over again vote against the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism. Marches and torchlit processions in honor of remaining war criminals from the SS units take place under the protection of the official authorities. Mazepa, who betrayed everyone, Petliura, who paid for Polish patronage with Ukrainian lands, and Bandera, who collaborated with the Nazis, are ranked as national heroes. Everything is being done to erase from the memory of young generations the names of genuine patriots and victors, who have always been the pride of Ukraine.
For the Ukrainians who fought in the Red Army, in partisan units, the Great Patriotic War was indeed a patriotic war because they were defending their home, their great common Motherland. Over two thousand soldiers became Heroes of the Soviet Union. Among them are legendary pilot Ivan Kozhedub, fearless sniper, defender of Odessa and Sevastopol Lyudmila Pavlichenko, valiant guerrilla commander Sidor Kovpak. This indomitable generation fought, those people gave their lives for our future, for us. To forget their feat is to betray our grandfathers, mothers and fathers.
The anti-Russia project has been rejected by millions of Ukrainians. The people of Crimea and residents of Sevastopol made their historic choice. And people in the southeast peacefully tried to defend their stance. Yet, all of them, including children, were labeled as separatists and terrorists. They were threatened with ethnic cleansing and the use of military force. And the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk took up arms to defend their home, their language and their lives. Were they left any other choice after the riots that swept through the cities of Ukraine, after the horror and tragedy of 2 May 2014 in Odessa where Ukrainian neo-Nazis burned people alive making a new Khatyn out of it? The same massacre was ready to be carried out by the followers of Bandera in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk and Lugansk. Even now they do not abandon such plans. They are biding their time. But their time will not come.
The coup d’état and the subsequent actions of the Kiev authorities inevitably provoked confrontation and civil war. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that the total number of victims in the conflict in Donbas has exceeded 13,000. Among them are the elderly and children. These are terrible, irreparable losses.
Russia has done everything to stop fratricide. The Minsk agreements aimed at a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbas have been concluded. I am convinced that they still have no alternative. In any case, no one has withdrawn their signatures from the Minsk Package of Measures or from the relevant statements by the leaders of the Normandy format countries. No one has initiated a review of the United Nations Security Council resolution of 17 February 2015.
During official negotiations, especially after being reined in by Western partners, Ukraine’s representatives regularly declare their ”full adherence“ to the Minsk agreements, but are in fact guided by a position of ”unacceptability“. They do not intend to seriously discuss either the special status of Donbas or safeguards for the people living there. They prefer to exploit the image of the ”victim of external aggression“ and peddle Russophobia. They arrange bloody provocations in Donbas. In short, they attract the attention of external patrons and masters by all means.
Apparently, and I am becoming more and more convinced of this: Kiev simply does not need Donbas. Why? Because, firstly, the inhabitants of these regions will never accept the order that they have tried and are trying to impose by force, blockade and threats. And secondly, the outcome of both Minsk‑1 and Minsk‑2 which give a real chance to peacefully restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine by coming to an agreement directly with the DPR and LPR with Russia, Germany and France as mediators, contradicts the entire logic of the anti-Russia project. And it can only be sustained by the constant cultivation of the image of an internal and external enemy. And I would add – under the protection and control of the Western powers.
This is what is actually happening. First of all, we are facing the creation of a climate of fear in Ukrainian society, aggressive rhetoric, indulging neo-Nazis and militarising the country. Along with that we are witnessing not just complete dependence but direct external control, including the supervision of the Ukrainian authorities, security services and armed forces by foreign advisers, military ”development“ of the territory of Ukraine and deployment of NATO infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the aforementioned flagrant law on ”indigenous peoples“ was adopted under the cover of large-scale NATO exercises in Ukraine.
This is also a disguise for the takeover of the rest of the Ukrainian economy and the exploitation of its natural resources. The sale of agricultural land is not far off, and it is obvious who will buy it up. From time to time, Ukraine is indeed given financial resources and loans, but under their own conditions and pursuing their own interests, with preferences and benefits for Western companies. By the way, who will pay these debts back? Apparently, it is assumed that this will have to be done not only by today’s generation of Ukrainians but also by their children, grandchildren and probably great-grandchildren.
The Western authors of the anti-Russia project set up the Ukrainian political system in such a way that presidents, members of parliament and ministers would change but the attitude of separation from and enmity with Russia would remain. Reaching peace was the main election slogan of the incumbent president. He came to power with this. The promises turned out to be lies. Nothing has changed. And in some ways the situation in Ukraine and around Donbas has even degenerated.
In the anti-Russia project, there is no place either for a sovereign Ukraine or for the political forces that are trying to defend its real independence. Those who talk about reconciliation in Ukrainian society, about dialogue, about finding a way out of the current impasse are labelled as ”pro-Russian“ agents.
Again, for many people in Ukraine, the anti-Russia project is simply unacceptable. And there are millions of such people. But they are not allowed to raise their heads. They have had their legal opportunity to defend their point of view in fact taken away from them. They are intimidated, driven underground. Not only are they persecuted for their convictions, for the spoken word, for the open expression of their position, but they are also killed. Murderers, as a rule, go unpunished.
Today, the ”right“ patriot of Ukraine is only the one who hates Russia. Moreover, the entire Ukrainian statehood, as we understand it, is proposed to be further built exclusively on this idea. Hate and anger, as world history has repeatedly proved this, are a very shaky foundation for sovereignty, fraught with many serious risks and dire consequences.
All the subterfuges associated with the anti-Russia project are clear to us. And we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who will undertake such an attempt, I would like to say that this way they will destroy their own country.
The incumbent authorities in Ukraine like to refer to Western experience, seeing it as a model to follow. Just have a look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language, they remain sovereign states with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But this does not prevent them from the closest integration or allied relations. They have very conditional, transparent borders. And when crossing them the citizens feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business. Incidentally, so do millions of those born in Ukraine who now live in Russia. We see them as our own close people.
Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else’s, and is not a tool in someone else’s hands to fight against us.
We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians’ desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.
I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.
Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide.
As a Canadian journalist, I could be subject to a censorship bill which, if passed in Senate, means the government in Canada can effectively shadow-ban and censor my voice into oblivion, along with other dissenting voices.
After seeing his tweet on the issue of Bill C-10, recently passed in the House of Commons, I spoke with Canadian journalist Dan Dicks about this. He explained that the bill is being presented as being about Canada bringing Big Tech companies under the regulation of the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), to have them display more Canadian content.
“But what people are missing,” he cautioned, “is that there were clauses put into this bill, protections for certain publishers and content creators that would protect people like myself and yourself.”
Those clauses, he said, were recently removed from the bill, leading many content-creating Canadians aware of the bill to worry they will be treated the same as a broadcaster or a programmer, subject to the regulations of the CRTC.
The bottom line is that, beyond the mumbo jumbo of the government, this is the latest attack on freedom of expression, and on dissent.
“It really appears that it’s a backdoor to be able to control the free flow of information online, and to begin to silence voices that go against the status quo,” Dicks said, warning that fines for violators could follow.
“It’s not looking good for individual content creators. Anybody who has any kind of a voice or a significant audience, where they have the ability to affect the minds of the masses, to reach millions of people, they are going to be the ones who are on the chopping block moving forward.”
Names like James Corbett come to mind. Although based in Japan, as a Canadian he would be subject to the bill. And with his very harsh criticisms of many issues pertaining to the Canadian government, he is a thorn they would surely be happy to remove under the pretext of this bill.
Or Dicks, who likewise creates videos often critiquing Canadian government actions.
An article on the Law & Liberty website, which describes itself as focussing on “the classical liberal tradition of law and how it shapes a society of free and responsible persons,” notes the bill enables “ample discretion to filter out content made by Canadians that doesn’t carry a desirable ideological posture and [to] prioritize content that does.”
The article emphasizes that the bill violates Canadians’ right to free expression, as well as “the right to express oneself through artistic and political creations, and the right to not be unfairly suppressed by a nebulous government algorithm.”
It noted that Canadians with large followings, like Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad and Steven Crowder, “each enjoy audiences which far exceed any cable television program.”
As with my examples above, these prominent Canadian voices likewise risk shadow-banning under this bill.
But, worse, there is another bill, C-36, that also portends heavy censorship: the “Reducing Online Harms” bill. This one not only involves censorship, but hefty fines and house arrests for violators
The same Law & Liberty article notes, “Canada is also expected to follow the template of Germany’s NetzDG law, which mandates that platforms take down posts that are determined to constitute hate speech—which requires no actual demonstrated discrimination or potential harm, and is thus mostly subjective—within 24 hours or to face hefty fines. This obviously will incentivize platforms to remove content liberally and avoid paying up.”
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), rightly, contests this bill, noting, “the proposed definition of hate speech as speech that is ‘likely’ to foment detestation or vilification is vague and subjective.”
Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, is likewise extremely critical of the bills.
Trudeau has made every issue about race, gender and religion since his election. Now he wants to criminalize everyone who disagrees with his tribalist vision.C-36 is the worst attack ever against free speech in Canada.https://t.co/6Z5EefmviP— Maxime Bernier (@MaximeBernier) June 25, 2021
The CCF points out the potential complete loss of Canadians’ fundamental rights with these bills.
It should be common sense that these bills are extremely dangerous to Canadians, however cloaked in talk of levelling playing fields and of combating hate speech they may be.
Just a few weeks ago I wrote a column entitled “The Ukraine’s Many Ticking Time Bombs” in which I listed a number of developments presenting a major threat to the Ukraine and, in fact, to all the countries of the region. In this short time the situation has deteriorated rather dramatically. I will therefore begin with a short recap of what is happening.
First, the Ukrainian government and parliament have, for all practical purposes, declared the Minsk Agreements as dead. Truth be told, these agreements were stillborn, but as long as everybody pretended that there was still a chance for some kind of negotiated solution, they served as a “war retardant”. Now that this retardant has been removed, the situation becomes far more explosive than before.
The issue of the Minsk Agreements brought to the fore the truly breathtaking hypocrisy of the West: even though Russia never was a party of these agreements (Russia signed them as a guarantor, not as a party), the West chose to blame Russia for “not implementing” these agreements, that in spite of the fact that everybody knew that it was the Ukraine which, for fear of the various Neonazis movements, simply could not implement these agreements. This kind of “in your face” hypocrisy by the West had a tremendous impact on the internal Russian political scene which, in turn, greatly strengthened the position of those in Russia who never believed that a negotiated solution was possible in the first place. In that sense, these agreements represented a major victory for the Kremlin as it forced the West to show the full depth of its moral depravity.
Second, it is pretty obvious that the “Biden” administration is a who’s who of all the worst russophobes of the Obama era: Nuland, Psaki, and the rest of them are openly saying that they want to increase the confrontation with Russia. Even the newcomers, say like Ned Price, are clearly rabid russophobes. The folks in Kiev immediately understood that their bad old masters were back in the White House and they are now also adapting their language to this new (well, not really) reality.
Finally, and most ominously, there are clear signs that the Ukrainian military is moving heavy forces towards the line of contact. Here is an example of a video taken in the city of Mariupol:
Besides tanks, there are many reports of other heavy military equipment, including MLRS and tactical ballistic missiles, being moved east towards the line of contact. Needless to say, the Russian General Staff is tracking all these movements very carefully, as are the intelligence services of the LDNR.
This is all happening while Zelenskii’s popularity is in free fall. Actually, not only his. Think of it: Biden stole the election in the US and has to deal with 70 million “deplorables” while the EU leaders are all facing many extremely severe crises (immigration, crime, COVID lockdowns, Woke ideology, etc.). The truth is that they all desperately need some kind of “distraction” to keep their public opinion from focusing on the real issues facing the western societies.
What could such a “distraction” look like?
Phase one: the trigger
The Ukraine is unlikely to simply attack the Donbass. Kiev needs to stick to the “we are the victim of the aggressor-country” narrative. However, if past behavior is one of the best predictors of future behavior, we can immediately see what is likely to happen.
Remember how three Ukrainian Navy vessels tried to force their way under the Crimean bridge? What about the Ukrainian terrorist groups which Kiev tried to infiltrate into Crimea? And, finally, there are the many terrorist attacks executed by Ukrainian special forces inside Novorussia. The truth is that the Ukrainian special services (SBU and military) have been conducting reconnaissance diversionary operations in the Donbass, in Crimea and even in Russia.
Right now, both sides (Kiev and the LDNR) have officially declared that they have given the authorization to their forces to respond to any provocations or incoming fire. Just imagine how easy it is for either side to organize some kind of provocation, then claim to be under attack and to declare that “we had to defend ourselves against the aggressor”.
Therefore, the most likely scenario is some kind of Ukrainian provocation followed by a “defensive counter-attack” by the Ukrainian military.
Phase two: the attack
Over the past years, the Ukrainian military has received a great deal of assistance from the West, both in terms of equipment/money and in terms of training. Furthermore, in numerical terms, the Ukrainian military is much bigger than the combined forces of the LDNR. However, it would be a mistake to assume that the LDNR forces were just sitting on their laurels and not working really hard to achieve a qualitative jump in their capabilities.
The Ukrainian government is working on yet another mobilization (there were many such waves of mobilization in the past, none of them really successful), and considering the chaos in the country, it is unlikely to go better than the previous ones. If we want to do some “bean counting”, we can say that Kiev could theoretically mobilize about 300,000 soldiers while the standing LDNR forces number approximately 30,000 soliders (these are standing forces before mobilization). However, we must take into account that the Ukrainian forces are mostly conscripts whereas the LDNR forces are 100% professional volunteers fighting for their own land and in defense of their own families and friends. This makes a huge difference!
Besides, like all “bean counting”, this purely numerical comparison completely misses the point. That point is that the LDNR forces are much better trained, equipped, commanded and motivated. Furthermore, the LDNR forces have had years to prepare for an Ukronazi attack, In fact, both sides of the line of contact are now heavily fortified. Yet, and in spite of all this, the LDNR suffers from a huge weakness: no strategic (or even operational) depth. Worse, the city of Donetsk is quite literally on the front line.
Could the Ukrainian forces “punch through” the LDNR defenses? I would say that this is not impossible, and “not impossible” is serious enough to warrant a lot of preparations by the Russian armed forces to quickly intervene and stop any such breakthrough by the Ukrainian forces. Does the Russian military have the means to stop such an attack?
Yes, absolutely. First, all of the LDNR is literally right across the Russian border, which means that pretty much any Russian weapons system can “reach” not only into the LDNR, but even throughout the Ukrainian tactical, operational and even strategic depth. Russia can also deploy a classical Anti Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) “cupola” over the LDNR using a mix of air defense and electronic warfare systems. Russian rockets and artillery systems can be used not only as counter-battery fire, but also to destroy attacking Ukrainian subunits. Finally, the Russian forces in Crimea and the Black Sea Fleet can also be engaged if needed. As for Russian coastal defense systems (Bal and Bastion), they can “lock” the entire Black Sea.
The biggest problem for Russia is that she cannot do any of that without triggering a huge political crisis in Europe; just visualize what the likes of Antony Blinken, Ned Price or Jane Psaki would have to say about such a Russian intervention! Remember, these are the folks who immediately accused Russia of attacking Georgia, not the other way around. We are now all living in the “post-truth” era of “highly likely”, not of facts.
I have said that for years now the real point of a Ukrainian attack on the Donbass would not be to reconquer the region, but to force Russia to openly and, therefore, undeniably intervene. This has been a Neocon wet dream since 2014 and it is still their ultimate objective in the Ukraine. So what would a Russian counter-attack look like?
Phase three: the Russian intervention
First, let me ask you this: did you know that about 400,000 residents of the LDNR already have Russian passports? Is that a lot? Well, the total population of the LDNR is about 3.7 million people, so more than 10% of the population. This is crucial for two reasons: first, you can think of these Russian citizens as a kind of tripwire: if enough of them get killed, Putin have no other choice than to intervene to protect them and, in fact, Putin has made it clear many times that Russia will never allow the Ukraine to seize Novorussia by force or to massacre its population. Second, there are many precedents of countries (mostly western ones) using military force to protect their citizens. Examples include the US in both Grenada and Panama, the Turks in Cyprus and Syria or the French in many African countries.
Next, in purely military terms, Russia has plenty of standoff weapons which could be used to disrupt and stop any Ukranian attack even without sending in a ground force. Not only that, but the Russian response does not have to be limited to the front lines – Russia could easily strike the Ukraine even in its strategic depth and there is really nothing the Ukrainians could do to prevent that. Still, I do not believe that the Russian counter-attack would be limited to standoff weapons, mainly because of the need to relieve the LDNR forces on the front line which will be exhausted by difficult defensive operations. In other words, this time around Russia won’t even bother to deny her involvement; at this point in time, this would be futile and counter productive.
The west loves concepts such as the “responsibility to protect” (R2P)? Good! Then Russia can use it too.
Of course, I am not naive to the point of believing that anybody in the West will be suaded by notions such as fairness or precedent. But the Kremlin will use this argument to further educate the Russian people in the true intentions of the West. This is especially helpful for Putin during an election year (which 2121 is for Russia), and this will only further weaken both the pro-western opposition (for obvious reasons) and even the anti-western “patriotic” opposition which will have no choice but to fully support a military intervention to save the Donbass.
Phase four: the Empire’s response
I don’t believe for one second that anybody in the West will volunteer for suicide and advocate for a military intervention in the Ukraine or against Russia. NATO is a “pretend” military alliance. In reality, it is a US instrument to control Europe. Yes, historically the pretext for NATO was the supposed threat from Soviet Union and, now, from Russia, but the true reason for NATO has always been to control the European continent. Nobody in the West believes that it is worth risking a full scale war against Russia just over a (relatively minor) Russian military intervention in the eastern Ukraine. However, once it becomes undeniable that Russia has intervened (the Kremlin won’t even bother denying this!), the trans-national imperial Nomenklatura which runs the Empire will see this as a truly historical opportunity to create a major crisis which will weaken Russian positions in Europe and immensely strengthen the US control over the continent.
We have all seen how the western politicians and presstitutes have invented a (totally fake) Russian intervention in the Donbass and how they said they would “punish” Russia for “not implementing the Minsk Agreements”. We can only imagine how strident and hysterical these Russia-hating screams will become once Russia actually does intervene, quite openly. Again, if past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, then we can rest assured that western politicians will do what they always do: exacerbate and prolong the conflict as long as possible, but without directly attacking Russia. That is the purpose of the Ukrainian military, to provide the cannon fodder for the AnglioZionists.
Phase four prime: possible Ukronazi responses
Take it to the bank: “Ze” and the rest of the clowns in the Rada are no military leaders. Even Ukrainian military commanders are truly of the 3rd class type (all the good ones are either gone or fired). The first concern of the folks in Kiev will be to safely evacuate the western “advisors” from the area of operations and then to hide themselves and their money. For all the running around in battle fatigue and for all the hot air about super weapons, the Ukrainian military won’t continue to exist as an organized fighting force for longer than 48 hours. As I mentioned above, Russia can easily impose a no-fly zone, not only over the LDNR, but even over the entire eastern Ukraine. Russia can also basically switch off the power in the entire country. There is a very good reason why Putin declared in 2018 that any Ukrainian serious attack or provocation “will have very serious consequences for the Ukrainian statehood as a whole”.
Yet it would be extremely dangerous to simply dismiss the Ukronazi potential for creating some real headaches for Moscow. How?
For example, I would not put it past the Ukrainians to threaten an attack against the Operational Group of Russian Forces (OGRF) in Transnistria. This is a small force, far away from Russia, surrounded by hostile neighbors. Keep in mind that Tiraspol is about 600km west from Donetsk! Not only that, but if Moldova is not a member of NATO, Romania is. As for the current President of Moldova, Maia Sandu, she is both Romanian and deeply anti-Russian. But while all this is true, I think that it is also important to keep another factoid in mind: Chisinau, the capital of Moldova, is only about 300km away from the Crimean Peninsula. This places all of Moldova well within reach of Russian standoff weapons and rapid reaction mobile forces. For the Moldovans, any notion of attacking the OGRF in Transnistria would be really crazy, but for a desperate Ukronazi regime in Kiev this might be preferable to a defeat against Russia.
Of course, the Ukronazi regime in Kiev really has no agency, ever since the “revolution of dignity”. All the decisions about the Ukraine are made by Uncle Shmuel and his minions in Kiev. So the question we should be asking would be: would anybody put it past the Neocon crazies in the White House to egg on the Ukronazi regime in Kiev to further widen the conflict and force Russia to also intervene in Transnistria?
Some commentators in the West, and a few in Russia, have suggested that the “Biden” plan (assuming there is such a thing) would be to trigger simultaneous crises in different locations all around Russia: the Donbass, but also the Black Sea and/or Sea of Azov, Georgia, Belarus, Transnistria, Armenia, etc. The Empire might also decide to come back to Hillary Clinton’s plan to place a no-fly zone over Russian forces in Syria. I am not so sure that this is the major threat for Russia right now. For example, there is a good reason why Russia is split into military districts: in case of war, each military district becomes an independent front which can fight autonomously, support other fronts and be supported by the strategic capabilities of the Russian military. In other words, the Russian military can handle several major and simultaneous crises or even conflicts in her neighboring states. As for Hillary’s no fly zone over Syria, considering the undeniable reality that all of CENTCOM bases are under a double crosshair (the one from Iran and the one from Russia), it is unlikely that the US would try such a dangerous move.
I am acutely aware of the fact that the anti-Putin propagandists are trying to convince us that Russia and Israel are in cahoots or that Putin is Netanyahu’s best buddy. I already addressed this nonsense several times (see here, here, here, here and here) so I won’t repeat it all here. I will just say that a) Russian air defenses in Syria are tasked with the defense of the Russian task force in Syria, not the Syrian air space b) Syrian air defenses are doing a superb job shooting down Israeli missiles. These Syrian air defenses are forcing the Israelis to attack less defended and, therefore, also less valuable targets (say like a border post between Syria and Iran) c) there are now numerous reported instances of Russian Aerospace Forces driving Israeli aircraft out of the Syrian air space and, last but not least, d) the Israeli strikes are undeniably good for Israeli morale and propaganda purposes (the “invincible” IDF!), but the point is that they make absolutely no difference on the ground. In the near future, I hope to write an analysis showing that these rumors about Russia being sold out to Israel are part of a US PSYOP campaign to weaken Putin at home. Stay tuned.
For these reasons, I believe that the Empire will push the Ukraine towards an open confrontation with Russia, all the while making sure that US/NATO forces remain far away from the action. In fact, from a US/NATO point of view, once Russia officially admits that Russian forces did intervene to stop the Ukrainian assault, the main objective of the attack will have been reached: All of Europe will unanimously blame Russia and Putin for everything. That, in turn, will result in a dramatic deterioration of the security situation in the Ukraine and the rest of eastern Europe. A new “Cold War” (with hot overtones) will become the determining factors in east-west relations. As for NATO, it will reheat the old principle of “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”.
Phase five: the situation after the end of the war
Again, if past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, we can expect the Russians to do many things like they did in the 5 day war (really 3 day only) against NATO-backed Georgia in 08.08.08. For example, irrespective of where exactly the Russian military actually decides to stop (could be along the current line of contact, or it could include a complete liberation of the Donbass from the occupying Ukronazi forces), this will be a short war (long wars are mostly things of the past anyway). The Ukrainian military will be comprehensively destroyed but the Russian forces will not occupy major Ukrainian cities (just as they stopped short of taking Tbilisi in 08). As one LDNR officer declared in an interview 2015 “the further west we go, the less we are seen as liberators and the more we are seen as occupiers”. He is right, but there is something much more important here too: Russia simply cannot afford to rebuild the quasi totally deindustrialized Ukraine. The propaganda from their curators notwithstanding, the Ukraine is already a failed state, has been one for years already. And there is exactly nothing that Russia needs from this failed state. Absolutely nothing. The absolutely LAST thing Russia needs today is to get bogged down in a simultaneous effort to restore the Ukrainian state and economy while fighting all sorts of Neonazi nationalist insurgencies.
If they try to join the fight, then both Ukrainian Black Sea Fleet and the Ukrainian Air Force will simply vanish, but Russia will not launch any amphibious assaults on the Ukrainian coastline.
There are those who, on moral and historical grounds, want Russia to liberate at the very least the Ukrainian east and the Ukrainian south (the area from Mariupol to Odessa). I categorically disagree. It is all very fine and cute to say “Putin come and restore order”, but the people of the Ukraine must liberate themselves and not expect Russia to liberate them. Opinion polls in Russia show that most Russians are categorically opposed to a war (or a protracted occupation) and I see no signs that the people of the southern Ukraine are desperate to be liberated by the Russian military. This entire notion of Russia disinfecting the Ukraine from the Nazi rot is an ideological construct with no base in reality. Those who still dream of Russian tanks in Kiev or Dnepropetrovsk will be sorely disappointed: it won’t happen.
Thus, I fully expect the Ukrainian state to still exist at the end of this war, albeit a much weaker one. Furthermore, it is quasi certain that should the Ukrainian military attack Novorussia, then Russia would again repeat what she did in 08 and recognize the LDNR republics along with some kind of long term integration program. Civil unrest and even uprisings are likely, not only in the east, but also in the south and west of the Ukraine. Needless to say, the EU and NATO will go absolutely crazy and yet another “curtain” (maybe a “salo curtain”) will yet again split the European continent, much to the delight of the entire Anglosphere. At the end of that process, the Banderastan-like Ukraine will simply break apart into more manageable chunks which will all come under the influence of their more powerful and better organized neighbors.
As for Russia, she will mostly turn away from the West, in total disgust, and continue to develop a multi-polar world with China and the other countries of Zone B.
Conclusion: back from the brink, again?
In truth, all of the above are just my speculations, nobody really knows whether this war will really happen and, if it does, how it will play out. Wars are amongst the most unpredictable events, hence the number of wars lost by the party which initiated them. What I presented above is one possible scenario amongst many more. The last time when a Ukrainian attack appeared to be imminent, all it took was Putin’s words about “very serious consequences for the Ukrainian statehood as a whole” to stop the escalation and convince Kiev not to attack. This time around, the Russians are making no such threats, but that is only because Russians don’t believe in repeating threats anyway.
At this time of writing, there are serious clashes between the VSU (Ukrainian) forces and the LDNR defenders. Both sides are using small arms, grenade launchers and artillery systems. According to one well informed blogger, his sources in Kiev are telling him that:
“A while ago, an order came from the office of the old senile Biden to prepare the VSU for an offensive in the Donbass, but wait for the final go-ahead from the White House. At the same time, this source also said that similar military operations will be conducted in other countries where there are Russian interests, in order to deflect the public attention from the Donbass and weaken any support for the Donbass”.
There are many more such posts on Telegram, including pro-Ukrainian commentators spreading rumors about Russian mercenaries seen near the frontline east of Mariupol. We can already say that the informational battle has begun. Only time will tell whether this battle will turn kinetic or not. But right now it looks like we are “all systems go”.← Book Review: “Disintegration” by Andrei…
Recently, US Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden released a statement on his promise to end his country’s support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen saying that “under Biden-Harris Administration, we will reassess our relationship with the [Saudi Arabia] Kingdom, end US support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, and make sure America does not check its values at the door to sell arms or buy oil.”
It’s an absurd statement coming from a former vice-President to Barack Obama who supported Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on Yemen in the first place.
Saudi Arabia’s intervention was to regain its once influential hegemonic power over Yemen since the Houthis gained power by ousting President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi who fled to Saudi Arabia soon after. The Saudi-led coalition and its air force began using American and British made weaponry targeting mostly civilians and helped create al-Qaeda in Yemen.
Earlier this month, the prime minister of Yemen’s National Salvation government, Abdulaziz bin Habtoor issued a powerful statement that condemned Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for murdering the Yemeni people with Western and Israeli support. They are “commemorating the death of thousands of Jews during Germany’s “Nazi era” he said. Abdulaziz bin Habtoor was referring to the recent peace agreements sponsored by the Trump administration between the UAE, Bahrain and Israel that was signed in Washington on September 15th. He said that “the Houses of Saud and Nahyan must first and foremost remember that they are killing their (Arab) brethren in Yemen, than to commemorate Jews killed by Nazi forces” and that “the neo-Nazis are Al Saud and Al Nahyan families as well as all those who stand with them against Yemeni people, and support their unjustified killing of civilians” according to AhlolBayt News Agency (ABNA) based in Iran.
Yemen is in a never-ending war.
The Yemeni people are facing a catastrophe with more than 91,000 people dead, an economy that has basically collapsed, diseases, famine with an increase of refugees who left the war torn country. Since the start of the war, the Yemeni people experience death and destruction on a daily basis due to their opposition to the Saudi-backed President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) recently said that 20% of the Yemeni population is currently suffering from mental health disorders because of the ongoing war. Hadi was part of a long-list of political puppets of the US and Saudi Arabia who were responsible for the continued economic and political policies that favored his foreign backers for decades. The Yemeni people’s only crime was their resistance to Western hegemonic powers and its Saudi lap-dogs in their own country, and they pay the ultimate price.
The civil war in Yemen began in September 2014 when the Houthis, a shia-led movement and other elements including Sunni and Shia factions who were disenfranchised began a popular revolt to overthrow the Hadi government. The Houthi-led movement and military forces that are made up of both Shia and Sunni loyal to Ali Abdullah Saleh began an offensive by advancing to the southern provinces defeating Hadi loyalists as time went on. Since then, the Saudi Coalition whose warplanes, attack helicopters, bombs, missiles, naval fleets and mid-air refueling planes which are all supplied by Western arms dealers allowed them to wage a bombing campaign on the Yemeni population targeting their schools, hospitals, mosques, funerals, family homes, farms, power utilities with reports of even graveyards being hit. Military personnel from the US and the UK has played a major role in the destruction of Yemen by providing intelligence, mid-flight aerial refueling assistance to both the Saudi and UAE Air Forces while targeting Houthi positions that has killed numerous civilians in the process.
As the Houthis gained territorial control, Saudi Arabia began Operation Decisive Storm and launched military operations with airstrikes attacking positions held by the Houthi militia and loyalists of the former President of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh who the West and Israel claim is backed by Iran. Saudi Arabia’s coalition included the Gulf State puppets of the West including the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain who was joined by Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan and long-standing US ally since its Frankenstein creation, Israel. The coalition was allowed to operate from military bases in Africa that included Djibouti, Eritrea, and Somalia. The US and the UK in many cases supported the coalition with intelligence and logistical support and to add insult to injury, saw an economic opportunity for its arms industry that sold weapons to the coalition.
Washington’s long-standing relationship with one of the coalition’s members is with the UAE. The US and the UK currently has thousands of military personnel in the UAE along with its fighter jets and an array of drones. The UAE is probably one of the most loyal subjects to Western Imperial powers next to Saudi Arabia that has “expeditionary forces” in a number of countries including Afghanistan and Yemen. The UAE also has overseas bases even in Africa. The UAE is a former British protectorate became a country in 1971 with its national military force made up of a federation of several ‘sheikhdoms’ that entered the US-led 1991 Gulf War that pushed Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. In 1999, the UAE joined NATO-led forces into Kosovo in what was called a peace mission. After the September 11 false flag attacks, the UAE sent special forces to Afghanistan alongside its Western allies against the Taliban. It is well-known that the UAE hosts US and other Western forces at its military bases. Since the start of the war on Yemen, the UAE has joined Saudi-led forces in attacks against rebel strongholds. In other words, the UAE is a complete puppet regime.
The Mainstream Media’s Silence on US Involvement in Yemen
The Western powers with help from its mainstream-media (MSM) all repeat the same narrative and that it is Iran who is sponsoring the Houthis thus allowing Saudi Arabia and the UAE to justify the bombing of Yemen into oblivion. The MSM including CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, NBC, ABC, CBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Sky News and the BBC to name a few, all repeat the same propaganda that the Houthi movement is “Iran-Backed.” A perfect example of propaganda is from a recent article published last month by The Washington Post who headlined with ‘U.S. launches new terrorism review of Iran-backed rebels in Yemen’ claiming that “The Trump administration is considering new steps to intensify pressure on Yemen’s Houthi rebels, including a potential foreign terrorist organization designation, according to several officials, in a bid to further isolate the group’s patron, Iran.” To be clear, Iran and the Houthis do have a common faith, but not a military alliance, it can be best described more or less as a political and diplomatic relationship.
To this day, the MSM is involved in a cover-up of the US and its allies involvement in Yemen’s genocide. In March of 2018, MSM watchdog, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (Fair.org) published a story by Adam Johnson based on MSNBC’s reporting on the war in Yemen who he compared to Breitbart ‘In Run-Up to Vote to End Yemen War, MSNBC Remains Totally Silent: MSNBC outflanked from the left by Breitbart’:
MSNBC’s three major stars—Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell—haven’t used their sizable social media followings to highlight the issue either. None of the well-paid pundits has tweeted about the topic of Yemen in 2018. While Hayes has handwrung about the topic on Twitter in the past, he hasn’t covered it on his show since summer 2016. O’Donnell has tweeted about Yemen once in 20,000 tweets since joining the social media platform in June 2010; Maddow has mentioned it in four out of 7,000 tweets, two of those mentions in 2010. Even as frequent MSNBC guests Bernie Sanders and Chris Murphy, as well as celebrities like Mark Ruffalo and Susan Sarandon, lobby directly for the bill, MSNBC has not dedicated a single segment to the war, or to the recent high-profile efforts to end it
An article by Johnson from 2017 ‘Ignoring Washington’s Role in Yemen Carnage, 60 Minutes Paints US as Savior’criticized one of the MSM’s longest running news programs ’60 Minutes’ on their coverage of Yemen’s humanitarian crisis without mentioning the role the U.S. has played in the genocide:
In one of the most glaring, power-serving omissions in some time, CBS News’ 60 Minutes (11/19/17) took a deep dive into the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, and did not once mention the direct role the United States played in creating, perpetuating and prolonging a crisis that’s left over 10,000 civilians dead, 2 million displaced, and an estimated 1 million with cholera. Correspondent Scott Pelley’s segment, “When Food Is Used as a Weapon,” employed excellent on-the-ground reporting to highlight the famine and bombing victims of Saudi Arabia’s brutal two-and-a-half year siege of Yemen. But its editors betrayed this reporting—and their viewers—by stripping the conflict of any geopolitical context, and letting one of its largest backers, the United States government, entirely off the hook
Once a Salesman, Always a Salesman: Trump Sells Weapons to the House of Saud
In March 2018 and with the war in full-force, the Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) decided to meet Trump for a business meeting with the intentions of buying weapons from US arms manufacturers. Bloomberg Newsreported what was the purpose of the visit by the prince of Saudi Arabia:
The 32-year-old prince will meet Donald Trump on March 20, his first trip to the U.S. since taking over as de facto leader of the world’s largest oil exporter. The aim is to strengthen their bond after he rolled out the red carpet for the U.S. president last May in Riyadh. On that visit, both sides played up their mutual interests in containing Iran, tackling Islamic extremists and enhancing business ties
And of course, the Bloomberg report also mentioned that MBS and the former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster who was replaced with neocon warmonger John Bolton spoke about Iran as a threat and “the humanitarian crisis in Yemen” they helped create:
Since then, things have changed. Prince Mohammed locked up dozens of the Saudi business elite in November for about three months in a declared crackdown on corruption. The kingdom is also likely to delay the sale of a stake in oil giant Aramco until next year. Cuts to government subsidies are proving trickier and there’s uncertainty about how the country’s ultra-conservatives are reacting to social changes.
Prince Mohammed “will try to convince the U.S. business community that the anti-corruption campaign is not a threat to commercial operations in Saudi Arabia,” said Hani Sabra, founder of New York-based Alef Advisory. “He will play up his social reform agenda to try to repair the image of Saudi Arabia in the U.S. He will advance the narrative that he’s the steward that will take the country in a more liberal direction.”
The White House said the visit will strengthen ties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Prince Mohammed will also dine with National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster to discuss $35 billion of business deals, Iran’s threat to their interests and the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, according to a National Security Council spokesperson
Since the meeting between Trump and MBS, the Saudi coalition has increased its bombing campaign in Yemen. In August 2018, the Arab coalition conducted an airstrike in Yemen that targeted a busload of children and the surrounding area that killed more than 100 people. Now a Yemeni court has sentenced high-ranking members from Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and members from Hadi’s government. The incident took place in the Sa’ada province where a missile strike hit a school bus killing more than 40 children with ages that ranged from 10 to 13 years old and wounding more than 79 other people close to the bombing. Mehr News Agency which is based in Iran said that “According to Saba news agency, the Specialized First Instance Criminal Court in Saada province has ruled to execute ten of the defendants in killing Dhahyan’s students by the aggression coalition’s warplanes. The verdict sentenced ten of the defendants to death for targeting and killing the students in Dhahyan in Saada.” Those convicted are high-ranking officials from the Houthis enemy list:
According to the ruling issued in the session presided over by the court Chief Judge Riyadh al-Ruzami, the court sentenced to death ten of the convicted for targeting and killing students in Dhahyan in the airstrikes, they are as follows:
1) Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, 2)Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, 3)Turki bin Bandar bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, 4)Donald John Trump, 5)James Norman Mattis, 6) Giselle Norton Allen Schwartz, 7) Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, 8)Ali Mohsen Saleh al-Ahmar, 9) Ahmed Obaid Bin Dagher, 10) Mohammad Ali Ahmad al-Maqdashi
The report mentioned the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) which produced an analysis in 2019 that paints a clear picture of the Saudi Arabia’s war crimes that has claimed the lives of more than 91,600 Yemenis since 2015. “The war has also taken a heavy toll on the country’s infrastructure, destroying hospitals, schools, and factories. The United Nations has already said that a record 22.2 million Yemenis are in dire need of food, including 8.4 million threatened by severe hunger. According to the world body, Yemen is suffering from the most severe famine in more than 100 years.” The report on casualties is grim and there is no end in sight:
ACLED records over 91,600 total reported fatalities1 from the start of 2015 to the present
Approximately 17,100 were reported in 2015; 15,100 in 2016; 16,800 in 2017; 30,800 in 2018; and 11,900 in 2019 thus far
More than 39,700 conflict events have been reported since the start of 2015
Approximately 7,700 in 2015; 8,700 in 2016; 7,900 in 2017; 10,200 in 2018; and 4,900 in 2019 thus far
Overall, 2018 is the war’s deadliest and most violent year on record
Yemen’s war continues unabated. The world is witnessing one of the worst catastrophes in modern human history with the majority of Yemen’s population including more than 12 million children caught in the crosshairs in a brutal civil war since 2015. The Saudi Coalition with help from its Western allies including the US and the UK has carried out numerous deadly airstrikes on Yemen. Despite what’s going on in Yemen, the drumbeats of war grows louder by the day as the US and Israel increase tensions with Iran, Syria and Lebanon (Hezbollah). Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East will continue to suffer a humanitarian crisis. The MSM remains silent on the issue while Washington, London, Tel Aviv and Riyadh continue their quest for dominance in the region which confirms that Yemen is just another victim of Western Imperialists, Israel and their puppet Monarchs from the Gulf states. As long as the Western powers continue their support of the Saudi coalition and their war on the Houthi-led resistance, more bloodshed is only guaranteed. This war needs to end now before it becomes the most catastrophic period in Yemen’s history.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Wars by hot and other means are all about Washington’s main strategy to advance its imperium — seeking dominance over other nations, their resources and populations by brute force if other methods don’t achieve its objectives.
From inception, the US has been addicted to war, glorifying it deceptively in the name of peace.
In 1982, founder of the Pentagon’s nuclear navy Admiral Hyman Rickover explained the risks to Congress in the age of super-weapons able to end life on earth if used in enough numbers, saying the following:
“The lesson of history is when a war starts every nation will ultimately use whatever weapons it has available” to win, adding:
“I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it.”
Rickover regretted his role in what became a nuclear arms race.
“I would sink…all” US nuclear powered ships, he said. “I am not proud of the part I played in” their development.
“That’s why I am such a great exponent of stopping this whole nonsense of war.”
Bertrand Russell noted the risk, saying:
“Shall we put an end to the human race, or shall mankind renounce war.” It’s the only way to live in peace. The alternative risks annihilation.
World powers have a choice. End wars or sooner or later they’ll end us.
Russia is a prime US target. In 1961, hardline US Air Force chief of staff General Curtis LeMay believed nuclear war with Soviet Russia was inevitable and winnable — at the time, calling for preemptive war on the country with overwhelming force.
Joint Chiefs chairman Lyman Lemnitzer at the time urged a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union during a National Security Council meeting.
Expressing disgust, Jack Kennedy walked out of the session, telling then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk:
“And we call ourselves the human race.”
JFK’s Defense Secretary Robert McNamara rejected what LeMay and Lemnitzer called for.
Their recklessly dangerous ideas never went away. In an age when super-weapons can end life on earth in days if detonated in enough numbers, the risk of mass annihilation is real.
Weeks earlier, Russia’s Defense Ministry accused US-led NATO of conducting “provocative” military drills near its borders — what goes on with disturbing regularity. See below.
In June, Russian Colonel-General Sergey Rudskoy, head of its General Staff sent NATO a letter that called for scaling down military exercises by both countries.
With US-led NATO drills in the Barents Sea at the time, he accused the Pentagon of simulating strikes on Russian territory and intercepting its retaliatory ICBMs.
According to Rudskoy, provocative Barents Sea drills at the time were the first of their kind by US-dominated NATO since Soviet Russia’s 1991 dissolution.
He also criticized increasing numbers of flights by Pentagon nuclear-capable strategic bombers near Russia’s borders — at times forcing its military to scramble warplanes and put air defense forces on high alert.
Since the Obama regime’s 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine, replacing democratic government with neo-Nazi infested fascist tyranny on Russia’s border, bilateral relations sank to a post-Cold War low.
Moscow considers the deployment of US-led NATO forces near its borders a destabilizing threat to its national security.
Rudskoy said “(t)he US and its allies are continuing to destroy Europe’s security system under the guise of a perceived ‘Russian aggression’ ” that doesn’t exist.
The US refused Moscow’s offer for dialogue to reduce tensions and the risk of conflict by accident or design.
On Sunday, Rudskoy again highlighted the threat of provocative US-led NATO actions near Russia’s borders, including increased surveillance and aerial operations to test its air defenses.
In August, provocative US/NATO aerial maneuvers increased about 30% over the comparable 2019 period, he explained, including simulated missile strikes on Russian targets.
Shoigu called what’s going on “alarming,” notably because several incidents occurred close to Russia’s borders.
Last week, Russia scrambled warplanes to intercept three US nuclear-capable B-52 bombers over Ukraine and the Black Sea near Crimea, a statement saying:
“Violations of the state border of the Russian Federation by American aircraft were prevented.”
Two weeks earlier, a similar incident occurred in international airspace over the Black Sea.
Days earlier, Moscow slammed the US for holding live-fire exercises in Estonia near its border.
A statement by its Washington embassy said the following:
“Russia has repeatedly proposed to the United States and its allies to limit training activities and to divert the exercise zones from the Russia-NATO contact line,” adding:
“Why do this demonstrative saber-rattling? What signals do the NATO members want to send us?”
“Who is actually escalating tensions in Europe? And this is all happening in the context of (a made-in-the-USA) aggravated political situation in” Belarus.
“(H)ow would the Americans react” if Russia conducted similar provocative exercises near its borders?
According to NATO, the following US-led military exercises are ongoing or soon to begin in Europe (and near Iranian waters the Mediterranean):
Operation Dynamic Move II 20 — ongoing through September 10 in waters near Italy, explaining:
“To exercise naval mine warfare (NMW) tactics and procedures, the Allied Worldwide Navigational System (AWNIS), and Naval Cooperation on and Guidance for Shipping (NCAGS) procedures in order to enhance participant’s ability to conduct littoral and amphibious operations.”
Operation Steadfast Pyramid 20 — begun in Latvia on Sunday will continue through September 11, NATO explaining:
“An Exercise Study focused on further developing the abilities of commanders and senior staff to plan and conduct operations through the application of operational art in decision making based on the ACO Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive (COPD) and utilizing a complex, contemporary scenario.”
Operation KFOR III 20 will be held from September 8 – 16 in Herzegovina, explaining:
“Conducted to familiarize future Key Leaders of HQ KFOR with their new tasks, the overall situation in KFOR AOR (Area of Responsibility), and to prepare a smooth transition without loss of continuity.”
Operation Ramstein Guard 9 20 is scheduled for Romania from September 13 – 17, explaining:
“The NATO Electronic Warfare Force Integration Program is a means to exercise the NATO designated regional elements of NATO’s Integrated Air and Missile Defence System conducted through the CAOCs (Combined Air Operation Center) while also including some national systems and assets.”
“It is designed to train Air Command Ramstein and subordinate units on the reporting/coordination requirements while exposing them to a wide variety of EW (electronic warfare) tactics and techniques in a controlled environment.”
Operation Steadfast Pinnacle 20 is scheduled for Latvia from September 13 – 18, explaining:
“An Exercise Study focused on further developing the abilities of commanders and senior staff to plan and conduct operations through the application of operational art in decision making based on the ACO (Allied Command Operations) Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive (COPD) and utilizing a complex, contemporary scenario.”
Operation Ramstein Guard 10 20 is scheduled for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania from September 20 – 24, NATO explaining:
“The NATO Electronic Warfare Force Integration Program is a means to exercise the NATO designated regional elements of NATO’s Integrated Air and Missile Defence System conducted through the CAOCs (Combined Air Operation Center) while also including some national systems and assets. It is designed to train Air Command Ramstein and subordinate units on the reporting/coordination requirements while exposing them to a wide variety of EW (electronic warfare) tactics and techniques in a controlled environment.”
Exercises like the above go on at all times near the borders of Russia, China, Iran, and other nations on the US target list for regime change.
From now through yearend 2020 near the borders of Russia and Iran alone, other US-led NATO military exercises will be held in Turkey, France, the UK, Kosovo, the Mediterranean Sea, Spain, Lithuania, Estonia, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, Bosnia Herzegovina, Serbia, Poland and Norway.
Instead of prioritizing world peace, stability, and cooperative relations with the world community of nations, US-dominated NATO is preparing for greater wars than already ongoing in multiple theaters by its forces.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 