Have no doubt at all, comrades: the Ukraine war was brought on by Western, globalist-satanist aggression, encroaching Russia, un-questionably

Apollonian

Guest Columnist

To Make Sense of War​

by Israel Shamir | Dec 1, 2022

Link: https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=261857

Putin-Ukraine.jpg

Israel Shamir – The Unz Review Nov 28, 2022

We have been struggling to understand the tragic events in the Ukraine, poring over a stream of current events to discover the master plan behind Putin’s strategy. We failed. Then we looked back to December last year. Suddenly it all clicked.
On December 15, 2021 Russia sent an ultimatum to the US and NATO. Two days later it was published, and the Russian Foreign Office invited the West to sign up and to agree to it, or at least begin discussing it. Not only was it not signed, it wasn’t even properly acknowledged. It was blatantly ignored, as though it were a demand from a teenager to an adult.
Pity, for it would have saved the world from the Ukraine War and Europeans from expensive bills, and the US from the terrible destruction and massive deaths of WWIII. Putin had made clear what he wanted, and it was a reasonable request. All that happened subsequently was brought about in order to achieve, at least, an adult discussion of these documents.
Putin sent the army to Kazakhstan, and in February to the Ukraine, and more recently his army has begun destroying Ukrainian infrastructure, which they had refrained from damaging before.
There is a Russian joke about a man who frequently visited somebody else’s wife. The husband found him and threw him from the window. When he came home a few days later, he discovered his wife’s lover with his legs and arms in a cast. He carried him to the window, but before casting him down, said to him: “Friend, this is my wife. Lay off!” And the lover replied: “Why didn’t you say so at once? Why did you only hint at it?”
NATO and the US should have listened to Putin in December ’21, instead of waiting until December ’22. All the sorrows of the Ukraine have come from subtle hints from Mr Putin, who was not even very interested in the Ukraine.
Let us see what Russia wants from the US.
Article 1
The Parties shall cooperate on the basis of principles of indivisible, equal and undiminished security and to these ends:
  • shall not undertake actions nor participate in or support activities that affect the security of the other Party;
  • shall not implement security measures adopted by each Party individually or in the framework of an international organization, military alliance or coalition that could undermine core security interests of the other Party.
Article 2
The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 3
The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.
Article 4
The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.
Article 5
The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.
The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party.
The Parties shall maintain dialogue and cooperate to improve mechanisms to prevent dangerous military activities on and over the high seas, including agreeing on the maximum approach distance between warships and aircraft.
Article 6
The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.
Article 7
The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.
The Parties shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons. The Parties shall not conduct exercises or training for general-purpose forces, that include scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.
Pay heed to Articles 4, 5 and 6. They are relevant for the case of Ukraine.
Let us see the Russian proposal to NATO, starting with Article 4:
Article 4
The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.
Article 5
The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.
Article 6
All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.
Article 7
The Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia.
In order to exclude incidents the Russian Federation and the Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct military exercises or other military activities above the brigade level in a zone of agreed width and configuration on each side of the border line of the Russian Federation and the states in a military alliance with it, as well as Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Now we can all understand what Putin wants. There are no difficult or hidden conditions, all is perfectly clear. Putin insists on formalizing conditions that were agreed upon by Mr Gorbachev and his Western counterparts in the 80’s and 90’s of the former century. The Russia of Mr Putin does not want to seize the territories or the resources of other countries. What he proposed is not the Sykes-Picot Treaty; it is a generous proposal to the West. If they won’t accept it, then let us accept the unavoidable nuclear annihilation of mankind. The proud will fall, the humble will inherit the earth. And really shocking is that all the conditions and reasons were stated a year ago, and there was a plenty of time to settle. This explains relative lack of Putin’s interest in the Ukraine. Even withdrawal from Herson did not distress him much. Putin does not want to annex the Ukraine, he will do it only in no choice situation.
 
Some of Us Don't Think the Russian Invasion Was "Aggression." Here's Why.

MIKE WHITNEY • OCTOBER 9, 2022

Link: https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/some-of-us-dont-think-the-russian-invasion-was-aggression-heres-why/



“We are not threatening anyone.… We have made it clear that any further NATO movement to the east is unacceptable. There’s nothing unclear about this. We aren’t deploying our missiles to the border of the United States, but the United States IS deploying their missiles to the porch of our house. Are we asking too much? We’re just asking that they not deploy their attack-systems to our home…. What is so hard to understand about that?Russian President Vladimir Putin, YouTube, Start at :48 seconds

Imagine if the Mexican army started bombarding American ex-pats living in Mexico with heavy artillery-rounds killing thousands and leaving thousands more wounded. What do you think Joe Biden would do?
Would he brush it off like a big nothingburger and move on or would he threaten the Mexican government with a military invasion that would obliterate the Mexican Army, level their biggest cities, and send the government running for cover?
Which of these two options do you think Biden would choose?
There’s no doubt what Biden would do nor is there any question what the 45 presidents who preceded him would do. No US leader would ever stand by and do nothing while thousands of Americans were savagely slaughtered by a foreign government. That just wouldn’t happen. They’d all respond quickly and forcefully.
But if that’s true, then why isn’t the same standard applied to Russia? Isn’t the situation in Ukraine nearly identical?
It is nearly identical, only the situation in Ukraine is worse, much worse. And if we stretch our analogy a bit, you’ll see why:
Let’s say, the US Intelligence agencies discovered that the Mexican government was not acting alone, but was being directed to kill and maim American ex-pats on orders from the Chinese Communist government in Beijing. Can you imagine that?
And the reason the Chinese government wants to kill Americans in Mexico is because they want to lure the US into a long and costly war that will “weaken” the US and pave way for its ultimate splintering into many pieces that China can control and exploit. Does any of this sound familiar? (Check out the Rand Strategy for weakening Russia here)
So, let’s say, the Chinese are actually the driving force behind the war in Mexico. Let’s say, they toppled the Mexican government years earlier and installed their own puppet regime to do their bidding. Then they armed and trained vast numbers of troops to fight the Americans. They supplied these warriors with cutting-edge weapons and technology, logistical support, satellite and communications assistance, tanks, armored vehicles, anti-ship missiles, and state-of-the-art artillery units all of which were provided with one goal in mind; to crush America in a proxy war that was concocted, controlled and micro-managed from the Chinese Capital of Beijing
Is such a scenario possible?
It is possible, in fact, this very same scenario is playing out right now in the Ukraine, only the perpetrator of the hostilities is the United States not China, and the target of this malign strategy is Russia not the US. Surprisingly, the Biden administration isn’t even trying to hide what they’re up-to anymore. They’re openly arming, training, funding, and directing Ukrainian troops to prosecute a war aimed at killing Russian soldiers and removing Putin from power. That’s the objective and everyone knows it.
And the whole campaign is based on the sketchy claim that Russia is guilty of “unprovoked aggression”. That’s the whole deal in a nutshell. The moral justification for the war rests on the unverified assumption that Russia committed a criminal offense and broke international law by invading Ukraine. But, did they?
Let’s see if that assumption is correct or if it’s just another fake claim by a dissembling media that never stops tweaking the narrative to build the case for war.
First of all, answer this one question related to the analogy above: If the US deployed troops to Mexico to protect American expats from being bombarded by the Mexican army, would you regard that deployment as an ‘unprovoked aggression’ or a rescue mission?
Rescue mission, right? Because the primary intention was to save lives not seize the territory of another sovereign country.
Well, that’s what Putin was doing when he sent his tanks into Ukraine. He was trying stop the killing of civilians living in the Donbas whose only fault was that they were ethnic Russians committed to their own culture and traditions. Is that a crime?
Take a look at this map.

This map is the key to understanding how the war in Ukraine started. It tells us who did the provoking and who was being provoked. It tells us who was dropping the bombs and who was getting bombed. It tells us who was causing the trouble and who was being blamed for the trouble-making. The map tells us everything we need to know.
Can you see the yellow dots? Those dots represent the artillery strikes that were documented in daily summaries by “observers of the Organization for Security and Co-operation (OSCE), positioned at the frontlines.” The vast majority of the strikes were in the area inhabited by Russian-speaking people who have been under military siege for the last 8 years. (14,000 ethnic Russians have been killed in the fighting since 2014.) The Minsk Agreements were drawn up to resolve the issues between the warring parties and end the hostilities, but the government in Kiev refused to implement the agreement. In fact, the former President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, even admitted that the treaty was just a vehicle for buying time until another full-scale offensive on the Donbas could be launched.
In short, the Ukrainian government never had any intention of reaching a peaceful settlement with leaders of the Donbas. Their goal was to intensify the conflict in order to provoke Russia and draw them into a protracted war that would exhaust their resources and collapse their economy. The long-range objective was to remove Putin from office and replace him with a Washington-backed stooge that would do as he was told. US officials– including Joe Biden- have even admitted that their plan involved regime change in Moscow. We should take them at their word.
The map provides a visual account of the events leading up the Russian invasion. It cuts through the lies and identifies the true origins of the war which can be traced back to the heavy artillery strikes launched by the Ukrainian Army more than a week before the Russian invasion. (February 24) The massive shelling was aimed at the Russian-speaking people living in an area in east Ukraine. These are the people who were being bombarded by their fellow Ukrainians.
What Really Happened?
On February 16—a full 8 days before the Russian invasion—the shelling of the Donbas increased dramatically and steadily intensified for the next week “to over 2,000 per day on February 22.” As we said, these blasts were logged in daily summaries by observers of the OSCE who were on the frontlines. Think about that for a minute. In other words, these are eyewitness accounts by trained professionals who collected documented evidence of the Ukrainian Army’s massive bombardment of areas inhabited by their own people.
Would this evidence hold up in a court of law if a case against the Ukrainian government was ever presented before an international tribunal trying to assign accountability for the hostilities?
We think it would. We think the evidence is rock-solid. In fact, we have not read or heard of even one analyst who has challenged this vast catalogue of documented evidence. Instead, the media simply pretends the proof doesn’t exist. They have simply swept the evidence under the rug or vanished it from their coverage altogether in order to shape a Washington-centric version of events that completely ignores the historical record. But facts are facts. And the facts don’t change because the media fails to report them. And what the facts suggest is that the war in Ukraine is a Washington-concocted war no different than Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria. Once again, Uncle Sam’s bloody fingerprints are all over this sorry affair.
Check out this summary of ceasefire violations posted on podcast host Martyr Made’s twitter account:
Martyr Made @martyrmade
On Feb 15, the OSCE recorded 41 ceasefire violations as Kiev’s forces began shelling Donbas.
Feb 16: 76 violations
Feb 17: 316
Feb 18: 654
Feb 19: 1,413
Feb 20-21: 2,026
Feb 22: 1,484
…virtually all by the Kiev side. Feb 24: Russian forces intervene
Notice how the shelling of the Donbas increased every day before the invasion?
I’d call that a thoroughly-calculated provocation, wouldn’t you?
Why does this matter?
It matters because the vast majority of people have been hoodwinked into supporting a war for which there is no moral justification. This is not a case of “unprovoked aggression”. Not even close. And Putin is not an out-of-control tyrant bent on reconstituting the Soviet Empire by terrorizing his neighbors and seizing their territory. That is a complete fabrication based on nothing but speculation. In Putin’s own words, he invaded Ukraine because he had no choice. His own people were being ruthlessly exterminated by an army that acts on Washington’s orders alone. He had to invade, there was no other option. Putin felt a moral obligation to defend the ethnic Russians in Ukraine who could not defend themselves. Is that aggression? Here’s a bit more background from an article at The Intercept by James Risen:
Despite staging a massive military buildup on his country’s border with Ukraine for nearly a year, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not make a final decision to invade until just before he launched the attack in February, according to senior current and former U.S. intelligence officials.
In December, the CIA issued classified reports concluding that Putin hadn’t yet committed to an invasion, according to the current and former officials. In January, even as the Russian military was starting to take the logistical steps necessary to move its troops into Ukraine, U.S. intelligence again issued classified reporting maintaining that Putin had still not resolved to actually launch an attack, the officials said.
It wasn’t until February that the agency and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community became convinced that Putin would invade, the senior official added. With few other options available at the last minute to try to stop Putin, President Joe Biden took the unusual step of making the intelligence public, in what amounted to a form of information warfare against the Russian leader. He also warned that Putin was planning to try to fabricate a pretext for invasion, including by making false claims that Ukrainian forces had attacked civilians in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, which is controlled by pro-Russian separatists. The preemptive use of intelligence by Biden revealed “a new understanding … that the information space may be among the most consequential terrain Putin is contesting,” observed Jessica Brandt of the Brookings Institution.”
Biden’s warning on February 18 that the invasion would happen within the week turned out to be accurate. In the early hours of February 24, Russian troops moved south into Ukraine from Belarus and across Russia’s borders into Kharkiv, the Donbas region, and Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014.” (“U.S. Intelligence Says Putin Made a Last-Minute Decision to Invade Ukraine”, James Risen, The Intercept)
There’s so much baloney in this excerpt, it’s hard to know where to begin. But just review the timeline we provided earlier; a timeline that has been verified by officials from the OSCE. Can you see the discrepancy?
Biden issued his warning on February 18; that’s two days after monitors from the OSCE reported an intensification of the bombing in the Donbas. In other words, Biden already knew that his buddies in the Ukrainian army were bombing the shit out of east Ukraine when he tried to make it look like he was privy to some sensitive, insider information about the upcoming invasion.
Of course, he knew Putin was going to invade! They created the provocation that forced him to invade! They were bombing the hell out of the people Putin is obliged to protect. What else could he do? Any leader worth his salt would have done same thing.
What bothers me is that people continue support the war in Ukraine because they have no idea of what actually happened in the lead-up to the invasion. They know nothing about the relentless bombing of civilians, or the defiant rejection of Minsk or the repeated military attacks on the Donbas, or the or the plan to retake Crimea through force of arms. or the laws directed against ethnic Russians, or the rise of Nazi fascism in Kiev. They know nothing about any of these things. Their views on Ukraine are entirely shaped by the rubbish they read in the western media or hear on the cable news channels where the deluge of propaganda issues like a mighty river pulling the population inexorably towards another vicious neocon bloodbath.
People must know the truth or this war will escalate into something far worse.
 

Putin Tells Scholz Why Russia is Targeting Ukrainian Infrastructure​

by RT
December 3rd 2022, 9:49 am

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/putin-tells-scholz-why-russia-is-targeting-ukrainian-infrastructure/

Strikes a response to Kiev's attacks on Russian soil, president tells German counterpart Scholz.

Russian precision attacks against Ukrainian infrastructure are a necessary response to Ukrainian sabotage on Russian soil, including the bombing of the Crimean Bridge, President Vladimir Putin has told German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

The two leaders spoke by phone on Friday at Berlin’s request, according to a statement released by the Kremlin. Putin explained the logic behind Russia’s military operation against Ukraine and stated that the Western policy of arming and training Ukrainian troops was “destructive,” according to the readout.


“It was noted that the Russian Armed Forces had been refraining from conducting precision missile strikes on certain targets in the Ukrainian territory for a long time, but now such measures have become necessary and unavoidable as a reaction to Kiev’s provocative attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure, including the Crimean Bridge and energy facilities,” the Kremlin said.

The “terrorist attack” against the Nord Stream undersea pipelines “stands in the same category” and requires a transparent investigation that would include Russia, Putin told the German leader.

Scholz’s office said the conversation lasted for about an hour and that the “chancellor condemned the Russian airstrikes against civilian infrastructure in Ukraine and stressed Germany’s determination to support” Kiev.

Russia changed its military tactics in Ukraine days after a powerful bomb damaged the Crimean Bridge in early October. Russian investigators accused Ukrainian military intelligence of masterminding the attack, which killed three people, including the driver of the truck that carried the disguised bomb.

In retaliation, Russian forces began targeting Ukrainian energy facilities, which the Defense Ministry believes to be instrumental for Kiev’s military logistics. The damage forced Ukrainian authorities to introduce rolling blackouts. The Ukrainian government and its Western backers accused Moscow of using terrorist tactics.

The blasts that damaged the two undersea Nord Stream pipelines happened in late September, severing links that would have enabled Germany to receive natural gas directly from Russia.


Moscow said the obvious beneficiary of the sabotage was the US, which had long sought to force Berlin to reduce its energy trade with Russia and replace Russian fuel with more expensive liquified natural gas produced by American companies.
 

Ukraine Strikes Deep Into Russian Territory, Attempts to Hit Nuclear-Capable Bombers​

by Kelen McBreen
December 5th 2022, 1:59 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/ukra...tory-attempts-to-hit-nuclear-capable-bombers/

Attack could lead to major escalation of the deadly conflict

Russian President Putin called the incident a 'terrorist attack'

The Ukrainian military on Monday morning attempted to strike Russian long-range aircraft at a pair of bases just over 100 miles away from Moscow.

Military bases in the Ryazan and Saratov regions deep inside Russia were both targeted.


BREAKING:

Major explosions at the Engels Air Base in Saratov, Russia.

It’s the same air base from which a major Russian air attack is expect to be launched against Ukraine.

Initial reports say Ukraine attacked it with drones and damaged 2 Tu-95 bombers pic.twitter.com/nvp3BsVu6W
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) December 5, 2022


Gasoline tanker reportedly exploded on an airfield near Ryazan, Russia. Three people dead, six wounded.

Reasons for explosion are not reported. pic.twitter.com/Wv2sEc7vrl
— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) December 5, 2022


Interesting video of explosion at Engels Airbase. At 15 sec, sound of something passing overhead. At 42 sec, light from explosion. 19 secs later – sound of blast, about 6.2 km away (speed of sound 326.34 m/s, dry air -8 C.) pic.twitter.com/rJ897Sv3Wv
— Euan MacDonald (@Euan_MacDonald) December 5, 2022

According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, “Russian air defense forces intercepted the Ukrainian UAVs as they were flying at a low altitude,” and “The crash and explosion of the wreckage on the Russian airfields caused minor damage to the hull armor of the two airplanes.”

The Russians confirmed three airfield maintenance personnel were killed in the attack and another four servicemen were wounded.

A response attack against 17 targets was quickly launched by Russia, disrupting “the transfer by rail of Ukrainian military reserves, foreign weapons, military equipment and ammunition to the areas of combat operations.”


Regarding the explosion seen in Saratov, the region’s governor Roman Busargin said, “There is no reason to worry. Not a single object of civil infrastructure was damaged.”

Minor damage to the hull armor of two Russian long-range bombers with nuclear capabilities did occur, according to the Russian government.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Ministry of Defense called the incident a “terrorist act” conducted by Ukraine.

Time will tell if the attacks cause an escalation in the ongoing war or if assaults deep within Russia will continue.
 

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel Admits: Minsk Agreements were only to "Buy Time" for Future Ukraine-Russia War​

WORLD HAL TURNER 08 DECEMBER 2022

Link: https://halturnerradioshow.com/inde...nly-to-buy-time-for-future-ukraine-russia-war

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday admitted that her participation in the Minsk Agreements between Ukraine and Russia in 2014 and 2015, was a deliberate deception; designed only to "buy time" for Ukraine to build its army for war with Russia. A war that is now presently taking place.
All this was PLANNED . . .
It is widely known that so-called "Conspiracy Theorists" believe almost all of the things going on politically in the world are "theater." They claim that the upheaval, dislocation, troubles are "all planned" long in advance. Most folks discount such claims as being too fantastic to believe, yet now we have actual proof that the present Ukraine-Russia war, was, in fact, planned as far back as 2014. All the troubles we have today from that war . . . were, in fact, planned.
In public remarks this week, Angela Merkel quite casually revealed that the Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015 were not signed with the intention of achieving lasting peace. Instead, they were signed, according to Merkel, "to buy time" for Ukraine during which it would strengthen for new conflicts with Russia.
She also admitted that at the time "NATO was not able to provide military support to the Kiev regime to the extent to which it does so today."
Merkel went on to point out that "Ukraine used that time to get stronger" and event went so far as to say "the Ukraine from 2014-2015 is not the Ukraine we see today" and that Russian President Vladimir Putin "would have easily run over" Ukraine back then.
Bear in mind that the Minsk Agreements were hammered-out during what were described as "marathon negotiations" in one case, lasting a non-stop nineteen hours, between then-Ukraine-President Petro Poroshenko, German Chancellor Merkel, French President Francois Holland, and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It was only this past June, 2022, when the world found out that Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko publicly admitted he deliberately LIED at the Minsk agreements, participating in them even though he already knew he had no intentional at all of implementing them.
In an interview with German Television Deutche Welle, Poroshenko said the Minsk agreements “meant nothing” and claimed credit for giving Kiev enough time to militarize
Petro Poroshenko admitted that the 2015 ceasefire in Donbass, which he negotiated with Russia, France and Germany as president of Ukraine, was merely a distraction intended to buy time for Kiev to rebuild its military.
He made the comments in interviews with several news outlets back in June of this year, including to Germany’s Deutsche Welle television and to the Ukrainian branch of the US state-run Radio Free Europe. Poroshenko also defended his record as president between 2014 and 2019.
“We had achieved everything we wanted,” he said of the peace deal. “Our goal was to, first, stop the threat, or at least to delay the war – to secure eight years to restore economic growth and create powerful armed forces.”
He cited Sun Tzu’s stratagems as an inspiration for the deception. Winning a war does not necessarily require winning military engagements, Poroshenko said, calling the deal he made a win for Ukraine in that regard.
In the interviews, Poroshenko spoke about his role in negotiating the Minsk agreements, a roadmap for reconciliation between his government and the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. The former president apparently confirmed that Kiev hadn’t come to the talks in good faith, but simply wanted a reprieve after suffering a military defeat.
Now, with the comments made by former German Chancellor Angela Merekel, the world finds out that she, too, was "in on it." She KNEW the entire Minsk Agreement meetings were nothing more than a farce, yet she sat through those meetings, face-to-face with the President of Russia, and deliberately, willfully, LIED right to his face.
What kind of people must Merkel and Poroshenko be, that, as heads of state, (or even just as plain, ordinary people) they could willfully sit at a serious negotiation for peace, when in reality, they were simply planning for a much worse war, years later? Does that make Merkel and Poroshenko Sociopaths? Psychopaths?
Based on web definitions of sociopath and psychopath, both people may very well qualify for those diagnosis.
FROM WEB MD:
You may have heard people call someone else a “psychopath” or a “sociopath.” But what do those words really mean?
You won’t find the definitions in mental health’s official handbook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Doctors don’t officially diagnose people as psychopaths or sociopaths. They use a different term instead: antisocial personality disorder.
Most experts believe psychopaths and sociopaths share a similar set of traits. People like this have a poor inner sense of right and wrong. They also can’t seem to understand or share another person’s feelings. But there are some differences, too.

Do They Have a Conscience?

A key difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is whether he has a conscience, the little voice inside that lets us know when we’re doing something wrong, says L. Michael Tompkins, EdD. He's a psychologist at the Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center.
A psychopath doesn’t have a conscience. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won’t feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. He may observe others and then act the way they do so he’s not “found out,” Tompkins says.
A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it’s weak. They may know that taking your money is wrong, and they might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won’t stop their behavior.
Both lack empathy, the ability to stand in someone else’s shoes and understand how they feel. But a psychopath has less regard for others, says Aaron Kipnis, PhD, author of The Midas Complex. Someone with this personality type sees others as objects he can use for his own benefit.

They’re Not Always Violent

In movies and TV shows, psychopaths and sociopaths are usually the villains who kill or torture innocent people. In real life, some people with antisocial personality disorder can be violent, but most are not. Instead they use manipulation and reckless behavior to get what they want.
“At worst, they’re cold, calculating killers,” Kipnis says. Others, he says, are skilled at climbing their way up the corporate ladder, even if they have to hurt someone to get there.
If you recognize some of these traits in a family member or coworker, you may be tempted to think you’re living or working with a psychopath or sociopath. But just because a person is mean or selfish, it doesn’t necessarily mean they have a disorder.

'Cold-Hearted Psychopath, Hot-Headed Sociopath'

It’s not easy to spot a psychopath. They can be intelligent, charming, and good at mimicking emotions. They may pretend to be interested in you, but in reality, they probably don’t care.
“They’re skilled actors whose sole mission is to manipulate people for personal gain,” Tompkins says.
Sociopaths are less able to play along. They make it plain that they’re not interested in anyone but themselves. They often blame others and have excuses for their behavior.
Some experts see sociopaths as “hot-headed.” They act without thinking how others will be affected.
Psychopaths are more “cold-hearted” and calculating. They carefully plot their moves, and use aggression in a planned-out way to get what they want. If they’re after more money or status in the office, for example, they’ll make a plan to take out any barriers that stand in the way, even if it’s another person’s job or reputation.

Brain Differences

Recent research suggests a psychopath’s brain is not like other people’s. It may have physical differences that make it hard for the person to identify with someone else’s distress.
The differences can even change basic body functions. For example, when most people see blood or violence in a movie, their hearts beat faster, their breathing quickens, and their palms get sweaty.
A psychopath has the opposite reaction. He gets calmer. Kipnis says that quality helps psychopaths be fearless and engage in risky behavior.
“They don’t fear the consequences of their actions,” he says.

Draw your own conclusion if Merkel and Poroshenko meet the definitions of sociopath or psychopath cited above.
Which brings us all back to the "Conspiracy Theorists" who warn us that all the things going on in the world are carefully planned and scripted "theater." Clearly, since we now know that the Minsk Agreements were a farce, entered into willingly by Poroshenko and Merkel, that the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine __was__ actually planned, as far back as 2014!
The other participant in the Minsk Agreements, Francois Holland of France, has not said if he, too, was aware that the effort was a farce, but since both France and Germany are NATO members and allies, it seems logical to believe President Holland of France would have known too.
Which leaves President Vladimir Putin, of the Russian Federation. We now find out he was deliberately deceived by both Ukraine and Germany during both the Minsk one and Minsk two meetings.
What is he to do?
Clearly, Ukraine cannot ever be believed again; it's very top leader willfully lied - twice - for the express purpose of building an army to fight a war with Russia.
Clearly Germany cannot ever be believed again; it's leader participated in the willful deception.
France . . . it's likely they were "in on it" but we just don't know right now.
Oh, and the most important party regarding the Minsk Agreements -a party who was NOT ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING -- the United States . . . under then President Barak Obama, HAD TO KNOW the meetings were a deception. It seems impossible that the largest, most important member of NATO, the USA, did not know.
So how can Russia believe __anything__ the United States says, when it, too, seems to have been part of the deliberate deception?
The major "takeaway" from all this is the simple reality that the present Ukraine-Russia war __was__ planned . . . as far back as the year 2014. Ukraine INTENDED to have a war. YEt now that they have gotten what they planned, WE in the US and NATO, are expected to cough up tens of billions of dollars in cash and weapons, to "help" them.
"Poor Ukraine" we hear. "They've been invaded by Russia" we hear. Yet it turns out, they PLANNED this confrontation as far back as 2014.
I say, since Ukraine planned it, let Ukraine fight it. Since Ukraine planned it, let Ukraine PAY FOR IT.
All US Military aid and cash to Ukraine should stop immediately. They built this treehouse, let them sit in it.
Of course, I might be missing one important aspect. What if it was the US and NATO that actually planned this? Maybe THAT is why the US and NATO are so heavily invested in it?
If that's true, then I'd like to find out the names of the people in the US and NATO who came up with this plan. I'd like to send them the $195 bill I just got to fill-up my diesel pick-up truck that took 32 gallons and cost me $195 for ONE tank full. I'd like to send them the $400+ food bill from the supermarket every couple weeks to feed my family. I'd like to send them my now $400-$500 electric bill for my small, 1200 square foot condo.
I am suffering all these increased costs because of a war THEY planned. Let THEM pay for it.
The more serious part of this deception, is that since they clearly PLANNED the Ukraine-Russia War, then they clearly knew all these economic hardships would come with that war - and they did it anyway.
The absolute worst part of this is that their deception, may actually result in a nuclear war. They must have considered this as well, since they planned it so many years ago.
If the ongoing troubles result in a nuclear exchange, I want to know the names of the people here in America who planned this all the way back in 2014 and 2015, so they can be held personally accountable, on the spot. Their "Qualified Immunity," only works in court. It doesn't work out in the real world, out in the streets.
No, their "Immunity" doesn't work at all out here.
 

Merkel's Confession On Duplicity Of Minsk Accords: Cold War 2.0 Just Got Colder​

BY TYLER DURDEN
WEDNESDAY, DEC 14, 2022 - 01:00 AM
Authored by Patrick Lawrence via Consortium News,

Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...ity-minsk-accords-cold-war-20-just-got-colder

"Germany is Hamlet," Gordon Craig once wrote. The great historian of that nation (1913–2005) was noted for pithy summations of this kind, insights that cast light into the innermost recesses of the German psyche, the what-makes-them-tick of its people.
Does Germany face westward to the Atlantic or eastward to the Eurasian landmass? From which tradition does it draw? Where lie its loyalties? These are questions geography; a rich, old culture; and a long, complicated history bequeathed to Germans. I do not think Craig meant to suggest this condition was burdensome. No, there was nothing to resolve. In its ambiguous state — in the West but not wholly of it, in the East but not wholly Eastern — Germany was most truly itself.
Germans lived this way, making no apologies, for a long time. They could allow the U.S. to station 200,000 troops on their soil — the figure at the Cold War’s end — while pursuing Willi Brandt’s Ostpolitik, the Federal Republic’s opening to the German Democratic Republic and by extension the whole of the East Bloc. It was Germany that invested with Gazprom, the Russian energy conglomerate, in the Nord Stream I and II pipelines even amid rising East–West tensions.
On the long drive into Moscow from Domodedovo International Airport, the broad thoroughfares are lined with German car dealers, German construction cranes, the factories of German companies. German businesses, along with many German citizens, were vociferous critics of the sanctions regime the U.S. imposed on Russia — and effectively on Europe, indeed — after the U.S.-choreographed coup in Kiev eight years ago set in motion the current crisis in Ukraine.
I read those two extraordinary interviews Angela Merkel granted Der Spiegel and Die Zeit last week against this history, this record, this ordained state of ambiguity. If there is one truth that may stand above all others in the former chancellor’s astonishing revelations of Berlin’s duplicity in its dealings with Moscow, it is that the Federal Republic has abandoned its inheritance — its natural state, indeed —and so the considerable responsibilities the past and geography awarded it.
East-West Alienation
It would be hard to overstate the significance of this turn for all of us. The global divide just got wider. Cold War II just got colder. The alienation of East and West is now down as a more or less permanent state of affairs. And the world just lost the one country capable of mitigating these dreadful circumstances by dint of its special, maybe singular position in the community of nations.
Oct. 17, 2014: Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, in talks with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, right, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande. Kremlin.ru/Wiki Commons
It is odd to consider the view of Prince Heinrich XIII, the German aristocrat just arrested for leading a plot to overthrow the Berlin government (a set of absurd allegations, I must mention right away, I do not for a minute take seriously absent credible evidence, and I do not expect we will ever see any). It seems the prince has long argued that Germany did not become a new nation after World War II but a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S.
“We are not Germans. We are not in a real German state,” his alleged followers are quoted as saying in a (highly misleading) New York Times piece published Sunday. “We are just a branch of a GmBH,” this last meaning a limited liability company.
How strange to read this the same week that Merkel removed all doubt this is precisely the German condition — arguably since the early postwar years, certainly since Washington committed itself and its allies to its all-out, all-in campaign to bring NATO to Russia’s very doorstep and ultimately to subvert the Russian Federation.
And while I do not know much about the prince’s politics, how interesting to hear a German citizen object, in effect, that the Federal Republic has betrayed itself and its historical inheritance the very week its former chancellor told Germany’s leading newsmagazine and one of its leading dailies that the fruitful ambiguity of the nation’s past is gone now in favor of the manipulative, Russophobic dishonesty that lies at the heart of the proxy war the U.S. now wages against Russia in Ukraine.
As has been widely reported and excellently analyzed — except in the mainstream American press, where Merkel’s remarks last week go unmentioned — the former German leader described her cynical, treacherous betrayal of Moscow during negotiations of the two Minsk Protocols, the first signed in September 2014 and the second the following February.
Berlin, Paris, the post-coup Kiev regime and Moscow were signatories to those accords. How well I recall the earnestness with which Russian President Vladimir Putin entered into the talks. How hopeful many of us were that, with Kiev having swiftly breached Minsk I, the second accord would produce what the Russian president sought — a lasting settlement that would leave Ukraine united and stabilize the security order on Russia’s southwestern border and Europe’s eastern flank.
Earlier this year Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s first post-coup president, shocked everybody when he stated publicly that Kiev never had any intention of honoring the commitments it made when it signed the Minsk Protocols: The talks in the Belarusian capital and all the promises were meant simply to buy time while Ukraine built fortifications in the eastern regions and trained and armed a military strong enough to wage a full-dress war of aggression against the Russian-tilted Donetsk and Lugansk regions.
There was never any interest in the federal structure envisioned in Minsk II. There was never any intention of granting the breakaway regions the measure of autonomy Ukraine’s history and its mixed languages, cultures and traditions called for. Committing to all that was a ruse intended to deceive Moscow and the Donbass republics while Ukraine rearmed and shelled the latter in anticipation of the war that broke out in February.
May 18, 2018: Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Sochi, Russia. via Kremlin.ru/Wiki Commons
Shocking, O.K. But Poroshenko was a jumped-up candy magnate running the wildly irresponsible, rabidly Russophobic regime that had seized power in Kiev. So: Shocking but also in keeping with the conduct of a corrupt-up-to-the-eyebrows pack of nobodies with no notion or regard for statecraft or responsible governance.
It is another matter, to state the very obvious, for Merkel to say the very same things. The former chancellor was supposed to be leading the West’s diplomatic démarche along with François Hollande, France’s president at the time and plainly a junior partner to Europe’s most powerful political figure. By her own account, she was using diplomacy just as Kiev was, to scuttle the accord she pretended to sponsor.
The U.S., to remind readers, was not part of the Minsk talks. On the one hand, it stood squarely against any settlement with either Russia or the breakaway regions. On the other, there was no point inviting the U.S. to Minsk because its position was obvious and its presence would be counterproductive. Now that Merkel has spoken of these matters, the German position seems to have been that the West needed the accord nobody in the West wanted if time was to be bought for Ukraine’s rearming.
Merkel’s interviews with Der Spiegel and to Die Zeit, which are here and here, were in the way of sprawling retrospectives during which friendly correspondents pitched a series of softballs to a chancellor given to looking back. Minsk and the Ukraine conflict were two topics among many. The documents give the impression that Merkel spoke casually and unguardedly of them. The damning passages are brief but very clear.
Der Spiegel:
She believes that… later during the Minsk talks, she was able to buy the time Ukraine needed to better fend off the Russian attack. She says it is now a strong, well-fortified country. Back then, she is certain, it would have been overrun by Putin’s troops.”
In Die Zeit, the second of the two interviews, Merkel described the Minsk talks as “an attempt to give Ukraine time… to become stronger,” later expressing satisfaction that this strategy — a straight-out abuse of the diplomatic process — has succeeded.

There are various interpretations of Merkel’s remarks. They are generally taken at face value, as an offhandedly delivered admission of her duplicity — and by extension the West’s — in her dealings with Russia on the Ukraine question. Moon of Alabama, a German publication, reads the interviews as Merkel’s attempt to protect her political reputation as Germany’s leadership circles succumb to the kind of Russophobia common in the U.S. but not, heretofore, in the Federal Republic.
I find both of these readings plausible. Either way, the important topic now before us is the damage Merkel did in 2014 and 2015 and the consequences of her comments last week.
Much has been written and said about the fatal blow that Merkel dealt to trust in diplomatic affairs, and I think “fatal” is our word. Ray McGovern was eloquent on this topic, bringing a lifetime’s professional experience to the question, during a long exchange with Glenn Diesen and Alexander Mercouris last week.
A measure of trust was essential between Washington and Moscow even during the Cold War’s most perilous passages. The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved as it was because U.S. President John F. Kennedy and the Soviet premier, Nikita Khrushchev, were able sufficiently to trust one another. This trust no longer exists, as Putin and other Russian officials have made clear in responding to publication of the two German interviews.
Moscow and Beijing have said repeatedly since Joe Biden assumed office not quite two years ago that there is no trusting the Americans. The follow-on thought is that there is no point negotiating with them in a diplomatic context. For various Russian officials, from Putin on over and down, Merkel’s revelations seem grimly to have confirmed these conclusions.
It is a major turn that Moscow now includes the Europeans, and especially the Germans, in this assessment. Germany now tells the lies of which the American empire is made — a matter of anxiety and sadness all at once. If scorched-earth diplomacy is a fitting name for what the West has been up to in its dealings with Russia since 2014, as I think it is, the German bridge between West and East has been burnt.
The gravity of these conclusions, the implications as we face forward, are immense for the West and non–West alike. A world replete with hostilities is one we all know. A world devoid of trust and talking will prove another matter. As we now see in the Ukraine context, there is no possibility for diplomacy, negotiation or dialogue of any kind without trust. We read daily of the result in those few publications reporting this war honestly.
 

The New York Times Just Admitted That The West's Anti-Russian Sanctions Are A Failure​

BY TYLER DURDEN
SUNDAY, FEB 05, 2023 - 10:00 PM
Authored by Andrew Korybko via The Automatic Earth blog,

Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...tted-wests-anti-russian-sanctions-are-failure

The “official narrative” surrounding the Ukrainian Conflict has flipped in recent weeks from prematurely celebrating Kiev’s supposedly “inevitable” victory to nowadays seriously warning about its likely loss.
It was therefore expected in hindsight that other dimensions of the information warfare campaign waged by the US-led West’s Golden Billion against Russia would also change. As proof of precisely that, the New York Times (NYT) just admitted that the West’s anti-Russian sanctions are a failure.

In Ana Swanson’s article about how “Russia Sidesteps Western Punishments, With Help From Friends”, she cites Western experts who concluded that “Russia’s imports may have already recovered to prewar levels, or will soon do so, depending on their models.” Even more compelling, she references the IMF’s latest assessment from Monday, which “now expected the Russian economy to grow 0.3 percent this year, a sharp improvement from its previous estimate of a 2.3 percent contraction.”
Neither the NYT, the Western experts that Swanson cites, nor the IMF can credibly be accused of being “Russian-friendly”, let alone so-called “Russian propagandists” or even “Russian agents”, which thus confirms the observation that this dimension of the Golden Billion’s infowar has also decisively shifted. The fact of the matter is that the West’s anti-Russian sanctions failed to catalyze the collapse of that targeted multipolar Great Power’s economy, which continues to remain impressively resilient.
The timing at which this narrative changed is also important because it extends credence to the more widely known new narrative that’s nowadays seriously warning about Kiev’s likely loss in NATO’s proxy war on Russia. After all, if the sanctions achieved the goal that they were supposed to and which the US-led West’s Mainstream Media (MSM) hitherto lied that they supposedly had, then it naturally follows that Kiev would “inevitably” win exactly as they claimed would happen up until mid-January.
With this in mind, the most effective way to “reprogram” the average Westerner after brainwashing them over the past 11 months into expecting Kiev’s supposedly “inevitable” victory is to also decisively change the supplementary narratives that artificially manufactured that aforesaid false conclusion. To that end, the order was given to begin raising the public’s awareness about the failure of the Golden Billion’s anti-Russian sanctions, ergo the NYT’s latest piece and the specific timing thereof.
What’s left unsaid in that article is the “politically incorrect” but nevertheless heavily implied observation that the jointly BRICS– & SCO-led Global South of which Russia is a part has defied the Golden Billion’s demands to “isolate” that multipolar Great Power. No MSM outlet will ever admit it, at least not yet, but their de facto New Cold War bloc has limited sway outside the US’ recently restored “sphere of influence” in Europe, whose countries are the only ones suffering from these sanctions.
The NYT’s latest piece might inadvertently make many members of their public conscious of that, however, and they might therefore increasingly object to their governments scaling up their commitment to NATO’s proxy war on Russia under American pressure. Croatian President Zoran Milanovic recently joined Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in condemning this campaign and raising wider awareness of just how counterproductive it’s been for Europe’s objective interests.
As Europeans come to realize that they’re the only ones suffering from the anti-Russian sanctions that their American overlord coerced them into imposing and that their sacrifices haven’t adversely affected that targeted multipolar Great Power’s special operation, massive unrest might follow. It’s unlikely to influence their US-controlled leaders into reversing course, remembering that the German Foreign Minister vowed late last year never to do so, but could instead catalyze a violent police crackdown.
The reason behind this pessimistic prediction is that a reversal or at the very least lessening of the presently rigid anti-Russian sanctions regime would represent an unprecedentedly independent move by whichever European state(s) does/do so. Seeing as how that didn’t even happen in the eight years prior to the US’ successful reassertion of its unipolar hegemony all across 2022, the likelihood of that happening nowadays under those much more difficult conditions is practically nil.
The US’ “Lead From Behind” subordinate for “managing” European affairs as part of its new so-called “burden-sharing” strategy, Germany, has more than enough levers of economic, institutional, and political influence to several punish any of those lower-tier American vassals who get out of place. It’s therefore unrealistic to expect any single EU member to unilaterally defy the bloc’s anti-Russian sanctions that their own government previously agreed to.
Considering this reality, those leaders who want to remain in power or at least not risk the US’ German-driven Hybrid War wrath against their economies are loath restore a semblance of their largely lost sovereignty in such a dramatic manner. Instead, their most pragmatic course of action is to not participate in the military aspect of this proxy war by refusing to dispatch arms to Kiev exactly as the emerging Central European pragmatic bloc of Austria, Croatia, and Hungary have done.
The population of those countries are thus unlikely to protest against the sanctions even after being made aware of the facts contained in the NYT’s latest piece and naturally coming to the conclusion that the anti-Russian sanctions have only harmed their own economies and not that targeted Great Power’s. Folks in France, Germany, and Italy, however, could very well react differently, especially considering their tradition of organizing massive protests.
In such a scenario, their governments are expected to order a violent police crackdown under whatever pretext they concoct, whether it’s falsely accusing the protesters of employing violence first or accusing them all of being so-called “Russian agents”. Regardless of how it happens, the outcome will be the same whereby Western European countries will slide deeper into liberal-totalitarian dictatorship, which will in turn contribute to further radicalizing their population towards uncertain ends.
Returning back to the NYT’s piece, it represents a remarkable reversal of the “official narrative” by frankly admitting that the West’s anti-Russian sanctions are a failure. This coincides with the decisive shift of the larger narrative driven by American and Polish leaders over the past month whereby they’re nowadays seriously warning about Kiev’s likely loss in NATO’s proxy war on Russia.
It remains to be seen what other narratives will change as well, but it’s predicted that more such ones will inevitably do so.
 

The Top Five Lessons from Year One of Ukraine’s War​

Link: https://archive.is/2023.02.09-09572...one-of-ukraines-war/#selection-849.0-1257.212

Europe’s brutal conflict has been a harsh but instructive teacher.​

Walt-Steve-foreign-policy-columnist20
Walt-Steve-foreign-policy-columnist20Stephen M. Walt
By Stephen M. Walt, a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks during a working session in Mariinsky Palace, in Kyiv, on June 16, 2022.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks during a working session in Mariinsky Palace, in Kyiv, on June 16, 2022.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks during a working session in Mariinsky Palace, in Kyiv, on June 16, 2022. LUDOVIC MARIN/POOL/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

FEBRUARY 9, 2023, 3:06 AM
Since Russia invaded on Feb. 24, 2022, the two combatants have each suffered more than 100,000 casualties, along with thousands of tanks and other armored vehicles lost. Ukraine’s economy has shrunk by roughly 30 percent, and more than 30 percent of its population has been displaced. Its infrastructure is being wrecked, and some 40 percent of its electricity-generating capacity has been damaged. Neither side seems willing to compromise or even consider a cease-fire; if anything, Moscow, Kyiv, and Ukraine’s Western supporters are doubling down.

Russia’s War in Ukraine

Understanding the conflict one year on.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
War is an instructive if harsh teacher, and sometimes the most we can salvage from the sacrifices that others have made is greater knowledge and wisdom for the future. Here are five lessons that leaders and publics around the world might learn after a year of war in Ukraine.

Lesson No. 1: It is very easy for leaders to miscalculate.
As I wrote late last year: It is now obvious that Russian President Vladimir Putin erred when he assumed Ukraine could not mount a serious resistance and that it wouldn’t matter if it tried. He badly miscalculated Russia’s military prowess, Ukraine’s tenacity, and Western Europe’s ability to find alternative sources of energy. But Westerners made mistakes, too: They discounted the possibility of war for years, exaggerated the potency of economic sanctions, and underestimated the depth of Russian opposition to Western efforts to bring Ukraine into their orbit. In this case (as in many others), the fog of war obscured our vision long before the actual fighting started.

Lesson No. 2: States unite to counter aggression.
The Ukraine war also reminds us that states in the international system typically unite to oppose overt acts of aggression. This is another lesson that Putin overlooked: In addition to believing that Ukraine would fall quickly, he appears to have assumed that NATO would not respond as vigorously as it has. Instead of going one on one against a weaker opponent, Russia is waging a war against a country backed by a coalition whose combined GDP is almost 20 times larger than Russia’s. That coalition produces the world’s most sophisticated weaponry and has begun to wean itself from Russian energy supplies. As discussed below, outside support does not ensure a Ukrainian victory. But it has turned what Putin assumed would be a cakewalk into a protracted and uncertain slog. Russia will be far weaker in the future no matter how the war ultimately ends.
States balance against aggressors because they worry that successful conquerors will try for more. Such fears are sometimes mistaken; revisionist states are sometimes satisfied once they have altered the status quo to their satisfaction. But other states cannot be sure about this—at least not initially—so they join forces to deter further trouble or to defeat it should deterrence fail. Nowhere is this tendency clearer than in Sweden and Finland’s decision to abandon decades (and in Sweden’s case centuries) of neutrality to seek membership in NATO. World leaders hoping to seize territories they do not currently control should take heed: Blatant acts of aggression are likely to lead other powerful states to combine against you. If they do, then even a successful military operation can leave an aggressor less secure than it was before.

Lesson No. 3: “It ain’t over till it’s over.”
READ MORE
Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko watches training launches of ballistic missiles as part of the Grom-2022 Strategic Deterrence Force exercise at the Russian Defense Ministry in Moscow on Feb. 19, 2022.Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko watches training launches of ballistic missiles as part of the Grom-2022 Strategic Deterrence Force exercise at the Russian Defense Ministry in Moscow on Feb. 19, 2022.

Ukraine and Belarus Are Fighting the Same War

A Russian defeat in Ukraine could send Belarus’s dictator packing.
ARGUMENT | ERIC S. EDELMAN, VLAD KOBETS, DAVID J. KRAMER
Americans like to think of war as a brief spasm of shock and awe followed by the awarding of medals and maybe a victory parade. This tendency isn’t surprising, given that the United States’ recent opponents have been third-rate powers and the initial military phase of each war was short and one-sided. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan eventually dragged on for years, but only because the United States chose to occupy each country and enact far-reaching political and social reforms. The result was a potent insurgency that could not be defeated at an acceptable cost.
The war in Ukraine is different: Russia’s initial assault was thwarted, and its goal of rapid regime change in Kyiv was dashed. After 12 months, the conventional forces of two sovereign states are still slugging it out on the battlefield and searching for new ways to bring pressure to the other side. Despite several shifts of fortune, neither side has been able to deliver a knockout blow.
Putin wrongly believed the war would be quick and cheap. When Russia’s initial assault on Kyiv failed and its forces suffered heavy losses, Ukraine and its backers concluded that generous outside aid, Ukrainian resolve, and extensive economic sanctions could inflict a decisive defeat on Russia and maybe even drive it from the ranks of the great powers. Successful counteroffensives beginning last summer reinforced Kyiv’s hopes of regaining all of its lost territory, including Crimea. Some observers began to dream of regime change in Moscow.
Russia is still a major power, however, with more than three times Ukraine’s population, a large military-industrial base, and substantial reserves of military equipment. Its leaders see the war as an existential conflict that Russia must win. The performance of its armed forces has improved somewhat since the beginning of the war and its missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure have done considerable damage. A grinding war of attrition does not favor Ukraine; hence the recent rush to get Ukraine more weapons (including tanks) and training. Outside support may enable Kyiv to hold the line and make limited gains come spring, but ousting Russia from all the territory it now controls may be impossible, no matter how much aid is sent. There is also the continued possibility of escalation (including the use of a nuclear weapon), a danger some pundits dismiss but which cannot be ruled out entirely.

Lesson No. 4: War empowers extremists and makes compromise harder.
Because the stakes are high, war is a time when cool reasoning and careful calculation should be especially prized. Unfortunately, it is often instead a time when bluster, wishful thinking, moral posturing, patriotic chest-thumping, and groupthink take over and hard-line views drown out more measured voices. As a result, it becomes harder to discuss any sort of compromise, even when neither side has a clear path to victory. That’s not the only reason wars are hard to end, but it is an important one.
As I described at length a couple of months ago, public debate on Ukraine has been extraordinarily vituperative, with hawkish pundits competing to outdo each other in expressing support for Kyiv, while smearing alternative perspectives as naive, immoral, pro-Russian, or worse. (Something similar may be happening on the other side as well: Although it is hard to draw reliable inferences from Russian commentary on the war, Putin’s most vocal Russian critics appear to be mostly hard-liners accusing him of not executing the war with sufficient vigor or ruthlessness.)
It is possible that Ukraine’s most ardent supporters are correct and the West should do “whatever it takes” to enable Kyiv to liberate all its territory. But I wonder if all those hawkish voices at the Atlantic or Atlantic Council (not to mention some outspoken Eastern European politicians) have ever stopped to ask themselves if they might be wrong. Is it barely possible that helping prolong the war could lead to a worse outcome for Ukraine? There’s a rather disturbing track record here: Generous external support for local forces in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan kept those wars going but didn’t leave those countries in better shape when the United States finally decided that victory was not possible and went home. It’s true that U.S. and NATO forces are not fighting in Ukraine, but we have a lot of skin in the game. Peace or a cease-fire may still be a long way off, but thinking about how to shut it down is in everyone’s interest, and especially Ukraine’s.

Lesson No. 5: A strategy of restraint would have reduced the risk of war.
The final lesson—and arguably the most important—is that this war would have been far less likely if the United States had adopted a strategy of foreign-policy restraint. Had U.S. and Western policymakers heeded repeated warnings about the consequences of open-ended NATO enlargement (including the advice of George F. Kennan; this wide-ranging, bipartisan group of experienced experts; this group of similarly distinguished diplomats and defense officials; or CIA Director William Burns, who is also a former ambassador to Russia) instead of trying to incorporate Ukraine into Western security and economic institutions, Russia’s incentive to invade would have been greatly reduced. Putin bears primary responsibility for launching a brutal and illegal war, but the Biden administration and its predecessors are far from blameless. The Ukrainian people are now suffering from Putin’s ruthlessness, but also from Western officials’ hubris and naivete.

Bonus Lesson: Leaders matter (duh)
Even realists who emphasize the importance of big structural forces recognize that individual leaders sometimes matter. A lot. Although opposition to NATO enlargement (and especially its possible extension to Ukraine) was widespread among Russian elites, a different Russian leader might not have chosen to “roll the iron dice of war” a year ago. A more imaginative and less dogmatic U.S. president might have done more to defuse the looming crisis before it reached the boiling point. Next, consider how this war might have proceeded if Petro Poroshenko had been president of Ukraine instead of Volodymyr Zelensky. Would Poroshenko have been able to rally his fellow citizens and win outside backing as effectively as Zelensky has? Seems unlikely. Or what if Donald Trump were in the White House instead of Joe Biden?
Structural forces constrain what states are able to do, but they do not determine outcomes by themselves. National leaders have agency, insofar as they are free to decide how to navigate the circumstances they face as best they can. Because they have agency, they are ultimately accountable for the choices they make. Mindful of that fact, the men and women who are currently in charge in Moscow, Kyiv, Washington, Brussels, Berlin, and elsewhere should pay particular attention to lesson no. 3 (“It ain’t over till it’s over”) and especially the fate of George W. (“Mission Accomplished”) Bush. This war is not over yet, and what we see as bold and effective leadership (or incompetent malfeasance) today may look somewhat different once the guns have fallen silent and the final costs are tallied.
 

Russian Military Warns Uranium Shells Will Cause Irreversible Harm To All Ukrainians​

by Zero Hedge
March 25th 2023, 7:30 am

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/russ...ll-cause-irreversible-harm-to-all-ukrainians/

The Russian military has weighed in on the UK’s plans to supply depleted uranium tank rounds to Ukrainian forces, which was announced by UK’s junior Defense Minister Annabel Goldie in a Tuesday parliament briefing.

Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov, the head of the radiation, chemical and biological defense troops of the Russian armed forces, told a press briefing Friday that the weaponry will cause irreparable harm to all Ukrainians, whether civilian or military.

“Despite the fact that the use of such ammunition [with depleted uranium] will cause irreparable harm to the health of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the civilian population, NATO countries, in particular the UK, express their readiness to supply this type of weapon to the Kiev regime,” Kirillov said.

“As a result of the impact of a depleted uranium munition, a mobile hot cloud of a finely dispersed aerosol of uranium-238 and its oxides is formed, which, when exposed to the body in the future, can provoke the development of serious diseases,” Kirillov said.

He described that when compounds in the advanced ammunition seeps into the soil or disperses across the environment, it will be “dangerous for people, animals and the environment for a long time.”

On Wednesday, Britain responded to Russian officials saying this constitutes escalation on the nuclear front, given that Kiev will be handed “nuclear components”

James Cleverly, Britain’s foreign secretary, told reporters on Wednesday that there was “no nuclear escalation,” adding, “The only country in the world that is talking about nuclear issues is Russia.”
Depleted uranium has for decades been used by NATO, and was known for being used against Serbian forces in the late 1990’s, as well as in Iraq. It is two-and-a-half times denser than steel, and thus can penetrate armor, for example it can cut straight through tanks.

China has previously condemned the use of depleted uranium by the Western alliance:

June 2022
China's Zhao Lijian: NATO dropped 15 tons of depleted uranium bombs on Yugoslavia causing death and agony to linger for generations after the war. In Serbia after 1999, many children suffered from tumors & 366 participating NATO Italian military personnel died of cancer pic.twitter.com/rf2rfozl0P
— the Lemniscat (@theLemniscat) March 22, 2023

But it not only has radioactivity but is toxic to humans long after being dispersed on the battlefield. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova emphasized this in an initial Kremlin reaction on Tuesday…

“Yugoslav scenario. These shells not only kill, but infect the environment and cause oncology in people living on these lands,” she said, in reference to cancer and other deadly ailments.

“By the way, it is naive to believe that only those against whom all this will be used will become victims. In Yugoslavia, NATO soldiers, in particular the Italians, were the first to suffer. Then they tried for a long time to get compensation from NATO for lost health. But their claims were denied,” she said.

Sign up for our free newsletter HERE that’s loaded with special reports, articles, Infowars Store deals, and more! Don’t let globalist censors cut you off from the truth!
 
Last edited:

Why Europe Fears Free Speech​

by Tyler Durden
Saturday, Jan 18, 2025 - 06:00 AM
Authored by Wolfgang Münchau via UnHerd.com,

Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/why-europe-fears-free-speech/

We all know the old joke: when a European referendum delivers the “wrong” outcome, the country votes again until they get it “right”.
The EU thought this would be the case after Brexit. But so far, no one’s laughing.
If anything, things have got worse.

Take Romania, which recently cancelled its presidential election when Călin Georgescu, leader of a nationalist Right coalition, won the first round. Thierry Breton, former French European Commissioner, revealed the EU’s mindset during a damning recent TV interview. “We did it in Romania and we will obviously do it in Germany if necessary,” he said.
In other words, if you can’t beat the far-Right, ban them.



I disagree with almost everything Breton has ever said, but I am grateful to him for stating his case with such revealing clarity. During his time as industry commissioner in Brussels, from 2019 until last summer, when Emmanuel Macron replaced him with a more compliant figure, he was the driving force behind a series of laws designed to keep Europe in the digital dark ages. The most extreme of which is the Digital Services Act (DSA) which compels “very large online platforms”, such as X and Meta, to check facts and filter out fake news.

But, thanks to Breton, the truth is out there. Europe’s ultimate aim isn’t to save public discourse, it is to suffocate far-Right parties by depriving them of the oxygen of information. The DSA isn’t even the last word in the EU’s anti-digital jihad. One of Ursula von der Leyen’s big ideas last year during the European election was the so-called “democracy shield” — effectively launching even more legislation to prevent outside interference in EU affairs. This notion conjures up images of laser beams and light-sabre fights. And in some respects it’s not far from the truth: a frightened bloc needs a shield to protect itself from the encroaching enemy.
Mark Zuckerberg is certainly on the attack. Last week he announced that he is abandoning fact-checking on his platforms — effectively defying the DSA. And he is betting on Donald Trump to protect him from the legal consequences. Given that J.D. Vance, the Vice President-elect, has already threatened to end US support for Nato if Europe tries to censor Elon Musk’s X, surely the same will apply to Facebook. And the EU is far too dependent on the US to be able to mount an effective campaign against any of America’s social media platforms once Trump is president. The DSA, hastily drawn up during the pandemic, not only misjudges the nature of the social media, it misjudges political power. It exposes Europe’s essential weakness before America.

This isn’t just a geopolitical battle, though. It is also a European one. The attempted clampdown reveals that there is something the bloc fears more than free speech: populism. MEPs found it hard enough to stomach Nigel Farage’s brutal outbursts when he was a member of the European Parliament. Now they have Musk breathing down their neck, endorsing candidates from the AfD, a party that sits on the far-Right in the European Parliament’s benches and which supports German withdrawal from the EU.
The German media had a collective breakdown when Musk tweeted an endorsement for the AfD, interviewed Alice Weidel, the party’s co-leader, on X, and then endorsed her in an article for Die Welt. The op-ed editor of the German daily resigned in protest. And an article in another newspaper hysterically described Musk’s intervention as unconstitutional. That journalists would advocate censorship seems shocking, until one understands the role of journalism in continental European society. It operates firmly inside a narrow centrist political consensus, which spans all the parties from the centre-left to the centre-right. Naturally, the AfD does not get much airtime in the German media.
But while marginalised by traditional media, the AfD thrives on TikTok, where it has large following. So what irks the German media, and politicians from other parties, is that the censorship cartel is no longer functioning as well as it once did. In the US and in the UK, the once mighty legacy media have already lost their power. Hillary Clinton expressed the frustration perhaps most clearly when she said that social media companies must fact check, or else “we lose total control”. But Europe still lives in a twilight zone where the traditional media still basks in the dwindling sunset of power, trying to ignore social media rising on the other horizon. Like all the modern political battles in Europe, this is about protecting vested interests.

The Romanian case demonstrates how these restrictions on freedom of speech are the first salvos in a greater war of repression. The presidential elections there were cancelled on the grounds that a Russian-infested TikTok had misinformed voters. I am sure that the Russians were active. But it is shocking to think that an election was cancelled because someone lied on TikTok.
Let’s be clear, there was no suggestion of any vote rigging. Georgescu won the first round of the election fair and square. But as with the laughable misperception in Brussels after the Brexit vote, the presumption behind the EU’s support for the nullification of the result, was that voters were too stupid to make up their own mind. The rerun is to take place on 4 May, followed by a run-off between the most successful candidate two weeks later. Georgescu is still the most likely candidate to win according to opinion polls, but the Romanian political establishment is still determined to find ways to disbar him, the most promising of which is the hope that he may have received undeclared funds.

There are similar patterns elsewhere.
Marine Le Pen faces potential disqualification from the 2027 presidential elections following accusations of irregularities regarding her assistants in the European Parliament. More recently, Brussels was spooked by the victory in Austria of the Freedom Party, which managed to obtain 28.8% of the vote in the September general election. It surpassed a threshold at which point it became politically impossible for the other parties to form coalitions. Herbert Kickl, the FPÖ’s leader, is now likely to become Austria’s next chancellor. Meanwhile, in Germany, a group of 113 MPs has ganged up to ban the AfD. Their story is that the far-Right wants to destroy democracy. While the party is not yet polling high enough to frustrate yet another centrist coalition in Berlin after next month’s elections, Germany may only be a few percentage points away from an Austrian-style impasse.
Surely, though, the sensible approach to the rise of the AfD, the FPÖ and other parties of the Right is not to censor them, but to address the underlying problem that has made them so strong: persistent economic uncertainty, loss of purchasing power, and dysfunctional policies on migration. Failing that, why not co-opt parties of the far-Right as junior coalition partners as they did in Sweden and Finland? If Weidel were suddenly thrust into the job of economics minister, we would see whether she could defend her record in government. But the centrist parties in Germany and France do neither. They have erected political firewalls against the far-Right. And they are doubling down with the same old policies.

It’s an approach that will inevitably backfire. A banned Le Pen would be far more dangerous for the centrist establishment, and possibly even more extreme when she eventually gets to power. Likewise the AfD would surely be radicalised after a ban.

Until then, the EU’s blunt weapons of choice — the legal bans, political firewalls, and censorship — will inflict more self-harm than good. In the pecking order of democratic rights, freedom of speech has a relatively low priority in Europe. Like the creatures in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, I am struggling to spot the difference between the extremists of the Right, and those who are trying to fight them.

More geopolitical stories on ZeroHedge​


Israel 'Confiscates' Thousands Of Abandoned Weapons, Including Tanks, From Syria


Illegal Immigrants Have Begun Deporting Themselves; Report


Netanyahu Says Trump "Emphasized" To Him That The Gaza Ceasefire Is "Temporary"

 
Back
Top