By Jim Crenshaw
Cliff gives some great insight into what will probably happen in the near future.
Source: Bitchute
The War in Ukraine, Banking, Currency, Where We Are & Where We are Going with Cliff High | Bitchute
Ukraine
Ukraine crisis marks the end of globalization says BlackRock CEO Larry Fink | Russia Times (RT)
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, whose firm oversees investments equivalent to about half of US GDP, has predicted that efforts to punish Russia over its invasion of Ukraine would lead to the unraveling of globalism as decision-makers reconsider their foreign vulnerabilities.
“The Russian invasion of Ukraine has put an end to the globalization we have experienced over the last three decades,” Fink said on Thursday in a letter to investors. “We had already seen connectivity between nations, companies and even people strained by two years of the pandemic. It has left many communities and people feeling isolated and looking inward. I believe this has exacerbated the polarization and extremist behavior we are seeing across society today.”
Western nations responded to the Ukraine crisis by launching an “economic war” against Moscow, including the unprecedented step of barring the Russian central bank from deploying its foreign currency reserves, Fink noted. Capital markets, financial institutions and other businesses have gone beyond the sanctions imposed by their governments, cutting off their Russian ties and operations.
“Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and its subsequent decoupling from the global economy is going to prompt companies and governments worldwide to re-evaluate their dependencies and re-analyze their manufacturing and assembly footprints – something that COVID-19 had already spurred many to start doing,” Fink said. As a result, he added, companies will move more operations to their home countries or to neighboring nations, leading to higher costs and prices.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has “upended the world order” that has been in place since the Cold War ended and will require BlackRock to adjust to “long-term structural changes,” such as deglobalization and higher inflation, Fink said. He added that central banks will have to either accept increased inflation – even beyond the 40-year high that was set last month in the US – or reduced economic activity and employment.
READ MORE: ‘The Americans are no longer the masters of planet Earth’ – ex-Russian president
New York-based BlackRock handles $10 trillion in assets, making it the world’s largest money manager, so Fink’s views are closely watched by investors. In fact, the billionaire wields so much financial clout that his thoughts can be self-fulfilling, to some degree. Among other implications, he said he sees the Ukraine crisis accelerating the development of digital currencies and speeding the shift away from fossil fuels.
“The ramifications of this war are not limited to Eastern Europe,” Fink said. “They are layered on top of a pandemic that has already had profound effects on political, economic and social trends. The impact will reverberate for decades to come in ways we can’t yet predict.”
Although Fink and Russian leaders don’t see eye-to-eye on the Ukraine conflict – the money manager blames Moscow for causing the crisis – they agree that the world order is changing. Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week that sanctions against Moscow mark the end of an era, portending an end to the West’s “global dominance” both politically and economically. Ex-President Dmitry Medvedev echoed those comments this week, saying, “The unipolar world has come to an end.”
Source: Russia Times (RT)
The road to Ukraine started with 1999’s Kosovo War | Russia Times (RT)
By Nebojsa Malic, a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now a senior writer at RT.
Supporters of NATO’s war on Yugoslavia have no right to talk about law, sovereignty or borders
Pretty much everyone who has spent the past month moralizing about the sanctity of borders, sovereignty of countries, and how unacceptable it was for great powers to “bully” smaller neighbors – thinking of Russia and Ukraine – paused on Thursday to sing praises to a woman that championed all of those things back in 1999. Except since it was NATO doing them to Yugoslavia, Madeleine Albright was a hero and an icon, obviously.
On March 24, 1999, NATO launched an air war against Serbia and Montenegro, then known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The publicly stated aim of Operation Allied Force was to compel Belgrade to accept the ultimatum given at the French chateau of Rambouillet the month before: Hand the province of Kosovo over to NATO “peacekeepers” and allow ethnic Albanian separatists to declare independence.
When the bombers failed to achieve that within a couple of weeks, the narrative changed to NATO acting to stop a “genocide” of Albanians its cheerleader press claimed was taking place. That narrative also credited the first-ever female US secretary of state for the “humanitarian” bombing, calling it “Madeleine’s War.”
In the end, it took 78 days and a negotiated armistice for NATO troops to enter Kosovo wearing the fig leaf of a UN peacekeeping mission. They promptly turned the province over to the “Kosovo Liberation Army” terrorists, who proceeded to burn, loot, murder and expel over 200,000 non-Albanians. A real campaign of terror, intimidation, ethnic cleansing and pogroms began – and the very same media that covered for NATO by making up atrocities during the bombing now turned a blind eye, for the same reason.
READ MORE: NATO’s bombing of Serbia: A tragedy in three acts
Whatever its outcome, however, it was an evil little war, launched because the US felt it could. Because Washington wanted to get rid of the restraints posed by the UN to its new global hegemony, articulated just a few years earlier by Bill Kristol and Victoria Nuland’s husband Robert Kagan. Because the rising American Empire wanted to send a message to Eastern Europe that no dissent would be tolerated, and to Russia that it was no longer a great power worth respecting.
A legalistic mind might point out that the attack violated Articles 2, 53 and 103 of the UN Charter, NATO’s own charter – the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 (articles 1 and 7) – as well as the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 (violating the territorial integrity of a signatory state) and the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, for using coercion to compel a state to sign a treaty.
Ah, but being a world empire means making its own “rules-based order” to supplant inconvenient laws. So an “independent commission” of cheerleaders was put together to declare the operation “illegal but legitimate,” arguing it was justified because it “liberated” the Kosovo Albanians from Serb “oppression.”
The actual oppression of non-Albanians as NATO troops stood idly by – including during the vicious pogrom of March 2004 – doesn’t count, obviously. The important thing is that Bill and Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and British PM Tony Blair got monuments, streets, and even children named after them.
The “independent” Kosovo – proclaimed in 2008, in a move about as legal as the 1999 war – can’t actually do anything without the permission of the US ambassador. A great triumph of human rights, law and order, and democracy, everyone!
READ MORE: Kosovo: A decade of dependence
NATO never cared about saving Albanian lives. If it did, it wouldn’t have partnered with the KLA, which made a point of murdering ethnic Albanians who wanted peace with the Serbs. It wouldn’t have repeatedly bombed refugee columns, then declaring it was really the Serbs’ fault somehow and that pilots dropped their bombs “in good faith” – literally something NATO spokesman Jamie Shea said on one occasion.
Twenty years on and nothing has changed. Having obliterated a family in Kabul by a drone strike last August, the US offered blood money, but refused to so much as reprimand anyone involved. Being an empire means never having to say you’re sorry. This mindset propelled the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Meanwhile, failure to overthrow the government in Belgrade through war led to a “color revolution”in Serbia instead. It was then exported to other places – including Ukraine, twice. That 2014 coup in Kiev literally started the conflict in eastern Ukraine, of which the current events are but the latest phase.
In March 1999, I was a student in the American Midwest, and had been (almost) successfully brainwashed into believing the platitudes about freedom, democracy, tolerance, objectivity, rules and laws, and how the US was a “force for good” in the world. Then, overnight, people I thought had been my friends called me a monster and believed every single bit of propaganda that came off the TV screens and newspaper pages.
I’ve made justice and remembrance something of my life mission since then, seeking to explain that rather than a good, noble and humanitarian war, Kosovo represented everything wrong about the modern world: “A monument to the power of lies, the successful murder of law, and the triumph of might over justice,” as I wrote in 2005, and repeated every year since.
The twist this year is that the people shrieking about human rights, international law and the sanctity of borders – when it comes to their client regime in Ukraine, that is – were all cheering for NATO back in 1999. Even now, they won’t apologize for it, much less disavow. So it seems it’s not really about what is being done, only who is doing it to whom. While I understand their anger as the world their lies propped up comes crashing down, they hardly have standing to complain.
Source: Russia Times (RT)
Putin reveals conditions for offensive in Ukraine to stop | RT.com
The Russian president told his Turkish counterpart that nationalists use civilians as human shields
Kiev must cease fighting and fulfill all of Moscow’s demands in order for the Russian invasion of Ukraine to stop, President Vladimir Putin told Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday.
Moscow’s ‘special operation’ in the neighboring country “will come to a halt only if Kiev stops its military action and fulfills the demands of Russia, which are well known,” Putin explained during the phone call, according to the Kremlin’s press service.
The president assured Erdogan that Russia is ready for dialogue with the Ukrainian side, as well as with foreign partners, in order to find a peaceful solution to the conflict.
However, he warned that any attempts to drag out the negotiations, which could be used by Ukraine to regroup its forces and assets, will be “self-defeating.
The Russian military does everything possible to protect the lives of civilians, only carrying out surgical strikes on Ukrainian military facilities, Putin added. “In this context, the actions of the nationalists – the neo-Nazi units – look particularly cruel and cynical as they continue intensive shelling of Donbass and use civilians, including foreigners, who are basically taken hostage, as a ‘human shield’ in Ukrainian cities and towns,” he said.
According to Erdogan’s office, he tried to persuade Putin that an urgent general ceasefire is necessary in Ukraine in order to provide humanitarian aid to the population and to create the conditions for a political solution.
“Let’s pave the way for peace together,” the Turkish president urged his Russian counterpart on the phone.
Erdogan reiterated Turkey’s eagerness to contribute to the settlement of the crisis through mediation and other diplomatic means. Ankara has remained in close contact with Kiev and other countries on the issue, he added.
Turkey, which is a Black Sea nation like Russia and Ukraine, enjoys good relations with both Moscow and Kiev. Though a NATO member, Turkey has been trying to maintain a neutral stance since Russia sent its troops into Ukraine last Thursday to “denazify” and “demilitarize” the country, which it blames for “genocide” in the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. Kiev and its Western allies claim the attack was completely unprovoked.
Turkey has condemned the Russian invasion and supported Ukrainian territorial integrity, but also opposed the harsh international sanctions, designed to isolate Moscow. The government in Ankara is hoping to stage talks between the Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministers next week in southern Turkey. So far, the idea has been welcomed by Moscow and Kiev.
Source: RT.com
Weapons-Makers Fueled NATO Expansion from 16 to 30 Members | Antiwar.com
When the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991, U.S. weapons makers saw their Cold War gravy train grind to a halt. By 1993, the big weaponeers like Boeing, Raytheon, Northrup and Lockheed stemmed the bleeding by gobbling up the smaller players, acquiring new economic muscle in a dwindling domestic market.
To keep profits booming they turned eastward, all the way to the former Soviet republics. Their brilliant scheme was to bring these nations into NATO so they could sell them endless billions in weaponry. Weapons hawkers flooded these new markets while their lobbyists flooded Congress, making defense contractors among the most prominent supporters of NATO expansion. They had plenty of help from NATO expansionists in Congress, the military and the pundit class.
It didn’t matter the US promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that if Russia allowed German reunification, NATO would not move one inch eastward toward Russia. The munition giants weren’t subtle about their plan. Lockheed V.P. Bruce Jackson became president of the US Committee to Expand NATO. Congressman on the hunt for free goodies and campaign cash were an easy mark to forget the US promise to Gorbachev.
Beginning with Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary in 1999, NATO added 14 former Central and Eastern European countries in an alliance right up to Russia’s borders. These countries have now purchased over $16 billion in Western weaponry, with endless more to come.
Overall, defense contractors’ efforts to shut down the peace dividend in 1991 has been a smashing success. For Ukraine, Russia, Europe, the US, indeed the world, it helped provoke an illegal, murderous war that may spiral into a smashing catastrophe for mankind.
Source: Antiwar.com
Media Coverage of Russia’s Criminal Invasion of Ukraine | Antiwar.com
By Ron Forthofer
The recent appalling Russian invasion of Ukraine must be condemned. It’s yet another atrocious aggression in a long series of violations of international law by several countries including the US, Britain, Russia and Israel. It is terribly disappointing that humanity has failed to advance beyond the use of warfare (military, economic and cyber) to settle problems. Lobbying by the merchants of death, that is, the military-industrial complex, certainly plays a role in this disastrous failure.
US hypocrisy on international law
Many nations and their media, particularly Western nations, have rightly emphasized this horrific violation of the rule of law by Russia. Ironically, it is the US – arguably the nation that has done the most to undermine international law through its widespread military aggressions, support for coups, illegal use of economic warfare (unilateral sanctions), protection of Israel from sanctions, and non-participation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) – that now proclaims most loudly the sanctity of international law.
Selective coverage of attacks
The Western media were less critical of other violations of international law by the US, Britain and Israel. For example, the US and Britain lied about the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. In 2003, they led a coalition of nations in a unspeakable war crime that devastated Iraq, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and led to the destabilization of the Middle East. Iraqis are still suffering horrendous consequences of this years-long war crime. The US media certainly didn’t emphasize that this unprovoked aggression was a violation of international law. In addition, the corporate-dominated US media didn’t call for then President George W. Bush and other members of his administration to be investigated by the ICC for war crimes. This US media hypocrisy seriously undercuts its credibility and shows that it’s a key component of the US propaganda system. In addition, the US media’s failure along with the cowardice of European nations about pointing out US violations have contributed to the undermining of international law.
Lack of context
Returning to today, the media have failed to provide any context for this shameful Russian war crime. The context doesn’t justify Russia’s use of force, but it’s important to understand how we arrived at this awful situation. Unfortunately, this terrible war crime was the predictable result of lies and actions by the US and NATO and their unwillingness to take Russia’s legitimate security concerns seriously.
Promise not to expand eastward
Russia, with documentation from numerous investigations by Western sources, has reminded the world of the 1991 US, German, UK and French promise not to expand NATO one inch to the east in exchange for the Soviet Union allowing the reunification of Germany. Given previous devastating invasions by Western European nations, one can understand why the Soviets might want this promise. For example, during WWII, estimates are that the Soviet Union lost over 26 million people, about 13% of its 1939 population.
George Kennan, architect of the U.S. containment policy towards the Soviet Union, was interviewed by Thomas Friedman in 1998 about NATO’s eastward expansion. Kennan said: ”I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”
Even before there was any expansion, Russia made clear its concern over the expansion to no avail. NATO has since expanded eastward from 16 members to 30 members today. NATO weapons are not far from Russia’s borders, in some areas approximately the same distance as Soviet weapons in Cuba were from the US. The US risked nuclear war to deny Cuba’s sovereignty over having Soviet weapons. Hence Russia’s demands about keeping NATO weapons away from its borders shouldn’t be a surprise
A predicted crisis
In 2008, then US Ambassador to Russia William Burns, now director of the CIA, warned US officials about the danger of holding out the prospect of NATO membership to Ukraine. He warned that it could lead to civil war and present Russia with a crisis on its border in which it could be forced to intervene. Instead of trying to prevent this situation from happening, the US acted in ways that resulted in this predicted crisis occurring.
For example, in 2014 the US played a major role in a coup against the democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych who was viewed as pro-Russian. The US was then influential in the selection of the new Ukrainian leaders. Most Ukrainians in western Ukraine were ecstatic whereas many Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine, particularly in the Donbas area and Crimea, viewed the new government as being illegitimate.
The predicted civil war then happened in the Donbas area when the new Ukrainian government almost immediately targeted the use of the Russian language. This language policy was quickly overturned, but the damage had already been done. Additional violent acts by neo-Nazi forces led to protests by people in Donbas. In addition, Russia took control of Crimea and the residents of Crimea subsequently overwhelmingly voted to join Russia.
The coup government militarily moved to stop the protests in the Donbas area causing the predicted Russian intervention there. Fighting has been going on in this area at a low level for much of the past 8 years despite the Minsk II accords that were agreed to in 2015 but not implemented.
Negotiations are the key
Unfortunately, this totally unnecessary conflict between Russia and the US turned into a full-scale war between Russia and Ukraine when Russia invaded. The people of Ukraine are paying a terribly high price serving as an (unwitting?) proxy for the US. Ordinary Russians, who had no say about the criminal attack, are also facing a much harsher life as a result of this war crime against Ukraine. In order to avoid an escalation into a much broader and more deadly conflict, both sides must quickly make some uncomfortable compromises. Otherwise …
Ron Forthofer is a retired professor of biostatistics, having taught at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Houston. Since retirement in 1991, has been an activist for peace and social justice. He ran for Congress and for governor of Colorado for the Green Party.
Source: Anti-War.com
United States involvement in regime change | Wikipedia
Editor’s Note: Before we all get on our high horse of American exceptionalism and start throwing accusations around about Russian involvement in Ukraine, the United States might take a good hard look at the hundreds of wars of aggression over the last century or so we have initiated, the countries we have invaded, the governments we have toppled and the casualties of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of regime change.
Here’s a perspective on the Russia-Ukraine conflict that may illuminate the situation. First, the CIA, US & NATO were involved in “regime change” in Ukraine in 2014 and installed a ruthless puppet government creating insecurity along Russia’s western border. It won’t be the first time. Now, perhaps the CIA, US & NATO with all their hubris and a false sense of invincibility are attempting either leadership or “regime change” in Russia (who is a strong nuclear nation with the full capacity to defend itself and secure its borders unlike other weaker nations over the last two decades who could not).
Since the 19th century, United States government has participated and interfered, both overtly and covertly, in the replacement of several foreign governments. In the latter half of the 19th century, the U.S. government initiated actions for regime change mainly in Latin America and the southwest Pacific, including the Spanish–American and Philippine–American wars. At the onset of the 20th century, the United States shaped or installed governments in many countries around the world, including neighbors Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic.
During World War II, the United States helped overthrow many Nazi German or Imperial Japanese puppet regimes. Examples include regimes in the Philippines, Korea, the Eastern portion of China, and much of Europe. United States forces were also instrumental in ending the rule of Adolf Hitler over Germany and of Benito Mussolini over Italy.
In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. government struggled with the Soviet Union for global leadership, influence and security within the context of the Cold War. Under the Eisenhower administration, the U.S. government feared that national security would be compromised by governments propped by the Soviet Union’s own involvement in regime change and promoted the domino theory, with later presidents following Eisenhower’s precedent.[1] Subsequently, the United States expanded the geographic scope of its actions beyond traditional area of operations, Central America and the Caribbean. Significant operations included the United States and United Kingdom-orchestrated 1953 Iranian coup d’état, the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion targeting Cuba, and support for the overthrow of Sukarno by General Suharto in Indonesia. In addition, the U.S. has interfered in the national elections of countries, including Italy in 1948,[2] the Philippines in 1953, and Japan in the 1950s and 1960s[3][4] as well as Lebanon in 1957.[5] According to one study, the U.S. performed at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections during the period 1946–2000.[6] Another study found that the U.S. engaged in 64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change during the Cold War.[1]
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States has led or supported wars to determine the governance of a number of countries. Stated U.S. aims in these conflicts have included fighting the War on Terror, as in the Afghan War, or removing dictatorial and hostile regimes, as in the Iraq War.
U.S. Military & Wars of Aggression
- 1Pre-1887 interventions
- 21887–1912: U.S. expansionism and the Roosevelt administration
- 31912–1941: The Wilson administration, World War I, and the interwar period
- 41941–1945: World War II and the aftermath
- 51945–1991: The Cold War
- 61991–present: Post-Cold War
- 7See also
- 8Notes
- 9Further reading
- 10Bibliography
- 11Bibliography
Source: Wikipedia
The Putin Interviews by Oliver Stone (Part 1 of 4)
Editor’s Note: Before we jump to conclusions about the Russia-Ukraine conflict and its origins, we might wish to learn about Russia and get to know Putin from a different perspective. These informative interviews will illuminate the serious seeker of truth with regards to how this present conflict arose, not in a vacuum, but in relationship to the West’s aggressive regime building in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
PART ONE
Oscar® winning writer-director Oliver Stone conducts a revealing series of interviews with Vladimir Putin, the enigmatic Russian president who has never before spoken at length or in detail to a Western interviewer. Prodded by Stone over the course of two years, Putin confronts a host of critical topics in candid detail, including his long-term grip on power, his personal relationships with Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump, Edward Snowden’s asylum in Moscow, as well as allegations of election meddling and fostering turmoil in Syria. (Part 1 of 4)
PART TWO
Oscar® winning writer-director Oliver Stone conducts a revealing series of interviews with Vladimir Putin, the enigmatic Russian president who has never before spoken at length or in detail to a Western interviewer. Prodded by Stone over the course of two years, Putin confronts a host of critical topics in candid detail, including his long-term grip on power, his personal relationships with Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump, Edward Snowden’s asylum in Moscow, as well as allegations of election meddling and fostering turmoil in Syria. (Part 2 of 4)
PART THREE
Oscar winning writer-director Oliver Stone conducts a revealing series of interviews with Vladimir Putin, the enigmatic Russian president who has never before spoken at length or in detail to a Western interviewer. Prodded by Stone over the course of two years, Putin confronts a host of critical topics in candid detail, including his long-term grip on power, his personal relationships with Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump, Edward Snowden’s asylum in Moscow, as well as allegations of election meddling and fostering turmoil in Syria. (Part 3 of 4)
PART FOUR
Oscar winning writer-director Oliver Stone conducts a revealing series of interviews with Vladimir Putin, the enigmatic Russian president who has never before spoken at length or in detail to a Western interviewer. Prodded by Stone over the course of two years, Putin confronts a host of critical topics in candid detail, including his long-term grip on power, his personal relationships with Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump, Edward Snowden’s asylum in Moscow, as well as allegations of election meddling and fostering turmoil in Syria. (Part 4 of 4)
US/NATO is in the Grip of a Daemonic Death-Wish & the Entire World is Threatened | Off-Guardian
By Edward Curtin
Not wanting to sound hyperbolic, but I am starting to conclude that the nuclear madmen running the U.S./NATO New Cold War they started decades ago are itching to start a nuclear war with Russia.
Their hypocrisy and nihilistic thirst for death and destruction are so extreme that it boggles my mind. They accuse Russia of starting a New Cold War when they did so decades ago and have been pushing the envelope ever since. Now they act shocked that Russia, after many years of patience, has struck back in Ukraine.
In 2017, Oliver Stone released his four-part interviews with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Putin Interviews were conducted between 2015, the year after the US engineered the coup d’état in Ukraine installing Nazis to power in that country bordering Russia, and 2017.
Stone was of course bashed for daring to respectfully ask questions and receive answers from the Russian leader who the American media has always cast, like all the mythic bogeymen, as the new Hitler intent on conquering the world, when it is the United States, not Russia, that has over 750 military bases throughout the world and has attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria – the list is endless.
In his Putin interviews, Oliver Stone, a man of truth and honor, lets viewers catch a glimpse of the real Vladimir Putin and the matters that concern him as the leader of Russia. In 2018, I wrote of those interviews:
…he [Putin] makes factual points that should ring loud and clear to anyone conversant with facts.
- that the US needs an external enemy (“I know that, I feel that.”).
- the USA engineered the coup d’état in the Ukraine on Russia’s border.
- the US has surrounded Russia with US/NATO troops and bases armed with anti-ballistic missiles that can, as Putin rightly says to Stone, be converted in hours to regular offensive nuclear missile aimed at Russia.
This is a factual and true statement that should make any fair-minded person stand up in horror. If Russia had such missiles encircling the United States from Cuba, Mexico, and Canada, what American would find it tolerable? What would CNN and The New York Times have to say?
Yet these same people readily find it impossible to see the legitimacy in Russia’s position, resorting to name calling and illogical rhetoric. Russia is surrounded with U.S/NATO troops and missiles and yet Russia is the aggressor.
In the years since those interviews, U.S./NATO has consistently tightened the noose around Russia, including fueling the Ukrainian attacks on the Donbass, killing thousands, all the while pleading innocent and expecting no reply. Now the reply has come.
Although I have no inside information, I get the sense that the Western Empire is planning/initiating counter-measures far more extreme than the highly publicized economic sanctions.
While it is true, as many commentators such as Ray McGovern and Pepe Escobar have pointed out, that a paradigm shift is underway and the once dominant US/NATO bully boys must now contend with the Sino-Russian alliance that has ushered in a dramatic change, nevertheless, as in the past decades, the so-called leaders of the US are a dumb bunch driven by unquenchable demons.
As McGovern says:
Yet, there remain unsettling indications coming from Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, Antony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan that senior administration ‘dolts’ (copyright North Korean leader Kim Jong Un) in the Washington Swamp still don’t get it.
I’m afraid they don’t and never will. That is what frightens me. While it seems counterintuitive and totally irrational that these people would be planning to use some type of nuclear weapon in this current situation, I am not so sure.
They obviously pushed Russia to have no alternative but to attack Ukraine, and now that they have accomplished that goal, it seems to me that they will up the ante. Diplomacy is not their way; violence is.
Pepe Escobar has just written:
This is what happens when a bunch of ragged hyenas, jackals and tiny rodents poke The Bear: a new geopolitical order is born at breathtaking speed.
From a dramatic meeting of the Russian Security Council to a UN history lesson delivered by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the subsequent birth of the Baby Twins – the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk – all the way to the breakaway republics’ appeal to Putin to intervene militarily to expel the NATO-backed Ukrainian bombing-and-shelling forces from Donbass, it was a seamless process, executed at warp speed.
The (nuclear) straw that (nearly) broke the Bear’s back – and forced it to pounce – was Comedian/Ukrainian President Volodymy Zelensky, back from the Russophobia-drenched Munich Security Conference where he was hailed like a Messiah, saying that the 1994 Budapest memorandum should be revised and Ukraine should be nuclear-rearmed.
As usual, his analysis is correct, but it may fail to grasp the unspeakable nature of the madness that drives desperadoes.
If those running US foreign policy feel that a new geo-political order is being born “at breathtaking speed” as a result of Russia’s move into Ukraine, then they are capable of extreme acts. And they have all the mainstream western media behind them, barking out their non-stop propaganda.
We are inexorably moving toward a global war that will become nuclear if an international movement doesn’t quickly arise to stop it. Most people bemoan the thought of such a war to end all wars, but refuse to analyze the factors leading to it.
It seems so unimaginable, but It happens step-by-step, and many steps have already been taken with more coming soon. It’s so obvious that most can’t see it, or don’t want to.
The corporate mainstream media are clearly part of the continuation of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, and those who still rely on them for the truth are beyond reach. We need to use all alternative means to raise the alarm and make sure the ultimate nightmare never occurs.
Perhaps hyperbole is the only way to do so, for it may be closer to the truth than we want to believe.
Source: Off-Guardian
Psaki Gives Away the Ukraine Game – Russia Is Needed As Fall Guy for Biden Energy Policy and Economic Damage | Conservative Treehouse
Editor’s Note: The Democratic Party is not likely to maintain control over the U.S. House of Representatives after the upcoming 2022 mid-term elections (should honest elections actually be held in the swing states), therefore these radical leftists are eager to distract not only from its incompetence at governing under Biden, but its ineptness in managing the alleged COVID-19 pandemic response, the stupidity of ignoring an invasion of illegals and criminals at the southern border with Mexico, hyperinflation, energy-policy, etc. The Russia-Ukraine conflict, and its postering for world war, gives the Democratic Party a small boost among war mongers and defense contractors, and their war mongering allies in the Republican Party as well. This show is all partisan politics and dangerous media theatrics which may very well be the end-game for civilization and a fast-track for species (human) extinction.
During an ABC interview today, White House Spokesperson Jennifer Psaki gave away the game for the Biden Administration’s intent on exploiting the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
Keep in mind, as the Biden team were getting pummeled for negative economic outcomes, massive inflation, skyrocketing energy costs and gas prices set to double, the White House worked to create an urgent defense by manufacturing the crisis.
While Joe Biden ate his pudding, the people behind the scenes told Zelenskyy and Putin that Ukraine was about to enter NATO {December 2021}. The White House then seeded details through China knowing the intel would get back to Putin. Russia took the bait and intervened.
The collective left (far more western leader beneficiaries on a global scale) now have a quick and strategic pivot point to go from COVID-19 as the excuse for all the economic ills, to Russia. The Russia-Ukraine crisis transfers the cost of the Build Back Better climate change agenda from COVID-19 to Russia/Ukraine. We can now watch COVID just disappear.
The BBB agenda, domestically known as the Green New Deal, intentionally makes energy costs skyrocket. By creating the Ukraine crisis, gas prices specifically are no longer blamed on COVID-19 (the original fraudulent justification). Gas prices are now rising because of Russia and the villainous Vladimir Putin. Climate change policy outcomes are made palatable by blaming Putin.
Source: Conservative Treehouse
Liberty International News 