Gonzalo Lira is the most outspoken journalist in Ukraine. He has a big mouth (here we see him younger, when he was still living in the US). When the war broke out, one of his videos went viral in Russia.
Wikipedia, which is under the Jewish yoke and which I am ashamed to have edited in the past, deleted its article ‘Gonzalo Lira’ since Gonzalo started uploading videos in Ukraine. After the social media turned him into a non-person, one has to look in old newspapers in Spanish (for example this one from when Gonzalo was twenty-eight years old), to find out that Gonzalo had a novel published in English for which an American publisher gave him a million dollars.
But that doesn’t mean that the US-educated Chilean journalist is perfect. Far from it, although it is curious that at 1:34 of his March video (where he demonstrates that Zelensky is a puppet) Gonzalo says that his father was a thug (I guess in Chile under Pinochet), and after 1:49 he admits that his father mistreated him as a child.
Gonzalo despises thugs. But he doesn’t seem to have the faintest idea what the Soviet thugs did in Germany or even to the Russian people. I wonder if he has read The Gulag Archipelago.
The central problem I see with journalists, even good journalists, is that they are the historians of the moment. They lack a deep insight into the historical past, which on this site I have related to the fictional character of Bran the Broken, the three-eyed crow, to illustrate my point imaginatively.
Gonzalo, like virtually all journalists today, hasn’t the remotest idea of what National Socialism really was. I doubt he will ever visit The West’s Darkest Hour. But if he does one day, to educate Gonzalo I will say that the anti-Nazi propaganda has been identical to the anti-Russian propaganda we see now on TV. If Gonzalo wants to educate himself about the bare facts of WWII he will have to read what dissenting historians have written (which is why our next post will be about David Irving).
In his March video we see Gonzalo angry because he fears what the thugs might do to his young children in Ukraine. I’ve never seen him so angry in any of his other videos. He almost cried. When he touches on Zelensky’s origins, he disagrees with critics of those grotesque videos of Zelensky dancing like a faggot. Instead, Gonzalo compares Zelensky to the actor Ronald Reagan! That’s another problem with journalists today. I’m older than Gonzalo, and still remember a time when it would be inconceivable that an actor who went out dancing like a faggot would be taken seriously by a sane citizenry.
At 1:08 of his March video, Gonzalo says of Zelensky’s thugs: ‘They are actual neo-Nazis’. As I said, Gonzalo hasn’t read any NS literature (he should start with Hitler’s table talk). Zelensky’s so-called neo-Nazis are only Nazis in their fascist uniforms and tattoos. But in reality they subscribe to feminism! And like the despicable Westerners, these mudbloods also listen to rock and degenerate music. To top off the grotesque and surreal, seventy-five per cent of Zelensky’s cabinet (as well as the Jewish mobster who put him in the presidential chair) are Jews. Apparently, Coach Red Pill, Gonzalo’s former pen name, hasn’t taken the redpill when it comes to the JQ.
Finally, as a mestizo, Gonzalo is completely uninterested in the fourteen words, so why am I promoting him on this site? For the simple fact that the extremely dense smokescreen of smoke and mirrors that is the Western media makes it impossible for us to see what’s going on in the Ukraine war: which is actually a war between the US and Russia. It isn’t enough to read pro-Russian Andrew Anglin, whose shrill literary style for decadent teenagers disgusts me. We need the voice of someone who is in Ukraine and says things contrary to what we listen to in the media.
If there was a real National Socialist doing journalism in Ukraine, I would pass the microphone not to Gonzalo but to the NS reporter. But such a person doesn’t exist, courtesy of what the Soviets and Americans perpetrated last century.
In his today’s article on Counter-Currents, Greg Johnson wrote:
How to end this war? If there were justice, Russia would go back to its 2013 borders, pay reparations, and put Putin’s head on a spike on the Kremlin wall.
Wow, just compare it not only with what Andrew Anglin writes these months about Russia and Putin but with several pro-Russian articles in The Unz Review.
This sort of thing makes me think that a PhD in philosophy like Johnson’s is not good for thinking straight. A young lad like Nick Fuentes has better instincts about the profound consequences of the Ukraine war than Dr Johnson.
The West’s Darkest Hour doesn’t usually talk about news unless it’s vital. Of the people I’ve been listening to over the last few months who seem to me to have the noblest political instincts on the Ukraine conflict, apart from Fuentes and Anglin, are TFM whom I talked about in my post yesterday, and Gonzalo Lira (see Lira’s new YouTube channel here).
by Andrew Anglin
Recently, some readers have complained to me that we are covering the Ukraine situation too closely, saying they are bored with the topic.
Mitch McConnell was right when he said the most important thing happening in the world is the Ukraine conflict. He was right for the wrong reasons, but he was right.
Someone is going to win this conflict, and someone is going to lose. The stakes could not be any higher. The future of the entire world now hinges on the outcome of this conflict. This is the single most consequential military conflict in all of human history.
If Russia loses, the Putin government will collapse, and the US will be able to steamroll the country, break it apart into several pieces. From there, the US will have China isolated, and then eventually break them. This will result in the final establishment of a singular world order run by the Jewish power centers in the United States, Europe, and Israel.
If the US loses the war, we are looking at a freefall collapse of the Western economic and military order, a rising China, and a reshuffling of the entire order of power on the planet earth.
The reason I support Russia is that I want the US empire to collapse.
If the dollar goes down and the US can no longer export debt to the world through the dollar reserve system, the US government will no longer have the ability to micromanage the lives of American citizens. They will not have the resources (you have to have a lot of excess money to inflict your will on the entire population, which is one reason why people are so much freer in third world countries). We will be free, and we will then be able to return to the natural order in our society, without Jews controlling everything, without trannies, without deadly fake vaccines, without mass immigration, without feminism.
Those are the stakes.
I would support Russia fighting against the NATO machine even if I did not like Russia’s politics. In the end, I don’t really care about Russia or China—I care about myself, my own friends and family, my own country. I view the world in terms of what is best for me, as is the natural way for anyone to view world events.
It is a self-evident fact that a collapse of the US as the dominant military power in the world will lead to a severe decline in the ability of the US government to inflict its will on the domestic population.
Read it all: here.
On racialist forums some reproduce the statistics of Jews in the US compared to Jews in, say, Weimar Germany pretending, by that simple comparison between two countries and two eras, to understand why America is in such bad shape.
But that’s not a very scientific way of thinking insofar as, I understand, there are comparatively few Jews in Norway, and the ethno-suicidal liberalism of that country is as delusional as that of the US.
While I agree with both Nazis and white nationalists that Jews shouldn’t live in the West, it seems to me crystal clear that the root aetiology of Aryan decline must be sought in a factor that explains both Norway’s liberalism and, say, the miscegenation that occurred south of the Rio Grande when the Inquisition prevented avowed Jews from migrating freely to the New World. (A film shot in Mexico about what the Inquisition did to Jews in the city where I live can be seen: here.)
The root aetiology, Christian ethics, has so permeated the white mindset that even secular white nationalists like Greg Johnson use Christian pity to suggest that we should side with the main victims of the recent war: the Ukrainians. And if that’s not enough, Johnson flatly speaks of Ukrainians as ‘white’, as if the images we get from the war don’t show them as mudbloods. Just compare Johnson’s pity, who in 2010 was still talking about Jesus in his San Francisco church, with the SS piece I included in The Fair Race:
Races differ not only in their natures, but also in their values. Some races have great creative gifts; others over the centuries never raise themselves above the most primitive level. Think of the fruitful plains of the Ukraine, and imagine what German industry and German ability could have done with them! Compare them with the sandy soil of Mark Brandenburg. The smallest village there displays a culture that towers over Bolshevism’s model cities and collective farms.
Caption: A Russian Village in the fertile Ukraine,
a German farm on land wrested from the sea.
The environment does not form people…
…people form the environment.
The accomplishments of the Nordic race are the highest of any race in Europe. This is shown in many splendid cultural monuments, not only on European soil, but also deep in Asia and Africa. The investigations are at an early stage, but we already know that there is hardly a nation in North Africa, the Near East, Iran, India and as far as Turkistan that does not show wonderful evidence of Nordic cultures. It must fill us with pride that in our own homeland, in Germany, culture has bloomed in unbroken lines for more than 5000 years, created by people of our blood, our nature, our ancestry.
Until Christian ethical injunctions in secularized form are seen as the primary aetiology of the current value system, many white nationalists will continue to blame Aryan decline solely on the Jew. If someone wants to be a monocausalist, let him be monocausal!: but please regard the Christian problem as an epiphenomenon of the Jewish problem.
When I first became involved in the issue of defending the West against the programme of soft genocide through mass migration, I noticed on anti-jihad forums that conservatives, many of them Christians, were spearheading the fight. So why do I insult Christians so much?
As one begins to deduce from a Swede’s seminal essay, ‘The Red Giant’, the problem is that liberal neochristianity (today’s Woke ideology) hypertrophied Christian ethics, albeit in a strictly secular way. That’s why non-liberal Christians like Anglin are in the vanguard, though they should be non-Christians like the late William Pierce. Le wokisme, as the French would say, drew on ideals dating from the French Revolution, which in turn drew on the gospel’s message (see my own take on the subject in ‘On empowering birds feeding on corpses’).
Anglin’s site, The Daily Stormer, has once again been taken offline by Thought Police, although his articles can still be read on The Unz Review. The one published today, ‘Lavrov: the Ukrainian operation is intended to end US world domination agenda’, is worth reproducing here without the garish images and screenshots of Anglin’s original article:
______ 卐 ______
I’ve only met two people in real life who were able to communicate this level of calm ferocity in their physiognomy and facial expression. One was my maternal grandfather, and the other was an Australian Vietnam veteran I met in a village in [redacted]. I did not ever have a meaningful conversation with either, as their consciousness appeared to exist on a separate plane of reality. The closest I have come to understanding the nature of this other plane is by playing Planescape: Torment [Ed.’s note: a role-playing video game].
Russia’s top diplomat has declared that the purpose of the special military operation in the Ukraine is to put an end to the US-dominated global order.
“Dicks out for Harambe,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov added, his countenance pointedly sangfroid, punctuating the earth-shattering implications of the unfolding global reorganization.
The Americans always used to laugh. They used to think it was a joke. They are actually still laughing now, and do not appear to have any comprehension of the gravity of the situation.
Russia’s military action in Ukraine is meant to put an end to the US-dominated world order, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has explained. Washington has been seeking supremacy by imposing ad-hoc rules and violating international law, he claimed, in an interview aired by Russian television on Monday.
He was referring to America’s attempts to impose its own so-called “rules-based international order,” which have met with strong resistance from Moscow and China.
“Our special military operation is meant to put an end to the unabashed expansion [of NATO] and the unabashed drive towards full domination by the US and its Western subjects on the world stage,” Lavrov told Rossiya 24 news channel.
“This domination is built on gross violations of international law and under some rules, which they are now hyping so much and which they make up on a case-by-case basis,” he added.
“Under some rules” strikes me as a bad translation.
As he continues, the “rules” are made up on a case-by-case basis, meaning they are not actually rules at all. When it comes to political jargon, Russian can be difficult to translate, and RT is not always sending their best (that’s not a diss – they have budgetary concerns and someone who speaks both perfect English and perfect Russian is expensive).
I am also seeing direct translations that state that Lavrov said Russia is “putting an end to the US plan for global domination,” which is probably a better translation than the above.
Regardless of the wording, this is the greatest statement I’ve heard from anyone in my life, and it is also the truest.
The only thing that could have made it better is if he would have literally ended the statements by breaking into English and saying “Dicks out for Harambe.”
Russia is among the nations who would not submit to Washington’s will, the Russian diplomat added. It will only be part of an international community of equals and will not allow Western nations to ignore its legitimate security concerns, Lavrov said.
Lavrov blasted EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell for appearing to encourage more fighting in Ukraine. The bloc’s top diplomat said the conflict “will be won on the battlefield” as he announced more military aid to Kiev last Saturday. Lavrov called the statement “outrageous.”
This statement alone should tell you who is responsible for this conflict.
It’s not Russia!
Russia was backed into a corner and threatened with obliteration by this ZOG world domination scheme, and unlike other countries, they stood up and said “nope.”
“When a diplomatic chief… says a certain conflict can only be resolved through military action… Well, it must be something personal. He either misspoke or spoke without thinking, making a statement that nobody asked him to make. But it’s an outrageous remark,” Lavrov added.
The EU’s role has shifted during the Ukraine security crisis, the minister believes. Previously it didn’t act as a military organization “fighting collectively against an invented threat.” Lavrov said the change was the result of pressure put on the bloc’s members by Washington, which has pushed it closer to NATO.
For its part, Russia wants to negotiate peace with Ukraine, Lavrov added.
Well, someone is behind this bizarre transformation from peacefulness to open military conflict, and it is certainly clear that Europe would not make these decisions themselves.
Since the end of World War II, Western Europe has been a proxy of Washington, and since the 1990s, most of Eastern Europe has been a proxy of Washington.
They appear to continue to believe that they have this in the bag, something which is utterly delusional to the point where it is incomprehensible.
Please remember what the Russian soldiers were told in their instructional materials:
“The Russian army is the last bastion against the Satanic new world order”. Literal quote from the official Russian Officer’s Handbook. Captured by Ukrainian GUR, document appears authentic. [link]
We have prayed for salvation of our ancient faith. We have prayed for the destruction of the Anal Empire.
The Lord does not abandon His servants, and when they cry out to Him, He hears them.
He has made with us a covenant.
Putin was biding all of his time. Then he made the move.
This is checkmate.
May the Archangel Michael guide the bullets and bombs of the heroes defending the faith against this global Jewish faggot terror.
The people of the Lord will be free from this satanic ensnarement.
The war in Ukraine is the most dangerous international conflict since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Understanding its root causes is essential if we are to prevent it from getting worse and, instead, to find a way to bring it to a close.
There is no question that Vladimir Putin started the war and is responsible for how it is being waged. But why he did so is another matter. The mainstream view in the West is that he is an irrational, out-of-touch aggressor bent on creating a greater Russia in the mould of the former Soviet Union. Thus, he alone bears full responsibility for the Ukraine crisis.
But that story is wrong. The West, and especially America, is principally responsible for the crisis which began in February 2014. It has now turned into a war that not only threatens to destroy Ukraine, but also has the potential to escalate into a nuclear war between Russia and NATO.
The trouble over Ukraine actually started at NATO’s Bucharest summit in April 2008, when George W. Bush’s administration pushed the alliance to announce that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members”. Russian leaders responded immediately with outrage, characterising this decision as an existential threat to Russia and vowing to thwart it. According to a respected Russian journalist, Mr Putin “flew into a rage” and warned that “if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.” America ignored Moscow’s red line, however, and pushed forward to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. That strategy included two other elements: bringing Ukraine closer to the EU and making it a pro-American democracy.
These efforts eventually sparked hostilities in February 2014, after an uprising (which was supported by America) caused Ukraine’s pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, to flee the country. In response, Russia took Crimea from Ukraine and helped fuel a civil war that broke out in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.
The next major confrontation came in December 2021 and led directly to the current war. The main cause was that Ukraine was becoming a de facto member of NATO. The process started in December 2017, when the Trump administration decided to sell Kiev “defensive weapons”. What counts as “defensive” is hardly clear-cut, however, and these weapons certainly looked offensive to Moscow and its allies in the Donbas region. Other NATO countries got in on the act, shipping weapons to Ukraine, training its armed forces and allowing it to participate in joint air and naval exercises. In July 2021, Ukraine and America co-hosted a major naval exercise in the Black Sea region involving navies from 32 countries. Operation Sea Breeze almost provoked Russia to fire at a British naval destroyer that deliberately entered what Russia considers its territorial waters.
The links between Ukraine and America continued growing under the Biden administration. This commitment is reflected throughout an important document—the “US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership”—that was signed in November by Antony Blinken, America’s secretary of state, and Dmytro Kuleba, his Ukrainian counterpart. The aim was to “underscore… a commitment to Ukraine’s implementation of the deep and comprehensive reforms necessary for full integration into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions.” The document explicitly builds on “the commitments made to strengthen the Ukraine-US strategic partnership by Presidents Zelensky and Biden,” and also emphasises that the two countries will be guided by the “2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration.”
Unsurprisingly, Moscow found this evolving situation intolerable and began mobilising its army on Ukraine’s border last spring to signal its resolve to Washington. But it had no effect, as the Biden administration continued to move closer to Ukraine. This led Russia to precipitate a full-blown diplomatic stand-off in December. As Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, put it: “We reached our boiling point.” Russia demanded a written guarantee that Ukraine would never become a part of NATO and that the alliance remove the military assets it had deployed in eastern Europe since 1997. The subsequent negotiations failed, as Mr Blinken made clear: “There is no change. There will be no change.” A month later Mr Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine to eliminate the threat he saw from NATO.
This interpretation of events is at odds with the prevailing mantra in the West, which portrays NATO expansion as irrelevant to the Ukraine crisis, blaming instead Mr Putin’s expansionist goals. According to a recent NATO document sent to Russian leaders, “NATO is a defensive Alliance and poses no threat to Russia.” The available evidence contradicts these claims. For starters, the issue at hand is not what Western leaders say NATO’s purpose or intentions are; it is how Moscow sees NATO’s actions.
Mr Putin surely knows that the costs of conquering and occupying large amounts of territory in eastern Europe would be prohibitive for Russia. As he once put it, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” His beliefs about the tight bonds between Russia and Ukraine notwithstanding, trying to take back all of Ukraine would be like trying to swallow a porcupine. Furthermore, Russian policymakers—including Mr Putin—have said hardly anything about conquering new territory to recreate the Soviet Union or build a greater Russia. Rather, since the 2008 Bucharest summit Russian leaders have repeatedly said that they view Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat that must be prevented. As Mr Lavrov noted in January, “the key to everything is the guarantee that NATO will not expand eastward.”
Tellingly, Western leaders rarely described Russia as a military threat to Europe before 2014. As America’s former ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul notes, Mr Putin’s seizure of Crimea was not planned for long; it was an impulsive move in response to the coup that overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian leader. In fact, until then, NATO expansion was aimed at turning all of Europe into a giant zone of peace, not containing a dangerous Russia. Once the crisis started, however, American and European policymakers could not admit they had provoked it by trying to integrate Ukraine into the West. They declared the real source of the problem was Russia’s revanchism and its desire to dominate if not conquer Ukraine.
My story about the conflict’s causes should not be controversial, given that many prominent American foreign-policy experts have warned against NATO expansion since the late 1990s. America’s secretary of defence at the time of the Bucharest summit, Robert Gates, recognised that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching”. Indeed, at that summit, both the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, were opposed to moving forward on NATO membership for Ukraine because they feared it would infuriate Russia.
The upshot of my interpretation is that we are in an extremely dangerous situation, and Western policy is exacerbating these risks. For Russia’s leaders, what happens in Ukraine has little to do with their imperial ambitions being thwarted; it is about dealing with what they regard as a direct threat to Russia’s future. Mr Putin may have misjudged Russia’s military capabilities, the effectiveness of the Ukrainian resistance and the scope and speed of the Western response, but one should never underestimate how ruthless great powers can be when they believe they are in dire straits. America and its allies, however, are doubling down, hoping to inflict a humiliating defeat on Mr Putin and to maybe even trigger his removal. They are increasing aid to Ukraine while using economic sanctions to inflict massive punishment on Russia, a step that Putin now sees as “akin to a declaration of war”.
America and its allies may be able to prevent a Russian victory in Ukraine, but the country will be gravely damaged, if not dismembered. Moreover, there is a serious threat of escalation beyond Ukraine, not to mention the danger of nuclear war. If the West not only thwarts Moscow on Ukraine’s battlefields, but also does serious, lasting damage to Russia’s economy, it is in effect pushing a great power to the brink. Mr Putin might then turn to nuclear weapons.
At this point it is impossible to know the terms on which this conflict will be settled. But, if we do not understand its deep cause, we will be unable to end it before Ukraine is wrecked and NATO ends up in a war with Russia.
John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.
Before I resume reading Deschner’s book on the true history of Christianity, I would like to say something about the recent debate between Michael Jones and Greg Johnson. I was surprised that the latter said that Tucker Carlson had been influenced by Moscow propaganda, precisely what the MSM claims! Johnson also said that Russians and Ukrainians are ‘white’.
The word ‘white’ for Aryan had utility before Jews and southern Italians began emigrating in substantial numbers to the US. Today that word is meaningless in the mouths of people like Johnson, as it is obvious that a considerable percentage of Russians and Ukrainians are not ‘white’ as the word was understood by 19th-century Americans.
If there is one thing that emerges from Pierce’s and Kemp’s histories of the white race, it is that the Mongols left their genetic imprint on the Slavs (which is precisely why the SS Master Plan East involved conquering those regions for genuine Aryans). Recently we see in the media pictures of Biden, Putin and the Chinese Mandarin, Xi Jinping. See how Putin’s semi-broad skull, compared to Biden’s skull who looks like an Englishman from another age, is the middle ground next to Xi’s skull: the typical Asian brachycephalic. The reason for this is that Putin, like many other Russians, is not a pure Nordid as they were before the Tatar invasion.
I am also surprised that the Ukrainians haven’t understood the lesson of the Holodomor. As visitors to this site know, Jones annoys me a lot because the idiot says he wouldn’t mind millions of blacks staying in Europe as long as they convert to his religion! But at least Jones, in his debate with Johnson, pointed to Jewry as a major factor in the misnamed Russian Revolution, and in Ukraine after the coup that empowered the current government. How can it be, I was left wondering after listening to the debate, that the Ukrainians haven’t understood the lesson?
Here we see Genrikh Yagoda (right) in the company of writer Maxim Gorky. As deputy chief of the political police, the Jew Yagoda was one of the main commissars responsible for the struggle against the landlords in the field of collectivisation and dekulakisation. Note that the Holodomor, also known as the Ukrainian genocide or Ukrainian Holocaust, was the famine that devastated the territory of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Kuban, Yellow Ukraine and other regions of the USSR, in the context of the collectivisation of the land undertaken by the USSR, during the years 1932-1933, in which more people died of starvation than the six million Jews: the official (and exaggerated) figure with which the System demoralises us.
This is what happens when a people lack true information (how many Ukrainians have read Solzhenitsyn’s second non-fiction book?), and a minority, such as the Jewish minority, controls a large part of the Western MSM. But it is still striking that, after so many decades, the Ukrainians aren’t Jew-wise, otherwise they wouldn’t have the president they have. (Interestingly, in the debate Johnson said he had not seen the video of Zelenski dancing in women’s heels, posing as a homo, with the background of degenerate music.)
One could try to forgive the Ukrainians because they haven’t had good information. But it isn’t forgivable that people like Johnson’s sponsors keep sending him money, or that the moderator of the Johnson-Jones debate sided with Johnson!
Ignorance is no longer an excuse. Something must be rotten at the core of white nationalism to allow all this. And the key is provided precisely by Johnson’s opening speech in the debate. It is obvious that he is driven by Christian ethics, as he framed his little speech from the POV of the ‘rights’ of Ukrainians. Just compare that scale of values with what Savitri Devi set out in her book we recently published here, or with what the SS had planned for Ukraine if they had won the war.
A post-Christian consciousness has to be created in 21st-century racialism. And a good way to start creating it, something far away from the Christianity and neochristianity of the American racial right, is to read Savitri. When my Daybreak Press is once again up and running, the first thing I will do is to publish the English version of Souvenirs et Reflexions d’une Aryenne.
by Mike Whitney
USA and NATO: We are united in our determination to defeat Russia whether we blow up the planet or not. Got it?
Why is NATO sending more lethal weaponry to Ukraine? Didn’t Putin say that poring arms into Ukraine would increase the likelihood of war? Yes, he did, but the US and NATO continue send more shipments anyway. Why? And why does Ukraine need more weapons?
Could it be that Ukraine’s 600,000-strong military is collapsing like a trailer park in a hurricane? Is that it? Is that why NATO had an emergency confab in Brussels on Thursday to restate their support for a NATO-trained army that has not successfully launched even one major counteroffensive against the Russian military?
The media insists that the Russian offensive ‘has stalled’. Is that what you call it when your opponent captures an area the size of the UK in less than 3 weeks or when all your air and naval assets have been obliterated or when your Command-and-Control centers have gone up in smoke or when most of your combat troops are either encircled by Russian forces or fleeing to locations west of the Dnieper River? Is that what ‘stalled’ looks like?
Do you get the impression that the media is not being entirely straightforward in their coverage of the war in Ukraine? Do you think that maybe their WEF-linked owners might have a dog in this fight? Here’s how Archbishop Vigano summed it up recently in an article linking ‘Covid tyranny’ to the war in Ukraine: ‘The ideological continuity between the pandemic farce and the Russian-Ukrainian crisis continues to emerge, beyond the evidence of the events and statements of the subjects involved, in the fact that the ultimate perpetrators of both are the same, all attributable to the globalist cabal of the World Economic Forum’.
Truer words were never spoken. It’s all manipulation by globalist stakeholders pursuing their own narrow interests…
It looks to me like Chomsky thinks arming Ukraine was a deliberate provocation. Which it was. NATO stuffed the country full of weapons, trained its combat troops and paramilitaries, conducted military operations with NATO, ordered their army to the east so they could terrorize the ethnic Russian population, and then–to top it off–threatened to develop nuclear weapons. In short, they put a gun to Putin’s head and threatened to blow his brains out. If that’s not a provocation, then what is?…
But do the brave Ukrainians that are fighting in this fiasco, know what they’re fighting for?
No, they don’t. They think they’re risking their lives for their country, but, actually, they’re fighting to preserve US global hegemony by annihilating Russia, encircling China and establishing America’s dominance over the world’s most populous and prosperous region of the next century. That’s what they’re fighting for, Washington’s pivot to Asia. As the author of the WSWS article admits: ‘It is clear that what is involved is not only a war in Ukraine, but a campaign by the US and NATO imperialist powers for war against Russia and a redivision of the world’.
Yes, that’s right, and Biden doesn’t even try to hide it. Here’s what he said just two days ago: ‘Now is a time when things are shifting… here’s going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it’.
New World Order? You mean, this isn’t about Ukraine’s borders, after all? Nope. That’s all patriotic claptrap dolled-up for the serfs. Here’s how Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov summed it up on Tuesday:
This is not about Ukraine, this is about a world order in which the United States wants to be the sole sovereign and dominate… This all is about removing the obstacle in the form of Russia on the way to building a unipolar world.
Indeed, that is the objective, and the US is not going to be timid in pursuing its interests. China and Russia are under the illusion that the emergence of various power centres will inevitably bring about change in the global order. But the world doesn’t work that way. The world leader will not willingly concede defeat or graciously abdicate the throne. He must be knocked from his pedestal much like the schoolyard bully must be subdued through force.
In any event, we should try to go beyond the media’s propaganda and see if we can identify the real causes of the current conflict. Why, for example, is the US targeting Russia? In what way is Russia an obstacle that is blocking Washington’s strategic ambitions? The former Undersecretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz, answers that question in one short paragraph written more than two decades ago. It is as relevant today as it was then:
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.
In short, Washington sees Russia as a hostile power because it sits atop an ocean of oil and gas reserves and because it ‘defiantly’ conducts its own independent foreign policy. For these reasons, Russia is Uncle Sam’s mortal enemy.
Read it all on The Unz Review! I omitted the passages where the author says (with other words) that NATO and the US Deep State are like the characters in Dr Strangelove: a film I saw on the big screen when I was about twelve years old.
This interview dates back to when Trump was president, but it feels like it was done yesterday: two dissenting voices on the war in Ukraine.
For context see another YouTube short clip. In it, one of the above scholars, a specialist on Russian history, explains how Russian political leaders have seen NATO expansion as an ongoing threat. The one on the left died in 2020, but I had already dedicated an entry to the other fellow, who recently spoke out about the war in Ukraine.