Serious adverse events from Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine are not “rare”
Maryanne Demasi, reports | June 27, 2023
Drug regulators and public health agencies have saturated the airways with claims that serious harms following covid vaccination are “rare.”
But there has been very little scrutiny of that claim by the media, and I could not find an instance where international agencies actually quantified what they meant by the term “rare” or provided a scientific source.
The best evidence so far, has been a study published in one of vaccinology’s most prestigious journals, where independent researchers reanalysed the original trial data for the mRNA vaccines.
The authors, Fraiman et al, found that serious adverse events (SAEs) – i.e. adverse events that require hospitalisation – were elevated in the vaccine arm by an alarming rate – 1 additional SAE for every 556 people vaccinated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine.
According to a scale used by drug regulators, SAEs occurring at a rate of 1 in 556 is categorised as “uncommon,” but far more common than what the public has been told.
Therefore, I asked eight drug regulators and public health agencies to answer a simple question: what is the official calculated rate of SAEs believed to be caused by Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine, and what is the evidence?
The agencies were FDA, TGA, MHRA, HC, PEI, CDC, ECDC and EMA.
The outcome was startling.
Not a single agency could cite the SAE rate of Pfizer’s vaccine. Most directed me to pharmacovigilance data, which they all emphasised does not establish causation.
The Australian TGA, for example, referred me to the spontaneous reporting system but warned, “it is not possible to meaningfully use these data to calculate the true incidence of adverse events due to the limitations of spontaneous reporting systems.”
Both the German regulator (PEI) and European CDC referred me to the European Medicines Agency which, according to its own report, saw no increase at all in SAEs. “SAEs occurred at a low frequency in both vaccinated and the placebo group at 0.6%.”
The UK regulator MHRA went so far as to state it “does not make estimations of a serious adverse event (SAE) rate, or a rate for adverse reactions considered to be causally related for any medicinal product.”
The US FDA, on the other hand, did conceded that SAEs after mRNA vaccination have “indeed been higher than that of influenza vaccines,” but suggested it was justified because “the severity and impact of covid-19 on public health have been significantly higher than those of seasonal influenza.”
Despite analysing at the same dataset as Fraiman, the FDA said it “disagrees with the conclusions” of the Fraiman analysis. The agency did not give specifics on the areas of disagreement, nor did it provide its own rate of SAEs.
In response to the criticism, Joe Fraiman, emergency doctor and lead author on the reanalysis said, “To be honest, I’m not that surprised that agencies have not determined the rate of SAEs. Once these agencies approve a drug there’s no incentive for them to monitor harms.”
Fraiman said it’s hypocritical for health agencies to tell people that serious harms of the covid vaccines are rare, when they have not even determined the SAE rate themselves.
“It’s very dangerous not to be honest with the public,” said Fraiman, who recently called for the mRNA vaccines to be suspended.
“These noble lies may get people vaccinated in the short term but you’re creating decades or generations of distrust when it’s revealed that they have been misleading the public,” added Fraiman.
Dick Bijl, a physician and epidemiologist based in the Netherlands, agreed. “It goes to show how corrupted these agencies are. There is no transparency, especially since regulators are largely funded by the drug industry.”
Bijl said it’s vital to know the rate of SAEs for the vaccines. “You must be able to do a harm:benefit analysis, to allow people to give fully informed consent, especially in young people at low risk of serious covid or those who have natural immunity.”
Bijl said the mainstream media has allowed these agencies to make false claims about the safety of vaccines without interrogating the facts.
“The rise of alternative media is strongly related to the lies being told by the legacy media, which just repeats government narratives and industry marketing. In the Netherlands, there is a lot of discussion about the distrust in public messaging,” said Bijl.
Merck Knew Its Popular Asthma Drug Could Lead Kids to Commit Suicide, Lawsuits Allege
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 27, 2023
Dozens of patients, including many children, died by suicide or suffered from neuropsychiatric problems after taking Singulair, Merck’s allergy and asthma medication, according to lawsuits that are finally proceeding, after decades of delays and legal challenges, Reuters reported.
Merck is accused of downplaying early evidence of Singulair’s impact on the brain. These claims “later faced intense scrutiny,” leading to “a raft of lawsuits alleging [Merck] knew … that the drug could impact the brain and that it minimized the potential for psychiatric problems in statements to regulators.”
Singulair, also known as montelukast, is available to adults and children as a medication for severe allergies and asthma. The drug “blocks chemicals, called leukotrienes, in the body,” according to Dr. Michelle Perro, a pediatrician. Leukotrienes “can be involved in the precipitation of asthma and can cause respiratory symptoms, as well as inflammation of the airways,” Perro told The Defender.
Numerous public comments about Singulair’s side effects were submitted in 2019, prior to the Sept. 27, 2019, joint meeting of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Pediatric and Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committees charged with reviewing the drug’s safety.
Many of the comments were submitted by “vocal parents” of children adversely affected by Singulair.
Rolf Hazlehurst, senior staff attorney with Children’s Health Defense (CHD), told The Defender he “worked closely” with several of these parents.
The public comments, along with thousands of reports submitted over several years to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) plus a 2015 research study finding that a “substantial amount” of Singulair entered the brain, forced the FDA to take action.
On March 4, 2020, the FDA required Singulair to carry a “black box” label — the FDA’s most serious warning, for “serious mental health side effects,” according to Drugwatch.
Black box warnings list “important side effect information surrounded by a thick black border and bold lettering to warn of permanent, serious or fatal side effects.”
In the case of Singulair, the label links the drug to “suicide, depression, aggression, agitation, suicidal thoughts and sleep disturbances.”
The black box label was at least two decades in coming, according to Hazlehurst, who said it “took over a decade’s worth of work by persistent parents, armed with overwhelming evidence of the serious neuropsychiatric side effects, urging the FDA to take action.”
According to Drugwatch, lawsuits now pending against Merck claim the drugmaker “knew or should have known before it started selling Singulair in 1998 that the drug could cause neuropsychiatric injuries during treatment and even after stopping.”
Dr. Liz Mumper, a pediatrician, said she has been “aware of the potential neuropsychiatric side effects of montelukast for many years,” adding that her patients “are instructed to stop the medicine if they notice a change in their mental health.”
“Over the years, parents have reported personality changes in their children, rapid changes in mood and irritability,” Mumper told The Defender. “Typically, these symptoms resolve once off montelukast.”
Since March 2020, when the FDA applied the black box warning to Singulair, numerous lawsuits have been filed against Merck. The lawsuits allege Merck designed “a defective drug,” in addition to claiming “negligence and failure to warn about the risk of mental problems,” according to Drugwatch.
A Reuters investigative report revealed the lawsuits also allege “that the company’s own early research indicated the drug could impact the brain but that Merck downplayed any risks in statements to regulators.”
The Reuters investigation states that plaintiffs faced a legal hurdle commonly used by Big Pharma — known as a “preemption defense” — based on a legal argument that federal law and federal regulations supersede state laws, including state product liability laws that traditionally served as the basis for lawsuits like those against Merck.
As a result, “companies increasingly argue that federally regulated products or services should be immune from lawsuits alleging state-law violations,” and plaintiffs “must often demonstrate that a company failed to disclose safety information to federal regulators — and that the information could have spurred new government restrictions or warnings before the alleged harm occurred.”
This has made it particularly difficult to sue manufacturers of generic versions of Singulair and other drugs, because generic drugmakers simply follow the primary manufacturer’s FDA-approved labeling, while the primary drugmaker can’t be sued by claimants if they or their family members took the generic version.
Perro told The Defender that a combination of an abrogation on the part of federal regulators, a lack of integrity on the part of drugmakers and complex legal maneuvering makes it difficult for doctors to prescribe safe treatments to their patients.
She said:
“A medical practitioner now needs to understand their patient, the illness, any prescribed medications, what Pharma reports about their drug, the real science behind the drug, and unfortunately, the legal doctrine of preemption, which is the principle based on federal law trumping state law.
“It is a dark time in medicine when the physician must question the integrity of what is written on the prescription pad.”
The FDA claims it has “diligently monitored reports of side effects possibly associated with montelukast, as well as communicated findings and taken regulatory action, when appropriate,” and that it “continues to monitor and investigate this important issue.”
Merck’s patent on Singulair expired in 2012, allowing generic drugmakers to begin producing and marketing the drug. Still, according to Reuters, Singulair “has provided Merck with about $50 billion in revenue.”
However, once Merck’s patent expired, “The number of patients prescribed the medicine climbed from about 7 million annually to more than 9 million” — with up to half of recipients age 16 or younger.
At least 82 suicides connected to Singular before FDA added black box warning
The Reuters investigation noted that “in the case of Singulair’s potentially deadly side effects, the FDA waited years, despite thousands of reported psychiatric problems, to require its most serious warning on the drug’s label.”
During this time, dozens of individuals taking Singulair committed suicide or faced other neuropsychiatric problems.
For instance, in 2017, 22-year-old Nicholas England, a Virginia resident, shot himself in the head less than two weeks after starting a generic version of the medication. He had no history of mental health problems — and his family had no legal recourse against Merck due to the preemption defense.
In 2007, a 15-year-old boy in New York committed suicide, 17 days after first taking Singulair. According to Reuters, this incident led Merck to propose — and the FDA to accept — an amendment to the drug’s label to add suicidal thinking and behavior to the product’s listed adverse events.
However, this adverse event “appeared in the middle of a list of more than three dozen side effects,” the Reuters investigation found. “Parent advocates argue the new label was grossly inadequate to warn of such a grave risk.”
“Neuropsychiatric side effects are listed in the documentation of potential side effects, but not always prominently,” Mumper told The Defender. And despite the new label, she said, parents searching for its package insert online will find older versions “without a prominent black box warning.”
According to Drugwatch, the change to Singulair’s label was made in August 2009, when the label was updated to also include other neuropsychiatric events including “postmarket cases of agitation, aggression, anxiousness, dream abnormalities and hallucinations, depression, insomnia, irritability, restlessness … and tremor.”
In 2008, the FDA said it was investigating “a possible association between the use of Singulair and behavior/mood changes, suicidality … and suicide,” Drugwatch reported.
In another example, the 3-year-old son of Jan Gilpin was prescribed Singulair for asthma in 2003. He “soon seemed withdrawn and sullen” and “started talking about death,” according to Reuters.
Gilpin initially did not suspect Singulair — until she discovered online posts by parents stating that their children were exhibiting similar behavior while on this medication. She pulled her son off Singular and soon “noticed he began to skip and laugh,” while his “obsessive thoughts about death disappeared after he quit the medicine.”
Indeed, “reports of related neuropsychiatric episodes piled up on internet forums and in the FDA’s early-warning detection system” starting in 1998, Reuters reported. Yet, by the time of England’s suicide in 2017, the FDA was still “reviewing” this data.
According to Reuters, in 2011, the FDA “rejected a petition from Gilpin and other parents seeking a black box warning, citing what it called insufficient evidence that the drug caused suicidal behavior.”
“Parents who argue Singulair endangered their children view the FDA’s 2020 decision to add a black box warning as vindication, but many still want to sue Merck for not acting sooner,” Reuters also reported.
In 2014, an FDA panel acknowledged that neuropsychiatric side effects among Singulair users were a “known safety issue,” but cited this reason and “feasibility concerns” in its decision not to order new studies, according to Reuters.
Yet, as reports of suicides continued to be filed — with 82 suicides linked to Singulair and its generic versions, including at least 31 involving people age 19 and younger, a new FDA advisory panel was convened in 2019.
According to Reuters, “agency staffers again said there was not enough evidence” to merit this. However, with Merck’s patent having expired, an FDA official told the advisory committee that the company may opt to pull Singulair from the market rather than fund expensive new studies to investigate the product’s safety.
This resulted in the March 2020 decision to add the black box label to Singulair.
‘Substantial amount’ of Singulair enters human brain
In its 2020 decision, the FDA cited independent research conducted in 2015 by cell biologist Julia Marschallinger and other researchers at Austria’s Institute of Molecular Regenerative Medicine.
They found that Singulair’s distribution into the brain was more significant than what was stated on the product label, which described its brain distribution as “minimal.”
Merck had claimed, in documents it submitted to FDA for the drug’s approval in 1998, that “only a trace amount” of the drug could be found in the brain and that its presence “declined over time.” Merck’s public marketing of the product later described side effects as “generally mild” and “similar to a sugar pill.”
However, Marschallinger’s team found that while Singulair’s presence decreased almost everywhere in the body within 24 hours after administration, the opposite was true in the brain, where “a substantial amount” of the drug was identified.
In its 1996 patent application for Singulair, Merck also claimed the drug could be used as a treatment for “cerebral spasms” — indicating “knowledge of the drug’s potential brain impacts.” Lawyers for plaintiffs filing Singulair lawsuits against Merck have cited this argument, as well as Marschallinger’s study.
The FDA has confirmed the study’s findings, acknowledging that claims regarding the declining presence of Singulair in all tissues “did not fully reflect the data.”
However, according to Reuters, the FDA also characterized findings of “a substantial amount” of the drug in the brain “a subjective characterization that is not necessarily incompatible with the ‘minimal’ descriptor in other contexts.”
“The FDA could have asked Merck to repeat the experiment or do it for an even longer period of time,” Marschallinger told Reuters. “It’s not hard to do.”
Perro said, “For those children who have been harmed by this drug,” due to the FDA’s 22-year delay in adding a black box warning, “there will not be any compensation because of pharmaceutical protection by our own government and liability shields.”
The FDA’s inaction has resulted in many deaths, Sue Peters, Ph.D., a CHD science fellow, told The Defender :
“The FDA has placed pharmaceutical profits over the safety and mental health of our children. It’s a never-ending cycle, with increased rates of chronic illness, like asthma, leading to pharmaceutical treatments which have not been properly safety-tested.
“These drugs put young people, with critical brain myelination continuing past 25 years of age, at risk of developing mental health disorders, leading to polypharmacy with psychiatric medications, and contributing to iatrogenic deaths as a leading cause of death in the U.S.”
Perro called for an overhaul of the FDA, telling The Defender :
“It is clear who our government — including the judicial system — is protecting. A solution to the lack of action by regulatory agencies? Overhaul.
“In the meantime, there are safer pharmaceutical alternatives for asthma in children. Not to mention, this is yet another reason to examine the root causes as to why so many children now have asthma, and address the real culprits, such as air pollution.”
For Mumper, a new approach to treating ailments such as asthma is needed. “Although montelukast is a valuable medication in my toolbox for treating allergies, the prescription should come after other measures, including working on gut health,” she said.
Similarly, Peters called for a “careful analysis” of the role of drugs in the treatment of common disorders and their role in precipitating mental health disorders and even deaths. She told The Defender :
“The tragic increase in the rate of mental health disorders in children in the United States, requires careful analysis of the role of iatrogenic death.
“Failing to consider the role of pharmaceutical drugs and medical treatments in the development of mental health disorders in children, has led to the loss of valuable research time, wasted research dollars, and ultimately the loss of life. Clearly, our current system is broken.”
Preemption defense lets Big Pharma avoid directly addressing safety claims
According to the Reuters investigative report, most of the Singulair lawsuits pending against Merck are still in their early stages.
Drugwatch reported that, as of May 16, “there have been no scheduled trials or court-approved global settlement in Singulair litigation.” Many of the suits against Merck were filed in New Jersey, where in January 2022, they were consolidated into multicounty litigation in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division: Atlantic County.
And in April, U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Hillman in Massachusetts denied Merck’s motion to dismiss a Singulair lawsuit “for lack of personal jurisdiction,” Drugwatch reported. Judge Hillman argued Merck manufactured, marketed and sold the drug in the state and allowed the case to continue.
Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 2011 and 2013 strengthened the preemption defense.
In Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing (2011), the Supreme Court held that state law requiring “generic drug manufacturers to provide adequate warning labels was preempted where federal law required manufacturers to use the same labels as their brand-name counterparts.”
And in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett (2013), the Supreme Court held that design-defect claims questioning the adequacy of a drug’s warnings under state law are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Pliva v. Mensing ruling.
According to Reuters, the preemption doctrine rests on the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which states that the Constitution and federal law take precedence over state laws and state constitutions.
As a result, “Preemption defenses often deliver companies a swift procedural win, allowing them to avoid addressing the substance of plaintiffs’ allegations.”
While the defense has been used across multiple industries, it “has had a particularly profound impact in the pharmaceutical industry,” particularly as FDA data cited by Reuters indicates that generic drugs account for 91% of U.S. prescriptions.
Reuters, in its review of 257 U.S. Supreme Court and federal appeals court rulings since 2001, found that “judges ruled two-thirds of the time to weaken or kill lawsuits alleging deaths or injuries caused by corporate negligence or defective products.”
Moreover, “The number of potential lawsuits that were never filed” serves as “Another industry benefit” that “can’t be quantified,” according to Reuters.
Preemption defenses became a centerpiece of the George W. Bush administration — and FDA policy under his presidency, Reuters reports. This was part of the Bush campaign’s promise to address what it described as “frivolous” lawsuits.
Daniel Troy, the FDA’s chief counsel under the Bush administration, “interpreted preemption to mean that courts can’t undermine federal regulators based on alleged state-law violations,” Reuters reported, adding that he “aimed to make that argument in high-profile lawsuits” and briefed drug industry lawyers on the strategy in 2003.
Troy — who is now a pharmaceutical industry lawyer — told Reuters, “If you believe in a strong FDA, we can’t have state courts, especially juries, second-guessing and undercutting the FDA’s judgments.”
Hazlehurst told The Defender Troy’s argument is the same one used by Wyeth (Pfizer) before the Supreme Court in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (2011). The Supreme Court’s decision in this case prohibited design defect lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the parent agency of the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supported Wyeth’s 2011 argument.
Similarly, Mumper told The Defender that pharmaceutical companies “have a history of avoiding liability through various legislative protection,” including the preemption defense and the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
And in 2006, “The FDA formally changed its view of preemption in a 2006 regulation, stating the agency now believed that FDA labeling approval ‘preempts conflicting or contrary State law,’” Reuters reported.
Hazlehurst told The Defender, “CHD is proud to have played a role in advocating and assisting these parents on the journey to hold Merck accountable,” but “one thing rings loud and clear: the FDA is a captured agency, and this is a fundamental problem.”
Some parents have questioned whether the black box warning for Singulair was enough to save lives, citing the damage already done, continued legal obstacles, and Merck’s strong marketing campaign for the drug.
“Due to tremendous financial conflicts of interest, the pharmaceutical industry has tremendous influence over the FDA,” Hazlehurst said. “As a result, the FDA protects the pharmaceutical industry first and people second — this story is just one example.”
He added: “One must wonder, how many lives could have been spared if the FDA had timely done its job of properly investigating and regulating the pharmaceutical industry?”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
I try to use logic in my articles
This has led to some very disturbing conclusions
BY BILL RICE, JR. | JUNE 28, 2023
In my last article, I tried to use deductive reasoning or “logic” to explain how I knew the spike in all-cause deaths would NOT be exposed.
As I understand it, logic is simply an intellectual exercise where someone says “If A or B is true – or if one thinks these are true – then C, D or E must also be true.”
In layman’s terms, someone can make confident predictions based on some “known knowable(s).”
I use such deductive reasoning/syllogisms all the time in my writing (or try to). This is what probably makes me a “contrarian” and has allowed me to pen some fairly-original articles.
There’s another example that allows me to make another bold prediction with a pretty high degree of confidence.
Recently, a flurry of stories in the alternative press has shown conclusively that the government pressured social media companies to be much more aggressive in their censorship of users’ comments that do not align with the “authorized” Covid narratives.
(See my article on Missouri et al vs. Biden).
In reading legal documents from the Missouri v Biden lawsuit, I found a few comments from people who pointed out that the big social media companies like Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Google and YouTube are still censoring un-authorized comments at the same rate they have for the past 40 months.
I know this is true because Facebook keeps suspending my account and/or censoring or shadow-banning or restricting the reach of my Facebook posts.
Anyway, it would qualify as a “known knowable” to me that companies like these have NOT curtailed their censorship programs even after serious plaintiffs filed this lawsuit.
From this simple observation, several “logical” inferences occur to me. These include:
* These companies are NOT afraid of any terrible consequences happening to their companies if they don’t stop this censorship.
* Said differently, they seem to be very confident such a result will NOT happen.
* These companies must have concluded that nothing damaging to their companies is going to happen as a result of this lawsuit and investigation.
- In other words, executives at these companies have concluded they are “safe” to continue to censor like Big Brother.
- In fact, they probably realize they’ll be rewarded for “playing ball” with the legions of censors, “fact checkers” and “disinformation warriors” who are now omnipresent in myriad organizations.
Again, from these “logical” conclusions, I’ve deduced that, somehow, these executives must know that nothing significant or damaging to their companies is going to result from this lawsuit.
This conclusion/observation prompts this question: How do they know this?
Here, I circle back to the point I tried to make in my last column: These executives probably know this because they are all members of the same “club” …. and these club members happen to be the most powerful people and organizations on the planet.
Apparently, one iron-clad rule of said club is that members protect each other. They all benefit from sticking together.
Conversely, they all probably recognize they could be exposed and disgraced and lose their wealth, influence, benefits and power if they do NOT stick together and act together.
To use one example, my guess is that Mark Zuckerberg of Meta somehow knows nothing bad is going to happen to his company even if his army of “content moderators” and the platform’s algorithms continue to suppress my free speech (which the company continues to do).
Here, one has to state that if Missouri v Biden was successfully litigated, the conclusion would surely qualify as an epic scandal.
It would tell the world that many agents of our own government have conspired with companies like Meta to censor free speech.
Basically, the First Amendment to the U.S.Constitution would now be null and void.
Put it this way: If the U.S. government can compel partners in the media world to censor speech the government doesn’t like, we all now live in a dystopian, Orwellian world.
Well, that’s the “bet” that Zuckerberg, Google et al have apparently made. This is our “New Normal” world and these social media and Big Tech companies have no problem with this whatsoever. (Nor does the legacy press.)
It’s also possible these companies have made a more prosaic observation. For example, they have no doubt taken note of what’s happening at their competitor, Twitter, since Elon Musk bought this social media company.
According to comments Musk made in his recent conversation with Robert Kennedy, Jr., there seems to be a conspiracy of corporate advertisers to boycott Twitter now that it’s allowing far more free speech.
One doesn’t know if any memo went out to all these companies (and their ad agencies) to punish Twitter by withholding advertising spends on this platform. Here, one guesses these executives aren’t stupid enough to put any message like this in writing.
Still, we can observe what’s actually happened – “a known knowable” … as Musk, who would know, has told us.
One strongly suspects that corporate executives work in “pack” fashion just like corporate journalists do. In “journalism,” all the editors and reporters intuitively know what stories they can write and, perhaps more importantly, what stories they can’t write. Or what investigations they can’t pursue.
The same approach seems to apply to which companies are allowed to receive advertising dollars and which media companies should never receive advertising dollars.
We saw the same dynamic with the “case study” of one Tucker Carlson, formerly the star talking head at Fox News.
Yes, Tucker had the No. 1-rated TV news talk show in the world. However, his time slot at Fox News probably ranked last in “advertising revenue” from Coca-Cola, GM, IBM, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, J.P. Morgan Chase and any company with scores of branded products or services.
Here’s the lesson even a caveman would get: If you want to air “dissident” commentary or journalism, you are not going to get any advertising dollars from our club members.
As you might have heard, Tucker Carlson was finally fired from Fox News. Today, I imagine the “memo” has gone out – It’s okay to once again advertise on Fox News between 8 and 9 p.m. EST.
I think this is called the “carrot-and-stick” approach to compelling compliance. (This approach seems to work in media as well as when it comes to promoting official propaganda such as “the vaccines are safe and effective.”)
Anyway, Meta and Google must have taken note of this “real-world” reality as well.
Regarding my “logical” belief that most social media companies are now completely captured (and are “all in” with Big Brother), I can make even more logical inferences.
As noted, censoring social media and Big Tech companies must not be too worried about the plaintiffs winning Missouri vs. Biden, which suggest to me that they know the U.S. Court system is also captured and will not allow any verdict that would disgrace their companies.
Here, I would opine that some lower court might rule in favor of the plaintiffs, but when this case finally gets to the Supreme Court, the Bad Guys perhaps know they have the vote of John Roberts in the bag?
They must also know that the leaders of Congress aren’t going to hold any Watergate-type hearings and expose their complicity and convince the citizens of our nation that, say, Facebook is evil and despises the First Amendment (which would mean the company despises and rejects everything the Founders of this nation stood for).
I’ll go even further. I think “club members” must know that “Joe Biden” is going to be re-elected president (or, if “Joe Biden” has to be replaced, another political clone who also hates and rejects the Constitution).
Think about it for a second. If these companies thought that Missouri v Biden might prevail – and the public might rise up against their companies – these companies would probably be throttling back on their censorship programs right now.
In fact, they’ve shrugged off these legal proceedings and are doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on the censorship of “misinformation” and “disinformation” of all varieties (not just dissident Covid speech).
This makes me think our “rulers behind the curtain” must know that they’ve also captured and control elections … and that “their” candidates will always win (even if their candidate is obviously suffering from worsening dementia, which is perhaps one reason they love this particular politician so much).
In other words, I think club members somehow know that Donald Trump, Robert Kennedy, Jr. or Ron DeSantis are not going to become the next president of the United States.
Any of these candidates, if elected, might push for hearings and prosecutions that could expose these companies for what they really are.
It seems pretty clear to me that this possibility doesn’t concern these people. Perhaps because they know this is NOT going to happen?
In my last article, I tried to explain why the “club members” aren’t worried about any of the Covid truths being exposed to the citizens of the world.
They know they hold all the key cards and that their not-so-little fraternity isn’t going allow this to happen.
This is probably the same reason Facebook and Google aren’t worried about being humiliated and possibly facing financial ruin from their roles in attacking the Bill of Rights.
Somehow they know this is not going to happen.
Again, the most important known-knowable seems to be the knowledge that club members control all the levers of power … And so they act accordingly.
I know the above might sounds like wild conspiracy stuff to many people, but Mr. Spock would probably reach the same “logical” and deeply-disturbing conclusions I’ve reached.
I’m thinking about putting aside this “logic tool” in future articles. It’s starting to interfere with my sleep.
YouTube Escalates Its Attack on Robert F Kennedy Jr., Censors Another Interview
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | June 27, 2023
YouTube has taken down another interview featuring Democratic Presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr., raising eyebrows and fueling debate over the role of tech giants in controlling information. The interview, a spirited chat with Al Guart, a former New York Post reporter, was removed for allegedly breaching the platform’s “community standards.”
This has further ignited concerns over censorship and its potential ramifications on democratic dialogue.
The episode marked the launch of a podcast in which Kennedy, an environmental attorney and presidential aspirant for the 2024 election, discusses an array of subjects. From his meditation routine to his ambition of overhauling federal health agencies and the Democratic Party, the conversation traversed numerous topics. Other issues covered included handling environmental concerns and the middle class.
Al Guart expressed dismay over the removal in a statement, remarking, “YouTube just banned my interview with RFK Jr. for allegedly violating ‘community standards.’ RFK Jr. and I covered many topics of public interest and there was no threat or harm contained in the hour-long discussion.” Guart also highlighted that the podcast was gaining traction and popularity on other platforms.
During the interview, Kennedy made noteworthy remarks concerning censorship, a topic he himself has encountered on platforms such as Instagram and YouTube. He opined that, if elected President, he would engage with tech giants to explore ways to put an end to what he perceives as the unAmerican practice of censorship. He further asserted that if a satisfactory resolution could not be reached, he would consider transforming these companies into common carriers.
Kennedy, who has previously faced the ax on YouTube for violating its policy on vaccine “misinformation,” voiced his concerns over the platform’s removal of the video. He drew a parallel with concerns over foreign intervention in elections through information manipulation, stating, “People made a big deal about Russia supposedly manipulating internet information to influence a Presidential election. Shouldn’t we be worried when giant tech corporations do the same?”
In an earlier instance, YouTube removed a video featuring Kennedy in conversation with podcast host Jordan Peterson, citing a violation of its policy against “vaccine misinformation.” A YouTube spokesperson explained that content alleging vaccines cause chronic side effects, beyond the “rare” side effects acknowledged by health authorities, is not permitted on the platform.
15 Signs That You Might Be In An Abusive Relationship…
… With Your Government
The Naked Emperor | June 28, 2023
The Workplace Mental Health Institute delivers mental health training and consultancy to medium and large-sized organizations across the world. On their website they have various resources that you can download and put in your office, to help boost productivity, by addressing mental health issues.
One of their infographic downloads provides 15 signs that your might be in an abusive relationship. You may be in an abusive relationship if they [your partner]:
- Stop you seeing friends and family;
- Won’t let you go out without permission;
- Tell you what to wear;
- Monitor your phone or emails;
- Control the finances, or won’t let you work;
- Control what you read, watch and say;
- Monitor everything you do;
- Punish you for breaking the rules, but the rules keep changing!
- Tell you it is for your own good, and that they know better;
- Don’t allow you to question it;
- Tell you you’re crazy and no one agrees with you;
- Call you names or shame you for being stupid or selfish;
- Gaslight you, challenge your memory of events, make you doubt yourself;
- Dismiss your opinions;
- Play the victim. If things go wrong, it’s all your fault.
Now go back through that list and see which ones your government has subjected you to over the past three years. For most western countries it is every single one.
Your government has been mentally abusing you for years, in an almost identical fashion as an abusive partner would.
The UN Wants People To Report Each Other For “Hate Speech”
Alleges that speech can be violence
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | June 26, 2023
There’s been a lot of talk about the United Nations (UN) and its actions of late – mostly, those actions that fall way beyond the scope of what its founding Charter designates the organization’s role to be.
As a short history reminder – the UN is basically the international body that succeeded the League of Nations – the one that failed to prevent the (previous, atrocious) world war.
The UN is – and has, for a long time, focused its energy on “doing better” – mediating, providing a neutral ground for dialogue, helping those places around the globe unfortunately afflicted by local wars since 1945 – and just in general, not repeating the mistake of its predecessor of miring itself into irrelevancy.
You would think that with the real danger of another global war now on the cards, that would take up all of the UN’s energy and focus. But you would be wrong.
Here’s the UN, dabbling in things like alleged “hate speech.”
But – world peace – that’s supposed to be the mission. Not policing social media for dubiously defined “hate speech.”
The UN is now using its always precarious resources (depending on member-countries’ contribution, and, consequently, the way the organization satisfies the biggest contributors’ own agendas) to deal with things like real or perceived “hate speech” online.
But can that really be the mission of the world organization set up to make sure another world war doesn’t happen, and help/mediate in regional conflicts?
It seems almost absurd. Yet here it is. The UN is reported to be descending into internet censorship by “encouraging” people to report one another for hate speech online.
Really? That’s your mission now? How about providing food and drinking water to warzones and brokering peace deals?
One way to fade into obscurity as a trusted and impartial broker, is for an organization to put out statements like this.
Let’s not worry about a nuclear Armageddon – instead, what steps can we take to “combat” those pesky tweets?
Well, according to a UN tweet – there’s as many as eight: “pause, fact-check, react, challenge, support, report, educate, and commit.”
It would be comical, if it wasn’t ultimately smacking of tragedy.
‘Journalism is Not a Crime’: Experts Lambast EU Media Freedom Act
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 26.06.2023
The European Media Freedom Act envisages installing spyware on journalists’ phones for the sake of “national security”. Sputnik sat down with some international observers to discuss how the provision correlates with the act’s name and basic European principles.
“There is no legitimate reason to spy on journalists,” Lucy Komisar, an investigative journalist based in New York, told Sputnik.
“Remember, this law targets people identified as journalists, not as spies or terrorists or criminals. Journalism is not a crime, unless Julian Assange does it. The real reason is to protect government officials from journalists reporting on officials’ misguided policies, abuses and corruption. It’s quite ironic in view of the EU’s self-congratulatory rules trumpeted as protecting peoples’ data from tech companies. Stealing data when a company does it is bad, stealing audio and written text when a government does it is just fine.”
Tightening Screws on Free Press
The bloc’s new media regulation was proposed by the European Commission (EC) in September 2022. The initial draft stipulated that European governments could deploy spyware on journalists’ devices “on a case-by-case basis” to ensure national security or to investigate “serious crimes,” such as terrorism, human or weapons trafficking, exploitation of children, murder or rape.
However, in May 2023, Politico obtained a document penned by French policy-makers who called to narrow journalists’ immunity under the new EU rules and strike what they called “a fair balance between the need to protect the confidentiality of journalists’ sources and the need to protect citizens and the state against serious threats.”
According to the media, Paris’ argument was accepted by the EC. As a result, the draft legislation was amended to loosen safeguards for the journalists’ immunity. The EC’s original list of “serious crimes” allowing surveillance on reporters was replaced by a broader 2002’s Council Framework Decision of the European arrest warrant consisting of 32 offenses.
The development triggered a storm of criticism from European journalist organizations, NGOs and activist groups. In particular, the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), representing over 300,000 members, denounced the EU’s move as a “blow to media freedom”. The EFJ warned that empowering EU governments to install spyware on journalists’ devices under the guise of “national security” would in particular have a “chilling effect on whistleblowers” and confidential sources.
“Since the eighteenth century when newspapers began to circulate, the secrecy of sources has been sacrosanct,” Professor Ellis Cashmore, the author of Screen Society and an independent media analyst, told Sputnik. “Journalists have, over generations, respected this and steadfastly refused to reveal sources. As recently as 2005, Judith Miller, a New York Times journalist, was sentenced to prison for not revealing sources. So, it is an extremely important principle in the media.”
For their part, the British media warned that despite the UK leaving the EU, the bloc’s legislation in its current form poses a surveillance risk to British journalists residing in the EU. European Digital Rights (EDRi), a network of digital rights advocates, urged the European Council to reconsider the legislation’s spyware provisions.
The proposed legislation will not only infringe the freedom of press but contribute to the further erosion of the public trust in the Western mainstream media which is increasingly merging with the government and elitist structures, according to Sputnik’s interlocutors.
“The two cataclysmic events of the COVID pandemic and the Ukraine conflict have changed the media’s relationships with governments,” explained Cashmore. “One important effect is what we might call a neutering of the media. I mean by this that news organizations are now so reliant on governments for intel that they have been deterred from being critical of administrations. In the West, the phrase is ‘do not bite the hand that feeds you’.”
One shouldn’t delude oneself into believing that those proposing the spyware provision are really concerned about “national interests,” echoed Lucy Komisar: “The security they are protecting is not that of European nations but of themselves,” she pointed out.
According to Komisar, much of the Western media “already walks in lock-step with their governments.” The newly proposed bill “aims at the few courageous ones left, to keep the public from finding out about officials’ abuses and lies” and “to intimidate the few Julian Assanges who are left in European media that reach the broad public.”
Once the legislation is passed “real journalists will have to do what other critics of repressive governments do: user burner phones, have computers not connected to the internet, have secret meetings with brave sources,” the investigative journalist projected.
“Democracy is distorted when citizens are prevented from getting the information they need for informed choices,” Komisar warned.
Bans and Censorship Do More Harm Than Good
Meanwhile, the latest developments don’t seem surprising against the backdrop of the West’s steady attack on freedom of speech over the last several years. One glaring example is WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange who has been persecuted for exposing the US-NATO criminal conduct in Afghanistan and Iraq and the CIA’s cyber-spying techniques. Assange is indicted on 18 counts of violating the Espionage Act in the US. The WikiLeaks founder has been held in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison for more than four years and is now facing extradition to the US.
Likewise, Washington charged former NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden under the Espionage Act for shedding light on the US global surveillance program and spying on American civilians in a clear contradiction with the nation’s constitution. Snowden evaded Assange’s fate by finding asylum in Russia. In September 2022, Vladimir Putin signed a decree granting Russian citizenship to the whistleblower.
Most recently, the collective West has ramped up pressure against Russian media outlets by resorting to censorship and outright bans after the beginning of Moscow’s special military operation to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine.
In particular, in March 2022, the EU slapped sanctions and suspended the broadcasting activities of Sputnik and RT thus stripping Europeans of any alternative news about the Ukraine conflict and imposing a one-sided vision of what’s going on in the Eastern European military theater. Concurrently, the UK passed legislation ordering social media, internet services and app store companies to block content from RT and Sputnik.
Remarkably, some Western human rights advocates warned at the time that banning Russian media “does more harm than good”: “History offers numerous examples of emergency speech restrictions threatening the very democracies they were supposed to protect,” wrote Danish lawyer and free speech activist Jacob Mchangama in August 2022.
“I am not a conspiracy theorist, but any sentient person can see a systematic removal of the media’s ability to operate without fear or favor – that is, impartially,” said Cashmore. “A dependency has been cultivated: the media have been encouraged to rely on political powers for information and, if they don’t, they face expulsion. The ejection of Sputnik and RT from the UK illustrates the measures governments are prepared to take to eliminate not just critical but alternative commentary. So, I believe the EU is seeking a closer compliance with mainstream or dominant narratives and the minimization of perspectives that challenge or criticize.”
The value of the concept of the freedom of speech is fading given that just a handful of European parliamentarians have shown any independence or courage to uphold this basic principle of the EU, according to Komisar. She expects that the draconian legislation may be passed, apparently with a meaningless disclaimer “this should not be used to attack a free press.”
“Calling this ‘Orwellian’ becomes a cliché,” Komisar concluded.
Europe approaching a ‘catastrophe’ – Hungary
Peter Szijjarto in Budapest, Hungary, December 7, 2021 © AFP / Attila Kisbenedek
RT | June 28, 2023
Europe is moving closer to “catastrophe in every sense,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto declared on Monday, before extending Budapest’s veto on EU arms transfers to Ukraine.
“Europe is moving closer to a catastrophe – in every sense, unfortunately,” Szijjarto wrote on Facebook before meeting with EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg on Monday. “Now even bigger trouble could be prevented and many thousands of lives could be saved,” he continued, “but to do this one would have to break out of the war psychosis.”
“I have no illusions that this will happen at the meeting of the EU Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg today,” he concluded.
Szijjarto’s prediction played out on Monday. After an address by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, the bloc’s top diplomats voted to increase their joint weapons fund for Ukraine by an additional €3.5 billion ($3.85 billion).
Known as the ‘European Peace Facility’ (EPF), the fund is a €5.6 billion ($6.08 billion) purse that the bloc uses to finance foreign militaries and reimburse its own members who send arms to foreign conflicts. Before the conflict in Ukraine, the ‘Peace Facility’ had only been used to supply non-lethal equipment to Georgia, Mali, Moldova, Mozambique, and Ukraine, for a total of less than $125 million.
While the EPF’s ceiling will be increased, Szijjarto confirmed on Monday that Hungary will maintain its veto on the latest €500 million ($546 million) tranche of arms from the fund for another month. Budapest is currently blocking the transfer of EU weapons to Ukraine due to Kiev’s blacklisting of Hungarian companies doing business in Russia.
Szijjarto and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban have both repeatedly called for a ceasefire and peace deal in Ukraine, while insisting that anti-Russia sanctions hurt Europe more than they hurt Russia.
In an interview with German tabloid Bild on Tuesday, Orban stated that the idea of a Ukrainian victory on the battlefield is “impossible” and that without an immediate ceasefire, Ukraine will “lose a huge amount of wealth and many lives, and unimaginable destruction will occur.”
“What really matters is what the Americans want to do,” Orban said, explaining that “Ukraine is no longer a sovereign country. They don’t have any money. They have no weapons. They can only fight because we in the West support them.”
House Committee Passes Rule Banning Pentagon From Funding Pro-Censorship Organizations
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | June 27, 2023
In a move to limit the influence of organizations involved in rating or indirectly causing online censorship, the House Armed Services Committee has greenlighted a regulation that forbids the Pentagon from allocating funds to such entities. This development took place during the early hours of Thursday when the committee approved the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.
The amendment was introduced by Republican Representative Rich McCormick of Georgia. The amendment specifically names the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), Graphika, NewsGuard, and their kin as prohibited from accessing Pentagon funds. These organizations, with the stated goal of flagging and assessing online content for “disinformation,” have been on the receiving end of criticism that argues that their rating systems are tainted by bias.
Rep. McCormick made his position clear when he expressed satisfaction with the passage of his amendment, stating, “Proud to pass my amendment that prohibits the Department of Defense from contracting with any one of a number of ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ monitors that rate news and information sources. While these media monitors claim to be nonpartisan, the reality is they are not.”
In practical terms, the amendment prohibits the Department of Defense from engaging with or financing any entity that actively partakes in advising censorship or blacklisting of news sources on grounds that may be subjective or politically biased. Furthermore, advertising and marketing agencies, which the Department of Defense relies upon for recruitment campaigns, must affirm that they do not avail the services of these types of organizations.
The Darkness Ahead: Where The Ukraine War Is Headed
BY JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER | JUNE 23, 2023
This paper examines the likely trajectory of the Ukraine war moving forward.
I will address two main questions.
First, is a meaningful peace agreement possible? My answer is no. We are now in a war where both sides – Ukraine and the West on one side and Russia on the other – see each other as an existential threat that must be defeated. Given maximalist objectives all around, it is almost impossible to reach a workable peace treaty. Moreover, the two sides have irreconcilable differences regarding territory and Ukraine’s relationship with the West. The best possible outcome is a frozen conflict that could easily turn back into a hot war. The worst possible outcome is a nuclear war, which is unlikely but cannot be ruled out.
Second, which side is likely to win the war? Russia will ultimately win the war, although it will not decisively defeat Ukraine. In other words, it is not going to conquer all of Ukraine, which is necessary to achieve three of Moscow’s goals: overthrowing the regime, demilitarizing the country, and severing Kyiv’s security ties with the West. But it will end up annexing a large swath of Ukrainian territory, while turning Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. In other words, Russia will win an ugly victory.
Before I directly address these issues, three preliminary points are in order. For starters, I am attempting to predict the future, which is not easy to do, given that we live in an uncertain world. Thus, I am not arguing that I have the truth; in fact, some of my claims may be proved wrong. Furthermore, I am not saying what I would like to see happen. I am not rooting for one side or the other. I am simply telling you what I think will happen as the war moves forward. Finally, I am not justifying Russian behavior or the actions of any of the states involved in the conflict. I am just explaining their actions.
Now, let me turn to substance.
To understand where the Ukraine war is headed, it is necessary to first assess the present situation. It is important to know how the three main actors – Russia, Ukraine, and the West – think about their threat environment and conceive their goals. When we talk about the West, however, we are talking mainly about the United States, since its European allies take their marching orders from Washington when it comes to Ukraine. It is also essential to understand the present situation on the battlefield. Let me start with Russia’s threat environment and its goals.
It has been clear since April 2008 that Russian leaders across the board view the West’s efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO and make it a Western bulwark on Russia’s borders as an existential threat. Indeed, President Putin and his lieutenants repeatedly made this point in the months before the Russian invasion, when it was becoming clear to them that Ukraine was almost a de facto member of NATO.
Since the war began on 24 February 2022, the West has added another layer to that existential threat by adopting a new set of goals that Russian leaders cannot help but view as extremely threatening. I will say more about Western goals below but suffice it to say here that the West is determined to defeat Russia and knock it out of the ranks of the great powers, if not cause regime change or even trigger Russia to break apart like the Soviet Union did in 1991.
In a major address Putin delivered this past February (2023), he stressed that the West is a mortal threat to Russia. “During the years that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union,” he said, “the West never stopped trying to set the post-Soviet states on fire and, most importantly, finish off Russia as the largest surviving portion of the historical reaches of our state. They encouraged international terrorists to assault us, provoked regional conflicts along the perimeter of our borders, ignored our interests and tried to contain and suppress our economy.” He further emphasized that, “The Western elite make no secret of their goal, which is, I quote, ‘Russia’s strategic defeat.’ What does this mean to us? This means they plan to finish us once and for all.” Putin went on to say: “this represents an existential threat to our country.”
Russian leaders also see the regime in Kyiv as a threat to Russia, not just because it is closely allied with the West, but also because they see it as the offspring of the fascist Ukrainian forces that fought alongside Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union in World War II.
Russia must win this war, given that it believes that it is facing a threat to its survival. But what does victory look like? The ideal outcome before the war began in February 2022 was to turn Ukraine into a neutral state and settle the civil war in the Donbass that pitted the Ukrainian government against ethnic Russians and Russian speakers who wanted greater autonomy if not independence for their region. It appears that those goals were still realistic during the first month of the war and were in fact the basis of the negotiations in Istanbul between Kyiv and Moscow in March 2022.
If the Russians had achieved those goals back then, the present war would either have been prevented or ended quickly.
But a deal that satisfies Russia’s goals is no longer in the cards. Ukraine and NATO are joined at the hip for the foreseeable future, and neither is willing to accept Ukrainian neutrality. Furthermore, the regime in Kyiv is anathema to Russian leaders, who want it gone. They not only talk about “de-Nazifying” Ukraine, but also “demilitarizing” it, two goals that would presumably call for conquering all of Ukraine, compelling its military forces to surrender, and installing a friendly regime in Kyiv.
A decisive victory of that sort is not likely to happen for a variety of reasons. The Russian army is not large enough for such a task, which would probably require at least two million men.
Indeed, the existing Russian army is having difficulty conquering all the Donbass. Moreover, the West would go to enormous lengths to prevent Russia from overrunning all of Ukraine. Finally, the Russians would end up occupying huge amounts of territory that is heavily populated with ethnic Ukrainians who loathe the Russians and would fiercely resist the occupation. Trying to conquer all of Ukraine and bend it to Moscow’s will, would surely end in disaster.
Rhetoric about de-Nazifying and demilitarizing Ukraine aside, Russia’s concrete goals involve conquering and annexing a large portion of Ukrainian territory, while simultaneously turning Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. As such, Ukraine’s ability to wage war against Russia would be greatly reduced and it would be unlikely to qualify for membership in either the EU or NATO. Moreover, a broken Ukraine, would be especially vulnerable to Russian interference in its domestic politics. In short, Ukraine would not be a Western bastion on Russia’s border.
What would that dysfunctional rump state look like? Moscow has officially annexed Crimea and four other Ukrainian oblasts – Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporozhe – which together represent about 23 percent of Ukraine’s total territory before the crisis broke out in February 2014. Russian leaders have emphasized that they have no intention of surrendering that territory, some of which Russia does not yet control. In fact, there is reason to think Russia will annex additional Ukrainian territory if it has the military capability to do so at a reasonable cost. It is difficult, however, to say how much additional Ukrainian territory Moscow will seek to annex, as Putin himself makes clear.
Russian thinking is likely to be influenced by three calculations. Moscow has a powerful incentive to conquer and permanently annex Ukrainian territory that is heavily populated with ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. It will want to protect them from the Ukrainian government – which has become hostile to all things Russian – and make sure there is no civil war anywhere in Ukraine like the one that took place in the Donbass between February 2014 and February 2022. At the same time, Russia will want to avoid controlling territory largely populated by hostile ethnic Ukrainians, which places significant limits on further Russian expansion. Finally, turning Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state will require Moscow to take substantial amounts of Ukrainian territory so it is well-positioned to do significant damage to its economy. Controlling all of Ukraine’s coastline along the Black Sea, for example, would give Moscow significant economic leverage over Kyiv.
Those three calculations suggest that Russia is likely to attempt to annex the four oblasts – Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odessa – that are immediately to the west of the four oblasts it has already annexed – Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporozhe. If that were to happen, Russia would control approximately 43 percent of Ukraine’s pre-2014 territory.
Dmitri Trenin, a leading Russian strategist estimates that Russian leaders would seek to take even more Ukrainian territory – pushing westward in northern Ukraine to the Dnieper River and taking the part of Kyiv that sits on the east bank of that river. He writes that “A logical next step” after taking all of Ukraine from Kharkiv to Odessa “would be to expand Russian control to all of Ukraine east of the Dnieper River, including the part of Kyiv that lies on the that river’s eastern bank. If that were to happen, the Ukrainian state would shrink to include only the central and western regions of the country.”
It might seem hard to believe now, but before the Ukraine crisis broke out in February 2014, Western leaders did not view Russia as a security threat. NATO leaders, for example, were talking with Russia’s president about “a new stage of cooperation towards a true strategic partnership” at the alliance’s 2010 Summit in Lisbon.
Unsurprisingly, NATO expansion before 2014 was not justified in terms of containing a dangerous Russia. In fact, it was Russian weakness that allowed the West to shove the first two tranches of NATO expansion in 1999 and 2004 down Moscow’s throat and then allowed the George W. Bush administration to think in 2008 that Russia could be forced to accept Georgia and Ukraine joining the alliance. But that assumption proved wrong and when the Ukraine crisis broke out in 2014, the West suddenly began portraying Russia as a dangerous foe that had to be contained if not weakened.
Since the war started in February 2022, the West’s perception of Russia has steadily escalated to the point where Moscow now appears to be seen as an existential threat. The United States and its NATO allies are deeply involved in Ukraine’s war against Russia. Indeed, they are doing everything but pulling the triggers and pushing the buttons.
Moreover, they have made clear their unequivocal commitment to winning the war and maintaining Ukraine’s sovereignty. Thus, losing the war would have hugely negative consequences for Washington and for NATO. America’s reputation for competence and reliability would be badly damaged, which would affect how its allies as well as its adversaries – especially China – deal with the United States. Furthermore, virtually every European country in NATO believes that the alliance is an irreplaceable security umbrella. Thus, the possibility that NATO might be badly damaged – maybe even wrecked – if Russia wins in Ukraine is cause for profound concern among its members.
In addition, Western leaders frequently portray the Ukraine war as an integral part of a larger global struggle between autocracy and democracy that is Manichean at its core. On top of that, the future of the sacrosanct rules-based international order is said to depend on prevailing against Russia. As King Charles said this past March (2023), “The security of Europe as well as our democratic values are under threat.”
Similarly, a resolution introduced in the U.S. Congress in April declares: “United States interests, European security, and the cause of international peace depend on … Ukrainian victory.”
A recent article in The Washington Post, captures how the West treats Russia as an existential threat: “Leaders of the more than 50 other countries backing Ukraine have couched their support as part of an apocalyptic battle for the future of democracy and the international rule of law against autocracy and aggression that the West cannot afford to lose.”
As should be clear, the West is staunchly committed to defeating Russia. President Biden has repeatedly said that the United States is in this war to win. “Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia.” It must end in “strategic failure.” Washington, he emphasizes, will stay in the fight “for as long as it takes.”
Specifically, the aim is to defeat Russia’s army in Ukraine – erasing its territorial gains – and cripple its economy with lethal sanctions. If successful, Russia would be knocked out of the ranks of the great powers, weakening it to the point where it could not threaten to invade Ukraine again.
Western leaders have additional goals, which include regime change in Moscow, putting Putin on trial as a war criminal, and possibly breaking up Russia into smaller states.
At the same time, the West remains committed to bringing Ukraine into NATO, although there is disagreement within the alliance about when and how that will happen.
Jens Stoltenberg, the alliance’s secretary general told a news conference in Kyiv in April (2023) that “NATO’s position remains unchanged and that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance.” At the same time, he emphasized that “The first step toward any membership of Ukraine to NATO is to ensure that Ukraine prevails, and that is why the U.S. and its partners have provided unprecedented support for Ukraine.”
Given these goals, it is clear why Russia views the West as an existential threat.
There is no doubt that Ukraine faces an existential threat, given that Russia is bent on dismembering it and making sure that the surviving rump state is not only economically weak, but is neither a de facto nor a de jure member of NATO. There is also no question that Kyiv shares the West’s goal of defeating and seriously weakening Russia, so that it can regain its lost territory and keep it under Ukrainian control forever. As President Zelensky recently told President Xi Jinping, “There can be no peace that is based on territorial compromises.”
Ukrainian leaders naturally remain steadfastly committed to joining the EU and NATO and making Ukraine an integral part of the West.
In sum, the three key actors in the Ukraine war all believe they face an existential threat, which means each of them thinks it must win the war or else suffer terrible consequences.
Turning to events on the battlefield, the war has evolved into a war of attrition where each side is principally concerned with bleeding the other side white, causing it to surrender. Of course, both sides are also concerned with capturing territory, but that goal is of secondary importance to wearing down the other side.
The Ukrainian military had the upper hand in the latter half of 2022, which allowed it to take back territory from Russia in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions. But Russia responded to those defeats by mobilizing 300,000 additional troops, reorganizing its army, shortening its front lines, and learning from its mistakes.
The locus of the fighting in 2023 has been in eastern Ukraine, mainly in the Donetsk and Zaporozhe regions. The Russians have had the upper hand this year, mainly because they have a substantial advantage in artillery, which is the most important weapon in attrition warfare.
Moscow’s advantage was evident in the battle for Bakhmut, which ended when the Russians captured that city in late May (2023). Although it took Russian forces ten months to take control of Bakhmut they inflicted huge casualties on Ukrainian forces with their artillery.
Shortly thereafter on 4 June, Ukraine launched its long-awaited counter-offensive at different locations in the Donetsk and Zaporozhe regions. The aim is to penetrate Russia’s front lines of defense, deliver a staggering blow to Russian forces, and take back a substantial amount of Ukrainian territory that is now under Russian control. In essence, the aim is to duplicate Ukraine’s successes in Kharkiv and Kherson in 2022.
Ukraine’s army has made little progress so far in achieving those goals and instead is bogged down in deadly attrition battles with Russian forces. In 2022, Ukraine was successful in the Kharkiv and Kherson campaigns because its army was fighting against outnumbered and overextended Russian forces. That is not the case today: Ukraine is attacking into the face of well-prepared lines of Russian defense. But even if Ukrainian forces break through those defensive lines, Russian troops will quickly stabilize the front and the attrition battles will continue.
The Ukrainians are at a disadvantage in these encounters because the Russians have a significant firepower advantage.
Let me switch gears and move away from the present and talk about the future, starting with how events on the battlefield are likely to play out moving forward. As noted, I believe Russia will win the war, which means it will end up conquering and annexing substantial Ukrainian territory, leaving Ukraine as a dysfunctional rump state. If I am correct, this will be a grievous defeat for Ukraine and the West.
There is a silver lining in this outcome, however: a Russian victory markedly reduces the threat of nuclear war, as nuclear escalation is most likely to occur if Ukrainian forces are winning victories on the battlefield and threatening to take back all or most of the territories Kyiv has lost to Moscow. Russian leaders would surely think seriously about using nuclear weapons to rescue the situation. Of course, if I am wrong about where the war is headed and the Ukrainian military gains the upper hand and begins pushing Russian forces eastward, the likelihood of nuclear use would increase significantly, which is not to say it would be a certainty.
What is the basis of my claim that the Russians are likely to win the war?
The Ukraine war, as emphasized, is a war of attrition in which capturing and holding territory is of secondary importance. The aim in attrition warfare is to wear down the other side’s forces to the point where it either quits the fight or is so weakened that it can no longer defend contested territory.
Who wins an attrition war is largely a function of three factors: the balance of resolve between the two sides; the population balance between them; and the casualty-exchange ratio. The Russians have a decisive advantage in population size and a marked advantage in the casualty-exchange ratio; the two sides are evenly matched in terms of resolve.
Consider the balance of resolve. As noted, both Russia and Ukraine believe they are facing an existential threat, and naturally, both sides are fully committed to winning the war. Thus, it is hard to see any meaningful difference in their resolve. Regarding population size, Russia had approximately a 3.5:1 advantage before the war began in February 2022. Since then, the ratio has shifted noticeably in Russia’s favor. About eight million Ukrainians have fled the country, subtracting from Ukraine’s population. Roughly three million of those emigrants have gone to Russia, adding to its population. In addition, there are probably about four million other Ukrainian citizens living in the territories that Russia now controls, further shifting the population imbalance in Russia’s favor. Putting those numbers together gives Russia approximately a 5:1 advantage in population size.
Finally, there is the casualty-exchange ratio, which has been a controversial issue since the war started in February 2022. The conventional wisdom in Ukraine and the West is that the casualty levels on both sides are either roughly equal or that the Russians have suffered greater casualties than the Ukrainians. The head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, Oleksiy Danilov, goes so far as to argue that the Russian lost 7.5 soldiers for every one Ukrainian soldier in the battle for Bakhmut.
These claims are wrong. Ukrainian forces have surely suffered much greater casualties than their Russian opponents for one reason: Russia has much more artillery than Ukraine.
In attrition warfare, artillery is the most important weapon on the battlefield. In the U.S. Army, artillery is widely known as the “king of battle,” because it is principally responsible for killing and wounding the soldiers doing the fighting.
Thus, the balance of artillery matters enormously in a war of attrition. By almost every account, the Russians have somewhere between a 5:1 and a 10:1 advantage in artillery, which puts the Ukrainian army at a significant disadvantage on the battlefield.
Ceteris paribus, one would expect the casualty-exchange ratio to approximate the balance of artillery. Ergo, a casualty-exchange ratio on the order of 2:1 in Russia’s favor is a conservative estimate.
One possible challenge to my analysis is to argue that Russia is the aggressor in this war, and the offender invariably suffers much higher casualty levels than the defender, especially if the attacking forces are engaged in broad frontal assaults, which is often said to be the Russian military’s modus operandi.
After all, the offender is out in the open and on the move, while the defender is mainly fighting from fixed positions that provide substantial cover. This logic underpins the famous 3:1 rule of thumb, which says that an attacking force needs at least three times as many soldiers as the defender to win a battle.
But there are problems with this line of argument when it is applied to the Ukraine war.
First, it is not just the Russians who have initiated offensive campaigns over the course of the war.
Indeed, the Ukrainians launched two major offensives last year that led to widely heralded victories: the Kharkiv offensive in September 2022 and the Kherson offensive between August and November 2022. Although the Ukrainians made substantial territorial gains in both campaigns, Russian artillery inflicted heavy casualties on the attacking forces. The Ukrainians just began another major offensive on 4 June against Russian forces that are more numerous and far better prepared than those the Ukrainians fought against in Kharkiv and Kherson.
Second, the distinction between offenders and defenders in a major battle is usually not black and white. When one army attacks another army, the defender invariably launches counterattacks. In other words, the defender transitions to the offense and the offender transitions to the defense. Over the course of a protracted battle, each side is likely to end up doing much attacking and counterattacking as well as defending fixed positions. This back and forth explains why the casualty-exchange ratios in US Civil War battles and WWI battles are often roughly equal, not favorable to the army that started out on the defensive. In fact, the army that strikes the first blow occasionally suffers less casualties than the target army.
In short, defense usually involves a lot of offense.
It is clear from Ukrainian and Western news accounts that Ukrainian forces frequently launch counterattacks against Russian forces. Consider this account in The Washington Post of the fighting earlier this year in Bakhmut: “‘There is this fluid motion going on.’ said a Ukrainian first lieutenant … Russian attacks along the front allow their forces to advance a few hundred meters before being pushed back hours later. ‘It’s hard to distinguish exactly where the front line is because it moves like Jell-O,’ he said.”
Given Russia’s massive artillery advantage, it seems reasonable to assume that the casualty-exchange ratio in these Ukrainian counterattacks favors the Russians – probably in a lopsided way.
Third, the Russians are not employing – at least not often – large-scale frontal assaults that aim to rapidly move forward and capture territory, but which would expose the attacking forces to withering fire from Ukrainian defenders. As General Sergey Surovikin explained in October 2022, when he was commanding the Russian forces in Ukraine, “We have a different strategy… We spare each soldier and are persistently grinding down the advancing enemy.”
In effect, Russian troops have adopted clever tactics that reduce their casualty levels.
Their favored tactic is to launch probing attacks against fixed Ukrainian positions with small infantry units, which causes Ukrainian forces to attack them with mortars and artillery.
That response allows the Russians to determine where the Ukrainian defenders and their artillery are located. The Russians then use their great advantage in artillery to pound their adversaries. Afterwards, packets of Russian infantry move forward again; and when they meet serious Ukrainian resistance, they repeat the process. These tactics help explain why Russia is making slow progress in capturing Ukrainian held territory.
One might think the West can go a long way toward evening out the casualty-exchange ratio by supplying Ukraine with many more artillery tubes and shells, thus eliminating Russia’s significant advantage with this critically important weapon. That is not going to happen anytime soon, however, simply because neither the United States nor its allies have the industrial capacity necessary to mass produce artillery tubes and shells for Ukraine. Nor can they rapidly build that capacity.
The best the West can do – at least for the next year or so – is maintain the existing imbalance of artillery between Russia and Ukraine, but even that will be a difficult task.
Ukraine can do little to help remedy the problem, because its ability to manufacture weapons is limited. It is almost completely dependent on the West, not only for artillery, but for every type of major weapons system. Russia, on the other hand, had a formidable capability to manufacture weaponry going into the war, which has been ramped up since the fighting started. Putin recently said: “Our defense industry is gaining momentum every day. We have increased military production by 2.7 times during the last year. Our production of the most critical weapons has gone up ten times and keeps increasing. Plants are working in two or three shifts, and some are busy around the clock.”
In short, given the sad state of Ukraine’s industrial base, it is in no position to wage a war of attrition by itself. It can only do so with Western backing. But even then, it is doomed to lose.
There has been a recent development that further increases Russia’s firepower advantage over Ukraine. For the first year of the war, Russian airpower had little influence on what happened in the ground war, mainly because Ukraine’s air defenses were effective enough to keep Russian aircraft far away from most battlefields. But the Russians have seriously weakened Ukraine’s air defenses, which now allows the Russian air force to strike Ukrainian ground forces on or directly behind the front lines.
In addition, Russia has developed the capability to equip its huge arsenal of 500 kg iron bombs with guidance kits that make them especially lethal.
In sum, the casualty-exchange ratio will continue to favor the Russians for the foreseeable future, which matters enormously in a war of attrition. In addition, Russia is much better positioned to wage attrition warfare because its population is far larger than Ukraine’s. Kyiv’s only hope for winning the war is for Moscow’s resolve to collapse, but that is unlikely given that Russian leaders view the West as an existential danger.
There is a growing chorus of voices around the world calling for all sides in the Ukrainian war to embrace diplomacy and negotiate a lasting peace agreement. This is not going to happen, however. There are too many formidable obstacles to ending the war anytime soon, much less fashioning a deal that produces a durable peace. The best possible outcome is a frozen conflict, where both sides continue looking for opportunities to weaken the other side and where there is an ever-present danger of renewed fighting.
At the most general level, peace is not possible because each side views the other as a mortal threat that must be defeated on the battlefield. There is hardly any room for compromise with the other side in these circumstances. There are also two specific points of dispute between the warring parties that are unsolvable. One involves territory while the other concerns Ukrainian neutrality.
Almost all Ukrainians are deeply committed to getting back all their lost territory – including Crimea.
Who can blame them? But Russia has officially annexed Crimea, Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporozhe, and is firmly committed to keeping that territory. In fact, there is reason to think Moscow will annex more Ukrainian territory if it can.
The other Gordian knot concerns Ukraine’s relationship with the West. For understandable reasons, Ukraine wants a security guarantee once the war ends, which only the West can provide. That means either de facto or de jure membership in NATO, since no other countries can protect Ukraine. Virtually all Russian leaders, however, demand a neutral Ukraine, which means no military ties with the West and thus no security umbrella for Kyiv. There is no way to square this circle.
There are two other obstacles to peace: nationalism, which has now morphed into hypernationalism, and the complete lack of trust on the Russian side.
Nationalism has been a powerful force in Ukraine for well over a century, and antagonism toward Russia has long been one of its core elements. The outbreak of the present conflict on 22 February 2014 fueled that hostility, prompting the Ukrainian parliament to pass a bill the following day that restricted the use of Russian and other minority languages, a move that helped precipitate the civil war in the Donbass.
Russia’s annexation of Crimea shortly thereafter made a bad situation worse. Contrary to the conventional wisdom in the West, Putin understood that Ukraine was a separate nation from Russia and that the conflict between the ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers living in the Donbass and the Ukrainian government was all about “the national question.”
The Russian invasion of Ukraine, which directly pits the two countries against each other in a protracted and bloody war has turned that nationalism into hypernationalism on both sides. Contempt and hatred of “the other” suffuses Russian and Ukrainian society, which creates powerful incentives to eliminate that threat – with violence if necessary. Examples abound. A prominent Kyiv weekly maintains that famous Russian authors like Mikhail Lermontov, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Leo Tolstoy, and Boris Pasternak are “killers, looters, ignoramuses.”
Russian culture, says a prominent Ukrainian writer, represents “barbarism, murder, and destruction …. Such is the fate of the culture of the enemy.”
Predictably, the Ukrainian government is engaged in “de-Russification” or “decolonization,” which involves purging libraries of books by Russian authors, renaming streets that have names with links to Russia, pulling down statues of figures like Catherine the Great, banning Russian music produced after 1991, breaking ties between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, and minimizing use of the Russian language. Perhaps Ukraine’s attitude toward Russia is best summed up by Zelensky’s terse comment: “We will not forgive. We will not forget.”
Turning to the Russian side of the hill, Anatol Lieven reports that “every day on Russian TV you can see hate-filled ethnic insults directed at Ukrainians.”
Unsurprisingly, the Russians are working to Russify and erase Ukrainian culture in the areas that Moscow has annexed. These measures include issuing Russian passports, changing the curricula in schools, replacing the Ukrainian hryvnia with the Russian ruble, targeting libraries and museums, and renaming towns and cities.
Bakhmut, for example, is now Artemovsk and the Ukrainian language is no longer taught in schools in the Donetsk region.
Apparently, the Russians too will neither forgive nor forget.
The rise of hypernationalism is predictable in wartime, not only because governments rely heavily on nationalism to motivate their people to back their country to the hilt, but also because the death and destruction that come with war – especially protracted wars – pushes each side to dehumanize and hate the other. In the Ukraine case, the bitter conflict over national identity adds fuel to the fire.
Hypernationalism naturally makes it harder for each side to cooperate with the other and gives Russia reason to seize territory that is filled with ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. Presumably, many of them would prefer living under Russian control, given the animosity of the Ukrainian government toward all things Russian. In the process of annexing these lands, the Russians are likely to expel large numbers of ethnic Ukrainians, mainly because of fear that they will rebel against Russian rule if they remain. These developments will further fuel hatred between Russians and Ukrainians, making compromise over territory practically impossible.
There is a final reason why a lasting peace agreement is not doable. Russian leaders do not trust either Ukraine or the West to negotiate in good faith, which is not to imply that Ukrainian and Western leaders trust their Russian counterparts. Lack of trust is evident on all sides, but it is especially acute on Moscow’s part because of a recent set of revelations.
The source of the problem is what happened in the negotiations over the 2015 Minsk II Agreement, which was a framework for shutting down the conflict in the Donbass. French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel played the central role is designing that framework, although they consulted extensively with both Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Those four individuals were also the key players in the subsequent negotiations. There is little doubt that Putin was committed to making Minsk work. But Hollande, Merkel, and Poroshenko – as well as Zelensky – have all made it clear that they were not interested in implementing Minsk, but instead saw it as an opportunity to buy time for Ukraine to build up its military so that it could deal with the insurrection in the Donbass. As Merkel told Die Zeit, it was “an attempt to give Ukraine time … to become stronger.”
Similarly, Poroshenko said, “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.”
Shortly after Merkel’s Die Zeit interview in December 2022, Putin told a press conference: “I thought the other participants of this agreement were at least honest, but no, it turns out they were also lying to us and only wanted to pump Ukraine with weapons and get it prepared for a military conflict.” He went on to say that getting bamboozled by the West had caused him to pass up an opportunity to solve the Ukraine problem in more favorable circumstances for Russia: “Apparently, we got our bearings too late, to be honest. Maybe we should have started all this [the military operation] earlier, but we just hoped that we would be able to solve it within the framework of the Minsk agreements.” He then made it clear that the West’s duplicity would complicate future negotiations: “Trust is already almost at zero, but after such statements, how can we possibly negotiate? About what? Can we make any agreements with anybody and where are the guarantees?”
In sum, there is hardly any chance the Ukraine war will end with a meaningful peace settlement. The war is instead likely to drag on for at least another year and eventually turn into a frozen conflict that might turn back into a shooting war.
The absence of a viable peace agreement will have a variety of terrible consequences. Relations between Russia and the West, for example, are likely to remain profoundly hostile and dangerous for the foreseeable future. Each side will continue demonizing the other while working hard to maximize the amount of pain and trouble it causes its rival. This situation will certainly prevail if the fighting continues; but even if the war turns into a frozen conflict, the level of hostility between the two sides is unlikely to change much.
Moscow will seek to exploit existing fissures between European countries, while also working to weaken the trans-Atlantic relationship as well as key European institutions like the EU and NATO. Given the damage the war has done to Europe’s economy and continues to do, given the growing disenchantment in Europe with the prospect of a never-ending war in Ukraine, and given the differences between Europe and the United States regarding trade with China, Russian leaders should find fertile ground for causing trouble in the West.
This meddling will naturally reinforce Russophobia in Europe and the United States, making a bad situation worse.
The West, for its part, will maintain sanctions on Moscow and keep economic intercourse between the two sides to a minimum, all for the purpose of harming Russia’s economy. Moreover, it will surely work with Ukraine to help generate insurgencies in the territories Russia took from Ukraine. At the same time, the United States and its allies will continue pursuing a hard-nosed containment policy toward Russia, which many believe will be enhanced by Finland and Sweden joining NATO and the deployment of significant NATO forces in eastern Europe.
Of course, the West will remain committed to bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, even if that is unlikely to happen. Finally, U.S. and European elites are sure to retain their enthusiasm for fostering regime change in Moscow and putting Putin on trial for Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
Not only will relations between Russia and the West remain poisonous moving forward, but they will also be dangerous, as there will be the ever-present possibility of nuclear escalation or a great-power war between Russia and the United States.
Ukraine was in severe economic and demographic trouble before the war began last year.
The devastation inflicted on Ukraine since the Russian invasion is horrific. Surveying events during the war’s first year, the World Bank declares that the invasion “has dealt an unimaginable toll on the people of Ukraine and the country’s economy, with activity contracting by a staggering 29.2 percent in 2022.” Unsurprisingly, Kyiv needs massive injections of foreign aid just to keep the government running, not to mention fighting the war. Furthermore, the World Bank estimates that damages exceed $135 billion and that roughly $411 billion will be needed to rebuild Ukraine. Poverty, it reports, “increased from 5.5 percent in 2021 to 24.1 percent in 2022, pushing 7.1 million more people into poverty and retracting 15 years of progress.”
Cities have been destroyed, roughly 8 million Ukrainians have fled the country, and about 7 million are internally displaced. The United Nations has confirmed 8,490 civilian deaths, although it believes that the actual number is “considerably higher.”
And surely Ukraine has suffered well over 100,000 battlefield casualties.
Ukraine’s future looks bleak in the extreme. The war shows no signs of ending anytime soon, which means more destruction of infrastructure and housing, more destruction of towns and cities, more civilian and military deaths, and more damage to the economy. And not only is Ukraine likely to lose even more territory to Russia, but according to the European Commission, “the war has set Ukraine on a path of irreversible demographic decline.”
To make matters worse, the Russians will work overtime to keep rump Ukraine economically weak and politically unstable. The ongoing conflict is also likely to fuel corruption, which has long been an acute problem, and further strengthen extremist groups in Ukraine. It is hard to imagine Kyiv ever meeting the criteria necessary for joining either the EU or NATO.
The Ukraine war is hindering the U.S. effort to contain China, which is of paramount importance for American security since China is a peer competitor while Russia is not.
Indeed, balance-of-power logic says that the United States should be allied with Russia against China and pivoting full force to East Asia. Instead, the war in Ukraine has pushed Beijing and Moscow close together, while providing China with a powerful incentive to make sure that Russia is not defeated and the United States remains tied down in Europe, impeding its efforts to pivot to East Asia.
It should be apparent by now that the Ukraine war is an enormous disaster that is unlikely to end anytime soon and when it does, the result will not be a lasting peace. A few words are in order about how the West ended up in this dreadful situation.
The conventional wisdom about the war’s origins is that Putin launched an unprovoked attack on 24 February 2022, which was motivated by his grand plan to create a greater Russia. Ukraine, it is said, was the first country he intended to conquer and annex, but not the last. As I have said on numerous occasions, there is no evidence to support this line of argument, and indeed there is considerable evidence that directly contradicts it.
While there is no question Russia invaded Ukraine, the ultimate cause of the war was the West’s decision – and here we are talking mainly about the United States – to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. The key element in that strategy was bringing Ukraine into NATO, a move that not only Putin, but the entire Russian foreign policy establishment, saw as an existential threat that had to be eliminated.
It is often forgotten that numerous American and European policymakers and strategists opposed NATO expansion from the start because they understood that the Russians would see it as a threat, and that the policy would eventually lead to disaster. The list of opponents includes George Kennan, both President Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Perry, and his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, Paul Nitze, Robert Gates, Robert McNamara, Richard Pipes, and Jack Matlock, just to name a few.
At the NATO summit in Bucharest In April 2008, both French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel opposed President George W. Bush’s plan to bring Ukraine into the alliance. Merkel later said that her opposition was based on her belief that Putin would interpret it as a “declaration of war.”
Of course, the opponents of NATO expansion were correct, but they lost the fight and NATO marched eastward, which eventually provoked the Russians to launch a preventive war. Had the United States and its allies not moved to bring Ukraine into NATO in April 2008, or had they been willing to accommodate Moscow’s security concerns after the Ukraine crisis broke out in February 2014, there probably would be no war in Ukraine today and its borders would look like they did when it gained its independence in 1991. The West made a colossal blunder, which it and many others are not done paying for.
Featured Video
No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The lies about the 1967 war are still more powerful than the truth
By Alan Hart | June 4, 2012
In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations). Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of who were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.
So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel? … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch… loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea… eddieb on An Avoidable Disaster Steve Jones on For Israel, The Terrorist Atta… cleversensationally3… on Over Half of Germans Feel Unab… loongtip on Investigation Into U.S. Milita… loongtip on Zelensky’s Impossible De…
Aletho News- How Policies From The Bi-Parisian Foreign Policy Establishment Led To Trump’s Venezuela War
- No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
- Sexual Blackmail Makes the World Go ‘Round
- Powerful Israeli Strikes on South Lebanon and Bekaa
- UAE-backed militia in Yemen reaches out to Israel for alliance against ‘common foes’: Report
- The UAE’s reverse trajectory: From riches to rags
- Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate Speech” Laws Linking Censorship to Terror Prevention
- Majority of Belgians oppose theft of Russian assets – poll
- Czech–Slovak alignment signals growing dissatisfaction with Brussels’ authoritarianism
- Colonel Jacques Baud & Nathalie Yamb Sanctioned: EU Goes Soviet
- If Americans Knew
- Amnesty: ‘Utterly preventable’ Gaza flood tragedy must mobilize global action to end Israel’s genocide
- Israel Propagandists Are Uniformly Spouting The Exact Same Line About The Bondi Beach Shooting
- Ha’aretz: Free the Palestinian Activist Who Dared to Document Israel’s Crimes in the West Bank
- Garbage Is Poisoning Gaza
- Palestinian journalist recounts rape and torture in Israeli prison
- Gaza is crumbling, but its people persevere – Not a Ceasefire Day 69
- Pro-Israel billionaire Miriam Adelson green-lights a Trump 3rd term
- Australians Being Massacred Shouldn’t Bother Us More Than Palestinians Being Massacred
- Garbage, stench, sewage, and rats plague Gaza – Not a Ceasefire Day 68
- The Zionist Billionaire Circle Hiding in Plain Sight
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
- Regional Cooling Since The 1980s Has Driven Glacier Advance In The Karakoram Mountains
- Greenland Petermann Glacier Has Grown 30 Kilometers Since 2012!
- New Study: Temperature-Driven CO2 Outgassing Explains 83 Percent Of CO2 Rise Since 1959
- Climate Extremists Ordered By Hamburg Court To Pay €400,000 In Damages
- More Evidence NE China Is Not Cooperating With The Alarmist Global Warming Narrative
Aletho News 