Details of Russian peace proposal revealed
RT | June 2, 2025
The peace memorandum developed by Russia and presented to the Ukrainian delegation during the talks in Istanbul, Türkiye, on Monday calls on Kiev to withdraw its troops from the former Ukrainian territories that have joined Russia and confirm its neutral and non-nuclear status, according to the text of the document seen by RT.
The proposal consists of three parts, which include the conditions for a comprehensive settlement of the Ukraine conflict, steps toward achieving a ceasefire, and a peace roadmap that includes some unilateral steps by Russia.
The “final settlement” of the conflict would require international recognition of the former Ukrainian territories as parts of Russia. The two Donbass republics, as well as Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions, officially joined Russia following a series of referendums in autumn 2022. Crimea voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 in the wake of the Western-backed Maidan coup in Kiev.
Ukraine would also have to withdraw all its forces and armed groups from those territories, the document said.
Kiev would have to reaffirm its neutral status and introduce a ban on any military activities of third-party states on Ukrainian territory, as well as to withdraw from international treaties incompatible with such a status. It would also have to reaffirm its nuclear-free status and prohibit the acquisition, transit, or deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory.
The memorandum expects Ukraine to set certain limits on the size of its armed forces, as well as military equipment, but does not provide any fixed numbers. All Ukrainian nationalist armed groups within the armed forces and the National Guard would have to be disbanded, according to the document.
Under the peace proposal, Kiev would have to guarantee the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking people in Ukraine and grant Russian the status of an official language, stop the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, ban Nazi propaganda and any nationalist groups, as well as lift sanctions imposed against Moscow. Both Russia and Ukraine would renounce claims to compensation of damage linked to the conflict.
The document suggests two options for reaching a ceasefire. One of them requires Kiev to start withdrawing its troops from the territories that have joined Russia and pulling them away from the Russian borders to a certain distance. This process would have to be completed within 30 days.
The second option – the “package option” – would include a ban on any Ukrainian troop movements (except for the withdrawal of forces) and the cessation of the Ukrainian mobilization campaign and Western military aid to Kiev, including arms shipment and intelligence sharing. The sides would then establish a bilateral monitoring center and release each other’s citizens held by the other side.
Ukraine would also have to lift martial law and set a date for presidential and parliamentary elections. All the steps listed within this option would also have to be completed within 30 days, according to the document.
According to the proposal, the final peace treaty between Moscow and Kiev would be signed after the elections in Ukraine and endorsed by a legally binding UN Security Council resolution.
Last week, Reuters published what it called the details of Ukraine’s peace proposal where Kiev reportedly rejected Moscow’s demands for the recognition of Ukraine’s former territories as parts of Russia, and also ruled out abandoning its ambition to join NATO. The Ukrainian memorandum also demanded reparations from Russia.
What Russia and Ukraine Agreed in 2nd Round of Istanbul Talks
Sputnik – June 2, 2025
Russian delegation head Vladimir Medinsky, an aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, reported the key outcomes of the negotiations with Ukrainian representatives in Istanbul.
Key statements:
- Russia handed Ukraine a draft memorandum on settlement, which Kiev took for study
- The Russian settlement memorandum is in two parts and is detailed and well-developed
- The first part focuses on how to achieve genuine long-term peace
- The second part outlines steps for a full ceasefire, allowing for flexibility and multiple paths to that goal
- Russia will unilaterally transfer 6,000 bodies of Ukrainian soldiers to Kiev next week, having identified all the deceased
- The parties agreed on the largest-yet prisoner exchange
- The total exchange will be at least 1,000 prisoners, possibly more
- Sick and seriously wounded prisoners will be exchanged on an “all for all” basis
- Moscow and Kiev will create a commission to exchange seriously wounded troops without political decisions
- The sides will exchange soldiers under the age of 25
- Russia offered Ukraine a concrete ceasefire for two to three days in certain frontline sectors
- Moscow and Kiev agreed to a ceasefire in specific areas so commanders can retrieve the bodies of their soldiers
- The Ukrainian armed forces promised to work out the ceasefire proposal for those areas soon
- Kiev turned the issue of ‘child abductions’ into a ‘show for sentimental Europeans’
- No children have been kidnapped by Moscow, only rescued by Russian soldiers
- Russia received a list of 339 children from Ukraine who are in difficult situations due to the conflict
- Moscow returns children to Kiev if their parents or legal guardians are present
- Russia is working on reuniting families separated by the Ukraine conflict
- The negotiations with Ukraine were conducted in Russian
The Russian delegation was satisfied with the results of the second round of talks with Ukraine, Medinsky said.
Kiev comments on latest round of negotiations with Moscow
RT | June 2, 2025
Moscow and Kiev have agreed to exchange the bodies of thousands of fallen soldiers, Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov announced on Monday following the second round of direct talks in Istanbul, Тürkiye.
Speaking to the press after the negotiations, Umerov, who led Kiev’s delegation, stated that the two sides had discussed a number of topics, including a ceasefire, humanitarian issues, and a potential meeting between Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
On the question of prisoner exchanges, Umerov said Moscow and Kiev had agreed to “focus on specific categories, not numbers.” Both sides have reportedly reached an agreement to exchange all seriously wounded and seriously ill prisoners of war in an “all-for-all” format.
“The second category is young soldiers aged 18 to 25. Also all for all. We also agreed to return 6,000 for 6,000 bodies of dead soldiers,” Umerov said.
Umerov added that Kiev has proposed holding a third round of talks at some point between June 20 and 30.
Monday’s talks mark the second time Russian and Ukrainian negotiators have met directly to discuss the resolution of the Ukraine conflict since Kiev abandoned peace efforts back in 2022. The first round of the renewed talks was held at the initiative of Putin on May 16.
UK preparing for war – PM
RT | June 2, 2025
Britain is going on a war footing with the launch of a major rearmament campaign, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a keynote address on Monday.
Starmer unveiled his cabinet’s Strategic Defense Review, which includes an expansive armaments program mirroring similar efforts across NATO. Last week, UK Defense Secretary John Healey said London was sending “a message to Moscow” by allocating billions of pounds for new munitions plants, long-range missile systems, and other capabilities. Russia has accused Western nations of using alarmist rhetoric to justify shifting public funds toward military spending.
”We are moving to war-fighting readiness,” Starmer said at a shipyard in Govan, Glasgow, adding that “our defense policy will always be NATO first.” He vowed to transform the UK into “a battle-ready, armor-clad nation with the strongest alliances and the most advanced capabilities equipped for the decades to come.”
According to Starmer, the overhaul will enable Britain to make its “biggest contribution to NATO since its creation.” He also pledged that the country would become “the fastest innovator in NATO,” with defense research operating at a “wartime pace.” The reforms are expected to make the British military “ten times more lethal by 2035,” he claimed.
The prime minister reaffirmed his government’s goal to increase defense spending to 3% of GDP. He framed the effort as replacing the post-Cold War “peace dividend” with a “defense dividend” through the creation of thousands of new jobs in weapons manufacturing, including production of nuclear arms.
Starmer blamed Moscow for what he called a series of provocations, accusing Russia of “menacing” the UK, demonstrating “aggression” in British waters, and “driving up the cost of living here at home,” harming British workers.
Russian lawmaker Aleksey Pushkov has accused the UK of planning an “ice war” with Russia, noting that “there is no difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party” in their attitude.
Commenting on Starmer’s pledge to build additional nuclear submarines, Pushkov asserted that no British investments could bring the country to an equal footing with Russia, the US, and China. However, “Starmer needs them [those boats] to report his achievements” to domestic and international players who stand to benefit financially from the project, Pushkov claimed.
UK Unveils Plans for 12 New Nuclear Subs Under AUKUS Deal
Sputnik – 02.06.2025
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer will announce on Monday his country’s intention to build up to 12 nuclear-powered submarines as part of the AUKUS pack with the United States and Australia, UK Defense Secretary John Healey said.
“The Prime Minister will announce tomorrow that the UK’s conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet will be significantly expanded, with up to 12 new SSN-AUKUS boats to be built,” Healey said in a statement released on the government’s website on Sunday.
He said the new vessels will replace the seven Astute Class attack submarines currently in service.
In February, Starmer announced the UK’s plans to raise defense spending to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027 and further to 3% of GDP in the next parliament.
Alice Weidel: German Ukraine policy is “complete madness”
May 30, 2025
What is Germany doing in the war in Ukraine? In Patriot Extra, Máté Gerhardt’s guest is Alice Weidel, co-chair of the AfD and leader of the party’s Bundestag faction.
‘Brussels hijacked our future’ – Orban
RT | June 1, 2025
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has unveiled a proposal to increase the power of EU members and limit the authority of its bureaucracy. Calling it a “patriotic plan” for the bloc, he said in a series of weekend social media posts that it will revive the “European dream.”
The EU elites in Brussels have exploited every crisis to amass more power, Orban claimed in a post on X. This course has so far only translated into less sovereignty for member states and “failed policies,” according to the prime minister. “Brussels hijacked our future” by disrupting public safety through migration and eroding prosperity with “green dogmas,” he stated in another post.
“Europe can’t afford this any longer, it’s time to take back control,” he said.
The PM’s plan is based on what he calls four pillars: a path toward peace on the continent and defusing tensions with Russia, removing Brussels’ “centralized control” over finances, “bringing back free speech” and strengthening Europe’s Christian identity, and tightening control over immigration.
“We want peace, we don’t need a new Eastern front,” Orban said, commenting on his plan and stating that the bloc should not accept Ukraine as a member. “We don’t want our money poured into someone else’s war,” he added.
A military buildup and defense increase actively promoted by some EU nations could easily lock the bloc in an “arms race” with Russia, Orban warned. Such a development would “devour… taxpayers’ money,” he said. Instead of pouring more resources into the military, the bloc needs to contribute to the peace process between Moscow and Kiev, the prime minister maintained, praising US President Donald Trump’s efforts in this regard.
The EU needs to start “arms limitation talks with the Russians as soon as possible. Otherwise, all our money will be swallowed by the arms industry instead of being spent on peaceful… goals,” Orban argued.
European nations once united to create the “safest and the most advanced continent” in the world but this dream was “stolen,” the prime minister charged, calling on EU nations not to allow Brussels to use the Ukraine conflict “as an excuse to take more of our money.”
Another Neoconservative Bites the Dust: The Life and Legacy of Michael Ledeen
By Jose Alberto Nino – The Occidental Observer – June 1, 2025
Michael Ledeen, the man who urged America to “to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall” every decade, met an end that many of his critics would call overdue. On May 17, 2025, Ledeen died at the age of 83. marking the passing of one of the last influential Jewish neoconservatives of his generation.
Ledeen obtained a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he studied under the Jewish German-born historian George Mosse. He took a particular interest in Italian fascism and wrote a doctoral dissertation that eventually became “Universal Fascism: The Theory and Practice of the Fascist International, 1928–1936,” published in 1972, which explored Benito Mussolini’s efforts to create a Fascist international in the late 1920s and early 1930s.
His academic career began at Washington University in St. Louis, where he was an assistant professor of history from 1967–1973, before becoming a visiting professor at the University of Rome from 1973–1977. Ledeen authored over 35 books throughout his career, including works on fascism, European history, and Middle Eastern politics.
His influence was most felt in the realm of national security though. Throughout his career, Ledeen held multiple advisory roles within the U.S. government, including as a consultant to the National Security Council, a special advisor to the Secretary of State, a consultant to the Department of Defense, and a consultant to the under-secretary of political affairs. Ledeen was an active member of numerous think tanks and regime-change advocacy organizations such as the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon, Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI), American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Additionally, he has been published in numerous philosemitic conservative outlets such as the National Review, Wall Street Journal, and the Weekly Standard. His influence extended beyond formal roles. According to the Washington Post, he was the only “full-time” international affairs analyst frequently consulted by Karl Rove, the chief strategist of then-President George W. Bush.
Ledeen’s career was not free of controversy, however. In 1980, Ledeen co-authored articles with Belgian-American journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave in The New Republic alleging Jimmy Carter’s brother, Billy Carter, accepted payments from Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi and met with PLO leader Yasser Arafat. He made those same assertions before a Senate subcommittee as the 1980 presidential election quickly approached. These claims, published weeks before the presidential election, reignited the “Billygate” scandal.
A 1985 Wall Street Journal investigation later confirmed that the stories were part of a disinformation campaign executed by Italy’s military intelligence agency (SISMI) to hurt Carter’s presidential re-election campaign. Italian intelligence officer Francesco Pazienza testified that Ledeen received $120,000 for his role and operated under the codename “Z-3.” Pazienza, who was convicted for extortion in connection to the operation, described Ledeen as a key figure behind the dissemination of false narratives.
Additionally, Ledeen was heavily involved in the Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan administration. As a consultant to National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, Ledeen facilitated back-channel communications between U.S. officials, Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, and Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar. In this case, the Reagan administration was clandestinely negotiating hostage releases in Lebanon via arms sales to Iran, a scheme that bypassed Congressional oversight and later became a major scandal. Ledeen defended Ghorbanifar despite widespread skepticism about his reliability, subsequently detailing his perspective in the book “Perilous Statecraft.” While he never faced criminal charges, Ledeen’s role in Iran-Contra showcased his willingness to operate in the shadows, ethics be damned.
Like many Jews in the neoconservative movement, Ledeen has a long career of advocating for regime change in the Middle East.
Ledeen was one of the most vocal Jewish neoconservatives lobbying for the removal of Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. Along with other neoconservative luminaries such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, Ledeen signed “An Open Letter to the President” in 1998, urging Bill Clinton to topple Iraq’s Baathist regime.
Similar to other Jewish officials in the national security establishment, Ledeen was an unapologetic champion of using hard military power. Jewish neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg coined the “Leeden Doctrine” after reflecting on a speech he attended in the 1990s at the American Enterprise Institute. In that speech, Ledeen was alleged to have said:
Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.
In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Ledeen was one of the most energetic proponents of using military force against the country. Ledeen wrote a piece at the National Review critical of former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, who advised against invading Iraq. Instead of exercising restraint, Ledeen called for turning the entire Middle East “into a cauldron”, as he explained in more detail:
Scowcroft has managed to get one thing half right, even though he misdescribes it. He fears that if we attack Iraq “I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror.”
One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists.
Ledeen’s hawkish stance on Iran was also a lifelong constant. He labeled the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini a “theocratic fascist”, and as Jewish political commentator Peter Beinart observed about Ledeen’s Middle Eastern political analysis, every problem in the region “traces back to Tehran.” Despite opposing a direct invasion of Iran in his later years, Ledeen championed aggressive support for Iranian dissidents and preemptive strikes against nuclear facilities if diplomacy failed to get Iran to kowtow to the United States.
Michael Ledeen’s death marks the end of a career that Jewish journalist Eli Lake described as one of “America’s most courageous historians and journalists.” His friend David Goldman, a Jewish international relations commentator associated with the Claremont Institute, wrote that Ledeen’s “personal contribution to America’s victory in the Cold War is far greater than the public record shows.”
Ledeen’s legacy is undeniably one of steadfast advocacy for Jewish interests within the American conservative movement. For those who saw his influence as a barrier to a more authentically gentile Right, his passing, like David Horowitz’s, may indeed be viewed as an opportunity for change as more of the Jewish founders of neoconservatism and their progeny exit the plane of the living.
For this author, Ledeen will certainly not be missed.
Europe punching above weight for nothing
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – June 1, 2025
Recent European (UK plus EU) sanctions on Russia amid ongoing US-backed efforts to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine aim to assert Europe’s perceived ability to “correct” the course of events.
However, the continued reliance on sanctions also underscores the limits of what Europe can—and cannot—achieve in ultimately shaping geopolitical outcomes.
Sanctions amid Talks
In geopolitics, timing is often more telling than the event itself. Such is the case with the European Union’s and the UK’s recent decision to impose fresh sanctions on Russia—announced just a day after former President Donald Trump held a two-hour “serious” conversation with Vladimir Putin. This is not the first time European states have sanctioned Russia, nor will it be the last. But this round is different, not in content but in context. The timing sends a clear message: Europe is uneasy, not just about Russia’s actions in Ukraine, but also about the growing strategic vacuum left by an increasingly disengaged United States.
Despite the recent round of dialogue between Ukrainian and Russian officials—and other rounds expected to follow—European leaders remain skeptical of where this path may lead. Their fear? That a negotiated settlement—particularly one brokered without robust Western unity—could leave Russia in a stronger position than before the conflict began.
That anxiety is compounded by waning American commitment to NATO under the Trump administration. In the absence of a coherent transatlantic front, European powers are trying to assert their own leverage. This latest sanctions package, targeting Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers and the financial networks enabling sanctions evasion, is as much a political statement as it is an economic measure.
According to German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, the sanctions are a response to Russia’s refusal to agree to an “immediate ceasefire without preconditions.” But here’s the strategic problem: Europe acted alone. Washington, notably silent, announced no corresponding measures. In fact, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that threatening sanctions now could derail ongoing talks rather than advance them. “The president … believes that right now, you start threatening sanctions, the Russians will stop talking,” Rubio told lawmakers in the US.
This divergence reveals a deeper strategic disconnect between Europe and the US. Despite intense lobbying from European capitals, the Trump administration remains hesitant to jeopardize fragile diplomatic progress. In the eyes of many analysts, this marks a foreign policy failure for Europe, unable to rally its closest ally at a critical juncture. Still, the broader implication is troubling: these sanctions are unlikely to shift Moscow’s calculus or alter the trajectory of ceasefire negotiations. Instead, they may highlight Europe’s limited influence in the absence of American backing—and underscore a growing realization that, in the new era of great power politics, Europe may have to fend more for itself. If the goal is to contain Russian power and shape the post-war regional order, sanctions without transatlantic unity are unlikely to suffice. Without Washington on board, Europe’s message is loud—but not necessarily strong.
Anatomy of Sanctions
As the conflict in Ukraine drags into its fourth year, Europe finds itself in a strategic bind. While its leaders continue to voice solidarity with Kyiv, the reality beneath the rhetoric is unmistakable: Europe’s message is not strong enough. But the more pressing question is—why is this message so weak?
The answer lies not in a lack of compassion or political will, but in the cold calculus of power, capability, and consequence. After years of bloodshed, destruction, and stalemate, European leaders increasingly grasp the sobering truth: hard military power has its limits. In this war, force has not produced victory and may never do so. But sanctions, Europe’s go-to instrument in lieu of military engagement, have proven even weaker. Despite wave after wave of economic penalties imposed on Russia—freezing assets, targeting oligarchs, cutting trade—Moscow has adapted.
Faced with this double bind—military impotence on one hand, economic ineffectiveness on the other—some European policymakers have flirted with the idea of escalating their involvement. The suggestion of deploying troops or enforcing a no-fly zone in Ukraine has crept into public discourse. Yet such options bring their own dangers, dangers that many in Europe are not prepared to face. The reality is stark: without the United States, neither NATO nor any coalition of European powers has the muscle to militarily confront Russia directly.
Moreover, sending European troops into Ukraine or deploying aircraft over Ukrainian skies risks a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed state. It is a step that would almost certainly invite retaliation on European soil. The conflict, in other words, would no longer be something happening “over there”—it would be an immediate, domestic reality. And this, more than anything else, is the psychological wall European leaders are reluctant to breach.
This is the heart of Europe’s dilemma: a conflict it cannot win, a peace it cannot broker, and a strategic imperative it cannot fulfill without paying a heavy cost. Until Europe reconciles its ambitions with its capabilities, its message will remain what it is today—resolute in tone, but tragically weak in substance.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
Russian Arctic region under drone attack – governor
RT | June 1, 2025
Russia’s Murmansk Region, located mostly north of the Arctic Circle, is being targeted by drones, local governor Andrey Chibis has said.
Air defenses have been intercepting incoming UAVs in the region, Chibis wrote on Telegram on Sunday.
“Enemy drones have attacked the territory of Murmansk Region,” he wrote.
The governor urged the population to remain calm and report all incidents to the authorities.
Also on Sunday, several drones targeted a military installation in Irkutsk Region, central Russia. Local Governor Igor Kobzev said it is the first UAV raid in Siberia.
The attack occurred in the settlement of Sredny, some 150km from Lake Baikal, Kobzev wrote on Telegram. He added that the drones were launched from a tractor-trailer. “The source from where the UAVs came had been blocked,” he said.
Kiev has significantly intensified drone raids into Russia in recent weeks, targeting Moscow and other regions. Russia has responded by launching a series of large-scale missile and UAV strikes against Ukrainian military-related infrastructure.
Russian officials suggest that the drone incursions are an attempt by Ukraine to derail a US-brokered peace process between Moscow and Kiev. The attacks in Murmansk and Irkutsk regions come a day ahead of a scheduled meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian negotiators in Istanbul, during which the sides are expected to discuss each other’s proposals on ways to settle the conflict.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Behind Closed Doors – The US-Russia Diplomatic Games
Glenn Diesen | May 31, 2025
Fyodor Lukyanov is Chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, a Research Professor at the Higher School of Economics, Editor in Chief of the Russia in Global Affairs Journal, and the Research Director at the Valdai Discussion Club. Prof. Lukyanov outlines how the US and Russian frameworks for ending the war are coming together. Ukraine is incrementally dragged into the format, and the Europeans are ignored as they are seen to be unrealistic and unreliable.
Follow me:
Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
Support the channel:
PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…
Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles…
Featured Video
Alon Mizrahi: ‘Israel Must Be Dismantled’
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Allies Don’t Need Lobbies
By Jay Knott | Dissident Voice | September 24, 2013
In a recent article on Counterpunch, Rob Urie defended the traditional Marxist analysis of US policy in the Middle East. He argues that support for Israel is driven primarily by economic interest, not the Jewish lobby.
He starts by paying tribute to the idea that Western societies are uniquely racist. He says that the “Western narrative” claims there is an “Arab character”, and that this is “antique racist blather”. He gives no definition of these terms. Further, he establishes his credentials as part of the dominant current in the American left by claiming that “over a million people in Iraq died so ‘we’ in the West can drive SUVs.”1
When he tries to criticize bourgeois economics, he makes it clear he doesn’t understand the developments it has made since Marx’s day, using the mathematical discipline known as “game theory”. He dismisses the basic abstraction of economic theory, the idea of the rational individual, on the grounds that it is “devoid of history, culture and political context”. But abstractions are always devoid of something.
He defends a more concrete economic theory, mostly Marxist, with some input from another theorist of capitalist crisis, Hyman Minsky. This concrete theory leads him to the view that US activity in the Middle East is primarily driven by rational capitalist motives, the need to secure a supply of oil.
“Taking the totality of circumstance — former oil company executives launching war on an oil rich nation on a pretext they publicly proclaimed they didn’t believe shortly before taking office — and that upon launching their war proved to be non-existent, requires a willingness to overlook the obvious — that the war on Iraq was for oil, that is difficult to support.”1
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood him, but based on what he says in the rest of the article, this convoluted sentence seems to argue that, because president Bush and vice-president Cheney attacked Iraq on false premises, and they also said it was all about oil, and they are former oil executives, and Iraq has a lot of oil, it’s difficult to deny US attacks on Iraq are all about oil.
In fact, it’s not hard at all. As Urie points out, at times Bush and co. said that attacking Iraq was “protecting the world’s supply of oil.”1 But, as he also points out, they are congenital liars. Why should we believe them when they say they are trying to “protect” the oil supply? Protect it against what? When politicians “admit” attacks on Middle Eastern countries are wars for oil, they are parroting the neo-con party line, feeding the public, both left and right, with a plausible-sounding pretext. For right-wingers, “it’s a war for oil” is a reason to support war, and for leftists, it’s a way to feel better by complaining impotently about corporate greed. Both approaches help the war drive. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Zelensky unnecessarily involves Ukraine in the Middle East crisis
- Turkish tanker blacklisted by Ukraine hit in drone attack – media
- Canada, the U.S., and NATO: the inescapable trap
- Villains of Judea: Leonid Radvinsky
- Alon Mizrahi: ‘Israel Must Be Dismantled’
- Former Head Of MI6 Admits That The U.S. And Israel Are Losing The Iran War
- Scattered Thoughts on War and Peace
- Iran Threatens to Close Red Sea to Shipping in Response to Invasion
- Iran in excellent position to prevail in war with US, Israel: John Mearsheimer
- Iran warns US: Do not call your retreat an agreement
- If Americans Knew
- In the West Bank, life is a constant battle – 3 articles
- Jacob Reses, one of the most powerful pro-Israel operatives in Trump’s Washington
- Israeli-US assaults kill or injure 87 children a day – Not a ceasefire Day 166
- ‘Forever live by the sword’: Understanding Israelis’ massive support for Iran war
- UN’s special rapporteur on human rights says Israel is systematically torturing Palestinians
- Trump White House plagiarized Iran war manifesto from Israel-aligned think tank
- Gaza says 6–10 patients die daily waiting for treatment abroad as Israel blocks medical evacuations
- ‘Substantial evidence’ of double-tap strike in killing of Gaza’s Hind Rajab
- ‘Do Not Want To Die For Israel’: Doubts About Trump’s Iran Strategy Spread Among Troops
- Instead of taking Joe Kent’s claims seriously, the media is disregarding him as an antisemite
- No Tricks Zone
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
- New Study Documents A 20-Year Pause In Arctic Sea Ice Decline – Driven By Internal Variability
- Wake-up Call: Survey Shows Majority Of Germans Now Favor Postponing Climate Targets!
Aletho News 