Ukraine ready for war with China – top MP
Kiev is a “valuable ally” of Washington, Aleksey Goncharenko said while demanding more funding
Ukrainian lawmaker Aleksey Goncharenko at a press conference on Capitol Hill on February 5, 2015 in Washington, DC. © AFP PHOTO/BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI
RT | February 24, 2024
Kiev is ready to assist the US in a war against any enemy, be it Iran, North Korea, or China, a senior Ukrainian MP has said, claiming that his country would prove to be a valuable military ally.
In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Friday, Aleksey Goncharenko doubled down on calls for the US to send Ukraine more military aid amid gridlock in Congress. “[The] United States of America told [us that] we will be with you ‘as long as it takes.’ Now it’s time to keep the promises.”
Goncharenko rebuked US politicians for focusing too much on the looming 2024 presidential election, saying Ukraine should not be a “victim” of this. He also claimed that supporting Ukraine serves Washington’s interests regardless of who wins the race for the White House.
In the event of a future war, the Americans “will need people who will stand shoulder to shoulder with them,” but not many nations would be willing to go all-in to support the US, the lawmaker said.
”Ukrainians are ready… We are ready to stand with the United States shoulder-to-shoulder, either in trenches near Tehran, or in North Korea, or near Beijing. No difference,” he stated. “Because we appreciate your support.”
Despite his plea for more Western military aid, Goncharenko argued that Ukraine has “the second strongest army in the free world” after the US, making it “a very valuable ally.”
“But today we need your support to defend our country,” he added, blaming gaps and delays in arms shipments for the loss of the strategic Donbass city of Avdeevka last week. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the Ukrainian retreat from the heavily fortified city, which was often used as a launching pad to target civilians in Donetsk, turned into a disorganized rout with heavy casualties.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that the capture of Avdeevka is “certainly a success,” adding that it needs to be advanced further.
Last year, Putin claimed that the Ukrainian government was defending the interests of other countries rather than its own, and that the West was using Kiev as “a battering ram” and a “testing ground” against Russia.
“UKRAINE WILL WIN” | No Amount of Propaganda Can Hide the Fact that Ukraine is Winning this War
Matt Orfalea | February 22, 2024
No Amount of Propaganda Can Hide the Fact that Ukraine is Winning this War video by Orf
Twitter ▶ 
/ 0rf
Rumble▶https://rumble.com/Orf
Patreon ▶ 
/ orf
Substack▶https://substack.com/@MattOrf
Locals▶https://mattorfalea.locals.com
Truth▶https://truthsocial.com/@MattOrf
Minds▶https://www.minds.com/MattOrf
Tips ▶PayPal: https://bit.ly/34OWemi
Selecting Syrsky: The Untold Half of the Zaluzhny Story
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | February 23, 2024
There were probably many reasons why Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky fired Ukraine’s popular commander in chief of the armed forces, Valerii Zaluzhny, on February 8, but one of the biggest seems to have been a disagreement over how to go forward in a war that seemed to have overwhelmingly turned against them. Zelensky spoke of a need for “the same vision of the war,” and Zaluzhny said “a decision was made about the need to change approaches and strategy.”
When the war began, Zelensky said that Ukraine “will definitely win” but stressed life over land. “Our land is important, yes, but ultimately it’s just territory.” He said that “Victory is being able to save as many lives as possible. Yes, to save as many lives as possible, because without this nothing would make sense.”
But actions speak louder than words. Zelensky began to define victory as the reclamation, not only of land lost during the war, but of Crimea and all of Ukraine’s pre-2014 territory. Zelensky insisted that Ukraine stay on the offensive. He insisted on moving forward, “Whether it’s by a kilometer or 500 meters, but forward every day.”
Zaluzhny saw Zelensky’s strategy of fighting for Bakhmut and Avdiivka at any cost as a strategic disaster that was costing Ukraine too much in weapons and in lives. Zaluzhny argued for preserving lives over forfeitable territory, lest Ukraine lose its land and its army.
In General Oleksandr Syrsky, Zelensky found the commander who would execute his vision and carry out his orders. Syrsky fought the Battle of Bakhmut. His performance there, and in other battles, gave him the reputation of a commander who is willing to give orders that lead to little real gain and lots of real loss of life. “Some soldiers say his orders are unreasonable, at times sending men to their obvious deaths,” The Washington Post reports. According to The Economist, he “has a reputation for being willing to engage the enemy, even if the cost in men and machines is high.” His reported willingness to put “his men in danger to reach his military goals” has earned him the nicknames “Butcher” and General 200, 200 being the code for a soldier’s corpse. Syrsky is also seen as being a commander who is close to Zelensky and who will not question his orders.
The replacement of Zaluzhny by Syrsky signals Zelensky’s intent to push ahead with the suicidal war of attrition and fight for every inch of land despite the cost in lives.
Aware of the optics of the choice in the public and, perhaps especially in the armed forces, Kiev assuaged the perception of Syrsky as “being indifferent to military casualties.” In his first statement as commander in chief, Syrsky said, “The lives and well-being of our servicemen have always been and remain the main asset of the Ukrainian army.”
But, again, actions speak louder than words. General Syrsky’s first words were about protecting the lives of his men, but his first actions were about fighting for every inch of territory.
On February 11, just three days after the change in command, Syrsky ordered the reinforcement and defence of Avdiivka, a strategic town that faced imminent loss to the Russian army and enormous loss of Ukrainian lives. Zaluzhny would have withdrawn his troops, preserved lives and moved the front to more defensible positions.
Syrsky deployed the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade, one of the best armed and trained and most successful brigades in the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
It did not go well. It went exactly as Zaluzhny said it would, and Syrsky was forced to respond exactly as Zaluzhny had said they should. But now the response was carried out in disarray instead of in an orderly, planned fashion. Perhaps Zelensky should have stuck with Zaluzhny.
In sending in reinforcements instead of retreating, Syrsky said the “goal of our operation is to exhaust the enemy, inflict maximum losses on him.” The opposite happened.
Less than a week later, on February 17, Syrsky announced the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Avdiivka. “Based on the operational situation around Avdiyivka, in order to avoid encirclement and preserve the lives and health of servicemen,” he said, “I decided to withdraw our units from the city and move to defense on more favorable lines…The life of military personnel is the highest value.” That’s exactly what Zaluzhny advised Zelensky to do.
But the situation was worse than at first reported. Zaluzhny would have preplanned the retreat and executed it according to a plan. Zelensky and Skysky’s stubbornness turned the already costly loss into a disaster.
CNN at first reported that “Ukrainian forces are currently conducting a relatively controlled withdrawal from Avdiivka.” There were “indications,” though, “that not all Ukrainian units were able to escape an ever-tightening noose.” Though “the withdrawal was carried out in accordance with the plan that had been developed…a number of Ukrainian servicemen were taken prisoner at the final stage of the operation, under pressure from the enemy’s superior forces.”
Three days later, the situation was becoming clearer. Senior Western officials, The New York Times reported, now say that “Hundreds of Ukrainian troops may have been captured by advancing Russian units or disappeared during” what they now call, “Ukraine’s chaotic retreat from the eastern city of Avdiivka.” The Times was now calling it “a devastating loss.”
And hundreds may have been an understatement. Further down in the article, the Times reports that “soldiers with knowledge of Ukraine’s retreat estimated that 850 to 1,000 soldiers appear to have been captured or are unaccounted for.” There are unconfirmed reports of even higher numbers of dead and wounded.
That may not have happened under Zaluzhny, who long ago conceded that Avdiivka would fall and would have preplanned the retreat. Some Ukrainian soldiers and Western officials say “the Ukrainian withdrawal was ill-planned and began too late,” according to the Times. They say that “a failure to execute an orderly withdrawal, and the chaos that unfolded Friday and Saturday as the defenses collapsed, was directly responsible for what appears to be a significant number of soldiers captured.”
Suddenly, the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade was not assaulting but desperately trying “to cover the retreat.” The retreat was chaotic: “…some units pulled back before others were aware of the retreat. That put the units left behind at risk of encirclement by the Russians.”
But the true story may be even worse. Military analyst Stephen Bryen reports that the disaster may have begun before the reinforcements even arrived at Avdiivka. Some of the brigades Syrsky brought in gathered and organized in the nearby town of Selydove. Bryen says the Russian military discovered they were there and struck with missiles. Between 1,000 and 1,500 Ukrainian soldiers were reportedly killed.
Bryen says that when the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade arrived in Avdiivka, they found a desperate situation. They reportedly discarded Syrsky’s orders and retreated. Some reportedly surrendered. Syrsky then announced the troop withdrawal and the fall of Avdiivka.
Zelensky’s choice of Syrsky over Zaluzhny was, in part, the choice to maintain the course of a war of attrition to hold and retake all Ukrainian territory. Syrsky’s first orders fulfilled that choice in Avdiivka. It went exactly as Zaluzhny said it would but worse because Zelensky and Syrsky tried to defy the battlefield reality that Zaluzhny recognized. Perhaps Zelensky should have stuck with Zaluzhny.
Biden and US media lies about Ukraine are reminiscent of Vietnam War – American Conservative
By Ahmed Adel | February 23, 2024
The American Conservative published an article that parallels the Vietnam War, considered the greatest military humiliation in US history, with what they point out is a campaign of deception carried out by the current US Government, which will lead to a defeat for Kiev and NATO.
According to the author James W. Carden, who served as an advisor on US-Russian affairs at the State Department during the Obama administration, the media campaign regarding Ukraine carried out by the White House was a copy of the actions of successive US governments in Vietnam until the Nixon administration withdrew troops and concluded the intervention in 1973. He relates the Vietnam War with the lies with which President Joe Biden and his collaborators have tried to deceive citizens about the progress of the Ukraine conflict and its origin, among other issues.
These false narratives, the article notes, have been put in place and presented to Americans with the help of the “most dutiful accomplices,” such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, media outlets that, until recent times, published the triumphalist comments of Biden and his administration without any type of questioning, in addition to analysis columns where Russian President Vladimir Putin was demonised and falsely stated that Ukraine was on its way to victory.
This falsification of reality, in which all the complexity of the conflict was eliminated, and the responsibility of the US and NATO in inciting it, was omitted. Instead, they presented the war as a simple confrontation between good and evil, which is similar to the deception that Washington and the establishment media consummated in the 1960s to justify the US invasion of Vietnam, the article states.
Now, notes The American Conservative, as it is “too obvious to ignore” that Russian troops are prevailing in Ukraine, the American media is finally realising what is really happening on the battlefield after having helped prolong the conflict with their lies.
“If we are being lied to about the progress of the war—and we are—what do you suppose are the odds we are also being lied to about the causes of the war?” the author questions.
For US politicians and journalists, the expansion of NATO, Ukraine’s post-Euromaidan nationalist agenda, the refusal to implement the Minsk Agreements, or threats by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made in Munich in February 2022 to acquire nuclear weapons had nothing to do with the outbreak of war, the article ironically states.
“If we are being lied to about the causes of the war, are we also then being misled about what is at stake in eastern Ukraine? Probably. Here the parallel with the government’s mendacity during the war in Vietnam period becomes too obvious to ignore,” Carden continues.
“Recall in the first case that the template, that of the Cold War, is essentially unchanged, even in some of the particulars, not least in the comparisons of (the Vietnamese anti-communist leader) Ngo Dinh Diem and Volodymyr Zelensky to Winston Churchill. The South Vietnamese government (avaricious, corrupt) had the right to American arms by virtue of its right ‘to determine [the nation’s] future,’ the article says, recalling the argument used by the US to justify its war against North Vietnam, which was part of its global operation against what Washington perceived as an expansion of communism that could threaten its interests and hegemony.
The same thing is happening now with Ukraine: President Biden publicly justifies launching a proxy war with Russia with the excuse that it is necessary to stop Moscow, once again invoking the theory of the domino effect, the long-discredited thesis that drove the US interventionist policy during the second half of the 20th century.
Following the publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the philosopher Hannah Arendt observed during the Vietnam War era that “the policy of lying was hardly ever aimed at the enemy… but was destined chiefly if not exclusively, for domestic consumption, for propaganda at home and especially for the purpose of deceiving Congress,” Carden warns.
He concludes his article by saying: “Two years on, we citizens have been serially lied to by the Biden administration and the media about the war’s causes, its stakes, and its progress. The question that should, but of course will not, be addressed in the aftermath of this latest American misadventure abroad is: Will we ever learn?”
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
The Black Sea Straits: Turkey balances between the US and Russia
By Alexandr Svaranc – New Eastern Outlook – 22.02.2024
The territory of modern Turkey has economic-geographical and military-strategic advantages due to its control over the Black Sea Straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles. Control of the Black Sea Straits has always been strategically important to the great powers in world geopolitics and trade.
Great Britain and Russia often clashed over the right to control the Straits. In August 1914, German ships, including the cruiser Goeben and light cruiser Breslau, attacked Russian ports after passing through the Black Sea Straits. This led to the Ottoman Empire joining World War I on the side of Germany against Russia. One of the tasks of the Nazi German Ambassador to Ankara, Franz von Papen, in the late 1930s was to obtain Turkish consent for the passage of German ships through the Straits to the Black Sea to participate in the war against the USSR. Stalin later described Turkey’s policy during World War II as “hostile neutrality.”
In the 19th century, Russia’s successful wars against the Ottoman Empire enabled Russian control over the Black Sea Straits. However, Emperor Nicholas I of Russia, for some reason, decided to let in Britain and France in resolving the fate of the regime of shipping in the Black Sea Straits, while this issue could have become a subject of relations between solely Russia and Ottoman Turkey.
As a result, on July 3, 1841, the Straits Convention was signed in London, with the consent of the Russian Tsar, between Turkey, on the one hand, and Russia, Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and France, on the other. It stipulated that as long as Turkey was not at war, the Straits would be closed to military ships of any nation. During the war, Turkey was granted the right to let ships through the Straits belonging to states with which it wished to reach an agreement. The London Straits Convention in fact buried the decisions of the Russian-Turkish Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi of 1833, according to the secret articles of which Turkey undertook not to allow warships of any European countries to enter the Black Sea. Russia’s political and military positions have been significantly strengthened by the latter.
Following the results of the First World War, the Versailles Conference of the victorious countries again returned to the topic of the Black Sea straits, which continued with long negotiations, sharp discussions and ended with the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne on July 24, 1923, based on a project of Great Britain. The representatives of the Soviet delegation were actually blocked, and the head of the Russian delegation, Vatslav Vorovsky, was not even officially informed about the resumption of the conference and was not allowed to take part in the negotiations (on May 10, 1923, Vorovsky was assassinated in Lausanne by Russian White émigré named Maurice Conradi).
The Lausanne Treaty was signed between Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Turkey. The USSR did not ratify the convention because its terms violated legal rights and did not guarantee the security of Black Sea countries. In particular, this convention provided for the demilitarization of the Straits Zone, with the Straits themselves coming under the control of a special international commission. In other words, the right to station military units near the straits was taken away from Turkey, through whose territory the straits passed. Simultaneously, all commercial and military vessels from any country in the world were granted free passage through the Bosporus and Dardanelles, with only minor restrictions. The latter created problems for the Black Sea countries, especially for the main Black Sea powers – Turkey and Russia.
The events of 1936 in Spain, the growth of Fascist militarism in Italy and Germany reopened the issue of the Black Sea Straits. Britain was concerned about losing control over Turkey, its naval bases, and its broad interests in the Mediterranean and the Arab East, including the restoration of the German-Turkish alliance. Therefore, London considered it appropriate to make concessions to Ankara on the issue of changing the regime of the Black Sea Straits and replacing the International Special Commission with Turkish control, including the abolition of Turkey’s demilitarization in the Straits Zone.
Consequently, following months of discussions, a new convention on the Black Sea Straits regime was signed on July 20, 1936, in the Swiss city of Montreux. This convention is seen as a compromise in international practice. In times of peace and war, merchant ships of all nations were granted the right of free passage through the Straits. Warships of non-Black Sea states are restricted in transit through the Bosporus and Dardanelles by class, total tonnage, total number and period of stay in the Black Sea not exceeding three weeks. In the case of Turkey’s taking part in a war, and if Turkey considers itself directly threatened by war, it is given the right to authorize or prohibit the passage of military ships through the Straits. Accordingly, the demilitarization regime was abolished, and Turkey was granted the right to station its military garrisons in the Straits Zone. The USSR’s demands for limitations on the military presence of non-littoral states in the Black Sea were mostly taken into account. London and Paris obtained the right to adjust the ratio of naval forces between Turkey and the USSR in the Black Sea.
Overall, the Montreux Convention can be viewed as a compromise that helped stabilize the situation in the Straits Zone. The Convention has been extended twice for 20 years. It remains in force as of now. The issue of the Black Sea Straits is currently being discussed in international diplomacy. This is especially true in times of crisis, when relations between major Black Sea countries, such as Russia and Turkey, become contentious.
With the start of the Russian Special Military Operations in Ukraine, hostilities have been resumed in the Black Sea basin waters. The Collective West, led by the United States, is attempting to alter the international legal norms that regulate the passage of warships through the Bosporus and Dardanelles.
According to US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Celeste Wallander, Washington plans to collaborate with Ankara regarding shipping in the Black Sea. The Pentagon spokesperson emphasized the need to create a favorable environment in the region, ensuring that the Black Sea is fully accessible for commercial shipping.
Meanwhile, the United States is attempting to use merchant shipping as a cover to alter the regulations for the passage of non-Black Sea NATO warships through the Dardanelles and Bosporus to the Black Sea. For this purpose, the Black Sea Grain Initiative became a convenient opportunity.
The United States and the United Kingdom assert that Russia’s decision to withdraw from the agreement violates international humanitarian law. They propose the formation of an operational group under the convoy of NATO air and naval forces to transport Ukrainian grain through the Straits to foreign markets.
Retired US Navy Admiral James Stavridis announced in July 2023 that a convoy would be created under the control of the United States or NATO. A year earlier, The Wall Street Journal reported that Joe Biden Administration was considering new rules for the passage and navigation of warships in the Black Sea. The North Atlantic Alliance plans to deploy more military aircraft and ships to the Black Sea, according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
In November 2023, US Congressmen Mike Rogers and Mike Turner urged President Joe Biden to deploy US military forces in the Black Sea to provide military support to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Commander Brian Harrington of the US Navy stated that conducting military exercises outside the scope of the Montreux Convention would undermine Russia’s dominance in the Black Sea. Perhaps these appeals and statements are intended more for the Turkish president.
The British and Norwegians have initiated a program to enhance Ukraine’s capabilities in the Black Sea. However, Turkey refused to allow two Sandown-class minehunters which were conditionally transferred by Great Britain to the Ukrainian Navy in June 2021, to pass through the Bosporus. According to Article 19 of the Montreux Convention, Turkey considers the ships of Russia and Ukraine as belonging to belligerent powers and therefore, they are not permitted to pass through the Black Sea Straits. London officials attempted to pressure Ankara, but were unsuccessful.
As for the warships of the US and other extra-regional countries that used to regularly enter the Black Sea using the right of peaceful passage, Turkey has announced within NATO that it will not allow naval exercises or visits for other purposes as long as the conflict continues. Ankara argues that violating the provisions of the Montreux Convention in the current situation will inevitably trigger retaliatory actions by the Russian Navy, leading to a new military escalation. Despite the dissatisfaction of NATO allies with Turkey’s position, Ankara does not intend to change it, showing the firmness and stubbornness typical of Turks.
The Montreux Convention does not allow the unimpeded passage of warships of non-littoral states in the Black Sea. However, after the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, NATO gained an advantage in the Black Sea. In other words, prior to 1991, all Black Sea countries except for NATO’s Turkey were members of the Warsaw Pact and allies. Right now, the situation in the Black Sea is reversed. Namely, Russia on the one hand and NATO members Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania and the North Atlantic Alliance candidates Georgia and Ukraine on the other.
The US is not a signatory to the Montreux Convention at all and can therefore afford to violate its terms. Every five years since the signing of this convention in 1936, changes to its provisions may be proposed, provided that the initiative is supported by a two-thirds vote of the Montreux signatories. However, currently, all signatory countries except Russia are NATO members, and Japan and Australia are strategic partners or allies of the United States.
In this situation, Turkey’s opinion remains key as it still holds the role of “host of the Straits” under the Montreux Convention and maintains an independent policy. A change in the provisions of the convention would be a change in Turkey’s own status quo in the region. This is obviously not what Ankara wants. Crimea is now under Russian control, which could pose a threat to the same straits.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the Turkish authorities will not change the rules of entrance in the Black Sea for NATO warships under Pentagon’s pressure. However, Russia cannot rely on Turkey’s guarantees forever, as Ankara has shown a willingness to make sudden political reversals.
The US and Turkey are discussing the issue of closing the Bosporus to Russian warships, according to Iranian journalist Hayal Muadzin. In particular, there is information circulating that the US has offered to cede some areas in northern Syria, apparently Kurdish-populated provinces, to Turkey as a gift to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in exchange for active cooperation against Russia in the Black Sea.
In January, Turkey ratified Sweden’s NATO status in exchange for the delivery of 40 modernized F-16 fighter jets from the US. Washington is prepared to address the matter of F-16 Block 70 fighter jets for Turkey. Additionally, Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland stated in Ankara that the US is willing to involve Turkey in the production program of fifth-generation F-35 fighter jets and provide them with a Patriot air defense system. This offer is contingent upon Turkey’s refusal to use the Russian S-400 Triumf SAM system. The Americans may be willing to provide soft loans to support the struggling Turkish economy, but only if Turkey refrains from actively cooperating with Russia in trade and economic matters and strictly adheres to the sanctions regime.
It is evident that Turkey faces numerous temptations. However, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is aware that excessive improvisation towards Russia could jeopardize Turkey’s Great Turan project and its access to Azerbaijan and Turkic countries in Central Asia through the Zangezur corridor. For the time being, therefore, Ankara is trying to keep the “Russian side” of the fence. Turkey refuses to revise the provisions of the Montreux Convention in exchange for the “Swedish case.”
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan confirmed that Ankara will continue to use the Montreux convention and stated that it is not up for debate. With the outbreak of the crisis in Ukraine, Turkey exercised its powers under the Montreux Convention and prohibited the passage of warships through the Black Sea Straits. The Turkish Defense Ministry aims to prevent further escalation of military tensions in the Black Sea basin, especially in the Straits area. The Straits pose not only an economic issue for Turkey, but also a security concern. Ankara has the right to charge for the passage of ships through the Bosporus and Dardanelles, which covers expenses for lighthouses, evacuation, and medical care.
In the rapidly evolving situation of the Ukrainian conflict, it is crucial for the Turks to maintain their key positions. There is a domestic political consensus on this issue: the provisions of the Straits Convention must remain unchanged. Turkey’s accession to Western sanctions against Russia is inadmissible; otherwise, Turkey will lose the opportunity to play a mediating role.
Scholz and Lackeys Dig Grave for Germany
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 21, 2024
They say a picture paints a thousand words, and the one showing Chancellor Olaf Scholz with a shovel in hand merrily digging at the earth speaks volumes about the way he is burying Germany’s economy.
Not just Scholz. The entire coalition government in Berlin is betraying the German people, like satraps for a foreign colonial power. That colonial power is the United States which has occupied Germany with its troops and nuclear weapons for eight decades.
How can the German political class be so abjectly servile and treacherous? Simple. They don’t see it like that. They are so brainwashed by Russophobia and Western imperial arrogance, their pathetic actions are “natural”.
Dressed like an undertaker, Scholz was photographed ceremonially laying the foundations for a new armament factory in Lower Saxony belonging to Rheinmetall, the second German military manufacturer.
Accompanying him was Defense Minister Boris Pistorius who last weekend told the Munich Security Conference that Germany’s military spending should double over the next decade.
This is while the German economy is mired in recession and German workers and their families are struggling to make ends meet. The once mighty German economy, the engine for the whole European Union, is now referred to as “the sick man of Europe”. The way things are going under Scholz’s coalition government, the sick man will soon be dead and buried.
It’s astounding to fathom the self-harm being inflicted by Scholz and his administration. Polls show huge popular dissatisfaction. His Social Democrat Party is hemorrhaging votes as the recent Berlin federal election re-run attested.
The German economy is tanking in large part due to spiking energy costs that have resulted from Berlin toeing the United States’ line of cutting off Russian oil and gas supplies.
German farmers like farmers all across Europe are in uproar over crippling energy bills. They are also incensed by the influx of cheap agricultural produce from Ukraine that the Scholz government has permitted the EU to oversee out of pro-war support for the Ukrainian regime.
Scholz and his ministers are turning Germany into a war-time economy. All sectors of the economy are being cut except military production.
At the foundation-laying ceremony for the new Rheinmetall production plant, the event was televised for the German public. Scholz and Pistorius seem to think they are performing heroic service for the good of the nation. Their delusional disconnect with reality and ordinary Germans’ hardships is truly shocking. The insanity is frightening.
Pistorius and German military commanders have been warning the public that the country might be at war against Russia in the next five to eight years. Such unhinged war rhetoric is the height of irresponsibility. It is criminal.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders have repeatedly stated that they do not want conflict or war with Europe. The Ukraine conflict is a specific problem of a U.S.-led NATO proxy war.
Still, the febrile warmongering that has taken hold of the German political class and the rest of Europe is awesome. Entire national economies are being organized on a war footing.
The notion that Russia is preparing to attack Germany or some other NATO member after it knocks out the NeoNazi regime in Ukraine is wild fantasy to most rational people. But to brainwashed, Russophobic politicians in Berlin (and across the EU generally) such fear-mongering is entertained as reality.
Last week, Scholz hosted the money-grubbing Ukrainian conman president Vladimir Zelensky in Berlin. Zelensky’s regime has lost the NATO proxy war against Russia despite some €200 billion in support and weapons funneled to his corrupt regime over the past two years.
Yet Scholz just signed a bilateral national security pact between Germany and Ukraine. (Britain and France have also signed such pacts.)
As reported on the German pact: “The deal also says that should Ukraine ever be attacked again by Russia, Germany would support the country with swift and sustained security assistance including modern military equipment across all domains.”
What does it mean “should Ukraine ever be attacked again by Russia”? How ridiculous. Russia is at war in Ukraine. The German leaders are foolishly or recklessly signing a warrant for their open entry to war.
How rapidly Berlin has descended into madness. Recall two years ago when Russian forces intervened in Ukraine to quell the NATO proxy war in that country, Berlin was mocked for its caution in only sending “helmets” to aid the Ukraine regime. Two years later, Berlin is sending Leopard tanks, howitzers, and Iris-T missiles. It is now planning to supply long-range Taurus cruise missiles to a regime that has no qualms about bombing Russian civilian centers.
In announcing the latest security pact (war pact) with Ukraine, Scholz bragged that Germany is Europe’s biggest supporter of the Kiev regime.
Berlin has committed to €28 billion in military support for Ukraine, far outstripping the aid from Britain and France. Germany is second only to the United States in the amount of military and financial support it has funneled to Zelensky and his NeoNazi junta.
So much for German prudence and technical efficiency. Berlin is throwing good money down the drain on a war that is being lost badly to Russia with Ukrainian military deaths exceeding 500,000. And yet the wasting of public money keeps on going under Scholz and his loser administration.
The United States covertly sabotaged Germany’s economy by blowing up the Nord Stream gas pipelines from Russia. And Berlin says nothing.
Germany’s industrial base and export-led revenues are decimated by following the U.S. and NATO long-time mission statement of “keeping the Germans down, the Russians out and the Americans in”. And Berlin says nothing.
Scholz and his fellow vassals in government are betraying German national well-being and driving the country to another disastrous war against the Russian people – only 80 years after the last one in which tens of millions were slaughtered.
This betrayal is not just happening in Germany. The entire European Union under the appalling misdirection of former German defense minister Ursula von der Leyen (a scion of a Nazi family) is sacrificing generations of civilians to a dead-end war economy – all driven by Russophobia and total subservience to U.S.-led Western imperialism.
All these pathetic lackeys are digging a grave for Europe – unless citizens rise up against the audacious betrayal by their elites.
Ukraine’s Corruption has Poisoned America
By Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute | February 21, 2024
The U.S. Congress is working towards a bill which would fund Ukraine into 2025. This, of course, is into the next presidential term. As Senator JD Vance recently explained to Tucker Carlson, the idea behind this is that if Donald Trump is again elected it will obligate him to continue supporting Ukraine and bring about an opportunity to impeach him if he does not.
Many have wondered why the U.S. political class is so obsessed with Ukraine, but I believe the answer is simple: money. I used to have a relatively elegant theory of NATO’s grand strategy, developed over a long period of observation, regarding the geopolitics of containing Russia’s sea access. However, since the outlandish and forgotten “Hunter Biden funded biolabs in Ukraine” story of early 2022, something different has become clear: our political class has been driven mad by the wages of corruption in Ukraine. When you look at the way that one ramshackle country has driven our politics both foreign and domestic, it is perhaps a defining feature of our era.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the former Soviet states, already poor from the collapse of communism, became what many have described as a sort of neoliberal hell, with state resources looted by newly wealthy oligarchs and sold to the West for pennies on the dollar. It is generally considered that Russia began to emerge from this as the time Putin took power and confronted some of the oligarchs who then fled the country—seemingly his original sin with the Western powers.
Though Russia remained corrupt, it has still shown a lot of economic growth, whereas corruption has absolutely crippled post-Soviet Ukraine. It was fake concerns about corruption that led the United States to support the so-called “Orange Revolution” of 2004 in Ukraine. However, more cynical observers know such actions are thin excuses for Western governments and financial interests to send hordes of attendants described as employees of “NGOs” to pick a country apart, prevent independent government, and ensure the enormous flow of funds in both directions. Though many genuine experts as well as the conventional wisdom knew it was treacherous for the United States to get involved in Ukraine because of the country’s historic, cultural, and economic ties to Russia, the opportunities for graft were too great to be resisted.
When the United States promoted the “Maidan Revolution” in 2014, they were able to remove a corrupt, pro-Russian president and replace him with a genuine oligarch willing to sell the country to the West. At this point, any sense of caution had completely gone out the window. There was a determination to pull Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit despite Barack Obama’s later admission that Ukraine would always be a core interest to Russia but not the United States.
The late Justin Raimondo wrote a 2017 article entitled, “Adam Schiff: Grifter, Racketeer, Warmonger” which gives unique insight into what has consumed our political class. In a feat of blatant corruption, Congressman Schiff of California had a fundraiser hosted at the house of a Ukrainian-born arms dealer, and then proceeded to call everyone who didn’t want the U.S. taxpayer to buy that guy’s equipment and send it to Ukraine a traitor. This didn’t even become a scandal: as far as I know, only Raimondo even noticed.
The Russiagate hoax which defined much of Trump’s term was when things became even more egregious. Many remember that long-time Trump associate Paul Manafort ultimately went to prison, in part relating to his lobbying for a Ukrainian political party. Fewer remember that the Podesta Group, those reliable Democrat courtiers, also had to shut down over the same thing. In both instances, those men were lobbying for groups seen as “Pro-Russian,” which is to say, both Republicans and Democrats have been profiting off of both factions in Ukraine. Then, of course, there was Trump’s phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky, where he asked him to investigate Hunter Biden’s activities in the country. Trump was impeached over the premise that he threatened to shut off the aid bonanza; even if it was untoward to bring it up regarding the son of a political rival, cooperating on international corruption cases is the sort of thing which governments commonly do.
The broader Hunter Biden scandal is what really showcases the extent to which corruption associated with Ukraine has poisoned our domestic politics for at least ten years. Note that Hunter’s business partner was John Kerry’s stepson, and that family members of the political class and retired politicians commonly do these things. We just learned about Hunter’s activities because he happens to be a whoremongering crackhead. Joe Biden, of course, bragged about getting an anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine fired, directly tying this to their receipt of foreign aid, something much more blatant than Trump’s phone call.
What is more notable is the Hunter Biden biolabs story, which I called “The Mother of All Conspiracy Theories” at the time. Everything was wrong with what was going on there, perhaps most of all that these lunatics couldn’t help but to fund biolabs right near the Russian border while constantly convincing us the whole region was under threat. What else have we still not learned about what our political class has done in this impoverished and deeply corrupt country which has now haunted three consecutive presidencies?
The journalist Lily Lynch recently highlighted an incredible passage that Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most important architects of American power, wrote in his 1998 book The Grand Chessboard. He warned that the biggest fear of the United States should be that Russia, China, and perhaps Iran, form a sort of “antihegemonic” grand coalition based on “complementary grievances” against the United States. He said that no matter how remote this possibility is, our country must display geostrategic skill in Eastern Europe to prevent this from happening. Of course, through extraordinary efforts, our foreign policy class has managed to bring about the exact scenario which Brzenziski feared, despite viewing it as “remote.”
Incompetence doesn’t cover the series of decisions which brought us here, and neither does some grand strategy which is not working out. What has happened is that our rulers saw the perfect morass of corruption in Ukraine and waded in. Ukraine proved an incredible racket where they got paid in Ukraine to lobby for U.S. funding and profit off of the acquisitions in the United States, and then profit off of the corrupt misdirection of the funds and materials when the “aid” arrived in Ukraine. By racketeering, they have burnt the candle at both ends, and it seems that in no time it shall run out of wax and burn everything to the ground.
But damn has it been a good grift, if you were able to get in on it.
Euromaidan Was Part of West’s Proxy War Against Russia – CIA Veteran
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 21.02.2024
Exactly ten years ago, former President Viktor Yanukovych signed an agreement with the Euromaidan opposition to resolve the political crisis in Ukraine. The very next day, the opposition tore up the agreement and seized power by force.
Months of Euromaidan riots ended with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych agreeing to reform the constitution, form a “government of national unity,” and hold early elections in December 2014. The then-Ukrainian president also agreed to pardon rioters and launch investigations into violent acts by law enforcement officials.
Although the agreement guaranteed by the EU powers appeared to be solid, it barely lasted 24 hours: on February 22, 2014, the buildings of the presidential administration, the Verkhovna Rada, and the Cabinet of Ministers were seized by violent protesters. The Maidan leaders appointed Oleksandr Turchynov as head of the Verkhovna Rada in violation of the country’s constitution, effectively ousting Yanukovych.
Speaking to US journalist Tucker Carlson on February 9, 2024, President Putin insisted that the coup was “unnecessary” because Yanukovych had agreed to meet the demands of the Maidan leaders.
Yanukovych went on the air from Kharkiv on February 22, 2014, and insisted that he would not resign: “I am a legally elected president. What is happening is fragrant vandalism and banditry and a coup d’etat,” he said.
Nonetheless, EU leaders openly signaled that they would work with the “new government” of Ukraine, thus destroying the agreements they had previously supported.
Real Puppeteers Were American Policy-Makers
“Officially the opposition was backed primarily by Europeans,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview for a documentary “Crimea: Way Back Home” in March 2015. “But we knew perfectly well that the real puppeteers pulling the strings were our American partners and friends.”
In early February 2014, a conversation between individuals believed to be then-US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and then-US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing the future composition of the Ukrainian government was leaked online. They talked about bringing opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk to power, while keeping Tyahnybok and Klitchko “outside”. In a passage that caused embarrassment to Washington, Nuland was heard to dismiss European partners with the phrase “F**k the EU.”
The scenario described in the leaked conversation came to fruition the same month: on February 27, 2014, Yatsenyuk was appointed as the Ukrainian prime minister. Klitschko was sworn in as mayor of Kiev on June 5, 2014. Tyahnybok stayed out of the de facto Ukrainian government but nonetheless visited the White House and met with then Vice President Joe Biden.
Russia Was the Target
In the wake of the coup, the Ukrainian junta resorted to brutal persecution of their political opponents, promoting an openly Russophobic agenda, and launched nothing short of a war on Donbass civilians who did not accept the illegitimate ouster of Yanukovych.
However, the real target of the US-backed regime change in Kiev was Russia, according to Larry Johnson, a retired CIA intelligence officer and State Department official.
“What I think really, what it boils down to is that the West had simply decided that they wanted to take Russia,” Johnson told Sputnik. “At the core of it, they were looking for a long term strategy to isolate Russia. And the key to this was to get Ukraine into the western camp, to bring Ukraine into NATO, to bring Ukraine into the EU, and therefore to completely isolate, at least they thought they could isolate Russia. Because I think at least there was some recognition in some of the government circles that Russia has enormous wealth, natural resources. And it’s better for us to have it than for Russia to have it. I think it was the attitude.”
How Euromaidan Triggered Ukraine’s Nine-Year War on Donbass
The CIA veteran drew attention to the fact that the Euromaidan coup d’etat “ignited a civil war in Ukraine” and “ended up elevating Ukraine into a frontline priority” for the West.
“So prior to 2014, you didn’t get a lot of NATO exercises, featuring Ukraine. After 2014 Ukraine, even though it was not a formal member of NATO, was regularly featured in these joint annual exercises and that meant that Ukraine then became a proxy for a Cold War,” Johnson said.
“It became a proxy for the West to fight against Russia. And I think that’s why they were slowly building up Ukraine. The annual training was one thing, but also there was the desire, you know, persistent request to send more weapons to Ukraine. Again with nobody sitting back and saying, why? What are we trying to do? They tried to create the myth that it’s Russia that’s trying to attack Ukraine,” the former CIA veteran continued.
For its part, Russia made efforts to stop the bloodshed in Donbass through the 2014 and 2015 Minsk Agreements. The accords envisaged cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front line, release of prisoners of war, and a constitutional reform in Ukraine to grant self-governance to breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.
However, in 2022 former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and ex-French President Francois Hollande admitted that the Minsk Agreements were seen by the West as an opportunity to arm and train the Ukrainian Army.
For his part, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged in an interview with Spiegel in February 2023 that he actually had not been intended to observe the Minsk accords and informed his European counterparts about that. So, the accords were thrown down the drain in the same manner the Ukrainian opposition and the West shredded agreements with Yanukovych on February 22, 2014.
Hostilities Could be Stopped Many Times, West Just Didn’t Want to Do It
There were plenty of opportunities to avoid armed conflicts in Ukraine, highlighted Johnson.
“I mean, all the United States had to do is to say look, we’re not going to expand NATO into Ukraine,” the CIA veteran said. “We will cease conducting annual military exercises with Ukraine. And let’s reopen talks about reigniting the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty, the INF. And let’s begin looking at ways that we can cooperate and work together. But no, it was you know, the threats about the Nord Stream pipeline, for example, that had evolved.”
Russia has always been open to negotiations, President Vladimir Putin told the press on February 20, during a meeting with Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu.
Moscow maintained dialogue with the governments of Poroshenko and Zelensky to implement the Minsk Agreements in order to respect the rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speakers while at the same time preserving the nation’s territorial integrity.
It remains neglected by the Western mainstream press that before launching the special military operation to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine Moscow sought to conclude agreements with the US and NATO to ensure common European security. The draft agreements which envisaged NATO’s guarantees of eastward non-expansion and Ukraine’s neutral status were snubbed by Washington, Brussels and NATO leadership.
Just a month after the beginning of the special military operation, Russian and Ukrainian representatives inked preliminary peace agreements in Istanbul in March 2022. Davyd Arakhamia, who headed the Ukrainian delegation during the March 2022 Istanbul talks with Russia, told Ukrainian broadcaster 1+1 in November 2023 that Moscow was ready to end the conflict if Ukraine committed to neutrality and refused to join NATO. However, it was then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson who encouraged President Volodymyr Zelensky to pick the battle and fight to the bitter end, the Ukrainian politician said.
“When we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said: ‘We won’t sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight’,” Arakhamia recalled.
However, ex-PM Johnson was not alone in derailing the deal. “This war will be won on the battlefield,” European Union top diplomat Josep Borrell tweeted in April 2022, pledging hundreds of millions of euros for Kiev.
The same month, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin claimed that Washington wanted to see “Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done” in launching the special military operation. The US has spent over $100 billion in support for Ukraine’s military effort since then.
“The Western governments don’t want anything good to happen to Russia. They’re not willing to do anything to improve the lives of the Russian people. In my view, it’s genuine evil. And I’m watching this horrific policy that’s implemented by my government and there’s going to be an accounting someday. This is wrong,” the CIA veteran said.
“You know, I could understand it if this had happened 40 years ago when the Soviet Union with the ideology of communism, of Marx and Lenin was dominant. And the attempt to, you know, destroy churches and exclude religion, if that was the case, so, okay, I can understand religious people wanting to rise up and throw that off, but that’s not the case. It’s just the opposite. What we’ve got going on in Ukraine is almost, it’s demonic. It’s satanic. They literally embrace anti-Christian views under the guise of being Christian,” Larry Johnson concluded.
Tucker Carlson Says Boris Johnson Wants $1Mln to Discuss Ukraine Conflict
Sputnik – 21.02.2024
WASHINGTON – US journalist Tucker Carlson said that former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson wants $1 million from him to talk about the Ukraine conflict in the wake of Carlson’s recent interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“It gets out that we’re doing it [interviewing Putin], and I’m immediately denounced by this guy called Boris Johnson … So I put in a request for an interview with Boris Johnson,” Carlson said in an interview with TheBlaze. “Finally, one of his advisers gets back to me and says, ‘He will talk to you, but it’s going to cost you a million dollars.’ He wants a million dollars.”
Johnson’s adviser said the former prime minister would be willing to explain his position on Ukraine for the six-figure fee, Carlson said.
In November 2023, Ukraine’s former chief negotiator with Russia, David Arakhamia, said Johnson talked Kiev out of signing an agreement with Moscow to end the conflict in spring 2022. Johnson has previously denied the accusations.
Johnson could not have traveled to Ukraine without consulting the United States, Putin said earlier this month.
Putin did not request $1 million to participate in an interview, Carlson noted, adding that Johnson is “a lot sleazier” than Putin.
China tells Ukraine it ‘does not sell lethal weapons’ to conflicting sides
RT | February 20, 2024
The Chinese foreign minister has told his Ukrainian counterpart that Beijing remains neutral in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and will not sell weapons to either side. Wang Yi and Dmitry Kuleba met at the 60th Munich Security Conference on Saturday.
The talks were the first high-level encounter between Beijing and Kiev since Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky proposed a meeting with Chinese Premier Li Qiang at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January – a request that was reportedly rejected.
Wang Yi told Kuleba that China will not “add fuel to the fire,” seek to profit from the fighting, or “sell lethal weapons in conflict zones,” according to a readout from the Foreign Ministry. “Even if there is only a glimmer of hope for peace, China will not give up its efforts,” Wang Yi added.
In 2022 the US imposed sanctions on several businesses in China that Washington accused of helping the Russian military. China has refuted US claims that it was considering arming Russia. Ukraine has long been seeking China’s support for a 10-point peace plan, proposed by Zelensky last November, which Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has dismissed as “a senseless ultimatum to Russia, aimed at protracting hostilities.” The plan includes the restoration of Ukraine’s 1991 borders.
Since the outbreak of the conflict in February 2022, China has consistently called for a political resolution, and proposed a peace plan of its own last year, demanding a ceasefire and talks. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the peace initiative presented by China could be taken as a basis for a settlement with Ukraine.
Beijing has resisted Western pressure to impose sanctions on Moscow, while boosting economic cooperation with Russia. Chinese customs data shows that bilateral trade grew 26.6% last year, reaching a record $240 billion.
Canada Announces Supply of Over 800 Drones Worth $95Mln to Ukraine
Sputnik – 20.02.2024
Canada will send more than 800 multi-purpose SkyRanger R70 drones worth over $95 million to Ukraine, the Canadian government said on Monday.
“Today, the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence, announced that Canada will donate more than 800 SkyRanger R70 multi-mission Unmanned Aerial Systems to Ukraine. These drones, valued at over $95 million, will help Ukraine as it fights bravely to defend itself amongst Russia’s illegal and unjustifiable full-scale invasion,” the government said in a statement.
The statement added that since the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine in February 2022, Canada allocated over $9.7 billion in assistance to Ukraine, including $2.4 billion in military aid.
Western countries have been providing military and financial aid to Kiev since the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine in February 2022. The Kremlin has consistently warned against continued arms deliveries to Kiev, saying it would lead to further escalation of the conflict. In April 2022, Russia sent a diplomatic note to all NATO countries on the issue of arms supplies to Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned that any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine will become a legitimate target for Russian strikes.
Ukraine used US-made chemical weapons – Russia
RT | February 19, 2024
Washington and Kiev have violated articles of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) as Ukrainian forces have used illegal munitions on the battlefield, Russian Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov has claimed.
The head of Russia’s Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Protection Forces provided several examples of Kiev’s alleged use of banned chemical weapons and non-lethal chemical agents that he said were obtained from the US.
Kirillov claimed that Ukraine used drones to drop US-made gas grenades on December 28, 2023 containing “CS” compound – a chemical classified as a riot-control tool that irritates the eyes and upper respiratory tract, and can cause skin burns, respiratory paralysis and cardiac arrest when used in high concentrations.
He said the delivery of such munitions by the US to Ukraine was a direct violation of the rules of the OPCW, which states that a country must “never, under any circumstances, transfer chemical weapons directly or indirectly to anyone.”
He also reported that, on June 15, 2023, Moscow’s forces were attacked by a drone carrying a container filled with chloropicrin, which is classified as a Schedule 3 compound under the Chemical Weapons Convention and is strictly prohibited – even for law enforcement purposes. The same chemical was also used by Kiev on August 3 and 11, 2023 near the village of Rabotino, according to Kirillov.
The general also provided several examples of Kiev using toxic substances against Russian military personnel, as well as poisoning high-ranking officials such as the head of Russia’s Kherson Region Vladimir Saldo in August 2022.
Kirillov said Russian intelligence believes that Ukraine’s forces, under the guidance of its Western backers, are developing a new military tactic that would use a “chemical belt.” This would involve blowing up containers with hydrocyanic acid and ammonia to prevent an advance by Russian forces.
He added that plans for such a large-scale use of toxic chemicals were evidenced by the fact that Kiev had asked the EU to supply it with hundreds of thousands of antidotes, gas masks and other personal protective equipment in 2024. That’s in addition to 600,000 ampules of organophosphorus antidotes, and 750,000 bottles of drugs for the detoxification of mustard gas, lewisite and hydrocyanic acid derivatives that were supplied by NATO countries in 2023.
“It is obvious that the volumes requested by Ukraine are excessive for a country that does not have chemical weapons,” Kirillov stated.
There has been no response from the OPCW despite all of this evidence being presented to the organization four months ago, the general said, accusing it of being run by Washington as a tool to target its political opponents.
In November, Russia lost its seat on the OPCW Executive Council after failing to get enough votes from other members of the organization. Kirillov said Moscow was effectively “pushed out” of its seat and was replaced by Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania, who he claimed were pursuing an obvious anti-Russia policy.
Featured Video
Iran Walks Out On Peace Deal Due To Trump’s Threats
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Neocons confess: “We did 9/11-anthrax”
By Kevin Barrett | Press TV | September 6, 2014
As the 13th anniversary of the crimes of September, 2001 approaches, the neoconservatives are shrieking from the rooftops – and effectively confessing that they were the real perpetrators of the 9/11-Anthrax false flag operation. (The neocons, you may recall, openly called for a “new Pearl Harbor” in September, 2000 – and got one exactly one year later.)
Every year at this time, the neocons orchestrate and hype a series of public relations stunts designed to magnify fears of “radical Islam” and reinforce their crumbling 9/11-Anthrax cover story. But this year’s propaganda campaign is so extreme that it represents a tacit confession: The neocons know that the truth about the 9/11-Anthrax operation is slowly closing in on them; so they are over-reacting by desperately trying to stoke the dying embers of the so-called War on Terror, in order to maintain the myth that Muslims (rather than neoconservative Zionists) attacked America in the autumn of 2001.
When a hysterical person exhibits guilty demeanor by trying too hard to blame a crime on someone else, that person is almost certainly the real perpetrator. As the neocons try much too hard to blame Islam for 9/11 and “terrorism” in general, their hysteria inadvertently reveals their own culpability. Like Shakespeare’s Lady MacBeth, the neoconservative movement has blood on its hands and “doth protest too much.” … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- First round of Swiss-hosted Iran-US talks ends with 5 key agreements
- What Is Hay Fever?
- IRAN WALKS OUT ON PEACE DEAL DUE TO TRUMP’S THREATS – w/ Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi
- Moderna’s mRNA Flu Vaccine Gets Unanimous Thumbs-Up Despite Risks, Low Efficacy
- UK Speech Regulator’s Telegram Questions Point Toward Private Chats
- Cuban FM blasts Rubio for ‘chronically lying’ about US fuel blockade
- Al-Jazeera demands punishment for Israeli officials following latest assassination of cameraman
- Iran opens hundreds of legal cases over US, Israeli aggression: Prosecutor general
- Iran delegation protests Trump’s threat at Switzerland talks, weighs ‘proper’ response: Source
- Terms of US capitulation to Iran presage new era for the region
- If Americans Knew
- Gaza baby loses mom and a leg; Palestinian prisoner tortured to death – Daily Update
- JNS Policy Summit to kick off in Israel
- Fatalities From Israel’s Vast Gaza Genocide Deliberately Undercounted
- ‘Reproductive genocide’ in Gaza; death toll in Lebanon tops 4,000 (during a ceasefire) – Daily Update
- Israelis Invaded Lebanon And Then Cried Victim When Their Soldiers Got Killed
- FARA Docs: Israel is Spying On Millions Of Christian Americans In Their Churches
- Why US presidents from both parties end up cursing Benjamin Netanyahu
- Israel Asked Facebook to Censor Iran War Content, Internal Documents Show
- Deaths in Gaza undercounted, possibly by 100s of thousands; “Psychopath” Ben-Gvir talks trash – Daily Update
- UNICEF: “Trauma is woven into the very fabric of childhood in Gaza”
- No Tricks Zone
- THE TRANSCEIVER PARADOX: Why Organoid Intelligence (OI) Could Become Our Ultimate Alien Predator
- German Wind Turbines Face Regulatory Shutdown Due To Excessive Noise
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
Aletho News 