The end of February marks three years since the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine and 11 years since the ‘Euromaidan’ coup of February 2014. The coup was the main cause of the current military conflict.
The war in the now-former eastern territories of Ukraine could have been avoided had two successive presidencies in Kiev (Petro Poroshenko, 2014-2019 and Volodomyr Zelensky since 2019) complied with the Minsk 2 peace agreement of February 2015. Minsk 2 (text here), was agreed by Kiev and the pro-autonomy forces in the Donbass region on February 12, 2015. France, Germany, and Russia co-signed the agreement as guarantors. The agreement was unanimously endorsed by no less than the UN Security Council on February 17, 2015.
Minsk 2 envisioned the return of Lugansk and Donetsk (the two rebellious ‘peoples republics’ of the industrialized Donbass region) to the fold of the Ukrainian constitution, this time as semi-autonomous oblasts (provinces). Kiev also agreed to a neutral status for Ukraine. It could apply for membership in the European Union if it chose, but membership in the NATO military alliance was for Russia a non-starter.
EU membership increasingly became a goal of Western-oriented business interests in Ukraine during the decade of the 2000s. That decade followed 10 years of sharp economic decline following the dissolution in 1989-90 of Soviet Ukraine and of the Soviet Union (USSR, of which Soviet Ukraine was a key constituent).
Tragically for the people of post-Soviet Ukraine, the Western countries, particularly the leading powers of NATO, quietly and deceptively opposed Minsk 2. They worked quietly from the get-go to sabotage the agreement.
Deception of Ukrainians by the West
On February 12, 2025, the deputy secretary of the Russian Security Council, Aleksey Shevtsov, spoke on the ninth anniversary of the signing of Minsk 2, explaining once again to those who would listen that Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine would never have happened had the West honored the agreement. He stressed that the people of Ukraine today have every right to demand an accounting for the deceptions that took place in 2015 and after.
On the same day, the Ukrainian online publication Strana published a lengthy commentary in its Telegram messaging service headlined, ‘Why did the Minsk agreement fail?’ Strana wrote, “Russia says that Kiev deliberately refused to fulfill the conditions of the Minsk 2 agreement and instead proceeded to rearm its army and restart armed attacks against the people of Donbass. The Russian government says it can no longer trust the government in Kiev and so there is no possibility of a ‘Minsk 3’.” (‘Minsk 1’ was a first attempt, in September 2014, by the pro-autonomy forces of Donbass to reach a peace agreement with the new administration in Kiev.)
Strana wrote further, “Russia did not launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2014 or 2015. Perhaps it wanted to, who knows, but it could not do so because it would have been hit with harsh economic sanctions similar to those levied against it by the Western powers beginning in February 2022. It would have faced economic sanctions worse than those initially levied against it following the Crimea referendum of March 2014. The Russian economy was in no shape to easily withstand such sanctions, in contrast to the situation in 2022.
“Additionally, although the Ukrainian army back then was much weaker compared to 2022, this was also the case for the Russian army.”
In their recollections of the events of those years, leaders of today’s Donetsk Peoples Republic (today a constituent of the Russian Federation) say that the main opponent of a major military response to Kiev’s continued military provocations and sabotage of Minsk 2 was the Russian military. Russian military leaders said at the time that the Russian Federation did not have enough combat-ready troops to take on such a large and industrial country as Ukraine.
“From a purely military point of view, the rapid success of Russia in Crimea in the spring of 2014 was due to the fact that Russian troops were already present on the Crimean peninsula [by virtue of a 1997 agreement between Russia and Ukraine; see Wikipedia on the subject]. They needed no time to deploy, and they prevented armed attacks being threatened by the paramilitaries of the new administration in Kiev. At the time, there were no large military formations of the Russian Federation along the lengthy Russian-Ukrainian border. Donbass’s self-defense forces only began to form in the late spring of 2014 and it was several years before they were integrated as auxiliaries of the Russian armed forces.”
As Russian sources stated at the time, the initial military defense that arose in the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts of Ukraine against the paramilitaries of the 2014 coup bore the markings of a military adventure and were not at all coordinated with the political leadership of the Russian Federation. The self-defense forces hoped to convince or pressure Russia to join a war of defense for which Russia was not ready, not politically, economically nor militarily.
What the Western-incited war in Ukraine has wrought
In the lead-up to and since the 2014 coup, western and central Ukraine has been living the fate of a battering ram to be used by the Western imperialist powers to weaken Russia, regardless of the tragic human consequences and of the prospect of Ukraine being cast off once it is no longer needed for such a role. The results of this cruel and heinous policy are increasingly evident as graveyards continue to spread on Ukraine’s territory with each passing day.
The Politnavigator media outlet explained (as reported on Telegram on February 1) the consequences of such policy for the mortals conscripted into war, many against their will. The report cites Anton Cherny, an officer of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. He explains, “We are being lied to about the value of our soldiers’ lives. I watched the speech of our commander-in-chief that every soldier is valuable to Ukraine and worth his weight in gold. That’s what they tell the people, but it’s not true.”
Cherny says that 90% of the soldiers who die or succumb to injuries on the battlefields are simply buried there and then officially listed as missing. “Everyone there knows perfectly well what is happening.” And the indignities do not end there. The families of those reported as ‘missing’ do not receive the financial compensation to which they are entitled.
Cherny also explains that it is extremely difficult for surviving fighters to exit the grim fighting along the front lines. “It’s hard to get out of there by yourself, it’s unrealistic. How lucky it would be if there were fog, very big snow or some other bad weather.” He explains that Ukrainian lines are under constant surveillance from drones flying overhead. As soon as evacuation vehicles approach from the Ukraine side, the drones threaten to strike them, making it very difficult to evacuate the injured or the dead from the various battlefields.
Politnavigator continues its report:
‘The army doesn’t provide guidelines or instructions for soldiers to somehow make their tasks easier. Its words to this effect are just talk. Soldiers are told to go here or there and ‘do’ something, but as to what, where and why, you have to be some kind of superman to figure it out. It’s unreal,’ Cherny says indignantly.
Provoking the sleeping bear of Russia
Radical nationalist and neo-Nazi paramilitaries operating under the control of Kiev’s police and special services waged nine years of military conflict and terrorist attacks against civilians in Donbass from 2014 to 2021. This was bound to provoke a reaction from the Russian Federation sooner rather than later, as any serious commentator knew and reported.
Ukrainian commentators were writing more than three years ago that Kiev’s deployments of paramilitaries in Donbass and its turning a blind eye to their crimes, backed by promises of weapons by belligerent Western governments, would inevitably provoke Russia into responding, as though provoking a bear with a stick. The weapons of Ukraine, many provided by the West, did indeed, predictably, awaken the bear, and angrily.
In early February 2025, the prime minister of neighboring Georgia, Irakli Kobakhidze, told journalists that back in 2022, his country’s then-government was being encouraged by the West to open a ‘second front’ against Russia. The country was to be used just as Ukraine was being used. According to the Kobakhidze, Georgian officials of the day were told a fable by the Western powers to convince them to act. “They said Ukraine is winning the war; you should not miss this chance to strike against Russia.”
Kobakhidze believes it will now take Ukraine 100 years to return to a state of development comparable where it was prior to the 2014. He asks, “Why was all this done? No one is offering a clear answer to this question. However, there is an answer: some global interests, evil interests, have sacrificed our friendly country Ukraine.”
Full-fledged dictatorship
The eleven years that have elapsed since the Euromaidan coup of 2014 have been years of Ukraine sliding inexorably towards dictatorship, all the while accompanied by rosy phrases from EU leaders claiming that a ‘triumph of democracy’ was taking place. The ideology of Nazism from the World War II era has been officially rehabilitated, while opponents of this course have been targeted by armed, ultra-nationalists and neo-Nazis.
All left-wing parties in Ukraine have been banned. Some of their members and leaders have been killed, while many more have been forced into exile. Protests against, and critics of, the ‘pro-European’ dictatorship in Kiev have been targeted for repression. The Western powers have turned a blind eye to the crimes being committed, while United Nations officials have occasionally issued toothless resolutions expressing ‘concern’ about the civil rights being violated.
In 2021, Zelensky banned more political parties critical of his government, and he closed all television channels deemed non-compliant with his policies. No court or other legal reviews of these decisions have taken place.
With the outbreak of war in February 2022, Zelensky imposed martial law and then canceled national elections for the presidency and the legislature (Rada). These were to take place no later than April 2024, according to the Ukraine constitution. Zelensky has said that Ukraine cannot hold elections until it has fully regained control over its former territories. Since this would be impossible to achieve, his statements on the matter mean that for all intents and purposes, elections will not take place in the remaining territories held by Kiev. Period.
Alexander Dubinsky, a former associate of Zelensky jailed by his administration, writes that the war became for Zelensky an escape from the social explosion building up inside the country and appearing inevitable by the end of 2021. “I think this largely determined why Zelensky promoted military rhetoric in every possible way, and why in March 2022 he ceded to Western government pressures to draw back from a political settlement with the Russian Federation.”
For Dubinsky, the end of the war would mean a loss of political power by Zelensky and his cohorts, and this, in turn, would expose them to direct conflict with all the enemies he has managed to make. He may be able to protect himself from the widows and mothers of the deceased, reasons Dubinsky, but not from the violent, ‘serious men’ who have proliferated under his government.
Detention camps using torture methods under Zelensky
Every day, more and more facts are emerging in Ukraine about the detention camps that Zelensky has created in order to sustain its power and continue the NATO proxy war.
In January, legislator Oleksandr Dubinskyy urged Ukrainians to report to U.S. authorities about the detention camps that the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has organized, notably for the purpose of forcing accused conscription evaders to confess to accusations of state treason. According to him, the SBU detention camps are prototypes of what Ukraine as a whole has become under Zelensky.
Dubinskyy has been detained since November 2023 under accusations of financial crimes and treason. He has recently announced from detention his intention to run for president of Ukraine if and when a national election takes place.
Another former associate of Zelensky, legislator Artem Dmytruk, wrote on Telegram on January 30 that the entire special corps of the Lukyanivske pre-trial detention center in Kiev should be called a concentration camp and named ‘Zelensky’s Factory’. Legislators Oleksandr Dubinsky and Yevhen Shevchenko are among those imprisoned there. “90|% of detainees in this center face charges by the office of the expired president Zelensky.”
Dmytruk fled to Britain in August 2024 shortly after he was the only deputy in the Rada to speak and vote against a new law banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, of which he is a subdeacon.
The Ukrainian magazine Liberalpublished a lengthy report in February saying that individuals and political formations connected to the Zelensky administration are the only ones in Ukraine not talking about political repression prevailing today in the country.
The authors claim that extensive political repression was being prepared and carried out well before the start of the Russian military intervention in February 2022. According to the publication, thousands of SBU employees were sent to border regions on the eve of the Russian intervention to monitor troop morale and other measures of the military situation.
At the same time, Kiev began to address its shortages of police and prison personnel in Kiev and other regions by recruiting ‘trained athletes’ into the ranks of the SBU after completing three-month courses in western Ukraine. ‘Trained athletes’ is a euphemism in Ukraine for members of criminal gangs.
“Thousands of bone-crackers performing police functions inside the country spread out without the slightest remorse to beat testimony out of Ukrainians using the most brutal forms of violence and creating torture institutions such as the famous ‘Sports Hall’ on Volodymyrska Street [in the center of Kiev],” writes Liberal.
“People were lying on floors, deprived of the right to move and subjected to constant beatings and humiliation. The Ukrainian anthem and nationalist songs were played continuously from loudspeakers. The eyes of the prisoners would be taped shut with duct tape or tied with rags, and they were taken to the toilet only once a day. They were also fed very sparingly, once per day.”
The authors note that political prisoners now account for about half of the prisoners in Ukraine. The main motives for many SBU officers, Liberal notes, have not been security concerns but the robbery of suspects. Detainees have been forced to surrender their personal wealth upon arrest and detention.
Two reports in English on prison conditions in Ukraine were published in 2024, one by a Danish government agency (110 pages) and one by an agency of the Council of Europe (46 pages). Both reports skirt incendiary accusations such as the one published by Liberal and the many ones appearing widely on social media.
On February 12, a German court for the first time approved the extradition of a conscientious objector to military service who had fled Ukraine. Ukraine prohibits men of military age (age 25 to 55, 60 for officers) from leaving the country. Many of the fugitives from Ukraine’s compulsory conscription have chosen to flee to Germany, attracted by Germany’s claimed liberal values. This court decision is the first warning sign that the authorities of European Union countries may begin to conduct forced deportations of the Ukrainian men who have managed by hook or by crook to escape from their homeland’s military conscription. It is reported that in 2024, there are some 200,000 Ukrainian men residing in Germany alone.
I was late to the sceptical party. For the first 60 years of my life I was largely oblivious to the institutionalised evil operating within our world. Belatedly – since early 2020 – I have begun the painful process of piecing it all together, bit by bit. Much of my time is now spent reading books and online articles penned by authors who realised the egregious activities of our global elite long before my awakening. This ongoing research is an often painful process, not least because it constantly reminds me of my previous gullibility; I have to resist the temptation to abort this mission of discovery and store this new, eye-opening information in the filing cabinet labelled, ‘too difficult to think about’, and never open it again. But, of course, this is no longer a viable option; once some of the horrors have been seen it is impossible to unsee them.
So my journey of discovery must continue.
My world view has evolved, and long-established ‘truths’ in my mind have consecutively fallen like a row of dominoes, each piece’s descent destabilising the next in line. Let me summarise my trajectory into scepticism:
The worst pandemic of the century?
In early 2020, the mainstream media, politicians and the science ‘experts’ repeatedly informed us that a uniquely lethal pathogen was spreading carnage across the world, and unprecedented and draconian restrictions on our day-to-day lives were essential to prevent Armageddon. But I wasn’t buying it. As detailed in a previous post, I quickly formed the view that a momentous event, unparalleled in my lifetime, was unfolding; but it was not primarily about a virus.
The government lies were grotesque and frequent. Under the pretence of ‘keeping us safe’ and the – ominous – ‘greater good’, our basic human rights were trampled upon: prohibition of travel; confinement in our homes; social isolation; closure of businesses; denial of access to leisure activities; de-humanising mask mandates; directives (scrawled on floors and walls) dictating which way to walk; an arbitrary ‘stay 2-metres apart’ rule; exclusion from the weddings and funerals of our loved ones; the seclusion and neglect of our elderly; school shut-downs; children’s playgrounds sealed off with yellow-and-black tape; muzzled children and toddlers; students denied both face-to-face tuition and a rites-of-passage social life; and coerced experimental ‘vaccines’ that turned out to be far more harmful and far less effective than initially claimed. Equally egregious were the strategies deployed to lever compliance with these restrictions, namely psychological manipulation (‘nudging’), pervasive censorship across the media and academic journals, and the cancellation and vilification of anyone brave enough to speak out against the dominant covid narrative. All-in-all, a state-driven assault on the core of our shared humanity.
Prior to the covid event, I believed that Western political leaders – and their state-funded experts – were, broadly speaking, trying to improve the lives of their citizens. In 2020, everything changed; trust in our institutions ceased. If the establishment could tell such blatant falsehoods about a ‘pandemic’, what else are they lying about?
Are we really spiralling towards climate Armageddon?
In the 1970s, I recall being told that planet earth was cooling down and we were all at imminent risk of hypothermia. Over recent years, the narrative has shifted and we are now told ‘human behaviour is unequivocally warming our planet’, ‘a code red for humanity’, and ‘there is nowhere to hide’. According to Antonio Guterres (Secretary General of the United Nations), the weather has become a ‘weapon of mass extinction’.
But are we really spiralling towards a climate emergency?
My scepticisms about the veracity of the dominant climate-apocalypse story were accelerated by a key observation: just as a lucrative and extensive pandemic industry were profiting from the enduring myth that we were all at increasing risk from future deadly viruses, a similarly bloated money-making infrastructure had grown around the premise of an imminent climate catastrophe. When the livelihoods and statuses of experts are directly dependent upon maintaining a dominant ideology – be it a looming plague or a boiling planet – these ideologies will be highly resistant to erosion, and those challenging these doom-ladened stories are likely to be labelled as heretics.
And the perusal of a few relevant statistics raises major doubts about the dominant climate narrative and its forecasts of pending weather-related disasters. Hasn’t the climate always been changing since the time of Adam and Eve? What about the fact that there has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of storms? And the number of people who lose their lives to temperature extremes, or who are affected by floods, has reduced; life expectancy has increased; and the number of people living in poverty has fallen. So how do these observations fit with Guterres’ climate catastrophe prediction?
Also, why are our politically elite impoverishing us all by waging war on carbon dioxide? Historically, hasn’t this ‘greenhouse gas’ constituted a much higher percentage of our atmosphere than the current miniscule 0.04%? Is it not true that all plants and vegetation depend on carbon dioxide to grow and flourish? And don’t increases in carbon dioxide concentrations follow temperature rises rather than preceding them?
The reality is that there is little evidence of ‘climate impacts’ and no evidence of a ‘climate crisis’. The alarmist predictions – from Antonio Guterres, and many others – seem to be based on ideology rather than objective evidence. In a striking parallel with the covid event, the primary risk to our health is not from the purported source of danger (climate), but from the subsequent global policies that are impoverishing us all. And – predictably – the state-funded behavioural scientists (‘nudgers’) are deeply involved in this manipulative exercise.
Further truths begin to wobble and fall
Following the indisputable covid scam, and my growing recognition of the gaping holes in the imminent climate-catastrophe narrative, I have begun to question the veracity of the official accounts of many world events, both ongoing and historical.
For example, is the enduring war in Ukraine directly a result of the evil Putin’s expansionism, as we in the West are repeatedly told? Or is it more to do with the NATO warmongers who apparently feel obliged to keep prodding the Russian bear with threats that countries on their border will soon be welcomed into the alliance?
In April 2018, did the Syrian government really use chemical weapons on its own people in Douma (a suburb of Damascus), or was it a ‘false flag’ incident, concocted by the governments of the US, UK and France so as to legitimise the subsequent bombing of the region (aka the ‘War on Terror’)?
Pre-covid, even I believed that the assassination of J.F Kennedy in 1963 was not the exclusive work of lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald; more recent readings have confirmed that – unless a single bullet can defy the laws of physics and perform a couple of 90-degree turns – the CIA facilitated the execution. Furthermore, I now think that the recent attempts to eliminate Donald Trump – that pesky, uncontrollable president-elect – were likely to have involved elements of the deep state.
As one becomes increasingly aware of the depths of depravity to which actors within an unelected global elite are willing to sink, one even starts to question the official 9/11 narrative, of how, in 2001, four hijacked planes were used as guided missiles to hit the World Trade Centre (New York). In-depth analyses of the evidence by physicists, structural engineers and other scientific experts have concluded that all three skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolition – indeed, one of the three towers to collapse was not even hit by a plane, a fact largely ignored by the media and the official (inhouse) inquiry. A month following the 9/11 horrors, George W Bush led a long sought-after invasion of Afghanistan supported by an international coalition, once again raising the suspicion that the destruction of the World Trade Centre was another – evilly grotesque – false-flag event.
Is the 5G network making us sick? Are state-funded geo-engineers deploying weather manipulation techniques (such as cloud seeding) on a far greater scale than is officially acknowledged? On the 20th of July 1969, did men really walk on the moon? Is the world indeed flat? … … But perhaps my imagination is running away with me.
Is there anyone left to trust?
As I continue to dig for information to clarify what is really happening in the world, a nagging thought intrudes into my mind: can I trust the veracity of what I’m reading and hearing?
As each week goes by, more people are – understandably – questioning the reliability of the outputs of official government sources. Throughout the covid event, ministers and civil servants parroted the globalist narrative of a rampaging plague and ‘safe and effective’ vaccines. Irrespective of the reasons for their distortions (group think, gullibility, or corruption), those that still believe the utterances of our elected politicians and their ‘expert’ advisors constitute a rapidly shrinking demographic. Furthermore, an escalating number of folks are realising that many of our academics are conflicted, the future of their research departments, and often their career progressions, dependent upon recurrent funding from Big Pharma, Bill Gates and billionaires pushing a green agenda. Meanwhile, NHS public health specialists seem to have lost the propensity for independent thought, mindlessly following protocols set by global organisations. And state sponsored behavioural scientists amplify the power of the official messaging, seemingly without regard for the validity and consequences of these communications.
Beyond our national border, the high-profile mouthpieces become even less trustworthy. Ideologically driven, globalist agendas underpin the bulk of the outputs emanating from the World Health Organisation, the World Economic Forum, the European Union and the United Nations. One glaring instance of the ideologically corrupted outputs of global organisations was the WHO flip-flop on masks in summer 2020, when ‘political lobbying’ led to an abrupt reversal in the WHO’s view of the (in)effectiveness of face coverings in reducing viral spread.
As for the legacy media – purportedly the ‘fourth pillar of democracy – it seems hardly worth repeating the claim that they simply regurgitated the dominant narrative throughout the covid event and currently peddle the ongoing climate-catastrophe story. The BBC effectively function as a government mouthpiece, aided and abetted by ITV, Sky News and Channel 4.
How reliable are those who question the dominant globalist narrative?
While it is now clear that we can confidently tag almost all mainstream mouthpieces – government agencies, global organisations, academics and journalists – as unreliable, how much trust can we have in the integrity of alternative sources of information? Are the voices that are openly critical of the dominant mainstream narratives to be believed? My answer to these questions would be, ‘not always’. And there are two main reasons for this conclusion.
First, there is the potential for what is often referred to as ‘controlled opposition’: those that pretend to oppose the mainstream narratives while covertly serving the establishment, thereby appeasing the masses by fallaciously giving the impression that there is some meaningful resistance to the dominant globalist agendas. Although I believe (as discussed in an earlier article) that the term ‘controlled opposition’ is bandied around far too easily, such entities undoubtedly exist within the ubiquitous network of state-generated propaganda.
Second, we must never forget that there are multiple perceptual biases in each of us; no human being views the world in a totally objective way. Once an individual forms a strong belief – irrespective of whether it is a dominant-narrative or sceptical one – that person no longer construes the world impartially, their memories, focus of attention, and inferences all being biased in favour of maintaining existing perspectives. Furthermore, we all routinely resort to cognitive short cuts (‘heuristics’) as we navigate our complex social and physical environments, the conclusions we draw informed by snap judgements that are often mistaken.
The ubiquity of these thinking errors means that NO ONE can be impartial in perceiving, and relaying their views about, what is going on in the world. My own take on world events is shaped by bias and distortions. Similarly, my sceptical allies will be less than 100% reliable as sources of information; anyone who confidently claims to have sussed the machinations of life on this planet, to have figured out what’s going on, and to be thereby expressing an accurate account – the definitive truth – about the use of state power to control the masses, is mistaken.
So is the seeking of the truth a futile exercise?
Given that we are all treading water in an ocean of misinformation – much of it generated by government institutions and mainstream media – is my journey of discovery a pointless endeavour? As no source of information will be 100% accurate (due to corruption, censorship, propaganda, psychological manipulation, and the distorted lens of fallible humans) should I, and others, stop trying to learn more about what’s going on?
Definitely not.
While we cannot rely on any mouthpiece to provide a perfectly factual account of what is happening in our communities, what we can reasonably expect is for commentators to display integrity and honesty when giving their takes on the world around them. Thus, we should strive to identify information sources that are not on the payroll of vested interests, voices who appear to gain nothing (and potentially risk a lot) by speaking out against the dominant narratives, and those who genuinely strive to access evidence from all shades of opinion.
Taking all of these factors into consideration, which sources of information do I currently listen to and respect? The medical doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, psychologists and well-informed laypeople, who collaboratively opposed the dominant covid narrative from the outset, definitely fall into this category of trusted sources; this alliance would include my colleagues in the Health Advisory & Recovery Team (HART), my Smile Free associates who fought (and continue to fight) the mask mandates, and all those active in the Together movement to retain our individual freedoms. For similar reasons, I always actively consider the viewpoints of media people such as Neil Oliver, Bev Turner, Sonia Poulton and Joe Rogan. Although I do not always agree with every aspect of their pronouncements, I believe their words derive from a place of integrity. Also, I have a small network of sceptical friends – drawn from across the span of the ‘left-right’ political spectrum – whose observations, and opinions, I value. Anything I read or hear from other sources I approach with caution and incredulity.
I have described some of the main mouthpieces I rely on when it comes to piecing together what is going on in the world today. (There are many others with similar credentials). While they, inevitably, will all display the universal perceptual biases that are inherent to the human condition, I am confident that no one on this list of my trusted messengers is compromised by additional layers of bias deriving from financial or vocational conflicts of interest. For the near future, these sources of information will be highly influential in shaping my understanding of the forces behind the global technocratic authoritarianism we are all having to endure.
Back in September 2022, President of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen gave a speech during the State of the Union Address. At the time, she said the following:
“Europe’s solidarity with Ukraine will remain unshakeable. From day one, Europe has stood at Ukraine’s side. With weapons. With funds. With hospitality for refugees.
Russia’s financial sector is on life-support. We have cut off three quarters of Russia’s banking sector from international markets. Nearly one thousand international companies have left the country. The production of cars fell by three-quarters compared to last year. Aeroflot is grounding planes because there are no more spare parts. The Russian military is taking chips from dishwashers and refrigerators to fix their military hardware, because they ran out of semiconductors. Russia’s industry is in tatters.
It is the Kremlin that has put Russia’s economy on the path to oblivion.
The same is true for our financial support to Ukraine. So far Team Europe have provided more than 19 billion euros in financial assistance. And this is without counting our military support. And we are in it for the long haul.”
Fast forward to January this year and here’s what the new NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had to say at the EU Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs and Subcommittee on Security and Defense:
“When you look what Russia is producing now in three months, it’s what all of NATO is producing from Los Angeles up to Ankara in a full year.”
To better understand the sheer dichotomy of these two statements, here’s a video of both saying it out loud. For the last three years, all of us “conspiracy theorists” from truly independent media (not USAID-style “independent”) have been talking about these disparities between reality and endless myths facilitated by the mainstream propaganda machine. This also explains why we have been able to predict outcomes with far greater precision than anyone in Western media.
The reason for this is that we deal with facts, whether anyone likes them or not, and then we use scientific methods to come to viable conclusions. On the other hand, the political West created a massive echo chamber of endless self-quoting while engaging in the so-called “fact-checking” in an attempt to flag any information that’s not within their ludicrous narratives.
However, NATO still insists on the same long-debunked self-serving myths and outright lies. Namely, Rutte also said that “Russia is not bigger than the Netherlands and Belgium combined as an economy, the two of you together is the Russian economy, and they’re producing in three months what the whole of NATO is producing in the year”. When one claims that the economies of Belgium and the Netherlands are of the same size as Russia’s, it means they either have extreme difficulties with basic understanding of anything or are simply engaged in the most laughable propaganda in recent memory. Namely, Rutte is obviously referring to the nominal GDP, a metric that is often used by the political West to pat itself on the back by waving papers “proving” its supposed “economic superiority” over the entire world.
However, in an analysis of recent Russian military reforms and the resulting budget, I’ve argued that Moscow’s actual defense spending exceeds the equivalent of half a trillion US dollars. How else could one possibly explain Russia’s ability to not only defeat NATO’s crawling “Barbarossa 2.0”, but to also outproduce the world’s most vile racketeering cartel by three or even four times? Who in their right mind could believe that an economy the size of Benelux can outpace the production economies of a billion people living under NATO occupation? What’s more, Rutte himself admitted this indirectly by saying that “when you compare Russian numbers, what you can buy in Russia for the same money is, of course, much more”. He still attributed this to “our high salaries” or “our [massive] bureaucracy”, but conceded that “[Russia] can move at a higher speed”.
Rutte still insisted that the Kremlin “basically created a war economy” and that “the whole industry is now on a war footing”. However, this is not true. Russia is still maintaining a robust economic production, while Russian society is not as affected as the political West claims. All state institutions continue to function as usual, while economic activity is booming, as the sanctions siege resulted in the creation and/or growth of entire industrial sectors that either didn’t exist at all or were fairly small. The Russian market is the single largest in Europe and one of the largest in the world. Its needs didn’t just vanish into thin air when the US and EU/NATO launched their economic siege. Moscow’s carefully implemented import substitution programs have resulted in a massive boost for the domestic production economy.
The results have been staggering, to say the least. In just a few months of 2023, Russia overtook both Germany and Japan, becoming the fourth-largest economy in the world, which is perfectly in line with its ability to counter the entire political West. In addition, throughout 2024, it consistently outpaced both the US and EU in economic growth, despite waging a defensive war against NATO aggression.
Rutte himself confirmed this (albeit not without infusing more laughable propaganda) by saying that NATO “shouldn’t compare [Russian] 8% or 9% defense spending, 1/3 of the 8% or 9% of GDP, 1/3 of the whole state budget being spent on defense”, also adding that “when you cobble it all together, it might be less than what the European NATO is doing, but again, you can buy so much more, do so much more”.
This “much more” results from genuine differences between nominal and real GDP, but nobody in NATO will ever admit this publicly, as it would destroy their endless propaganda narratives. The entire notion of the “superior West” would collapse like a house of cards, which would rattle up the already disturbed North American and European societies. What’s more, even the strategic unity of the political West hangs in the balance as the new Trump administration is looking to either eliminate or drastically reform all Deep State-aligned institutions, be it domestic or “international”. In the case of the latter, this includes both NATO and the EU (as its geopolitical pendant). To that end, Washington DC is trying to appease Moscow, with Trump even saying he wants to ease the official UN General Assembly rhetoric about the “unprovoked Russian aggression”.
The obvious goal of this is to slow down the definite formation of a multipolar security architecture that would prevent the political West’s aggression against the world. However, while Russia and its leadership certainly welcome the defusing of tensions between the world’s two most potent military powers, it’s simply impossible that Moscow would ever sacrifice its role as one of the leaders of multipolarity for the sake of the US/NATO. That train left the station well over a decade ago.
America is Russia’s strategic adversary and this fact won’t change any time soon (if ever). However, if this confrontation between the two superpowers can be controlled to avoid a direct world-ending war, the Kremlin will certainly embrace this idea. It would be best for the entire political West to do the same (provided it really wants to survive).
As for the results of the special military operation (SMO), there have been analyses for the occasion of the two previous anniversaries. Among the things debunked in one of those is the myth that Russia wanted to “take Kiev in three days”, based on statements by former US top general Mark Milley.
However, while this claim sounded completely unrealistic, what would seem even more unlikely is that the Kremlin could inflict a crushing strategic defeat on the entire NATO in just three years. Well, it seems that’s precisely what we’re witnessing now. Moscow tried its best to resolve these issues diplomatically, but the political West understands nothing but the language of force. After centuries of barbaric aggression against the world, it seems it has completely lost touch with the civilized ways and is suffering the consequences.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
The Ukraine conflict was “provoked” and it is wrong to solely blame Russia, Steve Witkoff, a senior adviser to US President Donald Trump, has said. Moscow had to respond to a security threat created by the West’s promises to accept Ukraine into NATO, he stated.
Witkoff made the remarks in an interview published by CNN on Tuesday, in which he was asked whether Washington was choosing the right side by holding talks with Moscow instead of continuing to funnel aid to Kiev.
The situation is not black-and-white, with Russians being “the bad guys,” Witkoff told CNN’s Jake Tapper.
“The war didn’t need to happen, it was provoked,” he added. “It doesn’t necessarily mean it was provoked by the Russians.”
According to Witkoff, “there were all kinds of conversations… about Ukraine joining NATO” prior to the conflict that were treated by Moscow as a direct threat to its security and prompted it to respond.
The US official also spoke about Russia’s readiness to swiftly end the conflict through negotiations, pointing to the talks held in Istanbul in the spring of 2022, shortly after Moscow began its military campaign.
The peace process came to an abrupt end in May of that year when Kiev withdrew from the talks after then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged it to continue fighting.
Russian officials “have indicated that they are responsive” to ending the conflict by engaging in “cogent and substantive negotiations” in Istanbul, Witkoff said, adding that the two sides “came very, very close to signing something.”
The Türkiye-facilitated Russian-Ukrainian peace talks in 2022 resulted in a preliminary agreement for a treaty that would have seen Ukraine become a neutral nation with a limited military, backed by security guarantees from major world powers, including Russia.
According to Witkoff, the preliminary Istanbul agreement could be used by Washington as a framework and a “guidepost” for a future peace deal.
Last week, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky described the Istanbul talks as “an important reference point and the platform where the parties came closest to an agreement.” He also named Türkiye an “ideal host” for potential negotiations between Kiev, Moscow, and Washington.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly referred to the Istanbul agreements as a potential basis for any future peace deal with Kiev.
For the first time since the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine in 2022, the US has refused to cosponsor a United Nations General Assembly resolution put forward by Europe and Kiev, saying it will instead propose its own resolution.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on his X account that on February 24 (the anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war) his country will submit to the UNGA a resolution on the settlement of the issue.
“The US will propose to the United Nations a landmark resolution the entire UN membership should support in order to chart a path to peace.”
A statement from the US State Department attached to the announcement said that US President Donald Trump is seeking “a resolution to the conflict that would ensure long-term peace.”
According to the US State Department, the resolution is consistent with Trump’s position, and with the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes enshrined in the UN Charter.
According to media reports, the language of the resolution has been significantly softened towards Russia compared to the wording used in earlier documents.
For the first time since the start of the military operation, the resolution does not describe Russia as the original aggressor.
The text of the document expresses grief over the tragic conflict and calls for a speedy end to it.
It “reaffirms the urgent need to end the war this year and redouble diplomatic efforts to reduce the risks of further escalation and achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace on the Ukraine.”
In response to years of military and political provocations by the US and European countries, Russia began its special military operation in Ukraine in 2022.
Russia has managed to gain control of a fifth of Ukraine and has been slowly advancing in the east for months. Ukraine’s military, supported by the US and European countries, grapples with manpower shortages and tries to hold a chunk of territory in western Russia.
Russia has demanded an end to the West’s military and political provocations on its borders and Ukraine’s permanent neutrality under any peace deal. Ukraine on the other hand has demanded Russia’s withdrawal from the captured lands and wants NATO membership.
There has been considerable controversy surrounding the Trump administration decision to cutback on government agencies that are ostensibly committed to charitable, educational and other nation building activities both overseas and in the United States. This spending, amounting to scores of billions of dollars, has helped produce budget deficits that ballooned in the twenty-first century, largely due to the surge in overseas activity that occurred after the trauma of 9/11 when the United States decided that it had to serve as policeman for the rest of the world to make itself safe. As the US is now verging on bankruptcy due to its unsustainable debts, the second incarnation of the Trump Administration has focused on cutting budgets in areas that it considers to be enemy occupied, often meaning “woke” or institutionally allied to the Democrats. Social programs as well as the bloated defense department spending were considered to be suitable targets so starting during the first week in February, the White House brought down the hammer when it went after a number of government agencies, inter alia calling for huge cuts in Pentagon spending and the complete elimination of the Education Department.
The White House also shut down the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), firing nearly all of its 10,000 employees, reportedly leaving only little more than 600 employees in place to assist in the shutting down or downsizing of facilities in the US and in foreign countries. Also, about 800 awards and contracts that are administered through USAID were reportedly being canceled. There have reportedly been some judicial delays in the firings due to the complexity of removing thousands of employees and families from overseas offices and housing, though the pause is likely to be only temporary.
Tax dollars are traditionally used corruptly to fund projects and policies dear to the hearts of politicians, which is why Ron Paul and others have called for sweeping audits, including of the Federal Reserve system and the Pentagon in particular. This hidden spending is particularly difficult to identify if the program is somehow linked to foreign policy and/or national security, which have traditionally been protected from scrutiny by denying nearly all public access to sensitive information based on the “need to know” principle to safeguard sources and vulnerable activities.
USAID was founded in 1961 during the John F. Kennedy administration to unite several foreign assistance organizations and programs under one agency. At first it was seriously intended to be a mechanism for the US to aid in health, disaster relief, socioeconomic development, environmental protection, democratic governance and education. Its focus, however, eventually became to guide development in parts of the world that suffered from what were considered to be dysfunctional governments and institutions in terms of American interests. USAID has always been funded by the federal government and its upper management has worked closely with the Department of State, to which it is technically accountable, and the intelligence agencies in particular. Its budget in 2023 was $43 billion. Trump’s reduction in force (RIF) of USAID has been accompanied by a shake-up in its management, its remaining responsibilities now being in the hands of the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has considerable experience in special agency management after having served on the Board of the National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) Republican subsidiary component, the International Republican Institute (IRI). NED, which operates extensively overseas, has also been stripped of funding by Trump.
The dismantling of USAID does not necessarily mean the organization will completely go away, it will just be much reduced and under new management. It will likely have a new mission, though no one is at this point sure what that will mean. And USAID and NED are not alone as the presidential memo has called for a halt to the funding of all the government components that are dependent on taxpayer generated funds to provide what is perhaps euphemistically referred to as “foreign aid.” USAID and NED do have humanitarian projects, i.e. feeding the hungry, but they are primarily politically driven. The NED component IRI puts it this way on its website “Our mission at IRI—advancing democracy worldwide—is a battle with many fronts. I am proud to say that IRI is supportive of every endeavor that will bring freedom to more people. We have made progress in our mission by giving hope to those who wish to protest on a city street, run for office, or cast a ballot.”
So the aid organizations overtly have a political role, but how does it translate in practice and does it extend to playing favorites with the US media and political parties? Trump has put it another way, declaring that USAID leaders were “radical left lunatics.” This is what he claims on his website Truth Social:
“LOOKS LIKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN STOLEN AT USAID, AND OTHER AGENCIES, MUCH OF IT GOING TO THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA AS A ‘PAYOFF’ FOR CREATING GOOD STORIES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS. THE LEFT WING ‘RAG,’ KNOWN AS ‘POLITICO,’ SEEMS TO HAVE RECEIVED $8,000,000. Did the New York Times receive money??? Who else did??? THIS COULD BE THE BIGGEST SCANDAL OF THEM ALL, PERHAPS THE BIGGEST IN HISTORY! THE DEMOCRATS CAN’T HIDE FROM THIS ONE. TOO BIG, TOO DIRTY!”
There are, in fact, credible reports that the 2019 impeachment of Trump was driven by the actions and disinformation coming from CIA, FBI and USAID operatives, so it is plausible to assume that Trump is now settling scores. Beyond that, USAID and NED are both notorious for their roles in the business of covertly supporting opposition political parties worldwide and assisting in regime change. Billionaire philanthropist George Soros, through his network of organizations, received $260 milllion from USAID for funneling funds to non-governmental-organizations (NGOs) connected with Soros’ Open Society Foundations, which are known for advocating for radical policies and regime changes globally. Soros is also a Democratic Party favorite and major fund raiser, having recently received at a White House ceremony the honor of the Presidential Medal of Freedom presented in absentia to his son Alex from outgoing President Joe Biden.
As a result, both USAID and NED have been banned from foreign countries, including Russia, due to their meddling in local politics. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who was often a target of USAID activity, immediately thanked Trump for his decision to cancel USAID. Both USAID and NED were deeply involved in Eastern Europe. Former Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland has revealed that the aid agencies were deeply engaged in the multiple source $5 billion dollar multiyear US “investment” in Ukraine that culminated in regime change in 2013 and led to the current war with Russia. In government circles it has frequently been asserted that USAID and NED and other such organizations now do what the CIA used to do routinely in terms of regime change between its founding and the 1990s.
One might suggest that recent US governments, operating through their various subsidiaries like USAID and NED have been funding just about everything to control a world community in line with American interests. Mainstream media worldwide that is directly or indirectly funded reportedly includes journalists, news outlets, and activist NGOs and sites – and that’s just through USAID. That would appear to include Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, The Guardian, NBC, CNN, NPR, NYT, Politico, PBS, The Financial Times, The Atlantic, The Daily Telegraph, as well as much more media in the developing world. The anti-China hysteria media “ecosystem” currently depends on US government funding, and is already complaining about the impending shutdown of USAID support. To cite only one example of how it is packaged, Reuters news service has received millions in funding from the US government specifically for “active social engineering.”
Labor unions are also funded by USAID which is also behind the recent political unrest in Slovakia. It has also paid for multiple coup attempts in Venezuela, funded high profile trips for Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky to improve his image and popularity, and funded al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria to successfully overthrow the government in Damascus. Going back to Trump’s first term of office, it is interesting to observe that most of the “aid” to opposition parties to overthrow Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela was delivered during 2019, so Trump, guided by hardliners John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, was not at that time shy about regime change. In fact, Voice Of America (VOA), which often served as a CIA mouthpiece, even reported that Trump had tripled aid to opposition figure Juan Guaido to $56 million. Those asking themselves why Trump has now decided to “oppose” the very semi-covert agency that he’s also been using for regime change have a point, but it might be appropriate to see the shakeup as a warning against government information, law enforcement and intelligence agencies again becoming tools of the Democratic Party politicians.
Defenders of USAID are arguing that the agency is being maligned, that in addition to its political profile it is heavily engaged in promoting health and wellness worldwide. The head of USAID under Joe Biden was the highly controversial and very much “woke” Samantha Power, who claims somewhat disingenuously that the agency budget of $38 billion in 2023 included something like $20 billion in spending that should appropriately be described as humanitarian. Those who are the recipients of the programs, mostly in the third world, will consequently suffer from the defunding of aid. If that is actually so, it perhaps would make sense to roll such programs into a mechanism that would not be tied to regime change and corruption of local governments and media.
There is some question even in Congress concerning whether there will be a new centralized aid agency and what it will be called or do now that it has been reduced in size and will likely have a tiny budget relative to what it once enjoyed. It is early days and the answer to that question will likely emerge before too long, but it should be pointed out that at no point has Rubio or anyone else in the Trump administration actually condemned aggressive US engagement abroad or claimed they will bring it to an end. The State Department has even officially said the only goal is to ensure the good things that USAID did will continue by “advancing American interests abroad.” Given some of the recent aggressive positions taken by the Trump Administration over Gaza, Panama, Canada, Mexico, Iran and Greenland as well as the tendency on the part of its top officials to increase pressure on perceived adversaries, it may be that the US isn’t changing course at all. It quite plausibly might be doubling down, and organizations like USAID and NED, even if their names, roles and leadership change, will likely be integral to that process.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
European countries are not capable of sending 200,000 troops to Ukraine as demanded by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said Italian General Giorgio Battisti in an interview with Corriere della Sera newspaper. The burden of supporting Ukraine is put on Brussels since US President Donald Trump has already begun the process of ending American contribution to the hot war, but the European Union does not have the military or economic might to support the country alone.
The former commander of NATO Rapid Reaction Force and current chairman of the Military Commission of the Italian Atlantic Committee said that sending 200,000 troops to Ukraine would imply the involvement of at least 600,000 troops, taking into account the necessary rotations every six to eight months.
The newspaper admits this is “beyond the reach” of the European Union, even with the United Kingdom’s involvement, since European governments need to ensure national security and continue participating in international missions.
“Each major country could send about 5,000 troops to Ukraine; perhaps France a little more,” Battisti said.
According to the Italian general, Western countries could assemble a contingent of 60,000 soldiers (20,000 in three periods), but these forces would only be sufficient for patrolling. In addition, there is a risk of “dispersion” of forces along a wide front line.
“Clear conclusion: any military initiative in Ukraine can only work with the support of the United States. But here politics comes in. Donald Trump repeats that he will not send even one marine to the Donbass front,” the general concluded.
What Battisi does not highlight is that any deployment of foreign troops will lead to their liquidation. Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia Dmitry Medvedev, and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have consistently and repeatedly warned that the deployment of foreign troops would make them a “legitimate target” for the Russian military.
Despite the ominous warning, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky insisted at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January that the West needs to send 200,000 so-called “peacekeepers” to Ukraine to resolve the conflict.
“200,000, it’s a minimum. It’s a minimum, otherwise it’s nothing,” he said, adding that “Europe must establish itself as a strong, global player, as an indispensable player.”
Trump decided to start talks with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to try to reach a political solution to the Ukrainian conflict, which was fueled by the former Biden administration and its European partners since Moscow launched its special operation in February 2022.
As the talks progress and the calls become public, Europe expects a repeat of Trump’s first term in the White House: a supposedly more isolationist stance that imposes on Europeans more responsibility for the defense and security of their own region, bearing their own costs.
Trump’s movements aim to demonstrate that the US has greater responsibility and weight in negotiating the Ukrainian conflict at this time. From now on, Europeans will face the great challenge of showing strength and unity to put their claims on the table.
Weakened by the costs of supporting Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, Europe faces challenges in retaliating directly against the US for not being included by Trump in the negotiations. Internal divisions make unified action difficult, weakening the bloc’s position.
Europe is now suffering immensely to support the Kiev regime. There have been military aid and economic impacts, such as the energy crisis after sanctions against Russia. The US contributed substantially. However, under the new Trump administration, such support no longer occurs. There is much talk of using frozen Russian assets to amortize Europe’s expenses, but such an option is legally complex.
Contrary to what was thought in March 2022, when the conflict became more intense, it is noticeable that the cohesion of NATO, such as generating greater unity and more efficiency, which was expected due to the Ukrainian conflict, occurred in a way that fell short of the expected result.
Although distrust is growing between Washington and Brussels, the transition to a fully autonomous Europe will be slow, given the lack of a unified defense infrastructure and internal political divergences. Trump’s return to the US presidency forces Europe to rethink its strategic dependence on Washington. The European bloc’s ability to respond to Washington’s withdrawal from Ukraine will depend on its unity and investment in autonomy, while the costs of supporting Ukraine will also fall mainly on the Europeans.
Yet, it appears that the Europeans have not woken up to the reality of the situation. Top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas delusionally told Euractiv on December 18, “The Americans can meet with whomever they wish to, but for any peace deal regarding Ukraine to work, it has to involve the Europeans as well as the Ukrainians.”
“If some deal is agreed that we don’t agree to, then it will just fail, because it will not be implemented,” she added.
However, as the Italian general explained, Europe does not have the capabilities to serve Ukraine in the way that Zelensky demands, such as providing the 200,000 so-called peacekeepers. This makes any statements by Kallas and Zelensky about the war redundant and is precisely why Trump and Putin are bypassing Kiev and Brussels in their negotiations to end the fighting.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
I disagree strongly with those who seek to exonerate the Trump 45 administration of culpability for the war in Ukraine.
I submit it is indisputable that the trend line of US/NATO preparations of the #MotherOfAllProxyArmies in Ukraine began to go parabolic during the 2017-2021 period.
Sure, the US/NATO had not yet provided the AFU with artillery, armor, or air defense systems — but the AFU didn’t NEED that kind of stuff at the time. They had, by far, the largest and most potent army and air defense array in Europe (ex-Russia).
They were provided with and trained on the use of US/NATO ATGMs (Javelin / NLAW). And it is obvious, in retrospect, that select AFU contingents were already being trained in the use of systems such as the American M-777 howitzer and HIMARS MLRS, both of which were introduced on the battlefield within about 90 days of the beginning of major warfare.
Most importantly — and I believe many are now conveniently overlooking this crucial element — the AFU was provided with and trained on advanced US/NATO secure communications systems and battlefield management software applications.
AFU command and operations were integrated with the US/NATO command structure, and comprehensive access was provided to US/NATO ISR — satellite, airborne, and “on the ground” personnel.
During the Trump 45 period, US “on the ground” intel bases numbering in the double-digits were operated throughout eastern Ukraine — manned by covert and “volunteer” NATO-affiliated personnel.
As I have argued repeatedly, it was precisely this access to US/NATO ISR capabilities that elevated the AFU from “potent” to “very formidable” in this war. And the training and preparation for this aspect of war-fighting rose in a steady crescendo in the five years preceding February 24, 2022.
Perhaps President Trump himself was “kept in the dark” regarding these preparations. I doubt it, but I consent to that possibility. In any case, it does not alter the fact that these developments occurred during his tenure, and constituted the final stages of the preparation for open warfare against Russia that ultimately commenced in early 2022.
Attempting to mitigate the culpability of the Trump 45 administration while simultaneously heaping all the blame on Biden and Zelensky is not only disingenuous, it is historically erroneous.
The empire carefully orchestrated and choreographed “Project Ukraine” over the course of many years spanning multiple US presidential terms, and there was no discernible diminution of their focus and efforts at any point along the time line.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly rejected Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s help in brokering a ceasefire or mediating with the new American leadership. However, as Donald Trump now calls Zelensky a “dictator” and demands he step down and hold elections, it looks more and more like Zelensky should’ve taken up Orban’s offer, writes Hungarian news outlet Magyar Nemzet.
“Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has no influence over Vladimir Putin, and Ukraine does not need his mediation in its relations with the United States,” Zelensky said in a speech delivered in December at a session of the All-Ukrainian Congress of Local and Regional Governments.
“Ukraine is a strong country and has proven it on the battlefield throughout Putin’s aggression. Does anyone else in Europe have this experience now? No. Does Orbán have such an army? No. How will he put pressure on Putin? With a joke, a smile? Let him keep it,” added the Ukrainian president.
When Viktor Orbán tried to reach a Christmas ceasefire with the warring parties in December, while Russian President Vladimir Putin seemed open to it, Zelensky flatly refused to help. He did so in a very disrespectful tone.
“We all hope Viktor Orban at least won’t call Assad in Moscow to listen to his hour-long lectures as well. It’s absolutely clear that achieving real peace and guaranteed security requires America’s determination, Europe’s unity, and the unwavering commitment of all partners to the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter. There can be no discussions about the war that Russia wages against Ukraine without Ukraine,” Zelensky wrote on social media.
Zelensky has consistently maintained that he has an excellent relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump and that everything is in place to ensure they can cooperate well in implementing the Ukrainian president’s so-called “victory plan.”
“I think we agree that the war in Ukraine must end. Putin cannot win, Ukraine must win,” he said after their September meeting.
At a press conference in late January, the Ukrainian president said he supported President Trump’s desire to achieve success in creating a just peace. He added, however, that this could only be achieved together with Ukraine because Russia did not want to end the war. He also noted that Europe should also have a place at the negotiating table.
“I would like the European voice to be present. This is important for us because we will be members of the EU. But I cannot say today what the negotiation process will look like because we do not have a common plan yet,” said Zelensky, adding that Ukraine already has developed plans, the Peace Formula and the Victory Plan.
Now, with Trump in power, it appears Zelensky’s claims that they share the same vision for Ukraine was far from reality. In fact, Trump is now openly calling Zelensky a “dictator” and is looking to settle the conflict as soon as possible, without Zelensky even having a seat at the table.
Russian forces conducted long-range strikes targeting Ukraine’s military-linked gas infrastructure overnight, the Defense Ministry in Moscow confirmed on Thursday. Earlier, Kiev claimed the targets were civilian.
The ministry stated that the operation involved missiles launched from air, naval, and ground platforms, along with drones. The strikes targeted “elements of gas and energy infrastructure crucial for the Ukrainian military industrial complex,” all of which were successfully hit, according to the official statement.
Ukrainian Energy Minister German Galushchenko confirmed the damage to the facilities, alleging that the Russian objective was to “halt the extraction of gas essential for civilian use.” The Russian military maintains that it does not target civilian facilities.
The Ukrainian military reported that Russia launched at least 14 cruise and ballistic missiles, alongside over 160 drones. The statement refrained from detailing how many missiles were intercepted, a departure from Kiev’s typical communications strategy. Previously, the Ukrainian air defense force showcased claimed interceptions through graphics depicting Russian weapons; however, Thursday’s report focused solely on drones, stating that 80 were neutralized.
Earlier this week, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky expressed concern over dwindling supplies of interceptor missiles for US-provided MIM-104 Patriot systems. He had previously lauded them as superior to other air defense technologies supplied by Western arms donors.
Ukraine has reportedly received six full batteries, including three from the US and three from Germany, as well as individual launchers from the Netherlands. During a press conference on Wednesday, Zelensky requested 20 more Patriot systems to bolster his country’s defenses.
Moscow is concerned by reports that NATO member states are considering deploying troops to Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, reiterating that such a scenario would be unacceptable to Russia.
On Wednesday, The Telegraph and Bloomberg cited anonymous Western officials as saying that the UK and France were preparing to present US President Donald Trump with plans for the establishment of a “reassurance force” for Ukraine, should Kiev and Moscow agree a peace deal.
In an interview with Fox News the same day, US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz confirmed that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron would visit Washington next week.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Peskov said Moscow is “certainly following all these reports most closely.” Claims about the potential arrival of service members from NATO states in Ukraine “are causing concern,” he added, citing the ramifications this would have for Russia’s national security.
“This is a very important topic to us,” Peskov said. He noted that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had stressed on Tuesday that the “presence of armed forces from NATO countries [in Ukraine]… is completely unacceptable to us.” The remark followed high-level Russia-US talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where the two nations agreed to work toward normalizing bilateral relations.
According to The Telegraph and Bloomberg, the Anglo-French plan would involve around 30,000 troops being stationed in key Ukrainian cities and ports, as well as at nuclear power plants. The scheme purportedly envisages equipping the contingent with surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft as well as patrol vessels to monitor a potential peace agreement between Kiev and Moscow, with the US providing air cover in case of escalation.
In an article for The Telegraph on Sunday, Starmer proclaimed that the “UK is ready to play a leading role in accelerating work on security guarantees for Ukraine,” including by “putting our own troops on the ground if necessary.”
Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, warned earlier this month that Western troops operating in Ukraine without Moscow’s consent would be seen as legitimate targets.
A number of EU leaders, most notably French President Emmanuel Macron, have been floating the idea of sending military personnel to Ukraine since at least last February.
Deliberations over such a move have reportedly intensified in recent months. Since Trump assumed office in January, his administration has signaled its willingness to scale down American involvement in Ukraine.
Gotta confess, I did not see this coming. Yes, I believed that Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was miffed at not getting an invite to Saudi Arabia or to be part of the negotiating team, but it never entered my mind that he would kill himself in public. Suicide ain’t a good look. Zelensky reacted to Trump’s post by going after the Donald. Not a smart move.
While Zelensky did not put a loaded gun to his head and press the trigger, that may have been a better option than what he did — i.e., verbally attack and insult Donald Trump. If Trump truly was the King of the Realm, Zelensky would have arrived hogtied before Trump and the Donald would have cut his tongue out. Such were the pleasantries of the Middle Ages.
Here are a couple of Zelensky’s verbal tirades today criticizing Trump for excluding the Z-man from the negotiations:
Zelensky said Ukraine “did not know anything about” the meeting between Putin and Trump, and said his country will not accept a peace deal brokered without Ukrainian participation.
Zelensky told reporters he “would like Trump’s team to be more truthful” about the war and accused the president of living in a Russian-made “disinformation space.”
If Zelensky thinks that public criticism of Trump is a winning strategy to win over the Donald, he has not paid attention to Trump’s method of handling critics and opponents during the past ten years. While Zelensky enjoys the full support of the Washington neocons and those politicians who have been paid under the table by Ukraine, picking a fight with Trump guarantees that further aid to Ukraine is DOA (i.e., dead on arrival).
Trump has the memory of an elephant. He has not forgotten the role that Zelensky played in Trump’s first impeachment drama. Zelensky could have spoken out in defense of Trump at the time, but he chose to remain silent. Zelensky did not buy himself any good karma with Trump.
Then there is the matter of missing billions of US taxpayer dollars. Elon Musk, as well as some folks outside of DOGE, are auditing the more than $300 billion sent to Ukraine. I know from a close friend that $50 billion already has been tracked to bank accounts in the Caribbean. Sometime within the next month or two, the world will learn some specifics of Zelensky’s theft of some of these funds. When that happens, Zelensky is burnt toast.
Don’t be surprised in a few months when Attorney General Pam Bondi announces criminal indictments against Zelensky for theft of US government property. Assuming that Zelensky is not assassinated or jailed by disgruntled Ukrainian military officers, his chances of finding a safe haven outside of Ukraine will dim dramatically. Zelensky fails to understand that he is nothing more than a pawn in a Western-led game of global chess. He ain’t essential, he’s expendable.
It appears that Trump’s goal in reviving relations with Russia has little to do with Ukraine and its future. As a result of Tuesday’s meeting in Saudi Arabia between the US and Russian delegations, there was agreement on forming six working groups that will address the following issues:
Group on Strategic Security and Arms Control. Arms control is one of the topics where dialogue between Moscow and Washington continues even in the crisis. The New START Treaty expires in 2026, and the United States is interested in extending it, but will try to impose new restrictions on Russian hypersonic weapons and tactical nuclear forces. Russia, in turn, will seek a revision of the balance of power, taking into account NATO’s non-expansion, and demand restrictions on the deployment of new missile systems in Europe.
Group on the Review of the Global Security Architecture.
The issues of global security architecture, delimitation of spheres of influence, including possible mechanisms for monitoring developments in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and autonomous combat systems will be discussed separately. It is likely that this is the area where the contradictions will be most acute. Moreover, other significant powers, including China, will need to be involved in the process.
Group on bilateral diplomatic interaction.
Both sides are interested in the return of the embassies to full operation, within the framework of which mutual restrictions on the work of diplomatic missions will be lifted, and broad channels of communication will be established, including, in part, issues of economic ties.
Energy and Sanctions Group.
Russia is interested in lifting American sanctions, and the Americans will be offered some joint economic projects. However, the American side will try to link any concessions with demands concerning other areas, including Russian-Chinese relations, so a compromise will not be easy. Plus, Trump will be wary of accusations from hawks among the Republicans about the “excessive” easing of the sanctions regime.
Group for the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.
Within its framework, the parameters of a peace agreement on Ukraine will be agreed upon. There is already agreement on a number of issues. Ukraine is a non-aligned state, the EU will not be an actor influencing the negotiations, elections will be held in Ukraine and then a full-fledged agreement will be concluded, which will be adopted by the UN, there will be no NATO troops on the territory of Ukraine. Russia will also insist on retaining the liberated territories along the front line and guarantees for the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine. The full scope of the concessions that Washington is ready to make and their price are still unclear.
International Affairs Group (Middle East, Arctic).
The situation in the Middle East requires coordination of efforts by major players, including to prevent the Israeli-Palestinian truce from collapsing, to make a decision on the Syrian case, and others. Russia continues to actively interact with Turkey, Iran, and the Persian Gulf countries, which makes it an important participant in any negotiation processes in the region. Also on the agenda are issues of cooperation in the Arctic, where Russia maintains strategic superiority.
Ending the war in Ukraine is not necessarily a top priority. Trump’s team has made it clear that this is a problem for the Europeans and the Ukrainians to resolve if they are intent on continuing the war. Trump is looking at a bigger picture and keeping Zelensky happy is not part of that vision.
They say history is written by the victors, but the Crusades offer an interesting historical contrast: a two-century collision that produced not one history, but two parallel, irreconcilable realities. The dates and the battles are identical in both accounts, but the moral axis is entirely flipped.
In the traditional Western narrative, the Crusades are framed as a heroic, if tragic, epic. The First Crusade is a pious pilgrimage; the knights are romanticized figures of chivalry in shining armor, bravely holding the line in a hostile, exotic land. The eventual loss of the Holy Land is mourned as the “fall of Outremer,” a tragic retreat of European civilization. In this telling, the East is often reduced to a passive backdrop, its inhabitants viewed through a lens of mystique or backwardness, mere obstacles to a divine mandate.
But cross the Mediterranean, and the exact same timeline reads like a chronicle of foreign invasion and eventual, hard-won restoration against the barbarous northerners. The dates do not change, but the adjectives do. Here is the history as it is remembered in the Levant… continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 