…but the US, NATO and EU are! Part 8

An honest assessment, or the story of the boiling frog

Part 1, Is Russia’s cause justified? The historical run-up
Part 2, A just cause in the face of violence and a Neo-Nazi resurgence
Part 3, A just cause in the face of violence, deceit, and a policy of regime change
Part 4, Some history and background on bioresearch
Part 5, Ukrainian biolabs and US attitude towards bioresearch
Part 6, Use of chemical weapons in Ukraine confirmed
Part 7, Russia is NOT the aggressor…
Part 8, …but the US, NATO and EU are!
Part 9, America’s nuclear gambles.
Part 10, Are we the baddies?

J’accuse!

This article I am not writing because I want to. But I have to. My conscience demands it; truth and honor require it. In the previous article, I have shown, through the Just War doctrine and applicable evidence from the actual Special Military Operation, how Russia is on the right side of history, and is NOT the aggressor, but, as we will explore in this article, that the US, the EU and NATO are. That means that both the country I was born in, Belgium, as well as the country where I now live and am a citizen, the US, are the bad guys…

After all the high-flying rhetoric about the West being the good guys, against those godless Bolsheviks, and against fascism, defending human rights and democracy, I am coming to the sobering conclusion that Russia is less ‘left’ than the US and Europe have become, and that it is the US who is now actively supporting actual neo-Nazis, and is actively pushing to continue the bloodshed. Even worse, as laid out in part 3: “This war is now officially no longer Putin’s war, but America’s war. That conclusion is utterly inescapable.”
And this happened with full consent and support of our media, who suddenly have discovered that not all fascists are alike. Somehow, according to them, here are actually ‘good’ Nazis, you know? ‘Their’ Nazis are good, and if you don’t believe that, YOU are a big fat fascist yourself!

This is very sobering. Very humbling. Don’t get me wrong: I do not regret having become a US citizen, at all. I still believe in the ideals of this country, I feel partial to the ideals of the European Union, under patronage of Saint  Benedict, and I still feel bound by the moral imperative I felt to tie my fate to that of my wife, who was born here, and has direct roots in the New World that go back to the early 1600s, and to that of my children, also US born and thus US citizens, so I could be fully participating in life here, as one of them.

But I discovered that the leaders here in the US (aided by spineless, hypocritical and short-sighted leaders in Belgium and the EU), both the visible, elected and/or appointed leaders, as well as those behind the scenes, are no longer the good guys. (For some more detailed reasons why I came to that conclusion, see my article on the EU here.) Contrary to the image all those movies and stories have rammed into our collective view and consciousness. We might have been. Yes, we were, when we defeated Hitler, and then stood up against Soviet threats. But today, we no longer are.

It is difficult to come to grips with the realization that your own country is on the wrong side of history.

Especially after having believed the beautiful ideals we all were told about 'peace' and 'brotherhood', a European unity through cooperation, the American ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, through justice and freedom, exemplified in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

They are still true, but make the betrayal by 'my' or 'our' countries of those principles all the more excruciating...

How did we get here? And how are so many people utterly blind to this new reality, and get either really upset when you tell them, or act utterly condescending, as if shushing and correcting a toddler who just said something completely ridiculous? That last question is simple: the boiling frog syndrome.

This did not happen suddenly, but little by little. Aided by emotional psy-ops and appeals, such as the appeal to our patriotism and the right to self-defense in light of a heinous terror attack, on 9-11, in the ‘Patriot Act’, for example.

This is nothing new. The great Virgil warned already: “Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes”, which can loosely be translated in English as "I fear the Greeks even when bearing gifts". We have this in our language as the phrase ‘Beware of Greeks bearing gifts’. The gift is a ploy, to put you at ease, and not see the actual attack coming. It is a perversion of the laws of hospitality and decency, rooted in deceit. And now the US have become the new Greeks.

What have we seen in the last 30 years? What did I chronicle painstakingly in the previous 7 parts? How the West, US ahead, has engaged in a campaign of deception and betrayal. Not just in matters of international policy, but also in domestic areas. “Defend democracy”, they cry, as they propose inherently anti-democratic ‘solutions’ to ‘protect’ what they are hollowing out. Or all the talk about ‘tolerance’: they demand others tolerate THEIR positions, but they themselves never have to tolerate OTHER positions!

Tolerance was the main Trojan horse in the west, and many have still no idea, even as they try to fight of some of the symptoms.

In ‘A plea for intolerance’  (got to love that title), Archbishop Fulton Sheen very sharply wrote:

“America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded. The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot;

but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broadminded. […] The breakdown that has produced this unnatural broadmindedness is mental, not moral.”

And in ‘The curse of broadmindedness’, (both those sermons are worth a careful read!) Archbishop Fulton Sheen goes deeper, and provides a clear distinction:

“For tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons. We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine.

We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God’s.”

The tolerance we are told we need to uphold, to show our virtue, is bringing in a dangerous enemy: subjectivism. “To each their own”, as evil was allowed to gain a foothold, and then fester. While the righteous citizens were fearful to speak up, afraid, somehow, that such act of resistance would equal to breaking away from virtue. How devious, to guilt-trap the righteous like that! With a carefully chosen ‘modern virtue’ that isn’t a virtue, but a virtue-killer.

Very closely linked to this, is the incredible loss of ‘honor’ in our modern Western societies. We don’t even realize we have lost it, and even those who do, very often fail to recognize just how terrible a loss that has been! But I’ll expound on that in a separate article, as it is more than worth to devote proper attention to this topic.

People have been trained to remain silent, that such is a virtue: to be ‘tolerant’. Or appeals were made to other virtuous inclinations, to usher in another Trojan horse. Not just culturally, or morally, but also o the field of foreign policy and international relations.

In a very insightful article, titled “America Is Too Scared of the Multipolar World”, Harvard Professor International Relations Stephen M. Walt sketched the overall outline:

“But the United States hasn’t learned much from the experience, given that it is still listening to the strategic geniuses whose actions squandered Washington’s Cold War triumph and hastened unipolarity’s end. The only restraint on a unipolar power’s actions is self-restraint, and self-restraint is not something a crusader nation such as the United States does very well.”

And he points out this important truth:

“During the unipolar era, U.S. officials became accustomed to dealing with problems by issuing demands and ultimatums and then ramping up pressure, starting with sanctions and threats of force and then turning to shock and awe and regime change if gentler measures of coercion didn’t work. The disappointing results, alas, speak for themselves.”

Suddenly having ‘won’ the Cold War, through no direct action of Americans (even if some point to Reagan’s so-called Star Wars Program as what caused the Soviets to collapse, unable to keep up, among other reasons that have been offered), the US found themselves alone at the top of the World. The sole Super-Power. But instead of realizing what had landed in their lap, they squandered it, by becoming exactly that which they had set out to destroy: a militaristic, colonial, imperialist oppressor, out for self-preservation above all else, over the corpses of the innocent.

In part 1, I laid out how the US deceived Gorbachev, and then Russia: leading them on to think that NATO would not expand towards Russia, to let them implode peacefully, then to sneak up on them, anyway, despite continued protests.

In the aftermath of the 2014 stolen election and Russia’s action to preserve Russian speaking Crimea and the important warmwater Navy Port of Sevastopol, the US did it again, as detailed in part 3, and with complicit actors at top level within the EU and the Ukrainian president, set out to deceive Russia again, binding them to the Minsk Accords, without any intention to hold up their own end of the bargain, just to win the time to build up a NATO trained Ukrainian army, to be used to fully throw out the Russians and rebellious fighters from the Donbas republics.

Is such deception morally acceptable?

I don’t think it is: using immoral methods to protect morality? What a contradiction. Combined with the open sabotage of the Ankara peace talks between Putin and Zelensky and the massive influx of money, munition, heavy weapons and troops/training, they now own the war, and showed they want war, with the stated goal of breaking up Russia into harmless little bits and pieces.

But that is not all.

In part 4, I describe the history of bioweapon research, and how the US has never really stopped their own programs. In name, yes, but as we have seen the last few years, and as backed up by writing from the US government itself, the focus was now on ‘defensive use’ of such research, which includes, as you guessed, research into ‘offensive use’, as you cannot defend against what you don’t know anything about.

Then you have the arms control treaties. When Russia suspended their participation in the new START treaty, we were told that this proves how Russia is scheming to return to the old weapon races and threats.

The duplicity and propaganda we are bombarded with over this, is baffling.

From NPR, in an article updated February 22, 2023, so after the Russians formally suspended their participation in the New Start mandated inspections:

“The treaty includes on-site inspections — but they were halted by mutual agreement over COVID-19 protocols. For months, the U.S. has been trying to resume them. Russia has refused.”

If only reality was that simple. On August 8, 2022, Reuters reported this:

“Russia told the United States on Monday it would not allow its weapons to be inspected under the START nuclear arms control treaty for the time being because of travel restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies. Inspection conditions proposed by Washington created "unilateral advantages for the United States and effectively deprive the Russian Federation of the right to conduct inspections on American territory," the Moscow foreign ministry said in a statement.”

During Covid, both nations indeed had mutually agreed to halt the inspections, for health concerns. But when the Special Military Operation in Ukraine broke out, the US and its allies closed their airspace for all Russian planes, and imposed other travel restrictions. Practically, this meant that Russia could not send their own inspection crews to US sites. At the same time, the US demanded that Russia still opened up their own strategic weapon sites for inspection by American teams, in the middle of a war where the stated goal of the US was ‘the strategic defeat of Russia’…

Already in August last year, Russia protested and informally withdrew from the inspections because of the unilateral nature of them, with the hostile rhetoric of the US against Russia. At the same time, as Reuters reported, “U.S. President Joe Biden said last Monday that his administration was ready to "expeditiously" negotiate a framework to replace New START, which is due to expire in 2026, if Moscow demonstrated its willingness to resume work on nuclear arms control. But Russia's mission to the United Nations said Washington had withdrawn from separate talks with Moscow on strategic stability over the Ukraine conflict, and needed to decide what it wanted.”

So while Biden openly talks about the need to negotiate, the US negotiation teams were withdrawn.

Such travel restrictions are nothing new, either. Reuters reported in April 2021 how Moscow protested ‘‘unfriendly actions’ as U.S. ends visa services for most Russians”, and gave this reason: “The United States imposed sanctions on Russia this month for alleged malign activity, including interfering in last year's U.S. election, cyber hacking and "bullying" neighbouring Ukraine.”

There is a continued trace of hostile actions by the US against Russia, some on demonstrably false pretenses: election interference? Really? This last year we have seen that whole story fully unravel! Yet official sanctions were imposed on Russia, based on such spurious accusations, not even really aimed at Russia itself, but to bolster the Democrats and swamp in their ongoing attempts to neutralize Trump!


Is it surprising then, that after that August 2022 warning shot, Russia officially announced their suspension of the New Start treaty?

Their ambassador in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, spoke about this, in clear language:

He makes a very strong point, when he states that the US is giving Ukraine very detailed satellite and other intelligence, as well as weapons, which are then used by Ukraine to attack some of Russia’s strategic assets and bases, such as the December 2022 attacks (yes, plural) on the Engels air force base not far from the town of Saratov. That base is home to the 121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment with the Tu-160M (NATO call sign: Blackjack) and 184th Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment with the Tupolev Tu-95MS (NATO call sign: Bear-H) of the 22nd Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Division. Both are strategic bombers, where Engels is the only base that houses the Tu-160M. Such probing attack is NOT by accident, and falls within a distinct US interest to see how to execute a pre-emptive ‘first strike’ on Russia’s strategic capabilities, what the Russian defenses look like.

With such attacks, with the more than likely aid and support by the US, on such a vital strategic base, combined with the open talk from American military sources about first strike on Russian strategic targets, as well as their desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, can anyone blame Russia from getting suspicious, when yet another treaty is being turned in their disadvantage?

Ulyanov is right: these treaties rely in mutual trust, and the US has been very active in blowing up that trust.

The US did not wait long, after that suspension by Russia (after the US had basically made Russian inspections impossible, under the guise of sanctions, and then blaming Russia when they were hesitant to unilaterally allow US inspectors in their own strategic facilities). Did they try to de-escalate? Find common ground? Sadly, you know the answer.

Slavyangrad posted this on March 4, 2023:

The transfer of the American "doomsday plane" to Europe is a signal for Putin, Bild suggests in today's piece.  

On Tuesday, the U.S. European Command moved the E-6B Mercury, also known as the "Doomsday Aircraft," to Iceland. It is an airborne command post designed to control armed forces in a nuclear war. The current version of the aircraft entered service in 1998 and is capable of communicating directly with submarines equipped with ballistic missiles. In addition, the Mercury can also remotely control Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles. "After Russia suspended its participation in the New START agreement, the redeployment of the E-6B Mercury to Iceland can be seen as a measure of clear anti-Kremlin positioning," writes the German publication.

Talking about the New START treaty, Obama negotiated this successor to an older treaty (Treaty of Moscow, that would expire in 2012) with Medvedev, agreeing on the new Star treaty in 2010, and which entered into force on Feb 5, 2011. Russian negotiators didn’t want talk about this new treaty, without also talking about missile defense (this was at the time that the US was placing anti-missile defense systems in Poland and other places in Eastern Europe). Obama said that US Senate would not be able to ratify a Start treaty with limitations on missile defense in it, and promised to negotiate separately about missile defense. That never happened.

That treaty was abused by US: token actions undertaken to ‘render unsuitable for nuclear weapon delivery’, like clipping some wires in their bomber planes, that could easily be reversed. “The letter of the law requires only something demonstrable”, so “we met the intent of the treaty”, was the reply of te US, but this is fake weapons control.  The same happened with the Ohio class submarines and trident launch tubes. In a youtube interview, former weapons inspector Scott Ritter mentioned that US generals and admirals were bragging about quickly being able to double launch capacity, because of this ‘loophole’.

The whole video is worth checking out, but in this fragment Ritters gives a very good and succinct explanation about the importance of the treaty in light of weapon development and plans by the US (click here).

Part of the deception of that New Start negotiations, was that when the Russians objected on the presence of missile defense systems, the US ignored that concern. According to the US, those missile defense systems, specifically, the SM3 interceptor, were not capable to shoot down ICBMs, and as such posed no concern to the topic of strategic arms control. That was true during those negotiations, but in 2014, the upgraded SM3 block 2A was taken into service, that could shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles! Which means that this was already being researched and tested during those negotiations! They knew that upgrades were on the way that could shoot down ICBMs, so that reason they gave to dismiss the Russian concern was textbook definition of ‘negotiating in bad faith’.

That upgrade to the SM2 Block 2A is substantial, as can be seen in the below chart:

What before needed to be covered by 6 Aegis class ships, could now be done by only 2, and then some.

This is not just important as an example of bad faith negotiation and deceptive tactics by the US, but something that Russia was very keenly aware of, and part of a long string of provocations by the US, aimed to push Russia in a corner. In his speech at the beginning of the Special Military Operation on Feb 21, 2022, Putin referenced this:

“The situation continues to deteriorate, including in the strategic area. Thus, positioning areas for interceptor missiles are being established in Romania and Poland as part of the US project to create a global missile defence system. It is common knowledge that the launchers deployed there can be used for Tomahawk cruise missiles – offensive strike systems.

In addition, the United States is developing its all-purpose Standard Missile-6, which can provide air and missile defence, as well as strike ground and surface targets. In other words, the allegedly defensive US missile defence system is developing and expanding its new offensive capabilities.”

Dual use systems (offense as well, not just defense), and with ever upgraded aim to shoot down ICBMs.

And that is not all. People make it sound as if it was so irresponsible that the Russians suspended the New Start treaty.

Yet out of the 3 main strategic arms treaties, it was George Bush who announced in 2001 that the US would leave the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. This 1972 treaty limited homeland missile defense systems, under the idea that if there are no such defenses, there is no need to go on an uncontrolled arms race to get more and bigger nukes, to overwhelm those defenses. Bush reasoned that with the fall of the Soviet Union the main reason for that treaty was gone, and that the new threat coming from terrorists and rogue states needed a more flexible answer by the US, that was limited by the ABM treaty.

A 2021 article by the Washington based think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace stated: “In 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin gleefully unveiled a range of new developmental nuclear delivery systems—an intercontinental hypersonic glider, a nuclear-powered cruise missile, and a nuclear-powered torpedo—that he stated were a response to the demise of the ABM Treaty.”

In 2019, Trump in turn left the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF. This too, appears to have been quite a saga, that started in 2014, under Obama’s administration.

Armscontrol.org wrote in 2014 that “The Obama administration alleges that Russia is violating its INF Treaty obligation “not to possess, produce, or flight-test” a GLCM with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers or “to possess or produce launchers of such missiles,” as a State Department report sent to Congress in July summarized it.

At a meeting in early July, the Principals Committee, which includes the national security adviser, the defense secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of state, and the CIA director, “unanimously agreed” that the cruise missile flight test was a “serious violation,” the Times said. A senior administration official told Arms Control Today on July 29 that the intelligence community has “high confidence” in the assessment.”

The Russians denied the charge, of course, and claimed there was no proof given. On that score, there are different accounts from American side, as to what weapons system was exactly in violation of INF, adding to the suspicion that this was a political ploy (with high confidence assessment by the US intelligence community, which cannot be politically motivated, as the 50 signatories of that Hunter laptop letter prove beyond any doubt). It gets complicated when you look closer. Even though different sources give different statements, the missile tested was the 9M729 (SSC-8). This resembles the Iskander and Kalibr missiles, which are INF compliant. The way the SSC-8 deviates from the INF, is in the fine print and technical details, but those, truth be told, resemble that of the SM3 block 2A missiles that would be launched from Aegis systems. The MK-41 systems that are installed in Poland and Romania, under Russian protest that those now land-based systems would violate the INF, were said to have been downgraded to only be capable of using defensive interceptor missiles (which is allowed under the INF). As sea-based systems, they can fire Tomahawk missiles, which can be nuclear capable.

Of course, fact checkers jumped on Russia’s allegation, and published, among other rebuttals, the following article on EUvsDisinfo: “The accusation has been categorically rejected by Washington and NATO, which say the system does not have the software or the hardware needed to launch offensive ballistic or cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk, and its role is only to intercept missiles.”

Yeah. The MK-41 is modular, and uses different boxes in which the missiles are housed to launch, which means that upgrading it to accept and fire the other non-INF compliant missiles is not that difficult. The SM-3 missiles are of the same length as the Strike missiles (Tomahawk and LRASM)

The US and NATO released a statement, explaining that the launching system of Aegis Ashore is not the same as that for the sea-based MK-41, even if it uses certain structural elements from it: “The Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System does not have an offensive ground-launched ballistic or cruise missile capability. Specifically, the system lacks the software, fire control hardware, support equipment, and other infrastructure needed to launch offensive ballistic or cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk. Moreover, the defensive nature of the Aegis Ashore sites is documented in U.S. basing agreements with the host nations of Romania and Poland.”

Yet in a leaked document that the Spanish newspaper El Pais received (link to leaked documents here, link to the full article in El Pais here), the US extended different proposals to Russia, and after reviewing them, El Pais wrote: “One of the most novel proposals is the offer to Russia of a “transparency mechanism” to verify the absence of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are capable of reaching Russian territory, at the NATO anti-missile shield bases in Romania and Bulgaria, and which house the Aegis system.” Now this is telling. If the Aegis Ashore system inherently could not fire Mk-14 canisters with Tomahawk cruise missiles, but only the MK-21 mod 1 canisters with the SM-3 class air defense missiles, why would it extend the offer to inspect the sites to verify the absence of Tomahawk missiles? This seems to suggest that the US could not provide technical details and proof that the shared MK-41 VLS launch systems that Aegis Ashore borrowed from the sea-based ‘full’ MK-41 system is inherently different, and structurally incapable of accepting and firing the Mk-14 Tomahawk canisters.

It’s a bit of a mess, and the hairsplitting attitudes regarding those treaties does not really help. Nor does the ridiculous insistence by the West that there really is a marked difference between offensive and defensive weapons. Given the range of the air defense systems of Aegis Ashore, the capability to ‘defend’ against counter-attacks or attempts to shoot down your own missiles or planes as they approach Russia, is technically ‘defensive’, but in such scenario could clearly be applied to support an offensive action.

An American source, the USNI News website (U.S. Naval Institute, founded in 1873, with their stated mission to be “The Independent Forum of the Sea Services—a place where free and independent debate may flourish” and to offer an “open forum to debate key issues in the Sea Services”), confirmed this:

”The offer for a “transparency mechanism” to ensure there are no Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles at the two Aegis Ashore sites in Romania and Poland is contingent upon Moscow also offering similar transparency for two ground-launched missiles bases that the U.S. chooses, according to a leaked U.S. document published by Spanish newspaper El País and confirmed by U.S. officials.

The two sites have the same air-search radar and Mk-41 vertical launch system as U.S. destroyers and can technically field a variety of missiles. However, the U.S. has insisted that the Aegis Ashore sites only field Standard Missile 3 ballistic missile interceptors for a BMD defense capability against Iranian missiles. Moscow has said the sites threaten Russian security.”

Either way, Trump followed that reasoning, and in October 2018 announced during a rally that he planned to terminate the INF treaty, which was completed in 2019.
During the process of ending that treaty, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the following: “Russia is solely responsible for the treaty’s demise. Over the past six months, the United States provided Russia a final opportunity to correct its noncompliance. As it has for many years, Russia chose to keep its noncompliant missile rather than going back into compliance with its treaty obligations.”

It is interesting to note that the treaty was not just ended because of Russia’s ‘noncompliance’, but with an eye on China and preparations that were deemed necessary for action in the Pacific (against China).

On August 2, 2019, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said: “Sooner rather [than] later, we want to develop this capability and [make] sure we can have long-range precision fires, not just for [Europe], but for the theater that we’re deploying to as well, because of the importance of great distances we need to cover, and how important an intermediate-range conventional weapon would be to the [Pacific Command] theater.”

Putin, in that same speech at the start of the Special Military Operation, referred to this, as well:
“Finally, after the US destroyed the INF Treaty, the Pentagon has been openly developing many land-based attack weapons, including ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 5,500 km.”

 Trump got the intelligence that was gathered and presented under Obama, regarding the Russian non-compliance. He did not question it, but saw the need to play hardball and realpolitik (not have the US be a push-over in bad deals where the other side breaks their own commitment, something Trump, master of the deal, is allergic to) and the opportunity to start preparing for the possibility of a shooting war with China, directly or indirectly on Taiwan. Was he correct, or misguided?

From what I can tell, in this line-up that I presented here, he did not break with the path the US was already on for decades, even if he tried to steer focus away to an ‘America First’ policy base. Right or wrong in this case, that is up for debate.

As a whole, the foreign policy and military considerations and actions of the US as a whole has been very aggressive, and based on deceit in order to gain any advantage possible. This is not without consequence.

The most important consequence, is on the level of nuclear war: how far can you push nuclear powers, such as Russia and China? Is it enough to point at their shortcomings on ‘human rights’, to justify your own lack of regard of human life in the conflicts you create to position yourself to counter and contain those dangers posed by Russia and China? Does the goal really justify the means?

We cannot deny that the US gambled with nuclear threats and weapons/weapon systems, as the story on the Aegis Onshore use of the MK-41 delivery system shows without any doubt. Somehow, the US expects the world and Russia in particular to ‘trust them’ that such systems will only be used ‘defensively’, when it takes only a second to issue orders to switch their use around to ‘offensive’? After all the broken promises, outright deception, and push for continued war -going as far as sabotaging an almost completed peace process between Putin and Zelensky, and sabotaging the European energy lifeline of NordStream- as the US openly states that their goal is the ‘strategic defeat’ and even dismantling of Russia itself?

In the next installment, I will explore the nuclear question in some more detail, and finish this accusation of American foreign policy. Again, coming from a position of admiration for this Country and what it stood for. Still stands for, even if our power and our voice has been abused by an elite that doesn’t even care about our own freedoms, let alone those of people worldwide.