Russia’s War in Ukraine, part 3
A just cause in the face of violence, deceit, and a policy of regime change
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?
In part 2 we looked at the early history surrounding the Maidan Coup in 2014, and how things quickly escalated and turned violent, and the growing influence of Nazi ideology or at least glorification and the trend to find inspiration in that era, within Ukraine, up to the highest echelons.
So how did the Ukrainian government respond? As I already indicated in the previous article, by turning to the Neo-Nazi groups for help. They were willing, able and loyal. An article by ‘The Nation’ from June 14, 2014, with the strong title and subtitle ‘The Silence of American Hawks About Kiev’s Atrocities - The regime has repeatedly carried out artillery and air attacks on city centers, creating a humanitarian catastrophe—which is all but ignored by the US political-media establishment’ laid it out:
“When its regular military units and local police forces turned out to be less than effective, willing or loyal, Kiev hastily mobilized Right Sector and other radical nationalist militias responsible for much of the violence at Maidan into a National Guard to accompany regular detachments—partly to reinforce them, partly, it seems, to enforce Kiev’s commands.”
TheNation continued their report:
“Zealous, barely trained and drawn mostly from central and western regions, Kiev’s new recruits have escalated the ethnic warfare and killing of innocent civilians. (Episodes described as “massacres” soon also occurred in Mariupol and Kramatorsk.)”
They note how this terror inflicted upon the ‘terrorist’ areas in the east targets people indiscriminately, and created a huge wave of refugees. The New York Times, in this December 2014 op-ed titled ‘Driving Ukrainians Into Putin’s Arms’ (worth a good read!), gives chilling numbers: “A RECENT United Nations report says that nearly half a million Ukrainians have fled the country since April. The fact that families run from a war zone is heartbreaking but hardly unexpected. The disturbing part lies in the details — of the roughly 454,000 people who had fled Ukraine by the end of October, more than 387,000 went to Russia.” What does that tell you about where the aggression comes from? And who it is aimed at?
(As an aside: are people really surprised, then, that when Russia in September 2022 held referendums in the 4 Oblasts it had (partially) taken over (Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Oblasts) on the question “Do you approve of XXXX [fill in different oblast, per region] being incorporated into the Russian Federation with subject rights of the Russian Federation?”, the answer was a resounding ‘YES!’? Even those who would otherwise not want that, even the Ukrainian speaking part of those areas, saw and lived -survived!- the indiscriminate attacks against their region, simply for wanting their vote to count properly! No ‘winning hearts and minds’, but branding them ‘terrorists’, from the beginning!)
Another example is surrounding Azov. They were organized in a ‘National Guard’ unit’, and on May 7 were assigned to get Mariupol back under control. A local newspaper (translated by Google Translate) stated: “The National Guard is an ethnic armed group, nationalist-minded citizens who were recruited to do the dirty work of cleaning up southeastern Ukraine. This hastily created unit that entered the city is called the Azov Battalion. This battalion is about 600-700 of them. They were brought into town last night. Last night they organized shooting here, arrests, detention of activists,” the source continues.”
The benefit of bringing in ‘outsiders’ was that they had no loyalty or ties to the local people, and would not hesitate to use force when needed. A Ukrainian website reported “There had been reports about traitors in the ranks of employees of the Mariupol Police HQ before. They are indirectly confirmed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs Col. Serhii Kolesnyk, who noted that in 2014, 188 people left the Police of Mariupol and were replaced by “more patriotic ones”.”
On May 11, 2014, referendums were held in Lugansk and Donetsk Oblast, and both territories declared their independence. Not a surprising outcome (as neither the result of the September 2022 referendums on annexation with Russia was), as the Ukrainian attacks on civilians, friend or foe alike, in a region that was already 75% or more aligned with Yanukovych, would have driven even the most staunch supported of Kiev away.
Russia supported both republics in various degrees of openness, and helped them fend off the Ukrainian army, into a stalemate that lasted 8 years, during which the constant shelling of civilian areas and buildings by the Ukrainian army never stopped.
On September 5, 2014, the Minsk Agreement was signed, as mediated by French president François Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, between Ukraine on one side, and Russia and the Lugansk and Donetsk Republics on the other. This first agreement focused mainly on an immediate lightening of the humanitarian crisis: a ceasefire, amnesty, oversight and control by OSCE, banning of certain weapons in a safe zone, etc. Neither side really abided by this agreement, and both will blame the other side for breaking it, necessitating their own responses. The next year, a second agreement was signed, which was much more substantial. Besides renewed calls for a ceasefire, banning heavy weapons and amnesty, it called for new local elections within the Ukrainian framework, to restore control of the border to Ukraine (meaning: giving up territorial control by the two Donbas republics), but only on condition of a constitutional amendment in Ukraine, that included decentralization (more autonomy for the republics, now back as Oblasts within Ukraine), basically an acceptance of the Russian minorities within Ukraine, and permanent protection thereof.
Interestingly, it does NOT speak about Ukraine’s plan to join NATO. (Likely because neither side wanted to give in on that point)
This never really happened, either, as Ukraine never made work of their task of a constitutional reform, in part to grant minority protections to the Russian speaking part of Ukraine. (After which Russia and both republics were required, per the agreement, to hand over control back to Kiev).
This report by the EU talks about continued violations. But it did contain, apart from the expected report on how ‘Russia continues to supply the rebels with ammunition, weaponry and fighters’, the following admission: “Ukraine receives modified equipment and financial military aid from the United States.” While the West is quick to accuse Russia for helping the Donbas Republics (and thus, prolonging and exacerbating the conflict), they admit they do the same.
But it gets a whole lot worse.
On December 7, 2022, Angela Merkel, then former Chancellor of Germany, had an interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit, as reported by ModernDiplomacyEU (the Die Zeit article in question is behind a paywall). “The 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to buy time for Ukraine. Ukraine used this time to become stronger, as you can see today. Ukraine in 2014-2015 and Ukraine today are not the same.” According to the ex-Chancellor, “it was clear for everyone” that the conflict was suspended and the problem was not resolved, “but it was exactly what gave Ukraine the priceless time.”
This is an incredible admission.
And one has to wonder, indeed, what made Zelensky snicker like this:
In an interview with the Kyiv Independent, former French president Hollande had the following to say, when asked about Merkel’s statement:
“The Kyiv Independent: In an interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit, Angela Merkel said about the Minsk protocols that 'It was obvious that the conflict was going to be frozen, that the problem was not solved, but it just gave Ukraine precious time.'
Do you also believe that the negotiations in Minsk were intended to delay Russian advances in Ukraine?
François Hollande: Yes, Angela Merkel is right on this point.
The Minsk agreements stopped the Russian offensive for a while. What was very important was to know how the West would use this respite to prevent any further Russian attempts.”
And a little further:
“Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military posture. Indeed, the Ukrainian army was completely different from that of 2014. It was better trained and equipped. It is the merit of the Minsk agreements to have given the Ukrainian army this opportunity.”
This was NOT just admitted by Merkel and Hollande, the two ‘mediators’ of this agreement, but ALSO by former Ukrainian president Poroshenko, who was in office at the time of the signing of the Minsk Agreements (so both the ‘Mediators’ as well as one of the parties, were in on the hoax!):
Hollande also give this master-class in foreign policy realism:
“François Hollande: […] There will only be a way out of the conflict when, on the ground, Russia will have noted the failure of its murderous enterprise.
The Kyiv Independent: How do you think this war may end?
François Hollande: Negotiations are always the last step to conclude a conflict.”
He tellingly adds:
“The Kyiv Independent: Did you have the impression that Vladimir Putin would respect the Minsk agreements?
François Hollande: We couldn't know that.”
He admits that Russia’s adherence to Minsk II was irrelevant to them, as they could not know if Russia would or would not respect Minsk. Their goal was simple: deceive Russia, and buy time to restructure the Ukrainian army.
This happened with massive NATO support and training, showing the truth behind the words of Merkel and Hollande.
The Wall Street Journal reported, in an article titled ‘The Secret of Ukraine’s Military Success: Years of NATO Training’, “This was just one piece of a little-publicized effort by countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that transformed Ukraine’s military up and down the ranks, from foot soldiers to the defense ministry to overseers in parliament.
[…]
Through classes, drills and exercises involving at least 10,000 troops annually for more than eight years, NATO and its members helped the embattled country shift from rigid Soviet-style command structures to Western standards where soldiers are taught to think on the move.”
Next, we’re end of 2021. Ukraine is planning a massive attack on the Donbas republics to reconquer the lost territory, and amasses their NATO trained and equipped forces.
Denis Pushilin, leader of the Donetsk Republic, issues a warning, and calls for citizens to evacuate ahead of this massive attack he foresees, as the Ukrainian buildup starts. This is reported by NPR, on February 14, 2022.
At the same time, the Russians are building up their own forces at the border with Ukraine, officially for a ’training exercise’, as this Feb 18 speech by US Ambassador Michael Carpenter to the joint session of the Forum for Security Cooperation and Permanent Council shows.
In that speech, he pre-empted what they knew might happen: “Starting several weeks ago, we acquired information that the Russian government was planning to stage a fabricated attack by Ukrainian military or security forces against Russian sovereign territory, or against Russian-speaking people in separatist-controlled territory, to justify military action against Ukraine.”
At this point, impossible to corroborate, but I suspect that the US was trying to get ahead of what they saw coming, and frame Russia for a ‘false flag’ as ‘excuse’.
Either way, on February 24, 2022, Putin started his Special Military Operation.
The continued threat against the Russian speaking or ethnic Russian people in the East of Ukraine, the continued progress towards NATO membership of Ukraine, with the US backed/planned coup against Yanukovych, and the very harsh line of EU, NATO and US against Russia, made him decide on this pre-emptive strike, to prevent an invasion into the Donbas republics. (Given the known presence of neo-Nazis, and the history of attacks on civilians, not a baseless fear). And later it is made public that Russians were played for fools, in an orchestrated circus called ‘Minks Agreements’, aimed only at regime change in Russia.
Which is not paranoia by the Russians.
When new U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul arrived in Moscow, early 2012, he sat down with opposition politicians and civil activists. This doesn’t prove anything, but the optics of such an agenda, right from the beginning, does raise questions. You would expect from a top diplomat a little more tact.
The Fletcher Center for Strategic Studies talks about this, and reports how Putin used that to back up his claim about the Western schemes to regime change within Russia: “He also pointed to then-U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul’s meetings with civil society groups and opposition political parties at the U.S. Embassy during his first week in Moscow, which led Russian state-controlled television to claim McFaul was sent “to Moscow to orchestrate a revolution against the Russian regime.”
And no, the Russians don’t just need inference and interpretation of what Americans do or say, or don’t do or don’t say.
We tell them literally…
“The other alternative, of course, is regime change. And that is so hard to calculate, and he has such a grip on power. This is not just an autocracy, as you know, it's a dictatorship. And within that, it's a kleptocracy dictatorship. And everyone around him is in a position because the individual is intensely loyal and proven himself to Putin. Very, very hard in that kind of scenario, lots of different security services, all of which, again, Putin controls, to try to plan and carry out some kind of coup.
But also, as you know from history, what is inconceivable all of a sudden can become inevitable, sometimes overnight. And looking for those kinds of indicators is something that an organization near and dear to both our hearts is looking for, I'm sure very, very assiduously. But it's the most challenging of all questions.”
(From an interview with WaPo)
I did chronicle the view of the US on the importance of Ukraine, to control and limit Russia. Articles from think thanks like the Atlantic Council don’t help: “Russia after Putin: How to rebuild the state”.
The constant posturing of NATO and the EU, boxing in Russia, following what Brzezinski had already lined out, is another aspect that Russia doubtlessly is very aware of. This is key, as well. The US has their Monroe doctrine, namely the view that ‘any intervention by external powers in the politics of the Americas is a potentially hostile act against the US.’ Yet when Russia has a very limited version of that, and sees intervention in Ukraine, and attempts to cut off Ukraine from Russia and link it to NATO, it somehow is unacceptable? Because of an ‘obsolete’ fear of NATO weapons so close to Russia’s mainland? That is what is said, to cast Russia as backwards. Given the new weapons and such, the idea of territorial buffers and similar territorial based concerns is obsolete, a sign of 19th century thinking. Unlike the West, which applies 21st century advanced thinking, of course. Yet when there were rumors that China had plans to build a (military) base on the Solomon Islands, the US’ response was unambiguous, as seen from a White House readout of what a high-level U.S. delegation to the Pacific had accomplished: “If steps are taken to establish a de facto permanent military presence, power-projection capabilities, or a military installation, the delegation noted that the United States would then have significant concerns and respond accordingly.”
In a Teleconference with Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Kritenbrink, the following question was asked, to clarify what ‘respond accordingly would mean’.
“Moderator: Given you’re not specifying what the U.S. response would be if a base is established, are you uncomfortable with the connotations of “red lines” that is being discussed, and can you rule out that the U.S. would take military action against Solomon Islands if China established a base there?
Ambassador Kritenbrink: [..] We’ve outlined the specific concerns that we have regarding the potential for a permanent military presence or power-projection capabilities or a military installation, and we’ve indicated that should those events come to pass, that the United States would respond accordingly. And I think it’s best if I leave it at that and not speculate on what that may or may not mean.”
Yeah. 19th century thinking?
Within the geopolitical world, it is clear that the US is acting on certain principles of self-defense against even ‘power-projection’ when that threatens US interests (not even the US mainland), but it denies Russia the very same consideration, even actively tries to deceive Russia as the US tries to fully neuter it.
Power corrupts, they say, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
When the US became the sole superpower, some planners and policymakers could not process the sudden power and responsibility that was given them, and became absolutists: their liberal dream was good, and thus all who opposed it, were necessarily evil, and to be eradicated. Democracy against tyranny! Who can be against that? But as I outlined in my articles on the EU (here and here), what does such ‘democracy’ really mean?
Another point we tend to forget (or are made to forget), are the constant provocations by the US and NATO. Several times, strategic bomber planes (read: the B-52s that carry the nuclear missiles) made practice runs over Ukrainian territory, at times directly mimicking and practicing bombing runs towards Russia. This was openly reported, such as in this article by Military.com, aptly titled ‘'In Your Face:' US B-52s Skirt Crimea, Join Ukrainian Jets for Training’. That NATO and the US are actually capable to be more discreet, is also clear, from another headline: ‘US Air Force B-52 bombers in Europe are staying active, but less 'in your face,' as Russia wages war on Ukraine’, this time from BusinessInsider. Being able to now hold such exercises right up to the border of Russia, over Ukrainian airspace, allows the US to now collect data on the Russian response. Important to note: this is about their immediate response, as there is now no buffer left. Forbes spelled it out, in an article triumphantly claiming the US again successfully baited the Russians.
From Forbes:
”Look closely at the transponders in the air at the time of the Aug. 28 intercept. While the Su-27s were needling the Stratofortress, two four-engine RC-135V/W Rivet Joint electronic-intelligence planes—which the U.S. and U.K. air forces use to surveil enemy air-defenses—were loitering nearby, presumably scooping up all kinds of useful data on Russian sensors and communications.
Exactly a week later, the Americans and their friends did it again. Today at least one B-52 flew through Ukraine and skirted the edge of the Black Sea just miles from Russian forces on the Crimean Peninsula. Two other B-52s were exercising over Ukraine around the same time, according to U.S. European Command. It’s unclear whether all three flew the same track near Crimea.
A pair of RC-135V/Ws meanwhile flew over the Black Sea, close enough to Crimea—and to the B-52—to intercept signals from any Russian radars tracking the bomber.
All this is to say, it’s clear that the United States and its NATO allies aren’t just showing off. The Stratofortress-Rivet Joint missions are helping the alliance to gather strategic intelligence on Moscow’s forces in and around Crimea. In wartime, this information could help planners determine how to suppress or destroy Russian air-defenses in the region.”
Information directly from bases, installations and capabilities stationed on Russian territory itself. A much closer and thus more accurate look. No, the Russians are not just stuck in 19th century thinking when they want a proper buffer between NATO/US and their own Motherland. Such provocations rub it into Russia’s face: “Look, we are right here, at your doorstep, and there is nothing you can do about it!”
Those elites in the West overreached, and in their arrogance thought they could impose their ‘liberal hegemony’, benevolently, of course, on the whole world. Prof. Mearsheimer had a very damning lecture on this, given in 2017 in Yale. He points at this idea among those elites, that ‘Nonliberal governments are in a state of aggression with their own people’, as liberalism stands for protecting human rights, international peace, and protecting liberalism at home (that is us, the good guys!). It would lead to far to analyze his lecture here, but it applies to the background of why those Western elites think they can and should intervene, not just in Ukraine, but in Russia (or at least try to).
In short: Putin has shown incredible restraint, a willingness to accept Ukrainian territorial integrity (per Minsk II), in return for respect for the rights of Russian speaking people in Ukraine, and for respect of Russia’s direct sphere of influence (i.e., to stop trying to isolate Russia by forcing NATO right up to their borders, as promised). The West pushed for war, and prolonged it well beyond what it should have been.
He has been open to negotiate the whole time, since he became president, but was never taken serious when he drew his own red line. Western elites thought they could manipulate him and the Russians, somehow, as they had done with so many others.
This next part is the most maddening, to me, as there is absolutely no excuse for those responsible.
By mid March 2022, when the war was just 2 weeks old, President Zelensky had put together a draft of a peace proposal, and had it delivered to Putin. This was reported on by several outlets at the time (Foreign Policy and WaPo, for example). Some indications point at a first start of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine on March 3rd! In total, more than 17 draft proposal had been composed, debated, amended…
The Financial Times wrote:
“Ukraine and Russia have made significant progress on a tentative peace plan including a ceasefire and Russian withdrawal if Kyiv declares neutrality and accepts limits on its armed forces, according to five people briefed on the talks. Ukrainian and Russian negotiators discussed the proposed deal in full for the first time on Monday, said two of the people. The 15-point draft considered that day would involve Kyiv renouncing its ambitions to join Nato and promising not to host foreign military bases or weaponry in exchange for protection from allies such as the US, UK and Turkey, the people said.”
This was part of a series of talks, that started on Feb 28, 2022, 4 days after the start of the Special Military Operation. By the end of March, very early April, Russia was ready to have a meeting between Zelensky and Putin in Ankara, at the highest level, showing that very substantial progress was being made (keep also in mind that by that point, there were relatively few casualties, in large part because of the rules of engagement the Russians had placed on their troops and their whole attack, as I explained in ‘On the Military Strategies in Ukraine’). The idea was even to have that meeting ended with a signed peace agreement! To that effect, Russia had withdrawn all their troops from around Kiev and most of the North, as a sign of good faith, that their intent was not a complete occupation of Ukraine. The below map shows the extent of the withdrawal on April 5th, and the next day, on April 6th, the withdrawal was complete, as Reuters confirmed: “Russia has completed withdrawal from around Kyiv -U.S. defense official”.
![OC] Latest situation Ukraine as Russians withdrawal from northern Ukraine is almost complete : r/dataisbeautiful](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!_Kj2!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7beb14d0-c3b9-42fc-bfcb-21ec617416db_640x542.png "OC] Latest situation Ukraine as Russians withdrawal from northern Ukraine is almost complete : r/dataisbeautiful")
By April 12, however, Russia indicated that the negotiations with Ukraine ‘had turned into a dead end’. What had happened?
Two things.
First, a sudden slew of accusations of war crimes and atrocities, allegedly committed by the Russian Armed Forces, exemplified by the events in Bucha (the only one to really get expanded on with explicit proof, pictures, etc.). A first rate false flag event, started on April 2nd, gathering steam all throughout the following week. Some sources said, even at the time, that this was put together by MI6 or some other British intelligence organization. That this was a lie, put together by either Ukraine or the West, is without question, as I have explored and written about extensively in 2 articles (Ukrainian Propaganda, and Massacres in Ukraine: whodunnit?. In that last one, I also detailed some other examples of the attacks on civilians by the Ukrainian forces, but warning: graphic images).
And the second was a surprise visit by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, on April 9. This visit took everyone off guard, almost without any warning, and sources of the Ukrainska Pravda stated that Boris brought 2 simple messages.
“ Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with.”
“Even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.”
(Who is the ‘they’ Boris referred to? The collective West? Some other elites? We’ll likely never know for sure.)
Also from Ukrainska Pravda, on April 12: “Putin said that the negotiations with Ukraine have reached an impasse.”
From Putin himself:
“With regard to the negotiations, look, we reached certain agreements in Istanbul, under which security guarantees for Ukraine – and the Ukrainian side is striving to obtain very strict security guarantees for itself – will not apply to Crimea, Sevastopol and Donbass.
Then, as you know, we made certain efforts to create a proper environment for continuing the negotiating process. In return, we saw the provocation in Bucha and, most importantly, the Ukrainian side walked away from the Istanbul agreements. Now, security requirements have become a separate issue, and regulating our relations over Crimea, Sevastopol and Donbass will be taken out of the scope of these agreements. That is, they have returned to a dead-end for themselves and for all of us.”
In the US, Fiona Hill confirmed this in an article for Foreign Affairs, several months later (Sep-Oct 2022):
“According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
She added: “But as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in a July interview with his country’s state media, this compromise is no longer an option.” Which is true. But strangely, she did not mention WHY that compromise no longer is an option…
As if all that isn’t enough, former Prime Minister of Israel, Naftali Bennett, was also very heavily involved in those peace talks, as a Haaretz article from March 2022 shows: “Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has been the prime mediator in talks between Ukraine and Russia, and significant progress on a tentative peace plan has been made, the Financial Times reported on Wednesday.” But this past week, he came out with a confession (reported here) during a nearly five-hour-long video interview to Israel's Channel 12: “He claimed that his efforts as a middleman came close to succeeding as both Moscow and Kiev appeared to be ready to make concessions and agree to a truce, RT reported.
Bennett, however, said that the negotiations did not succeed because it was "a legitimate decision by the West to keep striking (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. I mean the more aggressive approach".
Asked if the US and its allies "blocked" the peace process between Moscow and Kiev, he said: "Basically, yes. They blocked it."“
To make matters worse, when those early peace talks imploded, Russia continued their offensive, and managed to grind down Ukrainian equipment and manpower, even when they were retreating in Ukraine’s counter-offensive in September 2022, and especially in the ‘meat grinder’ of Bakhmut. If Ukraine had not received the massive aid in weapons, ammunition, food, money and even NATO trained troops to man the Western weaponry (‘mercenaries’, they call them), Ukraine’s defenses would have crumbled months ago, and the war would have been concluded by now, with a lot of destruction and death saved on the people on both sides of the front line. (!!!)
The West, the US on top, bears a crushing responsibility here, prolonging this war directly, at least at 2 occasions: as an outsider, ending the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, and when they chose to actively prop up a depleted Ukrainian army and country.
Since I wrote this article, indeed a THIRD occasion has been revealed. This was reported by Seymour Hersh, in his substack article “How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now”. Remember that pipeline that exploded at the bottom of the Baltic Sea? Yeah, just days after a German investigation admits that there is no evidence whatsoever the Russians did that (Yahoo reported: “German top official says no evidence of Russian sabotage of Nord Stream pipeline”, and that Swedish Security Service had reported on Nov. 18. that '“The explosions that damaged Russia's Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines were the results of “gross sabotage.”), Seymour Hersh drops this incredible bombshell report, with evidence. He also dives into some of the reasons.
After explaining the structure of the Nordstream pipelines, he continues:
”America’s political fears were real: Putin would now have an additional and much-needed major source of income, and Germany and the rest of Western Europe would become addicted to low-cost natural gas supplied by Russia—while diminishing European reliance on America.”
This was something even Trump very clearly warned about, but was then attacked over (Bloomberg thought it necessary to lecture Trump: “Russia Pipeline Doesn't Make Germany a 'Captive,' Mr. Trump”.
Back to Seymour Hersh, after he explained how the US Congress had passed a law to ‘halt the pipeline in its tracks’. Yet ”a few months later, as the construction of the second pipeline neared completion, Biden blinked. That May, in a stunning turnaround, the administration waived sanctions against Nord Stream AG, with a State Department official conceding that trying to stop the pipeline through sanctions and diplomacy had “always been a long shot.” In November 2021, German regulators suspended approval for the second line, which immediately shot up gas prices by 8%. While this seems to be in support of what the US seemed to want, stop that pipeline, Hersh notes that “[i]t was not clear to Washington just where Olaf Scholz, Germany’s newly appointed chancellor, stood,” as Scholz had expressed support for the idea of “a more autonomous European foreign policy […] clearly suggesting less reliance on Washington.”
This was right when Russia started their military buildup at Ukraine’s borders.
”The administration’s attention once again was focused on Nord Stream. As long as Europe remained dependent on the pipelines for cheap natural gas, Washington was afraid that countries like Germany would be reluctant to supply Ukraine with the money and weapons it needed to defeat Russia.”
Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer winning veteran investigative reported, claims he has a ‘source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.’ And what a story he tells us, that matches in timing the different statements we do know about by Biden, Blinken and Nuland (she seems involved very closely with everything Ukraine!).
US Navy divers planted the bombs, and they were later detonated at Biden’s command.
Why is that important, and how is this a THIRD occasion the US willfully sabotaged an avenue to peace? I explained that in some detail in my article ‘US Betrayal of Germany and Europe?’.
In short: faced with sky-high energy prices, spurned on by Western sanctions, the people in Europe started to rise up.
“People are starting to protest against the largely artificial energy crisis, due to the imposed sanctions on the Russian economy, including export of energy (and fertilizer, further exacerbating the growing food crisis). And the next day, the 27th, the Nord Stream pipelines are blown up… Can’t have those leaders back down and reconsider opening those pipelines again!
[info on similar protest elsewhere in Europe]
The sabotage on the Nord Stream pipelines ends any hope to restart supply to Europa that way. Russia is bringing that case to the UN, and demands a Security Counsel review of that situation.”
By depriving Russia a major negotiation tool to convince Europe to any concession, it forced Europe into a further collusion course with Russia, through the war in Ukraine. There shall be no peace!
What was more important than peace and the saving of lives? This war is now officially no longer Putin’s war, but America’s war. That conclusion is now utterly inescapable.
From a message on Telegram by InfoDefense:
“In an interview in 2018, Zelensky promised to do everything to bring peace to Ukraine. (Thus confirming that the civil war in Donbass has been going on for 8 years). Zelensky stated his readiness to sit down at the negotiating table with representatives of the Kremlin and Donbass and consider the possibility of mutual concessions. The Ukrainian president also promised to submit the results of the negotiations to a national referendum. Instead, as we now know, the Ukrainian army has been intensively preparing for war under NATO leadership.”
I believe that report about Zelensky. He is a puppet, true, but was an actor, Ukrainian, who loved his country, and did not like what he saw. I contend he is a bit of a tragic figure, swept away in waters way above his strength and skill level, becoming more and more corrupted along the way.
Reading the following article on the Volhynia massacre (do yourselves a favor, and do NOT google images about that dark period in humanity’s history), I came across the following little tidbit, that shows a Zelensky who is understanding and open to work with others, in line with the above message from InfoDefense:
“The Freedom and Democracy Foundation, a Polish NGO, [announced] that it has received permission from Ukrainian authorities to search and exhume graves of Poles murdered by a branch of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) in the village of Puzhnyky in February 1945.
The UPA was a Ukrainian nationalist partisan organisation that was the primary perpetrator of the massacres in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia from 1943 to 1945 that killed as many as 100,000 ethnic Poles – mostly women and children – as well as Jews and other non-Ukrainian ethnic groups.
Most people in Poland regard the killings as an act of genocide, a position officially recognised by the Polish parliament. However, Ukrainian officials have rejected that term, and have also often pointed to historical persecution of ethnic Ukrainians by Poles.
Under President Volodymyr Zelensky, that position has softened somewhat. In 2020, he and his Polish counterpart, Andrzej Duda, jointly declared a desire to “respect historical truth”, including allowing the exhumation of victims (something that authorities in Ukraine had previously blocked).”
Looking at the very polarized situation in Ukraine today, this open-mindedness and willingness to allow a proper investigation into that very dark and blood soaked page in Ukrainian history, a very sensitive one, this move by Zelensky speaks to a true desire to do good. Did it slip by his puppet masters? Or did they not care? Either way, I like to see Zelensky in this more human and nuanced matter, knowing that this does not absolve him of any of the responsibilities he does carry. He’s trapped in his own Greek Drama…
Looking back at that almost successful negotiation, initiated by Zelensky (!), is this what Putin seems to have hoped for, with his very soft-gloved approach to this Special Military Operation, that cost a lot more lives on Russian side in those first few weeks, than at any point later, even during the Ukrainian counter-offensive in September 2022? There was no comprehensive bombing campaign, as the US always did long before sending in troops, keeping power, water, communications, transport, etc. intact. He also started that war way understaffed: the normal ratio for an attacking army, is to have 3 soldiers per enemy soldier, as the classic combat rule states (not without its critics, but as a rule of thumb). Russian forces numbered about 150,000 as were estimated as having amassed at the Ukrainian border, with another 40,000 or so troops from units from the Donbass regions Donetsk and Lugansk, about 1/3rd compared to the total numbers of the Ukrainian army. Based on an article from the very beginning of the war, the Ukrainian army had about 250,000 service members as of 2021, of which about 200,000 actual soldiers and not supporting personnel (excluding 53,000 border guards, 60,000 National Guard, at least 30,000 of the Security Service SBU, etc.), as well as volunteer territorial defense units and around 900,000 reservists.
Was the model for Putin that February 2014 experience in Crimea, where his little green men blocked Ukrainian army bases, who did nothing, or even switched sides to join the ‘rebels’? A take-over where those involved recognized each other as brothers, or who realized the lack of need to really start shooting and killing each other? Did he receive false intel? Was there another case of deceit from the part of Ukraine/the West, trying to lure out Putin unprepared, in order to be able to inflict massive damage, and turn the Russian public opinion against Putin? It’s all in the realm of the possibilities.
Either way, it did not turn out that way, and Ukraine, with their brand-new NATO trained and equipped army, closely held under control by their Western masters, fought like hell, forcing the Russians to adapt, as their lines were way too thin and spread out. The moment Ukraine counter-attacked, the Russian lines could not withstand them. Instead of futile last stands, the Russians simply folded back, with minimal losses on their side, while inflicting maximum losses on the advancing Ukrainian troops (to attack, you have to come out in the open, exposing yourself), while they called up their own partial mobilization of reservists with prior military training and experience.
To conclude this part, allow me to cite the conclusion of another great article by Jared Peterson on American Thinker, where they masterfully expose the rank propaganda and untruths from a piece by Jacob Fraden, also on American Thinker. (I love that such a debate within the pages of the same outlet is possible!) Take a look at that full article as well, it offers a great angle, summarizing what I have presented here in some more depth.
“But that this tragic, needless war was in fact provoked by the West’s low-grade war against Russia over the last 30 years is indisputably clear simply by reciting the pertinent history. This does not excuse or justify the Russian invasion. But it shows that it was the West, led by American neocon hegemonists, that created Russia’s accumulating perception of threat, which in turn made the war all but inevitable.
We, successive governments of the United States of America, bear a large share of the responsibility for creating the conditions in which the Ukraine war occurred. If our self-image of America as a uniquely humane and benign force in the world has any merit, it is we who have a moral duty to assist in bringing this ruinous, and highly dangerous, conflict to an end.
The flow of ever more destructive Western weaponry to Ukraine should stop. The mindless, anti-historical demonization of Russia should stop. Negotiations to bring about a conclusion to the war should begin.”
I wholeheartedly agree with the overall, but would go a step further.
I think there actuall IS enough there to claim that Russia has a just cause, using broadly accepted principles that the West has long applied to themselves in various wars and disputes.
I repeat again: The West, US ahead, has betrayed and deceived Russia at every step of the way, and did all it could to prevent peace from returning. This war is now officially no longer Putin’s war, but America’s war. That conclusion is now utterly inescapable.
What that will do to the way Russia will see and deal with the US and the West? Tim will tell, but that is a bear I wished we never poked and provoked so needlessly.
In my next article, I will explore bioweapons as used by Ukraine, and the much storied US paid and/or run biolabs in Ukraine. Next, an overview of the Russian Special Military Operation from within the framework of the Just War doctrine, and I will end with a look at where that leaves the US.
__________________
If you learned anything from my articles, enjoyed the explanations, please share my articles where you can. Retweet, retruth, share on facebook, email that friend of family member,… Spread the word!
Thank you for the detailed and sourced series of articles on the Ukraine-Russia war that had its roots in the color revolutions and continued by the internal civil war that never actually ended.
Awesome article! All the reason We the People need to make a national impact!! How do we do this?? Local actions!