Let’s (Not) Go To War!

W.J. Astore

Remember the days when America had to be attacked before it went to war? And when it did, it made formal Congressional declarations of the same?

In December 1941, the Japanese attacked the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor as well as elsewhere in the Pacific. In response to those attacks, President Franklin Roosevelt asked Congress for a formal declaration of war. Nazi Germany then declared war on the U.S., after which the U.S. responded in kind. Compared to the future wars of U.S. empire, Americans were generally united and had some understanding of what the war (World War II, of course) was about.

We haven’t had that kind of unity and clarity since 1945, which is certainly the biggest reason America has suffered so many setbacks and defeats in unpromising places like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In all three of those places, there really wasn’t a clear and compelling cause for war, hence there was no Congressional declaration of the same. Hmm … maybe that should have told us something?

In Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution by Congress followed on the heels of an “attack” that had never happened. In Iraq, the “evil dictator” didn’t have the weapons of mass destruction we accused him of having, nor had he played any role in the 9/11 attacks. In Afghanistan, the Taliban had played a secondary role in providing a safe haven to Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11, but it was Al Qaeda, not the Taliban, that was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Indeed, since 15 of the 19 Al Qaeda terrorists were Saudi, as well as their leader, Osama bin Laden, it would have made much more sense to have declared war on Saudi Arabia and invade that country than to have invaded Afghanistan. Of course, it made no sense at all to have declared a general “war on terror,” and rather unsurprisingly, that 20-year-war has only succeeded in spreading terror further.

Now we turn to today’s situation between Russia and Ukraine. Frankly, I don’t see a border dispute between these two countries as constituting a major threat to U.S. national security. It’s certainly no reason for America to go to war. Yet the Biden Administration is taking a hard line with its economic sanctions, its weapons shipments, and its troop deployments to the region.

Somehow, America’s leaders seem to think that such actions will deter, or at least punish, Russia and its leader. But there’s another possibility, one equally as likely, that sanctions and weapons and troops will lead to escalation and a wider war, and for what reason? A Russian-Ukrainian border dispute? This dispute might resolve itself if the U.S. and NATO just had the sense and patience to mind its own business.

A rush to war made sense in 1941, when the U.S. faced powerful and implacable enemies that were focused on its destruction. It hasn’t made sense since then, nor does it make sense today.

In short, let’s not go to war.

58 thoughts on “Let’s (Not) Go To War!

  1. Reading any of the excellent books about July/August 1914 reveals the ways in which each of the soon-to-be belligerents lost control of their actions and became reactive, with the resulting escalation to war leading to the carnage that followed.

    The US is engaged in something that as you note presents no direct security threat to our nation. Yet, there is now risk of escalation, with increasingly reactive action and policies – and the latter seemingly more about domestic politics here and the looming mid-term elections than a well considered strategy.’

    There will be many relatively minor players – both military and civilian who can tip the action in directions not anticipated or approved. A close contact or collision between fighter jets over the Baltic is only one such scenario.

    As President Kennedy (a former Navy junior officer) observed about the young commanding officers on the quarantine line during the Cuban Missile Crisis: “there’s always some poor dumb son of a bitch who doesn’t get the word.”

    Liked by 4 people

  2. As the saying goes, ” ‘Remember when’ is the lowest kind of conversation.”

    Your ideas about what should be done or not done is too narrow, because your conception of war is equally narrow. As a result all of your ideas are constrained to a sad state of irrelevance.

    America hasn’t declared war in almost a century because the nature of war has changed dramatically during that same century. War is now a matter of cyber-intrusions, political manipulation, economic black- and graymail, false flag operations, proxy fighters, and plausible deniability.

    Of course, you might ask the families of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 if it mattered if Russia had actually declared war on Ukraine or not.

    The odds that we will ever be in an existential peer-to-peer conflict are close to zero. While there have been close calls, world peace (not local conflicts) has held since nuclear weapons were introduced. Like it or not, MAD works.

    It is precisely because a global war would destroy global civilization that war by other means have been become so prevalent. Russia under Putin is an outstanding practitioner of the art, but others do it as well. America, of course, also engages in these kinds of activities. It is a fact of 21st existence. To insist on purity before action is foolish.

    If Russia takes some or all of Ukraine, will the price of our Happy Meals go up? Probably not. But Europe, which is the one-half of the heart of the democratic, liberal ideal in the world, would be diminished, socially, economically, and politically. Would the impact be fatal? Of course not. Just another nibble, another cut, another shrug of the shoulders.

    Is the maintenance of a world order that favors American and European interests worth engaging in conflict short of Americans shooting at Russians? I certainly believe so. What’s the other old saying? “First they came for the Socialists…”

    You also speak of a “rush to war.” The Ukrainian situation is the furthest from a rush that anyone could imagine. Putin and Russia have been nibbling at Ukraine for many years, from the Donbas to Crimea. Multiple administrations have tried to limit the nibbles while avoiding armed conflict. At no time has any president advocated involving US ground troops or air forces.

    Those efforts failed, and Russia annexed Crimea. And if you think that had no impact on the Crimeans, just ask Al Jazeera (since all the outlets in this country are tools of the MIC, naturally): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/21/the-devastating-human-economic-costs-of-crimeas-annexation

    I make no apologies for treating Europe differently from the rest of the world. Whether it’s massacres in Yugoslavia or the invasion of Ukraine, the fact that it is Europe makes the response different from other places. Europe is the heartland, in a real sense.

    Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with you about Saudi Arabia. I thought the initial incursion into Afghanistan was justified as a punitive move (yes, such base motives apply even in international relations), but everything after that was worse than useless. The accompanying Iraq war set America back two decades of blood, treasure, influence, and domestic strife.

    But the solution wasn’t an invasion of Saudi Arabia, but to demand that they cooperate in rounding up those involved, and implementation of measures to ensure that Saudi-based terrorists, at least, would no longer be a threat. To do any of that, of course, America has to be willing to endure oil shocks and other economic hardships. Too bad the environmental movement completely derailed the only realistic alternative to the use of fossil fuels to power the industrial world.

    How about a post on nuclear power? I’d be most interested in reading your thoughts!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @bentonianea58f25768:

      “As the saying goes, ‘Remember when’ is the lowest kind of conversation.’ ”

      As in, ‘Remember when someone shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and sought (through unsubstantiated imputation alone) to blame the Russian Federation?’ That kind of ‘remembering when’?

      In short, dialectical consistency does seem your strong suit.


      1. Referencing an event that occurred eight years ago and directly connected to the conflict in question is hardly reminiscing.

        There can be no serious objection to the facts surrounding the destruction of MH17. Multiple international, national, and independent investigations have concluded that the airplane was shot down by a Russian missile launched from an area controlled by Russian forces. Read the wikipedia article. Read the reports from the Dutch Safety Board. Read the reports from the Joint Investigation Team. Read what Bellingcat discovered. Just don’t stick your fingers in your ears because a difficult truth conflicts with what you wish the world was like.


    2. “America hasn’t declared war in almost a century because the nature of war has changed dramatically during that same century.”

      No — that’s not the primary reason. The primary reason is that these wars simply didn’t have the support of the American people; a majority in Congress simply couldn’t be counted in favor of voting for them.

      And that’s a critically important fact. War is many things, fought in many ways, but to prevail in wars of any difficulty or duration requires national will and a sense of purpose. America lost its wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in large part because they were politically untenable and strategically unsound.

      As a result, when they were “sold,” they were sold with lies (Tonkin, WMD, Taliban and Saddam caused 9/11). And thus we have the Pentagon Papers, the Afghan War papers, the Downing Street Memo, all showing persistent and systemic mendacity.

      Methods of war do change, but war itself is still waged within a political, economic, and social matrix. And when a democracy’s leaders make an expedient political decision not to declare war because that war is ultimately unsupported by the people, there is a very high price to be paid for that expediency, as we’ve witnessed with all these disasters since 1945.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. You make some excellent points here, and I’ll include them in my future thinking. Thank you.

        But (of course) I disagree on a couple of items.
        * Public support for the Vietnam war was quite high at the beginning (’63 – ’65), but Johnson opted not for a declaration. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed with only TWO dissenting votes in the entire Congress, so obviously lack of congressional support was not a problem. I believe he choose not to declare because he didn’t want a “full-blown war” to interfere with his higher priority, the Great Society.
        * The first Gulf War was also widely supported (myself included), without any manufactured consent necessary. Yet Bush the First did not declare, and I haven’t found any particular reasons why. But for whatever reason, war was not declared.
        * The second Gulf War was manufactured consent, I agree with that wholeheartedly. But manufactured or not, support was very high at the time, and it would have been relatively easy to issue a declaration of war. Yet congressional approval was requested and obtained (the Authorization for Use of Military Force), so it’s not like presidents are trying to go around congress.

        An interesting study would be why presidents over the last few generations have decided that a specific declaration of war didn’t serve either their or the country’s interests.


      2. Hello Bentonian: You say support for the Vietnam War was was “quite high,” but where’s your evidence? Much of this “support” was based on the lie that U.S. ships had been attacked in the Tonkin Gulf, thus generating a false “rally ’round the flag” sentiment.

        In the 1st Gulf War, you may recall the false report of babies being ripped from incubators by Saddam’s forces in Kuwait.

        You suggest public support for these wars has been “quite high,” “very high,” or “widely supported,” but again you fail to provide evidence, e.g. polling data. And again much of that “support” was based on lies or false reports, e.g. Tonkin, babies and incubators, WMD, Saddam and 9/11, etc.

        So, in place of formal Congressional declarations, which serve to unify people and clarify objectives, we now have “resolutions” and “AUMFs” that are passed based on a pack of lies. Some “support”!

        Liked by 3 people

      1. This touches on what has been my biggest fear in the NATO expansion eastward (and I suspect, the same with the Russians). In the many incidents where there were alerts of launches and incoming missiles, decision makers on either side asked for confirmation or had time to consider their options.

        Now consider intermediate-range or hypersonic missiles based in Poland or Ukraine. Flight times are in the range of five to ten minutes. An alert is received that missiles are incoming. No time would be available for either confirmation or reflection. The pressure to retaliate immediately likely could not be resisted.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. you make a few valid points, bentonianea. thank you. nonetheless, those points might be better served and more seamlessly absorbed by the wja readership if you refrained from injecting your diatribes w/ insulting calumnifications, such as:

    “Your ideas about what should be done or not done is [sic… the predicate should be ‘are’, given the subject of your sentence, ‘ideas’, is plural] too narrow, because your conception of war is equally narrow. As a result all of your ideas are constrained to a sad state of irrelevance.”

    your approach to ‘conversation’ tendentiously generates obloquy and confrontation rather than sober discourse, which offers the potential of achieving concinnity or comity. wja’s ‘remember when’ tropes as prelusions to conversation are in fact more effective than your fulgurous exhortations.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you for the usage correction. I noticed that this morning when I re-read the post. It’s not easy to draft up a reasonably cogent and coherent 600-word mini-essay on the fly!

      Someday please post a pic of your thesaurus shelf. Use the panorama function if you need to.

      Also, I’m curious on what points we found agreement. If I recall some of your earlier posts I would have doubted there would be much on which we might find common cause.


      1. i’ll need to lucubrate [it is past midnight here on mindoro island in the philippines] for a spell before i can Elucubrate.

        i do not use a thesaurus; the chuntering chatyap is packed into my congested cortex. i started reading the dictionary for pleasure around age 5, and have been bloviating w/ logorrhea ever since. my epithetic sobriquet has been ‘motor mouth’ for decades. however, i’m not in the least creative, just procreative [philoprogenitively so, having birthed 7].


        1. Jeanie, your contribution here is appreciated, but, saying this with complete respect, if you could simplify your vocabulary it would greatly ease reading your comments. You have good things to say, but I have to confess that when faced with decoding your wording, I am forced to slow my reading speed like a runner facing hurdles, compared to any other comments here. I’m willing to do the work because I know you are thoughtful and sincere and I want to know your thoughts, but it might make potential readers skip your comments. Why lose readers for something that has nothing to do with the ideas you want to convey? You may well feel it is your style and a very personal part of your writing, but clarity and simplicity are never a bad thing when writing. Please accept this as respectful criticism.


  4. BreakingPoints had a good point today on Ukraine; the established press has drifted so far into incendiary rhetoric (for ratings and ad revenue) during theOrangeMenace years that it has to continue that style and is subsequently driving the line. It’s not new, but it’s getting too obvious to deny, the kids are watching and they are more interested than the adults who have largely tuned out to a changing world. Well-known tactics bring more problems than solutions, and JB/TeamBrandon could be trapped by support for their own presentation.

    I remember reading/watching that after VietNam the military was broken, my inference being disorganized, dissatisfied, demoralized, etc. The Afghanistan withdrawal wasn’t even a year back and the fallout from that hasn’t been fully processed; another excursion ends JB’s turn, Kamala is half a step off a hot mess on a good day, PeteTheBuilder hasn’t finished buying votes around the country and it goes down from there. Another on-the-books military excursion could sink smurfClub altogether and with the GOP shifting to a paleo/classical alliance, the Neocons wouldn’t have a place to hide. They know this too.

    I don’t doubt that TeamBlue is deluded and ignorant, which in situations without influence is a very entertaining watch, but even with the NeoCons & permanentG doing a credential flash on MSNBC [bipartisan!] the available tool is economic, which blows back on us and further agitates an already dissatisfied populace. Putin’s smart enough to know this; he doesn’t have to do anything but wait it out, play war games on the border, run some psych games internationally and undermine the credibility of the US government. Eventually the locals tune out to the line, or even worse for JB/TeamBrandon red pill each other into an ‘anyone but’ moment before the midterms.

    We have reached terminal bullshit-information has been democratized and the best spin is none at all, but the pantalonesPasters still do their ‘deflect&pivot’ and then end up like a whirling dervish in need of hip waders. There’s no war to be had, only humiliation and inflation at home.


  5. Having read the transcript of Putin’s speech, I don’t think this is a Russian-Ukrainian border dispute. It seems pretty clear to me that Putin is stating unequivocally that Ukraine is part of Russia and has no standing as a sovereign state. That doesn’t sound like a border dispute to me.

    I think that we are dealing with this situation not because of the expansion of NATO, but because our leadership, and probably the European leadership ignored Russia thinking that it was no longer a threat. That was stupid.

    Even more stupid was the US squandering victory in the Cold War in heinous empire building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Immoral, and utterly delusional. And so we drained our economy and our military so that we appear weak enough for Putin to think he can push us. If we had focused on building our infrastructure and working for justice in our country and the world, then I am quite sure Putin would not be acting so boldly.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I am not advocating for war. I am just pointing out that I don’t think this is a border dispute.

    IMHO, Putin wants to recreate the USSR. That’s my take on his speech. Of course the USSR didn’t work, because the various republics are too diverse economically and culturally to be part of the same nation. The only way to keep them is to have a strong central government, which exacerbates the drive for some of the republics to leave. That requires a stronger and more repressive central government and the cycle escalates. So my very uninformed opinion is that Putin’s ambitions will lead to the same result as the old USSR. He quotes history a lot in his speech, but seems to miss the real lesson. The old USSR did not work. Neither will the new one.

    War is not the answer. In fact war just delays the inevitable result. Diverse organizations will bond together against a common enemy. IMHO, the most effective response is for European nations to put aside differences and work together. The UK needs to remember its a part of Europe, and act like it, and the US needs to start taxing people like we used to when Ike was president and spend the money on helping poor people across the world (like a nation “under God” really would) instead of empire building.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. For those wishing an informed overview of what the consummately competent leadership of the Russian Federation have set in motion beginning February 2, 2022, see “The birth of the baby twins: Russia’s strategic swing drives NATOstan nuts” by Pepe Escobar, Vineyard of the Saker (February 22, 2021):

    [begin quoted excerpt]

    History will register that the birth of the baby twins – Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics – only a few hours before 2/22/22, was simultaneous to the birth of the real, 21st century multipolar world.

    As my columns have stressed for a few years now, Vladimir Putin has been carefully nurturing his inner Sun Tzu. And now it’s all in the open: “Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”

    The thunderbolt was months in the process of being meticulously polished. To paraphrase Lenin, who “created Ukraine” (copyright Putin), we did live many decades in only these past few days. It all started with the detailed demands of security guarantees sent to the Americans, which Moscow knew would be rejected. Then there was the Russia-China joint statement at the start of the Winter Olympics – which codifies not only the strategic partnership but also the key tenets of the multipolar world.

    The culmination was a stunning, nearly one hour-long address to the nation by Putin shortly after the Russian Security Council live session deliberating on the request for independence by the DPR and the LPR . . . [see the article for link to a condensed version]

    A few hours later, at an emergency UN Security Council meeting, Russian Permanent Representative Vasily Nebenzya precisely outlined why the recognition of the baby twins does not bury the Minsk agreements.

    The baby twins actually declared their independence in May 2014. In 2015 they signed the Minsk agreements as one of the interested parties. Theoretically they could even be back within Ukraine if Kiev would ever decide to respect the agreements, which will never happen because the US has vetoed it since 2015. Moreover, the people of Donbass do not want to be subjected to a regime harboring neo-Nazis [emphasis added].

    As Nebenzya outlined, “I would like to remind you that at the time of the conclusion of the Minsk agreements, the LPR and DPR had already declared independence. The fact that Russia today recognized it does not change the composition of the parties to the Minsk agreements, since Russia is not one (…) Another thing is that the Minsk agreements have long been openly sabotaged by Ukraine under the auspices of our Western colleagues. Now we see that many colleagues want to sign that the Minsk agreements are dead. But this is not the case (…) We are still open to diplomacy, but we do not intend to allow a new bloody massacre in the Donbass” [emphasis added].

    And here’s the clincher, directly addressing imperial support for the killing of ethnic Russians in Donbass: “The main task of our decision [on recognizing independence] was to preserve and protect these lives. This is more important than all your threats” emphasis added].

    There you go: Responsibility to Protect (R2P), a concept invented by the Americans to launch wars, used by Russia for preventing one [emphasis added].

    [end quoted excerpt]

    The reset of the article certainly warrants reading, of course.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. For another view of these recent historic events from a recently repatriated (from America) Russian expatriate, Dmitry Orlov, see “The day Russia’s patience ran out”, The Vinyard of the Saker (February 22, 2022)

    quoted excerpts]
    . . .
    Most Russians will also remember this day with relief as the day their government finally—finally! after eight literally bloody years!—determined that a negotiated settlement in the Ukraine would simply never happen and that there was no point in waiting any further before going ahead and cleaning it up.
    . . .
    The answer as to why Russia waited for so long to take this step is that it hadn’t been ready: the Russian economy hadn’t yet been bulletproofed against all possible sanctions; not all diplomatic methods of resolving the problem had been tried; and the military wasn’t quite ready to deal with the situation swiftly and efficiently.
    . . .
    You see, after the unconstitutional overthrow of the democratically elected government in Kiev in 2014, Donetsk and Lugansk seceded as intact regions. Later, in the course of Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operation” (the prefix “anti-” here being rather superfluous) these regions came to be partially occupied by Ukrainian forces. It seems outlandish to imagine that Russia, in the course of recognizing the independence and sovereignty of Donetsk and Lugansk, also granted recognition to partial Ukrainian occupation thereof. It is far more likely that the Russian forces will now politely ask the Ukrainian forces to clear out by a certain deadline or, failing to do so, be killed or captured [emphasis added].
    . . .
    Western leaders may not realize this right away (they seem to be in a rather sorry state mentally) but it seems likely that they will eventually realize that 22.02.2022 was the day their bullshit finally stopped working [emphasis added]. The idea of them spreading freedom and democracy rather than death and destitution (as evidenced by the Ukraine, on top of a log list of other countries they have “liberated” and “democratized”) is beyond preposterous.
    . . .
    It will be quite a steep learning curve for them and there is a question as to whether they can learn at all. The only ability they have demonstrated is for repeating the same litany of lies over and over again. Having been purpose-bred to carry water for banking and corporate interests, they may not be capable of the required level of rational thought. And that raises another question: What are the people in the West going to do about them?

    [end quoted excerpts]

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Two informed articles of interest from Brussels-based independent analyst Gilbert Doctorow who travels frequently to Russia and appears often on their media talk shows:

    1) “Meet the new Proactive Russia: The Kremlin Moves on to Plan B” by Gilbert Doctorow, gilbertdoctorow.com (February 16, 2022)

    2) “Putin recognizes Donbas republics: what comes next?” by Gilbert Doctorow, gilbertdoctorow.com (February 23, 2022)

    Lots of food for thought upon the basis of which one might construct a meaningful discussion.


  10. And then we have this from Andrei Raevsky (a.k.a., “The Saker”) a long-time U.S. resident and analyst of all things Russian: “The Crusaders are very, very angry. Who cares?”, The Vineyard of the Saker (February 22, 2022)

    [some quoted excerpts]
    . . .
    I just listened to Biden ([link in article] here if you have the stomach). Oh he is pissed, badly. Putin totally and comprehensively ignored him or the USA (one sign of that is that Putin did warn Scholz and Macron but, apparently, nobody told the White House).
    . . .
    Biden also said something two really interesting in his otherwise totally vapid speech.

    First, he asked who the hell Putin thought he was to recognize states in other sovereign nations?

    Second, he warned Russia: we shall judge you by your actions.

    I think I can help Biden and give him two very simple replies:

    1. Putin is the President of Russia and he does ask for anybody’s approval, least of all – the USA’s.
    2. You don’t get to judge Russia. That ship has sailed. If anything, the day will come when Zone B will judge you on a 21st century of the Nuremberg Tribunal. As Putin said “we have all their names”.

    But I also know this: in the minds of the leaders of Zone A both of these replies are literally *unthinkable*. Ok.

    Hence, they will have to be shown that which they currently cannot fathom [emphasis added].
    . . .
    From a legal point of view, until now Russia has insisted that this was an internal Ukrainian civil war and not an international conflict. Now this has changed.

    Now, from the point of view of the Kremlin, this is now an international conflict directly involving Russia [emphasis in the original].

    [end quoted excerpts]

    As the Chinese say: “May you live in interesting times” . . .


  11. And one more from Andrei Raevsky, a.k.a., “The Saker.” “Russia recognition of the LDNR – a few initial thoughts”, The Vineyard of the Saker (February 21, 2022)

    [quoted excerpts]

    I listened to the full Russian Security Council meeting, then to Putin’s address to the nation, then the signing of the the treaties on cooperation and mutual support.

    The first thing which I want to point out is that this was a very carefully orchestrated event, and I don’t just mean today’s live meetings and signing. For those of us who follow Russian politics very closely there can be no doubts that all this was prepared long BEFORE the Russian ultimatum to the West [emphasis in the original].

    This is “the plan” which Putin once openly referred to.

    Let me make this clear: this recognition should NOT, repeat, NOT, be seen in isolation. It is just ONE PHASE in a PROCESS which began at least a year ago, or more, and there is much more to come.

    Next, that must be repeated again, this is NOT about the LDNR, the Donbass or even the Ukraine, this is about a new security architecture on Europe and, therefore, on our entire planet.

    This means that Russia expected exactly the reaction she eventually got (western politicians are fantastically predictable, being both ignorant, stupid and arrogant) and that gave her a legal basis to take the current action (call it R2P, or moral duty, or genocide prevention or whatever else you wish).
    . . .
    . . .whatever sanctions the West now agrees upon will be what they would have done in any case [emphasis added]. I repeat: today’s recognition of the LDNR will have exactly ZERO influence on the West’s maniacal determination to destroy Russia and her people . . . .

    [end quoted excerpts]

    Much more in this article merits, of course. But this, plus the above referenced articles ought to suffice for necessary context. Nothing that I’ve seen on the bought-and-corrupted corporate U.S. media comes anywhere close. I can well understand why the Russians and Chinese have pretty much given up on trying to speak sense to the utterly irrelevant “West.” Time to just get on with the task of building a better world.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. For transparency, the inspiration for the Post above came from another insightful Portside.org article I just read.
        It started with Bob Dylan’ lyrics and being so appropriate for these Times, I left off reading and found the video with lyrics and posted it here before reading the article. Having now read it, I’ve shared it on Twitter and Facebook. I’m going to make it a new article in my Blog.

        Waking up early, I watch the latest news on CNN, MSNBC, CBC & CTV and watching US Propaganda with the same anti-Russian/Putin experts who were indoctrinated and paid all their lives to oppose Russia since WWII, with no dissenting views allowed, and calling for War against Russia, I’m starting to feel these words written so long ago, and find myself shouting at them watching TV for their Lies, and so many SINS of OMISSION.
        “The ox knows his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel does not know, my people do not consider.
        Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel to anger, they are gone away backward.”

        Watching Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Polish-American Daughter questioning former CIA Director and Secretary of Defence, calling for all out War without actually saying those exact words, (Propaganda and Mass Manipulation is subtle) the last softball question she asked was, ‘As Director of the CIA, what was the Profile of Putin you were given at that Time?”
        His immediate answer was “KGB KGB KGB!”
        He just could see there is not much difference with CIA CIA CIA in the ongoing WAR for Full Spectrum Dominance and Control of Information and the World.
        President G. Bush Sr. was Director of the CIA before he became President presiding over the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.

        Harry Truman who created the CIA, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence.” Dec. 22, 1963. He essentially said the CIA went rogue, getting involved in shaping events in other Nations, not just collecting information as it was created to do. Searching Google for the link to actual Washington Post op-ed, it is no longer there. There are a lot of other articles on it, quoting excerpts from it.
        Good thing I saved the op-ed but I regret I didn’t save the actual link to post here.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. One thing this situation clearly reveals: the lack of strong and clear and informed leadership by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Harris went to Europe and embarrassed herself with her ignorance of history and her inability to express ideas clearly. Biden has been doing his best to pose as a hawk with his aviator glasses on, issuing threats to look tough, probably for domestic political reasons, but his approach simply hasn’t worked.

    Biden/Harris: Vapid and muddled — and weak no matter how many poses they strike.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Be thankful you’re not sitting behind the Resolute desk! As Obama said, “One of the first things I discovered as President of the United States was that no decision that landed on my desk had an easy, tidy answer.”

      But I agree with you on our leaders’ capabilities. I don’t think it’s debatable that Biden is showing cognitive decline, much as Reagan did in his second term. A younger, more energetic president might find a better way forward, but anyone behind the desk would be constrained by all of the forces that tie Biden.

      As for Harris, she faces an additional layer of constraint due to whatever limitations Biden imposes, whether of access, talking points, knowledge, etc. Imagine Truman being asked about new bomb while FDR was still alive.

      In the end, it comes down to what Putin has decided. If the annexation of parts or all of Ukraine is worth whatever price Europe and America impose, and that his losses fighting a war of conquest and occupation are acceptable, then he will invade. America and Germany are not going to put troops on Ukrainian soil.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. My reply to Senator Cornyn of Texas yesterday,
    Good Day Senator Cornyn,

    You are the 11th Senator to reply to the Message ‘Signs Of The Times’ sent to all US Senators at the beginning of the month writing from CanaDa.

    Metaphorically speaking, I knew I was taking it to Daniel’s Lion’s Den with my POV going against the grain of US Indoctrination, Propaganda and Policy since WWII vis a vis Russia.

    As I read your paragraph starting with “the Russian government has become increasingly blatant in its disregard for the rule of law and human rights……..”

    The Rules Based Order SoS Blinken touts as long as the US sets the Rules, already exists as Represented by the United Nations Charter and International Law.

    The US went to the United Nations Security Council, using FAKE US Intelligence, asking for the Legal Authority to invade and remove Saddam only the UNSC can give.

    That Legal Authority was denied, but with the delusional belief in it’s own exceptionalism, the US invaded anyway, in violation of International Law, undermining the Global Rules Based Order as represented by the United Nations since WWII, ushering in the Law of the Jungle in the Middle East and this World.

    Even the Pope did not acknowledge the Red Flag Warning Sign God gave the World in 2014 when he went to Iraq last year, when ISIS blew up the Islamic Mosque in Nineveh, Iraq, containing the Tomb of Jonah in the whale fame from the Jewish-Christian Tradition.

    God sent Jonah to that “World City” Nineveh some 3000 years ago, to WARN the People they were on the Path to Destruction if they did not change the Direction. What happened in Nineveh 2014 makes that ancient Biblical record CURRENT.

    As if to confirm it, 2014 is the same year the US orchestrated the Coup/regime change of the Elected Russia friendly government the majority Russian speaking Ukrainians in the East and Crimea VOTED for.

    They were under no legal or moral obligation to accept the US coup that started the sequence of events that led to the impasse the US and Russia face TODAY.

    While I do appreciate you writing Senator Cornyn, I could provide an alternate view of Reality to everything you believe in your reply. The old Rule still applies to this very Day to Nations and Individuals, ‘Let the one without SIN cast the 1st stone.’ I have taken note in my 77 years, the US casts a lot of stones

    I answered Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein’s reply to the same Message you are. I have nothing more to add as this World just might be at the point of the War to End All Wars and Human Civilization itself.

    Half of the Senators who replied, used an email address I can actually reply to, not having to go through the restrictive embedded email systems in Official Senate Websites.

    Character limits here prevent me from posting the exchange of Views with Senator Feinstein, but you can see it in the latest post to my Blog on the 13th,


    Regards with Peace and Blessing


    Ottawa-Hull, CanaDa


  14. Written by – Elijah J. Magnier:

    Accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of reviving the former Soviet Union is an attempt to camouflage the core of the Ukrainian crisis due to the US expansion and provocation to Russia that crossed Putin’s tolerance limits. The US was supposed to keep the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) away from the Oder-Neisse line and refrain from establishing its bases in Eastern Europe, mainly the former Soviet republics. Instead, NATO expanded in many former Soviet republics. Moreover, its officers trained and prepared Ukrainian and Georgian troops for years to meet the requirements to join NATO. This bold move was considered a severe menace to Russia and a violation of previous understanding between the two superpower countries. President Putin demonstrates confidence in his decisions and an excess of power by recognising the DPR and LPR (the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics)with the borders they’ve had as regions of Ukraine. He is, however, giving space to Europe to intervene before it is too late and sending a message to the US, the effective leader of NATO, that Russia will not negotiate and compromise over its security.

    The Russian President is repeating loud and clear that any step that poses a threat to Moscow will not be allowed, regardless of the western threatened consequences (sanctions). The messages are currently for Kyiv, but they are also for Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, which is on the list of NATO’s expansion perspective. But will the US, via Ukraine, succeed in pushing Russia to respond militarily? This decision is in the hands of Ukraine first, which will fight alone at the end of the day. It is also the decision of the resident of the White House and the plans of his generals to push the European continent to war. The current situation is coming very close to a position of non-return unless Europe takes the initiative and leads Russia and the US to de-escalate before it is too late.

    Russian President Putin announced that the Minsk agreements are non-existent. Indeed, the upper house of Russia’s parliament has granted permission for the country’s military to be deployed abroad, following the president’s request. Consequently, Russia has ordered its troops to defend Donbas in a significant development.

    What is more troublesome is Putin’s claim that Ukraine could develop nuclear weapons with the help of the west, and this represents a devastating menace to Moscow. This statement by the Russian President means that the potential of a larger military act is highly likely unless Ukraine announces clearly that it will not join NATO and offers the necessary guarantees. Russia already asked the US for these in previous weeks before recognising the Donbas republics as independent. Washington ignored the essential points of the Russian proposals, deliberately choosing to select or omit some convenient topics and unwilling to “agree on strong and legal binding guarantees”.

    A potential invasion of Ukraine will only bring overwhelming consequences to Europe. Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council and former President……………

    Unfortunately you have to pay and subscribe to see the rest, but I have recognized Elijah Generally tells it like it is in the Middle East and the World.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. This is the fourth time the topic of the Ukraine – Russia conflict has come up at this site and two other topics went into it briefly.

    I want to put out some speculation about what is possibly really going on. Some of it is what I have said before so I am aware of the repetition.
    1. Russia wants to regain all of the territory it controlled as the U.S.S.R.
    The loss of status to the Russians hurts.
    2. Russia is poised to become the wealthiest and most powerful nation
    on the planet in the late 21st century and into the 22nd century.

    I won’t go into point one very much because I have written about that in the previous topics at this site. Briefly, any people that have had a taste of empire want more. This is especially true when many are still living and can talk about the good old days when people respected Russia. Ego is never satisfied and it will keep rationalizing ways to enlarge itself.

    Point 2 is much more speculative.
    I believe Russia wants the entire Ukraine as part of its long term plan to become the most powerful nation on the planet. With global warming, many parts of Ukraine will be able to grow more crops and higher value crops like corn. Russia is constrained in its crops by being so far north. Even with global warming, Russia will be only somewhat better off in growing food. With the ever increasing population of the world, those that can export food will be powerful and wealthy.

    If the decline of the U.S.A. is severe enough, the Russians will make a move to regain Alaska. They discovered Alaska and colonized it in the 19th century. It was sold to the U.S.A. in 1867 by imperial Russia. This means it was sold by the czar. The Russians will claim this was an illegitimate transaction never approved by the Russian people. They will merely be taking back what is rightfully theirs, just like eastern Ukraine and Crimea. With Alaska in their possession, they control almost all the Arctic Ocean and the Northeast passage. With global warming melting the arctic ice cap by 2200, navigation in the Arctic Ocean will be nearly year round. Large areas of Siberia bordering the Arctic Ocean will be available for use as in oil exploration, mining exploration, and possibly farming.

    Russia already has the second largest reserves of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia. It is reasonable to imagine that much more lies in the Arctic Ocean. It seems oil is not going away despite all the talk of renewable energy. Even now, the European nations depend on Russian gas to keep them warm in the winter and power other things. This has weighed heavily on European decision making in this latest crisis.

    Don’t worry comrades, Russian isn’t nearly as difficult to learn as Chinese!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Most interesting speculation, WJ. At this moment, I have only a gut feeling to tell me that Russia’s aims are not exactly as you’re describing, and we all know what gut feelings are worth…

      Two points I’d bring up, for your review. First, from my reading, I understand that Ukraine is an abject failure economically. Do you think Russia is ready to take on that burden for the sake of future crop yields, that Ukraine would be an acceptable “loss leader,” so to speak?

      Second, given its decades-long investments in global natural resources, along with its technology expertise, would not China be more likely to emerge as the richest nation?

      I do believe, as you imply, that both Russia and China are playing the long game. I also believe that, from our vantage point in the U.S., much of the chessboard remains obscured in shadow.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Even before the 2014 US regime change of the Russian friendly government there was already a failed Economy in Ukraine.

        The IMF/EU/NATO were in a bidding War to see who would get Ukraine onside. Put offered better terms and Ukraine accepted them.

        That was when the CIA Professionals instigated the Maidan riots to effect the Coup. Evidence has come out both Police and Protesters were picked off from the Maidan side of the barricades,

        Liked by 1 person

  16. Ignoring as irrelevant the tedious tendentious trivia and tripe emanating from the obsequious gasbag U.S. corporate media, and as part of my ongoing effort to establish something of an informed context for this discussion, I’d like to share a few excerpted comments from Moscow resident Peter Lavelle’s “Crosstalk” program End of Minsk process.

    [0:25 ]Peter Lavelle: “Russia’s official recognition of the Donetsk and Lugansk peoples republics as independent states firmly puts to an end what was known as the Minsk peace process. This recognition also creates a new political fact on the ground. And there is nothing NATO can do about it.”
    . . .
    [17:00] Peter Lavelle: “Russia is going to start making decisions based on its own security.”

    [17:06] Joe Lauria (editor in chief, Consortium News): “The United States cannot conceive of themselves as being aggressors. They still have a World War II fantasy of having defeated Hitler. Of course, it was Russia that mostly defeated Hitler. [The Americans] see themselves as spreading democracy although they’ve overthrown numerous democracies from Chile to Guatemala to Ukraine.

    But they project. And you mentioned projection. This week they sent out a letter to the U.N. high commissioner for refugees saying that they had from media, from intelligenced that they didn’t cite, of course – they never do – that Russia was going to completely take over Ukraine, including Kiev. They [the Russians] had lists of journalists and dissidents they were going to capture and kill and torture in concentration camps. And then you look at the United States record in the past couple of decades. Abu Ghraib [in Iraq], it was a torture center. Guantanimo, it’s a concentration camp in Cuba. They have a journalist, Julian Assange in prison in London. So just what they were accusing Russia of planning to do, and actually using the UN as a foil here to try and spread this story, they themselves do.

    And I do believe, as you said, Peter, that the U.S. seems to have wanted this war. It was question. They were screaming every single day. It was a distraction from the NATO treaties, the draft treaties that Russia put forward. But they seem to have wanted to drag Russia into a trap in the Donbass by starting up this offensive. And, cleverly, the civilians were evacuated [by Russia] first. The recognition of the republics. Putting Russian troops in there in a peacekeeping role in a country they now legally recognize and by whom they were invited in, because no other country does recognize that.

    But the American response was quite mute in a way, strangely enough. They didn’t call it the invasion, right away, that they were expecting. So they [the West] want them [the Russians] to go to Kiev. And when Biden says that [several million] people in Kiev are going to die in their beds from Russian bombs. But then they say they’re defending Ukraine? It undercuts their credibility that they really believe this will happen by not sending troops there. If the Americans sent troops – and I’m not advocating that they do that – but if they reallybelieved that Ukraine was going to be overrun, how could they let this happen. Because they don’t give a damn about Ukraine.

    [19:32] . . . [other guest commentator] . . .

    [22:35] Scott Ritter (former military intelligence officer and UN Weapons inspector): “I think we are in for a long haul. And it’s going to be very uncomfortable for all parties involved, especially the Ukrainians who are going to be stuck in the middle. Russia has prepared itself for the reality of sanctions. Now we’ll see. Prior to this we had the theory of massive sanctions. Russia knows sanctions. They’ve been sanctioned by the West since 2014. Russia understands how its economy works. It understands what its vulnerable points are and I’m sure they’ve prepared for it.

    You know who hasn’t prepared for any of this? Europe and the United States. Because if these sanctions go down the path they look like, Europe is going to suffer egregiously. Their economies will collapse. Many of the European nations that are currently pounding their chests about how tough they’re going to be are going to be crying in pain as their economies collapse. And you know who else isn’t prepared? The American people. When gas prices go through the roof; when inflation goes through the roof; when the economy collapses; when their paycheck is worthless, they’re suddenly going to be asking pertinent questions like ‘What the heck are we doing?’ And at that point in time, I think you’re going to see it.

    And Russia isn’t going to budge. Let me just make that point. I don’t believe Russia is going to budge. Russia is going to stick to its principles, stick to its arguments. The West is going to have to come to them. And that’s what’s ultimately going to happen.

    Now, while this game is being played about who can out-wait whom – and, believe me, Russia can out-wait the West – there is the question of Ukraine. Can this conflict be confined to Donetsk Lugansk in terms of what’s currently going. I don’t believe so. I believe that, A, Ukraine can’t tolerate this. Zelenski can’t survive as a politician. And, B, the West is going to egg him on because, as you have rightly pointed out, there are some people in the West who have romanticized the concept of Ukrainian ‘resistance’. And, of course, we in the West have poured in over a billion dollars of modern weaponry. But the reality is the Ukrainian army isn’t properly trained on these weapons. They haven’t properly integrated them into their structure. And they lack a viable doctrine: tactically, operationally, and strategically, to use these weapons. So these weapons are useless, mostly found in warehouses. And I’m afraid that Ukraine is going to be pushed by the West to do [what it shouldn’t and can’t].”

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Leaving aside the complexities of the moment, it depresses me that the Russian “invasion” is going to be cited, again and again, as reason to boost the Pentagon’s budget in 2023, which may exceed $800 billion.

    I’m sorry, but minor moves by Russia in its area of dominance don’t justify higher and higher spending on weaponry for the U.S. military.

    Now, if China makes a few moves near Taiwan, maybe we can get that “defense” budget above $1 trillion a year. Happy days are here again for the Pentagon and arms makers.

    There are enough threats in the world. America doesn’t need to create or inflate them.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. Yes. The more fossil-fuel-guzzling weapons we build, and the more U.S. forces deploy everywhere while guzzling that same fuel, the worse the climate crisis gets.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. That statement should be put over the entrance to Raytheon Technologies and others of that ilk, in the same manner as DuPont used to use “Better Living Through Chemistry”

      In bold letters, incised in concrete:



  18. I believe I may have posted the following link previously, but I must repeat it because it is 45 minutes of solid fact about the history of Ukraine/Russia/NATO/US that anyone who wants to voice an informed opinion should watch. Aaron Mate interviews British Professor Richard Silwa an acknowledged expert on the area. 45 minutes is a long time, but I found myself glued to the stream of information from Silwa.


    In a bid to justify the attack, Putin claimed “A hostile anti-Russia is being created on our historic lands.”
    “We have taken the decision to conduct a special military operation,” he said, in what amounted to a declaration of war. He claimed it was for the “demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine, echoing a theme of Kremlin propaganda, the false claim that the Kyiv government is controlled by the far right.
    “We do not intend to occupy Ukraine,” he said, and he had a chilling warning for other nations.
    “To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside: if you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history. All relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me,” he said.

    That’s from this morning’s Guardian. Now, allow me to step out of the way of the flood of Vladi Love that is bound to follow …


    1. If I may contribute to the “flood” with my own little dribble . . .

      (1) The Guardian. Source noted and discounted.

      (2) “Vladi Love.” A smarmy, ad hominem canard unworthy of a serious discussion.

      (3) What does de-militarizing and and de-nazifiying “country 404” (or “the current coup authorities in Kiev”) have to do with “loving” Russian President Putin, or, for that matter, “loving” Victoria “Fuck the Eu” Nuland and “bomb bomb Iran” John McCain passing out cookies in Maidan Square in 2014?

      (4) Those who violently overthrow democratically elected governments can sometimes find themselves violently overthrown in turn, a lesson that the U.S., UK, and EU/NATO might want to contemplate.

      (5) After loading up the Ukrainian neo-nazi thugs with tons of left-over weapons initially intended for the now-defunct Afghan military — not to mention gifting these motherless cretins with “training” by the Florida National Guard and other “elite” military mentors (with one foot over the Polish border just in case) — the result looks very much like the South Vietnamese military that my own government sent me to train from July of 1970 to January of 1972. Having experienced it myself, I know what betrayal and demoralization look and feel like.

      (6) The U.S., UK, and EU/NATO started this bloody mess, fanned the flames for eight years, and now have ignominiously hauled ass, leaving someone else — the Russian Federation in this case — to straighten things out. From what I have seen and heard so far, the clean-up operation will not take long and will cost orders of magnitude fewer Ukrainian lives than the number who perished under the guiding claw of “Western Benevolence.”

      (7) Personally, I look forward to the war-crimes tribunals in Moscow. The Russians know who ordered the killing of Russians — for years — throughout “Ukraine” and will no doubt apply to the U.S., UK, and EU/NATO for their extradition to face justice.

      So much for my little dribble. Now, to paraphrase one of the Bourbon aristocracy who bankrupted France with their profligate self-indulgence: “After me, the deluge.”


      1. galactic, michael. thank you for your information, ‘discounted’ guardian screed, and your “little dribble”… most enlightening and sensibly so.


    2. No “Vladi Love” from me. No Bush Love either; or Obama Love; or Trump Love; or Biden Love.

      Too many “leaders” with kill lists and not enough brains and true toughness. It’s easy to kill. It’s easy to start wars. And it’s always the “little people” who suffer most, not those at the top.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. Another take on the history behind the evolving situation in the schizophrenic “Country 404” (as Andrei Martyanov calls it) by a former Australian diplomat. Ukraine Shrinks Again by Tony Kevin,
    Consortium News (February 23, 2022).

    [quoted excerpt]

    What Putin Wants From Ukraine

    The fact is that there have been many speeches over the years by Putin acknowledging full Ukrainian sovereignty since the 1991 breakup of the former Soviet Union, an authoritarian state in which Ukrainian Communists had played a major leadership role. Putin consistently has asked for two things of Ukraine.

    First, decent good-neighborly relations based on mutual respect and mutual security, as between the U.S. and Canada. And second, as in Canada, respect for the full human rights of Ukraine’s numerous “French Canadians” – the 50-percent-plus of Ukrainians who share Russian native language and culture. This importantly includes a right to share in the formation of Ukraine’s national security policies and priorities. But the U.S. has at least since 2013 used Ukraine’s Nazis, and there are plenty of those, as the spearhead of its determination to make Ukraine monocultural, militarized and permanently hostile to Russia.

    Just because Putin asserts these things does not mean they are not true. I believe they are true.

    [end quoted excerpt]


  21. In the prescient-but-quickly-overtaken-by-events category, another comprehensive analysis by The Saker: “The situation is about to quickly escalate, probably in the next days” Andrei Raevsky, The Vineyard of the Saker (February 23, 2022)

    Which concludes with the prediction:

    “My expectation is more hot air from the West and more unilateral Russian actions in the East.” [emphasis added]

    Also, a good treatment of the “legal” precedent set by US/NATO stripping Kosovo from Serbia: “What Is the Difference Between Kosovo & Donbass?” by Vladimir Goldstein, Consortium News (February 23, 2022)

    I especially like how this one concluded:

    “So yes, New York Times and The Guardian, Joe Biden and Boris Johnson. Start your campaign again. Declare the illegality of recognizing breakaway republics, denounce evil Russians hell bent on invasion and do your usual stuff by parading fake authorities who’ll pontificate on the Moral Responsibility of denying Donbass its safety and freedom. You ain’t fooling anyone who is not willing to be fooled.” [emphasis added]


  22. “George W. Bush has admitted the US failed to plan for a speedy victory in Iraq, describing the sudden collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime as a “catastrophic success.”
    the Australian, August 30, 2004

    “There is a theory which has not yet been accurately formulated or given a name, but which is very widely accepted and is brought forward whenever it is necessary to justify some action which conflicts with the sense of decency of the average human being. It might be called, until some better name is found, the Theory of Catastrophic Gradualism…. The formula usually employed is ‘You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.’ And if one replies, ‘Yes, but where is the omelet?’ the answer is likely to be: ‘Oh, well, you can’t expect everything to happen all in a moment.'” — George Orwell, “Catastrophic Gradualism” (1946)

    In other words (fast forwarding past the U.S./UK, and EU/NATO in Kabul and Kiev):

    Another Catastrophic Success

    With their tails tucked proudly ‘tween their legs
    Advancing towards the exit march the dregs
    Of empire, whose retreat this question begs:
    No promised omelet, just the broken eggs?

    Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright 2011


  23. From the New York Times this morning: Both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill called for the U.S. to support Ukraine. “If Putin does not pay a devastating price for this transgression, then our own security will soon be at risk” Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, said. Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, said, “The U.S. will stand with our Ukrainian allies,” with continued aid, and would hold Putin accountable.

    All this empty posturing. So, if we don’t make Putin pay “a devastating price,” U.S. security will be at risk, because Putin has plans to invade the USA? And Ted Cruz is going to “hold Putin accountable”? From where? Cancun?

    Those who want Putin to pay a devastating price, to be held accountable: I hope they’re enlisting in the U.S. military at this moment, or booking flights to Ukraine to join the resistance.

    I’m not a Putin apologist. I’m against war because it’s almost always the innocent and the vulnerable who die. And most wars solve little and breed other wars. Still, I have to state the obvious: U.S. policy toward Ukraine over the last decade or so has been a major failure and has contributed to — or did nothing to alleviate — longstanding tensions between Ukraine and Russia.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. The old adage still applies – TRUTH is the 1st casualty of War.
    Yesterday, MSM reporters on the ground said the only rockets came from the non-government breakaway territory with no firing going from the Ukraine side. Totally unbelievable.

    Anyone checking the daily OSCE reports, since Biden promised to kill Nordstream 2, there was a dramatic increase of truce violations going both ways. Western Media doesn’t report that.

    I watched CNN, MSNBC, CBC & CTV live coverage of the Russian invasion last night. All they reported was hearing sounds of explosions all across Ukraine. One CNN reporter looked so ridiculous with his flack jacked and helmet reporting on explosions and in the background there were 2 other people casually milling about. The live shot of Kyiv showed only normal city traffic with no police, ambulance or fire trucks rushing to some bombing scene.
    Flash-bang grenades give off the sound of explosions and they could be used large scale for dramatic effect.

    The following link shows US style invasion and bombing bringing Shock & Awe to Baghdad in 2003, the face of War US Propaganda hasn’t shown yet happening in Ukraine.
    All the MSM report the additional Economic Sanctions the West will put on Russia they candidly admit is to crash the Russian Economy, which is WAR minus the bombs so far……..

    That just might cause Russia to turn off Nordstream I and the transfer of gas and oil through Ukraine pipelines. The European Economy would crash before Russia’s Economy with Putin’s Reverse Sanctions.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You beat me to it, Ray. I was watching NBC about 10:30 Eastern time last night when a special report broke in with this “important news” out of Ukraine. As you said, there was a live shot of a city street (in Kyiv, I believe) with absolutely NOTHING happening. The news anchor talked about “explosions” in the city, and asked the live reporter—yes! in helmet and flak jacket—what the explosions were like. She dutifully answered, “Well, they were loud.” But during the 15 minutes of coverage….crickets. Traffic passing, people walking, nobody running for cover. I said to my husband, “We’re seeing this on live TV. They’re completely MAKING UP a war, trying to convince viewers here. They (MIC, MSM) are bound and determined to have a war, no matter what’s actually going on.” Ludicrous and farcical, but at the same time, literally deadly dangerous.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Like I wrote to Texas Senator Cornyn, “I answered Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein’s reply to the same Message you are. I have nothing more to add as this World just might be at the point of the War to End All Wars and Human Civilization itself.”

        Liked by 1 person

  25. I am anti-war (I’m also anti-regime change). I’m certainly not a “my country, right or wrong” apologist (the fact that I left the country is proof of that).
    Most will remember Commodore Dewey’s remark from the Spanish-American War: “You may fire when ready, Gridley.” Few, however, are aware of his remark a short time later, as the Spanish fleet was rapidly being destroyed: “Don’t cheer, boys. Those poor bastards are dying.”
    Starting this morning, “Those poor bastards” – on both sides – are dying. And for what?
    All the learned discourse and “justification” for today’s invasion became academic when the first shot was fired. Like threats of sanctions, they’re just words now. And people who are unaware of why their fate has been decided for them in such a fashion – on both sides – are dying and will continue to die. That’s a crime no one is likely to pay for.

    Liked by 3 people

  26. So much copy to read with this new World War.
    It is a World War when 33 Nations are against one Nation, Russia.

    At a certain point, NATO forced Putin to respond and respond he did.
    He warned the weak pliant obedient US vassals in the US sphere of Influence called NATO, of the risk and dangers of advancing toward Russia for many years and was ignored.
    Now the West has reaped what it has sown.

    An interesting perspective from Chris Hedges in this report,
    ‘Hedges: Chronicle of a War Foretold’
    February 24, 2022

    After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a near universal understanding among political leaders that NATO expansion would be a foolish provocation against Russia. How naive we were to think the military-industrial complex would allow such sanity to prevail……………..


Comments are closed.