Is Ukraine Winning?

The detritus of war, but it’s Ukraine that’s bearing the brunt of war damage

W.J. Astore

At NBC News today, I saw this headline: “Ukraine’s offensive in the east surprised Russia — and it may be a turning point in the war.” Russian forces are retreating, but whether this represents a decisive turning point remains to be seen. Still, Ukraine resistance seems steady, and Russian will unsteady, at this moment in the war.

Surely, this is good news — or is it? With all the fighting taking place in Ukraine, the longer the war lasts, the worst it will likely turn out for Ukrainians. Turning points often are illusory: just ask all those U.S. generals who spoke of turning points in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last two decades. The best case scenario here is for Ukraine to use its military advantage and push for a favorable diplomatic settlement. I would hope Vladimir Putin might also see the wisdom of ending a war that has cost him more than he likely imagined when he started it earlier this year (as Andrew Bacevich explains at TomDispatch).

Too many Americans, it seems to me, are determined to see Russia suffer as much as possible. With Russia, the Pentagon’s argument goes something like this: Putin is a malevolent and irredentist dictator.  Without NATO expansion, the Baltic States would already have been reabsorbed by Russia, with Poland and other (former) eastern bloc nations next on Putin’s target list.  Putin, a “clear and present danger,” is only kept in line by U.S. and NATO military power, because his goal is a new Russian empire with borders much like those that Russia had in 1914 or, if that proves overly ambitious, 1989 before the Soviet collapse.  Only a resolute America (and now Ukraine) stands in his way, but that requires massive military spending in a renewed effort at containment, together with yet more spending on America’s nuclear triad.  “Containment” and “deterrence,” once again, are the neutral-sounding words that enable open-ended U.S. military spending against Russia (and of course Red China as well).

Truly what we don’t need is Cold War 2.0. The world barely survived the first one, and that was before climate change emerged as the serious threat that it is today.

In the 1990s, the U.S. and NATO rejected the idea that Russia maybe, just maybe, could be incorporated into the European Community in a security architecture respectful of Russian history and goals while also securing nascent democracies in former Warsaw Pact countries. Today, that rejection is complete, as Russia and Putin are dismissed as irredeemable deplorables, to borrow a phrase from Hillary Clinton.

Yet I wouldn’t underestimate Russian resilience. Just ask Hitler, Napoleon, or Charles XII about that. They all invaded Russia and got spanked. The time has come not to continue the vilification of Russia but to reach accords that Russians, Ukrainians, and other Europeans can all live with.

You wage war long, you wage it wrong, especially when it’s being waged on your turf. Short of total capitulation by either side, which is unlikely, let’s hope Zelensky and Putin can find a way to resolve their differences Let’s hope as well that the U.S. sees the wisdom of facilitating a diplomatic settlement that ends the killing.

Though President Biden previously has suggested Putin must go, I’d be very careful what he wishes for. Russia under new leaders may prove even more volatile and vengeful than U.S. leaders think it’s been under Putin.

31 thoughts on “Is Ukraine Winning?


    “To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” are among the first very words of the UN Charter (in its Preamble), and those words were the main motivation for creating the United Nations, whose founders had lived through the devastation of two world wars by 1945. Since the UN’s creation on 24 October 1945 (the date its Charter came into force), the United Nations has often been called upon to prevent disputes from escalating into war, or to help restore peace following the outbreak of armed conflict, and to promote lasting peace in societies emerging from wars.”

    Why doesn’t the United Nations act, or intervene, or however you want to word it, to have Russia and The Ukraine reach a ceasefire and successfully negotiate a peace agreement?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. How about if the UN also tells the US and the rest of NATO to stop funding and arming the Ukrainians, thus keeping the war going?

      And if the US, Russia, and Ukraine tell the UN to stick it in their ear, what’s the UN going to do about it? Throw them out?

      Liked by 2 people

        1. When it comes to preventing and/or stopping Wars, it has proven itself to be almost completely useless. Especially any war that involves the US, Russia, China, England, and France.

          Liked by 1 person

      1. “According to data collected by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, shipments of military aid to Ukraine from European countries have been trending down since April. In July, Europe’s six largest countries made no new military commitments for the first time since the war started. The data includes arms shipments from the U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland. The Kiel Institute’s Ukraine Support Tracker reported that “the flow of new international support for Ukraine has dried up in July. No large EU country like Germany, France or Italy, has made significant new pledges.”

        But while Europe’s arms shipments to Ukraine are down, its trade with Russia is up. It has been no secret that Russia’s oil exports have lost little to the U.S.-led sanctions. China’s and India’s increases in Russian oil imports alone have balanced losses to Western sanctions. China has increased imports of Russian oil by 55 percent, and Russia is now the second largest exporter of oil to India. Even Saudi Arabia has more than doubled its imports of Russian oil, while Russian oil now accounts for almost half of Turkey’s energy requirements.

        A better kept secret is that the same countries that are decreasing their arms exports to Ukraine are increasing their goods exports to Russia. According to analysis of the 39 countries that accounted for 72 percent of Russian imports prior to the war, as the sanctions kicked in, exports to Russia dropped by 57 percent. In April—the same month arms exports started trending down—exports of goods started trending up. By June, exports were nearly back to pre-war levels, climbing back up by 47 percent. And here’s the secret: most of that increase in exports to Russia was attributable to countries, including European countries, who signed up for sanctions.

        And that trade trend is continuing. Chinese exports to Russia in July went up by 35 percent over June, lifting them above pre-war levels. Turkey is exporting more to Russia—40 percent more—than before the war.

        And Turkey is doing more than sending goods to Russia, strengthening bonds not only in trade but even in tourism. This month, Erdogan and Putin met, agreeing to increase energy, economic, and other ties. At present, Russia is helping Turkey build its first nuclear power plant.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. What does that have to do with the UN making America, Russia, and Ukraine stop the war?

          And speaking of trade with Russia:


          In response to Russia’s attack on Ukraine, US President Joe Biden vowed to isolate and “cripple” the Russian economy. However, Moscow has been able to maintain its economic strength, in part by exporting over $1 billion per month in wood, metals, food and other goods to the US.

          More than 3,600 ships from Russia have arrived at US ports since February 24, according to statistics cited by the Associated Press. While that is nearly half of the shipments over the same period compared to last year, it still amounts to over $6 billion in imports.

          Continued at

          Liked by 1 person

  2. “An August 22 article in the Financial Times leads with the misleading headline, “Russia rules out peace deal to end Ukraine war.” But the Russian representative to the U.N. said, not that Russia was ruling out negotiations, but that negotiations had been ruled out by an absence of diplomacy in the West. “We do not have any contacts with the western delegations,” Gennady Gatilov said. “Unfortunately, we simply do not talk to each other.” Because the U.N. has become mired in “politicisation,” he said, “Now, I do not see any possibility for diplomatic contacts.” Gatilov was not ruling out peace talks. He was expressing regret that they had been ruled out, complaining that “the U.N. should be playing a bigger role in attempts to end the conflict.”

    Gatilov blamed the West, charging the U.S. and its NATO allies with pressuring Ukraine to abandon negotiations—a charge that echoes Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu’s complaint that positive talks in Istanbul were stymied because “following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, it was the impression that…there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Well stated, as always, Bill.

    The biggest problem with America’s NATO proxy war with Russia in Ukraine is that there are very, very few people on this Planet who actually, really KNOW: 1] What is actually, really going on over there right now or has been since February 24; and 2] What was really, actually going on in Washington, Moscow, Kyiv, and Beijing before the ground war started back in February.

    And of course, Nobody knows what were then and now are the short-, intermediate, and long-term objectives, goals, and plans of those folks in the know in those towns, except those folks themselves.

    And that means that the only thing that the rest of us “know” ~ because it;s all we can know ~ about that war is what those governments and their media choose to tell us.

    This, of course, is nothing new; as noted earlier, an “embedded media” is a thirty-year tradition in American journalism that goes far beyond just reporting from a combat zone.

    And the people of Europe and the United States have enough problems in their own Real Worlds right now [inflation, food, fuel, and power shortages and a looming pandemic with Winter fast approaching] to spend too much time paying attention to or worrying about what their Leaders are up to over in Eastern Europe.

    And their leaders know that.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. According to Scott Ritter’s Consortium News piece “Why Russia Will Still Win, Despite Ukraine’s Gains”: Russia is no longer fighting a Ukrainian army equipped by NATO, but a NATO army manned by Ukrainians. Yet, Russia still holds the upper hand despite its Kharkiv setback.

    He concludes as follows:

    In the end, I still believe the end game remains the same — Russia will win. But the cost for extending this war has become much higher for all parties involved.

    The successful Ukrainian counteroffensive needs to be put into a proper perspective. The casualties Ukraine suffered, and is still suffering, to achieve this victory are unsustainable. Ukraine has exhausted its strategic reserves, and they will have to be reconstituted if Ukraine were to have any aspirations of continuing an advance along these lines. This will take months.

    Russia, meanwhile, has lost nothing more than some indefensible space. Russian casualties were minimal, and equipment losses readily replaced.

    Russia has actually strengthened its military posture by creating strong defensive lines in the north capable of withstanding any Ukrainian attack, while increasing combat power available to complete the task of liberating the remainder of the Donetsk People’s Republic under Ukrainian control.

    Russia has far more strategic depth than Ukraine. Russia is beginning to strike critical infrastructure targets, such as power stations, that will not only cripple the Ukrainian economy, but also their ability to move large amounts of troops rapidly via train.

    Russia will learn from the lessons the Kharkov defeat taught them and continue its stated mission objectives.

    The bottom line – the Kharkov offensive was as good as it will get for Ukraine, while Russia hasn’t come close to hitting rock bottom. Changes need to be made by Russia to fix the problems identified through the Kharkov defeat. Winning a battle is one thing; winning a war another.

    For Ukraine, the huge losses suffered by their own forces, combined with the limited damage inflicted on Russia means the Kharkov offensive is, at best, a Pyrrhic victory, one that does not change the fundamental reality that Russia is winning, and will win, the conflict in Ukraine.

    Full article at

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Scott Ritter also has an interview with Kim Iverson that pretty much tracks with what he wrote for Consortium News:

      Scott Ritter: NATO Was Behind The Surprise Offensive In Kharkiv. What’s Next For Russia?

      Also, where Scott Ritter spoke and wrote about a “Pyrrhic victory” for Ukraine, Alexander Mercouris of The Duran called it “Punching Air.” Why do they categorize matters in this way? Well, we have the following from the estimable Colonel Douglas Macgregor, Ph.D.:

      Monday, September 12, 2022
      Update on the last 72-96 hours in Ukraine:
      1) Russians inflicted huge casualties on the Ukrainians that advanced to Izium.

      2) Russians took very, very few casualties.

      3) Ukrainians advanced through empty space. They did not force the Russians out. They simply moved in after the Russians withdrew.

      4) Ukrainian forces are now out of the cities and forests and must fight in the open. This the fight the Russians prefer.

      Russian Counterstroke will occur soon. The stage is set. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are attacking Krasny-Lyman, but the Russians were present in strength and the Ukrainians in a single day of combat lost 300 KIA and over 1000 WIA.

      There are over 2000 AFU wounded from the failed Kherson offensive. The hospitals are overwhelmed. Locals are lined for blocks up to give blood.

      Several AFU units are refusing to return to front lines. Perhaps the AFU will collapse at the rank and file level to end the insanity.

      So much for the excellent Mr Ritter and Mr Macgregor. I have a few quibbles with Mr Ritter, about “surprises” and such, but nothing that the passage of time won’t clarify. But an analysis of Andrew Bacevich’s very long and wandering diatribe — utterly lacking in any knowledge of or appreciation for Russia, its people, its government, and its military doctrines — would take another essay in its own right.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. I am surprised at your remarks that quote others saying that Putin and Russia are essentially planning to revive the old USSR Empire and you do not refute it, so I assume you believe that too. If so, I am deeply disappointed that you either didn’t read Putin’s initial request to the US and NATO to have some understanding of why NATO’s behavior looks threatening to Russia and later Putin’s statement about why Russia is attacking parts of Ukraine. In that statement he states clearly that Russia does not want to conquer Ukraine but merely wants to denazify it and demilitarize it (which is what NATO and the US have been doing i. e. militarizing it). Initially Russia only attacked military points and when they moved away from Kiev it was because they did not want to destroy the city, they wanted to destroy the batallions like Azov and others which were targeting ethnic Russians. The idea that Russia is planning to attack other nations is absurd. Russia has only been protecting its immediate borders after the collapse of the USSR.
    Ever since WWII the US has accused Russia of wanting to attack other countries and spread communism. That has been part of our policy for 80 years. If you will recall, we went into Viet Nam because of the domino theory that Ho chi Minh was a communist and if Nam became communist all the surrounding countries (Laos, Thailand etc.) would too. What utter nonsense! You know it is! Ho Chi was a socialist not a communist and he thought the US would want to help him – boy was he ever wrong!!
    So was Gorbachev wrong, he thought the US and Europe could be friendly to Russia and they could all work together. Read Diane Johnstone’s wonderful essay in Consortium News. She has been reporting and writing for years on Europe and the US and she knows her facts. Along with Pilger (who also has an important essay in Consortium news) she reports honestly and with great knowledge. I have felt all along that you do too, but now I am not so sure. Pilger’s article points out that the people who actually started the Ukraine war was the US with its machinations that started long before the Maidan square coup which the US also devised. The US did not want Ukraine to honor the Minsk agreements and kept them from doing so, as the Nazi battalions killed over 14,000 ethnic Russians in the Donbas area. So there was clearly a war going on that Putin and Russia observed first hand and asked repeatedly for the US and NATO to stop it. After 8 years of futility in getting any help from the US or NATO, Russia made the decision to join a war already in progress.
    I have a suggestion for all those who think the US has not been the instigator of virtually everything that has happened here – my suggestion is to read a book titled “The Devil’s Chessboard”; I forget the author’s name, it came out a few years back. It is about the Dulles brothers and how their utter hatred of Russia and communism caused them to lie and slander everything about that country and instill it into the foreign policy of the nation for all the succeeding decades. Allen Dulles headed the OSS and then basically created the CIA and ran it for years and his bother John was Secretary of State. What the two of them together did and how it has affected all our lives since is a horrifying tale that anyone who wants to understand the true history of the US since the 1940s should read.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank You, Ranney. You nailed it completely about America’s deep complicity in the war in Ukraine, how wrong Ho Chi Minh was about us, and what the Dulles brothers accomplished during their reign in Swampland.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. “After 8 years of futility in getting any help from the US or NATO, Russia made the decision to join a war already in progress.”

      An excellent summation of the Nazi American Terrorist Operation’s war on Russia in Ukraine. Excellent.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Pardon the length of this posting, but I came across this rather comprehensive comment on Andrei Martyanov’s blog. Worth sharing and definitely something that Andrew Bacevich should read:

    [Begin quote]:


    Four elements of SMO

    Demilitarization of Ukraine
    Denazification of Ukraine
    Defeat of NATO, pushing it back to Western Europe
    Liberation of Donbass, including Novorossiya
    A few words on each element--
    Demilitarization is the complete, total destruction of manpower, leadership, weapons, connectivity, and all foreign-injected weapons, mercs, NATO special forces, volunteers, proxy terrorists, logistics nodes, depots and ratlines.
    Denazification is the total elimination of any sign, symbol, media, related to Bandera and Nazism. This is a generational process that will take 20-40 years of re-education, psychological tuning, instructional correction, and return to historical truth by all means and media. It begins will demilitarization targeting, and special services eliminating nazi leadership.
    Defeat of NATO requires defeat of Ukraine, demilitarization of Ukraine, and the dissolution of Ukraine as a nation-state. It continues with the physical destruction of any base containing Aegis Ashore missile launchers if they are not moved.
    Liberation of Donbass and Novorossiya is the final state of the east and south and the linking to Transnistria, Odessa to Mariupol and Donetsk/Lugansk. It includes suppression of all insurgents, terrorists and saboteurs. This may take a year to filter out the threats well after the combat ends. (similar to the end of the Chechen war).
    If you hold in your mind these goals, these elements, you will have a long, broad view of the possible and you will appreciate the precise military operation, SMO, which will accomplish these ends with maximum efficiency, minimum losses, manageable costs, and timelines that are rational.
    The SMO is scalable, a necessity in Ukraine.
    The SMO is variable in velocity, pace and tempo.
    The SMO is capable of multi-vectors, simultaneous concentration of force on hundreds of targets. Its agility is not just with land force weapons, but with aerospace and naval platforms, a variety of cruise missiles and deep penetrating hypersonic missiles.
    The SMO delivers humanitarian aid almost at the hour of the end of hostilities in settlements, towns and cities. Liberators shift to aid deliverers, medical providers, and sappers who de-mine buildings, homes and fields.
    The facility of the SMO is swift because it is not a brute force military. It is a light special forces organization operating with precision to save troops and protect civilians from collateral losses.
    The SMO is sustainable for years by the Russian economy and MIC capabilities.

    [end quote]

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sorry, I have no idea what happened to the attempted quote above. Please delete and I’ll just suggest visiting the source: <a href=”” and reading it there. Worth the time and effort.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Jimmy Dore hits it out of the park again.
    Biden and his buddies are at it again.
    Come on guys – even Trump could not have been this bad!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Re: Is Ukraine winning?

    These answers to these questions might be useful: I claim no special knowledge of what is occuring, but some common indicators can be evaluated. 1 – Where is Ukraine’s control of the air? There are many videos showing drones, combat aircraft and attack helicopters in use by Russia. I see little evidence that Ukraine is employing these air assets. 2. – What are the artillery resources of Ukraine when compared with that of Russia? Without any hard numbers, anecdotal accounts suggest that the Russians have overwhelming artillery assets, and use them freely. 3. – What are the missile resources of Ukraine when compared with that of Russia? I have read accounts from people in the South of Russia, reporting on the hypersonic missiles which are fired at targets in Ukraine from faraway locations – such as ships in the Caspian Sea. Ukraine depends on NATO handouts. 4. – What are the intelligence/ monitoring resources of Ukraine when compared with that of Russia? While the U.S. is assisting Ukraine, it is not clear that the Russians are deficient in this area.

    For a look at what has happened in Ukraine this past week, where Ukrainian forces advanced, it is useful to understand that the Russians appear to be employing the tactics of Sun Tzu, especially as the Mongols employed at the Battle of the Kalka River in 1223. ( ) Or just study the campaigns of Napoleon in 1912, and the Germans in 1941 – 1945. When you have room, falling back is always an option, to string out an enemy’s forces and logistical tail.

    Here is a video, apparently filmed near the front lines, with English subtitles, from September 11th, explaining the battle from a Russian point of view. I do not know how accurate it is, but it should be considered.

    Jim Szpajcher


  9. OT, but arguably of more immediate impact and importance than what’s happening in Ukraine :

    WHITE HOUSE WEIGHS EMERGENCY DECREE TO KEEP VITAL GOODS ON RAILS IF THERE’S A STRIKE: Close to 125,000 works could strike if no deal reached; Stoppage would hit weeks before November midterm elections; White House says a railroad shutdown is unacceptable.

    The White House is considering the use of emergency powers to ensure critical materials, such as chlorine for wastewater treatment plants, can be delivered in the event of a freight-rail worker strike in order to avoid devastating disruptions to services.

    White House aides and Cabinet officials spent Tuesday reviewing contingency plans for a work stoppage, including outreach to shippers, truckers and air-freight lines to keep goods moving, according to a White House official who requested anonymity to discuss the talks.

    Administration officials have discussed what emergency powers are available to get essential supplies like food, energy and health-related products to consumers, the official said.

    Continued at

    Liked by 1 person

  10. THIS DAY IN HISTORY, 14 September 2001: Congresswoman Barbara Lee was the ONLY member of Congress to vote against the “Authorization to Use Military Force” [AUMF] sanctioning war in and on Afghanistan as America’s response to 9/11.

    It was three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and like nearly every other member of Congress, she was attending a memorial service at Washington National Cathedral. In his opening invocation, the dean of the cathedral, the Rev. Nathan Baxter, said, “Let us also pray for divine wisdom as our leaders consider the necessary actions for national security, wisdom of the grace of God, that AS WE ACT WE NOT BECOME THE EVIL WE DEPLORE.”

    When she quoted him on the House floor later that day to explain her vote against giving the president a broad, open-ended authorization for military force, she was called a terrorist, a traitor and close to treasonous. THE HOUSE VOTE WAS 420 TO 1. THE SENATE VOTE WAS 98 TO 0.

    Twenty years, countless lives and more than a trillion dollars later, as the Biden administration ends the longest conflict in U.S. history, many are looking anew at Lee’s lone vote against the measure that gave the president nearly unlimited power to wage war in Afghanistan or against anyone else involved with or harboring terrorists.

    THEN-SEN. JOE BIDEN VOTED FOR IT. SO DID THEN-REP. BERNIE SANDERS, who later became one of the most vocal critics of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), long known as an activist who believed in nonviolence, voted for it, too — though he seemed to regret it almost immediately, telling The Washington Post he was “probably 99 percent of the way there in my heart and my soul,” but that he “wanted to send the strongest possible message ge that we can’t let terrorism stand.”

    Continued at [EMPHASES added.]


    1. Three years ago, on September 14, 2019, Lee issued the following statement:


      Washington, D.C. – In recognition of the 18 years since Congresswoman Barbara Lee was the sole “no” vote on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) on September 14, 2001, Rep. Lee released the following statement:

      “I VOTED AGAINST THE 2001 AUMF BECAUSE I BELIEVED IT WAS A BLANK CHECK FOR ENDLESS WAR. SADLY, THIS TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE. A recent report from the Congressional Research Service showed that the 2001 AUMF has been used as a justification for military force 41 TIMES IN 18 COUNTRIES – AND THOSE ARE THE UNCLASSIFIED ACTIONS. We cannot escape the reality that every president since 9/11 has used the overly broad 2001 AUMF to justify endless war, including in Afghanistan as well as other conflicts around the globe.

      “EIGHTEEN YEARS LATER, CONGRESS CONTINUES TO ABDICATE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO DEBATE AND VOTE ON MATTERS OF WAR AND PEACE WHILE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN CONTINUE TO RISK THEIR LIVES FOR THIS COUNTRY. But we have made incredible progress – earlier this summer, a majority of members supported my efforts to sunset the 2001 AUMF in the Fiscal Year 2020 Department of Defense 2020 Appropriations bill.



      According to Wiki:

      The AUMF was passed by the 107th Congress on September 14, 2001, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.[1] Since 2001, U.S. Presidents have interpreted their authority under the AUMF to extend beyond al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan to apply to numerous other groups as well as other geographic locales.[2] In December 2016, the Office of the President published a brief interpreting the AUMF as providing Congressional authorization for the use of force against al-Qaeda and other militant groups.[3][4] TODAY, THE FULL LIST OF ACTORS THE U.S. MILITARY IS FIGHTING OR BELIEVES ITSELF AUTHORIZED TO FIGHT UNDER THE 2001 AUMF IS CLASSIFIED AND THEREFORE A SECRET UNKNOWN TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.[5]

      Use by the U.S. Government

      The AUMF has also been cited by a wide variety of US officials as justification for continuing US military actions all over the world.

      According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, published May 11, 2016, at that time the 2001 AUMF had been cited 37 times in connection with actions in 14 countries and on the high seas. THE REPORT STATED THAT “OF THE 37 OCCURRENCES, 18 WERE MADE DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, AND 19 HAVE BEEN MADE DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.” THE COUNTRIES THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE REPORT INCLUDED AFGHANISTAN, CUBA (GUANTANAMO BAY), DJIBOUTI, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GEORGIA, IRAQ, KENYA, LIBYA, THE PHILIPPINES, SOMALIA, SYRIA AND YEMEN.[19]

      An updated Congressional Research Service report, published February 16, 2018, documented 2 additional citations of the AUMF by the Obama Administration and 2 citations of the AUMF by the Trump Administration.[20]

      Source: [EMPHASIS added.]


  11. It’s not the Pentagon that’s directing US efforts. It’s the State Department (Blinken and Nuland) and the Treasury Department (Yellin).


  12. I’d just like to point out that Gerry Condon , president of Veterans for Peace, wrote a letter to Biden asking him essentially to cool it and stop sending weapons to Ukraine and instead to negotiate with Russia. It’s a good letter, and it’s about time that some groups start speaking out publicly. It was also nice to see him use the word Nazi in several places where one should use it , but which our media never does. He also mentions the unmentionable horror in Odessa where the Nazis burned about 50 people alive who were protesting the new Nazi rule passed in the new Nazi Duma after the 2014 coup that outlawed the use of the Russian language.
    I hope the letter is found on many more web sites. It’s time the American public understands that Ukraine has a powerful Nazi group that is pushing fascist propaganda and that is who we are sending billions of dollars worth of arms to – with your and my tax money.


Comments are closed.