Tag: perpetual war

Yes, Ukraine Started the War

The outcry spread quickly across the Western world: Donald Trump dared say Ukraine started the war.  

The New York Times accused Trump of “rewriting the history of Russia’s invasion of its neighbor.” The paper’s White House correspondent wrote: 

“When Russian forces crashed over the borders into Ukraine in 2022 determined to wipe it off the map as an independent state, the United States rushed to aid the beleaguered nation and cast its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a hero of resistance.

Three years almost to the day later, President Trump is rewriting the history of Russia’s invasion of its smaller neighbor. Ukraine, in this version, is not a victim but a villain. And Mr. Zelensky is not a latter-day Winston Churchill, but a ‘dictator without elections’ who somehow started the war himself and conned America into helping.”

The BBC reported: 

“Ukraine didn’t start the war. Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, having annexed Crimea in 2014.

The annexation came after Ukraine’s pro-Russian president was ousted by popular demonstrations.”

CNN howled: “President Donald Trump has now fully adopted Russia’s false propaganda on Ukraine, turning against a sovereign democracy that was invaded in favor of the invader. … Trump wrongly accused Ukraine of starting the conflict.”

“In comments to reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump falsely claimed Kyiv had started the conflict, the largest on European soil since the second world,” complained the Financial Times. 

It was pretty much the same thing across the Western media landscape, which spoke with one voice.

The media takes speaking with one voice as confirmation that they are right. But it’s often just massive confirmation bias for the story Western intelligence services and political leaders tell them, rather than an independent examination of the facts. 

In this case the facts show that Trump is right. 

The central question in all this is: when did the Ukraine war actually start? The Western mainstream leads masses of people to believe it began Feb. 22, 2022, when the Russian regular army intervened in what was already an eight-year old civil war, which was very much begun by Ukraine, with U.S. help. 

That’s the part they don’t tell you.   

The key to the falsehood is what the BBC calls “Ukraine’s pro-Russian president” being “ousted by popular demonstrations.” [Emphasis added.]

Of course Trump didn’t explain that. He’s not a great public speaker. He too often fails to lay out the context needed to understand what he’s talking about. 

Trump’s fleeting remark at a press encounter at his Florida estate last Tuesday set off the international furor.

“Today I heard: ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited’ [to the talks in Saudi Arabia with Russia],” Trump said about Ukrainian president Volodmyr Zelensky. “Well, you’ve been there for three years … you should have never started it. You could have made a deal.”

It was those six italicized words that ignited the firestorm. The rest of what he said in that sentence was ignored. 

Keep reading

U.S. NATO Funding Much Higher Than Official Contribution Data

President Trump has faced criticism for claiming that the U.S. accounts for over 70% of NATO’s funding. However, he is correct in his assertion. The official figures on U.S. funding for NATO typically only reflect direct contributions, which represent roughly 15%-20% of NATO’s budget. In reality, the U.S. provides a wide range of additional aid and support, significantly increasing its financial commitment to the alliance.

These contributions include U.S. military bases in Europe, Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP), defense and security assistance, infrastructure support, contributions to NATO missions and operations, strategic airlift and logistics, cybersecurity and intelligence support, ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems, research and development (R&D) for NATO technologies, support for NATO’s nuclear deterrence, troop deployment costs, investment in NATO’s rapid reaction force, space applications, military aid and loans to smaller countries, and nuclear sharing.

By some estimates, when all U.S. contributions are considered, the total could be as high as $700 billion annually.

In terms of NATO-led operations, the U.S. is the largest contributor, covering the majority of personnel, equipment, and logistics costs for missions in Afghanistan, Libya, and Kosovo. Furthermore, the U.S. invests heavily in defense projects that bolster NATO’s collective defense capabilities, including missile defense systems in Europe, cyber defense initiatives, and advanced military technologies.

Keep reading

Allies Bluff, They Cannot Make It Without the US in Ukraine

Because Trump is rightly tired of the U.S. paying for Ukraine’s defense, the world is turning on him. Ukrainian officials are criticizing America, Europe is calling Trump “Hitler,” and Ukrainian soldiers on Twitter are removing American flags from their uniforms—all because the American gravy train is about to dry up. With Trump demanding a better deal for the American people, the world will have to fend for itself. Europe is experiencing adolescent angst now, as it is forced to man-up, come of age, and move out from under the U.S. protective umbrella.

Fact: The U.S. WILL NO LONGER BE PAYING FOR IT!
It’s time for Europe to step up and defend itself. While it’s unfortunate that many Europeans may die unnecessarily, part of me anticipates the vindication of watching weak, woke European militaries—crippled by declining birthrates and a post-Christian, soy-boy-vegan culture—be decimated by Russian conscripts.

The consensus among many on Twitter and in liberal media that the U.S. has burned its bridges with Europe and that Europe will now move on without the U.S. as a trade and defense partner is absurd. The U.S. cannot be replaced as a market. With a population of 330 million and an average income exceeding $82,000 annually—more than double Europe’s average—there is no viable replacement. And if such a replacement exists, why wasn’t Europe trading with this mythical nation before?

For decades, the U.S., China, and Russia have invested heavily in defense, leaving Europe far behind. Europe would need to spend 10% of GDP each year to catch up over the next 20 years. However, in that same period, the U.S., Russia, and China would continue increasing their spending. Realistically, it would take about 30 years for Europe to reach any semblance of parity. And this assumes that Europe lifts its restrictions on nuclear weapons and other advanced weapons that the U.S., Russia, and China possess. And with Europe’s demographic decline, the pool of military-aged men and women will continue to shrink.

Keep reading

Arctic Defense: The Growing Geopolitical Battle For The North

The Distant Early Warning Line (DEW Line) runs north of the Arctic Circle from Alaska in the west to Baffin Island in the east, then continues across Greenland.

It was built by the United States, with the cooperation of Canada, at the height of the Cold War in the 1950s as a defence against the Soviet Union.

Most of the self-sufficient bases on this line had a paved runway, with equipment and personnel necessary to keep the runway cleared. The bases had to be operational for the dozens of fighter planes that were kept at the ready by U.S. Strategic Air Command, in case Soviet jets came over the North Pole.

Most of those sites fell into disuse, and the DEW Line became the North Warning System. Not much has happened since then. 

Although the federal government has promised to address the deterioration of our defences, nothing of substance has been done by Ottawa to deal more effectively with the defence of our vast North. Similarly, although the government has promised to modernize its NORAD (North American Aerospace Defence Command) commitments, it has been largely ignored.

The Trump administration has made it clear that it finds Canada’s defence readiness to be unacceptable. The complaint is legitimate.

The fact is that the world is very different from what it looked like in the 1950s and 60s. At that time, the Soviet Union was the major threat to the West, while communist China was desperately poor and weak. Under Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” and later his “Cultural Revolution,” millions starved. China looked then more like North Korea than the economic and military behemoth it has become today. We certainly didn’t fear it as a threat.

Now, both communist China, and an increasingly aggressive Russia are formidable foes. They are also very interested in the North. Ominously, they have recently partnered with each other in a “friendship without limits” which raises the possibility that they might collaborate (or be collaborating right now) on joint plans for the military and commercial exploitation of the North.

The fact that shipping on a large scale through the Northwest Passage might be a possibility in the not-so-distant future is one of the reasons why. The passage can cut shipping distances drastically, so huge amounts of money and fuel can be saved. Future passage from Asia to Europe via the Northeast Passage (also called the Northern Sea Route) and Northwest Passage would be incredibly valuable—strategically, militarily and commercially—for both Russia and China.

Russia is far ahead of Canada on northern strategy and development. It has at least 40 ships capable of breaking through ice, including eight nuclear-powered icebreakers. Canada has no icebreakers that are nuclear powered. Recent promises to build two are years away from fruition. The Americans are acutely aware of Russia’s northern superiority.

Northern security goes some way to explaining Donald Trump’s very public offer to buy Greenland. 

Keep reading

US Flies B-52 Bombers Over Middle East In Show Of Force Amid Regional Tensions

The U.S. Air Force sent two B-52 bombers on a high-profile “force projection” overflight across the Middle East on Feb. 17, in a bid to send a clear warning to adversaries and reinforce deterrence against escalating threats.

The bombers, which launched from RAF Fairford in the UK, flew over the airspace of nine Middle Eastern nations, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said in a Feb. 18 statement. The mission included aerial refueling and live munitions drops, with U.S. F-15s and fighter escorts from four partner nations providing security.

“Bomber Task Force missions demonstrate U.S. power projection capability, commitment to regional security, and ability to respond to any state or non-state actor seeking to broaden or escalate conflict in the CENTCOM region,” Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla, CENTCOM commander, said in a statement.

While CENTCOM declined to specify which countries participated in the mission, the deployment follows recent U.S.-led airstrikes against terrorist targets in Syria and Iraq, a carrier withdrawal from the region after a collision with a merchant ship, and heightened Iranian military activity.

Two major airstrikes were carried out in recent days by CENTCOM and regional partners, aimed at degrading terrorist networks.

U.S. forces launched a precision airstrike in northwest Syria on Feb. 15, killing a top financial and logistics official for Hurras al-Din (HaD), an al-Qaeda affiliate. Iraqi Security Forces, enabled by CENTCOM, struck an ISIS cell near Rawa, Iraq on Feb. 12, killing five ISIS operatives and destroying weapons, suicide vests, and explosives.

“We will continue to relentlessly pursue terrorists in order to defend our homeland, and U.S., allied, and partner personnel in the region,” Kurilla said in a statement.

The B-52 bomber mission also coincides with a temporary U.S. naval void in the region after the USS Harry S. Truman sustained damage in a collision with a commercial bulk carrier near Egypt’s northern coast, prompting its departure.

This marks the third time since the Israel–Hamas war began in 2023 that the United States has lacked a carrier presence in the Middle East, leaving regional waters open to increased Iranian military activity.

Keep reading

“We Created A Monster With Zelensky”: White House Isn’t Backing Down In Growing Rift

Axios has released a devastating report full of quotes from Trump admin officials which strongly suggests the growing rift with Zelensky is only about to worsen. 

The Ukrainian leader is seen as having overstepped by the White House. A US administration official involved in peace negotiations with Russia bluntly told the publication that “Zelensky is an actor who committed a common mistake of theater kids: He started to think he’s the character he plays on TV.“ 

“Yes, he has been brave and stood up to Russia. But he would be six feet under if it wasn’t for the millions we spent, and he needs to exit stage right with all the drama,” the unidentified official said. This strongly suggests that Trump is pursuing a full political transition in Ukraine at this point.

Another official, also involved in negotiations described that “We created a monster with Zelensky,” and that “these Trump-deranged Europeans who won’t send troops are giving him terrible advice.”

Speaking of which, one Saturday headline has revealed the European Union is still seeking ways to seize part of Russa’s frozen $280 billion in assets held abroad. So while Washington under Trump is trying to strike peace and compromise, the Europeans look content to try and sabotage what they already see as a ‘bad deal’ to end the war.

Yet another US official was quoted in Axios as reviewing that “In the course of a week, Zelensky rebuffed President Trump’s treasury secretary, his secretary of state and his vice president, all before moving on to personally insulting President Trump in the press.“

The unnamed official followed with, “What did Zelensky think was going to happen?”

Meanwhile a mineral deal is said to be close, with some Friday night headlines claiming a final deal was ‘hours’ away – but Zelensky’s office has said it’s still mulling over the first draft. “President Trump is obviously very frustrated right now with President Zelensky,” National Security Advisor Mike Waltz underscored in Thursday comments.

Keep reading

Zelensky Caves: Will Sign Over Ukraine’s Mineral Rights to U.S. as Compensation For Military Aid

Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky has agreed to sign over Ukraine’s mineral rights to the U.S. as compensation for the hundreds of billions of dollars given to the European nation for its war against Russia.

After initially rebuffing the Trump administration, Zelensky on Friday reportedly agreed to sign over the country’s mineral rights to the U.S. in exchange for military support.

“This is an agreement that can strengthen our relations, and the key is to work out the details to ensure its effectiveness,” he said in a nightly video address. “I look forward to the outcome—a just result.”

From the Wall Street Journal:

Zelensky was presented with a deal by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in Kyiv last week, but refused to sign, saying the Ukrainian side needed to study it further and that a deal should contain some form of security guarantees for Ukraine.

Ukrainian officials said that they had only a few hours to study it before it was presented to them.

An agreement could be signed as soon as Saturday, although it isn’t yet complete, people briefed on the talks said. The exact terms couldn’t be learned.

Though the exact terms of the deal have yet to be revealed, White House officials say Ukraine would give up 50% of its mineral resources, which include major reserves of iron ore, coal, titanium, lithium, and uranium.

In exchange, Zelensky has demanded “reliable and clear” security guarantees from the U.S. that ensure long-term protection from Russia.

Zelenskyy had previously refused to sign such a deal, prompting Trump to fire off a scathing statement calling the Ukrainian leader a “dictator.”

Keep reading

Mapping Every Known US Military Base Overseas

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavia Rao, locates the known overseas bases of the American military, categorized by who controls the base.

In red are the ones controlled by the U.S., and blue are ones controlled by the host country.

This map does not include several hundred temporary sites for military exercises or contingency operations.

Data is sourced from a Congressional report published in 2024. Troop data is from the Defense Manpower Data Center, current to March 2024.

Keep reading

The Real Enemy of the American people Is Not Russia, but the EU Regime in Brussels

In his seminal speech at the recently concluded Munich Security Conference, US Vice President JD Vance said the following:

“[T]he threat that I worry the most about vis-a-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor. What I worry about is the threat from within. The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values: values shared with the United States of America.”

Vance’s words convey a paradigm-changing truth that few have yet grasped.

The truth is this: As far as Europe is concerned, the real enemy of the American people is not Russia. The real enemy is the EU, specifically its ruling elite in Brussels.M.D. Rob

Keep reading

Mexico’s President Plans to Change Constitution to Protect Drug Cartels From U.S. Military Strikes

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is seeking to alter the country’s constitution to protect drug cartels from the U.S. military.

Under the terms of the proposals filed by Sheinbaum, Articles 19 and 40 of country’s constitution would be changed to block any investigation or military action by foreign entities without permission from the Mexican government.

The first amendment would prohibit any “act from abroad that is harmful to the integrity, independence and sovereignty of the Nation.”

The Second amendment mandates automatic pretrial detention and the highest possible penalties for any citizen or foreigner engaged in illegal arms trafficking, as well as any foreigner violating Mexico’s s sovereignty.

“What we want to make clear in the face of this designation is that we do not negotiate sovereignty,” Sheinbaum said.

“This cannot be an opportunity on the part of the United States to invade our sovereignty.”

”So, they can name it whatever they want, but with Mexico, it is collaboration and coordination, never subordination, not interference, and much less invasion.”

The decision comes after the U.S. State Department on Thursday upgraded the designation of cartels, including Mexico’s Sinaloa and Jalisco Nueva Generación.

Together, those two cartels control the majority of Mexico’s fentanyl production and are responsible for importing thousands of kilograms of fentanyl across the southern border.

The designation enables the State Department to impose targeted sanctions, enhances the U.S. government’s authority to prosecute individuals aiding these groups, and strengthens intelligence-gathering for military operations.

Keep reading