Tag: ukraine

“One less traitor”: Zelensky oversees campaign of assassination, kidnapping and torture of political opposition

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has framed his country’s war against Russia as a battle for democracy itself. In a carefully choreographed address to US Congress on March 16, Zelensky stated, “Right now, the destiny of our country is being decided. The destiny of our people, whether Ukrainians will be free, whether they will be able to preserve their democracy.”

US corporate media has responded by showering Zelensky with fawning press, driving a campaign for his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize and inspiring a flamboyant musical tribute to himself and the Ukrainian military during the 2022 Grammy awards ceremony on April 3.

Western media has looked the other way, however, as Zelensky and top officials in his administration have sanctioned a campaign of kidnapping, torture, and assassination of local Ukrainian lawmakers accused of collaborating with Russia. Several mayors and other Ukrainian officials have been killed since the outbreak of war, many reportedly by Ukrainian state agents after engaging in de-escalation talks with Russia.

“There is one less traitor in Ukraine,” Internal Affairs Ministry advisor Anton Geraschenko stated in endorsement of the murder of a Ukrainian mayor accused of collaborating with Russia.

Zelensky has further exploited the atmosphere of war to outlaw an array of opposition parties and order the arrest of his leading rivals. His authoritarian decrees have triggered the disappearance, torture and even murder of an array of human rights activists, communist and leftist organizers, journalists and government officials accused of “pro-Russian” sympathies.

The Ukrainian SBU security services has served as the enforcement arm of the officially authorized campaign of repression. With training from the CIA and close coordination with Ukraine’s state-backed neo-Nazi paramilitaries, the SBU has spent the past weeks filling its vast archipelago of torture dungeons with political dissidents.

On the battlefield, meanwhile, the Ukrainian military has engaged in a series of atrocities against captured Russian troops and proudly exhibited its sadistic acts on social media. Here too, the perpetrators of human rights abuses appear to have received approval from the upper echelons of Ukrainian leadership.

While Zelensky spouts bromides about the defense of democracy before worshipful Western audiences, he is using the war as a theater for enacting a blood-drenched purge of political rivals, dissidents and critics.

Keep reading

The Propaganda Campaign Now Complete as Liberals Embrace War, Support “Literal Nazis”

After the attacks on September 11, the United States was worked into a collective rage as millions attempted to understand why or who would carry out such an atrocious attack in America. The war hawks, who’d been waiting for their moment to strike then directed this collective rage toward anonymous brown faces in Afghanistan, using their boogeyman, Osama Bin Laden.

The majority of Americans were seething with the desire for bloodshed as they unquestioningly lapped up the narrative fed to them by their televisions. “USA! USA! USA!” was the rallying cry that would be the beginning of a multi-trillion dollar quagmire in which tens of thousands of US troops would become maimed, psychologically devastated or killed. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians would die as the weapons manufacturers raked in record profits. For what?

Though most people bought the narrative that “you are either with us, or with the terrorists,” there was a small minority, many of whom were on the Left, who opposed the wars. In the early days of the war, Republican Congressman Ron Paul found more acceptance from liberals over his antiwar views than he did from inside his own party.

Though this minority was small, the antiwar Left was loud and quickly became a force to be reckoned with. 

The vocal minority would gain support over the years, helping to foster one of the largest antiwar movements since Vietnam. Their message on non-interventionism and peace was resonating throughout their ranks and bipartisan support was increasing, until one day — Barack Obama happened.

When the Left was presented with Obama — who would end up not only supporting Bush’s wars but escalating and spreading them — they had a choice to make: remain morally consistent and oppose all wars of aggression, or, enter a state of cognitive dissonance and accept the wars now that “their team” was carrying them out.

Unfortunately, this massive movement for peace then began to wane, until suddenly, the antiwar Left, had left.

War would become the policy of the very liberals who once stood against US Imperialism. For 8 years, liberals sat back and watched Obama drop tens of thousands of bombs on poor brown people on the other side of the planet. Not only did they remain silent in the face of this mass murder, they supported it.

The former resistance against US aggression abroad had been successfully redirected inward by media pundits, politicians and blowhards. Through a massive series of propaganda campaigns, the antiwar outrage was converted to woke rage.

Instead of standing against the oppression and murder of innocent people by the the US military Industrial Complex, team woke had a different agenda. They were going to fight the “literal Nazis” who were easily spotted in crowds because of the bright red hats they wore, which read “Make America Great Again.”

Children blown apart by hellfire missiles and entire cities turned to rubble by shock and awe, now took a backseat to “OrangeManBad!”

When the divide in America reached fever pitch — sometime around the riots in Charlottesville — any hope of maintaining a consistent antiwar movement had been stomped on by black boots, bike locks, and tiki-torches.

The corpse of the antiwar movement was too weak even to roll over in its grave.

Fast forward to 2022, and after two years of psychological warfare in the form of covid hysteria and legacy media fear mongering, the once-inspiring antiwar movement of the early 2000’s had been transformed into a party of deranged warmongers who think that calling for a “no-fly zone” against Russia and sending missiles to Ukraine is a “pro-peace movement.”

Keep reading

U.S. Department of Defense awarded a contract for ‘COVID-19 Research’ in Ukraine 3 months before Covid was known to even exist

The world first started to hear about a novel coronavirus in early January 2020, with reports of an alleged new pneumonia like illness spreading across Wuhan, China. However, the world did not actually know of Covid-19 until February 2020, because it was not until the 11th of that month that the World Health Organisation officially named the novel coronavirus disease as Covid-19.

So with this being the official truth, why does United States Government data show that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) awarded a contract on the 12th November 2019 to Labyrinth Global Health INC. for ‘COVID-19 Research’, at least one month before the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus, and three months before it was officially dubbed Covid-19?

The shocking findings however, do not end there. The contract awarded in November 2019 for ‘COVID-19 Research’ was not only instructed to take place in Ukraine, it was in fact part of a much larger contract for a ‘Biological threat reduction program in Ukraine’.

Perhaps explaining why Labyrinth Global Health has been collaborating with Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, and Ernest Wolfe’s Metabiota since its formation in 2017.

Keep reading

How Much Are We Prepared To Sacrifice To Help The US Win A Propaganda War Against Putin?

Ask a properly brainwashed liberal why they support the censorship of someone who disputes US narratives about Russian war crimes in Bucha or Mariupol and they’ll probably tell you something like “Well, it’s disinformation!” or “Because it’s propaganda!” or “How much is Putin paying you??” But what they won’t be able to do is articulate exactly what specific harm is being done by such speech in the same way that they could when defending the censorship of Covid skeptics or the factions responsible for last year’s riot in the Capitol building.

The one argument you’ll get, if you really press the issue, is that the United States is in a propaganda war with Russia, and it is in our society’s interests for our media institutions to help the United States win that propaganda war. Cold wars are fought between nuclear powers because hot warfare would risk annihilating both nations, leaving only other forms of war like psychological warfare available. There’s no argument that this new escalation in censorship saves lives or protects elections, but there is an argument that it can help facilitate the long-term cold war agendas of the United States.

But what does that mean exactly? It means if we accept this argument we’re knowingly consenting to a situation where all the major news outlets, websites and apps that people look to for information about the world are geared not toward telling us true things about reality, but toward beating Vladimir Putin in some weird psywar. It means abandoning any ambitions of being a truth-based civilization that is guided by facts, and instead accepting an existence as a propaganda-based civilization geared toward making sure we all think thoughts that hurt Moscow’s long-term strategic interests.

And it’s just absolutely freakish that this is a decision that has already been made for us, without any public discussion as to whether or not that’s the kind of society we want to live in. They jumped right from “We’re censoring speech to protect you from violence and viruses” to “We’re censoring speech to help our government conduct information warfare against a foreign adversary.” Without skipping a beat.

Keep reading

Google limits what publishers can say about the Ukraine war if they want to stay monetized

Google’s Adsense this week sent an email to publishers reminding them of the new policy about monetization of content related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Google will not allow publishers to show ads on content that condones the war.

“Due to the war in Ukraine, we will pause monetization of content that exploits, dismisses, or condones the war,” the email read.

“This pause includes, but is not limited to, claims that imply victims are responsible for their own tragedy or similar instances of victim blaming, such as claims that Ukraine is committing genocide or deliberately attacking its own citizens.”

Keep reading

Belarus Claims Alleged Russian War Crimes Were Staged by Britain

Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko has accused Britain of staging a “psychological operation” in Bucha, Ukraine, where Russia has been accused of committing war crimes after reports and pictures emerged of mass graves of people allegedly killed by Russian forces.

Appearing at the Vostochny Cosmodrome in the far Eastern Amur Oblast region of Russia, Lukashenko claimed to have provided his chief ally, Vladimir Putin, with evidence that the events in Bucha were staged by the British.

“Today we’ve discussed this special operation of theirs in detail – a psychological operation staged by Englishmen,” the Belarusian strongman said according to the state news agency Belta.

“Together with our Russian friends we have gotten to the bottom of this nasty and disgusting position of the West from the first hour to the last one,” he added.

Lukashenko did not offer up any evidence of the claim that Bucha was staged by the UK, but said that Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) could provide “addresses, passwords, places of secret meetings, plate numbers and brands of the vehicles those people used to come to Bucha and how they did it.”

Vladimir Putin, for his part, also claimed that Bucha was staged, claiming that it was a “false flag”, comparing it to chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

Keep reading

Neo-Nazi Battalion Just Claimed Russia Used Chemical Weapons in Ukraine, Potentially Dragging US into War

The prediction of a chemical weapons attack by Russia, along with the promised “severe” response by US and NATO is an extremely dangerous move by the Biden administration.

Putin has zero incentive to use chemical weapons on civilians in Ukraine. Not only would his own people very likely turn against him for such a move, he and his advisors know that anything close to a chemical weapons attack would provoke a response from the US and NATO — potentially sparking a war inside Russia and catastrophic nuclear war globally.

While Russia lacks the incentive to wages such an attack, the White House’s promise of a “severe response” to an attack does, however, provide an incentive for insidious forces inside Ukraine to stage a fake chemical attack. If unethical forces inside Ukraine could stage an attack and convince the world it was Putin who carried it out, they would immediately receive the backing of NATO and US.

Fast forward to this week, and on Monday, the Azov Battalion — whose credibility is derived from years of neo-Nazi activities with a month of praise and whitewashing in the Western media — has made the claim which could drag NATO into the war.

Keep reading

Moscow Blasts US Genocide Label From Country That’s Committed “Well-Known” War Crimes

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was quick to back Joe Biden’s Tuesday remarks which labeled what Putin is doing inside Ukraine as “genocide”. Biden had followed his use of the label for the first time, which marks a serious escalation in the United States’ rhetoric by explaining, “It’s become clearer and clearer that Putin is trying to wipe out the idea of being Ukrainian.”

Zelensky then said on Twitter: “Calling things by their names is essential to stand up to evil,” and made clear he agrees with the definition: “We are grateful for U.S. assistance provided so far and we urgently need more heavy weapons to prevent further Russian atrocities.” 

The Kremlin has responded, on Wednesday calling the genocide label “unacceptable” and a distortion of the conflict, which the Kremlin has previously described as a battle against NATO expansion imminently threatening Russia’s legitimate security interests.

“We consider this kind of effort to distort the situation unacceptable,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded, according to Reuters. He emphasized the hypocrisy of a US military machine which has committed “well-known crimes” in the recent past.

“This is hardly acceptable from a president of the United States, a country that has committed well-known crimes in recent times,” Peskov described.

Keep reading

Straight Out Of Dr. Strangelove

Robert Kagan, neoconservative writer and husband to Deputy Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, wrote a piece called “The Price of Hegemony” in Foreign Affairs last week that was fascinating. If I’d written his opening, people would denounce me as a Putin-concubine:

Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading.

Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe.

Kagan went on to make an argument straight out of Dr. Strangelove. Instead of doing what some critics want and focusing on “improving the well-being of Americans,” the U.S. government is instead properly recognizing the responsibility that comes with being a superpower. So, while Russia’s invasion may indeed have been a foreseeable consequence of a decision to expand our hegemonic reach, now that we’re here, there’s only one option left. Total commitment:

It is better for the United States to risk confrontation with belligerent powers when they are in the early stages of ambition and expansion, not after they have already consolidated substantial gains. Russia may possess a fearful nuclear arsenal, but the risk of Moscow using it is not higher now than it would have been in 2008 or 2014, if the West had intervened then. And it has always been extraordinarily small…

Keep reading

Western Dissent from US/NATO Policy on Ukraine is Small, Yet the Censorship Campaign is Extreme

If one wishes to be exposed to news, information or perspective that contravenes the prevailing US/NATO view on the war in Ukraine, a rigorous search is required. And there is no guarantee that search will succeed. That is because the state/corporate censorship regime that has been imposed in the West with regard to this war is stunningly aggressive, rapid and comprehensive.

On a virtually daily basis, any off-key news agency, independent platform or individual citizen is liable to be banished from the internet. In early March, barely a week after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the twenty-seven nation European Union — citing “disinformation” and “public order and security” — officially banned the Russian state-news outlets RT and Sputnik from being heard anywhere in Europe. In what Reuters called “an unprecedented move,” all television and online platforms were barred by force of law from airing content from those two outlets. Even prior to that censorship order from the state, Facebook and Google were already banning those outlets, and Twitter immediately announced they would as well, in compliance with the new EU law.

But what was “unprecedented” just six weeks ago has now become commonplace, even normalized. Any platform devoted to offering inconvenient-to-NATO news or alternative perspectives is guaranteed a very short lifespan. Less than two weeks after the EU’s decree, Google announced that it was voluntarily banning all Russian-affiliated media worldwide, meaning Americans and all other non-Europeans were now blocked from viewing those channels on YouTube if they wished to. As so often happens with Big Tech censorship, much of the pressure on Google to more aggressively censor content about the war in Ukraine came from its own workforce: “Workers across Google had been urging YouTube to take additional punitive measures against Russian channels.”

So prolific and fast-moving is this censorship regime that it is virtually impossible to count how many platforms, agencies and individuals have been banished for the crime of expressing views deemed “pro-Russian.” On Tuesday, Twitter, with no explanation as usual, suddenly banned one of the most informative, reliable and careful dissident accounts, named “Russians With Attitude.” Created in late 2020 by two English-speaking Russians, the account exploded in popularity since the start of the war, from roughly 20,000 followers before the invasion to more than 125,000 followers at the time Twitter banned it. An accompanying podcast with the same name also exploded in popularity and, at least as of now, can still be heard on Patreon.

Keep reading