Tag: ukraine

Western values? Kiev NeoNazi regime joins Syria’s Al Qaeda terrorists

Reports that Ukrainian military special forces are crucially helping jihadist terrorists in Syria should be no surprise – except perhaps to consumers of Western media.

That the NeoNazi Kiev regime is now openly aligned with terrorist networks in Syria is fully consistent with nefarious Western imperialist objectives.

The seeming contradictions or surprises arise only if one believes: a) that the Kiev regime is a democratic government instead of a NeoNazi junta that glorifies collaborators of the Third Reich; b) that the militants in Syria are bona fide “rebels” fighting a “civil war” to liberate Syria from a dictatorship instead of being jihadist terrorist groups tasked by Western sponsors for regime change; and c) that Western values are all about democracy and respecting international law instead of prioritizing hegemonic interests no matter how criminal the means.

What’s happening in Ukraine and Syria is systematically linked, not random occurrences. That’s because the two conflicts have one root – Western imperialist intrigue.

It was reliably reported several weeks ago by Turkish and Russian media that the Kiev regime had brokered a deal with militants in Syria to supply drones. Up to 250 Ukrainian personnel were deployed in the northern Idlib region of Syria, which is an enclave for the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) terror group and several other jihadist militias. All of these groups are offshoots of the Al Qaeda terror organization that the American and British military intelligence agencies created in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet Union, then aiding its Afghan ally (1979-1989).

When HTS launched its offensive last week to capture Aleppo – Syria’s second-largest city – the dramatic victory was enabled in large part by the novel deployment of drones provided by the Ukrainian military. It is reported that the White Wolves commando unit has played a vital role in the lightning offensive by HTS. The White Wolves are reportedly under the control of the Ukrainian military intelligence (SBU), which, in turn, is working hand-in-hand with the CIA, MI6, and other NATO military intelligence services.

There is no haphazard coincidence here but rather a strategic campaign.

The NATO-instigated proxy war in Ukraine is going atrociously for the United States and its European partners. Russia is decisively winning that war, which flared up in February 2022 when Moscow launched its Special Military Operation to thwart years of low-intensity aggression sponsored by NATO using NeoNazi terror brigades. The NeoNazi Kiev regime was installed in 2014 in a CIA-backed coup d’état, which the West valorizes as a pro-democracy movement.

During the last three years of NATO’s hybrid war in Ukraine, militants have been transferred from Syria to fight against Russian forces. HTS and Islamic State supplied the militants – both of which are internationally designated terrorist organizations.

Officially, even the United States and NATO members proscribe HTS and IS as terrorist groups.

Keep reading

The West’s Lies About Ukraine Are Refuted by Their Own Words

The strategy of constructing a narrative of lies to justify going to war is certainly nothing new. There is a long history in the U.S. that appeared to reach its apogee with the lie that Iraq had a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. That false narrative was reused with various faces with chemical weapons in Syria and, currently, with nuclear weapons in Iran.

“T]ruth is invariably the first casualty of war, but,” as Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent and this generation’s most distinguished specialist on Russia, says in his soon to be published book, The Culture of the Second Cold War, “propaganda in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict is exceptionally intense.” Sakwa argues that “[a]t its heart” the Second Cold War, “is the struggle to control narratives, to shape popular perceptions of reality. This is an age-old endeavour,” he says, “but in Cold War 2 the misrepresentation of situations is exacerbated by the decline of high modernist ideals of fact-based journalism and impartial scholarship.”

Sakwa cites Jacques Baud, a Swiss army colonel who served in NATO and the UN, who argues that the false narratives that result from the refusal to conduct impartial investigations into important events has shaped the foreign policy of Western countries. Sakwa adds that this has been especially so with Russia, who has become the target of a “whole ‘anti-disinformation’ industry,” leading to especially “damaging consequences on international politics.”

The art of heresthetics, or the structuring of political reality to advantageously fit your narrative, seemed to reach its perfection in the Downing Street Memo, during the Iraq war, which reported that American “intelligence and facts were being fixed” around the policy. But the art of heresthetics seems to have burgeoned during the Russian-Ukrainian war. Several lies have been told to justify and sustain the war. And several of those lies told by the West have been revealed and refuted by the West’s own words.

Keep reading

Zelensky’s Flip-Flop On Ceasefire Terms Is A Faux Concession

Ukraine will still remain a de facto member of NATO so long as its security guarantees with the bloc’s members remain in effect.

Zelensky recently flip-flopped on ceasefire terms by signaling that he’d accept a cessation of hostilities in exchange for Ukraine being admitted to NATO, though without Article 5 applying to all the territory that he claims as his own while the conflict remains ongoing. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry then released a statement about how their country won’t accept any alternative to NATO membership. The Kremlin predictably described this demand as unacceptable.

This coincided with NATO Secretary General Rutte clarifying that his bloc’s focus right now is on arming Ukraine, which corroborated reports from Le Monde that several members such as Hungary, Germany, and even the US oppose Ukraine joining at this time. The larger context concerns Putin finally climbing the escalation ladder after authorizing the historic use of the hypersonic medium-range MIRV-capable Oreshnik missile in combat after the US let Ukraine use its ATACMS inside of Russia’s pre-2014 territory.

Nevertheless, what’s lost amidst the latest news about Zelensky’s flip-flop on ceasefire terms is the fact that this is actually just a faux concession since there isn’t any chance that he’ll capture all of his country’s lost territory, plus he’s still demanding NATO membership, which is at the root of this conflict. At the same time, Ukraine is already arguably a de facto member of NATO after clinching a spree of security guarantees with many of its members over the past year, which resemble Article 5 in spirit.

About that, this clause is popularly misportrayed as obligating countries to dispatch troops in support of allies that are under attack, though it only actually obligates them to provide whatever support they deem necessary. The security guarantees that it clinched institutionalize those countries’ existing support for Ukraine in the form of arms, intelligence sharing, and other aid, which is essentially the same as Article 5 but without any implied (key word) pressure to dispatch troops like full membership carries.

Keep reading

Media Distorting North Korean Role in Russo-Ukraine War

On November 24, Newsweek ran a story by Ellie Cook with the headline “Russian and North Korean Troops Shrink Ukraine’s Gains in Kursk.”

The title made it seem like North Korea was fighting on the front-lines with the Russians to push back the Ukrainian offensive in Kursk.

However, the opening of the article stated: “Moscow is taking territory back from Ukrainian forces in Russia’s western Kursk region, according to new assessments, as the U.S. says it expects North Korean reinforcements to head for front-line clashes soon.”

Further down in the piece, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is quoted as stating that he “expected to see North Korean soldiers engaged in combat soon.”

Meaning that they were not yet in combat, so Newsweek’s title was misleading.

Cook went on to write that “the State Department confirmed in mid-November that North Korean soldiers were ‘engaging in combat operations with Russian forces’ after undergoing training in how to use drones, artillery, and carry out ‘basic infantry operations.’”

These latter statements contradict what Austin said and what Cook reported on at the beginning of her article.

The contradictory statements and record of deceit of the U.S. State Department make one question what the real story is with North Korea.

Keep reading

Ukraine’s best hope for peace looks a lot like Donald Trump

Last week, people who fear a third world war got more reasons to worry. Ukraine, with permission from the White House, struck Russian territory with long-range missiles supplied by the United States. Russian President Vladimir Putin has long warned that such an attack would mean that NATO and Russia “are at war,” and he has raised the specter of nuclear retaliation. Granted, these threats could be bluffs, but last week Putin gave them some credibility by (a) loosening the conditions for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, (b) firing a multiple-warhead, nuclear-capable missile at Ukraine for the first time in the war, and (c) declaring, in a speech after the strike, that Russia would be entitled to attack any nations that aid Ukraine’s strikes into Russian territory.

While Putin’s caution during previous crises suggests he’s not about to reach for the nuclear button just yet, his dramatic response has complicated any path to a peace deal. Meanwhile, some liberal voices have predicted that Trump’s looming presidency, far from hastening an end to the conflict as Trump has promised to do, will prolong it. If Trump were to cut off arms to Ukraine, he’d remove an important incentive for Putin to call it quits, according to Ben Rhodes, a former White House official under Barack Obama. Among conservatives who advocate foreign policy restraint, there is worry that Trump’s hawkish cabinet nominees portend a departure from the peace agenda he campaigned on. As for hawkish critics of Trump on both left and right, many believe that he may end the war by just giving away the farm to Putin.

These concerns are valid. But Trump has good reasons to try proving the doubters wrong. He understands that foreign policy debacles can crater a president’s approval ratings, and he has staked his reputation on being able to end a conflict that started and continues to escalate on President Joe Biden’s watch. “I’m the only one who can get the war stopped,” he told Newsweek this September. Brokering a respectable peace would be a boon to his legacy and an embarrassment for his political opponents—and Trump loves splattering egg on the faces of his detractors. So there is room for optimism alongside the worry. Trump may well manage not only to stop the war but also to get Ukraine the best deal it could realistically hope for.

Some say Trump’s Ukraine promises are hollow since he hasn’t outlined a viable peace deal. But Trump maintains, plausibly enough, that he can’t reveal details of a plan without boxing himself in. It would be better, he says, to hammer out a deal with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky behind closed doors, which means keeping mum on specifics for now. Despite Trump’s reticence, there are signs of the kind of deal he’d push for—and signs that both Putin and Zelensky would go for it.

This fall, J.D. Vance, Trump’s running mate and now vice president-elect, laid out a likely settlement: The current battle lines become a “heavily fortified” demilitarized zone to prevent future Russian aggression; Kyiv retains its sovereign independence; and Russia gets assurances that Ukraine won’t join NATO. Moscow would presumably also get to keep the lands in eastern and southern Ukraine that it now holds.

Keep reading

Visualizing Ukraine’s Collapsing Front Lines Amid The Steady Russian Onslaught 

As we detailed earlier, the White House is currently overseeing a ‘massive surge’ in arms to Ukraine with just 50 days left before President-elect Trump enters office. The US is also this week announcing $725 million in more aid, which is the latest defense package for Ukraine drawn directly from US inventories.

It will include a second shipment of antipersonnel mines, and comes the same day that Germany also unveiled another $680 million in Ukraine aid. The Western allies have asserted that they want to see Zelensky and Ukraine forces in as favorable a position as possible before negotiations to end the war inevitably proceed (something which Trump has repeatedly promised from day one of his second administration). But the prime question remains: what good will the rapid infusion of more weapons do when the real problem is Ukraine’s collapsing manpower? To illustrate the reality of Russia’s rapid advance of the past several months…

Keep reading

Boris Johnson admits Ukraine conflict is “proxy war” against Russia

Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson admitted that the West organized a proxy war against Russia, an effort that has not only caused untold deaths and apocalyptic carnage in Ukraine but has raised fears of a nuclear conflict, especially after Moscow announced its intentions to review its nuclear policy following Kiev regime missile attacks on Russian territory.

It is recalled that as prime minister (July 2019-September 2022), Johnson encouraged the Europeans to send more weapons to Ukraine after he urged the Kiev regime to abandon negotiations with the Kremlin and continue a futile war effort. In effect, the former prime minister saw an opportunity to use Kiev as a proxy to continue London’s centuries-old foreign policy tradition of hostility with Moscow.

“We’re waging a proxy war, but we’re not giving our proxies the ability to do the job. For years now, we’ve been allowing them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs and it has been cruel,” Johnson told The Telegraph.

The former British prime minister also said that a multinational group of European peacekeeping forces should be responsible for protecting any possible future ceasefire line in Ukraine.

“I don’t think we should be sending in combat troops to take on the Russians. But I think as part of the solution, as part of the end state, you’re going to want to have multinational European peace-keeping forces monitoring the border [and] helping the Ukrainians,” he said. “I cannot see that such a European operation could possibly happen without the British.”

However, while Johnson said that British troops should not be deployed to fight the Russians, he did stress that London was “morally responsible” for Ukraine and supported the use of British Storm Shadow missile against Russia.

“[Britain took] far too long [to] break the taboo” on providing Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine and the accompanying policy permission to fire the weapons into Russia, he said, adding: “We could have forced the pace.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on November 28 at a press conference in Kazakhstan that major “decision-making centres” in Kiev would be devastated by the powerful Oreshnik missile in response to Ukrainian strikes on Russia and warned that all weapons could be used if the Kiev regime were to acquire nuclear arms.

“We do not rule out the use of Oreshnik against the military, military-industrial facilities or decision-making centres, including in Kiev,” Putin said, adding that although the weapon was “comparable in strength to a nuclear strike” if used several times on one location, they were not currently fitted with nuclear warheads.

“The kinetic impact is powerful, like a meteorite falling,” the Russian president explained. “We know in history what meteorites have fallen where and what the consequences were.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky hypocritically accused Putin of a “despicable escalation” even though it was Kiev that had long been requesting permission from the US, Britain and France to fire long-range missiles provided by them against military targets inside Russia. Following the granting of permission, the Kiev regime launched British Storm Shadow missiles and American ATACMS to strike targets inside Russia for the first time, prompting anger from the Kremlin.

Keep reading

Biden’s Parting Shot at America

The interim between a US presidential election and the swearing in of a new Administration has for most of our history been a non-eventful period where the outgoing Administration winds down operations and the incoming Administration ramps up new personnel before the inauguration.

The 20th Amendment to our Constitution was enacted in 1933 to reduce the “lame duck” period between election and inauguration to January 20th instead of March 4th. Increasing ease in travel and communications made such a long interim unnecessary. However long the transition period, it has been understood that with the new election came a new mandate from the American people and the “lame duck” outgoing administration was meant to quietly quack out its last few days in office without incident.

Then came Biden. In the period since the American people rejected Biden’s neocon interventionists in favor of Donald Trump’s promises to end the wars, the “lame duck” has run roughshod over the will of the American people. Whoever is running Biden – and the answer is unclear – has decided to “Trump proof” foreign policy to bring us to the literal brink of WWIII with Russia. And to top it off, Biden’s people this past week have again unleashed al-Qaeda linked rebels to wreak havoc in Syria!

After solidly opposing the neocon demand that Ukraine be given permission to fire US weapons deep into Russia, President Biden in the waning days of his presidency suddenly reversed course and granted permission. From back in 2022, when Russia first went into Ukraine, Biden had argued against sending offensive weaponry and US troops to fight on Ukraine’s behalf. “Make no mistake,” he said in March of that year, “that’s called World War III.”

Something about losing the popular and electoral vote has led Biden’s people to disregard the threat of WWIII and give the green light for attacks with US missiles deep into Russian territory. Why is this so different than providing tanks or bullets? These missile systems are highly complex and classified and can only be operated by US or NATO personnel. That means that American military officers are shooting American missiles into Russia – something unimaginable even in the depths of the Cold War!

Then, just days ago, we saw the sudden re-emergence of the US former proxies in Syria – extremists whose ties go back to al-Qaeda – sweep halfway through the country in what appears to be a return of Obama’s disastrous “Assad must go” policy. For five years the conflict in Syria had been more or less “frozen,” but Biden’s people have turned it up to a boil.

Why has the Biden Administration suddenly given a green light to these terrorists and how deeply is the CIA involved in stirring up new trouble in Syria? Make no mistake: these US-backed “rebels” would never have made their move without the approval of the Biden Administration.

Keep reading

FLASHBACK: Joe And Hunter Biden Met With Russian Energy Execs Within Weeks Of Crimean Annexation…The Question Is…Why?

A well-placed source has informed CDMedia that Joe and Hunter Biden met with state-controlled corporate Russian energy executives in April of 2014. The meeting took place in the United States. Energy deals were discussed.

So what? you may ask. However, dig deeper, the timing is critical.

Only a few weeks earlier, the Maidan Revolution occurred in Ukraine. The Obama administration was behind the overthrow of pro-Russian president Viktor Yanykovych. Over one hundred protesters were shot and killed by snipers loyal to the Yanykovych regime.

Only a few weeks later, before the Biden meeting, Russia invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula, and stoked the war between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian forces in the Donbass region of East Ukraine. The conflict continues today. People are still dying.

The Obama administration forced Ukraine to not respond militarily to the Crimean aggression. This is well documented. Sanctions however were implemented against the Russian Federation for their actions and continue to this day as well.

What occurred in Ukraine in early 2014 and the following weeks between the Obama administration, Kyiv and the Kremlin has never been sufficiently investigated. The corrupt media just doesn’t care.

But if Russia was then, and still is, our enemy number one according to Obama and HIllary at the time, then why were Joe and Hunter meeting with Russian energy executives only weeks later?

Could it be Joe and Hunter had something to sell? Could that something have been keeping Ukraine from responding militarily to the Russian military action? What would Joe and Hunter want in return? And why was Hunter in the meeting at all? He had no official government function.

There is a pattern here. Joe took Hunter to China on business, and Hunter returned with a $1.5 billion check for an investment firm he controlled. What did Joe sell then? Enquiring minds want to know.

And, we all know about the Burisma scandal, where Hunter Biden [and Joe] received millions of dollars from Ukrainian organized crime in a quid pro quo for Joe’s influence to stop investigations into Burisma organized crime.

We also know the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton campaign secretly later paid Russian intelligence to develop the infamous ‘Steele Dossier’ which was later used to try and removed duly-elected President Donald Trump from office.

Keep reading

All Roads Lead to Kiev

So Joe Biden pardoned Hunter. Big surprise.

Of course, the President and his mouthpiece, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, have been denying this would happen for months, ever since it became clear that Hunter was going down for what must surely be the very least of his crimes.

But it didn’t take the gift of foresight or a spare palantir to see this was obviously going to happen.

Hunter was never really going down, was he?

Some, including friends of mine, have been saying that Biden’s clemency humanises him. That it makes him relatable—like an actual human being with the thoughts and feelings, and the weaknesses, we’d expect from an actual human being, from a father—by contrast with the other bipedal creatures that now infest the upper ranks of the Democrat Party.

And to be honest with you, given the state of the Democrats in 2024 and their ideas about fatherhood and masculinity, I think these people are right. Just look back at the DNC. Look what was done to Tim Walz’s little boy: they put a bowl on his head, gave him a haircut straight out of Dumb and Dumber and made him go full retard for the whole world to see. You never go full retard! Those are Democrat family values in 2024. (Recent TikTok videos show that young Walz Jr. is perfectly fine now, thank heavens.)

Pardoning your philandering crackhead son for being a philandering crackhead looks positively normal by comparison, even if it’s far from the plot of a Hallmark Christmas movie.

Would you pardon your crackhead son if you were president? Probably. I think I would.

So don’t be so quick to judge.

Or maybe do. Do judge. Because the pardon’s not just about Hunter—obviously. It’s about Joe too.

As somebody said on Twitter today: “Joe Biden just pardoned himself.”

Biden is right, as he stated in the pardon, that the prosecution of his son was nakedly political. It was aimed at him, the President. Joe, not Hunter, was the target. Hunter’s convictions came at a time when the nation’s hair-sniffer-in-chief had ceased to be useful. After his diabolical debate perfomance, his cognitive decline could no longer be concealed—perhaps his medication was swapped, even—and now it was time for a new candidate to be put forward.

Keep reading