Hello all, a lot has happened since the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in February, and a lot of people are confused, disoriented, and despondent that the violence has continued for this long, and escalated this much. It is very important to maintain a firm grip on the basics of what’s happening, and remember the key moments leading up to where we are now. The situation has repeatedly changed and many talking points have been forgotten, and often deliberately memory-holed.
I am currently on my third trip to Russia, and have been writing about the Ukraine conflict for more than a year and a half. Looking back, I have written well over 70 posts about this, and thought it was high time for a moment to reflect and reorient. This is a catch-all post that covers a wide range of topics, and is meant to be skimmed to the parts that are most interesting and relevant to the reader. I have a few important updates that I plan to add later this week (and will be independent posts of their own), so stay tuned.
Ukraine was designed from the start to be a quagmire for Russia
Up until last February, American officials openly spoke about goading Russia into making a “mistake of historic proportions” by sending troops into Ukraine. On 11 December 2021 I wrote:
The reality is that there is no logical reason for Russians to bother Ukraine unless one of the “red lines” is crossed. The biggest red line is Ukraine joining NATO. That realistically can’t happen. It hasn’t happened in 30 years, and probably won’t ever happen. NATO is an alliance, and an alliance is only as strong as its weakest member. Ukraine is teetering on the verge of becoming a failed state, making talks of her joining NATO in 2021 are just as fruitless as they were in 2020, 2019, and all the years before that. Ukraine’s odds of joining the EU are perhaps even lower. As the poorest country in Europe, joining the union would be a one-way relationship. Ukraine would qualify for massive amounts of aid, but be unable to offer much in return. Furthermore, Ukrainians would enjoy open borders with the West. Would Germans appreciate millions of Ukrainians flooding into their country looking for jobs and social benefits? Unlikely. All that leaves Ukraine as little more than a chess piece to provoke the Russians.
What’s interesting to me as I re-read this old post now is that comment the European economy buckling under the weight of mass Ukrainian migration. It’s a little eery now, considering there are more than 7 million Ukrainian refugees outside the country, mostly in Europe, particularly Poland.
But really, I did not expect the Russians to wage open warfare, and thought there would be no reason for them to unless a red line was crossed. If NATO did indeed want a proxy war with Russia, a red line would have to be crossed. So in hindsight, what was that red line?
To cement the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war for NATO, Russia’s red line was crossed, perhaps unsurprisingly, by Ukrainians themselves. In January 2022 I wrote:
The Russian media has reported that the Ukrainian army is mobilizing for a large offensive into Donbass, and this is what they’re planning to do with all the new weapons and munitions NATO has been sending them. This might be fake news, but President Volodymir Zelensky himself announced the beginning of “offensive actions.” Anyway, it is probably reassuring for Russians to know that Biden won’t respond to actions against Ukraine with anything beyond sanctions. Offensive or no offensive, people are dying in Donbass almost daily, so an increased provocation might not even be necessary to justify taking the velvet gloves off.
Biden’s military escalations in Eastern Europe allegedly meant to safeguard Ukraine and the “eastern flank” of NATO actually accomplished the opposite of protecting Ukraine:
If Biden wants to deter Russia from invading Ukraine, the most sensible place to deploy troops would be, well, Ukraine. Soldiers in Ukraine would a meaningful gesture with real consequences. Russia couldn’t occupy Ukraine without firing on Americans. But of course Biden didn’t do that because he doesn’t actually want war with Russia. In a previous post, I said that the American plan appears to leave Ukraine a broken quagmire for Russia to clean up, now I’m even more certain. The State Department is even taking the step of evacuating the embassy, as if begging for a Russian invasion free from any consequences.
But if this troop deployment won’t actually do anything to stop Putin from trolling Kiyv, why do it? There is still a point to this idea and it does have consequences...
At the time of writing that post, I still had a naive idea in my head that a flare-up in Ukraine would be brief, burn out fast, and both sides could declare a “victory” and move on with their lives:
Regarding the obvious question of how both Biden and Russia can both win. The answer is Afghanistan. Aside from a fleeting moment of media outrage, the bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan didn’t harm Biden’s approval ratings significantly (they’re still higher than Trump’s) and everyone has long since moved on to other topics to be upset about. Losing Ukraine would probably be even more inconsequential. Only one in six Americans can find Ukraine on a map.
Of course now, nine months later, the NATO/Russia war has escalated far past that point. Between the huge financial aid packages to Ukraine, increased troop deployments to Poland and the Baltic states, lost corporate revenue from sanctioning Russia, crashing tourism, and desperate UK/EU spending to compensate for skyrocketing energy prices, Ukraine is already a $1 trillion war, and it’s not even been a year yet. The stakes are so high now, I don’t see any way for Biden to pull out without being humiliated. There’s also no plausible way for Russia to accept anything less than a total victory, which makes the risk of escalation, up to an including nuclear war, higher than ever before in history.
There is one group of people who should have been mediators and used their political and economic influence to prevent a “hot war” in Ukraine, or at least deescalate it as quickly as possible:
Ukraine is not a member of the EU, but it is still in Europe. One would think that the EU would be the biggest decision-maker and mediator in this feud, but they’re not. It’s a conversation happening between Washington and Moscow, and everyone else is irrelevant. At least Ukraine gets to be a pawn in the great game, the EU doesn’t even get to be a piece on the board. They are the board that everyone else tramples on.
I’m going to get back to that last point on the EU shortly. Back to Russian red lines.
Russia repeatedly offered peace, NATO (and Ukraine) refused every single time
On 19 February I wrote:
All of the Biden regime’s predictions of war have proven to be false. But that might change soon. Here’s some information and theories about what might happen.
Western propaganda outlets hysterically predicted a Russian invasion commencing on Feb. 16. It didn’t happen...
Yesterday, Polish-speaking saboteurs reportedly tried to attack a chlorine plant in Gorlovka, Donetsk. At the beginning of the month, the Donetsk News Agency had reported the movement of British-trained special forces groups moving into the Gorlovka area, which might be connected to the attack on Feb. 18. Predictably, Western news outlets claimed, with no evidence, that this attack was faked. Note that these are the same media outlets that accepted the Pentagon’s version of last year’s Kabul drone strike.
Yesterday, the governments of Donetsk and Lugansk urged civilians to evacuate across the Russian border, and this is when things really got interesting. Facebook and TikTok censored the evacuation announcement, suspending news outlets, government pages, and even private citizens (note that TikTok’s servers are located in the USA, so effectively is another propaganda arm of the Biden regime). YouTube has already banned the accounts for Donetsk and Lugansk. This sounds an awful lot like an information war to me.
On 22 February, Russia recognized the independence of the DPR and LPR. Suddenly, the NATO bloc shifted rhetoric, leaders and talking heads imploring Putin to respect the Minsk agreements! I wrote:
Oh, now the Minsk agreement matters! I have been saying this for a while (see my article about Sea Breeze in July). But you know who hasn’t been talking about the Minsk agreements? The Western media, including Reuters. Here’s the Google Trends report for “Minsk agreement” among American users.
Ukraine is chasing a carrot on a stick, or perhaps a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They ignore current opportunities to negotiate while demanding things that are already impossible (but would have been possible had they accepted earlier negotiations). Zelensky very much resembles a poor gambler loosing his shirt in the casino. Just yesterday on 1 October I revisited this pattern, writing:
Despite the brutality of the civil war of 2014-15, Kiev still had a chance to retain control of Donbass. Per the Minsk agreement, all they had to do was end combat operations and allow Donetsk and Luhansk to hold elections and retain their local culture. But this was so unacceptable to Kiev, they continued waging war for another eight years, deliberately squandering every opportunity for peace. Eventually, the window of opportunity to respect the Minsk agreements closed completely when Russia formally recognized the independence of the LPR and DPR on 22 February, 2022. Kiev still persisted in their shellings of civilian areas in Donbass, causing Russia, for the first time, to officially intervene in the Ukrainian civil war. Even at this moment, Russia offered the Ukrainians a chance to negotiate. Kiev stubbornly insisted on fighting instead, and tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers were killed.
Yet again, at the end of March, talks between Russia and Ukraine concluded in Istanbul, and all Russian forces withdrew from the Kiev region. This was an astonishing moment for Ukraine. President Zelensky could rightfully declare a partial victory, praise the heroism of his soldiers, and suffer no loss of territory.
But of course, there was a problem. The offer at Istanbul wasn’t quite as good as the deal in the Minsk agreements. The Donbass republics would be independent of Ukrainian rule, and that point was non-negotiable.
Western propaganda deliberately encouraged Ukrainians to fight a brutal, pointless war, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of their people
After peace offers failed and brutal close-quarters combat broke out between Russians and Ukrainians, I was left despondent, and didn’t write at all for a week. Then, on 5 March, I finally decided to say something:
If Americans created the idea of Ukrainian nationalism, how are we totally unaware of our role in it? That’s because we are completely and irredeemably divorced from reality. Just look at what our news cycle has been like for the past weeks, months, and years. We are obsessed with the idea of an overwhelming, powerful enemy that, at the same time, is very easy to defeat. Our adversary must be simultaneously weak and strong, and we must have evidence of that, even if we have to invent it ourselves. Every major news development from this war, every single one, was fake. The 13 Spartans of Serpent Island, the sunflower seeds babushka, the evil Russian tankers running over people for no reason, evil Russian missiles blowing up nuclear plants for no reason, all fake, and really stupid to believe in the first place.
Over the weekend, they got absolutely hysterical and deranged. Entire Russian armored columns running out of gas (all at the same time, apparently), Russians running away, morale destroyed… once it became clear that we would believe literally anything, the stories went to the moon. The casualty reports were cartoonish. Along the way, the American government had to step in and start giving numbers that were at least remotely plausible. The Ukrainians basically just decided they could claim to destroy the Russian army every day several times over, so that’s what they’ve been doing ever since.
The internet was flooded with war porn, all of it most obviously made up. Lengthy texts filled with buzz words and jargon strung together, often with weirdly sexual connotations. I’m going to paraphrase because all of these made-up stories said basically the same thing and I don’t want to waste any more of my time reading them.
If someone believes that Russia has suffered 500 million billion casualties, I don’t even try to argue with them anymore. It’s pointless and I’m not going to waste any more mental bandwidth on it. If you’re still on the fence, or know someone who is, here’s a very typical example of fake news.
Phases, or the building blocks of a war
American military doctrine categorizes military operations in a series of phases. These phases have overlap, are cyclical, and an operation itself can be the phase of a larger ongoing operation at a higher echelon. Here are the phases:
Phase 0 Shape
Phase I Deter
Phase II Seize Initiative
Phase III Dominate
Phase IV Stabilize
Phase V Enable Civil Authority
Phase 0 Shape
On 30 March, I concluded that the first “phase” of the Russians’ special military operation had ended, and the months that have passed since then all seem to follow this template. Russia ends each phase with stabilizing and shaping the battlespace, which includes, as counter-intuitive as this might sound, shrinking their overall military presence in Ukraine to better hold on to the parts they decided to keep. On 30 March, as the Istanbul talks concluded, they left Kiev region to reinforce and consolidate the battles lines in Donbass and Novorossia. Curiously, their much later transition on 30 September followed the same template. They didn’t contest Ukrainian counter-offensives to retake most of Kharkov region, and yet accepted the referendum of four regions, more than double the territory that was on the plate six months earlier in March.
As I stated previously, the Istanbul talks marked the end of the first phase of the special military operation. The second phase, I argue, concluded with the complete liberation of Mariupol on 20 May. The third phase concluded with the referendum, and marks the beginning of the fourth phase.
So rather than moan that the Ukrainian offensive was ineffective so far, or a waste of time and lives, consider the reasons why people launch counteroffensives in the first place. A counteroffensive disrupts the enemy’s own offensive, inflicts attrition on their forces, consumes ammunition, fuel, and supplies, and destabilizes the territory they’ve seized from you.
Keeping a bridgehead to the western side of the Dnieper is likely crucial to Russia’s future operations since, as past experience shows, that’s an easy place to hold a defensive line. It’s politically important as well, since holding a referendum in Kherson surely requires attaining a certain level of stability, and repeated Ukrainian offensives can prevent that from happening.
This is one of the more controversial posts I have written, but events since then seem to have proven my statements correct.
Who is winning the war, Russia or NATO?
That’s a tough question. It was tough to answer during the months following the battle of Mariupol, when combat mostly consisted of massive artillery duels across a 1,000 km front, but almost no change in the battle lines. Many people saw this and thought of World War I, which isn’t a wrong thing to think. 15 May I wrote:
Here is my attempt to summarize how to win a battle, or a war.
Expose as much of the enemy force to attrition as possible, and for as long as possible, while minimizing your own force’s exposure to attrition, while still utilizing them 100% at key moments of the operation for the purposes they’re suitable for.
With this in mind, on 29 May, I argued that the Russian plan seemed to be just bleeding out their Ukrainian opposition, a horrible waiting game until, hopefully, western enthusiasm for the war petered out. At the time, I hoped the fighting would end with the onset of winter, preventing the massive humanitarian crisis that would inevitably unfold if Ukraine is still a desperate war zone in the freezing cold, and sporadic access to electricity, food, and medical aid.
Not only did western enthusiasm for the war not fade, it seems to have surged, thanks in part to a massive wave of fresh propaganda about imminent Ukrainian “victory” in their current counter-offensives. But truth be told, the Ukrainian armed forces are proving to be more mobile and enthusiastic for clawing territory away from the Russians, despite sustaining heavy casualties from superior air and artillery power. No one should sneer at the Ukrainians right now, they are proving their mettle, even if for wrong, misguided reasons.
In response to Ukrainian attackers’ crushing numerical superiority, the Russian allied forces are engaging in “defense in depth,” retreating in the face of attacks while peppering the enemy with artillery fire, while mounting their own counter-offensives. It’s too early to make any claims one way or the other, but like with the earlier (failed) blood pump of Donbass, this is a game of endurance between Russia and NATO. If NATO support collapses for any reason, Ukraine will also collapse.
NATO prepared for the wrong war, and this is hurting them
For the last two decades, NATO has fetishized insurgency tactics almost to the point it has become a religion. This is largely psychological projection, as NATO countries have fought numerous counter-insurgency conflicts since World II and lost almost every single one of them. So they have come to see such partisan tactics as a magic weapon that can defeat any conventional army, including Russia’s. NATO clearly anticipated Russia to conduct their operation in Ukraine as a sort of Iraq Invasion 2.0, and try to gobble up as much territory as possible. This didn’t happen. In addition, the bulk of NATO weapons sent to Ukraine leading up to and during the early months of the operation were more oriented to the light infantry tactics used by partisans, like javelins, stingers, and drones. This is almost certainly the explanation for why the propaganda drive for Ratheon’s anti-tank toys suddenly died out and was replaced by a surge of standard weapons for a conventional army, like tanks and howitzers.
The problem goes deeper than that, however, and is harder to fix than just sending different weapons. Eight years were wasted training for a decentralized insurgent strategy that went nowhere, and it is vastly more difficult to correct training and doctrinal deficiencies in the middle of a war.
Ukraine copied NATO, and did it so well they inherited the same deficiencies
Despite Ukrainians’ personal courage and vast NATO support, they’re failing at even basic maneuver warfare, and this was particularly clear in this week’s encirclement of Lyman. It is impressive that Ukrainians are able to do fairly complex maneuvers that go beyond what they were doing even a few weeks ago, but they so far have still failed to do the basic task of creating a cauldron and closing it fast enough to ensnare Russian troops. I don’t think this is even their fault, it’s a serious doctrinal and bureaucratic weakness they inherited from their NATO masters.
I have more to say on the developing military situation, so please come back for updates on this section.
The Anglo war against Germany and planned destruction of Nord Stream
Germany and Russia, despite being on opposing sides of the two most horrible wars in human history, are logical allies. They’re both old cultures, old neighbors, and are roughly equal in economic and political power. There are differences, Germany has a higher GDP on paper, Russia has a larger population (147 million Russians versus 83 million Germans), but the differences aren’t astronomical. In the absence of outside (Anglo) meddling, there’s no rational reason for Germany and Russia to not be friends and business partners. And despite the strained post-Cold War relationship, they were gradually building more bridges. Commerce and cultural exchange is the cure for even the worst ethnic and ideological conflict. If Germany and Russia ever unified properly, they would easily be the most powerful force in the world, even more powerful than the Anglos (AUKUS) or China.
That’s why prior to the start of Russia’s special military operation, and even after it started, I was incredulous at the idea that the EU, particularly Germany, would deliberately destroy their own economies to appease UK/US/NATO interests in Ukraine.
In April 2021, former diplomat Steven Pifer made the following five proposals on how to stop Russian imperialism:
- Merkel and other world leaders “please” speak to Putin.
- They should also speak to Zelensky
- Send military and material aid to Ukraine
- (More?) Reconnaissance flights over Ukraine and the Black Sea
- Sanctions against Nord Stream 2.
My response at the time:
These are interesting ideas, but not even remotely realistic. For starters, cutting off Nord Stream 2 would have real economic consequences for the EU. Sorry, but supporting the Ukrainian puppet government and its loosely organized Nazi militias isn’t that important to the Western powers.
Oh my God this comment did not age well. This is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever said.
As unlikely I considered the EU’s self-flagellation to be, I couldn’t help but notice the American government’s increasing hostility to the idea of “European unity.” In December 2021 I wrote:
Consider this 2019 article in Consortium News by Max Blumenthal a writer for the Grayzone. Blumenthal spelled out some of the finer points of the Ukrainegate scandal surrounding Joe Biden’s son, Hunter. Joe Biden is a longtime ally of the Atlantic Council, the DC-based think tank coordinating much of the financial and ideological drive behind NATO. In 2014, Biden was Obama’s point man in coordinating the Maidan unrest in Ukraine. Biden was richly rewarded for his services there; one of those rewards was, apparently, a six-figure salary for Hunter in the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.
Many of the details Blumenthal highlighted have an eery relevance today. Blumenthal specifically mentions Raytheon, and a particular product they sell, FGM-148 Javelin missiles. The Biden regime just blessed another weapons shipment to Ukraine, including Javelins.
Victoria Nuland, now Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, was involved in Ukraine too. In a leaked phone conversation with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland speculated on how Ukrainians could be manipulated in NATO’s ongoing war against Russia but was frustrated by Europe’s hesitation to play along, leading her to declare “you know, fuck the EU.”
Years of escalating threats against Nord Stream became a self-fulfilling prophecy with deliberate acts of sabotage against both Nord Stream I and Nord Stream II. 29 September 2022 I wrote:
As counter-intuitive as it might sound, Russia is not the biggest loser in this situation. Russia lost expensive infrastructure that took years to build, and their most potent bargaining chip with the European Union, but besides that, won’t suffer for it. The biggest loser is Germany.
Starting in October, the new Baltic Pipe system will start bringing Norwegian gas to Poland. So Germany has not only lost a crucial bridge with Russia, they lost a bargaining chip with Poland, and everyone else. Poland no longer has any need for the European Union, they have all the tools they need to become the regional power that bullies Germany, instead of the other way around.
Anglo diplomats use border states like Poland and Ukraine to deliberately provoke their larger neighbors
American and British politicians didn’t just wake up one day and decide they wanted to tear down Germany. Post-WWII America has largely been absorbed by British foreign policy and the ideology of British imperialism, hence why the USA and UK march along in lock-step on nearly every issue. The British have been obsessed with Eastern Europe for at least a century and a half – the Crimean War and arguably even earlier than that. After WWI, British diplomats identified the Polish population of the former Russian and German states as the ideal place to declare an ancestral homeland and establish a right-wing puppet state. Look, I’m not saying Polish people don’t deserve their own state, but we have to acknowledge British intent when they demanded Polish nationhood in 1919. Since when did British imperialists care about anyone except themselves? Poland was meant to be a political and military threat to both the defeated Germans and the struggling Soviets.
On 18 March I wrote:
Once upon a time, stop me if you’ve heard this story before, Anglo diplomats surveyed the ruins of a fallen empire, and hatched a nefarious plan. They insisted on the creation of a militaristic right-wing pseudostate, with borders drawn up in a way that would be deliberately provocative to her neighbors. Then the Western powers all swore that this weird artificial state had inviolable sovereignty and signed unenforceable mutual defense pacts with her. Just creating this imaginary country was a weird and stupid idea, and that decision was made even more weird and stupid by the following mutual defense agreements. Even a small border dispute would immediately and inevitably erupt into a world war, and of course that’s exactly what happened.
If you think I’m talking about 1991 Ukraine, you are correct, but also not correct. I’m talking about 1919 Poland.
American historian Pat Buchanan sparked national outrage when he suggested that Hitler may not have actually intended to invade the Soviet Union and perpetuate the holocaust, and honestly, he’s right. The idea of attacking Soviet territory didn’t make sense when Germany and the USSR didn’t even share a border. Leading up to 1939, the British basically painted Hitler into a corner until he felt he had no other choice except to attack Poland.
Every schoolchild in the West is taught that this was simply cowardice, “appeasement.” The western powers didn’t stop Hitler because they were scared and didn’t want war. Looking back, I can’t imagine how I could ever have believed something so silly. Since when was the West afraid of wars? They certainly didn’t seem shy about fighting wars after Hitler. Perhaps there was another motivation at work. How about the obvious motivation: Hitler was an attack dog against the Soviet Union.
Modern fascists are puppets for the liberal “rules-based world order”
We live in a strange world that resembles the Sylvester Stallone movie Demolition Man. In Demolition Man, Dr. Raymond Cocteau, the mayor of the futuristic 2032 California city “San Angeles” is a soft-spoken liberal oligarch who has an eery resemblance to the left-leaning politicians of the USA and Western Europe today. At first glance, San Angeles is a beautiful utopia, but there are huge numbers of people living in abject poverty underneath the metropolis, and an aggressive rebellion led by a guy called Friendly. To restore order, Dr. Cocteau decides to to start bringing back violent criminals from the 20th Century (normal prison sentences have been replaced by being frozen in a tube and brainwashed to be a good citizen when you wake up). For the criminal leader chosen by Cocteau, the opposite is done. While he was frozen he was given military-level combat training. When he wakes up, he’s given access to military-grade weapons, and even some of his former henchmen. It’s an interesting plan but Cocteau is arrogant and wildly overconfident in his technology. He ends up being murdered in his own office by his own henchmen with one of his own weapons. Ironic all the way around, eh?
That’s essentially the relationship between liberals in the western world and fascists in the eastern world. An extremist group like Azov battalion would never be tolerated in the USA, let alone made an official unit in the US Army, but it’s fine in Ukraine. This is racism of low expectations. Western liberals are generally fine with Ukrainian nazis, because presumably it would be unfair to expect Ukrainians to not be nazis. They just don’t know any better, right?
On 29 March I wrote:
Let’s compare Hitler and Zelensky. Can we truly call them nationalists? I think these two guys actually have a lot in common. They’re both nazis, of course. Hitler is dead and Zelensky is probably about to be dead. But beyond that, they were (past tense) both bright, intelligent guys who loved attention. And they were both put in a similar situation with Russia, and both made the same choice. Yes, you read that correctly. Zelensky made the same choice as Hitler. Not only that, what happened with Zelensky I think actually provides some insight about Hitler as well.
Being a progressive liberal is really just being a nazi with extra steps. Nazis think Aryans are the supreme race and everyone else should be treated as inferior. A progressive liberal argues that non-Aryans should be given special treatment… because they’re inferior. See how that works? To quote Joe Biden in the Freudian slip of the century, “poor kids are just as smart as white kids.” I wrote a post in May 2021 arguing that liberal critical race theory is one and the same with nazi racism. Some readers were skeptical back then, but I think my argument has been vindicated by how western liberals became the coziest bed fellows with Ukrainian extremist groups.
A WMD false flag attack might be on the horizon
All the way back on 16 February I commented on a bizarre exchange between the US State Department’s Ned Price and a journalist. Price had just claimed he had “intelligence” of an imminent Russian false flag attack:
Matthew Lee: “Crisis actors? Really? This is like Alex Jones territory you’re getting into now. What evidence do you have to support the idea that there is some propaganda film in the making?”
Ned Price: “Matt, this is derived from information known to the U.S. government, intelligence information that we have declassified. I think you know —
Matthew Lee: “OK, well, where is it? Where is this information?”
Ned Price: “It is intelligence information that we have declassified.”
Matthew Lee: “Well, where is it? Where is the declassified information?
Ned Price: “I just delivered it.”
I worried that NATO would be so desperate to escalate the confrontation with Russia, they would resort to some sort of chemical, biological, or even nuclear attack against Donbass. And because of the tight propaganda grip on western audiences, NATO could easily launch a brutal NBC attack against civilians and easily blame it on Russia with no evidence.
Now I’m worried again. On 28 September, a British expert was interviewed by CNN. In very frank terms, he spelled out how the city of Zaporizhzhia, which just voted to join the Russian Federation, could be destroyed by a tactical nuke, and this would justify NATO retaliating against Russia. Again, just to be clear, the plan is to nuke a Russian city and then claim the Russians nuke themselves. If this doesn’t disgust you, dear reader, then nothing will.
I finally understand why we hate Russia
What’s happening right now is the single most horrifying thing I have ever seen. It’s even worse than the Islamophobia after the Sept. 11 attacks. That was wrong, but at least there was a reasonable provocation for it. We had been directly attacked, and in a terrible way. It was natural for us to feel angry, and would have been weird if we didn’t. But why now? Why are Americans feeling this overwhelming, burning rage and bloodlust over a regional border dispute on the other side of the world? Only one in six Americans can find Ukraine on a map. I’m not sure all Americans could even find Russia on a map.
This is the first time in my life I have watched the Russians fight a protracted conventional war, and I have immersed myself in both sides of the story, not just ours. At the same time, I have watched almost every person I have ever known explode into a fit of irrational rage and russophobia, and completely overnight.
Why do we compulsively travel to the other side of the world to pick fights with Russia? And when Russia gets into fights of her own, why do we always take the other side, even when the other side is evil? And why is the other side always evil? Not sometimes evil. Always evil. Our allies against Russia are always nazis, terrorists, religious extremists, and drug dealers. There is not even one exception to this rule.
Ian Kummer
Support my work by making a contribution through Boosty
All text in Reading Junkie posts are free to share or republish without permission, and I highly encourage my fellow bloggers to do so. Please be courteous and link back to the original.
I now have a new YouTube channel that I will use to upload videos from my travels around Russia. Expect new content there soon. Please give me a follow here.
Also feel free to connect with me on Quora (I sometimes share unique articles there).
About 2 months by accident ago I found this site. I had read some of your comments on Moon of Alabama and and put 2 and 2 together that you were that same person.
Being able to put 2 and 2 together is no small task today as most people in North America haven’t . As evidenced by the amount of triple vaxxed, mask wearing Zombies that I used to be acquainted with .
Enough of social commentary.
My grand parents all came from Russia so I now understand why I never could just fit into mainstream society.
Speaking of mainstream North America the financial cracks that 2-3 years were becoming visble in Canada and the United States have started morphing into financial craters.
The banking system is bankrupt. In the past when I said this people would laugh in my face and call me the village idiot. They would show me the healthy dividends that they were receiving from these institutions and tell me nothing is safer than a Cdn. Bank.
How could you possibly not see this they would scream
I told them about derivatives that the banks had gambled on and lost on were now held at the Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland . Settlement will be decided upon once their is enough collateral in the system.
That is where Russia and all it’s resources come in. The oil, the gas , the water , the wheat everything must be turned over to the banks for free. When I told them this they laughed.
While they were laughing I asked them if their bank accounts , the money that they deposited in the banks were liabilities or assets of the bank.? All of them didn’t know the difference between an asset and a liability .
I told them that fatboy Harper had changed those deposits from bank liabilities to bank assets, which meant one day they will steal your money and call it a bail-in.
Now to the meat of this comment , in one of your articles you talked about Nato having an ex- million surplus bodies hanging around doing nothing but drawing money fron these governments. The Davos crowd holds these men with little or no regard just as they hold the Ukrainian solders. Cannon fodder , useless eaters.
That is the reason why I believe they keep sending wave after wave of these people into the Russian bullets and artilary.I some times wonder if these poor wretches aren’t doped up on amphitames . In Lyman I read that the orchards were so filled with corpses that you couldn’t see the trees.
Hi Jeff thank you for dropping by, and yes, those million available bodies are something we need to keep in mind.
Thanks Ian.
Thanks for reading!
Hopefully you will be killed by CIA. Just go ahead and put your information out there buddy brilliant!!!
Behold, Elliott Offen, the least deranged liberal.