In a must-read article, journalist Aaron Maté argues that, in the lead-up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. sided with Ukraine’s far-right – thereby sabotaging President Zelensky’s mandate for peace.
Contrary to what you might assume based on his ‘Churchillian’ stance during the war, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky was elected in 2019 on a platform to make peace with Russian-backed separatists in the East. The war in Donbas had been going since 2014, leaving more than 14,000 dead.
As Maté notes, in Zelensky’s inaugural address he said was willing to “do everything” to make peace:
I can assure that in order for our heroes to stop dying I am ready to do everything. And I am definitely not afraid to make difficult decisions, not afraid to lose my own popularity, my ratings. And if there’s a need I’m prepared to give up my own position – as long as peace arrives.
He also said that, although it “wasn’t us” who started the war, “it’s our job to end it” – and stressed that “we’re ready for dialogue”.
Unfortunately, these overtures towards a diplomatic solution did not go down well with Ukraine’s powerful far-right. The head of “Right Sector” warned that Zelensky “will lose his life. He will hang on some tree on Khreshchatyk – if he betrays Ukraine and those people who died in the Revolution and the War.”
Even the New York Times wrote in February of this year that Zelensky’s Government could be overthrown by far-right groups if he “agrees to a peace deal that in their minds gives too much to Moscow”.
What Zelensky needed to face down the far-right, Maté argues, is support from the U.S. If America had backed his pledge to broker a peace deal, he’d have been able to do so without fear of threats or intimidation. But the U.S. didn’t back him, and Zelensky’s pledge went unfulfilled.
Why on earth would the U.S. not want peace in Ukraine? Because there was a more important goal: to weaken Russia (which also happens to be America’s stated objective in the current war). Those in charge of U.S. foreign policy want to “overextend and unbalance” Russia, so they can focus on confronting China.
Is this plausible? Would the U.S. really side with far-right paramilitaries over a democratically elected president? If history’s anything to go by, it’s entirely plausible.
In the 1980s, the U.S. armed and funded the Contras – a right-wing rebel group in Nicaragua that carried out various atrocities during its guerrilla war against the country’s socialist government. They also armed and funded the Islamist mujahideen of Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan War.
More recently, the U.S. armed and funded various rebel groups in Syria, some of which carried out atrocities. What’s more, these groups fought side-by-side with radical Islamists like al-Nusra and even Al Qaeda. As Jake Sullivan told Hillary Clinton in a leaked 2012 email: “AQ is on our side in Syria.”
In light of these examples, it doesn’t stretch the imagination to believe the U.S. intentionally refrained from backing Zelensky, in the knowledge that this would empower his far-right opponents.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Biden’s words, there is a NWO developing out there and we want to be in charge. Paraphrasing a little, but the gist is the same.
Nothing changes.
WTF is it with the “Far Right” crap?
Naziism is a far left concept. Hitler was a socialist.
He actively promoted the fact in his propaganda of the time.
Not many right wingers would vote for a leader announcing himself as a socialist and publicising it to every German in the country!
https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/haken32.htm
Nazi isn’t mentioned in the piece.
I strongly suspect that much is lost in the translation from Russian, and that the Russians are describing what they see as nationalist terrorists – more akin to the IRA.
They simply recognise the dame faces, flags, armbands and slogans as those who tried to destroy them with ‘ethnic cleansing’ 1941 -45.
Are the Ukrainian’s coming over all LGBT+?
Auto crorrcet is a pin in the arms!
What on earth do you imagine the article means by “far right”?
You can’t possibly be that stupid. Read the full article!
The term Nazi is used no less that eight times.
The Azov battalion were recognised as Nazi influenced long before this event manifested itself.
It’s known they were ‘disbanded’ because of international outrage. It’s also known they were redeployed to other regiments to infect them with their hatred.
Words can have more than one meaning, and words change over time.
And the ‘far-left’ and ‘far-right’ are essentially the same. It’s less linear and more of a circle.
The extremes of Nationalism are based upon the hatred of others, no matter what the underlying economics is.
Riiight. So because you on the left have a history of violence and genocide, somehow you have to implicate the right in your disgusting habits.
Far left was Hitler, Stalin, Mao. The Srebrenica genocidal massacre and the Rwandan genocide. Then there’s Ho Chi Minh, Josip Broz Tito, Kim Il-Sung, Pol Pot, amongst many others.
Hundreds of millions of people simply slaughtered or starved by their own left wing leaders.
Utter bullshit. Nationalism is a perfectly natural tribal state of humanity. It’s predicated on the principle of ‘leave me and my people alone and we’ll not trouble you’.
Globalism is the tearing down of borders, entirely contrary to human nature. Globalism is the imposition of values and cultures entirely alien to human nature.
How about I march into your house, declare it common property, and settle my family in?
Where does a borderless world end? Answer: It doesn’t. Everything becomes part of the state and you will do as you are told.
‘You will own nothing and be happy’.
I mean, they are even telling you what they are doing and you make excuses for them?
Delusional.
There are people on the “left” who approve of what they would call “revolutionary” violence. There are also people on the “left” who are pacifists. It’s a very broad group – even to this day – with many disagreements and much mutual suspicion.
In the last century (but this no longer seems to be the case), they were distinguished by their shared opposition to what they saw as “extreme” or “excessive” wealth concentrated in the hand of a few, at the expense of the majority.
The left lie, to themselves more than anyone.
Every leftist I have ever known has their own idea of an ideological utopia.
Which is precisely why socialism fails every single time, because when the ideal utopia can never be agreed upon, the left eats itself.
In all centuries socialism is notable for its desire for redistributed wealth.
Their definition of “extreme” or “excessive” wealth is entirely arbitrary. A manager earning more than a labourer is considered “excessive” wealth by some. Yet not one single socialist can define “excessive” wealth, especially when they are the manager.
A friend was a foster carer. He believed himself left wing and demanded redistributed wealth, claiming to make his own way in life, until I pointed out that I was paying him to look after other people’s children.
Oddly, it had never occurred to him that it was the Taxpayer who paid his, rather large, salary for looking after numerous kids.
Proper capitalism is straightforward and largely honest. leave me to make as much money as I want and I’ll leave you to do the same.
The problem is, crony capitalism, when government’s intervene to ensure ‘fairness’. They eventually become the ones dictating who can do what. Schwab and his technocratic elite’s New World Order personify that.
Biden has, for example, shut down pipelines, oil wells and fracking for an ideological concept, climate change. What gives Biden the right to intervene in the functioning of private businesses?
Civilisation was founded on free trade, back to when shells represented currency. If you were good at free trade you became wealthy, if you weren’t, you still engaged in the process by selling your labour.
Stifling of free trade resulted in communist USSR which specialised in poverty on the basis of redistributed wealth.
Even China has largely abandoned communism when it realised there was no way it could feed its population on that basis.
Socialism is a utopian world that can’t possibly exist as everyone has a different utopian vision.
“Schwab and his technocratic elite’s New World Order personify that.”
If Nazi means National Socialism, and is a form of fascism, then the totalitarianism Schwab proposes is it’s twin.
A form of fascism characterised by international extremism, rather than national extremism.
Schwab’s vision is an international state, controlling the means of production by managing large corporations, much as did Hitler in 1930’s Germany. These corporations will own all assets – including your homes (unless you’re of the elite of course). This is why it is possible to implement “net-zero”. They’ll just prevent people having vehicles for example (it’s already starting).
Both are forms of collectivism. Left and right (if such things exist) represent the battle between libertarianism – focused on individual rights – versus collectivism – in which the state determines what rights individuals may enjoy.
Western so-called “liberal” democracies are crumbling. Individual rights are being subsumed under a barrage of collectivist legislation. And in certain parts of the world, even clearly stated constitutional rights are not allowed. Courts refuse to hear cases where they know they will have to rule against the state. Or the state simply rides roughshod over their constitutional rights (e.g. Canada).
Those on the ‘left ‘advocating revolitionary violence are usually absent from the scene when it starts.
Pol Pot sat and took notes at the feet of JP Sartre – who managed the occasional peaceful ‘demo’ in Paris for the cameras.
I don’t see Mélenchon, or even Paul Mason on the front-line!
More hard right bigotry from our resident bigot.
The only thing leftists like you do well, is lie to yourselves about self evident facts.
The day you can respond with a thoughtful, comprehensive rebuttal of any of the points I make on socialism will be the day I vote for the labour party.
And that will be never Fingers. Because you, like all your leftist deadbeat mates aren’t capable of doing anything but lying.
Describe the collective utopian vision of idealogical socialism to us all. You can’t, because there isn’t one. You are all too busy stabbing one another in the back to impose your own personal vision.
You are a loser Fingers.
Well said. You read your history…..which most don’t bother to do
Nationalism is a perfectly natural tribal state of humanity.
A) Nationalism is a harmful, divisive, completely manufactured and artificial construct.
It was originally conjured up by gang-like warlords to justify and facilitate their ruling over whatever size of territory they managed to seize through military might or marriage.
B) Arguments about ‘perfectly natural tribal states of humanity’ are both fundamentally social-Darwinian and incorrect (two sides of the same coin)
We are not meant to live in any sort of ‘natural’ state (whatever that means) but rather pursue individual spiritual perfection and universal peace and prosperity (one leading to the other)
Which centrally includes viewing all our fellow human beings as our exact equals to be treated with compassion and respect at all times, not dividing them up in to artificial tribe-like groupings (including nation-states) with tendencies towards mass hatred and violence.
It’s predicated on the principle of ‘leave me and my people alone and we’ll not trouble you’.
Not ‘leaving alone’ can apparently include other nations forming defensive alliances.
On the ‘my people aspect, in fact the more nationalistic an ideology or government the less it cares for its own population –
Up to and including mass killings through internal oppression and economic mismanagement (including famines etc), and deaths through aggressive wars (which obviously lead to the loss of their own troops and civilians as well as those of other side).
Right now nationalistic representatives of the Russian state and its controlled media are quite causally contemplating the annihilation of most of the Russian population through initiating nuclear Mutually Assured Destruction.
‘My people’ indeed…
Under nationalistic principles ‘my people’ is also a very flexible term which can be used to justify military expansion and conquest due to previous historical ties (eg Russia and Ukraine, Baltic states etc) or linguistic crossovers (the Nazis and the Sudetenland in the 1930s, Russia and parts of Ukraine in the 2020s).
In reality the more nationalistic any state the more militarily and generally aggressive it is, the opposite of the mild and purely defensive stance implied above.
Far left was Hitler, Stalin, Mao…Then there’s Ho Chi Minh, Josip Broz Tito, Kim Il-Sung, Pol Pot, amongst many others.
Every one of these leaders upheld ultra-nationalist positions which were central to the mass-murderous abuse of their own and external populations (the exception being Tito whose nationalism was much more moderate).
As does the mass-murderous Putin regime.
How about I march into your house, declare it common property, and settle my family in?
You mean like Russian troops in Ukraine? (the invasion also leading to millions of homeless refugees).
Where does a borderless world end? Answer: It doesn’t. Everything becomes part of the state and you will do as you are told.
The overwhelming preponderance of human existence takes place within borderless (in the sense of ultimately violently enforced geographical and political divisions) contexts such as regional administrative areas, businesses, education, families, sport, entertainment etc etc.
It is in that sense the true ‘natural’ condition of humanity (cooperative and non-violent) that you falsely associated with nation-state tribalism above.
And moves toward a fully borderless world (this is the direction of all progressive and spirituality-based history) involve the ultimate dismantling of the state and its false claims to legitimised coercion, theft and violence; the exact opposite of the position you are putting forward here.
‘You will own nothing and be happy’.
This mass theft and deprivation of property implied by this sinister slogan could only be practically imposed and supervised by nation states via courts and police forces etc; as has indeed been the historical case with similarly centralising and confiscatory programmes in eg the USSR.
Organisations such as the WEF and WHO have no direct enforcement mechanisms.
Totally unconvincing.
yes it’s Hatred in the Plural, as colonel douglas macgregor calls it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hFaPNvhbUk
The Russians have made it clear, time and again, that they are referring to supporters of Nazism – not Ukrainian nationalists. There are repeated references to Bandera and to Nazi symbols and insignia.
There are whole documentaries about Ukrainian and even Lithuanian Nazis – some with very interesting personal accounts of WW2 activities and experiences ( not for the squeamish or under 18s)
It’s true that the term “socialist” was part of the name of his party (NSDAP). But Hitler was employed by the German military after WW1 because of his passionate hatred of the Left: a hatred his party demonstrated in the streets before it gained power, and in the concentration camps afterwards.
The word “socialist” was used to attract working-class support, and was moderately successful in doing so (though most continued to support either the SPD – the German Socialist Party, or the KPD – the German Communist Party).
There were rhetorical attacks by the NSDAP on “capitalists”, but once they were in power non-Jewish capitalists did very well. Thyssen and others were reassured that the real focus was only on those who were Jewish, who were (quite literally) the scapegoats for the perceived sins of capitalism during the Great Depression.
Socialists in general, and communists in particular, were not deceived. They fought the Nazis in bitter street fights; and the communists (particularly after 1928) warned that Hitler meant every word he said and that he was dangerous.
Left-wing unions were crushed and their leaders were imprisoned; countless socialists and communists lost their lives.
This book by by George Watson who was a Fellow at St John’s Cambridge
will clearly show you how Marxism and Socialism influence Hitler and Mussolini
The Lost Literature of Socialism: 2nd Edition (lutterworth.com)
Mussolini once belonged to the Left – so he was indeed influenced by it. Hitler opposed Marxism and Socialism. We are of course influenced by what we oppose.
I think mist people with any knowledge of 20th Century history know this already – it sadly it seems that no-one under 40 has a clue.
We live in the dark shadow of a ‘Post Blair’ Cultural Marxist mis-education culture.
We are encouraged to drown ourselves in pools of adjectives: about sex, gender and politics.
So we don’t know how to communicate with each other, because we don’t know what people are talking about.
A politician can pause and look embarrassed when asked what a woman is, in case he gives the “wrong” definition.
I learnt years ago to pay no attention to whether someone defines themselves as “left” or “right” (let alone how other people define them). Those labels are blinkers, narrowing our perspective.
What do/did they say? What do/did they do? What do/did they support? What do/did they oppose?
You have to pay genuine attention and study their history to find out, and very few do that with any sort of seriousness.
Good post!
I think it was better when the terms were left wing or right wing.
Then you could easily answer ‘sorry I can’t fly’.
Under 40 and no clue.
How right you are – I was on a phone call trying to sort out my house insurance, The girl on the other end asked about subsidence, heave etc. Well, sez I the Luftwaffe didn’t get the house built in 1875 so i reckon i reckon everything is OK(I lived in a very heavily bombed area of Southampton)
What’s the Luftwaffe she says.
Sad innit?
Hitler hated international socialists AKA COMMUNISTS not the marxism that inspired his politics.
Communists are usually regarded as belonging to the Left. That was also how they described themselves.
Hitler wanted Russia and all its natural resources. It wasn’t a question of hate.
No..just ‘population replacement’ a concept we are becoming very familiar with, in its ‘slow burn’ variety.
He opposed and vilified Marxism – which he saw as the creation of “the Jew” Marx. Check what happened to Marx’s writings under Nazi rule.
No National Socialism is described by 1930s NatSocs are Marxism without Jewishmness.
The Nazis were radical collectivists, but based on race hatred rather than class hatred. As such, absolutely of the left as far as I’m concerned.
The vicious hatred between Nazis and communists was typical of intra-left infighting, just as with the modern woke globalist Blairite left and “old left” types, or Trotskyists versus Stalinists. they often hate each other more than they hate outsiders.
“non-Jewish capitalists did very well“
They did very well just as communist apparatchiks running state enterprises in the Soviet Union did very well, as long as they accepted that the state, guided by the Party, was ultimately the boss and the real owner.
Like I said. Lying to themselves and eventually eating one another.
The real issue is that the far-right party in Ukr polled in last election so small it didn’t win a seat, and as a % or vote was 1/5 that won in Germany and Italy, and half in most other nations. Is there a far-right? Yes, but it hardly reflects any real power or popular support.
The “far right” polled few votes in Ukrainian elections – so yes, there was not widespread popular support.
But there is ample evidence of the real power they wielded.
Looks ,like they will not be doing any more elections in the Ukraine as Zelensky has cancelled and banned the Opposition!
So what was it Johnson told us we were supposed to be ‘sacrificing ‘our heating and cooking for to defend again?
Oh, and where have all those blue and yellow flags gone?
Haven’t you heard there’s a war on? Ukraine is under martial law.
Britain did the same in 1939 to political parties that supported Axis powers: proscribed them and imprisoned their leaders.
But, hello, there was an election in 1945 again.
Get real.
Get real – what a joke!
When we were at war with Nazi Germany l the mainstream political parties formed a wartime Coalition with Labour leaders serving under Churchill.The maintstream press although criticised by Government – especially the ‘Daily Mirror’ were not overtly censored.
As for Mosley don’t you know that on the outbreak of war, he actually called for the country to unite in fighting Nazi Germany before being thrown into prison along with his wife on Churchill’s orders?
Martial law does not mean banning mainstream political parties who oppose your foreign directed dictatorship.
Get real, why don’t you?
The term ‘far right is itself a term of disparagement and abuse designed to outlaw any interest in said group as being ‘inappropriate’ (that nasty little woke word!).
The term actually has no bearing on any policies, ideas or debates within said party or any political or cultural critiques- which are in any case automatically ignore by the mainstream “Liberals” as being worthy only of ‘canceling’!
The bizarre mutation of Wokist Cultural Marxism and State Capitalism we are now experiencing is a one party uni-culture, where dissent is outlawed on whim by the US ‘Big Tech’ directorate, like Zuckerberg and his minions in pursuit of an agenda written by the WHO and in Davos.
In short “far right” tends to mean simply defending traditional European cultural values against a destructive Globalist onslaught.
Any resemblance in our current politics to the respectful, tolerant, pluralist ,Liberal Democracy we used so carelessly to enjoy is purely coincidental. It appears to have been dissolved before our eyes while we slept after being kept busy counting the number of new arrivals on our shores over the last twenty years since Blair ( obeying his ‘Orders’) locked wide -open the doors in his war on the Nation State!
In our adolescent, name calling, ‘snow flake’ political world of the uneducated, it is now hardy worth engaging with history , the search for truth or ideas. The young have been brainwashed with a different language, built on the cultivation of their precious crass ignorance and child-like hyper – sensitivity to everything real.
We are now fully surrounded by a new political and cultural Dark Age of rank, embarrassing stupidity and boring “celebrity” self-obsessed narcissism, where even a Liz Truss can become an arrogant, pontificating “Foreign Secretary” while insulting the veteran Russian Foreign Minister by asserting that Rostov on Don is in the Ukraine!.
We no longer even appear to have an ‘intellectual’ or political class worthy of the name.
Lemme explain to you, the Ukrainian nazis are far right because just like you they hate all left ideology and subscribe to national pride and also some religious bolllocks. Inconvenient but true, just as it’s true that left and right does not matter much, compared to authoritarian versus liberal, and these numbskulls are most certainly authoritarian in their eagerness to subdue and discriminate other people.
P.S. Putin’s own nazis are also far right. Definitely not LGBTQ+ communists.
Anything that goes against the narrative is called far right. Actually there are very few rightwing groups, let alone far right groups in the world today. The majority of the Western world has been moving further and further towards socialism and communism since 1970s. True small c conservatism is now seen as far right instead of centre right.
People are told that BLM, ANTIFA, AZOV are all far right when in fact they are funded by left wing Governments. Hope not Hate is extremely left wing but our taxes fund them. It’s called propaganda. The insidious creep of socialism created by Globalists has been disguised as ‘capitalism’. The left change language to suit their projections and the sheeple lap it up.
National; Socialists are extreme leftists.
The big clue is the name.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlXqFgqOviw
No – names are signs. And signs mean different things to different people.
I see the Azov battalion gets a free pass in our liberal media. The new world order must be achieved at any cost. Russia is getting in the way. They don’t even teach trans issues to school kids in Russia.
It’s also funny how no one was encouraged to lend their house for the Eastern Ukrainians over the last 8 years of their war…
100%!!!
We also note that some 5,000 artillery rounds were dropped on Donbass by the Ukrainians in the 7 days prior to Russia’s intervention* in the nation whilst they were amassed on the border.
Artillery is used for one reason alone, to soften up the enemy for a ground force attack.
There is only one of two logical conclusion.
*I use the terms intervention and humanitarian quite deliberately. We need only look back in history to Rwanda (amongst others) when the international community including the US, UK and Europe stood by and did nothing whilst a million people were chopped into dog food.
Donbass was heading the same route with ethnic Russians and their culture cleansed from the region by western Ukrainians.
We should also be cognisant of the fact that more than half the world’s population, represented by their leaders, including China, India (the worlds largest democracy), Africa and Latin America refuse to condemn Russia for its intervention.
The US, UK and Europe are the aggressors in this situation, of that there is little doubt. Evidence of that is eight years of silence over the violence costing tens of thousands of lives in Donbass over the last eight years.
The only thing missing from your excellent summary is the fact that the West – US and Britain primarily – incited the Russian action and encouraged Ukraine for weeks pior to Russia’s move.
First paragraph.
And thank you.
I would have gone further back to 2014 but I would still be here typing the events leading up to Russia’s intervention.
It does look, more and more, as though the West (as you say, primarily the US and Britain) were trying to goad the Russians into action – in the belief that such action would destroy Russia militarily and economically.
And have a boogy man to blame the inflation and pandemic theft on.
Yes. Putin is going to end up being responsible for every death in the West from whatever cause.
Indeed!
In the worlds corruption rankings (Google it) Ukraine is 122th in the world, more corrupt than Albania and up there with African countries. When I see the brain dead (the ones who believe politicians and the MSM without questioning them) giving money to the Ukraine, I think how big will the Ukrainian oligarchs super yacht be.
I think this quote originally surfaced when NGOs were positioning for a peice of the $10Billion the US was sending to Haiti, it was estimated only 5% of it was used for something useful.
It’s even more relevant in Ukraine:
My late father in law was a UN official (back in the 50’s when it didn’t have ambitions to govern the world) and he said even then that only a tiny proportion of any aid got to where it was needed. And the UN knew what it was doing.
He was incensed at the Geldof Band Aid fiasco stating that the only thing the wanker was doing was making corrupt officials millionaires and prolonging the misery because stupid people wold chuck more money at the problem when the first lot of money didn’t work.
Wasn’t the 1984 Ethiopian famine caused by Islamic insurgents causing havoc leading to mass displacement of people then famine? Genuine question, at the time it was portrayed as lack of rainfall or something.
The same religion is still terrorising many countries in Africa but it is very downplayed in the media. Not all conflicts are created equal.
“Islamic insurgents causing havoc leading to mass displacement of people”
Spend a day in Dewsbury, Bradford, Luton, Rotherham, Burnley, Blackburn, Huddersfield or Rochdale to gain an idea as to how far this displacement has gone.
If famine were the problem it would have been solved/alleviated by the pouring in of aid.
Tragically that aid invariably fell into the wrong hands and was sold back into the black market.
Much of it also just rotted as it was frequently too dangerous to distribute it.
Worse the “aid” was used to feed looters and bankrupt farmers.
And god knows what they do to the tourism industry. I have been to Morocco in 2013. What happened in Tunisia a few years later didn’t help.
There was also agricultural reform by the extreme left Ethiopian government of the day. “Agricultural reform” tends to lead to famine.
Which is why Rand Paul is pushing so hard for oversight of the funds.And it is not just the oligarchs but Biden et al who will get their kick-backs too.
When it comes to “corruption rankings” – not to worry the UK is fast catching up with the category leaders.
Volodymyr Zelensky – the comedian and actor who, on becoming president of Ukraine, was suddenly a billionaire.
An Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman walk into a bar…….
I’ll give you the punchline when I get my half million dollar deposit.
The West, and in particular the US, has lost any moral authority it ever had.
It’s just another sign of a fading empire.
It’s sad for those of us who grew up during the Cold War when we really did seem to be the “goodies”. It seems that we (well I don’t mean you and me, but our governments) are the “baddies” now.
“goodies” ah those fond memories of youthful naïveté, before I read Antony C. Suttons books evidencing the global elite sending US nuclear tech to Russia, under the watchful eyes of the State Dept.
There are not goodies and baddies, there are only the international mega-rich, and the brainwashed little people.
More of us are reaching your rather chilling conclusion every day.
Colonel Douglas Macgregor is (I think unwittingly) moving on this subject. He is someone I view as a “true” conservative – a believer in timeless ethical values, who holds to them.
He speaks of his country turning into a place ruled by bullies and liars. The attached link is very long, and out-of-date (it was made in March 2022), but I still find his steadfast integrity impressive:
Former top Pentagon advisor Col. Doug Macgregor on Russia-Ukraine war – YouTube
“He is someone I view as a “true” conservative – a believer in timeless ethical values, who holds to them.”
That’s the political right, as far as I’m concerned, defined as opposition to radicalism. (I don’t know anything about MacGregor’s politics, though like you I like what I’ve seen of him recently).
I think you know my views on “left” and “right” labels, so I won’t belabour them!
Interestingly, Macgregor attracts heated opposition from those who would describe themselves as being of the “right”, as well as from those who describe themselves as “liberal” (in the American context) and are described by others as “left”.
It’s the fate of the person who refuses to blow with the wind. I’ve heard him say things I think are just plain wrong, but I would be on his team any day.
Choices.
Do you believe in collectivism – Yes? – Left wing.
Do you believe in individualism? – Yes? – Right wing.
Doesn’t work. There’s a huge variety of left-wing individualist thought.
And then there’s this warning line: “the free development of each is the condition [or basis] for the free development of all”.
.
Unless entirely politically confused (and granted, there are a lot of those) one can’t be a left wing individualist.
Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto
I’m shocked I tell you, shocked. A communist hijacking the concept of individualism.
Failing Empires thrash around and damage everything in sight – like an injured, rabid dog – we seem to be entering this phase with the full enthusiasm of our clownish Prime Minister.
The US would do a deal with Satan if they thought it furthered their agenda.
I think you’re wrong about the US people. They have no appetite for war after enduring 70 years of it since WW2.
Their leftist government and technocrats, on the other hand………
Then it is high time these “US people” made their voices heard other than at Trump rallies!
After all, the ‘Stolen Election’ was 18 months ago.
What can they do against an entirely Democrat dominated parliament.
The mid terms are the opportunity.
Problem is, as Robert Barnes has pointed out, there are plenty of neocon/military industrial mouthpieces in the Republican Party as well.
Clearing out the Dems will improve things somewhat, but won’t solve the underlying problem. Just like here, they need to crush their openly leftist party and also thoroughly fumigate their supposedly “conservative” party as well.
A start though, for sure.
Barnes on the likely US situation after mid-terms: “most populist in the Senate since the 1920s, on issues of war and foreign conflict. We’re still a ways away from the Senate representing American opinion on it, but it would be a lot closer to it.”
“a blood-bath on par with 1994, and probably worse. I mean, Clinton was just unpopular due to some cultural issues. The economy wasn’t that bad in 1994, he wasn’t entangling us in another dumb European war, especially. I mean the whole of America was founded on “please, no more dumb European war involvement“.”
https://youtu.be/IgWWJCVSFf0
Without a doubt, which is why Trump is endorsing replacements and, so far, he has a 100% success rate.
In my humble opinion, I think that’s happened already.
Desperate stuff.
What Zelensky needed to face down the far-right, Maté argues, is support from the U.S. If America had backed his pledge to broker a peace deal, he’d have been able to do so without fear of threats or intimidation. But the U.S. didn’t back him, and Zelensky’s pledge went unfulfilled.
A) Zelensky did face down the far right and continue with the his pledge to at least attempt to bring the conflict in the Donbass to an end
The 29th attempt[65] at a “full and comprehensive” ceasefire came into effect on 27 July 2020.[70] During his 24 August 2020 Ukrainian Independence Day speech, President Zelenskyy announced the ceasefire had held, leading to 29 days without combat losses.[71] Zelenskyy also admitted, however, that despite the prisoner exchange and de-mining operations that had taken place, the peace process did not move as fast as he had expected when he signed the 9 December 2019 summit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas#October_2019_Steinmeier_formula_agreement_and_July_2020_ceasefire
By far the greatest military escalation in the conflict during this pre-invasion period came from the Russian, not Ukrainian side:
In late March–early April 2021, the Russian military moved large quantities of arms and equipment from western and central Russia, and as far away as Siberia, into occupied Crimea and the Voronezh and Rostov oblasts of Russia.[529] A Janes intelligence specialist identified fourteen Russian military units from the Central Military District that had moved into the vicinity of the Russo-Ukrainian border, and called it the largest unannounced military movement since the 2014 invasion of Crimea..A Russian government spokesman said that the Russian military movements posed no threat,[534] but Russian official Dmitry Kozak warned that Russian forces could act to “defend” Russian citizens in Ukraine, and any escalation of the Donbas conflict would mean “the beginning of the end of Ukraine” – “not a shot in the leg, but in the face”.[535][536]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas#October_2019_Steinmeier_formula_agreement_and_July_2020_ceasefire
B) Taking into account the fact that the Ukrainian far right did not, in fact, prevent the democratically elected and anti-fascist Zelensky government from pursuing peace in the east of the country, what exactly would this allegedly necessary but absent US intervention in the area have consisted of –
Condemnatory statements about the Right Faction and similar (presumably resulting in them saying ah, we used to want to pursue the conflict in the Donbass to victory, but now the US has scolded us we have adopted a pacifistic ideology), or sending in the Seals to arrest / annihilate all extreme right sympathisers in Ukraine?
At another fundamental level not condemning specific political groups at all times is not the same thing as supporting them, or the author of this article is guilty of supporting UKIP and the Rassemblement National in France.
Attempts to blame the United States for all the world’s geopolitical problems, including the tragedy currently taking place in Ukraine (caused by the brutal Russian invasion in February 2022) always descend into the surreal.
Citing Wikipedia as a source condemns your post as nonsense.
Wikipedia is a left wing entity which can be edited by anyone – Wikipedia allows.
Even one of its former founders condemned it as a left wing outlet.
Wikipedia can often be an excellent source of factual information both for the precise reason that you cited – it can be edited by anyone and false data corrected – and the more scholarly ones such as this include double-checking links.
Clearly obscure articles about the lesser-spotted warbler are not going to be heavily scrutinised, ones concerning the most important issue of the day (war in Europe) will be.
I do accept that any interpretations or conclusions contained within Wikipedia articles can be biased, but I was pointing purely to the factual content in this one.
Agree with that, and for that reason I use it to establish, for example, historic dates, names and places etc. which are beyond dispute.
It can also be edited by anyone and false data inserted. One shining example is of a guy who was allowed free rein to go in and alter information on climate change that was/is contrary to the narrative. He boasted he had edited thousands of articles.
None of which are contrary to the writers beliefs. So no balance whatsoever.
Furthermore, do you know who wrote this article? What are his/her credentials, scholarly authority or even education. That article might have been written by you for all we know.
Had none of this occurred to you?
LOL. Yet one of its founders condemned it as a left wing outlet.
Because an opinion piece is dressed up with links, it is no better than any other opinion piece.
I didn’t say that Wikipedia might not have an overall historical left-wing bias (which would indicate that the owners have failed in their duty of providing an objective, fact based encyclopaedia rather than political platform) merely that facts are different from opinions.
As you yourself agreed as useful I used this Wikipedia article purely for its factual content – quotes from major figures such as Zelensky, dates and content of treaties, troop numbers and build ups etc. There was very little if any opinion involved in the whole piece in any case.
I neither have time nor felt the need to check all the internal links (the existence of which is itself a good sign of academic objectivity) to cross-check; on an issue as contentious and of popular interest as this it seems highly unlikely that the basic facts presented about the course of the conflict and surrounding negotiations would not have been challenged / changed if they were incorrect.
Regardless of that at the most basic level it is impossible to be absolutely certain about any historical factual claims – reports and speeches can be forged, data invented, photographs and videos doctored etc etc.
At the end of the day you have to take a common sense overview of any topic, eg whether Ukraine is currently more liberal-democratic than Russia, which side is the main aggressor in the military conflict etc.
But to get back to the theme of the article under discussion to try and swing all this back to the United States requires a series of logical somersaults.
Why would a left wing site, contributed to by god knows who, be considered reliable in reporting anything in current affairs.
Who wrote your Wikipedia article and what are their credentials?
Don’t know?
Then it’s utter bullshit.
The Americans have admitted running a proxy war with Russia dingbat.
FFS! What are you smoking?
Why would a left wing site, contributed to by god knows who, be considered reliable in reporting anything in current affairs.
Wikipedia is a neutral site.
If a balance of left-wing biases have been detected in overtly political positions in articles (which should never be allowed in any encyclopedia in the first place) that simply means that those with left-leaning ideas have been more active on it than those with other positions.
None of that has anything to do with factual content, ie of the type I was referring to
Who wrote your Wikipedia article and what are their credentials?
Don’t know?
Then it’s utter bullshit.
Again, I was referring to facts rather than opinions, and have always found argument from authority or qualification to be absurd in any case.
The Americans have admitted running a proxy war with Russia dingbat.
Since the invasion of 24 February 2022 some US politicians. commentators etc (and those from many other countries across the globe) have said that they are involved in the same defensive struggle against Russian fascist aggression as Ukraine – though through logistical and other indirect support rather than boots on the ground.
That has precisely zero to do with the argument presented in this article that America both wished for and is responsible for the outbreak of war (ie somehow engineered an invasion by another country), including via support for extreme right wing and anti-negotiation groupings within Ukraine.
FFS! What are you smoking?
Sadly nothing since I gave up cigarettes decades ago (causing too many sore throats); and never liked the stronger stuff anyway.
“Biased “doesn’t get close – bias by omission is everywhere!
Using the genetic fallacy condemns your post as nonsense.
No-one with any knowledge of the Woke Propaganda War on truth now conducted by Wikipedia would consult it on anything other than gardening and Antique porcelain.
It was a great loss when the Extreme Globalist Left hijacked it in obvious preparation for the planned ‘ Culture War’ they are now conducting
The Coudenhove Kalergi entry is especially entertaining as any mention of his European ‘population replacement project’ – for which he is best known and previously fully covered in detail, has of course been “cancelled”.
Singing from the same hymnal – the morons of the UK press have it all sorted, Russia bad, ukraine good but you know what the picture gets very muddy after that. When the US starts turbating the mud, best get out of the way and btw bunter you blond shaggy dog breath – this was never our fight.
How cruel. Boris Cares……..
Just not about ethnic cleansing in Donbass.
Or about vaccine injuries and deaths – especially in the young. considering that he has gotten seven children?
Reports suggest that the Russians will soon wrap up the Ukraine Army in Donbas – which might just explain why the US is now suing for a “ceae fire”.
I wonder wha he Russian reply was?
Love to know more about the US General and UK Lieutenant Colonel captured by the Russians in Mariupol . Perhaps we will see them on TV and the can tell us what they were doing there alongside the Azovs?
We note that the ‘impregnable’ steelworks is being abandoned by Ukrainian troops.
It’s almost as if Russian troops know what they’re doing.
‘Impregnable’ is generally used as a relative term, seldom an absolute term. So don’t be so silly.
LOL. Mincing words is silly. Nor was impregnable my term, it was all over the media last week.
It was never “impregnable” suitable munitions and ‘miltary grade’ CS gas could have cleared it in no time.
There was also a high ranking Canadian Officer who was caught trying to escape through a tunnel there.
There have been reports of a US General a UK Lieutenant Colonel and French officers being captured – reports backed by photographs which clearly identify the high ranking US Officer against stock official photographs.
No no no, it said on the BBC yesterday that Ukraine was going to win.
What am I going to do with all this blue and yellow bunting?
Did it also say Jimmy Savile was a philanthropist?
“Reports suggest that the Russians will soon wrap up the Ukraine Army in Donbas”
Which Russian propaganda reports do you read, out of interest?
Labelling the “parachuted in by oligarch” Zelensky as Churchillian is not helpful. Zelensky is weak, hopelessly out of his depth and currently he is Ukraine’s worst enemy, apart from the US.
But hey! he has been very well paid! What else matters?
And how much are you being paid by your Russian paymasters?
It may well be that Zelensky started off with slightly better motives – have seen footage of him trying to negotiate with Azov brigade – but he has also become an immensely wealthy person out all this, enacted bad, undemocratic, laws, provoked attack by his aspiration to belong to NATO. Perhaps, by now he privately feels he made a deal with devil but it isn’t so much his soul as the devil which concerns us.
Is “money” a better motive then?
‘Would the U.S. side with Ukraine’s far right against Zelensky?’
Well done for a very interesting discussion piece. Thank you.
Whatever the answer might once have been to that question, the answer today would be a resounding negative.
Zelensky is doing a great PR job while his (US/UK/Finland trained) army gives every appearance of doing a stellar job on the ground. If it ain’t broke…etc.
Britain and the U.S., both signatories of the Budapest memorandum guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity, are committed, one way or another, to the support of the Ukrainian government by that document.
NATO definitely does not want the Baltic states threatened by a Russian success in Ukraine.
And the aggression by a totalitarian dictator intent upon personal enrichment at the expense of a capitalist democratic neighbour cannot be allowed to succeed, just as Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands, could not be allowed to succeed.
So, longer term, the answer to the article’s question might very well be a resounding yes, if required in pursuit of those same objectives.
After all, in foreign affairs: ‘there are no principles, only events’
I guess that’s why the ‘impregnable’ steelworks is now being abandoned by Ukrainian soldiers.
Charter of the United Nations:
“The UN Charter mandates the UN and its member states to maintain international peace and security, uphold international law, achieve “higher standards of living” for their citizens, address “economic, social, health, and related problems”, and promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”. As a charter and constituent treaty, its rules and obligations are binding on all members and supersede those of other treaties.” (Wikipedia, my emphasis)
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” (United Nations)
In the seven days prior to Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, western Ukraine fired 5,000 artillery rounds into Donbass.
Russia informed the UN of their intention to intervene under article 51 to avoid what would almost certainly have become a full blown civil war and, in light of Zelinsky’s army being equipped and trained by NATO, a genocidal and humanitarian catastrophe.
The west has a history of sitting back twiddling its thumbs until it’s far too late to prevent genocidal events occurring. Putin wasn’t prepared to wait in light of a concentrated artillery barrage which is always a prelude to a land invasion.
Either that, or for that very reason, the barrage was a deliberate attempt to provoke a Russian advance on the basis of a humanitarian cause, otherwise condemned as an invasion by the already primed western media.
As I have already pointed out elsewhere, the US, UK and Europe are in the global minority opposing Russia. China, India, Africa and Latin America amongst many others have refused to condemn Russia for their intervention.
It is no secret America is fighting a proxy war against Russia, it has admitted as much. The Biden regime see’s Ukraine as an opportunity to break Russia and have it subservient to western ambitions.
We assume here, you are talking about Joe Biden. Judging by the creep of technocratic control of western governments, we are far closer to a totalitarian state than Russia. Putin has made great strides to ensure his country is not so affected.
And whilst many cite instances of Russias brutality and suppression of free speech, we only have to examine the circumstances surrounding Julian Assange, the January 6th demonstrators and Guantanamo Bay, as just a few examples of western brutality and suppression of free speech. The UK also happens to be the most surveilled country in the world.
Which jailed its opposition parties and banned media.
You need to think a little harder about what’s going on.
Thinking too hard may very well be your problem.
A steelworks impregnable? That makes no sense.
This really isn’t that complicated.
How do we know that?
Putin told us in his own words, in his own newspaper:
‘…the dena$ification of Ukraine is also its inevitable de-Europeanization.’
‘Na$i Ukraine will be eradicated, but including, and above all, Western totalitarianism…’
‘The “Catholic province” (Western Ukraine as part of five regions) is unlikely to become part of the pro-Russian territories. The line of alienation, however, will be found empirically. It will remain hostile to Russia, but forcibly neutral and demilitarized Ukraine with formally banned Na$ism. The haters of Russia will go there. The threat of an immediate continuation of the military operation in case of non-compliance with the listed requirements will be the the guarantee of the preservation of this residual Ukraine in a neutral state. Perhaps this will require a permanent Russian military presence on its territory.’
RIA Novosti 04 Apr 22
The actual text of the Budapest Memorandum is readily available:
‘The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.’
‘The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression….’
05 Dec 1994
We were all assured the steelworks was built as an impregnable, underground nuclear facility, by western MSM propaganda of course. Other than that, you’re right.
And he was right. The US/UK and Europe are closer to fascism than Russia. We have our WEF technocrats desperate to seize power in the west. Of have you never seen Klaus Schwabs announcements of his New World Order?
Correct. Or are you happy with a growing Nazi presence in Ukraine? Yep, you probably are, like all lefty fanatics like you.
Like I said. That’s a bad thing to you because you love the idea of Naziism.
But it wasn’t subject to an act of aggression, was it? As I illustrated elsewhere, west Ukraine began the shooting, not the Russians.
Or is that something else in your blind spot.
“A careful analysis of the text shows that the words that are typical of treaties (“agree” “force”) are not there. Instead, the document uses words such as “confirm” “commitment” “will” (not “shall”) and “become applicable” (not “enter into force”).
As a result, the Los Angeles Times article entitled “Why the U.S. has an obligation to help Ukraine defend itself” cannot invoke the Budapest Accord which is legally an understanding but not a binding agreement.” (My emphasis, https://www.treatylaw.org/budapest-accord-treaty)”
Paragraph 6. is particularly interesting:
“The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.”
Which they have been doing since 2014 however, UN Article 51 allows Russia to come to Ukraine’s aid in the event of aggression, which is pretty much what 5,000 rounds or ordnance can be construed as.
Like I said. Russia stopped genocide. But you would rather that than Russia do anything humanitarian.
Surely, the US under the influence of Victoria Nuland, has sponsored the far right in Ukraine since the US backed ‘coup’ of 2014 because they are violently anti-Russian and the whole objective of US involvement in Ukraine is to destabilise Russia by breaking the promises given to Gorbachev and Yeltsin on Nato expansion east by a whole parade of US politicians??
All this is fully documented .
‘…promises given to Gorbachev and Yeltsin on Nato expansion east by a whole parade of US politicians??
All this is fully documented .’
I would be most grateful for the references for those documents.
‘Gorbachev neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany
‘Russia’s former foreign minister, Yevgeny Primakov, noted later with regret, there was no legal force to the statements by Western leaders even though, in his view, legally based commitments would have been possible at the time’
‘…the USSR signed the Charter of Paris in November 1990 with the commitment to ‘fully recognize the freedom of States to choose their own security arrangements’. The NATO–Russia Founding Act, signed in 1997, similarly pledged respect for the ‘inherent right’ of all states ‘to choose the means to ensure their own security’.
The U.S. is simply following this advice:
‘…..An unfriendly relationship with Russia is appropriate at present and dictated by the realities we face. Indeed, a good relationship with Russia would be highly inappropriate in the contemporary context. Russia’s conditions for ‘friendship’ invariably come at a cost that is damaging to our interests and those of others.
Place security above economic gains. Any reduction in business with Russia is far outweighed by the costs of failing to deter Russia from undermining or attacking Western nations, societies, citizens and core interests. There are times when security and economic imperatives will come into conflict, and this will entail some financial sacrifice. Financial investment only builds political bridges when political interests coincide.’
Chatham House 13 May 21
“Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner”
Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?” (National Security Archive, https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early)
“Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
Chatham House is a think tank, Richard head……
Why is it so easy for anyone to find this type of information, except you?
Worth bearing in mind that, or most people, everything they think they know” about Russia is false – a construct of systematic propaganda over decades, seamlessly transitioning from anti-communist to anti-Russian.
If you believe the Russian government absurdly uses poison to assassinate people or that anti-western regimes go out of their way to pointlessly commit “atrocities” seemingly just to give “the west” diplomatic and propaganda ammunition, then you are a victim of those lies.
The British, for all our undoubted good points, have always been superlative at propaganda, which our enemies recognised as a major strength – perfidious Albion,. The US took over that mantle as it took over our Empire, in the early C20th, and incorporated what was left of our elites and propaganda capabilities into its own global power structure (or rather, our elites simply merged with the US elites).
The greatest propaganda machine the world has ever seen, until the rise of the computer and US social media operations, was Hollywood
Secret British ‘black propaganda’ campaign targeted cold war enemies
Excuse me, it’s undoubtably that Russia uses poisons to eliminate the disloyal.
As to anti-Russian propaganda, explain to me where Russian invasions of Ukraine and Georgia and indiscriminate bombings in Syria are untrue. Post-CW everyone wanted Russia to become a friend, especially as a balance to China. Even when Putin came to power you had President Bush talking positively about him. It was until 2008 that this held true, in both left and right govts in the West. The game changed in 2008, and accelerated when they acted in Syria.
“Excuse me, it’s undoubtably that Russia uses poisons to eliminate the disloyal.“
LOL!
“As to anti-Russian propaganda, explain to me where Russian invasions of Ukraine and Georgia and indiscriminate bombings in Syria are untrue.”
Russia uses force when necessary, just as other countries do, including the US and UK. As a matter of fact it does so with more plausible justifications that the US and NATO have over recent decades. As for “indiscriminate bombing”, that’s just a great example of the propaganda lies you have been subjected to for decades. Russian bombing is no more “indiscriminate” than US bombing (allowing for targeting capabilities).
See my response to Monro below to understand the justification for Russia’s legal intervention in Ukraine.
Why would a Russian spy use a chemical almost unique to Russia to eliminate a target when they could have used cyanide, or just shot the guy?
They thought no-one could detect it.
Ha ha ha…..I know……but, as we see even more recently, they really are that hopeless.
Perhaps the real lesson here is that most state agencies are a bunch of complete nincompoops, whatever the country…….
An undetectable compound smeared on door handles.
What age are you really? Made secondary school yet?
So far the Russians were to be kicked out of Ukraine within a week, then two, then a month, then six weeks. How long has it been now?
We were in ‘imminent’ danger of WW3 several weeks ago, then nuclear war.
Then Ukrainian troops were holed up in an impregnable, nuclear proof bunker system beneath a power station. Then they ran away.
Kieve was to be razed to the ground, then it wasn’t. Mariupol was to be razed to the ground, then it wasn’t.
The Russians were being chased to the border, then they stopped.
The Russians have heavy armour. The Ukrainians is all gone. They have Javelin anti tank missiles, but no training to use them.
Mind you, probably $100Bn of US/UK/European funds have been laundered through the crisis, so I guess that’s a bonus.
Oh! Almost forgot. The initial response from Europe. Several thousand German Helmets. I would call that wanky but it’s just too obvious a jibe.
Oh dear!
A great deal of hot air, to no purpose; no doubt that time of the day…..
Time to give up the ‘information tranquillisers’:
‘Mikhail Khodaryonok, a retired colonel, told Russian state TV they should not take “information tranquillisers” and dismissed notions that the Ukrainian army is becoming demoralised.
Speaking with the show’s host Olga Skabeyeva about suggestions some Ukrainian units were struggling for funding and arms, Mr Khodaryonok says: “The situation from the overall strategic position is that the Ukrainian armed forces are able to arm a million people.
“They’re saying it themselves, that ‘for us, there’s no difficulty in mobilising a million people’.
“The whole issue is to what extent they’re able to supply this army of modern weapons and military hardware.”
He says if Ukraine had no help, it would struggle to do that, but with foreign help they will be equipped in the “near future”, massively expanding Kyiv’s forces.
Mr Khodaryonok goes on to say the situation will “frankly, get worse”.
Because everybody then knows it’s the Russians who did the poisoning. To put other ‘traitors’ on notice that the Russian state will be after them as well. The purpose of the poisonings is not merely to eliminate traitors but to frighten others and would-be traitors.
Why not just shoot them and send a video message over Whatsapp, it’s encrypted, dummy.
Like Russian traitors don’t know they will likely be killed. Putin has to send some bloke through customs with a pot full of deadly chemicals hoping it wouldn’t be discovered to convince them.
FFS. Listen to your pathetic argument.
Very well put. For example: the British were much better than the French at dealing with the communications problems of the “Phoney War”.
Where the French told outright lies (Germany was more truthful – because the truth at that point suited them, at least in a narrow version), the British danced on a knife’s edge with exquisite skill.
First off, the NYT def of far-right is far too expansive. Second, the far-right got less than 3% in last election, which demonstrates it doesn’t have mass appeal. Third, an attempted coup by such wld be crushed by people power, aptly demonstrated twice this century. Fourth, while the US during Cold War back right-wing paramilitaries, that was CW where the choices were Comm or West. The current environment is nothing like that, and support in Syria was built around finding answers to ISIS & Iran. The article is a hot mess, driven by ideological perspectives, not the facts.
Did the US want to keep Russia weakened? Yes, but notice that US supplying of arms was always thru govt, that despite Zelensky’s desire to find peaceful solution (beyond Minsk). The argument that the far-right in Ukr is why we are where we are now is ludicrous, and ignores that Russia never would have bargained in good faith anyways, as shown everywhere they begin aggression.
“Second, the far-right got less than 3% in last election, which demonstrates it doesn’t have mass appeal. ”
Leaving aside the definitional issues with right/left, the nationalist extremists got fewer votes because Poroshenko moved to occupy their ground. In any case, their power is not based on voting support, but the physical power of organised violence and the threat of violence.
“Third, an attempted coup by such wld be crushed by people power, aptly demonstrated twice this century.”
There was a coup driven by the nationalist extremists in 2014, and it was successful precisely because it used that people power together with funding and organisation from the CIA to manipulate it.
“Fourth, while the US during Cold War back right-wing paramilitaries, that was CW where the choices were Comm or West. The current environment is nothing like that, and support in Syria was built around finding answers to ISIS & Iran. ”
Your second sentence contradicts the implication of your first, that it was “only because of Cold War needs that the US did these bad things”.
Such special pleading can’t over up the reality, that as Carl points out the US has no hesitation in using violent extremism as a hammer when it suits its purposes to do so.
If you are still in denial of that clear and irrefutable fact even as it stares you in the face, then you cannot expect to understand world events.
And part of our problem is precisely that too many influential people actually do see the current situation in Cold War terms.
Agree completely.
Define “Far Right” please.
No answer came the loud reply.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/congress-members-call-out-ukraine-government-for-glorifying-nazis
26.4.2018
Congress members call out Ukraine government for glorifying Nazis..More than 50 US Congress members condemned Ukrainian legislation that they said “glorifies Nazi collaborators” The letter states that “It’s particularly troubling that much of the Nazi glorification in Ukraine is government-supported.” It noted ceremonies, gestures and legislation venerating leaders of the UPA and OUN militias, who fought alongside Nazi Germany during World War II and whose troops participated in atrocities against Jews and other victims.
it’s nothing new or unknown….
‘other victims’, including the Polish living in the East.
Such a poor article. The author has to bend over backwards to try and make events fit a preconceived view.
The giveaway is phrases like ‘In light of these examples, it doesn’t stretch the imagination to believe…’
Well, yes it does stretch the imagination. To breaking point.
At least he recognises that Zelenksy came into office hoping to end the ongoing war in the east. Unfortunately Putin had other ideas. The Crimea and the Donbass were no longer sufficient for his ambitions.
After what Putin has done to the Ukrainian people, emotions have polarised. It’s not just the Ukrainian right who aren’t prepared to compromise now.
This stuff about the US wanting war, or to prolong the war – it’s pure makey-uppy. While the US has strategic distance, Europe undoubtedly wants the fastest end to the war possible – but not by surrender, which solves nothing.
One day, when Putin is brought to the point, the US probably will try and pressure Ukraine to accept confirming the loss of Crimea, but not half the country.
As the decisions of Finland and Sweden to join NATO show, the war has changed everything. Putin was in a great position when he was just threatening war. Now he’s actually done it, he’s forced everyone into being his outright enemy.
North America, Europe, Japan, South Korea, AU, NZ are enemies mostly. ‘everyone’, yeah, right
“While the US has strategic distance, Europe undoubtedly wants the fastest end to the war possible – but not by surrender…”.
I see no evidence of that. Both the US and the EU would love a prolonged conflict, the better to drain the Russian economy and degrade the Russian armed forces. What they don’t want is to do any of the fighting themselves because they both know where that will lead.
The constant warnings from US and UK intelligence that Putin was about to attack were clearly designed to prevent war, not encourage it. It’s hardly their fault Putin went ahead anyway.
You’re back.
I thought you’de given up after the kicking you were given yesterday.
Driveling as usual though.
Cos’ it’s all about emotions for you leftist’s, isn’t it Fingers?
You would know all about that.
It’s half the country now. Last week you were telling us all it was the whole country, and the rest of Europe he wanted.
Putin didn’t cause this conflict. The western Ukrainians firing 5,000 artillery shells into Donbass seven days before Russia intervened caused it.
Or are you saying it’s perfectly OK to ethnically cleanse an area at will.
Sorry, you probably are because leftists like you love a good massacre.
Putin didn’t cause this conflict. The western Ukrainians firing 5,000 artillery shells into Donbass seven days before Russia intervened caused it.
A) Please provide your source for this 5000 figure.
B) How many shells and other forms of munitions were fired from the Russian separatist side during this period.
C) Which side had the greater incentive to escalate the Donbass conflict in mid-February 2022?
Here’s a clue – Russia had just spent 5 months building up an invasion force of around 190,000 troops on the Ukrainian border.
It seems highly unlikely that Mr Putin intended to do a Grand Old Duke of York.
Don’t expect any sensible answer. He or she has been sucking on the teats of Russian propaganda for too long.
I’ve provided more evidence on this blog that you ever have.
I always provide receipts!
Official Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) data. I post it from this site only because it’s a handy compilation of data from OSCE.
Plenty there for you to peruse at your leisure.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/05/ukraine-putin-on-why-the-war-started-failed-attempts-on-snake-island-other-issues-.html#more
Now, your evidence refuting any of this……….. Right, you don’t have anything other than BBC information, do you.
And until you provide evidence, don’t bother challenging me again without delivering credible evidence of your own.
Here’s a clue for you. Putin has been negotiating for the last eight years on the fate of the Donbass ethnic Russians.
But just like Rwanda and numerous other examples of ethnic cleansing ignored by the west until it was too late, Putin decided not to wait to see thousands if not a million people ethnically cleansed.
How refreshing would that be if the west actually got their finger out their arse and did something once in a while?
Pussy.
I always provide receipts!
Official Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) data. I post it from this site only because it’s a handy compilation of data from OSCE.
Plenty there for you to peruse at your leisure.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/05/ukraine-putin-on-why-the-war-started-failed-attempts-on-snake-island-other-issues-.html#more
Thank you for the link, which reveals that on February 15 2022 there were 41 explosions in the Donbass conflict zone, by the 22nd this number had risen to 1482 (ie around 30 times higher).
In other words at exactly the same time as the amassed Russian forces (up to 190,000) were predicted to invade Ukraine, we are meant to believe that the government of that country ordered its forces to massively escalate a conflict which had calmed down to a very low level over the preceding three year period, and one which was being used as one of the Russian pretexts to move in.
US intelligence, which got just about everything else correct about the Russian build up and intentions had already predicted false flag operations preceding invasion (eg as stated by Secretary of State Blinken to the UN Security Council on 17 February).
Obviously to be sure that these shells landing within the separatist zone were fired internally it would be necessary to know their direction.
Unfortunately the detailed OSCE Special Monitoring Mission report of 22 February doesn’t have this information in most cases – but it certainly does not rule the possibility out:
In Luhansk region, the SMM recorded 1,224 ceasefire violations, including 1,149 explosions (108 outgoing, 103 impacts and 938 undetermined [my bold]).
https://www.osce.org/files/2022-02-22%20Daily%20Report_ENG.pdf?itok=63057
There is also the possibility that at least some of the reported explosions were caused by on ground detonations rather than shelling.
False flag can not be put forward as a certainty, but it is the only explanation for this sudden dramatic escalation immediately before an invasion which makes any sense.
Here’s a clue for you. Putin has been negotiating for the last eight years on the fate of the Donbass ethnic Russians.
But just like Rwanda and numerous other examples of ethnic cleansing ignored by the west until it was too late, Putin decided not to wait to see thousands if not a million people ethnically cleansed.
In 2021 precisely 25 civilians died in the Donbass conflict (ie killed by both sides), and of those only 7 were killed in direct military action (the rest by mines etc)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294156/conflict-related-civilian-casualties-by-weapon-ukraine/#:~:text=Seven%20civilian%20deaths%20were%20reported,to%20the%20conflict%20with%20Russia.
Some genocide and ethnic cleansing.
The number of civilians known to have been killed in Donbass and wider Ukraine since the Russian invasion of 24 February and up to 16 May 2022 is 3752 (versus the 25 in Donbass in 2021).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293492/ukraine-war-casualties/
And the real number is of course likely to be significantly higher (due to fog of war)
Some protective intervention.
remember that half-arsed effort of MSM in the beginning to reject existence of neo nazis in Ukraine just because Zelensky was a Jew…
The United States aids Ukraine and her people, so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here. And poor Boris don’t have the slightest clue why he hates Russia loves Ukraine.He’d inflict a cost of living crisis on his own people before he question his loyalty to the US Washing neocon warmonger elite.
I couldn’t help but notice that several BBC news reports today referred to the ‘evacuation’ of Ukrainian troops from the steelworks in Mariupol. One report stated that this had been ‘…characterised by the Russians as ‘surrender”.
Why does the BBC find it so difficult to report simple facts without spin? Even the Economist reports the surrender:
https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/05/17/mariupols-last-ukrainian-defenders-surrender
No European leader truly leads their country anymore. We elected Johnson on a promise to complete a proper Brexit. What have we got????? The agenda of the Globalists. Break up UK is still on track, no return of fisheries, covid reaction exactly like Germany and France, army being told what to do by Brussels. EU is owned by American Bankers hence UK is also in lockstep as the City of London works closely with Wall Street.
Orban in Hungary is being harrassed, Germany has dared to openly pay rubles for gas and is now being bullied. Russia has refused to be controlled by the Globalist banking cartel so now Russia is the enemy and has to be destroyed. then it will be China and then India. America has to be stopped in this terrible crusade to control the world. Unless we, the people, start to love our countries enough to ignore present governments and work around them, we will all be starved, cold and extremely sick come next year.
No need to side with ‘the far right’, it would seem.
Putin is positioning individual tanks himself from his weird hideaway dacha and retired military are telling it the way it is on Russian state tv. What could possibly go wrong?
”Mikhail Khodaryonok, a retired colonel, told Russian state TV they should not take “information tranquillisers” and dismissed notions that the Ukrainian army is becoming demoralised.
Speaking with the show’s host Olga Skabeyeva about suggestions some Ukrainian units were struggling for funding and arms, Mr Khodaryonok says: “The situation from the overall strategic position is that the Ukrainian armed forces are able to arm a million people.
“They’re saying it themselves, that ‘for us, there’s no difficulty in mobilising a million people’.
“The whole issue is to what extent they’re able to supply this army of modern weapons and military hardware.”
He says if Ukraine had no help, it would struggle to do that, but with foreign help they will be equipped in the “near future”, massively expanding Kyiv’s forces.
Mr Khodaryonok goes on to say the situation will “frankly, get worse”.
ROSSIYA 1
There have been battles going on for years in south eastern Ukraine becase Russia has been pushing on the boundary all that time and supporting and adding numbers to the seperatists there. Zelensky originally tried to find a way to make peace there but because Russia continued to invest in making it impossible the right wing fighters there had grounds to continue pushing them back. That doesn’t make them Nazis as Russia tries to make us believe, but they were not prepared to give up part of their country. Now it looks as if Putin has started this war with the minimum aim to achieve their defeat and I dread to think what he will do to those he has captured. They considered the Russian sympathisers they were fighting against were traitors to Ukraine and having seen the way Russia has acted in this war they have good grounds for that. The Ukrainian fighters in that area have been decimated and if their numbers and influence have reduced enough it may be possible to agree a new border and gain peace and Putin will be able to claim victory that he has been working towards for many years. If that does happen the only way to maintain any new border would be to allow what is left of Ukraine to join NATO and support Ukraine in their continued survival which would mean any agreement must allow Ukraine to continue to own and control their port at Odesa. If that doesn’t happen Putin will keep pushing bit by bit until he has wiped out Ukraine and many other currently self governing countries along the Russian border.