U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says the United States and its allies should not support a cease-fire or peace talks to end the war in Ukraine until Kyiv gains strength and can negotiate on its own terms. Blinken said in Finland on Friday that heeding calls from Russia and others for negotiations now would result in a false “Potemkin peace” that wouldn’t secure Ukraine’s sovereignty and or enhance European security. He argued that a cease-fire allowing Russian President Vladimir Putin “to consolidate control over the territory he has seized, and rest, rearm, and re-attack" would not bring "a just and lasting peace.” Kyiv has given confusing signals about whether a counteroffensive is coming or already underway.
“We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression,” Blinken said in a speech in Finland, which recently became NATO’s newest member and shares a long border with Russia.
Amazing that you understand that your country has consistently been on the wrong side of history since WW2, but also believe this this is the first time it’s not.
What’s wrong with helping a country defend itself from invasion by imperial warmongers?
And to be clear, yes, I am calling Russia imperial warmongers. They have been actively invading neighboring countries for decades to expand themselves. And what is an empire if not a nation built on the conquest of other countries?
Yeah, no. The people that say crap like this, and uncritically swallow down the propaganda, always fail to take geopolitics seriously. In the last century, Europe (and Germany in particular) nearly destroyed Russia. Twice. If you’re Putin, and you continue to see a military alliance year after year, encroaching further and further up to your borders, what the hell are you supposed to do? If the USSR expanded the Warsaw Pact right up to incorporate Mexico and Canada, what do you reasonably think our response would be? Just look at Russia’s military defense budget. If you think is a country preparing and readying itself for any dream of imperialistic aspirations, you are crazy.
In the last century, Europe (and Germany in particular) nearly destroyed Russia.
Russia entered WW1 on the same spaghetti-treaty-basis as every other nation that entered the conflict of their “own” accord.
The USSR entered WW2 as a German ally and tried to once again erase Poland and the Poles as the common German/Russian imperialist ambition required. And instead of preparing for the inevitable war that literally everyone but Stalin saw coming, the Soviets collectivly spent the mid-to-late 1930s partaking in the Great Terror, nearly destroying their own nation for the sake of satiating a madman’s ego and paranoia.
If you’re Putin, and you continue to see a military alliance year after year, encroaching further and further up to your borders, what the hell are you supposed to do?
…stop promoting chauvanism? Stop trying to revive the USSR against the will of those who willingly left? Stop invading your neighbours? There’s like a million different ways to remain as a anti-democratic leech-state in this world without needing to use military force.
If the USSR expanded the Warsaw Pact right up to incorporate Mexico and Canada, what do you reasonably think our response would be?
It’s nice you think the US can just arbitarily expand NATO without the consent of other members, that joining NATO isn’t a choice. Likewise, it’s nice you apparently don’t get it was the same for the Warsaw Pact - Mongolia wasn’t allowed in on it as European Communists opposed having to support potential conglict between the USSR and China.
Just look at Russia’s military defense budget. If you think is a country preparing and readying itself for any dream of imperialistic aspirations, you are crazy.
They’ve invaded two former members of the USSR, have active orders to invade a third if the oppurtunity arises, and have drawn up plans for invading a fourth-one. Sorry, but I’ll rather accept the apparent reality that Russis is a myopic yes-man state that is currently doing war and committing genocide against Ukrainians.
That is absolutely not what the west is doing. Ukraine is being used as a proxy to weaken Russia using the formula that RAND outlined here. All the west is accomplishing is prolonging the conflict and it will not change the outcome. Anybody who thinks this is being done for the benefit of Ukraine is absolutely delusional.
Maybe people living in the west should focus on stopping their empire from conquering countries before getting on their high horse.
Nah, I prefer to stop countries from annexing pieces of other countries.
The US hasn’t annexed anything since 1959, and I was born too late to stop that. But Russia can’t help itself, and even gives youngsters a chance to oppose annexation.
Maybe you should figure out how to stop your own regime from invading countries before playing world police then. US is literally occupying part of Syria as we speak. Just how ignorant are you exactly?
It’s really sad how duped American citizens are here. They truly believe that when changing their bio pics to a Ukraine Flag that they’re doing something. They believe their government has the best interest of Ukraine while what they’re actually supporting is their government using Ukrainian bodies to weaken an adversary under the guise of defense. No one learned anything after Iraq, it was mere MONTHS ago that liberals were giving BUSH praise! They don’t care about Abu Ghraib or what happened in Guantanamo Bay. A lot of people here are in for a rough awakening.
I’m confused. Do you think Russia taking Ukraine by force is what’s best for Ukraine? Do you think their people are volunteering to fight because they just don’t know what’s best for them? Even if Ukrainians wanted to maintain independence out of some misguided patriotism, isn’t it their right as a sovereign nation to decide that?
From the US perspective, Ukraine wanted to join NATO, aligning themselves with us. Then Russia invaded. If the US didn’t support Ukraine, the world would know they can prevent a weaker country from joining NATO by invading. After Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s no desire to send US troops but we can provide weapons and intelligence.
I personally don’t think it’s going to matter much for the average Ukrainian, as far as who controls their resources. I think it’s a tragedy that they’re fighting or dying over whether it’s Russian oligarchs or western oligarchs who will get to control their lives
To me it’s still hilarious that Americans themselves don’t think the government has a cynical, vested interest for getting involved in Ukraine. How the hell so many average liberals became hawks that dance to the neocon war drum, is still puzzling to me. Especially when it was their own side that produced the overwhelming evidence of American Foreign Policy that stands confronting people.
Weapons, intelligence and Ukrainian bodies are an extremely cheap deal to weaken an adversary, don’t you think?
When it comes to wanting oil though, US and Iraqi bodies aren’t so important. As long as you can dupe your own citizens into believing there’s WMD’s, it doesn’t matter.
The US is against ‘any’ attempt by any country to use its resources for its own purposes. America behaves like any other imperial power has, throughout history. If Russia or China had the power the US currently does, they’d be doing the same thing. It’s why ‘Empire’ as a concept can coexist just as easily with ‘democracy’ as a framework as it does in autocracies. Because every State out there wants to maximize it’s share of power in the world. And this includes the US. That’s why fundamentally things don’t change all that much, regardless of who gets into power.
The people of Ukraine have told the world what their best interest is: removing Russian soldiers from their land, by force if necessary.
The US is only interested in Ukraine when their goals align. Everyone knows this, including most Americans and most Ukrainians.
However, it turns out that US and Ukrainian goals do, in fact, align. The US isn’t “using” Ukraine any more than Ukraine is “using” the US. They are openly cooperating to achieve a common interest.
The Ukrainian people are being kidnapped off the street and sent to die by the regime US installed in Ukraine after overthrowing a democratically elected government. Most Ukrainians don’t want to have a war and have their lives destroyed. The only people who want this war are ghouls living in the west who aren’t personally affected by it.
Tankies can always be counted on to project the worst in themselves.
There are hundreds of thousands of Russians in Georgia and Kazakhstan who can explain which side is kidnapping young men off the street and sending them to die for a war they care nothing about. Meanwhile, opinion polls of Ukrainians consistently show that an overwhelming majority want to continue the war until Russians are defeated.
We have plenty of video evidence of this happening in Ukraine, but whatever you say my little dronie. And yeah, opinion polls mean so much in a country that’s now effectively a military dictatorship.
What’s wrong is your framing. The US is an imperial warmonger and they created the conditions for a proxy war, which Russia engaged with. Russia invaded Ukraine as part of the proxy war with the US. Claiming that the US is just helping Ukraine with its war against Russia is completely misunderstanding what’s actually happening.
Ironically, the west’s most looked to academic expert on Russian Studies would completely disagree with you. He warned that you would see the argument being pitched that NATO remains justified today, to “manage the security threats provoked by its own existence.” Even ‘US policymakers’ advised that continued NATO encroachment would result in a military provocation in Ukraine. Who ignored their advice? The American foreign policy establishment. But I’m sure ‘nobody’ ever saw that coming, right? You know who else made similar observations? George Kennan, who was the architect of America’s containment policy during the Cold War.
And you didn’t even carefully read the reply you commented to. He didn’t say the US was responsible for the Russian army rolling into Ukraine. He said the US is responsible for engineering the conditions for a proxy war to take place.
There’s nothing to lie about. What we’re seeing is a proxy war between the US and Russia. The US explicitly listed conflict with Russia and China as their new strategic focus during the Obama administration. The US was making plans to include Ukraine in NATO under Clinton while Clinton was saying to Russian leaders that this would never happen.
The US has been working on Ukraine for a very long time, as part of the strategy to dominate Europe and keep Russia from competing with them.
NATO, the world’s first transnational military force, staffed and led by literal Nazi officers, built specifically to fight Russia, has been deploying nuclear capabilities all around the world to encircle China and Russia. Deploying weapons systems to the Russia/Ukraine border would be a massive strategic check on Russia by the US. The US wanted this. It worked on Ukraine for decades to bring this about.
Russia invaded Ukraine to fight the US. The US funds, arms, trains, recruits, and provides logistical support for Ukraine but the people dying are Ukrainian.
It’s hard to lie about things that the whole world was watching.
And yet he has no idea.
Let’s look at a couple of instances to contrast the media coverage, and see who’s really ‘lying’. Take something most Americans are familiar with; the assassinations of Nemtsov and Litvinenko. There’s a major between the way the west reported the accounts of their deaths, and how the Russians did it. Their deaths represented a major giveaway to the west, because they were two key opportunities that were quickly seized upon as a chance to demonize Putin (whatever your opinion of him is). Nemtsov was the leader of the Russian opposition. He was deputy prime minister under Yeltsin and was held in favorable regard by Thatcher. He met Obama in 2009. Supported Ukraine’s western orientation to Europe, etc. Made sense why the west liked him so much. There were people who thought it was a false-flag operation since Putin had nothing to gain, but the west stood to gain a great deal out of it.
When the Russian investigation got involved in his death, they brought in a number of suspects who’s would be connections to the murder investigators were unclear. There was speculation it was retaliatory for anti-Islamic remarks he made, but even they concluded at the time that those links were tenuous and there wasn’t much to convict them on. The west played up Putin’s connections to the murder based on previously dated murders that were frequently attributed (with ‘greatly’ varying degrees of evidence) to Russian state agencies. Those people included people like Sergei Yushenkov, Forbes Russian editor Paul Klebnikov, Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, etc. There were more people involved, and ‘many’ of them had directly received funding from the US State Department backed National Endowment for Democracy, ‘or’ by an NGO that was funded by the NED.
Poroshenko claimed Nemtsov was going to reveal evidence of direct Russian support for the uprising that happened in Eastern Ukraine. For others, Nemtsov was targeted either for his symbolic importance or his useful indispensability. Rivals like Alexei Navalny co-founded the ‘Democratic Alternative (DA!) platform and he was the vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party Yabloko. DA!’s leader Mariya Gaydar also got funding from the NED and worked with people like Ilya Yashin in the People’s Freedom Party (which is ‘also’ NED funded). Yashin was close to a guy named Vladimir Ryzhkov, who was a member of NED funded Washington based ‘World Movement for Democracy’. He was a leading member of the Strategy 31 campaign for free assembly (whose ranks were filled with activists trained and coordinated by US NED funded NGO’s). And their activities had spread into Moscow, St. Petersburg, Vladivostok and Yekaterinburg.
NED was involved in expunging itself from public documents. Russian intelligence had identified a network of rebellious organizations that were funded in part by the US State Department along the lines of previous color revolutions, that were readying for a Moscow coup. Gorbachev thought the killing would be a provocation of some kind to complicate or destabilize the regime. There was speculation among ’some’ western commentators like David North that thought if the US was planning a coup that would replace Putin with a leader who was more open to the west. He gave two examples. First was either Nemtsov was killed by elements within the Putin faction as a warning to western backed opposition or, he was killed by members of the anti-Putin faction who considered Nemtsov too cautious which would be an impediment to regime change.
The media played this up and cast as much suspicion as they could on Putin. But oddly, the west was dead silent about a string of mysterious opposition deaths that happened in Ukraine also, at this ‘exact’ same time (some of these happened the same day of Nemtsov’s death). Mykhailo Chechetov who was a key ally of President Yanukovych (member of opposition party Party Regional, “fell” from the window of his 17th floor apartment in Kiev). Nikolai Sergienko, deputy chief of Ukrainian Railways (supporter of Yanukovych). Alexey Kolesnik (hung himself). Stanislav Melnik (opposition party, shot himself). Sergey Valter (mayor of Melitopol, hung himself a few hours before his trial). Alexander Bordiuga (deputy direction of Melitopol police was found dead in his garage). Alexander Peklushenko (former member of Ukrainian parliament and former mayor of Zaporizhi was found shot to death). Sergey Melnichuk (prosecutor in Odessa, “fell” to his death from the 9th floor). Yanukovych’s own son (“fell” through ice of Lake Baikal in Russia). Oleg Kalashnikov (another prominent politician, died of a gunshot wound). Oles Buzina (historian and journalist, shot dead). Serhiy Sukhobok (journalist, shot dead). Olga Moron (editor in chief of Neteshinskiy Vestnik was found dead in her home, her body showed signs of a violent struggle). These all happened from January through April.
Two people who were involved in the murder of Oles Buzina were charged and were said to be Neo-Nazi paramilitary militants. One of them got released on bail, paid for by Oleksiy Tamrazov, the owner of Media Group conglomerate and was a major oil and gas tycoon. But with Nemtsov, there were controversies that spilled over into many different allegations and counter-allegations that was spun into a story about differences in degrees of press freedom between Russia and Ukraine and the riskiness of journalism. After the elections happened in 2015 in Donbass, Ukraine banned 34 foreign journalists and 7 bloggers from entering the country. They were part of a larger group close to about 400 people across 100 organizations who were forbidden from entertaining on the grounds of “national security” concerns.
The MSM claims over here about the dangers of doing journalism in Russia and the official assassinations of journalists are hyper exaggerated. There was a study that statistically showed that Russia had 2x the number of newspaper journalists as the US, despite having 1/2 the population and when you adjusted for per capita rates, Russian journalists were shown to be safer than any number of ‘democratic’ countries that were friendly to the US (and that includes Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, etc.). Fedia Kruikov found that 1/2 of the killings of Russian journalists that the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) attributed to professional activities were either “wholly” or “partially” falsified. Many of them were killed for reasons that had nothing to do with the administration.
In 2006, Linvinenko was a close associate of Boris Berezovsky. The British account of his death was ‘very’ flawed if you go deep into digging into it. The former lawyer Alexander Mercouris and someone else claimed that the inquiry Chair, Sir Robert Owen confused his role with that of a criminal judge who pronounced not only the cause of death but also accusing two supposed perpetrators (Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Ovum). He claimed that they had connections with the FSB and said the murder was “probably ordered” by Putin (when there was ‘zero’ factual evidence presented). He allowed no cross-examination and also no jury. A key witness refused to attend and the defendants weren’t present. They couldn’t be extradited because that goes against the Russian constitution. So the evidence that went against them was left unchallenged. Another claim was that The Chair reached outside the courtroom for evidence that suited his prejudices and his evidentiary standards varied between witnesses.
The report suggested Russian non-cooperation with the British, but Mercouris chronicled Britain’s refusal to cooperate with Russia. They rejected the suggestion that the inquiry take place in Russia. They didn’t allow Russian investigators access to Berezovsky. They refused to share their evidence of polonium poisoning. The case for Russian involvement was even undermined by the inquiry. Expert testimony demonstrated that polonium was widely available from many different sources, not just Russia. It wasn’t expensive as anyone thought. Evidence that Lugovoi (who had actually been a KGB agent) or Kovtun were FSB agents was circumstantial at best, in addition to the FSB motive behind it. The judge unreasonably showed credit to Litvinenko’s allegations against Putin and sided with Berezovsky who (with the assistance of Bell Potting promoted the narrative of Putin’s responsibility). He attached a ‘lot’ of weight to Litvinenko’s deathbed statement, even though there was reason to suspect it was written by Litvinenko’s colleague who was an ally of Berezovsky. Litvinenko himself had actually accused an entirely different party, Mario Scaramella of poisoning him. And there were other suspects involved who had motive for wanting to see Litvinenko dead. There was awitness who testified that he was blackmailing certain parties, and that their motives were more compelling than any attributable to the FSB
It wasn’t, and if you think US is winning anything here then you’re completely delusional. Life is going to get really hard for you in the coming years.
Amazing that you understand that your country has consistently been on the wrong side of history since WW2, but also believe this this is the first time it’s not.
What’s wrong with helping a country defend itself from invasion by imperial warmongers?
And to be clear, yes, I am calling Russia imperial warmongers. They have been actively invading neighboring countries for decades to expand themselves. And what is an empire if not a nation built on the conquest of other countries?
Yeah, no. The people that say crap like this, and uncritically swallow down the propaganda, always fail to take geopolitics seriously. In the last century, Europe (and Germany in particular) nearly destroyed Russia. Twice. If you’re Putin, and you continue to see a military alliance year after year, encroaching further and further up to your borders, what the hell are you supposed to do? If the USSR expanded the Warsaw Pact right up to incorporate Mexico and Canada, what do you reasonably think our response would be? Just look at Russia’s military defense budget. If you think is a country preparing and readying itself for any dream of imperialistic aspirations, you are crazy.
Why does tankies support Russia they’re fascists lol
“You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists!”
Russia entered WW1 on the same spaghetti-treaty-basis as every other nation that entered the conflict of their “own” accord.
The USSR entered WW2 as a German ally and tried to once again erase Poland and the Poles as the common German/Russian imperialist ambition required. And instead of preparing for the inevitable war that literally everyone but Stalin saw coming, the Soviets collectivly spent the mid-to-late 1930s partaking in the Great Terror, nearly destroying their own nation for the sake of satiating a madman’s ego and paranoia.
…stop promoting chauvanism? Stop trying to revive the USSR against the will of those who willingly left? Stop invading your neighbours? There’s like a million different ways to remain as a anti-democratic leech-state in this world without needing to use military force.
It’s nice you think the US can just arbitarily expand NATO without the consent of other members, that joining NATO isn’t a choice. Likewise, it’s nice you apparently don’t get it was the same for the Warsaw Pact - Mongolia wasn’t allowed in on it as European Communists opposed having to support potential conglict between the USSR and China.
They’ve invaded two former members of the USSR, have active orders to invade a third if the oppurtunity arises, and have drawn up plans for invading a fourth-one. Sorry, but I’ll rather accept the apparent reality that Russis is a myopic yes-man state that is currently doing war and committing genocide against Ukrainians.
That is absolutely not what the west is doing. Ukraine is being used as a proxy to weaken Russia using the formula that RAND outlined here. All the west is accomplishing is prolonging the conflict and it will not change the outcome. Anybody who thinks this is being done for the benefit of Ukraine is absolutely delusional.
Maybe people living in the west should focus on stopping their empire from conquering countries before getting on their high horse.
Nah, I prefer to stop countries from annexing pieces of other countries.
The US hasn’t annexed anything since 1959, and I was born too late to stop that. But Russia can’t help itself, and even gives youngsters a chance to oppose annexation.
Maybe you should figure out how to stop your own regime from invading countries before playing world police then. US is literally occupying part of Syria as we speak. Just how ignorant are you exactly?
There are far more Russian troops in Syria. I choose the lesser evil.
The legitimate government of Syria invited Russia to help it defend itself against the US regime, but do go on.
And how much Syrian land has been annexed to the US?
Around a third of a country including major food and oil producing regions. Are you in a cave where google isn’t available?
It’s really sad how duped American citizens are here. They truly believe that when changing their bio pics to a Ukraine Flag that they’re doing something. They believe their government has the best interest of Ukraine while what they’re actually supporting is their government using Ukrainian bodies to weaken an adversary under the guise of defense. No one learned anything after Iraq, it was mere MONTHS ago that liberals were giving BUSH praise! They don’t care about Abu Ghraib or what happened in Guantanamo Bay. A lot of people here are in for a rough awakening.
I’m confused. Do you think Russia taking Ukraine by force is what’s best for Ukraine? Do you think their people are volunteering to fight because they just don’t know what’s best for them? Even if Ukrainians wanted to maintain independence out of some misguided patriotism, isn’t it their right as a sovereign nation to decide that?
From the US perspective, Ukraine wanted to join NATO, aligning themselves with us. Then Russia invaded. If the US didn’t support Ukraine, the world would know they can prevent a weaker country from joining NATO by invading. After Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s no desire to send US troops but we can provide weapons and intelligence.
I personally don’t think it’s going to matter much for the average Ukrainian, as far as who controls their resources. I think it’s a tragedy that they’re fighting or dying over whether it’s Russian oligarchs or western oligarchs who will get to control their lives
To me it’s still hilarious that Americans themselves don’t think the government has a cynical, vested interest for getting involved in Ukraine. How the hell so many average liberals became hawks that dance to the neocon war drum, is still puzzling to me. Especially when it was their own side that produced the overwhelming evidence of American Foreign Policy that stands confronting people.
deleted by creator
Weapons, intelligence and Ukrainian bodies are an extremely cheap deal to weaken an adversary, don’t you think?
When it comes to wanting oil though, US and Iraqi bodies aren’t so important. As long as you can dupe your own citizens into believing there’s WMD’s, it doesn’t matter.
And of course Ukraine knows what’s best for them. That’s why they keep asking for a roadmap to NATO but the US is like “Nah” - https://www.ft.com/content/c37ed22d-e0e4-4b03-972e-c56af8a36d2e
So of course they’re left to negotiate. Again, the US Government doesn’t care but their citizens think they do.
The US is against peace if it doesn’t get more money to the military–industrial complex or if it doesn’t weaken an adversary, like in this case.
The US is against ‘any’ attempt by any country to use its resources for its own purposes. America behaves like any other imperial power has, throughout history. If Russia or China had the power the US currently does, they’d be doing the same thing. It’s why ‘Empire’ as a concept can coexist just as easily with ‘democracy’ as a framework as it does in autocracies. Because every State out there wants to maximize it’s share of power in the world. And this includes the US. That’s why fundamentally things don’t change all that much, regardless of who gets into power.
By volunteered to fight you mean being abducted on the street, beaten, and sent to die?
The people of Ukraine have told the world what their best interest is: removing Russian soldiers from their land, by force if necessary.
The US is only interested in Ukraine when their goals align. Everyone knows this, including most Americans and most Ukrainians.
However, it turns out that US and Ukrainian goals do, in fact, align. The US isn’t “using” Ukraine any more than Ukraine is “using” the US. They are openly cooperating to achieve a common interest.
The Ukrainian people are being kidnapped off the street and sent to die by the regime US installed in Ukraine after overthrowing a democratically elected government. Most Ukrainians don’t want to have a war and have their lives destroyed. The only people who want this war are ghouls living in the west who aren’t personally affected by it.
Tankies can always be counted on to project the worst in themselves.
There are hundreds of thousands of Russians in Georgia and Kazakhstan who can explain which side is kidnapping young men off the street and sending them to die for a war they care nothing about. Meanwhile, opinion polls of Ukrainians consistently show that an overwhelming majority want to continue the war until Russians are defeated.
We have plenty of video evidence of this happening in Ukraine, but whatever you say my little dronie. And yeah, opinion polls mean so much in a country that’s now effectively a military dictatorship.
If you don’t believe in opinion polls, then your claim that most Ukrainians are against the war is based on nothing but the voices in your head.
…nice, your stance must mean Russian-ones meant shite before the war even began then right?
Americans are subject to the best propaganda machine that money can buy, and people running the regime are certainly getting their money’s worth.
“Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media.” - Noam Chomsky
deleted by creator
What’s wrong is your framing. The US is an imperial warmonger and they created the conditions for a proxy war, which Russia engaged with. Russia invaded Ukraine as part of the proxy war with the US. Claiming that the US is just helping Ukraine with its war against Russia is completely misunderstanding what’s actually happening.
So the U.S. made Putin’s army roll its miles long line of cold-war era military equipment into Ukraine in November of '21?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
It’s hard to lie about things that the whole world was watching.
Ironically, the west’s most looked to academic expert on Russian Studies would completely disagree with you. He warned that you would see the argument being pitched that NATO remains justified today, to “manage the security threats provoked by its own existence.” Even ‘US policymakers’ advised that continued NATO encroachment would result in a military provocation in Ukraine. Who ignored their advice? The American foreign policy establishment. But I’m sure ‘nobody’ ever saw that coming, right? You know who else made similar observations? George Kennan, who was the architect of America’s containment policy during the Cold War.
And you didn’t even carefully read the reply you commented to. He didn’t say the US was responsible for the Russian army rolling into Ukraine. He said the US is responsible for engineering the conditions for a proxy war to take place.
There’s nothing to lie about. What we’re seeing is a proxy war between the US and Russia. The US explicitly listed conflict with Russia and China as their new strategic focus during the Obama administration. The US was making plans to include Ukraine in NATO under Clinton while Clinton was saying to Russian leaders that this would never happen.
The US has been working on Ukraine for a very long time, as part of the strategy to dominate Europe and keep Russia from competing with them.
NATO, the world’s first transnational military force, staffed and led by literal Nazi officers, built specifically to fight Russia, has been deploying nuclear capabilities all around the world to encircle China and Russia. Deploying weapons systems to the Russia/Ukraine border would be a massive strategic check on Russia by the US. The US wanted this. It worked on Ukraine for decades to bring this about.
Russia invaded Ukraine to fight the US. The US funds, arms, trains, recruits, and provides logistical support for Ukraine but the people dying are Ukrainian.
This is the literal definition of a proxy war.
Lol. It’s pretty funny how he remarks:
And yet he has no idea.
Let’s look at a couple of instances to contrast the media coverage, and see who’s really ‘lying’. Take something most Americans are familiar with; the assassinations of Nemtsov and Litvinenko. There’s a major between the way the west reported the accounts of their deaths, and how the Russians did it. Their deaths represented a major giveaway to the west, because they were two key opportunities that were quickly seized upon as a chance to demonize Putin (whatever your opinion of him is). Nemtsov was the leader of the Russian opposition. He was deputy prime minister under Yeltsin and was held in favorable regard by Thatcher. He met Obama in 2009. Supported Ukraine’s western orientation to Europe, etc. Made sense why the west liked him so much. There were people who thought it was a false-flag operation since Putin had nothing to gain, but the west stood to gain a great deal out of it.
When the Russian investigation got involved in his death, they brought in a number of suspects who’s would be connections to the murder investigators were unclear. There was speculation it was retaliatory for anti-Islamic remarks he made, but even they concluded at the time that those links were tenuous and there wasn’t much to convict them on. The west played up Putin’s connections to the murder based on previously dated murders that were frequently attributed (with ‘greatly’ varying degrees of evidence) to Russian state agencies. Those people included people like Sergei Yushenkov, Forbes Russian editor Paul Klebnikov, Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, etc. There were more people involved, and ‘many’ of them had directly received funding from the US State Department backed National Endowment for Democracy, ‘or’ by an NGO that was funded by the NED.
Poroshenko claimed Nemtsov was going to reveal evidence of direct Russian support for the uprising that happened in Eastern Ukraine. For others, Nemtsov was targeted either for his symbolic importance or his useful indispensability. Rivals like Alexei Navalny co-founded the ‘Democratic Alternative (DA!) platform and he was the vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party Yabloko. DA!’s leader Mariya Gaydar also got funding from the NED and worked with people like Ilya Yashin in the People’s Freedom Party (which is ‘also’ NED funded). Yashin was close to a guy named Vladimir Ryzhkov, who was a member of NED funded Washington based ‘World Movement for Democracy’. He was a leading member of the Strategy 31 campaign for free assembly (whose ranks were filled with activists trained and coordinated by US NED funded NGO’s). And their activities had spread into Moscow, St. Petersburg, Vladivostok and Yekaterinburg.
NED was involved in expunging itself from public documents. Russian intelligence had identified a network of rebellious organizations that were funded in part by the US State Department along the lines of previous color revolutions, that were readying for a Moscow coup. Gorbachev thought the killing would be a provocation of some kind to complicate or destabilize the regime. There was speculation among ’some’ western commentators like David North that thought if the US was planning a coup that would replace Putin with a leader who was more open to the west. He gave two examples. First was either Nemtsov was killed by elements within the Putin faction as a warning to western backed opposition or, he was killed by members of the anti-Putin faction who considered Nemtsov too cautious which would be an impediment to regime change.
The media played this up and cast as much suspicion as they could on Putin. But oddly, the west was dead silent about a string of mysterious opposition deaths that happened in Ukraine also, at this ‘exact’ same time (some of these happened the same day of Nemtsov’s death). Mykhailo Chechetov who was a key ally of President Yanukovych (member of opposition party Party Regional, “fell” from the window of his 17th floor apartment in Kiev). Nikolai Sergienko, deputy chief of Ukrainian Railways (supporter of Yanukovych). Alexey Kolesnik (hung himself). Stanislav Melnik (opposition party, shot himself). Sergey Valter (mayor of Melitopol, hung himself a few hours before his trial). Alexander Bordiuga (deputy direction of Melitopol police was found dead in his garage). Alexander Peklushenko (former member of Ukrainian parliament and former mayor of Zaporizhi was found shot to death). Sergey Melnichuk (prosecutor in Odessa, “fell” to his death from the 9th floor). Yanukovych’s own son (“fell” through ice of Lake Baikal in Russia). Oleg Kalashnikov (another prominent politician, died of a gunshot wound). Oles Buzina (historian and journalist, shot dead). Serhiy Sukhobok (journalist, shot dead). Olga Moron (editor in chief of Neteshinskiy Vestnik was found dead in her home, her body showed signs of a violent struggle). These all happened from January through April.
Two people who were involved in the murder of Oles Buzina were charged and were said to be Neo-Nazi paramilitary militants. One of them got released on bail, paid for by Oleksiy Tamrazov, the owner of Media Group conglomerate and was a major oil and gas tycoon. But with Nemtsov, there were controversies that spilled over into many different allegations and counter-allegations that was spun into a story about differences in degrees of press freedom between Russia and Ukraine and the riskiness of journalism. After the elections happened in 2015 in Donbass, Ukraine banned 34 foreign journalists and 7 bloggers from entering the country. They were part of a larger group close to about 400 people across 100 organizations who were forbidden from entertaining on the grounds of “national security” concerns.
The MSM claims over here about the dangers of doing journalism in Russia and the official assassinations of journalists are hyper exaggerated. There was a study that statistically showed that Russia had 2x the number of newspaper journalists as the US, despite having 1/2 the population and when you adjusted for per capita rates, Russian journalists were shown to be safer than any number of ‘democratic’ countries that were friendly to the US (and that includes Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, etc.). Fedia Kruikov found that 1/2 of the killings of Russian journalists that the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) attributed to professional activities were either “wholly” or “partially” falsified. Many of them were killed for reasons that had nothing to do with the administration.
In 2006, Linvinenko was a close associate of Boris Berezovsky. The British account of his death was ‘very’ flawed if you go deep into digging into it. The former lawyer Alexander Mercouris and someone else claimed that the inquiry Chair, Sir Robert Owen confused his role with that of a criminal judge who pronounced not only the cause of death but also accusing two supposed perpetrators (Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Ovum). He claimed that they had connections with the FSB and said the murder was “probably ordered” by Putin (when there was ‘zero’ factual evidence presented). He allowed no cross-examination and also no jury. A key witness refused to attend and the defendants weren’t present. They couldn’t be extradited because that goes against the Russian constitution. So the evidence that went against them was left unchallenged. Another claim was that The Chair reached outside the courtroom for evidence that suited his prejudices and his evidentiary standards varied between witnesses.
The report suggested Russian non-cooperation with the British, but Mercouris chronicled Britain’s refusal to cooperate with Russia. They rejected the suggestion that the inquiry take place in Russia. They didn’t allow Russian investigators access to Berezovsky. They refused to share their evidence of polonium poisoning. The case for Russian involvement was even undermined by the inquiry. Expert testimony demonstrated that polonium was widely available from many different sources, not just Russia. It wasn’t expensive as anyone thought. Evidence that Lugovoi (who had actually been a KGB agent) or Kovtun were FSB agents was circumstantial at best, in addition to the FSB motive behind it. The judge unreasonably showed credit to Litvinenko’s allegations against Putin and sided with Berezovsky who (with the assistance of Bell Potting promoted the narrative of Putin’s responsibility). He attached a ‘lot’ of weight to Litvinenko’s deathbed statement, even though there was reason to suspect it was written by Litvinenko’s colleague who was an ally of Berezovsky. Litvinenko himself had actually accused an entirely different party, Mario Scaramella of poisoning him. And there were other suspects involved who had motive for wanting to see Litvinenko dead. There was awitness who testified that he was blackmailing certain parties, and that their motives were more compelling than any attributable to the FSB
This is the kind of shit the US does.
Removed by mod
I hope you get over yourself someday.
Russia was also on the wrong side of history since WW2. When two losers face off, logically one or the other must break their losing streak.
And as it turns out, the US gets the win. Congratulations.
It wasn’t, and if you think US is winning anything here then you’re completely delusional. Life is going to get really hard for you in the coming years.
Just like your leader once promised “we will bury you”. That was in 1959. He was delusional then, you are delusional today.
The coming years will be fine for the US, but not necessarily for Russia.