Believe me when I tell you that the climatists, the Ukrainists, the Covidians, the mass migrationists, and the antiracists are all expressions of the same malign force.
The western borg is not a place. It’s a state of mind. As it expands across the world, it aims to rob other places of their placehood too, and assimilate them to the same shallow diffuse global consumerist project. The western borg likes to conceive of itself as post-national and post-political. Its values, in its own conception, exist on a higher plane, like religious or philosophical truths. They are about “freedom” and “democracy” and “peace” and “human rights.” Yet people in the West do not have much voice in government, they are not free, the western borg instigates wars across the world, and western assimilated governments do not care about anybody’s rights.
These are just the words with which the western borg seeks to disguise its imperialist, autocratic tendencies. Unlike some of you, I prefer to see the actions of the borg as essentially undirected, and the result of internal dynamics. It arises from a lot of separate forces, among them prosperity and technology, the complexity of mass society and its management, and the universal claims of the liberal democratic political tradition. All of its ideological obsessions and propaganda narratives either further or express its totalising project in some way.
Upcoming: Observations about the ongoing Omicron wave in Europe, a review of Alex Berenson’s Pandemia, and thoughts on whether Corona is truly ending or merely taking a break. I just had to get this out of my system first.
This may well be just a veiled ad for Dr. Sircus but he is right about needing a new approach. We could start with an ant-septic that would cleanse the world of the current corrupt medical administrations and their brain dead useful idiots.
We desperately need a new approach to medicine, so radically different that most doctors, nurses, and alternative healthcare practitioners would have convulsions because they cannot imagine or identify with such a radical change of thinking and practice. Even my own Natural Allopathic Medical approach needs a revision to make it much more robust.
What if we could bypass the complicated diagnostic gymnastics of modern medicine and go right to treatment. To a universal treatment approach. To something that everyone can understand and make sense of. Is that possible? Not only is it possible, but it will be necessary to face the tough challenges and changes bursting onto the mainstream stage of life now in real-time.
The entire medical and alternative healthcare community is faced with a radical downsizing of not only the economy but of civilization itself. What are we healers going to do and how can we best help others when the going gets really rough and there is little-to-no technology, tests or pharmaceuticals at hand.
The situation at hospitals is deteriorating very quickly as drug-resistant germs are leaving doctors helpless. Also, if you go to a hospital, the odds increase that the drugs you need will be unavailable. The growing scarcity of sterile, injectable drugs is one of the most significant issues confronting hospitals across the country.
COVID rammed it into many brains how cruel hospitals can be.
The expense of drugs is also an issue. And as supply chains fail throughout the world, as war and financial cataclysm threaten, it will dawn that we are on our own and need to take care of ourselves. We need to be doctors, and doctors need to relearn essential non-pharmaceutical medicine.
A Medical Rebellion Using ClO2, Magnesium, Bicarbonates, and Oxygen
There is no comparison between using drugs with devastating side effects, even at low dosage, and concentrated natural nutritional substances.
No matter who you are and what you feel, know that you can take immediate steps to better your situation. It does not matter if you have cancer, COVID, some neurological disease, suffer from heart inflammation, or are facing the devastation of vaccine damage. You do not need to waste a day waiting for answers from doctors and their tests.
In the end, a person might need a Panzer division of helpful medicines and health practices to dig themselves out of a hole in their attempt to eliminate pain and get back to health. However, we need to begin somewhere, so we might as well start with the most fundamental medicines that can not only deliver a knockout blow to all infections while pumping our body full of life-enhancing energy.
First
First, we need a safe, broad-spectrum antiviral, antibiotic and antifungal medicine that is even effective against antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Everyone suffering can stand a deep house cleaning from various pathogens. Even healthy people can still benefit from such a house cleaning.
This cleaning would also include chemical toxins and, to some extent, even some heavy metals. I am talking about chlorine dioxide here.
Second
Right behind this medicine would be a lift all aspects of physiology medicine, one that would lubricate almost every life process in the body. Something that would stimulate hormones and hundreds of enzyme reactions and insulin effectiveness and cell receptivity to insulin. It would be the same something that would calm the nervous system and help with our stress. I a talking about using magnesium as a medicine, not as a supplement. Don’t bother telling your cardiologists that they are missing the boat completely on magnesium, which is, The Ultimate Heart Medicine.
Third
We propose chlorine dioxide and magnesium chloride as a dynamic dual. However, if we include a third fundamental medicine, magnesium bicarbonate would be a good choice. Bringing bicarbonates to bear is almost always a good idea because everyone suffering from pain and disease is usually acidic, meaning already having low oxygen and low cellular voltage or energy conditions. But if one does not want to get into the sophistication of magnesium bicarbonate, simple old baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) will more than suffice. As we age we become more and more bicarbonate deficient.
Something New That Is Old
An old medicine developed by Dr. F.M. Eugene Blass and Nikola Tesla 100 years ago called Homozon, an Oxygen Therapy product designed for internal use, provides another avenue for intense magnesium and oxygen medicine. It is a compound of oxygen bonded to magnesium. The magnesium atoms form a loose lattice onto which much oxygen is bonded. The health benefitting action is derived from the presence of magnesium peroxide, magnesium superoxide, and magnesium ozonide. Homozon provides oxygen to the body in the form of Nascent or “singlet” Oxygen (also called the Oxygen free-radical).
Universal Protocol
Healing our bodies with natural medicine is possible. Healing with pharmaceuticals is not. They are not designed for healing but are good at managing symptoms.
The best thing about this universal protocol is that it can genuinely be recommended to the human race because of its low cost. One can make chlorine dioxide at home; baking soda is the cheapest medicine globally, and magnesium chloride is the least expensive, most versatile form of magnesium. One can even make magnesium bicarbonate at home.
Behind this universal lineup of magnesium, chlorine dioxide, bicarbonates, and oxygen is a list of other essentials like selenium, iodine, sulfur, breathing retraining, infrared therapy, hydrogen inhalation, and Exercise with Oxygen Therapy.
Conclusion
Nothing in natural or pharmaceutical medicine can compete with the above protocol. Before your doctor can blink an eye and begin to read all the tests you have done, you can get way out ahead of the western medical system and start to heal yourself. Today! Anyone can go to their local food market or drugstore and buy some baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) and start increasing their oxygen and cell energy right away.
Then you need to learn about chlorine dioxide and buy some of that online, ready-made, or make it yourself at home. Then order the other nutritional medicines. Know that there is a big difference between supplementing with nutritional agents and using nutrients as medicines.
Cancer Course
A COURSE IN NATUROPATHIC ONCOLOGY
Conquering
Cancer
Special Offer: My 100 lesson course on cancer at eighty percent off the regular price of 500 dollars. So your cost will be only 99 dollars. The course is part of a doctoral program at Da Vinci University and, when taken for credit, costs 1,000 Euros for both parts.I WANT!
Dr. Mark Sircus AC., OMD, DM (P)
Professor of Natural Oncology, Da Vinci Institute of Holistic Medicine Doctor of Oriental and Pastoral Medicine Founder of Natural Allopathic Medicine
Short of returning to a pre-technological, Luddite age, there’s really no way to pull this horse back now that it’s left the gate. To our detriment, we have virtually no control over who accesses our private information, how it is stored, or how it is used. And in terms of our bargaining power over digital privacy rights, we have been reduced to a pitiful, unenviable position in which we can only hope and trust that those in power will treat our information with respect.
At a minimum, before any kind of digital currency is adopted, we need stricter laws on data privacy and an Electronic Bill of Rights that protects “we the people” from predatory surveillance and data-mining business practices by the government and its corporate partners.
“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—Thomas Paine
The government wants your money.
It will beg, steal or borrow if necessary, but it wants your money any way it can get it.
The government’s schemes to swindle, cheat, scam, and generally defraud taxpayers of their hard-earned dollars have run the gamut from wasteful pork barrel legislation, cronyism and graft to asset forfeiture, costly stimulus packages, and a national security complex that continues to undermine our freedoms while failing to making us any safer.
Americans have also been made to pay through the nose for the government’s endless wars, subsidization of foreign nations, military empire, welfare state, roads to nowhere, bloated workforce, secret agencies, fusion centers, private prisons, biometric databases, invasive technologies, arsenal of weapons, and every other budgetary line item that is contributing to the fast-growing wealth of the corporate elite at the expense of those who are barely making ends meet—that is, we the taxpayers.
Because the government’s voracious appetite for money, power and control has grown out of control, its agents have devised other means of funding its excesses and adding to its largesse through taxes disguised as fines, taxes disguised as fees, and taxes disguised as tolls, tickets and penalties.
No matter how much money the government pulls in, it’s never enough, so the government has come up with a new plan to make it even easier for its agents to seize Americans’ bank accounts.
Similar to cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, CBDCs would also be a form of digital money, but there the resemblance ends. If adopted, CBDCs would be issued by the Federal Reserve, the central banking system for the U.S. government. One CBDC digital dollar would equal the value of a physical dollar. And like the physical dollar, which ceased to be backed by gold more than 50 years ago, the CBDC would be considered a government-issued fiat currency that is backed by the strength and credit of the U.S. government. (Of course, that’s not saying much considering that much of the time, the U.S. government operates in the red.)
For instance, three weeks before the Biden Administration made headlines with its support for a government-issued digital currency, the FBI and the Justice Department quietly moved ahead with plans for a cryptocurrency enforcement team (translation: digital money cops), a virtual asset exploitation unit tasked with investigating crypto crimes and seizing virtual assets, and a crypto czar to oversee it all.
No surprises here, of course.
This is how the government operates: by giving us tools to make our lives “easier” while, in the process, making it easier for the government to track, control and punish the citizenry.
Now Russia and China, both encircled by the U.S. military industrial complex, have released a powerful joint statement establishing a manifesto for a new operating system that enshrines the principle of sovereign nation states, and activities that promote win-win cooperation and population growth as a bedrock of order.
So when Guterres wets his pants complaining about the danger of two opposing systems now emerging, or when Biden’s handlers promote democracy summits that exclude all the nations of the world who don’t want to be sacrificed on the alter of Gaia, you can be sure that it is because something compatible with human dignity has emerged.
The financial system is clearly careening towards a point of dissolution.
It isn’t an exaggeration to say that the collapse itself has already happened and we simply have not yet felt the full brutal force of the shockwave accelerating toward us. This process is comparable to a tectonic snap deep in the crust under the ocean. The snap happens and a tsunami has begun. It will hit the beach front with devastating consequences and only by breaking the habit of living in the myopic “moment” might those on the beach have a chance to get to safer ground before it is too late.
The question isn’t “will the system collapse”, but rather when will the full tsunami hit?
Additionally, WHAT will be the operating system that is brought online to replace the chaos of supply chain meltdowns, hyperinflation, scarcity and violence that will ensue?
Two Systems Clash
Already we can clearly see two opposing patterns that have taken form, illustrated in the remarks recently made by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres who said:
“I fear our world is creeping towards two different sets of economic, trade, financial, and technology rules, two divergent approaches in the development of artificial intelligence—and ultimately two different military and geo-political strategies. This is a recipe for trouble. It would be far less predictable and far more dangerous than the Cold War.”
Guterres is speaking of two divergent paradigms, so what are they?
On the one hand, there is the ideology that Guterres himself devoutly supports which has taken on the title in recent years of “The Davos Agenda”, or “The Great Reset”.
Guterres even went so far as to sign UN-WEF integration treaty in June 2020 uniting both globalist bodies into one Borg-like operating system, announcing: “The Great Reset is a welcome recognition that this human tragedy must be a wake-up call. We must build more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change and the many other global changes we face.”
While the Great Reset professes to use the current pandemic to push through a complete overhaul of human society under a technocratic world government, the opposing system driven by those nations not invited to the recent “Global Democracy summit” and labelled “authoritarians” by Soros and the Davos clique wish to avoid being sacrificed.
Where one system is premised on a scientifically managed depopulation agenda from the top, the other system asserts the right of sovereign nations to continue as the only legitimate basis for international law and scientific progress to be the basis of economic ideology. The terms of the new system were recently re-emphasized throughout the 5000 word Russia-China Joint Statement on the terms of the New Era now emerging.
Putin himself recently laid out these terms stating: “Only sovereign states can effectively respond to the challenges of the times and the demands of the citizens. Accordingly, any effective international order should take into account the interests and capabilities of the state and proceed on that basis, and not try to prove that they should not exist. Furthermore, it is impossible to impose anything on anyone, be it the principles underlying the sociopolitical structure or values that someone, for their own reasons, has called “universal”. After all, it is clear that when a real crisis strikes, there is only one universal value left and that is human life, which each state decides for itself how best to protect based on its abilities, culture and traditions.”
What a breath of fresh air!
Compare that to Klaus Schwab’s infamous “you’ll own nothing and be happy”.
From where did the dystopic world order of the Davos Crowd emerge?
H.G. Wells’ Open Conspiracy
It might surprise you, but to answer that question, we will need to jump back nearly one century into the past and meet an ageing misanthropic social engineer named Herbert George Wells who wrote a 1928 opus called The Open Conspiracy: Blueprint for a World Revolution calling for world government, and depopulation saying:
“The Open Conspiracy rests upon a disrespect for nationality, and there is no reason why it should tolerate noxious or obstructive governments because they hold their own in this or that patch of human territory.”
Wells was a member of an organization called The Fabian Society which itself was established in 1884 by a coterie of British eugenicists and Malthusians in order to promote a new social order designed to mold society into a new mechanized order run by a managerial elite of “social scientists” from above.
It is harrowing to think of where this trend ends as we near the precipice of World War III or nuclear war. H.L. Mencken once wrote that “to wage a war for a purely moral reason is as absurd as to ravish a woman for a purely moral reason.”
Nonintervention is more than just a good US foreign policy prescription. When it comes to the Russia-Ukraine War, American neutrality is patriotic. Resistance to the narrative pushers is essential for the formation of authentic community and freedom.
The way the media covers it, the Russia-Ukraine conflict hardly seems like a proxy war. How is it that tens of millions of Americans have seemingly internalized these overseas events in the same way so many did with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq two decades ago?
Cultural landmarks lit up in the colors of the flag now drape over social media avatars. That’s the Ukrainian flag, of course, not the American one.
But anyone not flying the colors of the day risks being trashed not only by the powerful but by their own countrymen. Tulsi Gabbard was called a traitor for wishing the war had been avoided in the first place! Tucker Carlson is once again the target of a cancellation mob.
“Anyone even slightly off-key or questioning of that script is hunted down and held up as a heretic and traitor,” Glenn Greenwald wrote recently.
Nobody should be surprised by this development. It’s a continuation—no, an escalation of the whole covid scamdemic. Whatever the concocted crisis of the day is, if you do not acknowledge it as real or if you challenge the grand orthodoxy, then you’ll be labeled a fake news peddler, a hater, an extremist, a domestic terrorist, or worse.
Crises grow government power. That’s how it’s always been. The myriad of ways that war brings “the many under the dominion of the few,” as James Madison said, are still here and are not going away any time soon.
What defines our present condition is how the moral panics are used to rally a civilian army that revels in the demise of the nonconforming opposition.
A war provides the needed cohesion, and no American even needs to be directly involved in the bloodshed. The Russia-Ukraine War is an easy lightning rod that the government and established centers of power in society can use to demonize Americans who hold the wrong view.
Despite the strong opinions on either side, Americans don’t really get a say in foreign policy. The 2016 presidential election was the first time in a long time that there was such a meaningful gap between the candidates on the issue, at least rhetorically. In 2020, the foreign policy debate between President Donald Trump and candidate Joe Biden was canceled.
The question persists: What is it about this Russia-Ukraine war that animates Americans so much? Solid majorities of Republican and Democrat voters support a US-enforced no-fly zone over Ukraine. That would mean the US at war with Russia.
The answer for why Americans pine for more war is probably complicated, but it’s clear that they generally hold simplistic views of the situation over there. People poked fun at Vice President Kamala Harris for summing up the recent events as a “bigger country” invading “a smaller country” and adding, “Basically, that’s wrong.” But the intended audience probably appreciated her analysis.
The more sophisticated cases for no-fly zones and US sanctions sound the same except that they evoke a more emotional response. It’s a fight for democracy. It’s for freedom. The US must stand up against bullies and hate. These vapid buzzwords do the trick.
In 1953, Robert Nisbet wrote in his book Quest for Community that “the power of war to create a sense of moral meaning is one of the most frightening aspects of the twentieth century.”
That’s continued into the twenty-first century unabated. For over two years now, covid has shown all of us in a personal way the “deep moral compulsion of war” that Nisbet talked about. Citizens policed each other, or at least some policed others, in the War to Flatten the Curve. People wished for the deaths of those who didn’t follow the Fauci line, usually on social media but sometimes in public, unknowingly on camera.
Chris Hedges wrote of a similar phenomenon in his 2002 book titled War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. So why is our society so desperate for meaning that it laps the establishment spoon? Obviously, something deep is missing in the social structures that tie a nation together.
That explains the unwillingness to take off the masks postmandate. To the wearers, they display status, a sense of belonging to a community. The same goes for other performative acts across the political spectrum. It feels good to believe you’ll be seen as living up to some greater calling, lofty goal, or common good.
It is harrowing to think of where this trend ends as we near the precipice of World War III or nuclear war. H.L. Mencken once wrote that “to wage a war for a purely moral reason is as absurd as to ravish a woman for a purely moral reason.”
It’s upon patriotic Americans to champion neutrality. But it won’t be enough to say it’s the best path to peace or prosperity, although that’s true. The case must be made locally, where real meaning can be found in serving our families and communities.
Only at the small scale, in solidarity with other localities, can we revive an authentic antiwar culture that neutralizes the state’s propaganda.
Alice Salles was born and raised in Brazil but has lived in America for over ten years. She now lives in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with her husband, Nick Hankoff, and their four children.
To avoid the charge of status quo bias, they need to give a reason why $10 or anything close to it is preferable to the new market price. And just saying “Because that’s the way it used to be” is not a good reason.
We used to light our homes with kerosene lamps. That’s not a good reason to keep doing it when the world has changed.
People often believe that price gouging is so obviously immoral that making it illegal is the equivalent of criminalizing theft. In their minds, sellers who drastically hike their prices after a supply or demand shock are simply cruel capitalists taking advantage of poor consumers, who are practically forced to hand over their money.
The student of economics, of course, would sooner laud this practice than condemn it. After all, price changes are an important part of the market process because they help us economize scarce resources.
In theory, then, all that must be done is to explain this process to the public. A little bit of reasoning and a few graphs are all it should take to dispel this misguided objection to market prices. Yet somehow, it rarely seems to work. Economists have been trying for decades to break the irrational opposition to price gouging, but they have had little success. As it turns out, the art of shaping public opinion is somewhat different from the art of explaining economic phenomena.
Ludwig von Mises draws attention to this distinction in the final pages of Human Action. “The flowering of human society,” he writes, “depends on two factors: the intellectual power of outstanding men to conceive sound social and economic theories, and the ability of these or other men to make these ideologies palatable to the majority.”
How, then, can public opinion be shaped? Perhaps the answer lies in psychology. After all, “irrational” is a psychological word, not an economic one. So maybe the key is not so much to explain economic principles, but to identify and debunk the various biases that give rise to the public’s antimarket beliefs.
Price gouging, I believe, provides an illustrative example of how this can be done.
YouTube, which won’t allow adults to have conversations about COVID, has announced a fresh campaign of removing content, this time about Ukraine.
So in the midst of a war, when the truth is always hard to come by, you will have access only to the allowable sources — sources which, in the past, have done nothing but lie to you about overseas events.
In response, Glenn Greenwald commented: “Full-scale global censorship regime from Google breezily announced in these tweets. This war is being exploited to implement a scheme of information control previously unseen in the West, that is not going anywhere once this war is over. Decide for yourself if you’re comfortable.”
Now if I were to point out that no such campaign was launched in the case of dubious invasions by the U.S. regime, or regarding the situation in Yemen — which makes Ukraine seem like a Girl Scout convention — I would be accused of “whataboutism.”
But these are legitimate questions, because they prove that whatever the stated intentions of the censors, those cannot be their real intentions. If those who would protect us from allegedly dangerous information were truly moved by their superior moral sense, that moral sense would have prompted the same response to these other cases.
Since it didn’t, we can be sure that a pristine moral sensibility is not what is motivating the current fanaticism about silencing people.
Here is the YouTube announcement, via Twitter:
As I said last week: I think I’ve had just about enough of being told what I can and cannot read, what is and what isn’t “disinformation,” and naive people who think these designations are for our own good and being put to benign purposes.
I’m Armenian. I would not demand or expect YouTube to silence voices out of Azerbaijan, and I would be insulted if anyone thought I wanted such a thing.
And for heaven’s sake, if some people pointed out that Armenians weren’t exactly Boy Scouts themselves, I wouldn’t idiotically accuse them of being “Azerbaijani assets” or think name-calling was a substitute for argument.
Meanwhile, we have the hopeless Mitt Romney warning us about the “treasonous lies” of Tulsi Gabbard. “Treasonous lies” is regimespeak for dissident thoughts the establishment prefers the public not hear.
The establishment is getting more authoritarian and less tolerant of dissidents all the time.
Hence the ongoing value and importance of my no-censorship group, where freethinkers are still welcome.
It’s one of many goodies my good and kind supporters get.
The US has Biolabs, 130 according to sources, and has REFUSED to allow international inspections. This is NOT the type of government we voted for regardless of whether you are Democrat or Republican. Nuland has worked there clandestinely through all administrations and the tactic is always the same – demonize your opponent to justify war even when the facts are total bullshit
There are Biolabs in Ukraine funded by the US. There was never any real question if they existed or not. The rumor two days after the Russian invasion began, the claim was that Russia was targeting them for destruction. I wrote on February 26, 2022, that such a rumor was false and I pointed out that Russia would never target those labs for destruction. Instead, they would prefer to capture them to illustrate that people like Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, a notorious Neocon, who just wants war has for decades played the Neocon agenda of offensive war against everyone other than the United States – yes even Europe.
Victoria Nuland is a strategic player in government for the Neocons who have led US foreign policy from one disaster to another for the past 30 years while avoiding accountability. Nobody really understands that these people are directing the country without Congressional knowledge or the approval of the people.
They pretend America always wears the white hat when in fact their objectives are offensive and not defensive. They lie awake at night dreaming how they can destroy Russia and China for they wallow in hatred and never accepted that communism actually fell for they demonized Chinese and Russians where politics became irrelevant. The Neocons sabotage any effort whatsoever to further world peace. It was shocking that President Joe Biden has nominated Victoria Nuland for the third-highest position at the State Department, Under Secretary for Political Affairs with her history of manipulating the endless policy of war that the American people are against.
Yes, I know Bill Kristol and he even spoke at our WEC I believe back in 1996. Once upon a time, we were friends until I came to see his true colors. Bill has become a hard-core Neocon and his book on Iraq provided the blueprint for the overthrow of Saddam. Bill Tweeted that Russia would stage a filmed invasion to justify invading Ukraine. That was total nonsense and the Neocons will NEVER admit to the dark history of supporting Ukrainian Nazis or the false flag of shooting down the Malaysian passenger flight and blaming Russia to try to support WWIII. Neocons are notorious for making up BS that can be anything to support war as they did about the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq that never existed.
Bill Kristol was against Trump because Trump was against the Neocon agenda of endless war. People have to know that there is a sub-element inside the US government that is NOT elected and always pushing their own hateful agenda regardless if it is Republican or Democrat. They are a unique force all their own and people fall for their manipulation techniques to demonize their enemy to cover up their own hatred and covert agenda. Speak against them and they will paint you as a traitor, yet nobody even gets to votes on their agenda.
Back then, US Senator Rand Paul urged President Trump not to choose neoconservative Elliott Abrams to serve in the No. 2 spot at the US State Department. In an op-ed published in the libertarian website Rand Paul argued:
“Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a neocon agenda.”
From 2003 to 2005 Victoria Nuland was THE principal foreign policy advisor to VP Dick Cheney who in fact helped to both plan and manage the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Nuland was advising and assisting the Bush administration’s case for a preemptive military strike against Iraq for what they alleged were weapons of mass destruction. She argued that removing Saddam Hussein and installing a US “ally” would be simple and secure the Middle East – WRONG!. Nuland was also for the occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both were to be a strategic acquisition for her neocon agenda.
During the spring of 2011, Victoria Nuland became State Department spokesperson under Hillary Clinton. It was Nuland who pushed for “regime change” to also overthrow Moammar Ghaddafi of Libya.UN Security Council resolution 1973 authorized a “No Fly Zone” for the protection of civilians so she claimed. Then Nuland turned to try to do the same in Syria. Instead of looking at how dangerous Nuland was becoming to world peace, the Clintons retained Nuland for she argued to overthrow Ghaddafi who they always paint as the devil just as she did with Saddam. Demonizing these heads of state, Nuland turned the same strategy on Assad of Syria. She has always demonized her opponent to justify sending in arms to insurgents seeking to overthrow this time the Syrian government. In January 2012, Nulandclaimed that the US is“on the side of those wanting peaceful change in Syria.” She has lied to the people every time to support her neocon agenda that people of the United States are never allowed to vote on. While professing she wanted a peaceful overthrow of the regime, she was supplying weapons for the violent overthrow. This was confirmed insecret DOD documents which state:
“During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the [Qaddafi] regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria.”
If this war continues to unfold in a manner that is slow, painful and ugly, China and Russia are likely to establish far better relations with each other than either has with the United States.
In an interview with Reuters, Dmitry Peskov, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman for decades, made a startling offer. Moscow could end the Ukraine war immediately, said Peskov, if four conditions were met.
Ukraine should cease all military action, recognize Crimea as part of Russia, accept the independence of the Luhansk and Donetsk separatist enclaves, and enact a constitutional commitment to “neutrality,” which would prevent Ukraine from ever joining NATO.
Were this to be done, said Peskov, the war “will stop in a moment.”
As this would restore the situation in Ukraine to the “status quo ante” that existed before Putin ordered the invasion, Peskov’s offer seemed not to be believable.
Yet, according to The New York Times, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky “seemed surprisingly open to the idea.”
Zelensky “said he had ‘cooled down’ on joining NATO, saying it was clear the western alliance ‘is not prepared to accept Ukraine.’”
As for Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea, said Zelensky, “We can discuss and find a compromise on how these territories will live on.”
Monday, Ukraine and Russia held a fourth session of peace talks, and expressions of optimism were heard from both sides.
Ukrainian negotiator Mykhailo Podolyak volunteered that Russia is beginning to talk constructively. “I think that we will achieve some results literally in a matter of days.”
Yet, Russia’s strategic goals, manifest in its unfolding military action, seem to go far beyond the moderate demands of Peskov.
Three weeks into this war, what do Russia’s goals appear to be?
First, besiege and bring down the Kyiv government of Zelensky and replace it with a Russian client regime.
Second, divide Ukraine along the lines of the Dnieper River, which bisects the country north to south, and create an East Ukraine as a pro-Russian state.
Third, seize and occupy the entire coast of the Sea of Azov, turn it into a Russian lake, and capture all of the Ukrainian Black Sea coast from the Donbas to Mariupol, Crimea, Kherson, Odessa and Transnistria, the last a slice of seceded Moldovan land Moscow now controls.
This would leave a landlocked rump state of west Ukraine, which would be a buffer between NATO nations Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland — and Russia-backed East Ukraine.
The Wall Street Journal said Monday that Russia’s realization of these goals would be tantamount to victory in Putin’s war:
“A Ukraine divided in two, with Russia in control of the east, and a rump, Western Ukraine cut off from the coast might look like a victory to Mr. Putin — especially if sanctions are removed in some cease-fire agreement.”
With this kind of peace in hand, Putin could then warn the NATO nations that if they attacked East Ukraine directly, or indirectly by arming insurgents, they would face “consequences you have never seen.”
As no NATO nation risked war to save Georgia from Russia in 2008, or to save Ukraine from the Crimean and Donbas amputations of 2014, it is not likely NATO would risk war with Russia, and a potential third world war, if Russia declared a truce once it got full control of eastern Ukraine.
Where would that leave the West?
The Americans and British would likely treat Putin as a pariah and never meet with him again. But would President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany cut off all communication with Russia, when they have been making daily phone calls to Putin and regular visits to Moscow, even as Putin’s war of aggression was raging?
If Russia and Ukraine reached a ceasefire and a truce, would the EU and NATO nations of Europe not swiftly stand down themselves, rather than keep the Ukrainian resistance fighting?
If Kyiv falls to a Russian strategy of encirclement and strangulation, capitulation and conquest, how long would it be before EU nations seek an end to Russia’s isolation and a new era of detente?
Or would the continued existence of a regime headed by Putin mean permanent hostility?
Three years after Nikita Khrushchev sent Soviet tanks into Budapest to crush the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, the Soviet premier was riding up Pennsylvania Avenue in an open convertible with Dwight Eisenhower to spend the night at Blair House before a 12-day tour as the guest of the president of the United States.
As of now, the winner of this Russia-Ukraine war appears to be China.
Given the severity of U.S. sanctions and the ostracism of Russia from the West, China is the only partner nation and economy to which Moscow can turn to recoup its losses.
If this war continues to unfold in a manner that is slow, painful and ugly, China and Russia are likely to establish far better relations with each other than either has with the United States.
But how is China, which is engaged in cultural genocide against its Uyghur minority of 10 million, a racial and ethnic persecution featuring reeducation camps, rapes, forced abortions and sterilizations, a morally superior regime to Putin’s?
THE WAR in Ukraine is the most dangerous international conflict since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Understanding its root causes is essential if we are to prevent it from getting worse and, instead, to find a way to bring it to a close.
There is no question that Vladimir Putin started the war and is responsible for how it is being waged. But why he did so is another matter. The mainstream view in the West is that he is an irrational, out-of-touch aggressor bent on creating a greater Russia in the mould of the former Soviet Union. Thus, he alone bears full responsibility for the Ukraine crisis.
But that story is wrong. The West, and especially America, is principally responsible for the crisis which began in February 2014. It has now turned into a war that not only threatens to destroy Ukraine, but also has the potential to escalate into a nuclear war between Russia and NATO.
The trouble over Ukraine actually started at NATO’s Bucharest summit in April 2008, when George W. Bush’s administration pushed the alliance to announce that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members”. Russian leaders responded immediately with outrage, characterising this decision as an existential threat to Russia and vowing to thwart it. According to a respected Russian journalist, Mr Putin “flew into a rage” and warned that “if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.” America ignored Moscow’s red line, however, and pushed forward to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. That strategy included two other elements: bringing Ukraine closer to the EU and making it a pro-American democracy.
These efforts eventually sparked hostilities in February 2014, after an uprising (which was supported by America) caused Ukraine’s pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, to flee the country. In response, Russia took Crimea from Ukraine and helped fuel a civil war that broke out in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.
The next major confrontation came in December 2021 and led directly to the current war. The main cause was that Ukraine was becoming a de facto member of NATO. The process started in December 2017, when the Trump administration decided to sell Kyiv “defensive weapons”. What counts as “defensive” is hardly clear-cut, however, and these weapons certainly looked offensive to Moscow and its allies in the Donbas region. Other NATO countries got in on the act, shipping weapons to Ukraine, training its armed forces and allowing it to participate in joint air and naval exercises. In July 2021, Ukraine and America co-hosted a major naval exercise in the Black Sea region involving navies from 32 countries. Operation Sea Breeze almost provoked Russia to fire at a British naval destroyer that deliberately entered what Russia considers its territorial waters.
The links between Ukraine and America continued growing under the Biden administration.
MCViewPoint 