SHOCK HEADLINE!!!: Former Pentagon officials have warned that arms makers are exploiting the war in Ukraine to price gouge the Department of Defense. Shay Assad, who worked as a Pentagon contract negotiator for 40 years, told 60 Minutes that such firms overcharge the DoD for everything from “radar and missiles … helicopters … planes … submarines… down to the nuts and bolts.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to visit Washington next week as Congress debates the $24 billion in additional spending on the proxy war in Ukraine that the White House has requested.
The visit hasn’t been officially announced but has been reported by several media outlets, including The Associated Press. Zelensky will stop in the American capital as part of his trip to the US during the UN General Assembly.
Sources told AP that Zelensky will meet President Biden at the White House next Thursday and will also visit Capitol Hill. When he last made the trip in December 2022, Zelensky thanked Congress for all the support but said it wasn’t “enough.”
Zelensky’s next visit comes as support for the proxy war in Ukraine falters among Republican voters. According to a recent poll from CNN, 55% of Americans oppose Congress authorizing more spending on the conflict, including 71% of Republicans who were asked.
In reality Stoltenberg is just stating a well-established fact: contrary to the official western narrative, Putin invaded Ukraine not because he is evil and hates freedom but because no great power ever allows foreign military threats to amass on its borders — including the United States.
During a speech at the EU Parliament’s foreign affairs committee on Thursday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg clearly and repeatedly acknowledged that Putin made the decision to invade Ukraine because of fears of NATO expansionism.
His comments, initially flagged by journalist Thomas Fazi, read as follows:
The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
Yesterday, speaking at the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg admitted that NATO is responsible for deliberately provoking the war in Ukraine:
“President Putin in the autumn of 2021 sent a draft treaty that they wanted…
Stoltenberg made these remarks as part of a general gloat about the fact that Putin invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO expansion and yet the invasion has resulted in Sweden and Finland applying to join the alliance, saying it “demonstrates that when President Putin invaded a European country to prevent more NATO, he’s getting the exact opposite.”
Stoltenberg’s remarks would probably have been classified as Russian propaganda by plutocrat-funded “disinformation experts” and imperial “fact checkers” if it had been said online by someone like you or me, but because it came from the head of NATO as part of a screed against the Russian president it’s been allowed to pass through without objection.
In reality Stoltenberg is just stating a well-established fact: contrary to the official western narrative, Putin invaded Ukraine not because he is evil and hates freedom but because no great power ever allows foreign military threats to amass on its borders — including the United States. That’s why so many western analysts and officials spent years warning that NATO’s actions were going to provoke a war, and yet when war broke out we were slammed with a tsunami of mass media propaganda repeating over and over and over again that this was an “unprovoked invasion”.
It would have been so very, very easy to prevent this horrific war. Off-ramp after off-ramp after off-ramp was passed to get us to where we’re at now. Chance after chance after chance to avoid all this pointless death and misery was passed up, both before 2014 and every year since. The US-centralized power structure knowingly chose this war, and it did so to advance its own interests. If people really, deeply understood this, the entire western empire would collapse.
Standing with our allies against Russian aggression isn't charity. In fact – it's a direct investment in replenishing America’s arsenal with American weapons built by American workers. Expanding our defense industrial base puts America in a stronger position to out-compete China.
It’s the damnedest thing how you’ll get called a Kremlin agent for saying that this war was provoked by NATO expansionism and that it serves US interests, even when NATO openly says this war was provoked by NATO expansionism and US officials keep openly saying that this war serves US interests.
The latest entry in the latter category came in the form of a Thursday tweet by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, which reads, “Standing with our allies against Russian aggression isn’t charity. In fact — it’s a direct investment in replenishing America’s arsenal with American weapons built by American workers. Expanding our defense industrial base puts America in a stronger position to out-compete China.”
Recent surveys have shown that a majority of Americans could not afford to cover a sudden $1,000 emergency. Will Americans connect the dots and realize that the reason they can’t find that $1,000 for an emergency is because the neocons have already sent it to Ukraine?
Ukraine has long been known as among the most corrupt countries on earth and not long ago investigative journalist Seymore Hersh wrote that Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky has embezzled at least $400 million in aid from the American people.
I am not a big fan of Federal Government disaster relief. Too much of the time the money never gets to those who need it most, and too often Washington’s armies of disaster “experts” are more interested in pushing people around than helping them.
Nevertheless, it’s hard to look at recent footage of the devastation in Maui and then hear President Biden tell Congress that he needs another $24 billion for Ukraine. How can this Administration continue to justify tens of billions of dollars for this losing war that is not in our interest while the rest of the United States disintegrates?
The main difference between US presidents often comes down to the narratives that the empire managers who they surround themselves with will use to explain why they need to advance the interests of the empire. Progressive president? You need to kill Syrians to advance human rights. Conservative president? You need to kill Syrians to protect national security.
One has to be careful on their uptake from a Wikipedia entry. The same with NYT, but you already knew that.
Neville Roy Singham’s Wikipedia page is now a mirror of the NYT piece.
None of this was accidental. This was a blatant imperial narrative management operation. There will be more. The New York Times is a shitty militarist propaganda rag that somehow wound up setting the news agenda for the entire western world.
McConnell defends the proxy war in Ukraine: "We haven’t lost a single American… Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons… So it’s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead." pic.twitter.com/xjd3RcVoRb
If people really understood just how much suffering and destruction is unleashed by US foreign policy, they’d stop making such a big deal about the minor differences between two political parties who always come together to support the most destructive US foreign policy decisions.
The human suffering caused by the minor differences in domestic policy between Democrats and Republicans is dwarfed by the suffering caused by foreign policy bipartisanship by orders of magnitude. The ways they are the same are vastly more significant than the ways in which they differ.
The main misconception about US presidents is that they are proactive leaders when they’re really reactive facilitators. They’re not proactively leading the government in accordance with their vision and ideology, they’re responding to and facilitating the various needs of the empire from year to year. That’s what the empire managers in their administrations are doing with their daily intelligence and national security briefings: explaining to them what the needs of the empire are on that day and what must be done to facilitate those needs, using whatever language will make a given president receptive.
The main difference between US presidents often comes down to the narratives that the empire managers who they surround themselves with will use to explain why they need to advance the interests of the empire. Progressive president? You need to kill Syrians to advance human rights. Conservative president? You need to kill Syrians to protect national security.
“Hannity is so blatantly stupid it is astonishing. Nothing in his brain beyond memorized bumper stickers. How embarrassing that this is the best the MSM has to offer…“Hannity is so blatantly stupid it is astonishing. Nothing in his brain beyond memorized bumper stickers. How embarrassing that this is the best the MSM has to offer…“
He doesn’t have to be smart when the CIA is pulling his $tring$.
With Tucker Carlson out at Fox, what remains are the usual neocon “talk radio personalities” drawing large viewership at the network, namely Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and some other lesser names. While long advancing conservative domestic policies and fighting the “culture wars”, their foreign policy messaging really hasn’t changed in decades—having more in common with George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Tom Cotton, or even Barack Obama.
So when someone with the ‘outsider’ views of the fiercely independent Democratic presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr squares up against someone like Hannity (who for years has donned a CIA pin while on air) in a one-on-one interview, fireworks ensue. That’s exactly what happened when the issue of Ukraine became a focal point during a town hall event Tuesday. It also didn’t take long for RFK Jr. to win over the crowd. Hannity wasn’t happy that RFK was “blaming America’s role in this” for the Ukraine crisis…
Kennedy Jr. focused his comments on exposing NATO’s role in pushing Moscow into a corner, given its historic expansion east and turning Ukraine into a proxy, but Hannity sought to interrupt him multiple times
“Because of our pushing the Ukraine into the war—” RFK had begun, before the Fox host interrupted with, “We pushed them into it or did Putin invade?”
“Well, let me answer your question,” replied Kennedy Jr., who then accused the U.S. of sabotaging the Minsk agreements in 2014 and 2015, which aimed to end the Donbas war yet largely failed to stop the fighting between Russian separatists and Ukraine’s armed forces.
“Putin, in good faith, began withdrawing troops from the Ukraine. What happened? We sent Boris Johnson over there to torpedo it because we don’t want peace. We want the war with Russia,” he argued, drawing applause from the audience.
Kennedy then harped on the clearly documented history of NATO expansion east,
The Pentagon inspector general found the arms Washington sent to Kiev did not undergo the required inspections. A report from the inspector general found weapons the US sent to Ukraine in the hands of criminals and on the black market.
The Arms Control Act requires the White House to establish an inspection system for weapons the US sells or gifts to third countries. The law mandates the monitoring continues to the end-use of the weapon. In Ukraine, the embassy in Kiev has been assigned responsibility for monitoring the weapons transfers.
The Department of Defense inspector general report on American weapons transfers to Ukraine from February to September of last year found that legally required monitoring was not taking place. “The DoD is unable to conduct [End Use Monitoring] in Ukraine because completing [End Use Monitoring] in accordance with DoD policy requires in-person access to the defense equipment provided,” it said. “Intelligence methods provide some accountability for observable platforms, such as missiles and helicopters, but smaller items, such as night vision devices, have limited accountability.”
“The DoD OIG found deficiencies in the DoD’s transfer of military equipment to the Government of Ukraine requiring [End Use Monitoring], including Javelin missiles, Javelin Command Launch Units, and night vision devices; and in Ukraine’s security and accountability of US.-provided military equipment requiring [End Use Monitoring],” the report added.
In a section of the report that is heavily redacted, the inspector general listed some cases of American weapons not making it to their intended recipient. The cases that remained unredacted in the report include: a Moscow-influenced criminal organization that procured grande launchers and machine guns, a pro-Kev militia that tried to sell dozens of rifles on the black market, and a group of arms traffickers who were selling weapons and ammunition stolen from the front lines.
In response to questions about the report, a State Department spokesperson admitted that American weapons were being used for illicit purposes in Ukraine. Despite these issues, the spokesperson emphasized that Washington felt the weapons transfers were too important.