PUTIN’S POPULARITY: THE WORST KEPT SECRET ON THE PLANET

Vladimir Putin is arguably the most talked about personality on the planet. He is loathed and loved in what appears equal measure. But is this ratio accurate? The indicators show he is loved by many more than he is hated.

If you read or listen to mainstream news media pundits Vladimir Putin is the most evil man on the planet. If you believe what you read and hear from these sources then your opinion of the man probably goes along these lines; he’s a murderer, his political opponents always meet with a sticky end by being poisoned or otherwise disposed of. You will strongly suspect that he has squirrelled away millions, even billions as he is also a thief. For you Putin is a ruthless dictator and highly likely an insane psychopath who would stab his own grandmother in the back to retain his power. Someone who, in the spur of the moment invaded a helpless Ukraine without the slightest provocation. In short, a man with no redeeming qualities whatsoever who the world would be far better off without.

All of the above also goes for the preponderance, almost 100% of anything said by western politicians. This has been true since 2007. Not between 2000 when he became the president of the Russian Federation and 2007 however. Putin became all these horrific things only seven years into his presidency. Between 2000 and 2007 he was wined and dined, glad-handed by the rich and famous, praised by George W. Bush and greeted with decorous respect by the British royal family. So what changed? To discover what transformed Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin from something of a hero to a horrific comic book villain you need only listen to his address to the high and mighty of the western political elite on February 10th 2007 at the 43rd Munich Security Conference.

 

Having watched the video you may be somewhat confused. Doesn’t he say that Russia would cooperate with the western powers on areas of mutual interest such as nuclear proliferation and international terrorism? Why should the western elites take umbrage at that? But this offer of cooperation fell on deaf ears. Why? Because they were sitting there expecting to hear a different message entirely. What they wanted to hear was that Russia would subordinate itself to western dominance and submit to whatever advice (instructions/commands) it received from those who had won the Cold War. What Putin had pointed out was that the western powers, through their regime change wars had destabilised the world and created an atmosphere of extreme mistrust and anxiety concerning the idea that the West now had virtual carte blanche to do what it liked anywhere it liked and at any time it liked. Putin explained with utmost clarity that Russia would not be lending itself to the western project to dominate all others while acting responsibly to assist cooperatively where mutual interests were involved.

In short Russia would not toe the line, would not say “How high?” when the USA and its allies shouted “Jump!” Russia was going to stay an independent, sovereign nation and make her own decisions depending on the merits of each case as it emerged onto the world stage once again as a great power. All this went down like a lead balloon among the designer-suited assembly in Munich that day. Instead of being a sober Yeltsin and willing pawn to the West Putin had refused to consign Russia to that fate. This was anathema to those who, after 9/11, assumed the whole world would back them to the hilt, no questions asked. Thus, the tables were very much turned against Vladimir Putin and have remained so from that day to this.

So, this is why the political elites of the West loathe Putin and essentially this is why their mouthpieces within western mainstream/legacy media, the politicians’ Rottweilers got busy from 2007 on slandering the hell out of Putin to so constantly demonise him that the minds of just about everyone across the western sphere of influence was conditioned to believe in those highly negative characteristics listed at the head of this commentary.

But lo and behold. What’s this? What do we find in the comments section below just about every video and article concerning this man? What we find are readers and viewers singing his praises and in the most laudatory fashion imaginable. How can this be? Surely this is just wrong? Isn’t this a butcher, a mass murderer, a thief and vile dictator who has his opponents poisoned or otherwise got rid of? But no, the vast majority of those commenting believe none of this. Their opinion has been formed quite separately from the videos, magazines, books, documentaries and films that portray Vladimir Putin in the worst possible light. The opinions we find are quite clearly based on other sources of information, more personal sources such as his speeches, his Q&A sessions, his calm demeanour and apparent deep insight, his love of country and people and most importantly observation of the man over extended periods. He is seen as strong but kind, noble, a man with integrity and vision, a patriot and defender of traditional values. In short, well… they simply love him to bits and wish they had politicians like him in their countries.

The disconnect between the small coterie within the western political and legacy media classes along with those who bow to the needs of the liberal class within certain political parties and the average man and woman in the street is simply enormous when it comes to Vladimir Putin. It is quite something to behold and this gap between those who believe they have an inherent right to rule and those they rule over is extremely pronounced. Of course these few will never bring up this subject and will ignore this discrepancy completely. Only at election times in the nations where the few hold an entirely different view of this kind to the majority of the electorate will we see how this all pans out. Until then Putin’s popularity will almost certainly remain the worst kept secret on the planet.

UKRAINE: WHAT MAY THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS BRING?

The following are speculations on a future yet to unfold. How many of these predictions will come true? How many unexpected events will intervene to prove them wrong?

Currently the Russian military is moving forward at a greater pace than it has since the early days of its special military operation in eastern Ukraine. Towns such as Bakhmut and Avdeevka have fallen, now the army is taking village after village all up and down the line of contact with Ukrainian forces. In addition the Russia military has been hitting targets well to the rear, causing massive disruption to the flow of electricity to important locations, diminishing the effectiveness of Ukraine’s military campaign. Already suffering from diminishing weapon and ammunition supplies and with troop numbers falling in ever greater numbers without an adequate system of replacement the Ukrainian military is becoming weaker and weaker.

The Russian military is pushing harder and harder seeking to weaken then break through enemy lines through the increasing use of glide bombs, guided missiles, Grad munitions and drones. Unless the Ukrainian military has obtained increased supplies via the ongoing NATO war games on its border it appears very likely to crack before very long. Until now Ukrainian death squads composed of the most extreme elements of the neo-Nazi cadre in Ukraine have forced Ukrainian troops to remain in position at the point of a gun. When morale finally drops to critical levels, and Russian targeting of Ukrainian positions reaches even greater levels of pinpoint accuracy, will these Nazis manage to hold the line?

Within Russia the military industrial complex left over from the Soviet era has been expanded many times over since 2022. Shell production, tank, drone and the manufacture of guided bombs along with the creation of new innovations in the field of warfare is going on apace. Alongside this the Russian military is said to be gaining an influx of some 1,400 volunteers per day. The size of the Russian army is said to be around one million three hundred thousand and due to be expanded to some one million six hundred thousand. Training of new recruits is delivered over many months and with due care to create a professional army that can match any other worldwide.

The Russians have learnt invaluable lessons on the battlefield since February of 2022 and are now in a position to use all experience gained and lessons learned to deal a crushing blow to the Ukrainian military when the time is right. On the Ukrainian side the likelihood is that almost every professional soldier, most of them having been trained in NATO nations are either dead or injured so severely that they will not again be seen on the battlefield. Recruiters attempting to fill the gaps left by them are snatching men off the streets and attempting to reprehend them as they try to sneak across the border into Romania. Those who have been sent to the line of contact now have an average age of 43 and in a great many cases are mere cannon fodder, their military training rudimentary.

What does all this bode for the future? Having a brain akin to that of Einstein is hardly required to prophesy on this question. The facts speak for themselves.

Unless the Ukrainian regime has been stockpiling a massive horde of military equipment, missiles, ammunition and has seen a huge influx of sheep dipped NATO officers and men in recent months the answer is clear. Russia will continue to pummel Ukrainian arms dumps and energy production centres while taking village after village across the battle lines. A breakthrough around the central Bakhmut/Avdeevka region appears very likely. With the Ukrainian forces having little recourse to air power, having a massively weakened military force and with Russia having taken out the majority of Ukraine’s air defence there is little stop this eventuality. Only some well-hidden supplies of all three can present a problem to the Russians.

When is a major Russian offensive likely to start?

Currently the ground in eastern Ukraine is extremely muddy after the thawing process that has been taking place over the last month or so. The drying out process will be well under way by mid-May. By July the ground ought to be sufficiently hard to take the kind of massive tank assault that would be expected during the expected offensive. Therefore, either in mid-May or early June we might see Russia begin its great push forward to break through Ukrainian lines, seeking in due course to take the cities of Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporozhye and Kharkov. Whether Kiev and Odessa are intended to be liberated from Ukrainian regime control in this first wave of the offensive is less certain however, if the first three are taken the fall of Odessa and Kiev can surely not be far behind.

In the event of the three cities above being taken if not all five it would surely bring about a huge increase in pressure upon Zelensky’s presidency (due to run its course on May 20th) if not the entire regime. If he and they survive the massive pressure that will undoubtedly stem from these defeats it is almost inevitable that Lvov will become the new seat of power within the rump state of Ukraine that will remain. Those in the USA, if they have not at that time delivered the 61 billion dollars of aid, will surely wash their hands of Zelensky and his people once and for all. The idea that he has the ability to push the Russian military back in even the slightest degree will be seen quite clearly as a pipe dream, which it always was in fact.

If the Zelensky regime falls as a result of Russia’s ‘greatest summer offensive’ all bets will then be off regarding future eventualities. The most likely consequence of all is that a) Protectorates are set up to manage various sectors of rump Ukraine until b) elections are held for president and government. It is certain that Russia-neutral, if not wholly Russia-positive candidates would win so thoroughly sick of being at war would the remaining Ukrainian population be. In the east Russia would set to work in the eight regions that would then be part of the Russian Federation. All manner of infrastructure would be as speedily as possible set in place with labour arriving every day from the Ukrainian protectorates seeking gainful employment.

The European Union would be left with the sole responsibility for putting some semblance of stability into the protectorate areas causing even greater outflows of European taxpayer funds into building a liveable, economically viable space in western (rump) Ukraine. The USA, freed of all ownership of the ‘Ukraine Problem’, will concentrate its attentions once again on undermining China, quite possibly courting Russia in an effort to split the two apart. Putin is extremely unlikely to be seduced by this obvious tactic and will continue to grow the Russian economy, bolstered by its hugely increased reputation in winning out against the entire West in Ukraine.

THE TRAGEDY OF UKRAINIANS AS A TOOL OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

 

The West, led by the USA, is conducting a proxy war against Russia using the Ukrainian people as an expendable asset. For how much longer will Ukrainians suffer under the rule of U.S. puppet Zelensky?

The political and media elites of the USA, UK and EU are conducting a war to maintain their relevance, a relevancy underpinned by the historic dominance of the West. It may be hard to believe that these elites could be so thoroughly cynical that they could contemplate pursuing a policy where hundreds of thousands die amidst a scenario of mass destruction for the benefit of themselves but this is exactly as it appears. Only the Nazis during the second world war could be said to be more cynical in the pursuit of their own war aims.

As you read this commentary the Ukrainian authorities are using their army to shell the civilian population of Belgorod in Russia, day after day and night after night. There are no military targets in Belgorod, it is a civilian town plain and simple. Yet, since last Christmas the Ukrainians have mercilessly targeted it killing innumerable civilians including several children. You will have noticed no doubt that there has been zero outcry concerning these blatantly terrorist actions across western mainstream media. This absence reveals an implicit support for the targeting of the civilian population in Belgorod and is absolutely shameful.

If Belgorod was an isolated and inexcusable case this would be bad enough, however this behaviour has a long and bloody track record stretching all the way back to the early months of 2014. Back then, after installing a military siege of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of eastern Ukraine the Ukrainian army and radicals bearing swastika tattoos and insignia, a campaign of mass shelling of the civilians in these regions began. To date some 15,000 to 17,000 have died and the shelling of these primarily civilian populations continues to this day. Yet do we hear condemnations of the Ukrainian army and its extremist militia helpers by the BBC, CNN, MSNBC or any others across the western mainstream media sphere? We do not and have not since the shelling began in 2014.

What we have heard instead from these and other western mainstream media outlets are claim after claim that Russia has engaged in atrocities against the civilian population of Ukraine. These claims are made without any proper, independent investigation having been carried out and against all of the common sense factors mitigating against these claims being true. One of these factors concerns the reason the Russian military has been sent into Ukraine in the first place. This is the goal of protecting the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine from the extreme hatred and violent intent of the ultranationalist population of western Ukraine.

An example of the western media fixing on the Russians as the culprits regarding the mass death of civilians is the incident which occurred early in the conflict in the city of Kramatorsk, a city with a primarily Russian-speaking population. A large number of people had gathered at the main train station hoping to take a train out of the city and away from the front lines. At least one missile hit near the crowd causing many casualties. Cui bono, who benefits? Russia, that is seeking in its campaign to protect such Russian-speakers from Ukrainian missiles and mortar shells? Or the Ukrainian radicals who see all Russian-speakers as subhumans to be destroyed or driven out from Ukraine?

Another example was the destruction of the most popular theatre in Mariupol while a large number of Mariupol residents sheltered inside. Mariupol is another city of the Donbass region that is predominantly Russian-speaking. Once again there is no earthly reason why Russia would wish to attack the people it is seeking to liberate from the yoke of western Ukrainian rule and domination. 

In both of these cases and in the case of the mass atrocity committed in Bucha, there are no good reasons why the Russians would perpetrate such crimes against humanity. In the case of Bucha the evidence shows that the victims were those who had previously accepted Russian military rations from the Russian soldiers who had occupied the region. In many cases the ration boxes were strewn near the bodies of those murdered, apparently by Ukrainian special forces. A white armband was also in evidence, something the Ukrainians placed on the arms of those they labelled collaborators. Yet the mainstream media and politicians across the West put the blame on the Russian army who had retreated from Bucha days before.

Ask yourself four questions in particular regarding these events.

1. Cui bono, who benefits?

2. What sense would it have for Russia to target those it had come to liberate?

3. What could be hoped to be gained by Russia while suffering reputational loss?

4. Russia, it is claimed, uses missiles to target civilians. These are expensive missiles in short supply. Where is the sense of doing this while the drawbacks are obvious?

Russia can ill-afford reputational damage either at home or in the West, so why would the Russian military command risk such reputational damage by using extremely expensive missiles to target the Russian-speaking population they have mounted their campaign in part to protect?

The answers to all these questions should be obvious… except for the fact that a never-ending stream of invective from the western mainstream demands that contrary to all logic it was always the Russians who did wrong and never the Ukrainians. This conditioning of western populations has been incessant since Russia began its military engagement with the Ukrainian regime’s forces. In fact it stretches back far further, back to the year 2007 when Vladimir Putin told the assembled dignitaries and political elites of the western world that Russia would not be commanded by any single or group of nations but would tread its own, independent path forward. While reiterating that Russia would cooperate on all issues of international concern such as nuclear proliferation or international terrorism it would remain a thoroughly sovereign nation not subject to outside command or domination.

Putin’s speech in Munich in 2007 was greeted by dismay among the gathering of western elites that February day. The willingness of Putin and Russia to assist on matters of greatest need internationally fell on deaf ears. What was heard and what caused western elite shock and dismay was that Russia had emerged from its poverty-stricken status as an easily manipulated entity and was unwilling to take orders from the West. From that February day onward nothing Putin could say would mend the fences that were smashed during his calmly delivered speech. He became public enemy number one in the West when before he had been largely accepted as the manipulable president of a weak and manipulable Russia.

Putin was slandered from Munich onward. Newspaper and magazine articles began to portray him as a dangerous monster, almost a new and perhaps even more dangerous “dictator” than Hitler. Whereas before Munich, from 2000 to 2207 George W. Bush said he saw a good man in Putin’s eyes, where Putin and his wife were invited to meet with the British royal family in Buckingham Palace and many other positive occasions of acceptance were enacted, after 2007 he was suddenly portrayed as a demon, a thief, a murderer, a dictator and in essence the world’s most evil man. This depiction has continued to be the standard fare within both media and political circles in the West ever since. 

The name of Vladimir Putin became fixed in the mind of most westerners as one to be feared and loathed even while the deadly siege of the Donbass regions of Donetsk and Lugansk were pummelled day and night by the Ukrainian army with the full, and indeed fulsome support of the entire political and mainstream media classes of the western world. Ukraine had, in 2014 become fixed upon as the ideal way to bring Putin down. Ukraine was to be drawn away from Russian influence (even though half the country spoke Russian) toward the West provoking and enticing Russia to respond. Ukraine was to be the chosen battering ram against Putin in the West’s desire to collapse the entire system of governance in Russia.

It was clearly thought by the political elites of the West supported fully by western mainstream media that the plan to make Russia expend extensive financial resources militarily in Ukraine (both blood and treasure being expended)  while bringing down the Russian economy and banking system through sanctions would result in the toppling of Putin and his subsequent replacement. The Russian campaign would be stopped in its tracks through its financial unsustainability. Russia, hit from all sides due to the effects of the sanctions would have to capitulate, the Russian people would subsequently revolt against him, and Putin would be gone. However, things went catastrophically wrong and it slowly but surely became clear that the very opposite to what was planned was occurring.

When some of the largest, most influential and resource-hungry nations in the world failed to come onboard with the western plan it must surely have become clear to the western elites that they were in serious trouble. When the Russian economy began to stabilise once more with internal solutions found to external threats and attacks this was the time for the West to rethink its plan and negotiate for peace. Instead they doubled down. Negotiations for peace came very near to a successful conclusion soon after Russia’s military campaign began. This was first in Belarus then continued in Istanbul. The essence of a settlement that could bring peace was within reach. Just as this hopeful scenario emerged requiring additional discussion the western elites stepped in and brought all such discussions to a halt. Boris Johnson arrived in Kiev bearing news from the western sponsors of Ukraine that virtually unlimited finance and weaponry would be supplied. Ukraine was to continue the war and, with western help, win.

This secondary ploy can now also seen to have failed. The great Ukrainian summer offensive which was supposed to carry all before it and strike a mortal blow to Russian plans failed abysmally. Ukrainian troops were dying and being injured in their droves. The Soviet-era weaponry Ukraine had used was now all gone along with the most professional of its troops. Air defence was bit by bit destroyed by a Russian air force which gained air superiority. The supplies of munitions as well as most other military resource to Ukraine from the West dwindled as western manufacturing could not keep up with Ukraine’s needs. Meanwhile Russia grew in strength financially, economically and militarily. Now, as you read this, Ukraine is in a truly parlous condition. Not enough manpower for the army. Not enough ammunition for its guns. Not enough air defence to protect itself. Not enough money to pay its bureaucracy. Riven by corruption. Its future as a viable state in increasing doubt. Its troops dying and being grievously injured in ever increasing numbers.

All this while western political elites continue to double down and call for the sacrifice of ever more Ukrainians, unwilling in the face of ever-increasing defeat to let go of their disastrously back-firing plan to undermine the president of Russia. The insanity of attempting the same thing time after time and experiencing the same result is apparently completely lost on them. Determined to use this tool that they have made of Ukraine they double, triple and quadruple down, totally unwilling to recognise their defeat or contemplate the fact of their continuing defeat. No matter how many more hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian die or suffer terrible injury they appear dedicated like a human juggernaut to collectively bring ever more tragedy to that benighted nation.

THE DONBASS DEATH SIEGE & CONSPIRACY OF MEDIA SILENCE

A vast, unconscionable injustice has been perpetrated in eastern Europe since 2014 in which some 15,000 souls have perished with minimal reporting on the fact by western mass media. How can this be?

It began in the early months of 2014. The American-approved authorities who took over from the democratically-elected president and government after the Maidan insurrection sent the Ukrainian army to deal with an uprising in the Donbass that rose in response to the undermining of Ukraine’s democratic system. Along with a somewhat reluctant army came the ultra-nationalist radicals who had been responsible for the deaths of some seventeen lightly-armed young policemen during the course of the Maidan riots.

On arrival in the Donbass where a largely peaceful revolt had taken place with government offices taken over the army arrived planning to lay siege to the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. There were many instances of heroism where large groups of civilians attempted to block the way of Ukrainian army tanks attempting to reason with the soldiers inside. However, steadily these armed forces prevailed and began setting up road blocks on the primary roads to the major conurbations. The army had come in force with orders that clearly demanded that it return the power of the new authorities over the area by whatever means proved necessary.

Thus it was that the conditions were set up for an inevitable conflict rather than the negotiated settlement the people of Donetsk and Lugansk sought. Their goal was autonomy within a state now taken over by a US-supported and essentially US-controlled faction who had assumed the levers of power in their land. This faction included elements stemming from the most radically nationalistic members of the extreme right, people who used the Nazi salute and whose forebears had joined Nazi battalions composed of Ukrainians seeking to eliminate Russians and Russian influence from Ukraine and further to assist in Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union.

In the Donbass the Russian-speaking majority honoured the memory of how the Soviet Red Army had liberated them from the Nazis, there were many mixed marriages of Russian-speaking Ukrainians and Russians, the nearby border with Russia was essentially open oftentimes with no border guards in attendance or checks made. In essence there was scarcely any difference in culture, heredity, tradition or lifestyle between the Ukrainians and Russians in these Ukrainian regions bordering Russia. They were where the heavy industry and mining took place that supplied a significant proportion of Ukraine’s income. The people there knew well how the most radical of those Ukrainians living in western Ukraine saw them, as ‘Moskals’, as Russians, and they knew very well what those radicals wished to do to them.

No doubt the principal American figures involved in assisting the Maidan insurrection took little, if any account of how Ukraine was in fact a nation split into two quite distinct parts, the West with its ethnic Ukrainians looking west and the Russian-speakers in the east looking eastward. The animosity felt by a cult-like following of radicals in western Ukrainians toward anything remotely Russian was perhaps discounted if considered at all. No doubt the overwhelming desire to draw Ukraine as a whole into the western orbit caused all other considerations to be relegated to a very low priority, if they were even considered at all. In line with most other US-inspired projects of the past the planning for any aftermath of the initial acts designed to establish a successful outcome would have been sketchy if present at all.

The political leadership of the USA with the Europeans in tow had long sought the entry of Ukraine into NATO. This had been formally declared at the Bucharest NATO summit of 2008 and, along with pressuring the Ukrainian leadership to grow ever closer to the EU, the fault lines ignored between the two distinct loyalties in Ukraine grew. Prior to this push by the Americans and Europeans Ukraine had been a relatively peaceful nation where the democratic process delivered elections monitored by electoral officials/inspectors where the results provided a balance of power. If you view any of the maps of distribution of parties elected in presidential and general elections prior to the events of 2013-14 you will see that both west and east Ukraine were represented clearly. The split between east and west Ukraine could not possibly be more obvious than in those images, one of which you can view at the foot of this commentary.

In any event, the Maidan insurrection took place with all its bloody months of violence. However peacefully it may have begun it soon descended to levels of arson, murder and full scale violence that would never have been tolerated in any western city. The police were attacked with Molotov Cocktails, beaten with heavy chains, clubs of all kinds, paving stones, toxic sprays and even at one point with a fork lift truck. As related above, some seventeen young policemen, armed only with a shield and baton, died. In most case they merely attempted to hold the line against further acts of ultra-violence by the mob, many of whom sported Nazi symbology on their bodies or the shields they carried. Ultimately the mob won after a false flag attack killed many of their number. The democratically-elected president and government fell. The political elites of the USA and EU had won the day and their carefully selected placemen took over.

Returning to the situation after Maidan and the response of the Russian-speakers of the east to the insurrection described briefly above, and the arrival of the Ukrainian army to deal with those seeking to protect their way of life and language, things quickly descended into a stand-off. Instead of any attempt to use the establishment of a dialogue with those who had taken power in the east the new west-installed authorities decided to use brute force. What happened next was inevitable, especially as the radical elements who had arrived with the army had an all-consuming hatred for Russians and the Russian-speaking Ukrainians of the eastern regions. Genocide and ethnic-cleansing was their goal, they had no interest in allowing a peaceful process of any kind.

After the initial, small-scale events of violence which initially took place, whether it was the radical element alone or by the hand of Ukrainian troops also, mortar shells began to rain down on the villages, towns and cities of Donetsk and Lugansk regions. These mortar shells were clearly not guided by any targeting data, they simply flew undirected and hit whatever was in their path. These consisted often of the highest structures, those such as the Soviet-era residential blocks, hospitals and schools. Shells which missed such buildings landed at random along the streets and in the town centres of urban conurbations destroying lives, homes and livelihoods at random. The resulting images were truly shocking, children, civilian men and women, the elderly, no one was spared. The horror of these attacks was truly unconscionable and occurred day after day and were especially horrific in the years 2014 and 2015. Ultimately some 15,000 died. Yet reporting in the West was minimal.

Western reports of the deaths taking place made no mention of the siege of Donetsk and Lugansk. Every report was careful to mention Russia in a negative light creating the impression that all wrong was on the side of the Russians and Russian-speakers. It did not suit the narratives of the western leadership to report the facts impartially, neither did it suit the overall western ambition to force the entirety of Ukraine into its orbit. A killing field where only one side was perpetually guilty and innocents could be slaughtered with impunity had been set up. The Ukrainian army and its neo-Nazi elements had a free hand to do whatever they wished without fear of the atrocities they were committing being reported. All was to be framed in the context of “Russian aggression” and the falsehood that “Russian invaded Ukraine”. Russians were increasingly arriving to help protect the Russian-speaking populations, that much was true, but there was no Russian aggression, no Russian invasion.

The killing of civilians on a daily and nightly basis by the Ukrainian army and those neo-Nazi radicals increasingly incorporated within it has continued since those early months of 2014 until the present day. Those being killed are viewed as subhumans by the most radical of those who have terrorised them for so long now. They make no distinction between infants, teenagers, adults or the elderly. For them all should be killed or else driven out from Ukraine and Ukraine being only for the ethnic Ukrainians. This is why mention is made of genocide. The level of hatred felt by the ultranationalist radicals is truly at a level where they would gladly eradicate all Russian-speaking Ukrainians. And the Ukrainians of the east have known this very well and are very well aware of the historical record on this, stretching all the way back to the years those of the west arrived in league with the Nazis during world war two.

For western reporters, self-censoring, knowing what was acceptable to report and what was not, a decision had to be made, keep supplying what was expected, or risk the consequences of your actions. The vast majority, employed as they were by mainstream news organisations towed the line, in fact not a single correspondent, reporter or journalist that we know of rocked the boat. If any one of their number attempted to, and no doubt found their submission rejected we do not know, but at any rate all reports published conformed to the selfsame line, it was all the fault of the Russians. This is how the conflict in eastern Ukraine was reported and it is how events in Ukraine are reported now. Western national interests, to draw Ukraine into the western orbit governs all reporting across the western world and without exception.

Russia has many goals for its special military operation including the denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine along with ensuring Ukraine never joins NATO and thus presenting an ever increasing danger on its doorstep. But a primary goal has been from the start and all through the Minsk process seeking a peaceful resolution to the situation in the Donbass, has been to shelter the Russian-speaking majority in the Donbass from harm and provide them with a guarantee of future security within which to maintain their traditional way of life and language. These goals are being achieved, slowly in some eyes but surely and current the primary achievements are in the areas where the shelling of the civilian population of Donetsk City has been most prevalent. These areas are now being cleared of those who have been causing the misery of Russian-speaking civilians for so long now, misery that was cynically hidden from western view by its entire mainstream media.

WHY WOULD RUSSIA RELENT & ABANDON ITS NATIONAL SECURITY?

 

Can you think of a single good reason why a nation should countenance an aggressive, heavily-armed organisation, with a known track record of doing massive destructive damage, squatting on its doorstep?

The answer to the question above is of course that Russia would never do this. Ask yourself, would any nation with sufficient ability to resist do so? The national security of a country is quite clearly the first duty of any government. Protecting your population from danger is the number one responsibility of those charged with governing. When danger approaches your border it is the solemn responsibility of those in charge of any nation to drive that danger back and assert the strongest possible defence against any potential future threats. Russia has been doing exactly this in recent years.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was left without an enemy to justify its existence with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Instead of being gradually disbanded and/or merged with the regular armies of its member states it remained intact. Since the fall of the Soviet Union it has been an active belligerent against both Serbia and Libya. Though NATO’s use as a potent weapon against these nations many western politicians claim that Russia has no need to fear NATO’s encroachment to its borders. The assertion is constantly made that NATO is merely a defensive rather than an offensive organisation. You may ask whether the people of Serbia (still protesting this week 25 years after the NATO attacks) and those of Libya are likely to agree.

Gorbachev was certainly assured that NATO would not move an inch toward the then Soviet Union upon his agreement that there would be no barriers placed upon the reunification of Germany. He was in fact assured by almost a dozen high officials from western nations at the time. However, tranche after tranche of ex-Warsaw Pact nations joined NATO in the years thereafter. 

Newly Declassified Documents: Gorbachev Told NATO Wouldn't Move Past East German Border

Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was given a host of assurances that the NATO alliance would not expand past what was then the East German border in 1990 according to new declassified documents.

Gorbachev only accepted German reunification—over which the Soviet Union had a legal right to veto under treaty—because he received assurances that NATO would not expand after he withdrew his forces from Eastern Europe from James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, West German foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British foreign minister Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major, and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629

The fact of NATO encroachment toward the Russian border was bemoaned in a phone call in 1998 to the man recognised as the primary architect of the West’s containment policy regarding the Soviet Union, George Kennan:

Foreign Affairs; Now a Word From X

''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.''

''What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was,'' added Mr. Kennan.

''I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.”

''And Russia's democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we've just signed up to defend from Russia,'' said Mr. Kennan. ''It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong.''

''This has been my life, and it pains me to see it so screwed up in the end.''

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html

In the light of NATO’s attacks on both Serbia and Libya, Mr Kennan’s comments above and the release of previously classified documents confirming the pledges to Gorbachev it is clear that Russia had many reasons to be concerned regarding NATO’s potentially highly destabilising effect upon its security. A primary concern was the strong likelihood that nuclear weapons would eventually be stationed within the nations on Russia’s doorstep. This eventuality would leave almost no time at all to initiate the vital checks concerning whether in fact some mistake had been made thus averting a full scale nuclear war. The close proximity of such nuclear weapons to Russian cities such as Moscow would present an enormous and unconscionable threat to Russian security. This simply COULD NOT be allowed to come to pass.

So it was in 2008 at the Bucharest NATO summit that George Bush Jnr pushed through the statement that both Georgia and Ukraine would be invited to join NATO at some future point in time. William Burns, now director of the CIA said at the time in a famous memo that Ukraine joining NATO was “The reddest of red lines for the Russians”. This decision by Bush and his people was pushed through and agreed upon despite opposition by several national leaders including Angela Merkel. 

We are now seeing the utter folly of this decision and subsequent regular statements by successive heads of NATO reiterating this decision apparently quite oblivious of the certain consequences. Naturally it was in NATO’s continued existence to make as big an enemy of Russia as possible. This despite the fact that Putin had broached the idea of Russia joining NATO in conversations with then president Bill Clinton. Conversations that led nowhere as the western powers apparently saw Russia as weak and an opportunity existed to exploit her for their purposes, one of which was clearly to maintain and grow NATO.

All of the above should serve to show clearly why Vladimir Putin and the Russian government have extremely valid concerns regarding NATO and its arriving directly on its border, potentially with nuclear weapons within Georgia and Ukraine, as successive western leaders have desired. These many reasons all show why Russia will not and absolutely cannot relent in its special military operation in Ukraine. To do so would be to totally abandon concern for its national security and that of its entire population.

IN PANIC MODE: THE CRUMBLING EDIFICE OF WESTERN POWER

What can explain the increasing recklessness of the western policy of zero diplomacy toward Russia regarding Ukraine? What lies behind this seemingly relentless juggernaut toward nuclear war?

We can expect almost any form of madness from the western powers at this point. Their grip on the world and upon reality itself is in a state of fast decline. The weaker their position grows the more desperate and reckless are their solutions. Each decay in their long-held dominance over the nations they have become long accustomed to manipulating to their benefit drives them into ever greater recklessness. It is clear to see where their panic could lead all of us… but do they care, so fixated as they are upon themselves?

It cannot have escaped the notice of advisers to those who hold the levers of powers in the West that the omens looked anything but good for the retention of the vast power being held there. It must have been at least three decades ago now that they began warning that unless something radical was done western elite power was destined to atrophy and die, and that the state of global dominance they had held since WWII would be totally lost by the mid 21st century.

What to do? Gracefully submit to what appeared to be inevitable? Or fight tooth and claw like some dying animal against a world that even though it had not yet fully turned against them was certainly destined to do so? Their hopes were quite clearly invested in the second option as we have seen over the decades since the stark reality of their position became obvious. Once China began to massively expand its economic power base it became very obvious that the position of superiority and manipulative dominance the West had become used to was hardly likely to be retained. The only last and slim chance to maintain their position was for the western powers to seek by all means necessary to undermine the sources of that power.

Russia had become an economic basket case through a long campaign to destroy her by endlessly encouraging the arms race and all the other attendant wastefulness that came with the Cold War. A powerful economy had been encouraged to fritter its wealth away on high levels of military spending, the space race and a gargantuan bureaucracy seeking internal control against an external enemy. That external enemy prevailed and brought about the internal weakening necessary to inspire the revolt necessary to bring the entire country and its satellites to their knees.

Then along came Vladimir Putin.

From the year 2000 until early 2007 it appeared that Vladimir Putin could be safely tolerated by the West, a rather grey bureaucrat who would preside over a once great nation that was now being brought to heel by an army of western advisers. In February of 2007 in the city of Munich Putin made it crystal clear to the assembled western elites that they had made a severe miscalculation. Russia was not to be a tame lapdog for the West, nor any kind of take anything. Russia was going to be a powerful, independent-minded, sovereign nation. One that would take responsibility for cooperating with the western powers on all areas requiring international agreement such as nuclear proliferation and international terrorism, but would not be controlled nor directed by them. In other words, Russia would not be their proxy but would once again be a proud and self-confident nation that steered its own path forward.

In those early months of 2007 Putin’s words were greeted with both anger and dismay. Since the events of 9/11 all nations were required to submit to U.S. command with no questions asked. The project to eliminate all nations having a problem with that was already underway. What Putin was telling them was in direct opposition to a requirement that the western leaders had agreed to be an obvious necessity, America was to be supported to the hilt by all nations now in light of 9/11 and without question as world leader so as to wipe all traces of opposition from the entire planet. Putin was refusing to get on that bus. This was simply unacceptable.

Over the years since Putin made his Munich address the strength of the Russian economy was seen to increase and saw, with that increase, the emergence of a nation fast regaining its pride and power. The state of anxiety within the ranks of the western powers grew to ever greater levels while innumerable forms of attack upon the name of Vladimir Putin were seen from 2007 onwards until the demonisation process regarding him was all but complete. That Russia was not going to play ball when the western powers had already the problems of China’s ever growing economic success on their plate was a source of anxiety bordering on panic. Both must be destroyed. But how?

The conjoined policies designed to undermine, weaken and ultimately replace the structures of governance in both Russia and China appear to have been formulated in stages, the first of these occurring immediately after 9/11. The initial targets set out for regime change were of course Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria along with Iran at some point but China was undoubtedly part of the ultimate solution devised. Russia at that time was still a basket case with the new man Putin appearing too weak to effect any major difference. That changed in the year 2007 as we have seen. After all the misadventures in the Middle East by the USA and its proxies the heightened desperation levels began to fix the focus on Russia. Russia must be brought to heel. How should this be brought about?

Endless pressure denying any way out to Russia was the process decided upon by the West to deal a blow to the second most area of opposition to western global hegemony. Thus, in the years from 2005 or so leading up to 2013-14 Ukraine became a primary target with which to “get” Russia. Five billion dollars were spent via NGOs within Ukraine and via the U.S. embassy in Kiev to create enough resistance within the country to initiate an insurrection. The European Union played its part to the hilt also along with the USA and UK in exercising pressure against the Ukrainian president and government that would eventually bring about the violent rioting on Kiev’s Maidan Square to bring them down.

By the means above, through turning Ukraine into a western ally on Russia’s border, one which would ultimately become a member of NATO it was well known that Russia would be thrown into a situation that could be levered to its destruction. As we can see now however, this entire plan failed catastrophically. Russia did, finally, after a near decade of attempting to find a peaceful way through, finally took the bait and invaded Ukraine on February 24th 2022, and it appeared the West’s plan had every chance of success. Russia would be brought to its knees again in a replay of the Cold War. It had been relentlessly pressured down one path, that of military conflict with a now de facto NATO power, Ukraine and the West would now destroy Putin’s power base with an overwhelming array of economic and financial weapons.

Unfortunately for the West things have not turned out as planned. Russia was able to withstand all initial assaults upon it and further turn them to its advantage. More than this, the solutions Russia found resulting in the failure of western plans, instead produced debilitating effects across the economies of the West, primarily those of the European Union. Plus Russia began quite obviously to win the conflict in Ukraine, another outcome that was not contemplated by the western planners. Russia was to be held in a state of war yes, one where it was to be bankrupted along with the effect of western sanctions, but for Russia to win out was not part of the plan, Russia was to be bankrupted causing a massive revolt of the Russian people, regime change and a speedy defeat for Russia in Ukraine.

Coming up to present time we see the results of a growing western desperation to eliminate all those failing to support it or opposing it after 9/11 after each policy decided upon fails to reach a successful conclusion. Afghanistan a disaster. Iraq not much better. Libya in chaos with an unpredictable future. Syria saved from becoming an Islamist caliphate by the intervention of Russia and now the Ukraine policy going disastrously wrong. Meanwhile China continues to maintain a position of growing economic strength with the USA’s Taiwan policy remaining frustratingly impotent. It isn’t hard to imagine the level of frustration bordering upon outright panic that is now fuelling the ever more desperate “solutions” now being contemplated by the West.

Will western elites, now in outright panic mode continue their efforts to shore up the crumbling edifice of their remaining power? Or will the seemingly inexorable rise of those seeking a world where power is balanced due to multipolarity through BRICS and other institutions prevail? All hangs in the balance, however no one should underestimate the willingness of the western political elites to put their interests first even to the extent of being willing to countenance having no world at all rather than a world they can no longer control.

WHAT IS THE REAL REASON FOR THE WEST’S FEAR OF RUSSIA?

The fear of Russia invading Europe & the Baltic States is being spread far & wide by western political and media elites. Are we hearing a true account of elite anxieties, or do they hide some deeper fear?

These days you hear a lot of chatter across various media sources and amongst western politicians regarding the danger to the West of Russia. Lurid stories regarding Russia finishing with Ukraine and then invading and occupying the nations of Europe and the Baltic States are rife. How realistic are these warnings?

If you listen to Professor John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago on this subject you will hear him say there is no basis for the assertions above. Professor Mearsheimer studies great power politics and has been an active commentator on the war in Ukraine since as early as 2015. His branch of study falls within what is called the ‘Realist School’. From Wikipedia, he is an American political scientist and international relations scholar who belongs to the realist school of thought.

Professor Mearsheimer points to all the indications that Russia is solely focused on Ukraine and indeed on only a particular region of Ukraine known as the Donbass. This is a primarily Russian-speaking region that shares a long border with the Russian Federation. Mearsheimer points to the relatively low number of Russian troops that have been assigned to the present campaign and to the fact that Russia has not mounted the kind of campaign in Ukraine that the Americans mounted in Iraq for instance. The troop numbers are too low to take, hold and occupy the entirety of Ukraine, therefore how could Russia possibly take the whole of Europe and the Baltic States with such low troop numbers? In addition Mearsheimer states that there is not a single indication that Russia has this intention.

Why then do we hear this scare story being spread far and wide in the West? What might be behind it, the true reason for the West’s fear of Russia?

Factors to keep in mind:

1. The economic rise, and potential for economic rise, of nations who have remained outside the orbit of western influence, such nations include Russia and China, band also Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and, until recently (and remaining broadly unaligned) Libya. Others such as Saudi Arabia have recently moved away from alignment with the West along with a growing number of African nations. This is threat number one.

2. The events of 9/11 made it imperative for the United States to reassert its domination across the world, strengthening its ability to control potential dangers to itself through close surveillance and an increase in levers of economic manipulation. A redoubled effort to insert itself within nations through to have influence within them by all means possible was imperative. Besides these soft power activities the willingness to use hard power has also been clearly seen in the many regime change operations that have been conducted since 9/11. With the failure of many of the regime change operations (such as that in Afghanistan) U.S. influence can be seen slipping rather than increasing. This is threat number two.

3. Related to 1. and 2. above is the shaping up of a multipolar world scenario with multiple nations now gravitating around both China and Russia. This trend runs contrary to U.S. goals regarding having greater influence with which to spot and eliminate potential 9/11-type threats to it emerging. How can you impose effective surveillance on nations where you are not embedded as the elite or within that nation’s elites? You cannot. And the ultimate goal post-9/11 was to have worldwide surveillance right down to the most intimate details regarding telecommunications, internet, email and interpersonal relationships. To be able to spy to a near universal degree was the goal sought to keep the USA safe in perpetuity. With nations where it sought elimination and replacement of political elites growing stronger economically and in terms of their influence we see this goal becoming harder, not easier to attain. This is threat number three.

The USA and its allies such as the UK and most of the EU states cannot wage regime change wars against the primary states mentioned above in any direct way. China and Russia are both states with sophisticated nuclear weapons at their disposal. To use tactics similar to those employed against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya is unthinkable. Another way to achieve U.S. goals and eliminate fears 1. 2. and 3. Had to be devised. And of course it was perceived that though the post-9/11 goals had to be achieved as soon as possible a head on charge against both Russia and China would be folly. Therefore a strategy was devised whereby one would be taken on semi-directly while the other would be tackled by a more nuanced means of weakening pressure.

The plan for Russia

Russia was to be brought to a state of economic calamity by a two-pronged approach. It was to be enticed by unrelenting pressure to do what we saw on February 24th 2022, namely cross the Russo-Ukrainian border and invade Ukraine. No way out was to be left for Russia but this outcome, no Minsk Accords where a peaceful means of resolution to the Donbass problem would be allowed to succeed, no appeals for a new European security architecture for all by Russia would be given the time of day, instead all would ultimately be rejected to initiate the planned for conflict. This was to massively drain Russia of financial resources and weaken it substantially. Concurrently a massive array of financial and economic sanctions would deliver the crucial body blow to collapse Russia’s ability to serve its people who would then rise up and achieve the regime change the USA and its allies sought.

The plan for China

Just as Russia was being ‘dealt with’ China would be submitted to unrelenting pressure regarding Taiwan. The strategy regarding Russia being successful the nations gravitating toward it within the BRICS group would think again and revert back to being under U.S. influence. China, goaded into a siege or invasion of Taiwan would find itself abandoned by former BRICS members and therefore weakened to that degree. Clearly the U.S. planners will have an entire flowchart of tactics to further destabilise China during this time, without doubt including actions initiated in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and elsewhere within mainland China. The goal, regime change with the elimination and replacement of the ruling elite in China would certainly be a greater challenge than in Russia, however there appears no doubt that this IS the goal.

You will no doubt have already ascertained the reason, or rather the reasons why the USA and its allies fear Russia and also why they fear China from all of the above and this due to a massive miscalculation by the collective west. 

The plan for Russia failed. 

Instead of growing weaker Russia has grown stronger through the actions of the collective west. 

Vladimir Putin has just won reelection as president with an even stronger mandate from the Russian people. None of this is according to plan. The Russia previously thought to be weak by the leaders of the collective west and said to be weak and failing in initial pronouncements must now be said to be so strong that it could take all of Europe and the Baltic States. This is false as stated initially. But the true fear cannot be spoken, that the USA and all its proxies are being defeated, humiliated, sidelined and left ever weaker with every passing day. This is the real fear behind all that we see and hear from the western powers now. Their own malign activities are boomeranging back on them and destroying any hope that their 9/11 goals will ever be realised. Those goals were never to be questioned. World domination by the USA and those within its orbit of control, HAD to be. These are the reasons for the fear, and that fear is growing by the day, initiating ever more desperate actions, statements and policies even as Russia approaches the ultimate moment of triumph in Ukraine.

Professor John J. Mearsheimer