IN TRUTH THE WEST IS THE EVIL EMPIRE

Western politicians have a compliant mainstream media through which to guide popular opinion regarding those they wish to portray as our enemies. But how safe are those assertions?

From western politicians we hear how human rights and freedoms are the primary inalienable virtues that they are dedicated to mandating globally. This tends to indicate that those espousing these noble concepts are idealists. How does this stand up when compared with hard reality?

If we take the USA as our primary example how convincing is it that the politicians there are the idealists that they quite clearly claim to be ?

To become a successful politician in the USA it is necessary to have a great deal of money behind you. You will almost certainly require to be a millionaire, or preferably a multi-millionaire. This requires most candidates to have been successful business men or women. Then, after succeeding in your quest you will require corporate sponsorship to remain in position. Your sponsors will then expect to receive something beneficial from you by return. If you then acquire a position in government the most powerful influence upon you will then quite clearly once again be your corporate sponsors. In addition, the lobbyists from the most powerful corporate interests will seek to gain concessions to their interests via government policy.

How likely is it, considering the plethora of corporate influence within the U.S. system that an idealist agenda will be formed at the core of U.S. government policy?

Let us now examine the milieu within which the corporate world of the USA operates.

Is it not fair to say that corporations in general seek always to expand without limit and in this quest to in turn seek to minimise the number of restrictions and regulations upon them and further, that bottom-line profitability is their primary concern? The most powerful corporations in the USA and elsewhere across the West are those within the so-called defence industry, those that comprise the military industrial complexes of those nations, those who thrive on war and the threat of war. How high in their list of general priorities do you think idealism would likely feature?

Just to reiterate, these are almost to a man and women and virtually of necessity, imbued with the ethical, moral and political precepts of the business community from start to finish. Where then does the idealism apparently espoused as the highest of priorities at the pinnacle of U.S. governmental activity have its genesis... If at all?

Arguably the U.S. corporate world is the most aggressive seen anywhere worldwide. The urgency with which its executives wish to expand is clear and the sometimes underhand, corrupt and downright criminal methods it exhibits are well known. Isn't it far more likely, knowing just how deeply embedded the business culture is in North American political life, that the policies espoused at the forefront of its foreign policy has at least something to do with the interests of doing business rather than with some idealistic desire to better the lot of humanity in general?

We are currently in China where the general thrust of government policy much more closely bears out the contention that something far closer to idealism is in operation. The government here MUST deliver benefits to the Chinese people to retain their trust and to remain securely in power. Those benefits can clearly be seen across a range of aspects from health care to education to transport and beyond. 

In regard to international affairs who is it that has clearly been in expansionist mode, attacking and invading nations in recent decades? Has it been China that has begun wars of choice or has it been the collective West? Which region of the world has the greatest, continuing incentive through its ideological or pecuniary stance to aggressively interfere in nations far beyond their borders?

Is the aggressive, profit-oriented and highly expansionist ideology of western capitalism, deeply embedded in the body politic of the West irrelevant when it comes to the policy of continual interference (for others benefit we are told) of the USA and its allies across the world?

I leave the question here for you to ponder. However, it is my contention that it is not the mostly quiescent east that imbues the characteristics of what has been called 'The Evil Empire', it is in fact in the west.

IN UKRAINE THE WEST’S NEOCON WAR GRINDS ON

Neocons across the nations within the collective west see instability & war as the very best tool with which to initiate change. That the consequences are fatal for millions doesn't faze them a bit.

Even the Russian soldiers who have seen their comrades die or be grievously wounded without doubt have sympathy for the hapless men dragged forcibly off the streets of Ukraine and sent to fight them. They are cannon-fodder sent straight into a meat-grinder.

Imagine the scene. One minute you are on your way to work, thinking about having an early morning coffee at the office… when suddenly you are accosted by several burly men in army fatigues. You try to protest, telling them you have a wife and two kids at home who depend on you for support. But they have heard all this many times before and insist you must come with them. In vain you try to run away but they are well used to this situation and the hand that was loosely on your upper left arm now tightens while another of the small band grabs the left. Before you know it you are dragged bodily into a waiting van and within weeks you are in a trench on the front lines.

This is happening ever more frequently due to the fervor to join the fight against Russia waned and died over a year ago now. Now the energy of that fervor is channeled to escaping the country or even in seeking out Ukrainian mobilization vehicles after midnight and burning them to a blackened shell. Or perhaps you never leave your apartment any more, friends, your wife or your children bring you food and news of how things are on the street. Or, in the case of a few you take the embarrassing step of dressing up in female attire, sticking a wig or disguising hat on your head to venture out.

Zelensky is very far from popular in Ukraine now and these are some of the reasons why. The main reason of course is the deep and abiding torment and trauma he has inflicted upon Ukraine with his war. Casualties, dead and wounded, amount to something around 600,000. Amputations and blood transfusions along with major surgery of all kinds take up most of the health care system across Ukraine. No one believes in the war being waged now. It is common knowledge that this is the West’s war being waged by Ukrainians who are mere pawns in this “game”.

You will have heard the various American voices talk of how this is all going so well because they are fighting Russia but not losing a single U.S. serviceman. And, in recent days you may have come across Senator Lindsey Graham talk of Ukraine’s great mineral wealth and how that could be exploited. Pity the poor Ukrainians then who will not only see just about every family lose someone close to them but, after this is all over (and it must end sometime) be sold into work slavery by western companies such as Blackrock. Not exactly what was imagined when the West-supported Maidan insurrection and coup brought down the president and government of their country in 2014.

So, the war drags on. The western powers need it to. They don’t suffer, well, not the elites at least, their populations do, but not them. As they see it Russia is tied up in a war they need to keep going. Despite the fact that the Russian economy and Russia’s prospects have strengthened, they still fervently hope for Russia to take a downturn at some points and become weaker. With 30+ nations queuing to join Russia in the BRICS group is this likely however? With allies such as China, India, Saudi Arabia and Iran plus many others such as Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Thailand… what chances does the Neocon scheme to bring Russia down have in reality?

But, Neocons work in the field of fantasy, fantasizing that they can transform the world against its wishes, running roughshod over sovereignty, and the strength of feeling within countries of nationhood, independence, patriotism and national pride. Really? How easy do you think that will be? But do they care? They have no plan B and no reverse gear, the juggernaut they are on has no brakes and is on perpetual automatic pilot. Anything other than their reality is anathema to them. In their infinitely arrogant,massively egotistical, fixed positions, there is no earthly alternative. For them it doesn’t matter how long it takes. Their forever war MUST continue.

For those who are now running the western show, there is no turning back. From 9/11 on they have been in sole command and nothing on earth is going to unseat them or make them change their totally fixed opinions and plans one iota. This is why you can give up any hope you might have of their wars ending anytime soon. They will pursue them to the absolute bitter end. This too is why, if you wish to preserve even the remotest prospect of a peaceful, stable and predictably secure world for your children, you should support with everything you’ve got, Russia, China and the rise of the BRICS and through them, a multipolar world.

Otherwise, with good men and women doing nothing about the bad guys, the wars will grind on… forever.

UKRAINE: AN ENDLESS CONFLICT? HOW IT BEGAN & HOW IT MAY FINALLY END.

Neither side can afford to lose. But every war ends somehow. Either by agreement to end it through negotiations. Or by the outright victory of one side. What's most likely in Ukraine?

The western powers along with their allies are authors of their own misfortune.

It is they who constantly push forward, interfering wherever they wish, determined to assert their will over others. How many other nations do this or anywhere near this scale? I would say none on both counts, not even on some extremely small scale. It is almost unknown. Much might be made of China's activities in its coastal waters and perhaps reference Russia and Chechnya... but these instances pale to insignificance when compared to the multi-pronged incessant interference of the USA, UK and France in particular, both in the recent and far past.

These nations (USA, UK, France et al) should be the ones correctly grouped as an 'Axis of Evil', not China, Russia, Iran and others. This is plain for all to see that wish to look straight at geopolitical realities. However, using the fig leaf of 'democratic' for themselves, and the pejorative term, 'authoritarian' for the rest, they successfully obscured, muddies and distorted the obvious reality for their populations. The reality, that their myriad bloody regime change operations have perpetrated evils of enormous magnitude down the years from hundreds of years ago to the present day.

The greatest evil that exists upon this planet is the U.s. concept of 'manifest destiny'. The U.S. political elites, along with their similarly-minded British colleagues use an asserted 'superiority' as justification for all their many abuses. The democracy they talk of is of course a sham. What they are referencing is in fact a dictatorship of the 0.1% and if we are being totally honest with ourselves we know this implicitly. This western 0.1% may not be evil by any dictionary definition of the word, but their combined effort to perpetually undermine the sovereignty of other nations is. As we can plainly see if we look without our usual parochial eyes. This combined elitist aggression of the western powers produces without a shadow of a doubt, the greatest in terms of evil consequences that exist on our planet.

Some talk of an ‘if only’ circumstance regarding the western powers, that they are not using all the lethal force they could potentially wield, and that this is the answer if they find their will hard to enforce. The notion by some runs along these lines regarding the conflict in Ukraine: if only the western powers-that-be had supplied the Kiev regime with absolutely everything they needed in the past they wouldn't be being beaten so badly now, or be quite so clearly losing the war. On this subject of 'too little too late', I would like to point out that neither side believed that it would be necessary to go to full scale war for very different reasons. On the Ukraine side it would certainly have been the case in the early months of 2022 that the western powers would have been very confident regarding two things in particular. 

1. That Russia would be massively damaged and weakened by what they thought were devastating financial and economic sanctions they were ready to hit Russia with. Plus demanding all western companies leave Russia. and secondly, 
2. That they could count on the support of the vast majority of nations to ostracize Russia and cease their trading and cultural connections with it. Then, in addition, there was the military and financial support package which they could deliver to Zelnsky. All this combined, I am sure made them believe that there was no way Russia could prevail as it has. This thought I am sure never entered their minds. 

Add to the above the initial successes of the Ukrainians in hitting the sitting duck convoys of Russians put there in the initial phase of Russia’s campaign, their purpose being to intimidate Zelensky and co. into coming to their senses and agreeing talks with the view to a speedy end to this situation and most important to the Russians agreeing that Ukraine would stay neutral. 

On the Russian side it was clearly expected that Zelensky would swiftly come to his senses seeing the Russian troop formations so close to Kiev and in many other strategic places around Ukraine. 

Quite clearly Putin and the Russian high command did not foresee the intervention by the West in the way that occurred just as the peace negotiations had progressed so far, first in Belarus then in Turkey. Putin appears to have placed far, far too much trust in the western leadership. Of course he had still to hear how he was betrayed during the entirety of the Minsk peace process. 

In any case, thinking that the Istanbul negotiations were going well, and without doubt shocked at the number of casualties the Ukrainians were inflicting upon the sitting ducks around Kiev, he withdrew these latter forces., saying it was a goodwill gesture. And so we then have Boris Johnson's visit to Kiev and all that follows. So, I think it’s clear that neither side saw the need to go all in the earlier stages of this conflict. Of course this depends to some degree on how far back we mean by that. 

Perhaps 6 months to a year ago piling everything possible into Ukraine by the West would have made a big difference. But there would have been a Russian response to this. What we do not know, but there certainly would have been one. Would it have been nuclear as Russia had not geared up sufficiently to make an adequate response at that time? Maybe. But it is not safe to discount any consequential outcome in this respect. If Russia was to get significantly desperate at any point... watch out. Piling all in a year ago may have had catastrophic results for Ukraine, perhaps Russia would have formally declared war upon the regime. We will never know. But giving the Ukrainian regime EVERYTHING would have been no universal panacea at any point, of that I am certain.

The spokespersons of western elites reduce everything to a single sound byte from time to time. This is that if Russia simply withdraws all its troops over the original borders between Ukraine and Russia the conflict will be over. However, there is absolutely no question of Russia exiting from the bulk of the territory it has liberated so far. The end to the conflict will be arrived at, by all the signs we see now, by military means. This is recognised by both sides. Any talk  of peace negotiations or peace conferences is about appearances, so much theatrical froth designed to keep allies on side as well as their populations if at all possible. No one at this juncture believes any such sideshows for press, media and surface benefits will bring any kind of peace, not even a temporary peace, never mind a lasting one..

Perhaps ultimately, having won its campaign of grinding attrition, Russia will negotiate to leave certain areas once this operation is at its maximum extent, i.e. most probably at the banks of the Dnieper (or just across in Dnipro and Kiev). Russia might certainly give Dnipro and Kiev back to the Ukrainian regime at the negotiating table. But if anyone thinks Russia came all this way just to retreat and go back to the original borders they are kidding themselves. 

If an effort is made to bludgeon Russia into doing this by going all-in and supplying Kiev with the long-range missiles and permission to hit deep inside Russia currently being mulled over, and if the West has any significant success in doing this I am certain (as Prof. Mearsheimer has said) Russia will drop at least one if not several big ones somewhere in response. 

This conflict, war or whatever you want to call it, is (again as Prof. Mearsheimer says) existential for Russia. There is no way that Russia will allow itself to be forced back over the original borders to then be faced with NATO right there before it within eyeshot. That is simply never going to happen. Russia will wreak even greater havoc upon the Ukrainian regime first. The potential declaration of war by Russia at that point rather than conducting its present operation would mean the range of targets within Ukraine would be massively expanded and would certainly include every single government office. Is that where we are headed? If the western powers are determined to take this all the way and start programming and launching missiles deep inside Russia I’d say it’s quite likely.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion:

Vladimir Putin, the Russian military and the Russian people never for a moment wanted this war. For the best part of a decade Vladimir Putin walked every extra mile available in the search for peace and reconciliation. The western powers placed stumbling blocks before every one of his steps. In Minsk he thought all was being done in good faith with the same outcome in mind, peace. Only after all the years of thinking this did Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko boast of how they tricked him. The outcome they wanted was more war, not peace. Finally, Putin saw there was no other way out of the impasse laid before him by the West. At last he saw that war was inevitable. Though even then he sought peace both in the negotiations in Belarus, then in Turkey. But again he was tricked… but for the final time. Pursuing the conflict to the necessary outcome for the Russian nation was the only path left open to him. So undoubtedly with huge regret and sorrow in his heart he saw finally that this situation had to be brought to a conclusion as the only way, in the fullness of time, for peace to return again. 

ARE THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND ON THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR?

How objective are we when it comes to our own national interests in the geopolitical field when compared to the national interests of others? How does the mass media affect our conscious or subconscious proclivities in this respect?

There is one very large underlying problem for almost everyone in the West, one that is particularly problematic when it comes to those with their hands on the levers of power and the men and women who advise them. This is the apparent and persistent inability to either, a) take a dispassionate neutral position on events on the battlefield, or b) to stand in the other man's shoes to gain his perspective.These inabilities in combination generate the constant biases that deliver almost everything western audiences are exposed to and have been exposed to for generations. This is unavoidable to a very large extent due simply to all the years that a west-centric view has been promulgated as the norm, and inevitably thereby, the vast majority of us have little resistance to seeing things constantly through a western lens. 

The airways, TV media and press are observably indelibly soaked in the west-centric view. Impartiality is simply not an option. This reflects a  'war mode' milieu where nothing good can be said about the enemy and nothing bad about our friends. We see this in particular focus regarding the Israeli pummeling of the Palestinians in Gaza. We need only imagine the Russians doing this to Kiev to get just how contrasting in approach these various media sources would have.

Of course having a god-like academic perspective like that of Professor John J. Mearsheimer, one of the world's foremost experts in great power politics is pretty impossible for 99.99% of us. But does that mean we, and the western elites who are now becoming aware that a Ukrainian victory is not going to happen, shouldn't try? 

Isn't some movement toward gaining an objective emotion and allegiance-free overview, where we engage the stone cold facts the ONLY way in fact we are all going to get anywhere near this? Our present crop of politicians in the West appear completely immune to such thoughts and are quite obviously, by their repeated statements, totally fixed in their pursuit of the impossible.

Add to all this that there cannot be anything approaching the clear cut victory for the West via Ukraine that is promised by all on the Kiev regime side of the argument for one simple reason, as repeatedly pointed out by Professor John J. Mearsheimer. The reason is this: The operation Russia began in February 2022 is an existential fight for Russia. It simply cannot afford to lose it. If it appears to be at anything close to an imminent risk of losing it will immediately take recourse to its nuclear arsenal.

The big question for the western powers is whether the relatively small proportion of Ukraine where the Russian-speakers live lives where they look to Russia with love and constant affiliation is worth the lives of millions, with no possible benefit in view. The answer is most probably yes however, as there are overarching ambitions among the western political elite that surpass concern for even this disastrous outcome.

The root of all the denial that the western powers are clearly immersed in on the question of Russia and Ukraine lies in the area of control. 

The fervent desire that keeps the western powers glued to their ambitions vis a vis Ukraine is to push back the rise of the nations of the Global Majority that put at risk their historical ability to continue dominating their most vital geopolitical interests worldwide. In addition to fully restoring their former power, in recent decades they have sought to reach a far higher degree of control than they ever had before. 

Nine eleven brought agreement among all the western powers that ALL non-West-compliant individuals/groups/nations and systems of governance unquestioningly MUST be weakened, undermined, eliminated and replaced. If Russia now attains its goals in Ukraine the entire forward momentum of the West to attain this goal, begun immediately after 9/11, is massively slowed if not terminated completely. 

When and if it becomes clear that Russia has survived all the West has thrown at it the western powers will continue to try to weaken Russia by other means, but I suspect they know this is an extremely long shot indeed. 

So what happens to the post 9/11 goals and the desperate and unquestioned necessity, as seen by the western powers, to attain full spectrum dominance and complete surveillance overview (basically the creation of a prison planet with the USA and its proxies as warders)? This is where the West, brought to its lowest point ever, will have to choose between two, for it, drastic options. Accept that they must reconcile themselves to being equal but not superior to all other nations on the planet and that they now cannot and never should have sought to act as exceptional and superior powers with an inalienable right to interfere wherever they wished. Or, to use its remaining power, essentially reduced at this point to its nuclear arsenal and continue to threaten the world into submission. 

THE KURSK INCURSION IS TURNING OUT TO BE A CATASTROPHE FOR THE KIEV REGIME

Heralded as a triumph by politicians and media alike across the collective west the Kursk incursion is now rapidly degenerating into a rout.

The Russians who were on the border when the Ukrainians came over were easy meat. The border is easy to cross there being no wall or barrier, simply border crossing places "guarded" by Russian troops who tend to be largely inexperienced in regard to direct combat. They are not fighters of the kind that are to be found along the line of contact in the Donbass region. Some, who may or may not have put up some resistance, were killed, but the vast majority will have surrendered.

The fact of the Ukrainians being able to cross over so easily to the Russian Kursk region can be seen as a failure by the Russian military. However, a certain truly independent commentator, Alexander Mercouris, received an email from one of his most well-informed followers who it appears has good contacts within Russia's high command, two months before the Kursk incursion began, saying that the Russian authorities had arranged this opening precisely to allow this incursion to occur. The Russian goal was to eliminate large numbers of the very best troops still available to the Kiev regime. We may believe this or not, but certainly I trust Mercouris enough after two and a half years of catching his nightly one-hour+ analysis to trust he received such an email at least. If this was indeed the Russian goal it is now being realized.

The latest figure for Ukrainian troops killed and wounded within the Kursk region stands at something over 12,000.

As you will know and as even some of Putin's harshest critics will surely know by now, is that Putin is a cool customer and no hot-headed madman with an emotional temperament where he will react foolishly and recklessly. Yes, the Ukrainians invaded Russian territory and have been hitting targets with drones within Russian territory for some time now. Neither has not brought about anything approaching a hot-headed reaction from Putin. For one thing he is doubtless aware that it would suit the Kiev regime very well if he overreacted. They fervently wish to get NATO directly involved. Russia's use of nuclear weapons must certainly seem to them to be one way to perhaps achieve this. But Putin is too smart, cool, calm and collected to fall for this.

It has not been the Kiev regime or its armed forces alone that have had relatively major effects in terms of hitting Russia hard at times. Outside of the pin prick attacks by drones, all else has been as a result of western missiles such as the U.S. HIMARS, British Storm Shadow and French Scalp missiles. The narrator makes a big case for the Ukrainians having done something unprecedented. The fact is they could have done extremely little indeed without all the nations of USA and NATO providing them with financial and military support. Without that Russia would certainly have attained its goals within a maximum of around a month in my estimation. This is why the Istanbul peace negotiations almost came to fruition. It was when these almost secured peace that the western powers stepped in, in the person of Boris Johnson and urged the regime to wage more war rather than seek a peaceful settlement.

Does anyone really think Russia didn't see the Ukrainian forces massing near the border with the Kursk region? Of course they did. Which reinforces the idea that Russia saw strategic advantage in allowing this incursion. Alexander Mercouris was initially very skeptical about the email he received two months before the incursion saying the Russians were going to allow it. He felt Putin would not wish to see Russian citizens put in this position. Of course this will likely be a purely military decision, but certainly Putin would have to be told. In recent weeks, since it took place, Mercouris has pretty much changed his mind as it has become clear that the incursion failed to achieve its primary goal, to take the Kursk nuclear power plant as a bargaining chip and Russian forces began to wipe out thousands of Ukrainian troops and vehicles, plus around 4-5 HIMARS launchers in the adjacent Ukrainian Sumy region used to hit Russian targets in the Kursk region.

As has been pointed out by many, there was no strategic reason for the Ukrainian attack on the Kursk region, with the exception of taking the power plant there. In any case, if Russia planned for this incursion to take place as the email to Mercouris says, Russia massing troops nearby would have been spotted by western satellites and the incursion may never have taken place. Similarly, Russian satellites would not have missed the build up of Ukrainian military assets in the neighboring Sumy region.

That Putin and the Russian military high command does not react impulsively to Ukrainian provocations, even a major one such as the Kursk incursion, should be something the western powers and pundits should be grateful for, not scornful of. Putin and his military high command have a much broader and strategic view of all that's happening. They know at every point that cool heads will always win out by keeping calm, discussing present events always in the context of the consequences of any subsequent actions they take. They know for instance that a secondary (though stated as primary) goal of the Ukrainians was to make Russia divert a large number of forces from the Donbass front line. While a few battalions were indeed diverted there the vast majority stayed exactly where they were having increasing success. The Russians know how to fight and win. It is not through instantly and recklessly responding to each and every provocation. And certainly and most absolutely not with nuclear weapons.

The Kursk incursion is now failing fast. The rot began after about a week and a half in. The Ukrainian military used around 3,000 troops in fast-moving vehicles to make it appear they had taken huge swathes of land. But what they in fact did was put themselves into what the Russians call a cauldron, where they are essentially surrounded within an area where they will find it hard or almost impossible to escape from. That is what we see now. Within weeks the Ukrainian horde that has been infecting Russia’s Kursk region will be eliminated. Will this be followed by a subsequent Russian offensive into the neighboring Sumy region of Ukraine? Quite possibly.

The Kursk incursion has been a sideshow, a failed gambit whose goal was twofold, seize Russia’s Kursk nuclear power station and make Russia divert large numbers of troops from the Donbass battlefront. Neither of these goals was realized. Now Russia has the Ukrainian troops sent to perform this fool’s errand on the run. Zelensky’s Kursk adventure at the expense of over 12,000 Ukrainian troops and large numbers of western military assets will only hasten his fall from power. Russia is in the driver’s seat across the entirety of the Donbass line of contact. The words, ‘Kursk Catastrophe’ will almost certainly feature in the final, ignominious epitaph of this most vile of modern day dictators.

 

THE CHARADE THAT COULD DESTROY THE WORLD

The West may attack deep inside Russia in the next few days. The phrase "giving Ukraine permission" will be used. However, the reality is that it will be western nations who launch these missiles.

What we hear concerning the possibility of missile strikes deep within Russian territory is being talked of as a matter of “giving permission” to the Ukrainians to do this.

This language concerning "giving permission" ought to be dropped. The Ukrainians will have nothing to do with the launch of any missile deep inside Russia. 

Does NATO, or military technicians anywhere within the USA, Europe or the UK have a token Ukrainian standing by to walk into the room where the go sign is readied who is led to a console and then, according to previous instruction presses on a mouse button that clicks a symbol on a screen? Is this what is meant by "giving the Ukrainians permission"? 

The Ukrainians do not have the know-how, the systems or the satellites to effect this action. 

The reality behind these words “giving permission” MUST be a charade, something similar to that described above. It has to be. And that is truly a ridiculous situation which will fool no one in the know, and certainly not the Russians as Vladimir Putin's words today show.

“There is an attempt to substitute concepts. Because we are not talking about authorizing or banning the Kiev regime from striking across the entire territory. It is already striking with the help of drones and other means. But when it comes to using high-precision, long-range, western-made weapons it’s a completely different story.

The fact is that I have already mentioned this and any experts will confirm that both in our country and in the West, the Ukrainian army is not able to strike with modern long-range precision systems of western manufacture. It cannot do this. It can only do so using intelligence from satellites, which Ukraine does not have. This is data only from EU satellites, or from the United States, in general, from NATO satellites. This is the first thing. The second, and very important, maybe the key, is that only NATO servicemen can enter flight assignments into these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this. And so this is not about allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not.

It is about deciding whether NATO countries are directly involved in a military conflict or not. If this decision is made, it will mean nothing other than the direct participation of NATO countries, the United States, European countries in the war in Ukraine. This is their direct participation. And this already, of course, significantly changes the very essence, the very nature of the conflict. This would mean that NATO countries, the United States, European countries are at war with Russia. And if that is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will take appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be posed to us.”

_________________________________________________________________________________

Will the obvious hubris, deep and abiding ignorance of consequences and overweening arrogance of the present crop of “leaders” in Washington, London, Berline, France and elsewhere within the collective west heed the words of Vladimir Putin? Or, as seems more likely, will they continue to walk in blindness and denial into a war that could potential end the lives of millions?

The video where Vladimir Putin gives a final warning to the western powers today to draw back from the brink of catastrophe for all of us:

WESTERN STATES & VLADIMIR PUTIN COMMENT ON THE SITUATION IN UKRAINE

This is an attempt to imagine the official reaction of western states and Vladimir Putin when it becomes clear that Russia has attained the goals it set for itself in Ukraine.

(After the culmination of successful peace talks which resulted in an agreement that the nation of Ukraine would never join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and that all territories Russia occupies currently that were formerly part of Ukraine are now irrevocably part of the Russian Federation, excepting the cities of Dnipro and Kiev which the Russian Federation returns as its part of the agreement, to Ukraine.). 

On 20 January 2025, Russia, having liberated the entire Donbass region of southeastern Ukraine and all territory to the eastern bank of the Dnieper river, the Ukrainian army having collapsed in full retreat, declared a final end to current activity within its Special Military Operation.)

___________________________________________________________________________________

The President of the United States, the U.S. Secretary of State, the British Prime Minister and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, issued a joint statement on the developments that have recently taken place in Ukraine.

• FOR BROAD MEDIA RELEASE (5 February 2025)

We would like it to be known, first and foremost, that our resolution to stand by the people and nation of Ukraine remains undiminished. Our support for the institutions and territories of Ukraine are rock solid, in the light of which we hereby provide a cast iron guarantee that we will not let our Ukrainian friends down in their continuing fight against Russian aggression.

On this day the entire world can see that our united support for Ukraine has now resulted in the failure and utter defeat of the Russians in their goal to occupy and enslave all Ukraine. Together we have defied the unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin thereby humiliating him in his aim to enslave the people of Ukraine and destroy their nation, wiping it completely from the map. They have failed. We and the Ukrainian people have won against all the odds and all the expectations that we would be defeated. We have stood up to the aggressor and we have defeated him.

Vladimir Putin, by being unable to take the nation of Ukraine into the grotesque recreation of the Soviet Union he planned, has been thwarted in his plans to continue his invasion of Europe after his goal of obliterating Ukraine was realized. There will now be no reconstituted Soviet Union, nor will there be the planned invasion of the remainder of Europe by the Russian armed forces. We have stood firm throughout this heinous aggression that has made Russia a global pariah and has isolated it worldwide.

We are resolved to maintain our robust stance against the pernicious leader of the Russian Federation and to ensure any further acts of aggression on his part are responded to in an equally forceful manner to that which we have demonstrated over the past three difficult years.

There is no place in the modern world for the kind of abuses of international law perpetrated by the Russian state in Ukraine. Territorial sovereignty must be rigidly maintained with resolve and perpetual vigilance. It is to be fervently hoped that Vladimir Putin, the Russian government and the entire Russian population has learned a fundamental lesson through the unconscionable acts of war committed aggression perpetrated upon the Ukrainian and that any further similar acts of war will absolutely be countered with all the force at our command.

______________________________________________________________________________

VLADIMIR PUTIN COMMENTS UPON THE SITUATION IN UKRAINE & JOINT STATEMENT OF WESTERN STATES

PUBLISHED BY TASS (6 February 2025)

“As you will know very well we sought a peaceful outcome to the differences between the Russian state, the Russian-speaking people of the Donbass and the successive Ukrainian regimes which took power after the Maidan coup of 2014. It was never once our intention that violence should ensue between us. Through the seven years of the Minsk process we sought a comprehensive reconciliation and lasting peace through diplomatic means. Unfortunately our western partners and the authorities in Kiev it is now known never had this objective. Their goal, always, even through all these years, was to weaken Russia and to deliver a debilitating blow to our nation.

Despite all our efforts, efforts which did not end with the end of the Minsk process, despite offering talks with the Americans and NATO on the building of a new security architecture for peace in Europe, we found ourselves pushed inexorably in one direction, a direction that I have to say was planned for us all along. It was personally hard for me to believe that people of high status could act in such a way and as I have admitted in previous times this question has arisen, I was taken for a fool at that time. I was sincere and wished for a peaceful outcome. Unfortunately those sitting by me at the same negotiating table were not.

Then, in Istanbul, when all the primary areas of contention between ourselves and the Ukrainian regime seemed about to be reconciled, the subsequent signed paper was binned due to the intervention of Boris Johnson, Joe Biden’s emissary to Kiev, telling the Ukrainians not to search for peace, but instead to engage in war.

In regard to the primary accusations made against us that we sought to occupy the whole Ukraine and subject it, to destroy it and enslave its people, this is entirely false. Our aims were stated clearly as we began our operation to attain them, to ensure Ukraine never joined NATO, to free our Russian-speaking brothers and sisters of eastern Ukraine from danger and ensure their future security free to continue to use the language of their birth. Additionally the goals also set at that time were the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine. Having achieved these goals and having no wish or desire for the attainment of further goals we halted our operation.

It is now our wish to continue in peace with all neighbors, the same wish we had from the start of the western intervention in our neighbor Ukraine in the years leading up to the cumulative and catastrophic event of the Maidan coup of 2014. Our further wish is to work had in the new regions of the Russian Federation to improve the lives of all who live there and, as soon as possible, to take the same path we endeavored to walk from the very start, the path to peace. No ambition existed to go to war with NATO by attempting the conquest of Europe. This scare story was thin indeed. All our goals are now achieved. A quiet life of trade and friendly cooperation within the BRICS and other similar international institutions is the extent of our ambition now. An ambition we welcome all others to join and invest in toward that most noble of goals, a full and permanent global peace.”

WE ARE IMMINENTLY APPROACHING THE MOST DANGEROUS PHASE OF THE UKRAINE WAR

Soon we will almost certainly hear an announcement with the capacity to shock the world. It will take the form of a) an ultimatum to Russia or b) a fateful permission to Ukraine.

The goal of the western powers is to inflict a major defeat on Russia. It was this abiding goal that brought Boris Johnson to Kiev in April 2022 with a message to Volodymyr Zelensky to end negotiations toward a peaceful resolution that had proven so fruitful in Istanbul that month. Soon after the champagne cork had been popped (as confirmed by Oleksiy Arestovych, former adviser to Zelensky) the talks were completely abandoned by Ukraine. The initial phone call from Russia to the Ukrainians suggesting negotiations had been made the day Russia’s special military operation began, February 24th 2022. Now, so close to a settlement Ukraine withdrew and from that day to this has pursued war at the behest, request (or demand) of the western powers.

Ukraine was from the day of that fateful decision to pursue war rather than peace, thrust into a war that the western powers insisted it wage. This was a war the Russians had intended should never happen and which it had attempted for almost a decade to avoid through negotiations to end the threat to the Russian-speaking population of eastern Ukraine and to themselves. With over half a million dead or wounded since that day we are now fast arriving at the point where either peace negotiations resume or an even more dangerous phase of the war begins. In the next few days we are most likely going to hear an ultimatum from the western powers and from Joe Biden of the USA and Keir Starmer of the UK specifically.

The Ukrainian regime has been pleading for many months now to be allowed to strike targets deep within Russia with the long range missiles supplied by the western powers, the USA, Britain and France by name. Of course it is well known that the Kiev regime does not have the ability to obtain precise targeting information required to program these weapons, nor the technicians proficient in the sophisticated software required for them. When these missiles hit targets within Russia the Russians will know very well who, in reality, was at war with them. The western powers. And will respond appropriately.

It is thought that Russia has the capacity, after the launch of many satellite systems over the past two years, to take out western satellites and apparently to take out many or even most of them. This is estimated to be the most effective blow against the West, one that would case no human casualties but one that would blind those programming the missiles that hit them. Without these satellites the West could neither precisely program their attacks nor deliver much need data to the Ukrainian army as regards Russian positions, through Starlink for instance. Of course, if the Russians were sufficiently enraged a response that would not be as bloodless could well eventuate. That and the green light to Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others to unleash the Russian weapons provided to them on targets in the West or linked closely to the West.

Most likely perhaps is that Biden and Starmer would not announce an immediate go ahead for strikes deep within Russia but would use the threat of this to force concessions of some kind from the Russians. In recent weeks it has become clear that the Russians are steadily making ever greater gains against a Ukrainian army that is fast becoming demoralized. The last throw of the dice by the Kiev regime, the incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, is failing fast. Progress has stalled with Russia having readied defensive lines in front of Kursk City and the nearby Nuclear power plant and the increasing success of Russian troops advancing on the Ukrainians and driving them back. The West needs some new angle to give it leverage as all else is failing. All the so-called game changers weapons have failed to do any such thing. The stark reality of certain failure and the humiliation of defeat and worldwide recognition of a debacle at the hands of the West looms. A last, most desperate and reckless strategy now beckons.

UKRAINE: THE WAR IS NOT MEANT TO BE WON, IT IS MEANT TO BE CONTINUOUS

The projection of power & influence plus so much more is at stake for the elites of the western world for them to ever contemplate ending their war against Russia. Ukraine therefore, must be sacrificed.

Just because everything is going wrong for the USA and its allies currently no one should ever believe they have run out of options. This will never happen… until the ultimate quarantining of them through the rise of all others. This point is still (by my estimation) several decades in the future. Until the point is reached where a combination of a gargantuan national debt, social implosion and economic ruin hit the collective west will continue to hit out in an effort to, in any way it can, subvert those rising powers.

Looking at the situation in Ukraine currently more and more are saying the obvious, that Ukraine cannot win. The latecomers to this realization are tardy indeed, this much became obvious when Russia’s ability to continue its military campaign was assured by, one, effectively neutering and reversing the effect of sanctions on Russia and company withdrawal from Russia, and two through Russia’s longtime trading partners remaining in place and added to by others. Russia was then able to ramp up its military industrial complex, innovate and afford an ever more massive military force complete with all necessary training and weaponry.

Yet the above does not mean that Russia will conclusively win in Ukraine. This could only come about if both the Ukrainians and their sponsors come to terms and cease fighting. The Ukrainians of course cannot suffer their ever-accumulating losses into the indefinite future. This is not sustainable. However, western strategic planners will certainly devise a means whereby no permanent peace is ever established that yet preserves an adequate number of Ukrainian forces to continue to be a very expensive thorn in Russia’s side.

The tactic most likely to be used will come into operation sometime over the next six months. It is clear to all sides that Russia is an unstoppable force yet this will not cause the dismay that you may think. The object of the Kiev regime’s sponsors is not and never was to retain all territories claimed by Ukraine. It was simply to keep the conflict going indefinitely. Yes, there will have been a large number of diverse goals from the potential of sanctions to weaken Russia significantly, the turning of world opinion against Putin and Russia was certainly another goal. But as the time window when these events could potentially have occurred passed other goals, primarily keeping Russia fighting, came into greater focus.

It does not matter one whit if Russia takes all the territory all the way to the eastern bank of the Dnieper river, at least in the southern regions of Ukraine. What matters is that Russia continues to be bled to the greatest degree possible. There will be no peace negotiations except in some sham form used by the Kiev regime for yet another public relations and/or strategy of betrayal exercise where its forces are built up in order to better hit Russia hard when the little bit of theater indulged in by the regime is over. The puppet masters will of course have everything stage managed to a t. Whether Russia will engage with this theatrical performance is doubtful however on the basis of twice bitten thrice shy.

With Russia holding and having to expend large amounts on all the territory from the Russian border to the Dnieper and with the regime’s guerrilla forces wreaking havoc through both west-Ukraine based and eastern sleeper cell operatives, merry hell can quite easily be created among the vast number of desolate locations which Russia will be continually encouraged to take on more highly-paid troops to guard. Being careful not to act too openly the USA and its allies will ensure the regime receives whatever appropriate means it requires to do Russia the greatest damage in all forms from material to reputational. The war being waged by the puppet masters and their puppet will certainly be continuous.

If however the above tactics are seen as insufficient or too slow in having the desired deleterious effect on Russia and Putin’s reputation it is possible that yet another, and far more radical option may be countenanced. This could entail a strike at Russia’s general relationship with its major trading partners. The aim would be to goad Russia into deploying a low-yield nuclear device, perhaps of one kiloton or so. The reputational damage of Russia using such a device would be severe and the goading mechanism would therefore have to be equally severe. This quite obviously would involve major strikes on Russian high value targets far within Russia’s borders. Always remember that the Ukrainian regime has a media fig leaf all across the eastern mainstream. It is almost impossible to get Ukrainian war crimes, crimes against humanity or in fact any negative factor of even moderate severity into western mainstream news of any kind.

Of course Kiev would hit military targets at first, airports, fuel dumps and barracks, but as has been seen lately, non-military targets would also be hit with impunity, oil refineries and such like. Hitting these would naturally hurt the Russian high command, at least reputationally within Russia if they continued long enough and were devastating enough. But these would not be enough in themselves to have the goading effect necessary to make Russia unleash the power and contaminating effect of a nuclear device, even a small one of one kiloton. A series of direct strikes on central locations within Moscow, St. Petersburg and other major Russian cities would be required to stimulate this.

Later this month the Ukrainian regime is due to receive missiles which will be able to reach at least Moscow and St Petersburg. These are the JASSM cruise missiles which come in variants with ranges of 350 and 850 kilometers.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Wikipedia:

‘The AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (AGM-158 JASSM) is a low detection standoff air-launched cruise missile developed by Lockheed Martin for the United States Armed Forces. It is a large, stealthy long-range weapon with a 1,000-pound (450 kg) armor piercing warhead. There is an extended range version of the missile, the AGM-158B JASSM-ER (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range) as well as an anti-ship derivative, the AGM-158C LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile). 

In August 2024 the US was reportedly considering supplying JASSM missiles to Ukraine.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Though such attacks on Russian cities as envisaged above would clearly be a major escalation the mainstream media, guided as it is by attention to western state requirements at all times could be relied upon to apply a soft touch and even to infer subtle approval in regard to such attacks. To assist in this endeavor a certain amount of care would be taken by those within the West providing targeting coordinates (and in reality having hands-on control of these devices) to kill only up to something like twenty to fifty Russian civilians with nighttime strikes on targets planned for such outcomes. With enough such strikes there is a reasonably good chance that their ultimate object would be achieved.

With the Ukrainian authorities now in Lvov rather than in Kiev, or, more likely located outside the territory of Ukraine altogether, the campaign against the Russians could be continued with relative impunity. Russian retaliatory strikes would be largely impotent in effect as the people Russia most wanted to effect would most likely no longer be in-country.  All the while the nations of the collective west would naturally be denying that they were in control and therefore responsible for these strikes. The Russians of course even now know otherwise and that the Ukrainians don’t have oversight of satellite targeting coordinates nor the technical know how to hit the targets concerned. However, the Russians would remain extremely averse to hitting targets within the West due to the potentially catastrophic consequences involved. As Professor John J. Mearsheimer has stated on occasion however, a Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine would not generate any risk on this score from Ukraine and, for the same reasons Russia will not attack a NATO nation, no NATO nation would respond to a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine by launching a nuclear strike against Russia.

WILL THE USA GIVE AUTHORIZATION TO THE KIEV REGIME TO HIT DEEP INSIDE RUSSIA?

If the USA/UK/EU hits major targets within the Russian Federation in aid of the Kiev regime, what will Russia's response be?

With Zelensky putting the onus on Russia to seek peace (after presumably being hit internally to achieve this) it is pretty clear that he and his western supporters wish to continue the war with this in mind. They see no percentage at all in seeking peace themselves. Clearly being able to hit targets some 350 to 850 km within Russia (the maximum range using current missile availability from the West) is vital to this goal. 

With this being a fairly clear next step (once the U.S. political elite is on board) it is logical for Russia to seek to supply those who are engaging elements of the West such as the Houthis of Yemen with powerful weapons with which to counter this move. Subversion of western assets by sabotage groups would appear a natural response also. (As warned of by Russia in recent months.) This is most probably already happening in anticipation of the green light being eventually given by the USA for strikes up to 850 km within Russia by Scalp, Stormshadow, ATACAMS and JASSMs.

Of course it is common knowledge that the strikes above would essentially be western nation/NATO strikes upon Russia as the Ukrainians do not have the satellite/technical assets to do this. This knowledge, known by all and sundry at this point is undoubtedly the reason the Americans are extremely wary of allowing this, and of course, the inevitable Russian response. Hopefully Russia has organized enough weaponry in enough places to deliver an adequate response to those first hits on Russian territory outside the current allowed sphere.

To have this response capacity fully in place and ready to go at a moment’s notice is a no-brainer and it can be expected that this has indeed been done or is in the active process of preparation to achieve full readiness. If I had to guess I would say that the primary response would come from Russian military assets in Iran. This would in part explain why we have seen no obvious major attack from Iran after the Israeli/US killing of the Hamas chief in Tehran. Assisting the Yemenis would be my second area of major effect if the go-ahead was given to Kiev to strike deeper within Russia. I would expect that any remaining UK bases that have any anti-western groupings nearby would also be a favored area to initiate supply. Arming the Syrians, Cubans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans and all other groupings/nations antipathetic to western aggression would also be an effective longer term response and something once again being prepared on a continual basis.

If the above is being done it is occurring extremely discreetly. I would have expected a plethora of articles to emerge based as usual only on suppositions at some point. Or, perhaps, some leak might emerge that reveals some actual movement of weaponry in one of the locations above. 

Every time a western power has refused to send some weapon or give some authorization to the Kiev regime it has eventually rescinded this decision and sent that weapon or given its assent. This final provision of assent to strike deeper into the Russian Federation will come. As I see it, it is only a matter of time. The Russian response is being readied. Note the recent announcement that Russia’s nuclear protocols on the use of nuclear devices is currently being updated.

Apart from the arming of anti-western groups and nations the Kremlin is no doubt looking at its options in regard to a direct strike by Russia on US/UK/EU/NATO assets. A limited nuclear strike will however be the last possible choice for the Russians. The inevitable bad and damaging publicity this would cause will be something the Kremlin will wish to avoid if at all possible. However, major strikes on high value locations within Russia, especially targeting Moscow and St Petersburg would sorely tempt the Kremlin into making a devastating response. Provoking Russia into unleashing even a limited nuclear missile strike may be just what Ukraine and its western sponsors are hoping for. The stakes for them are that high with the West losing ever more influence and the Ukrainian regime quite clearly losing the war. It all now hangs in balance at this crucial point in human history… for all of us. 

SOCIAL MEDIA IS UNDERMINING WESTERN STATE & MASS MEDIA CONDITIONING

What views might you have now, and what preconceptions might you hold, on geopolitical issues if there were only your politicians and mainstream media news available to form them?

Imagine how it would be if you had only western politicians and mainstream media news to rely upon when it came to geopolitical issues. Undoubtedly you watch western legacy media news from time… unless you have wisely totally switched off from it. Likewise regarding western politicians on these kinds of issues and topics. Either way you will doubtless be aware of the kind of content they deliver, 100% in favor of whatever is the agreed state narrative ignoring all else, with a dash of speculation that bigs up the favored side and denigrates the other.

The above is what passes for informing the public when it comes to political entities unload, and journalism when it comes to the primary western news outlets. All will claim they are impartial, unbiased truth tellers simply attempting to provide the facts as they see them. Believe this at your peril. What once passed for integrity within the political sphere and for impartial journalism and news gathering in the mainstream, is now so one-sided and partisan that its true definition is propaganda. Luckily in our day and age we need no longer rely on the “information” these sources offer us.

Corporate interests will always tend to reflect the viewpoints, attitudes and agendas of the Establishment. Those who work within the spheres of established concerns such as the BBC, CNN and all the others that make up the most prominent “news” organizations all belong to the same club and as comedian George Carlin memorably stated, “You Ain’t In It” and neither are most of those who work within social media. This excludes certain well-heeled rebels such as Elon Musk of course, but in the main those who would be authentic truth tellers tend not to be of the well-heeled class. This is why it is very possible you will hear something closer to the truth from them.

This is not to say that everything on social media is more trustworthy than that which you can find in mainstream news outlets. There are plenty of individuals who wish to deliver the exact same message as you will find in the mainstream on the Ukraine conflict for instance. YouTube is full of them and search engines like Google prioritize them. In fact, using Google to search for those who see things differently from the mainstream outlets are almost impossible to find via Google and not all that easy performing a YouTube search either. Finding out who to trust is a long-term project that starts with a recommendation most times. A name is suggested such as Alexander Mercouris. Then you watch and listen to him and decide over time if you can trust he is providing something close to the reality in Ukraine at any one time.

Once you have created a subscription list on YouTube of the individuals you most trust then you have a good, solid base for understanding the other side of the Ukraine conflict that the mainstream avoids like the plague. They will tell you something of what is happening both positively and negatively for each side. They won’t talk solely on the positive aspects of the Ukrainian prospects and activities of the last 24 hours, they will deliver an overview on how both sides have fared over the last 12 or 24 hours. Whereas on mainstream news channels there is a vow of silence on a whole raft of no-no subjects and a mandatory positive spin on others. On social media, if you have found, through consistency of delivery, trustworthy sources your chances of gaining a true insight into conflicts such as that in Ukraine is far higher than through mainstream media news.

It is a rather scary and forbidding concept, to imagine our world where only the mainstream view exists. That world is the world George Orwell conceived of in his novel ‘1984’, a world where the state and its functionaries determined what was real and what was not and manipulated all aspects of news to condition their populations into accepting their distortions as fact. The present western world in a great many respects mirrors the dystopian and totalitarian world Orwell conceived of. If your view conflicts with the mandated views of the Establishment and others are influenced by you, you could be made into a non-person via the cancel culture that now dominates in the West. If you are like Scott Ritter and demand to have the free speech promised by the U.S. Constitution you may have your house raided by the FBI. The threat is always there that if you say things that the State disagrees with you could be in big trouble.

The western world, the supposedly ‘Free World’ is being turned into the ‘Fear World’ of Orwell, through an Establishment gripped by fear that it is losing its grip and is no longer as able to manipulate us as it was before. Social media has interrupted and intervened to ask questions concerning state narratives that newspapers and TV news applying actual journalism used to do. Now that mainstream news outlets are fully supportive of western state narratives there is no longer an agency within the mainstream to protect us from the abuses of power we know do emanate from the Establishment, especially at times such as these. Of course, until now it is still a relative minority who have the time and inclination to delve deeper than the mainstream narratives via social media. The majority remain the ‘Headline Surfers’ who feel they need nothing more than that to be ‘in the know’.

Those who have taken the trouble to look deeper are in for a shock. To find out just how corrupted mainstream “news” has become will hit people hard, their whole world view may change. Instead of having a degree of respect for mainstream figures in both political and media spheres they may well find themselves absolutely loathing them and will take care to avoid being exposed to lies and serial attempts to condition and brainwash them. It may not be evident just yet but the number of those who have come through the shockwave of understanding just how much the Establishment lies to us has grown very large and its effects will be seen across many election cycles. Already quite a number of politicians have fallen victim to the so-called ‘Zelensky Curse’ and I predict we will soon see the fall of a great many more.

____________________________________________________________________________

Some recommended internet sources on geopolitical issues:

Individuals (A-Z):

Brian Berletic 

Rachel Blevins

Max Blumenthal

Russell Brand

Alex Christoforou 

Emil Cosman

Ambassador Alastair Crooke

Dr. Gilbert Doctorow

Daniel Davis

Professor Glenn Diesen

George Galloway

Danny Haiphong

Katie Halper

Ambassador Chas Freeman

Levan Gudadze

Captain Matthew Hoh

Kim Iversen

Larry Johnson

Alex Krainer

Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski

Patrick Lancaster

Colonel Douglas MacGregor

Aaron Maté

Ambassador Jack Matlock

Caleb Maupin

Professor John J. Mearsheimer

Alexander Mercouris 

Ray McAndrew

Lena Petrova

Professor Ted Postol

Scott Ritter

Sabby Sabs

Professor Jefrey Sachs

Professor Richard Sakwa

Sebastian Sas

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson 

____________________________________________________________________________

Websites (A-Z):

Breakthrough News

Dialogue Works

Judging Freedom

Neutrality Studies

Redacted 

The Duran

The Grayzone

The New Atlas

Through the eyes of