OFFICIAL WESTERN LIES CLEARLY SEEK ORWELL’S FOREVER WAR

It is said that the first casualty of war is the truth but don’t official spokespersons and mainstream media commentators, who are supposed to be accurately informing the public, have some duty to attempt an approximation of the facts at the very least? 

In every war ever fought the percentage of civilian casualties has always been high. The Americans call such casualties ‘collateral damage’, a term most find extremely cold and unfeeling. Few wars can be called good or righteous wars and naturally all wars should be avoided where possible. Where they do occur however, civilians are always casualties in one way or another. But are they actively targeted?

Yesterday the official spokesperson of the United States, Matthew Miller made an assertion that is heard very often, that Russia is actively targeting the civilian population of Ukraine. These are his exact words:

“...Russia’s war machine that is targeting and killing innocent civilians in Ukraine…”

Independent expert opinion is however that Russia has been extremely scrupulous throughout its campaign, avoiding impact on the civilian population to an extraordinary degree. In comparison with the series of regime change wars the USA and its allies have waged over the last several decades this avoidance of causing civilian casualties is striking. What then is going on here that can account for this disparity of views?

In wartime it is quite normal for the demonisation of the opponent to take place, my question however is should a service to journalists such as the daily Q&A by the official spokesperson of the USA be used for this to take place? The impact of such a repeated assertion when channeled through the mass media will inevitably be significant. Hearing or reading a distortion of reality one or twice may well be ignored as an unproven assertion. But when such an assertion and many other highly negative assertions are repeated on an almost daily basis for a period extending to years a subconscious conditioning effect on the general public is inevitable.

When yesterday morning external damage was done to a children’s hospital in the Ukrainian capital those supporting the Ukrainian side in the conflict were quick to point at Russia. Terms such as ‘evil’, ‘monsters’ and ‘unhuman’ were used. As the day wore on however and talk of the hospital being hit and more accurate information showed the explosion had been nearby and had not impacted the hospital directly the situation began to become clearer. By evening images were appearing taken at the scene which showed that a Ukrainian air defence missile (of western origin) had been the cause of the explosion damaging the hospital.

The facts which emerged concerning the explosion did not modify the assertions of Russian guilt however and this has been a constant over the last two plus years of the conflict. From the several Ukrainian missile attacks which hit groups of civilians at a train station in Kramatorsk to the strike in another Ukrainian town while Tony Blinken arrived for a visit, to the Ukrainian-caused explosion at the Mariuopol’s premier theatre to the massacre at Bucha and in so many other instances from 2014 onward Russia gets accused when the facts, when examined, reveal otherwise.

How many look back and change their opinion on such events when the facts are revealed weeks or months after they occur? How many western news agencies bother to report such revelations when they occur? Take the mass shootings that killed so many on Kiev’s Maidan Square in 2014 for instance which more or less brought the government and its president down? At the time every western news outlet and West-oriented activist blamed that government and president. However, the official inquiry into those mass shootings found that this was not the case and that the Maidan “protesters” had occupation of the site from which the shooting took place. In short it was a false flag event designed to discredit the Ukrainian authorities of the time.

The reaction of the vast majority, those who are likely not to involve themselves in a detailed examination of events is likely to be a strong one. Then presented with a news item designed to push certain emotional buttons, will have little resistance to the effect planned. This is especially true when children are involved. This was seen to greatest effect during the long conflict in Syria where an organisation named ‘The White Helmets’ were clearly set up to generate the material required to effect a western political need to generate support for the war. Fearful children, injured children, children under threat are the most potent propaganda tools in the West where a highly pre-sensitised population can easily be made to react in the way desired by those seeking support.

Noam Chomsky, along with Edward S. Herman, wrote an entire book on this general subject by the name of ‘Manufacturing Consent’.

‘Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a 1988 book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. It argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication. The title refers to consent of the governed, and derives from the phrase "the manufacture of consent" used by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion (1922). The book was honored with the Orwell Award.

A 2002 revision takes account of developments such as the fall of the Soviet Union. A 2009 interview with the authors notes the effects of the internet on the propaganda model.’

Wikipedia

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

I hope that you would agree that seeking to generate lust for ever more war based on falsehoods is surely immoral. In the normal course of things all wars end sooner or later in some form of agreement between the two sides to once again establish reasonably normal relations and at the very least to bring an end to war between them. When there is no intent to do so, when false claims demonising your adversary seeks only to prolong a war and therefore cause ever more death and destruction is this not clearly both an immoral and unethical act denoting cynical purposes having precisely nothing to do with right and wrong? I would contend that it instead very clearly characterises the motivation described by George Orwell below. 

WHY IS THE WEST TAKING THE ENTIRE WORLD TOWARD ARMAGEDDON OVER UKRAINE?

Even for the Americans with their regime change wars track record this is extreme. What possible reason can account for them driving all their allies forward into unlimited war over Ukraine?

There has been much speculation concerning why the USA and its allies have been pushing so hard on the Ukraine situation, even to the extent where a direct conflict with Russia is becoming a very real possibility. This commentary will explain my take on why this is occurring.

My long-held opinion on this can be stated very simply.

The political hierarchy of the USA wishes to make the world reflect the democratic uniformity it believes it and its allies exemplify. To do this all nations with systems of governance that diverge from this standard must be altered to comply. Naturally most nations concerned will not do this willingly and must therefore be forced to comply. Two particular nations among others are prime targets for compliance procedures, Russia and China.

This is why there can be no agreement to enter peace talks with Russia regarding Ukraine. This because any result other than Russia’s defeat leaves Russia in a stronger position to negotiate a new security architecture for Europe including itself. If you recall this was what Russia called for in the weeks before the start of its special military operation in Ukraine. There is no way that the USA and its allies can allow this to come to pass. Russia gaining such a degree of security would mitigate entirely against the project described above. 

The set goal of the USA is the removal of the political hierarchy in Russia (and China) as soon as possible and by whatever means possible. To allow Russia ANY additional security would be a disaster for the unquestioned and absolutely vital project (for the USA and its allies) to remake Russia, then China in the western image. It was 9/11 that determined the U.S. elites to do whatever it took to bring down every anti-American entity no matter how big or small. There is no plan B for this ongoing operation and it will never be countermanded.

To allow Russia any win from Ukraine is anathema to all western elites. It simply cannot be. It cannot be allowed. It will not matter HOW many gains the Russians have on the battlefield or HOW many Ukrainians die. This project simply CANNOT be ended because to end it is to leave anti-American forces at large and this, after 9/11 became unconscionable for the elites concerned. No matter what it takes they will NEVER say or do anything that allows Russia to win. Even if it means nuclear war.

You must imagine the strength of feeling involved. The existential angst involved cannot possibly be imagined or estimated. Russia is seen as a country that MUST be weakened, subverted, brought to its knees and made to collapse allowing it to be broken up and made subservient to the West. For the U.S. elites and their allies that is where the story ends… with no alternative outcome acceptable. No question. No doubts. No disunity. Only all forces in complete alignment applying whatever pressure or action is necessary to bring it about.

This is why you have been seeing no relenting of western rhetoric or pressure regarding Ukraine and there will be none from the core group powering this forward. Politicians not on board with a project that is degrading the economic structure and potential of their nations such as Viktor Orban of Hungary and Robert Fico of Slovakia will fall away at the sides. The next to do so may be a France heavily influenced by Marine le Pen and just possibly an Italy led by Giorgia Meloni. But those at the core such as Von der Leyen, Keir Starmer and virtually all others within the club are fully signed up to bow down to the U.S. Armageddon posture above.

The core group within the EU cannot conceive for a moment abandoning the U.S. in this. That thought has simply never occurred and will never occur to them. To do so would mean losing the U.S. nuclear shield they conceive of needing without question and besides this primary topic there are a hundred more reasons for them not even thinking of going against the USA on this or indeed on any substantive issue. It is simply unthinkable for them. So they array themselves in absolute unity against Russia and this is for instance why today they have all attacked Viktor Orban SO fiercely for his visit to Moscow.

The U.S. hierarchy is determined that it WILL weaken, undermine, subvert, eliminate and replace every part of all present systems within the Russian Federation and nothing short of a nuclear war will stop them and they are even determined, believe it or not, to not even let such a catastrophe as that stop them. The genesis of all this is most definitely 9/11. No other event of recent times comes close save the gradual slipping from the western grasp of its ability to dominate the world. In combination these events are in my opinion the most certain to be driving us all toward Armageddon currently. 

CAN THE GLOBAL MAJORITY NOW EFFECTIVELY CONTAIN THE USA?

Is the effort of the USA and its allies to mold the world to its self-conceived image benign or malign, and if it is malign, are those affected now in a position to safeguard themselves against it?

There are various opinions regarding the motivations of the political, media, military and intel elites of North America in relation to that nation’s foreign policy. That it is interventionist is hopefully an uncontroversial statement. Whether the motivations, and the consequences, of the pursuit of that interventionist foreign policy are benign or malign are the subject of this commentary along with the question of what, if anything, should be done about them.

We have seen many regime change wars rage since 9/11. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria the chief of them. There have been some successes in the short term in some cases while long term failures are more pronounced. Both predicated of course on what the precise goals were for these operations. For some, merely ‘taking out’ certain leaders/regimes may well have been enough of a success without any kind of nation-building project being successful afterward. Simply neutralising the threat to the USA or West in general as perceived by them being enough.

Coming after most of these regime change wars we had the intervention in Syria of Russia which arguably stopped the western regime change project there in its tracks. A few years previously Russia’s red lines had been crossed in Ukraine (as it had been previously mentioned in a cable in 2008 from William Burns, present head of the CIA). Meanwhile relations with China were constantly being soured leading to ever worsening relations on that front.

Previous to all of the above were eras when several generations of North American elites who engaged in interventions as a matter of routine wherever it was perceived that U.S. interests were under threat. These interventions were initiated almost as a matter of course. A great many of them took place in Latin America but on the European continent they were also the norm and widespread. The justifications used for all U.S. interventions and indeed all those carried out by the elites of the entire western world create a platform for action that amounts to a special, self-awarded dispensation. 

What are the justifications used for this self-awarded dispensation?

In essence they amount to the buzzwords we are all familiar with:

Democracy

Freedom

Human Rights

In the name of all three above the USA and its allies have given themselves the right to intervene in whatever way they see fit globally where any one of these elements is considered missing to any degree. In effect the USA and its allies act as if they have been tasked by some higher power to command and discipline any and all others they conceive to require correction and restructuring. No ultimate authority (except conceivably a creator god) is required to provide the authority to do this. Those insisting on these processes presumably see the entire activity as a service to humanity (quite possibly by some as a service to their god).

You may conceive the activity above to be an urgently required on, an essential civilising effect that should be carried out with as much haste as possible. Presumably, if you have this opinion, you conceive of a far better world in prospect if it is carried out with maximum efficiency and without delay. It appears clear that those who are to any degree within the group effecting these changes at least pay lip service to this goal, even if they are not among the most dedicated zealots to the cause, the true believers.

But what of those who point to the democratically-elected leaders who were overthrown by these elites, or the dictators they managed to put in their place and who they supported because ‘they are OUR dictators’, the means by which U.S. self-interest could be served. It is this self-interest (usually called ‘national interests’) which alloys the fine sentiments spoken of, of building a better, more democratic, freer world where human rights are rigorously enforced for all. The track record on this score is patchy at best. And the motivation to gain advantage for self rather than engage in selfless good for all must inevitably play some, and possibly a very large part of the enterprise.

Yet despite the flaws inevitably introduced by human nature into the proceedings we see the robust and always determined agenda to continually promote those policies that bring an enormous degree of western intervention worldwide. The virtuous circle constantly talked of where democracy, freedom and human rights will result from these interventions will quite predictably (based on recent experience) never be squared. Yet the interventions appear intended to go on essentially forever. Or until factors arise which bring them to a halt. What might these factors be?

This brings us to the question framed in the title of this commentary. Can those who have had their internal structures, whether political, military, religious or social, interfered with through western government initiatives for generations mount a challenge to this process and succeed in halting it completely? There have been very few instances where this exceptionally difficult task have achieved any success until now. Arguably China has been most resilient in this respect since the victory of the Chinese communist party over Chiang Kai-shek’s forces. With only very few successful attempts to initiate subversive elements within the resulting Chinese society it has managed to prevent any substantial regime change efforts.

In fact the rise of China as the single predominantly successful and economically powerful nation highly resistant to western interference has created a foundation upon which others now have an opportunity to stand. This is a process we see actively occurring on an almost daily basis as ever more nations seek a closer relationship with the BRICS group which acts as a central hub for nations looking to protect their national interests from the interventionist forces of the West. This trend, toward strengthening the barriers to western desires to intervene and manipulate the sovereign concerns of nations, for whatever justifications, appears to be one that will continue to grow. Now, with the recent ending of the Petrodollar agreement between Saudi Arabia and the USA another stick the U.S. elites have used to beat nations into line, is broken. 

Th days of western dominance, sought for whatever reason, benign or malign, is clearly now progressively ending and no reversal of this movement of nations to protect themselves is in prospect. The situation appears likely to grow progressively worse for the ambitions of the western powers to hold onto the remaining weapons of manipulation, persuasion and intervention they continue to employ. The continued use of these weapons is in fact motivating nations to even greater speed in their pursuit of protection against them. Therefore we can begin to make out the ultimate destination in which we are headed; to the full quarantining of western efforts to manipulate nations that now have the strength to protect themselves to the full from  such activity. 

WHAT WILL THE END OF THE KIEV REGIME LOOK LIKE?

Though many have predicted the end of the conflict in Ukraine at several points in the past it has finally become clear that it always had to end this way. So, what are we about to see?

Ever since the first few months of his presidency, Zelensky has essentially been a man trapped with only one possible and seemingly interminable road in front of him. Elected as a peace-bringer he was soon made to reverse course with the threat of being hung on the main boulevard in Kiev by fanatical militants we are all by now very well aware of. Unless he was prepared to die he was left with only one choice, press on with the military conflict in eastern Ukraine. And this, after only a month or two of protesting the case for peace, he did.

The Minsk process continued while the shelling of the people of the Donbass went on remorselessly. Zelensky attended, but the die was cast long before, it was no longer a peace process, it had become a sham. Had it ever been a peace process? It appears not. The statements of Merkel and Poroshenko signify that it was only ever a holding operation while the Ukrainians built up their forces to NATO standard. With a view then of course to retake control of the Donbass republics by force.

Zelensky, clearly in the know concerning the above was even seen to smirk now and then on the panel where Vladimir Putin still continued to talk earnestly, believing he was taking part in a genuine process with the integrity to come up with a solution that could bring the peace and reconciliation that would suit all parties. By late 2021 however, he could see quite clearly that the process was going nowhere and may, at that point, even had an inkling that Minsk was NEVER intended to be implemented by the Kiev regime. The statements of Merkel and Poroshenkel would confirm this for him soon after.

Zelensky, treated as a rather ridiculously untutored puppet by the western powers, was now about as far from an honest broker as it was possible for any human being to be. Elected to bring peace he massively ramped up the war effort instead. By the first two months of 2022 the shelling of the Russian-speaking civilians of the Donbass began to reach new heights. He began talking of regaining Ukraine’s nuclear status. It was clear that peace had not figured in his mind for a long, long time. The grip of AZOV on him had been unrelenting ever since they delivered their baleful threat to him all the way back in 2019.

The western powers without doubt told Zelensky that they would back him to the hilt and that the Ukrainian army was now ready. The attack on the republics was imminent. Everything was prepared. Unfortunately for their plans a Russian special forces unit found documents detailing the imminent military campaign against the Donbass. Things moved quickly then with the republics submitting a request to join in an agreement with the Russian Federation whereby they could be afforded protection against attack. It was this agreement that allowed Russia to legally initiate its special military operation on February 24th 2022.

Now, virtually two and a half years, after fighting through an eight-year construction of layered defenses over 1,500 kilometers, Russia is just now making the crucial breakthrough that will bring the end of the West’s plans for its pawn, the Kiev regime with the eventual collapse of its exhausted, demoralised and now largely untrained army. We see the glaring cracks in its defenses now being ever more speedily widened. Once the military tsunami long prepared by Russia hits they cannot possibly hold. The entire edifice of the West’s malignant plan will collapse in front of everyone’s eyes. 

It appears absolutely inevitable that at the point above Zelensky will flee. To which country is uncertain, most probably Israel, but who knows? Switzerland where many of his cohorts have been buying multi-million dollar mansions? Also a strong possibility. But he will suddenly be gone, taken on some U.S. military flight to an initially unknown destination. A fly by night “president” fleeing not only the Russians but also those AZOV Nazis who will wish for nothing better at that stage than to string him up.  

The so-called government of Zelensky’s entertainment business friends may not be so lucky. I wouldn’t be surprised if quite a number of them meet the fate intended for Zelensky and perhaps it won’t even require the “skills” of the AZOV thugs to do it, the general population will likely be more than willing and able. Anarchy will reign for quite some time. Almost certainly forces of some kind will arrive and attempt to restore order. It may take missions of several varieties before this is achieved. And afterward elections will be arranged, another process taking several months.

Will what’s left of Ukraine be partitioned into several protectorates under the control of Poland, Hungary and Romania, supposedly under a purely temporary arrangement? This is very possible. Breaking the country up into manageable pieces (somewhat similar to what the western powers intended for Russia) will make good sense to the USA, UK and EU where no single one of them wants the entire cost laid at their door. Each will make their contribution at the subsequent funding conferences.

Ultimately, whatever is left of Ukraine will vote for a new president and government. Those elected will certainly not only campaign on a peace ticket but will also implement the policies espoused. It is not possible that there will be any further appetite for war. Pragmatism will reign unchallenged, guarded and protected against AZOV and their kind by the forces of the EU states closest by. (With U.S. officials directing from a discrete distance without the shadow of a doubt.) Russia will enforce the demarcation line agreed with the de facto capitulation of the regime and army. The final settlement will be thrashed out by Russia with the Americans where every requirement by Russia is met.

It could all happen very suddenly once the collapse of the eight-year construction of the defense line is totally and irrevocably breached. There will be no meaningful resistance once this occurs. All land right the way to the eastern bank of the Dnieper River will then lie open and undefended before a victorious Russian military. The scheme of the West to weaken Russia will have instead massively strengthened her and the Kiev regime and all its malignant effects will be wiped completely from the face of the earth. 

A VERY PERSONAL LOOK AT HOW IT ALL BEGAN IN UKRAINE ON MAIDAN SQUARE

 

There was obviously a lot at stake. But at first, and even at second glance, it was almost impossible to ascertain the motivations behind the smoke, fire, brick-throwing and club wielding, medieval-looking siege-mentality that prevailed on Kiev’s Maidan Square in the winter of 2013. I came at it completely ignorant of all that had preceded this open display of human emotion and unbridled violence.

I searched the internet for anything that might throw light on the situation. This was in late November or early December 2013. There was very little information to be gleaned. There didn’t appear to be much reporting going on and that which met my eye talked of ultranationalists and those who seemed to have a predilection for books such as ‘Mein Kampf’. In those days the BBC had a reporter on the square who was apparently also attempting to find out what all the chaos was meant to achieve. Those he spoke to were not very articulate on this point and gave the impression that they were against all sides.

 The most detailed commentary I came upon at that time was the text of a conversation between two young men who were attached to some anarchist group or other. All I recall is one of them relating that in the initial stages, those who were on the square were peaceful enough, staging their protest quietly urging the government to look west toward the EU rather than east toward Russia and that in general they were respectful of the law. He related that this changed when more radical elements arrived. According to him these radicals took charge and even began beating the original, peaceful protestors. That is unfortunately as much as I recall from what was a reasonably long text.

As far as I know there are no images of that original group of protesters on the square so it is unclear just how many they were and whether the discussion above was accurate. I should say however that the two anarchist types who were speaking appeared to have no axe to grind in the situation, they appeared to take no side whatsoever. I suspect therefore it was as the text appeared, a straightforward discussion trying to understand what the hell had happened and what was happening, for themselves.

 As I looked on over the next days and weeks it was in horror. Molotov cocktails flew in great numbers through the air landing on groups of helmeted policemen who were instantly set on fire. Their colleagues rushed toward them with fire extinguishers operating as they tore off their helmets and rolled on the ground. Groups of young men tore bricks from the street and hurled them toward the lines of police who stood stationery, holding their shields in front of them. Another young man wielded a long thick chain lashing it toward the police line. Others took over a bulldozer and drove it at the line. Another man in what appeared to be his early thirties pointed a can of some toxic fluid at a group of policemen causing them to put their hands to their eyes. All the while the noise from every side was deafening.

A young policeman was chased by a large group. He stumbled and fell and began to be beaten by several youths using large clubs fitted with metal fixtures making them resemble (once again) something from medieval times. Behind a barrier of corrugated iron a catapult contraption had been erected by which Molotov cocktail bottles could be sent high into the sky to come down on the police. This was manned by what appeared to be a quite elderly man. At one point some of the flaming liquid escaped a bottle and flamed down his trouser leg. 

 These scenes of absolute mayhem went on day after day. The chief of police had requested of the president that his force be issued guns to better keep order. This request was denied. They would have to make do with their perspex shields and relatively useless batons. This impotence was reflected in the static quality of the policing that obtained on the square. In reality they were not enforcing order at all, or at least only symbolically by being there. They stood in their line and simply took whatever was thrown (or driven) at them.

The above did not cover all the police forces. The Berkut special police were tougher and more highly trained than the relatively inexperienced young men who could only stand behind their shields and shelter as best they could. The Berkut guys no doubt had a few psychopathic individuals among them as well as those who were simply burly thugs who found police life suited their mentality. These men tolerated very little from those they came across and there can be no doubt that some broken heads and bones came as a direct result of their fury.

 I came across a very interesting video interview quite early on, perhaps in mid-March. Down a side street with the tumultuous noise of the fighting going on within earshot two young journalists with a camera interviewed a late middle-aged copper. He was in a state of some agitation pleading with the journos to report the truth and not twist the facts. He spoke of how the opposition parties in the Ukrainian parliament had called on these people to come to the square and create this chaos. He opined that all the questions involved should be resolved in parliament, not here in the streets and on the square. He bemoaned the fact that swastikas had appeared on walls all around and that we should not be having anything to do with fascism. He talked of the school holidays coming up and soon the cherry trees would be blossoming. It was clear he was very deeply saddened at all that was going on.

As I continued my investigations as best I could I became aware of various American officials appearing on the square. Senator John McCain, the American ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and the then Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria nuland. Senator McCain even stood on the platform with speakers such as the head of the Svoboda Party (which had originally been named the ‘Social-National Party’ and in which the Hitler salute, the ‘Seig Heil’ was used often. His name, Oleh Tyahnybok. He was not one of those selected for high office by Geoffrey Pyatt and Victoria Nuland in their infamous ‘Fuck the EU’ leaked phone call, but at least two members of his party were.

It is estimated that some 17 young policemen died as a result of what occurred on Maidan Square during those hellish months that winter and early spring. However, the crucial event was the mass shooting that took place from the Hotel Ukraina. The reporting of this event has been confused and most of the time highly prejudiced, however the report from the official investigation concludes that both the police and those protesting were shot. Various claims have been made and in the initial stages it was simply assumed that Ukrainian special forces had committed these crimes. It was much later that evidence tended to show that the protesters had control of the hotel, not the security forces at the time these shootings took place. Later too a group of Georgians gave a detailed explanation of how they had been charged with coming in and doing the deed at the behest of anti-government individuals.

At any rate the event above proved the crucial break point in the entire catalog of chaotic events that had stretched over many months. The militarisation of those protesting/demonstrating/rioting had been clear for some times. I recall images of those wearing symbols reminiscent of the Nazi Wolfsangel posing with weapons in some forces (quite likely in Poland) where they appeared to have been training in army fatigues and various military accessories. A squad of men claimed to have been ex-IDF troops who had come all the way from Israel to fight on the square. The atmosphere had reached fever pitch where there was no longer simply a protest going on but an all out constant riot and violent insurrection. Government buildings had been set on fire and every possible attempt had been made to kill as many of the young police forces as possible.

 It was finally enough for the president (Yanukovich) and he fled, making it safely to the Russian Federation where he is to this day. The government fell, the party that had largely composed it, the ‘Party of Regions’ was soon after disbanded and banned. The main opposition leader was jailed. Members of Parliament were then regularly ambushed outside the doors of the Ukrainian Rada parliament building and unceremoniously thrown into rubbish dumpsters. Those who had brought down the president and government now ruled the streets attacking whatever targets they saw fit. If you dared wear the Russian St. George ribbon you would be surrounded and be in danger of losing your life for it. Just as every gravestone in Jewish cemeteries had been daubed with swastikas without noticeable attention from the law the atmosphere of pure fear through the license of youth must have been palpable.

Videos appeared of rampaging youths smashing into offices and destroying everything inside. A Russian bank was attacked by every possible means by a large mob. Videos of any, whether elderly or not objecting to the lawlessness being beaten up were commonplace. Another video showed a head of a militia brandishing a machine gun and demanding a newspaper editor do as he said, or else. The new Minister for Education, a woman was seen walking round a primary school classroom asking the  children their names. If it was a name of Russian origin she would bemoan the fact and tell such children they had bad parents and were unlucky. Those with Ukrainian names were of course greeted with praise.

Before long TV and radio stations where the Russian language was used were closed down. One of the first laws enacted demanded that Ukrainian be the first language everywhere and strongly implied that all schools where Russian was used would be closed down. Russian speakers were seen beaten up on the streets by people who may well have been their neighbours or local shopkeepers. An atmosphere of terror reigned if you spoke Russian or had any inclination to honour the memory of the Soviet Red Army liberating Ukraine in the Second World War.

Murders became more frequent with very little chance of the perpetrators being caught. The strongest and most violent reigned. Democracy was no more to be found in the land, a land that had been more or less divided between two ethnicities living relatively peacefully together now had only one ruler and that was the nationalistic Ukrainian force determined to drive down or out all Russian influence and all Russian-speakers if necessary. There would no longer be power sharing through the democratic process… and so the uprising in the Donbass region began by the Russian-speakers now completely robbed of their ability to vote for the president or party of their choice. And who among them knew what else they would be robbed of over time…

And so it was that what we have now ten years on began. The violence exhibited in place of the democratic process has continued through many, many cruel and terrible stages until today.

But for the western political elites there was not then and there apparently is not now any problem. Where the result suited those elites' democracy was apparently in the shape of a club, hand gun, hunting rifle, toxic spray, Molotov cocktail… or even a bulldozer. Make of that what you will… but democracy as we commonly understand it, it is not. It is convenience for certain individuals at the expense of SO very much pain and suffering. One can only assume those who sought this path were of the type whose blood flows cold as ice, as cold as the many dead of all sides who lay, lost to their loved ones, among the hard stones of the Maidan. 

THE SEEDS OF POTENTIAL WORLD DESTRUCTION: USA, UK, EU, ISRAEL, UKRAINE

There is one major source of the constant destabilisation we have seen occurring for so long now, it is the determination of the elites of the collective west to transform all others into their image.

We live on a planet where most nations, despite their religious, political or cultural differences find a way to live in peace with their neighbours. However, there is a sentiment born and bred in the western world and those closely associated with it that demands they interfere in other nations, twisting them to their will.

In times long past the Christian missionaries stemming from the western world sought to interfere wherever they could across the world. In this general category were the Spanish and Portuguese who arrived on South American shores bringing their Christ-cult with them. We know this history well and what it brought to the native population there, mass death and the robbery of vast amounts of gold.

In later times, the pilgrim fathers who arrived on the shores of North America would eventually have the very same effect on the native population there.

Later still there was the exploitation of the slave trade out of Africa by all western nations that was used to massively increase the profitability of their slave plantations.

Then came the European colonists spreading across the planet as far as China looking to exploit anything and everything they could find.

All the while the notions of western superiority and of the West having an advanced civilisation that made the elites there exceptional underpinned every abomination helping those perpetrating these acts to justify themselves.

In the modern era we essentially have more of the same. Those in the USA claim to be exceptional. In the UK they conceive themselves to be superior. And in the EU the just retired Josep Borrel claimed Europe was a garden and all else a jungle. These are the attitudes that breed notions of being high and mighty, looking down long noses at the unworthy peasants below who need taming, instructing and generally moulded to be just like them. 

The political elites of the USA have long regarded all Latin America as their ‘back yard’. They have jealously guarded their interests there via ‘The Monroe Doctrine’ and interfering time and again to initiate coups against governments that don’t conform to their requirements and interests. The policy of regime change then is not new. What has been seen over the last twenty years is not new. Attacking and invading one Middle Eastern country after another was simply more of the same.

Bringing mass death, destruction, instability and the maintenance of U.S. power has been a commonplace across the planet for as long as any of us can remember. Latterly assisted avidly by the elites of the UK and EU. The latest project of all is Ukraine. After the devastation wrought across the Middle East this coalition of elites sought to initiate regime change in Russia. To do this Russia was endlessly pushed into a corner until it had only a single way out. The plan then was to bring Russia to its knees, foment insurrection there before breaking the nation into manageable pieces.

The urge to transform the entire world into the image of the West continues to devastate our planet and to destabilise it to an extent where the western powers can pick up the pieces and mould them to their requirements. Any idea that the neoconservatives who thrust the West into the wars of choice in the Middle East had learned their lesson from the defeats they suffered there is misconceived. They continue to be in control of the vast majority of western states. This can most easily be seen by their insanely continuous support of the illegal and extremist regime in Ukraine.

The determination of the West’s political elite to either change all others into their required form or destroy them and replace them by force is obvious. The mania with which these elites put their policies of maximum aggression into operation completely outwith international law speaks volumes. They are determined to dictate how the entire world lives and will never cease in this determination as long as they live or are granted the economic and military resources to do it.

This is why the political elites of the nations following are the seeds of potential world destruction and MUST be replaced as soon as humanly possible if our world stands any chance at all of reaching a condition of stability, peace and the kind of true civilisation where tolerance for divergence from any one national norm is welcomed, not shunned.

THE SEEDS OF POTENTIAL WORLD DESTRUCTION: USA, UK, EU, ISRAEL, UKRAINE 

WILL THE COLLECTIVE WEST INITIATE THE END OF THE WORLD?

What circumstances could bring an end to all life on our planet? All it would take would be for the collective west, having dispensed with diplomacy, determining then to fight to the death.

The fractures are deep and only getting deeper, the scars appear permanent with no reparative tissue evident. Why, after all the progress humanity has made in rising above barbarity, do we find ourselves on the brink of destruction?

In the Middle East Israel has brought itself into a position where its only recourse, as it goes down for the final time, is to use nuclear weapons. In Ukraine the USA, UK an EU have brought themselves also into a position where in response to total defeat against Russia they may also use nuclear weapons.

Israel is the pawn of the West as is Ukraine. These are the links that may yet cause a chain reaction to occur. Neither the West, Israel or Ukraine contemplates a diplomatic, but only a military solution to that which confronts them. Neither are at all used to defeat. And that could be fatal for all of us.

Israel determined never to let the Palestinians have their own state. Ukraine determined never to allow its Russian-speaking population have the limited sovereignty of autonomy. These policies were not subject to review and those enforcing them did no contemplate any plan B, only military force. As is said, those who live by the sword, die by the sword. And so it is proving.

To be immovable in the face of an inexorable force brings disaster upon all. To have no wish, desire or intent whatsoever to employ diplomacy invites continually building resistance and ultimately disaster. Both the Palestinians and the Russian-speakers of Ukraine will never give up on their right to govern their own land free of threat and violence against them. The Israelis and the western powers ought to have known this as they continued their repression of both these populations.

With diplomacy being regarded all across the West due to the overweening influence of the USA after 9/11 instability and disaster were inevitable. In its campaign against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria and its intended attack on Iran the USA and its proxies ensured that the entire world security system, such as it was to that point, could no longer be sustained. All else that we see occurring today was set in motion. With rendition to black sites, torture, the use of jihadi fighters as proxies and any number of illegal, immoral and unlawful acts the USA and its allies undermined the entire international order.

In addition to the above western powers began to contemplate the strategic use of nuclear weapons in limited engagements. Nothing was considered ‘out of the box’ or ‘beyond question’ after 9/11. All means considered necessary were to be contemplated. And the primary goal due to which all these various dangerous and illegal means became contemplated was the shoring up of western power and manipulative control so damaged, or considered so, by 9/11.

In recent times it has appeared that the USA in particular, and with its proxies apparently fully agreeing, considered that no world at all was preferable to a world they could no longer control. Of course first, before contemplating such a scenario they will do absolutely everything in their power to weaken, and if possible destroy every enemy they perceive that poses a threat to their maintenance of power. The power they have held in their own hands alone since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The thought that they could lose that level of power and control to any others is complete anathema to them. This is why they are willing to contemplate THE most powerful of all weapons against those enemies.

The crises in the Middle East and Eastern Europe are only symptoms of this greater struggle between the collective west (USA, UK, EU, Baltic States, Australia and New Zealand) against the world powers now rising that are clearly destined to steadily minimise its power and influence and to eventual neutralise and quarantine it.

In essence the collective west is fighting for its life and for what it considers its domain, the entirety of the planet.

What is it NOT willing to do in the fight to accomplish those aims?