THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS LYING AT THE HEART OF THE UKRAINE CRISIS

 

There has been a lot of talk from predominantly British sources in the last few days about a US-predicted puppet government being set up by Russia in Kiev. 

 I thought now was an appropriate time to look at a few fundamental truths concerning the change of both president and government in Ukraine during the winter of 2013-14.

First let us take a look at the presidential election which brought the president into power prior to the change in government initiated that winter.

Was he democratically elected?

Number of election observers:

European Network of Election Monitoring Organizations (ENEMO) - 450 observers, The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) - approximately 60 long-term and 600 short-term observers, European Member States - 700+ observers, the European Center of Geopolitical Analysis - 20 observers.

A total of 3,149 international observers monitored the January 17 2010 presidential election in Ukraine. (Source: Wikipedia)

Result of the election: Victor Yanukovich becomes president of Ukraine.

What was the Verdict of the election observers listed above?

'After the second round of the election international observers and the OSCE called the election transparent and honest.' (Source: Wikipedia)

'The election has been widely recognized and endorsed as being fair and an accurate reflection of voters' intentions by all international agencies observing the election including the OSCE and PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe).' (Source: Wikipedia)

Let us now turn to the Ukrainian parliamentary elections of 2012.

Was the election monitored by observers?

On election day (28 October) there were 3,500 accredited foreign observers. (Source: Wikipedia)

Ten thousand foreign observers (in all) were expected to observe the elections. (Wikipedia)

Which party won the election?

The Party of Regions won with 185 seats. In second place was the Batkivshchyna Party with only 101.

What was the verdict of the election observers?

'The observers from the European Academy for Election Observation (most of whom were European parliament members), stated it was "a good election, not perfect but clearly acceptable", and that it was "in compliance with democratic norms"'. (Source Wikipedia)

Victor Yanukovich and The Party of Regions then were both democratically elected to power, having gained the greatest support of the voters of Ukraine, most of those residing in the eastern half of the nation.

Both were caused to fall dramatically from power in several months that saw acts of arson, Molotov cocktails thrown, bricks hurled, toxic sprays used, heavy chains swung, clubs of all kinds embedded with nails used, along with handguns and hunting rifles.

Was this a democratic process? The answer to this is surely obvious.

Was it justifiable to bring both president and government down for some unconscionable criminal act that they had committed?

Hardly. The point of contention was that the president hesitated to accept an offer from EU representatives that was put in terms that excluded any other offer such as the very generous offer from Russia available to Ukraine at the time.

Is this a valid reason to use violent insurrection to remove both president and government from power?

Is this a valid reason for the United States to promote certain individuals to replace those democratically elected to their positions within the Ukrainian state and to applaud the methods used and their ultimate outcome?

If what was created in Ukraine by the USA was not a puppet government then the term loses all meaning... except as an expedient term to use regarding the acts of others than yourselves.

How does this sit with their reaction to the attack on the Capitol Building in Washington on January 6, 2021 which though resulting in much less of an outcome than that in Kiev, Ukraine in 2014, has been called by many, a violent insurrection?

Is this not a case of obvious hypocrisy and double standards? A stance totally swayed by the perceived national interest of the United States. Where are the high moral principles supposedly sincerely espoused by U.S. political elites concerning democracy and the rule of law?

What then was the net effect of the insurrection against both Victor Yanukovich and The Party of Regions in regard to those who had voted them into power, those in the eastern half of Ukraine?

Clearly their democratic rights were removed from them and in addition it was threatened that they should lose their language also, become second class citizens in their own country and if they didn't like that then they would be taught to like it and to give up their previous loyalties and allegiances and much else besides.

What you YOU do in such circumstances? Simply take it and bow to the new power usurped through violent, undemocratic means by those who called you the pejorative term 'Moskals' and regarded you as Russians, fit to be excluded, attacked, imprisoned, abused and eliminated if necessary.

Would you allow your culture, language and heritage to be swept aside, denigrated and denied you along with any democratic rights you had up to the point of those months on Kiev's Maidan Square? Would not perhaps think of what this would mean not only for you but for your children and all children to come in your region of eastern Ukraine? Would you not be tempted to resist, to do all you had to do to demand autonomy for your region and make a stand for your way of life, your loyalties, heritage and language?

I leave it up to you to make of the above what you will, to examine if what the western powers did was right according to their own oft asserted principles and in particular those concerning the sanctity of the democratic process.

These are the fundamental and primary questions that lie at the heart of the Ukraine crisis and are the genesis of all the tragedy, death, destruction and division that followed on from these events. I ask you to consider who is TRULY to blame for all that has subsequently occurred. On the evidence above was it all Russia to blame... or do you see another entity (or perhaps two) having a track record for so-called colour revolutions and regime change?

 

THE WILDLY INSANE MELODRAMA OF AMERICA'S MANIC ELITES

 

Days after the USA broadcast that it was evacuating its staff from its Kiev embassy the UK does likewise.

It seems that these mirror image twins of exceptionalism are locked into a farcical alliance now approaching tragi-comedy levels.

Incompetent foreign policy teams make constant errors, digging themselves ever deeper into a morass they appear to love the texture of so much that they cannot get enough of it.

That old adage offering advice on such situations whereby if you are in a hole to stop digging appears lost on their fear-ravaged minds.

It may well be the case that the Psyops Teams (Psychological Operations Teams) too have suffered some kind of psychological collapse and are now engineering the equivalent of a Broadway flop production to rival all past turkeys and then some.

And all the while, at the top of this incredibly shaky edifice stands a man, wobbling more by the day, who can hardly open his mouth without a gaffe coming out. He seems unable to stick to the party line devised for him. Much like his predecessor the manic interior becomes suddenly exterior and frantic staffers have to run around correcting the "impression" he made and saying what "he really meant".

It's a comedy of errors all round with a series of clowns coming and going here and there worldwide, popping up to babble nonsense or issue wild accusations about invasions that there is no sign of, before returning to Babble Central in Washington.

Take Winkie Blinken for example. A wild and woolly warhawk, previously engaged in getting lucrative contracts for social media giants with the CIA and Pentagon. What a nice, peace-loving man to choose to be Secretary of State. He is almost perfectly replaceable in the peacenik stakes with the risibly rabid head of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, soon to be replaced by some equally rabid goon.

It's quite a shitstorm of idiocy out there folks. These are the people who claim to be the stalwart and ultra-responsible guardians of peace on Earth and goodwill to men, women... and every other new gender the western world creates on an almost daily basis. And don't say otherwise lest you be cancelled.

Perhaps this brave new world of cancelling others is at the heart of this entire black comedy. Russia, China, Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Yemen and who knows how many others require to be cancelled before world peace can break out. That the entire globe may be reduced to chaos, death, destruction and a nuclear winter is a mere detail in the holy plan to bring on the rapture of Armageddon. Amen to that?

With Pence and Pompeo having hardly left the Pure White White House of Unholy War we now find ourselves burdened by a similar crew in only slightly modified form with their own unique style of wacky warmaking. The meltdown of America seems to be progressing (or is that regressing?) to a state of apoplectic delirium within a circus of the surreal. Biden leading the blind with all his little mice gnawing gleefully on all live electric cables they can find.

And the end result?

A world war at the heart of Europe with its earth-shaking pulses of destruction stretching to every corner of an already punch-drunk world. The clowns of the neocon beltway seem intent on reaching either the endless relief of the end of the world or the coming of their savior intent on delivering the "good" among them to top positions in His protracted regime to weed out all "sinners". Amen to that too?

Where are the statesmen and diplomats of old who took their task of obviating war and seeking pathways to peace? Silenced or sentenced to obscurity after 9/11, no longer required by the newly sought breed of warriors whose task was the elimination of all resistance to U.S. rule. What need would there be for peace when every warlike sinew was to be harnessed in the task of bringing down every possible threat to the USA out there?

So we arrive at the goon show we see presently. A Head Goon in Washington masquerading as your favorite uncle tended to by a bevvy of minders and represented abroad by a horror flick band of thick-skulled denizens of the neocon deep. What hope is there for humanity or even for America with such a band of pantomime dummies leading the way?

While in the wings, who do we see. The Devil we used to know who paraded his own brand of lunacy for all to draw back in fear over or laugh till they were sick about, a true psycho with a cast of sociopaths around him. Will we see the return of Barmy Bolton and Pitbull Pompeo? Or will Tragi-Comedy Trump find some new ghouls to feed upon the stinking geopolitical entrails left behind by Biden & Co?

All will be revealed in the next episode of...

THE WILDLY INSANE MELODRAMA OF AMERICA'S MANIC ELITES

 

IS A BRAND NEW GEOPOLITICAL PARADIGM AVOIDABLE?

 

The USA and UK in particular clearly think so.

At the very least they believe it can be postponed. Their goal currently is again clearly, to weaken the possibility of this eventuality and if at all possible destroy the foundations of the central elements which currently make it appear inevitable.

That these efforts by the USA and UK and in ever declining form by Europe, to weaken and if possible stop this new paradigm, could cause another world war in its most devastating form (with a form of world warfare already being waged by them) clearly doesn't faze them to any significant extent.

The stakes for them are obviously considered too high to let any considerations of widespread death and destruction mitigate the extent or range of their plans. In my view the political elites in tandem with their media elites consider this to be an existential issue requiring an all-out effort to maintain western global dominance without which they have convinced themselves the world will go all to hell.

They have come to believe through centuries of happy self-awarding conditioning that they stand at the pinnacle of right conduct, good governance and ethical behaviour, the natural inheritors down from one generation to the next of the guardianship of the planet. In accordance with these beliefs those who do not stand with them must certainly then be standing against them and standing therefore against all that is righteous and good.

I am unaware of any empire that believed they were not right in all they said and did. How many bureaucracies and established elites indulged in self-doubt down the millenia. I would hazard to guess that the answer is an easy one, namely none.

And how many of the serried ranks of controllers of such empires gave up their notions of superiority, grandeur and benefits of high, self-granted status and control of others without a fight. You may say the British Empire is one such... but I did say 'without a fight'. The British Empire ended in most places faced with a determined force fighting for this outcome.

The empire of the West has lasted a very long time and has been reinforced significantly during that time, the chief of these being the outcome and aftermath of the Second World War. Hitler and Nazi Germany were defeated. Leaving aside that the Russian victories over German forces and entry first to Berlin was the main factor in ending it, in the West the impression given was that of a victory by the West.

The empire of the West has however been looking increasingly tarnished of late. This especially so since 9/11 when the USA, UK and others began their campaign of regime change wars with their attendant lies, deceptions, manipulations and outright propaganda assisted by a complicit western press and media. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan added another nail to its coffin. It seems inevitable that eventual withdrawal from Iraq and Syria will add further nails to it.

Currently we see another series of nails being readied in the shape of a European withdrawal from U.S. and UK battle plans regarding both Ukraine and Russia. The humiliation I predicted a number of commentaries ago appears imminent. Upon this further set of nails being applied to the coffin of the western empire I would suggest that few more will be necessary to complete the job.

What then?

Over the last several decades we have seen the inexorable rise of the Chinese economy. That of Russia has followed a similar if not nearly as impressive increase in its economic success. Now that both nations fully recognise the mutually beneficial results of ever-closer cooperation there can surely be no further restrictions on their continued success and ever-growing influence. Their growing influence will I predict 'bring on' the foundations for the new 'empire free' geopolitical paradigm I expect, predict and am hoping for.

At the point where an unlamented western empire rests dormant in its well-sealed coffin I would predict we will see a world breathing a deep and long sigh of relief. This while the work of restoring the world to a place where agreement and not disputation become the order of the day, where trade not trouble is at the forefront of press and media around the globe and where a general tolerance of diverse forms of governance is found.

In short the beginnings of a world where the prospects for war diminish, where that which unites us is emphasised rather than that which divides us and an acknowledgement is recognised that most of humanity wishes only to reside in peace, nurturing their families, seeking betterment of their lives, not at the expense of other nations and where no one particular political dogma is demanded for all nations.

So, in answer to the question within the title of this commentary I would say no, in due course, in the absence of the USA and UK refraining from using their ultimate weapon of domination, a brand new geopolitical paradigm for our world is not avoidable and is indeed absolutely unavoidable.

 

 

IS THE USA ACTING TO STOP A WAR OR TRYING TO GET ONE STARTED?

 

 There is a relentless push going on to provoke Russia into an act of war.

With this the USA gains some public relations points by being able to say Russia is an unconscionable aggressor state. This latter also helps in what may well be the greater goal in the present scenario, to relentlessly blacken Russia's name with a view to taking down any and all economic rivals.

The USA is in the fight of its life to retain its economic dominance. China is rising inexorably and Russia, though having a far smaller economy than either China or the USA, is also a nation of great influence.

Political influence is one side of a strategic coin where economic success is the other. Where you are a powerful influence you will also have open channels for your business sector to exploit to the full. This also works conversely, where you have built up an extensive trading network you will also have a high degree of political influence.

The trend has been to the economic advantage of China and Russia over the USA and EU for many years now, especially and observably so regarding China. This threatens both the economic success of the USA and Europe as well as its taken-for-granted political influence.

The USA and UK and to a lesser extent European nations have fashioned for themselves an aura of indomitable influence that stretches to almost every corner of the world. From their ivory towers these elites scan the globe with patrician mentalities that have come to seem their natural inheritance. Over the centuries from slavery to colonialism to the "winning" of the Cold War they have prided themselves on their values of superiority and their to them highly deserving 'exceptional' status. The continuance of this status depends on their continued political influence which hangs in turn upon their economic success. That economic success of course also determines their ability to support their military reach and sustained levels of potential threat to rivals.

It has long been commented upon by those not enamoured of western foreign policy that war and the threat of war are necessary to maintain the military industrial complexes of western nations and particularly so when it comes to the United States. In this field political influence also plays an important part. Apart from the revolving door aspect where political bigwigs end their political careers to become board members in so-called defence corporations there is also the incestuous sponsorship regime they need to support reelection campaigns. The "defence" corporations need ever more orders, politicians require ever more cash and those who pay for these mutually beneficial relationships are usually those in nations targeted for regime change.

Regime change enables a flow of orders to western (usually U.S.) companies for a variety of services from legalised mercenaries to building contractors and a plethora of other service industry personnel linked to the U.S. Army and Air Force. The mightily raised threat level (usually on a one by one basis, but not always) creates the leeway required to boost "defence" spending and generally smoothes the influence highway to the goals set which the threat levels are raised as high as necessary to accommodate.

We see this currently regarding the situation revolving around Ukraine. Russia is the threat (even when it is clear to incisive observers that it is instead the USA) that makes the usual range of win-win factors come into play. Military industrial complexes are stimulated, NATO gains more traction in ex-Warsaw Pact nations, American influence rises, Russia as a trading partner becomes less favoured and perhaps even excluded from consideration.

In this scenario as in all those seen previously the target tends to get caught in a net spread through myriad devious methodologies. No matter what it does the western machine adjusts its tactical ploys to further ensnare the victim.

Continuously repeating that Russia could attack Ukraine at any time thoroughly conditions western minds not adept or interested in probing such situations deeper than reading or listening to headlines. These headline surfers tend to be in the majority in these days of limited leisure time, work stress and hard-to-balance household budgets. Western mainstream media acts as the complicit foil for western states in all this as examined in my previous commentary.

It all amounts to a Devil's Recipe Book wherein a somewhat bitter propaganda soup is cooked and then served both daily and nightly into the open minds of its somewhat tired and distracted customers.

Russia can demand that this stop. Russia can prepare her defences. Russia can appeal to the better nature of the powers tormenting her. Russia can look to the better natures of those in the UN. None of this is likely to stop or even to restrain the determination of western powers to eliminate its leadership and present system of governance. The decisions made immediately after 9/11 do not allow for any restraint to be shown in eliminating all targets not conforming to western will. Neither do they allow any moral or ethical considerations to affect the methodologies used to effect the goals agreed.

So, when it comes to the question of whether the USA is acting to stop a war or trying to get one started, it will always be the latter. That is, until every last possible opponent of unlimited U.S. power has been demonized, subverted, deceived, tortured, attacked, invaded and finally eliminated from the face of the Earth.

 

 

THE PART WESTERN PRESS & MEDIA PLAY IN FOMENTING WAR

The words "Bring 'em on" by George W. Bush became infamous for their inference that the USA welcomed war.

Bush's style of leadership was abrasive and aggressive while most observers doubted that any intellectual capacity or ability to reflect reality lay behind his words. What was obvious however was that he had by one means or another reached a pinnacle of power in the West that he was blatantly using to foment war.

At the time Bush was speaking he was almost unanimously backed by western press and media, in fact the lust to attack "America's enemies" was palpable across all western and much of its population. The level of support seen then among western populations subsided to a great degree after the serial disasters of America's subsequent wars, especially when the lies used to gain support for them were revealed.

You might think this welcome cynicism brought about by successive disastrous wars initiated by the West in recent decades which so altered public opinion about them might have had a salutary lesson for western press and media also. But this reflection of reality in the West's news outlets was notable by its absence. In fact the jingoistic quality of its coverage has only increased in recent times.

Both the Guardian newspaper and the BBC in Britain have swung readily to the side of the neoconservative viewpoint that many of us expected to be discredited after America's exposure as a deceiving warmonger/war criminal state via Julian Assange's ‘Wikileaks’ site and other keen-eyed observers. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have likewise found no issue with further U.S. aggression and have regularly beat the war drums in the last decade.

What is going on? Why does western press and media seem so compelled to get behind the constantly warlike rhetoric of western politicians since their previous forays into this field have proven so disastrous for public trust in general and the targeted nations in particular?

Currently Russia, which long been lambasted as a kind of reconstituted Nazi Germany with a new Hitler, Vladimir Putin, at its head, is facing what appears to be an end game of unrelenting pressure from the West and its media is right behind these efforts. Seemingly completely unaware of its past support for such memes in the cases of Slobodan Milošević, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi it has ramped up this portrayal of highly targeted demonization where the wish to "bring on" war is inescapable.

 

Again, what is going on? What can explain the incredible degree of irresponsibility involved?

For me it all goes back to two factors:

1. 9/11 and the decision to eliminate all entities not obedient to western will.

2. The rise of Eurasia that will inevitably lead to the eclipse of western dominance.

These factors clearly represent a threat to the entire western world, 9/11 most obviously but the rise of Russia, China and others comprise an even greater threat economically and thus in terms of influence and manipulative power.

The identification of western elite power structures with each other is the prime factor in my opinion in solving this seeming mystery of the conclusion between press, media and state in fomenting war against certain targeted nations.

This can be seen virtually across the board in relation to reporting on a variety of nations from Venezuela to Nicaragua to Cuba to of course Russia and China. Now and then a somewhat critical article may appear regarding a western ally but these appear very seldom and do not reflect the consistent animosity in reporting toward the nations on America's 'A list'.

The slant of articles and programming across the western world's most prominent publications and news outlets against the target nations spoken of above is surely clear to everyone except those who are constantly imbued with the conditioned fervour of belief in the state narratives being conveyed.

Where do the principles of journalism figure in all this? Dedication to the truth no matter what. Principled devotion to ascertaining the facts and presenting a rigorously balanced picture of those facts with a minimum of opinion intervening. The right to reply and representation of those who are accused of transgressions. These fundamental precepts of good journalism are now completely missing. Now, for one reason or another opinion has become virtually all, assertions, speculations and accusations. Putin thinks this, Putin plans that, Russia did this, Russia may do that... this is what sells newspapers in the West and advertising and channel sponsors in the media. Generating controversy, increasing drama... sells.

And behind all this the determination to help western elites stay top dogs in the world because their ultimate fates regarding increasing or decreasing prosperity as press and media outlets as well as their status levels and career structures depend on the West winning out. Besides, these elites know each other well, they feed each other in incestuous fashion back and forward with briefings, meetings, intimate conversations and intel connections.

The onus is on obedience to the necessities involved in keeping the West great and eliminating those rising powers who it necessary to describe as a threat, as enemies with malign purposes. The world must be split in two with one half demonized and maligned constantly, almost to the extent where George Orwell's '1984' and its conditioned populations are mirrored, groomed for war and demonstrating necessary levels of fear and hate.

Western political elites can only do so much to foment war without the level of avid public backing needed to ensure minimal backlash.

 

This is where western press and media are such useful tools in the deadly enterprise embarked upon by their state elites, the fomenting and waging of the last world war.

 

 

WHY THE WEST HAS BECOME SUCH AN ELITE WARMONGERING ZONE

You may be surprised that the world is moving ever closer to war. Don't be. It is an inevitable consequence of decisions made immediately after 9/11.

On those days of shock and anger in the USA the most primary individuals at the top of the U.S. elite power structure gathered to map the way forward.

What were they to do?

The first priority and goal which remains in effect to this day is to do everything in their power to ensure nothing of the kind ever happens again. This required locating and eliminating each and every element that could contribute in any way or form to America being at risk. No stone was to be left unturned and no weapon to hand was to be neglected. Moral, ethical and principled stances were never to stand in the way of the primary goal. It was to be a no-holds-barred campaign to the full and absolute conclusion where no possible enemies of the USA would be left standing. All must comply with these wishes or be designated as targets.

We are living through this campaign even now. It is designed to work its way through to the point of an absolute zero of threat. That means in addition an absolute zero of criticism of the USA and the policies of its elites, even if this means a world war and ultimately a prison planet observed, controlled, judged and punished from space.

There are to be no survivors from the world that attacked on 9/11. All are to be eliminated whether that means leaders, systems of governance and all else within any incalcitrant nations that underpin stability. No recognizance of the need for stability exists within the protocols agreed after 9/11 except in respect of nations towing the line and submitting themselves to U.S. dominance.

Whether dictatorships or democracies, if you are on the side of the USA and its requirements you are safe from its targeting. Whatever you are, democracy or not, you are targeted for the extinction of all elements not willing to comply with U.S. needs.

For the reasons above the situation in Ukraine is unlikely to be resolved peacefully. Russia is quite obviously one of the USA's primary targets. The goal is the elimination of its leadership and system of governance. It really is of no concern or interest to the U.S. political hierarchy what Russia says about its concerns. The USA seeks Russia's total compliance with its wishes. Nothing less will do and any and all means will be used from subterfuge to insults to fake agreements, to false promises to every threat and ultimatum possible and all with the mass conditioning of its populations for support. Ukraine is being used as a battering ram to destabilize Russia with the ultimate goal as delineated above, its transformation into a nation compliant with U.S. needs.

This is what is going on and why it will be taken to its bitter end, not by any form of Russian aggression as asserted constantly in the West, but by the unlimited, ongoing and incessant machination of all western powers to attain the primary U.S. goal stated at the beginning of this commentary.

It is my long-held opinion that these factors, over and above all others, are the fundamental causes regarding why the West has become such an elite warmongering zone.

 

 

 

WHAT YOU ARE HEARING ABOUT UKRAINE FROM THE WEST IS REALITY REVERSED

 

What has happened, is happening or is about to happen in Ukraine to cause the current escalation in western rhetoric with daily accusations that Russia is at fault?

We will see that the actuality is far from the fantasy picture being painted by western elite sources, in fact it is the reverse of that fantasy depiction of events in Ukraine.

Why would either side wish to foment a situation where lives could be lost at any moment?

Who would have a reason to build the pressure likely to cause that loss of life and what might that reason be?

And finally, what factors are missing from the equation that informs the analyses seen daily in western mass media and across internet social media sites such as Twitter?

It is very clear that few, if any, fundamental steps are being taken to calm the situation and avert the likelihood of open conflict. One side or the other must have a compelling reason to keep the tension high. What might that be?

Many accusations and assertions are constructed making Vladimir Putin out to be the 'bad guy' in all this. There is nothing unusual in that however, this has been par for the course for well over a decade and a half now. In the West virtually every politician and news outlet in the mainstream says there is no justification for the so-called massing of Russian troops near the Russian-Ukraine border. Is this correct?

In fact no. There is justification aplenty as we will see.

In the past year we will find multiple good reasons for the presence of those troops.

1. Ukraine held mass training sessions where Ukrainian troops took part in exercises with NATO forces.

2. Ukraine has been massively building up its military forces in proximity to the two autonomy-seeking republics largely composed of Russian speakers who have Russian passports.

3. The West has been supplying Ukraine with ever-increasing numbers of weapons and in recent months with those of a higher specification and lethality.

4. Ukraine has acquired weaponized military drones from Turkey and has used them to hit targets within the republics.

5. In recent months the Ukrainian president, Zelensky has begun a pogrom against Russian and pro-Russian entities within Ukraine. Opposition politicians have been accused of treason and arraigned for trial, opposition (Russian language) TV stations have been shut down.

6. The rhetoric from officialdom, led by Zelensky in Ukraine has become increasingly heated against Russia whereas in his presidential run and in the early days of Zelensky's presidency he vowed to repair relations with Russia.

7. Ukraine has received endless moral encouragement from the West and NATO regarding its eventual entry into NATO along with Georgia. This is a red line for Russia that cannot contemplate for a moment having NATO troops and weaponry right up close to its border.

8. The refusal of Kiev to implement its promises in the Minsk agreements and the clear abandonment of them sent a strong warning signal to Moscow that Kiev was intent on using other, military means to resolve the situation in their favor alone.

9. Each step of the way in the events depicted above the Ukrainian president and the Ukrainian government has received the full backing of western political elites and western mass media.

Take all of the factors above in combination and you can see why Putin and Russia are concerned enough about these developments to have a contingency force ready to take on any eventualities. These factors are why the Russian troops stand ready. Russia has stated that it will protect its people in south-eastern Ukraine if they are attacked in a full-scale military campaign by Kiev. That obvious possibility considering points 1 to 9 above is a very real one and an eventuality that neither Putin nor the Russian state can afford to ignore.

With points 1-9 being the case and with the U.S., UK and others backing the mounting aggression being shown by Ukraine, what other choice did Putin and Russia have? They had none. Sit back and hope for the best? No. There was no way they could countenance such a strategy in the circumstance. Russia's troops are there to ensure no such action as described above by Ukraine are taken and if it is, to react swiftly and decisively to end it.

The growing aggression from the Ukrainian authorities with the attendant backing for it and support of it with financial and military assistance from the West shows clearly that the danger inherent in the present situation comes not from Putin or Russia but from Ukraine and the western powers.

Putin has called constantly for the implementation of Minsk to resolve the entire situation. He has never called since the start of the conflict for any solution involving violence. Minsk calls for the authorities in Kiev to speak directly to the leaders of the autonomy-seeking republics and to pass a bill in its Duma to allow federalized status to these regions. This latter is a crucial step as eastern Ukraine has very different loyalties and historical/cultural/ linguistic factors underpinning its society and mentality from the west. These need a system of semi-autonomous control free from oppression and/or domination by Kiev. Without this guarantee of democratic rights to choose the long time heritage beloved by each region further conflict is inevitable.

Yet Kiev refuses to budge, kept fixed in its positioning by ultra-nationalism and deep-seated hatred stemming from as far back as World War Two. Eastern Ukraine in general looks east. Western Ukraine west. Therefore an agreement to resolve this situation after the Euromaidan revolution took down the democratically elected presidency and government of Ukraine in 2014. (A president and government voted in via the greatest majority living in eastern Ukraine and Crimea. By taking them down this was the clear signal to those living in the east that their democratic rights were now nullified.)

The reasons above are why there is an imminent risk of a hot war breaking out at Europe's eastern frontier. The reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with "Russian Aggression". The reality is quite the reverse, this situation has arisen due to western aggression by its getting behind a coup in Kiev in the winter of 2013-14. This has led directly to the situation now prevailing.

But why double down? Why push this so hard? Ukraine is not a strategic asset to the West beyond a certain point. It should not be all or nothing for the West so why does it risk mass bloodshed and a war that would devastate Europe's economy and set back nations even further afield?

The answer lies in the days immediately after the events of 9/11. It was decided in meetings that took place then that ALL entities not in full compliance with the U.S. as the predominant force in the world must be regarded as risks for the nation and must therefore be eliminated as threats. It is dressed up in all kinds of fancy words such as 'Human Rights', 'Democracy', 'Freedom', 'Western Liberal Values' and 'A Rules-Based International System' but at its heart it is merely the push to rid itself of all entities not conforming to its needs and wishes. In practice it is a campaign to remove all non-conforming entities from power and the operative word is ALL and the determination is to do this as soon as possible. Hence no true diplomacy, hence no diminution of pressure and instead the incessant ramping up of pressure on all selected targets.

Above are the reasons why the situation in Ukraine continues to worsen. They are the reasons why bloodshed is almost inevitable. They provide an insight into exactly who is behind the reckless drive toward conflict and quite possibly outright war. And they show precisely why what you are hearing about Ukraine from the West is reality reversed.