RUSSIA'S MILITARY PINCERS ARE SLOWLY CLOSING & WILL IN DUE COURSE GRIND UKRAINIAN RESISTANCE TO DESTRUCTION

As a U.S. backed Kiev regime runs out of options, as reservists, criminal and elderly conscripts are thrown as cannon fodder at the Russian military, as the encirclement of Ukrainian troops in the Donbass grows ever tighter, as railway lines are hot hard preventing the West from re-supplying Kiev, as Ukraine's fuel dumps are decimated and the extremist fighters in Mariupol fast run out of food and water... the Russian military machine will continue to grind slowly and methodically to victory.

All the grand tales of Ukrainian valour, fed only by the seeming unlimited support of a death-hungry U.S. elites whipping on its British and European allies to further useless excess, will fall by the wayside as wails of anguish take their place.

It was never remotely in doubt that Russia would take its special military operation to a successful conclusion. What remained was the extent of her ambition in the face of a western world upping the ante and exhibiting the utmost willingness to engage in a proxy war with Russia. The net result of this will be that Russia is now minded to take much more of Ukraine than was at first planned and anticipated. The unwillingness of Kiev to acceded to Russia's terms at the outset makes the prospect of other pro-Russian regions now anticipating their liberation, regions far outwith the original plans for this operation.

The reports are that regions outside of the territorial area of the Donbass are now raising Russian flags and enthusiastically encouraging Russia to come and save them from the barbarian and lawless Ukrainian extremists who have made their lives so miserable in recent times.

Meanwhile the Russian military grinds its way through the south-east finding they are facing weaker and weaker, poorly and hardly-trained men in partial uniform facing them. Kiev emptied the jails directly into the Ukrainian army. Perhaps three days or a week at most was devoted to traing before they were sent to fight, die or desert.

Western mass media has been full of a diversity of fairy stories concerning the entire Ukrainian situation from its comedic president on down. Fantastical tales of "victories" and Russian "losses" with a wide range of jingoistic ranting mixed with pseudo-sentimental sobbing has created a pathetic spectacle of total denial and delusion in the West.

The shock now as the Russian pincers connect and proceed to squeeze what remains of the Ukrainian army to death can only be imagined. Paroxysms of anguish and rage can surely be expected. Both totally impotent in the face of what will be almost endlessly celebrated as 'The Second Great Patriotic War' in due course as great swathes of Ukraine fall under Russian control and two much brutally punished regions of the Donbass, the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics vote to join Russia. The joyous scenes witnessed in Crimea when it rejoined Russia in 2014 will likely be surpassed across the entirety of the former Ukraine and widely too of course across a now TRULY resurgent Russia.

The shock now as the Russian pincers connect and proceed to squeeze what remains of the Ukrainian army to death can only be imagined. Paroxysms of anguish and rage can surely be expected. Both totally impotent in the face of what will be almost endlessly celebrated as 'The Second Great Patriotic War' in due course as great swathes of Ukraine fall under Russian control and two much brutally punished regions of the Donbass, the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics vote to join Russia. The joyous scenes witnessed in Crimea when it rejoined Russia in 2014 will likely be surpassed across the entirety of the former Ukraine and widely too of course across a now TRULY resurgent Russia. 

HOW DID PUTIN BECOME HITLER & RUSSIA NAZI GERMANY?

Firstly it was required. Initially by NATO that required an enemy after it lost the Soviet Union.

With Putin there was a short honeymoon period from 2000 to 2007. If you look at this period you will find Putin and his wife meeting the royal family of Britain and George W. Bush stating he looked into Putin's eyes and found a decent human being. However, the western elite opinion reversed in 2007 when Putin made his famous Munich speech (which you can find in full and with English subtitles or vocal translation on YouTube).

In his Munich speech to the assembled political elites of the western world he basically told them that he was not buying into the concept of the USA and its allies running the planet as a unipolar entity. He said a lot of conciliatory things in that address too, but this appears to be almost exclusively what those western dignitaries took home with them... Putin is not one of us.

If you are not one of us then in western elite think (as George W. Bush also notably said) you are 'one of them', an enemy. And so, as quickly as that, Putin became as enemy of the West. Even though Putin had been one of the first world leaders to phone Dubya after 9/11, if not the very first, he was still an enemy and became in fact THE enemy. Despite broaching the possibility of Russia joining both the EU and NATO and speaking of wishing Russia could take her place in a 'common European home' nothing could change his status after that February day in Munich in 2007.

It was after 2007 that all the put-down, accusatory books and articles began to appear about Putin. He was accused of almost everything imaginable from unimaginable robberies, corruption and murder. Please note however that none of the plethora of accusations made it as far as a court of law... anywhere. These were assertions based on a variety of guilt-by-association links and other even vaguer connections none of which came anywhere close to being proven.

But mud sticks as they say and the mud-slingers have had a field day from 2007 to the present. It was all one-way traffic of course and the stories came thick and fast. Mass media across the western world played every sensational story for all they were worth with hardly a word gainsaying these accusations. I leave it to you and your knowledge of how repeated accusations without contradictions to their narrative tend to stick, especially where someone's reputation is concerned.

So, Putin became the world's most slandered man in effect amounting to a figure that could easily be transposed with a figure such as Hitler. From 2007 to the present day these two effects played out incessantly, 1) Putin was accused of unconscionable acts of criminality and 2) Not a word was heard in his defence or even cautioning that these were only suppositions and accusations that were lacking solid proof.

When it came to the current crisis in Ukraine all the aforementioned held true in spades. The western world was fully groomed concerning the Machiavellian monster and reincarnated Hitler who was the murderous, crooked despot who ruled Russia with a fist of iron. Why would anyone think otherwise? Those who headlined surfed and drank in western mainstream news as holy writ certainly would not. Only those who were curious enough to investigate the man in any detail remained sceptical and many became totally convinced they had been lied through the teeth about him.

What about Russia itself. As stated at the top of this commentary NATO was in big trouble and every career ladder within it was shaky with myriad positions at risk and an entire matrix of connections intertwined with European elite entities was at risk of dissolving like temporary stitches after an operation. The op had to go on, infection or no, scar or no... NATO could not be let fall out of existence.

Russia was the only candidate for the job of replacement of the Soviet Union for NATO. Truly no other nation fitted the bill and even now, though the NATO elites have expressed a wish to involve themselves in containing China that is seen as a bit of a stretch and Russia (especially now after its Ukraine intervention) still very much fits the bill.

That brings me to the last eight years with the insurrection in Ukraine deposing the democratically elected president and government there in 2014 and Russia's subsequent acceptance of Crimea after a speedily organised referendum. Russia went from being a subject of much criticism over certainly actions deemed authoritarian and of dubious merit such as the hard-fought war in Chechnya to becoming an object of instant and grievous controversy.

For western populations all was made very simple. Russia had "invaded" Ukraine. Then, when the people of the Donbass reacted in horror to their democratic right to choose a president and government being removed on Maidan Square, Kiev and began taking over administrative buildings, things moved to an even more serious level of one-sided narratives depicting Russia as being behind everything going on there.

I watched all this at the time and it was then with the utterly partial reporting of events in the Donbass that I realised something very wrong was going on. The blame for almost every event was being placed on Russian shoulders whereas the great numbers of civilians dying due to random mortar shells fired into Donbass urban conurbations by Ukrainians were somehow Russia's fault too. Something VERY fishy was going on.

I began to realise in fact that a very real world war was in fact going on. The 'Get Putin!' campaign had been seven long years in operation by 2014 and from then until today there was ever more grist for its mill.

Putin and Russia became the reason why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in 2016 and for four long years once again the two whipping boy entities served their purpose. Once again the message was incessant and wholly negative. What were accusations and suppositions only soon transmogrified and lost any qualifying statements within what appeared to be a matter of minutes. Allegations became spoken of as facts at almost lightening speed.

Once again no one in the mainstream would utter a single world of doubt. The guilt of Putin and Russia was simply taken for granted.

Then it came to the point where the agreement of Kiev to make certain changes was accomplished. At Minsk in 2015 the then authorities in Ukraine agreed that they would speak directly to the leaders of the two breakaway republics seeking autonomy within Ukraine. (Putin had refused their request to join the Russian Federation and told them to seek greater autonomy to preserve their at-risk language, culture and historical affiliations with Russia). In addition Kiev had promised to provide special status to the republics providing them with the autonomy they sought.

Seven long years then passed with Kiev failing to implement the above steps they had signed up to and which were ratified at the United Nations. Ultimately, a month or so before Putin initiated Russia's Ukrainian intervention Kiev stated it was no longer interested in implementing them. Instead it was going to seek a military solution, regain its nuclear status, train with NATO troops and re-arm massively with the help also of NATO becoming a de facto NATO state.

At this time also Russia made demands upon NATO that it would never make Ukraine (nor Georgia) a NATO state and that all NATO forces and weaponry be removed to positions they had had many years before when Gorbachev had been assured NATO would not move an inch further east if the then Soviet Union did not create any barriers to the unification of Germany. The USA and NATO essentially stonewalled and more, then Kiev stated it wanted nothing more to do with the Minsk Agreements.

The patience of Putin and Russia was at an end. And especially so when word came in from Russian intelligence that Kiev planned an imminent attack on the two republics. (Kiev had been progressively building up its forces in the Donbass since the previous Spring.) So it was that Putin, as requested by the Russian parliament, the Duma, after receiving the plea from the republics recognised them as sovereign entities that Russia agreed to protect.

Things moved quickly from that point on and soon Russia's 'special military operation' was underway, the invasion of Ukraine... putting the lid on everything that went before, now there could be no possible room for doubt, all the conditioning of the western mind was about to pay off and a whole host of accusations could be made, almost without limit and many of them suggested with alacrity by the Ukrainians.

Putin was evil. Russia was guilty of horrendous war crimes and crimes against humanity. Putin and his generals were waking each day licking their lips wondering how many babies, school kids, hospital patients and everyday civilians they could kill that day. The circle of demonization was complete, a fully self-generating belief-bubble of pejorative terms had been created and not a single western soul in the mainstream was ever going to burst it.

THIS IS HOW PUTIN BECAME HITLER & RUSSIA NAZI GERMANY

BY WHOM ARE WE BEING DRIVEN TOWARD WORLD WAR THREE?

The question posed above is hardly a mystery. It merely takes a willingness to observe the obvious. Many of us do this... but at least an equal number, and I suspect a great many more do not.

Many are simply caught up in HAVING to believe something rather than seeking to discover what the REALITY truly consists of. Everything depends on the attitude we bring to such matters. An enquiring mind will always gain access to something approaching actuality than a fixed one.

With this in mind what factors are obvious in reference to the question that heads this commentary?

Which nation or group of nations has made the most interventions in sovereign nations over the last hundred years? Which nation or group of nations has involved itself or themselves in deposing the leaders of sovereign nations, assisting coups in sovereign nations or arranging assassinations in sovereign nations?

I will name no names, I will leave the conclusions on this question wholly up to the reader.

For me the answer to all the questions above is clear, especially in regard to two particular nations that repeatedly display a certain disposition to regarding themselves as having a mission that REQUIRES intervention, a mission that derives its power from a sense of superiority over others and which the elites of these nations feel behooves them to have an almost God-demanded duty to intervene. However, others must make up their own mind.

There has been one other nation that at the very least we have been told wished to achieve world domination, that took advantage of the second world war to occupy a number of nations in Europe.

That nation had an ideological belief in the superiority of its own system of social organization and control. It gained its own expansion due to its vital role in defeating what had been to that time the most aggressive and violent attempt to intervene in an almost unlimited manner globally with apparent unending ambition based on its supposed inherent superiority.

I would argue that there are only two primary candidates who mirror the global ambitions demonstrated by the country above. That there are only two that conceive they have the 'manifest destiny' to go out into the world and intervene, removing leaders they disapprove of and replacing systems of governance that they consider less ideal than their own.

And what might be the result of these ambitions? In fact we have seen the results of some already in the Middle East and can reasonably clearly judge what might result from such similar or even larger scale interventions in future.

And the intent behind such interventions beside the obvious ones of removing leaders and replacing systems? In my estimation these are quite obvious and involve the elimination of all opposition to certain powers who see themselves as superior as described above and therefore as the inheritors of the role of world guardians and controllers, maintaining a high degree of surveillance, intervening at every level to ensure their own values are consistently and permanently adhered to.

It is the resistance to these single pole of power geopolitical ambitions that creates the negative effects up to and including a third world war. It is the RESPONSE to these ambitions, not the ambitions of those being intervened against that will clearly cause the enormously negative effects inevitably to follow from the ambition to gain globally hegemony by all means considered necessary.

Yet what are those being targeted to do? Submit to the demands that they concede to the claims of foreign superiority mirroring the colonialist era of the past? National pride I would think would always find such a prospect geopolitical anathema. So, the building sense of crisis continues, with two nations in particular using every means to undermine and subvert those it wishes to bring under control.

The underlying elements that fuel this effort are twofold. One is that inherent sense of superiority spoken of before. The other is a largely unspoken fear. Since it was hit hard after a very long period of invulnerability, one of the two nations in question clearly determined that unless it gained overarching ability to surveil and control such an event or even more serious attacks could occur.

So here we are. On a road with no turning in a juggernaut without a reverse gear. Duty through a sense of overwhelming superiority and duty to export that superiority along with an equally overwhelming fear and determination to eliminate all sources of that fear.

Driving hard on the road toward World War Three.

NO NAZIS IN UKRAINE?

The historical Nazis were of course solely adherents of Adolf Hitler's murderous creed of hate and ultra-violent atrocities who assisted him in the slaughter of millions.

The mindset of the Nazis however, is still with us and still as focused on hatred and ultra-violence, still capable of the most inhuman atrocities.

Western political and media elites like to play down this reality as it tends to contradict their all sweetness and light portrayal of the present leadership in Ukraine and their military forces.

They say, scoffing as they mouth the words, "There are no Nazis in Ukraine!" The very idea appears to strike them as ludicrous. A preposterous concept and allegation then? Not quite.

The prevalent mythology among a sizeable minority in western Ukraine is that Hitler and his Nazis were a welcome boon to Ukrainian nationalism during world war two. So much so that thousands of Ukrainians from the western regions joined the Nazis and were instrumental in the killing of thousands of Ukrainian and Polish Jews at that time.

The main object of their hatred however was reserved for Russians. To this day 'Operation Barbarossa', Hitler's campaign to subjugate Russia is regarded with pride by the minority we are talking of here.

You might say these beliefs are relatively harmless and that might be true if its modern day adherents weren't intent on killing for them. Indeed, an estimated 14,000 have died at their hands and those of regular Ukrainian troops from 2014 to the present day. Those the modern day Nazis consider to be Russians though their only crime is to live in eastern Ukraine and have good relations, inter-marriage with Russians, speak Russian and celebrate the defeat of the Nazis at the hands of the Red Army.

This minority, with a distinctly Nazi-mentality who hold Ukraine's Nazi legacy permanently close to their hearts favour symbols that mimic the swastika and 'wolfsangel' insignia used by the original Nazis. And too they favour the salute that has become infamously associated with the Nazis. But no western elites tell us, there are no Nazis in Ukraine. It's all "Russian propaganda". They wouldn't lie to us... now would they?

UKRAINE & THE WESTERN AGENDA: COMPLEXITY, SIMPLICITY, SIMPLE-MINDEDNESS AND INSIGHT

Are any geopolitical situations completely simple? I don't think so. Why then are they often portrayed in the simplest of forms at times, especially via mass media?

Simple geopolitical circumstances must surely be almost as rare as hens' teeth. On the contrary I would suggest that the briefest look into any decent history book will tell the average reader that instead they are intensely complex and take a great deal of understanding to gain a clear picture of all that is involved.

Yet what do we see across western mass media? A plain and simple story of good and evil with Ukraine being wholly good and Russia wholly evil. What benefit to anyone is such an analysis, if such a word can be applied to such a portrayal? It is certainly not designed to inform as this would require a portrayal of events reflecting a due degree of complexity including the reasons for the 'other side' doing what they are doing other than simply that they are demons in human form perpetrating acts of evil, unrepentant, irredeemable and that the only fitting response is to fight them to a standstill.

Is this approach not to some degree simple-minded? Yet we are talking of such prestigious entities as the BBC in the UK and CNN in the USA. Is it truly the case that they know their approach is simplistic (if not quite simple-minded)? I do wonder. Their stance is four-square alongside that of the UK and U.S. state positions without so much as a cigarette paper between them.

Russia does have its reasons for every action seen playing out in Ukraine, reasons that reflect its own national interests and the interests of the Russian-speaking people of Ukraine, most of whom who live in the eastern Ukraine region known as the Donbass. However, to the BBC, CNN and virtually all other western mainstream news entities, to even speak of these is regarded as tantamount to support for them.

Those who are of a more intellectual mental bent are no doubt discussing the entire scenario playing out in Ukraine currently along with the long history leading up to them stretching back to the second world war and long before. But BBC and CNN editors have clearly made the decision that there must be a clear dividing point between what is known and relevant and what is required to be shown and useful.

Here we see an agenda has been formed. This is quite clear and distinct. No one with a mind unprejudiced on these matters but with a decent understanding of the factors involved on both sides can fail to notice this. The BBC and CNN et al are fully behind the Kiev authorities and fully against those of Russia. The output they channel to their viewers can hardly then under these circumstances be called news. It is perhaps better defined as the conveyance to the western public of the latest positions held by western states in their alliance against Russia and the helpful descriptions that will hopefully add support to these positions.

This is where simplicity conveyed to the sometimes simple-minded comes in conflict with the principles of journalism including balance, freedom from bias and impartiality which categorise the best of journalism as it has been known to date.

Journalists have morphed in recent times to become commentators and in the present war mode situation have morphed once more into state stenographers.

For all the reasons above I have therefore titled this text:

UKRAINE & THE WESTERN AGENDA: COMPLEXITY, SIMPLICITY, SIMPLE-MINDEDNESS AND INSIGHT

UKRAINE: THE TERRIBLE UNCONSCIONABLE ADVANTAGE OF KIEV'S EXTREMIST FORCES

There is a fact that it appears most western audiences are blithely unaware of, even though this is a primary detail concerning Ukraine that lies at the heart of the current violence.

Ignorance of this fact gives the most sadistic and most conscience-free of Kiev's forces an enormous advantage, though one that when understood must surely cause great revulsion (and perhaps even rejection of the fact) in one being enlightened concerning it.

That most salient of facts concerns the split down the middle of the country with one side looking east and the other west. Ukraine is to all intents and purposes, two countries in one. Two entirely distinct histories and loyalties as well as language divide Ukraine.

So, what is the largely unknown fact among the general population of the western world that gives the most extreme of Kiev's forces an advantage?

It is that they perceive those of eastern Ukraine essentially as non-humans, as traitors to the Ukrainian state, as, when brought down to their most crude interpretation, as Russians.

These perceptions, of families who have lived for as many generations as themselves in Ukraine, generates an unbridled hatred among the most extreme of those imbued with the sense that they are "saving" Ukraine from them. The acts fueled by these concepts, that these are lesser, dangerous, expendable and loathed non-humans, is linked indelibly in emotional terms with the concepts of white supremacy, and is utterly deadly in their remorseless execution. The 'White Power' symbol and words are in fact almost as common on the military uniforms of these 'executioners' as those of symbols very closely mimicking those of Nazi Germany during world war two.

How do these virulent and rabidly-held feelings toward half the Ukrainian population by the most extreme of Kiev's forces show themselves?

Being a target alongside and equal to their known foe, the Russian army, the 'Moskals' as these people call the entire population of eastern Ukraine, they are subject to any attack imaginable and for no other reason that they are 'Moskals'. Indeed, if anything they are loathed and hated even more than actual Russians as, for them, they as has been said are 'traitors' to a Ukrainian nation that has struggled for generations to be free of outside influence.

These expendable millions become a useful tool in the hands of the most desperate of Kiev's most extreme forces, now, since their ruthless demeanour and ultra-violent methods were first seen on Kiev's Maidan Square, have been taken into the Ukrainian military and National Guard.

What have been the effects of this attitude of unbridled hatred for every man, woman and child in eastern Ukraine in recent times? Firstly, the events of 2014 up to February 24th of this year and especially in the years 2014 and 2015 when such people arrived in eastern Ukraine and began firing random mortar shells into the midst of the civilian populations there. Fourteen thousand fatalities and uncounted injuries have taken place. Secondly and in recent times, during the current conflict, the Kiev extremists have used the opportunity to cause mass death incidents perpetrated upon this hated community in the east and, due to the general ignorance of western readers and viewers these have been portrayed as Russian attacks.

The destruction of the theatre in Mariupol, the shelling of people gathered at the train station in Kramatorsk and the unconscionable atrocity (in fact massacre) that took place in Bucha. All inflicted upon those the extremist Kiev fighters call 'Moskals'. But to a largely ignorant western audience via a western mass media news service that is more than willing to blame Russian forces for anything possible, this appears believable. However, when you understand that in each case those who died were the very population that Russia came to rescue from the eight year attacks that western Ukraine had put them through. I think you will agree they represent an extremely poor target for Russian forces to expend their weaponry upon.

They do represent a fine propaganda narrative for Kiev however. In war the enemy is always demonized to the greatest extent possible and Russia has been demonized in this way before and the narrative has been carried forward remorselessly by western mainstream press and media. The same story was seen in Syria where Russian military officers were supposedly waking up each morning wondering how many school children or hospital patients they could kill that day. Those children and those patients of course being the same ones that Russia was attempting to save from the violent militants and ISIS terrorists in Syria.

Logic need not apply in these cases as raw emotion fuelled by misinformation, jingoism via a persistent war mode mentality and outright propaganda are very effective in the absence of detailed knowledge.

And this is exactly what is occurring in the case of recent scandalous atrocities which have taken place in eastern Ukraine. An existing hatred and unlimited loathing for millions of innocent families, framed in terms of each and every one of them being 'vile traitors' is causing the active contemplation of ever further and even more lethal and horrendously brutal attacks. The next form of attack may well be through the use of some form of chemical weapon. The goal? To stimulate further outside interventions in this the hour of the perpetrators greatest need as they see defeat staring them in the face. That defeat will ensure the future safety of those they hate most in all the world, the 'Moskals' of eastern Ukraine and the breakup of the Ukrainian nation they have sworn, as their undying duty and by all means possible to maintain intact.

Ignorance of the background to all this then is the terrible advantage used in past atrocities and to be used in any future atrocities that can so easily be turned again and again into useful propaganda against Russia.