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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask yourself four questions in particular regarding these events.

1. Cui bono, who benefits?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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