I saw a version of this question online: “Why are people increasingly fearful that Russia will invade western Europe?”
The short answer: Western propaganda.
The mainstream Western narrative falsely presupposes that Russia invaded Ukraine in order to encroach on Western Europe. The truth, however, is that Russia invaded Ukraine because Ukraine and NATO instigated it.
The sad backdrop
The Americans—who, ignoring to their own Founders’ wise advice, can’t seem to stay out of other people’s backyards—were meddling in Ukraine long before Zelenskyy came to power. This came in the form
of the CIA’s traditional responsibilities and activities being farmed out to “overt” organizations, most significantly the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Founded in November 1983, then-CIA director William Casey was at the heart of NED’s creation. He sought to construct a public mechanism to support opposition groups, activist movements and media outlets overseas that would engage in propaganda and political activism to disrupt, destabilize, and ultimately displace ‘enemy’ regimes. Subterfuge with a human face, to coin a phrase.
Underlining the Endowment’s insidious true nature, in a 1991 Washington Post article boasting of its prowess in overthrowing Communism in Eastern Europe, senior NED official Allen Weinstein acknowledged, “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”
Fast forward to September 2013, and Carl Gershman, NED chief from its launch until summer 2021, authored an op-ed for The Washington Post, outlining how his organization was hard at work wresting countries in Russia’s near abroad—the constellation of former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact states—away from Moscow’s orbit.
Along the way, he described Ukraine as “the biggest prize” in the region, suggesting Kiev joining Europe would “accelerate the demise” of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Six months later, Ukraine’s elected president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in a violent coup.1
Now, said “coup” pitted a relatively neutral Yanukovych—caricatured as “pro-Russia”—against pro-EU Ukrainians. At first blush you could be forgiven for assuming that “pro-EU”—and the implied “anti-Russia”—must equate to pro-freedom and -peace. But only if you’ve been duped (as I had been!) by Western mainstream propaganda. The problem is that most Ukrainians, along with Westerners, didn’t grasp the dark ramification: cozying up with western Europe—and thus NATO—would naturally, inexorably be perceived by the Russians as a threat.
But for most of the West it was a matter of blissful ignorance. For certain agents of the American government, it was worse than that. One of the American meddlers in that episode was then-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, who “was caught on tape planning a coup in Ukraine using [Vice President] Biden’s help.”2 As for the predictable fallout in Europe at large, Nuland said, “F--- the EU.”3
Somebody with that same cavalier attitude, born of warmongering ideology, instigated a massacre of anti-Yanukovych/pro-Euro protesters in Kyiv’s Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti) in February 2014. The anti-Russian protests have been given the lofty label “Revolution of Dignity,” but there’s good evidence
that the narratives promoted by the Ukrainian and Western governments and with some notable exceptions the media that the Maidan protesters were massacred by government snipers and/or the Berkut police are false.4
[Post-Maidan] trials and investigations have not revealed any evidence that Yanukovych or his law enforcement ministers and commanders ordered the massacre of the Maidan protesters.5
Okay, so if Kyiv’s finest didn’t do it—who did?
The absolute majority of wounded Maidan protesters, nearly 100 prosecution and defense witnesses, synchronized videos, and medical and ballistic examinations by government experts pointed unequivocally to the fact that the Maidan protesters were massacred by snipers located in Maidan [protester]-controlled buildings.6
Why is this important in the scheme of things? Simple:
This false-flag massacre led to the de facto Western-backed violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government, which spiraled into the annexation of Crimea by Russia, the civil war, and Russian military interventions in Donbas.7
So much for American “intelligence,” “diplomacy,” and “journalism.”
Commenting on the ripple effects of the 2014 coup, The Guardian’s Seumas Milne reported:
The attempt to lever Kiev into the western camp by ousting an elected leader made conflict certain. It could be a threat to us all[.]
[Then-U.S. secretary of state] John Kerry brands Russia a rogue state. The US and the European Union step up sanctions against the Kremlin, accusing it of destabilising Ukraine. The White House is reported to be set on a new cold war policy with the aim of turning Russia into a “pariah state”.
. . . [A] couple of months ago . . . armed protesters in Maidan Square seiz[ed] government buildings and demand[ed] a change of government and constitution. US and European leaders championed the “masked militants” and denounced the elected government for its crackdown, just as they now back the unelected government's use of force against rebels occupying police stations and town halls in cities such as Slavyansk and Donetsk.
. . . . . . . .
When the Ukrainian president was replaced by a US-selected administration, in an entirely unconstitutional takeover, politicians such as William Hague brazenly misled parliament about the legality of what had taken place: the imposition of a pro-western government on Russia's most neuralgic and politically divided neighbour.
. . . . . . . .
After Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, the bulk of the western media abandoned any hint of even-handed coverage. So Putin is now routinely compared to Hitler, while the role of the fascistic right on the streets and in the new Ukrainian regime has been airbrushed out of most reporting as Putinist propaganda.
So you don't hear much about the Ukrainian government's veneration of wartime Nazi collaborators and pogromists, or the arson attacks on the homes and offices of elected communist leaders, or the integration of the extreme Right Sector into the national guard, while the anti-semitism and white supremacism of the government's ultra-nationalists is assiduously played down, and false identifications of Russian special forces are relayed as fact.
The reality is that, after two decades of eastward NATO expansion, this crisis was triggered by the west's attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit and defence structure, via an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement.8
As American governments are increasingly wont to do, they’ve attempted to categorize all of this under the so-called “fight for democracy.” In July 2015:
As the Ukrainian army squares off against ultra-right and neo-Nazi militias in the west and violence against ethnic Russians continues in the east, the obvious folly of the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy has come into focus even for many who tried to ignore the facts, or what you might call “the mess that Victoria Nuland made.”
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs “Toria” Nuland was the “mastermind” behind the Feb. 22, 2014 “regime change” in Ukraine, plotting the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych while convincing the ever-gullible US mainstream media that the coup wasn’t really a coup but a victory for “democracy.”
. . . . . . . .
Any mention of that sordid reality was deemed “Russian propaganda” and anyone who spoke this inconvenient truth was a “stooge of Moscow.”9
Sound familiar? We hear the same garbage as part of the ongoing, unjustified and unprecedented smear campaign against Donald Trump.
What the historical pattern indicates is that the Russia-Ukraine war is actually a proxy war between Russia and NATO.
. . . Larry Johnson, a retired CIA intelligence officer and State Department official . . . drew attention to the fact that the [2014] Euromaidan coup d'etat “ignited a civil war in Ukraine” and “ended up elevating Ukraine into a frontline priority” for the West.
“So prior to 2014, you didn't get a lot of NATO exercises, featuring Ukraine. After 2014 Ukraine, even though it was not a formal member of NATO, was regularly featured in these joint annual exercises and that meant that Ukraine then became a proxy for a Cold War.”10
What’s especially striking to me is the spiritual and moral duplicity that increasingly characterizes Western regimes. Ex-CIA officer Johnson goes on:
“The Western governments don't want anything good to happen to Russia. They're not willing to do anything to improve the lives of the Russian people. In my view, it's genuine evil. And I'm watching this horrific policy that's implemented by my government and there's going to be an accounting someday. This is wrong,” the CIA veteran said.
“You know, I could understand it if this had happened 40 years ago when the Soviet Union with the ideology of communism, of Marx and Lenin was dominant. And the attempt to, you know, destroy churches and exclude religion, if that was the case, so, okay, I can understand religious people wanting to rise up and throw that off, but that's not the case. It's just the opposite. What we've got going on in Ukraine is almost, it's demonic. It's satanic. They literally embrace anti-Christian views under the guise of being Christian,” Larry Johnson concluded.
Think about that: Western governments “embrac[ing] anti-Christian views under the guise of being Christian.” This is pretty much how the Bible profiles the Antichrist. [See also Johnson’s blog-piece “The Anti-God Subtext to the War in Ukraine.”]
Citing the traditional slogan from the Superman comics—that he “fights for truth, justice, and the American way”—Johnson says elsewhere:
The Superman character emerged in a time of innocence in the United States when there was a genuine belief that the “American Way” was understood as a commitment to truth, equal justice under the law and fighting for the little guy. Boy, were we naive.
And we’ve merrily marched that naivete right into the Russia-Ukraine war.
Enter Volodymyr Zelenskyy—
—a NATO proxy-puppet if ever there was one. He was democratically elected in 2019
after running on a campaign promising to negotiate peace with Russia and reduce the power of corrupt oligarchs who control much of Ukraine’s economy.
Although he successfully negotiated a prisoner swap with pro-Russian separatists early in his presidency, diplomacy with Moscow stalled due to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s demands that Ukraine stay out of Western alliances.
As tensions have escalated between Kyiv and Ukraine, Putin had accused Zelensky’s government of being a pawn of the West.11
Putin is absolutely right. And if you’re assuming this “must” mean I’m “pro-Putin” in a general sense—you’re quite wrong. My point of view on the war is twofold: (a) both sides are run by gangsters, but (b) Russia had at least some justification for invading. I don’t mean that going to war was, in and of itself, “good”; I mean that Putin’s reasons weren’t “bad.”
Those reasons include the fact that Zelenskyy is the beneficiary of the earlier American involvement in Ukraine: he inherited a virulently anti-Russian governmental machine, and carried that mentality into 2022. “What did Ukraine’s revolution in 2014 achieve?” asks The Economist. “It transformed the state and society, and pushed the country closer to the West[.]” [Italics mine.]
A West that, having cast off its Judeo-Christian roots, is apparently happy to climb into bed with a man who’s at least as corrupt as Putin. Consider the following analyses of the Zelenskyy regime:
We no longer get this perspective in mainstream Western media, though. The startling—yet unsurprising—media transformation is well captured by a couple memes I’ve seen floating around:
Talk about a 180: in lock-step with our governments, the Western lamestream media went from panning to praising Ukraine. This wholesale adoption and promotion of the new politically correct narrative has served to camouflage what Volodymyr Zelenskyy did to precipitate the 2022 invasion.
NATO: a geopolitical Don Juan
Once upon a time—back when we were used to the Russkies being the “bad guys” in espionage movies—NATO assured its eastern counterpart that they would play nice.
In 1990, the US, Britain, and France repeatedly promised the Soviet Union that they would not expand NATO “one inch eastward” after the reunification of Germany.
This is an undeniable historical fact, a matter of public record confirmed by numerous internal documents from Western governments.12
Also on the public record, albeit years later, is the revelation that NATO commanders knew what would happen if they reneged on their promise to stay in their own backyard.
Senior US government officials knew as far back as 2008 that the possibility of adding Ukraine to NATO was seen as a serious “military threat” by Russia, one that crosses Moscow’s security “redlines” and could force it to intervene.
. . . . . . . .
The former US ambassador to Russia, William J. Burns, who is now director of the CIA, warned in a February 2008 embassy cable that Ukraine constituted a security “redline” for Moscow.
. . . . . . . .
Burns cautioned that the issue of NATO membership for Ukraine “could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.”13
In that context, how could anyone argue rationally that it was just Russian aggression that instigated the 2022 invasion? The reality is Putin’s pragmatism: he wants “force Ukraine to maintain political neutrality, preventing it from being a Western military outpost that could threaten Russia on its borders[.]”14
Whatever you may feel toward Russia, try to put yourself in their shoes: if you’re an American, would you want China allying with Canada, then placing advance bases along the Canadian border? Would you expect the U.S. to feel secure in that situation?
You might argue that a circumstance like that calls for negotiations rather than war. Okay, well, the Russians tried that:
At every stage leading up the Russian military intervention in Ukraine in February 2022, the United States and its NATO alliance refused to give substantial concessions to Moscow, sabotaging all serious attempts at a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
. . . . . . . .
So in December 2021, the Russian Federation sent the US and NATO a series of requests for security guarantees. Principal among these was the demand that the military alliance must not admit Ukraine and Georgia.
. . . . . . . .
. . . [T]he Russian Federation insisted that the United States and NATO must respond to its demand for security guarantees with legally binding written statements.
Moscow emphasized that any agreements had to be in writing precisely because NATO has a history of lying to it.15
Here again Russia’s being factual rather than fictional: NATO “broke that [1990] promise, and not once or twice but 14 times. All 14 new member states that it admitted were east of Germany[.]”16 This is what I’m talking about when I say that I don’t trust Western propaganda any more than I trust Russian.17
In a very real sense, then—indeed, the sense that really matters—it’s not Ukraine fighting Russia; it’s NATO. Former US State Department official Eliot Cohen has even admitted this publicly:
The United States and its NATO allies are engaged in a proxy war with Russia. They are supplying thousands of munitions and hopefully doing much else—sharing intelligence, for example—with the intent of killing Russian soldiers. . . . To break the will of Russia and free Ukraine from conquest and subjugation, many Russian soldiers have to flee, surrender, or die, and the more and faster the better.
I italicized some of Cohen’s words to emphasize the following:
The adverb “hopefully” means that Cohen (and with him, NATO) believes this proxy war is a good thing;
Cohen believes the invasion was due to Russia’s desire for “conquest and subjugation”; as we’ve seen, this is a false narrative;
Cohen is pro-death, wanting as many Russian soldiers as possible to “flee, surrender, or die”; never mind that (a) this will mean more Ukrainian deaths too, and (b) the fact that Westerners made this conflict virtually impossible to avoid.
One of those nefarious Westerners, of course, is Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself.
Zelenskyy’s duplicity
Following the 2014 “revolution,” the Russian majority of the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine launched a counterrevolution: they wanted to amalgamate with Russia. But when Zelenskyy came to power, he persecuted citizens of Russian stock in the Donbas.
Naturally, Russia supported Ukrainian Russians, in part by annexing Crimea. Approximately 68% ethnically Russian, Crimea was historically part of Russia before it was part of Ukraine. Propaganda-swilling Westerners aren't typically aware of this.
Over the course of 2014-15, however, a tentative peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, known as the Minsk Agreements, was hammered out. As far as we can tell, Putin wanted that deal to work. It wasn’t Putin, but Zelenskyy—who “stood on a specific platform of implementing” the Minsk accords18—who sabotaged it.
The Guardian reported in February 2022, shortly before the Russian invasion, that Zelenskyy
reaffirmed to Macron what he has been saying for months: Ukraine is committed to fulfilling the Minsk accords, as long as this happens in the way Kyiv interprets them.
Turns out that Macron was dealing with Zelenskyy the actor: “As for Minsk as a whole,” Zelenskyy later admitted in an interview with Der Spiegel, “I told Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel: we will not be able to implement it like that.”
“I told [Putin] the same thing as the other two. They were surprised and replied: ‘If we knew in advance that you would change the meaning of our meeting, then there would be problems even before the summit.’ ”19
According to the, uh, “former” actor, “Procrastination is perfectly fine in diplomacy.” Zelenskyy
explain[ed] that he only “jumped on the train” and pretended to support Minsk in order to negotiate a prisoner swap with Russia—and give his country more time to prepare for war.20
Former German chancellor Angela Merkel supported this account:
Speaking in her interview for “Die Zeit”, published on December 7 [2022] . . . Merkel said the following: “The 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to buy time for Ukraine. Ukraine used this time to become stronger, as you can see today. Ukraine in 2014-2015 and Ukraine today are not the same.” According to the ex-Chancellor, “it was clear for everyone” that the conflict was suspended and the problem was not resolved, “but it was exactly what gave Ukraine the priceless time.”21
Also in the run-up to the invasion, The Hill reports that
Zelensky’s administration also complained the U.S. did not do more to protect Ukraine from the initial invasion such as bolstering its military forces and speeding up its application to be a NATO member.22
Bear in mind that all of the aforementioned was before the current war. About six weeks into it, when Russian troops were rumored to be “retreating”—the truth is that they were pulling back because Ukraine and Russia were on the verge of a peace deal. Guess what—more precisely, who—derailed that deal:
Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused partly because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight, David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine’s ruling party confirmed in a recent interview, published on Friday, November 24th.23
The Kyiv Post quoted Ukrainian negotiator Arahamiya as saying that the Russians
“really hoped almost to the last that they would put the squeeze on us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality. It was the biggest thing for them. . . . They were ready to end the war if we took—as Finland once did—neutrality and made commitments that we would not join NATO. This was the key point.”24
This again supports the earlier contention that a key—if not the primary—factor in both instigating and perpetuating this war is NATO courting the nonaligned countries of eastern Europe.25
You can call Vladimir Putin corrupt, a gangster, a murderer. You might argue that “you can take the man out of the KGB, but you can’t take the KGB out of the man.” And you’d be right (so far as we know). But here’s the problem when it comes to the Russia-Ukraine war: with the exception of past membership in the KGB, you could accurately describe Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the same way.
What could have been
Absent the above factors, there’s every reason to believe that Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. In other words: the West basically asked for it. Now they’re whining because they got what they asked for.
What is highly ironic and tragic is that, if we go back to 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a short-lived window of opportunity for Russia itself to join NATO!26 Imagine how much more at peace the West, and by extension the globe, would be if there was a zone of friendship across the entire northern hemisphere.
If you consider that scenario wildly implausible, there’s a once-upon-a-time-very-realistic alternative, not as good but still a net positive. Former Soviet states could have forged their own nonaligned association: a Neutral Zone between NATO and Russia. Neither of the latter two parties would be allowed to encroach on this territory; indeed, they could both have been guarantors of the neutrality. At the very least this would have greatly enhanced the odds of a lasting European peace, avoiding the current war and other potential conflicts.
What may yet be. NATO’s passive-aggressive behavior—physically uninvolved in hostilities, yet acting as the ghost in the Ukrainian machine—is making World War III increasingly likely. Short of a new global war, Western economic collapse appears to be a virtual certainty. It’s only a matter of time.
Just because of the Ukraine thing? No, because of its international ramifications. Instead of the long-dead possibility that Russia may have gravitated politically westward, it’s gone in the opposite direction. The economic bloc known as “BRICS”—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa—has grown from an “informal grouping” in 2006 “into an intergovernmental organization.”27 This year Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates have joined the fold.28
The acronym “BRIC” (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) was first used by then-Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill to describe the four economies that could, if growth were maintained, dominate the global economy by 2050.29
More recently, O’Neill has written, “Despite a disappointing decade for Brazil and Russia, it is still possible that the BRIC grouping could become as large as the G7 within the next generation.” Especially given that “China . . . has been the leading proponent of expanding BRICS to BRICS+,” according to Alicia Garcia-Herrero, of the economic think tank Bruegel.
The main reason for such expansion was to make BRICS more representative of the developing world and give it a stronger voice on the global stage. . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . [T]he mere fact that such expansion has happened in a rather smooth way is a clear sign that the global balance of power is shifting and that developing countries are playing an increasingly important role in global affairs.
And according to InvestingNews.com’s Melissa Pistilli, “The BRICS nations are interested in creating a new currency to compete with the US dollar.”
The potential impact of a new BRICS currency on the US dollar remains uncertain, with experts debating its potential to challenge the dollar's dominance. However, if a new BRICS currency was to stabilize against the dollar, it could weaken the power of US sanctions, leading to a further decline in the dollar's value. It could also cause an economic crisis affecting American households. Aside from that, this new currency could accelerate the trend toward de-dollarization.
Nations worldwide are seeking alternatives to the US dollar[.]
BRICS does not yet have its own currency (my money’s on the Chinese yuan), and we can’t predict future economic or geopolitical developments. However, the growth of BRICS coupled with a West increasingly steeped in debt likely means that the sun is setting on Western dominance.
Here’s how the Ukraine war ties in:
Instead of befriending post-Soviet Russia, NATO pushed it in the opposite direction—into the current war and into a new Eastern alliance.
On the home front, increasingly socialistic policies have put Western nations deeply in debt—“The U.S. began adding $1 trillion worth of debt about every three months beginning last June”30—with NATO’s (and especially America’s) funding of Ukraine’s infrastructure and military operations dramatically swelling that deficit.31
Bottom line: This war is more NATO and Ukraine’s fault than Russia’s; it could have been avoided; and I seriously doubt the West will learn from it.
†
Addendum: bioweapons labs in Ukraine?
I was going to include this item in the article proper, but decided not to because I’m not (yet) convinced either way.
One of Russia’s stated reasons for invading Ukraine is alleged bioweapons labs—run by the U.S. Naturally the Americans vehemently deny this, and the mainstream media backs them up.
Now, I’ve already told you that Western lamestream media is itself a joke; a mere propaganda ministry for authoritarian, secular-humanist regimes. That said, it doesn’t follow that I automatically trust the Russians, either. On the third hand, I can tell you this much: I wouldn’t be shocked if the U.S. and Ukraine were collaborating on bioweapons research.
Would you?
For what it’s worth, the following sources might be worth checking out:
“Russian allegations of biological weapons activities in Ukraine” (Note that while the explanation offered is plausible—it’s equally plausible that it’s merely a cover story for something nefarious; after all, we know that the CIA and other Western agencies are frequently up to no good!)
“WHO says it advised Ukraine to destroy pathogens in health labs to prevent disease spread” (As above: what’s going on behind the scenes? What we can glimpse on the surface raises legitimate questions.)
“Yes, those Bioweapons Labs in Ukraine are a Real Thing” (Note the comments as well)
“Hunter Biden helped secure funds for US biolab contractor in Ukraine: e-mails”
At the end of the day, we should ask ourselves this question: While Russian media have frequently proved untrustworthy—are there any good reasons to trust the mainstream Western media more . . . ?
Supplemental:
The Devastating Consequences of the Loss of Trust in Government
When it Comes to the Culture, Are You a Thermostat or a Thermometer?
Kit Klarenberg, “Anatomy of a Coup: How CIA Front Laid Foundations for Ukraine War,” Global Research (7 July 2022). Bold-emphasis original.
Joe Hoft, “Leaked Tape in 2014 Showed State Department’s Victoria Nuland Saying ‘F*** the EU’ then Plotting Ukraine Coup Using Biden’s Help,” Gateway Pundit (4 Mar. 2022).
For more on the leaked tape, see:
Dan Murphy, “Amid US-Russia tussle over Ukraine, a leaked tape of Victoria Nuland,” Christian Science Monitor (6 Feb. 2014).
Jonathan Marcus, “Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call,” BBC.com (7 Feb. 2014).
Ivan Katchanovski (U. of Ottawa), “The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Investigation,” SSRN Electronic Journal (August 2021; presented at the 10th World Congress of the International Council for Central and East European Studies, Montreal) (italics mine).
Ibid.
Ivan Katchanovski, “The Maidan Massacre Trial and Investigation Revelations: Implications for the Ukraine-Russia War and Relations,” Russian Politics 8.2 (July/Aug. 2023), 181 (posted online 19 May 2023) (emph. mine).
Ibid. See also:
Neutrality Studies’ interview with Katchanovski: “Ukrainian Professor EXPOSES The West's Lies About The Maidan Massacre Of 2014!”
Kit Klarenberg, “ ‘Rigorous’ Maidan massacre exposé suppressed by top academic journal,” The Grayzone (12 Mar. 2023).
Kit Klarenberg, “Ukrainian trial demonstrates 2014 Maidan massacre was false flag,” The Grayzone (11 Dec. 2023).
Seumas Milne, “It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war,” The Guardian (30 Apr 2014) (italics mine). See also:
John J. Mearsheimer, “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault,” Foreign Affairs (18 Aug. 2014).
Kit Klarenberg, “Anatomy of a Coup: How CIA Front Laid Foundations for Ukraine War,” personal blog (1 July 2022).
Levan Dzhagaryan, “Decade of the illegal coup d’etat in Ukraine,” Sri Lanka Guardian (1 Feb. 2024).
Fabio G. C. Carisio, “How War Began… The Genesis of NATO’s Coup in Ukraine—1,” Alternative Foreign Policy (24 Feb. 2023).
Joe Lauria, “Evidence of US-Backed Coup in Kiev,” Kontinent USA (1 Jan. 2023).
Jim Cole, “U.S.-NATO Involvement in the 2014 Ukraine Coup and Maidan Massacre,” Global Research (21 Apr. 2023).
“How Obama And Biden Installed Neo-Nazis In Ukraine,” Kanekoa News (10 Mar. 2022).
Katrina Vanden Heuvel and James Carden, “10 years later: Maidan’s missing history,” Responsible Statecraft (23 Feb. 2024).
Eric Zuesse, “How and Why the US Government Perpetrated the 2014 Coup in Ukraine,” Transcend Media Service (4 June 2018).
The video report “Ukraine Crisis—What You're Not Being Told.”
Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio, “Ukraine, The Only Danger is the Sadistic Idiots of NATO. And their Mainstream Media Accomplices,” Gospa News (12 Feb. 2022).
Robert Parry, “The Mess that Nuland Made,” Consortium News (13 July 2015; italics mine).
Ekaterina Blinova, "Euromaidan Was Part of West's Proxy War Against Russia – CIA Veteran," Sputnik International (21 Feb. 2024). And from Larry Johnson’s own website, see:
Olafimihan Oshin, “Five things to know about Ukraine’s President Zelensky,” The Hill (27 Feb. 2022) (italics mine).
Ben Norton, “US gov’t knew NATO expansion to Ukraine would force Russia to intervene,” Geopolitical Economy Report (27 Feb. 2022).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
See also:
Ben Norton, “US gov’t blatantly lies about NATO expansion to militarily encircle Russia,” Geopolitical Economy Report (14 Jan. 2022);
John J. Mearsheimer’s 2014 assessment of the Ukrainian situation up to that point, in “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault,” Foreign Affairs (18 Aug. 2014), along with his U. of Chicago lecture “Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?” (YouTube, 25 Sept. 2015).
Kit Klarenberg, ibid. (italics mine).
The Spiegel article is behind a paywall. The Zelenskyy quotations used here are from that interview, by way of Al Mayadeen, “Zelensky Admits He Never Intended to Implement Minsk Agreements,” Global Research (10 Mar. 2023).
Ben Norton, “Ukraine’s Zelensky admits he sabotaged Minsk peace deal with Russia, West blocked negotiations,” Geopolitical Economy Report (10 Feb. 2023).
Newsroom: “Merkel’s confession could be a pretext for an International Tribunal,” Modern Diplomacy (13 Dec. 2022). For more on Zelenskyy’s undermining of Minsk, see:
Olena Roshchina, “Minsk agreements were simple way to end war by ceding territories to Russia—Zelenskyy,” Ukrainska Pravda (9 Feb. 2023).
Rakshit Sharma, “Zelenskyy takes credit for derailing Minsk Agreement meant to establish peace in eastern Ukraine,” Firstpost (10 Feb. 2023).
Ben Norton, “Ukraine’s Zelensky admits he sabotaged Minsk peace deal with Russia, West blocked negotiations,” Geopolitical Economy Report (10 Feb. 2023).
Italics mine.
Tamás Orbán, “Official: [Boris] Johnson Forced Kyiv To Refuse Russian Peace Deal,” The European Conservative (27 Nov. 2023).
Bold-emphasis mine.
See also Connor Echols, “Diplomacy Watch: Did Boris Johnson help stop a peace deal in Ukraine?”, Responsible Statecraft (2 Sept. 2022).
Saudi Arabia was invited to join but has not (yet) done so.
Miles Kenny, ibid.
Bethany Blankley, “U.S. began adding $1 trillion in debt every three months last June,” The Center Square (3 Mar. 2024) (italics mine).
Just yesterday, Reuters reported:
The U.S. House of Representatives on Saturday with broad bipartisan support passed a $95 billion legislative package providing security assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, over bitter objections from Republican hardliners.
Don’t get me started on the Israel thing; I’m working on something about that, too.