Propaganda in the West has created false expectations of Ukrainian success, retired US officer says

Russia has largely achieved its objective of neutralizing the Ukrainian military, but Western governments mistakenly believe the deliberate progress designed to avoid civilian casualties reflects weakness and are funneling weapons to prolong the fighting, a former top Pentagon adviser has said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has given strict orders from the outset to avoid civilian casualties and extensive property damage, retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor told the Grayzone in an extensive interview on Tuesday.

This has slowed the Russians’ advance “to the point where it has given false hope both to the Ukrainians … but seized on by people in the West, to try and convince the world that a defeat is in progress, when in fact the opposite is the case,” Macgregor said.

“The war, for all intents and purposes, has been decided,” the retired colonel said. “The entire operation from day one was focused on the destruction of Ukrainian forces. That’s largely complete.”

The Ukrainian units still active “are completely surrounded, cut off and isolated in various towns and cities,” said Macgregor, including as many as 60,000 on the border with Donetsk, whose supplies are likely running out by now.

Media coverage of the fighting, however, ignores this reality and paints a picture of the Russian military being “inept” – in the words of some US senators – because it didn’t defeat Kiev in mere days. This is then used as an argument by advocates of NATO intervention and a “no-fly zone,” but also those who wish to send more weapons to Kiev.

“It’s very obvious Washington wants this to continue as long as possible, in hopes Russia would be desperately harmed. I just don’t see that happening,”Macgregor told Grayzone on Tuesday.

The biggest problem right now is that “in the West, there is no truth. There is wishful thinking and there is this impression of success by the Ukrainians that doesn’t stack up,” the colonel added. “The biggest lie I’ve heard repeated on television is, Russian troops have been told to deliberately murder Ukrainian civilians. That’s absurd, it’s nonsense.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky asked the US Congress on Wednesday to send fighter jets, air defense missiles and other weapons to Kiev, as well as establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine, so his army could defeat Russia. He made the same argument to Canadian lawmakers on Tuesday.

Macgregor, however, believes that such shipments will have no effect and that Zelensky’s refusal to negotiate an armistice is only going to get more Ukrainians killed.

via RT

Beijing said that the US defense department controls 336 laboratories around the world

China’s foreign ministry has called on the US to disclose information on the Pentagon’s alleged biological laboratories in Ukraine “as soon as possible”.

On Monday, the Russian military said Ukrainian authorities had been destroying pathogens studied at its laboratories. Moscow claimed that 30 US-financed Ukrainian biolabs have been actively cooperating with the American military.

Kiev has denied developing bioweapons. According to the website of the US embassy in Kiev, the US Department of Defense’s Biological Threat Reduction Program only “collaborates with partner countries to counter the threat of outbreaks” of infectious diseases. In 2020, the embassy called such theories about US-funded biolabs in Ukraine “disinformation.”

Speaking at a press briefing on Tuesday, however, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian claimed that, according to his country’s information, the laboratories in Ukraine are just “a tip of an iceberg” and that the US Department of Defense “controls 336 biological laboratories in 30 countries around the world.” This is done under the pretext of “cooperating to reduce biosecurity risks” and “strengthening global public health,” Zhao said.

It is the first time that Beijing has disclosed the alleged figure. Zhao said that according to data “released by the United States itself,” there are 26 US laboratories in Ukraine. In light of Russia’s military offensive in the country, he urged “all parties concerned” to ensure the safety of the labs.

“In particular, the United States, as the party which knows these laboratories best, should publish the relevant details as soon as possible, including which viruses are stored and which research has been carried out,” he said.

He claimed the US “has been exclusively obstructing” the establishment of an independent verification mechanism. Such behavior, Zhao said, “further aggravates the concerns of the international community.”

According to a report in The Rio Times, the US embassy in Ukraine deleted all information about Pentagon-financed bio-labs in the country from its website on February 26. However, journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva claimed embassy staff forgot to remove a document showing that the Pentagon is funding two new biolabs in Kiev and Odessa.

“Ukraine has no control over the military biolabs. The Ukrainian government is not allowed to release sensitive information about the program,” the Brazilian news outlet claimed.

Over the past 20 years, the Science and Technology Center in Ukraine, jointly established with the United States, invested over $285 million in about 1,850 projects carried out by scientists who, according to Gaytandzhieva, previously worked on the development of weapons of mass destruction.

US authorities are yet to comment on the latest claims.

At the same time, the US has “covered” Ukraine with a network of biolaboratories linked to the Pentagon, the Russian Defense Ministry says

The Ukrainian authorities have been urgently destroying pathogens studied at its laboratories linked to the US Department of Defense, the Russian military claimed on Monday, adding that such activities hint at the military purposes of these studies.

As many as 30 biological laboratories have been established in Ukraine that are actively cooperating with the US military, the commander of the Russian radiological, chemical and biological defense force, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, said at a news briefing on Monday.

The list of these laboratories’ partners includes the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) – the largest biomedical research facility administered by the US military; the general added.

Many of these laboratories have been active since the 2014 coup d’état in Ukraine and their emergence in the country has coincided with a spike in infectious diseases in the region, including German measles, diphtheria and tuberculosis, the Russian military said.

After the Russian forces launched a military operation in Ukraine on February 24, these laboratories started hastily destroying the materials they had been working on, including the highly pathogenic bacterial and viral agents, Kirillov has said, adding that Moscow has obtained documents related to that process.

Analysis of the documents shows that the laboratories had been working with dangerous infections such as anthrax and the plague. “Assortment and the excessive quantity of the biological agents suggest that the work done in these laboratories had been part of some military biological programs,” the general has said, adding that just one such laboratory in the western Ukrainian city of Lvov had destroyed as many as 320 containers with pathogens causing plague, swamp fever and Malta fever among others.

“If these collections fall into the hands of the Russian experts, they will highly likely prove Ukraine and the US have been in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention,” Kirillov has said, adding that “this is the only reason that can explain the hasty destruction” of those materials.

The general has also expressed his concerns that all the biological materials needed for the alleged military biological program to continue had been already transported to the US.

Kiev has denied developing bioweapons, and Washington has not commented on the Russian military statements so far.

Moscow has been raising alarm about the activities of the US-financed biological laboratories located in the former Soviet states for quite some time. Earlier, it pointed to the Lugar Research Center – a US-funded laboratory in Georgia – as a place where some dangerous experiments are being conducted.

The Pentagon brushed off such accusations as a “Russian disinformation campaign” at that time.

Authored by Zachary Steiber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

US soldiers walk in Poland near the border with Ukraine on March 3, 2022. (Wojtek Radwanski/AFP via Getty Images)

Most Americans don’t support the idea of sending U.S. troops to Ukraine to help Ukrainian forces fight against Russian personnel, according to surveys.

Just 19 percent of respondents to an Economist/YouGov poll said sending U.S. soldiers to Ukraine is a good idea, compared to 54 percent who thought it was a bad idea. The rest weren’t sure.

More respondents, 33 percent, said it was a good idea to send soldiers to Ukraine “to provide help,” but not to fight Russian soldiers.

Sixty-three percent of respondents to a Reuters/Ipsos poll (pdf) said the United States should not send troops to Ukraine to help defend Ukraine from the Russians. The rest said troops should be sent.

The same division was seen when asked if the United States should conduct airstrikes against Russian forces, and a plurality of respondents to the YouGov survey opposed the United States conducting drone strikes against the Russians.

A majority of respondents to a poll (pdf) from SSRS for CNN also opposed the United States taking military action to stop Russia.

President Joe Biden has vowed not to send U.S. troops to Ukraine in the wake of the Feb. 24 Russian invasion.

“Let me be clear: Our forces are not engaged and will not engage in the conflict with Russian forces in Ukraine,” the Democrat said during his State of the Union speech.

Biden’s administration has sent troops to Europe and the president has committed to joining the fight if Russia attacks any North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies.

The administration has also shipped weapons and other military aid to Ukraine to help Ukrainian troops fight back against the invasion.

According to the surveys, most Americans support helping Ukraine.

A plurality of respondents told YouGov that it would be a good idea to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, even though many experts have warned that would mean the United States had joined the war on the Ukrainian side.

Many respondents to the polls support providing weapons to Ukraine and imposing additional sanctions against Russia. Nearly half of respondents to YouGov said Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO; about a third were unsure.

A minority of U.S. lawmakers say the United States should impose a no-fly zone or otherwise get more directly involved in the war, but most have said the current level of involvement is appropriate.

The YouGov poll was conducted from Feb. 26 to March 1 and had 1,500 respondents and a margin of error of about 3 percent. The Ipsos survey was conducted from Feb. 28 through March 1, had a sample of 1,005 adults, and had a margin of sampling error of 3.8 percent. The SSRS survey was conducted on Feb. 25 and Feb. 26, with a sample of 1,001 respondents. It had a margin of sampling error of about 4 percent.

Other countries have also opposed so far sending their troops to Ukraine, including 40 percent of British respondents to a poll by Redfield and Winton.

by Andrew Anglin via Daily Stormer

A Ukrainian people’s resistance movement in Kiev prepares for the Russian attack.

Photos emerging from the conflict zone in the Ukraine show Ukrainian civilian resistance fighters looking joyful as they prepare to defend their homeland, while Russians are seen looking depressed and downtrodden as they forgot to bring gas for their tanks.

Russia invaded the Ukraine last week because Vladimir Putin is a dictator who insists he will rebuild the Soviet Union.

Josef Konisky owned a pastry shop in Kiev before the invasion began, and he decided to take up arms against the brutal Russian invasion. He now leads a band of rebels who he says are “ready to fight to the last man” to defend democracy and freedom.

Josef Konisky, Ukrainian pastry shop owner turned militia leader

The Times spoke to Konisky, who said that “desperate times call for desperate measures, and I will do everything to protect my homeland and defend the freedom of our democracy.”

Konisky laughed when shown pictures of Russian fighters on their way to Kiev who had to stop the movement of their military convoy because they forgot to bring gas.

Russian soldiers seen looking irritated as they realize that their convoy cannot move forward because they forgot to bring gas for their trucks and tanks.

Konisky was not surprised that the Russians would make a mistake like this, referring to the enemy as “dumb animals.”

“Russians think they are good at war, but they know nothing about the strength and heart of the Ukrainian people. They forget to bring gas, but soon they will forget everything, when we blow their brains out of their skulls,” Konisky explained.

Russians soldiers seen piled on a truck, headed back to Russia to pick up the gas they forgot.

“I never want a war,” Konisky told the Times. “I am happy with my life, with my freedom. I make cherry pies, pretzel buns, and fish cakes. But Russians bring the war to us, and we will not bow down.”

“My men are ready for anything. We have already killed over 4,000 Russian soldiers attempting to enter the city,” he said.

One of Konisky’s men, Volo Krensky, who is only 11 years old, has already had 160 confirmed kills, and was able to shoot down two Russian helicopters with his AK-47.

Volo Krensky is only 11, but has killed over 150 Russian soldiers while defending Kiev.

“The key is to aim at the rotors,” Volo told the Times when explaining how he was able to shoot down helicopters. “When the rotors have holes in them, air gets through, and it causes the helicopter to crash.”

Koninsky also explained his anti-tank strategy.

“We fill balloons with paint, and throw them at the tanks, and it disables them,” he said. “Often, we send young children on these anti-tank missions, as they are smaller and harder to hit.”

Konisky said that he did not know that you could take out a tank with a balloon, but he read it from an American journalist on Twitter, and has found the technique extremely efficient. He says his team has taken out more than 200 tanks using balloons.

He says that his team spends hours each day scanning Twitter for tactical advice from American journalists.

Konisky’s squad is so effective that Vladimir Putin has personally addressed him, putting a bounty on his head. He passed out pamphlets to his soldiers reading “Get Konisky.”

The brutal Russian dictator, who been using cluster bombs in Kiev to kill children, gave a special address calling out Koninsky as the chief threat to his aggressive war effort.

Konisky’s deadly band has gotten so famous in the Ukraine and across the world that Joe Biden addressed him personally at his State of the Union address, ending his address with “Koninsky – go get him.”

Note: There might be traces of humor in this piece.

📨Message from China to the U.S

“Your military will be reduced into scrap iron”

In short:
“Stop causing and hyping unnecessary tensions between us (China) and Taiwan because you’re provoking us and putting our security at risk, we shall respond”

Zikhala everywhere now 🤧🔥 pic.twitter.com/1cWJfHWwbU

— Sphithiphithi Evaluator (@_AfricanSoil) March 2, 2022

by Thierry Meyssan via Voltairenet

Russia is not waging war on the Ukrainian people, but on a small group of people within the US power that has transformed Ukraine without its knowledge, the Straussians. It formed half a century ago and has already committed an incredible amount of crimes in Latin America and the Middle East without the knowledge of the United States. This is their story.

Leo Strauss

This article is a follow-up to :
1. “Russia wants to force the US to respect the UN Charter,” January 4, 2022.
2. “Washington pursues RAND plan in Kazakhstan, then Transnistria,” January 11, 2022.
3. “Washington refuses to hear Russia and China,” January 18, 2022.
4. “Washington and London, deafened“, February 1, 2022.
5. “Washington and London try to preserve their domination over Europe“, February 8, 2022.
6. “Two interpretations of the Ukrainian affair”, 16 February 2022.
7. “Washington sounds the alarm, while its allies withdraw”, 22 February 2022

At dawn on February 24, Russian forces entered Ukraine en masse. According to President Vladimir Putin, speaking on television at the time, this special operation was the beginning of his country’s response to “those who aspire to world domination” and who are advancing Nato’s infrastructure to his country’s doorstep. During this long speech, he summarized how NATO destroyed Yugoslavia without the authorization of the United Nations Security Council, even bombing Belgrade in 1999. Then he perused the destruction of the United States in the Middle East, in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Only after this lengthy presentation did he announce that he had sent his troops to Ukraine with the dual mission of destroying the Nato-linked armed forces and ending the Nato armed neo-Nazi groups.

Immediately all the member states of the Atlantic Alliance denounced the occupation of Ukraine as comparable to that of Czechoslovakia during the “Prague Spring” (1968). According to them, Vladimir Putin’s Russia had adopted the Soviet Union’s “Brezhnev doctrine”. Therefore, the free world must punish the resurrected “Evil Empire” with “devastating costs”.

The interpretation of the Atlantic Alliance is aimed above all at depriving Russia of its major argument: although Nato is not a confederation of equals, but a hierarchical federation under Anglo-Saxon command, Russia is doing the same. It refuses Ukraine the possibility of choosing its destiny, just as the Soviets refused it to the Czechoslovakians. It is true that Nato violates the principles of sovereignty and equality of states stipulated in the UN Charter, but it should not be dissolved, unless Russia is also dissolved.

Perhaps, but probably not.

President Putin’s speech was not directed against Ukraine, or even against the United States, but explicitly against “those who aspire to world domination”, i.e. against the “Straussians” in the US power structure. It was a real declaration of war against them.

On February 25, President Vladimir Putin called the Kiev leadership “a clique of drug addicts and neo-Nazis”. For the Atlantic media, these words were those of a mental patient.

During the night of February 25-26, President Volodymyr Zelensky sent a ceasefire proposal to Russia via the Chinese embassy in Kiev. The Kremlin immediately responded by setting out its conditions:

• arrest of all Nazis (Dmitro Yarosh and the Azov Battalion, etc.)
• removal of all street names and destruction of monuments glorifying Nazi collaborators during the Second World War (Stepan Bandera, etc.),
• laying down of weapons.

The Atlantic press ignored this event, while the rest of the world, which knew about it, held its breath. The negotiation failed a few hours later after Washington intervened. Only then would Western public opinion be informed, but the Russian conditions would always be hidden from them.

What is President Putin talking about? Who is he fighting against? And what are the reasons that have made the Atlanticist press blind and mute?

Paul Wolfowitz

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE STRAUSSIANS

Let us stop for a moment to consider this group, the Straussians, about whom Westerners know little. They are individuals, all Jewish, but by no means representative of either American Jews or of Jewish communities worldwide. They were formed by the German philosopher Leo Strauss, who took refuge in the United States during the rise of Nazism and became a professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago. According to many accounts, he had formed a small group of faithful students to whom he gave oral instruction. There is no written record of this. He explained to them that the only way for the Jews not to fall victim to a new genocide was to form their own dictatorship. He called them Hoplites (the soldiers of Sparta) and sent them to disrupt the courts of his rivals. Finally, he taught them discretion and praised the “noble lie”. Although he died in 1973, his student fraternity continued.

The Straussians began forming a political group half a century ago, in 1972. They were all members of Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s staff, including Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. They worked closely with a group of Trotskyite journalists, also Jewish, who had met at the City College of New York and edited the magazine Commentary. Both groups were closely linked to the CIA, but also, thanks to Perle’s father-in-law Albert Wohlstetter (the US military strategist), to the Rand Corporation (the think tank of the military-industrial complex). Many of these young people intermarried until they formed a compact group of about 100 people.

Together they drafted and passed the “Jackson-Vanik Amendment” in the midst of the Watergate crisis (1974), which forced the Soviet Union to allow the emigration of its Jewish population to Israel under pain of economic sanctions. This was their founding act.

In 1976, Paul Wolfowitz [1] was one of the architects of the “Team B” charged by President Gerald Ford with assessing the Soviet threat [2]. He issued a delirious report accusing the Soviet Union of preparing to take over “global hegemony”. The Cold War changed its nature: it was no longer a question of isolating (containment) the USSR, it had to be stopped in order to save the “free world”.

The Straussians and the New York intellectuals, all of whom were on the left, put themselves at the service of the right-wing president Ronald Reagan. It is important to understand that these groups are neither truly left nor right wing. Some members have switched five times from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party and back again. What is important to them is to infiltrate power, whatever the ideology. Elliott Abrams became an assistant to the Secretary of State. He led an operation in Guatemala where he put a dictator in power and experimented with Israeli Mossad officers on how to create reserves for the Mayan Indians in order to eventually do the same thing in Israel with the Palestinian Arabs (the Mayan Resistance earned Rigoberta Menchú her Nobel Peace Prize). Then Elliott Abrams continued his exactions in El Salvador and finally in Nicaragua against the Sandinistas with the Iran-Contra affair. For their part, the New York intellectuals, now called “Neoconservatives”, created the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the U.S. Institute of Peace, a mechanism that organized many colored revolutions, starting with China with the attempted coup d’état of Prime Minister Zhao Ziyang and the subsequent repression in Tiananmen Square.

At the end of George H. Bush’s (the father’s) term of office, Paul Wolfowitz, then number 3 in the Defense Department, drew up a document [<a href=”https://www.voltairenet.org/article215879.html#nb3″ class=”spip_note” rel=”appendix” title=”This document was revealed in “US Strategy Plan Calls For Insuring No (…)” id=”nh3″ style=”margin: 0px; padding: 0px; outline: 0px; color: rgb(172, 17, 17); text-decoration: none; font-weight: 700″>3] based on a strong idea: after the decomposition of the USSR, the United States had to prevent the emergence of new rivals, starting with the European Union. He concluded by advocating the possibility of taking unilateral action, i.e. to put an end to the concerted action of the United Nations. Wolfowitz was undoubtedly the designer of “Desert Storm”, the operation to destroy Iraq that allowed the United States to change the rules of the game and organize a unilateral world. It was during this time that Straussians valued the concepts of “regime change” and “democracy promotion.”

Gary Schmitt, Abram Shulsky and Paul Wolfowitz entered the US intelligence community through the Consortium for the Study of Intelligence’s Working Group on Intelligence Reform. They criticized the assumption that other governments think the same way as the US government [4]. Then they criticized the lack of political leadership in intelligence, leaving it to wander into
unimportant issues instead of focusing on the essential ones. Politicizing intelligence is what Wolfowitz had already done with the B-team and what he would do again in 2002 with the Office of Special Plans, inventing arguments for new wars against Iraq and Iran (Leo Strauss’ “noble lie”).

The Straussians were removed from power during Bill Clinton’s term. They then entered the Washington think tanks. In 1992, William Kristol and Robert Kagan (the husband of Victoria Nuland, widely quoted in the previous articles) published an article in Foreign Affairs deploring President Clinton’s timid foreign policy and calling for a renewal of “benevolent global hegemony” [5]. The following year they founded the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) at the American Enterprise Institute. Gary Schmitt, Abram Shulsky and Paul Wolfowitz were members. All of Leo Strauss’s non-Jewish admirers, including the Protestant Francis Fukuyama (the author of The End of History), immediately joined them.

Richard Perle

In 1994, now an arms dealer, Richard Perle (a.k.a. “the Prince of Darkness”) became an advisor to the President and ex-Nazi Alija Izetbegović in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was he who brought Osama Bin Laden and his Arab Legion (the forerunner of Al Qaeda) from Afghanistan to defend the country. Perle was even a member of the Bosnian delegation at the signing of the Dayton Accords in Paris.

In 1996, members of the PNAC (including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser) wrote a study at the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) for the new Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. This report [6] advocates the elimination of Yasser Arafat, the annexation of the Palestinian territories, a war against Iraq and the transfer of Palestinians there. It was inspired not only by the political theories of Leo Strauss, but also by those of his friend, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founder of “revisionist Zionism”, of whom Netanyahu’s father was the private secretary.

The PNAC raised funds for the candidacy of George W. Bush (the son) and published before his election its famous report “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. It called for a Pearl Harbor-like catastrophe that would throw the American people into a war for global hegemony. These are exactly the words that PNAC Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used on September 11, 2001.

Robert Kagan

«»
Thanks to the 9/11 attacks, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz installed Admiral Arthur Cebrowski in Donald Rumsfeld’s shadow. He played a role comparable to that of Albert Wohlstetter during the Cold War. He imposed the strategy of “endless war”: the US armed forces should not win any more wars, but start many of them and keep them going as long as possible. The aim would be to destroy all the political structures of the targeted states in order to ruin these populations and deprive them of any means of defending themselves against the US [7]; a strategy that has been implemented for twenty years in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen…

The alliance between the Strausians and the revisionist Zionists was sealed at a major conference in Jerusalem in 2003, which Israeli political figures from all sides unfortunately thought they should attend [8]. It is therefore not surprising that Victoria Nuland (Robert Kagan’s wife, then ambassador to NATO) intervened to declare a ceasefire in Lebanon in 2006, allowing the defeated Israeli army not to be pursued by Hezbollah.

Bernard Lewis et Benjamin Netanyahu
Bureau de Presse du Premier ministre

Some individuals, such as Bernard Lewis, have worked with all three groups, the Straussians, the Neoconservatives and the Revisionist Zionists. A former British intelligence officer, he acquired both U.S. and Israeli citizenship, was an advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu and a member of the U.S. National Security Council. Lewis, who halfway through his career assured that Islam is incompatible with terrorism and that Arab terrorists are in fact Soviet agents, later changed his mind and assured with the same aplomb that the religion preaches terrorism. He invented the strategy of the “clash of civilizations” for the US National Security Council. The idea was to use cultural differences to mobilize Muslims against the Orthodox, a concept that was popularized by his assistant at the Council, Samuel Huntington, except that Huntington did not present it as a strategy, but as an inevitability that had to be countered. Huntington began his career as an advisor to the South African secret service during the aparteheid era, and later wrote a book, The Soldier and the State [9], arguing that the military (regular and mercenary) is a special caste, the only one capable of understanding national security needs.

After the destruction of Iraq, the Straussians were the subject of all sorts of controversies [10]. Everyone is surprised that such a small group, supported by neoconservative journalists, could have acquired such authority without having been the subject of a public debate. The U.S. Congress appointed an Iraq Study Group (the so-called “Baker-Hamilton Commission”) to evaluate its policy. It condemned, without naming it, the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy and deplored the hundreds of thousands of deaths it had caused. But Rumsfeld resigned and the Pentagon inexorably pursued this strategy, which it had never officially adopted.

In the Obama administration, the Straussians found their way into Vice President Joe Biden’s cabinet. His National Security Advisor, Jacob Sullivan, played a central role in organizing the operations against Libya, Syria and Myanmar, while another of his advisors, Antony Blinken, focused on Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. It was he who led the negotiations with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of key members of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s team in exchange for the nuclear deal.

Regime change in Kiev in 2014 was organized by the Straussians. Vice President Biden is firmly committed to it. Victoria Nuland came to support the neo-Nazi elements of the Right Sector and to supervise the Israeli “Delta” commando [11]in Maidan Square. A telephone intercept reveals her wish to “fuck the European Union” (sic) in the tradition of the 1992 Wolfowitz report. But the leaders of the European Union do not understand and protest only weakly [12].

“Jake” Sullivan and Antony Blinken placed Vice President Biden’s son, Hunter, on the board of one of the major gas companies, Burisma Holdings, despite opposition from Secretary of State John Kerry. Hunter Biden is unfortunately just a junkie, he would serve as a front for a gigantic scam at the expense of the Ukrainian people. He would appoint, under the supervision of Amos Hochstein, several of his stoner friends to become other front men at the head of various companies and to plunder Ukrainian gas. These are the people that President Vladimir Putin called a “clique of drug addicts”.

Sullivan and Blinken relied on mafia godfather Ihor Kolomoysky, the country’s third largest fortune. Although he is Jewish, he financed the heavyweights of the Right Sector, a neo-Nazi organization that works for NATO and fought in Maidan Square during the “regime change”. Kolomoïsky took advantage of his connections to take power within the European Jewish community, but his co-religionists rebelled and ejected him from international associations. However, he managed to get the head of the Right Sector, Dmytro Yarosh, appointed deputy secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council and to get himself appointed governor of the Dnipropetrovsk oblast. Both men would be quickly removed from any political function. It was their group that President Vladimir Putin called a “clique of neo-Nazis.”

In 2017, Antony Blinken founded WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm that brought together former senior Obama administration officials and many Straussians. The firm’s business is extremely low-key. It uses the political connections of its employees to make money; what anywhere else would be called corruption.

Joe Biden is not a Straussian, but he has been doing business with them for about fifteen years. Here with Anthony Blinken.

THE STRAUSSIANS ARE STILL THE SAME AS EVER

Since Joe Biden returned to the White House, this time as President of the United States, the Straussians have been running the show. “Jake” Sullivan is National Security Advisor, while Antony Blinken is Secretary of State with Victoria Nuland at his side. As I have reported in previous articles, she went to Moscow in October 2021 and threatens to crush Russia’s economy if it ded not comply. This was the beginning of the current crisis.

Undersecretary of State Nuland resurrected Dmitro Yarosh and imposed him on President Zelinsky, a television actor protected by Ihor Kolomoysky. On November 2, 2021, he appointed him special advisor to the head of the army, General Valerii Zaluzhnyi. The latter, a true democrat, rebelled at first and finally accepted. When questioned by the press about this astonishing duo, he refused to answer and mentioned a question of national security. Yarosh gave his full support to the “white führer”, Colonel Andrey Biletsky, and his Azov Battalion. This copy of the SS Das Reich division has been staffed since the summer of 2021 by American mercenaries formerly from Blackwater [13].

Having identified the Straussians, we must admit that Russia’s ambition is understandable, even desirable. To rid the world of the Straussians would be to do justice to the million or more deaths they have caused and to save those they are about to kill. Whether this intervention in Ukraine is the right way remains to be seen.

In any case, if the responsibility for the current events lies with the Straussians, all those who let them act without flinching also have a responsibility. Starting with Germany and France, who signed the Minsk Agreements seven years ago and did nothing to ensure that they were implemented, and then with the fifty or so states that signed the OSCE declarations prohibiting the extension of Nato east of the Oder-Neisse line and did nothing. Only Israel, which has just got rid of the revisionist Zionists, has expressed a nuanced position on these events.

This is one of the lessons of this crisis: democratically governed peoples are responsible for the decisions taken for a long time by their leaders and maintained after alternations in power.

Translation
Roger Lagassé
[1] “Paul Wolfowitz, the Pentagon’s Soul”, by Paul Labarique, Voltaire Network, 4 October 2004.

[2] Killing Detente: The Right Attacks the CIA, Anne H. Cahn, Pennsylvania State University Press (1998).

[3] This document was revealed in “US Strategy Plan Calls For Insuring No Rivals Develop”, Patrick E. Tyler, New York Times, March 8, 1992. See also the excerpts published on page 14: “Excerpts from Pentagon’s Plan: ’Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival’”. Additional information is provided in “Keeping the US First, Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower” Barton Gellman, The Washington Post, March 11, 1992.

[4] Silent Warfare: Understanding the World of Intelligence, Abram N. Shulsky & Gary J. Schmitt, Potomac Books (1999).

[5] « Toward a neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy », Robert Kagan & William Kristol, Foreign Affairs, july-august 1996, vol. 75 (4), p. 18-32.

[6] «A Clean Break : A New Strategy for Securing the Realm», Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (1996).

[7] “The Rumsfeld/Cebrowski doctrine”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 25 May 2021.

[8] «Sommet historique pour sceller l’Alliance des guerriers de Dieu », Réseau Voltaire, 17 octobre 2003.

[9] The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations, Samuel Huntington, Samuel Huntington, Belknap Press (1981).

[10] This controversy is still ongoing. To write this article I have mainly consulted these eight books: The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, Shadia B. Drury, Palgrave Macmillan (1988). Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, Anne Norton, Yale University Press (2005). The Truth About Leo Strauss: Political Philosophy and American Democracy, Catherine H. Zuckert & Michael P. Zuckert, University of Chicago Press (2008). Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians Against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers, Peter Minowitz, Lexington Books (2009). Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America, Paul E. Gottfried, Cambridge University Press (2011). Crisis of the Strauss Divided: Essays on Leo Strauss and Straussianism, East and West, Harry V. Jaffa, Rowman & Littlefield (2012). Leo Strauss, The Straussians, and the Study of the American Regime, Kenneth L. Deutsch, Rowman & Littlefield (2013). Leo Strauss and the Invasion of Iraq: Encountering the Abyss, Aggie Hirst, Routledge (2013).

[11] «Qui sont ces anciens soldats israéliens parmi les combattants de rue dans la ville de Kiev ?», AlyaExpress-News.com, 2 mars 2014. “The new Gladio in Ukraine”, by Manlio Dinucci, Voltaire Network, 21 March 2014.

[12] “What about apologizing to Ukraine, Mrs. Nuland?”, by Andrey Fomin, Oriental Review (Russia) , Voltaire Network, 7 February 2014.

[13] « Exclusive : Documents Reveal Erik Prince’s $10 Billion Plan to Make Weapons and Create a Private Army in Ukraine », Simon Shuster, Time, July 7, 2021.

Thierry Meyssan

Political consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire (Voltaire Network).
Latest work in English – Before Our Very Eyes, Fake Wars and Big Lies: From 9/11 to Donald Trump, Progressive Press, 2019.

Russia declares war on the Straussians

Rising tensions (8)

Comments by Thierry Meyssan on Russia’s intervention in Ukraine (Video)

Washington sounds the alarm, while its allies withdraw

Rising tensions (7)

Two interpretations of the Ukrainian affair

Rising tensions (6)

Washington and London try to preserve their domination over Europe

Rising tensions (5)
Articles by this author Send a message

Voltaire Network

Voltaire, international edition

FocusNews in BriefControversiesDiplomatic WireDocumentary Watch

The Russian Embassy in Geneva has released a document entitled “War Crimes and Crime against Humanity Committed by the Ukrainian Military-Political Leadership in the Donbass” and made it available.

Warning pretty graphic content.

https://archive.org/details/presentation-ukrainian-war-crimes/mode/2up

via The Conservative Tree House

A fantastic piece by Peter Beinart on substack {SEE HERE} puts excellent clarity on the people around Joe Biden baiting Russian President Vladimir Putin to enter Ukraine.

Current CIA Director William “Bill” Burns was the former ambassador to Russia and Jordan. Bill Burns had a 33-year career at the State Department under both Republican and Democratic presidents and speaks fluent Russian. If the people in the background of Joe Biden wanted an intelligence operative to trigger a specific result from Russia, there’s no one more strategically perfect for the job than CIA Director Bill Burns.

The article by Beinart is mainly focused on pointing out the irreconcilable nature of Joe Biden implying Ukraine could join NATO, while his own CIA Director has a history of giving serious warnings emphasizing the “brightest of all red lines” about that specific point.

[…] “Two years ago, Burns wrote a memoir entitled, The Back Channel. It directly contradicts the argument being proffered by the administration he now serves. In his book, Burns says over and over that Russians of all ideological stripes—not just Putin—loathed and feared NATO expansion. He quotes a memo he wrote while serving as counselor for political affairs at the US embassy in Moscow in 1995. ‘Hostility to early NATO expansion,” it declares, “is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.”

On the question of extending NATO membership to Ukraine, Burns’ warnings about the breadth of Russian opposition are even more emphatic. “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” he wrote in a 2008 memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” (read more)

Against this backdrop of Bill Burns, the details about the lead up to the Russia-Ukraine crisis gain quite a bit of clarity.

The CIA Director is crystal clear that Russia would be seriously triggered about any prospect of Ukraine entering NATO.

Yet, in December of 2021, the exact same time when U.S. backchannel intelligence was being shared with China about Russian troop movements on the border with Ukraine, Joe Biden was telling Ukraine that membership in NATO was in their hands.

“U.S. President Joe Biden assured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that Kyiv’s bid to join the NATO military alliance was in its own hands, Zelenskiy’s chief of staff said after the two leaders spoke on Thursday. (link)

Joe Biden was publicly saying something his CIA Director knew to a certainty would trigger Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This is not a mistake.

This is not a strategic blunder or internal messaging error.

This level of provocation now seems completely purposeful.

As noted by ABC during the announcement of Bill Burns as a nominee for CIA Director:

Burns called intelligence the first line of defense for the country and the basis for making sound policy decisions. He also said he would deliver the intelligence to Biden and policymakers “without a hint of partisanship.”

Burns is perhaps an unconventional choice for the CIA job that many thought would go to a career intelligence officer.

However, he is also deeply experienced in the kind of cloak-and-dagger secret contacts that is a hallmark of the agency and won plaudits for his analysis and reporting abilities while he served as an American diplomat overseas. Burns was the author of some of the most insightful State Department cables that were published by Wikileaks in 2010 and is widely respected throughout the national security community. (read more)

If the U.S. was simultaneously influencing Ukraine military to keep targeting the breakaway regions in Eastern Ukraine, well, put it all together and a picture emerges of the people in/around the White House setting up a scenario for months that led up to Russia finally taking the bait and going into Ukraine.

The New York Times expose’ of U.S. intelligence contacting China should be reviewed from the perspective that U.S. intelligence and State Dept operatives were planting information into China – knowing it would be shared with Russia. The U.S. intelligence apparatus, with CIA Director Bill Burns in place, was seeding information into Russia via China for three months prior to the triggering point. Bill Burns would know exactly what type of intelligence would be needed to create maximum anxiety for Vladimir Putin.

WHY?

The Biden team was getting pummeled for negative economic outcomes, massive inflation, skyrocketing energy costs and gas prices set to double. Support for the administration was/is collapsing as the policy outcomes of the administration were felt.

Within the book of instructions for the ideological crew, the Alinsky people behind Biden, there are chapters on how to create off-ramps to cloud their agenda.

If they need a bigger cloud, they create a crisis. The crisis then becomes the cover, the justification to explain the outcomes of their agenda.

As we have witnessed, the White House is shifting blame for the collapsing economy, surging oil prices, massive gas price increases and overall U.S. inflation.

The manufactured crisis in Ukraine then takes on a geopolitical angle and a domestic angle. The rate of inflation, rising oil and gas prices, are now being blamed on Russia-Ukraine.

It is not coincidental that ABC (think George Stephanopolous) took the lead in helping to push this narrative as a cover story for the problems in the economy that are specifically driven by U.S. energy policy (chasing Green New Deal objectives), environmental policy, regulatory policy and massive spending.

The politics of policy are to blame for inflation, so it is the deployment of politics again used to create the cover.

By Global Times

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

Perhaps no country in the world yearns for a change in its declining image more than the US. Thus, Kurt Campbell, White House Indo-Pacific policy coordinator, put forward his opinion on Monday: The US can focus on two theaters – the Indo-Pacific and the war in Europe. He wants to prove that the US is still dominant and its might remains unrivaled.

The hard truth is Washington is reluctant to step into even one theater of war.

During an event hosted by German Marshall Fund, a US think tank, Campbell said that Washington had been deeply engaged in two theaters simultaneously before, including during WWII and the Cold War. “It’s difficult. It’s expensive. But it is also essential,” he emphasized.

Campbell’s following remarks soon exposed his attempt to mislead the audience. He named a few events to show the US “determination” to sustain high-level engagement with the Indo-Pacific region, including a scheduled summit with Southeast Asian leaders in March and a planned summit of the Quad grouping of the US, Australia, Japan and India in May.

He was just playing with words. By deliberately mentioning the word “theater,” Campbell equated dealing with two US political rivals at the same time with fighting in two wars against two US adversaries simultaneously, Shen Yi, a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan University, told the Global Times.

Even if people focus only on the US’ capabilities during the WWII and the Cold War, history tells another story, one that is different from the one Campbell has tried hard to present.

During the WWII, the US did fight in the Pacific Ocean theater and the European theater. Yet, at the 1941 Arcadia Conference between then US president Franklin D. Roosevelt and British prime minister Winston Churchill shortly after the US entered the war, the “Europe First” strategy was affirmed. That meant the US and the UK would devote more of their resources to fight in the European theater first.

When it came to the Cold War, reports show that observers used to say that the Pentagon was prepared to fight two and a half wars at the same time, which implied the US should have the capability of fighting two large regional wars and a small one simultaneously.

Really? Then what led to the historic ice-breaking of China-US ties and the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries?

“Former president Richard Nixon had long ago done the math for the US – it could not afford to fight two wars at once. That’s why Washington decided to ease tensions with one side, which eventually led to his visit to China,” Shen said.

As for the US strength today, setting aside the fact the country is far from its glory days, Washington is not confident it can win even one regional war. The US’ announcement of not sending its military forces to the frontlines in Ukraine is proof. More examples can be listed – being mired in conflicts in Vietnam, Afghanistan… and failing to claim victory in either. Against this backdrop, fighting two wars will only be a suicide mission for the US.

The US has right now a disastrous domestic economy to cope with. When it plucked up the courage to unleash nuclear-level sanctions – kicking Russia out of the SWIFT system, it had to carefully skirt around the Russian banks involved in the energy sector. “How can Campbell convince anyone that the US can still fight and win two wars with such an overcautious and faint-hearted approach?” Shen questioned.

But the US is afraid to show its weakness to the world, which is what prompted Campbell to have tried so hard to purposefully misguide his audience, giving the false impression that the US is still powerful. The tougher American politicians play, the more they reveal how frail the US has become.

The island of Taiwan is shivering after having witnessed what’s going on in Ukraine. Campbell may try to boost the island’s morale by attempting to talk tough toward the Chinese mainland, pretending it can prevent China’s reunification, said Xu Liang, associate professor at the School of International Relations, Beijing International Studies University.

Campbell might want to assure the island of Taiwan that the US can still offer impenetrable defense for the island, although it has been only watching the Ukraine crisis from the other side of the globe. It remains to be seen how many forces still buy US’ assurances.

Compared with the WWII era, the sun is setting on the US, which is now trying to boost its influence by talking big and launching wars of words. Who is it trying to fool? Who can it intimidate? Forget about two wars, even one theater of war would be too much for the US.