Though terrorizing Russian teenage figure skating sensation Kamila Valieva and cancelling Russian Paralympians from the international stage both spit in the face of the spirit of Greece’s original Olympics, they are in full harmony with how NATO’s Mafiosi and their political commissars regard their lucrative sports’ empire. To the Mafia, excluding the world’s largest country from all sports is strictly business.

Though Valieva might yet revolutionize figure skating the way Olga Korbut, the legendary Belarusian athlete, revolutionized gymnastics, she is instead being bullied out of contention, much the way Ronaldo was shell shocked in the 1998 World Cup by the same star-spangled fascists who despise youth’s starry-eyed idealism.

Russian weight lifter (and frequent Donbass visitor) Maryana Naumova best articulated this youthful idealism in this incredible video where, whilst wearing the jacket he signed for her years earlier, she explains how much Arnold The Terminator Schwarzenegger inspired her to greatness when she was an obviously starry-eyed and star-struck teenage weight lifting wonder.

Schwarzenegger, of course, was a notorious drug cheat, as were Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Barry Bonds, Marion Jones, Tyson Gay and literally hundreds of other Americans and Canadians. As was Rambo, when he squared up to the unoriginally named Ivan in Rocky 1V.

Although The Onion sarcastically wrote that Rocky’s victories in all four movies should have been overturned because Sylvester Stallone was, like Arnie, just another proven serial American drug cheat, The Onion misses the key point that the spirit of Rambo epitomizes the fiction that is American Sporting Exceptionalism.

America’s Rambo spirit has nothing to do with sport as the ancient Olympians, Olga Korbut, Kamila Valieva, Maryana Naumova, Novak Djokovic, Max Schmeling, Teófilo Stevenson, Muhammad Ali, Peter Norman or those hundreds of anonymous heroes who put in tens of thousands of hours training Russia’s Paralympians understand it.

It is, unfortunately, how Qatar’s leaders and those Bojos they have cajoled to host the 2022 World Cup in the middle of a desert in the middle of Europe’s football season, understand it. Boris Johnson, who likes to flatten Japanese schoolchildren to relive his cringe-worthy Eton days, believes that Ukraine should get a bye into the World Cup at the expense of Wales and Scotland, where Johnson’s Tory Party are thoroughly loathed. Johnson’s vision of sport has nothing to do with the dreams of Japanese, Welsh, English, Scottish or Ukrainian children and everything to do with the Tories’ personal enrichment and advancement.

There are, in essence, two camps in sport. In Big Business’ corner lurk Boris Johnson, the USA, Qatar, and an army of corrupt sporting officials, who have been bribed, bullied and cajoled into instituting a Russophobic apartheid system more complete and systematic than that which pertained against apartheid era South Africa.

In the other corner, with Kamila Valieva and Russia’s Paralympians, tower true sporting legends like Peter Norman, the third athlete pictured in the famous 1968 Olympics Black Power salute photograph, which occurred during the medal ceremony for the 200-metre event. Not only did Norman wear the badge of the Olympic Project for Human Rights in support of fellow athletes John Carlos and Tommie Smith but the idea for Carlos and Smith to each wear a glove was Norman’s. Not only was Norman never selected to represent Australia again but, portending today’s Russian athletes, he was the only Australian Olympic medal winner not invited to attend the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

Chelsea Mitchell, “the fastest girl in Connecticut”, is one of legions of female American athletes, who can empathise with Kamila Valieva as she is being trampled under the same profit-driven jackboot that tried to squash Valieva’s spirit. Mitchell’s issue, that she must compete against and lose sporting scholarships to dudes who declare themselves to be women, is analogous to saying Mike Tyson should have fought the winner of the Ali-Fraser 1971 fight, the fight that paused the Vietnam war, when Tyson was only 4 years old.

Though it is an obvious nonsense, Bojo, Biden and their backroom boys in the Pentagon would be delighted with such a mismatch if it brought in the shekels, because blood, booty and self-adulation are their game. Their legacy is not that of the Greek Olympics but that of crudest Rome, of Gladiator where athletes exist only to boost Big Business’ bottom line and the egos of frauds like Bojo.

This is not about sport at all and it is not exclusively about Russia which will remain a sporting powerhouse forever. As this is, as always, about money, pure and simple, if Russia has to be sacrificed so be it, no biggie. And if wrestling and Naumova’s weight-lifting also have to make way for Hollywood’s more lucrative pseudo sports, then hasta la vista baby.

Expelling Russia from weight lifting and wrestling will do much more than give Russia’s Naumovas a bloodied nose. As those two sports trace their lineage right back to the original Olympics, they should have pride of place in today’s games. But, even though the USA excels in both, so too does Russia and, more importantly, so also do almost every single country from Bulgaria in the West to Korea in the East. Despite weight-lifting and wrestling being the pre-eminent sports in most Central Asian countries, Wall St’s agents, by secret ballot of course, want them banished with more photogenic games like Norwegian women playing sports in thongs and brassieres too small to do what they are designed to do replacing them for click bait, prime time ads and profits.

Valieva, Mitchell and today’s other sporting greats best fix up their spare bedrooms as plenty of redundant athletes are coming their way. Horse-racing, not athletics or figure-skating, now sets the surreal pace, where Rambo and Rocky once led. Virtual horses and virtual jockeys running in pretend races are making real horses and real jockeys redundant as Paddy Power, William Hill and similar companies have beguiled their customers into embracing Big Tech’s lifeless rabbit hole.

Roy Keane, himself a high profile victim of NATO’s sporting Mafia, gave perhaps the best advice when he addressed children in the North East of Ireland. When asked how to excel at sports, Keane told them to climb trees, as all children should, to enjoy all sports, as all children should, but also to first throw their X boxes and other electronic toys into the rubbish bin, as all children also should. Therein lies to key to sports’ future; a return to basics by Russia, Central Asians, Africans and other well-adjusted folk, and fruitless years wasted bribing Norwegian women and their American transsexual fellows into throwing beach balls at one another, whilst wearing skimpy thongs, betting on pretend horses, sporting Ukrainian flags and congratulating obese British Prime Ministers for pulverizing starry-eyed Japanese children.

Most people know the colorful leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) as something of a court jester who for year has got away with saying the things nobody else would dare. At the same time, however, he has a lesser known track record for predicting events, and his latest one should give the United States tremendous pause.

Born in Almaty, then the capital of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Kazakhstan, on April 25, 1946, Zhirinovsky moved to Moscow in 1964 where he went on to receive several degrees, including in law and philosophy. In 1991, he was leading founder of the LDPR, which was at the time the first accredited opposition party in the Soviet Union. Several months later, Zhirinovsky became a household name in the world of politics as he placed third in the presidential elections, having attracted over 6 million votes.

Although many pages could be written about the LDPR leader’s notorious tirades that have become legendary (suffice it to say that his unfiltered opinions managed to get him declared persona non grata even in Kazakhstan, his homeland, after proposing alterations to the Russia-Kazakh border), the purpose here is to consider his predictions, some of which are startling in their accuracy.

Aside from predicting in 2004 that America’s next president will be a “black man and a Muslim” — not too far off the mark considering that Barack Obama’s middle name is ‘Hussein’ — and that an ‘Islamic State’ will soon rise up in the Middle East, Zhirinovsky also predicted a “revolution” for Ukraine back in 2012.

“Wherever there is a revolution, that means the leaders are idiots who don’t understand anything,” he remarked with his trademark blunt-force candor. “Ukraine too will have a revolution.”

Even earlier, back in 1998, Zhirinovsky clearly foresaw the unavoidable problems that would come to haunt Russia and Ukraine, manipulated as the latter was by the Western hemisphere. This was more of an ‘educated hunch,’ but noteworthy nonetheless.

“Because there is no [secession] treaty between Russia and Ukraine, Kiev will never be accepted into NATO or the EU, until that time that they solve territorial questions,” he said in a speech in the Duma, before adding that “everything that is happening in the Ukraine today, is done by Western powers. They’re doing everything to prevent it from remaining in our alliance.”

It’s no secret that an army of Western agencies, notably the U.S. Aid for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), practically wrote Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policy for years. These two fronts for ‘democratic renewal’ invested millions of dollars into local NGOs to carry out the prescribed ‘political activities,’ like making sure Kiev was never tempted into building better relations with Russia. And this isn’t taking into account the $5 billion that Victoria Nuland admitted Washington had spent in Ukraine up until the moment of the political coup; such an amount of money never comes without serious chains attached. This hefty Western influence was responsible for the violent overthrow of the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, as well as the civil strife between Western and Eastern Ukraine that has led to the dramatic events we are witnessing today.

But Zhirinovsky was just warming up.

In perhaps his most impressive impersonation of Nostradamus to date, the excitable statesman predicted in a speech last year the events that would eventually come to pass in February of this year.

“I would have liked for 2022 to be a peaceful year,” he pronounced. “But I prefer the truth – I’ve spoke the truth for 75 years.”

“This will not be a peaceful year. It will be a year in which Russia once again becomes a great power,” he railed in his typical combative style that many people have come to excuse with a shrug of the shoulders. “The alternative is that they shut us up and begin to exterminate Russians – in the Donbass first, and then in Western Russia. So in this regard, let’s support this new direction in Russia’s foreign policy.”

However, not only did the firebrand predict that 2022 would “not be a peaceful year,” he predicted almost down to the day and time when the start of Russia’s special operation in Ukraine would occur: “You’ll see at 4 a.m. on February 22,” he said, missing the real date of Russia’s start of its special operation by a mere 48 hours.

Considering such a track record with his predictions, whether they are the result of ‘educated guesses,’ great intuition or long evenings at the soothsayers, it’s hard to say, but Zhirinovsky’s last prophesy has probably perked up some ears in the Washington Beltway.

On January 19, 2022, Zhirinovsky delivered one of his typical tirades, this one about the future demise of none other than the most powerful nation on the planet. Speaking about the United States, the Russian politician noted that Donald Trump “no longer says ‘Make America Great Again.”

“Now he says ‘We will save America.’ That’s right, Trump, but unfortunately you won’t be able to save it. There won’t be elections in 2024, because there will be no America. He can continue playing golf.”

Considering the trajectory of the United States of the last decade, which has seen the country become politically divided over ‘irreconcilable differences,’ while nearly ungovernable amid an open border combined with rampant crime and poverty, it will be interesting to see how this prediction pans out. There seem to be forces at the work in the United States, not least of all far-left radicals who pledge allegiance to ‘Cultural Marxist’ teachings, that have absolutely no desire to see the country succeed. These considerations, taken together with Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s uncanny ability to ‘foresee the political future’, as it were, seem to indicate bad times ahead for the U.S. Only time will tell.

NATO is ensuring that Irish neutrality is a very close second to truth in the Ukrainian war’s casualty list.

Ireland has witnessed nothing like this level of ignorant jingoism since the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland declared war on Germany, Austria and Hungary in summer, 1914 when Dublin’s thugs beat up German grocers and when Ireland’s barbarians blacklisted Kuno Meyer, the world’s leading Irish language scholar for being born German.

Although the horrors of the Somme, coupled with Dublin’s 1916 Easter Rising, muffled Ireland’s war dogs somewhat, they spent the next 100 years plotting their comeback, even as Ireland’s pro-active neutrality policy propelled Éamon de Valera to the front of the League of Nations and Frank Aiken, his foreign minister, to be the United Nations’ most respected advocate for peace, neutrality and non-alignment.

The Second World War was, the Irish always believed, De Valera’s finest hour as he kept us out of a war where our only contribution would have been a massive increase in the Irish body bag count. Not that Ireland got away scot free. De Valera, in his 1940 St Patrick’s Day address, explained that Ireland was more effectively blockaded than any country in history and one in five of Ireland’s merchant marine force made the ultimate sacrifice. De Valera and Aiken forged Ireland’s neutrality into an indelibly proud Irish hallmark, as demonstrated in this 1974 television debate when legendary Irish spy-master Dan Bryan spelled out the case for maintaining Irish neutrality.

Fast forward to Dublin’s 2022 St Patrick’s Day parade and, in a total break from long-established protocol, Ukrainian flags, not Irish tricolours, lined Dublin’s main streets, and Ukrainians, in their national colours, led the parade, smug in the knowledge that the Irish government will allow 200,000 more of them enter Ireland, a country where only four of its Southern 26 counties have populations larger than 200,000.

Although this is vastly more than either France or the USA are opening their borders to, it is not nearly enough for Ukraine’s Clown President, who is demanding Ireland abandon its neutrality and invade Russia, something Ireland’s Clown Prime Minister feels might cross a red line. Britain’s Clown Prince Charles, meanwhile, the future King who wants to be a used tampon is, in the most remarkable lapse of diplomatic protocol, castigating Russia as he tours neutral Ireland, a country he and his entire family have the most despicable track record in.

Although all refugees, Ukrainians included, deserve help and support, they are incidental to this open door policy, which is pivotal to the Irish regime’s deliberate collusion in destroying the very essence of Irish neutrality and nationhood and no less a person than current Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin has said exactly that.

And, even more incredibly, all major Irish political parties fundamentally agree with him and all are agreed on snuggling up to NATO, with the largely U.S. funded Sinn Féin joining Ireland’s other political leprechauns in calling for the expulsion of Russia’s entire diplomatic staff over matters Sinn Féin patently know nothing about the secret pact which gives the RAF unfettered access to Irish skies on the ludicrous pretext of defending Irish neutrality against Russia, whose nearest military base is thousands of kilometers away.

And what of the Russian delegation? Their Orwell Road premises have been under constant attack by mobs led by far right government minister Josepha Madigan and a very well organized and funded crew of Ukrainian, Polish and Hungarian fascists, who must be delighted that the Irish police allowed them free reign to unleash their terror on a peaceful, diplomatic mission.

And that Ireland’s Catholic priests are defacing the Embassy’s walls and Catholic Church suppliers are ramming the Embassy with trucks and being blessed by other dubious priests for their terrorism, whilst older Irish citizens live in fear Ireland’s Ukrainian imports will take a leaf from Kiev’s playbook and throw yellow and blue paint over them for having watched Yuri Gagarin orbit the earth in 1961.

But it is not just lilly lived Irish priests who are at fault. Ever since the Iraqi war, when NATO’s armies embedded journalists into their ranks, Irish hacks from Mary Fitzgerald cavorting with leading ISIS commanders to Orla Guerin lighting candles in churches with Nazis in Mariupol, have been widely deployed not only to pretend that NATO’s war coverage is somehow neutral and balanced but that “brave” Irish women, like “brave” Irishman Lord Haw Haw and other “brave” Irish Nazi collaborators before them, are showing the ignorant Irish the folly of their long-held neutrality.

But why should Irish neutrality matter at all, as the the damning February 2022 Commission on the Defence Forces shows the Irish could hardly carry the day against Iceland or Malta, never mind Russia or some other heavyweight, not least because the Irish naval services spend their time ferrying illegal aliens to Italy to soften up the Irish to abandon their neutrality heritage for a mess of NATO pottage?

Though joining NATO and PESCO will allow the Irish Army’s top brass and their political sponsors hob nob with the great and the good, it will more importantly deepen and widen NATO’s soft war options by extending the shelf life of the Good Friday Peace Agreement, which disgraced politicians Bertie Ahern, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and George Mitchell have been dining off for the last 24 years. Because this agreement’s pertinent international significance is that it allows its British and American architects pawn themselves off as peace-makers, not as the nation wreckers that they are, it is a valuable bauble, especially when coupled with the international standing joke of Ireland’s bloated NGO sector.

Then there is the strange case of Ireland’s Shannon Airport, which has been a major NATO hub for sending prisoners to be tortured and, in more recent years, as a stop-over refuelling and R&R hub for armed American troops heading off to pick up the white man’s burden in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

What is particularly noteworthy about those repeated American breaches of Irish neutrality is there is no need for them, as airports in Britain, Spain, Portugal, Germany or countless other NATO aligned countries would do equally well. However, making Shannon airport dependent upon servicing America’s war needs helps pull the greater Shannon airport area into the NATO orbit and that is its point. America abuses Shannon airport to subjugate Ireland’s economy.

Not only has NATO thoroughly penetrated Ireland’s military and political apparatus but she stands at the nerve centre of her economy. Most of Silicon Valley’s Fortune 500 companies have their European offices in Dublin and, to coin the old joke, Dublin’s rents keep doublin’ most years as a result. Not only do the workers these companies import pay over 50% of Ireland’s income taxes but NATO have impressed on Ireland, which has already surrendered its massive fisheries to her European “partners”, the need to radically cull its national herd and therefore to become even more dependent on these secretive companies and the retired NATO generals who sit on their boards.

Ireland, once synonymous with holy war, is being slowly ripped asunder forcing, as Zionist scholar Dr Rory Millers asserts at 12:23 in this instructive 2014 Tel Aviv talk, Jewish led sectarian alliances to square up against Ireland’s numerically insignificant but now very vulnerable Orthodox Christian communities, and Ireland’s Zionist apologists to defend themselves against Ireland’s Islamic war lords and NATO’s Antifa fifth columnists.

All these needlessly imported sectarian squabbles undermine Ireland’s home front, even as Ireland’s Foreign Minister chairs meetings of the UNSC to boost his CV while Ireland’s punch-drunk Prime Minister harrangues nuclear armed India that its neutrality is “unacceptable”, and Ireland’s UN Ambassador stupidly threatens to unleash further Irish hell on Afghanistan’s Taliban government to settle some grudges NATO still hold against the unfortunate survivors of NATO’s Afghan extermination campaign. Though these Irish jokers talk far too loudly and carry a tiny stick, the problem is that, as NATO controls their voice, their economy and their shillelaghs, what little remains of Ireland’s independence and neutrality will soon be sacrificed unless Ireland’s entire political apparatus is scrapped and time-honed and internationally honored values of neutrality, self awareness and self respect again become Ireland’s norm.

While no historical analogies are ever perfect, there are some noteworthy similarities between the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and Vladimir Putin, although not for the reasons some pundits are suggesting.

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”

 – Mark Twain

Bismarck, the 19th century German statesman from a landowning Junker family, may never have appeared shirtless astride a horse, or photographed saving a television crew from a Siberian tiger, but there is more to the story between he and Vladimir Putin than first meets the eye.

Much like the Russian leader from a later epoch, Bismarck, the fervent anti-liberal who held sway over Prussia from 1871 to 1890, found it a matter of existential importance to bring his own people, the Germans, together in common ‘statehood.’ But whereas Bismarck’s empire-building initiatives led to a string of successful wars against Denmark, Austria and France, Putin’s nation-building efforts were necessarily focused on long-simmering internal problems, which had the potential, if not defused, to bring post-communist Russia to its knees.

A comparison between Bismarck and Putin was made last month by the columnist George F. Will. Unsurprisingly, however, Will, writing in the pages of The Washington Post, used his analogy to support the perennial ‘Russia the Aggressor’ narrative, suggesting that Putin would move to conquer other countries after ‘demilitarizing’ and ‘denazifying’ Ukraine.

“The Baltic nations — Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, all NATO nations — should worry,” he warned.

Such a groundless and reckless claim, aside from stoking Russophobia, flies in the face of everything that Putin has stood for during the duration of his presidency. Moreover, it ignores the fact that the Russian leader has already fought his ‘wars,’ so to speak.

While Bismarck was initially compelled to fight against foreign adversaries, Putin’s priority, in addition to taming the oligarchs who had practically taken over the Kremlin in the 1990s, was to end the war in Chechnya, which had its start in 1994 under his predecessor Boris Yeltsin. Just around the time this conflict in the North Caucasus was coming to an end, in 2008, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili made the reckless decision to launch a military offensive on the breakaway state of South Ossetia. The unprovoked attack, which occurred while Putin was serving as prime minister, resulted in the death of several Russian peacekeepers and culminated in a brief war between Russia and Georgia that ended swiftly on the side of the former. This conflict was followed seven years later with Moscow’s intervention in Syria, which began in September 2015 with an official request from Damascus to help defeat the terrorist fforces of Islamic State. Up until the launching of Moscow’s special operation in Ukraine, those wholly defensive campaigns had been the extent of Russia’s so-called ‘aggression.’

What Will fails to understand in the course of his comparison is that Bismarck, who expressed his personal revulsion to war on many occasions, was no ‘neocon’ as it were. The shrewd chancellor, after putting his enemies in check, was the driving force behind an age of peace on the European continent that lasted for two decades. In that respect, a comparison could be made between ‘the Putin Doctrine’, as it were, and the realpolitik of Bismarck.

Here is a quote by the historian Eric Hobsbawm as he describes Bismarck: “He remained undisputed world champion at the game of multilateral diplomatic chess for almost twenty years … [and] devoted himself exclusively, and successfully, to maintaining peace between the powers.”

Sound familiar? Any reader who has not been thoroughly brainwashed by the mainstream media and its kneejerk anti-Russia stance will quickly see that that description also aptly applies to Putin and his judicious approach to foreign affairs over the duration of his tenure. The prediction here is that (unbiased) future historians will be writing much the same words about the Russian leader, whose defensive actions in Ukraine, for example, will be viewed as absolutely warranted in face of the existential threats they countered. But I digress.

The WaPo columnist also conflates the ‘mindset’ of modern, democratic Russia with that of the sprawling Soviet Union and its 15 republics. Since the collapse of the communist empire in 1991, and certainly long before then, the Russian people have had no appetite for ‘empire-building’ adventures, unless, perhaps, it is employed as a boardroom strategy for some business expansion. Russia is a full-blown ‘capitalist democracy,’ abundant in natural resources, human talent and lebensraum (‘living space’), and as such has absolutely no need – regardless what the pundits would have everyone believe – for wars of expansion.

With regards to Crimea, which voted in March 2014 to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation, Will was noticeably agitated that Moscow deferred to the late U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and his self-styled concept of “self-determination” as a universal right and “an imperative principle of action” to justify its actions. Clearly, such highfalutin ideals are only acceptable when the ‘exceptional’ Americans are behind them.

“It must delight Putin to employ an American saint’s piety in an act of anti-American realpolitik,” Will seethed. “Much of Putin’s geopolitics consists of doing whatever opposes U.S. policy.”

Considering that Western policy to date has been blood-stained since around the turn of the millennia, “doing whatever opposes U.S. policy” may not be the worst choice of strategy.

Clearly, the non-stop efforts by the Western media to paint Putin as the epitome of evil do not flush with reality. Unlike the United States and NATO, which have initiated scores of unprovoked attacks on a number of hapless countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, Putin has never felt the need to travel abroad in search of “monsters to slay.” Rather, they came knocking on Russia’s door instead, one after another. Indeed, listening to the jeremiads emanating from Western officials these days, they actually seem incredulous that Russia has military bases in such close proximity to the territories of NATO states, some of which, like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Norway, now actually share a border with Russia.

In the face of this aggressive posturing on the part of the U.S. and NATO, it would be no exaggeration to say that Putin has been the real peacemaker since coming to power. For those who would argue at this point that the 30-member military bloc is merely a “defensive” organization, imagine the hysteria that would erupt should Moscow ever decide to militarize America’s borders in the Caribbean and South America. In fact, there is no need to imagine anything; we already saw that hysteria during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when the world teetered on the brink of war for endless days between the nuclear powers.

For many years, Russia, China and the rest of the world have been captive spectators, watching as the United States and its allies run roughshod around the planet, regime changing here, breaking things there. And now that Russia has finally punched back after years of issuing unmistakable warnings that fell on deaf ears, the Western hemisphere would have everyone believe that Moscow is behaving as the aggressor. The memory of the public may be short, but it’s not that short. The majority of awakened people (as opposed to ‘woke’) may despise military conflict and the horrors that it brings, but without a Russian intervention in Ukraine at this critical juncture in history the consequences down the road would be far more severe.

Not only has Vladimir Putin offset an array of external threats to his country, whose defensive capabilities were at risk of becoming redundant – anti-missile systems, for example, and bioweapon labs smack on Russia’s border would have achieved that – but he spared Europe and the world from the specter of a U.S.-provoked catastrophe, and one that might have been nuclear-tipped.

All eyes are on Mariupol. As of Wednesday night, over 70% of residential areas were under control of Donetsk and Russian forces, while Russian Marines, Donetsk’s 107^th batallion and Chechen Spetsnaz, led by the charismatic Adam Delimkhanov, had entered the Azov-Stal plant – the HQ of the neo-Nazi Azov batallion.

Azov was sent a last ultimatum: surrender until midnight – or else, as in a take no prisoners highway to hell.

That implies a major game-changer in the Ukrainian battlefield; Mariupol is finally about to be thoroughly denazified – as the Azov contingent long entrenched in the city and using civilians as human shields were their most hardened fighting force.

Meanwhile, echoes from the Empire of Lies all but gave the whole game away. There’s no intention whatsoever in Washington to facilitate a peace plan in Ukraine – and that explains Comedian Zelensky’s non-stop stalling tactics. The supreme target is regime change in Russia, and for that Totalen Krieg against Russia and all things Russian is warranted. Ukraine is just a pawn in the game – or worse, mere cannon fodder.

This also means that the 14,000 deaths in Donbass for the past 8 years should be directly attributed to the Exceptionalists. As for Ukrainian neo-Nazis of all stripes, they are as expendable as “moderate rebels” in Syria, be they al-Qaeda or Daesh-linked. Those that may eventually survive can always join the budding CIA-sponsored Neo-Nazi Inc. – the tawdry remix of the 1980s Jihad Inc. in Afghanistan. They will be properly “Kalibrated”.

A quick neo-Nazi recap

By now only the brain dead across NATOstan – and there are hordes – are not aware of Maidan in 2014. Yet few know that it was then Ukrainian Minister of Interior Arsen Avakov, a former governor of Kharkov, who gave the green light for a 12,000 paramilitary outfit to materialize out of Sect 82 soccer hooligans who supported Dynamo Kiev. That was the birth of the Azov batallion, in May 2014, led by Andriy Biletsky, a.k.a. the White Fuhrer, and former leader of the neo-nazi gang Patriots of Ukraine.

Together with NATO stay-behind agent Dmitro Yarosh, Biletsky founded Pravy Sektor, financed by Ukrainian mafia godfather and Jewish billionaire Ihor Kolomoysky (later the benefactor of the meta-conversion of Zelensky from mediocre comedian to mediocre President.)

Pravy Sektor happened to be rabidly anti-EU – tell that to Ursula von der Lugen – and politically obsessed with linking Central Europe and the Baltics in a new, tawdry Intermarium. Crucially, Pravy Sektor and other nazi gangs were duly trained by NATO instructors.

Biletsky and Yarosh are of course disciples of notorious WWII-era Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, for whom pure Ukrainians are proto-Germanic or Scandinavian, and Slavs are untermenschen.

Azov ended up absorbing nearly all neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine and were dispatched to fight against Donbass – with their acolytes making more money than regular soldiers. Biletsky and another neo-Nazi leader, Oleh Petrenko, were elected to the Rada. The White Führer stood on his own. Petrenko decided to support then President Poroshenko. Soon the Azov battalion was incorporated as the Azov Regiment to the Ukrainian National Guard.

They went on a foreign mercenary recruiting drive – with people coming from Western Europe, Scandinavia and even South America.

That was strictly forbidden by the Minsk Agreements guaranteed by France and Germany (and now de facto defunct). Azov set up training camps for teenagers and soon reached 10,000 members. Erik “Blackwater” Prince, in 2020, struck a deal with the Ukrainian military that would enable his renamed outfit, Academi, to supervise Azov.

It was none other than sinister Maidan cookie distributor Vicky “F**k the EU” Nuland who suggested to Zelensky – both of them, by the way, Ukrainian Jews – to appoint avowed Nazi Yarosh as an adviser to the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Gen Valerii Zaluzhnyi. The target: organize a blitzkrieg on Donbass and Crimea – the same blitzkrieg that SVR, Russian foreign intel, concluded would be launched on February 22, thus propelling the launch of Operation Z.

All of the above, in fact just a quick recap, shows that in Ukraine there’s no difference whatsoever between white neo-Nazis and brown-colored al-Qaeda/ISIS/Daesh, as much as neo-Nazis are just as “Christian” as takfiri Salafi-jihadis are “Muslim”.

When Putin denounced a “bunch of neo-Nazis” in power in Kiev, the Comedian replied that it was impossible because he was Jewish. Nonsense. Zelensky and his patron Kolomoysky, for all practical purposes, are Zio-Nazis.

Even as branches of the United States government admitted to neo-Nazis entrenched in the Kiev apparatus, the Exceptionalist machine made the daily shelling of Donbass for 8 years simply disappear. These thousands of civilian victims never existed.

U.S. mainstream media even ventured the odd piece or report on Azov and Aidar neo-Nazis. But then a neo-Orwellian narrative was set in stone: there are no Nazis in Ukraine. CIA offshoot NED even started deleting records about training members of Aidar. Recently a crappy news network duly promoted a video of a NATO-trained and weaponized Azov commander – complete with Nazi iconography.

Why “denazification” makes sense

The Banderastan ideology harks back to when this part of Ukraine was in fact controlled by the Austro-Hungarian empire, the Russian empire and Poland. Stepan Bandera was born in Austro-Hungary in 1909, near Ivano-Frankovsk, in the – then autonomous – Kingdom of Galicia.

WWI dismembered European empires into frequently non-viable small entities. In western Ukraine – an imperial intersection – that inevitably led to the proliferation of extremely intolerant ideologies.

Banderastan ideologues profited from the Nazi arrival in 1941 to try to proclaim an independent territory. But Berlin not only blocked it but sent them to concentration camps. In 1944 though the Nazis changed tactics: they liberated the Banderanistas and manipulated them into anti-Russian hate, thus creating a destabilization force in the Ukrainian USSR.

So Nazism is not exactly the same as Banderastan fanatics: they are in fact competing ideologies. What happened since Maidan is that the CIA kept a laser focus on inciting Russian hatred by whatever fringe groups it could instrumentalize. So Ukraine is not a case of
“white nationalism” – to put it mildly – but of anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalism, for all practical purposes manifested via Nazi-style salutes and Nazi-style symbols.

So when Putin and the Russian leadership refer to Ukrainian Nazism, that may not be 100% correct, conceptually, but it strikes a chord with every Russian.

Russians viscerally reject Nazism – considering that virtually every Russian family has at least one ancestor killed during the Great Patriotic War. From the perspective of wartime psychology, it makes total sense to talk of “Ukro-nazism” or, straight to the point, a “denazification” campaign.

How the Anglos loved the Nazis

The United States government openly cheerleading neo-Nazis in Ukraine is hardly a novelty, considering how it supported Hitler alongside England in 1933 for balance of power reasons.

In 1933, Roosevelt lent Hitler one billion gold dollars while England lent him two billion gold dollars. That should be multiplied 200 times to arrive at today’s fiat dollars. The Anglo-Americans wanted to build up Germany as a bulwark against Russia. In 1941 Roosevelt wrote to Hitler that if he invaded Russia the U.S. would side with Russia, and wrote Stalin that if Stalin invaded Germany the U.S. would back Germany. Talk about a graphic illustration of Mackinderesque balance of power.

The Brits had become very concerned with the rise of Russian power under Stalin while observing that Germany was on its knees with 50% unemployment in 1933, if one counted unregistered itinerant Germans.

Even Lloyd George had misgivings about the Versailles Treaty, unbearably weakening Germany after its surrender in WWI. The purpose of WWI, in Lloyd George’s worldview, was to destroy Russia and Germany together. Germany was threatening England with the Kaiser building a fleet to take over the oceans, while the Tsar was too close to India for comfort. For a while Britannia won – and continued to rule the waves.

Then building up Germany to fight Russia became the number one priority – complete with rewriting of History. The uniting of Austrian Germans and Sudetenland Germans with Germany, for instance, was totally approved by the Brits.

But then came the Polish problem. When Germany invaded Poland, France and Britain stood on the sidelines. That placed Germany on the border of Russia, and Germany and Russia divided up Poland. That’s exactly what Britain and France wanted. Britain and France had promised Poland that they would invade Germany from the west while Poland fought Germany from the east.

In the end, the Poles were double-crossed. Churchill even praised Russia for invading Poland. Hitler was advised by MI6 that England and France would not invade Poland – as part of their plan for a German-Russian war. Hitler had been supported financially since the 1920s by MI6 for his favorable words about England in Mein Kampf. MI6 de facto encouraged Hitler to invade Russia.

Fast forward to 2022, and here we go again – as farce, with the Anglo-Americans “encouraging” Germany under feeble Scholz to put itself back together militarily, with 100 billion euros (that the Germans don’t have), and setting up in thesis a revamped European force to later go to war against Russia.

Cue to the Russophobic hysteria in Anglo-American media about the Russia-China strategic partnership. The mortal Anglo-American fear is Mackinder/Mahan/Spykman/Kissinger/Brzezinski all rolled into one: Russia-China as peer competitor twins take over the Eurasian land mass – the Belt and Road Initiative meets the Greater Eurasia Partnership – and thus rule the planet, with the U.S. relegated to inconsequential island status, as much as the previous “Rule Britannia”.

England, France and later the Americans had prevented it when Germany aspired to do the same, controlling Eurasia side by side with Japan, from the English Channel to the Pacific. Now it’s a completely different ball game.

So Ukraine, with its pathetic neo-Nazi gangs, is just an – expendable – pawn in the desperate drive to stop something that is beyond anathema, from Washington’s perspective: a totally peaceful German-Russian-Chinese New Silk Road.

Russophobia, massively imprinted in the West’s DNA, never really went away. Cultivated by the Brits since Catherine the Great – and then with The Great Game. By the French since Napoleon. By the Germans because the Red Army liberated Berlin. By the Americans because Stalin forced to them the mapping of Europe – and then it went on and on and on throughout the Cold War.

We are at just the early stages of the final push by the dying Empire to attempt arresting the flow of History. They are being outsmarted, they are already outgunned by the top military power in the world, and they will be checkmated. Existentially, they are not equipped to kill the Bear – and that hurts. Cosmically.

When the Soviet Union imploded, Russia urgently needed intellectuals to conceptualise and formulate newer, national narratives to fill their resulting ideological void. Though Alexsandr Dugin who, in his Quixotic search for the Soul of Russia, has been accused of nibbling on an eclectic smörgåsbord of Satanism, Stalinism, Russian Orthodoxy, Marxism-Leninism, pan-Slavism and Nazism, is one such Russian intellectual, Dugin’s final legacy will fall somewhat short of his mooted Russian Manifest Destiny, his supposed desire for a “Euro-Soviet empire which would stretch from Dublin to Vladivostok and would also need to expand to the south, since it require(s) a port on the Indian Ocean”.

Fantastical though Dugin’s pronouncements sometimes seemed, they have now been obviated by President’s Putin’s repeated statements that Russia wants a stable Western border and good, forward-looking relations with China and the Indian sub-continent. As far as the Russian government is concerned, Duginism, in its strong form, can now be consigned to wherever it is historical aberrations fade into obsolescence; Russia will, for the foreseeable future, concentrate on getting her own intellectual house in order.

Although Russia has largely divested herself of her surplus philosophers, NATO’s Manifest Destiny ideologues, as part of their full spectrum dominance strategy, still need theirs, regardless of how fickle their cant may be in either their strong or diluted forms. Bernard-Henri Lévy, the French Zionist “philosopher” who crops up like the proverbial bad penny wherever NATO’s dark arts are at work, is a case in point. As Lévy, NATO’s Professor Pangloss, is now calling for the emasculation of Russia, just as he has called for the destruction of Syria here, here and here, along the same genocidal lines he advocated in Libya, Lévy’s main utility is in spraying a pseudo-intellectual spittle on NATO’s more abominable crimes.

Prof. Gilbert Achcar of London’s SOAS, is another “progressive” proponent of NATO’s “humanitarian slaughter” in places like Syria and Libya and in his native Lebanon as well. Achcar is noteworthy as his academic output seems, especially when juxtaposed with his stratospheric public profile, pathetically weak.

The SOAS’ own website informs us that “Gilbert’s research interests and publication topics include: the political economy and sociology of globalisation, the global power structure and grand strategy, empire theory and the unfolding of U.S. hegemony globally and in the ‘Broader Middle East’, politics and development economics of the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, the sociology of religion in general, of Islam and Islamic fundamentalism in particular, social change and social theory”.

So a very wide or global “big picture” but somewhat shallow area of expertise, one could say. Though “Eichmann in Cairo: The Eichmann Affair in Nasser’s Egypt” seems, on first glance, to be more deeply focused, such, alas is not the case as Achcar only flippantly reviewed coverage of the Eichmann trial in the Egyptian press. Achcar, on the evidence, did not get his cushy number because of his academic prowess.

As this dissenting article explains, contrary to his own belated Blair-like protestations, Achcar is, at heart, an over-paid propaganda mouthpiece-for-hire in convincing the “radical left” to support the “humanitarian bombing” of Libya and other sovereign countries in NATO’s cross-hairs. As Gilbert explained: in the “absence of any alternative means of achieving the protection goal, no one can reasonably oppose it… You can’t in the name of anti-imperialist principles oppose an action that will prevent the massacre of civilians.” So, Achcar’s main criticism of NATO’s saturation humanitarian bombing of Libya, is that they had “only” flown 11,107 sorties against Libya as against 38,004 sorties in NATO’s1999 anti-Serbian war over Kosovo. Not enough humanitarian slaughter for Achcar, in short.

Although this jingoistic site regards him as a “clear-sighted leftist” war-monger who no doubt knows what side his bread is buttered on, Achcar, on the evidence, is no intellectual at all. And nor is French philosopher Lévy, who calls for France’s Muslims to host special days to stone people to death and who cannot even differentiate between real and fake French philosophers. Another over-paid NATO cretin, in other words.

As those intellectuals have feel of clay, we can only conclude that they owe their prominence to their support for NATO’s endless wars. Lévy’s recent political activities do not lend themselves to any other interpretation. If we accept that hypothesis, then we must also accept that groups like the Henry Jackson Society, Bellingcat and Left Foot Forward, to name but three illustrative examples, are similarly NATO constructs, NATO’s useful soft war idiots that cement NATO’s Doublethink into what remains of the West’s public consciousness.

The Henry Jackson Society is a very influential, extreme right wing British think tank that has an undue influence with right wing British Conservative and Labour MPs and their sponsors. While touting their support for freedom, liberalism and democratization as their core organizational remit, in practice the HJS is a neocon Trojan horse for the very opposite: state-expansionism, state-militarization, interventionism, rampant market deregulation and privatization in the interests of Western vulture funds. What’s particularly shocking is that their pursuit of their goals and Trojan horse tactics are, for the most part, easily verifiable from the public record, with only a little digging, from which we can only conclude that the HJS’ objective, from its outset, was to legitimize violent regime-change in the Middle East and Donbas in the name of fulfilling NATO’s manifest destiny by humanitarian bombing.

Despite the accolades NATO heaped on him, Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins’ feigned expertise on chemical and biological weapons has, along with that of his colleague, Dan Kaszeta, been repeatedly pulverized by technical expert Dr Neal Krawetz and MIT’s Prof. Ted Postol, both of whom have long-established track records in those very specialized fields. As Bellingcat and Higgins are both now flourishing under the protective wing of NATO’s Atlantic Council, we can only assume that their continued prominence is explained by NATO’s need, as part of their full spectrum dominance dictum. for a controlled input by “the common man”.

Left Foot Forward, founded by failed politician Will Straw, the son of disgraced politician Jack Straw, is a British blog, formerly edited by Niamh Ní Mhaoileoin , (who, as part of NATO’s reward system, has since scored some lucrative New Statesman pay-days).who tweeted on 28 March 2016 that “Boris Johnson is truly nauseating” for praising Palmyra’s liberation by the Syrian Army. A day earlier, this Irish woman tweeted that tricolour sex toys were the perfect way to commemorate the 1916 Dublin Easter Uprising.

Linking sex toys to Ireland’s revolutionary heritage brings us back to Pussy Riot, to Femen and to the late Gene Sharp’s From Dictatorship to Democracy, which is credited with supplying America’s agents their blueprint for emasculating governments opposed to NATO. The subversion, intentional or otherwise, of old paradigms “from Dublin to Vladivostok” has given NATO’s useful idiots the green light to continue proclaiming its manifest destiny, regardless of the negative externalities and collateral damage their intellectual myopia causes.

Although the Russian Army is, for now at least, stalling NATO’s eastwards progress, NATO’s more ethereal threats must also be neutralized if Europe is ever to achieve lasting peace. Updated cuius regio, eius religio clauses of the Peace of Westphalia are, arguably, some of the many precedents worth implementing. Under those terms, NATO would cease and desist from all subversive philosophical, religious, political and secular evangelizing, countries like Syria, Yemen, Russia and what remains of Yugoslavia would be allowed to live peaceably within their own myths and their own borders and trans-national cultural, sporting, political, financial and economic bodies would be wrested from the control of the USA and its satellites.

Now, all of this is not just to win some pedantic pseudo-philosophical point over Achcar, Lévy or one of NATO’s Henry Jackson Society shills, as a fair debate with them would be even more akin to taking a new-born baby on in arm-wrestling than it was when Dugin’s community centered approach easily handled Lévy’s vacuous shibboleths as well as the one-dimensional American exceptionalism musings of Francis Fukuyama and Ivan Krastev. Rather, it is to plainly say that Russia’s Paralympians should freely compete against their peers, that Russian ideas, as expressed by Chekhov, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, deserve their permanent positions smack centre on the High Altar of our global literature and NATO’s dangerous xenophobes, who think otherwise, deserve to be banished, like the despicable pariahs that they truly are, far beyond the realms of outer space the now cancelled Yuri Gagarin first explored on our behalf.

Though Dugin has been described as Putin’s brain and Lévy is what passes for NATO’s bird brain, Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg put it best when he said the only real utility of a philosopher like Dugin is to protect the world from Lévy and other NATO funded philosophical charlatans.

Though she may well continue to need her Dugins to repel NATO’s philosophical Sirens Russia will, as Tolstoy’s War and Peace shows, always need leaders who can cut to the chase, who can separate the wheat from the chaff and differentiate Russia’s true philosophers and patriots from the frauds. We need Bismarcks, de Gaulles, Talleyrands, Tolstoys and Metternichs, not bird brained authoritarians like Canada’s Trudeau, the red socks’ fascist, or pliable, demented and deranged war hawks like “Irish” Joe Biden. We need, in short, to replace all NATO’s pliable puppets with an intellectual caste that resorts to jaw jaw instead of NATO’s endless war war and that sees the lands of Dostoevksy, Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich as something more than a market to offload McDonald’s hamburgers and Hello Kitty bling into.

Now, though none of that may ever come to pass because of NATO’s Manifest Destiny obsessions, it forms a much more solid basis for charting our common paths forward than does the self-serving jingoism of Bernard-Henri Lévy and his fellow fake French philosophers. It also, of course, entails, dismantling NATO’s entire soft war apparatus, from NATO bottom feeders Bellingcat and the Henry Jackson Society, as well as decommissioning Bernard-Henri Lévy’s Christmas cracker philosophy.

In the history of civilization, Politics has more often than not, been a matter reduceable to the question of “whose side are you on?”

Granted it is not an easy affair to discern what most-nearly approaches truth in the fog of “the present.” Hindsight is 20/20 they say, although that is also not entirely true, for the interpretation of history is just another battlefield, albeit in much slower motion.

In a world of increased division, where we are told there is only black or white, the best we mere “civilians” can hope for is to not get hit by the crossfire. However, that is becoming increasingly harder to do.

It is not a matter of holding “opinion” any longer, it is about upholding a “conviction,” not earned with your own personal scrutiny and research, but by your “faith” in such a conviction and the authorities who shape it.

Increasingly, it does not truly matter what the “facts” are, but the question of “whose side are you on?”

If that is what “reality” has been reduced to by those forces controlling the state, then any enemy to those forces controlling that state will be a villain, regardless of their actions, regardless of their ideology; and any ally to those forces controlling that state will be a hero, regardless of their actions, regardless of their ideology.

And thus, in our shaped reality of today, what makes a “Hero” or a “Villain” will be determined by the simple question “whose side are you on?”

If this is troubling to you, I suggest we do a little exercise together. Let us dare to discern the “facts” for ourselves. Only then, will we cease being mere cheerleaders for a team; only then, can we qualify ourselves to ask in all honest sincerity, “whose side are we truly on?”

Are Nazis Now the New “Good Guys”?

There is a bit of mixed messaging that has been going on, especially in the last few weeks. Are there significant numbers of Nazis in Ukraine and are these “bad” or “good” Nazis in the context that they are fighting the Russian “invaders”?

In one breath we hear the counter, how can there be Nazis in Ukraine when there is a Jewish President calling the shots? In another breath we hear Facebook is now allowing users to praise the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion while they are fighting Russians. In yet another breath we hear, well its complicated, Ukrainian Nationalism should be considered at the forefront of any debate, even if it overlaps with Nazi ideology.

On Feb. 27, 2022, Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland held a scarf bearing the slogan “Slava Ukraini,” meaning “Glory to Ukraine,” with the “Blood and Soil” colors of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) (who collaborated with the Nazis during WWII and massacred thousands of Jews and Poles).

She then proceeded to post this picture onto her Twitter account (replacing it hours later with a picture of her without the “Blood and Soil” scarf) and accused her detractors of “reeking of Russian disinformation”. This controversial picture of Freeland was reported by Canada’s National Post.

According to Freeland’s press secretary, this was just another case of a “classic KGB disinformation smear… accusing Ukrainians and Ukrainian-Canadians of being far right extremists or fascists or Nazis,” which is a confusing statement on multiple levels.

It is not clear how this is a case of “Russian disinformation,” since the picture is indeed authentic, Freeland does not deny this. And she is indeed holding a “Blood and Soil” emblem, which originated with the Nazis, clear for everyone to see. Lastly, it is confusing as to why the Canadian government seems to be unaware that the KGB no longer exists. Are they also under the impression that the Soviet Union still exists?

Not irrelevant in all of this is the fact that Freeland’s grandfather was the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper during WWII in Galacia and that she is indeed aware of this and apparently unapologetic. Whenever she is questioned about this, she does not deny anything, but simply blames such a focus of inquiry on Russian disinformation with the intent to “destabilize Western democracies.” That is, it is not a question of what is one’s historical or ideological background, but a question of “whose side are you on?”

Interestingly, it was the Canadian newspaper “The Globe and Mail” who reported this story, titled “Freeland knew her grandfather was editor of Nazi newspaper,” thus, not a Russian publication last time I checked. And upon whom did they base such information? None other than Freeland’s own uncle, John-Paul Himka, who is now professor emeritus at the University of Alberta.

According to the Globe and Mail, Freeland was aware for more than two decades that her grandfather Michael Chomiak, was the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper that vilified Jews and supported the Nazi cause.

Globe and Mail writes:

“Krakivski Visti [Krakow News] was set up in 1940 by the German army and supervised by German intelligence officer Emil Gassert. Its printing presses and offices were confiscated by the Germans from a Jewish publisher, who was later murdered at the Belzec concentration camp.

The article titled ‘Kravivski Visti and the Jews, 1943: A contribution of Ukrainian Jewish Relations during the Second World War’ was written by Ms. Freeland’s uncle, John-Paul Himka, now professor emeritus at the University of Alberta.

In the foreword to the article, Prof. Himka credits Ms. Freeland for ‘pointing out problems and clarifications.’ Ms. Freeland has never acknowledged that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator and suggested on Monday that the allegation was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

In 1996, Prof. Himka wrote about Mr. Chomiak’s work for Kravivski Visti, a Ukrainian-language newspaper based in Krakow that often published anti-Jewish diatribes including ‘certain passages in some of the articles that expressed approval of what the Nazis were doing to the Jews.’” [emphasis added]

Oddly, Freeland helped to edit and clarify Prof. Himka’s article discussing her grandfather as the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper, however, refused to acknowledge her grandfather’s role publicly and accused any reference to this as part of a “Russian disinformation campaign.” According to this topsy-turvy logic, Freeland’s uncle, Prof. Himka is part of this “Russian disinformation campaign,” and she is guilty of providing assistance to this “Russian disinformation campaign,” all to ruin her political career and “destabilize Western democracies.”

Freeland also told her uncle, Prof. Himka, which is included in his article, that according to her father, her grandfather Michael Chomiak was also working to some extent with the anti-Nazi resistance. However, Prof. Himka was unable to verify this information, which he described as “fragmentary and one-sided.”

Then there is the strange case of NATO tweeting in celebration of international women’s day, this past March 8, a picture of a female Ukrainian soldier wearing the Black Sun symbol which is tied to Nazi occultism, and Satanism. NATO wrote in their post “All women and girls must live free and equal,” sending a very mixed message. NATO also ended up taking down their picture of the Black Sun symbol.

The timing of Freeland and NATO’s twitter posts are most strange. It also begs the question, why post something at all if you are just going to delete it? Is this just a matter of not being aware of such things, or is it a matter of certain groupings getting increasingly bolder and unapologetic as to where their true allegiance lies? Has Chrystia Freeland or NATO undergone any real questioning or backlash for such public displays? Not really.

On Feb. 7, 2014, a leaked conversation between Victoria Nuland (then Assistant Secretary of State) and Geoffrey Pyatt (then U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine) spread like wildfire. It was exposed that after Yanukovych was ousted from government, it was the government of the United States that was caught selecting the membership of what would form the new government of Ukraine, as if they were building their own sport’s team.

This was not only controversial in of itself, it was especially controversial in context of Ukraine’s “Revolution of Dignity,” where many Ukrainians died tragically so that they could have a better future.

Here in the West, we are supposed to be most sympathetic to that cause. So why did hardly anybody call out the fact that the U.S. government very clearly formed a Ukrainian government of their own choosing without a thought for the future and well-being of the Ukrainian people?

In fact, it was the U.S. who largely encouraged and financially supported the Ukrainian revolution. According to the official Obama White House Archives:

“The United States stands with the Ukrainian people and their choice of democracy, reform, and European integration.

 In pursuit of these objectives, Vice President Joe Biden announced today in Kyiv, Ukraine that, pending approval from Congress, the White House will commit $20 million to support comprehensive reform in the Ukrainian law enforcement and justice sectors, including prosecutorial and anti-corruption reforms…the U.S. government has now committed nearly $320 million in assistance to Ukraine this year, in addition to the $1 billion sovereign loan guarantee issued in May 2014.”

Many U.S. politicians visited Ukraine during this time to support the Ukrainian cause for “dignity.”

John McCain visits Ukraine in December 2013 in support of a regime change.

The world should have been appalled and horrified at such an exposure of U.S. criminality and duplicity. That the U.S. had directly and loudly encouraged and financially supported a revolution that resulted in many tragic deaths, only to steal the Ukrainian people’s right to choose their own government democratically.

The Americans also encouraged the Ukrainian people to fight for the EU Deal. And the Ukrainian people received the EU Deal that they were literally dying for. Where are they today? The poorest country in all of Europe.

Ukraine used to be among the richest countries in Eastern Europe, known as “the breadbasket of Europe.” However, this economic fact is harder and harder to come by since Ukraine was a part of the USSR when their economy was at its peak. A most inconvenient truth. It is for this reason that you will be hard pressed to find any GDP graph of Ukraine that begins earlier than 1991, the date of their independence. From 1991 to 1997, Ukraine lost 60% of their GDP (1) and suffered five-digit inflation rates. (2) Who was Ukraine beholden to during this massive recession that has never really ended for Ukrainians? The International Monetary Fund (IMF). [More on this story in Part 2.]

However, certain individuals who have held and continue to hold political offices, have greatly benefited from the plight of Ukraine.

On January 23, 2018, Joe Biden was invited to speak at a Council on Foreign Relations platform about an article he co-authored with Michael Carpenter titled “How to Stand Up to the Kremlin: Defending Democracy Against Its Enemies.”

Incredibly, during this discussion on “defending democracy against its enemies,” Biden publicly bragged that in 2016 (while Vice-President of the United States) he would only deliver on the U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine for economic aid on the condition that Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was fired. Shokin was investigating corruption charges involving Burisma Holdings at the time. Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden was on the board of this natural gas company during this period and was allegedly the recipient of $3-$3.5 million from the company. An extraordinary amount that could not be justified, hence the investigation into corruption.

Joe Biden makes the following admission at this 2018 CFR platform:

“…and I went over I guess the 12^th, 13^th time to Kiev, and I was going supposed to announce that there was another billion dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko [then President of Ukraine] and from Yatsenyuk [then Prime Minister of Ukraine] that they would take action against the state prosecutor [Shokin] and they didn’t. So they said they had it [the loan] they were walking out to press and I said nah, I said I’m not going or we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said ‘you have no authority, you’re not the president, the president said,’ I said call him. [laughter in background] I said, I’m telling you’re not getting a billion dollars. I said you’re not getting a billion and I’m gonna be leaving here. I think it was about six hours. I looked I said I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Oh son of a b*tch. He got fired. [laughter in background] And they put in place, someone who was solid.”

Apparently, Joe Biden (the current President of the United States) is not concerned with true democracy but only about whether his team wins. Not the American people I might add. His team is much smaller and more “selective” than that.

Strangely, despite Biden’s admission being recorded at a very public and “prestigious” platform, fact-checkers have continued to deny any proof that Joe Biden was responsible for the firing of Shokin. Apparently, Biden’s own admission to this is irrelevant. Fact-checkers have also denied any hard proof that Hunter received such a lofty sum from Burisma. Well, it is pretty hard to come by hard proof when the investigation into such a thing was prematurely shutdown, don’t you think? That was the whole point.

This is extremely controversial for another reason. During the EU Deal dispute that was used to trigger the Ukrainian protests, it has since been discovered that part of the conditions of this “deal,” which was strong-armed by the IMF, was the demand that a significant rise in utility rates (first and foremost electricity and gas) be implemented while the income of Ukrainians stayed the same.

Who was Ukrainian President Yanukovych’s point person in the United States during the Ukrainian protests and EU Deal controversy? U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.

The Ukrainian people had no idea. The very deal they were fighting and dying for was to directly benefit corrupt gas companies such as Burisma Holdings and their foreign shareholders, to the economic detriment of the Ukrainian people. A similar situation to what most of Europe is facing today under a plethora of glorious “EU Deals” in the midst of an energy crisis.

In addition, the New York Times has just recently published an article confirming that the notorious Hunter Biden laptop that was claimed as “Russian disinformation” by our trustworthy fact-checkers, is in actual fact, AUTHENTIC. A very important piece of information that should have been made available to the American people before they chose who would be their next President. This important piece of information was denied to the American people by the very thing that is proclaimed to be defending “national security,” the unelected and anonymous but all powerful, “fact-checkers.”

So, we all know Joe Biden has been promoted, um “elected,” President. Where are Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt today? Nuland serves as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs of the United States. Pyatt serves as the U.S. Ambassador to Greece.

Nuland, not one to shy away from unflattering spotlight, has again made headlines. This time on the American – starts with “bio” ends with “lab” – situation in Ukraine. On March 7, Nuland testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where she did not deny that Ukraine possesses “chemical or biological weapons” and acknowledged on public record that “uh, Ukraine has, uh, biological research facilities.”

But don’t worry, this does not mean that the omnipotent god-like “fact-checkers” are actually the sources of disinformation (what Hunter Biden laptop?), but as Mrs. Nuland has patiently explained to us; the harbouring and experimentation on deadly organisms is called “biological research” when the U.S. Department of Defense is involved. Thus, they are not deemed as “bio labs,” but rather as “biological research facilities,” and anyone who calls them “bio labs” while under the possession of the United States is a propagator of Russian disinformation. And yes, the U.S. Department of Defense is most certainly involved as seen by the saved PDF files taken off of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine website which shows the U.S. Department of Defense as the donor in all the cases listed. However, as Mrs. Nuland carefully explained, as soon as the Americans lose possession of these deadly organisms, it is only then that they transform into “bio labs” with “weapons of mass destruction.” It is very simple actually.

What did not make the headlines with equal vigour is what Nuland did after her failed diplomatic visit to Russia this past October, which was according to French journalist Thierry Meyssan, to “impose” Yarosh onto President Zelensky. On Nov. 2, 2021, President Zelensky appointed Dmytro Yarosh (leader of the Right Sector 2013-2015) as Adviser to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valerii Zaluzhnyi. Nuland is of Ukrainian Jewish descent, thus her ongoing support for neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian government and military since 2014 is disturbing on multiple levels.

Right Sector has close connections with Trident (Tryzub) and Patriot of Ukraine. All three groups are right-wing nationalist, neo-Nazi, paramilitary movements as well as political parties. Look it up for yourself, not even Wikipedia is denying this. Yarosh was the leader of Tryzub starting in 2005. Tryzub led to the formation of the Right Sector, to which Yarosh was also leader of between 2013-2015 and continues to have a great deal of influence on all these groupings.

Dmytro Yarosh has been on Interpol’s “wanted list” since 2014.

Recall that in 2014, the U.S. “influence” on the newly formed Ukrainian government was raising concern, specifically around members of Svoboda and Pravyi Sector (Right Sector) holding five senior roles in the new government, including the post of deputy prime minister. This story was reported by Reuters.

Right Sector “Blood and Soil” flag. What westerners are told is a Ukrainian nationalist party concerned with defending the liberty and freedom of the Ukrainian people.

Svoboda is also sold to the west as a romantic movement of benign Ukrainian nationalists, who happen to support Stephen Bandera and cannot deny that they support ethnic ultranationalist views.

Typical rally during the “Revolution for Dignity” in 2014, with flags from the Svoboda Ukrainian Nationalist Party.

On January 1st, 2022, hundreds of Ukrainian nationalists held a torchlight march in the capital of Kyiv, seen in the above picture, to mark the birthday of Stephen Bandera one of the leaders of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and its paramilitary unit the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) who fought alongside the Nazis during WWII and massacred thousands of Jews and Poles. These Ukrainian nationalists are shown in the above picture holding the Svoboda and UPA “Blood and Soil” flag. The latter being the same emblem Chrystia Freeland held this past February. This event was reported by The Times of Israel. I wonder, will Freeland’s press secretary dare to call this another classic case of “KGB disinformation”?

A Moment to Reflect

So what is going on here? Are there real Nazis in Ukraine that are being selected, with U.S. and possibly NATO backing, to play a political and military role? And if so, why? What is happening to the Ukrainian people if this is in fact the case?

What even constitutes as “Ukrainian” under an increasingly ultra-nationalist movement? An ultra-nationalist movement which self-identifies as pure ethnic Ukrainians. Ukraine is an ethnically mixed population, with both ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians living together.

In light of this situation, how are we to regard the people of Donbass asking to form their own republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, separate from the rest of Ukraine? Are we in the west going to deny the people of Donbass, with a large population of ethnic Russians, the right to separate themselves from an ultra-nationalist movement that self-identifies as a pure Ukrainian race?

How are we to regard Crimea’s own request to re-join Russia in 2014, a referendum that the West refuses to acknowledge actually happened, despite mainstream western reporters confirming that Crimeans have indeed chosen and are happy to have returned to Russia? (Crimeans mostly consist of ethnic Russians.)

What are we to think of the Ukrainian government withholding 85% of drinkable water to Crimea these past eight years? An action by the Ukrainian government that constitutes a humanitarian crisis against the Crimean people. Are these the actions of a friendly government that cares for the welfare of the Crimean people?

This humanitarian crisis was corrected by the Russians as soon as they entered Ukraine, as acknowledged by Reuters. However, most in the west will never hear anything about this.

We should have the courage to ask ourselves: Is there in fact a civil war that has been going on in Ukraine not just these past weeks, but these past eight years? A civil war that has not been reported to the western people for political reasons, where certain regions of Ukraine have been under attack by neo-Nazi paramilitary units who have been receiving political support and funding from the United States, and possibly NATO.

Why would the west support such a horrific initiative?

To answer these questions, we will have to have the courage to look at the historical root of Ukrainian Nationalism and its relationship to namely U.S. Intelligence and NATO post-WWII.

To follow shortly, “Part II of Fact Checking the Fact Checkers: The Truth Behind Ukraine’s Glorified ‘Nationalist Movement’”

The author can be reached at cynthiachung.substack.com

(1)  “Can Ukraine Avert a Financial Meltdown?“. World Bank. June 1998. Archived from the original on 12 July 2000.
(2)  Figliuoli, Lorenzo; Lissovolik, Bogdan (31 August 2002). “The IMF and Ukraine: What Really Happened“. International Monetary Fund.

The EU ban on RT and Sputnik is simply wrong and the thinking behind it draconian. What more proof do you need to see that the EU is an-anti democratic elite which hates accountability. Even in the Ukraine.

Is media playing a role in the war in Ukraine? And if so, by helping one side, or by even informing a wider international public of the important factors? Or is it feeding the hatred, misinforming the elites and decision makers and pushing Russia and Ukraine further away from any possibility of a ceasefire and talks?

I was recently taken aback by the near comical statement by the EU’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell who said that RT and Sputnik are to be banned from the EU bloc. His reasons, which RT actually broadcasted to its credit, were because “they were champions of information manipulation”.

The irony here is mind-blowing, given that Borrell himself is really a champion of disinformation and manipulating media and knows what he’s talking about when he uses phrases like that or indeed “full-out propaganda war”. In reality, any journalist who has worked in Brussels, accredited to the EU, will tell you that the PR efforts of the EU institutions – in particular the European Commission – amount to a colossal media manipulation which culminates in fake news being pumped out to the masses across the bloc each day, sexing up the relevance and status of the EU as journalists essentially replicate information which is spoon-fed to them and never question its validity.

Borrell’s statement is a triumph of both irony and cheek. The nerve of this socialist politician who hardly has a squeaky clean past himself in his own country, is pretty amazing given that the EU itself spends billions on subsidising production costs of TV journalists and their teams in Brussels to report on the minutia of day-to-day activities in the EU institutions forcing journalists not to ‘bite the hand which feeds them’ when it comes to their reporting.

Moreover, in recent years, with more and more MEPs from far right or populist parties swelling the ranks in the European Parliament, the same institution voted to find more money to pump into the die-hard Europhile news agencies willing to go the extra mile in copy/pasting the tome of EU fodder fed to the journalists each day. There was actually a report in 2016, which was voted on and backed, which became the framework to set up a secret anti-Russia media unit, made up of barking mad MEPs, obsessed with Russia. It’s unclear just how much money though was allocated to it, or even what it specifically does, although it is the author’s view that it funds internet trolls to “inform” the gullible public through the comments sections of online articles and support outlets themselves.

Perhaps more worrying that this obsession with RT is how MEPs have voiced their own opinions through “own initiative reports” to actually fund EU-friendly media outlets with cash outright. The parliament has not officially backed this, but one could argue that the 2016 report was a signal to pour more illicit money the way of broadcasters with production facilities and one has to ask whether the Russia “watchdog” which the MEPs did set up doesn’t do this already. The EU, which claims to be a leader of human rights, liberties and democratic values, is so corrupt and backward that it won’t reveal any of the details about the program.

But what does the move by the EU say about both the war in Ukraine and the attitude of the EU towards how its citizens should be informed (if at all)? I would argue that the West in general is so afraid of its own elites losing their grip of power that they believe an obliteration of any media coverage which doesn’t correspond with their narrative is the only recourse they are able to take. Borrell’s statement showed the EU to be in a particularly weak position, if it needs to stoop so low and try and destroy RT’s coverage and perspective on Ukraine. Borrell wants the EU to control minds, in exactly the way he accuses Putin and being the “Thought Police” on Ukraine, via media manipulation, is how he seeks to achieve this.

We have seen this already happen in Syria. Both the East and West’s governments and leaders found great solace and comfort in a polarised media coverage system which didn’t encourage journalists to “cross a line” to the other side to balance their reporting. The result is that either side’s reporting is tainted at best and vociferously biased at worst. But at least readers could look at both side’s coverage and try and fill in the spaces themselves – hardly an ideal way of reporting or reading about complicated conflicts, but better than nothing.

The decision to ban RT and Sputnik is the “nothing” model which Borrell wants. His goal is to whitewash out any other views whatsoever for European citizens who are searching for facts and want to examine the version of events from the other side. To argue that RT’s perspective is distorted because it represents the Kremlin is stupid, naive and hypocritical; the State Department has been reporting on wars with a fervent U.S. bias for decades, just as the BBC has a British angle, or F24 a French one, or even the Germans at DW. So what that the Russians are biased? The West, by banning them, shows us all how afraid and ineffective such institutions like the European Commission are as if they are to lower themselves to those they supposedly mock and despise, does that not make them the same? For the EU to take this position just states the obvious. It wants to manipulate the news for its own political agenda and it has learnt in Brussels that if you stamp out all descent, you can manipulate a phalanx of journalists to report your views, ideas and bigoted opinions and basically make up the news wholesale. Since 2005, when German investigative journalist Hans-Martin Tillack was arrested – yes, arrested – by Belgian police on dubious charges, simply because he rejected the model which nearly all adhere to on reporting on the EU, not one journalist has assiduously reported on the EU and its corruption ever since.

The model of “disinformation” which Borrell outlines when talks about Russia, is precisely, to the letter, the modus operandi which Brussels has itself.

The EU is, in a nutshell, a champion of fake news and it reacting this way towards RT is a reaction from a losing team, possessed with insecurity, jealousy and petulance and one that hates accountability as much as it hates the truth. So typically EU. Keep a keen eye for EU-organised press junkets direct from Brussels, which I’m sure are going to kick off soon. But don’t expect on air declarations by journalists that their trip was entirely funded by the EU, probably from the secret Russian “watchdog” unit.

Three developments in the past week herald a profound shift in European politics. It is tempting, but ultimately futile, to contextually place this shift as a reaction to the Russian decision to launch military operations in Ukraine. The pretext only provides the alibi, while the shift is anchored on power play and has a dynamic of its own.

Without doubt, the three developments — Germany’s decision to step up its militarisation, the European Union’s (EU) decision to finance arms supplies to Ukraine and Germany’s historic decision to reverse its policy not to supply weapons to conflict zones — mark a radical departure in European politics since World War II.

In a speech Sunday during a special session of parliament in Berlin on Germany’s response to the situation around Ukraine, Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced a plan to beef up German military, earmarking for the armed forces an additional €100 billion ($112.7 billion) out of the 2022 budget as a one-time allocation and underscoring his promise to reach the 2% of gross domestic product spending on defence. He said the additional spending would include investments and armaments projects for the German military.

As for the rationale behind the decision, Scholz said, “It’s clear we need to invest significantly more in the security of our country in order to protect our freedom and our democracy.” As it is, Germany has a record high defence budget (€53 billion) for the current year, which is an increase of 3.2% over the previous year. The proposed €100 billion additional financial outlay will boost acquisition of drones, new fighter jets, etc. and fund investments in medium and long term defence build-up. Scholz also committed that the hiked up defence spending of 2% of GDP is going to be a permanent norm.

Germany is belatedly complying with the former U.S. President Donald Trump’s persistent demand! No doubt, the decision will immensely please Washington. It conveys German commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and helps silence the criticism in the U.S. that Germany has lately turned into a disloyal ally.

On the German government’s decision to directly supply weapons to Ukrainian troops, Scholz claimed, “We need to support Ukraine in its hour of desperate need.” He squarely blamed Russia for this important policy reversal. Additionally, Berlin also signalled that third countries could transfer German-made weapons to Ukraine, whereas previously such permission had been denied.

The argument that Germany intends to secure peace in Europe by this policy reversal is spurious but Scholz is getting away with it. In reality, Scholz has overturned a long-standing German policy that was rooted in Germany’s history as an aggressor during World War II and for which there is significant public support still within Germany. To be sure, this clever move will help boost Germany’s performance as an arms exporter in the global market and is a boon to the corporate industry.

Germany already figures as the fourth biggest arms exporter in the world, ahead of China. Germany’s arms exports reached record levels in 2021, following significant sales of maritime and air defence weapons to Egypt last year. Germany exported arms worth 9.35 billion euros ($10.65 billion) last year, an increase of 61% compared to 2020. This topped the previous record amount of 8 billion euros in 2019.

Germany’s military build-up is a poignant issue in European politics, and what trajectory it will take once the dust settles in Ukraine, only time can tell. Of course, there is no question of going back. But with the U.S. in decline and France and Britain becoming much diminished players in recent years, Germany’s surge as a superpower will change the power dynamic. Thus, it is no longer possible to take for granted Germany’s nuclear latency — being a “paranuclear” state with complete technical prowess to develop a nuclear weapon quickly.

The thinking toward a military build-up, the need for Germany to be a “forceful” participant in global politics and the jettisoning of its guilt complex and get “combat ready” — all these by far predate the current situation around Ukraine. What has been happening is that a new generation has appeared at the helm of German politics, replacing the Old Guard. Alongside, the “grand coalitions” running the country have narrowed the ideological divide between the CDU and the SPD.

Today, the SPD is only notionally “left wing” and is actually an enthusiastic promoter of Germany’s rearmament, as much as the CDU. As for the guilt complex, it has vanished from the German political ecosystem. Curiously, Germany’s former defence minister from CDU, Ursula von der Leyen had a Nazi ancestry to claim both on her side and her husband’s side. But that hardly mattered when Angela Merkel assigned to her the job of running the Bundeswehr for seven years.

By the way, von der Leyen’s grandfather was a Nazi who volunteered to fight in 1940, became a staff sergeant in the Wehrmacht and led a so-called “anti-partisan” unit on the eastern Soviet front hunting down resistance groups, participated in the capture of Ukraine’s capital Kiev and took part in the barbaric September 1941 Babi Yar massacre, in which more than 33,000 Jewish inhabitants of Kiev were shot in cold blood. It’s said that “Until his death he would rant about Jews, the French and the perfidious Albion. He never left the country again and he’d be in a near panic when coming close to a border.”

Yet, von der Leyen would co-habit comfortably in the CDU-SPD grand coalition under Merkel with the then Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who was from SPD — the party of Willy Brandt, known as reformists and moderates! In fact, Steinmeier himself maintained — and still does as President of Germany — good personal equations with the leadership of Svoboda, the Neo-Nazi faction in Ukraine.

That is why Germany’s growing stature as the driving force in the EU will remake European politics. Von der Leyen’s current term as the president of the EU Commission, heading the bureaucracy in Brussels, gives her a pivotal role and it runs till December 2024. The body language of her last week’s announcements regarding Ukraine and her performance at the recent Munich Security Conference betrayed that she takes a vicarious pleasure to insult Russia and its leadership, as if it is a private crusade for her to settle scores for the defeat of Nazi Germany at the hands of the Red Army. Unsurprisingly, she has become Washington’s darling in Europe, more important than the German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock or Scholz himself.

However, the big question is: How will Germany’s growing national pride — Deutscher Nationalismus — work with the EU’s consensual politics? It remains to be seen how far the EU can come to terms with the German ambitions, once the genie leaps out of the bottle. Clearly, one alternative will be to divert the explosive energy toward external activities. That is where the EU decision to fund arms supplies to conflict zones and so on opens a new vista.

Without doubt, the EU reaction to the Ukraine situation is by far disproportional. Germany used the present crisis to surge. The EU, in turn, has been lulled into the (false) belief that it now wields the big stick from Brussels — although a European consensus on foreign policy still remains elusive. In normal times, such radical EU moves or the German militarisation itself might have met with some degree of unease or discussion. But France is caught up in an election cycle. And Germany has brusquely crossed the Rubicon when the weather turned favourable.

The baptism of fire from western analysts and newsrooms is that the “invasion” of Ukraine is unjust and that “Putin will stop at nothing now” in his so-called quest to retake former Soviet bloc countries.

“Where will it end? Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic?” one harped, while millions nod their heads in a gang bang of blinded dogma and bigotry. Few care to look at the history and the nuances of what has happened in recent years which provoked such a reaction from Putin. From as far back as a decade ago when the West overthrew Ghadaffi and created a war there which it then backed with its own jihadists (which threw a major spanner in the works for Putin’s ambitions in Libya) to missiles placed strategically by NATO in Romania and Poland, for example, reported on as recently as 2018, which were wrapped in a sugar coating of narrative from the op-ed writers in the West who talked about Russia no longer being the threat, as the new enemy is Islamic terrorism etc etc.

Western newsrooms are still trying to pull the wool over our eyes about Ukraine, simplifying and distorting the facts, simply so as they can get on with their jobs of producing the fodder to keep them busy, while serving their masters in government who chuck them a bone every now and again with a leaked report.

The so-called “revolution” in Ukraine is always reported as a victory for the West as “democracy” finally slayed the evil powers of Soviet-esque influence as the latter is always painted as corrupt and the former candida.

But there are enough voices out there which call what happened in Ukraine back then as a U.S.-backed coup d’etat and Zelensky as the new useful idiot of the west. Even the Los Angeles Times put the boot in recently when, just days before the invasion, it painted a picture of the new president as a near-useless cretin masquerading as a political hero who had lost a colossus of political capital in recent months when the tensions started to be palatable last year.

Will any western hacks examine this further and look at the different accounts? Unlikely, as this “grey zone” is what nearly all western journalists hate as it represents masses of work and going against the grain of both the narrative from their own governments but also the grey-haired chiefs’ views in the newsroom. We saw this with Syria. Kudos to Peter Hitchens for standing alone and trying to offer a more objective point of view about the Ukraine invasion. I doubt if anyone will follow him.

The story for western media has already been written and neatly divided into two binary portions of tainted narrative which is an egregiously cruel part of war: truth usually is the first casualty when the bullets start flying.

But what about the promises of support from the West towards the Zelensky government? Isn’t that a morose act of sublime cruelty in itself? To promise to help, but in reality only offer token support of relatively small amounts of cash and military hardware? Will NATO send one soldier to the Ukraine to fight Russian soldiers there? Will any EU member state do the same?

Yet the narrative continues and you can see the strain on Zelensky’s face in his social media posts and his anger towards Washington, NATO and the EU.

As those sanctions start to bite, who really are the winners and losers? The embarrassing press conference given by Biden where, after finishing the painful autocue speech, he declares to one reporter that “sanctions won’t prevent anything” is baffling. The truth is that sanctions are really all that the EU and US has to fill in the widening gap, the radio silence from NATO which talks a great talk on supporting allies but looks more and more weak, ineffective and pointless as the days go on. Building up NATO troops in neighbouring countries will soon be seen for the empty gesture it is when the bloodbath starts as Ukrainians show resistance against Russian advances. As the whole world watches, soon NATO’s credibility will plummet even further as the implications of doing nothing but merely acting as a spectator will make the organisation tumble to an all-time low. The argument from many at NATO that Putin’s aim to push NATO back has backfired as it has only resulted in more troops being stationed now in Poland, for example, is a lame one at best. What is likely to emerge in the coming days and weeks is that the West is likely to become a bigger enemy of most Ukrainians when they see what the real deal is and Zelensky’s rallying call to the masses, if he is not toppled, will be a scathing attack on these so-called western values, with the EU itself being in his crosshairs – a win-win for Putin, many will note. War is cruelty on a level most of us can’t process. But even more cruel are those who orchestrate it and then run away and hide the moment the knife is drawn from the sheath.