Dear Mr. Putin,
I am writing this letter to you as a way to educate myself on why you declared war on Ukraine. I know what the media and the people around me are saying and thinking, but I wanted to look into the situation for myself. That way I can get as close as I possibly can to what I would consider the truth based on the facts I can uncover. I like to ground my decisions that way rather than just accepting whatever t those around me have to say about the matter and making their opinions my own. Sometimes “common knowledge” isn’t the best indicator of what’s honest and real, and it’s not the best guide as to where one should focus one’s attention.
I’ll admit I’m not much of a fan of yours. I’m skeptical of your actions. I don’t agree with some of your policies and a number of things you’ve said and done over the years. And I think some of the actions you’ve taken so far in the Ukranian war are downright wrong. However, I am a big fan of the truth, and I think the truth is that the West – America and our allies – bear a lot of responsibility for the current war in Ukraine and what that might lead to. The way you’re handling the current hostilities is rather over the top and not winning you any support, but I’d like to see more deeply into your situation than the mob – from the media to the online pundits to the seed companies currently pledging all their profits from their sales to benefit Ukraine – will allow me to.
Take a 1800 Turn
This may be an unusual perspective, but I think the real cause and reason for the war is regime change. Specifically, an attempt by the United States to oust you, Mr. Putin, from power and replace you with a puppet who is friendly to, and willing to be a stooge for, the world’s central banks. I think the real reason for this war is not a unilateral desire on your part to prey upon your neighbors, but a unilateral desire of the West to punish you for daring to challenge the hegemony of the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency and break free of our economic control. I realize that, like the West, Russia is attempting to bring its economy into the digital and total surveillance age, but you’ve done some things along the way, Mr. Putin, that has frightened and angered the West. You have threatened to break the stranglehold of the U.S. dollar and the SWIFT system on global commerce. And you have had the terminity to start finding ways around our sanctions and controls. Shame on you, Mr. Putin! You’re a bad boy, and other potentially bad children, notably India, are watching you to see if you can get away with making end runs around Teacher’s rules. According to our leadership, although they won’t say it verbally, it’s time for you to go. I think the current situation in Ukraine is their way of communicating what they dare not confess out loud.
The Propaganda Machine is Cranking at 11
At least since your were accused of meddling in the 2016 elections when the curious figure of Donald Trump and his veneer of core American values supposedly threatened to upend the entrenched powers that actually decide American politics, Americans have been subjected to a continual stream of propaganda against Russia. For several weeks before you decided to invade Ukraine, all we heard on our news outlets, even most of the supposedly conservative and alternative outlets, was that Russia was a hostile, out-of-control interventionist regime that wanted nothing more than to undermine and murder the citizens of nearby pro- Western democracies. One could practically hear our electronic town criers screaming “The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming!” every time there was an opportunity to use The Bear as a bogeyman to keep the nervous sheeple from asking too many questions about things the elites would rather keep hidden. I, for one, suspect that the obvious heavy-handed attempts at generating mass hypnotic hatred and hysteria over Russia, is a strategy for deflecting inquiry as to what’s really happening in our own social, political and economic system, and who is actually behind the changes that are not in our best interests. I believe the real culprits behind the chaos now engulfing Ukraine are the central banks, not you.
I think Russia has been taunted, harassed and abused by America and our European allies for quite a long time in an effort to isolate and destroy you. Not that you’ve been exactly blameless in hurting Russia yourself by nurturing corruption and inequality in your own country, but we’ve put out a lot of effort, ourselves, into doing what we can to create problems for you while pretending that the Cold War ended long ago. You and the neocons who work deep in the military-industrial complex both know that the Cold War never really ended. That dramatic moment during Mr. Gorbachov’s reign when the Berlin Wall came down was just click bait. It always seemed to me to be nothing but a clever photo-op created so that actor Ronald Regan – who at that time was playing the role of President – could grandstand on the world stage. I was right. For those who had a vested interest in keeping open hostilities with Russia in their back pockets until such time as such hostilities were needed, the cold war continued on. What would be the point of giving up a potentially lucrative gig in case America needed a war to improve its bottom line or to cover up an internal mess it created in some other aspect of political or economic affairs?
If Not Now, When?
Well, it seems as though the time to trot out open hostilities has arrived. We’ll talk later about why I think that’s the case. The conventional excuse being pushed to explain what’s currently happening in Ukraine is that you, Mr. Putin, are a bloodthirsty, ruthless dictator hell-bent on invading and destroying Ukraine for the purpose of taking back territory that once belonged to Mother Russia. Perhaps you’re flexing Russia’s might because you want to restore Russia to a position of world power and glory. There’s a case to be made that watching Russia fall apart in the late 1980’s and 1990’s and be humiliated, particularly by President Clinton, drove you to be willing to do whatever it takes to make your country strong and relevant again, regardless of the cost1. Perhaps as you’re getting older you’re getting desperate to leave a spectacular legacy. Or perhaps you’re just insane. All of these ideas have been floated out but so far, not a lot of investigative journalists have actually investigated to find out which one(s), if any, are true. What the journalists, as a group, or perhaps their handful of media bosses, seem to have concluded is that responsibility for this war is completely your fault. The vast majority of news sources that I would consider alternative or outside the mainstream also seem to have, to my disappointment, uncritically accepted the narrative of your guilt. I’m surprised at how thoroughly the non-affiliated outlets, especially those claiming to be conservative or non-aligned, are failing to investigate your side of the story. Even RT, the news outlet from which I would most expect to hear a reasonable defense of your thoughts and actions, has had little of substance to say (from what I can tell) about why you are engaging in your current course of action.
And Now a Blackout?
Oddly, as I sit down to write this in the early morning of Saturday, February 26, 2022 and obtain the latest information, RT reports that its server is down or experiencing a network error. That’s odd. It’s never done that before to my knowledge and no other news channels or apps I use are off line right now. The fact that RT is down seems too coincidental to actually be a coincidence. It feels ominous. Should I be suspicious and blame it on you, Mr. Putin, perhaps because things are happening that you don’t want reported? Or is RT not reporting things in a truthful manner, so you’ve ordered it silenced? Or did the Russian-linked (according to experts) hackers turn their attention to it, after launching that ransomware attack on McDonald’s last Friday2 and stealing the 2020 election from Trump? (No, this isn’t an endorsement of Trump, just a compilation of Russian interference in U.S. affairs. It is, admittedly, a lengthy list of scary stuff, according to the “experts”. )
Hmmmm, I just found out, the hacking collective that calls itself Anonymous has claimed responsibility for taking down the web sites of your government, including the Kremlin, the Duma and the Ministry of Defense, as well as RT. I’m looking at an article right now about their latest activity. Ironically, the article was printed in RT but isn’t available from RT because RT isn’t working at the moment. I found it on Google. Anonymous sounds like a nasty group that, according to RT, has previously attacked the CIA, Westboro Baptist Church, ISIS, the Church of Scientology and the Epilepsy Foundation, among other targets. Apparently they also hacked the Fed. (To their credit, in my opinion, at least they seem non-partisan.) They have now declared themselves to be officially at cyber war with the Russian government3. If there’s any question about that, the article I’m looking at quotes a post that reads “F** Putin… We support the people of #Ukraine… We are legion. We will not forget the lives that have been lost under Putin’s regime”. (ibid) Sounds like you’ve really gotten under some people’s skin, Mr. Putin, but I think maybe they don’t know the whole story. So that’s why I’m going to attempt to tell it here. At least I’ll lay it out as best as I understand it. It’s not going to be perfect, but I think it’s probably a lot closer to the truth than anybody else I’ve read has reached so far.
Where to start? The Cuban Missile Crisis?
It seems like the Cuban Missile Crisis might be the place to begin the story, as it bears a lot of resemblance to what’s happening today. Except that it’s in mirror image to the current situation. And it didn’t get out of hand. Let’s hope this war doesn’t either, even though I strongly suspect that it will (for reasons I’ll discuss in Part 2).
For 13 days in October, 1962, Russia and America had a bit of a showdown, didn’t we? In many ways, it was the perfect reverse of what’s happening today. For readers a bit light on their history, here’s the basic story. Apparently around 1961 sometime – we don’t know exactly when – your predecessor in the old Soviet Union, Nikita Kruschev, approached the Dictator of Cuba, Fidel Castro, and suggested that Mr. Castro allow Russia to assemble and place several nuclear-armed Soviet SS4 medium-range ballistic missiles on Cuban soil. They were to be pointed at the U.S.. (Remember that this was in the midst of the Cold War, which officially began in 1945 and officially ended in 1991.) Mr. Castro, being the generous fellow he was, agreed. Perhaps that was because after he seized power over Cuba in 1959, Cuba became increasingly dependent upon the Soviet Union for military and economic aid. Therefore, the Soviet request probably seemed reasonable. Or maybe Mr. Castro was made a deal he couldn’t refuse? In either case, the end result was that he allowed the Soviets to put defensive nuclear weaponry approximately 90 miles from the nearest shore of their greatest nemesis.
The USSR’s rationale for placing nuclear weapons within striking distance of the densely populated eastern seaboard of America was to counterbalance the number of nuclear weapons the U.S. and our European allies already had pointed at you in Western Europe and Turkey. Understandably, the Soviet Union was a bit nervous about this. Castro hated the U.S. and the U.S. hated Castro back, so the idea of using Cuba as a launching pad to strike out at America made sense to Kruschev. Besides, Kennedy had launched the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, and both Cuba and its ally the old USSR were eager to deter further meddling in Cuba’s affairs. A few nukes seemed like they’d do the trick.
Predictably, the U.S. went nuts. President Kennedy conferred with advisors for a week, and to his credit, he came up with a restrained approach to get rid of the Soviet missiles without initiating wider conflict or nuclear war. He simply blockaded Cuba with the American navy. In doing so, Kennedy prevented more weaponry as well as other aid and supplies from reaching Cuba. Yes, the Russian navy did sail to within a few miles of the blockade, but sensibly decided to not penetrate and risk provoking serious hostilities. The blockade worked! However, the greater standoff between Cuba and Russia, on the one hand, and America on the other, continued over the presence of the Soviet missiles already assembled and standing at the ready on Cuban soil.
On Oct. 26, Kruschev blinked and offered to remove his missiles from Cuban soil if American leaders promised to not attack or attempt to invade Cuba again. I think that was a pretty decent offer. The following day, the leader of the Soviet Union proposed, in a letter, to dismantle the missile infrastructure in Cuba if America removed our missile installations from Turkey. Kennedy agreed, officially, to promise that America would henceforth not bother Cuba. Unofficially, he also agreed withdraw our missiles from Turkey, but that decision remained secret from the public for over 25 years. The crisis officially ended on Oct. 28, 1962. However, it went on to influence U.S./Russian relations, in both positive and negative ways, all the way to the present day.
Fast Forward to 1989
The consensus among people who study these things that 1989 was, in many ways, “the beginning of the end” for your once-massive and proud Soviet empire, Mr. Putin. Or perhaps even a bit earlier, when your predecessor Nikita Kruschev pounded his shoe on a conference table and yelled that the United State was too strong to defeat militarily but would eventually fall from its own economic profligacy. I remember seeing old film reels of the incident and would call him prescient.
The years between 1989 and 1991 were particularly hard for your beloved Russia, as that was when the Berlin Wall came down and the “captive nations” of Eastern Europe were liberated. The Soviet Union itself was redrawn as fifteen independent countries. Russia caved to America in the Cold War, largely from economic collapse, and gave the West no more cause to fear it – or respect it, which is key.
America felt elated, emboldened and deeply self-righteous about our role in “spreading democracy” and ‘defeating the Evil Empire ‘. We beat you! We were #1! God loved us best and we could do no wrong! Given this mindset of superiority, in 1999, President Clinton didn’t mind stepping on the Bear’s toes by conducting a 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia. Serbia was annoying us and had, until that time, been under the protection of Mother Russia, but Mother proved helpless this time to protect her offspring against an old adversary. The Russian Prime Minister at the time, Boris Yeltsin, screamed at Bill Clinton on the telephone to call off the planned campaign, but Clinton went ahead with it anyway. Mr. Putin, as a KGB officer, you said you felt humiliated for your country3. Could anybody blame you?
The West Adds Insult to Injury
1999 turned out to be a bad year for Russia in other ways, as well. Just as you, Mr. Putin, ascended to the peak of power, three of the countries that had formerly belonged to the old Soviet mutual defense organization known as the Warsaw Pact – the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland – switched sides and abandoned Mother Russia to join forces with the West. The signal that they had decided to look Westward instead of Eastward to form their modern identities and economic opportunities came in 1999 as they concretized their decisions by joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
The Warsaw Pact to which they had formerly belonged had been created in 1955 to maintain stability and balance of power in Europe via a mutual defense treaty. The parties to the treaty were your old Soviet Union and seven of its satellite states: Albania, Bulgaria, Czechloslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania. Although Albania withdrew from the pact in 1968 and Germany was reunited in 1989, the rest remained intact until 1991. During its 36 year history, the collection of Warsaw Pact nations, or the Eastern Bloc as it was popularly referred to, served as a buffer between your nation and the West. It provided some security and peace of mind for Russia and also counterbalanced Western power with Eastern power on the European continent. It began to crumble during the late 1980’s when Soviet Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev began to institute his policies of Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring). Gorbachev’s policies weakened the nearby communist governments in the Soviet satellite states until they began to fail. Their decline led to the break-up of the Warsaw Pact and then the dissolution of the Soviet Empire at the end of 1991. Nato saw its opportunity to move in.
The Devil’s Choice
Both the presence and the absence of the Warsaw Pact had pluses and minuses for both of us. On the one hand, the Pact kept a reasonably balanced balance of power between East and West for well over three decades. During that time, neither of us was likely to severely perturb, let alone attack, the other. Direct hostilities were unlikely because the chances of a decently easy win were poor while the odds of massive casualties should a war break out were very high. But, because the alliances of East and West were so ideologically opposed yet essentially in each other’s geographic faces, the arms race ensued. (Dear readers, do you remember the old term “Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)? Have you ever watched the movie Dr. Strangelove?) When Europe was divided into Eastern and Western blocs, NATO and the Warsaw nations were in the paradoxical position of being at once frightened of one another and unable to coexist, but also too strong to risk eliminating the other. And toning down the ideology to make reasonably relaxed co-existence possible was a completely unpalatable option for both sides. (The banks and defense contractors in both blocs may have had something to do with keeping each locked into ideologically rigid positions, but we’ll get to that in Part 2.)
When the Warsaw nations weakened and the pact fell apart under Mr. Gorbachev’s attempts to ease the hostilities, the balance of power shifted, didn’t it, Mr. Putin? NATO then felt itself entitled to offer membership to former Warsaw countries. While the hard division of countries into Eastern and Western blocs was poor for such issues as environmentalism and human rights (although Canada has taught us that supposed Western Republics are as capable of abusing the environment and human rights as any Eastern dictatorship is), and while the East/West tensions also brought about the blossom of the arms race, ironically, in the long run, it seems that it was the softening of the hard lines that kept us apart that has led us into actual war, complete with threats of nuclear involvement. I guess as the old saying goes, “damned if you do, damned it you don’t”.
Enter Ukraine
In April of 2008 – just six months before the ‘great global economic crisis’ set the stage for enactment of a new law that allowed the Federal Reserve to begin stealing the savings of everyday Americans to bail out most of the world’s big banks (this is important, my followers, and you can read more at “The Stealthy Raid on Our Bank Accounts: How the Government Uses Our Bank Accounts to Fund the National Debt” by Daniel Amerman, CFA and MBA. It’s available for purchase at http://www.danielamerman.com), NATO held a fateful conference in Bucharest, Romania. During the Bucharest Summit, as it came to be known, NATO agreed to grant several countries on Russia’s doorstep, including Ukraine and Georgia, membership in NATO. While membership wasn’t actually granted at the time (and has yet to be granted to Ukraine even today), the mere exercise of the consideration was enough to cause the Deputy Foreign Minister of your country, Mr. Putin, to declare “Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistake which will have most serious consequences for pan-European security”. Mr. Putin, you yourself declared point blank that Georgia and Ukraine becoming part of NATO was a “direct threat” to Russia. Golly, whatever could you have meant by that?
If You Don’t Understand My Words, Perhaps You Will Understand My Fists
Since NATO failed to take your warning about the consequences of incorporating Georgia and Ukraine seriously, Mr. Putin, you decided, sensibly, to take matters into your own hands. You invaded Georgia later in 2008. We may have blamed you back then, too, but the war between Russia and Georgia was a direct consequence of the Bucharest Declaration. Had NATO not insisted on pushing forward with what you saw, correctly, as a major threat to Russia, you and Georgia would have remained in a stable relationship and peace would have continued. But in that case, Russia would have maintained political and economic hegemony over large chunks of eastern Europe. That would have continued to limit the political and economic expansion of western Europe and prevented America and our allies from gaining a power advantage in the region. To western political and economic interests, of course, this was unacceptable. So when Russia lashed out to capture and incorporate Georgia in what was mostly an act of self-defense, the dominant narrative in the West became that big, bad bear attacked innocent little Georgia over Georgia’s good decision to become a “free” (i.e., under the West’s control) country. The biased publicity did nothing to enhance your image in the West, Mr. Putin, or in surrounding states that had chosen to become western-leaning, particularly western Ukraine.
By 2010, Ukraine’s internal divisions, which ran largely along ethnic lines, had become quite obvious politically. At a U. of Chicago Alumni Association presentation in June, 2015, Professor John Mearscheimer reviewed evidence of deep internal tensions that were already stressing the country and had been since at least 2004. Political polls conducted in 2004 & 2010 showed without doubt that Ukraine was deeply divided on its eastern and southeastern sides. There was also a corroborating new 2015 survey presented by Dr. Mearscheimer and conducted by The International Republican Institute. It asked Ukranians if Ukraine should join NATO. The eastern and western halves of the country stood deeply opposed on the issue. The eastern half of the country clearly said “No”.
Dr. Mearscheimer presented a very convincing contrarian view that the overall mess which was the Ukraine even in 2015, was mainly the fault of the West, not you. He also predicted that troubles in a divided Ukraine were likely to lead to further hostilities with you. He pointed out that, until the early 2000’s which saw the two-pronged attempt by the EU and NATO to incorporate the former Soviet satellite states of Albania, Belarus, Romania, Latvia, Estonia and Bulgaria into the economic and military spheres of western Europe, the ‘balance of power’ concept kept the region relatively stable and kept outright hostilities between East and West to a minimum. But NATO and the E.U. correctly saw that if they could peel Ukraine (or, better yet, Ukraine and Belarus both) away from Russia and your influence, Mr. Putin, Europe would have a straight military shot at the Bear if desired. If Ukraine, in particular, but Belarus also, were friendly to the West, then military power could flow unimpeded from Poland, a firmly Westernized country situated midway between greater Europe and the East, through Ukraine or Ukraine and Belarus and directly into Russia. Wouldn’t that be convenient for us and our allies? Who wouldn’t want that?
The Bear Objects
For some reason, Mr. Putin, you didn’t understand the West’s good intentions and you weren’t as thrilled as we were with the idea of the West on your doorstep, surrounding and wielding power over your country. And you were correct in your paranoia over threats from America and our allies. In February 2014, the three key elements of Western strategy to emasculate Russia – NATO expansionism (regional military domination), expansion of the EU (regional economic domination), and the U.S led plan to foster and Orange revolution within Ukraine itself to put a Western-friendly regime in power there, came together and created the first Ukranian crisis. The crisis was precipitated in November of 2013, when the EU offered then-President of Ukraine Yanukovych a deal to form an association with the EU. Yanukovych didn’t consider the deal particularly good, and you, Mr. Putin, attempted to maintain the peace and balance of power by offering a counter deal.
In fact, you were willing to enter into a multilateral deal with the EU to maintain stability and keep a buffer between east and west. The EU turned you down. Apparently peace wasn’t really their top priority. In response, you made it clear that a unilateral deal between the EU and Ukraine was unacceptable to Russia. So you made Ukraine a sweetheart counter deal of your own, including a $15 billion loan for economic development. Over the EU’s objections, President Yanukovich accepted your offer. The Ukranian people protested in response. For whatever reason, Yanukovich overreacted to the protests and the ensuing bloodshed only generated more violence. On 2/21/14, a deal to allow Ukraine to hold democratic elections to choose a new leader was presented to the people and on 2/24, President Yanukovich fled Ukraine. The Ukranian people turned turned the offer of democratic elections down. Why? There is evidence to suggest that the refusal was due mainly to the influence of several very vocal, violent and armed fascist elements who wanted to institute a completely different government in Ukraine. That was a shame, but don’t feel guilty about it, Mr. Putin. We’re having the same problem in America today.
Chaos Begets Invasion – Or Not
To eliminate the possibility that a chaotic Ukraine might fall under Western control while distracted and divided, you sent additional Russian military units into Crimea to exert control over the area. I use the term “extra” because we know, Mr. Putin, that you didn’t actually invade as the Western press made out. Yes, you did seize control over the area, but Russia already HAD a military presence in Crimea – the very important naval base you were leasing there. Your military simply stepped off the base, began taking control of checkpoints, met the units rolling in from the Russian mainland, and took over operations from there. In March of 2014, the Crimean Parliament voted to join Russia and held a referendum on the issue. The referendum was held later in the month and your country subsequently formally incorporated Crimea. And because of its strategic importance to Russia on both land and sea, given the constant threats from the West, we know you will never let it go. I don’t think we can blame you.
Fast Forward to 2019: Was NATO’s Offer to Ukraine a Bait and Switch, Or Just a Tactic to Tease the Bear?
As of October, 2019, Ukraine had still not been admitted into NATO, but the Ukranian Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration, Dmytro Kuleba, was certain it would still be coming through. In fact he held a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to discuss the partnership’s future. The subject of the meeting was to flesh out plans and priorities for future cooperation between Ukraine and the NATO alliance. Among the issues felt to be urgent were strengthening the Ukranian economy, democracy, and its armed forces. Priority was put on Naval development and enhancement of Ukranian security in the Black Sea.4 In the words of Deputy Prime Minister Kuleba, “Security challenges in the Black Sea are not a problem for Ukraine or the Black Sea alone. This is a threat to the entire region. When Alliance ships enter the Black Sea, they demonstrate the strength of the international community, being proof of the capacity to guarantee the security of the entire region. It is critical that we can see today in the port of Odessa the mine countermeasures groups of Alliance minesweepers from Bulgaria (a former Soviet satellite state) Italy, Romania (another former Soviet satellite), and Spain next to the Ukranian Navy vessels” (ibid.) Hearing Ukraine brag about how the former satellite states of the old Soviet empire were now consorting with the enemy to help keep you under control in nearby waters must have hurt.
Deja-Vu All Over Again
Could the situation in Ukraine be considered reminiscent of America’s situation with Cuba after 1959? In our case, Mr. Putin, your Russia had one ally on America’s doorstep, and an immense ocean between yourselves and your ally. Imagine if Nikita Kruschev and the Eastern bloc had managed to recruit Mexico to your side and together you deployed naval vessels to prowl the waters between the United States and Cuba in the 1950’s? How would America have felt? How might President Kennedy have reacted? Could NATO’s insistence in supporting Ukraine over your objections and clearly rebuffing your concerns by issuing supportive measures such as the Comprehensive Assistance Package, have served to provoke your anxiety, defensiveness and readiness to defend your homeland, even if you had to go on a preemptive attack to do it?
It’s a bit difficult to believe that the West could have been unaware that you wouldn’t have calmly accepted our slow but unyielding march to your doorstep. Bill Clinton’s decision to get involved with Serbia must surely have been made partly with the intent to push the advance while yanking your chain and rapping your nose with a stick, “because we could”. The entire dilly-dally with formalizing the Ukraine’s entry into NATO gives one the feeling that it may have been a psychological tactic designed specifically to give you constant heartburn. Ukraine did its part by playing along, effectively denying the deep cultural divide between its Western-leaning, pro-Western, pro-NATO Western provinces and its more Russian ethnic, pro-Russia Eastern provinces. In 2019, Ukranian Deputy Dmytro Kuleba acquiesced to his role by announcing at the joint Ukranian/NATO summit to discuss the Implementation of the 2008 Bucharest agreement, that “Public opinion surveys show a steady pattern that the support for Euro-Atlantic integration in the public is steadily growing.” 4 What he forgot to mention was that this support was coming mainly from the western provinces of Ukraine. The eastern and southeastern provinces wanted overwhelmingly to stay allied with Russia. I guess they didn’t count and didn’t seem like a potential problem. The situation wasn’t too unlike the sociopolitical situation that has developed in the U.S., where primarily the East and Left Coasts, along with some scattered urban centers across the Heartland, want to form an alliance with the increasingly Socialist government in DC while the rest of us would like to secede culturally and economically back into the United States as it was roughly during the 1950’s or so.
If a Putin Speaks in the Forest and Nobody Hears Him, Did He Make a Sound?
Mr. Putin, you did try to make your feelings known. You gave several direct and indirect warnings that admitting the Ukraine into NATO would not be tolerated, and that the issue should finally be settled one way or the other. In my opinion, there are several pieces of evidence that the West and the Ukraine WERE perfectly aware of the risks involved in attempting to make Russia effectively “go away”, but they chose to view these risks as a feature, rather than a bug, of the ideology of advancing ‘democracy everywhere at all costs’. I wonder why? My considered opinion is that the simmering, and perhaps future outright, conflict with Russia, had a lucrative appeal for certain parties that was too juicy to pass up. But in order to get the majority of the world’s people to go along with the program, these lucrative interests had to be disguised as humanitarian concerns. War is, after all, both ugly for the common man, and a massively efficient way by which to transfer his wealth and power to his government and the global banking cartel behind his back. It is so powerful a wealth transfer mechanism, in fact, that it degrades economies and ruins opportunities intergenerationally. It is particularly effective during times of rising inflation and financial weakness, and that is exactly is where the United States finds itself today. And it exascerbates the divide between the rich and the poor. This ratchets up internal strife within societies already dealing with civil unrest. Given the high cost to societies and ordinary people, why would anybody want such a situation to exist? Who benefits from such a scenario? In Part 2, let’s do our best to follow the money and see if we can find out. Perhaps there’s more going on underneath the table than we’re being told by the news media, and more main players in this war than just Russia, the Ukraine and NATO. Maybe there is a deeper story here that everyone should know about, because it could be much more of a life-and-death matter to the common citizen than even war itself.
REFRENCES
- Walker, Shaun “The Humiliation That Pushed Putin to Try and Recapture Russian Glory” History.com, Feb. 23, 2018, updated March 26, 2019
2. Griffith, Ken “Russia-linked Hacker Gang Launches Ransomware Attack on McDonald’s: CISA issue ‘Shields Up’ Alert for ALL American Companies to ‘Prepare for Disruptive Cyber Activity'” Dailymail.com, 22:56 EST 25 Feb. 2022
3. “Anonymous Declare ‘Cyber War’ against Russia” RT, 11:51, 25 February, 2022
4. kmu.gov.ua, “Dmytro Kuleba; Ukraine Believes the Decision of 2008 Bucharest Summit to Grant NATO Membership to Our Country Will Be Fulfilled” October 30, 2019
Economics Watchdog 