It’s been exactly ten years since the American-backed coup d’état that overthrew democratically elected president Yanukovich in Ukraine on 23 February 2014. After the decade of civil war that followed, many Americans still don’t know why Russia “invaded” Ukraine’s eastern border. Most of us have never heard of the Donbass or the neo-Nazi Azov Battaltion responsible for the horrific war crimes that took place there. Indeed, most Americans have no idea where the endless billions in military aid for Ukraine have gone.

Nineteenth century author and journalist Ambrose Bierce famously stated that “War is God’s way of teaching Americans geography.” It seems ironic that this statement remains true in the age of the internet, but corporate media’s monopoly of the airwaves has rendered Americans dangerously misinformed about Ukraine, as well as the nature of international conflicts generally.

We’re repeatedly told Ukraine is a “democracy” by the corporate media. But the fact remains that the Ukraine’s quasi-fascist government has outlawed opposition political parties, closed down the news agencies and thrown all the religious leaders in prison.

In March 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy nationalized and consolidated television news and began officially suppressing all 11 of Ukraine’s opposition political parties. Under Ukraine’s modern government, orthodox Christians are officially outlawed and honest journalists are targeted for assassination (including those living in the United States):

“Journalists in Ukraine are threatened, jailed, or worse. Journalists inside and outside Ukraine are listed on a website which for all intents and purposes amounts to a murder for hire list. The website, called Myrotvorets or Peacekeeper, was started by Ukraine’s Information Ministry in 2015. It serves as a clearinghouse to showcase undesirables and has targeted people for assassination.”

American journalist Gonzalo Lira died in a Ukrainian jail cell in January of 2024 following months of gruesome torture, beatings and sleep deprivation at the hands of Ukrainian security forces. He was arrested in 2022 for posting videos critical of Ukrainian policy that the Ukrainian government twisted into “justifying Putin’s invasion.” Lira was arrested again on 01 May 2023 and held without release. Washington implicitly allowed Lira’s incarceration to continue unabated until his death.

Stating the facts should never assume the waving of pom-poms for either side in any ongoing conflict. Having said that, it is not an ingratiation of Putin or his policies to observe the obvious with regards to the civil war in eastern Ukraine.

The eastern corner of Ukraine geographically known as the Donbass is the home of the three “breakaway territories” that declared independence following the 2014 Maidan coup. Ukraine was already ideologically divided between the northwest and southeast regions, with the former moving toward European integration and the latter toward Russia. In eastern Ukraine, citizens of the Donbass weren’t happy about Washington’s overthrow of their democratically elected government. Over 10,000 people attended a rally in Donetsk’s Lenin Square in eastern Ukraine on March 1, 2014 to demonstrate their stance with Russia and against Kiev.

As reported by former Marine Intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter:

“Over the course of five days, from February 18 to 23, 2014, neo-Nazi provocateurs from the Svoboda (All Ukrainian Union ‘Freedom’) Party and the Right Sector, a coalition of far-right Ukrainian nationalists … engaged in targeted violence against the government of President Viktor Yanukovich. It was designed to remove him from power and replace him with a new, US-backed government. They were successful; Yanukovich fled to Russia on February 23, 2014.

“Soon thereafter, the predominantly Russian-speaking population of Crimea undertook actions to separate from the new Ukrainian nationalist government in Kiev. On March 16, 2014, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, both of which at that time were legally considered to be part of Ukraine, held a referendum on whether to join Russia or remain part of Ukraine. Over 97% of the votes cast were in favor of joining Russia. Five days later, on March 21, Crimea formally became part of the Russian Federation.”

Washington immediately claimed Crimea’s referendum was unconstitutional. At the same time, the Ukrainian government reacted by cutting off Crimea’s electricity and damming Crimea’s agricultural fresh water sources. As Scott Ritter explains, “The damming of the North Crimean Canal and the destruction of the electrical transmission lines were simply the radical expression of the indifference shown by Kiev.”

After Crimea seceded from Ukraine, millions of ethnic Russians in two eastern territories also refused to cooperate with Washington’s new puppet government and followed Crimea in declaring independence from Kiev. On 07 April 2014, separatist Russians of the Donbass formed the Lugansk & Donetsk People’s Republics (LPR & DPR) which were both formally recognized by Russia. The breakaway republics ratified an agreement entitled, ‘Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Russian Federation’, which began military and financial cooperation with Moscow.

Kiev responded to the secession by declaring war on the Donbass. Civilians living in the breakaway territories in-turn endured astonishing violence provoked by Ukraine’s military forces:

“The “Anti-Terrorist Operation” in southeast Ukraine was launched on April 14, 2014, by an order issued by Oleksandr Turchynov, the acting president of Ukraine. Those Donbass citizens who refused to recognize the coup d’etat were labeled “enemies” and “terrorists.” The horrific Odessa Trade Unions House massacre happened on May 2, 2014; about fifty individuals were burned alive and bludgeoned to death. On May 9, 2014, participants in the Victory Day Parade in Mariupol were slain and subjected to persecution by Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and the military. Additionally, the Ukrainian regime began bombarding Donbass.”

Following the 2014 coup, Russians were increasingly targeted with violence throughout Ukraine:

“First, there were attempts at arresting them [ethnic Russians] using the police, but the police defected to their side quite quickly. Then the central authorities started to use Special Forces and in the night, people were snatched and taken to prison. Certainly, people in Donbass, after that, they took up arms. Ukraine’s government started to use weapons directly – tanks and even military aircraft. There were strikes from multiple rocket launchers against residential neighborhoods. … Russia repeatedly appealed to this new leadership asking them to abstain from extreme actions. However, the civil conflict only grew worse with thousands of people killed in some of the worst violence that Europe has seen since World War II. … When Stone asked about the “annexation,” Putin responded: “We were not the ones to annex Crimea. The citizens of Crimea decided to join Russia.”

In October 2023, Ukraine’s Sviatoshyn District Court ruled:

“Along with Maidan leaders, and Western-backed fascist paramilitary Right Sector, the snipers were also implicated in the May 2014 Odessa massacre, a gruesome incident in which scores of Russian-speaking anti-Maidan protesters were forcibly herded into the city’s Trade Unions House, which was then set alight. In all, 46 died due to burn injuries, carbon monoxide poisoning, and attempts to escape the horrors by jumping out of windows. Non-fatal casualties reportedly totaled around 200. … All these developments paved a path to the eight-year-long civil war in Donbas, which claimed the lives of over 14,000 and precipitated Russia’s invasion in February 2022. ”

Russia responded to Ukrainian war crimes by deploying military resources to protect the civilians of the breakaway republics. Since the Donbass is overwhelmingly inhabited by ethnic Russians, Putin felt great pressure to defend them and put an end to the civilian bloodshed. Putin has stated on numerous occasions that Russia didn’t cross Ukraine’s border to start a war, but to end one.

This brings us to the question of whether Russia’s military action constitutes an “invasion” or not. Russian military forces never approached the capital city of Kiev because doing so would have triggered an automatic response from NATO amounting to a no-win situation for Russia. Even the establishment Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft publicly admitted this fact:

“A Russian seizure of the whole of Ukraine, as imagined by Washington, seems inherently unlikely. An occupation of Russian-speaking areas of eastern and southern Ukraine is much more plausible. … This would fall far short of invasion. It would mark only a limited escalation in the conflict that has been going on in the Donbas since 2014.”

It’s an open secret that Ukraine is managed in no small part by a neo-Nazi government. In a piece called “The Ukraine Mess That Nuland Made,” Robert Parry writes, “the new regime in Kiev was permeated by and dependent on neo-Nazi fighters and Ukrainian ultra-nationalists who wanted a pure-blood Ukraine, without ethnic Russians”. A great deal of Ukraine is overtly run by Pravy Sektor:

“The political formation is known as “Pravy Sektor” (Right Sector), which is essentially an umbrella organization for a number of ultra-nationalist right wing groups including supporters of the “Svoboda” (Freedom) Party, “Patriots of Ukraine”, “Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian National Self Defense” (UNA-UNSO), and “Trizub”. All of these organizations share a common ideology that is vehemently anti-Russian, anti-immigrant, and anti-Jewish among other things. In addition they share a common reverence for the so called “Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists” led by Stepan Bandera, the infamous Nazi collaborators who actively fought against the Soviet Union and engaged in some of the worst atrocities committed by any side in World War II.”

Svoboda is not just a neo-Nazi political party, it’s Ukraine’s fourth largest party and its members have held major Cabinet positions in Ukraine’s government. This unholy alliance caused a rather awkward moment at the United Nations in December of 2020:

“In December, the United States and Ukraine were the only two nations to vote against a United Nations measure (passed 130-2), “combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance.”

The United States can’t stand against Nazism because it installed a neo-Nazi government in Ukraine ten years ago:

“[…]the two main neo-Nazi entities have been entrusted with key positions which grant them de facto control over the armed forces, police and national security. … members of Svoboda and the Right Sector occupy key positions in the areas of defense, law enforcement, education and economic affairs.”

In 2015 The Daily Beast also weighed in on the question of how many neo-Nazis the U.S. was backing in Ukraine, admitting that “The U.S. government is knowingly training and arming neo-Nazi Ukrainian ultranationalist paramilitary members in broad daylight in an unstable country with an unclear future.” While Svoboda may have lost a few chairs in parliament since 2014, Ukraine’s trend towards Nazism continues under Zelenskyy’s administration. In fact, it was Zelenksyy’s visit to Canada that prompted the notorious Yaroslav Hunka scandal.

Canadian parliament’s standing ovation to Yaroslav Hunka, the elderly Ukranian who fought in Hitler’s Third Reich for the SS, was neither a fluke nor mistake. Hunka was announced in the Canadian parliament as someone who had “fought against the Russians” without a shred of irony. It’s as if Canadian schooling has become so lethargic that their citizens forgot that America and Russia were allies against Hitler, or that Russia lost more than 20 million citizens fighting the Third Reich.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dismissed the parliamentary applause of Hunka as “Russian disinformation.” Nevertheless, Anthony Rota who had introduced Hunka as a man who had “fought against the Russians in World War Two,” stepped down as Speaker of Canada’s House of Commons soon thereafter.

What seems particularly ironic is western media’s constant portrayal of Putin as “the next Hitler” while Russia defends the Donbass from literal Nazis. If Hitler remains the quintessential symbol of evil for the west, how can American tax dollars finance literal neo-Nazi regimes in Ukraine?

Acute students of history are less surprised by Washington’s support of literal Nazis. Beyond the auspices of Project Paperclip which sought to recruit the Third Reich’s top people (like Wernher von Braun) before the Russians could, the American Military-Industrial-Complex has a long established history of arming terrorists in countries it wants to overthrow. John McCain’s meeting with Svoboda neo-Nazis in the lead up to the 2014 coup differed little from his meetings with Isis in Syria. The motivating factors that propel Washington into these unsavory partnerships go deep.

The Central Intelligence Agency has spent the past ten years waging a “shadow war” against Russia, building more than 12 underground command centers along the Ukraine/Russia border and training an elite Ukrainian commando force known as Unit 2245. The espionage operation yielded such a gold mine of Russian communications that the CIA station in Kiev had trouble keeping up with it. After a decade of denials, Washington finally disclosed the CIA’s Ukraine operations this week in the New York Times:

The underground bunker, built to replace the destroyed command center in the months after Russia’s invasion, is a secret nerve center of Ukraine’s military. There is also one more secret: The base is almost fully financed, and partly equipped, by the CIA.

Russophobia has been and continues to be the official rhetoric of the Party in Washington and its obedient mockingbird media. Nancy Pelosi’s desperate attempt to conflate anti-war sentiment with loyalty to a foreign country sounds crazy because it is. Nevertheless, Washington think tanks run by sociopaths like the Atlantic Council use propaganda like this to smear anyone critical of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) or US foreign policy as a “Russian agent.”

Hillary Clinton went out of her way to demonize Tucker Carlson as Vladimir Putin’s useful idiot, even though George Stephanopoulos, Barbara Walters, Charlie Rose, Oliver Stone, Megyn Kelly and many others have successfully interviewed Vladimir Putin without sustaining such accusations or having to overcome similar hurdles. But Carlson’s recent interview contradicts the corporate image of Putin as an unhinged maniac and that’s bad for business as usual in Washington.

Carlson was even the target of a foiled assassination attempt allegedly contracted by Ukrainian intelligence. In a confession tape following his arrest, 36 year-old Vasiliev Alexeieovich told interrogators that he was recruited by Ukrainian Special Services through the internet and instructed to place a bomb in the underground parking lot of Moscow’s Four Season’s Hotel, where Carlson was a guest. After several weeks of training, he was activated on 31 January 2024, the day prior to Carlson’s week-long visit to Russia.

Following the Putin interview, Carlson spoke passionately at the World Government Summit about how Washington deliberately sabotaged any potential for détente between the east and west:

“Russia has been rebuffed by the west. I’m not flacking for Putin. I’m an American. I’m not going to live in Russia. I don’t love Vladimir Putin. I’m stating the facts. He asked Bill Clinton to join NATO … and NATO said, “No, we don’t want you.” … The post war goal of NATO was to keep the Russians – the soviets – from coming into western Europe. It was a bulwark against the Russians. So if the Russians ask to join the alliance that would suggest you have solved the problem and you can move on to do something constructive with your life. But we refused.”

The late American journalist Gonzalo Lira sheds more light on why Washington is so triggered by Vladimir Putin:

“Ukraine, since 1991 – the collapse of the Soviet Union – has been a cesspool of Western corruption. Oligarchs were not only allowed to rise, but were in fact encouraged to rise by the western powers, in particular the United States, because the United States figured that by way of these oligarchs, these countries could be controlled. … But what happened was that slowly over the years, Putin started edging out the oligarchs. And even as he put in his own oligarchs, he started making those oligarchs smaller and weaker, which is what he’s been doing for the past 23 years. Had Putin not existed in Russia, Russia would be what Ukraine is today. Americans started realizing that Putin was subtly resisting them, resisting their attempts to turn Russia into a whore.”

Washington’s strategy to split up Ukraine along ethnic lines traces back at least three decades, when Zbigniew Brzezinski published the west’s plan for Ukraine in his 1997 book, “The Grand Chessboard”:

“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”

Noam Chomsky succinctly observed many years ago that the purpose of NATO has been altered away from defense against the Soviets and toward guaranteeing corporate hegemony over worldwide energy markets:

“Why did NATO even exist after 1990? Throughout the whole history of the cold war we were told NATO is necessary to defend western Europe from the Russian hoards. Okay, no more Russian hoards. What happens to NATO? It expands to the east. Its mission changed. Its official mission is not to defend Europe from the Russian hoards, it’s to control the global energy system – sea lanes and pipelines, and to serve as a US-run intervention force. …

“If NATO is there to defend the west from the Russians, why is it now expanding right to the borders of Russia, becoming a global US-intervention force, protecting sea lanes and pipelines and so on? What that tells us is all the talk about the cold war was just a pure lie.”

In violation of promises made following the end of the Soviet Union, NATO has expanded eastward not just once, but five separate times. Consider the trove of declassified documents from the National Security Archives that “show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner.” Again from Mint Press:

“In 1990, the U.S. government promised Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would stray “not one inch eastward” from its current position in exchange for Soviet support for German reunification. However, it later reneged on this promise, and between 1999 and 2004 NATO galloped eastward, even admitting three former Soviet republics, all of which share a land border with Russia. In 2008, NATO also invited Ukraine and Georgia to join.”

In February 2022 US Vice President Kamala Harris urged Zelenskyy to join NATO at the New York Security Conference. Meanwhile, NATO had just turned down Russia’s December 2021 security agreements seeking to secure peace in Europe.

Russia proposed another ceasefire in March 2022, prompting Boris Johnson’s sudden appearance in Ukraine to threaten Zelenskyy with sanctions if he agreed to the peace settlement:

“The Minsk II process for a resolution of the Donbas conflict is now dead — though to be fair, the Ukrainian government had long since made clear that it had no intention of implementing its basic provisions (on autonomy for the Donbas), and the West had made clear that it had no intention of pressuring Ukraine to do so.”

The head of the Ukrainian delegation at the 2022 peace talks in Istanbul, Davyd Arakhamia, confirmed that the Russians “were prepared to end the war if we agreed to – as Finland once did – neutrality, and committed that we would not join NATO,” but the US sabotaged the peace deal.

THEIR WARS RELY ON YOUR IGNORANCE

In 2013, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych angered the west after turning Ukraine’s back on Europe to renew economic collaborations with Russia. Yanukovych realized the EU’s new association agreement would require Ukraine to bankrupt itself attempting to transition its entire infrastructure to conform to EU standards, and ultimately saw it as a poison pill for his country:

“Nikolai Azarov, Yanukovich’s closest aide and adviser, at the 11th hour calculated that switching to European standards would indebt Ukraine at a scale one had never imagined,” Matyushin said. “The transition envisaged changing everything, starting from sockets to railway tracks, everything had to be rebuilt. [The Yanukovich government] concluded it was unprofitable and refused [to sign the agreement with the EU]. After that, students took to the streets and were dispersed by Berkut on camera, which caused a wave of indignation in Kiev. From that point Euromaidan started to gain momentum.”

When protestors began to congregate in Kiev’s central Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square), on November 21, 2013, both John McCain and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland immediately flew to Kiev. Paul Craig Roberts reported that the US and EU were paying Ukrainian rioters and protesters in Kiev, reminding readers that, “Nuland is the State Department stooge who got caught red-handed naming the members of the Ukrainian government Washington intends to impose on the Ukrainian people once the paid protesters have unseated the current elected and independent government.” Another key organization in Maidan called CANVAS turned out to be a US-Financed NGO that had helped plan the “carefully-orchestrated” Kiev protests.

At a National Press Club Conference on 10 December 2013 Nuland announced the US had invested $5 Billion in the Ukraine to pay protesters cash to overthrow the government, but peaceful protests hadn’t yet produced results. Five weeks after this meeting Kiev was suddenly gripped with violence.

On 20 February 2014 the infamous Maidan massacre horrified the world with footage of snipers firing upon protesters in Kiev. By the end of the day 94 people lay dead. At the time many Ukrainians were sure former President Victor Yanukovych had ordered the violence.

However, the Ukrainian Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that Yanukovych could not possibly have been responsible for the massacre that preceded his overthrow. On 18 October 2023, the Sviatoshyn District Court made their ruling:

“The evidence “was quite sufficient to conclude categorically that on the morning of February 20, 2014, persons with weapons, from which the shots were fired, were in the premises of the Hotel Ukraina,” the court found. Another section reveals “Hotel Ukraina” was “territory… not controlled by law enforcement agencies at that time.” Numerous video recordings show that before, during, and after the massacre, the building was overrun by the far-right opposition party Svoboda, whose leaders used the premises to coordinate their anti-Yanukovych activities on the streets below.

The “mysterious snipers” of the bloody Maidan massacre remained hidden in the shadows of anonymity until last year, when Covert Action Magazine exposed the American paratrooper who led the sniper teams that day:

“One of the great mysteries surrounding the Maidan coup and the civil war which has followed is how the rabble of soccer hooligans and neo-Nazis who orchestrated the coup were able to become an army capable of subjugating the nation so quickly. … As it turns out, they had a good teacher: an American paratrooper by the name of Brian Boyenger.

“In early 2014, the ongoing Maidan coup reached a stalemate. Time and bitter cold had driven many of the protesters on both sides back to their homes and the revolution was facing the very real danger of simply fizzling out. To prevent this, Mamulashvili needed a spark of violence to light the fire of revolution. He hatched an audacious plan to fire on the crowds and blame the attacks on the Yanukovych government. His point man for the plan was the U.S. Army-trained sniper, Brian Boyenger. On February 20, 2014, snipers, allegedly under the direct command of Boyenger, opened fire on the crowds from the Maidan-occupied Kyiv Philharmonic building, killing dozens of both police and protesters. The plan worked, and the sniper attacks were the pivotal moment that gave the Maidan the momentum to finally depose the democratically elected Yanukovych government.”

Robert Parry corroborates Nuland’s pivotal role in the 2014 overthrow:

“For her part, Nuland passed out cookies to anti-Yanukovych demonstrators at the Maidan square, reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the US had invested $5 billion in their “European aspirations,” declared “fuck the EU” for its less aggressive approach, and discussed with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who the new leaders of Ukraine should be. “Yats is the guy,” she said, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

“Nuland saw her big chance on Feb. 20, 2014, when a mysterious sniper – apparently firing from a building controlled by the Right Sektor – shot and killed both police and protesters, escalating the crisis. On Feb. 21, in a desperate bid to avert more violence, Yanukovych agreed to a European-guaranteed plan in which he accepted reduced powers and called for early elections so he could be voted out of office. But that wasn’t enough for the anti-Yanukovych forces who – led by Right Sektor and neo-Nazi militias – overran government buildings on Feb. 22, forcing Yanukovych and many of his officials to flee for their lives. … Instead of trying to salvage the Feb. 21 agreement, Nuland and European officials arranged for an unconstitutional procedure to strip Yanukovych of the presidency and declared the new regime “legitimate.” Nuland’s “guy” – Yatsenyuk – became prime minister.”

Ukraine’s democratically elected government was usurped by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the Wall Street-supported puppet prime minister who put the country into debt by negotiating loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Yatsenyuk’s interim government transitioned to one run by billionaire oligarch Petro Pereshenko, the fifth president of Ukraine, who served from June of 2014 to May of 2019. Poroshenko pushed Russian separatist forces into the Donbass region and ignored the Minsk Agreements Ukraine had agreed to.

Before his death, Gonzalo Lira indicated that Victoria Nuland is Ukraine’s shadow president overseeing continuity of government between administrations:

“These Ukrainian extremists, they hate ethnic Russians and that fits very neatly with Nuland. She’s always allied herself with people who hate Russians. When the Maidan revolution started, she supported the Right Sector. She micromanaged the Maidan revolution and that implicated her. When Poroshenko came to power –the next president– she made sure that that government abused the Russians. And of course, she made sure that the Ukrainian army started getting seriously supplied with weapons and she used that Ukrainian army and she micromanaged this to attack the Donbass. You have to understand that, in a very real sense, Victoria Nuland has been president of Ukraine since 2014. And so the weapons flowed into Ukraine starting in 2014 after the coup d’état.”

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Ukraine’s sixth president and by far the most obedient of the west’s puppet figureheads. With no political record (aside from playing the president on a West Wing style TV show), Volodymyr Zelenskyy succeeded incumbent President Petro Poroshenko in a 73% landslide vote in April of 2019. Zelenskyy was depicted as an anti-establishment political outsider, but his backing by Ukrainian billionaire oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky revealed his administration would return Ukraine to a familiar state of “corruption as usual”.

In fact, Zelenskyy’s election was ultimately deemed illegitimate by the international community:

“[…] to put it concisely, the 2019 Ukrainian election did not meet international standards. While legal according to Ukrainian law, the 2019 election and processes are illegitimate by ODIHR, Council of Europe, PACE, and OSCE standards and practices.”

Ukraine’s status as the “most corrupt country in Europe” is not a newly minted smear campaign, but a long understood historical fact that has never changed. Case in point, several billion dollars extracted from United States taxpayers has financed Ukrainian oligarchs and their luxury “superyacht lifestyles” in Monaco. Similarly many Americans have never heard about (or remain in denial of) Hunter Biden’s scandalous relationship with Ukraine’s biggest gas company, Burisma Holdings.

Last summer, Kanekoa News reported on Hunter Biden’s Maltese Bank Account Opened by Burisma amid “FBI allegations of $10 Million bribe.” The same Maltese bank was shut down altogether in 2018 for violating money laundering laws. And when Ukraine’s top prosecutor began looking into Hunter’s dealings, daddy Joe Biden claims he gave President Poroshenko six hours to fire the prosecutor or let the country go bankrupt:

“At the heart of the matter is Biden’s role in threatening Ukraine if they didn’t immediately fire their top prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin – who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into a natural gas firm – Burisma Holdings – which Biden’s son, Hunter, sat on the board of directors. Biden openly bragged about this at a January CFR event.

“In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.”

–The Hill

Europe’s energy relationships have motivated the west to meddle in Ukraine’s affairs perhaps more than any other single factor. That’s part of the reason why the Biden Administration targeted the Nord Stream energy pipelines that delivered cheap Russian gas to Germany. Mike Whitney of the Ron Paul Institute writes:

“Washington sees the [Nord Stream II] pipeline as a threat to its primacy in Europe and has tried to sabotage the project at every turn. … They don’t want Germany to become more dependent on Russian gas because commerce builds trust and trust leads to the expansion of trade. … In a world where Germany and Russia are friends and trading partners, there is no need for US military bases, no need for expensive US-made weapons and missile systems, and no need for NATO. Ukraine is Washington’s ‘weapon of choice’ for torpedoing Nord Stream and putting a wedge between Germany and Russia.”

During a White House press conference in 2022, Biden stated emphatically that, “If Russia invades … there will no longer [be] a Nord Stream Two. We will bring an end to it. … I promise you. We’ll be able to do it.”

Nuland, who now serves as Biden’s Under Secretary for Political Affairs, said the same thing:

“If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream Two will not move forward.”

Within months of these ominous promises the Nord Stream pipelines were covertly sabotaged as part of NATO’s annual joint Baltic Operations (BALTOPS ’22) training exercises.

Washington officially denied any involvement, and even blamed Putin for the sabotage of Russian-owned pipelines. Nevertheless, the truth about Nord Stream eked out last year when Pulitzer-winning journalist Seymour Hersh learned how America destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines from an anonymous military source, published in a Substack piece called “A Year Of Lying About Nord Stream”. Following his exposé, Hersh appeared on Democracy Now, Jeremy Scahill, Chris Hedges, Russell Brand, and elsewhere to back up his findings.

Nord Stream isn’t all the Biden Administration is lying about. The repeated Ukraine “foreign aid” bills that have justified more than $113 Billion of American support constitute little more than taxpayer-funded stimulus packages for weapons companies, and the $95 billion Ukraine bill that just passed the Senate is no different.

US Senator Mitch McConnell admitted that the Ukraine funds constitute a money laundering scheme that funnels the cash, not to Ukraine, but to “American defense manufacturers”.

In a video tweet from 10 February 2024, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spelled out how the $113 Billion for “Ukraine aid” ultimately benefits companies that are all owned by BlackRock:

“So Tim Scott, during the Republican debate, said, “Don’t worry, It’s not a gift to Ukraine. It’s a loan.” … So why do they call it a loan? Because if they call it a loan they can impose loan conditions. … Ukraine has to put all of it’s government-owned assets up for sale to multinational corporations, including all of it’s agricultural land – the biggest single asset in Ukraine. … They’ve already sold 30% of it. The buyers were DuPont, Gargill and Monsanto. And who do you think owns all of those companies? Yeah, BlackRock. And then in December, President Biden gave out the contract to rebuild Ukraine. And who do you think got that contract? BlackRock.”

Starting in 2023, BlackRock negotiated directly with Zelenskyy to finance the “rebuilding” of Ukraine. And while on the subject of US firms buying up Ukrainian farmland, Don DeBar writes:

“Ukraine grain” is actually owned by US/EU corporate giants. When people talk about “Ukrainian grain” they’re actually talking about grain that is now owned by US and EU mega-corporations such as Vanguard Group, Kopernik Global Investors, BNP Asset Management Holding, Goldman Sachs-owned NN Investment Partners Holdings, and Norges Bank Investment Management, which manages Norway’s sovereign wealth fund.

It’s unlikely that any of Ukraine’s soldiers knew their country’s ancestral farmland would be auctioned off to the highest corporate bidder as a result of Washington’s proxy war on Russia. To add insult to injury, the people of Ukraine have suffered such unimaginable personnel losses that their military is no longer combat effective.

According to Scott Ritter, Ukraine’s military campaign has failed to meet even the first line of Russia’s defenses, having lost the majority of their fighting force in Russia’s minefields, trenches and ambush zones.

The National Pulse reports, “Ukraine’s new head of the armed forces, Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi, announced the withdrawal of Ukrainian units from the eastern city of Avdiivka.” After sustaining heavy losses throughout the Donbass conflict, Ukraine is low on soldiers.

Following a controversial delivery of cluster bombs, the latest “wonder weapons” for Ukraine include a kayak with a grenade launcher, and AI-assisted swarming drones. While corporate media frames every one of these cute technological updates as “game changers,” they’ve failed to bring about the tactical success imagined by Washington. All they’ve done is rob Ukraine of half a million young men while also losing ground.

Rumors have now begun to circulate in Kiev that Victoria Nuland has grown so desperate for NATO troop intervention in Ukraine that she’s willing to sacrifice the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in a meltdown to be blamed on Russia. In June 2023, Zelenskyy issued a warning to Ukraine that the Russians were plotting an attack on the plant.

When it comes to people attracted to power there are few, if any, “good guys” up there at the top of this world’s cutthroat corporate food chain. In America’s corporate political duopoly (Republicans v. Democrats) there is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Monsanto or the Military-Industrial-Complex. In a very similar way, the architecture of world government now takes the shape of another two-sided duopoly between NATO and BRICS. This global government scheme threatens to corner us all in one of two authoritarian camps, and the dividing line between east and west has proven an extraordinarily lethal one in Ukraine.

Both George H.W. Bush and Vladimir Putin have spoken publicly about the benefits of a New World Order, even if they were talking about different aspects of it. Putin, who has spoken at Davos and met with WEF chairman Klaus Schwab, serves the same authoritarian interests as Bush’s New World Order. As mentioned, appraising the facts honestly requires objective observation, and that means abstaining from cheering on the team you like the most. Legendary historian Howard Zinn explains why it pays to be cautious when choosing sides:

“Nixon and Brezhnev have much more in common with one another than we have with Nixon. J.Edgar Hoover has far more in common with the head of the Soviet secret police than he has with us. It’s the international dedication to law and order that binds the leaders of all countries in a comradely bond. That’s why we are always surprised when they get together – they smile, they shake hands, they smoke cigars, they really like one another no matter what they say.”