0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
320 $
JULY 2022

Biden’s Dangerous New Ukraine Endgame: No Endgame – Foreign Policy

Support SouthFront

Biden’s Dangerous New Ukraine Endgame: No Endgame - Foreign Policy

U.S. President Joe Biden meets with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and combatant commanders at the White House in Washington on April 20. WIN MCNAMEE/GETTY IMAGES

From SF: The SouthFront team was surprised and at the same time we were encouraged by the fact that the world’s leading outlet specialized on international relations, such as Foreign Policy, finally allowed itself to describe a rather obvious situation, facts that have already become our reality. The threat of the impending World War III, instigated by the bloody foreign policy of the Washington establishment, has already been described by almost all independent observers. Now it’s the turn of the leading American magazine to face the truth, which is frightening. Today, global developments are out of the control of any individual, including the most powerful world leaders, and the risks of global war are higher than ever. Thus, it is simply impossible to hide the facts to someone who considers himself at least some kind of objective observer.

Written by , a senior correspondent at Foreign Policy

With his strategy to “weaken” Russia, the U.S. president may be turning the Ukraine war into a global one.

In a dramatic series of shifts this week, U.S. President Joe Biden and his NATO allies have escalated their policy of helping to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression into a policy of undermining the power and influence of Russia itself. In so doing, some observers fear, they are leaving Russian President Vladimir Putin little choice but to surrender or double down militarily, raising the possibility of widening his war beyond Ukraine.

On Thursday, Biden urged Congress to provide $33 billion in additional military, economic, and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine—more than double the previous amount—and said he was sending a clear message to Putin: “You will never succeed in dominating Ukraine.” Beyond that, Biden said in remarks at the White House, the new policy was intended “to punish Russian aggression, to lessen the risk of future conflicts.”

That followed an equally clear declaration this week from U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who after a meeting in Kyiv with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said the U.S. objective is now to curtail Russia’s power over the long term so it does not have the “capability to reproduce” its military assault on Ukraine. “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” Austin said in a stopover in Poland.

The shift may have been what prompted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to declare afterward that Washington and the West had entered a “proxy” war with Russia, risking another world war that, Lavrov warned, could go nuclear. “The danger is serious, real. And we must not underestimate it,” Lavrov said. Putin also again suggested this week, as he has since the beginning of his invasion on Feb. 24, that he still had the option of using nuclear weapons against NATO, saying, “We have all the instruments for this [to respond to a direct threat to Russia]—ones nobody else can boast of. And we will use them, if we have to.”

The newly aggressive U.S. approach won plaudits from many quarters—in particular from current and former NATO officials who insist the Russian nuclear counterthreats are only empty rhetoric.

“It’s the only way to go forward,” said former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in an interview. “In Putin’s thinking it doesn’t make any difference, because he would only claim that the Western policy is to weaken Russia anyway. So why not speak openly about it? The mistake we made in the past was to underestimate the ambitions of Vladimir Putin, to underestimate his brutality. At the same time, we overestimated the strength of the Russian military.”

The new U.S. and NATO strategy is partly based on Ukraine’s continuing battlefield success against Putin, who has been forced to scale down his ambitions from a full takeover of Ukraine to a major new assault in its eastern and southern parts. NATO allies including Germany, which until this week had equivocated on sending heavy offensive weaponry to Ukraine, have ratcheted up their aid in response. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, under political pressure at home and abroad, announced earlier this week that his country would provide 50 anti-aircraft tanks to Ukraine.

Yet other Russia experts expressed worry that the United States and its Western allies are, in effect, crossing the very redlines they have avoided until now. For most of the two-month conflict, Biden has refused to authorize any military support, such as major offensive weapons or a no-fly zone, that might be perceived as putting U.S. or NATO forces in direct conflict with Russia. Now, some observers worry that with the additional aid and tougher economic sanctions, the U.S. president is forcing Putin into a corner in which he can only fight on or surrender. The latter course would mean relinquishing Putin’s career-long aim of strengthening Russia against the West. Yet Putin, who has long said the West’s goal was to weaken or contain Russia, has never been known to surrender during his decade and a half of aggressive moves against neighboring countries, mainly Ukraine and Georgia.

“In the Kremlin’s eyes the West is out to get Russia. It was unspoken before. Now it’s spoken,” said Sean Monaghan, an expert on Europe at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “If you combine this with Biden’s comments, at his summit in Poland last month, that ‘this man [Putin] cannot remain in power,’ all that turns this a territorial war into a wider confrontation and might make negotiating a settlement to end the war in Ukraine far more difficult or even impossible at the present.” (Biden officials later said that the president was not seeking regime change in Russia.)

George Beebe, a former chief of Russia analysis for the CIA, said that the Biden administration may be in danger of forgetting that the “the most important national interest that the United States has is avoiding a nuclear conflict with Russia.” He added that “the Russians have the ability to make sure everyone else loses if they lose too. And that may be where we’re heading. It’s a dangerous corner to turn.”

Perhaps the most worrisome turn of events is that there no longer appears to be any possibility of a negotiated way out of the war—despite Putin’s statement to visiting United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres that he still hopes for such a solution.

“It’s one thing to pursue a policy of weakening Putin, quite another to say it out loud. We have to find a way for Putin to achieve a political solution, so perhaps it is not wise to state this,” said one senior European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“It’s getting more dangerous,” said Charles Kupchan, a former senior U.S. official and now a scholar of international relations at Georgetown University. “We need to start moving beyond Javelins and anti-tank missiles and talk about a political endgame.” Or, as Beebe put it, “We need to find a way of somehow discreetly conveying to the Russians that we would be willing to ease sanctions in the context of an international settlement. The military aid to Ukraine could also be used as leverage.”

Yet any such negotiation looks less likely than ever. Both sides appear to be settling in for a long fight. After meeting with Putin and Lavrov on Tuesday, Guterres acknowledged that an imminent cease-fire was not in the cards and that the war “will not end with meetings.”

Only a month ago Zelensky was floating the idea of a neutral Ukraine that did not join NATO, and he suggested that separatist forces in eastern Ukraine should be acknowledged. But Zelensky has since told European Council President Charles Michel that, in light of Russian atrocities, Ukrainian public opinion was against negotiations and favored continuing the war.

Meanwhile, Finland and Sweden have indicated they are interested in joining the NATO alliance, breaking with their longtime policy of nonalignment and potentially creating a new hair-trigger environment along Russia’s northern border. That would deliver a devastating blow to Putin, who has often cited NATO’s eastward expansion as a casus belli for his full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

And there is little prospect that any of these tensions will abate anytime soon. Austin also convened a 40-nation “Ukraine Contact Group” this week that was readying itself for what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley has said is likely a “protracted conflict” that will be “at least measured in years.”

Biden has not said what the U.S. response might be if Putin deploys tactical or strategic nuclear weapons. Moreover, neither side has set any clear rules in the post-Cold War environment for the deployment of nuclear weapons—especially as Cold War-era arms agreements such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty have been shelved and nuclear weapon delivery systems have become faster and more governed by automatic digitized systems. Under a Kremlin policy known as “escalating to de-escalate”—threatening to go nuclear if the West tries to stop him—Putin has year by year reintroduced nuclear weapons into his conventional war calculations. During his two decades in power, he has authorized the construction of nuclear-powered cruise missiles, transoceanic nuclear-armed torpedoes, hypersonic glide vehicles, and more low-yield nuclear weapons on the European continent.

Yet Putin has never come this close to threatening to use them, nor has he made clear if or how he might do so. Until the Ukraine crisis, U.S. strategists had not considered their deployment to be a credible threat. Most believe Putin would first escalate using cyberattacks or other non-nuclear capabilities.

Many experts also say they don’t believe the Russian president would gain much advantage from the use of tactical nuclear weapons inside Ukraine—and he is considered enough of a rational actor that he would never contemplate launching nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles at the United States. But Putin has also indicated previously that he cannot accept the separation of an independent Ukraine from Russian control, writing in a July 2021 essay that such a development would be “comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us.”

Robert Gallucci, a former senior U.S. nuclear arms negotiator, said the Russian nuclear threats are a new tactic and “should be taken seriously if we were to get involved directly in conflict with Russian forces in or around Ukraine, that is, on or across the Russian border.”

Beebe, who is currently director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said he believed the outcome would most likely stretch into a volatile stalemate—but one that could well be more unstable and dangerous than much of the Cold War. “Most likely we’re going to end up in some sort of long-term unstable confrontation that divides Ukraine and divides Europe where there aren’t rules of the game,” he said. “It’s not so much a new cold war as it is a festering wound in Europe.”

Matters could get even dicier if a newly emboldened West and NATO expand their reach beyond Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific, as British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss suggested in a speech this week. Truss said that “NATO must have a global outlook, ready to tackle global threats. We need to preempt threats in the Indo-Pacific, working with our allies like Japan and Australia to ensure the Pacific is protected. And we must ensure that democracies like Taiwan are able to defend themselves.”

That in turn raises the prospect for a drawn-out global cold war with not only Russia but China as well. And it is one that could easily turn hot, Beebe said, with the United States and its allies faced off against an alliance of “a resource-rich Russia partnered with a technologically and economically powerful China.”

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Support SouthFront

SouthFront

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
111 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Logan Baty

I think this war is all about what has caused so many wars in the past: loot. The US led West have long desired the opportunity to loot Russia’s vast resources and has for many years sought to use nations such as Ukraine and Georgia etc. to destabilise Russia for this ultimate purpose. Hence NATO expansion. The US wants to topple the Russian government and move in to seize their assets, whether directly or by corporate proxies. The current financial position of the US is an added impetus. Burdened with over 30 trillion in federal government debt alone the US stands on a financial precipice – unable to pay this debt (especially with the prospect of rising interest rates) it needs sources of income from outside. Add to this the desire to preserve political and economic hegemony and we have a recipe for disaster for the whole world. I think the neo-cons see this and their avarice has led us to this point. The US succeeds against Russia or goes into major decline. And the neo-cons cannot live with the failure of their schemes. This might be their last desperate throw of the dice.

hash
hashed
Last edited 2 months ago by Logan Baty
Erikassimo

It is also about keeping us Europeans subjugated. Russia was a threat to that since it would benefit us much more to have closer ties with Russia. The Anglos started out by destroying our societies with cultural marxism and mass migration, so that they can now play their divide and rule games inside our previously homogenous nation states. But that was not enough so they have made up reason to sanction European – Russian trade ever more aggressively.

Logan Baty

Yes. And I think Europe is maybe a consolation prize for the US. They will destroy your economies and plunder you with much more expensive American imports of energy etc. To my mind it is all basically about loot and plunder.

Karl Pomeroy

It’s also about JWO bankers keeping global control.

Ivan

You think?

Ivan

Before Hitler German and Japanese products were replacing those of the mercenary British and Amercan colonial oppressors in world and colonial markets. Writing, as today, was on the wall.

Nott

No, the cultural Marxism and mass migration those are all originally French ideas. Same with the EU. So it’s you Left learning Europeans destroying yourselves.

Death to Zombies

Nope, not French. First country to go parazytic and mass migration was US in 1776.

A.H.

it has a name, The Kalergy Plan for europe. A zionist plan to realise the NWO. Now that there Oded yinon Plan is redused to nothing because off Russia and Iran, they (zionists) will set the world on fire as they did whit WW1 and WW2

Erikassimo

Yaya, it is continuation of British Empire method for power. I just want these goddamn Anglos to go home to their own continent.

Fred Dozer

China should not wait for their time, but join Russia now, secretly or otherwise. They need a plan if they don’t have one already.

Logan Baty

I can’t see China taking sides against Russia. They would be next on the hitlist by the US. I heard someone say recently that Russia and China are not standing side by side, but they are standing back to back. Neither will desert the other. Both have too much to lose.

Ivan

The fckng juice diddit, phaggot mthrfckr

Greatganza

Exactly. Without colonies and unlimited exploration of workforce, american capitalism needs disruption to feed itself, failed states, etc.

JayLindberg

The US needs the petrodollar to keep the circus going. The petrodollar is now threatened with extinction. It looks like it will die a violent death. The question is, will it kill to planet in the process? And how do we stop that from happening?

shabbos goy

NOTHING will happen. This is an elite jew controlled clown show

hash
failed
Ivan

Cannibal class.

Crazy cnook the fruitcake

Joe biden and Donald Trump need to come together as friends and stop these russian orcs

hash
hashed
JJ345

We know the US runs the whole thing in Ukraine and “”””Ukraine”””” said they “could” fight for 10 years. It is a long-term war for the US companies again after all they left Afghanistan.

hash
hashed
Erikassimo

I dont think the Anglo monsters will make much headway in Asia. Their killer app is that they know how to manipulate, propagandize, elite capture, bribe, corrupt and subvert us Europeans. Outside that, they are a dying empire.

hash
hashed
Edgar Zetar

USA Elites Multinationals and Olligarcs put old US Presidents just like this Biden just to do wathever they wanted in US FED GOV (plan A). Their plan B is F.E.M.A, in order to activate they need a crisis (natural or forged). They already have a multitier approach about what to do. Whats you see in US Goverments is only the tip of theiceberg the ‘deep state’ have been forging since 1908.

hash
hashed
Edgar Zetar

The FEMA takes over USA (eros) while the liberal proposal of FEMA (tanatos) takes over Europe with this new age and soft goverments EU. There you got the final match (alliance) between Eros and Tanatos (the mars and venus alliance). Always wonder how countries worldwide opened the doors to become the perfect matchs to the ‘Mars Idol’…

Muhammad your Prophet

How is it Biden’s fault that the Russian army is such a shitty army? The Putin cockroaches can’t even take a city like Mariupol and now they talk as if Moscow wouldn’t be wiped out of the face of the earth if Putin the terrorist cockroach decides to start a global war.

hash
failed
CIA Compilation of Idiots and Apes

Stupid liar!

Peter The Ungrateful

“comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us.”

Obviously the US, in general, and Mr. Hirsh, in particular, still seem to not (want) to understand that it is not about extending “The Russian Empire”, it is about *defending* it. What he meant in that essay with this, totally ripped out of context, quote is that Ukraine in NATO would be equivalent to using WMDs against Russia. Russia has watched, grinding its teeth, how NATO encroached on its borders, every single time disregarding their warnings and hints at their own security interests. Add to that the unilateral abolition of the INF treaty by the US – which the author fails to mention by name, it has just “been shelved”, but he fails to say by whom! – and the installation of those “ABM” sites in Poland and previously in Romania, and there is no mistaking what the goal is. They can be turned into offensive launch stations for nuclear capable Tomahawks. Build one of those in Ukraine and maybe even add hypersonic missiles, which the US is also seeking to develop, and “hair trigger” does not even come close to estimating the danger Russia sees itself in.

The US need to seriously work on their “intelligence” game. What they have is utter crap produced by imbeciles that fell into the tub full of Russophobia Kool Aid, as can be seen by this apologetic piece that, once again, paints the Russian SMO as expansionist. They should consider what they would do if China were to instigate a coup in Mexico City and started arming Mexico to the teeth and fanning the anti-American flame. US “intelligence” is a colossal, epic, utter failure. If the world goes up in flames, there is only one culprit and it is sitting on its obese ass smack dab in the middle of North America. And if articles like this one are anything to go by, I will be buying marshmallows to roast in the nuclear fire.

hash
hashed
Clyde

It’s Foreign Policy, a publication that endorsed Hilary Clinton in 2016. Samuel P Huntington built the propaganda rag. No mainstream US publication can ever acknowledge that the unrlenting assault on Russia is simply a function of ever more desperate efforts at maintaining global hegemony, and social control at home.

Fred Dozer

They talk to us like children. Putin must be sick or insane. Actually why does the US have any nuclear weapons at all, is the better question. After all the US only used them twice, on civilians to save lives ? Maybe Putin intends to use them, the same way. Maybe see what a nuclear weapon 200 time more powerful will do to Hawaii , compared to the two small ones on Japan. If it save Russia, will it be worth it to Russians. I am sure they, would think so. Biden is playing a dangerous game. He and his advisors are the ones that are insane. The US however is afraid on NK. Insane.

Peter The Ungrateful

Once the nuclear threshold is crossed it will escalate very, very quickly. Japan in 1945 was different because nobody else had nukes and the US only had those two prototypes, basically.

First, Russia has explicitly stated not to use nukes in a first strike. It would only retaliate with a full force strike, thus assuring (the “A”) MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction. That concept exists to prevent the use of nukes, because whoever strikes first will die second, assuredly.

But say, for arguments sake, Russia nukes Hawaii, do the US then “only” nuke Crimea in retaliation – you don’t seriously expect them to roll over and play dead, do you? Or will they do Russian one better? Will they go all in, immediately? What would be Russia’s reaction to the retaliation? …

I have seen some of those “War Games” on paper, all end the same: MAD. Interestingly enough those papers were published after declassification by the Pentagon, IIRC. Nobody in their right mind actually believes that there can be any winners in a nuclear exchange. It seems as though more and more people who are out of their minds have come into positions they are unfit to fill.

Fred Dozer

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.

BY JAMES K. GALBRAITH DECEMBER 19, 2001 Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s

Peter The Ungrateful

Yes, I think I have read about those papers in that context. The problem with that proposal is that the nukes were already in Cuba, which was only found out later. Everybody thought the sea blockade was preventing their delivery, but that delivery was the second or third batch. So, while Cuba’s nukes were not all there yet, it did have enough for a decisive retaliatory strike, with almost no reaction time on the US side, which is why it was a huge no-no for Washington to see nukes there in the first place.

People only need to look at a map what the distance between Cuba and Washington is. Then do the same with Ukraine and Moscow. If Cuba is in Washington’s backyard, then Ukraine is on Moscow’s doorstep. Add hypersonic missiles to the mix and the flight time is some 4-5 minutes. So the US should know very well what this means for Russia and yet they went ahead with their constant pushing. Even those missile ramps in Romania and Poland need to go. They only add 2-3 minutes to the flight time. Russia has been warning about this all the time, that such short reaction times can lead to very bad misunderstandings.

Might I suggest the documentary “The Man Who Saved the World”? It is about a Russian officer who was in charge when the Soviet launch warning system erroneously detected a full scale launch from US soil. He overrode the system and stopped the retaliatory strike, which would in effect have been a first strike by the USSR. He was only able to do so, because he knew the shortcomings of the system and had time to think.

I wonder how such an episode would end in today’s state of affairs, or in the near- or midterm future with hypersonic missiles at Moscow’s doorstep. There would be no time to think! And that is basically why Putin was so adamant about this topic. I have basically just paraphrased his, or more precisely Russia’s, very real(istic) concerns. It’s puzzling how stubbornly the US kept ignoring them.

Last edited 2 months ago by Peter The Ungrateful
Fred Dozer

Russia would only use nuclear weapons if there’s a “threat for existence” to the country and not due to the war with Ukraine, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov

Peter The Ungrateful

Well, it depends. If I remember correctly he didn’t say the “not due to war with Ukraine” part. He was answering a question if Russia was considering the use of nukes *in* Ukraine, which is a stupid question to begin with, given the predominant wind direction is from west to east, which would mean all the fallout would blow over to Russia.

But Peskov was decidedly vague with this answer. If The West keeps escalating the Ukraine crisis it might ultimately lead to the consideration of the use of nukes. I think he wanted to drop the hint, that people should think long and hard if it would be worth it. For the US Ukraine is just a chess piece – and they are bad chess players BTW – but for Russia it is an existential issue what happens there vis-a-vis NATO.

Fred Dozer

I see my country, as a narcistic nation. They have tried to destroy Russia ( Soviet Union) endless times. The Soviets on the other hand, have shared their Space expertise (MIR , ISS) with the US and continue to taxi US astronauts, for twenty years. When Russia arrived in Syria, they asked to join with the US to fight terrorist’s. They probably knew by than, the US , spend a lot of money building those terrorist networks. It is my understanding, it is not Syrian oil being stolen by the US. The area of the oil fields was leased by the Russian oil companies.

Rattus

.

Last edited 2 months ago by Rattus
Karl Pomeroy

Indeed, US “intelligence” is generally the last to know.

ossie

Pindos believe that a nuclear first strike would decapitate the Russian leadership, and their ABM systems would intercept any remaining response. Tomahawks can be much more effective if launched from stealthy mobile platforms, such as subs, which could be brought near the border, than some big fat target fixed land base, which can be destroyed in minutes. Dual use launchers (ABM + LACM) were just a technical violation of the treaty.

rex

They aren’t stupid, they are criminals. They know perfectly well they are in the wrong, but enjoy it in a satanical way. These monsters have no human intelligence or feelings left. As Martyanov stated some time ago, these monsters are real demons or they are heavily on drugs.

I had my awakening moment when I watched the Odessa massacre unfold in front of my eyes. The “youngsters” doing it were really out of their minds. They were on a bestial rampage. It really looked like a scene from a circle of hell. You couldn’t sense rationality or empathy or human remorse in their actions.

So, for the believers it is Satan. For the non believers it is cocaine or captagon or whatever they have in store. In both cases you cannot reason with such beasts.

7even-N-6

,

hash
hashed
Last edited 2 months ago by 7even-N-6
Reality Check

Tactical nukes are only the opening act for a full scale thermonuclear war. Step 1 Toss out a tactical nuke Step 2 Wait for someone to stop the madness, this will only last a few hours as anyone who tries must succeed or be shot as a traitor. Step 3 Out come the ICBM’s and launch! Game over folks!

hash
hashed
Thraxite

Seems the only sources of information used to write this article were propaganda articles of the West leaning rags, like the guardian or washington post (they don’t deserve to have capital letters). The west doesn’t understand Russian tactics or their unwillingness to murder inconvenient civilians as in Mosul, or Falujah. All the West understands is “Shock and Awe” then after that, they clean up, if it doesn’t work, there are no long term plans and they get stuck and bogged down for decades going nowhere. In only 2 months the Russians have destroyed the Ukrainazis and defeated the AFU. Now NATO is hurriedly emptying its’ military stockpiles down by a 1/3 in only 8 weeks. A month from now and NATO won’t have enough hardware to protect its’ own borders and it will take years to replace the stock.

Last edited 2 months ago by Thraxite
Karl Pomeroy

I read about a third of this article, and that’s enough. Who wrote this? I didn’t see the author’s name. Some of this is Western propaganda, some just exaggeration. For example, I was surprised to read the following in an SF article:

“The new U.S. and NATO strategy is partly based on Ukraine’s continuing battlefield success against Putin, who has been forced to scale down his ambitions from a full takeover of Ukraine to a major new assault in its eastern and southern parts.” What? Putin never sought a full takeover of Ukraine, as we all know. Nor has he “scaled down” his ambitions. This is a Western fabrication.

Also note the excellent quote by Michael Hirsch at the top of the article: “Today, global developments are out of the control of any individual, including the most powerful world leaders …” But in an about face, the author of the article begins by saying: “With his strategy to ‘weaken’ Russia, the U.S. president may be turning the Ukraine war into a global one.” How can Biden be turning this war into a global one if global developments are out of the control of any individual, including Biden? A complete contradiction.

And no, Lavrov and Putin have not explicitly said Russia would use nuclear weapons. This is hyperbole.

What is the intent of publishing such an article?

hash
hashed
Erikassimo

When people write such articles, you should not look at how they concurr with the common narrative of those in power. You should look at how they deviate. Such articles are not about truth, they are about nudging for new positions and new options. When you write such an article, you know not to offend those in power unnecessarily.

If you listen to lectures on Youtube by American scholar Stephen Kotkin, you will notice he agrees with many negative points about Russia. But he deviated from the then current policy in that he asks for more compromises with Russia and argues why that is a good idea. That is how you speak to power, you agree with it as much as you can and zero in on small amendments and course corrections.

Erikassimo

Actually, it says the article is written by Michael Hirsch. And the Hirsch Family Foundation is one of the big donors to CEPA, Center for European Policy Analysis, an umbrella organization for fomenting hatered against Russia in Europe in general and in Eastern Europe in particular. Not sure if Michael Hirsch has any relation to the Hirsch Family Foundation but it sounds probable, since he has same name and writes on same topic. Other donors to CEPA are the US arms manufacturers and the US State Department and US Ministry for Defence.

The US oligarch class start charity foundations and then donate money to these “charities” instead of paying taxes and then use the charity foundations to gain influence, especially in Europe.

These kind of organizations are the networks that are part of the influence and subversion arm of the US Empire.

https://cepa.org/

Last edited 2 months ago by Erikassimo
Karl Pomeroy

Thanks for explaining. I looked again at the beginning of the article and yes, SF did give a brief introduction putting it in perspective.

Karl Pomeroy

I would like to edit my above comment, but don’t see the edit button. The quote I attributed to Michael Hirsch was actually written by SF.

aes

bunch of traitors running from debacle in afghan.

hash
hashed
Kbm

They are getting more desperate. Realizing Russian objectives are closer to being secured and US shitting it’s pants over all the lies it’s made.

hash
hashed
Josh

Foreign Policy Journal’s sudden bout of sort of honesty is just super terrific. But, try to keep in mind that we are dealing with a set of international criminals who instigate and participate in organized mass murder for the sole purpose of selling the weapons to do it with, for money. That is literally what they do for a living. Literally. When Foreign Policy Journal gets honest about that, please let someone know.

hash
hashed
WillieBrennan

It would be great to see that entire room full of criminals/idiots blown to Kingdom Come or pumped full of VX nerve agent. I would buy a bottle of 20 year old single malt and celebrate for an entire week.

hash
hashed
Josh

Read this,

https://www.rt.com/news/554931-biden-ukraine-inflection-point/

Perfect case in point.

hash
hashed
Anonymous

Duh You reckon?

hash
hashed
Juan

western bs copy paste.

hash
hashed
Whiskey1Bravo

Over half the swamp creatures of the world is in the UN and other countries. Who are nothing more then sell out traitors of their own countries. Who became willing puppets of the deep state for money and power. Who yanks their chain telling them what to say and do. Just like stolen election not POTUS Biden and gang. The Clinton’s, Obama’s, Johnson. Trudeau, Macron, Zelensky. The MSM and Hollywood to name a few well known puppets. This is the only reason for the screaming uproar over what Russia is doing. They are scare shitless. Both the deep state and their puppets. That the truth will come out about them being lowlife and their not so secrets of money laundering, world wide child sex trafficking, adult slave trafficking, and drug trafficking that going on in Ukraine and around the world. Also behind and along with pushing their fake climate change agenda and the fake deadly virus scam. To get you and everybody else to take the poison to human vaccines they made to control everybody and to cut down the population of the world and so much more. People are already seeing severe vaccines reactions happening worldwide to kids, teens and adults including death and we’re talking in the millions. What do you think they were doing with the 27 plus bio weapon labs in Ukraine where they made up the Wuhan’s virus in one and ship to China to release. That Putin and the Russia’s army have taking out. Thanks GOD. Not to mention over an 1,000 children they save in found hidden sex dens from perverts willing to buy them for sex and other gross reasons. Anyone who look up the facts or get Intel briefings because of their job know Ukraine has been taken over by the neo Nazi and control everything there under their master’s orders. Who are the foot soldiers of the deep state who run most of these places with the sell out traitors of the West, EU, NATO and so on. The other foot soldiers of the deep state are the Antifa and BLM gang of losers you see in a lot of countries. They are scare shitless America, Russia and the world is waking up to their BS and they want to start a major war between Russia and America to take everybody eyes off what really going on, to cover up their illegal acts and to purposely weakling the only two countries that can stop them. They might not wait and do one of their special false flag ops there infamous for. Set off a bomb around people, a tactical nuke, chemical weapon, etc. and blame Russia for it. Putin said this at the start why he is doing this special ops which is not even close to being a invasion or taking over a country. Yet these evil sick people keep lying about Putin wanting to take over Europe or whatever and are trying to get some suckers like Poland or other countries to commit troops in combat to start it. So they can have a excuse to send in American’s and NATO ones. The scariest part is they don’t care if nukes are use or how many people will die for they will be protected in their underground shelters if WW3 break out and reducing the world population will be faster than the deadly vaccines shots they are trying now to get everyone to take. They don’t care about nothing but themselves and keeping the power to control the people Just wait, soon all this will be proving to the people of the world this is what is really going on and not the BS crap that been crawling out of their mouths these last two mouths. WWG1WGA

hash
hashed
CrniBlack

The current world runs on coal, oil and gas and it’s controlled by the semiconductors. The west is well aware it cannot fight Russia in a direct war but Ukrainian proxy is good opportunity to try catch some of the “goodies” they are trailing behind. While US and NATO were chasing “terrorists” and changing colours in Middle East, Russia and China were making themselves protected from the democracy we on the west believe live in. The west also knows that Ukrainian strategy will not work in Taiwan as there is no way to deliver a toothpick to Taipei once Chinese SMO starts. Freedom of navigation exercises were just to see what Xi has under his sleeve but Chinese are wise unlike some.

WWIII is a possibility but I doubt the west is going to initiate it before 2050 and not before reserves of coil,oil and gas available to the west runs out in next 30 years.

Does Ukrainian crisis can last 30 years? I doubt and more likely will end up with a Dayton agreement #2 or a similar “solution”.

hash
hashed
Last edited 2 months ago by CrniBlack
Theo

Mostly agree, except the West (US/UK/Israel + their puny vassals) can’t afford to wait till 2050. they need to go to war asap.

hollerbusch

Noam Chomsky ist ebenso alt wie ich und er denkt genauso wie ich, USA EIN SCHURKENSTAAT! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kfDAL2dq1U

hash
hashed
concerned

Obviously, US and its allies in IN WAR with Russia, via Ukraine, and Russia have to accept that this is the fact,

Russia should mobilize nuclear weapons or destroy major nuclear power plants in Ukraine to speed up in ending the war with the US and its allies.

The longer it drags, the more disadvantaged Russia would be, as massive cost and economic loss to Russia due to relentless support to Ukraine to fight back and economic sanctions on Russia by the west.

This is a war between the US and its allies with Russia, and Ukraine is just a puppet and used by the west. Blame no one, the puppet Ukraine leader wanted so much to be in it, disregard the wish of the majority of Ukrainians.

So JUST DO IT.

hash
hashed
Mark

Russia should not leave one inch of land to the NAZIs in Ukraine until NATO member states leave Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Lithuania, Latvia, Taiwan and so many other countries that they have occupied illegally by direct occupation or through dirty pitchers like Israeli NAZIs.

hash
hashed
Mark

The Chinese and Russian friendship is harder than diamond and sweeter than the expectation of the NATO member states because a friend in need is a friend indeed. China will supply all those military equipment that Russia needs.

111
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x