The West goaded Russia into the war

[Yohan]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... weeks.html

Finland will decide whether to join NATO within weeks in reaction to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, despite Moscow threats of retaliation
Finland may decide on whether it will join NATO in just weeks, country's PM said
Sanna Marin has said a decision on membership is possible 'during this spring'
She added Finland's relationship with Russia has now dramatically changed
4 April 2022

Finland may make the call on whether to join NATO in just weeks following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, with a decision possible 'during this spring'.
The country may join the transatlantic military alliance despite warnings of retaliation and 'military and political consequences' from the Kremlin.
Prime Minister Sanna Marin this weekend said: 'Both joining (NATO) and not joining are choices that have consequences.

'We need to assess both the short-term and long-term effects. At the same time, we must keep in mind our goal: ensuring the security of Finland and Finns in all situations.'

Marin added that Finland's relationship with neighboring Russia has changed irreversibly after the assault on Ukraine, and 'it takes a lot of time and work for confidence to be restored'.

Prime Minister Sanna Marin this weekend said: 'Both joining (NATO) and not joining are choices that have consequences'

Finland shares an 830-mile (1,340-kilometre) border with Russia, the longest by any European Union member.

It has remained militarily non-aligned, therefore not engaging in war or conflict, since the end of the Cold War for fear of provoking Moscow.

This weekend the country's foreign minister Pekka Haavisto said Russia's actions in Ukraine have 'totally changed the security landscape in Finland'.

He told Kyodo News that Finland must be prepared for 'more negative military scenarios'.

This comes despite hints of retaliation from Moscow should the country join NATO.
Last month a Russian politician warned of 'serious military and political consequences' if Finland and Sweden joined the alliance.

[Yohan]

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/fi ... lkans.html

Haavisto: Reports from Bucha, Ukraine, bring to mind war crimes in Balkans
FINLAND 04 APRIL 2022

REPORTS that Russian troops killed hundreds of unarmed civilians while retreating from Bucha, Ukraine, bring to mind the war crimes committed in the Balkans in the 1990s, says Minister for Foreign Affairs Pekka Haavisto (Greens).

Ukrainian troops have discovered mass graves of civilians – many buried with hands bound, close-range gunshot wounds and signs of torture – after reclaiming the town located some 30 kilometres north-west of Kyiv.

Russia has denied allegations that its troops have hurt civilians in either Bucha or Irpin, claiming that photographs from these towns are propaganda designed to disrupt peace negotiations.

Haavisto on Sunday stated to Helsingin Sanomat that Russian actions that may constitute war crimes have to be subject to an international investigation and the responsible parties held accountable. Finland is one of 41 countries that have referred the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

[Winston]

Check out this playbook strategy manual written by a Russian author for how Russia could take over the world. This video below goes over the strategy step by step. lol. Is this plan possible or plausible? lol



The secret Soviet plan to crush NATO in 7 days.

[Winston]

I don't get something. Why does Ukraine wanna join NATO so badly? What for? Why is it worth sacrificing so many lives for NATO membership or putting their country at risk for invasion for it? Is there a logical reason or is all this cooked up like it was in WW1?

If Ukraine never sought NATO membership then this invasion would have never happened right?

Also since the West would never invade Russia, why does Russia care if Ukraine is NATO or not? If Ukraine joined NATO would NATO have put missiles in Ukraine? Even if they did, NATO would never invade a country right?

Isn't NATO like the Federation in Star Trek, peace loving and just? lol

Yes why would you fight your bully if you can get hurt. Just give in and be his bitch.

Bad logic. Why not make peace with your bully or make friends with him? Why start unnecessary conflict? Why make enemies that are unnecessary? You aren't making sense again.

How would you know if it is unnecessary? You do not research history other than weirdo conspiracy stuff combined with it is all a simulation anyway and all are NPCs combined with science denial. So how would you know?

All wars are unnecessary and cooked up. Haven't you learned anything? Why are they necessary? Explain to me why WW1 was necessary. You even made a mistake when you said that the US didn't make a difference in WW1, when every historian knows that it did, otherwise Germany would have won. So you are ill informed.

What's the point of answering any of your questions? Even if I answer your question a million times, you ALWAYS IGNORE the answers and deny everything because you are an authoritarian who cannot think for yourself. So what's the point? Why bother? It's a waste of time. You never learn.

[Gali]

I don't get something. Why does Ukraine wanna join NATO so badly? What for? Why is it worth sacrificing so many lives for NATO membership or putting their country at risk for invasion for it? Is there a logical reason or is all this cooked up like it was in WW1?

If Ukraine never sought NATO membership then this invasion would have never happened right?

Also since the West would never invade Russia, why does Russia care if Ukraine is NATO or not? If Ukraine joined NATO would NATO have put missiles in Ukraine? Even if they did, NATO would never invade a country right?

Isn't NATO like the Federation in Star Trek, peace loving and just? lol

Yes why would you fight your bully if you can get hurt. Just give in and be his bitch.

Bad logic. Why not make peace with your bully or make friends with him? Why start unnecessary conflict? Why make enemies that are unnecessary? You aren't making sense again.

How would you know if it is unnecessary? You do not research history other than weirdo conspiracy stuff combined with it is all a simulation anyway and all are NPCs combined with science denial. So how would you know?

All wars are unnecessary and cooked up. Haven't you learned anything? Why are they necessary? Explain to me why WW1 was necessary. You even made a mistake when you said that the US didn't make a difference in WW1, when every historian knows that it did, otherwise Germany would have won. So you are ill informed.

What's the point of answering any of your questions? Even if I answer your question a million times, you ALWAYS IGNORE the answers and deny everything because you are an authoritarian who cannot think for yourself. So what's the point? Why bother? It's a waste of time. You never learn.

Why would you care? It is a flat earth simulation anyway
Why would you care to study proper history? You do not even think history is real.
You think all are NPCs so why do you care?

You are bored and it is fun larping that is why

[Yohan]

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/08/poli ... index.html

Finland and Sweden could soon join NATO, prompted by Russian war in Ukraine

Finland and Sweden could soon join NATO, moves that would likely infuriate Moscow and that officials say would further underscore Russia's strategic error in invading Ukraine.

NATO officials told CNN that discussions about Sweden and Finland joining the bloc have gotten extremely serious since Russia's invasion, and US senior State Department officials said the matter came up at this week's NATO foreign ministerial, which was attended by the foreign ministers from Stockholm and Helsinki.
Officials said the discussions underline the extent to which Vladimir Putin's invasion has only served to reinvigorate and unify the NATO alliance -- the exact opposite of Putin's stated goals before the war began. The Russian President had demanded that NATO cease expanding east and admitting new members, accusing the bloc of threatening Russian security. Instead, NATO has increased its support to Ukraine and is preparing to welcome new members.
----
Alexander Stubb, who served as Finland's Prime Minister in 2014-2015, echoed this sentiment, telling CNN there had long been a tension in the country between idealism -- wanting to be able to work with Russia, with whom it shares a border -- and realism, which required Finland to maintain a strong standing army in the event that Russia ever invaded.
That idealism has now largely evaporated in the wake of Russia's attack.
"The Finns think that if Putin can slaughter his sisters, brothers and cousins in Ukraine, as he is doing now, then there is nothing stopping him from doing it in Finland. We simply don't want to be left alone again,"
----
A European official noted that Finland and Sweden, should they join, would both be "net contributors" to NATO, given their supply of advanced fighter jets. Finland already operates Boeing F/A-18s and has ordered 64 Lockheed Martin F-35s.

Some officials even commented ironically that it would be one of the best things Putin has done to harden European security.

[WilliamSmith]

https://www.unz.com/aanglin/dicks-out-f ... e-ukraine/

Fox Jews quoting the Kremlin:

In a direct threat to the West Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged “lightning” fast strikes on any nation that “interferes” with Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“If anyone ventures to intervene from the outside and [pose] unacceptable threats of a strategic nature to Russia, they should know that our counter-retaliatory strikes will take place with lightning speed,” he said.

Russia once faced international ire this week after it suggested Western support of Kyiv during Russia’s more than 60-day invasion could lead to nuclear warfare.

But despite calls from nations like the U.S. and U.K. to stop the aggressive rhetoric, Putin escalated the tough talk Wednesday.

“We have all the tools to do this. The kind that no one else can boast of right now,” he said alluding to Russia’s deployment of a hypersonic missile last month.

“And we will not boast; we will use them if necessary. I want everyone to know that,” he continued. “All the decisions have been made in this regard.”

NATO nations and other allies pledged to continue to support Ukraine as Russia ramps up its second offensive in eastern and southern Ukraine, in what defense officials have warned will be an even more brutal fight.

Moscow has repeatedly defended its “special military operation” in Ukraine as an attempt to “denazify” certain regions – a claim Ukraine and the West have said is patently incorrect.

I don't always like what Aglin says (too tough on women, among other things) but I agree with this:

When Putin says “we’ve already made the decision – we will fire hypersonic missiles at you,” it really isn’t a threat or a bluff, but simply a statement of fact. He knows you will make your own decisions. He is imparting you with information which may assist you in your decision making process.

Do you want to see Berlin as a smoking crater? Do you want to test your ability to intercept an ICBM headed for California? Putin does not want to see that, but he is simply telling you that this is what will result if you continue to try to play this game with him.

The lunatics and faggot morons in Washington and in the Jew media have claimed for two months that the Ukraine was going to “win a war against Russia.” Now, that is becoming a much more difficult narrative to sustain, and will necessarily collapse. So there is a push for “boots on the ground” – i.e., a direct military conflict with Russia in the Ukraine – in order to “do something” about this Soviet bloc border skirmish that the West has poured so much unjustifiable moral weight into.

Russia does not have the ability to fight the entire NATO army. What they do have is the nerve to act decisively and completely implode the Western psyche.

What happens to all of these soft faggots raised on Prozac and pornography when all of the sudden missiles are hitting European cities and hundreds of thousands or millions of people are dead in a matter of seconds? Does it stir up some dormant sense of masculinity, or do they smoosh like soft fish eggs?


That’s really what you would be finding out by pushing Putin. Only the top-tier retards believe he won’t do exactly what he says he’s going to do. All you have to do is look at a video of him talking. This is a man who has decided that he is all in, and that death is an acceptable outcome in the instance of failure. Many people in Washington have never had the opportunity of coming face to face with someone who is on that level. Just as they are confounded by the idea of being out maneuvered by people more intelligent than them, they are incapable of comprehending that someone is not as cowardly as they are.

I’m down for whatever. I don’t really care if the Anal Empire starts World War III and collapses or flinches at World War III and collapses. This child tranny stuff ends either way, and that’s really my only concern at this point.

I feel the same: Even if I'm one of the ones up in nuclear flames (or irradiated giant tidal waves from Poseidon nukes, as the case may theoretically be), a round of applause and respects to the Czar and Emperor Xi for not letting child-raping pedophile jews get away with their bullshit.
He also included this clip which I thought was appropriate and in good taste: "Do you feel lucky today, ZOG?"

[Winston]

Tucker Carlson explains why the Democrats want the US to have a war with Russia.

[flowerthief00]

I enjoyed this debate over the "The West is to blame for what Russia is doing" notion. I think Destiny's side won the debate.

https://odysee.com/@Destiny:6/usa-attac ... B1D5f5e6Ld

[WilliamSmith]

'Russia Started the War' and Other Fallacies

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/russia-sta ... fallacies/

On Monday, Putin delivered the annual “Victory Day” speech celebrating Russia’s victory over Nazi Germany in 1945. The Russian president made none of the hyperbolic pronouncements the media had predicted but, instead, gave a brief recap of the events leading up to the war in Ukraine. There was none of the bravado you’d expect from a leader trying to gin up support for the ongoing war. Putin simply reminded the crowd that he had done everything he could to avoid the bloody conflict in which Russia is currently embroiled. Here’s part of what he said:

“Last December we proposed signing a treaty on security guarantees. Russia urged the West to hold an honest dialogue in search for meaningful and compromising solutions, and to take account of each other’s interests. All in vain. NATO countries did not want to heed us, which means they had totally different plans. And we saw it.”

This is an accurate account of what took place in the months preceding the war. Putin tried to avoid a confrontation by repeatedly asking the US to address Russia’s reasonable security concerns. Unfortunately, the Biden administration brushed off Putin’s demands without even providing a response. The US and NATO insist that Ukraine has every right to choose whatever security arrangement it wants. But that’s clearly not the case. The United States and every nation in NATO have signed treaties (Istanbul in 1999, and Astana in 2010) that stipulate they cannot improve their own security at the expense of others.

The principle underlying these agreements is called “the indivisibility of security”, which means that the security of one state can’t be separated from the security of the others. In practical terms, that means that signatories to these treaties are not free to develop their own military capability to the point where it poses a danger to their neighbors. These terms are especially applicable to Ukraine which is seeking membership in a military alliance that is openly hostile to Russia. NATO membership has always been a “red line” for Putin who has stated repeatedly that he will not allow NATO bases, combat troops and missile sites to be located on Ukrainian soil where they’d be just a stone’s throw from Moscow. As one critic from Texas put it, “You wouldn’t let a rattlesnake make its home on your front porch, would you?” No, you wouldn’t, and neither would Putin. Here’s more from a speech Putin gave in 2007:

“I’m convinced that we have reached the decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security. And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue.” Munich Security Conference, 2007

For Putin, security has always been the paramount issue. How do we create a world in which ordinary people can feel safe in their homes, their communities and their countries? How do we protect the weaker countries from the constant threat of intervention, invasion or regime change by an impulsive superpower whose behavior is guided by its own material interests and its own insatiable geopolitical ambitions? Concepts like the “indivisibility of security” might appeal to the sensibilities of idealists, but where’s the enforcement mechanism? And, how do we use these grand ideas to rein in an intractable hegemon rampaging across the planet?

These are questions that need to be answered, after all, if the United Nations actually worked the way it is supposed to work, Russia’s demands would have been thoroughly debated at emergency meetings before the first shot was ever fired. But that didn’t happen. International law and global institutions failed again. As everyone knows, most of these institutions have been hijacked by Washington which now uses them to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for its serial depredations. That’s certainly how they are being used in the current war against Russia.

The western media is also being used as a weapon against Russia. For example, Russia has been universally blamed for starting the war, but Russia did not start the war and everyone on the Security Council knows it. Ukraine started the war, and the Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has collected evidence to prove it. Check out this excerpt from an interview at the Grayzone with Swiss Intelligence officer and NATO advisor, Jacques Baud:

JACQUES BAUD: “I think we have to understand, as you know, that the war in fact hasn’t started on 24 February this year… what led to the decision to launch an offensive in the Donbas was not what happened since 2014. There was a trigger for that…

The first is the decision and the law adopted by Volodymyr Zelensky in March 2021—that means last year—to reconquer Crimea by force…

(And,also,) the intensification of the artillery shelling of the Donbas starting on the 16th of February, and this increase in the shelling was observed, in fact, by the Observer Mission of the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe], and t hey recorded this increase of violation, and it’s a massive violation. I mean, we are talking about something that is about 30 times more than what it used to be... On the 16th of February you had a massive increase of violation on the Ukrainian side. So, for the Russians, Vladimir Putin in particular, that was the sign that the operation—the Ukrainian operation—was about to start.

And then everything started; I mean, all the events came very quickly. That means that if we look at the figures, you can see that there’s…. a massive increase from the 16th-17th, and then it reached kind of a maximum on the 18th of February, and that was continuing.

… And that’s why, on the 24th of February when Vladimir Putin decided to launch the offensive, it could invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter that provides for assistance in case of attack.” (“US, EU sacrificing Ukraine to ‘weaken Russia’: fmr. NATO adviser“, The Grayzone)

You can see that by the time Putin invaded Ukraine, the war had already begun. The shelling of ethnic Russians had already intensified by many orders of magnitude. People were being slaughtered in droves, and tens of thousands of refugees were fleeing across the border into Russia. And, all of this had been going on since the 16th of February, a full week before Russia crossed the border. (Moon of Alabama has compiled the data on the bombardment that took place in the Donbas preceding the invasion: “The February 15 report of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine recorded some 41 explosions in the ceasefire areas. This increased to 76 explosions on Feb 16, 316 on Feb 17, 654 on Feb 18, 1413 on Feb 19, a total of 2026 of Feb 20 and 21 and 1484 on Feb 22.”)

So, why does the media keep repeating the lie that Russia started the war when it is clearly false?

The fact is, Putin sent in the troops to put out a fire not to start one. If ever there was a situation where the Responsibility To Protect (R2P) could be justified, it’s in east Ukraine prior to the invasion. 14,000 ethnic Russians had been killed before the shelling began. Should Putin have looked the other way and allowed another 14,000-or-so to be slaughtered without lifting a finger?

No, Putin did what he had to do to save lives and defend Russia’s national security. Even so, he has no territorial ambitions and no desire to recreate the Soviet Empire. His “special military operation” is, in fact, a defensive operation designed to remove emerging threats that could no longer be ignored. Putin’s 83% public approval rating proves that the Russian people understand what he is doing and fully support him. (A political leader would never garner that level of support if the people thought he had launched a war of aggression.)

Some readers might remember that –before sending in the tanks– Putin invoked United Nations Article 51 which provides a legal justification for military intervention. Here’s an excerpt from an article by former weapons inspector Scott Ritter who defended the Russian action like this:

“Russian President Vladimir Putin, citing Article 51 as his authority, ordered what he called a “special military operation”….
under Article 51, there can be no doubt as to the legitimacy of Russia’s contention that the Russian-speaking population of the Donbass had been subjected to a brutal eight-year-long bombardment that had killed thousands of people.… Moreover, Russia claims to have documentary proof that the Ukrainian Army was preparing for a massive military incursion into the Donbass which was pre-empted by the Russian-led “special military operation.” [OSCE figures show an increase of government shelling of the area in the days before Russia moved in.]

..

The bottom line is that Russia has set forth a cognizable claim under the doctrine of anticipatory collective self-defense, devised originally by the U.S. and NATO, as it applies to Article 51 which is predicated on fact, not fiction.

While it might be in vogue for people, organizations, and governments in the West to embrace the knee-jerk conclusion that Russia’s military intervention constitutes a wanton violation of the United Nations Charter and, as such, constitutes an illegal war of aggression, the uncomfortable truth is that, of all the claims made regarding the legality of pre-emption under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Russia’s justification for invading Ukraine is on solid legal ground.” (“Russia, Ukraine & the Law of War: Crime of Aggression”, Consortium News)

And here’s more on the topic from author Danial Kovalik in his article titled “Why Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is legal under international law”:

“One must begin this discussion by accepting the fact that there was already a war happening in Ukraine for the eight years preceding the Russian military incursion in February 2022. And, this war by the government in Kiev… claimed the lives of around 14,000 people, many of them children, and displaced around 1.5 million more … The government in Kiev, and especially its neo-Nazi battalions, carried out attacks against these peoples … precisely because of their ethnicity. ..

To remove any doubt that the destabilization of Russia itself has been the goal of the US in these efforts, one should examine the very telling 2019 report of the Rand Corporation… entitled, ‘Overextending and Unbalancing Russia, Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options’, one of the many tactics listed is “Providing lethal aid to Ukraine” in order to “exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability.”…

In short, there is no doubt that Russia has been threatened, and in a quite profound way, with concrete destabilizing efforts by the US, NATO and their extremist surrogates in Ukraine….

It is hard to conceive of a more pressing case for the need to act in defense of the nation. While the UN Charter prohibits unilateral acts of war, it also provides, in Article 51, that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense… ” And this right of self-defense has been interpreted to permit countries to respond, not only to actual armed attacks, but also to the threat of imminent attack.

In light of the above, it is my assessment.. that Russia had a right to act in its own self-defense by intervening in Ukraine, which had become a proxy of the US and NATO for an assault – not only on Russian ethnics within Ukraine – but also upon Russia itself. A contrary conclusion would simply ignore the dire realities facing Russia.” (Why Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is legal under international law”, RT)

Assigning blame for the current conflict is more than just an academic exercise. It is the way that reasonable people weigh the evidence to determine accountability. That might be a way-off, but it’s a goal worth pursuing all the same.

Finally, it should be clear by now, that the war in Ukraine was planned long before the Russian invasion. At every turn, Washington has orchestrated the provocations that were designed to lure Russia into Ukraine, drain its resources and, thus, remove a major obstacle to US strategic objectives in Central Asia. The ultimate goal– as US war planners have candidly admitted– is to “break Russia’s back”, splinter the country into smaller pieces, topple the government, seize its vast energy resources, and reduce the population to a permanent state of colonial dependency. Washington knows that it will not be able to encircle and control China’s explosive growth, unless it crushes Russia first. That is why it has embarked on such a reckless strategy that could end in an unprecedented catastrophe. Our miscreant leaders believe that preserving their grip on global power is worth the risk of nuclear annihilation.

I think he's off the mark at the end in extrapolating about the true intensions of the "elite", but it was still a good run down of how Russia's on defense here, certainly more on the mark than the "Putin was a good leader of Russia for decades, but then suddenly went crazy due to megalomania and homophobically and antisemitically invaded Ukraine for absolutely no good reason" school of thought.

[WilliamSmith]

Excellent well researched and documented piece here for understanding who, what and why are behind the ongoing attempt to start World War 3 via Ukraine, and the ongoing jewish total war on free speech we're seeing right now in the alleged "West" in order to prevent people from learning and understanding these very things:

The Jewish Hand in World War Three
Free Speech versus Catastrophe

https://www.unz.com/article/the-jewish- ... war-three/

Thanks to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, we indeed seem to be rushing headlong into a major war—possibly a World War Three, possibly the world’s first (and perhaps last) nuclear war. Ukraine leadership and their Western backers seem hell-bent on fighting to the last man, and Vladimir Putin, as an old-school Cold Warrior, seems equally determined to press ahead until achieving “victory.” The cause seems hopeless for Ukraine, who cannot reasonably expect to prevail in an extended conflict with one of the largest militaries on Earth. At best, they may bleed Russia over a period of months or years, but only at the cost of massive blood-letting themselves. It seems that Ukraine will be the loser in this struggle, no matter what comes.

In the Western media, we are presented with a remarkably simplified storyline: Putin is an evil warmonger who simply wants to extend Russian territory; to this end, he is exploiting events in Ukraine, deploying his military ostensibly to support the Russian-speaking districts of Luhansk and Donetsk in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine. But this is just cover, they say, for his mad quest to rebuild the Russian empire. In pursuit of his goal, he is willing to inflict any amount of material damage and kill any number of civilians. Fortunately, say our media, Putin has thus far been largely contained; the brave Ukrainian fighters are constantly “reclaiming” land, Russia’s advance has “stalled,” and indeed, Russia seems to be in danger of losing.

Consequently, the US and its allies must do all they can to “aid” and “support” the brave Ukrainians and their beleaguered but heroic leader, Volodymyr Zelensky. No amount of money, no assortment of deadly weaponry, no military intelligence, is too much. Like World War Two, this “war” is an unconditional struggle of Good versus Evil; therefore the West, as the moral paragon of the world, must step up, undergo sacrifice, and ensure that Good prevails.

And indeed, the financial support from just the United States is breathtaking: As of early May, Congress has approved $13.6 billion in aid, much of it for direct Ukrainian military support. And yet this would only cover costs through September. Thus, president Biden recently called for an additional package of $33 billion, which would include over $20 billion in military and security aid, and, surprisingly, $2.6 billion for “the deployment of American troops to the region,” in order to “safeguard NATO allies.” Incredibly, Congress responded by approving $40 billion, bringing the total aid thus far to $54 billion. For perspective, this represents over 80% of Russia’s annual defense budget of $66 billion. (By contrast, America allocates well over $1 trillion—that is, $1,000 billion—annually in direct and indirect military expenditures.)

Notably, such unconditional support and defense of Ukraine is a virtually unanimous view across the American political spectrum, and throughout Europe. Right and left, conservative and liberal, working class or wealthy elite, all sectors of society are apparently united in opposition to the evil Putin. In an era when virtually no issue garners unanimous support, the Ukrainian cause stands out as an extremely rare instance of bipartisan, multi-sector agreement. The rare dissenters—such as Fox News’ Tucker Carlson and a handful of alt-right renegades—are routinely attacked as “Russian assets” or “tools of Putin.” There is no room for disagreement, no space for debate, no opposing views allowed.

In fact, though, this is yet another case of what I might call the “unanimity curse”: when all parties in American society are united on a topic, any topic, then we really need to worry. Here, it seems that the reality is of a potent Jewish Lobby, exerting itself (again) in the direction of war, for reasons of profit and revenge against a hated enemy. There is, indeed, a Jewish hand at work here, one that may well drive us into another world war, and even a nuclear war—one which, in the worst case, could mean the literal end of much of life on this planet. The unanimity comes when all parties are subject, in various ways, to the demands of the Lobby, and when the public has been misled and even brainwashed by a coordinated Jewish media into believing the standard narrative.

The best cure for this catastrophic situation is unrestricted free speech. The Lobby knows this, however, and thus takes all possible measures to inhibit free speech. Normally, such a struggle ebbs and flows according to the issue and the times; but now, the situation is dire. Now more than ever, a lack of free speech could be fatal to civilized society.

Context and Run-Up

To fully understand the Jewish hand in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, we need to review some relevant history. Over the centuries, there have been constant battles over the lands of present-day Ukraine, with Poles, Austro-Hungarians, and Russians alternately dominating. Russia took control of most of Ukraine in the late 1700s and held it more or less continuously until the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991; this is why Putin claims that the country is “part of Russia.”

For their part, Jews have experienced a particularly tumultuous relationship with Russia, one that ranged from disgust and detestation to a burning hatred. As it happened, Jews migrated to Russia in the 19th century, eventually numbering around 5 million. They were a disruptive and agitating force within the nation and thus earned the dislike of Czars Nicholas I (reign 1825 to 1855), Alexander II (1855 to 1881, when he was assassinated by a partly-Jewish anarchist gang), and especially Nicholas II (1894 to 1917)—the latter of whom was famously murdered, along with his family, by a gang of Jewish Bolshevists in 1918. Already in 1871, Russian activist Mikhail Bakunin could refer to the Russian Jews as “a single exploiting sect, a sort of bloodsucker people, a collective parasite”.[1] The assassination of Alexander initiated a series of pogroms that lasted decades, and which set the stage for a lingering Jewish hatred of all things Russian.[2]

For present purposes, though, we can jump to the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election (I note that Ukraine also has a prime minister, but unlike most European countries, he typically has limited powers). In 2004, it came down to “the two Viktors”: the pro-Western V. Yushchenko and the pro-Russian V. Yanukovych. The first round was nearly tied, and thus they went to a second round in which Yanukovych prevailed by around three percentage points. But amid claims of vote-rigging, Western Ukrainians initiated an “Orange Revolution”—backed by the Ukrainian Supreme Court—that annulled those results and mandated a repeat runoff election. The second time, the tables were turned, and the pro-West Yushchenko won by eight points. The West was elated, and Putin naturally mad as hell.

The following years witnessed financial turmoil and, unsurprisingly, constant harassment from Russia. By 2010, Ukrainians were ready for a change, and this time Yanukovych won handily, over a Jewish female competitor, Yulia Timoshenko—notably, she had “co-led the Orange Revolution.” Russia, for once, was satisfied with the result.

But of course, in the West, Europe and the US were mightily displeased, and they soon began efforts to reverse things yet again. Among other strategies, they apparently decided to deploy the latest in high tech and social media. Thus in June 2011, two of Google’s top executives—Eric Schmidt and a 30-year-old Jewish upstart named Jared Cohen—went to visit Julian Assange in the UK, then living under house arrest. It is well-known, incidentally, that Google is a Jewish enterprise, with Jewish founders Sergei Brin and Larry Page running the ship.[3]

The nominal purpose of the trip was to conduct research for a book that Schmidt and Cohen were working on, regarding the intersection of political action and technology—in plain words, how to foment revolutions and steer events in a desired direction. As Assange relates in his 2014 book When Google Met Wikileaks, he was initially unaware of the deeper intentions and motives of his interviewers. Only later did he come to learn that Schmidt had close ties to the Obama administration, and that Cohen was actively working on political upheaval. As Assange wrote, “Jared Cohen could be wryly named Google’s ‘director of regime change’.” Their immediate targets were Yanukovych in Ukraine and Assad in Syria.

By early 2013, the American Embassy in Kiev was training right-wing Ukrainian nationalists on how to conduct a targeted revolt against Yanukovych. It would not be long until they had their chance.

In late 2013, Yanukovych decided to reject an EU-sponsored IMF loan, with all the usual nasty strings attached, in favor of a comparable no-strings loan from Russia. This apparent shift away from Europe and toward Russia was the nominal trigger for the start of protest actions. Thus began the “Maidan Uprising,” led in large part by two extreme nationalist groups: Svoboda and Right Sector.[4] Protests went on for nearly three months, gradually accelerating in intensity; in a notable riot near the end, some 100 protestors and 13 police were shot dead.

As the Uprising reached its peak, at least one American Jew was highly interested: Victoria Nuland. As Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State (first under Hillary Clinton, and then under the half-Jew John Kerry), Nuland had direct oversight of events in eastern Europe.[5] And for her, it was personal; her father, Sherwin Nuland (born Shepsel Nudelman), was a Ukrainian Jew. She was anxious to drive the pro-Russian Yanukovych out of power and replace him with a West-friendly, Jew-friendly substitute. And she had someone specific in mind: Arseniy Yatsenyuk. On 27 January 2014, as the riots were peaking, Nuland called American Ambassador to Ukraine, Jeff Pyatt, to urgently discuss the matter. Nuland pulled no punches: “Yats” was her man. We know this because the call was apparently tapped and the dialogue later posted on Youtube. Here is a short excerpt:

Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.

Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step? […]

Nuland: OK, good. I’m happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.

Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.

It was clear to both of them, though, that the EU leadership had other ideas. The EU was much more anxious to be a neutral party and to avoid direct intervention in Ukrainian affairs so as to not unduly antagonize Russia. But in time-tested Jewish fashion, Nuland did not give a damn. A bit later in the same phone call, she uttered her now-famous phrase: “f**k the EU.” So much for Jewish subtlety.[6]

But there was another angle that nearly all Western media avoided: “Yats” was also Jewish. In a rare mention, we read in a 2014 Guardian story that “Yatsenyuk has held several high-profile positions including head of the country’s central bank, the National Bank of Ukraine… He has played down his Jewish-Ukrainian origins, possibly because of the prevalence of antisemitism in his party’s western Ukraine heartland.” For some reason, such facts are never relevant to Western media.

As the Maidan Uprising gave way to the Maidan Revolution in February 2014, Yanukovych was forced out of office, fleeing to Russia. Pro-Western forces then succeeded in nominating “Yats” as prime minister, effective immediately, working in conjunction with president Oleksandr Turchynov. This provisional leadership was formalized in a snap election in May 2014 in which the pro-Western candidate Peter Poroshenko won. (The second-place finisher was none other than Yulia Timoshenko—the same Jewess who had lost to Yanukovych in 2010.)

It was under such circumstances that Putin invaded and annexed Crimea, in February 2014. It was also at this time that Russian separatists in Donbass launched their counter-revolution, initiating a virtual civil war in Ukraine; to date, eight years later, around 15,000 people have died in total, many civilians.

With this American-sponsored coup finished, Ukrainian Jews began to reach out to the West to increase their influence. Thus it happened that just a few months after Maidan, the wayward son of the American vice president got in touch with a leading Ukrainian Jew, Mykola Zlochevsky, who ran a large gas company called Burisma. In this way, Hunter Biden incredibly found himself on the board of a corporation of which he knew nothing, in an industry of which he knew nothing, and which nonetheless was able to “pay” him upwards of $500,000 per year—obviously, for access to father Joe and thus to President Obama. Hunter carried on in this prestigious role for around five years, resigning only in 2019, as his father began his fateful run for the presidency.[7]

Despite a rocky tenure, Yatsenyuk managed to hold his PM position for over two years, eventually resigning in April 2016. His replacement was yet another Jew, Volodymyr Groysman, who served until August 2019. The Jewish hand would not be stayed. All this set the stage for the rise of the ultimate Jewish player, Volodymyr Zelensky.

This situation is particularly remarkable given that Jews are a small minority in Ukraine. Estimates vary widely, but the Jewish population is claimed to range from a maximum of 400,000 to as low as just 50,000. With a total population of 41 million, Jews represent, at most, 1% of the nation, and could be as small as 0.12%. Under normal conditions, a tiny minority like this should be almost invisible; but here, they dominate. Such is the Jewish hand.

Enter the Jewish Oligarchs

In Ukraine, there is a “second government” that calls many of the shots. This shadow government is an oligarchy: a system of rule by the richest men. Of the five richest Ukrainian billionaires, four are Jews: Igor (or Ihor) Kolomoysky, Viktor Pinchuk, Rinat Akhmetov, and Gennadiy Bogolyubov. Right behind them, in the multi-millionaire class, are Jews like Oleksandr Feldman and Hennadiy Korban. Collectively, this group is often more effective at imposing their will than any legislator. And unsurprisingly, this group has been constantly enmeshed in corruption and legal scandals, implicated in such crimes as kidnapping, arson and murder.[8]

Of special interest is the first named above. Kolomoysky has long been active in banking, airlines and media—and in guiding minor celebrities to political stardom. In 2005 he became the leading shareholder of the 1+1 Media Group, which owns seven TV channels, including the highly popular 1+1 channel. (The 1+1 Group was founded in 1995 by another Ukrainian Jew, Alexander Rodnyansky.) Worth up to $6 billion in the past decade, Kolomoysky’s current net wealth is estimated to be around $1 billion.

Not long after acquiring 1+1, Kolomoysky latched on to an up-and-coming Jewish comedian by the name of Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky had been in media his entire adult life, and even co-founded a media group, Kvartal 95, in 2003, at the age of just 25. Starring in feature films, he switched to television by the early 2010s, eventually coming to star in the 1+1 hit show “Servant of the People,” where he played a teacher pretending to be president of Ukraine. Then there was the notable 2016 comedy skit in which Zelensky and friends play a piano with their penises—in other words, typical low-brow scatological Jewish humor, compliments of Zelensky and Kolomoysky.

By early 2018, the pair were ready to move into politics. Zelensky registered his new political party for the upcoming 2019 election, and declared himself a presidential candidate in December 2018, just four months prior to the election. In the end, of course, he won, with 30% of the vote in the first round, and then defeating incumbent Poroshenko in the 2nd round by a huge 50-point margin. Relentless favorable publicity by 1+1 was credited with making a real difference. Notably, the third-place finisher in that election was, yet again, the Jewess Yulia Timoshenko—like a bad penny, she just keeps coming back.[9]

Zelensky, incidentally, has dramatically profited from his “meteoric rise” to fame and power. His Kvartal 95 media company earned him some $7 million per year. He also owns a 25% share of Maltex Multicapital, a shell company based in the British Virgin Islands, as part of a “web of off-shore companies” he helped to establish back in 2012. A Ukrainian opposition politician, Ilya Kiva, suggested recently that Zelensky is currently tapping into “hundreds of millions” in funding that flows into the country, and that Zelensky himself is personally earning “about $100 million per month.” A Netherlands party, Forum for Democracy, recently cited estimates of Zelensky’s fortune at an astounding $850 million. Apparently the “Churchill of Ukraine” is doing quite well for himself, even as his country burns.

In any case, it is clear that Zelensky owes much to his mentor and sponsor, Kolomoysky. The latter even admitted as much back in late 2019, in an interview for the New York Times. “If I put on glasses and look back at myself,” he said, “I see myself as a monster, as a puppet master, as the master of Zelensky, someone making apocalyptic plans. I can start making this real” (Nov 13). Indeed—the Kolomoysky/Zelensky apocalypse is nearly upon us.

Between rule by Jewish oligarchs and manipulations by the global Jewish lobby, modern-day Ukraine is a mess of a nation—and it was so long before the current “war.” Corruption there is endemic; in 2015, the Guardian headlined a story on Ukraine, calling it “the most corrupt nation in Europe.” An international corruption-ranking agency had recently assessed that country at 142nd in world, worse than Nigeria and equal to Uganda. As a result, Ukraine’s economy has suffered horribly. Before the current conflict, their per-capita income level of $8700 put them 112th in the world, below Albania ($12,900), Jamaica ($9100), and Armenia ($9700); this is by far the poorest in Europe, and well below that of Russia ($25,700 per person). Impoverished, corrupt, manipulated by Jews, now in a hot war—pity the poor Ukrainians.

Hail the American Empire

Enough history and context; let’s cut to the chase. From a clear-eyed perspective, it is obvious why Zelensky and friends want to prolong a war that they have no hope of winning: they are profiting immensely from it. As an added benefit, the actor Zelensky gets to perform on the world stage, which he will surely convert into more dollars down the road. Every month that the conflict continues, billions of dollars are flowing into Ukraine, and Zelensky et al. are assuredly skimming their “fair share” off the top. Seriously—who, making anywhere near $100 million per month, wouldn’t do everything conceivable to keep the gravy train running? The fact that thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are dying has no bearing at all in Zelensky’s calculus; in typical Jewish fashion, he cares not one iota for the well-being of the White Europeans. If his soldiers die even as they kill a few hated Russians, so much the better. For Ukrainian Jews, it is a win-win proposition.

Why does no one question this matter? Why is Zelensky’s corruption never challenged? Why are these facts so hard to find? We know the answer: It is because Zelensky is a Jew, and Jews are virtually never questioned and never challenged by leading Americans or Europeans. Jews get a pass on everything (unless they are obviously guilty of something heinous—and sometimes even then!). Jews get a pass from fellow Jews because they cover for each other. Jews get a pass from media because the media is owned and operated by Jews. And Jews get a pass from prominent non-Jews who are in the pay of Jewish sponsors and financiers. Zelensky can be as corrupt as hell, funneling millions into off-shore accounts, but as long as he plays his proper role, no one will say anything.

So the “war” goes on, and Zelensky and friends get rich. What does Europe get from all this? Nothing. Or rather, worse than nothing: They get a hot war in their immediate neighborhood, and they get an indignant Putin threatening to put hypersonic missiles in their capital cities in less than 200 seconds. They get to deal with the not-so-remote threat of nuclear war. They get to see their currency decline—by 10% versus the yuan in a year and by 12% versus the dollar. They get a large chunk of their gas, oil, and electricity supplies diverted or shut off, driving up energy prices. And they get to see their Covid-fragile economies put on thin ice.

But perhaps they deserve all this. As is widely known, the European states are American vassals, which means they are Jewish vassals. European leaders are spineless and pathetic lackeys of the Jewish Lobby. Judenknecht like Macron, Merkel and now Scholz, are sorry examples of humanity; they have sold out their own people to placate their overlords. And the European public is too bamboozled and too timid to make a change; France just had a chance to elect Le Pen, but the people failed to muster the necessary will. Thus, Europe deserves its fate: hot war, nuclear threat, cultural and economic decline, sub-Saharan and Islamic immigrants—the whole package. If it gets bad enough, maybe enough Europeans will awaken to the Jewish danger and take action. Or so we can hope.

What about the US? We could scarcely be happier. Dead Russians, the hated Putin in a tizzy, and the chance to play “world savior” once again. American military suppliers are ecstatic; they don’t care that most of their weapons bound for Ukraine get lost, stolen or blown up, and that (according to some estimates) only 5% make it to the front. For them, every item shipped is another profitable sale, whether it is used or not. And American congressmen get to pontificate about another “good war” even as they approve billions in aid.

And perhaps best of all, we get to press for an expansion to that American Empire known as NATO. We need to be very clear here: NATO is simply another name for the American Empire. The two terms are interchangeable. In no sense is NATO an “alliance among equals.” Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Albania have absolutely nothing to offer to the US. Do we care if they will “come to our aid” in case of a conflict? That is a bad joke, at best. In reality, what such nations are is more land, more people, and more economic wealth under the American thumb. They are yet more places to station troops, build military outposts, and run “black sites.” NATO always was, and always will be, the American Empire.

The push for Ukraine to join NATO by the West-friendly Zelensky was yet another blatant attempt at a power grab by the US, this one on Russia’s doorstep. Putin, naturally, took action to circumvent that. But of course, now the push moves to Sweden and Finland, both of whom are unwisely pursuing NATO membership in the illusory quest for security, when in reality they will simply be selling what remains of their national souls to the ruthless Judeo-American masters. For their sake, I hope they are able to avoid such a future.

And all the while, American Jews and a Jewish-American media play up the “good war” theme, send more weapons, and press ever further into the danger zone. Ukrainian-American Jews like Chuck Schumer are right out front, calling for aid, for war, for death.[10] “Ukraine needs all the help it can get and, at the same time, we need all the assets we can put together to give Ukraine the aid it needs,” said Schumer recently, eager to approve the next $40 billion aid package. As Jews have realized for centuries, wars are wonderful occasions for killing enemies and making a fast buck. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the present proxy war against Jewish enemies in eastern Europe began not long after the 20-year war against Jewish enemies in Afghanistan ended. Life without war is just too damn boring, for some.

Public Outrage?

If more than a minuscule fraction of the public knew about such details, they would presumably be outraged. But as I mentioned, the Jewish-controlled Western media does an excellent job in restricting access to such information, and in diverting attention whenever such ugly facts pop up. The major exception is Tucker Carlson, who is able to reach some 3 million people each night; this is by far the widest reach for anything like the above analysis. But Carlson falls woefully short—pathetically short—in defining the Jewish culprit behind all these factors. Jews are never outed and never named by Carlson, let alone ever targeted for blame. This crucial aspect is thus left to a literal handful of alt-right and dissident-right websites that collectively reach a few thousand people, at best.

And even if, by some miracle, all 3 million Tucker viewers were enlightened to the Jewish danger here, this still leaves some 200 million American adults ignorant and unaware. The mass of people believes what they see on the evening news, or in their Facebook feeds, or Google news, or on CNN or MSNBC, or in the New York Times—all Jewish enterprises, incidentally. This is why, when polled, 70% of the American public say that current aid to Ukraine is either “about right” or even “too little.” This, despite the fact that around 50% claim to be “very concerned” about nuclear war; clearly they are unable to make the necessary connections. And for many, it is even worse than this: around 21% would support “direct American military intervention” against Russia, which means an explicit World War Three, with all the catastrophic outcomes that this entails. Our Jewish media have done another fine job in whipping up public incitement.

In sum, we can say that our media have cleverly constructed a “philo-Semitic trap”: any mention or criticism of the Jewish hand in the present conflict is, first, highly censored, and then, if necessary, is dismissed as irrational anti-Semitism. Sympathy toward the (truly) poor, suffering Ukrainians is played up to the hilt, and Putin and the Russians relentlessly demonized. Leading American Jews, like Tony Blinken and Chuck Schumer, are constantly playing the good guys, pleading for aid, promising to help the beleaguered and outmanned Ukrainian warriors. Who can resist this storyline? Thus, we have no opposition, no questioning, no deeper inquiries into root causes. Jews profit and flourish, Ukrainians and Russians suffer and die, and the world rolls along toward potential Armageddon.

The reality is vastly different. Global Jews are, indeed, “planetary master criminals,” as Martin Heidegger long ago realized.[11] They function today as they have for centuries: as advocates for abuse, exploitation, criminality, death and profits. This is self-evidently true: if the potent Jewish Lobby wanted true peace, or flourishing humanity, they would be actively pushing for such things and likely succeeding. Instead, we have endless mayhem, war, terrorism, social upheaval and death, even as Jewish pockets get ever-deeper. And the one possible remedy for all this—true freedom of speech—recedes from our grasp.


On the one hand, I fear greatly for our future. On the other, I feel that we get what we deserve. When we allow malicious Jews to dominate our nations, and then they lead us into war and global catastrophe, well, what can we say? Perhaps there is no other way than to await the inevitable conflagration, exact retribution in the ensuing chaos, and then rebuild society from scratch—older and wiser.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, is the author of The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019). He has authored or edited several additional books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany. His other works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020) and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020). Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah! All these are available at www.clemensandblair.com. See also his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

Notes

[1] Cited in Wheen, Karl Marx (1999), p. 340.

[2] Russia’s recent defense of Assad in Syria, against Israel, has obviously not made things better. Nor has the fact that Putin, once thought to be a tool of Jewish-Russian oligarchs, has been able to turn the tables and hold them in check.

[3] Google has been particularly tenacious in altering its search engine results to censor (‘de-rank’) critics of Jewish power and stifle alternative voices. And Google owns Youtube, another force for censorship, which is currently run by the Jewess Susan Wojcicki. For their efforts, Brin and Page have become among the wealthiest men in the world; each is currently worth in excess of $100 billion.

[4] Svoboda began its existence as the “Social-National Party of Ukraine”—a not-so-subtle allusion to National Socialism. This is, in part, why both Svoboda and their allies have been called ‘neo-Nazi.’

[5] Nuland is currently “Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs” in the Biden administration.

[6] Another Jew likely involved in this incident was the Hungarian-American investor George Soros. In late 2019, the lawyer Joseph diGenova appeared in the news, openly charging Soros with direct intervention in American policy: “Well, there’s no doubt that George Soros controls a very large part of the career Foreign Service at the United States State Department. … But the truth is George Soros had a daily opportunity to tell the State Department through Victoria Nuland what to do in the Ukraine. And he ran it, Soros ran it.”

[7] For what it’s worth, Hunter seems to have a “thing” for Jewesses. In 2016, while married, he took up with his dead brother’s Jewish widow, Hallie Olivere Biden. The marriage failed and the illicit affair died out after a year or so, but then the ever-industrious Hunter latched on to another Jewess, “filmmaker” Melissa Cohen, in 2018. They married in 2019.

[8] In a revealing quotation, Ukrainian nationalist Dmytro Yarosh once asked this question: “I wonder how it came to pass that most of the billionaires in Ukraine are Jews?” Criminal activity is surely a large part of the answer.

[9] Not long after winning the presidency, Zelensky named another Jew, Andriy Yermak, as “Head of Presidential Administration.” (The current prime minister, Denys Shmyhal, seems not to be Jewish.)

[10] Other Ukrainian-American Jews, like Steven Spielberg and Jon Stewart, and the heirs to the Sheldon Adelson fortune, are assuredly equally elated about the course of events.

[11] Cited in P. Trawney, Heidegger and the Myth of a Jewish World Conspiracy (2015), p. 33.