And yes Ukraine or NATO or the US will certainly stage a false flag attack, maybe nuclear, and blame it on Russia. And of course the obedient news-consooming zombie masses will believe it.
China & U.S. were doing the same research in both places that was being done at Wuhan. They anticipate viruses to have vaccines ready in advance, but like nuclear power can also mean nuclear bombs (and capital), vaccines can also mean germ warfare (and capital, once the structure is in place). And if “we” were working together, with whom is the war, really? Perhaps it was an accident, perhaps a legit (nonmanufactured) virus… we’ll likely never know for sure if it was an attempt to brand (vaccine mandates) and cull (~triage, “emergency use” mass euthanasia) the herd. But why would “we” be at war if “we” are working with “each other” on stuff? Methinks all conflict on this scale illusory—every fake fight is a shill pretending not to be in collusion so the little people go along to get along until it’s too late to back out. Herd & market maintenance. Cuz obv if they cared beyond power trippin priorities masked as care, things would look much different on the ground.
I think Biden & Soros’ history of involvement in Ukraine should not be overlooked.
shhhhhhhhh you’re not allowed to talk about that! Be a good obedient democrat voter slave and believe what the tv tells you.
I do not claim allegiance to any party or denomination. I watch very little news.
…underground cities n dat! 
Come WW3… you ain’t getting in, if your name ain’t on the list!
Smart =D>
more like they all suck
lol jk but srsly
Watching/reading/listening to news will literally make you stupider and stupider until you become a zombified programmable slave. I have seen this over and over with consistency.
Russia’s Medvedev snaps back after U.S. appeal over Ukraine war
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday warned the United States that hypersonic missiles would soon be close to NATO’s shores after the U.S. embassy said in a video it stood in solidarity with Russians who opposed the war in Ukraine.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has triggered one of the most deadly wars in Europe since World War Two and the deepest crisis in Moscow’s relations with the West since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
“The main gift for the New Year with an ammunition package of Zircon missiles left yesterday for the shores of NATO countries,” Medvedev said, referring to President Vladimir Putin’s deployment of a warship with hypersonic cruise missiles to the Atlantic.
Medvedev said the missiles could be placed 100 miles (160 km) off the U.S. coast, adding: “So rejoice! It will bring to their senses anyone who poses a direct threat to Russia and our allies.”
He was speaking after the U.S. embassy to Russia released a video that it called an “an appeal to the people of Russia”. The 50-second video included images of the impact of bombing in Ukraine, saying what was happening there “is not worthy of you”.
“We stand in solidarity with each of you who are striving to create a more peaceful future,” the video said, showing an image of the slogan “No to war” in Russian sprayed on a wall.
“Throughout history, our countries have been united by the commonality of cultures and our achievements,” the video said, adding that Russia and the United States had “competed and collaborated” for decades.
The video showed images of Soviet cosmonauts, writers such as Fyodor Dostoevsky and leaders such as Leonid Brezhnev, Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin. Putin was not included.
Medvedev, a close Putin ally, lashed out at the video, describing the U.S. government as cynical “freaks” and “sons of bitches” who he said were using the tricks of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.
Since the war began, Medvedev’s rhetoric has become increasingly vitriolic though his published views sometimes chime with thinking at the top levels of the Kremlin elite.“
UPI and Reuters
NEWS ANALYSIS | WAR & PEACE
US Stokes Tensions With Russia by Building Military Base 100 Miles From Border
When the base is operational, Russia will be surrounded by NATO missiles in Poland, Romania and the Baltics.
By Marjorie Cohn , TRUTHOUT
Published February 23, 2022
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin meets with Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak, at the Palace on the Isle in Łazienki Park in Warsaw, Poland, on February 18, 2022.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin meets with Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak, at the Palace on the Isle in Łazienki Park in Warsaw, Poland, on February 18, 2022.
MATEUSZ WLODARCZYK / NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
PART OF THE SERIES
Human Rights and Global Wrongs
On February 21, after Russian President Vladimir Putin recognized the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR), he sent troops into those regions to carry out what he called “peacekeeping functions.” This was undertaken in response to actions that Russia characterized as a Ukranian government offensive.
During the previous weekend, Ukraine had significantly increased fire against residential sections of DPR and LPR, reportedly launching 1,600 projectiles and killing civilians. Nikolai Pankov, deputy Russian defense minister, said that Ukraine has 60,000 troops prepared to attack DPR and LPR, an intention Ukraine has denied.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres characterized “the decision of the Russian Federation to be a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and inconsistent with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
Uncompromised, uncompromising news
Get reliable, independent news and commentary delivered to your inbox every day.
Claiming that Russia had begun an “invasion of Ukraine,” U.S. President Joe Biden has imposed a “first tranche” of sanctions to effectively “cut off Russia’s government from Western finance.”
When Putin announced Russia’s recognition of the DPR and LPR in the Donbas region, he stated that if Ukraine was to join NATO, it would be a “direct threat” to Russia. The situation is “like having a knife against our throat,” Putin said, adding that Russia has “a right to take countermeasures to enhance our own security.”
RELATED STORY
U.S. soldiers disembark from a C-17 Globemaster cargo plane on the tarmac of Rzeszow-Jasionka Airport, south eastern Poland, on February 16, 2022. The soldiers are part of a deployment of several thousand sent to bolster NATO’s eastern flank in response to tensions with Russia.
Lies About Ukraine Conflict Are Standing in the Way of a Peaceful Resolution
This uptick in tensions is taking place in the context of a structural escalation from the U.S. that deserves more than a passing mention by the media: On February 16, The New York Times reported that the United States is building “a highly sensitive U.S. military installation” in Poland, just 100 miles from Russia’s border. The base, which is scheduled to begin operation this year, is a site from which the U.S. could deploy nuclear-armed missiles.
“The advanced and potentially nuclear armed missile deployments in Poland, Romania, and on the Black Sea constituted a clear threat to Russia,” Jack Rasmus, professor of politics and economics at St. Mary’s College, wrote.
Russia is seeking a legally binding agreement from the United States that Ukraine will not be invited to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a historically anti-Russia military alliance, as well as other security guarantees. “A NATO Ukraine could mean moving Romanian and Black Sea US missiles still further north into Ukraine right up to Russia’s border,” Rasmus noted. “With similar NATO forces in the Baltics on its border, Russia would be surrounded with NATO missiles just a few minutes from Moscow.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on February 14 that Russia wants “radical changes in the sphere of European security,” a pullback of NATO troops in Eastern Europe, and limitations on offensive weapons as well as restrictions on intermediate-range missiles. These proposals are enshrined in two treaties that Russia proposed on December 22, 2021, to make the region more secure and less vulnerable to war. The parties to one treaty would be NATO and the Russian Federation. The United States and the Russian Federation would be parties to the other treaty.
The Proposed NATO-Russia Federation Treaty
The proposed NATO-Russia treaty provides in Article 5 that the parties “shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.”
The United States is building “a highly sensitive U.S. military installation” in Poland, just 100 miles from Russia’s border. The base could deploy nuclear-armed missiles.
In Article 6 of the proposed treaty, the parties “commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.”
Article 7 states that “member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia.”
The Proposed U.S.-Russia Federation Treaty
In the proposed U.S.-Russia treaty, the parties would agree “to avoid any military confrontation and armed conflict between the Parties and realiz[e] that direct military clash between them could result in the use of nuclear weapons that would have far-reaching consequences.”
Article 3 of the proposed treaty provides: “The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.”
Article 4 reads: “The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”
Article 4 also says that the United States “shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.”
Article 7 states, “The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.”
The United States and NATO have refused to respond positively to Russia’s treaty proposals and have continued to fan the flames of the Ukraine conflict with anti-Russia propaganda, aided and abetted by the corporate media. But the volatile situation in Ukraine can be traced to U.S. meddling in the region.
The U.S. Facilitated the 2014 Coup That Overthrew Ukraine’s Elected President
Absent from the corporate media’s Ukraine coverage are discussions of the U.S. role in the 2014 coup in Ukraine, when the United States helped to overthrow Ukraine’s elected president. In 2013, President Viktor Yanukovych had resisted economic reforms sought by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to make Ukraine more enticing to investors. Those reforms included lowering wages and reducing the education and health sectors (which comprised most of Ukrainian employment), as well as cutting natural gas subsidies that facilitated affordable energy for Ukrainians. After the coup, the new U.S.-backed government cut heating subsidies in half, and in return, secured a $27 billion commitment from the IMF.
Minsk II, a package of measures aimed at ending the war in the Donbas region of Ukraine, was agreed to in 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France.
In the run-up to the coup, the United States promoted anti-government opinion through the use of USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). “The NED is a key organization in the network of American soft power that pours $170 million a year into organizations dedicated to defending or installing US-friendly regimes,” according to Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). “The NED targets governments who oppose US military or economic policy, stirring up anti-government opposition.” In 2013, NED President Carl Gershman wrote in The Washington Post that Ukraine was the “biggest prize” in the rivalry between the East and West.
Then-U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was instrumental in engineering the coup, which drew momentum from neo-Nazi groups within Ukraine. As FAIR explains, “The Washington-backed opposition that toppled the government was fueled by far-right and openly Nazi elements.” Following the coup, those neo-Nazi elements were incorporated into the Ukrainian military, to which the United States has funneled $2.5 billion.
Regime change advocate Nuland is now serving as under secretary for political affairs in the Biden administration’s State Department. Only the United States and Ukraine voted against a December 2021 United Nations General Assembly resolution on “combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism.”
Russia Considered the U.S.-Backed Coup a Threat to Its Security
Russia saw the installation of a U.S.-backed government in Ukraine as a threat to its security. The Crimean Peninsula, historically part of Russia, was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954. It is the site of one of Russia’s two naval bases that access the Mediterranean and Black seas. “A Crimea controlled by a US-backed Ukrainian government was a major threat to Russian naval access,” Bryce Greene wrote at FAIR.
Moreover, 82 percent of households in Crimea speak Russian and just 2 percent speak primarily Ukrainian. In a plebiscite held right after the 2014 coup, 95 percent of voters chose to join Russia instead of remaining under the new Ukrainian government. Russia then annexed Crimea.
In 2014, the mainly Russian areas of Ukraine — Donetsk and Luhansk — on the Russian border also chose to secede from Ukraine. Since then, those regions have functioned separately from Ukraine with support from Russia and have seen ongoing intermittent fighting.
Russia Fears That Ukraine Will Join NATO
As the USSR was breaking up in 1990-1991, the U.S. government promised the Soviet Union it would not expand NATO eastward in return for Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s agreement not to oppose the reunification of Germany.
By 1999, however, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic had all joined NATO. Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia joined in 2004, followed by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, notwithstanding George Kennan’s admonition, “Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era.”
Although there is skepticism from some well-informed quarters that Ukraine will actually become a NATO member, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reaffirmed NATO’s 2008 pledge to offer membership in the alliance to Ukraine and Georgia. “We stand by that decision,” Stoltenberg declared on December 16, 2021.
A week after Stoltenberg’s declaration, Putin said, “We have made it clear that NATO’s move to the east is unacceptable,” adding that, “the United States is standing with missiles on our doorstep.” Putin queried, “How would the Americans react if missiles were placed at the border with Canada or Mexico?”
Putin was incensed by the George W. Bush administration’s 2001 withdrawal from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which had worked for almost 30 years.
Likewise, Lavrov denounced the U.S.’s 2019 withdrawal from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, in which the parties had agreed not to deploy nuclear-armed missiles in Eastern Europe or on the western border of Russia.
From Russia’s point of view, NATO’s “eastward expansion has created an unacceptable national security risk,” Scott Ritter wrote at Energy Intelligence. “Any accession to Nato by the former Soviet Republics of Ukraine or Georgia is viewed [by Russia] as an existential threat that would require a ‘military-technical’ response.”
“We don’t have a border with Ukraine — we have a border with America, because they are the masters in that country,” Viktor Zolotny, head of Russia’s National Guard, declared before Putin’s February 21 announcement. “Of course we must recognize the republics, but I want to say that we must go farther in order to defend our country.”
Enforce the Minsk Agreements
As the Beijing Winter Olympics began in early February, Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping signed a joint statement opposing the expansion of NATO. China and Russia stated they “oppose the further expansion of Nato, call on the North Atlantic alliance to abandon the ideologised approaches of the cold war, respect the sovereignty, security and interests of other countries, the diversity of their civilisational and cultural-historical patterns, and treat the peaceful development of other states objectively and fairly.”
Minsk II, a package of measures aimed at ending the war in the Donbas region of Ukraine, was agreed to in 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France. The talks that resulted in the agreement were overseen by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). A UN Security Council resolution of February 17, 2015 — labeled as S/RES/2202 — endorsed the “Package of measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements” signed on February 12, 2015.
The 13 points contained in the Minsk Agreement set forth military and political steps that include a ceasefire, withdrawal of weapons, dialogue about interim self-government of Donetsk and Luhansk, constitutional reform and elections. But the majority of the steps in the Minsk Agreement have not been implemented, and Ukraine’s government has clearly indicated that it does not intend to implement the agreement.
In a meeting between Putin and Biden in spring 2021, Russia demanded that the West pressure Ukraine to fulfill its obligation under the 2015 Minsk Agreement. After Russia recognized the independence of DPR and LPR, UN Secretary-General Guterres called for “the peaceful settlement of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, in accordance with the Minsk Agreements, as endorsed by the Security Council in resolution 2202 (2015).”
UN Expert Says Russians in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea Have a Right to Self-Determination
The United Nations Charter, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, enshrine the right of peoples to self-determination. According to professor Alfred de Zayas, who served as UN Independent Expert on International Order from 2012-2018, the Russians in Ukraine constitute a “people,” and therefore “the Russians in Donetsk, [Luhansk] and Crimea possess the right to self-determination.”
On February 18, the U.K.-based Stop the War Coalition issued a statement saying, “The crisis should be settled on a basis which recognizes the right of the Ukrainian people to self-determination and addresses Russia’s security concerns.”
The thousands of signatories to the statement declared, “We refute the idea that NATO is a defensive alliance, and believe its record in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Libya over the last generation, not to mention the U.S.-British attack on Iraq, clearly proves otherwise.”
Russia and Ukraine should reach a diplomatic settlement on the basis of the Minsk II agreement already signed by both states, the statement says.
Signatories to the Stop the War statement include former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, a dozen members of Parliament, and the heads of several U.K. unions.
Note: haven’t posted news developments related to the reporting of political expressions of international reactions on part of parties to the war, which usually are pretty tame compared with what domestic reactions , but in this case the levels indicate the seriousness of it, in real terms.
“U.S. Plans to Send Abrams Tanks to Ukraine, Officials Say”
The Biden administration had resisted sending tanks, but the move is seen as likely to push Germany to approve the transfer of its own tanks. New York Times
Month after month after month the war drags on. But of late there have been almost no references to the dreaded nuclear option.
So, it really comes down to whether Putin himself will never actually exercise that option…or if he has a line drawn in his head that once crossed by the West, prompts him to go there. Clearly if the West sends advanced weapons to Ukraine that result in Ukraine actually winning the war…?
And now Germany has agreed to send Leopard tanks.
A thing though remember the Teller inspired security shield say 40 years ago coined ‘Starwars’?
Perhaps there is more substantial development to it than meets the eye, that has not been adequately factored in by the required national security requiremen per the intelligence communities world wide?
Must be something there, …
Learn to enjoy being radioactive goo.
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea on Saturday denounced U.S. pledges of battle tanks to Ukraine, claiming Washington was “further crossing the red line” to win hegemony by proxy war, state media KCNA reported.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s powerful sister, Kim Yo Jong, made the remarks in a statement carried by KCNA, saying that North Korea will “stand in the same trench” as Russia against the United States.
The United States said this week it would supply Ukraine with 31 of its most advanced battle tanks after Germany made a similar announcement. This scrapped a taboo in Western support for Ukraine’s battle against Russia’s invasion by pledging arms that have a mainly offensive purpose.
“I express serious concern over the U.S. escalating the war situation by providing Ukraine with military hardware for ground offensive,” Kim Yo Jong said in the statement.
The United States and Western countries “have neither right nor justification to slander sovereign states’ exercise of the right to self-defence.”
Nuclear-armed North Korea launched an unprecedented number of missiles last year, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of reaching the U.S. mainland. U.S. and South Korean officials have also warned the North could be preparing for its first test of a nuclear device since 2017.
Bring it on.
“Scary” is starting to pop up again in assessments of Ukraine:
nytimes.com/2023/02/05/opin … putin.html
Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times:
[b]Putin, it’s now clear, has decided to double down, mobilizing in recent months possibly as many as 500,000 fresh soldiers for a new push on the war’s first anniversary. Mass matters in war — even if that mass contains a large number of mercenaries, convicts and untrained conscripts.
Putin is basically saying to Biden: I can’t afford to lose this war and I will pay any price and bear any burden to ensure that I come away with a slice of Ukraine that can justify my losses. How about you, Joe? How about your European friends? Are you ready to pay any price and bear any burden to uphold your “liberal order”?
This is going to get scary. And because we have had nearly a generation without a Great Power war, a lot of people have forgotten what made this long era of Great Power peace possible.[/b]
And…
There are…many voices on the left, though, who are legitimately asking: Is it really worth risking World War III to drive Russia all the way out of Eastern Ukraine? Haven’t we hurt Putin so badly by now that he won’t be trying something like Ukraine again soon? Time for a dirty deal?
Of course, Thomas Friedman is smack dab in the middle of the Deep State. Or, rather, my own take on it: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … s#p2187045
Basically, I suspect that his real concern is this: that if it all does lead to World War III, he and his loved ones might well be vaporized themselves.
Democracy in Ukraine, sure. But not all costs.
The window of opportunity for Russia is shortening as well. The cybernetic singularity coincides with a projected ICBM defense system’s successful development and global People also ask
Does the US have a Star Wars defense system?
“Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), byname Star Wars, proposed U.S. strategic defensive system against potential nuclear attacks—as originally conceived, from the Soviet Union. The SDI was first proposed by President Ronald Reagan in a nationwide television address on March 23, 1983.Dec 14, 2022
britannica.com › topic
Strategic Defense Initiative | Description, History, & Facts
More results
Can the United States shoot down missles?
How good is the US anti missile system?
A new study sponsored by the American Physical Society concludes that U.S. systems for intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles cannot be relied on to counter even a limited nuclear strike and are unlikely to achieve reliability within the next 15 years.Mar 1, 2022
aip.org › fyi › physicist…
Physicists Argue US ICBM Defenses are Unreliable
More results
Does the US have a viable missile defense system?
Three shorter range tactical anti-ballistic missile systems are currently operational: the U.S. Army Patriot, U.S. Navy Aegis combat system/SM-2 missile, and the Israeli Arrow missile. In general short-range tactical ABMs cannot intercept ICBMs, even if within range (Arrow-3 can intercept ICBMs).”
So the war if conceivably could protract for as long as 15-20 years, nukes may become obsolete on a global scale as well.
The intelligence of covert operation is not factored into this equation, making the 15-20 year window of opportunity for Putin to go nuclear.
So instead of lightening up, given present trends in political , economic-and strategic forecasts being what they are within the differing think tank, cybernetic fail safe warning communities, is probably reversing course toward a critical mass/mess of conondrums, which has increasing uncertainty and insecurity at it’s core.
Then there is this from the UN chief :
“fears world headed for ‘wider war’ over Ukraine-Russia
UN chief Antonio Guterres warned nations Monday that he fears the likelihood of further escalation in the Russia-Ukraine conflict means the world is heading towards a “wider war.”
The secretary-general laid out his priorities for the year in a gloomy speech to the United Nations General Assembly that focused on Russia’s invasion, the climate crisis and extreme poverty.
“We have started 2023 staring down the barrel of a confluence of challenges unlike any in our lifetimes,” he told diplomats in New York.
Guterres noted that top scientists and security experts had moved the “Doomsday Clock” to just 90 seconds to midnight last month, the closest it has ever been to signaling the annihilation of humanity.
The secretary-general said he was taking it as a warning sign.
“We need to wake up – and get to work,” he implored, as he listed his urgent issues.
Top of the list was Russia’s war in Ukraine, which is approaching its one-year anniversary.
“The prospects for peace keep diminishing. The chances of further escalation and bloodshed keep growing,” he said.
“I fear the world is not sleepwalking into a wider war. I fear it is doing so with its eyes wide open.”
Guterres referenced other threats to peace, from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Afghanistan, Myanmar, the Sahel and Haiti.
“If every country fulfilled its obligations under the (UN) Charter, the right to peace would be guaranteed,” he said,
He added it is “time to transform our approach to peace by recommitting to the Charter – putting human rights and dignity first, with prevention at the heart.”
More broadly, Guterres denounced a lack of “strategic vision” and a “bias” of political and business decision-makers towards the short term.
"The next poll. The next tactical political maneuver to cling to power. But also the next business cycle – or even the next day’s stock price.
“This near-term thinking is not only deeply irresponsible – it is immoral,” he added.
Stressing the need to act with future generations in mind, the secretary-general repeated his call for a “radical transformation” of global finance.”
“