What is President Biden’s Goal in Ukraine ?

As Ayn Rand has said, “Morality is the strongest of all intellectual powers.” To Putin, his “moral” crusade is far more important than Russia’s GDP.  

At the outset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, President Biden seemed to have taken the right track. He opposed it as immoral and took immediate steps to impose harsh economic sanctions on Russia. Gradually these were increased, and some NATO countries followed suit to varying degrees. The U.S. then began to supply Ukraine with a limited number of defensive weapons such as guns, ammunition, drones, and anti-tank and anti-airplane missiles. He also gave them money, medicines, and food. Other NATO countries helped out. The heroic Ukrainians made the most of what little they were given. They outfought the Russian military on numerous occasions causing devastating causalities and destroying tons of equipment.

Recently, the U.S. and some allies moved to have Russia removed from the U.N. Human Rights Council. Shockingly, given the abysmal record of the U.N. in welcoming dictatorships as members, it worked. The voting margin was quite large. How could this happen? I believe the reason is epistemological. Moral principles are abstractions, and they can easily be lost in space. But the daily videos sent around the world of the appalling mass slaughter of civilians and the destruction of non-military buildings (schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, shops, not to mention people trying to leave the country) reduced evil to the directly perceivable level. Bodies and ruins littered the streets. Civilians were tied up, tortured, shot, and/or kidnapped. Recordings were intercepted of Russian generals saying that killing civilians was their deliberate strategy, this evidently functioning as a substitute for their military ineptitude.

Despite all this, the U.S. has severely limited its military actions. President Biden has been adamant about not providing Ukraine with “offensive” weapons such as airplanes, tanks, long-range missiles, and artillery. It was feared that these would upset the Russians who love to rattle their sabers by threatening to use nuclear weapons. The result of this is that the destruction of Ukraine has proceeded unabated and has even intensified. The economic sanctions, the U.N. vote, and the limited weapons given to the Ukrainian military have not deterred the Russians from their imperialistic, “holy war, which is fully supported by the Russian orthodox church. As Ayn Rand has said, “Morality is the strongest of all intellectual powers.” To Putin, his “moral” crusade is far more important than Russia’s GDP.  Economic sanctions, though important, are not enough to win the war.

President Zelensky has asked time and time again for more help. Ukraine seems to run out of its existing store of weapons every few days because Ukraine has not been reliably re-supplied. It is as if the U.S. does not fully grasp that the war is not slowing, so every Ukrainian request is like a new emergency. Given that Biden also refuses to supply more advanced weapons, what are we to make of the total picture? Biden’s goal is not to win the war but simply not to lose it. It cannot be won without a reliable supply of weapons, including many of the more powerful ones. Russia has many of these, especially artillery, long-range missiles, and planes supported by many thousands of soldiers, so it still has an advantage in firepower. Russia could wear Ukraine down by simply laying waste to the entire country and slaughtering its citizens—a deliberate strategy that is already in process.

If the war ends in a compromise (e.g., Russia gets some part of Ukraine), it will be a disastrous defeat for the U.S. and NATO. It will undermine Ukraine’s heroic resistance. It will show that imperialism and mass murder pay off. It will encourage Russia to attack other NATO countries like the Baltic states. Finally, it will ruin Biden’s credibility as a leader of the free world.

The only morally acceptable end to the war would have Russia withdrawing all its troops, paying reparations, and cooperating in turning over the guilty parties for war crimes trials.

A word is in order about Russia’s nuclear weapons. Russia has several thousand nuclear bombs as does the U.S. A full-scale nuclear war could destroy the planet. But it should be remembered that the principle of “mutually assured destruction” has been with us since the late 1940’s and no nuclear war has occurred. If Russia gets away with such a threat, they could take over the entire Western world, the world of the Enlightenment. If they use tactical nuclear weapons, NATO could respond with the full-scale engagement of their conventional forces.

Freedom has been under attack since the beginnings of human civilization. Those who want freedom have to fight for it or lose it.

Edwin Locke

Dim-witted Blinken Sees no End to War in Unkraine, unless Russia Completely Surrenders

You know, when I saw the media starting to say that victory in the Ukraine is impossible, with the New York Times Editorial Board coming out and saying it, and then Joe Biden’s initial refusal to send the HIMARS, I thought that we were really going to see a backtrack, where the US admitted the Donbass was lost, but claimed victory because Kiev is still in State Department control.

But no.

Guess not.


Kiev has given Washington assurances that US-supplied rocket launchers won’t be used to attack targets inside Russian territory, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Wednesday. He was the latest US official to raise the issue, as Moscow voiced concerns over the escalation of hostilities in Ukraine.

Speaking to reporters after a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Blinken was asked about the HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems, the latest high-tech weapon the US has committed to sending Ukraine.

“The Ukrainians have given us assurances that they will not use these systems against targets on Russian territory,” Blinken said, adding, “There is a strong trust bond between Ukraine and the US, as well as with our allies and partners.”

He also dismissed Moscow’s warnings and concerns that Washington’s weapons deliveries to Kiev risked further escalating the conflict.

“The best way to avoid escalation is for Russia to stop the aggression and the war it started,” Blinken said, arguing that it could be “over tomorrow” if Moscow so chose, but is likely to go on for “many months” instead.

Okay, well, they’re not going to do that.

So now what?

“The only way to end this war is if the enemy offers an unconditional surrender” is an insane statement by any metric. In this case, it’s much worse than insane. The Ukraine military is destroyed, Russia is already occupying virtually all of the territory it claims, and there is just nowhere to go with this.

The Ukraine is suffering nonstop losses. Missiles are not going to make any difference to anything. The only thing that would make any difference to anything is a Western invasion of the country. From what I’ve read, as of right now they’re only planning on sending a few HIMARS systems anyway, which are going to get taken out quickly like all of the Ukraine’s other gifted equipment has been. So this is some kind of game that I don’t really understand.

US President Joe Biden officially announced the dispatch of HIMARS systems to Ukraine, along with other military equipment valued at $700 million, on Wednesday afternoon. According to Deputy Defense Secretary Colin Kahl, the launchers were “pre-positioned” in Europe pending the announcement, and the first batch of four will be handed over this week – though it may take three weeks to train Ukrainian troops in their use.

HIMARS fires barrage rockets with an effective range of around 30 km, but can also deploy tactical ballistic missiles with a range of up to 300 km. Russia has raised concerns with the US over the latter possibility.

Biden himself, his UN envoy Linda Thomas-Greenfield, and now Blinken have all insisted that Kiev will not be provided with the long-range missiles. Blinken is the first to mention the Ukrainian promises, however.

The Ukraine has already attacked inside Russia. They probably will again. But none of this even matters. The Ukraine does not have anything close to a path to taking back the Donbass, and the US State Department and Ukraine government are claiming they are also going to launch an invasion of Crimea.

The idea that these missile systems are some kind of game changer – it’s just utterly baffling. There is no amount of equipment that could be a game changer, because the Ukraine lacks the military personnel.

This is all just like a psychedelic nightmare scene. What are they even talking about? It doesn’t make sense.

What’s Biden’s End Game in Ukraine ?

Last week, President Biden signed a massive $40 billion military aid bill for Ukraine. Who cares that inflation is killing the American economy and mothers can’t even get baby formula. For Washington, spending on war and empire always seems to trump America’s interests.

To put this giveaway to Ukraine in perspective: just since late February, the US has provided nearly $60 billion in “assistance” to Ukraine. That is almost half that country’s entire 2020 GDP! Washington has literally adopted Ukraine in our name and on our dime.

The Biden Administration claims that Ukraine is winning the war with Russia and that such an expenditure to protect Ukraine’s borders is critical to our national interests and worth risking a nuclear war over.

But protecting Ukraine’s democracy is no longer the stated goal of the Administration. Defense Secretary Austin outlined the Administration’s new intention not long ago when he said that the real goal is to weaken Russia.

Biden’s neocons are fighting a war with Russia, but once again Congress has no interest in voting on a war declaration or even in debating whether war with Russia 30 years after the end of the Cold War is a good idea.

There is a reason our Constitution grants war powers to the legislative branch. Forcing Members of the House and Senate to declare the US to be in a state of war also enables them – through the powers of the purse-string – to define the goals of the war and particularly what a victory looks like. That prevents the kind of mission-creep ahd shifting objectives that have characterized our endless wars in the 21st century – including this current proxy war with Russia.

Even the US mainstream media is beginning to notice. Last week the New York Times’ Editorial Board published an editorial originally titled, “What is America’s Strategy in Ukraine?” complaining that the Biden Administration has yet to answer any questions to the American people regarding its involvement in Ukraine.

While, as could be expected, the paper attacked the “isolationists” in the US Congress who opposed the $40 billion giveaway, the NY Times editorial board nevertheless registered what can only be seen as the first major sign of dissent among the usual media war cheerleaders.

They wrote:

…it is still not in America’s best interest to plunge into an all-out war with Russia, even if a negotiated peace may require Ukraine to make some hard decisions. And the US aims and strategy in this war have become harder to discern, as the parameters of the mission appear to have changed.

While warning that Americans’ interest in Ukraine will begin to wane without more clarity from Washington as to its goals, the paper went on to directly contradict the Biden Administration’s predictions of a Ukraine victory:

A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal.

Congress – with very few exceptions – has opened a financial spigot to the government in Kiev without asking a single question about how and why the money is to be spent. When Senator Paul simply asked for someone to keep track of the $60 billion we shipped over there he was met with near-unanimous opposition.

An endless supply of US taxpayer money to Ukraine with zero stated goals and zero oversight. Isn’t it time to stand up and demand that both parties in Congress start asking some hard questions?

The Drums of War Beat Louder

My forebodings/predictions about the Kremlin’s limited go-slow war in Ukraine are proving correct. Putin and Russia are demonized. Unprecedented sanctions amounting to piracy and theft have been imposed on Russia. The US and Europe are joining the war as de facto combatants. More countries are joining NATO with the result being the prospect of more US missile bases on Russia’s borders. The Western media controls the narrative, which is Russia is losing and can be defeated with more many billions of dollars from the US and more weapons that enrich the US military/security complex. Why any Russian government would expose itself to this and so many chances for miscalculation that ends in WW III is a mystery. What did the Kremlin imagine it was achieving by creating a situation that exposed Russia to many months of war propaganda, punishment, and Western preparations for wider war?

What peace needed was a quick decisive Russian victory that demonstrated extraordinary military power that completely stopped any further Western provocations of Russia. But the Kremlin was too liberal-minded to do what was necessary. Consequently the Kremlin made a strategic error, dropped the ball and has failed to protect Russia from provocations that are leading to WW III.

Instead, the Kremlin filled with liberal delusions long discarded in the West decided to show a good side by limiting itself to the rescue of the Donbass Russians. This gave the West adll it needed to present Russia as a military incompetent upstart. Among the Kremlin’s errors, the Kremlin overlooked that Ukraine’s distress from the limited Russian intervention created an opportunity for Poland to claim former Polish territories in western Ukraine where there are no Russian troops engaged. It is possible that the Polish government, disinformed by Western media’s picture of Russian military failure in Ukraine, will occupy western Ukraine as preparation to reclaiming it as Russia did Crimea and now Donbass. As Russia will have eastern and southern Ukraine, the country could simply disappear as Poland resurrects greater Poland. In its history, Ukraine has either been part of Poland’s empire or part of Russia.

If Poland moves into western Ukraine as it is tempted to do, opportunities for Polish-Russian conflict arise. As Poland is a NATO member, Washington has given Poland, as the British government did with World War II’s “Polish Guarantee,” the power to start a world war.

The Polish government has a penchant for emotional decisions, not responsible decisions. Just as the Polish military dictatorship thought the “British Guarantee” protected them, causing them to spurn Hitler’s demand for the return of German territory stripped from Germany in the Versailles Treaty despite President Wilson’s “guarantee” of no territorial losses, the Polish government thinks today that NATO membership protects Poland from Russian retaliation.

The government in Warsaw does not comprehend that the “NATO Guarantee” is worth no more than the British Government’s guarantee that launched WW II.

The governments that comprise the Western World have given Poland, once again, the decision whether there is to be a World War.

This deplorable and unsettling fact stares us in the face, but no Western media, not even online media, acknowledges it.

The situation that exists today is that either Russia and China must accept US hegemony or the neoconservaties will push Russia and China into war with the West. The hegemonic ambition of the neoconservatives is inconsistent with a peaceful world.

Paul Craig Roberts

The War For Globalism In Ukraine

During the 1999 Kosovo air campaign, President Bill Clinton told Americans, “That’s what this Kosovo thing is all about.… It’s globalism versus tribalism.”

In 1999 very few Americans paid attention to Clinton’s remarks. Kosovo was yet another conflict on someone else’s soil with little or no relevance to daily life in America. Frankly, Clinton’s use of the word “tribalism” probably confused many Americans. To most Americans, nationalism means devotion to the country, the U.S. citizen’s readiness in crisis or conflict to place the needs of the country above the citizen’s own. American nationalists aren’t tribal. They want to protect and defend the United States, its historic institutions and the rights embodied in its laws, not start wars.

The term “globalism” has since evolved to mean much more than free trade and comity between nations. Today, the Western nation-state and the nationalism it inspires are condemned by globalists as the sources of prejudice, exclusivism, and war. In retrospect, Clinton’s use of the term “globalism” is in continuity with the Biden administration’s proxy war against Russia.

To Washington’s contemporary ruling political class, globalism involves more than purchasing products manufactured by cheap labor in non-Western countries. Washington-led globalism now promises the dissolution of traditional political and social forms of human organization—national governments, borders, identities, cultures—and replaces them with a world of consumers united only by their dependence on amorphous corporations, unaccountable non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and supra-national institutions.

Put another way, globalism is now synonymous with the progressive left’s view of the postwar liberal international security order that must expand to survive. Washington’s proxy war in Ukraine is the globalist scheme to transcend the continuity of history, culture, and geography embodied in the nation-state, to homogenize disparate peoples in the process of assimilating rapid social and technological change. In this sense, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent call for Washington and its strategic partners to establish global control of Russia’s nuclear weapons aligns nicely with the Biden administration’s progressive globalist vision.

And therein lies the problem. Nations and their peoples do not evolve in a vacuum, nor do they surrender their existence without a fight.

These points should alert Washington to the fact that its proxy war for globalism in Ukraine involves national identity, a dynamic force that stirs the deepest human emotions. Yet it is not just two kinds of nationalism, Ukrainian and Russian, rooted in language, culture, and history, that are in conflict. Washington’s brand of globalism, dressed in the guise of NATO expansion, directly challenges Russian national identity and culture. It is Russia’s unique geographic role in linking European and Asian civilization, as well as its Orthodox Christian culture—a belief system enshrined in Russia’s current state ideology, foreign, and security policy—that are imperiled.

In light of U.S.-led NATO military interventions in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq, it is fundamentally dishonest to pretend that NATO’s encroachment on Russia’s western border is benign. But it is far more dangerous to ignore the truth that, in Moscow’s view, NATO expansion into Ukraine is inextricably linked with the extension of globalism to Russia.

Statements by the U.S. Secretaries of Defense and State that Washington wants to “weaken” Russia make it clear that Washington’s allegedly benevolent “rules-based order” is of no benefit to Russia. In fact, the statements simply confirm in Russian minds the belief that the U.S. is a co-belligerent in Ukraine’s war for NATO expansion.

Perhaps even more important is the suggestion that Poland, NATO’s proverbial wild child, would provide so-called “peacekeeping forces” to Ukraine. It’s no secret to Europeans that Poland dominated most of Ukraine for nearly 400 years, or that Moldova, though technically Romanian, spent 300 years as a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. Washington’s apparent readiness to introduce revanchist Polish forces into Western Ukraine and, potentially, revanchist Romanian forces into Moldova suggests that Washington’s globalists will do anything to harm Russia even if it involves advancing the territorial ambitions of Russia’s historic enemies.

War still tests the legitimacy of those who govern inside the warring states, as well as the resilience of their societies. This observation applies to the Biden Administration as much as it does to the governments of Zelensky and Putin. As he presides over fiscal crisis, scarcity, and rising criminality in America, and displays his willful ignorance of Eastern Europe and its peoples, President Biden and his supporters on the Hill are stirring a regional pot that could quickly boil over with dangerous consequences for Washington and its NATO partners. As Sigmund Freud wrote of Biden’s “internationalist” predecessor Woodrow Wilson, Biden “has a marvelous ability to ignore facts and believe what he wants.” However, it’s much tougher now than it was in 1917 to pull the wool over Americans’ eyes.

Washington actively cultivated Ukraine’s war with Russia for many years, harnessing Ukrainian nationalism—the incendiary force globalists claim to loathe—in service to their cause. It worked. Now the same globalists are prolonging the war with arms, advice, and encouragement, even though Ukraine is being destroyed.

In the last 30 years, Washington’s overemphasis on military assistance and intervention in the pursuit of regime change has drawn the U.S. into conflicts and crises in the Balkans, the Near East, North Africa, and Southwest Asia. American nationalists are not responsible for the current war in Ukraine or the last three decades of Washington’s self-defeating wars. But American nationalists are needed now more than ever to stop the globalist war to destroy Russia before that war spreads like a cancer across Eastern Europe. 

Douglas MacGregor

Holodomor: Ukraine Famine of 1933 was a Government-Made Disaster

Since the 19th century, global nutrition levels have increased and malnutrition is on the wane. We have never had access to so many calories from so many different goods available to so many people at such low prices. The threat of famines has thus, unsurprisingly, faded. In the 1870s, some 142 people per 100,000 died due to famines. In the decade that just ended, that number stood at … 0.5 per 100,000 – a 99% reduction.

Yet, there is a paradox. It is in the period of rising nutritional levels that we observe the worst famines in human history. Indeed, prior to the 20th century, most famines caused by natural factors (e.g. climate, disease) were not exactly extreme events as those that generally come to mind such as the Holodomor in the Ukraine during the 1930s or the Great Famine in China during the 1950s and 1960s. These pre-20th century famines were more like periods of dearth with severe malnutrition. True, there were horrible episodes caused by natural events such as the Great Irish Famine, but this was an exception more than a rule.

The reason for this distinction is that famines and dearth of food caused by natural events have indeed waned heavily. No market economy with a liberal democracy suffered through a famine during the 20th century. However, famines produced out of human design increased considerably. The ten worst famines of the 20th century could all be attributed directly (e.g. the Holodomor) or indirectly (e.g. wars) to government policies. And these ten worst famines are amongst the worst famines in all of humanity’s history.

However, one should notice that I just distinguished between “directly” and “indirectly.” That distinction is important because it points to the obvious fact that these famines were never monocausal. As such, there are always debates about these extreme famines: was the famine started by a drought; was the famine started by government policy, were the famine deaths due to governments failing to provide relief? Disentangling these finer threads is a very daunting task.

Fortunately, recent work by Natalya Naumenko in the Journal of Economic History provides us with such a disentanglement in the case of the Holodomor in the Ukraine during the 1930s.

The Holodomor is ideal for such an effort. First of all, the death toll was horrific: six to eight million died in 1933. Second, many scholars debate whether the famine was precipitated by a drought and whether government policies (such as the collectivization of farms that had started in the 1920s and the banning of private food trading in order to facilitate procurement of wheat by the government for export) made things worse.

To provide the disentanglement, Naumenko collects district-level data about mortality, weather, collectivization, agricultural inputs, ethnic composition and urbanization. Combined with other data sources, she first discredits the idea that droughts had taken place before 1933 in ways that made the local populations vulnerable. The temperatures in those years were roughly similar to previous years even though the months of May and June 1932 were marked by unusually high levels of rainfall.

Then, she attempts to assess the relative contribution in 1933 of the different factors. Variations in climate characteristics are found to pack very little explanatory firepower: they explain less than 10% of the excess mortality in that year. However, the effects of collectivization and government procurements of wheat do provide strong explanatory power: between 52% and 57% of excess mortality is explained by variations in the rate of collectivization of the farm economy across districts.

To tie those facts together, Naumenko then investigates the effect of collectivization on farm output. Unsurprisingly, areas with higher rates of collectivization exhibited smaller sown area per capita. Collectivization was also associated with a drop in livestock per capita. These two mechanisms suggest that there was clearly an institutional root to the famine. As Naumenko summarizes succinctly, it is necessary to “put the blame where it belongs:” at the feet of “government policies that make the food supply susceptible to disaster when environmental conditions are less than perfect.”

This work of economic history is not just worth reading because of its well-executed nature. It is worth reading because it is a potent reminder of how governments can fuel some of the worst disasters in human history.

Vincent Geloso is a visiting assistant professor of economics at Bates College. He obtained a PhD in Economic History from the London School of Economics.

Washington and Moscow have Combined to Make Ukraine into Armageddon

Yesterday morning I posted an explanation of why Russian liberalism was generating a wider war that could end in Armageddon. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/05/01/putins-liberalism-means-a-wider-war-is-in-the-cards/

I find no relief in The Saker acknowledging the same unfolding of events. https://thesaker.is/sitrep-operation-z-17/

The Saker and Andrei Martyanov are two competent analysts of Russian military capability. Until recently they have acknowledged no problem with Putin’s limited military operation in Ukraine. But The Saker now realizes that the slow Russian operation has made opportunities for Western mischief that will widen the conflict. No doubt Martyanov also sees the adverse consequences of delay, but he is yet to attribute any importance to them.

The Saker reports Western plans to bring into western Ukraine where Russia has no boots on the ground Polish and Romanian soldiers with NATO air cover for “military exercises.” The Saker also reports that there seems to be a military operation in preparation against Russian Transnistria.

Quoting other analysts, The Saker reports that on the Polish, Belarus, and Moldova borders with Ukraine a total contingent of 50,000 to 100,000 troops can be inferred. “NATO’s ultimate strategy on this issue is currently unclear, but several options could be considered. Firstly, this can be done for a banal intimidation of Russia and an attempt to put pressure on the course of the special operation in Ukraine, and secondly, in the West they perfectly understand that Ukraine as a country no longer exists and see its future on the principle of occupation sectors. And the third option is the most terrible, but the least likely: NATO decided to go all the way and, if lend-lease and hybrid warfare do not stop the Russians, then regular units of Western countries will step in. This, of course, is a 100% threat of the use of nuclear weapons. It looks utopian, but in 2022 everything is possible.”

The Saker quotes the Russian Colonel Cassad:

“The main topic that worries many today is the adoption by the US Congress of the lend-lease program for Ukraine. Delivery of large batches of modern weapons is expected soon. The war will reach a new level, because now we will also have to fight with the American military industry. Deliveries of American heavy weapons are expected, including F-16 aircraft. Today we wrote that Ukraine is already preparing pilots for these machines. Here you need to understand once and for all, we are at war with NATO, where Ukraine is just cheap service personnel and cannon fodder.”

The Pentagon’s John Kirby backs up Colonel Cassad’s report with his announcement: “Today I can announce that the United States has begun training the Ukrainian armed forces to use key weapons at US military bases in Germany.”

The lend-lease bill was introduced in the US Senate on January 19, 2022, a month prior to the Russian intervention in Ukraine. This supports the abundant evidence that Washington did intend to cause Russian intervention in Donbass by mobilizing a large Ukrainian army ready to attack Donbass.

The Saker also quotes this report:

“Kiev secretly sent Kharkiv cadets to the United States to learn to fly the F-16, which will soon enter service with the Armed Forces of Ukraine under lend-lease. Kiev decided in advance to retrain its pilots for the NATO fleet. As it became known to Readovka, the cadets of the Kharkiv Higher Military School were sent to one of the European NATO countries and to the United States in early February for emergency retraining in the management of American F-16s. The cadets were taken directly from the 4th year classes. All of them were transported in complete secrecy. Thus, it is more likely that NATO, together with Kiev, knew about the imminent deployment of a special operation of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and tried to work ahead of the curve. The law passed the day before by the US Congress authorizing the lend-lease of heavy weapons to Ukraine apparently involves the supply, among other things, of American F-16 fighters. There is also information that the lend-lease announced by the United States was launched solely to legalize the transfer of F-16 fighters to Ukraine.”

None of this information fits in the narrative that Washington has created as the controlled explanation of the Russian intervention fed by the presstitutes to the peoples in the West. The Western peoples in their “free societies” with their “free press” remain as ignorant of events as Big Brother’s people in George Orwell’s book, 1984.

My views on the dangerousness of the situation are, of course, ignored by the US foreign policy community, most of whom are busy at work with war propaganda. Only twice have my articles been posted on Johnson’s Russian List. In foreign policy, as in Covid and all else, dissenting views are no longer permitted.

It is now clear that the Kremlin’s limited military operation was a serious mistake. There was no reason for the Russians to believe that Washington would not use the larger part of Ukraine not under attack to force the Russians into a wider war on the West’s terms, a wider war that could have been avoided if the Kremlin had not been so anxious to minimize the use of force. As the situation spirals out of control, we might now be living in our last days.

The War in Ukraine is a Racket

War is a racket, wrote US Maj. General Smedley Butler in 1935. He explained: “A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”

Gen. Butler’s observation describes the US/NATO response to the Ukraine war perfectly.

The propaganda continues to portray the war in Ukraine as that of an unprovoked Goliath out to decimate an innocent David unless we in the US and NATO contribute massive amounts of military equipment to Ukraine to defeat Russia. As is always the case with propaganda, this version of events is manipulated to bring an emotional response to the benefit of special interests.

One group of special interests profiting massively on the war is the US military-industrial complex. Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes recently told a meeting of shareholders that, “Everything that ‘s being shipped into Ukraine today, of course, is coming out of stockpiles, either at DOD or from our NATO allies, and that’s all great news. Eventually we’ll have to replenish it and we will see a benefit to the business.”

He wasn’t lying. Raytheon, along with Lockheed Martin and countless other weapons manufacturers are enjoying a windfall they have not seen in years. The US has committed more than three billion dollars in military aid to Ukraine. They call it aid, but it is actually corporate welfare: Washington sending billions to arms manufacturers for weapons sent overseas.

By many accounts these shipments of weapons like the Javelin anti-tank missile (jointly manufactured by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin) are getting blown up as soon as they arrive in Ukraine. This doesn’t bother Raytheon at all. The more weapons blown up by Russia in Ukraine, the more new orders come from the Pentagon.

Former Warsaw Pact countries now members of NATO are in on the scam as well. They’ve discovered how to dispose of their 30-year-old Soviet-made weapons and receive modern replacements from the US and other western NATO countries.

While many who sympathize with Ukraine are cheering, this multi-billion dollar weapons package will make little difference. As former US Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter said on the Ron Paul Liberty Report last week, “I can say with absolute certainty that even if this aid makes it to the battlefield, it will have zero impact on the battle. And Joe Biden knows it.”

What we do see is that Russians are capturing modern US and NATO weapons by the ton and even using them to kill more Ukrainians. What irony. Also, what kinds of opportunities will be provided to terrorists, with thousands of tons of deadly high-tech weapons floating around Europe? Washington has admitted that it has no way of tracking the weapons it is sending to Ukraine and no way to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.

War is a racket, to be sure. The US has been meddling in Ukraine since the end of the Cold War, going so far as overthrowing the government in 2014 and planting the seeds of the war we are witnessing today. The only way out of a hole is to stop digging. Don’t expect that any time soon. War is too profitable.

Ron Paul

CIA Admits Feeding False Info to Americans about Ukraine.

Late last year, a Gallup poll showed that Americans’ trust in the mainstream media has fallen to its second lowest level on record. Only seven percent of Americans responded that they have a “great deal” of trust in the media.

That loss of trust has been well-earned by the mainstream media, and it explains the massive growth of independent media and alternative voices on social media. The response to the rise of independent media voices has been a rush to “cancel” any voice outside the accepted mainstream narrative.

Citizens of the Soviet Union would read manipulated media like Pravda not because the regime reported facts, but because truth was hidden between the lines of what was reported and what was not reported. That seems to be where we are in the US today.

Last week an extraordinary article appeared in, of all places, NBC News, reporting that the US intelligence community is knowingly feeding information it does not believe accurate to the US mainstream media for the American audience to consume.

In other words, the article reports that the US “deep state” admits to being actively engaged in lying to the American people in the hopes that it can manipulate public opinion.

According to the NBC News article, “multiple US officials acknowledged that the US has used information as a weapon even when confidence in the accuracy of the information wasn’t high. Sometimes it has used low-confidence intelligence for deterrent effect…”

Readers will recall the shocking headlines that Russia was prepared to use chemical weapons in Ukraine, that China would be providing military equipment to Russia, that Russian President Putin was being fed misinformation by his advisors, and more.

All of these were churned out by the CIA to be repeated in the American media even though they were known to be false. It was all about, as one intelligence officer said in the article, “trying to get inside Putin’s head.”

That may have been the goal, but what the CIA actually did was get inside America’s head with false information meant to shape public perception of the conflict. They lied to propagandize us in favor of the Biden Administration’s narrative.

Those pushing the “Russiagate” hoax through the Trump years claimed that the goal of “Russian disinformation” was to undermine Americans’ trust in our government, media, and other institutions. Isn’t it ironic that the CIA itself has done more than the Russians to undermine Americans’ faith in the media by feeding false stories to establish a particular narrative among the American people?

After the Bay of Pigs disaster, President Kennedy has been quoted as wanting “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” That didn’t work out too well for him. As Senate Majority Chuck Schumer famously told Rachel Maddow in 2020, responding to the-President Trump’s criticism of the CIA, “let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

As more information about the activities of the US Intelligence Community in trying to bring down Trump come out, it appears that, for once, Schumer was right.

It’s time to revisit President Kennedy’s post-Bay of Pigs wish. The CIA using lies to propagandize the American people toward war with Russia is just one of thousands of reasons to scatter a million pieces of that agency to the wind.

Ron Paul

Is Ukraine Really Worth a Nuclear War ?

During the 70 years that the Soviet Union existed, Ukraine was an integral part of the nation. Yet this geographic and political reality posed no threat to the United States. A Russia and a Ukraine, both inside the USSR, was an accepted reality that was seen as no threat for the seven decades that they were united.

Yet, today, because of a month-old war between Russia and Ukraine, over who shall control Crimea, the Donbas, and the Black and Azov Sea coasts of Ukraine, America seems closer to a nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Why? Time to step back and reflect on what is at stake.

Exactly what threat does Russia’s invasion of Ukraine present to us that is so grave we would consider military action that could lead to World War III and Russia’s use of battlefield nuclear weapons against us?

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly hinted at the use of such weapons, should NATO intervene in the Ukraine war and Russia face defeat, or in the event of an “existential” threat to the Russian nation.

We hear from our moral elites that morality commands us to intervene to save the Ukrainian people from the ravages of a war that has already taken thousands of Ukrainian lives. But what would be the justification for U.S. military intervention in Ukraine, absent a congressional authorization or declaration of war?

Consider. The year the Liberal Hour arrived in America with the New Deal, 1933, a newly inaugurated Franklin D. Roosevelt formally recognized Joseph Stalin’s murderous regime as the legitimate government of a Russia-led USSR.

FDR met personally with Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov even as the Holodomor, the forced starvation of Ukrainian peasants and small farmers, the kulaks and their families, was far advanced. Walter Duranty, the New York Times reporter in Moscow, won a Pulitzer for covering up that crime of the century with its estimated 4 million dead.

The question remains: When did the relationship between Russia and Ukraine become a matter of such vital interest to the U.S. that we would risk war, possible nuclear war, with Russia over it? How did we get here?

We got here by exploiting our Cold War victory as an opportunity to move NATO, our Cold War alliance, into a dozen countries in Central and Eastern Europe, up to the borders of Russia. Then, we started to bring Ukraine into NATO, the constituent republic of the old Soviet Union with the longest and deepest history with Mother Russia.

Thus, while Putin started this war, the U.S. set the table for it. We pushed our military alliance, NATO, set up in 1949 to contain and, if necessary, fight Russia, 1,000 miles to the east, right into Russia’s face.

In the 1930s, when Britain’s Lady Astor was asked if she knew where Hitler was born, she answered: “Versailles.” At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which produced the Versailles Treaty, millions of Germanic peoples and the lands they had inhabited were severed from German rule and distributed to half a dozen nations across Europe. When we get back on our feet, we will take back all that we have lost, said Gen. Hans von Seeckt of the German General Staff.

We hear warnings that if Russia uses chemical weapons in Ukraine, NATO will react militarily. But if no NATO ally is attacked, why would NATO respond to a Russian attack on Ukraine?

Though outlawed today, chemical weapons were used by all the major participants in World War I, including the Americans. As for atomic weapons, only Americans have used them. And while we did not introduce the bombing of cities—the British and Germans did that—we did perfect the carpet-bombing of cities like Cologne, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden and Tokyo.

The Ukrainian war, now a month old, has demonstrated the utility of nuclear weapons. Putin’s credible threat to use them has caused the U.S. and NATO to flatly refuse Kiev’s request to put a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

And as Russia’s threat to use nuclear weapons has deterred NATO from intervening on Ukraine’s side in this war, other nations will not miss the message: Possession of nukes can deter even the greatest nuclear powers.

The longer this war goes on, the greater the suffering and losses on all sides. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are already dead, with 10 million uprooted from their homes, a third of that number having fled into neighboring states of Eastern Europe.

The longer the war goes on, the greater the likelihood Putin resorts to indiscriminate bombing and shelling to kill off the resistance, and the greater the possibility that the war expands into NATO Europe.

Meanwhile, in the secure American homeland, 5,000 miles from Kiev, There in no shortage of foreign policy scholars beating the drums for a “victory” over Putin’s Russia and willing to fight to achieve that victory—right down to the last Ukrainian.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and a founding editor of The American Conservative.