Ukraine: US Lies, Provocation, Broken Promises, Fake News

[Anthea]

Ukraine - U.S. Lies - Provocation

The U.S. broke a NATO promise

Russia is the wronged party. The United States has failed to uphold a promise that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe, a deal made during the 1990 negotiations between the West and the Soviet Union over German unification.

Russia feels that is being forced to forestall NATO’s eastward march as a matter of self-defense.

The West has vigorously protested that no such deal was ever struck. However, hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts from U.S. archives indicate otherwise.

Europe’s stability may depend on the West’s willingness to reassure Russia about NATO’s limits.

After the Berlin Wall fell, Europe’s regional order hinged on the question of whether a reunified Germany would be aligned with the United States (and NATO), the Soviet Union (and the Warsaw Pact) or neither.

Policymakers in the George H.W. Bush administration decided in early 1990 that NATO should include the reconstituted German republic.

In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”

Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.

Nevertheless, great powers rarely tie their own hands. In internal memorandums and notes, U.S. policymakers soon realized that ruling out NATO’s expansion might not be in the best interests of the United States. By late February, Bush and his advisers had decided to leave the door open.

After discussing the issue with West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl on February 24-25, the U.S. gave the former East Germany “special military status,” limiting what NATO forces could be stationed there in deference to the Soviet Union.

At the same time, however, it appears the Americans still were trying to convince the Russians that their concerns about NATO would be respected. Baker pledged in Moscow on May 18, 1990, that the United States would cooperate with the Soviet Union in the “development of a new Europe.” And in June, per talking points prepared by the NSC, Bush was telling Soviet leaders that the United States sought “a new, inclusive Europe.”

It’s therefore not surprising that Russia was incensed when Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and others were ushered into NATO membership starting in the mid-1990s. Boris Yeltsin, Dmitry Medvedev and Gorbachev himself protested through both public and private channels that U.S. leaders had violated the non-expansion arrangement.

As NATO began looking even further eastward, to Ukraine and Georgia, protests turned to outright aggression and saber-rattling.

The pledge (lie) not to expand NATO in 1990 helped end the Cold War, so too may a pledge today help resuscitate the U.S.-Russian relationship.

Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson is an international security fellow at Dartmouth College and assistant professor at the Bush School of Government, Texas A&M University. His article, “Deal or No Deal? The End of the Cold War and the U.S. Offer to Limit NATO Expansion” was published in the spring issue of International Security.

[Anthea]

Obama wanted to replace the freely elected Ukraine leadership with one more favorable to the U.S.

Obama also wanted to restrict the widely spoken Russian language and culture

In recent years U.S. has been involved in Ukraine internal conflict with a view to causing a greater conflict with Russia

A propaganda campaign has been concocted, telling people Russia is about to invade the Ukraine - I personally do not believe this to be the case.

I believe Putin would like the U.S. and NATO to stop interfering in Ukraine and stay away from Russian borders.

[Anthea]

Much of the feelings being shared on social media, is that Biden and his government are behind the Ukraine, anti-Russian propaganda as a diversion to distract Americans from the internal problems such as:

Increasing inner city violence

In excess of 2 million illegal immigrants

Collapsing economy

22 million jobs lost

Economic output down 31%

Price rises

Food prices climbed 6.5% in past year

Climate change

The recent weather conditions

Food shortages

[Anthea]

New US troop buildup in Europe

America’s decision to deploy 3,000 soldiers shows it is pumping up tension in Europe, Moscow claimed

America’s decision to deploy approximately 3,000 soldiers to Romania, Poland, and Germany is proof that Moscow is right to be concerned about Russia’s security, the Kremlin said on Wednesday.

Speaking to CNN, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson was reacting to an earlier announcement by US Department of Defense Press Secretary John Kirby, who announced that President Joe Biden had approved a decision to send thousands of American troops to Europe in response to “Russia’s continuing build-up of forces on its western border with Ukraine and in Belarus.”

“The current situation demands that we reinforce the deterrent and defensive posture on NATO’s eastern flank,” Kirby said. “President Biden has been clear that the United States will respond to the growing threat to Europe’s security and stability. Our commitment to NATO Article Five and collective defense remains ironclad.”

However, according to Dmitry Peskov, this announcement further gives traction to the idea that Russia is under threat from the US-led military bloc.

“US de facto is continuing to pump up tension in Europe,” he said. Peskov added that the deployments are “the best proof that we, as Russia, have an obvious reason to be worried.”

The Kremlin spokesperson’s comments come as Moscow remains in consultations with both the US and NATO over a potential agreement on European security guarantees. Last year, Russia publicly released two treaties it had proposed to the US and NATO. The draft documents included a long list of security guarantees aimed at boosting stability in Europe, such as restrictions on the placement of missiles near the Russian border and the withdrawal of alliance forces in eastern Europe to their 1997 positions. Moscow has also demanded that NATO put an end to eastwards expansion.

Last month, the US sent back a formal response to Russia’s demands, which is currently undergoing assessment by the Kremlin. While Washington has been open to agreements on arms control and boosting the transparency of troop movements, it has flatly rejected the suggestion to end the enlargement of the military bloc.

https://www.rt.com/russia/548186-pumpin ... on-europe/

[Anthea]

China joins Russia in opposing Nato expansion

China has joined Russia in opposing further NATO expansion as the two countries move closer together in the face of Western pressure

Moscow and Beijing issued a statement showcasing their agreement on a raft of issues during a visit by Russia's Vladimir Putin for the Winter Olympics.

Mr Putin claims Western powers are using the NATO defence alliance to undermine Russia TRUE.

It comes amid tensions over Ukraine, which he denies planning to invade - ALSO TRUE.

Some 100,000 Russian troops remain at the border with Ukraine, which is a former Soviet republic. Mr Putin, who has written that Russians and Ukrainians are "one nation", has demanded that Ukraine be barred from joining Nato.

While the lengthy joint statement did not refer directly to Ukraine, the two countries accused NATO of espousing a Cold War ideology.

The talks, which the Kremlin said were "very warm", were held ahead of the Games opening ceremony. It was the first time the leaders have met face-to-face since the start of the pandemic.

"Friendship between [Russia and China] has no limits, there are no 'forbidden' areas of cooperation," the statement reads.

Security alliance

The two countries said they were "seriously concerned" about the Aukus security pact between the US, UK and Australia.

Announced last year, Aukus will see Australia build nuclear-powered submarines as part of efforts to boost security in the Asia-Pacific region. It is largely seen as an effort to counter China, which has been accused of raising tensions in disputed territories such as the South China Sea.

Meanwhile Russia said it supported Beijing's One China policy, which asserts that self-ruled Taiwan is a breakaway province that will eventually be part of China again.

However, Taiwan sees itself as an independent country, with its own constitution and democratically-elected leaders.

They had lunch, they had talks then they went off to see a show together - a big show.

Vladimir Putin is the star guest in Beijing for the start of the winter games. Of more significance to this visit is the increased co-operation and shared view of the world that Presidents Xi and Putin are keen to show.

Although Ukraine wasn't mentioned it was clearly hinted at when they both said they oppose the enlargement of the NATO alliance.

For China this is a delicate balance. Beijing has relations with Ukraine - political and economic. Any Russia invasion or military attack there could be damaging for President Xi's standing.

Amid a growing war of words, the US on Wednesday accused Russia of planning to stage a fake Ukrainian attack that it would use to justify an invasion.

Russia denied it was planning to fabricate an attack, and the US did not provide evidence to support the claim.

Earlier the US said it was sending more troops to eastern Europe to support Nato allies. Russia said the move was "destructive" and showed that its concerns about Nato's eastward expansion were justified.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-60257080

[Anthea]

The Costs of War With Russia
by Mathew Burrows

Before rushing into a full-scale confrontation with Russia, the Biden administration should consider the long-term consequences for the United States and its allies

Some commentators have warned about an escalation to World War III as well as the inefficacy of sanctions against Russian president Vladimir Putin. Yet, there are other strategic consequences from a conflict with Russia that the United States should try to avoid.

The last two decades have been replete with unfortunate surprises from what initially seemed liked good ideas. Most remember how U.S. political leaders promised to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq only for these costly experiments to end, particularly in the case of Afghanistan, in a humiliating retreat.

Even while Russia is the instigator of the current crisis (untrue the build of of Russian troops along the border is due to the west invading the Ukraine and holding war games in the country) and it is (the US that needs to be brought to heel, not Russia), there are outcomes that the United States and its allies should be concerned about.

Second and third-order effects are notoriously hard to discern beforehand. International hostility, including from Western allies, following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was unthinkable in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when there was an outpouring of sympathy summed up in Le Monde’s headline, “nous sommes tous americains,” or, “we are all Americans.” During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Nikita Khrushchev was hardly thinking about being forced to resign, which he eventually was two years later.

Precise forecasts aren’t possible, and the current Ukraine crisis is no different. However, that doesn’t mean analysts and observers shouldn’t consider the long-term repercussions and prevent those that are inimical to U.S. interests. It is all the more vital in an international system where even minor decisions and adjustments by world leaders could have immense consequences.

Drawing on almost two decades of experience working on strategic foresight, first at the National Intelligence and now at the Atlantic Council, here’s my take on what could be at stake, beginning with three big warnings.

A Decoupled World

First, with a new Cold War already a possibility, the escalating Ukraine crisis could solidify the emergence of a bifurcated world. In contrast to its silence after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Beijing has already signaled its support for Moscow’s “security concerns.”

Putin will no doubt ask for China’s help to minimize the impact of Western sanctions when he goes to the Beijing Olympics this coming week. Should the United States sanction China for helping Russia circumvent Western financial penalties, Sino-U.S. tensions, which are already high, could explode into a new crisis.

Some in Washington and Beijing are eager to decouple their countries’ economies from one other despite the high costs of doing so—even though it is estimated that U.S. businesses could lose $190 billion a year in lost output while U.S. investors would see shortfalls of up to $25 billion. Needless to say, the economic shock that would be brought on by separating the world’s two biggest economies would derail the global recovery just in time for the 2022 midterms.

China and Russia Will Blunt U.S. Economic Power

Second, setting aside the question of their effectiveness in deterring or punishing Russia, U.S. and European sanctions will likely accelerate China’s plans for developing its e-CNY digital currency, helping Russia and itself skirt U.S. secondary sanctions. Russia has developed a SWIFT alternative called the System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS), but a digital yuan would present a more powerful challenge to the U.S. dollar while potentially reinforcing China’s influence among Belt and Road countries.

Transatlantic Relations May Falter

Third, fissures that have already emerged between the United States and its Western European partners could worsen if should Moscow retaliate against European sanctions by cutting off gas supplies. Media reports already indicate growing U.S. and EU concern about such an eventuality. To hedge against this risk, the United States has reached out to Qatar while the EU also plans to talk to Azerbaijan.

Yet, Bruegel, the Brussels-based think tank, believes that finding alternative sources won’t be enough to make up for the loss of imported Russian hydrocarbons—which currently comprise 40 percent of Europe’s energy supply.

According to Bruegel’s analysis, the EU will need to curb demand, implying difficult and costly decisions for governments struggling to sustain an economic recovery. Although the European winter has not been as cold as anticipated, lower temperatures could easily compound Europe’s dilemma.

European governments will no doubt be blamed by their citizens if there is a supply shortage or energy prices spiral out of control. Long-term disruptions in Europeans’ daily lives will also cause resentment and likely lead many European governments to break with Washington and distance themselves from the Ukraine issue.

Seize the Opportunity at Hand

Rahm Emanuel taught us that you never should waste a good crisis that brings big opportunities.

Although it is hard to imagine, resolving the Ukraine issue could be the beginning of a major improvement in relations between Russia and the West. It could help President Joe Biden undo the damage to his image stemming from the hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan, bolstering his sagging popularity.

Equally, an agreement from which Russia could also claim some gains might help to convince Putin that he can deal with West and make him less inclined to deepen relations with China.

A mutual agreement that boosts arms control and other confidence-building measures could even improve U.S. views on the desirability of negotiating an arms control and conflict-reduction agreements with China.

A peaceful resolution of the ongoing crisis would also discredit the false analogy of appeasement that is frequently used to argue against any attempt to negotiate with Moscow or Beijing.

Of course, crafting a peaceful settlement is easier said than done. But the Biden administration should not waver from this goal So far, the administration has been largely reactive by saying no and hoping the Russians give up after being intimidated by the threat of sanctions. Instead, pushing Ukraine to engage with members of the Normandy Format and reinvigorating the Minsk peace progress is a move that would be welcomed by European allies.

Some analysts believe there could be progress on measures related to stabilizing the situation along the line of contact in Donbas, including by withdrawing heavy weapons, and bolstering the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s mission—all of which would reduce tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

Regarding NATO expansion, a number of agreements could be reached to create a buffer zone between Russia and NATO. It is doubtful that would enough to satisfy Russian expectations but the trust that could be generated may help both sides reach an understanding on NATO. After all, few envisaged Ukraine’s accession to NATO membership any time soon.

While “muddling through” may seem less risky for the administration in the short run, a failure to reach an accord with Russia will lead to some form of Russian military intervention as well as cyberattacks, an energy cutoff, and the use of insurgent proxies that would kill and dislocate many Ukrainians and tear the country apart. Kicking the can down the road also entails costs.

The Biden administration wants to avoid military involvement in Ukraine but, even in the case of more limited Russian operations, Biden would find himself under congressional and other pressure to become more actively involved by supplying arms, dispatching military trainers, and sharing intelligence, essentially turning Ukraine into a NATO-Russia proxy war. The administration will also come under pressure to implement severe economic measures previously reserved to punish Moscow for a full-scale invasion.

This would likely cause a rift with energy-dependent European allies. The administration was not good at considering the possible contingencies during the withdrawal from Afghanistan but now it is time to consider the long-term ramifications of not pursuing an agreement with Putin.

Dr. Mathew Burrows serves as director of the Atlantic Council’s Director of Foresight and Co-Director of the New American Engagement Initiative (NAEI), having retired from a twenty-eight-year career at the CIA.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/co ... sia-200266

[Anthea]

French proposals could end standoff

French President Macron makes several proposals of "concrete security guarantees" to Russian leader Putin during nearly six hours of their talks in Moscow

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said several proposals put forward by his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron at talks could form a basis for moving forward on the crisis over Ukraine.

"A number of his ideas, proposals... are possible as a basis for further steps," Putin said on Monday after more than five hours of talks with Macron in the Kremlin.

He did not provide any details but said the two leaders would speak by phone after Macron meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Tuesday.

Putin said he was grateful to Macron for his efforts to solve the security crisis.

"I would like to thank Mr. Macron for the efforts France is making to resolve the acute issue of our relations with NATO, to create an environment of stability on the European continent, to resolve the crisis in southeastern Ukraine," Putin said.

Putin denied that Russia was acting aggressively towards Ukraine or the West.

"It is not us who are moving towards NATO's borders," he said.

If Ukraine joins the Western military bloc, Russia could get sucked into a conflict with European countries, he added.

"Do you want France to go to war with Russia?" Putin said.

Putin said there would be no winners should European countries be drawn into a military conflict with Russia in the event Ukraine joins NATO and tries to retake Crimea.

Macron says diplomatic push on Ukraine will get results

Macron flew into Moscow at the start of a week of intense Western diplomacy aimed at easing fears of a Russian invasion of its pro-Western neighbour.

With tens of thousands of Russian troops camped near the Ukrainian border, Macron was the first top Western leader to meet Putin since the crisis began in December.

Flanked by Putin, Macron said he had made proposals of "concrete security guarantees" to Russian leader at talks in Moscow.

"President Putin assured me of his readiness to engage in this sense and his desire to maintain stability and the territorial integrity of Ukraine," Macron said.

Macron said he was sure that ramping up diplomatic contacts over the Ukraine standoff will produce results.

"Together... I'm sure we will get a result, even if it's not easy," Macron said.

Demands for security guarantees

Putin described his lengthy talks with Macron at the Kremlin as businesslike. He noted that the US and its NATO allies have ignored Moscow’s demands for security guarantees.

He said that NATO's expansion eastward to Russia’s border has violated the security principles of international agreements and scoffed at Western assurances that it is a defensive alliance that doesn't threaten Russia

"People of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan have had learned it from their own experience," the Russian leader said in a sarcastic reference to the US allies' involvement in military campaigns in those countries.

He also referenced NATO's 1999 bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia.

Russia has denied any plans to attack its neighbour but demands that the US and its allies bar Ukraine and other former Soviet nations from joining NATO, halt weapons deployments there and roll back NATO forces from Eastern Europe.

Washington and NATO reject those demands.

https://www.trtworld.com/europe/russia- ... aine-54513

The US and European countries are causing an internal conflict within the Ukraine by sending weapons into the country and holding war games there - does that count as an invasion - sending troops into another country - sounds as though the west have already invaded part of the Ukraine

Both the US and UK (and possibly other countries) are using the Ukraine as a diversionary tactic.

Both Boris and Biden are losing public support

Both are removing peoples' rights and freedom of speech

Neither countries have made an effort to tackle climate change

Remember at the time the Berlin wall came down there was an agreement between Russia, NATO and the US that western troops would not move any closer towards Russia

Keep people frightened and they will back their leader

[Anthea]

Prestidigitation: Skill or cleverness, especially in deceiving others

Human Rights Act Reform:
A Modern Bill of Rights
Ministry of Justice

The government is committed to updating the Human Rights Act 1998. This consultation seeks views on the government’s proposals to revise the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights, in order to restore a proper balance between the rights of individuals, personal responsibility and the wider public interest

Chapters 1 and 2 provide a background of the domestic and international human rights context. Chapter 3 explores issues that have emerged with how the Human Rights Act 1998 operates in practice and outlines the case for reform. Chapter 4 sets out the government’s proposed reforms and their rationale in detail.

Each proposal is accompanied by specific consultation questions. We welcome responses on those questions. Submissions which do not focus on the questions but deal with the subject of the Human Rights Act more generally are also welcome.

To help us take full account of all potential impacts, including equality impacts, we shall complete a full Impact Assessment as necessary, once we have considered the responses to the consultation. We welcome responses from consultees on these proposals with regard to the potential impacts.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... -of-rights

The change in UK laws are coming in under the radar as the media news is all about COVID and more recently the Ukraine

[Anthea]

Human Rights Act:

UK government unveils reform proposals

The UK government has launched what it says will be "common sense" reforms to the Human Rights Act that will "restore confidence" in the legal system

The proposals commit to staying within the European Convention on Human Rights, despite pressure from some Conservatives to leave the treaty.

The government says the plans will also prevent foreign offenders abusing rules around the right to a family life.

Critics warn the final measures could be muddled and unnecessary.

Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said the UK will "remain a party to the European Convention on Human Rights" while saying the government wanted to "change, reform to revise" how it is interpreted by courts.

The proposals will recognise the "right to trial by jury" as it applies "variably across different nations" in the UK and reinforce the weight given to freedom of speech, adding this is "a quintessentially British right, the freedom that guards all the others".

He added: "Freedom of speech does sometimes mean the freedom to say things which others may not wish to hear."

What is the Human Rights Act?

The Human Rights Act was introduced more than 20 years ago and it sets out in law a set of minimum standards of how everyone should be treated by public bodies.

It includes basic rights to a fair trial, life and freedom from ill treatment - and protections against discrimination or unfair interference in private and family life.

The act's wording comes from the European Convention of Human Rights - a treaty agreed by almost every nation in Europe after World War Two.

The convention is enforced by a court in Strasbourg, France, which includes judges from the UK and all other nations. It's nothing to do with the European Union.

Since the Human Rights Act came into force, most claims of unfair treatment are dealt with by British judges, rather than going to Strasbourg.

The HRA has been under repeated attack from critics on the right of politics who say that it puts European law ahead of British law.

The government published its long-awaited review of the act and a consultation on its future.

Under the three-month consultation, the government proposes changing the law to introduce specific circumstances in which a foreign national offender could not claim a right to family life in the UK to challenge their deportation.

Ministers want to introduce a new legal test which would allow judges to block what the government says are "spurious" cases making it to court.

Mr Raab said it would prevent what he called "abuse of the system" by criminals "relying on Article 8 - the right to a family life - to frustrate their deportation from this country". He said such claims make up about 70% of successful human rights challenges by foreign national offenders appealing deportation orders.

Mr Raab, also deputy prime minister, said the reforms would "sharpen the separation of powers", making the UK Supreme Court - rather than Strasbourg - "the ultimate judicial arbiter when it comes to interpreting the ECHR in this country".

This will be done by reforming the part of the act requiring UK courts to take account of Strasbourg caselaw.

He said: "We will make it crystal clear that the UK courts are under no duty to follow Strasbourg caselaw which itself does not operate a doctrine of precedent."

It's not clear how that differs from the current situation where British courts can choose to ignore the views of the European Court of Human Rights if they have good legal reason to do so.

Mr Raab said: "Our plans for a bill of rights will strengthen typically British rights like freedom of speech and trial by jury, while preventing abuses of the system and adding a healthy dose of common sense."

The plans do not include proposals that would change the law concerning the potential return to other countries of migrants arriving in dinghies.

Analysis box by Dominic Casciani, home and legal correspondent

Human rights law is subtle and complex. Those rights don't just come from the European Convention on Human Rights, which the British government played a leading role in writing, but the UK's legal traditions that have developed over 1,000 years.

Dominic Raab thinks the law needs rebalancing to emphasise the primacy of that British legal history - but some fear that a new bill of rights could be a muddle.

This isn't just a warning from lefty woke lawyers, as some on the right would have it.

There is concern from the security services about unintended consequences - see p288 of the independent review that the government commissioned.

That review and its conclusions, advice and warnings run to an astonishing 580 pages.

Here's the summary the panel want ministers to take on board: don't rush to change things if the evidence shows they don't need fixing.

Labour's shadow justice secretary Steve Reed described the proposals as "all mouth and no trousers", saying "they do nothing to deal with the severe failings in the criminal justice system".

He added: "If the secretary of state really wanted to restore confidence in the system his priority would be sorting that out, but instead he's choosing to fiddle with the Human Rights Act, instead of stretching every muscle and sinew to make sure that rapists and violent offenders are banged up behind bars where they belong."

The Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, urged the government to make sure that any reforms of the HRA were backed by evidence, not driven by political rhetoric.

Its president, I. Stephanie Boyce, said: "The powers government purports to introduce for the most part already exist. British judges deliver British justice based on British laws.

"UK courts do not, as government suggests, blindly follow case law from the European Court of Human Rights."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59646684

[Anthea]

The concept of lies moving faster than truth is fairly old. Perhaps the first person to analyze it in print was Jonathan Swift, the 17th/18th century Anglo-Irish essayist, satirist, and political writer. Swift was the editor of English political newspaper, The Examiner. In 1710 (125 years before Mark Twain was born), Swift wrote:

“Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…”

[Anthea]

Simple analyses:

Russia does not want Ukraine

Ukraine is a land of peasant farmers

Ukraine has no manufacturing base

Ukraine produces nothing

Ukraine receives it largest income from Russia for the 3 pipelines running through it

All Russia has to do is turn off the tap and Europe is going to suffer

A few months ago - shortly after the US pulled out of Afghanistan - Biden pledged not to get the US involved in internal conflicts inside other countries but to sort out the many problems in the US

Biden's son is on the board of one of the companies involved in the Russian pipeline - his only qualification being that his dad is president of the US

Biden needs an enemy to unite the American population while his government changes/removes many of the Rights formally ingrained in US Law

[Anthea]

I used to study behavioral psychology

Fascinating stuff

One study on the effectiveness of propaganda was really enlightening

Two situations received publicity

One received a great deal of coverage, it's name/details was often in the media

The other received little coverage

A while later a survey took place to find out which situation people believed to be true

They ALL believed the situation that received the most publicity to be the truth

When in actual fact the situation which received the least publicity was true

In a more recent study the names of 2 products was invented

One product a great deal of publicity

The other considerably less

People were then asked which product was the best

Based purely on media coverage (the products were not real)

The product receiving the most coverage was believed to be the best

Online Funding

All you need is footage of a sick animal

Or a starving baby

Invent a really sad story

Play sad background music

Ask for donations

[Anthea]

NATO allies are invading the Ukraine

They are sending troops and military equipment to Ukraine

Russia may have a military buildup along the Ukraine border - I strongly suspect it is in response to US, NATO and other countries intervention.

Moscow claims its actions are necessary to secure vital security interests and blames NATO for undermining the region’s security, which they are, NATO and US intervention will eventually further internal conflict within the Ukraine causing a civil war and a total division of the Ukraine.

NEVER FORGET the promises made to Russia at the time of Germany's reunification - that NATO and other countries would NOT move any closer to Russian borders.

Ukraine was part of the Russian empire for CENTURIES before becoming a Soviet republic, became independent as the USSR broke up in 1991.

Moscow has strongly criticised the US and its NATO allies for providing Ukraine with weapons and holding joint drills inside the Ukraine.

Basically: Russia does not want NATO or a US base on it's doorstep - I do not blame them

[Anthea]

A Short History of Ukraine

During the maximum extent of the last Ice Age, most of Ukraine found itself south of the ice sheet and was inhabited by people who are not well researched as yet

From around 6,000 BC to 3,500 BC the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture flourished in what would later become the southwestern half of Ukraine, all of Moldova and northeastern Romania. This culture appears to have been highly advanced for its time, agricultural, matriarchical and peaceful. It was one of the ancient pre-Indo-European Neolithic cultures of Europe.

In a process that is not yet well understood, their culture eventually or possibly violently, gave way to the influx of the nomadic, pastoral, patriarchical Indo-Europeans or Kurgans, but it is generally agreed, that the Trypillians were not displaced, but assimilated into the new culture that formed.

Some time after 1,300 BC the Indo-European Cimmerians (a/k/a Kimmerians) arrived, then were displaced from the Pontic Steppes by the westward-moving Scythians, also Indo-Europeans, starting after around 800 BC (the Cimmerians eventually wound up in modern-day Turkey). The Scythians ruled in Ukraine from around 800 BC to around 300 AD. They were an Eastern Iranian people. They are most famous for first domesticating the horse and then developing the art of mounted warfare.

Two further Scythian innovations that arose from this were pants — leather in their case — useful to prevent chafing of the legs when riding for extended periods of time, and the Scythian composite bow, which was composed of multiple layers for power, as well as, having curved-back ends, which gave it even more power, and allowed it to be relatively small, so that it could be used to shoot in rapid succession from horseback (it appears in Greek mythology as Cupid’s bow).

By around 200 BC, the Scythians were pushed aside, though not fully displaced, by their Eastern Iranian cousins — with whom they had previously lived relatively peacefully for centuries — the Sarmatians, thought to be the direct ancestors of today’s Ossetians, earlier known as the Alans or Alani, and of course, partly the ancestors of today’s Ukrainians.

The Sarmatians held sway through around 300 AD, when the Germanic Goths invaded from the northwest and contributed to their decline, but the final force that ended the combined Scytho-Sarmatian culture was the arrival of the Oriental Xiongnu people called the Huns, who eventually dominated from the 300’s through the 400’s. They were successively defeated over time by Rome, Byzantium and others, ending up, many think, in modern-day Hungary.

By the 500’s, back in Ukraine, the land was being filled up by both the Slavs from the northwest and the Antes or Antae, who many scholars think were simply the now indigenous remnants of the mixed Scytho-Sarmatian and Trypillian populations. Thus, the combined Antes and Slavs became the direct ancestors of modern-day Ukrainians. One may note that the very name “antes” means “ancient” or “preceding ones” in Greek.

Then, in the 600’s, another Oriental group, the Turkic Khazars arrived, establishing a kingdom whose western end covered southeastern Ukraine, while the Antic-Slavic population ruled in the northwest. The Khazars were eventually defeated by this Antic-Slavic population as it became the Ukrainian empire of Rus starting in the 800’s.

The Khazars had also been under pressure from Byzantium and the rising Arabs. Overlapping with the Khazars, other Turkic groups entered Ukrainian territory from the east, starting with the Pechenegs in the 500’s, followed by the Polvotsians (or Cumans, of the Cuman-Kipchak Confederation) in the 1000’s, and finally the Tartars, who had been subjugated under the Mongols under Genghis Khan in the 1200’s.

These continual waves of displaced or invading Turkic peoples from far eastern Asia coincided with the tenacious rise of the indigenous Anto-Slavic (Scythian) culture, as well as, an interesting new development, the infiltration of Ukraine by the Varengians or Vikings, who apparently did not so much invade as somehow integrate themselves into an existing culture and give it an impetus toward a re-establishment of centralized rule, this time from the capital at Kyiv.

There is historical evidence that in his evangelizing mission through eastern and central Europe, the apostle Andrew prophesied about and blessed Kyiv, saying that it would one day became a great city with many churches, which it eventually did. Kyiv became the center of Rus, controlling a huge territory, including lands not part of Rus itself, but belonging to Rus — what today is Russia west of the Ural Mountains.

By the year 988, Rus was an empire of significant size and power, but to further consolidate its position internationally, King Volodymyr the Great opened negotiations with the Byzantines to recognize him as “tsar” (or “czar”) meaning “emperor” (deriving many think, from the word “Cesar”) in return for his military assistance to the legitimate ruler of Byzantium in what had already turned into a dynastic succession catastrophe. This would amount to their recognition of him as an equal, but the Byzantines needed him. At first the Byzantines grudgingly agreed, but after Volodymyr provided the requested aid, they reneged.

At that point Volodymyr attacked Byzantium. Having taken the city of Chersonesus in Crimea, he now threatened to continue on to the rest of Byzantium. Byzantium, acceded to his demands, but to prevent any more surprises, he now demanded to marry Anna, the sister of the Byzantine emperor as a further sign of his and his empire’s equality with them. It was unprecedented that a pagan ruler should enter into such a marriage, yet the Byzantines agreed, though on the condition that he accept Christianity. Volodymyr had already been considering this both personally and for his nation, and so it was that in 988, Volodymyr the Great became a Christian. But he did not stop there. Even as early as Scythian times, there had been Christianity in Ukraine, to the extent that Scythian bishops are recorded as participants in the earliest ecumenical councils, though they hailed from those southern regions of Scythia that were under Byzantine control. For Volodymyr personally, his grandmother Olha (later St. Olha) had accepted Christianity. Now, while not formally coercing the nation, he famously declared that who so did not become a Christian would not be a friend of his, and so in 988, starting in Kyiv, Ukraine was baptized. Ukraine became an Orthodox Christian metropolitanate under the administration of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Eventually, Volodymyr the Great would also be canonized as St. Volodymyr.

Rus rose from the 800’s through 1100’s, but after the death of Czar Volodymyr Monmakh, it began to devolve into competing city states, the ruler of each hoping to conquer the others and then move to Kyiv and rule from there, but with none being able to actually achieve this. By the early 1200’s the Turkic Tartars arrived. First they won the Battle of the Kalka River in 1223, against a large but quarrelling, disjointed Ukrainian force, which included forces from Ukraine or Rus proper, and also from Novhorod, and other northern and northeastern territories now in Belarus and Russia, as well as, their now-allies, the Polovtsi (Cumans, also Turkic). The Ukrainian forces conducted the battle in an uncoordinated and very poor strategic manner, resulting in an easy catastrophic defeat. Incredibly, after their victory the Tartars retreated. Soon though, by the late 1230’s, they were back, and with no centralized empire to oppose them, they sacked city after city, including Kyiv in 1240.

As the empire collapsed, Western Ukraine absorbed a great deal of the human and material treasures of the now-fallen east, but it was too small and too steeped in the tradition of competing city states, or perhaps better to say competing local lords, to last more than another century. Thus, by the 1300’s, western Ukraine found itself under Lithuania and some parts under Hungary. When Lithuania merged with, but really and essentially, was absorbed by Poland in 1569, most of western Ukraine found itself there. In the east, Ukrainian lands, like the Russian lands to the north, moved from Tartar rule to rule by the rising Russian city state of Muscovy with its capital of Moscow.

As the Tartar invaders lost power, they divided into independent Khanates, one of which was the Crimean Khanate, established in the 1441, but which by 1475 was forced to become a vassal — though closely allied — state of the flourishing Ottoman Empire on the opposite shore of the Black Sea. From there they waged annual raids for booty, especially for slaves to be sold to the Ottomans.

As Ukraine had devolved and come under the rule of various foreign powers, people, mostly men, had slowly begun to carve out an existence in the steppes, which had become a deserted no-man’s land between the parts to the north and west under European rule and the parts under Asian or no rule. This became the crucible in which a way of life and a type of person called the “kozak” or “cossack” developed. The word itself is thought to derive from Turkic, and meant a young man, with connotations of independence, of not being beholden to anyone.

By 1550, under the leadership and financial backing of a Ukrainian nobleman named Dmytro (“Bayda”) Vyshnyvetskyi, the Cossacks built their first major fort or ”sich” on the Dnipro River. It, like the ones that would follow, was built in the Zaporizhia region, the word meaning “za” – past “porizhia” – [the] rapids, so all these forts, built in succession as the preceding one was destroyed or discarded, were all called the Zaporizhian Sich. Today, the area is underwater thanks to the Dnieper Hydroelectric Station, built in 1932, creating the massive Dnipro Reservoir.

The Cossacks were a social phenomenon. They consisted of people from all levels of society coalescing for protection. Everybody from dispossessed aristocrats to oppressed common people chafing under Polish rule to those simply seeking adventure and/or freedom came, but with the Tartars making annual slave and booty raids from Crimea, the need for protection was real. As such, the cossacks evolved into not only defenders of themselves, but a force for the defense of a Ukrainian nation long-deprived of self government. The lore of the Cossack era and lifestyle as representing the very best natural aspirations of the Ukrainian people persists even today.

Initially, the cossacks were not an overt political force, but they were a force. As such, established authorities began seeing them as a force to be feared, but also one that might be used in a mercenary fashion. One famous example of this was the aid that the Polish King Jan III Sobieski brought to the Austrians at the Siege of Vienna in 1683. Though he had promised help, he actually lacked the proper resources in troops. When he arrived, the bulk of his army, were actually Ukrainian Zaporizhian cossack mercenaries. His inexplicably, frustratingly slow arrival to aid the Austrians, was actually the result of difficulties he had in negotiating the terms of Ukrainian aid.

In a further interesting development arising out of this battle, as the siege wore on, a Ukrainian nobleman and Zaporizhian cossack named Yuryi Frants Kulchytskyi, fluent in multiple languages, voluntarily managed to get out of the city and back in to convey information critical to coordinating the eventually successful defense of the city. The reward he claimed was the many bags of coffee seized from the Turks, which the victors were more than happy to release to him as they had no idea of what it was. He subsequently opened a coffee shop, and thereby introduced coffee to Western Europe.

Life under Poland was not going well. Ukrainian nobility, essentially, were given the choice of adopting Catholicism and Polish language and culture, or they were steadily being dispossessed of their lands and possessions. The Orthodox Church in Ukraine felt the same pressure. In 1596, thinking this might be an easement to the nation, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church hierarchy entered into the Treaty of Berest (or Brest) in which they became a Uniate Church, formally known as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church — a church with outwardly Orthodox forms, much autonomy in administration, but in full communion and therefore religiously subject to Rome and the Pope. It exists as such to this day.

By the late 1500’s and on into the 1600’s, Ukrainian discontent at rule by Poland kept boiling over into a series of increasingly massive rebellions that were put down violently but with increasing difficulty by Poland. The one that commenced in 1648 went differently. The cossacks, led by Bohdan Khmelnytskyi allied themselves with their enemies the Tartars, who offered a great boost in the area of cavalry, to fight against the Poles. What had apparently been an attempt by Khmelnytskyi to win back rights, but still remain under the auspices of the Polish crown, exploded as the cossack rebellion triggered a popular uprising at the national level. By the end of 1648, Khmelnytskyi triumphantly rode into Kyiv as the de facto national leader of Ukraine. But Khmelnytskyi made mistakes that would prove devastating for the country. He made peace with the newly-elected King of Poland, and purposely turned away from a march on Poland by which he could have occupied Poland and thus stifled Polish retaliation. Furthermore, a key failing of Khmelnytskyi’s treaty with the Poles, was that it failed to obtain formal Polish recognition of Ukrainian sovereignty or his authority over Ukraine. Beset by a subsequent mix of victories but also defeats, as the Poles sought to re-establish rule over Ukraine, by 1654 Khmelnytskyi felt it necessary to enter into the Pereyaslav Agreement with Muscovy (today’s Russia), which, while it seemed to bring assistance to Ukraine, ultimately only opened the door, legitimizing Russian interference in Ukraine, and over time, aided the Russian takeover of Ukraine.

The head of the cossacks had held the title of “hetman”, but starting with Hetman Khmelnytskyi, it became a title of national leadership. While Khmelnytskyi had moved the country forward toward sovereignty, it was also he who had failed to re-establish it, leaving the country in an ambiguous relationship with regards to Poland, and now voluntarily moving it into an autonomous rather than sovereign relationship with regards to Russia. The varying hostile and allied relationship toward Tartary and the Ottoman Empire — the Turks — also continued. In the ensuing years, in these muddied waters, hetman after hetman now had to struggle to work Ukraine towards independence.

Three more major opportunities to finally liberate Ukraine came, but failed.

Hetman Ivan Vyhovskyi declared war on Russia, and won a victory against the Russians at the Battle of Konotop in 1659, that was so devastating, that the Russian court made preparations to evacuate to the Urals. Russian agents in Ukraine, succeeded in stirring up so much strife back in Ukraine, however, that Vyhovskyi was forced to turn back to quell the unrest. To make matters worse, at the same time Otaman — as the title for the head of the Zaporizhian cossacks now was — Ivan Sirko decided to attack Tartary (established in 1441 in Crimea), an unfortunate move as Ukraine was, at the moment, officially allied with Tartary and Poland. The Cossacks, so bothersome to oppressive foreign powers, could now be a destabilizing force for Ukraine too. As alliances ended and cities rebelled, Vyhovskyi’s government collapsed.

But Ukraine wasn’t done yet. The wiliest hetman may have been Hetman Ivan Mazepa. Feigning loyalty to the tsar, he built Ukraine up at all levels of society, preparing it for independence. The economy and culture flourished. When the Swedes invaded northern and northeastern Europe, he allied himself with them arranging for them to be the first to formally acknowledge Ukrainian sovereignty with himself as king. In 1709, at the Battle of Poltava, the combined Ukrainian-Swedish force met defeat. To this day, the Russian Orthodox Church refuses to renounce the anathema on his name, while in Ukraine, he is revered enough that his image appears on the 10 Hryvnia banknote.

After that, the Russians tightened their grip on the east, and the Poles held on to the west. As Poland slowly devolved to its own disappearance from the map of Europe (1795), a process that historians agree was set into motion by the Khmelnytskyi uprising, western Ukraine became a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In the east, in 1764, the Russians officially ended the hetmanate, and in 1775, they forced the abandonment of the Zaporizhian Sich. Ukraine became a region of Russia, divided into “gubernias” administrated by governors.

In 1734, 1750 and 1768, there was another series of increasingly forceful uprisings, which were directed at Poland and Russia both. The one in 1768, named the Koliyivshchyna Revolt, was led by Maksym Zalizniak, who was elected hetman during the uprising — very significant, as Russia had officially ended the hetmanate four years earlier — and Ivan Honta. The uprising began in central Ukraine just south and a bit west of Kyiv, and succeeded in capturing and consolidating a core territory there. The uprising was gaining such rapid momentum, that it became obvious that it would at any moment spread to both the remaining Polish-controlled and Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine. Realizing this, Russia and Poland managed to act jointly, and quelled the uprising in 1769. It had lasted 1 year.

At its inception, the cossack movement had consisted of Ukrainians fleeing south to enjoy freedom, but they had located not only in the Zaporizhia region of Ukraine, but also in the southeast and east, in the old Scythian east, the lands east of the Sea of Azov in the Don, Kuban and Terek River basins. Starting in the 16th century on through the 19th, Russia began to use Don and Kuban cossacks both to guard its borderlands and to expand them. As time went on, the Russians developed the idea of pushing all the way to the Bering Strait and beyond. This expansion eventually went as far as the establishment of Fort Ross, just north of today’s San Francisco, and included Siberia and Alaska. Throughout the history of this expansion, Ukrainian cossacks were used. Back in Ukraine, by the late 18th century, especially after the Zaporizhian Sich was forcibly disbanded (1775), there were migrations of cossacks in all directions, and some were actually orchestrated by Russia. There were various reasons for this. In some cases, Russia wanted to reward them for service to its empire. In other cases it wanted to appease them. In other cases, it simple wanted to relocate them, so that Russia could build its New Russia in the territory of Old Ukraine.

As time went on, and as political oppression expanded, so did cultural repression. One of the most hated examples of this, was the law passed by Russia in 1876 called the Ems Ukaz, which made it illegal to publish or import books in the Ukrainian language. At the time, the Russian interior minister famously declared, “the Ukrainian language never existed, does not exist, and shall never exist”.

In the 19th century, Ukraine seemed poised to disappear. Yet the nation would not succumb. Cultural movements and secret societies appeared despite threats of persecution. Many literary figures arose to preserve the Ukrainian language itself, as well as, the dream of a return to statehood. The greatest of these was Taras Shevchenko. One of the “benefits” that Russian rule had brought to Ukraine was the re-establishment of serfdom in 1783[!] — a social institution whose last remnants had died out in Ukraine over a century before — and Shevchenko was born a serf in 1814. This gifted genius rose to become an accomplished painter, engraver and writer, in particular of lengthy poetic novels. He was eventually bought out of serfdom at age twenty-four by two older artist friends, who raised the money through the raffle of a painting. He wrote on many topics, but his greatest impact was through those writings that glorified Ukraine, in particular it’s hetmanate past — prohibited — its culture and aspirations. His writings further included revelations of Russian oppression and derisive descriptions of the imperial family. Soon enough, all this earned him several long, debilitating exiles and imprisonments in various locales in Central Asia.

Incredibly, as the 20th century approached, there was a growth, especially in western Ukraine, which was under Austro-Hungary, of organic and organized efforts at education and self-help for the populace including people in the rural areas, especially in the areas of national awareness, economics, political power and ultimately self-defense. By the time World War I arrived, Ukrainians proclaimed the Ukrainian National Republic (UNR) in 1917 with its capital at Kyiv and the Western Ukrainian National Republic in 1918 with its capital at Lviv, and the two merged in 1919 as the UNR.

Even the cossack heritage and lifestyle, seemingly ended in the 18th century, continued in other places and have remained to this day, namely stretching from eastern Donbass in today’s Ukraine to the Don River basin — the Don Cossacks — and in the Kuban River basin in today’s Russia — the Kuban Cossacks. In 1918, both these regions proclaimed republics with Ukrainian as the sole or primary official language and sought diplomatic ties with Ukraine proper, which, in fact, reciprocated. Also by 1918, Zelenyi Klyn or Green Ukraine, in the region around the lower Amur River on the Pacific Ocean, with Vladivostok as its major city, had organized itself into a pre-governmental polity, was sending material aid to Ukraine proper, and had formally resolved to proclaim independence and negotiated coordination with the Ukrainian National Republic, even demanding officially, that in all of its negotiations with Russia, the UNR was to demand jurisdiction over Green Ukraine! In late 1919, Kuban, Don and cossacks of the Terek Region (the Terek River flows east, into the Caspian Sea) began discussions of uniting as one state, even as they also made overtures to the UNR. Today, the situation in these regions, all within modern Russia, remains a never-ending source of worry for Russia.

Catastrophically, with Ukraine’s socialist government having dissolved most of its army in conformity with its ideological belief that a new era of world peace was at hand, by 1920 Ukrainian independence was ended. Ukraine became a nation called the Ukrainian SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic), part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or USSR.

In the years between the wars, Stalin decided to simultaneously break the farmers, who were stubbornly resisting farm collectivization, and quell Ukraine’s sense of independence. Between 1932 and 1933, the secret police would raid farms and remove absolutely all grain, including that set aside for planting. The grain was sold on the world market, meanwhile its original owners starved. In their delirium, people even resorted to cannibalism. Bodies of the starving lay openly in the streets of such large cities as Kharkiv! These operations were not carried out everywhere in the Soviet Union, but specifically in the Ukrainian SSR, Kuban, and Don Regions, where the highest concentrations of ethnic Ukrainians in the Soviet Union lived. It has come to be called the “Holodomor”, meaning “extermination by hunger, or by the name “Famine-Genocide in Ukraine”. In addition to the artificial famine, in Don and Kuban, from 1917 to 1933, Stalin maintained a constant policy of “decossackization” using everything from civic pressure and discrimination to physical violence, such as burning of villages, all with the goal of dismantling any sense of uniqueness that the cossacks might have both in terms of their Ukrainian heritage and in terms of their unique cossack society.

In World War II, Ukraine fielded an insurgent army, which continued operations as late as the mid 1950’s. Late in the war, in 1943, Germany, now desperate for help in Eastern Europe, formed an SS Division called the 14th SS-Volunteer Division “Galicia”, which had an arrangement that they would not fight against the Western Allies, and which indeed, surrendered variously to US and British forces in 1945. The Don and Kuban cossacks also formally cooperated with Germany in hopes of establishing an independent cossack state, but having spent the inter-war years being exterminated by the Holodomor, coerced, and with a generation being brain-washed since childhood, sadly, many also remained loyal to Russia. By comparison, in World War I, the Russian army had had a notable insubordination incident wherein cossacks in the service of the Russian Army refused to fire on Ukrainians even if they would fire on the Austro-Hungarians.

In 1945, as the war ended, Ukraine became a founding member of the United Nations, though certainly not because the Russian-controlled Soviet Union desired to remind the world that Ukraine was a nation — in fact this was a great liability to them as they continued their ethnocidal policies against Ukraine — but because it meant an additional vote they could direct. In 1954, then-Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev arranged the transfer of Crimea, a peninsula and an administrative region of the same name, to Ukraine. The reasons for this rather surprising and abrupt move ranged from his fondness for Ukraine to a desire to promote the idea of a “brotherhood of nations” between Russia, Ukraine and Belarus — particularly as that year marked the 300th anniversary of Khmelnytskyi’s Pereyaslav Agreement, that so adeptly steered Ukraine in the direction of Russia — to the administrative practicality of having Crimea administered from Ukraine, to other considerations.

Ukraine remained one of the countries imprisoned in the “prison of nations” as the Soviet Union was often called by Ukrainians, until Ukraine’s independence by referendum in 1991 as the Soviet Union fell apart. In 1994, under the Memorandum on Security Assurances or Budapest Agreement, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan gave up their nuclear arsenals — Ukraine at the time had the third largest in the world — for assurances from the U.S., the U.K. and Russia that they would protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. China and France also participated by separate documents. Today Ukrainian’s consider the agreement broken, and themselves free to re-establish a nuclear arsenal.

The big test for Ukrainian mettle came in the presidential election of 2004, the third since independence. Much more so than in previous elections, it effectively pitted the pro-Ukrainian, pro-European (indeed, pro-Western), pro-European Community (EC), populist candidate Victor Yushchenko against the pro-Russian Commonwealth (formally the CIS – Commonwealth of Independent States), darling of the oligarchical system of wealth, power and patronage in Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych. It is important to note that he also represented the interests of the of pro-Russian people generally, a large majority of whom were ethnically Russian. Over the centuries of Russian imperialism, they had settled in southeastern and southern Ukraine (including Crimea), and quite notably, many had been brought in by the Soviets — whether it be to work in the coal and iron mines — or especially painful to Ukrainians, to outright take over deserted villages depopulated under Stalin’s rule by the combined effects of the “Holodomor” (“Famine-Genocide in Ukraine” of 1932-1933) and ethnic displacement; the latter would take the form of Ukrainian villagers living in Ukraine, being, without any warning, rounded up in the middle of the night, in winter, and herded onto drafty train cars, with their children and whatever possessions they could grab, transported to Siberia, and then disembarked into the snows with some tools, and told to build a new village there or die of exposure and hunger. It is perhaps poetic justice that in spite of this, they survived, adding significantly to the already sizeable population of Ukrainians in Siberia from earlier times, with the result that Siberia is now populated by millions of ethnic Ukrainians; in many areas, ethnic Ukrainians are the majority all the way to Green Ukraine, and the Russians are understandably nervous about it; discussions of this are problematic, because with its vested interest in suppressing this information, Russia produces statistics which seem to minimize this.

In modern Ukraine, with the advent of independence and going into the various presidential and other elections, many ethnic Russians, including a prominent outsider, a certain Mr. Putin, considered it an imposition — no “persecution” — that living in Ukraine, they would have to accommodate themselves to the Ukrainian language being the official language of the country, or that after generations as the privileged ethnic minority, they might even have to learn Ukrainian to function well in the greater society. To them, who were trying to turn Ukraine into an extension of Russia, the idea of going the other way, and assimilating into the culture of the country in which they were living was unimaginable. They failed also, to consider that at no time were they actually prohibited from or coerced into not speaking Russian, whether in private or in public, from being connected to or proud of their heritage, or even of having organized expressions of this, examples of which could be Russian language and culture Saturday schools, museums, various civic organizations and the like.

With so much at stake between the two candidates, the election of 2004 promised to be contentious and full of coercion and fraud. Yet, as the results began to come in, the fact that Victor Yushchenko was strongly pulling ahead of Victor Yanukovych began to be so obvious, that the national media stopped reporting results mid-way through the voting. The following day, they simply declared Victor Yanukovych the winner. At that, the people took to the streets and the Orange Revolution was born. The political pressure both internally and internationally was such that the government was forced to hold a re-vote and this time with even greater international and internal scrutiny, and Yushchenko won decisively. After five years of a Yushchenko presidency that left most people grossly disenchanted with his leadership, Victor Yanukovych finally won the presidency, and began turning Ukraine into a puppet state of Russia. The synchronistic takeover of all facets of societal control, the allowance of infiltration of all sectors of the police and military by erstwhile Russian nationals was breathtaking in its completeness. But what brought this to light more so than anything, ironically, was its ultimate failure and dismantling.

Heading into late 2013, Ukraine had supposedly spent the last several years working on a step-wise integration with the European Union and perhaps in time, NATO. In a sudden reversal, days before further implementation (to be implemented by the signing of the Association Agreement in Vilnius), Yanukovych announced that Ukraine would suspend this activity, and the logical inference was, that it would instead join Russia’s Eurasian Customs Union (EACU) or Russia’s Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) or both. Civic protests began immediately in Kyiv and Lviv. Victor Yanukovych, president of Ukraine, flew to Moscow to consult with Putin! Then Yanukovych ordered his Berkut security forces to attack the protesters in Kyiv. With that one act the Euromaidan turned into the Revolution of Conscience. Though none died that night, many were beaten severely, especially a young, female college student.

Now there were tens of thousands and then hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, and the longer this continued, more numerous, better attended and increasingly more violent (on both sides) protests erupted all over Ukraine. In breathtaking lockstep, every time Yanukovych offered up an appeasement that truly threatened the movement against him by its veneer of reasonableness, every time it looked like the nation might just “buy it”, he quickly followed up with some new aggression or atrocity that simply outraged the national consciousness, bringing more people into the street, more determined to oppose him and what he represented — corruption, civic injustice, and another end to Ukraine. Beginning February 18, 2014, the first deaths occurred, exploding in number as over 100 people were killed over the next several days. These first martyrs of the Revolution came to be called the Nebesna Sotnia or Celestial Hundred. And by this point, people were being abducted and killed all over Ukraine. Later that week, Yanukovych, now under intense international pressure, after signing yet another agreement designed to quiet what was really almost a civil war, within two days displaced himself to Kharkiv and then disappeared, having fled the country for Russia. The Ukrainian parliament immediately elected new interim leadership and by May, new elections were held, resulting in the presidency of Ukraine’s current president, Petro Poroshenko.

Today, Ukraine is again fighting against Russia in a covert war the Russians refuse to admit they are waging, and whose aim seems to be de-stabilization of Ukraine even if not necessarily full annexation, but with partial annexation already having occurred in Crimea and the Donbass. Internally, Ukraine is trying to eliminate government corruption and excessive bureaucracy, has launched a western-style police force in place of the former “militia” and Berkut and is trying to develop economically. Externally, Ukraine is working to integrate into Europe economically and politically, one of the most immediate goals being, not NATO membership as some might think, but participation in the collective of European nations known as the Schengen Area, which would allow Ukraine’s citizens to travel throughout most of Europe without the need for passports and visas. Being part of the US’s visa-free regime is also a goal, as is EU membership. Until late 2015, Ukraine had still been part of the economic offshoot of the CIS, the Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area (CISFTA), but Russia in mid-December 2015, suspended its CIS Free Trade Agreement as to Ukraine effective January 1, 2016 to which Ukraine responded with trade restrictions against Russia. Probably what had prompted the Russian move was that also commencing January 1, 2016, the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas (DCFTA), established by agreement between Ukraine and Georgia and the EU went into effect.

The war in eastern Ukraine goes on, but in the longer term, many experts think that Ukraine’s greatest promise of victory lies in succeeding on all levels of society now free of the crippling ties it once had to Russia.

https://tryzubchicago.com/a-short-history-of-ukraine/

[Anthea]

In order to further cause conflict both the US and the UK are still sending weapons into the Ukraine

All Russia wants is for the US, NATO and other countries to stay away form their borders

The US, Canada and the UK, among others, are trying their hardest to inflame a conflict between Russia and Ukraine to distract the world from the internal conflicts

In the US there are major corruption investigation reports taking place, one of the most serious investigation is the Durham investigation:

New Durham Filing Confirms Hillary Clinton Allies SPIED On Trump Campaign and Presidency!

https://welovetrump.com/2022/02/12/bomb ... residency/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/02/ ... evelation/

The US also has problems with Black Lives Campaign and funding that is being used to support the Democratic party and pay an absolute fortune to the BLM organizers and nothing to the poor black communities they pretend to support

Problems with illegal immigrants, drug and people trafficking over the border

Lack of action on climate change, food shortages, shortages in farming supplies

Protests against vaccine regulations and lose of rights

And government misuse of powers - US States have the many rights that they have entrusted to central government - because of government misuse, many states are planning to remove those rights from government control and place them back in the hands of the individual States

Support for Biden is falling fast

In Canada Justin Trudeau is about to face a vote of NO CONFIDENCE

Canada 'Freedom Convoy' truckers dig in as police set to use new powers

Trucker-led protesters occupying the Canadian capital Ottawa showed no sign of backing down Tuesday, despite a newly invoked state of emergency granting the law enforcement agency wide new powers to end the weeks-long protest over COVID-19 rules.

A day after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act, the truckers appeared undeterred – if anything hardening their stance to move their big rigs into positions tougher to dislodge, with signs that read: "Hold the line."

Facing intense criticism over the failure to dislodge the protesters, Ottawa police chief Peter Sloly abruptly resigned on Tuesday.

The so-called "Freedom Convoy" started with truckers protesting against mandatory COVID-19 vaccines to cross the U.S. border, but its demands have since grown to include an end to all pandemic health rules.

Protesters against COVID-19 policies from across France prepare to welcome a Canada-inspired "Freedom Convoy" at Place Denfert-Rochereau in Paris, France, February 11, 2022. /CFP

The truckers have found support among conservatives and vaccine mandate opponents across the world, even as COVID-19 measures are being rolled back in many places.

In Paris, over the weekend, police fired tear gas and issued hundreds of fines in an effort to break up convoys coming from across France.

The Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria have also seen copycat movements, and Belgian authorities said Monday they had intercepted 30 vehicles as police scrambled to stop a convoy of trucks.

Some U.S. truckers are reported to be mulling a protest in March.

A woman holds a banner saying "Mob rule is not democracy" to protest "Freedom Convoy" truckers in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, February 13, 2022. /CFP

A woman holds a banner saying "Mob rule is not democracy" to protest "Freedom Convoy" truckers in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, February 13, 2022. /CFP

A hack has revealed over 90,000 names, email addresses and locations of people who donated to the Canadian trucker convoy. More than half of the donors were from the U.S., The Guardian reported, citing the hacked records.

About a dozen donors reportedly used .gov email addresses associated with the U.S. Dept. of Justice, Homeland Security, NASA and other government agencies, indicating they may be U.S. government employees. At least one donor used a Canadian government email address, according to The Guardian.

Officials said the historic Emergencies Act would be used to strengthen police powers to arrest protesters, seize their trucks and freeze their bank accounts.

Justice Minister David Lametti told reporters on Tuesday, "We're trying to break the financing, particularly foreign financing" of the convoy and its use of "heavy rigs to disrupt the Canadian economy and put people in a state of insecurity."

In England

Boris is fast losing support