War Never Ends

The Odessa Steps made famous in Sergei Eisenstein’s film ‘Battleship Potemkin

That Putin’s order to regain influence in Ukraine was an error of judgement that plays into Washington’s hands, is a given. That he has gifted warmongers in the West the excuse to point the finger and say, ‘we told you so’, is also a given. That the West is wholly responsible for the invasion of Ukraine is less acceptable because of years of indoctrination we have taken from useless leaders who wish Russia “wiped out”, to quote the idol of disastrous and brutal neo-con economics, Milton Friedman.

In the following article by Diane Johnstone, press secretary of the Green Group in the European Parliament for seven years, the most significant paragraph, to my mind, is this one:

“Putin challenged the “unipolar world” being imposed by the United States and emphasized Russia’s desire to “interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.”

We in the West responded by humiliating and demonising him.

This is the fourth article on the invasion of Ukraine. Essentially, it fleshes out my original piece on why we in the West are culpable. It spells our NATO’s involvement in Kosovo. It also echos much of what Professor Mearsheimer has been saying for many years. It is very important we hear alternative views and know the genesis of this latest crisis in order to make intelligent decisions about how it can be suspended and more deaths averted. One thing is certain, if we do not tell our leaders to find common ground with Russia, our leaders are condemning us to perpetual war. Perhaps we elect the wrong people.


By Diane Johnstone

It goes on and on. The “war to end war” of 1914-1918 led to the war of 1939-1945, known as World War II. And that one has never ended either, mainly because for Washington, it was the Good War, the war that made The American Century: why not the American Millenium? The conflict in Ukraine may be the spark that sets off what we already call World War III.

But this is not a new war. It is the same old war, an extension of the one we call World War II, which was not the same war for all those who took part. The Russian war and the American war were very, very different.

Russia’s World War II

For Russians, the war was an experience of massive suffering, grief and destruction. The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union was utterly ruthless, propelled by a racist ideology of contempt for the Slavs and hatred of “Jewish Bolsheviks.” An estimated 27 million died, about two thirds of them civilians. Despite overwhelming losses and suffering, the Red Army succeeded in turning the Nazi tide of conquest that had subdued most of Europe.

This gigantic struggle to drive the German invaders from their soil is known to Russians as the Great Patriotic War, nourishing a national pride that helped console the people for all they had been through. But whatever the pride in victory, the horrors of the war inspired a genuine desire for peace.

America’s World War II

America’s World War II (like World War I) happened somewhere else. That is a very big difference. The war enabled the United States to emerge as the richest and most powerful nation on earth. Americans were taught never to compromise, neither to prevent war (“Munich”) nor to end one (“unconditional surrender” was the American way). Righteous intransigence was the fitting attitude of Good in its battle against Evil.

The war economy brought the U.S. out of the depression. Military Keynesianism emerged as the key to prosperity. The Military-Industrial-Complex was born. To continue providing Pentagon contracts to every congressional constituency and guaranteed profits to Wall Street investors, it needed a new enemy. The Communist scare – the very same scare that had contributed to creating fascism – did the trick.

The Cold War: World War II Continued

In short, after 1945, for Russia, World War II was over. For the United States, it was not. What we call the Cold War was its voluntary continuation by leaders in Washington. It was perpetuated by the theory that Russia’s defensive “Iron Curtain” constituted a military threat to the rest of Europe.

At the end of the war, the main security concern of Stalin was to prevent such an invasion from ever happening again. Contrary to Western interpretations, Moscow’s ongoing control of Eastern European countries it had occupied on its way to victory in Berlin was not inspired so much by communist ideology as by determination to create a buffer zone as an obstacle to repeated invasion from the West.

Stalin respected the Yalta lines between East and West and declined to support the life and death struggle of Greek communists. Moscow cautioned leaders of large Western European Communist Parties to eschew revolution and play by the rules of bourgeois democracy. The Soviet occupation could be brutal but was resolutely defensive. Soviet sponsorship of peace movements was perfectly genuine.

The formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the rearmament of Germany confirmed that for the United States, the war in Europe was not entirely over. The lackadaisical U.S. “de-Nazification” of its sector of occupied Germany was accompanied by an organized brain drain of Germans who could be useful to the United States in its rearmament and espionage (from Wernher von Braun to Reinhard Gehlen).

America’s Ideological Victory

Throughout the Cold War, the United States devoted its science and industry to building a gigantic arsenal of deadly weapons, which wreaked devastation without bringing U.S. victory in Korea or Vietnam. But military defeat did not cancel America’s ideological victory.

The greatest triumph of American imperialism has been in spreading its self-justifying images and ideology, primarily in Europe. The dominance of the American entertainment industry has spread its particular blend of self-indulgence and moral dualism around the world, especially among youth. Hollywood convinced the West that World War II was won essentially by the U.S. forces and their allies in the Normandy invasion. America sold itself as the final force for Good as well as the only fun place to live. Russians were drab and sinister.

In the Soviet Union itself, many people were not immune to the attractions of American self-glorification. Some apparently even thought that the Cold War was all a big misunderstanding, and that if we are very nice and friendly, the West will be nice and friendly too. Mikhail Gorbachev was susceptible to this optimism.

Former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock recounts that the desire to liberate Russia from the perceived burden of the Soviet Union was widespread within the Russian elite in the 1980s. It was the leadership rather than the masses who accomplished the self-destruction of the Soviet Union, leaving Russia as the successor state, with the nuclear weapons and U.N. veto of the U.S.S.R. under the alcohol-soaked presidency of Boris Yeltsin – and overwhelming U.S. influence during the 1990s.

The New NATO

Russia’s modernization over the past three centuries has been marked by controversy between “Westernizers” – those who see Russia’s progress in emulation of the more advanced West – and “Slavophiles,” who consider that the nation’s material backwardness is compensated by some sort of spiritual superiority, perhaps based in the simple democracy of the traditional village.

In Russia, Marxism was a Westernizing concept. But official Marxism did not erase admiration for the “capitalist” West and in particular for America. Gorbachev dreamed of “our common European home” living some sort of social democracy. In the 1990s, Russia asked only to be part of the West. What happened next proved that the whole “communist scare” justifying the Cold War was false. A pretext. A fake designed to perpetuate military Keynesianism and America’s special war to maintain its own economic and ideological hegemony.

There was no longer any Soviet Union. There was no more Soviet communism. There was no Soviet bloc, no Warsaw Pact. NATO had no more reason to exist. But in 1999, NATO celebrated its 50th anniversary by bombing Yugoslavia and thereby transforming itself from a defensive to an aggressive military alliance. Yugoslavia had been non-aligned, belonging neither to NATO nor the Warsaw Pact. It threatened no other country. Without authorization from the Security Council or justification for self-defense, the NATO aggression violated international law.

At the very same time, in violation of unwritten but fervent diplomatic promises to Russian leaders, NATO welcomed Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic as new members. Five years later, in 2004, NATO took in Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia and the three Baltic Republics. Meanwhile, NATO members were being dragged into war in Afghanistan, the first and only “defense of a NATO member” – namely, the United States.

Understanding Putin, or not

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin had been chosen by Yeltsin as his successor, partly no doubt because as a former KGB officer in East Germany he had some knowledge and understanding of the West. Putin pulled Russia out of the shambles caused by Yeltsin’s acceptance of American-designed economic shock treatment. Putin put a stop to the most egregious rip-offs, incurring the wrath of dispossessed oligarchs who used their troubles with the law to convince the West that they were victims of persecution (example: the ridiculous Magnitsky Act).

On Feb. 11, 2007, the Russian Westernizer Putin went to a center of Western power, the Munich Security Conference, and asked to be understood by the West. It is easy to understand, if one wants to. Putin challenged the “unipolar world” being imposed by the United States and emphasized Russia’s desire to “interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.”

The reaction of the leading Western partners was indignation, rejection, and a 15-year media campaign portraying Putin as some sort of demonic creature. Indeed, since that speech there have been no limits to Western media’s insults directed at Putin and Russia. And in this scornful treatment we see the two versions of World War II. In 2014, world leaders gathered in Normandy to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings by U.S. and British forces.

In fact, that 1944 invasion ran into difficulties, even though German forces were mainly concentrated on the Eastern front, where they were losing the war to the Red Army. Moscow launched a special operation precisely to draw German forces away from the Normandy front. Even so, Allied progress could not beat the Red Army to Berlin. However, thanks to Hollywood, many in the West consider D-Day to be the decisive operation of World War II. To honor the event, Vladimir Putin was there and so was German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Then, in the following year, world leaders were invited to a lavish victory parade held in Moscow celebrating the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II. Leaders of the United States, Britain and Germany chose not to participate.

This was consistent with an endless series of Western gestures of disdain for Russia and its decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany (it destroyed 80 percent of the Wehrmacht.) On Sept. 19, 2019, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on “the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe” which jointly accused the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany of unleashing World War II.

Vladimir Putin responded to this gratuitous affront in long article on “The Lessons of World War II” published in English in The National Interest on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the end of the war. Putin answered with a careful analysis of the causes of the war and its profound effect on the lives of the people trapped in the murderous 872-day Nazi siege of Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg), including his own parents whose two-year-old son was one of the 800,000 who perished.

Clearly, Putin was deeply offended by continual Western refusal to grasp the meaning of the war in Russia. “Desecrating and insulting the memory is mean,” Putin wrote. “Meanness can be deliberate, hypocritical and pretty much intentional as in the situation when declarations commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War mention all participants in the anti-Hitler coalition except for the Soviet Union.”

And all this time, NATO continued to expand eastward, more and more openly targeting Russia in its massive war exercises on its land and sea borders.

The U.S. Seizure of Ukraine

The encirclement of Russia took a qualitative leap ahead with the 2014 seizure of Ukraine by the United States. Western media recounted this complex event as a popular uprising, but popular uprisings can be taken over by forces with their own aims, and this one was. The elected president Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown by violence a day after he had agreed to early elections in an accord with European leaders.

Billions of U.S. dollars and murderous shootings by extreme right militants enforced a regime change openly directed by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland (“F___ the EU”) producing a leadership in Kiev largely selected in Washington, and eager to join NATO. By the end of the year, the government of “democratic Ukraine” was largely in the hands of U.S.-approved foreigners. The new minister of finance was a U.S. citizen of Ukrainian origin, Natalia Jaresko, who had worked for the State Department before going into private business. The minister of economy was a Lithuanian, Aïvaras Arbomavitchous, a former basketball champion. The ministry of health was taken by a former Georgian minister of health and labor, Sandro Kvitachvili.

Later, disgraced former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili was called in to take charge of the troubled port of Odessa. And Vice President Joe Biden was directly involved in reshuffling the Kiev cabinet as his son, Hunter Biden, was granted a profitable position with the Ukrainian gas company Barisma. The vehemently anti-Russian thrust of this regime change aroused resistance in the southeastern parts of the country, largely inhabited by ethnic Russians. Eight days after more than 40 protesters were burned alive in Odessa, the provinces of Lugansk and Donetsk moved to secede in resistance to the coup. 

The U.S.-installed regime in Kiev then launched a war against the provinces that continued for eight year, killing thousands of civilians.

And a referendum then returned Crimea to Russia. The peaceful return of Crimea was obviously vital to preserve Russia’s main naval base at Sebastopol from threatened NATO takeover. And since the population of Crimea had never approved the peninsula’s transfer to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954, the return was accomplished by a democratic vote, without bloodshed. This was in stark contrast to the detachment of the province of Kosovo from Serbia, accomplished in 1999 by weeks of NATO bombing. But to the United States and most of the West, what was a humanitarian action in Kosovo was an unforgivable aggression in Crimea.

The Oval Office Back Door to NATO

Russia kept warning that NATO enlargement must not encompass Ukraine. Western leaders vacillated between asserting Ukraine’s “right” to join whatever alliance it chose and saying it would not happen right away. It was always possible that Ukraine’s membership would be vetoed by a NATO member, perhaps France or even Germany.

But meanwhile, on Sept. 1, 2021, Ukraine was adopted by the White House as Washington’s special geo-strategic pet. NATO membership was reduced to a belated formality. A Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership issued by the White House announced that “Ukraine’s success is central to the global struggle between democracy and autocracy” – Washington’s current self-justifying ideological dualism, replacing the Free World versus Communism. It went on to spell out a permanent casus belli against Russia:

“In the 21st century, nations cannot be allowed to redraw borders by force. Russia violated this ground rule in Ukraine. Sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances. The United States stands with Ukraine and will continue to work to hold Russia accountable for its aggression. America’s support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is unwavering.”

The Statement also clearly described Kiev’s war against Donbass as a “Russian aggression.” And it made this uncompromising assertion: “The United States does not and will never recognize Russia’s purported annexation of Crimea…” (my emphasis). This is followed by promises to strengthen Ukraine’s military capacities, clearly in view of recovery of Donbass and Crimea.

Since 2014, the United States and Britain have surreptitiously transformed Ukraine into a NATO auxiliary, psychologically and militarily turned against Russia. However this looks to us, to Russian leaders this looked increasingly like nothing other than a buildup for an all-out military assault on Russia, Operation Barbarossa all over again. Many of us who tried to “understand Putin” failed to foresee the Russian invasion for the simple reason that we did not believe it to be in the Russian interest. We still don’t. But they saw the conflict as inevitable and chose the moment.

Ambiguous Echoes

Putin justified Russia’s February 2022 “operation” in Ukraine as necessary to stop genocide in Lugansk and Donetsk. This echoed the U.S.-promoted R2P, Responsibility to Protect doctrine, notably the U.S./NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, allegedly to prevent “genocide” in Kosovo. In reality, the situation, both legal and especially human, is vastly more dire in Donbass than it ever was in Kosovo. However, in the West, any attempt at comparison of Donbass with Kosovo is denounced as “false equivalence” or what-about-ism.

But the Kosovo war is much more than an analogy with the Russian invasion of Donbass: it is a cause.

Above all, the Kosovo war made it clear that NATO was no longer a defensive alliance. Rather it had become an offensive force, under U.S. command, that could authorize itself to bomb, invade or destroy any country it chose. The pretext could always be invented: a danger of genocide, a violation of human rights, a leader threatening to “kill his own people”. Any dramatic lie would do. With NATO spreading its tentacles, nobody was safe. Libya provided a second example.

Putin’s announced goal of “denazification” also might have been expected to ring a bell in the West. But if anything, it illustrates the fact that “Nazi” does not mean quite the same thing in East and West. In Western countries, Germany or the United States, “Nazi” has come to mean primarily anti-Semitic. Nazi racism applies to Jews, to Roma, perhaps to homosexuals.

But for the Ukrainian Nazis, racism applies to Russians. The racism of the Azov Battalion, which has been incorporated into Ukrainian security forces, armed and trained by the Americans and the British, echoes that of the Nazis: the Russians are a mixed race, partly “Asiatic” due to the Medieval Mongol conquest, whereas the Ukrainians are pure white Europeans. Some of these fanatics proclaim that their mission is to destroy Russia. In Afghanistan and elsewhere, the United States supported Islamic fanatics, in Kosovo they supported gangsters. Who cares what they think if they fight on our side against the Slavs?

Conflicting War Aims

For Russian leaders, their military “operation” is intended to prevent the Western invasion they fear. They still want to negotiate Ukrainian neutrality. For the Americans, whose strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski boasted of having lured the Russians into the Afghanistan trap (giving them “their Vietnam”), this is a psychological victory in their endless war. The Western world is united as never before in hating Putin. Propaganda and censorship surpass even World War levels. The Russians surely want this “operation” to end soon, as it is costly to them in many ways. The Americans rejected any effort to prevent it, did everything to provoke it, and will extract whatever advantages they can from its continuation.

Today Volodymyr Zelensky implored the U.S. Congress to give Ukraine more military aid. The aid will keep the war going. Anthony Blinken told NPR that the United States is responding by “denying Russia the technology it needs to modernize its country, to modernize key industries: defense and aerospace, its high-tech sector, energy exploration.”

The American war aim is not to spare Ukraine, but to ruin Russia. That takes time. The danger is that the Russians won’t be able to end this war, and the Americans will do all they can to keep it going.

NOTES: Diana Johnstone was press secretary of the Green Group in the European Parliament from 1989 to 1996. In her latest book, Circle in the Darkness: Memoirs of a World Watcher (Clarity Press, 2020), she recounts key episodes in the transformation of the German Green Party from a peace to a war party. Her other books include Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions (Pluto/Monthly Review) and in co-authorship with her father, Paul H. Johnstone, From MAD to Madness: Inside Pentagon Nuclear War Planning (Clarity Press).

Ukraine Article 1: ‘The Right To Tell Lies – https://wp.me/p4fd9j-riD. Ukraine Article 2: Video lecture by Professor Mearsheimer – ‘Worse To Come’ – https://wp.me/p4fd9j-rm4. Ukraine article 3: https://wp.me/p4fd9j-ro0

Professor’s Mearsheimer’s best known book, co-written with Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” should be standard reading in universities.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to War Never Ends

  1. lorncal says:

    “… Many of us who tried to “understand Putin” failed to foresee the Russian invasion for the simple reason that we did not believe it to be in the Russian interest. We still don’t. But they saw the conflict as inevitable and chose the moment… ”

    Yes, indeed. I think this was a mistake that he and Russia will pay for, but I can understand why he did it in the face of NATO expansion and the deliberate goading by the US.

    “… Above all, the Kosovo war made it clear that NATO was no longer a defensive alliance. Rather it had become an offensive force, under U.S. command, that could authorize itself to bomb, invade or destroy any country it chose. The pretext could always be invented: a danger of genocide, a violation of human rights, a leader threatening to “kill his own people”. Any dramatic lie would do. With NATO spreading its tentacles, nobody was safe. Libya provided a second example… ”

    Yes, again, but, at the time, those of us who said this were castigated. Alec Salmond made those very points and was denigrated and insulted at every turn.

    “… The American war aim is not to spare Ukraine, but to ruin Russia. That takes time. The danger is that the Russians won’t be able to end this war, and the Americans will do all they can to keep it going… ”

    It is also to expose China. With Russia brought low, it can be dismembered and kept out of the way, while The West (actually America) concentrates on China. Japan, and, maybe even South Korea, had best keep a low profile because it could become the next area of interest for the proxy intelligence battle coming between China and the West. It might even be in Africa that the sparring is carried out.

    “… she recounts key episodes in the transformation of the German Green Party from a peace to a war party… ”

    Indeed. This has happened across the board in the West where formerly peace parties have been captured. The SNP, in Scotland, is also dipping a toe in this area, too. We keep on reading in The National about the role Scotland can play in international affairs. Ay, is that right, eh?

    When you see it all laid out, with the timeline, you have to be pretty determined not to understand what has been happening. It is doubtful that any state in the history of the planet has caused so much loss of life, so much carnage and regime change and so much destruction as the US – which is really ironic because the American people are as likeable and open as any you are likely to meet. Their politicians, like ours, are utterly ruthless in dispensing with moral concepts and duties when it comes to the countries – their own – that keep them in the style to which they have become accustomed. Populists as far as the eye can see, with little to no expertise on anything that actually matters and a ready willingness to dispense with those who do.

    The real irony lies in the fact that the East (with the Middle East), Russia and China, approaches Western values very differently. They are not averse to the good stuff that comes out of the West, but they want to do things in their own ways, gently, slowly, retaining their individual cultures and economic structures. The West – i.e. America, because the rest of us are American proxies – is hell-bent on wholesale neo liberal rampart and unchallenged capitalism and an arms industry that is desperate for new clients, even if they have to be specially created for them with regional conflicts every other year, and that does not bode well for any kind of geo political and economic independence. Take note, Nicola. Your wee foray into geo politics was excruciatingly naive and left us wide open, potentially, to a nuclear strike if it comes. What are the lives of just over five million in the face of popular sabre rattling and slots on the BBC in support of Westminster’s defence (aggression) policy on behalf of the Americans?

  2. Michael W says:

    How stupid are the Germans?.

    NATO was created to keep the Russians out, the Germans down and the French in.

    The Germans antipathy towards Russia has always been tempered between bouts of militaristic grandeur by realpolitik. The Treaty of Locarno typifies this.

    So why kill an inter European Nordstream 2 for a deal with Qatar. Neither Germany or Europe gain from this. Theres only one country that gains from this.

  3. Michael W says:

    Does anyone know what happened to the Polish city of Lwow or the German city of Lemberg?

  4. sadscot says:

    @ Michael W
    I’ve just googled both. Thank you for highlighting. I’m going to take some time to read up on each as there’s a lot of detail on the histories and the back and forwards between Russia, Poland and Ukraine?

  5. Michael W says:

    Thanks sadscot. I’m not condoning what the Russians are doing but you got the point that I’m making.

  6. sadscot says:

    Thanks again for posting to highlight the history that is waiting to be found, Michael.
    GB’s contributions on this site about all that is going on regarding Ukraine and the additional info he’s provided from others have been very well received in this house. Like you, I don’t condone what’s happening. It’s utterly dreadful. I’m equally alarmed, however, by the reaction here in the west and the failure of anyone of any note to attempt to broker peace. And of course, we know why that is, just as we know who the main beneficiary of the carnage will be. It won’t be Ukraine and it won’t be Russia.

  7. Grouse Beater says:

    All we see on news stories, and all we are told, may not be true whether promoted by either side. And remember, a filmed sequence or a still photo is physically a very narrow window of reality, a picture in a frame, even on a wide lens. We are not shown what’s on either side of the image, what went before that which we are shown, or what went after.

    Remember young well-educated Kuwaiti student ‘Nayirah al-Sabah’ who presented eyewitness testimony to the United States Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990, of how “some Iraqi soldiers broke into a hospital, took babies by the feet from their beds and dashed their skulls against walls so they could steal the incubators”. This evidence greatly helped Blair and Bush later to carpet bomb innocents in ‘evil’ Iraq and invade. It transpired no such event happened, and the girl was never seen or heard of again. She simply disappeared from whence she had come. It transpired she was the daughter of a Kuwaiti ambassador and she had been coached by an American PR company, her speech ghosted.

    Keep an open mind, judge better when peace is enforced by both sides and we can see and hear clearly. And at the moment, peace and a settled agreement is all that matters.

  8. sadscot says:

    I often listen overnight to the BBC World Service although, lately, I’ve found I’ve had to switch the radio off more often as sleep doesn’t easily come if one is shouting at the radio. Last night, or in the early hours of this morning, there was a “Business” programme which dealt with the plight of Europe and gas in particular. The guy being interviewed was American and I thought the name was “Tony Nash” from Austin, Texas. He was pretty triumphant when asked what the answer was for Europe on securing gas if it was to abandon Russia as a source. He answered immediately, “Why, Texas! We have all the gas Europe needs. We can provide it for Europe, we just have to organise the transport.” I’ve tried to find the programme today unsuccessfully and I think I must have got his name wrong. I will keep looking. I’d hoped to post it here today. What shocked me was that he was actually laughing.

  9. Grouse Beater says:

    I try to explain to readers that the USA sees the EU as a threat to its trade and influence. The Tory party responded and took us out. Tony Nash confirmed it for you.

  10. sadscot says:

    I still can’t find “Tony Nash” or the interview I heard. I found this, however, it’s quite interesting.

  11. Grouse Beater says:

    That’s a long read, SS, but I’ll get to it in the early hours. A first glance raises eyebrows although some of his comments are pure US of A the master empire builder.

  12. sadscot says:

    Indeed. A few posts back I observed that there would be only one main beneficiary of what’s going on just now. That’s becoming increasingly clearer by the day.

  13. Michael W says:

    Now we know for sure it’s all about the Gas. The US was determined to kill Nordstream 2 at any price. Now the plucky Ukrainians must fight it out alone as the bait to draw the Russians in. No wonder they are desperate to draw in the US and her satraps at NATO. I was really concerned today when BBC Scotland interviewed some Ukrainian diplomat or such to ask if she was content with Biden indicating NATO would respond to a Russian chemical attack. She indicated she was disappointed that he didn’t specify what type of chemical attack. Very worrying ggiven the false flag attacks in Mariupol that the Ukrainian’s are asking what type of chemical attacks from the Russian would bring a NATO response!

  14. sadscot says:

    Michael, now we know indeed!

  15. Michael W says:

    Did you know that the Union between Scotland and England is partly to blame for the current crisis in Ukraine. I think we all agree that matters have been festering since Crimea seceded and took with her the prize of Sevastopol. What I didn’t know but now do is that in 1714 a Scottish Admiral Thomas Gordon refused to accept George 1st and left Scotland with many others for Russia. The famed Russian poet/writer Lermontov’s family for eg were Learmonth’s from Scotland as were Field Marshal Mannerheim’s family who the Wrights from Dundee. Any Admiral Gordon went on to have a grandson Thomas McKenzie. He followed into the Russian navy which had been reformed by fellow Scot Samuel Greig. Anyway, Thomas decided the Russian fleet needed an all year port and the port he founded was Sevastopol. You couldn’t make it up.!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s