The toon above took about 2 minutes and 47 seconds to make... See, unlike the cartoonist in the previous posting, I keep a reserve of heads and costumes which I recycle all the time... From time to time I might spend a few more minutes up to an hour drawing a new face in full colour to add to the collection...

 

Mind you, my cartoons are a bit crass and not as clever as Shakespeare or Cathy Wilcox or Moir, but so far, including reading the "news" (whatever that is), reusing old "plugs" or finding news that are not in the mainstream lying media, I have posted four items today, while still writing "1927"... I get up early though...

 

 

On the subject of Ukraine, we are barely one inch from the Nazi Brigades to do something stupid under the US toilet expertise...

 

The US has accused Russia of creating a propaganda video featuring crisis actors, staged fake explosions, and NATO military equipment such as Turkish drones, as a pretext for invading Ukraine in the coming days.

The claim was first published on Thursday morning by the Washington Post, which cited an unnamed US official quoting US intelligence assessments. It was then picked up by CNN and other outlets. On Thursday afternoon, State Department spokesman Ned Price said the government “made public” that intelligence, and echoed the description of the alleged video featured in the Post and CNN stories.

The video is “entirely fabricated by Russian intelligence” and is “one of a number of options the Russian government is developing as a fake pretext to initiate and potentially justify military aggression against Ukraine,” Price claimed. He added that the US is making the claim public as a way to deter Russia from its “destructive and destabilizing disinformation campaign” against Ukraine.

 

...

 

“Russia never does such things,” Moscow’s ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, told RIA Novosti on Thursday, when asked about the new US allegations.

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/russia/548259-us-false-flag-ukraine/

 

State Department spokesman Ned Price would have been a bit more credible if he did not smile like a devious rat, while delivering the bullshit spiel...

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW TODAY !!!!!!!!!

 

US Needs Fear of Russia to Keep Europe under Control

 

BY Salman Rafi Sheikh

 

 

If NATO were to become irrelevant, the US would lose its influence on Europe. If Europe were to become an independent player in world politics, it will effectively defeat the US plan to prevent the systemic shift to multipolarity. Preventing both of these eventualities requires, from Washington’s perspective, a constant external threat to Europe that it cannot tackle on its own. Thanks to Washington’s aggressive pursuit of the question of NATO’s expansion to Ukraine and the crisis this relentless pursuit has ensued, a discursive shift in Europe towards strengthening NATO is already underway.

The idea of keeping NATO alive and relevant is now new. In fact, soon after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, policy makers in the US devoted their energies to devise ways to expand NATO to keep it in business. For instance, in his remarks made to the US State Department in as early as August 1993, the then member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees and co-chairman of Senate Arms Control Observer Group, Senator Richard G. Lugar, made a clear case for NATO’s expansion under American leadership.

Lugar’s “Out of Area or Out of Business” talk directly implied how, without NATO’s expansion, multipolarity could find ways to reinforce itself at the expense of the US leadership. In other words, the US leadership, according to Lugar, was indispensably tied to its ultimate control of Europe via NATO. The present crisis situation directly evidences Lugar’s remarks at play almost 3 decades after he delivered them.

In this context, recent remarks by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, showcase how the US, by building a crisis with Russia, has been able to seemingly bring a shift in Europe. Macron, who recently called NATO “brain dead” and has been seeking to build a European security system independent of NATO, recently warned Russia of “tough consequences” if it attacked Ukraine.

Macron’s remarks have come only two days after Biden held a virtual meeting with European leaders, including Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Boris Johnson and other European leaders and officials. As the White House readout shows, Biden was apparently successful in convincing his European counterparts of the “threat” that Russia posed and how “joint efforts” involving “severe economic costs” and reinforcing “security on NATO’s eastern flank” was necessary.

The US also hinted that they will activate NATO response force (NRF) and contribute 8,500 US soldiers to “protect” Europe from “Russian aggression.” Many European countries have, ever since the meeting, announced their own military contribution to the holy cause of defending Europe from a threat that, first and foremost, is born out of US expansionism and control over Europe.

By creating a crisis and “guiding” Europe through it, the US is only reinforcing its own dominant role. This is especially evident in how the US has placed itself at the centre of Europe’s energy geo-politics i.e., taking steps to supply enough gas to Europe in the wake of Russia blocking its supply of gas to Europe.

As reports in the western mainstream media have pointed out, the purpose of US search for alternative sources of gas supply to Europe is that European leaders, being sure of energy security, will be more willing to take appropriate measures against Russia, especially economic sanctions. Although the US is said to be searching from suppliers from the Middle East, it remains that Europe’s diversification away from Russia will ultimately benefit the US the most, as Washington will be able to supply more of its gas to Europe.

The US efforts have increased in the wake of Joe Biden’s last week admission of differences within NATO over an appropriate approach, or response, to Russia. Ever since then, the US officials have particularly hardened their stance towards Russia, sending multiple warnings everyday that any aggression towards Ukraine would bring about a coordinated allied response, unambiguously showing how the US is aggressively using its anti-Russia narrative to diffuse intra-NATO divisions as a means to consolidate its own dominance within the alliance.

But, the question is: can the US achieve what it wants to achieve? The answer to this question depends upon how strong the idea of European-ness is in Europe.

Even though Marcon sent a warning to Russia, Macron’s own politics remains pan-European rather than transatlantic. In his latest address to the European parliament few days ago, Macron, who champions Europe’s strategic autonomy, once again reiterated his ideas of a European security infrastructure independent of NATO.

As a hard-line European, Macron sees in the present crisis an opportunity to advance his agenda of multipolarity in which Europe acts as an independent player. Therefore, besides reiterating the idea of a European security establishment, Macron also supported a wholly European initiative to start a dialogue with Russia to resolve the crisis.

For the US, such an initiative, if it materialises, could be a major set-back to its politics of maintaining transatlantic unity.

Therefore, it is not surprising at all that the US officials were quick to blame Russia for disunity within NATO. As Antony Blinken recently said while on a tour to Ukraine, “I think one of Moscow’s long-standing goals has been to try to sow divisions between and within our countries and, quite simply, we cannot and will not let them do that.”

As it stands, the US is not misreading European disagreement with the US; rather it is deliberately tying Europe’s genuine differences with Washington to Russia to showcase how Europe is a “victim” of Russian politics, and how the US, being “aware” of Russian “conspiracies”, can and will “protect” Europe.

While this is not to suggest that the US can just make fool of European leaders like Macron, it also remains that constant projection of Russia as an aggressor tends to create tensions in Europe – in particular, in Eastern Europe – that directly help Washington undermine anti-US narratives being fanned out by some European leaders. By making smaller European states fearful of Russia, the US tends to defeat major European state’s dream of a pan-European international politics.

 

 

 

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

 

Read more:

https://journal-neo.org/2022/02/03/the-us-needs-fear-of-russia-to-keep-europe-under-control/

 

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW TODAY !!!!!!!!!!

As France works to de-escalate the crisis in Ukraine, the anti-Russian media will need to find another bone to chew on.

 

BY Gregory Clark

 

Vive la France. During the Cold War Charles de Gaulle’s France did much to restrain the Anglo-American ingrained hostility to Russia by refusing to go along with the creation of that hawkish organisation called NATO.

Today the same France has rediscovered its traditional independence as it gradually moves away from hawkish US-UK policy over Ukraine. Those hysterical warnings about a planned Russian invasion of Ukraine — the invention of the Anglo-American war hawks backed up by a lazy or complicit Anglo-American media — have had the legs cut off from under them.

How often does our media tell us about the 2015 Minsk agreements, signed by Ukraine and European representatives, with their call for ceasefire and some form of autonomy for the two pro-Russian separatist zones of Donetsk and Lugansk on the border with Russia? Rarely.

Ukraine has since reneged on that autonomy promise, claiming the sovereign integrity which US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, so warmly endorses. But if observed the Minsk promise would do no more damage to Ukrainian sovereignty than the grant of autonomy to pro-France Quebec does to Canadian sovereignty.

Does the US propose to invade Quebec because the Quebecois prefer to dump their Anglo heritage for a pro-French culture?

Minsk is now increasingly being promoted by Russia, France, Italy and several other European nations as the key to solving the Ukraine problem.

This in turn has helped revive the Normandy Format talks. Normandy Format is a grouping of the leaders of four nations — Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia — concerned about Europe’s future who happened to come together at the 2014 ceremony of the World War II Normandy landings in France.

Format talks were held in Paris last week and are due in Berlin next week. Not just the Ukraine problem but Moscow’s calls for legally based security guarantees to prevent further NATO creep into former Soviet territories, Ukraine and Georgia especially, were also taken seriously.

France is now talking about moving these discussions into some forum parallel to US–UK dominated NATO talks. France says parallel, but what it really means is a forum different from NATO with its anti-Russian war hawks.

Compared with invasion warnings how often do we see any mention of these very important Normandy Format talks in our biased Western media? How many of those media in Australia even know about Normandy Format?

That said, the talking about invasion may not have been misplaced. But for reasons far removed from the simple imaginations of our media.

The Ukraine problem is abnormal. Ukraine never really existed as a nation until the Soviet Union decided to call it a republic with a vote (invariably alongside Moscow) in the United Nations, and an industrial base deliberately created by Lenin in the coal and ore rich Donbas area bordering Russia (he wanted to give Ukraine the industrial proletariat needed for communism).

Russian influence, culture and language dominated much of the rest of Ukraine. When I travelled there in the sixties, east and central Ukraine (around Kyiv, the capital) seemed little more than extensions of Russia.

Only in the west did one find the bitterly anti-Russian feelings generated by past anti-Soviet angers and cultural differences.

With the independence gained after the Soviet breakup the pro-Russians remained the majority.

But anti-Russians from the West, including some thuggish pro-Nazi, anti-semitic groupings, gradually gained strength enough to stage the 2014 Maidan coup against the legitimate pro-Russian government.

With control of the army in their hands the anti-Russians began their civil war against the pro-Russians who today only manage to survive with Russian help in their Donetsk and Lugansk enclaves along the Russian border.

This is a very dangerous situation. Memories of the 2008 war in Georgia should remind us.

With post-Soviet independence the Georgian government set about invading the non-Georgian enclave territories inherited from the Soviet Union.

It was only when they tried to invade the South Ossetia enclave, killing its Russian peace-keepers, that Moscow decided to retaliate, with a force that badly damaged the Georgian army, before retreating back to Russia.

The same scenario could unfold in Ukraine, if the anti-Russian elements in the Ukrainian army have their way. It is this danger which could have motivated Moscow to make the pre-emptive troop movements that set off recent invasion fears.

Fortunately the initiatives by the French — its call for UN Security Council talks — together with little-reported shifts in the attitude of the Zelensky government in Kyiv have reduced that danger.

US agreement for further talks on security guarantees for Russia are also significant.

The biased Anglo-American media will have to find another anti-Russian bone to chew on.

 

Read more:

https://johnmenadue.com/french-initiatives-to-calm-ukraine-tension-reduce-invasion-danger/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW TODAY !!!!!!!!!!

 

BY Doug Bandow

 

Russia appears to be on the brink of war with Ukraine. It would be a crime for Moscow to attack its neighbor, but moral considerations do not rank high with Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, he is a pragmatist, not an ideologue, which likely makes him open to a deal.

Bargains, accommodations, and compromises, though sometimes tough, unpleasant, and distasteful, are the lifeblood of diplomacy. The U.S. should seek one with Moscow.

Of late, Putin has dominated international headlines, convulsed Washington, Kyiv, and Brussels, and challenged America’s attempt to extend its sphere of influence up to Russia’s border. The Putin government is threatening military action against Ukraine unless the U.S. and NATO make several concessions, most notably halting the expansion of the transatlantic alliance and rolling back force deployments.

Although the two sides are still talking, the U.S. and its allies have declared Putin’s clearest red line, Ukraine’s exclusion from NATO, to be nonnegotiable. Said Secretary of State Antony Blinken: “We make clear that there are core principles that we are committed to uphold and defend—including Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and the right of states to choose their own security arrangements and alliances.” Ominously, Putin dismissed the administration’s position: “The principal Russian concerns turned out to be ignored.” Absent diplomatic concessions, he is likely to take military action of some sort to justify his brinkmanship. The potential consequences range between awful and disastrous, including for Russia.

Blinken claimed to act on principle, but his comment was sanctimonious cant. No country has a right to join NATO. Rather, Article 10 provides: “The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.” Existing members have no obligation to add any state; Ukraine’s inclusion would degrade, not enhance, regional security; and there is virtually no support within the alliance for Kyiv to join in the foreseeable future. Blinken’s defense of a theoretical and nonexistent principle could yield a European war. This is precisely the moment for appeasement.

Until the 1938 Munich conference appeasement, addressing the grievances and demands of others was a respected diplomatic tool. Afterward, however, the idea brought to mind British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain waving his letter from “Herr Hitler.” In fact, a better historical test of appeasement would be World War I.

On June 28, 1914, a Serbian terrorist, armed by his government’s head of military intelligence, murdered the heir to the Hapsburg monarchy, which ruled over the ramshackle Austro-Hungarian Empire. Vienna was determined to punish Belgrade. Imagine how Americans would react if another nation dispatched armed agents to murder the vice president and destabilize the country.

Alas, no one was inclined to compromise, expecting the other side to back down. Momentum for war accelerated. “Things are out of control and the stone has started to roll,” observed German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg in late July. Days later troops began marching across Europe and ultimately well beyond.

Looking back, perhaps the most striking feature of what was originally called the Great War was its utter lack of purpose. If only the statesmen of the time, by-and-large myopic rather than malevolent, had been able to peer into the future. They almost certainly would have made a deal. And there were many compromises that could have prevented what became the prelude to World War II.

Tragically, Hitler could not be appeased, but no one realized that before Munich’s aftermath. Western statesmen were used to dealing with authoritarians like Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, and Jozef Pilsudski, for instance. Britain and France sought an alliance with the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin before he made his pact with Hitler—which the former kept even as invading German troops moved eastward. Hitler turned out to be sui generis.

Vladimir Putin is no friend of liberty, but he also is no Hitler reincarnate. When Putin took over as president two decades ago he showed no animus toward the U.S. After 9/11 he offered Russia’s support for American anti-terrorism efforts. Moscow also provided logistical support for U.S. operations in Afghanistan.

His comment on the tragedy of the USSR’s collapse presaged no Hitlerian campaign of aggression, but instead reflected the reality felt by many if not most Russians, whose living standards and national pride suffered from their country’s dissolution. Most important, until the war with Georgia in 2008 Washington had little complaint with Russian behavior, beyond its own borders, at least. Since then, Putin’s predation has been modest—annexation of Crimea, which was historically part of Russia and backed by residents, and influence over but not possession of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and the Donbass. This is a sorry list of acquisitions for any wannabe conqueror. Putin is a dangerous but controlled predator, someone with whom the U.S. can deal.

Nevertheless, the idea of making an agreement with Moscow sets off wailing and gnashing of teeth in Washington. For instance, Eric S. Edelman and David J. Kramer, at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and George W. Bush Institute, respectively, claimed:

 

Putin invokes NATO enlargement as a convenient excuse when his real fear is the emergence of successful, democratic, Western-oriented countries along Russia’s borders—especially Ukraine…Above all, it is a mistake to assume Putin would be assuaged by assurances that NATO membership for Ukraine (and Georgia) is off the table. On the contrary, concessions would likely lead him to up the ante, as he would view such pledges as a sign of weakness and could raise the stakes to include no European Union membership either. After all, it was closer ties to the EU, not NATO, that led to Putin’s intervention into Ukraine in 2013 and 2014.

 

The claim that Putin fears a democratic Ukraine is common but never backed by evidence. The Russian leader has emphasized historical Ukrainian-Russian ties and evinced no fear of Kyiv’s democratic experiment. Nor is Ukrainian democracy looking more formidable these days, as the president threatens his predecessor with a dubious treason prosecution, than in years past.

Moreover, Putin’s intervention followed high profile allied support for a street putsch against the elected, moderately pro-Russian president of Ukraine. More important than the E.U. trade treaty set to be signed was the status of Sevastopol, Moscow’s Black Sea naval base from time eternal, located in Crimea.

Fulfillment of the allied promise of 2008 for NATO membership also looked much more likely after the change in government, with allied officials wandering Kyiv discussing who they hoped to see in power. The prospect of NATO expansion long angered Putin. In 2007 he told the Munich Security forum that the U.S. had “overstepped its national borders in every way,” whose “almost uncontained hyper use of force” was “plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.”

Putin noted that “NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we…do not react to these actions at all.” He went on:

 

I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “The fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.” Where are these guarantees?

 

Early the following year, a U.S. cable (released by Wikileaks) detailed Moscow’s continuing concerns:

 

Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests.

 

State went on to report, quite presciently, it turns out:

 

Dmitriy Trenin, Deputy Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, expressed concern that Ukraine was, in the long-term, the most potentially destabilizing factor in U.S.-Russian relations, given the level of emotion and neuralgia triggered by its quest for NATO membership. The letter requesting MAP consideration had come as a “bad surprise” to Russian officials, who calculated that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were safely on the backburner.

 

Since then, Moscow has seen no reason to trust the allies, who offer continuing reassurances regarding NATO membership to Kyiv. Washington’s informal response? Don’t worry, we are lying—to Ukraine rather than Russia, of course! This cannot inspire confidence in Moscow.

Putin still might not be appeasable, but the only way to know is to try. The lack of a deal risks an armed attack on Ukraine, broader frozen conflict with Moscow, disruptive sanctions on Russia, U.S. military buildup in Europe, and increased cooperation between Moscow and Beijing. Surely a little appeasement would be worth the effort.

 

 

 

 

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.

 

 

READ MORE:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/appeasement-for-a-good-cause/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW TODAY !!!!!!!!!!

The New York Times has some trousers to pull up, so it does not show its arsehole... Say:

 

Ukraine Live Updates: Under Pressure From the West, Putin Turns to China

 

President Vladimir V. Putin hailed the “dignified relationship” between Russia and China as he met Xi Jinping in Beijing. Growing political and economic support from the Chinese leader could undermine U.S. efforts to ostracize Moscow.

 

China and Russia have been mostly friends for about 20 years, since Putin took over the reins of government in Russia... Meanwhile the "West" is a swamp of gangsters, vying to be the most vile and abject to please a detritus pile of sub-humans who call themselves "Americans" — the US administration and derivatives. At least France is trying to redress the ledger.

 

Free Julian Assange now anyway, you morons.

 

 READ FROM TOP.

With war always a popular gambit to rescue a President’s plunging poll numbers, the proposed war in Ukraine serves multiple purposes for Biden’s dreary administration: as a desperate gamble to save his own political butt, to divert attention from the struggle over its unraveling Covid strategy and destabilizing its arch-enemy Russia is always a worthy past time.

Yet the drama to escalate military action in Ukraine with ‘heightened preparedness” of a token 8,500 American troops lacks the persuasive spectacle of a first rate global crisis as once-reliable US allies are not on board even before the first shot is fired.

The current US ‘disinformation’ campaign alleging Russian aggression is nothing new to Ukraine. We have seen this game before. It is a rekindled version of the US State Department-led overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014.

By refusing to accept NATO membership which would have put a vast array of military missiles and weapons within spitting distance of mainland Russia, across the Kerch Strait to the Russian border, Yanukovych’s presidency was doomed.

Think of it as akin to having Russian ballistic missiles located in Havana, Cuba in October, 1962 ninety miles off the Florida coast.

In protecting US sovereignty, JFK was willing to risk world peace to have those foreign missiles removed. Yet Putin is not allowed the same protection of Russia’s border from NATO’s ongoing strategy of eastern expansion. If JFK was unwilling to live with foreign missiles pointed at the US mainland, why should Russia be forced to experience that same threat?

In 2013, after Yanukovych rejected a European Union trade deal unfavorable to Ukraine, Noble Peace prize winner Obama sent a low-level State Department official Victoria Nuland to Kiev to sponsor street protests and orchestrate an unprovoked attack on Russia with the takedown of Yanukovych. 

Nuland’s neo-con role became obvious with her infamous ‘Fuck the EU’comment while she and then US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt were strategizing how to finagle their choice for Prime Minister as they muscled Yanukovych out of the Presidency. Three weeks later, he fled for his life to Russia.

Among the false narratives being portrayed today by an obedient media who habitually distort the history is that Russia ‘invaded’ Ukraine in 2014, that it illegally seized the Crimean peninsula and are now coming back to seal the deal with a full-scale invasion. The fantasy spun by a deceitful US media and a warped foreign policy establishment is not even close to the truth.

There was no Russian invasion into Ukraine in 2014 and in that same year, Crimea residents voted an overwhelming 95% majority in a referendum to return the peninsula to Russia. In 1783, Empress Catherine the Great annexed the Crimean peninsula to Russia as part of her shrewd agenda to accumulate valuable ports throughout the Black Sea. 

After several years of British and US Navy destroyers flaunting their presence in the Black Sea, sailing through the Bosporus, thumbing its nose at Russian sovereignty, the US renewed its demand for NATO to increase its military presence along Ukraine’s eastern Russian-speaking border. In response, Russia has a significant troop presence at the border as the US interpreted the Russian response as ‘aggression’ and sure sign of an imminent invasion.

As part of the diplomatic crisis game, the US announced its withdrawal of US embassy personnel from Ukraine, EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell declared: 

We are not going to do the same thing. You have to stay calm…and avoid a nervous breakdown.”

At the same time, Croatian President Zoran Milosevic announced he would not allow his troops to participate in any conflict as Bulgaria also agreed to not participate in any armed conflict. Milanovic said:

Not only will we not send the military, but if there is an escalation, we will recall every last Croatian military man…This has nothing to do with Ukraine or Russia, it has to do with the dynamics of American domestic politics.”

In addition, Ukraine Defense Minister Aleksey Resnikov in Kiev confirmed that “Russian Armed Forces have not formed a strike force that would suggest that they will go on an offensive tomorrow,” he said as well as rejecting suggestions that Moscow will invade the day the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics end. “As of today, there is no such threat.”

In addition, NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg indicated that no NATO combat troops will be sent to Ukraine although he would not back off its expansion plans along the Russian border. 

While France and Spain have made minimal commitments, Germany, Europe’s largest and richest country has yet to embrace NATO’s military agenda of unspecified Russian “aggression” threatening to split the European Union. In part, as Europe’s main supplier of natural gas, Russia state-owned Nord Stream 2 project may now be seen also an agent for peace and reconciliation.

At the same time, Congressional Democrats who continue to lose their minds, remain eager to support the war machine with taxpayer funds will seek to fast-track $500 million worth of weapons to send to Ukraine.

Given the Biden Administration’s desperation, stay tuned for an easily transparent false flag within the Donbas of eastern Ukraine as Russian President Vladimir Putin knows how to play the long game of diplomatic dialogue.

 

READ MORE:

https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/04/putins-long-game-of-diplomatic-dialogue/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW TODAT ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞@!!!