EARLY ACCESSDouglas Macgregor - Ukraine Cannot Win This War: It's Time To Negotiate With Putin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YA1tY1bHtw

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

 

 

Letter to the Editor    Brutal US Imperialism

 

Thank you for the insightful and empathetic review of the book “An Honourable Exit” by Eric Vuillard in Current Concerns No 13 of 20 June. Silvia Nogradi did an excellent job of portraying the dense atmosphere that the author manages to create through the montage of the individual scenes and the analysis of the characters of the personalities described. She has focused her review on the main aspect of the book, the Indochina war.
  The book review inspired me to take the book, which I had read when it was published in 2022, off the shelf again. On the second reading, it became even more impressive, and I was struck by depictions that are definitely still of interest to readers interested in history. For example, the terrifying activities of the brothers Allan and John Foster Dulles, which spanned Indochina, Latin America, Africa and Europe and from whose effects many people still suffer today.
  The starting point is the visit of John Foster Dulles, the American Secretary of State, to Paris on 21 April 1954; at a time, therefore, when the French army in Vietnam was approaching its demise. Dulles offers the completely stunned French Foreign Minister Bidault: “And if I gave you two?” [...] “Two what?” [...] “Two atomic bombs ...” (p. 94f) (to “save” Dien Bien Phu). Bidault, who has already experienced quite a lot in the Résistance, can hardly keep himself upright.
  To understand the personalities, Vuillard now recounts their respective family backgrounds. The Dulles brothers’ connections: John Foster is the brother of CIA Director Allan Dulles, also the grandson and nephew of the 32nd and 42nd US Secretaries of State, after whom one of Washington’s airports – “Washington-Dulles” – is named. Bidault, who is more of a social climber whose father was an insurance agent, has only small limited Catholic landowners in his baggage. But Dulles is a regular multinational, with not only lots of paper in his wake, but also numerous corpses.
  With his brother, he overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh because he had the idea of nationalising oil production in Iran. Allan Dulles made a million dollars loose so that the Anglo-Persian oil company would not miss out on the deal, which would also make any form of democratic reform in Iran impossible. Verbatim quote of the order for this action: “Target – Prime Minister Mossadegh and his government. Objectives – to effect by legal or almost-legal methods his overthrow and replacement by a pro-Western government under the authority of the Shah.” (p. 96)
  At the same time that he is in Paris, an operation is taking place in Guatemala under his responsibility to prevent President Guzman’s land reform, as it threatens the interests of the American United Fruit Company, which is represented by one of the largest law firms: that of the Dulles brothers, who are also shareholders in the United Fruit Company. The country is handed over to a military junta, falls into a long period of violence with hundreds of thousands of deaths.
  Seven years later, on 17 January 1961, Dulles is in Katanga, in the Congo. This is followed by a description of the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. The chapter is also distinguished by Vuillard’s approach, so brilliantly described by Silvia Nogradi. Biographical aspects of Lumumba’s personality, situation of the people in the cobalt and copper mines with all their inhumanity and environmental contamination.
  And then the torture and murder of Lumumba and his companions according to a tried and tested pattern of the CIA. Christopher Simpson writes about this in his book “Blowback: America’s Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War”, (Collier Books, 1988): “The CIA team [...] was the same Directorate of Scientific Research that developed the novel poisons used in the assassination attempts on Fidel Castro and Patrice Lumumba.” (p. 185)
  Who can remember the Western propaganda against Lumumba? He was sold to us as the incarnate.
  Eric Vuillard’s book is a monument to him, a late tribute in historical and human perspective. He succeeds in depicting Lumumba’s shooting (after brutal torture) in such a way that the abused man stands before us in all his dignity, with his just cause. (pp. 97-103)

Rita Müller-Hill, Cologne

 

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2023/nr-14-27-juni-2023/leserbrief

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

by The Media in 4-4-2

Youssef Hindi presents in this video the analysis of the economic war waged by the United States against Europe, highlighting the strategies of economic dismemberment and relocation used to weaken the European economy.

The Association Dialogue Franco-Russe welcomed Youssef Hindi, writer, lecturer and historian of religions. Mr. Hindi is also co-founder of the Strategika.fr website and author of the book entitled "America's War on Europe».

According to Youssef Hindi, the United States exploits the European focus on the war in Ukraine to destroy the European economy, especially Germany. They encourage major European industries to relocate to the United States by taking advantage of anti-Russian and anti-European sanctions. This strategy allows them to separate Europe from Russia, to ruin the European economic rivals and to recover part of the European industry.

 

00:43 – US silent war against Europe
01:48 – The United States is destroying the European economy
02:21 – Relocation of German companies they see as rivals
03:40 – The United States and Europe or how to integrate Europe into their great space
04:39 – Geopolitical segregation
04:56 – De Gaulle was the problem of the United States
05:16 – Political sovereignty of France
06:10 – Subtlety of American geopolitics – being present while being absent
06:41 – Relay of hegemonic power: WTO, World Bank, etc.
06:58 – Jacques Chirac
07:25 – “To subjugate France, we will use Germany” – Zbigniew Brzezinski
08:04 – French economy is destroyed by the euro
08:40 – European companies massively acquired
09:40 – Economic war between high finance and the real economy
11:35 – Slaves of the United States are leading Europe
13:34 – Towards the dismantling of the European Union?
13:45 – Enemy to replace the EU
14:59 – Material confrontation between Russia and the West
15:29 – Russian engineers
16:55 – The United States brought religion into the war
18:02 – Monetary tyranny
20:23 – The state is totalitarian but weak
21:52 – Expropriation of property
22:58 – The historic moment of the breakdown of society
24:41 – Anomie
25:08 – LGBTism
26:53 – Civilization War
29:05 – Cold Civil War
31:40 – Chaos is the means of pressure on the population
33:17 – The United States would rather destroy Europe than see it approach Russia
33:36 – Chirac-Schröder-Putin axis
34:46 – The United States is not an empire
35:46 – Delos League
36:36 – Elections in the United States can influence the tide of the war in Ukraine
37:55 – Military alliance with Russia

 

source: The Media in 4-4-2

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

Historical falsification in the service of pro-war propaganda BY Tom Mackaman

 

In its latest foray into the realm of historical falsification, the New York Times on Tuesday published a news analysis pinning the blame for World War II on the Soviet Union. The lengthy article authored by Andrew E. Kramer, entitled “A Current War Collides with the Past: Remnants of World War II in Ukraine,” makes no mention of either the Holocaust or the Nazi war of annihilation against the Soviet people. 

The article is only the latest historical lie by the Times in the service of the US-NATO proxy war in Ukraine. 

From the war’s start, the Times has attempted to legitimize the pro-fascist narrative of the Ukrainian nationalists. Key elements have been the downplaying of the Holocaust and the collaboration of the Ukrainian nationalists in the mass murder of Jews and Poles; the minimizing of the alliance of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) with the Nazi regime; the assertion of a political and moral equivalence between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union; and the repeated claims that there is no neo-Nazi and fascist influence in present-day Ukraine.

It is within this context that Kramer puts forth the astonishing claim that World War II started with the Soviet Union’s invasion of Poland. He writes: 

World War II began in what is now Ukraine in 1939 with a Soviet invasion into territory then controlled by Poland in western Ukraine, at a time when the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were in a military alliance. When that pact broke down in 1941, Germany attacked and fought from west to east across Ukraine. 

This assertion is a violation of the basic chronology of the war. World War II began not with the Soviet entry into the eastern one-third of Poland on September 17, 1939 but with the Nazi blitzkrieg against the country’s eastern two-thirds on September 1, 1939. 

The Times, confronted with a flood of hostile letters, cynically altered the sentence, without explanation, and in a manner that perpetuates the aim of the original falsification. The sentence was changed to read, “World War II reached what is now Ukraine in 1939 with a Soviet invasion into territory then controlled by Poland in western Ukraine…” The surreptitious verb swap does nothing to alter Kramer’s intention. The reader is meant to believe that the Soviet Union “started” WWII.

The partition of Poland, the Baltic states and Finland had been laid out by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of August 1939. But contrary to Kramer’s assertion, this deal between Hitler and Stalin was not a “military alliance,” such as the “Pact of Steel” Hitler concluded with Mussolini earlier that year. It was a non-aggression pact.

Stalin, whose Popular Front appeals to the “Western democracies” of Britain, France and the US fell on deaf ears; his pleas taking the form of selling out workers’ movements to capitalist governments to curry favor— concluded the agreement with Hitler to create a larger defensive buffer against a potential invasion. 

Stalin’s deal with Hitler was an utterly reactionary move and a stunning betrayal. As Trotsky—who had predicted Stalin’s agreement with Hitler—explained, “Hitler needed the friendly ‘neutrality’ of the USSR, plus Soviet raw materials” to conduct his war policy. The pact produced a wave of revulsion against the Soviet Union and disoriented the international working class, and especially the workers of Germany, then suffering under the Nazi iron heel. “[A]bout the working class,” Trotsky wrote, “these gentlemen do not think at all.” He continued:

It is necessary to penetrate for a moment into the psychology of a revolutionary German worker, who, in danger of his life, is leading the illegal struggle against National Socialism and suddenly sees that the Kremlin, which commands great resources, not only does not fight Hitler, but on the contrary, concludes an advantageous business deal on the arena of international robbery. Has the German worker not the right to spit in the faces of his teachers of yesterday?

It must also be pointed out that Stalin was hardly alone in underestimating Hitler’s designs. Just one year before his pact with the Soviet Union, Britain and France negotiated the notorious Munich Agreement with Germany, handing over Czechoslovakia to the Nazi hangmen. Like British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Stalin deluded himself into believing that Hitler would uphold his part of the bargain. Moreover, imperialist Britain and France hoped that Hitler, rather than moving west, would wage war against the Soviet workers’ state.

Trotsky, in exile in Mexico and very much at the height of his powers of political analysis, warned that whatever concessions Hitler had made were “at best of an episodic nature and their sole guarantee is Ribbentrop’s signature to a ‘scrap of paper.’” Trotsky predicted, less than one year before his assassination at the hands of one of Stalin’s agents, that the Soviet Union would be invaded once Hitler had settled accounts on the western front. 

Stalin and the bureaucratic sycophants who surrounded him had to disregard Hitler’s testimonial Mein Kampf and innumerable rabid speeches in which der Führer promised that Germany would wipe the Soviet Union off the face of the earth, destroy the Jews and subjugate the Slavic Untermensch of Ukraine and Russia to create lebensraum for the Aryan master race. Over the 21 months separating the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact from the German invasion of the Soviet Union, Stalin followed the non-aggression pact to the letter, disregarding repeated warnings that an invasion was imminent. 

The Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact did not just “break down,” as Kramer absurdly writes. Hitler repudiated it, in the form of what remains the largest-ever invasion in world history, Operation Barbarossa. Notwithstanding all of Stalin’s betrayals, the Soviet Union remained the central target of Hitler’s designs.  Kramer does not mention that some 40 million Soviet citizens were killed in the war, or that 900,000 Ukrainian Jews were murdered by the Nazis and their allies among the Ukrainian fascists—fascists whose direct political heirs populate the Kiev regime and its army today. The Times leaves aside another fact of immense importance: It was the invasion of the Soviet Union that set the stage for the Nazi regime’s most ghastly crimes, including the Holocaust. 

The rest of Kramer’s article recounts the uncovering of remnants of World War II, such as swastika graffiti, German corpses, decades-old trenches and the like, in the present conflict. Kramer can scarcely conceal his glee at such finds, nor his enthusiasm at how current fighting neatly mirrors the Nazi invasion’s attack on the Soviet Union decades earlier: 

Ukraine is now echoing that [Nazi] World War II offensive, fighting at sites southeast of Zaporizhzhia in what the Ukrainian military calls the “Melitopol direction.” The strategic goal is the same as it was eight decades ago—to isolate enemy soldiers in the Kherson region and threaten Crimea… 

Kramer sees the “enemy soldiers” of World War II to have been the Soviet men and women of the Red Army, which included millions of both Russians and Ukrainians. He feels no shame in presenting today’s Ukrainian army, armed to the teeth by Washington, Berlin, London and their NATO allies, as the inheritors of the Wehrmacht.

Like the Biden administration and its NATO allies, the Times is “all in” on the proxy war in Ukraine. Its special role, as the leading organ of American liberalism, is to sell the war to a public that is instinctively suspicious of professions from the White House about “fighting for democracy” after decades of such bogus claims. But ever dutiful to Washington’s imperialist aims, the Times has filled its pages with claims that Putin is the latest and—really, this time—true incarnation of evil, following Hussein, Assad, Gaddafi, Milosevich, Noriega, etc., and furthermore, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was an entirely unprovoked act. 

The World Socialist Web Site has intransigently opposed Putin, his government and the reactionary class forces it represents for decades, even while the Times celebrated the restoration of capitalism in Russia and the former Soviet Union. We oppose Putin’s reactionary invasion. But it was not “unprovoked.” The invasion was a desperate response to NATO’s expansion. As has been openly stated by numerous pro-NATO strategists, Washington seeks to use the war to achieve regime change in Moscow and to break up Russia. 

The Times has also been tasked with falsifying the nature and character of the Ukrainian regime. This is difficult, as Kiev’s embrace of fascism is there in the open, for all the world to see. Statues are erected to the Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, while monuments to Soviet soldiers who fought against the Nazi invaders, in a struggle known to both Russians and Ukrainians as “the Great Patriotic War,” are desecrated and destroyed. Ukraine’s most celebrated fighting force, the Azov Battalion, is an openly white supremacist and pro-Nazi organization.

For the war’s first year, the Times attempted to cover up such inconvenient truths. The Times’ pro-war propaganda has now given way to pro-Nazi apologetics. Kramer has presented readers with an interpretation of World War II with which Joseph Goebbels could find little to dispute. His article follows the Western media’s utter silence over the Holocaust in Lithuania during the recent NATO summit in Vilnius, and the Times’ apologia for the wearing of Nazi paraphernalia by Ukrainian soldiers. 

The Times’ re-writing of the history of World War II has not come out of thin air. As it did with its racialist falsification of American history, the 1619 Project, the Times has leaned on a few unprincipled academicians—exemplified by Yale ex-historian and present-day propaganda specialist Timothy Snyder—and the complicity or silence of large swaths of the historical profession. Of course, it comes as little surprise that figures like Snyder, whose history-writing is made to order for the State Department, or the German Hitler admirer Jörg Baberowski of Humboldt University, or the neo-liberal Francis Fukuyama of Stanford University, who now openly praises the Azov Battalion, would enlist in the service of imperialist war. 

But where are the legions of “revisionist” and “left” historians of Russia and the Soviet Union who know something of the Nazi invasion of World War II in general and the catastrophe in Ukraine in particular? There have been a few courageous exceptions, but many more have greeted the NATO proxy war against Russia with enthusiasm. The leading academic body of Russian studies, the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES), has focused its forthcoming annual conference on the “Decolonization” of Russia. Would the CIA or Pentagon have given it any other name? Under the cover of war, the vilest anti-Russian and “Sovietologist” tropes, once assumed to be dead and buried with the excesses of the McCarthy era, are being revived.

A few years ago, the claim palmed off matter-of-factly by Kramer—that the Soviet Union started World War II—would have been met with a wave of denunciation from historians. So too would his article’s silence on the Holocaust and mass murder of Soviet citizens. But in 2023, historical lies and distortions rule the day. Skepticism is the most intolerable of insults.

 

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/07/19/rmyu-j19.html