Sunday 22nd of December 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

biden's next lunacy legacy could be worse than pardoning his brat....

Has the world forgotten the real danger of nuclear war?

Do we live in a fantasy world where we think we can escalate tensions and put entire portions of the world under threat by using Ukraine as a sacrificial pawn (in what is classically sold as providing humanitarian and ally support) in a decades-long psychopathic foreign policy play to destroy Russia?

 

Biden’s Nuclear Going Out of Business Sale

      by 

 

According to the laws of war, NATO, the U.S., the U.K., and France have determined to become “direct participants” in Europe’s deadly conflict as their home-grown offensive missiles are being launched from inside Ukraine to attack Russia.

Translated, a state of war exists between the West and Russia.

Putin is not absolved for his invasion of Ukraine. But how are western nations, led by the U.S., protecting Ukraine’s or their own national interests by quickening the dialectic of conflict, bringing nuclear weapons into the calculus?

Russian President Putin and his government have experienced long-standing western policies of encirclement and NATO encroachment through Ukraine, something the U.S. government swore would not happen. It did happen, reawakening Russia’s deepest fears of invasion.

Most Americans are unaware that in 2014, the U.S. forced out the elected President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych, which resulted in Kiev ordering attacks on ethnic Russian enclaves of Donetsk and Luhansk, baiting Russia into the beginning of a three year war, with the lure of NATO membership fluttering above Ukraine.

As the war barrels to a climactic, perhaps irredeemably fatal stage, the Ukrainian people have lost at least 600,000 of their fellow countrymen and women. Even so, at this late hour, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken demands that Ukraine lower its age of compulsory military service from 25 years of age to 18, to send even more young Ukrainians into the slaughter. Russian casualties will soar past 400,000 dead, with latest reports of 1,000 casualties a day.

One million Europeans have been killed for a war which was not inevitable, should never have been fought and, once it started, could have been brought to a fast conclusion. According to Naftali Bennett, former Prime Minister of Israel, peace talks were sabotaged by the US, just a month into the conflict.

The constitutions of the U.S., the U.K. and France, which forbid executives to unilaterally wage war, are being circumvented. Leaders have gone rogue and are consciously choosing nuclear brinkmanship over diplomacy.

In the past month, escalation is being stoked by the West. The launch of ATACMS and other advanced missiles necessarily involves U.S. personnel and intelligence data. This new phase of the war compelled the Kremlin to lower its threshold for a nuclear strike in an attempt to stop the use of even higher grade weapons against it from the West.

What happened? … The 2024 Presidential Election happened.

The escalation is intended to sabotage President Trump’s stated desire to bring an end to the Russia-Ukraine war and for the architects of the war to try to escape the blame for miscalculations, bumbling and cynical protraction of a bloody conflict. It is clear the West does not want peace.

Remember, the sacrifice of Ukraine and everything that has led up to this point is due to the West’s long time policy to advance the strategic defeat of Russia.

The Cold War never ended. It has given way to a boiling Hot War whose aim is to antagonize, provoke, diminish and conquer Russia. Key elements are the attempted dismantling of Russia’s energy infrastructure, and the massive transfer of arms to our proxy, Ukraine, through US appropriations which are approaching $200 billiion dollars, an amount equal to over $5,000 dollars for every Ukrainian man, woman and child.

In order to set the stage for this war, Western interests resorted to conjuring Putin as a demon, an arch-enemy of freedom, as was done with Hussein in Iraq, Khaddafy in Libya, and Assad in Syria. Once the enemy machine goes to work, military assets are mobilized to advance the overthrow of the noxious government, and the cash registers of defense contractors ring with the energy of a pinball arcade.

The Democratic Party unleashed an entire kennel of the dogs of war upon Russia, often at the urging of warden Hillary Clinton, mastermind of the Russiagate hoax. The nadir of the Dems descent into the indecent was ballyhooing the support of its 2024 presidential ticket by Dick Cheney, the sterling warmonger whose endorsement is to mass homicide what the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval is to stylish domesticity.

Think of the political consequences to the credibility of the entire Western foreign policy establishment if President Trump succeeds in bringing the war to a close. President Biden’s foreign policy, led by Secretary Blinken, will be forever tainted, as will the Democratic Party’s steadfast support for guns over butter.

The overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government in 2014, Russia’s subsequent invasion; the Prime Minister’s Gambit, Boris Johnson’s April 2022 scuttling of a peace agreement; the severe damage to the European economy through the destruction of Nordstream pipeline, by GUESS WHO, [readers hereby invited to guess]; NATO’S teeter-totter, penny-pinching one moment, saber-rattling burlesque the next, and harrowing brinkmanship — misdirecting public attention during the inevitable collapse of Ukraine. All this chest thumping and war pimping will be called into question, presuming there is time.

Another knock-on effect of the war and the failure of sanctions: Russia and China have been pushed together into a deep long-term military and economic partnership. Could the Biden Administration have been unaware of the military, economic and political fallout from a BRICS+-type alliance?

Rational military observers predict the transfer of the newest missiles will not change the outcome of the war, and some Trump advisers believe the next president’s bargaining position vis a visMoscow will be strengthened as Ukraine’s offensive capacity is temporarily enhanced.

However, a sharp escalation in the next six weeks could result in a devastating response from an increasingly anxious Russia. Biden isn’t trying to help Trump or the process of peace, he’s handing him, and the world, a poisoned chalice.

The only way Ukraine wins is for the West to stop the war and negotiate an agreement with Russia which restores Ukraine’s sovereignty, neutrality and way of life. Otherwise, the war grinds on, the casualties on both sides mount, Armageddon looms and the world gets to indulge in thinking the unthinkable, annihilation.

Rear Admiral Thomas Buchanan of the US Strategic Command, isn’t calling for nuclear war, but he did say at a Project Atom 24 meeting recently, “If we have to have a(n) [nuclear] exchange then we want to do it in terms that are most acceptable to the United States,” where, presumably, even after nuclear war, we still lead the world, or its ashes – in strategic weapons.

President-Elect Trump, has assessed the extreme danger of the moment, saying: “We have never been closer to World War III than we are today under Joe Biden. A global conflict between nuclear-armed powers would mean death and destruction on a scale unmatched in human history.”

Vladimir Putin has clearly stated that Russia would “mirror” or match all escalations. Russia responded to an ATACM missile launch with a new hypersonic intermediate range ballistic missile, the Oreshnik, that reputedly reaches speeds of MACH 11 and delivers some 36 payloads. It devastated a Ukrainian missile factory.

It was an unmistakable message: Those six major payloads with six submunitions within them could be nuclear ones next time.

The next firing of ATACMs could bring a Russian response endangering or killing the American personnel responsible for firing these munitions. Even a skilled negotiator will find it difficult to diffuse the conflict once American blood has been shed. Why in the world would our government cause our troops, let alone our nation, to be so vulnerable?

Eight trillion dollars of our $36 trillion deficit is due to wars of choice since 9/11. The continued failure of American diplomacy, preferring war to statecraft, has been a persistent hubris. Pray that it not be fatal for our nation and the world.

Everyone who loves our country must speak out, now, to help avert a catastrophe.

Reprinted with permission from The Kucinich Report.

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/bidens-nuclear-going-out-of-business-sale/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.

 

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171

 

SEE ALSO: https://www.voltairenet.org/article221540.html

costly and inhumane approach.....

 

Chomsky is right says Professor Walt     By Richard Cullen

 

The wide-ranging political views of the exceptional, international public intellectual, Noam Chomsky, have recently been searchingly assessed in the journal, Foreign Policy, by Professor Stephen M Walt, in an article entitled, “Noam Chomsky Has Been Proved Right”. 

Professor Walt, a distinguished political scientist at Harvard University and a columnist at Foreign Policy, begins by explaining how:

“For more than half a century, Noam Chomsky has been arguably the world’s most persistent, uncompromising, and intellectually respected critic of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. In a steady stream of books, articles, interviews, and speeches, he has repeatedly sought to expose Washington’s costly and inhumane approach to the rest of the world, an approach he believes has harmed millions and is contrary to the United States’ professed values. As co-author Nathan J. Robinson writes in the preface, The Myth of American Idealism was written to ‘draw insights from across [Chomsky’s] body of work into a single volume that could introduce people to his central critiques of U.S. foreign policy.’ It accomplishes that task admirably.”

Noam Chomsky is fundamentally recognised for his seminal work in the field of cognitive science. Referred to by some as the “father of modern linguistics’ he is among the most cited of living authors. Chomsky, now aged 95, is currently living in Brazil where he is receiving medical treatment after a severe stroke.

Walt attentively summarises Chomsky’s work and he also sets out a series of thoughtfully argued reservations about aspects of Chomsky’s broad perspective. First, he questions the assessment that US foreign policy is overwhelmingly shaped by those corporate titans, “who own and manage the private empires that govern most aspects of our lives” while “the public’s role in decision-making is limited” and is kept that way through government and media “manufactured consent”.

Walt agrees that the importance of such special interests is “beyond question.” But then contends that experience shows how asserted national security interests can still thwart the best laid plans of American money-barons looking to profit from trade with, for example, Iran and China. Later he wonders, what if some of, today’s leading American tech-moguls (like Musk, Bezos and Thiel) were to apply themselves to manufacturing consent for a “less interventionist foreign policy” to advance their global trading ambitions – and their view of America best interests? Would Chomsky and Robinson still decry this new elite’s ability to manufacture consent for policies they might support?”

Walt also argues that the lack of discussion of the positive aspects of US foreign policy is the reviewed book’s “greatest limitation.”  Professor Walt does not spell out specific, hallmark examples of those positive aspects. In fact, he seems less than firmly sure about their precise significance when it comes time to square the ledger, first confirming how many bad things the US has done before circumspectly adding that, “it must have done a few things right, as well.”

The apt primary concern of this review is the work of Chomsky and Robinson. Nevertheless, the review unsurprisingly encourages reflection on the central motivation for the intensified deformation of American foreign policy this century: the extraordinary rise of China. As it happens, current, recurring Sino-hostile foreign policy revisions are continually justified by reliance on avowed US national security interests.

Over the last forty years, China has fundamentally reduced global abject poverty numbers and become the world’s largest economy using a Purchasing Power Parity measure. As it has pioneered these astounding achievements, China has learnt, through intense experience, that if those it deals with ultimately do well too, then trade will be even better and the rise of China will be enhanced. This is the essence of what is understood by Beijing’s frequently repeated win-win mantra. This vision, when more fully expressed, is wordy and broad – but it is forward-looking and creative. Moreover, as CNN reports, it is a viewpoint that is plainly attractive to many countries.

And what is the America alternative? As it gets ready to inaugurate President Trump for a second term, the US looks set to offer a conspicuously re-heated version of Make America Great Again – and hang the rest. When we consider this comparative context, it is fair to expect that more American foreign policy “bad things” may be in the offing.

Professor Walt concludes by observing that, despite his reservations, “The Myth of American Idealism is a valuable work that provides an able introduction to Chomsky’s thinking.” adding that:

“If I were asked whether a student would learn more about US foreign policy by reading this book or by reading a collection of essays that current and former US officials occasionally write in journals such a Foreign Affairs and the Atlantic, Chomsky and Robinson would win hands down. I wouldn’t have written that last sentence when I began my career 40 years ago. I’ve been paying attention, however, and my thinking had evolved as the evidence has piled up. It is regrettable but revealing that a perspective on U.S. foreign policy once confined to the margins of left-wing discourse in the United States is now more credible than any shopworn platitudes that many senior U.S. officials rely on to defend their actions.”

 

https://johnmenadue.com/chomsky-is-right-says-professor-walt/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.

 

western warmongers....

 

Are the western warmongers provoking a Third World War?   by Karl-Jürgen Müller

 

 

Donald Trump Jr’s reaction came loud and clear. Following initial media reports on 17 November that outgoing US President Joe Biden had given his permission to target Russian territory within internationally recognised borders with US ATACMS missiles, he tweeted: “The Military-Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War III going before my father has a chance to make peace and save lives.”
  The president’s son’s warnings were followed by other well-known figures from the Trump team – and from personalities around the world who want to end the war in Ukraine as quickly as possible. Thus, it is not only from the Russian perspective that the latest development is a clear escalation – and a direct US entry into war that goes far beyond the previous war involvement of the USA and other NATO states. Russian President Vladimir Putin has made this clear in several statements since June of this year, most recently on 12 September:

“Hence this is not about allowing the Ukrainian regime to attack Russia with these weapons or not. It is a question of deciding whether or not the NATO countries will become directly involved in the military conflict. If this decision is taken, it will mean nothing other than the direct involvement of the NATO countries, the USA and the European countries, in the war in Ukraine. That is their direct involvement, and of course it changes the essence, the nature of the conflict considerably. It will mean that the NATO countries, the USA and the European countries, will be at war with Russia. And if that is the case, then we will take the appropriate decisions in view of the changed nature of this conflict, based on the threats arising for us.”1

The Deputy Head of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, referred to this in his latest statement on 19 November. It talks about “striking back with weapons of mass destruction [...]” and also about “World War III”:

“The one thing that is really important is the statement that the head of state of Russia made on 12 September. Accordingly, today [19 November] a new version of the foundations of state policy in the field of nuclear deterrence [nuclear doctrine] was approved. The use of Alliance [Nato] missiles in this way would be categorised as an attack by the Alliance nations against Russia. In such a scenario, Russia reserves the right to strike back with weapons of mass destruction against Kiev and crucial Nato facilities, wherever they may be. That would result in a third world war.”2

What is the purpose of the missile strike?

On 19 November, it was also reported that the first US ATACMS missiles were fired at Russian territory from Ukraine. Five of them were said to have been intercepted.3
  The deployment of the ATACMS missiles will not turn the tide of the war in Ukraine, but it will escalate it. Volodimir Zelensky is up to his neck in water. He is betting everything on escalation agreeing with the Western warmongers who are also in deep water since the US elections and have been seeking a direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia for some time. Do they sense their last chance? ... But are they aware that their policy of demonising the supposed enemy, of loud threats, ultimatums and actual escalation is a highly dangerous dead end for mankind? If it has not yet come to an open world war, then we must attribute this above all to Russia’s level-headed reactions. On 21 November, the Russian President responded to the Western attacks in a speech to the nation and explained Russia’s reactions to the renewed Western escalation (see box).

A hard war course also from Western-European

Since 6 November, the day the new US president was elected, the European faction of Western warmongers set the pace. Mainly to prevent a possible US withdrawal after the inauguration of the newly elected President Donald Trump. Although this was not in the interests of European states and peoples, it was in the interest of a further escalation of the war.
  There was the foreign policy daredevil and SPD politician Michael Roth, who demanded in an interview with Der Spiegel on 6 November that EU Europe must now publicly declare that it will immediately assume all costs for a continuation of the war in Ukraine and is also prepared to buy the weapons needed for Ukraine in the USA – in order to pass them on to Ukraine. This was the only way to prevent a US-Russian “dictatorial peace” against Ukraine.4
  There was the British Prime Minister Starmer and the French President Macron, who were working on the US President who was still in office. Both European politicians also want to direct British and French medium-range missiles against targets in Russia. They, too, want to escalate the war and sabotage an agreement between Trump and the Russian president.5
  There is the EU leadership, sticking unteachably to its course of confrontation. Everyone should take seriously what Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said in a conversation with former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Weltwoche editor-in-chief Roger Köppel in Vienna on 31 October 2024. As rotating EU Council President, he had tried to initiate peace talks in July 2024 but had encountered a solid wall of resistance in the EU. Now he said he had “no hope for Europe. I’ve seen them up close and I don’t want to say anything bad about them now. But they are set on winning the war. They want to defeat Russia. The main role is played by the President of the EU Commission. She is leading the way. She is to blame for the situation. She says the Russians must be defeated and Ukraine must be given everything to make that happen. Everything that concerns peace would be treason, anti-democratic, unacceptable, [is] pushed aside. That is the current situation in Europe.” And Gerhard Schröder asked: “Since when have people been scolded for peace initiatives? What have we got into?”6
  The majority of European politicians have now applauded the US decision. It is probably entirely in the interests of the British Prime Minister and the French President. Germany is the third Western European country to possess heavy, manoeuvrable medium-range weapons. Following the US decision, leading politicians from the CDU/CSU, FDP and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen are pushing for a decision by the German Bundestag to also authorise the German Taurus missiles for attacks on Russian territory. Together, their three parliamentary groups have a majority in parliament. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock expressly welcomed the US decision.
  Soon-to-be ex-chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD), on the other hand, reiterated his opposition to Taurus deliveries to Ukraine, stating that he could and would not take responsibility for this. Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico took a very clear stance against the US decision. “This is an unprecedented escalation of tensions, a decision that destroys the hope for the start of peace talks and an end to the mutual killing in Ukraine.” He added: “It is astonishing how quickly some EU countries have welcomed the militant action of the US. This only confirms that the EU is not in a position to independently formulate fundamental foreign policy positions and that the West wants to continue the war in Ukraine at all costs.”7

Europe must not leave the field to the warmongers

But this must not be the last European word.
  At this year’s Waldei Club conference – just a few days before the renewed US escalation – Russian President Vladimir Putin recalled a conversation with former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in 1993, three years after German reunification. It was a different direction from today’s, one that had also been taken repeatedly in the centuries before. Germany played a special role in this, also as a bridge between West and East.
  What did Putin say? “I have already said this, but I will indulge in recalling a conversation with former Chancellor Kohl in 1993, when I chanced to be present during his conversation with the then mayor of St. Petersburg. I had not forgotten my German then and acted as the interpreter. He let the official interpreter go. ‘Take some rest,’ he said. I stayed with them to do the interpreting. As a man who only recently was an officer of the Soviet Union’s foreign intelligence service, I was surprised by what he said. Frankly, I listened, interpreted and was surprised, to put it mildly, because my head was filled with Cold War clichés, and I was a KGB intelligence officer. Unexpectedly, Kohl said that the future of Europe, if it wanted to remain an independent centre of the global civilisation, could only be together with Russia, that we must join our efforts.”8 [emphasis km].

Can trust be restored?

However, the Russian President also made it clear that Western governments must step up to the plate today: “The lack of trust is the main problem on the Eurasian continent and in relations between Russia and European countries. You can criticise Russia as much as you want, and we probably make many mistakes as well, but when they tell us that they had signed the Minsk agreements on Ukraine only to give Ukraine an opportunity to rearm, and had not at all intended to settle the conflict peacefully, what trust is there to speak of? […] However, it is necessary to gradually revitalise the system of mutual trust. […] this could be the first step towards creating a common system of Eurasian security. Can we do this or not? Mr Kohl, whom I mentioned at the beginning, believed that this is not just necessary, but absolutely indispensable. I share this view.”9
  We are still miles away from this! How this can be changed is increasingly proving to be a question of survival for Europe and probably for all mankind. •

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2024/nr-25-26-november-2024/provozieren-die-westlichen-kriegstreiber-den-dritten-weltkrieg

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.

 

 

on the Brink.....

 

On the Brink    by Scott Ritter

 

 

It is high time for everyone, from every walk of life, to understand the path we are currently on. Left unchecked, events are propelling us down a highway to hell that leads to only one destination – a nuclear Armageddon that everyone agrees can’t be won, and yet the United States is, at this very moment, preparing to “win”.
  A nuclear “exchange” with Russia, even if the United States were able to execute a surprise pre-emptive nuclear strike, would result in the destruction of dozens of American cities and the deaths of more than a hundred million Americans.
  And this is if we “win”.
  And we know that we can’t “win” a nuclear war.
  And yet we are actively preparing to fight one.
  This insanity must stop.
  Now.
  The United States just held an election where the winning candidate, President-elect Donald Trump, campaigned on a platform which sought to end the war in Ukraine and avoid a nuclear war with Russia.
  And yet the administration of President Joe Biden has embarked on a policy direction which seeks to expand the conflict in Ukraine and is bringing the United States to the very brink of a nuclear war with Russia.
  This is a direct affront to the notion of American democracy.
  By ignoring the stated will of the people of the United States as manifested through their votes in an election where the very issue of war and peace were front and centre in the campaign, is an affront to democracy.
  We the people of the United States must not allow this insane rush to war to continue.
  We must put the Biden administration on notice that we are opposed to any expansion of the conflict in Ukraine which brings with it the possibility of escalation that leads to a nuclear war with Russia.
  And we must implore the incoming Trump administration to speak out in opposition to this mad rush toward nuclear annihilation by restating publicly its position of the war in Ukraine and nuclear war with Russia – that the war must end now, and that there can be no nuclear war with Russia triggered by the war in Ukraine.
  We need to say “no” to nuclear war.
  I am working with other like-minded people to hold a rally in Washington, DC on the weekend of 7–8 December to say no to nuclear war.
  I am encouraging Americans from all walks of life, all political persuasions, all social classes, to join and lend their voices to this cause.
  Watch this space for more information about this rally.
  All our lives depend on it.

Source: Excerpt from the article “On the Brink” of 24 November 2024;
https://scottritter.substack.com/p/on-the-brink

 

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2024/nr-25-26-november-2024/am-rande-des-abgrunds

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.