What is going on in ukraine

The Wall Will Fall

Where mainstream media fears to tread

What is really going on in Ukraine?

Written by Johan Eddebo

The background

Ukraine is historically a part of the Russian heartland. Going all the way back to Russia’s progenitor state of Kievan Rus of the 10th century, founded by the Rurikid dynasty originating among Swedish vikings, Ukraine has been a part of, or closely connected to, the continuous political entity that we now call “Russia”.

Sure, there were periods where statelets on the contemporary Ukrainian territory were independent from formal Russian control, e.g. the Grand Principality of Kiev was under Lithuania for a century, a suzerain of the Golden Horde for a while, and there were various tribes occupying the contemporary territory in what’s a rather complex history.

However, what’s now Ukraine was really never outside of “Russian” hegemony and culture since the 1000s, and was formally a part of the Russian Empire since the 18th century.

This is not to say that Russia prima facie “has a right” to the territory in any legal or moral sense, my point here is just that they in many ways are intimately connected, and until very recently actually were part of the same political entity.

Ukraine’s sigificance to Russian security

Ukraine became formally independent about 30 years ago, in relation to the dissolution of the USSR. Strategically, Ukraine is indispensable for Russian security.

One aspect of this is the Black Sea region and Crimea, the importance of which was the key reason for Florence Nightingale’s Crimean War of the 1800s. Sevastopol has been Russia’s predominant warm water port since 1783 (meaning it’s viable year-round) and is the only avenue for power projection through the Mediterranean, affording the only really viable access to the Middle East, as well as the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean. Crimea also provides Russia with operational capacity in its close vicinity, e.g. for regional troop transportation and protection of its key trade routes passing through the Black Sea, and is vital for Russia’s strategic defence capabilities of the entire southern flank.

While not entirely defenceless, Russia would be very vulnerable if it lost just Crimea.

Moreover, Ukraine as such is geostrategically vital for a number of other reasons as well. It was the second-most important Soviet Socialist Republic not only due to its resources, population and productive capacities, but also since it’s basically a stone’s throw from the very heart of Russia. Take and hold Ukraine and you can just march into Moscow. Or starve it.

Look up the French, Swedish and German invasions of Russia for comparison. Sweden was routed at Poltava, Napoleon managed to burn Moscow to the ground but had to retreat. Hitler, however, seized Ukraine at the outset of Operation Barbarossa and did quite a bit of damage. The Ukrainan SSR was that yellow glob on the left:

Today, a key aspect of the situation is the fact that most gas exported by Russia passes through the Ukraine network. This comprises a significant portion of Russia’s trade surplus, and the fact that Europe in turn is arguably dependent upon this resource flow is also an important background factor.

Still, petroleum looms in the background as always. Russia exports almost as much as Saudi Arabia and is the no. 2 global producer. What’s more, its reserves are unexploited to a greater extent than those of almost any other significant producer, and arguably provides access to petroleum at a higher EROI than anywhere else in the world. I have written about the resource situation elsewhere, but to summarize, the West needs unimpeded access to this petroleum, at least in the mid-term, or it’s a sitting duck, incapable of staving off immediate decline.

The events up until today

Basically, Ukraine has been targeted by the West for “regime change” since at least the “Orange Revolution” of 2004 which was a creation of the NGO racket and Western intelligence, ousting the pro-Russian Victor Yanukovych. The succeeding Tymoshenko government privatized state assets and vocally supported NATO membership to “protect Ukraine from Russian aggression”. Things went back and forth for a while with Yanukovych as opposition leader, after which he was elected to the presidency in 2010 and played a chief role in shaping the succeeding two governments.

Then we of course end up with the US-backed coup in 2014, the “Revolution of Dignity”, according to Wikipedia. The purpose of this coup was to absorb Ukraine into the EU, indirectly rendering it a NATO asset, and of course reducing its utility as a Russian market. When Yanukovych in late 2013 or early 2014 appeared to be closing the door to this integration through an agreement with Russia, Ukraine “got couped”, its government overthrown, and an armed insurgency was instigated and supported by the West.

In view of the background factors, the West had few other options, of course. Especially in relation to Russia’s efforts at creating a Eurasian Union of which Ukraine would be fundamental, challenging the hegemony of the West, establishing common energy markets that could easily kill the petrodollar.

In wake of the coup, Russia then responded by securing its assets on Crimea through supporting the secession, as well as to some extent that of Luhansk and Donetsk, yet which were not formally recognized by Russia until just a few days ago. This ushered in the eight-year war in Donbas between the Ukrainan government and the secessionists. Early on, the Minsk agreements were implemented, with the purpose of establishing a cease-fire and reintegrating Luhansk & Donetsk into Ukraine, while granting them a certain measure of autonomy.

These were signed yet never fully implemented, and according to the Russian administration, increasingly violated by a slowly collapsing Ukrainian state, reduced to a colony with a puppet regime, also citing a ramp-up in attacks on the civilian population of the semi-independent regions.

Here’s the gist of the Kremlin’s perspective on the current situation:

In March 2021, a new Military Strategy was adopted in Ukraine. This document is almost entirely dedicated to confrontation with Russia and sets the goal of involving foreign states in a conflict with our country. The strategy stipulates the organisation of what can be described as a terrorist underground movement in Russia’s Crimea and in Donbass. It also sets out the contours of a potential war, which should end, according to the Kiev strategists, “with the assistance of the international community on favourable terms for Ukraine,” as well as – listen carefully, please – “with foreign military support in the geopolitical confrontation with the Russian Federation.” In fact, this is nothing other than preparation for hostilities against our country, Russia.As we know, it has already been stated today that Ukraine intends to create its own nuclear weapons, and this is not just bragging. Ukraine has the nuclear technologies created back in the Soviet times and delivery vehicles for such weapons, including aircraft, as well as the Soviet-designed Tochka-U precision tactical missiles with a range of over 100 kilometres. But they can do more; it is only a matter of time. They have had the groundwork for this since the Soviet era.In other words, acquiring tactical nuclear weapons will be much easier for Ukraine than for some other states I am not going to mention here, which are conducting such research, especially if Kiev receives foreign technological support. We cannot rule this out either.If Ukraine acquires weapons of mass destruction, the situation in the world and in Europe will drastically change, especially for us, for Russia. We cannot but react to this real danger, all the more so since, let me repeat, Ukraine’s Western patrons may help it acquire these weapons to create yet another threat to our country. We are seeing how persistently the Kiev regime is being pumped with arms. Since 2014, the United States alone has spent billions of dollars for this purpose, including supplies of arms and equipment and training of specialists. In the last few months, there has been a constant flow of Western weapons to Ukraine, ostentatiously, with the entire world watching. Foreign advisors supervise the activities of Ukraine’s armed forces and special services and we are well aware of this.Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises. The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads.The United States and NATO have started an impudent development of Ukrainian territory as a theatre of potential military operations. Their regular joint exercises are obviously anti-Russian. Last year alone, over 23,000 troops and more than a thousand units of hardware were involved.A law has already been adopted that allows foreign troops to come to Ukraine in 2022 to take part in multinational drills. Understandably, these are primarily NATO troops. This year, at least ten of these joint drills are planned.Obviously, such undertakings are designed to be a cover-up for a rapid buildup of the NATO military group on Ukrainian territory. This is all the more so since the network of airfields upgraded with US help in Borispol, Ivano-Frankovsk, Chuguyev and Odessa, to name a few, is capable of transferring army units in a very short time. Ukraine’s airspace is open to flights by US strategic and reconnaissance aircraft and drones that conduct surveillance over Russian territory.

All of this eventually led up to a Russian ultimatum, given in December 2021, pertaining to the security issues mentioned in the quotation above, as well as to NATO agreeing to refrain from formal expansion, termed “aggressive proposals” in the linked Guardian article.

On 30 November 2021, President Putin stated that an expansion of NATO’s presence in Ukraine, especially the deployment of any long-range missiles capable of striking Moscow or missile defence systems similar to those in Romania and Poland, would be a “red line” issue for the Kremlin. He said that these missile-defense systems may be converted into launchers of offensive Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles. According to Putin, “If some kind of strike systems appear on the territory of Ukraine, the flight time to Moscow will be seven to 10 minutes, and five minutes in the case of a hypersonic weapon being deployed.” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated: “It’s only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence to try to control their neighbors.” (Wikipedia)

The Saker gives another perspective:

Russia politely requested that NATO confine its activities to its location as of 1997, and keep out of the former Warsaw Pact territory. This was to abide by the promises that the United States made to the Soviet Union at the time that the Soviets agreed to disband the Warsaw Pact. Both the United States and NATO responded negatively to the initiative, but agreed to hold negotiations with Russia during the week of January 11-14, 2022 (The Saker, https://thesaker.is/the-not-ultimatum/)

This ultimatum was finally (predictably) rejected:

Which was followed by an escalation from the Ukrainian/NATO-side in the Donbas War, after which Russia formally recognized the seceding republics and signed treaties for co-operation with both.

After this formal recognition was ratified by the Duma, the Russian administration issued an ultimatum to Kiev to cease aggression against the newly-recognized republics, swear off NATO membership, and demilitarize. DNR and LNR officials likewise demanded the evacuation of Ukranian troops from their respective territories.

When Kiev inevitably refused, Russia embarked on the ongoing military operation against Ukraine.

What’s next?

The Ukranian defence capabilities seem to be more or less neutralized after a day and a half of war. The air force and navy is basically knocked out, as is the air defence, rendering what remains of the ground forces without support, and probably very little cohesion.

Kiev is encircled and about to fall, as is many major cities and population centers. The Ukrainian defence will likely be enveloped in days, hopefully implying some possibility of a short conflict.

But in reality, we’re probably looking at something reminiscent of the aftermath of the Iraq war. Russia will most likely make short work of the regular forces and bring about a regime change, sure, but it seems almost inevitable that whatever then becomes of Ukraine will have to contend with a protracted conflict against a stay-behind insurgency supported by NATO.

Indeed, as Pål Steigan says regarding the overarching conflict, which I must agree to in light of the resource situation and the general state of the global economy:

“This war will not stop until Russia is conquered and divided, or has put an end to the US offensive.”

What’s really going on in Ukraine

Guest Post by Johan Eddebo

Background

Ukraine is historically a part of the Russian heartland. Going all the way back to Russia’s progenitor state of Kievan Rus of the 10th century, founded by the Rurikid dynasty originating among Swedish vikings, Ukraine has been a part of, or closely connected to, the continuous political entity that we now call “Russia”.

Sure, there were periods where statelets on the contemporary Ukrainian territory were independent from formal Russian control, e.g. the Grand Principality of Kiev was under Lithuania for a century, a suzerain of the Golden Horde for a while, and there were various tribes occupying the contemporary territory in what’s a rather complex history.

However, what’s now Ukraine was really never outside of “Russian” hegemony and culture since the 1000s, and was formally a part of the Russian Empire since the 18th century.

This is not to say that Russia prima facie “has a right” to the territory in any legal or moral sense, my point here is just that they in many ways are intimately connected, and until very recently actually were part of the same political entity.

Ukraine’s sigificance to Russian security

Ukraine became formally independent about 30 years ago, in relation to the dissolution of the USSR. Strategically, Ukraine is indispensable for Russian security.

One aspect of this is the Black Sea region and Crimea, the importance of which was the key reason for Florence Nightingale’s Crimean War of the 1800s.

Sevastopol has been Russia’s predominant warm water port since 1783 (meaning it’s viable year-round) and is the only avenue for power projection through the Mediterranean, affording the only really viable access to the Middle East, as well as the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean.

Crimea also provides Russia with operational capacity in its close vicinity, e.g. for regional troop transportation and protection of its key trade routes passing through the Black Sea, and is vital for Russia’s strategic defence capabilities of the entire southern flank.

While not entirely defenceless, Russia would be very vulnerable if it lost just Crimea.

Moreover, Ukraine as such is geostrategically vital for a number of other reasons as well. It was the second-most important Soviet Socialist Republic not only due to its resources, population and productive capacities, but also since it’s basically a stone’s throw from the very heart of Russia. Take and hold Ukraine and you can just march into Moscow. Or starve it.

Look up the French, Swedish and German invasions of Russia for comparison. Sweden was routed at Poltava, Napoleon managed to burn Moscow to the ground but had to retreat. Hitler, however, seized Ukraine at the outset of Operation Barbarossa and did quite a bit of damage. The Ukrainan SSR was that yellow glob on the left:

Today, a key aspect of the situation is the fact that most gas exported by Russia passes through the Ukraine network. This comprises a significant portion of Russia’s trade surplus, and the fact that Europe in turn is arguably dependent upon this resource flow is also an important background factor.

Still, petroleum looms in the background as always.

Russia exports almost as much as Saudi Arabia and is the no. 2 global producer. What’s more, its reserves are unexploited to a greater extent than those of almost any other significant producer, and arguably provides access to petroleum at a higher EROI than anywhere else in the world.

I have written about the resource situation elsewhere, but to summarize, the West needs unimpeded access to this petroleum, at least in the mid-term, or it’s a sitting duck, incapable of staving off immediate decline.

The Present Day

Basically, Ukraine has been targeted by the West for “regime change” since at least the “Orange Revolution” of 2004 which was a creation of the NGO racket and Western intelligence, ousting the pro-Russian Victor Yanukovych.

The succeeding Tymoshenko government privatized state assets and vocally supported NATO membership to “protect Ukraine from Russian aggression”.

Things went back and forth for a while with Yanukovych as opposition leader, after which he was elected to the presidency in 2010 and played a chief role in shaping the succeeding two governments.

Then we of course end up with the US-backed coup in 2014, the “Revolution of Dignity”, according to Wikipedia. The purpose of this coup was to absorb Ukraine into the EU, indirectly rendering it a NATO asset, and of course reducing its utility as a Russian market.

When Yanukovych, in late 2013 or early 2014, appeared to be closing the door to this integration through an agreement with Russia, Ukraine “got couped”, its government overthrown, and an armed insurgency was instigated and supported by the West. [Read our detailed timeline of this here – ed.]

In view of the background factors, the West had few other options, of course. Especially in relation to Russia’s efforts at creating a Eurasian Union of which Ukraine would be fundamental, challenging the hegemony of the West, establishing common energy markets that could easily kill the petrodollar.

In wake of the coup, Russia then responded by securing its assets on Crimea through supporting the secession, as well as to some extent that of Luhansk and Donetsk, yet which were not formally recognized by Russia until just a few days ago. This ushered in the eight-year war in Donbas between the Ukrainian government and the secessionists.

Early on, the Minsk agreements were implemented, with the purpose of establishing a cease-fire and reintegrating Luhansk & Donetsk into Ukraine, while granting them a certain measure of autonomy.

These were signed yet never fully implemented, and according to the Russian administration, increasingly violated by a slowly collapsing Ukrainian state, reduced to a colony with a puppet regime, also citing a ramp-up in attacks on the civilian population of the semi-independent regions.

Here’s the gist of the Kremlin’s perspective on the current situation:

In March 2021, a new Military Strategy was adopted in Ukraine. This document is almost entirely dedicated to confrontation with Russia and sets the goal of involving foreign states in a conflict with our country. The strategy stipulates the organisation of what can be described as a terrorist underground movement in Russia’s Crimea and in Donbass.

It also sets out the contours of a potential war, which should end, according to the Kiev strategists, “with the assistance of the international community on favourable terms for Ukraine,” as well as – listen carefully, please – “with foreign military support in the geopolitical confrontation with the Russian Federation.” In fact, this is nothing other than preparation for hostilities against our country, Russia.

As we know, it has already been stated today that Ukraine intends to create its own nuclear weapons, and this is not just bragging. Ukraine has the nuclear technologies created back in the Soviet times and delivery vehicles for such weapons, including aircraft, as well as the Soviet-designed Tochka-U precision tactical missiles with a range of over 100 kilometres. But they can do more; it is only a matter of time. They have had the groundwork for this since the Soviet era.

In other words, acquiring tactical nuclear weapons will be much easier for Ukraine than for some other states I am not going to mention here, which are conducting such research, especially if Kiev receives foreign technological support. We cannot rule this out either.

If Ukraine acquires weapons of mass destruction, the situation in the world and in Europe will drastically change, especially for us, for Russia. We cannot but react to this real danger, all the more so since, let me repeat, Ukraine’s Western patrons may help it acquire these weapons to create yet another threat to our country. We are seeing how persistently the Kiev regime is being pumped with arms.

Since 2014, the United States alone has spent billions of dollars for this purpose, including supplies of arms and equipment and training of specialists. In the last few months, there has been a constant flow of Western weapons to Ukraine, ostentatiously, with the entire world watching. Foreign advisors supervise the activities of Ukraine’s armed forces and special services and we are well aware of this.

Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises. The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads.

The United States and NATO have started an impudent development of Ukrainian territory as a theatre of potential military operations. Their regular joint exercises are obviously anti-Russian. Last year alone, over 23,000 troops and more than a thousand units of hardware were involved.

A law has already been adopted that allows foreign troops to come to Ukraine in 2022 to take part in multinational drills. Understandably, these are primarily NATO troops. This year, at least ten of these joint drills are planned.

Obviously, such undertakings are designed to be a cover-up for a rapid buildup of the NATO military group on Ukrainian territory. This is all the more so since the network of airfields upgraded with US help in Borispol, Ivano-Frankovsk, Chuguyev and Odessa, to name a few, is capable of transferring army units in a very short time. Ukraine’s airspace is open to flights by US strategic and reconnaissance aircraft and drones that conduct surveillance over Russian territory.

All of this eventually led up to a Russian ultimatum, given in December 2021, pertaining to the security issues mentioned in the quotation above, as well as to NATO agreeing to refrain from formal expansion, termed “aggressive proposals” in the linked Guardian article.

On 30 November 2021, President Putin stated that an expansion of NATO’s presence in Ukraine, especially the deployment of any long-range missiles capable of striking Moscow or missile defence systems similar to those in Romania and Poland, would be a “red line” issue for the Kremlin.

He said that these missile-defense systems may be converted into launchers of offensive Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles.

According to Putin, “If some kind of strike systems appear on the territory of Ukraine, the flight time to Moscow will be seven to 10 minutes, and five minutes in the case of a hypersonic weapon being deployed.”

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated: “It’s only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence to try to control their neighbors.” (Wikipedia)

The Saker gives another perspective:

Russia politely requested that NATO confine its activities to its location as of 1997, and keep out of the former Warsaw Pact territory. This was to abide by the promises that the United States made to the Soviet Union at the time that the Soviets agreed to disband the Warsaw Pact. Both the United States and NATO responded negatively to the initiative, but agreed to hold negotiations with Russia during the week of January 11-14, 2022
The Saker, The Not Ultimatum 14/1/2022

This ultimatum was finally (predictably) rejected:

Which was followed by an escalation from the Ukrainian/NATO-side in the Donbas War, after which Russia formally recognized the seceding republics and signed treaties for co-operation with both.

After this formal recognition was ratified by the Duma, the Russian administration issued an ultimatum to Kiev to cease aggression against the newly-recognized republics, swear off NATO membership, and demilitarize. DNR and LNR officials likewise demanded the evacuation of Ukranian troops from their respective territories.

When Kiev inevitably refused, Russia embarked on the ongoing military operation against Ukraine.

What’s next?

The Ukranian defence capabilities seem to be more or less neutralized after a day and a half of war. The air force and navy is basically knocked out, as is the air defence, rendering what remains of the ground forces without support, and probably very little cohesion.

Kiev is encircled and about to fall, as are many major cities and population centers. The Ukrainian defence will likely be enveloped in days, hopefully implying some possibility of a short conflict.

But in reality, we’re probably looking at something reminiscent of the aftermath of the Iraq war. Russia will most likely make short work of the regular forces and bring about a regime change, sure, but it seems almost inevitable that whatever then becomes of Ukraine will have to contend with a protracted conflict against a stay-behind insurgency supported by NATO.

Indeed, as Pål Steigan says regarding the overarching conflict, which I must agree to in light of the resource situation and the general state of the global economy:

This war will not stop until Russia is conquered and divided, or has put an end to the US offensive.”

In this first hot conflict of the Great Reset, we see the first open challenge to Western hegemony in generations. But the most important aspect of the conflict will likely take place within the economic realm. How long, for instance, will an energy-starved Europe maintain support for US foreign policy priorities?

Here’s Whats Really Going On in The Ukraine (Interview)

This post first appeared on Russia Insider

The Saker is a top level military analyst and a regular contributor to RI, and is one of the best informed people on the planet about what is really going on in the Ukraine. He chronicles it all in his hugely popular blog, Vineyard of the Saker.

He talks about how US policy makers got into this mess and how much Moscow actually helped the Resistance (a lot less than the western media thinks). He debunks the widely repeated charge that Russia sent in troops. He explains US micro-management of what the government in Kiev does, the trouble with NATO, and how things will probably play out in the Ukraine going forward.

Its not what you think. » src=»https://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/styles/w726xauto/public/ukraine_2832208b.jpg?itok=uYv-a032″ /> Its not what you think.

Seriously interesting, and a much needed counter-balance to the innaccurate reporting prevalent in the western media.

Mike Whitney: Is the United States responsible for the troubles in Ukraine?

The SAKER: Yes, absolutely, there’s no doubt about it. While it’s true that the Ukrainian people were unhappy with the corrupt Yanukovich regime, the coup itself was definitely CIA orchestrated. The EU was also involved, especially Germany, but they didn’t play nearly as big a role as the U.S. The taped phone messages of (US Undersecretary of State) Victoria Nuland show who was really calling the shots behind the scenes.

Mike Whitney: What role did the Obama administration play in Kiev’s decision to launch a war on its own people in the east of Ukraine?

The Saker: A central role. You have to understand that there is no “Ukrainian” power in Kiev. Poroshenko is 100% US-run as are the people around him. The head of the notorious Ukrainian secret police (the SBU), Valentin Nalivaichenko, is a known CIA agent. It’s also true that the US refers to Poroshenko “our Ukraine insider”. All of his so called “decisions” are actually made by U.S. officials in Kiev. As for Poroshenko’s speech to Congress a few weeks ago, that was obviously written by an American.

Mike Whitney: The separatists in the East have been very successful in repelling the Ukrainian army and their Neo Nazi counterparts in the security services. What role has Russia played in assisting the Novorussia militias?

The Saker: Russia’s role was critical. While Russian troops were not deployed across the border, Moscow did allow volunteers and weapons to flow in. And while the assistance was not provided directly by the FSB (Russia’s Federal Security Service) or the military, it was provided by various private groups. Clearly, the Kremlin has the power to help-out when it choses to do so. In one instance, there appears to have been direct artillery support from across the Russian border (in the so-called “southern cauldron”), but most of the aid has been covert. Besides the covert assistance, Russia has also provided intelligence, logistical and political support for the Novorussians. Without Russia’s support, the Novorussians never would have been able to turn the tide in the war.

Mike Whitney: Did Putin send Russian troops to Crimea and illegally seize the area or is that a fiction that’s been propagated in the western media?

The Saker: It’s actually a technicality. Yes, Putin did send Russian troops to Crimea, but no, they never exceeded the limits allowed under current agreements between Russia and the Ukraine. Remember that the Black Sea Fleet was already headquartered in Sevastopol, so there were plenty of troops available locally. Also, there was a large group of local volunteers who perform essential operations. Some of these volunteers were so convincing that they were mistaken for Russian Special Forces. But, yes, at the critical moment, Putin did send additional special forces to Crimea.

Was the operation legal? Well, technically it didn’t violate treaty agreements in terms of numbers, but did it violate Ukraine’s sovereignty. The reason Moscow did this was because there was solid evidence that Kiev was planning to move against Crimea. (possibly involving Turkey and Crimean Tatars) If Putin had not taken the initiative, the bloodbath in Crimea could have been worse than it’s been in Novorussia. Also, by the time Putin made the decision to protect Crimea, the democratically-elected President (Yanukovich) had already been removed from office, which created a legal vacuum in Kiev. So the question is: Should Putin have abided by the laws of a country that had been taken over by a gang of armed thugs or should he have tried to keep the peace by doing what he did?

What Putin chose to do was allow the people of Crimea to decide their own future by voting freely in a referendum. Yes, western propaganda says that they were forced to “vote at the barrel of a gun”, but that’s nonsense. Nobody disputes the fact that an overwhelming majority of Crimeans (95%) wanted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. All the “polite armed men in green” did was make it possible for the people to exercise their right of self-determination, something that the junta in Kiev never would have permitted.

Mike Whitney: What influence does Obama have on Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s decision-making? Is Washington actually running the show?

The Saker: Yes, totally. Obama gives the orders and Poroshenko obeys.

Just as they do everywhere, the US uses local oligarchs to colonize a country. Take for example Russia between 1991 and 1999. It was run by oligarchs behind a drunken figurehead. (Boris Yeltsin) Everyone knew that Russia had become a American colony and that the US could do whatever it wanted. It’s the same today.

Yanukovich was no more pro-Russian than any other Ukrainian President. He’s just an oligarch who’s been replaced by another oligarch, Poroshenko. The latter is a very intelligent man who knows that his survival depends on his complete obedience to the US.

I wouldn’t put it past the US to dump Poroshenko and install someone else if it suits their purposes. (Especially if the Right Sector takes power in Kiev.) For now, Poroshenko is Washington’s man, but that could change in the blink of an eye.

Mike Whitney: How close is the Obama administration to achieving its goal of establishing NATO bases (and, perhaps, missile sites) in Ukraine? What danger does this pose for Moscow?

The Saker: The only place where NATO bases really make sense is in Crimea, and that option is no longer available. But there’s more to this issue than meets the eye, that is, if the US continues to pursue this provocative policy of establishing NATO bases on the Russian border, then Russia will withdraw from the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) and deploy advanced versions of the SS-20 (Soviet Nuclear Ballistic Missile) closer to Europe. The point is, US meddling could lead to a confrontation between nuclear-armed adversaries.

Mike Whitney: The European Commission has created a number of obstacles to prevent Russia from building the Southstream pipeline which will diversify export routes for natural gas from Russia to central and southern Europe. Critics have said that the Obama administration is behind the move, and that powerful US energy giants want to either block or control the flow of energy from Russia to Europe. Is this the broader context of the troubles in Ukraine, that is, are we really seeing an energy war unfold in real time?

The Saker: This is an important part of the equation, but not the central one. The central one is the mistaken belief (put forward by Zbigniew Brzezinski) that without the Ukraine Russia cannot be a superpower, and the equally mistaken belief (put forward by Hillary Clinton) that Putin wants to re-create the Soviet Union. For these people, the Ukraine is a zero-sum game in which the US must either control the Ukraine or destroy it, but not allow Russia to have it. The problem with this theory is that Russia doesn’t really want or need the Ukraine. What Russia wants is a stable, dependable and neutral partner with which it can do business. Even now, while the Novorussians are demanding full independence, Russia has been pushing a different plan altogether. Moscow wants a unitary Ukraine in which each region would have de-facto autonomy but still be part of the same state.

Powerbrokers in the West are so maniacally obsessed with controlling the Ukraine, they can’t imagine that Russia doesn’t want the same thing. But Russia doesn’t want the Ukraine. It has no need for a broken, dysfunctional, failed state with massive social problems, that will require billions upon billions of dollars to rebuild.

Sure, there are cultural, historical, religious and even family ties between Russia and the Ukraine, but that does not mean they want to run the place. Russia already got what it wanted, Crimea. As for the rest, Moscow’s attitude is, “You broke it, you own it.”

Mike Whitney: What’s the endgame here? Will Poroshnko succeed in keeping Ukraine together and further isolate Russia from Europe or will Ukraine splinter along political lines? Or is there another scenario that you see as more likely?

The Saker: Crimea is gone forever. So is Novorussia. But in the case of the latter, there might be a transitional phase in which Kiev retains some degree of sovereignty over areas in the east.

In the near term, there could be more fighting, but eventually there will be a deal in which Novorussia will be given something close to independence. One thing is certain, that before reaching an agreement on final status, two issues will have to be settled:

1– There must be regime change in Kiev followed by de-Nazification.

Neither Russia nor Novorussia will ever be safe as long as the Nazis are in power in Kiev. That means that these russophobic, nationalist freaks will have to be removed before final status issues can be resolved. The Russians and the Novorussians are somewhat divided on this issue. While the Novorussians want their independence and say “To hell with the Nazis in Kiev”, the Kremlin wants regime change and sees it crucial for their national security. We’ll have to wait and see how this plays out in the future.

2– There will have to be a conference of donors.

The Ukraine is basically dead, it’s been reduced to rubble. It will take years to rebuild, and immense sums of money. The US, EU and Russia will all have to contribute. If the West persists in their maximalist position and continue to support the Nazi junta in Kiev, the Russians will not pay a single kopeck. Russian aid will go exclusively to Novorussia.

Sooner or later the US and EU will realize that they need Russia’s help. And when they finally figure that out, they’ll work together to reach a comprehensive political agreement. Right now, they’re more preoccupied with bullying Putin to prove that no one can defy the Empire. But that kind of behavior won’t change the reality on the ground. The West needs Russia’s cooperation, but Russia isn’t going to cooperate without strings attached. The US will have to meet certain conditions before Moscow agrees to a deal.

UKRAINE: “Gone forever”

Though it’s too early to tell, I think the Ukraine as we know it, is gone forever. Crimea will remain part of Russia, while Novorussia will become independent and probably end up in some kind of association status with Russia. As for the rest of the Ukraine, there’s bound to be a confrontation between the various oligarchs and Nazis, after which the pragmatists will appear and lead the way to a settlement. Eventually, there will be some kind of accommodation and a new state will emerge, but I can’t imagine how long it will take for that to happen.

If you want a more systematic analysis of the points above, please see The Saker’s analysis on his blog.

This post first appeared on Russia Insider

Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons

Our commenting rules: You can say pretty much anything except the F word. If you are abusive, obscene, or a paid troll, we will ban you. Full statement from the Editor, Charles Bausman.

What’s Going On In Ukraine?

War and violence has begun in Ukraine.

Western media is claiming this is 100 percent a result of Russian aggression and presenting one narrative.

In this article we present what is being claimed by legacy media, western governments, as well as the perspectives from people on the ground.

We’ve been lied to by western governments and legacy media with regards to major geopolitical issues as well as others in the past, should we question their current narratives?

Do we have a duty to seek out other perspectives in the age of misinformation?

Take a breath. Release the tension in your body. Place attention on your physical heart. Breathe slowly into the area for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

When it comes to geopolitical issues, how can we tell what’s really happening? It’s no secret that people have lost trust in legacy media as a result of COVID, and even before COVID. Scientists, doctors and journalists presenting information that calls into question government narratives and measures have been ignored, ridiculed and censored. When it comes to geopolitical issues in the past, we’ve seen the same.

War, like COVID, has long been used to serve ulterior motives. 9/11, for example, was used to invade Iraq. In 2016, the same countries implicated in funding, weaponizing and even creating terrorist organizations like ISIS were the ones claiming to be fighting terrorism. Geopolitics is always followed by narrative wars, and it’s so difficult to discern what’s actually happening.

So how can we tell what’s going on in Ukraine? To be honest, we can’t, but we can share multiple perspectives, ones that legacy media continues to ignore. After all, it’s not unreasonable to assume something is awry when you look at the graph below via of MintPress News.

According to them, ninety percent of recent articles in the New York Times, The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have taken a hawkish view on conflict, with not many anti-war voices receiving attention. Right now, mainstream media is unified 100 percent with regards to who the aggressor is in this situation; Russia. Anybody who questions this narrative, according to legacy media, is insane. Where have we seen this before?

Legacy media is claiming that Russian forces are invading Ukraine, firing upon the citizenry and creating chaos. Russia is claiming that they are not targeting civilian areas, only military installations.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s aim was to destroy his state.

Russia treacherously attacked our state in the morning, as Nazi Germany did in #2WW years. As of today, our countries are on different sides of world history. 🇷🇺 has embarked on a path of evil, but 🇺🇦 is defending itself & won’t give up its freedom no matter what Moscow thinks.

In a televised speech at 05:55 Moscow time (02:55 GMT) yesterday, Putin announced a “military operation” in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region. This area is home to many Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Parts of it have been occupied and run by “Russian-backed rebels” since 2014.

Putin said Russia was intervening as an act of self-defence. Russia did not want to occupy Ukraine, he said, but would demilitarise and “de-Nazify” the country. Since this time, loud bangs in the capital Kyiv, as well as Kramatorsk in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine have been occuring, which again according to the Russians, were attacks on Ukraine military installations.

A conflict has indeed begun, which is extremely unfortunate especially when you think of all the innocent civilians who live in the region.

Tensions in the region have been building for quite some time. In December, Putin expressed the following,

“There’s nothing unclear about this, we are not deploying our missiles over at the border of the US. No, on the other hand the US is deploying its missiles close to our home, on the porch of our house (Ukraine). So, are we demanding something excessive? We’re simply asking them not to deploy their attack systems over at our home.”

Putin is asking Ukraine to remain neutral and not join NATO, and that the country removes all of the foreign weapons they’ve been receiving from the western military alliance.

Threatened expansion of NATO to Ukraine is legitimately dangerous for Russia, for which Ukraine is of vital interest (but not to the US).

Chomsky providing some crucially important context missing in Ukraine-Russia coverage in Western media: «Russia is surrounded by US offensive weapons…no Russian leader, no matter who it is, could tolerate Ukraine joining a hostile military alliance.» pic.twitter.com/fjp7wvLzrB

Russia is also claiming, again, that they are invading to protect people subjected to bullying and genocide and at the hands of the Ukrainian government. Ukraine, and much of the western world have denied these allegations and labelled them as false.

Below, economics professor Yanis Varoufakis explains, in his opinion, the only way to de-escalate the situation.

The only issue today should be to stop the war and to secure the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. The only way that could happen is a Washington-Moscow agreement that Russia withdraws in exchange for a commitment of Ukrainian neutrality. Anything else is war mongering.

But there are conflicting narratives to the claim that these allegations are false, and also narratives that confirm the mainstream one.

For example, we spoke to a Ukrainian Canadian yesterday named Boris Ralchenko, an avid reader of our work. He told us that Russian troops are not at all welcome in the country, and that most of the citizenry is pro-Ukrainian government.

Ralchenko also told us that the Ukrainian government is not committing atrocities on a portion of the citizenry as Putin claims. He showed us a message from his childhood friend who still lives in Ukraine, and expressed how the citizens actually burned a Russian tank that become stuck. The citizens also killed the Russian soldiers. In this instance, the Russian soldiers clearly weren’t welcome.

But we also posed the following question via our social media accounts,

Is there anybody on here that’s from the Ukraine? Or has family there? If you do or don’t, please feel free to share your opinion on what’s happening there. As many of you know, it’s become near impossible to trust Legacy media. We will be publishing a piece on the situation soon that looks at multiple perspectives currently being shared from a variety of sources.

Here’s one response from our Facebook Page,

“I live near a town heavily populated by Ukrainians. Many still have family living there. Here’s a copy and paste of a message from one of my friends there:

Just talked to my mom, she said everything is good (she’s in Luhansk). Eastern parts of Ukraine (Luhansk, Donezk) proclaimed themselves a separate republic from 2013, but Ukraine didn’t want the division, because 90 percent of money comes from this area of the country (coal). So they have been terrorizing them for a long time and shooting once in a while. So Putin is actually protecting them. And I talked to my friend (she lives in Kiev) she said the Ukrainian army is exploding something, to make it look like Russia is doing it. We’re already used to the government and media lying to us in Ukraine, and most people don’t even react anymore.”

Another one from our Facebook Page,

Here’s another comment from our Telegram Page,

Another one from Telegram,

As you can see, even people from the region and those with close ties in Ukraine are also separated in their opinion with regards to what’s happening. But one thing is certain, violence is happening.

Here’s a clip from a Ukrainian journalist courtesy of Bridge City News describing what life is like right now in the country.

It can help to find journalists on the ground who’ve also been speaking to people, like Eva Bartlett. She is well known for going to the places she writes about and has spent some time on the ground in the Ukraine. The narrative that many people in Ukraine have faced atrocities from their government in certain eastern regions is something she’s written about and documented before.

For example, on September 12, 2019 she visited the areas just north of Gorlovka, Mine 6-7 and Zaitsevo, to see and document the extensive damage to civilian homes Ukrainian shelling has inflicted over the years and recently. In spite of a ceasefire, Ukrainian forces continue shelling residents of these areas, terrorizing them at night.

Prior to this, Bartlett met with Alexey Karpushev, a resident of the northern city of Gorlovka, “an area hard-hit by Ukranian bombing, and whose outskirts continue to be shelled near-daily.”

“Summer 2016 was last time city center was bombed,” Alexey told Bartlett. “We still hear the shelling, but it’s on the outskirts. People are sniped there, too.”

All of this is documented in a story she wrote for Mintpress News. Keep in mind this is prior to what’s happening today.

“Gorlovka was hardest hit in 2014, especially on July 27, when the center was rocked by Ukrainian-fired Grad and Uragan missiles from morning to evening. After the dust settled and the critically-injured had succumbed to their wounds, at least 30 were dead, including five children, Alexey tells me. The day came to be known as Bloody Sunday.”

But there are different groups in these regions. According to the Washington Post,

“The Donbas has been divided into separate territories: the Kyiv-controlled parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and the Russian-backed separatist Donetsk and Luhansk “people’s republics,” known as the DPR and LPR.”

Fighting in eastern Ukraine between the separatists and the Ukrainian government has continued since 2014, claiming 14,000 lives. Violence, division and economic downturn have damaged the region. More than 2 million people have since fled.

In February 2014, a coup overthrew the Ukrainian government which came to power in an election certified by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation). The president, Viktor Yanukovych, was forced to flee for his life.

At the time, the coup was promoted by United States officials. The coup government seems to have immediately acted with hostility toward its Russian speaking citizens. Approximately 30% of Ukrainian citizens have Russian as their first language, yet on the first day in power, the coup regime acted to make Russian no longer an official state language. This was followed by more actions of hostility. As documented by journalists like Bartlett.

Keep in mind, multiple governments use propaganda on their own citizens to influence perception. This is probably why citizens of multiple countries, like here in Canada, are so divided with regards to their opinion on major matters. We could be seeing this in Ukraine as well, and this seems to be the case based on the responses we’ve received on our social media posts, as exemplified earlier in the article.

Bartlett spoke to Dmitry Astrakhan, a press officer in the DPR People’s Militia. Keep in mind this is in 2019.

“Ukraine uses drones to drop explosive devices: it’s impossible to tell which drones are carrying out reconnaissance and which are armed with bombs. If someone yells ‘air attack,’ you need to run to find a shelter with a roof. When you hear the ‘outgoing’ call from the spotter, you have 10 to 15 seconds to run to a shelter.”

She asked Dmitry how he got involved with the DPR Press Office, as he had told me he wasn’t a journalist prior to the war.

“I had a normal job and life. I wasn’t very political. In the beginning, people were mainly just struggling for our rights: the right to speak our language, Russian; the right to have education in our language, to keep the memory of WW2 — because Ukraine started re-writing history. They now consider those Ukrainian nationalists who collaborated with German Nazis heroes, and the Red Army occupiers. We can’t accept this.

I never believed there would be a war, I didn’t believe the Western world would allow this. I thought it would just be some protests, some compromises, but not war. I thought people were being paranoid at first, thinking we would be killed. But they were right, and when the war started, I knew there were things worth fighting for.”

He told Bartlett how Ukraine hides its shelling from the OSCE observers by doing most of it after hours (in the dark, when it is difficult to film) — later claiming that damage done to the DPR side was self-inflicted, or that Ukrainian forces were merely defending themselves, replying to DPR attack.

“The OSCE were attacked a week or so ago by a heavy anti-tank rocket launcher. Ukraine commits many war crimes, but manages to mask it. They are Nazis, but they mask this from the West. Few people understand in the West how close Ukraine is to becoming a full-on Nazi state.

They say that they are from Bandera Front, they are Ukrainian far-right nationalists. When a person from some Western country hears about Bandera, this person could not understand what Ukrainian authorities mean. But I do, I understand what they mean, I understand who Bandera was and what they really mean.”

Stepan Bandera was a Ukrainian political figure, Nazi collaborator, and one of the leading ideologists/theorists of the Ukrainian nationalist movement of the 20th century. Dmitry continues:

“There is a Nazi state in the middle of Europe in the 21st Century. They are dangerous both for us and for the Western world. If they finish with us, they will do the same in the Western world.”

But this perspective is completely denied by western media and western military allied countries. For example, CNN recently wrote,

Putin, in an unscheduled televised address dripping with false claims about genocide perpetrated against ethnic Russians in eastern regions of Ukraine, declared an operation to “demilitarize and denazify Ukraine.” His malfeasance recalled the dark maneuvers of dictators in the 1930s that pitched the world into war. His reference to Nazis raised the idea of political purges and suggested a mindset seemingly verging on paranoia.

The point, of course, is to develop a cadre of pro-Western neoliberal thought leaders who will ally themselves to the United States and its vision for Ukraine. Left unstated in all this is that the U.S. is deciding who exactly this new generation of leaders comprises. And for all the nods towards diversity and liberalism, the U.S.’ record in Eastern Europe shows they are happy to support fascists and other highly anti-democratic forces. Those who do not share Washington’s goals for Ukraine need not apply. Thus, by using its financial muscle to support only one side in this debate, NED hopes to engineer a future in which pro-Russia, anti-privatization political figures and movements are sidelined and marginalized.

Bartlett goes on,

“People who take at face value the Western media coverage would have a very distorted perception of the Ukraine conflict and its origin,” Ivan Katchanovski, Professor of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa, told MintPress, adding:

They omit or deny that there is a civil war in Donbas even though the majority of scholars who [have] published or presented concerning this conflict in Western academic venues classify it as a civil war with Russian military intervention. The Western media also omitted that recent ‘unity marches’ in Kharkiv and Kyiv and a staged training of civilians, including a grandmother, were organized and led by the far right, in particular, the Neo-Nazi Azov [Battalion].”

Again, it’s hard to know what’s happening, but we’ve seen complete deception with regards to other geopolitical issues that result in devastating conflict. We saw this in 2016, when staged chemical weapons attacks took place in Syria. The United States was caught red handed in, as Congresswoman and 2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard pointed out,

Supporting allies, partners, individuals and groups who are working directly with al-Qaida, ISIS, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and other terrorists groups providing them with money, weapons and intelligence support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.

Events like these are considered “false flag attacks,” just as many considered 9/11 to be, among others. These are great examples of not only controlling the opposition, but creating it as well.

I am still researching and reaching out to people. It’s so hard to know what’s really happening, but it seems that what we are being told is also not indicative of truth. This is why I feel it’s important to present multiple sources of information that may provide readers with a broader perspective and perhaps some leads to do their own research.

There are also narratives floating around out there claiming that this is an example of two sides being on the ‘same team’ to push forth the New World Order, and also that there are US bioweapon facilities in the Ukraine. Again, who knows?

Furthermore, regardless of what stance people take, many on both sides are good people and nobody wants conflict. It’s extremely unfortunate that innocent civilians all over the globe continue to suffer due to war, which is the continuation of politics through other means.

It shouldn’t be this way, but conflict seems to put more power into the hands of a small group of wealthy elite who want to “reset” the world according to their own vision, not ours. All governments seem to have “dirt” on them.

Human beings have the potential to create a human experience where everybody can thrive, so what’s the solution to what seems to be unnecessary conflict? How do we remove those who seem to create the conditions for it to be removed from power?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called ‘Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.’ This 8 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Blog Index

How do oil pipelines, the IMF and the Western banking cabal all meet in Ukraine?

To unpack any international event requires an ever-expanding awareness of the history, economics, resource and trade dynamics of the countries involved. Knowing where to look for clues helps reveal the similarities in seemingly unrelated events. The lens that THRIVE offers can be helpful in understanding the history of the global banking system, which is relevant no matter what country or issue you are trying to unravel.

In the case of Ukraine, Kimberly and I were recently in an informal Q&A where someone asked our perspective. The following short video is a first-level overview of some of the issues we think are operative. It is neither in-depth nor comprehensive, but it does include broken promises, the petrodollar, pipelines, the IMF and the Western banking cabal. The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) have been collaborating in forming their own international bank, an alternative non-NSA infected Internet and their own alternative financial rating agency — that relies on asset-backed valuation. These are key to further understanding, and we will be addressing them in future blogs.

For now, we offer this spontaneous, short video with hopes that it is helpful for your own critical thinking about this momentous and precarious global dynamic.

I believe that our awareness and vocal demand that there be no aggression can have significant influence, as has been demonstrated with Iran and Syria in recent months.

What if the people of the region of Ukraine were forgiven their predatory fiat debts and then actually left alone — free of “super-power” bullying and grabbing?

Please add your comments so that we can all better understand what’s going on in order to be most effective in our actions for peace.

Read a transcript of the audio (to translate the transcript, choose your language at the top of this page)

Audio Transcription

Foster: Just to share some of my reflections, it’s the same scene being enacted again. Is this starting to get old, this story? Every month or so, there’s a new country that just happens to be having these civil disturbances and the IMF just happens to be offering them a big loan which will completely take over that country and their resources will then belong to the world bank or to the U.S. or U.K. or whatever. You know the scenario because I wouldn’t have enough fingers to lay out just in the last few years all the countries that this has happened to. But, as I’m trying to make sense of it now, the U.S. is pretending that it’s not invading and blaming Russia for doing that. Meanwhile, if you listen to Kerry and Obama, it’s very belligerent, macho talk: “If you do this, you’re going to regret it” and “We’re not taking anything off the table” and all that kind of stuff. So, why are we even dealing with a country or an area (I don’t like thinking in terms of countries a whole lot), but that area, those people, why are we even dealing with that?

It turns out that if you look at a map of Ukraine, a tremendous amount of their border borders Russia and Russia is a real concern for NATO and so you’ve already got missiles in Poland (that took them a decade, but they’re there) and the Russians hate it. Now, if they can basically take over control…and they probably won’t send troops in there, they’re going to do this financially…World War III has been going on for quite a while, it’s just financial. It’s too obvious if you just start going in and blowing stuff up in many cases. For instance, with Iraq, we wanted their oil. Even more, we wanted their Central Bank. We wanted them not to be selling oil for gold because that would undermine the Petro Dollar and start the U.S. on the collision course toward being a third world country, which is accelerating very rapidly now. So, I think the main interest of the U.S is to go in and economically take over that country so that then they’ll have the ability to keep Russia from doing it and also to threaten Russia more.

So, why would Russia care about it? Russia made a deal with Ukraine during the collapse of the Soviet Union that if Ukraine would get rid of its nuclear weapons, then Russia would promise never to bring soldiers across the border without being invited. It’s a beautiful story. Ukraine destroyed all of their nuclear weapons and then they filled in all of the silos and ceremonially planted flowers on top of them. Now, the Russian troops are moving in.

So why is Russia so interested in Ukraine again? Ukraine has tremendous oil resources and gold and all sorts of other things and three of the four major pipelines from Russia going to Eatern Europe run right through Ukraine. If Russia were to lose control of those pipelines, or worse still, if Ukraine was really free to develop their oil fields, then it would be more convenient for Europe to buy from them. That’s a huge percentage of the Russian GDP, selling their oil to Europe.

There’s all of those international intrigues going on with resources, money, and all that stuff and then, I don’t know if any of you follow Jon Rappoport, but he just wrote a great blog today on this whole thing, stepping back and looking to see that it’s Problem/Reaction/Solution again. You create some sort of problem: the CIA has been paying a lot of the demonstrators over there, now they’ve found out they’ve got these snipers that were assassinating protestors from both sides it turned out were also being paid for basically by the cabal, and that’s where I’m going with this now…With the Problem/Reaction/Solution, usually the countries end up coming to some sort of agreement after millions of people have been killed or whatever, but it’s always to the benefit of the banking cabal. They end up getting more countries, more economies, more military, more tax bases under their control. At the next higher level, that’s what this one is about.

I have strong hopes that because so many people are aware now (the Internet is getting information around so fast) that I think the invasion of Iran has been at least prevented to this point by us, by people like us all over the world who are spreading the information about potential false flags with Iran. And then the whole Syrian thing…when the U.S. population and the U.K. parliament stood up and said, “No, you don’t get to run that one again”, that was a huge thing. I’m hoping something like that is going to happen here and in the process, more is going to get exposed about the technique of Problem/Reaction/Solution and about how behind this is the whole western banking cabal.

Kimberly: One of the things in looking at Ukraine and what’s going on that I’ll say is that when I see something like this happen I know to look both at the resources (What resources do they have?) and also, what’s their relationship to the dollar? (Is anybody trading in their dollar, that they’re thinking about changing?). Those are the two clues right off the bat. Look for that. Listen. You can tell from the mainstream news what they want you to think, which will give you a clue also because usually it’s like look over here because it’s happening over there, but that’s still a clue. I do those three things right off the bat: listen to what they want me to think, look at the resources, and look at the relationship to the dollar because this Petro Dollar thing is huge and getting the resources is really a big part of it also.