What
I have been saying, and for years now, and which is critical to
understand what has happened in ukraine (& elsewhere, including
about China), is PNAC & the original (neocon) wolfowitz doctrine, as revealed in 1992 by the nyt http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/us-strategy-plan-calls-for-insuring-no-rivals-develop.html:
‘part
of the American mission will be “convincing potential competitors that
they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive
posture to protect their legitimate interests.”
The
classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one
superpower [usa] whose position can be perpetuated by constructive
behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of
nations from challenging American primacy…
To
perpetuate this role, the United States “must sufficiently account for
the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from
challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established
political and economic order,” the document states [favourable to the
usa, of course, with some titbits thrown in for its lackeys, like the uk
etc].
…the
new draft sketches a world in which there is one dominant military
power whose leaders “must maintain the mechanisms for deterring
potential competitors [Russia & China] from even aspiring to a
larger regional [i.e. regarding Russia & ukraine] or global role.
…we must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements…
…in
the event of a resurgent threat from Russia, “we should plan to defend
against such a threat” farther forward on the territories of Eastern
Europe [i.e. ukraine]…
…It
suggests that the United States could also consider extending to
Eastern and Central European nations security commitments [translation,
control the country]…
…According
to a draft document being circulated by the Pentagon, part of the
American military mission in the era after the cold war will by
“convincing potential competitions [sic, should be competititors?] that
they [i.e. including Russia in particular] need not aspire to a greater
role,” thus insuring that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge.’
PNAC is the Project for the New American Century, namely this century (it was formed in the late 90s by the neocons
with republicans like dickhead cheney, dumbsfeld & bushit), &
no, it has not been abandoned, but continued by both yank parties.
About the « slow manner » of the SMO and some other issues concerning Ukraine.
On the Internet there is an article by French Brigadier General (retired) Antoine Martinez, Ukraine-Russia conflict: From fantasy to reality, from illusion to disillusionment.
Most of what he says won't surprise barflies, but if your neighbours
and friends (and mine) think you've been brainwashed in the Manchurian
candidate way, you can ask them if General Martinez has been too.
The
article recalls that « the operation launched on 24 February by the
Russian president is not the starting point of this conflict but is a
logical continuation of a war prepared by the United States. »
General
Martinez recalls the comments made in December 2014 by Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko against the inhabitants of the east of the
country:
"We
will have work and they will not. We will have pensions and they will
not. We will have benefits for pensioners and children, they will not.
Our children will go to school and day care, their children will stay in
the cellars...And that's how, that's precisely how we will win this
war!"
He
asks the question whether the Russian operation was foreseeable or not,
and relates the sacking of the head of the French military intelligence
(Direction du Renseignement Militaire, DRM), who thought that the
Russians would not attack.
According to General Martinez, the DRM was right in its own way because the Russian intervention was improvised:
« The
military operation (...) was not, in fact, launched on 24 February by
Vladimir Putin but on 16 February by the Ukrainian army, which began
shelling the civilian population of the Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin
in front of a difficult choice. The massive increase in fire against the
population of Donbass from that date onwards indicates to the Russians
that a major offensive is imminent (...) This is, in fact, an organised
provocation - which could, moreover, be qualified as a war crime
(bombing of civilian populations) - intended to push Russia to the brink
by intervening. In order to be convinced, but is it surprising, the
American president, Joe Biden, announced on 17 February, with a
Machiavellian assurance, that Russia would attack Ukraine in the next
few days. He is obviously right, since the situation will evolve
according to the written scenario. »
« (...)
It is not a question of taking over Ukraine, nor of occupying or
destroying it. This operation was launched as a matter of urgency on 24
February, eight days after the start of the massive bombardment of the
civilian population of Donbass, which preceded the assault by Kiev's
forces by a few days. This is why it has been called a special operation
because it is not a classic high-intensity war against an intractable
enemy but rather an operation to liberate a friendly population
(Donbass) that has been martyred for eight years in the deafening
silence of the Western leaders and media.
This
is why Russia has decided to commit only 12% to 15% of its soldiers,
without calling on its immense reserves and without declaring a partial,
let alone general, mobilisation. The operation is, in fact, being
conducted with a numerical inferiority of 1:2, whereas experts admit
that the ratio of forces on the ground required in the offensive phase
should be 3:1, or even 5:1 in urban areas.
In
this context, the offensive towards Kiev could only aim at fixing the
Ukrainian troops elsewhere than in the Donbass: "We must always bear in
mind this principle of the balance of power. With 1:1 or 1:2, it is out
of the question to engage in urban combat. »
General
Martinez points out (rightly so IMO)« the immense responsibility of
France and Germany in the present situation with their renunciation or
their lack of will - and this for eight years - to follow and ensure the
application of [the Minsk] agreements whereas they were the
guarantors. »
(Machine translation via DeepL)
I let you discover the rest of the article (in French, use a translation software):
https://tinyurl.com/4wfmpd8s
Saker - Nato objectives
The
initial plan was simple: to smash the Russian economy, have Putin
overthrown in an insurrection of some kind, break apart Russia and then
turn towards China and crush it. And, considering the absolutely
extreme demonization of Putin, he was clearly designated as the object
of total hate by “all of progressive and freedom loving mankind”.
And
now “Biden” “generously” will allow Putin to stay in power. Yes,
“Biden”, not the fact that the Russian population fully support Putin,
and the SMO. How stupid does “Biden” think that we all are?
