Why Nordstream must be reopened
Neocons
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/
‘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):
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment