American Animosity and Rivalry

With all the animosity and rivalry against Russia, the US is obviously in no position to mediate peace in Ukraine. It is a de facto party to the conflict rather than a mediator.

Jun 28, 2024

Languages: UA | RU || BG | CS | DE | EL | ES | FR | HR | HU | IT | PL | RM | TR |

Reading time: 56 minutes (60 minutes with footnotes)

Welcome to the peace initiative for Ukraine in which you can contibute by raising your awareness as well as your consciousness^[+] and spirit to the modes^[+] of neutrality^[*^], decency, respectfulness, wisdom^[*^], objectivity, mastery of the intellect, surrender (ego and mind to God’s will), and finally peace (inner then outer). To properly grasp everything, we recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative in the order that we^[*^] designed it, which is listed in the CONTENTS. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we urge you to do it, please. Did you read the this “Peacemaking Mediation” segment from the beginning? Please, do so for a better grasp of the topic of this article: Peacemaking Mediation: The US Role.

According to Pew Research Center's survey in March 2022^[+], one month after Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine, 70% of Americans said that Russia is an enemy of the United States. One should ask why they see it that way, given that Russia never ever attacked any of America's territories or people, nor in any way violated American territorial integrity or sovereignty, neither did Russia make any threats to American national security, let alone set a military base nearby (even though the US did that near Russian borders). It is a clear evidence of indoctrination.

Is an attack on Ukraine considered an attack on the US? Is Ukraine the 51^st state of America? It sure seems that way as an American flag is raised at Kyiv’s river port^[»] (a man in Kyiv wonders what country he lives in) and in front of the Lviv administration^[ꚛ], to name just a few.

However, there are many other candidates for that “the 51^st state of America” ^[+] title and the UK surely tops the list (although many people like to call it the American b***), at least in Europe, although Canada got there first. If the UK^[+] is the 51^st state of America, then Israel is 52^nd state of the USA, Germany is 53^rd state of the USA, Poland^[+] is 54^th state of the USA, South Korea is 55^th state of the USA... Besides the UK, many see Norway as the biggest US ally in Europe, so no wonder both of them are not in the EU. There are also many other EU states^[+] that are extremely submissive to the US authorities and as such also dubbed as the 51^st state of America or American vassal states, such as Ukraine^[+], Italy^[+], and Denmark^[+]. As long as many Europeans stand more to Americans than to other Europeans (such as Russia, Serbia, Hungary, Turkey, etc.), there will be no peace on the European continent as the military United States will always try to divide and rule Europe – that is their nature as they seek to preserve hegemony or world domination.

This animosity towards Russia is a work of American propaganda, including the film industry, show-biz, and mainstream media that promote the agenda of the US ruling elite and their sponsors among the military-industrial complex who always need a villain to justify the government’s humongous payments to them.

The US elite is viciously reluctant to see Russia and China or any other superpower as their equals, therefore, feeling threatened to lose world supremacy, they see them as the enemy. Plus, they always need an enemy to profit from wars (details on war profiteering coming up^[*^]), which is why they blame Russia for everything, so as to get people to hate the Russians so much as to be willing to go into a war to fight them. Whatever bad happened recently, the mantra went “Russia did it.” The public bought into this fallacy, despite no evidence to support the allegations. Countless merchandise was created to profit from this agenda even in such a way, from T-shirts^[+]^[+] to songs^[+], as well as memes^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+]. This way, when the time came, it was easy-peasy to create world condemnation of Russia, even though the US caused the war in fact (read on to find out how).

However, the American Center for Citizen Initiatives conducted a large-scale investigation that exposed this fallacy and concluded: “Russia is not our Enemy”.^[+] Concerned about the growing irrational animosity towards Russia, the HuffPost felt a need before the war to post an article on the subject by a Labor & Human Rights Lawyer titled “Listen Liberals: Russia Is Not Our Enemy”^[+]. Putin said Russia is not an enemy of the West^[+].

The mere fact that a Russian emperor (Alexander II) granted Alaska^[+] (for a symbolic price) to the US in 1867, Americans should be forever grateful and possibly reciprocate somehow, or at least cease to be hostile to the benefactor.

There would be no war in Ukraine if the US government had been faithful to constitutional processes. The systematic provision of billions in military assistance to Ukraine in its war with Russia makes the United States a co-belligerent requiring a congressional declaration. But no co-belligerency declaration has been initiated by the US Congress1 nor sought by President Joe Biden. If Congress were required to vote, it would balk at co-belligerency as it balked in 2013 when President Barack Obama asked for a declaration of war against Syria and as it balked in 1999 when President Bill Clinton asked for a declaration of war against Serbia. Nevertheless, the US bombed both countries and sent its troops there, still occupying part of Syria.

US Judge Andrew P. Napolitano (a former US professor of law, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst, and judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey who has published nine books on the US Constitution) argued^[+] that by funding the war in Ukraine, sending military equipment and soldiers to Ukraine to kill Russians who never posed any threat to the US, US President Joe Biden and the US Congress duped the public and violated the US Constitution. Judge Napolitano judges^[+]^[»] the US government’s reckless, immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional war in Ukraine. As a judge and author of books on the US Constitution, he explains^[»] that the US Congress has no legal right to declare war on Russia because the US has signed treaties that will only declare war on countries that pose an immediate national security threat to the US and Russia is not one of them. It is the other way around with the US posing a threat to Russia.

Under the US Constitution, only the US Congress can declare war (but Congress has given away limited authority to presidents and permitted them to fight undeclared wars). US Congress cannot legally declare war on Russia since there is no militarily grounded reason for doing so. Russia poses no threat to American national security. Like many other superpowers, it poses threat to American economic interests but that can be no valid reason for a military war, only a trade war, which the US has been waging already for many years, dragging also other countries into it coercing or manipulating them into imposing sanctions on Russia.

Moreover, the US has no treaty with Ukraine that triggers an American military defense. Congress has not only not declared war on Russia; it has not authorized the use of American military forces against it. Yet, in 2022 and 2024, it has given President Biden $113+61 billion authorizing him to spend it on military equipment for Ukraine as he sees fit. On top of that $182 billion^[+], even before – from 2014 to March 2022, the United States provided more than $34.9 billion^[+] in security assistance for training and equipment under the guise of helping Ukraine preserve its territorial integrity, secure its borders, and improve interoperability with NATO. That is over $200 billion altogether since the war in Ukraine started in 2014.

The question many Americans ask their government is, why is the US providing over $200 billion worth of security assistance to Ukraine while the US has $36 trillion of debt^[+][+], almost $1 trillion trade balance deficit^[+]^[+]^[+], a homelessness crisis^[+]^[+], too many children living in poverty^[+], growing income inequality^[+], huge health care disparities^[+], and many other internal issues for which that money should have been used (rather than fund the billionaires of military industrial complex). Why does the US government care more for Ukrainians than its own people?

The answer is, it doesn't because it is an investment and most of these billions are going back into American pockets as this money is used to buy weapons from the US military-industrial complex and American humanitarian aid through the US Agency for International Development (USAID), as well as to pay salaries for American mercenaries, “volunteers” (under quotation marks because volunteers are not supposed to get paid but here they do), and employees of USAID and other American humanitarian organizations and NGOs in Ukraine. The rest of the American billions of “aid”2 are used to further bribe Ukrainian politicians to sell Ukrainian natural resources to Americans at record-low prices.

On top of all that, this war is a source of enormous profits for US companies that only in the first year of war earned an excess of $129 billion in profits^[*^] on top of their usual profits – apart from the US military-industrial giants, arms dealers, private security, and logistics, the big Ukraine war profiteers are American oil companies, food processing, and commodity-trading companies, reconstruction companies, as well as assets management firm Blackrock^[+], etc.

Besides, giving military aid to Ukraine from their stockpiles saves a lot of money considering the cost of storing, maintaining, and disposing of mothballed systems.

“Your money is not charity; it’s an investment”^[+]^[+] – Ukrainian President Zelensky said in his address to the US Congress while visiting Washington on 21 December 2022.
In June 2023, US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a revolting statement^[+] that sending lethal Western capabilities to Ukraine was a direct investment in America’s own security (rather than helping Ukraine), as “equipping Ukrainians to defend themselves is a far cheaper way – in both dollars and American lives – to degrade Russia’s ability to threaten the United States.” As suggesting Ukrainian losses are “cheap” was not evil enough to justify the horrific sacrifices Ukraine makes, he added that this war serves the US as they learn through it about how to improve the defenses of partners (e.g. Taiwan) who are threatened by China. And to top it all, he said that “most of the money that’s been appropriated for Ukraine security assistance doesn’t actually go to Ukraine. It gets invested in American defense manufacturing. It funds new weapons and munitions for the US armed forces to replace the older material we have provided to Ukraine”.
In other words, Ukrainians should be dying and suffering so as to help the US to degrade Russia, better fight China, fill the pockets of American defense manufacturers, and get rid of all the old weapons. We wonder if the Ukrainians (other than Zelensky) heard that and how they feel about being used that way. Here^[+»] is how Americans feel about McConnell (met with a chorus of boos and objections at a political event in Kentucky).
It must be noted that the old Senator McConnell is either ignorant or demented or dishonest because a mere look at the figures^[+] of US military deaths shows that nothing changed, the number of US deaths did not decrease by sacrificing Ukrainians for American interests. For instance, total US military deaths in 2022 was 844, in 2016 was 811, in 2014 was 880 even while the US was engaged in the direct war in Afghanistan! And in his deranged outlook, he totally disregarded the cost of human life and territories as well as all the suffering in Ukraine and Europe due to such selfish US foreign policy. Also, in his narrow-minded or senile view, he overlooked other US losses, such as the loss of many allies, reputation, and overseas sales revenues (most people around the world boycott the US products and services), de-dollarization, the US travelers abroad are demeaned, all of which makes the US lose more than what its war-profiteers made. Then there are other US losses such as money for paying high interest rates on US debt taken for aid to Ukraine, which means the costs of aid is higher due to added interest rates.
"The United States is going to run in excess of a $2.5 trillion deficit this year. So why should the people of the United States borrow money from China to give it up to Ukraine? That is not in our best interests," said^[+] Republican Congressman Matt Rosendale told BBC in December 2023.

Due to such short-sighted, narrow-minded, shallow, and hostile thinking, the United States now confronts graver threats to its security than ever. Never before has it faced four allied antagonists at the same time – Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, as well as Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia... And never before has it lost so many allies and partners in such short time – Saudi Arabia^[+], United Arab Emirates (UAE)^[+], and Qatar^[+], as well as NATO allies such as Turkey, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Netherlands,

When the congressional and public support for providing military aid to Ukraine waned because talking about it squarely under the umbrella of national security interests hasn’t done the trick, since October 2023, the US warmongers tried to frame^[+] it in terms of that defense3 spending allegedly supporting American manufacturing and bolstering American defense jobs.

Pitching on behalf of the war-profiteers of the US military industrial complex, the White House tried to sell the war efforts abroad as a potential economic boom at home and to invoke patriotism by saying that US aid to Ukraine has replenished the US stocks of weapons and boosted economic activity and jobs in 38 states, but they had no justification why should all that money be spent for stocks and jobs in arms industry and not in some other constructive and pacifistic industries. And they never mentioned how that policy prolongs the horrific tragedy in Ukraine and enables entire generations of Ukrainian men to be killed for nothing in a war that they can never win!

Even if the US is not donating any of those billions of taxpayers’ dollars to Ukraine but investing it all and reinforcing US defense industry as well as boosting economy and jobs, all that money could serve American interests much, much better if it was invested in reinforcing American development rather than defense (defense from whom? Who is threatening to attack the US?). It is always better to invest in constructive rather than destructive projects. As a Congressman opposing the aid for Ukraine said^[»], “to support this money, you have to be economically illiterate and morally deficient. Those are both conditions for voting for this.” That’s why in December 2023, the US Senate didn’t approve^[+] Biden's proposal for a new $61 billion aid package for Ukraine^[+].

So, when playing the patriotism card did not work (because true patriots have another definition of patriotism: America first, as in money should be donated and invested in fixing domestic issues first), after Biden's request for a new aid package for Ukraine (and Israel and Taiwan) was not approved in December 2023, the Biden administration kicked the effort into overdrive (for Ukraine but actually for MIC4), desperately trying to convince Congress by fearmongering and openly threatening Americans over Ukraine.

Without so much as a shred of evidence to back up their claims, as if on cue, all the Biden's warmongers warned that if Congressmen do not approve further aid for Ukraine, it would lead to US troops fighting a war in Europe because Putin will win in Ukraine and then invade other European countries such as Lloyd Austin mentioned^[+] Moldova and Georgia, for some reason. But, doesn't he or his audience know that Moldova and Georgia do not belong to NATO and therefore the US would not be obliged to defend them?

And where is any evidence for such Putin's plans anyway? Putin already won a war in Georgia in 2008 and did not annex any territories despite those breakaway regions being pro-Putin and across Russian border! And why would Putin invade Baltics or any other NATO member and so risk a war with the whole of NATO? Why would resources-poor Baltics be worth it? Those warmongers do not even bother to clarify it. There's a saying in English, we shall cross that bridge when we come to it, so need to ponder over a situation let alone waste $61 billion until it really happens. It is absurd to base such a high military spending for Ukraine on some fear of imaginary future Putin's plans! Are those warmongers stupid or they think their audience is stupid?

·      Defense secretary Lloyd Austin threatened^[+]^[+] members of the US House of Representatives that if they don’t appropriate more money for Zelensky, “we’ll send your uncles, cousins and sons to fight Russia.” Pay the corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs or we’ll kill your kids. It’s laughable how desperate and clueless these warmongers are. To think that they could bully and intimidate their way into funding the war in Ukraine or “project Ukraine”!
Many of American leaders think of it as a “project Ukraine” rather than as a “war in Ukraine” disregarding the fact that hundreds of thousands of people get killed, millions of people lost homes, and much of the buildings and infrastructure got destroyed all for the sake of bloody American investment and reinforcing US defense industry.
·      White House National Security Council spokesperson Admiral John F. Kirby stepped up^[»] the fearmongering by also evoking spilled “American blood”. Both Austin's and Kirby's as well as Biden's^[»] arguments make no sense because Americans are spilling their blood already all the time all across the globe, so why not in Europe as well? They are sacrificing their soldiers in Syria right now, as they did in Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. Are Europeans not worth dying for or are they afraid of Russians? The fact that Taliban defeated them is not as humiliating as if their archenemy Russians would. Or maybe they prefer to wage a war with China and don't have enough resources for two big wars? But this would be spilling American blood, too, so it's a lame argument any way you turn it.
·      In similar bullying fashion, White House national security advisor Sullivan warned^[»] members of Congress on 4 December 2023 that votes against aid for Ukraine are votes for Russia, "for an outcome that will make it easier for Putin to prevail." In other words, since this was also a package for Taiwan and Israel, votes against aid for Taiwan are votes for China, and votes against aid for Israel are votes for Palestine – is this line of reasoning infantile, or what? Votes against aid for foreign countries are votes for the US rather than Putin! Because all that money can be then used to boost US economy, education, health-care…
By the way, why was it appropriate for the US to approve a $8 billion defense package for Taiwan to “strengthen the deterrence against authoritarianism in the West Pacific”, namely China? Imagine if China or Russia did the same and approved a $8 billion defense package for, say, Hawaii or Alaska opposition who seek independence from the US – would that be okey?
·      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre framed^[»] it as if Republicans are Kremlin agents claiming that all who vote against aid for Ukraine are giving the Russian president the greatest gift he could hope for… as Ukrainians are fighting for their democracy :) As usual, no explanation how’s Putin gaining from it, as Russia may gain more territories the longer the war continues. If Ukraine would now accept ceasefire due to lack of weapons, Russia wouldn't have an excuse to go on.
·      US Secretary of State Blinken stepped up^[»] the fearmongering by saying that if Putin wins, all other aggressors around the world would then take lessons from this. He, of course, fails to mention that the US is the greatest aggressor in the world. Every single member of Biden's inner circle has dialed up the fearporn desperately resorting to scare tactics to ram through that aid but the cheap tactic didn’t work.
·      President Biden also played the fearmongering card by saying^[»]^[»] “If Putin takes Ukraine, he won't stop there… he’ll keep going. He's made that pretty clear.” When and where has Putin ever made that pretty clear?! Biden was only saying that, or lying that, to get the Congress to approve his aid package for Ukraine. As he was further justifying the aid, he said that when Putin attacks another NATO country, then “American troops would have to fight Russian troops”, ladies and gentlemen. And there is nothing the US fears more than that – to have the whole world see how Russians beat the Americans. There will be no greater humiliation for the US. Russians already beat them in Syria, so they know what to expect. The US military is in the worst state that has ever been, due to corruption (money allocated for arms production went to the pockets of corrupt politicians) and declining recruitment rate – the US Army is notoriously short of soldiers and struggling with recruiting (motivating guys to join the army), substance abuse (drug users), and obesity (about 2/3 of US 17-25-year-olds are not physically fit enough to pass the US army fitness test – US Department of Defense data^[+] says 77% of young Americans 17 to 24 years old are ineligible for military service). The whole of NATO is chronically short of soldiers^[+]^[+]. So, Americans want to avoid direct confrontation with the Russians and therefore, out of fear of defeat and humiliation, more than anything else, they continue to support Ukraine.

That said, there is some truth in their concerns about possible Russian attacks on neighboring countries but not to occupy them or seize any territories but to expel NATO military from there and so remove all threats from NATO across all its borders. Russia has every right to feel threatened by NATO's military and missiles on its borders just as the US felt threatened in 1962 when Russians placed their missiles in Cuba, which triggered a crisis of a possible nuclear conflict between them. If the US doesn’t want their perceived enemies or rivals to place their military bases across the US borders, then it should not do the same to Russia and China but it has encircled them with the US military bases, which is unacceptable to them.

So, if Baltic states or any other NATO states do not want to be attacked by Russia, instead of wasting money and weapons by giving it all to Ukraine, the best would be to expel NATO military bases from their soil. What do they need them for anyway? Has any country threatened to attack them? The only thing that makes them attackable is the fact that they pose a threat to their neighbors by hosting NATO military bases and missiles. They are free to obtain security guarantees from NATO countries but not to deploy its missiles and troops that pose a security threat to Russia. They signed the Charter at the OSCE Summit in 1999 and reconfirmed it in the 2010 OSCE Summit^[+]: they will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States, such as Russia. So, they should adhere to what they promised, otherwise they might face dire consequences.

Another treaty that they violated was 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation^[+] and subsequent Rome declaration of 2002 that prevented NATO setting up bases in eastern and central Europe. NATO destroyed “mutual trust and cooperation” and “destabilized Europe” by deploying an additional substantial number of several thousands of troops^[+]^[+] since 2014 until 2022 despite NATO’s pledge not to do "additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces" in new member states, and with NATO military exercises such as the annual Operation Atlantic Resolve^[+] and Spring Storm drills every year in Estonia^[+]^[+]^[+] which violates the NATO’s pledge not to move its military infrastructure on the territory of new members.

Also, all NATO states, including Baltic states, pledged to strengthen mutual trust and cooperation with Russia as well as committed to building a stable, peaceful, and undivided Europe but since 2014, they have broken those commitments by arming Ukraine to kill Russians living in Donbas. They supported (trained, armed, and funded) militants in eastern Ukraine who had been killing the Russians there since 2014. Russia, on the other hand, honored the Russia-NATO Founding Act, although NATO claims that Russia violated it by invading and annexing Crimea but as we already explained, Russia did not invade it^[*^]5 but prevented a war there, which was in line with the Act's commitment to “build a stable, peaceful, and undivided Europe”, and more importantly, it was NATO that violated that treaty first since 1999 on many occasions^[*^], which led to Russia reciprocating by annexing Crimea.

The reason white the White House and NATO leaders are freaking out and scheming anyway they can to provide the necessary aid to Ukraine is because Russia's victory over Ukraine will deprive the US and EU of its dominance and prosperity. Unfortunately, unlike Russia and China, prosperity of the US and EU is built on dominance. They can't prosper without exploiting other countries – plundering their natural resources and massively shoving their either overpriced or junk American food, products, and services onto them (export). This is why they feel threatened by any serious competition and by heads of states like Putin who is not allowing them to plunder Russia and their allies, including Ukraine. After the 2014 Western-backed coup that overthrew legitimate government, Western predators have been bribing the corrupt Ukrainian politicians to cheaply sell them almost all natural resources, which impoverished Ukraine and made it totally dependent on the West, losing both independence and sovereignty.

So as Austrian Colonel Marcus Reizner said^[+]: “Russian victory is a threat to the current world order. The world order as we know it today will come into question. This does not necessarily mean that the new world order will lead to absolute chaos and war. We must understand that the role of leader that we have had until now, our dominant role that was the guarantor of our well-being, is coming into question.”

In other words, Russia is disrupting the rule of the NATO predators and aggressors, which has caused so much plundering, devastation, and suffering around the world. Putin is thwarting their scheme and hegemonic Western rules-based order^[»], which is why Western ruling elites are in panic as they will lose power and massive proceeds.

What is bad for the ruling elites, it is great for the public at large!

We already gave much evidence^[*^] exposing the high incompetence of Pentagon and NATO high officials, which led to NATO and Ukraine losing this war, but here we need to extend this claim to the US Congress. It is the men and women in the Congress that make all foreign policies and decisions about funding this war. It is them who give power to the incompetent US generals and other NATO military decision makers. And whom do we have in the US Congress?

The United States Congress consists of two legislative bodies, the House of Representatives and the Senate. A legislation must pass both houses of Congress before it goes to the President for consideration or implementation. Like anywhere else, there are competent and incompetent people but if the incompetent ones get exposed, they should be replaced rather than granted power to make life and death decisions regarding all proxy wars the US is waging across the globe. However, incompetent Congress people do not get replaced with competent ones. Over time, there were many shocking pieces of video evidence exposing US Senators and House Representatives not knowing the basic information about the topics on which they vote, such as facts regarding the broader context. Context truly matters. What matters most is that too many ignorant and arrogant authorities make false decisions that damages not just the US but its allies the EU and the UK besides mostly Ukraine.

First of all, most of them were convinced^[+] that Russia would never dare to invade Ukraine, knowing Ukraine is backed by ”all-mighty” NATO. They were wrong. They were arrogant to cross Russia's red lines^[+]and hypocritically did what they would never allow their rivals do – imagine if Russia, China, or Iran built military bases and deployed missiles and nuclear weapons across American borders in Mexico and Cuba! Would that be okay? Why is then okay that the US did that on Russian borders?! When Russians built up their forces on Ukrainian border, White House national security advisor Jake Sullivan: “That was deeply alarming, because it was out of historical norms.” What is alarming is Sullivan and other US high officials who interpret Russian patience as “historical norms” rather than take Russian red lines seriously, be respectful, and accept that “No means no.”^[+]
Second, they all expected that sanctions, embargoes, and freezing assets would work and that Russian economy would collapse and so weaken the Russian military power. Again, they were wrong. Not just wrong but terribly wrong because it backlashed big time – the sanctions harmed mostly those who imposed them on Russia while Russia's economy grows^[ꚛ] and is better than Germany’s^[+]^[ꚛ] and all the other countries in Europe (not just the EU but also better than in Switzerland, the UK, etc.)^[+]. While US leaders may secretly glee that European economy is in decline or recession due to sanctions, the effects of such policy is also hitting the US on all levels. For instance, most Europeans hate Americans for it and the Europe is slowly distancing itself from the US. Without Europe serving as vassals, the US can't preserve its world domination and as the US economy is founded on the premise of global hegemony (freely imposing its either overpriced or junk food, products, and services to the world and exploiting world's natural resources), alienating the Europeans entails the US economic collapse.
Furthermore, they wrongly assessed Russian military to be weak and expected it to collapse in a matter of days. Some people in Washington thought this would be an easy win, and it was not. Just a reminder of one such ignoramus is commanding general of US Army Europe who stupidly said^[+] on 14 March 2022 that Russia would exhaust its ability to fight in 10 days. We already listed many such bizarre statements of other high officials (whom Congress officials trust and abide by) in the segment “Ukraine Is Not Winning”.
Some US Senators and House Representatives never heard of Donbas before they approved sending weapons to Ukraine to kill ethnic Russians in Donbas, which also means that they don’t even know that there was a war in Donbas^[+] before Putin sent his troops there to end it. One of them, Rep. Jamal Bowman, was asked by a reporter to comment a development in Donbas and he didn't even know^[»] what Donbas was! Their ignorance of history and context is shocking.
US Congressman Corey Mills congratulated^[+] the US Navy with a postcard featuring a Russian ship. One may argue that such faux pas can happen to anyone and one should not read too much into it, which is a fair defense, but how come such mistakes never happen to Russian high officials and if it did, wouldn't the Western media and most Ukrainian supporters rave about it to humiliate them? So, let's be fair and square. To congratulate American sailors by using an image of a Russian ship is a disgrace that reveals more than just a mere mishap. He should know better. The public expects more intelligence from those in Congress who make life and death decisions by funding wars.
The question is why those authorities who prove to lack basic intelligence keep their posts rather than be replaced by competent people? Because they are put there just to serve the interests of the behind-the-scenes powers, the corporate sponsors.

For the United States, Ukraine is no longer an opportunity but a problem. A problem they cannot back out of without losing face. That is why they repeat the old promises to Ukraine to delay the defeat at least until after the US presidential election in November 2024. If US-funded Ukraine loses the war by then, Joe Biden and Democrats would certainly lose the election, which is why they do everything in their power to keep the war going until after the election at the cost of millions of Slavic lives.

Let's be clear on the fact that this war is the American proxy war^[*^] against Russia and Russians know it^[+]. Americans keep telling stories how they are not a party to the conflict, denying their responsibility, which is very telling about American chicanery. No one who thinks with their own head is buying it. Calling the US or Biden innocent is like calling Putin innocent. Putin is also not doing any killing himself and working outside Ukraine; he is not even a military commander. Everyone knows that Zelensky and Ukraine are just American and NATO pawns and that the Biden administration with the Pentagon and CIA are in charge, calling all the shots in Ukraine. They are sending weapons, ammunition, intelligence, satellite data, funds, and other types of military aid, which means they are waging war against Russia but are cowards to admit it.

Under the law^[+], anyone assisting a principal offender before or after the war crime is an accomplice or accessory to the war crime. Complicity refers to the act of encouraging or facilitating a person to commit a war crime. In a war crime, the accomplice may facilitate by providing information about the whereabouts of the victims, knowing that the offender intends to murder the victims. The accomplice is anyone who provides a murder weapon to the principal offender. Complicity involves assisting the principal offender in the actual murder act while a conspirator may participate in the planning, but not the actual murder. A conspirator learns about the intended murder and agrees with the plans to commit the murder. Complicity, conspiracy, and accessory to murder are all criminal offenses and are charged as a felony in most criminal codes. Accomplices face similar charges as principal offenders. The accomplice may not commit the actual war crime, such as pulling the trigger, but they are involved in the whole process.
Ukraine committed crimes against humanity and war crimes^[»] by using American and Turkish cluster bombs^[+] and depleted uranium shells, shelling residential areas and murdering innocent civilians, using the population as human shields^[»]^[»]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+], torturing civilians and Russian POWs^[»]^[»]^[»]^[»]^[»]^[+]^[+]^[+]^[»]^[»]^[»]^[+]^[+]^[»]^[»]^[»]^[»]^[»], destroying civilian objects, and shelling places where civilians are gathered, among other things. All who provided Ukraine with weapons and intelligence for all those crimes are considered accomplices under the law.
Since Ukraine did not declare war against Russia, all Ukrainian attacks on Russia's soil are considered terrorist attacks under international law. All who provided Ukraine with weapons and intelligence for all those terrorist attacks on Moscow, borderline regions of Kursk, Bryansk^[+], and Belgorod^[+], as well as Pskov, etc., are considered accomplices.

All it takes to end this war is one phone call. The war in Ukraine could end today with a single phone call. Zelensky is a puppet, and Washington pulls the strings. The war would end the minute that Biden picks up the phone, tells Zelensky the game is over, and that it's time for peace talks. Ukraine has no strength without the US. The war-addicted, guns-junky US has got the EU wrapped around its little finger, which is why a phone call from any European leader wouldn't do. The minute a more beneficial major war emerges anywhere else for the US to profit from, this phone call will take place and the war in Ukraine will end. But we don't have to and shouldn't wait for that.

“If we are talking about ending the war at the cost of Ukraine, in other words to make us give up our territories, well, I think, in this way, Biden could have brought it to an end even in five minutes…” – Zelensky^[+] (reacting to Trump's claim that he would end the war in 24 hours)

Perhaps, the most important fact why no one should expect the US to negotiate the end of the war in Ukraine or any war against Russia is: the US doesn't want it.

The US has never attempted any diplomacy to end this war for a reason – apart from profiting from this war, they want Russia to bleed until the last Ukrainian, desperately and foolishly hoping^[+] for a regime change in Russia. We say foolishly not just because it is impossible due to Putin’s enormous popularity (and who changes horses in midstream, anyway?!) but because they obviously did no research into who could replace Putin^[+] or the ruling party.

If the ruling party would collapse, the next in line is the Communist Party as the most popular opposition party^[+] – surely, the US does not want the communists back. Also, if they somehow managed to remove just President Putin, the leader of the ruling party Dmitry Medvedev^[+]^[+]^[+] might replace him (as he did 2008–2012), but he is no different (even more hardliner^[+] and antagonistic to Ukraine, the US, and NATO^[+], who calls^[+] Zelensky “a green tricot-clad provincial clown”) – so, it is surely not worth the effort. Or the Communist Party candidate Nikolay Kharitonov^[+] (2^nd place in the 2024 presidential election^[+]) or communist Pavel Grudinin^[+] (2^nd place in the 2018 election), or Vladislav Davankov^[+] (3^rd place in the 2024 presidential election^[+]), the leader of the right-wing LDPR party nationalist Leonid Slutsky6^[+] (4^th place in the 2024 presidential election^[+]) – none of them oppose^[+] the war in Ukraine, and Putin^[+] is the most moderate and restrained of them all (not sure about ambiguous Davankov^[+][+]^[»]). In other words, Putin is surely the best of them all for Ukraine.

The only opposition leader standing on a liberal, anti-war, pro-West platform Boris Nadezhdin^[+] (backed by Yulia Navalnaya – wife of deceased Alexei Navalny and MBK – an exiled Russian oligarch) turned out to be a cheater and ineligible to run for 2024 election as he had not managed to gather 100.000 signatures from at least 40 regions for his candidacy and faked many signatures (submitted too many fraudulent signatures^[+], only 95.587 were valid^[+]), according to Russia’s electoral authorities and confirmed by the Supreme Court^[+]. According to polls^[+], he had only 6% chances to win an election anyway due to too few supporters and a poor campaign based on mere donations (never in the history of Russia has there been such a thing that a presidential candidate's campaign was entirely based on donations).

The US has had no one else in mind to replace Putin other than the US-puppet blogger Navalny^[+]^[+]^[+]^[»] but he was Putin’s weakest political opponent, so he never posed any threat to Putin as he was very unpopular in Russia (Russians gave him nickname Analny for his bending over backwards to please his Western masters) – with his party, he had only less than 2% liberal pro-West supporters, and was in prison where he died due to blood clots (caused^[+] by Pfizer vaccine). Other opposition leaders^[+], who are much more popular than Navalny, are all free, alive and kicking (contrary to Western propaganda) but none of them (such as a Communist leader and a right-wing populist) would do as told by Washington or bow to the Western hegemons if they took power in case anything happened to Putin. In other words, of all Russian presidential candidates, Putin is the least antagonistic to the West, therefore, it should be in American interests to keep moderate Putin in power. However, their ignorance of the Russian political alternatives is too huge to let them see beyond their hatred and animosity for the man who has never done anything to harm or threaten the American people.

Even if the American ruling classes are aware of that inconvenient fact, they push that regime change agenda to at least create a power vacuum in Russia, which they hope would weaken Russia geopolitically and militarily but this is also a testimony to their ignorance and wishful thinking rather than wisdom as there is no indication of that to happen based on mere regime change. Mighty Russia is not reduced to any one man. With or without Putin, Russia is on the rise. There is absolutely no scenario in which today's Russia could be significantly geopolitically weakened or defeated. This can be also verified by learning from history, as Russia has never been defeated in its history.

The West perceives the end of the Cold War as their victory and Russian defeat although the Soviet Union collapsed, not Russia, and it came to that only because all former Soviet Republics naively opened their arms and hearts to the West. There was no defeat whatsoever; just in their friendly and naïve frame of mind, all Slavs embraced the West (Anglo-Saxons7) and its values not expecting all the predatory exploitation and manipulation that followed. Most highly-conscious Slavs are waking up to see what came out of it and how fake or degenerate those qualities are behind all the glitz and gloss as well as hollow slogans about freedom and democracy. Exceptions aside, Slav folks (they share the same genes as highly-religious Brahmans) are inherently conservative rather than liberal, not driven by material but by spiritual and family values.

Soviet–Afghan War

There is one more instance where the West eagerly spins Russian withdrawal as a defeat and that is the Afghanistan war from 1979 to 1989. First of all, we should not confuse the Soviets with the Russians, even though Russia was a power base in the Soviet Union, it was also hampered by many republics but that is beside the point. Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan not because they were defeated or depleted (Soviets, not just Russians, lost “only” around 14.000 troops while Afghans suffered around a million deaths). Soviets haven't lost a single battle there, nevertheless, they retreated due to domestic issues^[+]and a change in the foreign policy of the Soviet leadership under Gorbachev. 1989 was the year when the Berlin Wall fell, as communism and socialism faltered^[+].
History lesson: after the Communist Afghan government was overthrown through a US-orchestrated coup in 1979, the Soviets intervened to rescue and prop up the Communist government against the US-funded Mujahideen but after a while, it was clear that Russians had to do all the heavy lifting instead of the locals, thus they saw no point in further violence and self-sacrifice to save the dismayed communists there. Soviets got sick and tired of the Communist crusade for peace and progress. After the Russians pulled out, the pro-Soviet government stayed in power for another three years, which is another proof that the Soviets were not defeated. The Americans’ puppet government did not last three weeks after the withdrawal began. Moreover, NATO's humiliating defeat in Afghanistan in 2021^[+] reveals the losers.
It must be also noted that in 9 years while there, the Soviets constructed much more than they destroyed, building numerous costly infrastructure facilities such as the Solang Tunnel with the access road – the most significant infrastructure in the country until today, large factories, residential complexes, warehouses, storage silos, fuel storage facilities, manufacturing complexes (machine shops, woodworking and furniture making shops, steel shops), roads, schools, hospitals, and much more, which they didn't have to – unlike the US and NATO, who controlled Afghanistan twice as long (nearly 20 years) but left a devastated country and abandoned the women. During communist rule and after the Soviets’ withdrawal, girls were free to go to university and women had it good^[+] but after NATO's withdrawal, women are being terrorized^[+]. Also, the US only built what was for their interest there such as a natural gas pipeline to take oil for themselves.

Reasons Why the US Is in No Position to Mediate the Peace Talks

We don't want to tell anyone how to run their country but we point to the adage: don't let the fox guard the henhouse. Ukraine needs to be very careful about trusting the US and here are the reasons as well as why the US is in no position to judge and mediate any peace talks, so no one should count on them to do so:

➡ As US President Joe Biden himself blatantly revealed^[+], the US had no intention to prevent the war in Ukraine but actually wanted it to happen so as to facilitate Putin getting overthrown by Russians due to the effects of the war. And the US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin admitted that the US’s goal in supporting Ukraine is to see Russia “weakened.”^[+]^[+]

The US doesn’t want or expect Ukraine to win the war. They only want to make Russia weak and remove Putin^[+], so that the US may continue with its world domination agenda, exploiting the world's natural resources, and expanding markets for their products.

When they say “weaken”, they mean “disintegrate” Russian Federation or “change regime”. The intention is never for Ukraine to win but to weaken Russia, which is not going according to plan because the Russian economy and military are doing much better than those of the US. Why would the US want to weaken Russia or any other nation and how is that acceptable? Why Americans support their regime that seeks to weaken other nations? Shouldn't we all help each other grow and prosper? No, because the US elites want the world domination at the cost of others’ suffering.

At Ukraine’s expense, the US-led NATO is on a mission to change the regime in Russia because Putin and his regime are not accepting American agenda, ultraliberal values, bribes for exploiting Russian natural resources, and not playing by the US rules. The US (and the French^[»]) wanted their noisy puppet Navalny^[+]^[+]^[»]^[»]^[+]^[»]^[ꚛ]^[+]^[+]^[»] to run the country (he was jailed for embezzlements in 2013 and 2014^[+]^[+], as well as for extremism for which he got 19 years but died in February 2024 due to blood clots; his support among the Russian population was around just 2% at his peak; most Russians do not even know who he was while most of those who heard of him, knew him as a traitor and a Western puppet) so that they could exploit Russian resources just like they are doing in Ukraine, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and elsewhere across the globe. As Russia was on the way to becoming more powerful than America on some continents and assist China to become world's leading superpower, the US needed to shrink the Russian military, cripple Russia's economy and halt its rapid growth^[ꚛ] since Putin came to power, defeat and subdue Russia, possibly disintegrate the Russian Federation, and orchestrate worldwide condemnation against Putin and Russia so as to reassert America’s dominance in the world. However, the US achieved the opposite.

And maybe, to remove the threat of Russia exposing biolabs in Ukraine. Imagine the implications of the world finding out that the coronavirus that, mildly speaking, paralyzed the whole world for two years, came out of a US-funded bio-lab in Ukraine or that they were developing biological weapons^[»]^[+] (biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, insects, and fungi with the intent to kill, harm or incapacitate humans as an act of war), which are illegal to use^[+]. (Such disclosure may be the reason why the Zelensky regime is in a position to ransom and extort so much aid from the US, who knows…). Moscow has claimed that secret American biological-warfare labs in Ukraine were a justification for its military incursion into Ukraine.

The involvement of the Biden family in the Ukrainian biolabs was confirmed by e-mails from US President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden^[+] found in his lost laptop^[+] in April 2019 – Hunter helped secure millions in funding for a US Department of Defense contractor (Metabiota with Black & Veatch, which also was engaged with Burisma, through Hunter) specializing in research on pandemic-causing diseases (that could be used as bioweapons), which built secure labs to conduct its pathogen research in Ukraine just a few hundred miles from the border with Russia, according to the Daily Mail^[+]. This was, obviously, a major threat to Russia's national security, which was affirmed as a real threat by Metabiota's then-vice-president Mary Guttieri who, as evidenced by an e-mail in Hunter's lost laptop, wrote to Hunter Biden that they “can potentially leverage our team, networks, and concepts to assert Ukraine's cultural and economic independence from Russia and continued integration into Western society” – the offer from a pathogen-research company to help drive Ukraine's independence was very odd and indicative of proposing a criminal attack on Russia with illegal biological warfare, especially given that she was pitching that in April 2014, two months after Russia annexed the Crimea region when Americans were furious against Russia. Russia revealed in March 2022 that the investment fund (Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners) co-founded by Hunter Biden^[»] (and C. Heinz – the stepson of former US Secretary of State and Senator John Kerry) financed research and the implementation of the US military biological warfare program^[+]. As usual, this Russia's claim, too, was dismissed as propaganda, regardless of all the evidence such as verified Hunter's e-mails obtained and reported by the Daily Mail^[+] of London and the New York Post^[+] in March 2022.
By way of background, it has been fairly well documented that the US has some 400 bacteriological laboratories around the world, including about two dozen in Ukraine since 2005. Although not all were "owned" by the Americans they were partially financed by the US Department of Defense (DoD). Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland admitted during testimony before a US Senate committee on 8 March 2022 to the existence of US-funded biological research labs in Ukraine. In 2013, during Yanukovych's presidency, Ukraine abandoned its biolabs cooperation with the US, and months later he was forcefully ousted from office by US-backed revolutionaries (under Joe Biden's direction), who then restarted it. Well, do the math. It makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Noteworthy is also the fact that, despite no prior experience in Ukraine or the energy sector, from April 2014 until April 2019, Hunter Biden was also on the board of directors of Ukraine’s largest private natural gas producer, Burisma Holdings (owned^[+] by Jewish oligarch Kolomoysky, who was Zelensky’s boss and his main presidential campaign sponsor), earning millions ($50.000 a month)^[+]^[+] for doing nothing other than lobbying by using his father Joe Biden to pull strings where necessary.
👉 Coincidently or not, his exit date from Burisma, April 2019, is the same month when Hunter started funding biolabs in Ukraine and when his father, Joe Biden, announced^[+] his 2020 Run for President, and when Hunter notoriously lost his lost laptop^[+] – all these four significant events oddly occurred at the same time, in April 2019!!!
By his own admission^[»], as also confirmed by then-US Secretary of State John Kerry^[»] (his stepson Chris Heinz was a partner of Hunter Biden in the Rosemont Seneca investment fund), in 2016, then-US Vice-President, Joe Biden blackmailed the Ukrainian government to fire its prosecutor general^[+], who was investigating his son's employer Burisma Holdings^[+] (Ukrainian oligarch Kolomoysky and CEO oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, for money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption), illegally threatening to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees, thus President Poroshenko obeyed – he fired the prosecutor general. Imagine if Putin did what Biden did, how the West would slam him! After that video^[»] leaked, no one in the West criticized much less held Biden accountable for abuse of power. Regardless of Biden's excuses, he used US tax-payer dollars to illegally threaten a foreign government^[»]. As the whistleblower (Burisma boss) provided audio evidence, Joe Bidens received at least 5 million in bribes from him to get the prosecutor fired^[»].
Biden's family investments and compensations in Ukraine present a conflict of interest. Hunter Biden's profits from Ukrainian biolabs and gas producer suggests how much the Biden family has been personally invested in Ukraine and is using the US funds and military as well as Ukrainian soldiers to secure self-gain.
Hunter Biden is under federal investigation for possible tax fraud. The probe was widened to look into how his international business dealings as a lobbyist and investor coincided with his father's political career. Both Bidens have denied allegations of impropriety.
All this data, like jigsaw puzzles, are starting to fit together and reveal a full picture of Joe Biden's ulterior motives regarding Ukraine that have nothing to do with the US interests or Ukraine's territorial integrity but with personal gain.

And noting American vindictiveness, maybe the US officials are also seeking to take revenge on Russia for many reasons such as Democrats wanting to punish Russia for helping Trump to win the 2016 presidential election against Hilary Clinton (a.k.a. Russiagate^[+]^[+], which in May 2023 turned to be a false allegation and a hoax^[+]^[+]), Russia outsmarting them by seizing Crimea where they wanted to station their fleet to exploit the Black Sea region, ruining American attempt to change the regime in Syria^[+]^[+]^[+], diminishing European reliance on America with Nord Stream gas pipelines that were delivering cheap Russian gas to Western Europe, hampering American hegemony and white supremacy agenda, as well as protecting the US NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden since June 2013 (who disclosed US's illegal surveillance program and found safe haven in Russia where he even got Russian citizenship in 2022), to name just a few retaliatory motives. And, the US with the UK, Germany, and France want to harm and weaken Russia also to contain the development and expansion of China and its influence in the world by showing off what they could also do to China (like to Russia) if it doesn't follow American or Western rules, but this irrational scheme is not working.

The best of all (for the US), it was able to do all that without sacrificing any American lives by using Ukrainians as sacrificial lambs. And not to mention how much the US profits from this war. Under capitalism, the destruction of competition feeds into the prosperity of the profiteers but not for too long, as the universal laws regulate corresponding justice.

One of many pieces of evidence that this war has never been about Ukrainian sovereignty or the so-called democracy in Ukraine but about the United States using Ukraine to fight Russia: on 20 January 2020, in his speech in the US Congress (as the lead investigator in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump stemming from the Trump–Ukraine scandal), Adam Schiff, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee said: "The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here."^[+]^[+] Here? Since when Russia plans to conquer America? This also reveals that the US was preparing for this war before 2020 (when this speech took place).

Speaking of doing all this to weaken Russia, well, it didn't work. Russia came out stronger, with stronger support from 87%8^[+]^[+]^[ꚛ] of the world (global south and east), while the US and other NATO states weakened to an enormous extent in all aspects – economically, militarily, geopolitically, and culturally. This is only natural and expected by those who understand that what goes around, comes around, are aware of the universal laws, and read Bible, which says in Proverbs 26:27^[+]: “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it; if someone rolls a stone, it will roll back on them.” We ought to empower each other rather than compete.

➡ The US backed the Ukrainian anti-Russian Euromaidan protesters and revolutionaries as well as anti-Russian Kyiv regime9, which makes them enemies of Russia and as such are not welcome to mediate peace talks. We provide all the explanation and evidence in the next article^[*^] but here is just a bit to back up our claim in this context.

In 2014, the US government engaged in subversive activity^[+] by lending aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, and organizations that advocated the undemocratic overthrow of the incumbent, democratically elected Ukrainian government by force and violence. All willful acts that were intended to be detrimental to the best interests of the government and that did not fall into the categories of treason, sedition, sabotage, or espionage are considered subversive activity.

The US Embassy funded the opposition leaders (large amounts were transferred directly to the opposition leaders’ bank accounts, tens of millions of dollars) and otherwise backed them to protest against Russia (for EU). For one, the US Embassy provided $1 million a day to maintain the protest camp on Independence Square in Kyiv during the Euromaidan protests and revolution in 2014. Oleksandr Yakymenko, the former head of Ukraine's Security Service confirmed that the US financed EuroMaidan protests. The US paid for all the equipment and utilities in the camp, the kitchens, first aid posts, warm clothes, blankets, broadcasting facilities, and stages for speeches, lectures, debates, and performances. The question is: why did the US pay for all that? Pro-Western protesters had been camping out in Kyiv's Maidan Square for over three months – that is a lot of days and a lot of money. US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Nuland said^[»]^[+] in December 2013 that the US State Department gave $5 billion in aid to Ukraine by then for ”democracy” even though Ukraine was already a democratic state, which means for “regime change” favorable to the US (serving the US interests). In other words, the US had publicly admitted to spending $5 billion dollars on overthrowing the government of Ukraine, much of it was used to bribe the corrupt politicians to do as told by Washington, such as to authorize excessive American imports and Americanization through mass media and schools^[»]as well as to sell natural resources at a minimum price, promote Russophobia and joining NATO. Americans are not giving money for nothing but expect returns.

German mainstream publication Zeit wrote a piece titled “Did Uncle Sam buy off the Maidan?”^[+] in 2015, where they also asked “What do the Americans really want in Ukraine?”

Needless to say, the US provided such astronomical sums to the protesters to secure US interests rather than Ukrainian. Surely, many Ukrainians will reckon that it doesn't matter because they see it as something good that Ukrainian and American interests coincide but having the same enemy will turn out to be profitable for the US and bloody costly for Ukraine. The US was not able to reduce Russia’s military, political, and economic power without committing any of its own troops or sustaining casualties, while Ukraine has had to do all the heavy lifting and make sacrifices. The US avoided confrontation with Russia by using Ukraine as a sacrificial lamb.

According to Wikipedia's report on the United States' involvement in regime change^[+], the US instigates foreign regime changes all the time, thus it is very logical to assume they also did it in Ukraine but no speculation is needed when facts and motives are there as we will list them in the next segment. Apart from funding the opposition leaders and protest utensils, the backing of regime change is evident in the presence of the US presidential administration officials among the anti-government protesters and opposition leaders favored by the US, such as US Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy, Assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, US Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt10, and US Congressman Devin Nunes (and not even counting the alleged interventions and investments of Hungarian-American Georges Soros in the progressive neoliberal politics everywhere) – why did all these busy US government officials bother to come in person and give moral and material encouragement to protesters in December 2014 rather than support the government if not to help in regime change?!

And why is the US government supporting and funding the opposition parties in Belarus^[+], other than to change the pro-Russian regime and install the pro-West regime?

Clearly, the US had a vested interest in overthrowing the pro-Russian regime in Ukraine and installing a pro-US regime on the border of their enemy Russia, as well as throwing the Russian fleet out of Crimea and the Black Sea to station the US and NATO fleet there instead so as to reign that region.

American Regime Change Operations

The US is notorious for masterminding and funding non-democratic, often violent regime changes all over the world, which is why it is likely that it did it also in Ukraine rather than dismiss it as mere Russian propaganda or a conspiracy theory — the two most preferred excuses to shift blame or avoid accountability. According to a study, as reported also by the Washington Post^[+], alone during the Cold War (1947-1991), the US engaged in 72 covert and overt attempts at regime change (40 of them failed). Since 2000., according to Wikipedia's report on the United States' involvement in regime change^[+], the US masterminded at least 8 regime changes, not even counting many of them such as Ukraine in 2024 and 2014.

MUST WATCH^[»]: CIA whistleblower John Stockwell about CIA’s secret wars!

The world is full of states born out of revolutions or coups masterminded by the CIA (paramilitary posing as intelligence) as the US State Department tried to install "their men" as heads of state. Many of them were under the guise of being in “defense of democracy”, anti-communist extermination campaigns^[+], and campaigns against “political repression” and “state terrorism” by Asian, African, and South American non-compliant dictators. The fictitious war on communism, the war on drugs, and the war on terror were all façade to secure American economic interests and hegemony.

None of the US puppet regimes has ever flourished. Quite the opposite. The studies show that after a nation’s government was toppled, it was less democratic and more likely to suffer civil war, domestic instability, and mass killing. Anyhow, this is surely the case with Ukraine.

Many critics of the US foreign policy^[+] see the US as a dangerous "puppet master" behind many alleged global plots, Ukraine being just one of its many playgrounds and a launching pad for a US-led NATO war against Russia as part of America’s strategy for global supremacy.

Such fictitious “righteous” wars fall under the Moral Superiority fallacy (also, Self-Righteousness; the Moral High Ground) and “The end justifies the means” justifying own torture and murders as well as regime changes by assuming the moral high ground. Those who practice this vicious fallacy reject any "moral equivalency" (i.e., even-handed treatment) between themselves (the Righteous) and their enemies (the Wicked), against whom anything is fair, and to whom nothing must be conceded, not even the right to life. This fallacy is a specific denial of the ancient "Golden Rule"^[+], and has been the cause of endless intractable conflict since if one is Righteous no negotiation with Evil and its minions is possible. The only imaginable road to a "just" peace is through total victory, i.e., the absolute defeat and liquidation of one's Wicked enemies. American folk singer and Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan expertly demolishes this fallacy in his 1963 protest song, "With God on Our Side."^[+]

Some of the coups similar to the one in Ukraine in 2014 were confirmed by the CIA^[+] and many have not just yet. To name just a few of US-backed coups: 1893 coup d'état that ousted the Hawaiian monarch^[+] (then annexed by the US without the consent of or compensation to the Native Hawaiian people or their sovereign government), the 1903 Honduras coup^[+], the 1933 Batista’s coup to overthrow the Cuban government^[+], the 1949 Syrian coup d'état^[+], the 1953 Iranian coup d'état^[+], the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état^[+], the 1960 Laos coup^[+], the 1960 Congo coup^[+], the coups in Turkey in 1960, 1971, 1980, 1998^[+], the 1963 South Vietnamese coup^[+], the 1963 Iraqi coup^[+], the 1970 Cambodian coup d'état^[+], the 1971 Bolivia coup^[+], the 1973 Chilean coup d'état^[+], the 1976 Argentine coup d'état^[+], the 1991 Haitian coup d'état^[+], the 2000 Yugoslavia Revolution^[+], the Rose Revolution^[+] in Georgia in 2003, the 2004/2005 Orange Revolution^[*^] in Ukraine, the Tulip Revolution^[+]^[+]^[+]^[+] in Kyrgyzstan in 2005, 2011 Libya^[+] "Arab Spring"^[+], the 2014 Maidan Revolution^[+] in Ukraine, Velvet Revolution^[+] in Armenia in 2018, Romania in 2017-2019^[+], Bulgaria in 2013^[+] and 2020/2021^[+], American military intervention in Somalia^[+] (ongoing since 2007), the US Defense Department's program to aid Kurdish rebels fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)^[+], Sri Lanka in 2022^[+]^[+], Pakistan in 202311^[+]^[+], Bangladesh in 2024^[+]^[+]^[+], etc.

Many more US-backed coups or rebellions attempting at regime change failed, such as the recent ones in Belarus in 2005^[+], 2006^[+], 2011^[+], 2017^[+], and 2020/2021^[+]^[+], Moldova in 2005^[+] and 2009^[+], Hungary in 2006^[+], 2011^[+], 2014^[+], 2018^[+], and 2024^[»], Russia in 2011-2013^[+], 2017/2018^[+], 2019^[+], 2021^[+], Syria ongoing since 2012^[+]^[+]^[+], Turkey in 2016^[+] and 2023^[+]^[+], Kazakhstan in 2022^[+], Venezuela in 2019^[+] and 2023^[+], Georgia in 2023^[+] , Serbia in 2023^[+]^[+], and many more.

So, why is it okey for the US to send its troops to invade Syria and many other countries but it is not okey for Russia to do the same in Ukraine? Why Russians are labelled war criminals but the US is not despite them killing and causing death of more than four million of civilians in its Global War on Terror^[+]? Why no sanctions were enforced against the US and why its state assets and all US billionaires’ assets were not seized or frozen like it was done with Russia? The US was not subjected to the humiliation of repeated overwhelming condemnation of the kind that Russia has endured over the whole time it attacked Ukraine – how come? Why have thousands of US troops been deployed in Syria to support local rebels to change the regime there^[+]? Why no one except Russia and Iran is opposing this undemocratic, illegal attempt of foreign forces to change the Syrian regime? Why is the US not punished for all its illegal regime changes across the globe? What gives the US the right to meddle in other countries' domestic affairs? Whoever is not bowing to the US or Western oppression, rules, values and hegemony across the globe and attacking back is declared a “terrorist” or a “dictator”, which the US believes it gives them the right to further terrorize and kill millions of civilians and freedom fighters.

All these US-backed coups across the world suggest a behavior pattern and the logical possibility that the US did the same in Ukraine, as it clearly does not hesitate to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries and change regimes as it pleases.

After all, 21.575 employees of the CIA are paid to work on something, so why wouldn’t they operate in Ukraine?! Where else?! Wherever there is a major political crisis, revolution, or regime change, we can be sure that CIA operatives are not far away.

All of it also discloses the illusion of democracy in many targeted states. If a foreign country such as the US can instate "their man" as head of state, then democratic ideas seem questionable. US officials are constantly declaring how all their interventions and backed coups are “in the name of democracy”^[+] but none of the US-backed regimes were installed democratically, including the one in Ukraine in 2014!

Even the US itself is verified as a “flawed democracy” according to leading Western analysts of global democracy^[+]^[+].

In the US, there are just two political parties, just a handful of insurance companies, just a handful of news outlets (which all other minor outlets just copy) but there are 23 flavors of bagels to give you the illusion of freedom of choice.

The US has orchestrated both Ukrainian revolutions in 2005 and 2014 as it has a long history of removing democratically elected governments and installing puppet regimes or pro-US dictatorships around the world, especially in its neighborhood – in most of Central and South America. The reason is that with democracy comes the distribution of resources and fair work wages which impedes the ability of US companies to make a profit and exploit those countries. Corrupt politicians and dictators are well-disposed to US companies (run by dictators, no democracy in any US corporations) – in exchange for bribes, they allow them unrestricted and low-priced access to natural resources, to expand markets for their products, and exploit the civilian populations as a low-paid workforce.

As the poorest^[+] and most corrupt^[+] country in Europe, Ukraine was an easy target for exploitation, and being at the border of America's greatest enemy and on the Black Sea, Ukraine was surely highly attractive prey.

Two great examples are Iran and Guatemala. The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government because it nationalized the oil fields, taking them from American and British companies and using profits to build a higher quality of life for the citizens of that country through infrastructure and education. It also happened in Guatemala where the people starved while US companies owned most of the farmable land. The democracy was removed and a dictator was put in place to ensure US private corporate interests.

Before we list many pieces of evidence^[*^] of the US orchestrating a coup in Kyiv, let us provide evidence that the US Secret Service does that at all, as part of its foreign policy. Newly declassified files reveal how the US authorities instruct their special agents in the art of bribery and blackmail to achieve major covert objectives^[+]^[+].

As CIA's Morale Operations Field Manual^[+]^[+] explains, the US Secret Service uses bribery and blackmail to start riots and trigger coups. In a section titled "Provoking Rebellion or Coup d’états in a Satellite Country or Inducing Its Separation from the Axis"^[+] the manual advocates "inciting and carrying through" revolutions, and coup d’états, although given the highly sensitive nature of these missions, "close consultation with the State Department may be necessary." Do we need to say anything more? The manual suggests bribery of local opposition leaders and professional groups could convince them to become subversives, who would serve US objectives. Since the US is so hyper-concerned about and invested in Ukraine, it is obvious that it used the instructions of this manual there, such as starting riots and triggering coups in 2004 and 2014 to achieve its objectives of removing Ukraine from Russia's sphere of influence, controlling that important geopolitical location, expanding markets for their exports (imposing either overpriced or junk American food, products, and services), exploiting Ukraine's natural resources, and taking advantage of cheap labor (including soldiers).

Before we proceed with showcasing plenty of evidence^[*^] that the US orchestrated a coup in Kyiv and a civil war in Ukraine let us delve more into the reasons why would and how could the US do such a thing.

There are plenty of reasons why, such as wanting to get Ukraine into its sphere of influence to both exploit its resources and weaken Russia (its capability to dominate Eurasia and so challenge America, drain its military resources) but perhaps the most important reason was that the US wanted to take Crimea over from the Russians as Crimea was not only a significant geopolitical location but a major economical route for wheat grain, sunflower oil, corn, and other agro-exports that the US companies (ADM, Bunge, Cargill, and Louis-Dreyfus) traded and transported from the US-owned Ukrainian agricultural fields (Western corporations have bought up most of the Ukrainian arable land – more than 17 million hectares), earning tens of billions a year^[+]. The major obstacle at the time was the fact that Ukrainian President Yanukovych rejected^[+] NATO membership, which his predecessor, the US-puppet President Viktor Yushchenko applied for in 2008, which should have enabled the US Navy to kick out the Russian Navy from Crimea naval base and rule the Black Sea region.

Former national security advisor and top foreign policy advisor to two US presidents, Zbigniew Brzezinski^[+] revealed in his book a critically important geopolitical location of Ukraine as the reason why the US has been hyper-concerned about having it in its sphere of influence, which is why the US needed to instate a puppet regime there.

On 25 February 2014, US Senator Chris Murphy (Chairman of the US Foreign Relations European Affairs Subcommittee) revealed one of the US motives^[»]^[»]: "Billions of dollars in new economic opportunities for the US were at stake in Ukraine” and "we shouldn't be shy about making clear that interest."

Carl Gershman, the neocon president of the US-taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy, explained the plan in a Washington Post op-ed^[+] on 26 Sept. 2013. Gershman called Ukraine “the biggest prize” for the US or the West and an important interim step toward toppling Putin, who was seen as a great obstacle in the West's efforts to exploit the natural resources of former Soviet republics and the Middle East.

As to the answer “how” – by empowering the ultranationalist opposition leaders and neo-Nazi Bandera followers such as the far-right Right Sector and the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party who hated President Yanukovych because he reversed his pro-Western predecessor’s move to proclaim World War II-era fascist leader and a Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera12^[+]^[+] as a “Hero of Ukraine.” That is why those Banderites13 were extremely keen on removing Yanukovych from office, so the US officials exploited their strong anti-president sentiments and got them to do all the dirty work for them but when those radicals accomplished that mission, the US abandoned them, betrayed them in a way, stopped supporting them in campaigns for governmental positions, which is why their influence declined over the time, nevertheless remained strong enough to push not just ultranationalist but also anti-Russian agenda, especially in police and military circles, where they took top positions and got weapons from the US to kill and terrorize the Russian ethnic minorities in Ukraine.

Thank you for reading this article and participating in this peace initiative by raising your awareness and, hopefully, your consciousness and spirit. To properly grasp everything, we^[*^]recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative for Ukraine in the proper order, which is listed in the Contents. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we recommend that you do. This article is part of the “Peacemaking Mediation” segment. When you are ready, please proceed to the next article in this series: Evidence of US-Backed Coup in Kyiv in 2014

Ukraine Peace Initiative Substack

Discussion about this post