“Whatever the rationale, it’s imperative that the United States suppress any lingering desire to bring Ukraine (and Georgia) into the NATO alliance. Nothing is more likely to bring large numbers of Russian boots onto the Ukrainian ground than the idea that Washington wants to have NATO troops right on the Russian border and in spitting distance of the country’s historic Black Sea naval base in Crimea.” – William Blum 2014
“It would be impossible to list the promising areas of cooperation between Russia and China (…) when the West is most flagrantly eroding the entire bedrock that the international system stands on, we… two great powers have to think about our future in this world.” – Sergey Lavrov 2022
The world has been plunged into uncertainty and increased economic hardship in Europe since February 24th when Russia took the decision to push back against NATO expansionism and conduct an incursion into Ukraine. Since this date the Western-centric information war has been savage, deleting Russian or Russia-sympathetic channels from our media sphere in the very early days. The US-led economic/sanction war has been swift and unilaterally sadistic and with equally devastating rebound from Russia that will decimate the Global North energy markets and perhaps fatally wound global dollar supremacy.
In the early days of the Russian military operation debates raged over the legality of such action and many in the independent media were already dismissing the Russian military intervention as nothing more than another measure to further subjugate the “little people” and to ensure the “Great Reset” in the West following on from the demise of the Covid19 narrative and the rise of the Resistance, particularly the Truckers Freedom Rally 2022 originating in Canada that had thrown a spanner in the Great Reset wheel.
According to these pundits the West and Russia, China were all “in it together” to impose a technocratic tyranny that would erase nation state sovereignty and unify the transnational oligarchy cabal in the depopulation, AI, digital surveillance, ID2020, Agenda 2030 program.
My purpose in compiling the information in this series of articles or resource collection (this is part one of a two or three part series) will be to propose alternative theories to this “all one bloc” theory and to offer the idea that perhaps the Covid19 two year hiatus had a hybrid purpose – including the paving of the road to war with Russia by a Western-dominated health/technocratic and supremacist predator class.
In Part One I will explore the legality of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, the more recent origins and the historic background which will also be expanded upon in subsequent parts of the series.
The legality of the Russian military campaign in Ukraine
According to Christopher Black, international criminal and human rights lawyer who is Chair of the Legal Committee for the International Committee for the Defence of Slobodan Milosevic and vice-chair of the overall committee, and was Lead Defence Counsel, at the Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal in the case of General Augustin Ndindiliyimana, Chief of Staff, Rwanda Gendarmerie and won his acquittal on all charges in 2014 – Russia was operating within international law:
In my opinion Russia acted in accordance with international law under Article 51 of the UN Charter for the following reasons;
First, the Kiev regime was mounting a major offensive with NATO’s help against the Donbass Republics with the intent of destroying them. Intensive shelling had already begun days before Russia acted, the shelling of civilian buildings and infrastructure, which resulted in scores of thousands of civilians fleeing into Russia. During that period the Kiev regime also attempted to assassinate a leader of the Republics with a car bomb. Russia had no choice but to protect the Donbass peoples and since the Security Council could do nothing, and the EU and NATO were supporting the Kiev offensive against the Donbass, Russia was the only nation that could act.
Black points out the hypocrisy of NATO accusations that Russia was acting aggressively and without provocation detailing the lawlessness of US-dominated “rules based international order” that is beholden to US allied rules rather than to any true justice-based central jurisdiction that the UN ceased to provide long ago. Black argues:
Have any of the other American wars been legal? None of them All of them are in violation of Article 2(4). The list is long. When I first drafted this I set out all the invasions of nations the Americans conducted since then but to list them here would turn this into a thick book of American crimes, from Korea to Vietnam, from Cuba to Congo, from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Latin America, to Yugoslavia, Syria, Lebanon. But one crime must be added to all their war crimes and aggressions, the crime of hypocrisy. For all of their aggressions were conducted for reasons of domination and exploitation of resources and peoples, for profit. There was never any legal justification ever offered, as there were none. None of them were conducted in self-defence, whereas Russia’s action clearly is.
Black goes on to say that the Russian operation was justified under the auspices of the Caroline Doctrine established in 1837 by the US and UK to allow the right of a sovereign nation to self defence if the following two conditions were met:
1. The use of force must be necessary because the threat is imminent and thus pursuing peaceful alternatives is not an option, and,2. The response must be proportionate to the threat.
In this case the threat was more than imminent. It was on-going and increasing. The only effective and proportional defensive response was to destroy the offensive forces being deployed. These forces include not only Kiev regime government forces but also the nationalist, Nazi brigades supporting and spearheading the Kiev offensive and all the NATO equipment being supplied to them to conduct the Kiev offensive.
Dmitry Orlov, Russian-American engineer and geopolitical analyst was equally convinced of Russia’s right to self-defence:
Russia had the full legal right to invade the Ukraine from several perspectives: to defend its allies in Donetsk and Lugansk; to defend itself against Ukrainian WMDs, which the Ukrainian president threatened to start producing at the Munich Security Conference; and to stop NATO from continuing its advance toward Russian borders in violation of its previous commitment of “not an inch to the east.” Russia exercised its right of self-defense under article 51 of part 7 of the UN Charter. The Ukraine had forfeited its right to territorial integrity under the 1970 UN Declaration by refusing to honor the rights of its Russian-speaking population. It also refused to renew its Friendship Treaty with Russia and therefore no longer had a defined border with Russia that Russia was obligated to honor.
The origins of the Russian military campaign
The root causes of the war in Ukraine were expertly summarised by Swiss journalist and politician, Guy Mettan:
In 2020, the escalation of tensions is being held back by Covid and the US election campaign. Then events get heated in 2021 with the inauguration of Joe Biden, who played a pivotal role with John McCain in the Maidan putsch, and whose son Hunter did juicy business in Kiev during the Poroshenko era. A downward spiral begins:
- March 17, 2021: Biden calls President Putin a killer • March 18/19, 2021: Blinken and Sullivan try to dissuade the Chinese from allying with Russia • March 24, 2021: Zelensky says he will retake Crimea and Donbass • March 25: Russia begins gathering troops near the Ukrainian border • April 13: Biden recalls his warships in the Black Sea and calls Putin to propose a summit in Geneva • June 16: Biden-Putin summit in Geneva, without result • December 15: Putin and Xi Jinping say their alliance goes beyond an alliance. On the same day, Russia proposed two peace treaties to the United States and demanded a written response (to avoid falling into the trap of the oral commitments given to Gorbachev in 1991). Ukrainian drones are fired at civilian populations in Donbass and near Crimea. The Russians are massing their troops.
- February 4 2022: Putin and Xi Jinping claim that their friendship has no limits and that there is no forbidden area of cooperation between China and Russia.
- February 7-12: French and German mediations fail, because neither Macron nor Scholz are willing/able to convince Zelensky to implement the Minsk agreements, the last chance for peace. • February 24: The Russians launch their military operations in Ukraine to « denazify, demilitarize and neutralize » the country.
I have added emphasis to the timeline in that the Biden-driven escalation started in 2021 just as the Covid project was gathering momentum after its launch in March 2022 – a project designed to drive the anti-war movement, such as it is, underground and to redirect focus into the realm of combatting a manufactured and state-media-amplified personal health terror threat. Even before President Biden’s presidency and pre-2020 we had seen the rise of Russophobia in the US, EU and UK. In the US there was Russiagate and the Magnitsky Act, in the UK the Skripal poisoning mystery and in the EU the MH17 tragedy blamed on Russia – I will be going into more depth with reference to the timing of these events in Part 2.
Many other researchers and analysts have also covered this background to the Russian “denazification” project in Ukraine. I would recommend a study carried out by Maxim Grigoriev – Director of the Foundation for the Study of Democracy – into the war crimes and ethnic cleansing pogroms carried out by Ukrainian ultra-nationalist and Nazi forces against the people of Lugansk and Donetsk in eastern Ukraine since the US-led violent regime change in 2014. The PDF version of this forensic report can be found here.
Western media had previously highlighted the rise of Nazism and Ultra-nationalism in Ukraine post 2014 but since February 24th they have been increasingly dishonest in their portrayal of events, effectively disappearing the threat of a Nazi renaissance to Russian speaking civilians in Ukraine and Crimea and dishonestly reporting on the conflict. The (London) Times even went so far as to help shift the Nazi label onto the Russian forces and fash-wash the real Nazi brigades.
Another excellent source of background especially to the CIA and Israeli involvement in the fostering of Nazism in Ukraine since WW2 is “Ukraine and the New Great Game”, written by David Livingstone. Excerpt from this very well researched essay:
As is well known, the CIA thought highly of various former Nazis who they believed could be employed during the Cold War to fight their shared enemy: communism. To that end, thousands of Nazi scientists were brought over in Operation Paperclip. The CIA hired Reinhard Gehlen, who was chief of the military intelligence service for the Nazis on the eastern front during World War II, after which he was sponsored by the CIA to establish the anticommunist Gehlen Organisation, before becoming founding president of the BND, West Germany’s federal intelligence service. The CIA helped free Hitler’s favorite commando, Otto Skorzeny, who worked closely with Gehlen, and whose activities during the Cold War ranged from Franco’s Spain to South America, including a stint working for Mossad, the Israeli secret service. Skorzeny was a key figure in the network known as the Fascist International, composed of various right-wing extremists, who serviced the CIA’s covert activities around the world, including Condor in South America, the Golden Triangle heroin trade in South-East Asia, and Operation Gladio in Italy.
A more recent statement from Turkish analyst Mehmet Ali Güller in an article published by the Turkish edition of Cumhuriyet:
“The United States tried to encircle Russia from the west and south: starting from the Baltic region, descending from Eastern Europe to the western Black Sea coast, from there along the Black Sea through Georgia to the Caucasus. It was assumed that this line would reach Kazakhstan and Central Asia when certain conditions for this would arise,”
Guller considered the Russian operation to be a pre-emptive strike against the US-led NATO siege of Russia’s western flank. The analyst also described the US strategy to encircle China in a wide arc descending into Central Asia, Pakistan, India and the Indian Ocean and with potential to extend into Japan.
Professor Emeritus in the Department of Russian Studies Stephen Cohen explains regarding the possibility of a thermonuclear war between the US and Russia:
If the civil war in Ukraine starts again. military aspect. If the ceasefire fails. If Kiev again attacks the Donbass. If Russia feels the need to help Donbass again by military means, then NATO is discussing the possibility of NATO forces entering Western Ukraine. What will it mean? That would mean American-led NATO troops in western Ukraine, whether on the ground or in the air, it doesn’t matter. Russian troops in the air or on the ground – and this will be a modern version of the Cuban missile crisis. ( Cohen 2014)
Historic background to the Russian special operation in Ukraine
In this section I would like to provide insights and links to resources detailing the CIA/MI6 operations to occupy Ukraine and encircle Russia with a Nazi and Ultra-nationalist threat to national security since WW2.
I highly recommend watching Ukraine on Fire (2016) directed by Oliver Stone – it is being disappeared from NATOTube of course but can be found on other platforms like Odysee. The unofficial follow-up, Revealing Ukraine (2019) can be watched here.
Taken from ‘Ukraine and the Great New Game’
The United States collaborated with Chiang Kai-shek and South Korean intelligence in founding the Asian People’s Anti-Communist League (APACL) established in South Korea in 1954. The WACL emerged in 1966, when the APACL merged with another fascist organization, the Anti-Bolshevik Block of Nations (ABN), a co-ordinating center for anti-Communist émigré political organizations from Soviet and other socialist countries.
The ABN took its current name in 1946 and claims direct descent from the Committee of Subjugated Nations, which was formed in 1943 by Hitler’s allies, including the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). The roots of the OUN/UPA may be traced to the militantly anti-Communist and nationalist Ukrainian underground founded by Colonel Eugen Konovalets in the 1920s. Although opposed to Stalinism, the group was Fascist, with strong links to the German intelligence service of Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. The League of Nations had publicly condemned the OUN as a terrorist syndicate and Polish courts had handed down death sentences to OUN leaders Mykola Lebed (1909 – 1998) and Stepan Bandera (1909 – 1959) for their roles in the 1934 murder of Polish Interior Minister General Bronislav Pieracki, among others. Once released in 1939, after his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, Bandera organized OUN sympathizers into armed squadrons under an Abwehr program code-named Nachtigall, or Nightingale.
Journalist Wayne Masden wrote in 2016:
The recent declassification of over 3800 documents by the Central Intelligence Agency provides detailed proof that since 1953 the CIA operated two major programs intent on not only destabilizing Ukraine but Nazifying it with followers of the World War II Ukrainian Nazi leader Stepan Bandera.
“The purpose of Project AERODYNAMIC is to provide for the exploitation and expansion of the anti-Soviet Ukrainian resistance for cold war and hot war purposes. Such groups as the Ukrainian Supreme Council of Liberation (UHVR) and its Ukrainian Insurgent Army (OUN), the Foreign Representation of the Ukrainian Supreme Council of Liberation (ZPUHVR) in Western Europe and the United States, and other organizations such as the OUN/B will be utilized”.
The CIA admitted in a 1970 formerly secret document that it had been in contact with the ZPUHVR since 1950.
The Last American Vagabond – Not Just Azov: Documents Prove The CIA Has Been Cultivating Fascism In Ukraine Since At Least 1948.
-Dropping atomic bombs on major cities of the Soviet Union
In 1976, Paul Wolfowitz  was one of the architects of the “Team B” charged by President Gerald Ford with assessing the Soviet threat . He issued a delirious report accusing the Soviet Union of preparing to take over “global hegemony”. The Cold War changed its nature: it was no longer a question of isolating (containment) the USSR, it had to be stopped in order to save the “free world”.
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – targeting the USSR – While the US and the Soviet Union were allies during WWII, Prof. Alex Wellerstein documents U.S. “war preparations” against the USSR which took place in August 1945 “before the war was officially over”. And then what happened: The formulation of a diabolical project released by the War Department (declassified) on September 15, 1945 which consisted in dropping atomic bombs on major cities of the Soviet Union.
William Blum – Ukraine and the Myth of Soviet Expansionism (2014)
Excerpts from William Blum’s article:
Dick Cheney – one starting point that can be considered is what former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Robert Gates says in his recently published memoir:
“When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, [Defense Secretary Dick Cheney] wanted to see the dismemberment not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world.”
That can serve as an early marker for the new cold war while the corpse of the old one was still warm. Soon thereafter, NATO began to surround Russia with military bases, missile sites, and NATO members, while yearning for perhaps the most important part needed to complete the circle – Ukraine.
President Obama recently declared: “The strong condemnation that it’s received from around the world indicates the degree to which Russia is on the wrong side of history on this.” Marvelous … coming from the man who partners with jihadists and Nazis and has waged war against seven nations. In the past half century is there any country whose foreign policy has received more bitter condemnation than the United States? If the United States is not on the wrong side of history, it may be only in the history books published by the United States.
Most Americans and members of Congress have convinced themselves that the US/NATO encirclement of Russia is benign – we are, after all, the Good Guys – [..] Washington thinks in terms of who could pose a barrier to the ever-expanding empire adding to its bases and other military necessities.
1974 – The Kissinger Report – Exposing the Global Depopulation Control Agenda
The worldwide application of the strategies recommended in The Kissinger Report has resulted in regional population growth rates decelerating so fast that they are already causing severe economic and social problems in Europe, the former Soviet Union, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Many developing nations are now aging even more rapidly than the developed world, which foretells even more severe problems for their relatively underdeveloped economies. The developed nations had the opportunity to become rich before they became old; if a nation becomes old first, it will never become rich. – Brian Clowes PhD
1997 Zbigniew Brezinsky – The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives
Brezinsky in 1976 – Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technotronic Era:
The technotronic era suggests the gradual emergence of a more controlled society. Such a society will be dominated by an elite that is not limited by traditional values. It will soon be possible to organize almost continuous monitoring of each citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about a citizen. These files will be subject to immediate transfer to the authorities.
The former national security advisor to Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 and top foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, Brzezinski wrote that US policy should be “unapologetic” in perpetuating “America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still.” (AntiWar)
The Grand Chessboard proposes the balkanisation of Russia and its forced decoupling from any EU trade collaboration with an emphasis on Germany. Brezinsky’s Chessboard holds the keys to the origins of this conflict, he wrote:
“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”
“However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”
2004 – ‘Orange Revolution’ in Ukraine
Washington’s proxy regime in Ukraine was finalised after the 2014 coup but powerful members of that regime had already been fostered during the so-called Orange Revolution ten years prior.
Andriy Parubiy who is a co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda) was appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU). A key position which overseas the Ministry of Defense, the Armed Forces, Law Enforcement, National Security and Intelligence. The RNBOU is central decision-making body. While it is formally headed by the President, it is run by the Secretariat with a staff of 180 people including defense, intelligence and national security experts.
Parubiy was one of the main leaders behind the Orange Revolution in 2004. His organization was funded by the West. He is referred to by the Western media as the “kommandant” of the EuroMaidan movement.
Andriy Parubiy together with party leader Oleh Tyahnybok is a follower of Ukrainian Nazi Stepan Bandera, who collaborated in the mass murderer of Jews and Poles during World War II. (Michel Chossudovsky)
“Ukraine’s was the second “coloured revolution” in the former Soviet Union after the “rose revolution” in Georgia a year earlier. Washington’s plans to trigger a domino effect in the Russia-friendly regimes in the former Soviet states faltered in Kyrgyzstan. The “tulip revolution” staged in that Central Asian state in March 2005 helped topple the government but failed to change Kyrgyzstan’s pro-Moscow orientation.
Georgia and Ukraine became linchpins in the U.S. strategy of encircling Russia with pro-Western “new democracies”. Washington vigorously lobbied to grant North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) membership to both countries and used them to infuse new life into GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova), the loose pro-Western grouping of the former Soviet states. GUAM was to play the double role of acting as a cordon sanitaire between Europe and Russia and as a new energy corridor to transport Caspian oil and gas to Europe by bypassing Russia.” (Vladimir Radyuhin)
2009 – The Good Club
Members of the Good Club (GC) were fourteen of the world’s most powerful oligarchs led by Bill Gates to “save the world”.
The names of some of the members are familiar figures: Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, David Rockefeller and Ted Turner. But there are others, too, like business giants Eli and Edythe Broad, who are equally wealthy but less well known. All told, its members are worth $125bn. (Guardian)
Recent developments suggest that “Depopulation” is an integral part of the so-called Covid mandates including the lockdown policies and the mRNA “vaccine”. Flash back to 2009. According to the Wall Street Journal: “Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population”. In May 2009, the Billionaire philanthropists met behind closed doors at the home of the president of The Rockefeller University in Manhattan. This Secret Gathering was sponsored by Bill Gates. They called themselves “The Good Club” (Chossudovsky)
It is worth noting that Russia had no representatives in the Good Club- this same group of GC billionaires have been actively involved in designing the Covid19 lockdown policies globally, the mRNA vaccine program and the “Great Reset”. (Rielpolitik)
2014 – Wesley Clark on the Cold War and American foreign policy in relation to Russia and Syria
In 2014 General Wesley Clark was interviewed by Salon to talk about his recently published book ‘Don’t Wait for the Next War: Rethinking America’s Global Mission’. Salon asked Clark to explain how Washington has adjusted to the post-Soviet era, Clark responded :
For 40 years, during the Cold War, the basic construct of American foreign policy, which President Eisenhower had laid out, basically said that even though Democrats and Republicans differed, they had to put those differences aside enough to be able to work together to overcome [the Soviet Union]. […] At the end of the Cold War, with the Soviet Union in 1991, there were three contrasting views: there was the Democratic view that said … we’ve probably got too many [military forces], but as long as they’re here, let’s use them to stop conflict, save people’s lives and do good works around the world. The Republican mainstream view was: We won; it’s over; let’s bring these forces home. And there was also a minority Republican view that said:…minority Republican view that said:
“What we learned in the Gulf War was that we can now use military force; we don’t have to follow a military strategy of deterrence. We can actually use these forces like we did in kicking Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We can finish the job on him and … get rid of these old Soviet surrogate states in the Middle East before the next great superpower comes along.” (emphasis added)
Then 9/11 happened. Now we had an enemy. America came back together again. But, unfortunately, it was that minority Republican view that seemed to take hold and grip the nation.
This interview was in 2014, in September 2015 Russia intervened in Syria where a beleaguered Syrian government, military and allied forces had been defending themselves against a US/UK-led proxy terrorist invasion and confronting the West’s barbarism in the form of economic sanctions. Suddenly Syria became the stage upon which Russia would demonstrate its superpower capability militarily and in diplomacy. The window of opportunity to prevent exactly this, as described by Clark, had slammed shut. Washington and London had squandered billions on a regime change project in Syria that had failed and empowered their nemesis – Russia.
2018 – Leaked diplomatic cable written by Benjamin Norman a British representative in charge of Middle East Affairs at the U.S Embassy in Washington DC.
Benjamin Norman – reports in a confidential diplomatic telegram of the first meeting of the “Small American Group on Syria” (United States, Great Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and Jordan), held in Washington on January 11, 2018. Hugh Cleary (Head of the Near and Middle East Department of the Foreign Office ), Jérôme Bonnafont (Director ANMO / North Africa and Middle East at the Quai d’Orsay), David Satterfield (US Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East) and Jordanian Nawaf Tell and Saudi Jamal al-Aqeel attended the January 11 meeting in Washington. The American opened the meeting, stating that a second meeting would be held in Paris on January 23. (Global Research)
Unrestricted agreement of all members of the “Small Group” meeting to “no longer be satisfied with Lavrov’s honeyed words, in order to put Moscow under pressure”. For Satterfield, it is about getting the Russians to let Assad go, “through meetings of the Security Council and a broad public communication campaign,” believing that the announced re-election of Vladimir Putin positively undermined the Russian position.
In Part Two I will explore the sequence of events that led to Washington’s 2014 coup in Ukraine and the aftershocks that hit the region. This will include the unprecedented expansion of the soft-power complex in Ukraine led by the International Monetary Fund. I will look at the events just prior to the launch of the Covid “pandemic” project that might suggest that it was to be weaponised to condition and isolate Western populations leading up to NATO’s long planned provocations in Ukraine and the war with Russia. This is not to distract from the purpose of Covid as a portal to usher in the Great Reset and Agenda 2030 etc. Finally I will examine the evidence that might persuade us that Russia is in fact opposing Western globalism and the Western technocratic “Great Reset” and forming a non-aligned Eastern bloc to topple US unipolarity in favour of a multipolar world. Food for thought.
At the end of the Cold War in 1991, columnist Charles Krauthammer writing in Foreign Affairs, declared that the United States was the unchallenged superpower and was enjoying a “unipolar moment.” Francis Fukuyama (channeling Hegel) envisioned the “end of history” where democracy would be universal. Others predicted that there would be no more “great power wars.” And the George H.W. Bush administration in its defense planning guidance in 1992 (largely written by Paul Wolfowitz) suggested that the primary goal of U.S. national security policy was “to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival,” meaning “to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” (Francis P Sempa)
The East will continue its accelerated rise. The balance of the world will gravitate towards this new magnetic pole and away from the West’s New World Order, its gigantic hypocrisy, war fanaticism, extortionate austerity initiatives and its hyper-gangsterism. (Natalie Baldwin)