In the morning of February 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a “special military operation” in Ukraine aimed at “de-nazifying” and “de-militarizing” Ukraine but “not to occupy it.” He warned: “To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside: if you do, you will face consequences greater than you have faced in history. All relevant decisions have been taken.  I hope you hear me.” The Russian operation now underway is aimed at military targets and control centers throughout Ukraine, including Kyiv, while securing the buffer areas Russia has said it needs on its borders to secure itself. 

It is now urgent that Americans understand how we got here and why the British and Washington’s Tory traitors have created this war.  Since December of 2021, Russia has declared red lines over Ukraine and NATO expansion, saying they represented existential threats to Russia, and Russia was out of its historic patience.  The U.S. and the British have refused to entertain or even rationally discuss the Russian security concerns.  Instead, they mounted a propaganda offensive attacking Russia, proposed drastic economic sanctions even absent any Russian actions in Ukraine, and mobilized their Nazi-dominated vassal forces in Ukraine to attack the historically Russian population in Eastern Ukraine’s Donbass. In recent days, Washington’s madmen have also talked about giving Ukraine nuclear weapons.

From the standpoint of our national security state, its only possible road to survival requires a new national emergency like that after 9/11, and the submission of the U.S. population, which is now in revolt against Washington's police state measures and promulgation of irrational fears.  Now the raging inflation created by the globalist attempt to ban fossil fuels, embraced by Biden, and the Fed’s money printing, which has kept Wall Street and the City of London afloat since 2008, can be blamed on Russia.  According to Bloomberg Business, in the 24 hours after Putin recognized the two Ukrainian Donbass republics and the U.S. and its allies implemented sanctions, the U.S. and its allies bought $700 million in Russian gas, oil, and commodities, indicative of the economic forces at play here.

These are not recent developments.  As Putin noted in his Feb. 21 speech to the Russian people mobilizing them for this military action, it has a long history in the brutal policies and mistakes of previous Russian leaders:  Stalin, Lenin, Gorbachev, Yeltsin.  Since Putin assumed power in 2000, his defense of Russian sovereignty and rescue of the country from the London loyal globalist oligarchs the British and U.S. installed under Yeltsin, has resulted in a sustained U.S. British campaign for regime change in Russia and a completely false portrayal of the Russian leader as a modern day Hitler.  Larry Johnson summarizes this false portrayal in a post today on Colonel Pat Lang’s blog.

Despite a promise not to expand NATO, which U.S. strategists recognized at the time would be an existential threat to Russia and would ultimately result in the very situation we face today, successive presidents from George H.W. Bush through Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush incorporated former Soviet republics all along Russia’s borders and armed them against Russia.  The capstone of this campaign was the 2014 U.S.- and British-directed Ukraine coup which overthrew the duly elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installed a puppet regime, overseen by Joe Biden and heavily infiltrated and controlled by neo-Nazis.  This regime then began an ethnic cleansing genocide against the historically Russian population of the Donbass resulting in a civil war which, over 8 years, has killed over 15,000 people.

Listening to the American and Russian Presidents state their positions this week couldn’t have posed more of a contrast. Putin articulated Russia’s strategic interests clearly situated in an accurate presentation of European history in a speech to the Russian population on February 21st.  Biden, somewhat incoherently, presented the strategic interest of the British globalist financial empire relying on the pop-psychology of so-called Putin watchers and public relations experts allegedly skilled in “controlling the narrative,” but with no experience of actual war with a military power, let alone one armed with nuclear weapons.

It is abundantly clear now that Putin created multiple military options with the military exercises he has conducted after his December 2021 presentation of two draft treaties outlining Russia’s security concerns and proposing a new security architecture for Europe. He telegraphed his moves hoping that he could bring NATO, the British, and the United States to some form of rationality.  Instead, U.S. and British intelligence and the Biden administration telegraphed back to the world what were clearly stated Russian military options, declaring that their ascertainment of the same was some spectacular feat of information warfare and exquisite intelligence gathering.

No one can articulate America’s security interest in Ukraine or in sending U.S. troops now to NATO nations as some sort of “signal” or “reassurance,” since there is none.  Indeed, as Donald Trump asked, why does NATO, a defensive alliance against the former Soviet Union, even exist now?  Why is Ukraine’s border more important than our own southern border where Biden allows unlimited access to our country for lethal drugs, terrorists, and millions of illegal immigrants indebted to Mexican drug cartels engaged in a modern slave trade?  President Trump’s military advisor, Col. Douglas McGregor, told Tucker Carlson last night that Biden’s refusal to take Putin seriously or recognize real Russian security interests created this avoidable situation.

As President Trump told Laura Ingraham as Russia’s military operation got underway, this would never have happened under Trump.  Trump would have engaged and seriously discussed the red lines Putin outlined, and would never have destroyed the energy independence which is now fueling spiraling inflation.  Trump emphasized that the actions of the Biden administration have driven Russia and China into a new dangerous alliance in which both are giving up all hope of any rational relationship to the United States.

But, it was the late statesman Lyndon LaRouche who articulated the real concrete road to peace, when he stated that the economic potential of four sovereign nation states, Russia, the United States, China, and India were sufficient to defeat the globalist British empire, and that those countries, despite enormous cultural and historical differences, should unite in the physical economic development of the entire world and exploration of space, while establishing, by treaty, a fixed exchange rate credit system which could finance that development. The British Empire’s sustenance, its control of finance and money, would finally end.

In 2018, in a report from the House of Lords entitled “British Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order,” the British Empire directly attacked this four power proposal, specifically targeting each of these four nations for destabilization operations which would set them against one another irrevocably.  The same report declared that a second term of Donald Trump in the United States was an existential threat to the British Empire.

In his Feb. 21 speech to the Russian people, Putin emphasized that an accurate look at the long wave of history in Europe, particularly that of the last 30 years, has created the present situation.  In the United States, the British-engineered Russia hoax, directed both at driving Donald Trump from office and shutting down any rational relationship to Russia or China, presents the backdrop.

When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1989-1991, the globalists proclaimed the “end of history,” meaning the end of nation-states, including the U.S.  These would now be subsumed in a global system of free-trade and financialization. Republican President George H.W. Bush hired Democrat power broker Robert Strauss to be Ambassador to Russia and, with the backing of U.S. and British banks, Strauss supervised the looting of the former Comecon nations, while claiming to establish capitalism and democracy. The industrial capacity of Russia was stripped down and sold off for scrap. Life expectancy drastically declined, disease and crime became rampant, and Russia was literally depopulated.  Crime became organized; oligarchs devoted to the City of London, were created to supervise the looting of former industrial sectors; Russian scientists were sent out to the streets; and terrorism was unleashed around the country. 

As propounded by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the aim was to break Russia up into three parts, making it an impotent supplier of raw materials, like most other Third World countries under globalist imperial control.  When Russian patriots finally removed the alcoholic Yeltsin and installed Vladimir Putin in 2000, the Russian economy and its population had been decimated.

In the 20 years since, Russia has rebuilt a significant scientific capacity, and become a major producer of food, minerals, oil, and advanced military equipment, including the hypersonic weapons which the corrupt U.S. defense industry had not even thought about until Putin demonstrated them. Putin brutally defeated terrorism in Russia, and after 9/11 did more to support the initial U.S. counter-terrorism effort than all of NATO combined.  Now Russia has a capital account surplus of 5% of GDP, a surplus which is rising with increasing energy prices.  With $630 billion in reserves Russia is a net creditor, not a debtor.

The U.S. also didn’t fare too well with the “end of history.” U.S. industry was dismantled and the economy financialized. Living standards went down, debt levels went up and the foreign policy blob, that today so eagerly desires a war with Russia, launched pointless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and other far-flung places, each ending in disaster. The U.S. military, which once relied on breakthrough science, was transformed into a contractor’s feeding trough, producing weapons that don’t work and information warfare specialists with fake “narratives” which, by now, no one in the U.S. actually believes.

According to the narrative for war and a new national emergency now dominant here, Putin’s Feb. 21 speech was a hate-filled rant against Ukraine, a wild claim that Communists established Ukraine and should remain in control there, an attempt to re-establish the Soviet Union or Russian Empire by Putin, who is a KGB communist and corrupt thug operating on the basis of deep grievances and emotional impulses concerning the fall of the Soviet Union—irrational grievances which can only mean that he is going for some form of all-out war throughout Europe.

This narrative totally ignores everything which has happened since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  It also ignores the fact that Putin is not a Communist.  He secretly joined the Russian Orthodox Church while still serving in the KGB, a dangerous move at the time.  He remains a committed Christian. It also ignores the actual content of Putin’s speech.

If you read Putin’s actual words you will see that it is no rant, but a nuanced history lesson in depth. How could it be otherwise? Putin had to lay out the historical bases of policy and potential war to the immense Russian nation, spread across their eleven time zones. And they are no dummies.  They know some history, and Russia is also one of the few major nations where the majority has a four-year college degree or equivalent—and not in diversity or basket-weaving. These are not easily-earned degrees; they tend to be in the hard sciences.

The Ukraine part of Putin’s history lesson detailed how terrible policies adopted by Lenin and Stalin had helped predetermine that Ukraine would become independent in 1991 not only as a state controlled by corrupt “oligarchs” made wealthy by the theft of government-owned industries, as Russia was in the 1990s, but also, as the result of Lenin and Stalin’s horrific policies, Ukraine would become independent with great power in the hands of xenophobic extremists—simultaneously antisemitic, anti-Polish, anti-Russian, anti-everyone else. Putin’s Russian usage sometimes refers to these views as “nationalistic,” but here we would call them “identity politics.”

Joe Biden and the State Department’s Victoria Nuland, in bankrolling and steering the violent “Maidan” putsch against duly-elected Ukraine President Yanukovych in 2014, gave tremendous, armed power into the hands of the neo-Nazi Hitler admirers of the Right Sector, the Azov Brigades and the like.

Since the 2014 coup, no Ukrainian government has been able to defy the wishes of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi defense forces, or the British and American occupiers dictating a policy in which Ukraine exists only as a vassal state—a  platform for attacks on Russia.  One of the first acts of the Biden/Nuland-created Ukrainian government was to institute a ban on the Russian language which was spoken as a native language by large parts of the population.  In addition, there were systemic attacks on the Russian Orthodox Church.  The Russia-hating Right Sector defense forces were mobilized to ethnically cleanse the historically Russian Donbass, and attacks against the Russian-speaking eastern enclaves of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Donbass have continued in a war which has killed an estimated 15,000.  In Odessa, during the U.S./British coup, misnamed as the “revolution of dignity,” 39 anti-Maiden activists were killed when the neo-Nazis torched the Trade Unions Building where they had sought safety.  Putin, in his speech, said he would prosecute the perpetrators of this action.

Ukraine’s 2014-15 “Minsk Accord” promised to grant the Donbass enclaves autonomy but those promises, negotiated between Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany have been unfulfilled, largely as the result of U.S. and British sabotage.  Recently, the Donbass republics have been surrounded by up to 125,000 Ukrainian troops, including regular army and extremist militias.  The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe monitors the line of contact between the Ukrainian forces and those of Donetsk and Lugansk.  Their maps show that a determined offensive by the Ukrainians began on February 17th with heavy shelling directed at Donetsk and Lugansk.  In response, Putin recognized Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.

The second, closely-related part of Putin’s address dealt with his December, 2021 draft treaty proposals to the U.S. and NATO, which would ban further eastward expansion of NATO, including to Ukraine, ban strike weapons systems on Russia’s borders, and pull back NATO military deployments to those which existed in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed.  

He laid out some of the consequences of future Ukraine membership in NATO as follows:

“Many Ukrainian airfields are located not far from our borders. NATO’s tactical aviation deployed there, including precision weapon carriers, will be capable of striking at our territory to the depth of the Volgograd-Kazan-Samara-Astrakhan line. The deployment of reconnaissance radars on Ukrainian territory will allow NATO to tightly control Russia’s airspace up to the Urals.

“Finally, after the US destroyed the INF Treaty, the Pentagon has been openly developing many land-based attack weapons, including ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 5,500 km. If deployed in Ukraine, such systems will be able to hit targets in Russia’s entire European part. . . . Let me say right away—we do not accept this behavior and will never accept it. That said, Russia has always advocated the resolution of the most complicated problems by political and diplomatic means, at the negotiating table.”

These are reasonable concerns, and any reasonable US government, like a Trump government, would have deeply engaged in negotiations with Russia to address them.  After all, NATO deployments of offensive weapons along Russia’s border drastically reduces Russia’s response time and presents a hair trigger for nuclear war.

When he became Russia’s President in 2000, Putin sought to revive the historic Russian-American alliance which had marked the relations of our two nations ever since the eighteenth century, with the partial exception of the sixty years of communist rule in the twentieth. Note that “alliance” never meant that we desired Russia’s forms of government here. Rather, the common feature of those alliances was opposition to British imperialism. Catherine the Great’s adherence to the League of Armed Neutrality in favor of America and against Britain, was critical to our success in our Revolutionary War.

When Russia fought an alliance of Britain, France and the Ottoman Empire in the Crimean War of 1853-56, the U.S. was one of the few countries sympathetic to Russia, although we did not join the conflict. The “Liberator Tsar” who freed the serfs, Alexander II, sent the Russian Fleet to both the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the U.S. during our Civil War to warn Britain off from recognizing the Confederacy. Of course we were allies in World War I and especially World War II, when Russia lost 26 million citizens in a brutal, extended battle which largely determined the defeat of Hitler.

That alliance should have been revived when the Soviet Union collapsed, and many prominent Russians and Americans sought to revive it. Putin recorded in his Feb. 21 address that he had asked Bill Clinton about Russia’s joining NATO in 2000, but was met with disinterest.

In exchange for Gorbachev’s Russia accepting peaceful German unification within NATO in 1990, the U.S. and partners agreed that NATO would never extend farther east than the unified Germany.   When Bill Clinton broke this promise in 1997, he did so against the advice of many of our leading foreign-policy experts. Indeed, then-Defense Secretary Bill Perry wrote in his memoirs that he came close to resigning in protest.         

They knew then that NATO expansion would set the stage for a new and far more dangerous new Cold War, one which the Biden Administration and Washington’s insane Republicans and Democrats are determined to now formalize solely for the purpose of remaining in power amid the economic disaster the policies they, not Russia, have created.

Download a .pdf of this article here.