What happened to us? Are some Americans actually advocating for a Russia/Ukraine military conflict?


The following contains editorial content which is the opinion of the writer. 

UKRAINE-RUSSIA BORDER- It almost seems like some people in the United States are kind of hoping that Russia invades Ukraine. We thought perhaps we were the only ones who felt that way, but Techno Fog writing in Substack seems to feel the same way.

The United States just managed to extricate us from a 20-year war in Afghanistan, which realistically should have been done after a couple of years.

Once the whole weapons of mass destruction thing was found to be a farce and therefore its pretext for us to engage in Iraq moot, Afghanistan should have been a fairly easy exit.

After all, the country provided exactly zero strategic value to us overall, with the possible exception of Bagram Air Base. Other than that, it served no purpose.

That takes us over to Ukraine. Those who appear to be pining for a Putin invasion of Ukraine are not necessarily Putin apologists, as the writer wrote.

But the neo-cons, always looking for us to stick our nose into other country’s business would love nothing more than to see the United States engaged in yet another needless conflict.

That would perhaps distract the American people from out-of-control inflation, a feckless president, and COVID fatigue. Not likely, but that is the hope.

The writer notes that getting the US involved in Ukraine would possibly lead to something similar to what happened in Afghanistan, a “perpetual U.S. presence in Ukraine.”

For the warmongers who populate Washington, D.C., putting more troops in Eastern Europe would be ideal. NATO has been looking to “reinforce its troop presence in the Black Sea and the Baltics.” To what end? Some of these people seem to be not only for further U.S. involvement in the region but actually cheerleading for it.

For example, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Obama, Evelyn Farkas is actually advocating for the U.S. to get involved militarily in Ukraine.

“U.S. leaders should be marshalling an international coalition of the willing, readying military forces to deter Putin, and if necessary, prepare for war.” Still others advocate a strong military response, suggesting the U.S. put “boots on the ground.”

Journalist Max Boot, a warmonger if there ever was one suggests the U.S. implement an airlift of U.S. weapons systems to Ukraine, while also suggesting the Russian president is trying to resurrect the old Soviet Union, or as President Reagan called it “the evil empire.”

One cannot discount the fact that while there may not be a military reason to intervene in Ukraine, Biden may have a financial one. Remember Burisma? Perhaps Biden is interested more in protecting his financial interests than in protecting Ukraine.

Last summer, knowing it would probably trigger Putin, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky saw the opportunity in provoking him, tweeting that, “NATO leaders confirmed that Ukraine” would become a member of the organization. That announcement came only days before Biden was scheduled to meet with the Russian leader, which seems to indicate it was planned.

Last summer, Biden’s tone on Ukraine joining NATO seemed to be noncommittal, and more recently told Zelensky that “Kyiv’s bid to join the NATO military alliance was in its own hands.” This came despite Putin warning that any such admittance of Ukraine to NATO constituted a “red line” for his country.

Putin has always been concerned about Ukraine joining NATO, and in some quarters, people don’t blame him. Much comparison has been made to the old Soviet Union placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, less than 100 miles off the coast of Florida back in the 1960s.

While that was deemed to be an existential threat to the U.S., so too could Putin make the same claim about Ukraine.

This is nothing new and certainly didn’t come about recently. As the piece notes, a number of people have been asking how this present situation might have been avoided. One such person is Professor Stephen Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Walt said that had the West not “succumbed to  hubris, wishful thinking, and liberal idealism,” and kept their promise not to admit Ukraine to NATO, “Russia would probably never have seized Crimea.”

Supporters of admitting Ukraine to NATO argue that the organization is merely a defensive alliance, however clearly those “defensive weapons” can easily be turned into “offensive weapons.”

Placing those weapons at the border where targets inside Russia could be reached in a matter of minutes might explain why Putin is so concerned about Ukraine’s possible admittance to the strategic alliance.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Putin philosophically (and let’s face it, he’s a bad dude), his concerns deserve to be answered. While there may be a legitimate reason for admitting Ukraine to NATO, it has yet to be explained with anything other than platitudes.

Some who have questioned the benefit of getting involved in a border dispute between Ukraine and Russia have been excoriated. For example, Tucker Carlson is one such person who questions the strategic value Ukraine provides to the U.S., and he is called a traitor by the media.

Two men arrested and charged with the attempted murder of a Chicago cop after shooting him during a traffic stop

In fact, a so-called “human rights hobbyist” and lawyer, Alexandra Chalupa, suggests Carlson should “be prosecuted as an unregistered agent of the Russian Federation and treason under Article 3, Sec. 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution” for aiding an enemy. Loony.

Moreover National Review, which touts itself as a “conservative” publication rails that “many of America’s most famous ‘nationalists’ don’t seem to be bothered by imperialism, so long as the imperialists speak Russian.” This is of course absurd.

In attempting to put ourselves in the mind of Vladimir Putin, if he believes that Ukraine will eventually join NATO or believes it is likely to, what does he do?

He’s already taken two steps to address it—seizing Crimea, and building up forces at the Russia-Ukraine border.

The article notes it is something if not ironic that Putin is actually applying what are considered to be “neo-conservative principles of preemptive warfare and use of force to maintain its own national security interests,” while noting the ‘irony…that the neo-conservatives now decry such actions.”

The White House via it’s Pentagon spokesman, John Kirby is trying to push the narrative that Russia is in essence working a “false-flag” operation—an operation designed to look like an attack on…Russian speaking people in Ukraine, again, as an excuse to go in.”

In other words, Kirby is alleging that “Russia is already working actively to crate a pretext for a potential invasion, for a move on Ukraine.”

Is that possible? Certainly it is, and as Techno Fog notes, the U.S. is pretty good at working false flag operations. From the FBI’s likely involvement in the January 6 “insurrection” to our intervention in Syria advocated by warmongers in the Trump administration, U.S. fomenting of “false flag” operations is well-documented.

In the case of Syria as reported by Aaron Mate:

“A series of leaked documents from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) raise the possibility that the Trump administration bombed Syria on false grounds and pressured officials at the world’s top chemical weapons watchdog to cover it up.”

Last August’s blunder in Afghanistan doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the American people. According to Joint Chief’s Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, he testified there was no intelligence which showed a quick collapse of Afghanistan’s government was likely.

However according to the New York Times, classified intelligence assessments predicted a “Taliban takeover of Afghanistan” was likely and warned of “the rapid collapse of the Afghan military.”

Just after American troops bailed from Afghanistan, another intelligence failure led to a drone strike which killed 10 innocent civilians, including children in Kabul. Despite the clear bungling of that strike, nobody faced any punishment, nor did anyone resign.

Then, there is the war in Afghanistan. Just 22 years after the former Soviet Union was beaten back by Afghans, the United States became involved in a twenty-year war which led to thousands of American casualties.

Young men and women—our future—signed up to fight in what they were told was a “just and necessary war, a war we were allegedly winning,” the piece read.

However that wasn’t the truth, and U.S. officials apparently knew it. According to The Washington Post, American officials were “making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.”

In fact, three-star Army General Douglas Lute said:

“If the American people knew the magnitude of this dysfunction…2,400 lives lost,” while adding that deaths should be blamed of U.S. military personnel on bureaucratic breakdowns among Congress, the Pentagon, and the State Department. “Who will say this was in vain?”

“What did we get for this $1 trillion effort? Was it worth $1 trillion?” said Jeffrey Eggers, a retired Navy SEAL and White House staffer for Bush and Obama.

He added, “After the killing of Osama bin Laden, I said that Osama was probably laughing in his watery grave considering how much we have spent on Afghanistan.”

With all of that as background, should we honestly believe whether American leadership is telling the truth? They’ve lied about everything else under the current administration—state voting laws, systemic police racism, the founding of our country, the COVID pandemic.

Why wouldn’t they lie about this too?

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Submit a Correction
Related Posts