When Even the Biggest War Criminals Disagree — Could the Problem be…

Regardless of one’s initial interpretation of events leading to the Ukraine-Russia war, one would think that, taking the time to reflect on what we know of the US, of its arrogance on the world stage and its obsession with coups and proxy wars, and of its desire to retain its hegemony at all costs in order to enforce the use of the USD and the petrodollar or face becoming nothing but a huge drain on the world with its $31 trillion debt that makes all other country’s debt look like lost milk money, that this would have lead to a more critical assessment and reluctance to accept the simple “Putin crazy” narrative that’s suddenly justified having the world spend on weapons as they destroy economies and disregard all that matters to citizens.

There’s so much about the events in Ukraine that should have triggered doubt in Westerners given all the reasons that have united people in protests in recent decades; the entire Occupy mindset and anyone who had, early on, seen through the WMD lies that would justify the invasion of Iraq, all should have retained a level of skepticism propelling them to look beyond the corporate media driven Western framing following any of those triggers.

The reality is: the West is sacrificing Ukrainians, and, eventually, the world, to fulfill its own hegemonic wet dreams.

This doesn’t change the illegality of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, but being fully aware of pertinent details does add a larger foe who owns most of the responsibility for that illegality, and who equally deserves to face charges for war crimes should any be laid on Russia.

Of course, such a viewpoint automatically brands one as a Putin sympathizer and traitor — you’d have to hate Freedom and/or be a terrorist to think that the US would ever act in nefarious ways — but shouldn’t the fact that key figures, who are living emblems of all that the majority of these so-called “freedom-haters” normally despise, agree on one major facet with these ‘haters’ be taken as a sign that, perhaps, things aren’t what they seem? Frankly, to hear the Pope and Kissinger go against the acceptable mainstream narrative, confirming what folks like myself have been saying… that was surprising.

Those comments are relatively ‘old’ given today’s news pace, but, now that the dust has settled on them, jump into their mindset and take the time to carefully consider that:

Even Henry Kissinger thinks that pursuing the war in Ukraine beyond this point is insanity. Kissinger. The man who had no qualms about illegally bombing Cambodia “back to the stone age,” playing a direct hand in creating a bombing campaign that deceived its own pilots with false coordinates that had them believe they were flying their B-52s over northern Viet Nam. Boiled down to its essence, the reason for that savagery was: Cambodia’s Prince Sihanouk refused to let the US forces use his country as base while also not taking direct action against the Viet Cong who crossed into Cambodia in some areas, running a trail along the border that connected with North Viet Nam.

Kissinger’s logic, worked out with Nixon: Seeing the US’ difficult go at spreading Freedom on the rice-obsessed, pyjamas-wearing Charlie in Viet Nam and Sihanouk’s refusal to act in a proper pro-American way and kindly help the US bash in the neighbour’s head in the name of Coke-sponsored Liberty, this warranted destabilizing the country, weakening it to the point where it didn’t present a potential threat to the American peace-spreading efforts to its south, while it gifted Sihanouk’s opponents with a reason to rile up public anger and oust him, which would hopefully give the Americans a more US-friendly and cooperative slanted-eye leader of the rice-fanatics — is that right, or are the Cambodian’s part of the rice-addicts of Asia?

Frankly, they’re hard to tell apart, but, if a member of the country that invented the concept of all men being created equal — per God’s guidebook — race doesn’t matter. For the business-end of an M-16, all that counts is: Are they white and pro-American or non-white but willing to work 20-hour days without O.T. or benefits or the expectation of a minimum wage?

And, by the way, don’t be fooled by squishy-lefty types and a majority of the world. Allied forces did a superb job in Afghanistan; the world now has a country whose entire population is willing to flip burgers for $1.93 per day, and it keeps getting lower, thank you, Mother Nature.

Unfortunately, the Pentagon still hasn’t figured out how to connect the consumer with the flipper in a cost-effective, fresh-burger-minded way, and there’s still the issue of getting people starved to the point of seeing a crap wage as a blessing versus the high cost of security to make sure the bulgur-buggers don’t eat the occasional burger. But we’re America, we don’t claim to be perfect, just to be the best enforcers of humanitarian good in our Free Market world, doing so at the risk of making others jealous of USA’s Freedom.

But, back to Cambodia and Kissinger and Nixon’s disgusting bit of war criminality that was never a part of Nixon’s impeachment: The pair got what they wanted, which resulted in Pol-Pot and the Khmer Rouge taking over Cambodia; the US sponsored a seat for him at the UN. I kid you not.

Back to the realm of reason: These are the types of people who, today, with far more practice, and a cultivated fanatical delusion that’s now fully immersed its creators into its folly to solidify renewed convictions of God-given powers, these are the people who take it for granted that the world sees them as the obvious force for Good all should embrace as de facto leader of the world, which implies being wildly oblivious of the consequences of their ambitions on all who are in their wake, too focused on their bank balances?

And that’s how ‘far gone’ they’ve become, the current expression of the neoliberal order’s lack of humanity actually managing to shock the individual that helped concretize the ideology that’s now driving the world towards a major global conflict, for Henry Kissinger received hisses and scorn from all who’d normally praise him when he voiced seeing only futility in Zelenskyy’s unwillingness to negotiate territorial concessions as soon as possible, and in the West’s continued support of Ukraine with weapons. To the implied suggestion that Ukraine gives up Crimea and the Donbas region, Zelenskyy replied in a manner that the Western press characterized as ‘slamming’ Kissinger, although ‘blasting’ and ‘ripping’ were also practiced.

Fun Trivia

• Since 2013, the US has justified its meddling in Ukrainian governmental and banking affairs under the rubric of “anti-corruption efforts.”
• Zelenskyy’s “boss”, Igor Kolomoyskyi, the fellow that owns the network that featured the show that turned Zelenskyy famous, ranks at the top of the list of the most corrupt people in Ukraine; he funded Zelenskyy’s presidential run. There’s a whole bank thing and stuff about funds in the US… Add Hunter Biden’s presence and the flow of funds into shell corporations, and it gets increasingly harder to think that they weren’t there to inject US-friendly corruption rather than strike it down.
• Zelenskyy is an actor who played an unlikely-commoner who became president of Ukraine in a show that made him famous and allowed him to become president, landing the role of an actor who played president that became president who, in the end, is really just an actor pretending to be president. There’s a weird metaness to it that just shouldn’t be.
• Zelenskyy must have realized, surely, that he’s a C-lister — B-list at best — and that he wasn’t ready for the A-list role he’s currently playing. He’s showed signs of being ready to pull the plug on several occasions, but the US and UK absolutely will not let him do so, though I do suspect that it may have been the death threats from the heads of a few extreme far-Right groups, which warned him not to enter into negotiations, that had a bigger impact. If Zelenskyy winds up dead, I’d suspect these people way before the Russians.
• Zelenskyy consolidated all the country’s media under one state-controlled media over which he holds complete control through his production company.
• Not long after war broke out, Zelenskyy banned every single political party that wasn’t hardcore Righwing, making it illegal to be a member of any Leftwing party.

Reminder: The US and NATO are there, having sparked what’s happening, in order to save Democracy.

Curious Q: If Democracy is so important, when will the US send troop to Swaziland? Elsewhere, too. Got to thinking that perhaps the US could do with a list and clear coordinates and colour-coded countries on a coloured map? I’ve heard lotsa horror stories about Americans and their knowledge of geography. Could that explain, given their slogans, why troops always land in the wrong places, usually providing aid to people who don’t want it while ignoring those who need it? The Pentagon should look into that.

Erratum: Oops. My bad. The US can’t possibly help Democracy in Swaziland, that’d be a conflict of interest; they and the EU are already heavily invested in the oppresive monarchy and its violent regime.

So, better directions on how to get there alone won’t do, as it seems the US needs a better understanding of Democracy along with clearer instructions about what troops are to do when they reach the right place, thanks to coloured maps with big letters.