Wednesday, May 4, 2022

Bulletin From The Garlic

Zelensky Offers Free Abortion To American Women Who Bring Weapons To Ukraine!

Sunday, May 1, 2022

May Day Special: Fake Freedom and the Paycheck Nomad

Rural workers of the early 20th century caught their sleep in boxcars and meals in the open air. Lured by labor agents' promises of steady work, they drifted broke and hungry from camp to camp, huddling beneath tents and hastily built shacks, strangers to plumbing and doctors, but all too familiar with illness, accidents, and back-breaking extraction in the mines.

Wages, low as they were, rarely even reached their hands. Company managers advanced credit for food, shelter and tools at vastly inflated prices, then submitted workers a bill after they had toiled for months in life-threatening conditions.  The longer they worked, the more indebted they became.

Only with tortuous discipline did some workers manage the miracle of putting aside a few dollars. Such victories were short-lived, however, as the urgent need to forget one's misery quickly saw the savings squandered on cheap booze. 

In the larger towns employment offices operated in cahoots with the saloon owners, who delivered hung-over workers to labor contractors, starting the cycle of anguish anew.

Urban workers fared no better. Their homes were dark, unventilated slum tenements called "slaughterhouses," where a small mob of workers cooked, washed, and slept in a single room. Outside, the air reeked of chemicals and industrial gases, and open sewers flowed through muddy streets strewn with tin cans, bottles, rocks, and garbage.

Overworked and underfed, they suffered epidemics of asthma, tuberculosis, measles, bronchitis, cholera, rickets, and pneumonia. Widespread lead poisoning left them with blue gums and no teeth.

Every job bred a characteristic affliction - rheumatism, muscle paralysis, hernia, ulcers. 

In the steelworks, mills, mines, railroads, and building trades, men were ruined by their early forties. Missing limbs were as common as sunburn at the beach.

The perpetual "speed up" of production lines turned workers into human wrecks, regularly overcome by the "shakes." Meals had to be taken in spasmodic gulps. 

Drained of vitality by middle-age - then replaced by teenagers - lucky workers were hired back at reduced pay as sweepers or night watchmen.  Unlucky ones fell dependent on their children, sank into destitution, or died shortly after being declared useless.

This was the great legacy of worker freedom in the self-proclaimed greatest democracy the world has ever seen, a generation before the Great Depression made their lot considerably worse.

In what came to be known as the progressive era, American "patriots" boasted of their New World liberty, allegedly so different from Old World tyranny and oppression. 

In the USA, after all, workers were free to put their working lives to traffic and submit to any terms chronic desperation allowed them to get.  Hallelujah!

They were free to quit a job anytime they wanted, and briefly go anywhere and do anything until their money ran out. Then hunger overtook them, and they were free to rent themselves all over again.

They were also free to keep company with anyone they liked, so long as it didn't include union organizers. 

They were free to dream of owning property priced well beyond their wages, and to impotently rage at the cycle of recessions and depressions that routinely crushed their more modest ambitions.

They were free to speak their minds in democratic debate, though the brutality of the workday usually left them without time or energy to even follow the events of the day. 

They were free to ingest the barrage of industry propaganda that masqueraded as news, leaving them ignorant of what they most needed to know. 

They were free to parrot the views of those who profited off their ignorance, and vote for their candidates at the ballot box.

If they chose to band together in collective action and demand more pay, less work, and decent conditions, employers were free to have them beaten, shot, and starved back to work on the same rotten terms. On the remote chance that they were able to overcome all this, employers were free to induce a depression, so that soaring unemployment, savage wage-cuts and prolonged lockouts destroyed the financial basis of worker resistance altogether.

And, of course, the ultimate employer trump card was to start a war and draft workers into slaughtering each other, the only occasion on which full employment has ever been contemplated under the reign of capital.

More than a century after the progressive era workers now find themselves being forced back down the wealth pyramid after a brief flirtation with middle-class respectability (1945-1975). 

Digital feudalism has replaced industrial feudalism, and proliferating "right to work" laws celebrate workers' inherent right to scrounge. 

Banks selling worthless paper are "too big to fail," and unions are too few to matter. 

Platforms replace markets, and Lords of Tech awash in hundreds of billions of dollars coin personal data into limitless profit, which their customers eagerly give them, toiling endless hours on the Internet for free.


Rural workers: Page Smith, America Enters The World - A People's History of the Progressive Era and World War I, (McGraw Hill, 1985, pps. 29-31)

Urban workers:  Noel Kent, America In 1900, (M. E. Sharpe, 2000, pps. 78, 81-3, 87)

Worker "freedom": Irving Stone, Clarence Darrow For The Defense, (Signet, 1941, pps. 150, 159)


Monday, April 11, 2022

Scott Ritter on Ukrainian Fascism: "They've Become An Influencing Majority"

"What I see going on right now is a Russian response that is decades in the making. There's a lot of people that say that what Putin has done in Ukraine is a very impetuous, rash act, that it's a gamble, that Putin has gambled. And this creates the notion of a leader who is a risk taker, who's not certain of where he stands, who is confronted with a problem and is seeking to take a short cut to a solution. No. This is a problem that has been in the making since 1997 when NATO began its process of expanding, allowing former Warsaw Pact nations into the NATO alliance and gradually moving towards the border with Russia. This is a problem that has been ongoing since 1999 when Boris Yeltsin stepped aside and brought in Vladimir Putin as the president of Russia. Boris Yeltsin, of course, ran Russia during the decade of the nineties in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, who allowed the United States and other countries to run roughshod over Russian sovereignty, to view Russia as an economic opportunity for carpetbaggers to come in and rob Russia blind, who empowered a class of oligarchs who stole Russia's wealth and made it their own. 

"And the United States was all too happy with Yeltsin. And when Yeltsin stepped aside and brought in Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Putin said, "We're no longer playing that game. Russia is a sovereign state, we're going to assert our sovereign control over our own economy," etc. People in the West started viewing him as a threat to the Western-based hegemony that had been established over Russia.  So, this is a problem . . . when you combine NATO expansion with a leader that is now viewed as a threat, NATO expansion is no longer simply about bringing a security framework over Eastern Europe to prevent Eastern Europe from becoming like Yugoslavia. 

"That was the original thinking behind the expansion of NATO. We must secure Eastern Europe to prevent Europe from confronting a series of Yugoslavia type break-ups and conflicts. But then as the expansion went over, you have Putin being perceived as a threat, so now Russia is a threat and that threat is magnified in the eyes of the former Soviet satellite states, like Poland and the Baltics, who have no love lost for Russia, so they've magnified the notion of a Russian threat, and from a Russian perspective they're now looking at an expanding NATO coming up to their borders, that represents a direct threat to Russia. 

"And Russia had been speaking out about this. In 2007, Vladimir Putin gave what I consider to be one of the greatest political speeches in modern history, and that is an address before the Munich Security Council where he was supposed to be brought in as an act of surrender. The West expected him to bow down before his Western masters, to kiss the ring of his overlords and start playing the game of becoming assimilated into the West. Instead, Putin stood there in front of an audience of Western power brokers and he chastised them. He chastised them about being acolytes of the United States, he chastised the United States about seeking to impose the singularity on the world. He chastised Europe and the United States about what had been done in Iraq after the 2003 invasion and occupation. 

"'Do you not know what you have done?' he told them. About Iraq. 'You've destroyed a nation. You have lied. You have destroyed the international legal framework.' And then he said, 'the day of the unilateral polarity is over. The world will now move to a multi-polar situation that Russia will be one of equals, the world will include many different powers, including Russia, and the United States, but others as well." 

"His speech was not well received. And instead of listening to him, the United States and NATO doubled down in 2008. The Bucharest Security Summit for NATO formally invited Ukraine and Georgia to be members of NATO. How did Russia view this? We know, because not only do we have the statements of Putin and others, William Burns, who was the U.S. Ambassador to Russia, wrote a memorandum that was sent out in February of 2009, the title of which is 'Nyet means Nyet,' No Means No. And what he was saying is that when the Russians say that the expansion of NATO into Ukraine is a red line, they mean it's a red line. They're not joking. They're not bluffing. . . . 

"The Russian concerns are real, they're genuine, meaning that the West should not just dismiss these concerns as Russian pouting. No, this is a real concern. The consequences, and this is a very important part of his memorandum, the consequences of ignoring Russia will mean that in the future Russia will have no choice but to militarily intervene, which will result in the destruction of Ukraine, the loss of Crimea, and the loss of Donbass. This was written in 2009, pre-2014, and already the U.S. Ambassador William Burns knows that if NATO keeps expanding the outcome will be a Ukraine that is destroyed, and which no longer includes Crimea and the Donbass.

"So others can't claim, as Michael McPaul, who was the U.S. Ambassador under Barack Obama, he has repeatedly said that when he was with the National Security Council and when he was Ambassador he never heard about Russia's concerns about NATO, implying that Russia's just making this up. Well, he was in the National Security Council in February 2009, when Burns's memorandum was written, so McPaul is either the worst informed national security expert on Russia, or he's a liar. Because Burns's memorandum was there, everybody was talking about it, everybody knew that this was a concern for NATO, but the West ignored it, and continued to pursue. 

"Then after 2014 when the United States worked to overthrow the pro-Western president of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovich, through the Maidan Revolution, Russia became doubly concerned because now overnight Ukraine went from being a problematic but friendly border country to a hyper-nationalistic, and when I say nationalistic, I mean the nationalism of Stefan Bandera, a former Nazi supporter whose forces not only slaughtered Jews during WWII, but also slaughtered Poles and Russians during the ten-year-long insurgency that cost over 300,000 civilian lives and around 36,000 Russian security lives. 

"This force has been under the ground, but now through the Maidan Revolution we had brought them into the mainstream. We have weaponized them. Weaponized Nazi ideology is what we're talking about here. And Russia said, 'This is a threat.' And that began the threat to Russia because they were basically seeking to purge Russian culture, Russian language from Ukraine, which they wanted to be a pure Ukrainian state. 

"So Russia took the Crimea to protect the Russian majority population there, and Russia supported Russian separatists in the Donbass to protect them from the Ukrainians. This began an eight-year war, and there was an international agreement done through which was called the Normandy Format, that is, Germany, France, with Russia in observation, and Ukraine, negotiated a settlement, which would have brought an end to the conflict in the Donbass, recognized the Donbass to be part of Ukraine, but that the Russians would be subjected to a special autonomous status, that was separate from the Constitutional language that made Ukraine's first language Ukrainian. 

"The Russian presidents Poroshenko and then Zelensky refused to sign it, not because it was a bad deal, but because if they signed it the neo-Nazis that were now empowered have said they will kill them. So we have a situation where the Russian government, I mean the Ukrainian government, Ukrainian policy, was being dictated by neo-Nazi ideology. And if you know anything about the former Soviet Union, about Russia, you know that they don't take the issue of Nazi ideology lightly. Twenty-three million to thirty-two million Soviet citizens lost their lives in a conflict with Nazi Germany. In every town, every village, every city, there are memorials due to the sacrifice of the Russian people in that war. And every year they celebrate it on May 9, Victory Day, which is a day of celebration of the army that liberated them from the Nazis, liberated Europe from the Nazis. 

"And so now to have this Nazi ideology be mainstreamed, in Ukraine, people say, 'Well wait, they're a minority.' Yeah, politically, if they ran for office, it's a minority. But a minority isn't a minority if they can use the threat of violence to coerce the Parliament to vote with a strong majority to make Stefan Bandera the national hero of Ukraine. To mainstream his ideology. So it's not a minority. They've become an influencing majority, so to speak. . .

"Russia viewed this as a threat, and so, Russian military action, that we saw transpire on February 24, was simply William Burns's warning coming to fruition. Russia tried everything to create a diplomatic off ramp. They reached out to NATO over and over and over again, to the United States, and they said, 'Don't ignore us. Work with us, we can compromise. But if you ignore us, we will have no choice but to embrace the military-technical response,' which is this operation. So what we see right now is a military operation that has two primary military objectives: the first is denazification, the destruction of the nationalist military units that had incorporated personnel that embraced neo-Nazi ideology and the destruction of the political parties that breathe life into this, that mainstream this. That's one goal. 

"The other goal is the de-militarization of the Ukrainian military. What this means is that from 2015 on, the Ukrainian military had been trained by NATO to be a de facto extension of NATO. So even though Ukraine wasn't a NATO member, its army was a de facto extension of NATO. Thirty of their battalions are considered to be interoperable with NATO meaning that you could plug out a German battalion from a German division, plug in the Ukrainian battalion and it would function seamlessly. For the Russians this was unacceptable, and so one of their objectives is to demilitarize, that means to deconstruct the NATO military infrastructure that exists in Ukraine today. 

"Both these military objectives are trying to achieve two political objectives: (1) the liberation of the Donbass, to make sure that Lugansk and Donetsk are under Russian-speaking sovereignty (2) to achieve the neutrality, permanent neutrality of Ukraine, so that never again Russia can be threatened by Ukraine becoming a NATO state. This is the purpose of the military operation. It's a complex operation. The Ukrainian military is very professional, very well trained, led, they're putting up a heck of a fight, but this is not easy, this is difficult, but the Russians are winning, and they're on the verge of winning a decisive victory, that will achieve all of their political objectives, in the not-too-distant future."


------United States Marine Corps Veteran and former United Nations Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter

Source: Gerald Celente interview with Scott Ritter, "Ukraine War, Start to Finish, Who'll Win? Why and When?" Trends Journal, April 1, 2022, You Tube

Monday, March 21, 2022

War Crimes, Mental Molestation and Language Rape

 by Frank Scott  

The incredible market for human slaughter called war existed thousands of years ago but it was a corner grocery store compared to the multi-trillion dollar moral sewer that represents modern mass murder. Part of what enables imperial and even lesser powers to slaughter at will is a rule book drawn up long ago when there might have been a possibility to just have military personnel chopping one another to bits while leaving the general populace out of the bloodletting. That certainly ended before the 20th century but what has transpired since then and up to the present is, to cite a couple of over-used therefore recognizable labels, a genocidal holocaust that has burned, bombed, shot, stabbed, smothered and shattered bodies, reducing humans to unrecognizable bloody pulp by the hundreds of millions.


The hideous reality of war and its public relations and advertising departments that allegedly inform us about it has people accepting its horror as some sort of natural occurrence like sunset, tides, weather, rather than seeing it as caused by ruling powers battling over their wealth struggles which reduce humanity to commit mass murder under the pretense of it being the natural order of things. Further, rules have been drawn by upper class educated folks with doctoral degrees legalizing mass murder who teach us just what is the proper way to bash in skulls, burn people to death and rape and murder in a supposedly civilized way.

The alleged morality of humans accepting one form of insanely hysterical murder as long as it adheres to a guidebook on the proper form of slaughter should make us all grateful there is no judgmental, vindictive old testament deity or we’d all have been destroyed after the second world war let alone after our profitable feasts of death since then when we’ve murdered even more.

This closely guarded secret that humanity suffers in wars but only when rationalizations of bloody filth called “war crimes” are committed is currently being used and abused in a form of language, thought and moral degeneracy that may finally end when human consciousness, especially American, rejects the degenerate advertising and public relations blitz posing as reporting to blame Russians for what is called by language perverts their “war crime” against the Ukrainian government. Said government is a product of a U.S. financed insurrection that dumped an elected president who favored Russia for a western political pimp favoring market forces, which include some modern Nazis.


While he has become a celebrity among morals free political employees of ruling power by informing everyone to send him weapons so that there can be more bloodshed of the loving, violence free western kind, the western world has increased military spending to record breaking figures. Our rulers media employee shepherds see to it that our population is reduced to sheep as much of the world is angrier than ever at the machinations of the warfare business though you’d never know it if all you had was the western media called a free press. They convinced mentally brutalized souls into paying hundreds of dollars for taco-pizza-burgers and calling it free food.


While Ukrainians have been dying by the thousands for the past eight years, subject to a US/Nato financed and controlled assault, Americans and the west have known absolutely nothing of what was going on and not until Russian retaliation have we heard repeated use of words like brutal, savage, slaughter and worse, to condemn what under normal American circumstances would be called a form of legal police action to purify the world and see to it that peace, love and tranquility would prevail as we slaughtered. Maybe after everyone was dead?


A nation that leads all others in conducting wars against weaker countries and murdering hundreds of thousands, at the least, and millions, at the worst, is not only bellowing murderous nonsense but manipulating good, well meaning people into swallowing editorial garbage that has some decent folks almost ready to pawn their pets to send money to suffering Ukrainians. Even worse, some perverted by venomous outpourings of what would be called vicious hate speech if conducted by anyone else, are ready to accept the potential of nuclear war in order to stop the horrible slaughter which mostly exists between the ears and comes out of the mouths of our thought police working overtime for our ruling powers.


A recent story headlined a murderous, bloody, brutal assault by Russians, which had killed two people at the time the story was filed. Sadly but horrendously over stated in a nation which kills 4-5 Americans every hour in our private transport system of undeclared road wars to get us to work, shop, school, and conduct other freedom loving democratic economic action. This while the sanctions against Russia are causing serious economic pain the world over, including to Americans, while military spending and the mass murder business that is the backbone of our incredibly gross national product is growing faster and more dangerously and fossil fuel interests profit more than ever as environmental destruction proceeds at a more menacing pace.


This assault on reason combined with the rape of language and the reduction of public consciousness to the level of a nation of insects is really only an update of what has been going on for more than 100 years concerning Russia. The assault on that nation began in 1917 when the Russian revolution threatened capitalism, its global center then as now in the United States. America immediately invaded along with a group of its future lapdogs which eventually became Nato after the Second World War. The idea of a return to humanity’s roots by building a society based on communal cooperation rather than competitive actions which created wonderful benefits for some but only by reducing others to dreadful lives was too much for fanatics of the fundamentalist church of capital. Our primitive communistic survival in the days before we destroyed hunter-gatherer people meant that when the hunt was successful, everyone ate meat and when it wasn’t, everyone ate what was gathered. This was thousands of years before vegan diets and anti-meat worship among good people who comfortably house 136 million pets in a nation where more than five hundred thousand humans are without shelter. The pet business was good for more than 104 billion in 2020,a mass of economic clout but still chump change compared to the 778 billion for war, which involves 750 American bases in 80 foreign countries for something calling itself “defense”. This protected folks like George Floyd from the brutal, savage, bloodthirsty fiend Putin, but was totally helpless to defend him from a few Americans with badges.


A communist ideal which held that a thousand people and a thousand loaves of bread should mean a loaf of bread for everyone sickened rich capitalists who insisted that some should get ten loaves each and the rest be damned, which is the gross foundation dressed in economic jargon that would make a house of prostitution a citadel of love. Capital said that just as sex workers made a decent living by using their private parts to make private profits for their pimps, workers of all kinds could live comfortably if they just did their jobs and didn’t ask any questions. Their media saw to it that unquestioners became everyday people.


The social seeds planted by people like Marx and Engels in the 19th century came to fruition early in the 20th in Russia, and the vicious assault on that nation began, then as now, from its headquarters in America. After 70 years of continuous physical and mental assault finally helped cause a breakdown of the soviet union and a return to capitalism, that was still not enough and the U.S. and its imperial lackeys kept up the war and its present experience which threatens the worst outcome for humanity. This will hopefully not only bring China and Russia closer but the people of the USA and global humanity together to transcend the danger by helping to end the degeneracy of warfare and create peace via the end of an imperial crusade to further enrich billionaires and their upper class servants while increasing mass poverty and the environmental threat to us all.


With daily by the minute assaults on consciousness reducing other wise good people to hateful idiocy demanding death for the savage Putin and evil Russians, there is glee among the perverted political economic leadership of the war business. They number a tiny group with power supposedly democratic while they brain wash people into believing autocracy – a term most hardly understand – is in charge everywhere but where it exists; in what we have been taught to believe is the free world. Benign (?) America billionaires become malevolently evil (ominous background music) Russian oligarchs, according to our mind shapers who neglect to point out they keep their wealth in the same banks – mostly American or at least using American dollars - to perform as charming space travelers or deranged killers, depending on national origin. This perverse market freedom continues to mean imperial abuse by one nation, ours, while taxpayers absorb a debt of 30 trillion dollars paying for the empire which is bringing us all closer to a point at which we will have little time left as a human race. We need to begin acting like one very soon. That means far more than waving a Ukrainian flag and sending paychecks to the pimps of war, but no longer accepting their crimes against nature and beginning to act like what we are: a human race badly in need of global democracy to stop all wars, not just those we are told are the wrong way to butcher humans, and begin life. That calls for the end of the post world war two domination of the American empire and this present horror is hopefully a sign that it will be so. We need to turn off the anti-social media that insure further private profit and ultimate public loss and turn on humanity’s original instinct for cooperation. And hurry.

Sunday, March 13, 2022

No Heroism In Slaughter: Cease Fire Now In Ukraine

"If I were Ukrainian and living in Kyiv or Odessa, I’d certainly be out on the streets, rolling flaming tires at Russian tanks. But I’m not and I certainly don’t know what’s to be done from here. Or who will do it.

"Still the Ukrainian resistance–as courageous as it is–cannot defeat the Russia military. Most of those armchair strategists urging it to intensify the fighting are at no risk themselves. NATO will not intervene. Russia can and will escalate the war, ratchet up the bombing and destruction until there is nothing left for fleeing Ukrainians to come home to. Look at the ruins of Syria, the rubble of Homs and Aleppo. Instead of pushing for more war–even if the cause seems just–the only moral position is to call and continue calling for a ceasefire and to stop using Ukrainian civilians as pawns in a larger depraved game."

-----Jeffrey St. Clair, "Roaming Charges: The Trembling Air," Counterpunch, March 11, 2022

Friday, March 11, 2022

Why The U.S. Should Urge Zelensky to Surrender in Ukraine

"Putin thinks that Ukraine is part of Greater Russia .  . . Some people in the Ukraine don't think that and they are willing to fight him for that. However, I am not one of those people who is going to pronounce whether one group is right or the other is wrong in this case. There's no real ethnic difference, there's no religious difference (between Ukrainians and Russians) . . . .

"Putin's not posing apartheid for Ukrainians. There's not going to be a big land grab like we just kind of gave the Palestinians' land to Israel and now support Israel in securing that land and growing and securing that land. No, it's not like that. These are Ukrainians and they're going to be Ukrainians/Russians at the end of this, too. 

"There's no ethnic difference, there's no big religious difference. We don't have to worry about concentration camps and apartheid because there's no real difference (ethnically or racially), and this is a real empire, which means that Russia's not going to take anything except they're going to just redirect where they pay their taxes. And so this idea that there's a human rights violation going on in Ukraine . . . well, no, there's a political rights violation going on, but political rights are fickle things, which means that you might not be a sovereign nation if you're right next to Russia. 

"One of the conditions of sovereignty is not being next to a bigger power that wants to eat you. So like you don't get to be a sovereign nation (in that case). For example, when the Civil War happened and South Carolina wanted to fight against Mr. Lincoln's army, I'm glad that the rest of the nation didn't come in and save South Carolina. There was a human rights violation because one of the reasons they were fighting was to enslave black people, but the conditions in sovereignty in real life are really, actually kind of tricky. And part of it means being able to defend your borders. And I don't want to be stuck in a forever war in Ukraine if it can't defend its borders, and they are Russian.

"So there's no reason to believe that there are going to be mass human rights abuses after the Ukraine's taken over. Because it'll be like what they're doing in Chernobyl. 

"So right now in Chernobyl there's a big worry that like, 'Oh, no. If the Russians bomb Chernobyl then it could be the case that there's a nuclear fallout and there's going to be all this delays and all that stuff.' What they did was the Russians took over Chernobyl and then put the Ukrainian engineers back to work, so like, nothing changed except who the boss is, right? 

" . . . you saw a little bit of this before 2008 where in the U.S. you talked to people - every now and then they'd get a letter in the mail saying that they used to pay their mortgage to this bank, but now they pay their mortgage to this bank. There's the same mortgage, just to a different bank. That's kind of what, for most of the Ukrainian people, that's going to be their life under Russia. 

"And that's non-ideal, but it's not something you go to war and threaten world extinction over, right? It's one of the facts of having nation states with asymmetrical power and no world government. To protect borders as is

" . . . from time to time there are going to be skirmishes, and the bigger power is going to win. And when the bigger power is Russia sometimes you've just got to negotiate a surrender. So I wish we would be all for let's negotiate a surrender. Forget the sanctions, let's negotiate surrender and let's stop pretending . . . . because what I don't want at the end of this - a war zone's an awful place - I don't want Kiev after two years of war. That's unnecessary. 

"And I don't think we should be giving weapons to the Ukrainians. I don't think that's necessary. I think we should be all about telling (Ukrainian president) Zelensky 'All right, well, we can't get you back, we will help you surrender and give you political asylum so you don't have to worry about getting disappeared. But pretty much that's a wrap. We're not going to support you. Which means you should surrender, because they're bigger, stronger, and have just more resources than you do, right? 

"But instead we're going to give weapons for a ground war, that the Russians are going to win because they're a superior force, speaking the same language, and aren't that foreign to Ukraine. I say that there's not going to be pogroms or genocide because there's not really a difference in the church, either. Like they're all Eastern Orthodox . . . . it's cousins fighting, belligerent cousins fighting, and it's a place we shouldn't get involved. 

"And now with these sanctions in Russia everyone's prices are going to go up, which is de facto a regressive tax. We don't have to put these sanctions on, right? Instead of just trying to negotiate full-bore surrender, we've launched economic war against Russia. There are going to be sanctions, these sanctions are going to tax everyone, everyone's going to take a hit, and so pretty much we are now paying the price and subsidizing Ukrainians, the Ukrainian war, and I don't think that we should do that, I think we should encourage him (President Zelensky) to surrender and work out favorable terms. . . . .

"I don't understand why suddenly we take national borders so seriously when we were so casual about them before. We need to deal with the fact of this kind of politics. If you actually care about the war and the suffering, you want this to end. You just want it to end, right? So this is different than like the Civil War when the issue was slavery. This is just a territorial dispute between one power and another power."

--------Irami Osei-Frimpong, "Ukraine and the American Negro"

Monday, March 7, 2022

Pentagon Advisor Urges Washington To Stop Encouraging Ukrainians To "Die Pointlessly In A Fight They Can't Win"

 Colonel Douglas Macgregor:  

"Vladimir Putin is carrying through on something that he's been warning us about at least for the last fifteen years, which is that he will not tolerate United States forces or their missiles on his borders, much as we would not tolerate Russian troops and missiles in Cuba. And we ignored him, and he finally acted. He was not going to allow Ukraine under any circumstances to join NATO. And what's happened now is that the battle in Eastern Ukraine is really almost over. All the Ukrainian troops there have largely been surrounded and cut off. You have a concentration down in the Southeast of thirty to forty thousand of them. And if they don't surrender within the next twenty-four hours, I suspect that the Russians will ultimately annihilate them. That's why (Ukrainian President) Zelensky is meeting with Putin's representatives right now - the game is over. And he's going to have to negotiate the best deal he can get, and we've already told him, the president of the United States has, that if he opts for neutrality for Ukraine we'll back him. And I think that Vladimir Putin will do that for Western Ukraine - that is, the Ukraine beyond the Dnieper River. But behind it in the East where he is now I'm not sure what he has planned there, whether he forms another republic, annexes it into Russia, because historically it has been Russian. But the territory West of Ukraine is not. He knows that and he's happy to live with that as a neutral state."

Fox Host Trey Gowdy: I am not a military expert. I'm not even an expert in geography, but if he takes Ukraine and Ukraine abuts Poland, then he's going to have a NATO country abutting him. So if that's what he doesn't want, then isn't he going to have to keep going until he runs out of NATO countries? 

Macgregor: "(big sigh) . . .  I guess I should say it again. He has no interest in crossing the Dnieper and heading West to the Polish border. I think you're going to find from these negotiations he's quite willing to neutralize the territory on the Austrian or the Finnish model. Right now, Russia already touches Estonia and part of Latvia. White Russia, of course, touches Lithuania. He's not interested in going to war with us and he has an army that's too small for that purpose. And he knows it. His economy is smaller than that of South Korea. So this is not something that he's looking for. We are imputing to him things that he does not want to do, in our usual effort to demonize him and his country. We need to remember that Ukraine is fourth from the bottom of 158 countries in the world as corrupt. Russia is perhaps three or four places above them. This is not the liberal democracy, the shining example that everyone says it is. Far from it. Mr. Zelensky has jailed journalists and his political opposition. I think we need to stay out of it. The American people think we should stay out of it. The Europeans think we should stay out of it. And we should stop shipping weapons and encouraging   Ukrainians to die in what is a hopeless endeavor."

Gowdy: So when you say stay out of it, you mean no sanctions, no military aid, just let Russia take the portion of Ukraine they want to take.

Macgregor:  "Yes. Absolutely. I see no reason why we should fight with the Russians over something that they have been talking about for years. We simply chose to ignore it. And more important, the population there is indistinguishable from their own. You know, the thing that's so disturbing is that on the one hand we will not send our forces to fight, but we are urging Ukrainians to die pointlessly in a fight they can't win. We're going to create a far worse humanitarian disaster than anything you've seen so far if it doesn't stop."


Trey Gowdy interview on Fox with former Pentagon advisor Colonel Douglas Macgregor. Video clip available at The Unz Review. See "American Pravda: Putin as Hitler," Ron Unz, March 7, 2022