Crimea and the Final War

A suicidal oligarchic elite deluded by their own lies, propaganda, and self-serving myths.

In January, Foreign Affairs, the mouthpiece of the Council on Foreign Relations, posted “The Case for Taking Crimea: Why Ukraine Can—and Should—Liberate the Province.”

The article was re-posted by the “Center for Defense Strategies in Ukraine,” a post-coup government bureaucracy where former USG general Wesley Clark and Phil Jones, of the British Ministry of Defense, are board members.

The gist of the post centers on revisionist history and the claim Crimea is and always has been part of Ukraine. Thus, according to CFR globalists, it will be entirely legitimate for post-Maidan coup neo-nazis and demented worshippers of the ethnic cleanser Stepan Bandera to kill Crimeans, the majority being ethnic Russian.

The CFR didn’t put it that way, of course.

“Western states are united in their belief that the 2014 annexation of Crimea was, and is, unacceptable. But the United States and its partners have been squeamish about endorsing any plans that would return Crimea to Ukraine,” writes Andriy Zagorodnyuk, Chairman of the Center for Defense Strategies.

For the global elite, preventing the torture, rape, and murder of ethnic Russian is “unacceptable.” However, the wish of Crimeans to secede from book- and people burning neo-nazis, on the other hand, is not acceptable.

Zagorodnyuk, a former minister of “defense,” is a “distinguished fellow” at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

The Atlantic Council is a NATO influence-peddling “think tank” on the USG State Department payroll.

It also receives money from the US Mission to NATO, “Her [now His] Majesty’s Government,” the Pentagon, the Open Society Foundation, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Palantir, death merchants (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman), banksters (JP Morgan, Bank of America, BlackRock), and the Rockefeller Foundation.

The Atlantic Council and its supporters promote a return to Cold War brinkmanship and manufactured hostility toward competitors.

“Washington and its allies should develop a defense strategy capable of deterring and, if necessary, defeating Russia and China at the same time,” is one of the more irrational and eminently dangerous quotes coming out of this billionaire’s war council, according to a February 2022 Foreign Policy article.

The CFR article is replete with lies. For instance, Crimea is not Russia. This omits the fact more than 60 percent of Crimeans are ethnic Russians.

The CFR war propagandists insist Crimea has always been part of Ukraine. In fact, Crimea has experienced over its long history invading nomads, including the Tauri, Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Crimean Goths, Alans, Bulgars, Huns, Khazars, Kipchaks, and Mongols. The Kievan Rus’, the cultural ancestor of ethnic Russians, exercised control over Crimea beginning in the tenth century.

An honest evaluation of history makes clear that Crimea should be part of Ukraine, not Russia. It is legally recognized and accepted as Ukrainian territory by the entire world — including, until 2014, by Russia. Crimea has been governed by Kyiv for 60 of the past 70 years, and so most of its residents know it first and foremost as a Ukrainian peninsula.

The above appraisal is predictable. The CFR and the Atlantic Council are all about the primacy of a world-order state and the maintenance of rule by installed client regimes. The desire of the Crimeans is not important. Weakening Russia is the paramount objective, no matter how many innocents must suffer horrible deaths.

Left out of the equation is the indisputable fact ethnic Russians, the majority in Crimea, fear Banderist nazis installed by the USG in 2014. The ultranationalists have demonstrated both in word and deed their hatred for everything Russian. There is ample evidence the ultranationalists in Kyiv are determined to ethnically cleanse ethnic Russians, and short of that, kill every Russian in Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Mykolaiv, and Zaporizhzhia.

Biden, his neocons, and “humanitarian interventionists,” at the behest of the CFR, WEF, and “supranational institutions,” such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, are not concerned about the fate of a few million Russians, formerly victims of a nazified Ukraine. Banderist worshippers will have a free hand to torture, rape, humiliate, and kill ethnic Russians if the plan to retake Crimea, Donbas, etc., is realized.

Following Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s panhandling European tour last week, the British state announced it plans to send Harpoon and Storm Shadow missiles to the ethnic cleansers and Banderist worshippers in Kyiv.

Scaling a Financial Times paywall with a 12-foot ladder, I encountered “Crimea could be Putin’s tipping point in a game of nuclear chicken,” a reckless article tempting nuclear war in response to Russia’s threat to go nuclear if it faces an existential threat. The same logic applies to the USG’s national security.

Putin’s spurious nuclear threats of recent months have begun to lose their potency. In order to be credible, Russia would have to make explicit that an invasion of Crimea constituted a red line. Faced with losing Crimea, Putin might consider this a worthwhile gamble, believing Ukraine (with western encouragement) would blink first. This would be a moment of extreme peril.

How idiotic—and conspicuously propagandistic.

The Financial Times is, at least ostensibly, a British publication (a state-controlled Japanese media company, Nikkei, owns FT). The periodical’s editorial slant is described as “conservative liberalism,” that is to say neocon liberalism. It is yet another subscription-based, paywall-enclosed official propaganda conduit.

Only the USG, under the founder of the national security state (NSC, CIA, Pentagon), President Harry Truman, dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing thousands of innocent Japanese civilians.

Truman, basically a nuclear terrorist, wanted to send a message to Stalin and the Soviet Union. As would be the case in the years that followed, the lives of non-combatant men, women, and children would be sacrificed for USG neoliberal foreign policy objectives. The total of the dead thus far is in the millions.

Winston Churchill, previously a fan of using poisonous gas on restless Kurds in Mesopotamia, urged Truman to nuke Moscow.

The ruling bankster, corporate, and hereditary aristocratic elite, and associated paywall propaganda conduits—FT, the CFR’s Foreign Affairs, The New York Times, the CIA’s Washington Post, et al—are aggressively pushing a final war against the New Hitler, Vladimir Putin.

The oligarchic elite are deluded by their own lies, propaganda, and self-serving myths, most prominently the arrogant assertion the USG is a lone “exceptional nation,” a lighthouse of democracy, the latter an illusion that holds sway over a relentlessly propagandized public.

This tweet is not difficult to translate: according to the logic of psychopaths, killing innocents in Crimea with ground-launched small-diameter bombs (part of the latest USG $2.17 billion “aid” package) will force Moscow to defend its sovereignty and national security. If Russia concludes it faces an existential threat, it will resort to nuclear weapons, as would the USG in a similar situation.

Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics

Leave a Reply