Unprovoked!
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Totten
May 30, 2023, 9:01:10 PM5/30/23
to GoogleGroups
Unprovoked!
In the mass media you're not allowed to talk about the US-Nato actions
that diplomats, politicians, academics - even the head of the CIA -
have long warned would lead to war in Ukraine.
by Caitlin Johnstone
https://consortiumnews.com (January 08 2023)
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Normandy_format_2019-12-09_01.jpg
December 09 2019: From left: Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky,
French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin
meeting in Paris for negotiations aimed at ending the war in the
Donbas. (Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
Listen to a reading of this article:
https://soundcloud.com/going_rogue/its-not-okay-for-grown-adults-to-say-the-ukraine-invasion-was-unprovoked
In an interview with the Useful Idiots podcast not too long ago, Noam
Chomsky repeated his argument that the only reason we hear the word
"unprovoked" every time anyone mentions Russia's invasion of Ukraine
in the mainstream news media is that it absolutely was provoked, and
they know it.
"Right now, if you're a respectable writer and you want to write in
the main journals, you talk about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you
have to call it 'the unprovoked' Russian invasion of Ukraine", Chomsky
said.
It's a very interesting phrase; it was never used before. You look
back, you look at Iraq, which was totally unprovoked, nobody ever
called it 'the unprovoked invasion of Iraq'. In fact, I don't know if
the term was ever used - if it was it was very marginal. Now you look
it up on Google, and hundreds of thousands of hits. Every article that
comes out has to talk about the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.
"Why? Because they know perfectly well it was provoked", Chomsky said.
"That doesn't justify it, but it was massively provoked. Top US
diplomats have been talking about this for 30 years, even the head of
the CIA."
Chomsky is of course correct here. The imperial media and their
brainwashed automatons have spent many months mindlessly bleating the
word "unprovoked" in relation to this war, but one question none of
them ever have a straight answer for is this: if the invasion of
Ukraine was unprovoked, how come so many Western experts spent years
warning that the actions of Western governments would provoke an
invasion of Ukraine?
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Noam_Chomsky_Toronto_2011-2048x1365.jpg
Noam Chomsky in 2011. (Andrew Rusk, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
Because, as Chomsky notes, that is indeed the case. A few days after
the invasion began in February of last year a guy named Arnaud
Bertrand put together an extremely viral Twitter thread that just goes
on and on and on about the various diplomats, analysts, and academics
in the West who have over the years been warning that a dangerous
confrontation with Russia was coming because of Nato advancements
toward its borders, interventionism in Ukraine, and various other
aggressions.
It contains examples such as John Mearsheimer explicitly warning in
2015 that "the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the
end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked", and Pat Buchanan
warning all the way back in 1999 that "By moving Nato onto Russia's
front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation".
Empire apologists love claiming that the invasion of Ukraine had
nothing to do with Nato expansionism (their claims are generally based
on brazen misrepresentations of what President Vladimir Putin has said
about Russia's reasons for the war), but that's silly. The US war
machine was continuing to taunt the possibility of Nato membership for
Ukraine right up until the invasion, a threat it refused to take off
the table since placing it there in 2008 despite knowing full well
that this threat was an incendiary provocation to Moscow.
Most fascinating thing about the Ukraine war is the sheer number of
top strategic thinkers who warned for years that it was coming if we
continued down the same path.
No-one listened to them and here we are.
Small compilation of these warnings, from Kissinger to Mearsheimer.
- Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) March 1, 2022
This is to say nothing of the US empire actively fomenting a violent
uprising in 2014 which ousted Kiev's sitting government and fractured
the nation between its more Moscow-loyal populations to the east and
the more US/EU-friendly parts of the country. This led to the
annexation of Crimea (overwhelmingly supported by the people who live
there) and eight years of brutal warfare against Russia-backed
separatists in the Donbass.
Ukrainian attacks on those separatists are known to have increased
exponentially in the days leading up to the invasion, and it has been
argued that this is what provoked Putin's final decision to commit to
invading (which was a last-minute decision according to US
intelligence).
Support CN's
Winter Fund Drive!
https://org.salsalabs.com/o/1868/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=14124&okay=True
The US power alliance could very easily have prevented this war with a
few low-cost concessions like enshrining Ukrainian neutrality, rolling
back its war machinery from Russia's borders, and sincerely pursuing
detente with Moscow instead of shredding treaties and ramping up Cold
War escalations. Hell, it could likely have prevented this war just by
protecting President Volodymyr Zelensky from the anti-Moscow far-right
nationalists who were openly threatening to lynch him if he began
honoring the Minsk agreements and pursuing peace with Russia, as he
was originally elected to do.
Instead, it knowingly chose the opposite course: continuing to float
the possibility of formal Nato membership for Ukraine while pouring
weapons into the nation and making it more and more of a de facto Nato
member with closer and closer intimacy with the US war machine, and
then either ordering, encouraging, or tolerating Ukraine's aggressive
assault on Donbas separatists.
Why did the empire opt for provocation over peace? Congressman Adam
Schiff gave a pretty good answer to that question in January of 2020
as the road to war was being paved: "so that we can fight Russia over
there, and we don't have to fight Russia here".
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1497602531467403270
If you relinquish the infantile idea that the US empire is helping its
good friend Ukraine because it loves the Ukrainian people and wants
them to have freedom and democracy, it's not hard to see that the US
sparked a convenient proxy war because it was in its geostrategic
interests to do so and because it wouldn't be their lives and property
getting laid to waste.
Brian Berletic put out a good video about a Pentagon-funded 2019 Rand
Corporation paper titled "Extending Russia - Competing from
Advantageous Ground", which is exactly what it sounds like.
The US Army-commissioned paper details how the empire can use proxy
warfare, economic warfare, and other Cold War tactics to push its
longtime geopolitical foe to the brink without costing American lives
or sparking a nuclear conflict.
It mentions Ukraine hundreds of times, and it explicitly discusses the
same economic warfare tactics we've seen like sanctions and attacking
Russia's energy interests in Europe (the latter of which Berletic
points out is also being used to bolster US dominance over its vassals
in the EU).
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Randcorporationsantamonica-2048x1505.jpg
RAND Corporation headquarters in Santa Monica, California, in 2015.
(Coolcaesar, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
The paper even explicitly advocates continuing to threaten Nato
membership with Ukraine to draw out an aggressive response from
Moscow, saying,
While Nato's requirement for unanimity makes it unlikely that Ukraine
could gain membership in the foreseeable future, Washington's pushing
this possibility could boost Ukrainian resolve while leading Russia to
redouble its efforts to forestall such a development.
President Joe Biden has made calls for regime change in Moscow that
can't even really be called thinly disguised, and Defense Secretary
Lloyd Austin has openly said that the plan is to use this war to
"weaken" Russia, which other US officials have told the press is
indeed the policy.
Comments from the Biden administration continually make it clear that
the US alliance is buckling down to keep this war going for years to
come, which would fit in nicely with Washington's known track record
of deliberately drawing Russia into military quagmires against US
proxies in both Afghanistan and Syria.
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/52035881136_3bb5559ff6_b-1.jpg
March 26 2022: US President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the war in
Ukraine, at the Royal Castle in Warsaw, where he said Putin "cannot
remain in power". (White House, Adam Schultz)
So, make no mistake, behind all the phony hand-wringing and
flag-waving, the US-centralized empire is getting exactly what it
wants from this conflict. It gets to overextend Russia militarily and
financially, promote its narratives around the world, rehabilitate the
image of US interventionism, expand internet censorship, expand
militarily, and bolster control over its European client states. And
all it costs is a little pretend empire money that gets funneled into
the military-industrial complex anyway.
Which is why when it looked like peace was at risk of breaking out in
the early days of the conflict, the empire sent in former UK Prime
Minister Boris Johnson to tell Zelensky that even if he is ready for
the war to end, his partners to the West were not.
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/51992919668_f57a71fc76_b.jpg
Boris Johnson, then-UK prime minister, left, meeting Ukraine's
President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kiev, April 09 2022. (Ukraine
government)
So, as you can see, the notion that this war is "unprovoked" is a
fairy tale for idiots and children; there's no excuse for a grown
adult with internet access and functioning brain matter to ever say
such a thing.
Had China backed a coup in Mexico and now had a loyal vassal in Mexico
City who was letting Beijing distribute weapons along the US border
while continually shelling English-speaking separatists in Baja
California who are seeking US annexation, there's no question that
Washington would consider this a provocation and would respond
accordingly. You can tell me that's not true, but we'd both know
you're lying.
But as Chomsky said, the press is still spouting this "unprovoked"
nonsense anyway.
"Russia is widely believed to have been taken aback by the West's
assertive and unified response to its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine",
reads a CNBC article.
"The diplomatic visit underlines the importance of the Russian
relationship for China, even in the face of international blowback
against Moscow after its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine earlier this
year", reads a report from CNN. "It was an unprovoked attack on a
sovereign country", a source is quoted as saying in another CNN
article.
It is, as Chomsky observed, really freaky how hard they've been
hitting us with this line every time the invasion of Ukraine is
mentioned. It seems like every time it comes up they're obligated to
say it, just as Michael Jackson had a quota for how often MTV hosts
were obligated to refer to him as "The King of Pop Michael Jackson"
when his name was mentioned.
In the mass media, you're not allowed to talk about the known
US/Nato/Ukraine actions which experts have been warning for many years
would lead us to this point. You're only allowed to say Putin attacked
Ukraine completely unprovoked, in a vacuum, solely because he is evil
and hates freedom. And you have to do it while saying the word
"unprovoked" at every opportunity.
Empire apologists get upset when you talk about the fact that this war
was provoked because a large amount of empire apologia is built around
pretending that provocation just isn't a thing. By some trick of
Orwellian doublethink, this concept we've all lived our entire lives
knowing about and understanding is now suddenly a freakish and
ridiculous invention of the Kremlin.
We're all guilty of doing the things we knowingly choose to do. If I
choose to provoke someone into doing something bad, then they're
guilty of choosing to do the bad thing, but I am also guilty of
provoking them. I'm not saying anything new here; this is the plot
behind any movie or show with a sneaky or manipulative villain, and
it's been a part of our storytelling since ancient times.
Nobody has ever walked out of Shakespeare's Othello thinking that
maybe Iago was just an innocent bystander who was trying to help out
his friends.
Most of us learn that provocation is real as children with siblings,
kicking the other under the table or whatever to provoke a loud
outburst, and we've understood it ever since. But everyone's
pretending that this extremely basic, kindergarten-level concept is
some kind of bizarre, alien gibberish. It's intensely stupid, and it
needs to stop.
Empire apologists will also argue that saying Russia was provoked into
invading by the US empire is like saying a rape victim provoked her
rapist by wearing a tight skirt, or a battered wife provoked her
abuser by disobeying him.
And as a survivor of multiple rapes and an abusive relationship I must
say I find it extremely offensive when people compare blaming the most
powerful empire that has ever existed for its well-documented
aggressions to blaming victims of rape and domestic violence. The
globe-spanning empire is not comparable to a rape victim, and if you
find yourself thinking so it's time to re-think your entire worldview.
It's not okay to be a grown adult and still say the invasion of
Ukraine was unprovoked. You've got a brain between your ears and an
entire internet of information at your fingertips.
_____
Caitlin Johnstone's work is entirely reader-supported so, if you
enjoyed this piece, please consider sharing it around, following her
on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud, or YouTube, or throwing some money
into her tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon, or Paypal. If you want to read
more you can buy her books. The best way to make sure you see the
stuff she publishes is to subscribe to the mailing list on her website
or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for
everything she publishes. For more information on who she is, where
she stands, and what she's trying to do with her platform, click here.
All works are co-authored with her American husband Tim Foley.
This article is from CaitlinJohnstone.com and re-published with permission.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not
reflect those of Consortium News.
Support CN's
Winter Fund Drive!
https://org.salsalabs.com/o/1868/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=14124&okay=True
Links: The original version of this article, at the URL below,
contains several links to further information not included here:
https://consortiumnews.com/2023/01/08/caitlin-johnstone-unprovoked/
TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
the appropriate link at the top or bottom of
https://billtotten.wpcomstaging.com/2023/05/31/unprovoked/
In the mass media you're not allowed to talk about the US-Nato actions
that diplomats, politicians, academics - even the head of the CIA -
have long warned would lead to war in Ukraine.
by Caitlin Johnstone
https://consortiumnews.com (January 08 2023)
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Normandy_format_2019-12-09_01.jpg
December 09 2019: From left: Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky,
French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin
meeting in Paris for negotiations aimed at ending the war in the
Donbas. (Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
Listen to a reading of this article:
https://soundcloud.com/going_rogue/its-not-okay-for-grown-adults-to-say-the-ukraine-invasion-was-unprovoked
In an interview with the Useful Idiots podcast not too long ago, Noam
Chomsky repeated his argument that the only reason we hear the word
"unprovoked" every time anyone mentions Russia's invasion of Ukraine
in the mainstream news media is that it absolutely was provoked, and
they know it.
"Right now, if you're a respectable writer and you want to write in
the main journals, you talk about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you
have to call it 'the unprovoked' Russian invasion of Ukraine", Chomsky
said.
It's a very interesting phrase; it was never used before. You look
back, you look at Iraq, which was totally unprovoked, nobody ever
called it 'the unprovoked invasion of Iraq'. In fact, I don't know if
the term was ever used - if it was it was very marginal. Now you look
it up on Google, and hundreds of thousands of hits. Every article that
comes out has to talk about the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.
"Why? Because they know perfectly well it was provoked", Chomsky said.
"That doesn't justify it, but it was massively provoked. Top US
diplomats have been talking about this for 30 years, even the head of
the CIA."
Chomsky is of course correct here. The imperial media and their
brainwashed automatons have spent many months mindlessly bleating the
word "unprovoked" in relation to this war, but one question none of
them ever have a straight answer for is this: if the invasion of
Ukraine was unprovoked, how come so many Western experts spent years
warning that the actions of Western governments would provoke an
invasion of Ukraine?
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Noam_Chomsky_Toronto_2011-2048x1365.jpg
Noam Chomsky in 2011. (Andrew Rusk, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
Because, as Chomsky notes, that is indeed the case. A few days after
the invasion began in February of last year a guy named Arnaud
Bertrand put together an extremely viral Twitter thread that just goes
on and on and on about the various diplomats, analysts, and academics
in the West who have over the years been warning that a dangerous
confrontation with Russia was coming because of Nato advancements
toward its borders, interventionism in Ukraine, and various other
aggressions.
It contains examples such as John Mearsheimer explicitly warning in
2015 that "the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the
end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked", and Pat Buchanan
warning all the way back in 1999 that "By moving Nato onto Russia's
front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation".
Empire apologists love claiming that the invasion of Ukraine had
nothing to do with Nato expansionism (their claims are generally based
on brazen misrepresentations of what President Vladimir Putin has said
about Russia's reasons for the war), but that's silly. The US war
machine was continuing to taunt the possibility of Nato membership for
Ukraine right up until the invasion, a threat it refused to take off
the table since placing it there in 2008 despite knowing full well
that this threat was an incendiary provocation to Moscow.
Most fascinating thing about the Ukraine war is the sheer number of
top strategic thinkers who warned for years that it was coming if we
continued down the same path.
No-one listened to them and here we are.
Small compilation of these warnings, from Kissinger to Mearsheimer.
- Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) March 1, 2022
This is to say nothing of the US empire actively fomenting a violent
uprising in 2014 which ousted Kiev's sitting government and fractured
the nation between its more Moscow-loyal populations to the east and
the more US/EU-friendly parts of the country. This led to the
annexation of Crimea (overwhelmingly supported by the people who live
there) and eight years of brutal warfare against Russia-backed
separatists in the Donbass.
Ukrainian attacks on those separatists are known to have increased
exponentially in the days leading up to the invasion, and it has been
argued that this is what provoked Putin's final decision to commit to
invading (which was a last-minute decision according to US
intelligence).
Support CN's
Winter Fund Drive!
https://org.salsalabs.com/o/1868/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=14124&okay=True
The US power alliance could very easily have prevented this war with a
few low-cost concessions like enshrining Ukrainian neutrality, rolling
back its war machinery from Russia's borders, and sincerely pursuing
detente with Moscow instead of shredding treaties and ramping up Cold
War escalations. Hell, it could likely have prevented this war just by
protecting President Volodymyr Zelensky from the anti-Moscow far-right
nationalists who were openly threatening to lynch him if he began
honoring the Minsk agreements and pursuing peace with Russia, as he
was originally elected to do.
Instead, it knowingly chose the opposite course: continuing to float
the possibility of formal Nato membership for Ukraine while pouring
weapons into the nation and making it more and more of a de facto Nato
member with closer and closer intimacy with the US war machine, and
then either ordering, encouraging, or tolerating Ukraine's aggressive
assault on Donbas separatists.
Why did the empire opt for provocation over peace? Congressman Adam
Schiff gave a pretty good answer to that question in January of 2020
as the road to war was being paved: "so that we can fight Russia over
there, and we don't have to fight Russia here".
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1497602531467403270
If you relinquish the infantile idea that the US empire is helping its
good friend Ukraine because it loves the Ukrainian people and wants
them to have freedom and democracy, it's not hard to see that the US
sparked a convenient proxy war because it was in its geostrategic
interests to do so and because it wouldn't be their lives and property
getting laid to waste.
Brian Berletic put out a good video about a Pentagon-funded 2019 Rand
Corporation paper titled "Extending Russia - Competing from
Advantageous Ground", which is exactly what it sounds like.
The US Army-commissioned paper details how the empire can use proxy
warfare, economic warfare, and other Cold War tactics to push its
longtime geopolitical foe to the brink without costing American lives
or sparking a nuclear conflict.
It mentions Ukraine hundreds of times, and it explicitly discusses the
same economic warfare tactics we've seen like sanctions and attacking
Russia's energy interests in Europe (the latter of which Berletic
points out is also being used to bolster US dominance over its vassals
in the EU).
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Randcorporationsantamonica-2048x1505.jpg
RAND Corporation headquarters in Santa Monica, California, in 2015.
(Coolcaesar, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
The paper even explicitly advocates continuing to threaten Nato
membership with Ukraine to draw out an aggressive response from
Moscow, saying,
While Nato's requirement for unanimity makes it unlikely that Ukraine
could gain membership in the foreseeable future, Washington's pushing
this possibility could boost Ukrainian resolve while leading Russia to
redouble its efforts to forestall such a development.
President Joe Biden has made calls for regime change in Moscow that
can't even really be called thinly disguised, and Defense Secretary
Lloyd Austin has openly said that the plan is to use this war to
"weaken" Russia, which other US officials have told the press is
indeed the policy.
Comments from the Biden administration continually make it clear that
the US alliance is buckling down to keep this war going for years to
come, which would fit in nicely with Washington's known track record
of deliberately drawing Russia into military quagmires against US
proxies in both Afghanistan and Syria.
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/52035881136_3bb5559ff6_b-1.jpg
March 26 2022: US President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the war in
Ukraine, at the Royal Castle in Warsaw, where he said Putin "cannot
remain in power". (White House, Adam Schultz)
So, make no mistake, behind all the phony hand-wringing and
flag-waving, the US-centralized empire is getting exactly what it
wants from this conflict. It gets to overextend Russia militarily and
financially, promote its narratives around the world, rehabilitate the
image of US interventionism, expand internet censorship, expand
militarily, and bolster control over its European client states. And
all it costs is a little pretend empire money that gets funneled into
the military-industrial complex anyway.
Which is why when it looked like peace was at risk of breaking out in
the early days of the conflict, the empire sent in former UK Prime
Minister Boris Johnson to tell Zelensky that even if he is ready for
the war to end, his partners to the West were not.
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/51992919668_f57a71fc76_b.jpg
Boris Johnson, then-UK prime minister, left, meeting Ukraine's
President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kiev, April 09 2022. (Ukraine
government)
So, as you can see, the notion that this war is "unprovoked" is a
fairy tale for idiots and children; there's no excuse for a grown
adult with internet access and functioning brain matter to ever say
such a thing.
Had China backed a coup in Mexico and now had a loyal vassal in Mexico
City who was letting Beijing distribute weapons along the US border
while continually shelling English-speaking separatists in Baja
California who are seeking US annexation, there's no question that
Washington would consider this a provocation and would respond
accordingly. You can tell me that's not true, but we'd both know
you're lying.
But as Chomsky said, the press is still spouting this "unprovoked"
nonsense anyway.
"Russia is widely believed to have been taken aback by the West's
assertive and unified response to its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine",
reads a CNBC article.
"The diplomatic visit underlines the importance of the Russian
relationship for China, even in the face of international blowback
against Moscow after its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine earlier this
year", reads a report from CNN. "It was an unprovoked attack on a
sovereign country", a source is quoted as saying in another CNN
article.
It is, as Chomsky observed, really freaky how hard they've been
hitting us with this line every time the invasion of Ukraine is
mentioned. It seems like every time it comes up they're obligated to
say it, just as Michael Jackson had a quota for how often MTV hosts
were obligated to refer to him as "The King of Pop Michael Jackson"
when his name was mentioned.
In the mass media, you're not allowed to talk about the known
US/Nato/Ukraine actions which experts have been warning for many years
would lead us to this point. You're only allowed to say Putin attacked
Ukraine completely unprovoked, in a vacuum, solely because he is evil
and hates freedom. And you have to do it while saying the word
"unprovoked" at every opportunity.
Empire apologists get upset when you talk about the fact that this war
was provoked because a large amount of empire apologia is built around
pretending that provocation just isn't a thing. By some trick of
Orwellian doublethink, this concept we've all lived our entire lives
knowing about and understanding is now suddenly a freakish and
ridiculous invention of the Kremlin.
We're all guilty of doing the things we knowingly choose to do. If I
choose to provoke someone into doing something bad, then they're
guilty of choosing to do the bad thing, but I am also guilty of
provoking them. I'm not saying anything new here; this is the plot
behind any movie or show with a sneaky or manipulative villain, and
it's been a part of our storytelling since ancient times.
Nobody has ever walked out of Shakespeare's Othello thinking that
maybe Iago was just an innocent bystander who was trying to help out
his friends.
Most of us learn that provocation is real as children with siblings,
kicking the other under the table or whatever to provoke a loud
outburst, and we've understood it ever since. But everyone's
pretending that this extremely basic, kindergarten-level concept is
some kind of bizarre, alien gibberish. It's intensely stupid, and it
needs to stop.
Empire apologists will also argue that saying Russia was provoked into
invading by the US empire is like saying a rape victim provoked her
rapist by wearing a tight skirt, or a battered wife provoked her
abuser by disobeying him.
And as a survivor of multiple rapes and an abusive relationship I must
say I find it extremely offensive when people compare blaming the most
powerful empire that has ever existed for its well-documented
aggressions to blaming victims of rape and domestic violence. The
globe-spanning empire is not comparable to a rape victim, and if you
find yourself thinking so it's time to re-think your entire worldview.
It's not okay to be a grown adult and still say the invasion of
Ukraine was unprovoked. You've got a brain between your ears and an
entire internet of information at your fingertips.
_____
Caitlin Johnstone's work is entirely reader-supported so, if you
enjoyed this piece, please consider sharing it around, following her
on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud, or YouTube, or throwing some money
into her tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon, or Paypal. If you want to read
more you can buy her books. The best way to make sure you see the
stuff she publishes is to subscribe to the mailing list on her website
or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for
everything she publishes. For more information on who she is, where
she stands, and what she's trying to do with her platform, click here.
All works are co-authored with her American husband Tim Foley.
This article is from CaitlinJohnstone.com and re-published with permission.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not
reflect those of Consortium News.
Support CN's
Winter Fund Drive!
https://org.salsalabs.com/o/1868/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=14124&okay=True
Links: The original version of this article, at the URL below,
contains several links to further information not included here:
https://consortiumnews.com/2023/01/08/caitlin-johnstone-unprovoked/
TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
the appropriate link at the top or bottom of
https://billtotten.wpcomstaging.com/2023/05/31/unprovoked/
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages