kh djie
How the War in Ukraine Started
ERIC ZUESSE
******Clear and convincing evidence will be presented here that, under U.S. President Barack Obama, the U.S. Government had a detailed plan, which was already active in June 2013, to take over Russia’s main naval base, which is in Sevastopol in Crimea, and to turn it into a U.S. naval base.
There can now be no question that the war in Ukraine started, and resulted from, the U.S. Government’s plan to take over all of Ukraine, and especially to take over that Russian naval base, in Crimea, which then was in Ukraine. .
The war in Ukraine didn’t start at the time when a lot of people think it did, with the overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych. It was already underway considerably before that time, because it started in Washington, as the following masterful 11-minute documentary makes clear — it started as a subterranean war by Washington to take over Ukraine before it became an overt war (a “civil war”) within Ukraine:
The U.S. regime under Barack Obama had been planning, ever since June 2011, a takeover of Ukraine, in order to become enabled ultimately to place its nuclear missiles within less than five minutes flying-time to a first-strike blitz destruction of the Kremlin (thus preventing any effective Russian counter-attack).
However, things didn’t work out quite according to the plan for the takeover of Ukraine,
***The U.S. regime prepared for its planned takeover of Crimea by commissioning Gallup to poll Crimeans in 2013 to find out whether the residents there considered themselves to be Ukrainians (which would make the U.S. regime’s job in Crimea easier), or instead still Russians (which would foretell resistance there); and the findings were that Crimeans overwhelmingly still considered themselves to be Russians, definitely not Ukrainians. Nonetheless, the plan for the takeover went forward — the U.S. team, it is clear, decided that the residents of Crimea could be dealt with, in such ways as is shown here:
.
Some were clubbed to death, others became permanently disabled from their injuries, but this was a warning to Crimeans to buckle under and give up: be ruled from Kiev by Washington’s regime. It didn’t work. A referendum was quickly held in Crimea about whether they wanted to be ruled by the newly installed Ukrainian government, and the results were in line with Gallup’s findings: Crimeans wanted to be ruled from Moscow, not from Kiev.
.
The U.S. then hired Gallup to survey Crimeans soon after the referendum. (Perhaps the U.S. regime was hoping to find that a scientific sampling of Crimeans would show a far smaller percentage favoring the breakaway of Crimea from Ukraine than the referendum had reported, which could greatly intensify international skepticism about the legitimacy of Russia’s takeover of Crimea. But, if that was the purpose, Gallup’s findings again turned out to be a disappointment.)
.
Here is what Gallup found in both its 2013 and 2014 polls of Crimeans:
When Gallup did their “Public Opinion Survey Residents of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea May 16-30, 2013” (which was called that because even when Crimea was part of Ukraine, it had a special status, as being an “Autonomous Republic” — not a province), only 15% (slide 8) of Crimeans viewed themselves as “Ukrainian,” but 40% said “Russian,” and 24% said “Crimean.” 53% (slide 14) wanted Crimeans to be part of the “Customs Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan,” but only 17% wanted Crimeans to be part of “The European Union.” 68% (slide 15) said their feelings toward “Russia” were “warm,” but only 6% said their feelings toward “USA” were “warm.
.
When Gallup in April 2014 (right after the referendum) polled Crimeans again (slide 25), 76.2% had a “negative” view of the United States, and 2.8% had a “positive” view of it; 71.3% had a positive view of Russia, and 8.8% had a negative view of it. Asked whether (slide 28) “The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status likely reflect the views of most people there/here,” 82.8% said yes; 6.7% said no. 89.3% in the poll expressed an opinion on this matter, and 93% of those who expressed an opinion said that the referendum “likely did reflect the views” of Crimeans. That was almost exactly the same percentage as those who in the referendum had voted to rejoin Russia. It couldn’t have been stronger verification of the referendum results than that. The Gallup poll findings (like its predecessor) were hidden from the public — not broadcast to the public by the regime’s propaganda-media. After all: the U.S. Government is a regime — it’s not a democracy. All of the formalities, now, are just for show. Both of its political parties are imperialists (“neoconservative”). Only their style differs.
.
So: the U.S. regime knew that it wasn’t, at all, wanted nor welcomed by Crimeans, but that Russia very much was. The U.S. regime thus moved forward on the basis that the government of Ukraine owned that land; the residents who lived there did not, and should have no say about what government owned it and would rule them. ***The idea was that, if the people there didn’t like it, they should emigrate to Russia (and, according to a Russian source, “4.4 million went to Russia” — removed themselves from Ukraine — after the coup).
.
The U.S. regime, clearly, wanted the land, not the people who were living on it. The expectation, as soon as Ukraine was under U.S. control from the coup, had been that America would get the entirety of Ukraine, including Crimea; but, then, Russia’s Vladimir Putin stepped in and protected Crimeans who were clamoring to hold a referendum in order to express their collective will on this matter; and this referendum was held, on 16 March 2014, and it produced over 90% voting for Crimea to be a part of Russia, such as Crimea had been before Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine.
.
So: the U.S. regime failed to get the naval base that it had expected to get in Sevastopol in Crimea. That was a crucial failure for Obama.
BILLY GUNADIE
kh djie
As Biden Sends Billions to Ukraine, American Families Do Not Have Baby Formula
One of the items that consumers are most lacking is baby formula, a primary product that is vitally important to the survival of American children, but which has seen a drop of nearly 20% in availability recently. The scenario has driven many families to despair, having to travel for hours to buy formulas in cities or states far from home.
There are a number of factors that explain the absence of formulas in the markets.
However, first, it is necessary to understand that American families, over the last few decades, have become extremely dependent on industrial formulas to feed their children. American women breastfeed less than the global average, which is due to both health and social factors. There has always been an incentive from the American pharmaceutical and food industry to provide formulas for children, which has created a dependence problem.
Less than half of American mothers breastfeed during the six-month period recommended by the global scientific community and about 20% of them complete one year of breastfeeding.
Not by chance, in 2018, the US criticized a WHO resolution encouraging breastfeeding for one year, with the delegation of American diplomats even threatening the nations that approved the measure with sanctions – all in the name of the billion-dollar formula industry that operates in the country. With that, milk formula has become extremely important in the US – more so than it is in other countries.
Without the regular supply of formulas, there is no food for children.
The main problem is that this year the formula production and distribution chain was severely affected by economic and sanitary factors. Analysts attribute the shortage largely to a recent outbreak of bacterial contamination at an Abbott Laboratories’ manufacturing complex in Michigan, which is responsible for a significant portion of American formula production. The result of the outbreak was an automatic drop in the availability of this item in the markets. However, the case cannot be understood only by the sanitary factor.
There is an economic and inflationary crisis that makes the situation even more complex.
Inflation in the US is at the highest level in 40 years, having reached 8.5% in May. Between February and March this year alone, the inflation jump was 1.2%, according to official data from the Labor Department. What is most affected by price rises is precisely what is most basic for a citizen’s life: food, gasoline, housing and primary items. The formula is not excluded from this list. With inflation, the price of infant milk had already risen, but, adding to the recent shortage, some sellers are now charging double or even triple the pre-crisis price.
***The immediate reflection of this scenario is on the popularity of President Biden, who once again proves to be ineffective in handling an internal crisis. Currently, the Democrat’s approval rating is at 39% – the lowest since his inauguration.
***However, it is the systematic sending of money abroad that most bothers Republicans and the American people as a whole.