Connect with us

Latest

“Ukraine should blow up Putin’s Crimea bridge,” unhinged Washington Examiner advocates terrorism

This advice is INSANE, and would be the end of the statehood of Ukraine

The Duran

Published

on

4,087 Views

An alarming article has emerged in which Tom Rogan a Washington Examiner journalist advocated for terror, in the form of Ukrainian airstrikes, “air strikes” on the Crimean bridge Russia has completed across the Kerch Strait.

In the article, he begins rather calmly, plainly stating the facts that Russia opened a bridge, however, he did refer to Crimea has “Ukraine”, which does not reflect the democratic choice of Crimean people.

After slightly mentioning Putin’s so-called “bravado” he immediately recommended that Ukraine bomb Russia:

Russian President Vladimir Putin opened the Kerch Strait Bridge connecting Crimea, Ukraine, with mainland Russia on Tuesday…Ukraine should now destroy elements of the bridge.

Well, that escalated quickly! He apparently agrees, going on further to say:

While that course of action would be an escalation against Putin and one that would almost certainly spark Russian retaliation, this bridge is an outrageous affront to Ukraine’s very credibility as a nation. Of course, from Putin’s perspective, that’s the whole point. The bridge cost Russia’s near-bankrupt government billions of dollars, but it offers Putin a formal physical and psychological appropriation of Ukrainian territory.

Fortunately, Ukraine has the means to launch air strikes against the bridge in a manner that would render it at least temporarily unusable. Because of its significant length, the Ukrainian air force could strike the bridge while mitigating the risk of casualties by those traversing it.

RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan slammed the article on Twitter:

Simonyan said:

The American weekly “Washington Examiner” posted an article with a call to bomb the Crimean bridge. Once again, American media calls for air strikes against our bridge.

Any sane person can recognize how very alarming and dangerous the statements in the article are, as well as the arrogant tone overall, a product of an ideologue, painfully out of touch with reality, who probably does not even speak Ukrainian let alone Russian. This is a typical “Russia-Ukraine expert” in Western media.

Case in point, the author even links to an article he wrote, in which the headline reads: “Don’t worry, the US would win a nuclear war with Russia”. That says it all, with regards to his mental state.

In that article, he even says both the US and Russia would be destroyed in a nuclear war. He says that while Russian nukes could “hit every major U.S. city with confidence”, he feels that America could “win” a nuclear war, “by retaining smaller cities and a large rural population and denying the Russians the same”. So his definition of winning, involves a nuclear winter for everyone, but with one side having more “smaller cities”.

In the end, he finally capitulates, saying:

The social and economic consequences of any nuclear exchange with Russia would be horrendous.

I think from that article alone, we can tell the author has some serious issues. If he isn’t a troll, however, our focus here now is to debunk his article suggesting Ukraine should bomb Russia.

Ukraine to Bomb Russia?

First of all, the article advocates for state-sponsored terrorism – suggesting that one state bomb the territory of another without a declaration of war, in what essentially amounts to “sending a message”.

He even accepts the fact that there may be casualties of those traversing it, essentially condemning civilians to death, as necessary losses in the defense of “Ukraine’s very credibility as a nation”. Considering that the capacity for the bridge is around 40,000 cars, the author potentially risks the lives of dozens to thousands of civilians. Or does he think the Ukrainian government which allowed around 10000 to be killed in Donbass, including women and children, is very concerned for collateral damage? If the author is not trolling, in which case he’s an idiot, then he is either horrifyingly cruel, or deeply insane.

Can you imagine what would happen if a Russian journalist was to openly suggest bombing western infrastructure? They would immediately be on every CIA black-list, and it would receive international attention. Yet this journalist is allowed to freely advocate for bombing the Russian Federation, which Crimea is legally a part of, without any criticism.

Even if one does not believe the fact that Crimeans choose to join Russia (which they did), from a pragmatic perspective, one must understand that no matter what, Crimea is fully integrated into Russia. Those who hate this can kick and scream all they want, but it does not change the facts on the ground. It will never change.

Crimea is Russia. This means that it is defended by the armed forces of the Russian Federation, and therein dwell Russian civilians, all of whom consider the peninsula a sovereign part of Russia.

That means, any attack on Russian territory will trigger a massive response from Russian territory – from a nuclear superpower. In the article, the author even acknowledges this, saying:

The Ukrainians could also fly low and circular to evade Russian (admittedly high-competency) air defenses.

He even admits that Russia has “high-competency” air defenses. Russian air defenses are so advanced, that one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world – China – buys them.

Not only this, but NATO member Turkey chose to buy Russian S-400s, instead of US/NATO counterparts, in a controversial deal, risking relations with the US. Would they really do that if the Russian systems weren’t top notch?

US is FURIOUS Turkey bought Russian S-400 Missiles – State Dept.

Moreover, a US General admitted to a Senator that Russia’s latest hypersonic missiles are extremely capable:

“If that happens, what kind of defense do we have against the hypersonic threat?” [Senator] Inhofe asked.

[General] Hyten replied, “We have a very difficult — well, our defense is our deterrent capability. We don’t have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon against us, so our response would be our deterrent force, which would be the triad and the nuclear capabilities that we have to respond to such a threat.”

Vladimir Putin proves Russia’s new Kinzhal Missile is the best in the world [Video]

As a result, the suggestion of this western journalist that Ukraine attack Russia essentially amounts to suicide for the Ukrainians. But believe it or not, this is not the first time western agents suggested something like this.

On the Third of March, 2014, Joel Harding, a man with connections to American intelligence, advocated for “talent” to blow up natural gas pipelines that run from Russia to Europe through Ukraine. That suggestion essentially amounts to advocating terrorism, this time, indirectly threatening Europe.

I suppose the EU does not get a say in the matter, seeing as they need the Russian gas. According to Harding, Ukrainians should take the initiative to commit terror attacks for a better future. “Bombing for world peace” anyone?

Harding has been associated with both the Ukrainian government, as well as dangerous Neo-Nazi groups like Pravi Sektor (right sector) which is banned in Russia. Harding went as far as to allegedly threaten another American journalist, George Eliason, with interrogation by the Ukrainian SBU. George Eliason provides major coverage of the Ukraine Crisis, including the Odessa Pogrom.

It is alarming that an American citizen, would threaten another American with interrogation by agents of a foreign government, for exercising his first amendment rights to free speech.

Those rights may not protect an American abroad from foreign laws, as all people must obey the laws of the territory they are in, but certainly, another American should not encourage foreign agents to arrest US citizens.

Fighting Russia to the Death of the Last Ukrainian?

What both of these stories have in common, is the suggestion by foreigners, that Ukraine launch attacks against Russia, and Russian property.

A Ukrainian attack on Russia could trigger a retaliation so powerful, Ukraine, as a state could cease to exist. The Ukrainian Army can barely fight Donbass, a full-scale invasion of the Russian grounds forces would result in a tricolor over the Maidan in a short time. It would also result in much Slavic blood spilled, something neither Russia nor Ukraine needs.

These suggestions are not made by friends of Ukraine, but by enemies of Russia. They care nothing for Ukrainians, and at worst case, wish to use them as cannon fodder in a proxy war against Russia.

Think: If Ukraine attacks Russia, causing a war…if Russia and Ukraine were to go to war…who benefits?

Sure, they both say Russia would take losses, but they totally brush under the rug how the losses Ukraine would sustain, would push the already failed state off the cliff, and into becoming the Somalia of Europe.

Does anyone want that? Russia doesn’t, and no sane Ukrainian would want to become Somalia. In Joel Harding’s article, he says Ukraine could simply revert to insurgent warfare…so he is essentially advocating that the bright future of Ukraine is guerilla warfare.

These people think that is a preferable alternative to the Pre-2014 status quo, before over 10,000 people were killed in Donbass.

To warmongerers, violence is always preferable to peace. They believe the salvation of Ukraine will come via war, however, a true Savior once said the peacemakers will inherit the earth. Russia wants peace in Ukrainian lands, whereas the West is offering Ukraine war and death.

Is this what Ukrainian children need? Because this is what their civilized western partners are suggesting to them.

They won’t be fighting! Do the authors of these articles intend to suit up, and fight like Charles XII of Sweden with Ivan Mazepa? Highly unlikely, but that would be like the Battle of Poltava, and we all know how that ended. Just ask Poltava native Nikolai Gogol which civilization Ukraine belongs to.

Glorious were our grandfathers – They are remembered by the Swedes and Poles, and they carried forth the eagle of victory, it soared over Poltava, in her fields. – March of the Preobrazhinksy Guards

They won’t fight, and neither will Ukraine’s criminal leaders, but millions of Ukrainians will be caught in the crossfire of a war engineered to destroy Slavic people. To the Victors goes the Salo!

Ukraine can not fight Russia, and Russia has no wish to fight Ukraine. Anyone suggesting that Ukraine attack Russia is no friend of Ukraine; they are sending Ukrainians to a pointless ruїn [sic]. This is just further evidence that the West wants to fight Russia, to the death of the last Ukrainian.

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

All Sanctions Against Russia Are Based on Lies

All of the US sanctions levied against Russia are based on lies and fabrications.

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org:


All of the sanctions (economic, diplomatic, and otherwise) against Russia are based on clearly demonstrable intentional falsehoods; and the sanctions which were announced on August 8th are just the latest example of this consistent tragic fact — a fact which will be proven here, with links to the evidence, so that anyone who reads here can easily see that all of these sanctions are founded on lies against Russia.

The latest of these sanctions were announced on Wednesday August 8th. Reuters headlined “US imposes sanctions on Russia for nerve agent attack in UK” and reported that, “Washington said on Wednesday it would impose fresh sanctions on Russia by the end of August after it determined that Moscow had used a nerve agent against a former Russian agent and his daughter in Britain.” This was supposedly because “Sergei Skripal, a former colonel in Russia’s GRU military intelligence service, and his 33-year-old daughter, Yulia, were found slumped unconscious on a bench in the southern English city of Salisbury in March after a liquid form of the Novichok type of nerve agent was applied to his home’s front door. European countries and the United States expelled 100 Russian diplomats after the attack, in the strongest action by President Donald Trump against Russia since he came to office.”

However, despite intense political pressure that the UK Government and ‘news’media had placed upon the UK’s Porton Down intelligence laboratory to assert that the poison had been made in Russia (labs in several countries including the UK have also manufactured it), the Porton Down lab refused to say this. Though the US Government is acting as ifPorton Down’s statement “determined that Moscow had used a nerve agent,” the actual fact is that Porton Down still refuses to say any such thing, at all — this allegation is merely a fabrication by the US Government, including its allies, UK’s Government and other Governments and their respective propaganda-media. It’s a bald lie.

On March 18th, the great British investigative journalist and former British diplomat Craig Murray had headlined about UK’s Foreign Secretary, “Boris Johnson Issues Completely New Story on Russian Novichoks” and he pointed to the key paragraph in the Porton Down lab’s statement on this matter — a brief one-sentence paragraph:

Look at this paragraph:

“Russia is the official successor state to the USSR. As such, Russia legally took responsibility for ensuring the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] applies to all former Soviet Chemical Weapons stocks and facilities.”

It does not need me to point out, that if Porton Down had identified the nerve agent as made in Russia, the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office — UK’s foreign ministry]would not have added that paragraph. Plainly they cannot say it was made in Russia.

Murray’s elliptical report, which unfortunately was unclearly written — it was rushed, in order to be able to published on the same day, March 18th, when the UK’s official response to the Porton Down lab’s analysis was published — was subsequently fully explained on March 23rd at the excellent news-site Off-Guardian, which specializes in investigating and interpreting the news-media (in this case, Craig Murray’s article, and the evidence regarding it); they headlined “Skripal case: ‘closely related agent” claim closely examined’,” and concluded their lengthy and detailed analysis:

In short, the ruling cited above, even if read in the most improbably forgiving way possible, shows the UK government does not have the information to warrant any of the claims it has so far made about Russian state involvement in the alleged poisoning of the Skripals. It shows the UK government is currently guilty of lying to Parliament, to the British people, and to the world.

Nothing has been published further about the Skripal/Novichoks matter since then, except speculation that’s based on the evidence which was discussed in detail in that March 23rdarticle at Off-Guardian.

On the basis of this — merely an open case which has never been examined in more detail than that March 23rd analysis did — the Skripal/Novichok case has been treated by the UK Government, and by the US Government, and by governments which are allied with them, and by their news-media, as if it were instead a closed case, in which what was made public constitutes proof that the Skripals had been poisoned by the Russian Government. On that blatantly fraudulent basis, over a hundred diplomats ended up being expelled.

The Porton Down lab still refuses to say anything that the UK Government can quote as an authority confirming that the Skripals had been poisoned by the Russian Government.

All that’s left of the matter, then, is a cold case of official lies asserting that proof has been presented, when in fact only official lies have been presented to the public.

The UK Government prohibits the Skripals from speaking to the press, and refuses to allow them to communicate even with their family-members. It seems that they’re effectively prisoners of the UK Government — the same Government that claims to be protecting them against Russia.

This is the basis upon which the US State Department, on August 8th, issued the following statement to ‘justify’ its new sanctions:

Imposition of Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act Sanctions on Russia

Press Statement

Heather Nauert 

Department Spokesperson

Washington, DC

August 8, 2018

Following the use of a “Novichok” nerve agent in an attempt to assassinate UK citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal, the United States, on August 6, 2018, determined under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that the Government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals.

Following a 15-day Congressional notification period, these sanctions will take effect upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register, expected on or around August 22, 2018.

US law is supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty” — the opposite of legal systems in which the contrary assumption applies: “guilty until proven innocent.” However, regarding such matters as invading and destroying Iraq in 2003 upon the basis of no authentic evidence; and invading and destroying Libya in 2011 on the basis of no authentic proof of anyone’s guilt; and on the basis of invading and for years trying to destroy Syria on the basis of America’s supporting Al Qaeda in Syria against Syria’s secular government; and on the basis of lying repeatedly against Russia in order to load sanction after sanction upon Russia and to ‘justify’ pouring its missiles and thousands of troops onto and near Russia’s border as if preparing to invade ‘the world’s most aggressive country’ — the US federal Government routinely violates that fundamental supposition of its own legal system (“innocent until proven guilty”), whenever its rulers wish. And yet, it calls itself a ‘democracy’.

Donald Trump constantly says that he seeks improved relations with Russia, but when his own State Department lies like that in order to add yet further to the severe penalties that it had previously placed against Russia for its presumed guilt in the Skripal/Novichok matter, then Trump himself is publicly exposing himself as being a liar about his actual intentions regarding Russia. He, via his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s State Department, not only is punishing Russia severely for this unproven allegation, but now adds yet further penalties against Russia for it. Trump is being demanded by the US Congress to do this, but it is his choice whether to go along with that demand or else expose that it’s based on lies. He likes to accuse his opponents of lying, but, quite obviously, the members of Congress who are demanding these hiked rounds of sanctions against Russia are demanding him to do what he actually wants to do — which is now clearly demonstrated to be the exact opposite of exposing those lies. If Trump is moving toward World War III on the basis of lies, then the only way he can stop doing it is by exposing those lies. He’s not even trying to do that.

Nothing is being said in the State Department’s cryptic announcement on August 8th that sets forth any reasonable demand which the US Government is making to the Russian Government, such that, if the reasonable demand becomes fulfilled by Russia’s Government, then the United States Government and its allies will cease and desist their successive, and successively escalating, rounds of punishment against Russia.

Russia is being offered no path to peace, but only the reasonable expectation of escalating lie-based American ‘justifications’ to perpetrate yet more American-and-allied aggressions against Russia.

There have been three prior US excuses for applying prior rounds of sanctions against Russia, and all of them have likewise been based upon lies, and varnished with many layers of overstatements.

First, in 2012, there was the Magnitsky Act, which was based upon frauds (subsequently exposed here and here and here) which assert that Sergei Magnitsky was murdered by the Russian Government. The evidence (as linked-to there) is conclusive that he was not; but the US Government and its allies refuse even to consider it.

Then, in 2014, Crimea broke away from Ukraine and joined the Russian Federation, and the US and its allies allege that this was because Russia under Putin ‘seized’ Crimea from Ukraine, when in fact America under Obama had, just weeks prior to that Crimean breakaway, seized Ukraine and turned it against Russia and against Crimea and the other parts of Ukraine which had voted overwhelmingly for the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom the Obama regime had just overthrown in a bloody coup that had been in the planning ever since at least 2011 inside the Obama Administration. Several rounds of US-and-allied economic sanctions were imposed against Russia for that — for the constant string of lies against Russia, and of constant cover-ups of “the most blatant coup in history,” which had preceded and caused the breakaway.

These lies originated with Obama; and Trump accuses Obama of lying, but not on this, where Obama really did lie, psychopathically. Instead, Trump makes those lies bipartisan. On what counts the most against Obama, Trump seconds the Obama-lies, instead of exposing them. And yet Trump routinely has accused Obama as having lied, even on matters where it’s actually Trump who has been lying about Obama.

Then, there have been the anti-Russia sanctions that are based upon Russiagate and ‘Trump is Putin’s stooge and stole the election.’ That case against Russia has not been proven, and Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange says that what he had published were leaks from the DNC and Podesta’s computer, not hacks at all; and yet the sanctions were imposed almost as soon as the Democratic Party’s accusations started. Those sanctions, too, are utterly baseless except as being alleged responses to unproven (and likely false) allegations. Furthermore, even in the worst-case scenario: the US Government itself routinely overthrows foreign governments, and continues tapping the phones and electronic communications of foreign governments, and manipulating elections abroad. Even in the worst-case scenario, Russia hasn’t done anything that historians haven’t already proven that the US Government itself routinely does. That’s the case even if Russia is guilty as charged, on all of the U.S-and-allied accusations.

So: Who wants World War III? Apparently, both the Democratic and the Republican Parties do. Obama called Russia the world’s most aggressive nation. Trump joins with him in that bipartisan lie. Outside of America itself, most of the world consider the United States to be actually the “greatest threat to peace in the world today.” Therefore, why isn’t the NATO alliance against America? The NATO alliance is America and most of its vassal-nations: they’re all allied against Russia. Their war against Russia never stopped. That ‘Cold War’ continued, even after the USSR and its communism and its Warsaw Pact mirror-image to NATO, all ended in 1991; and now the intensifying ‘cold war’ threatens to become very hot. All based on lies. But that seems to be the only type of ‘justifications’ the US-and-allied tyrants have got.

Either the lies will stop, or else we all will. Trump, as usual, is on the wrong side of the lies. And he seems to be too much of a coward to oppose them, in these cases, which are the most dangerous lies of all. This is how we could all end. Doing something heroic that would stop it, seems to be way beyond him — he doesn’t even try. That’s the type of cowardice which should be feared, and despised, the most of all. Trump has taken up Obama’s worst, and he runs with it. Trump had promised the opposite, during his Presidential campaign. But this is the reality of Trump — a profoundly filthy liar — at least insofar as he has, thus far, shown himself to be. What he will be in the future is all that remains in question. But this is what he has been, up till now.

Continue Reading

Latest

Germany Returning Migrants to Greece

Germany’s policy contradicts claims that the migrants are “war refugees,” because if that were the case, they’d seek asylum at the nearest, non-wartorn country.

The Duran

Published

on

Via Infowars Europe:


Germany will soon send back migrants to Greece if they had already applied for asylum there.

The two countries made the deal at the behest of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose coalition government is on shaky ground due to increased opposition to her immigration policies.

“EU law states that refugees should apply for asylum in the first EU country they reach, but Germany has typically allowed newcomers with open applications elsewhere to reside in the country as it examines their claim,” reported the Wall Street Journal. “In practice, very few ever leave Germany, even if they fail to obtain asylum there.”

Germany’s policy contradicts claims that the migrants are “war refugees,” because if that were the case, they’d seek asylum at the nearest, non-wartorn country.

In fact, many of the migrants travel across multiple European countries, including Greece, to seek asylum in Germany, which under Merkel has offered comprehensive welfare to migrants.

Merkel’s recent immigration backtrack was also likely influenced by the backlash against open borders in neighboring countries, particularly Austria.

Austria has ramped up deportations under recently-appointed Chancellor Sebastian Kurz.

“I’m convinced that the solution to the migrant problem lies with decent border protection and stronger help in countries of origin,” he said earlier this year.

Poland, Hungary and other Eastern European countries have similarly sealed off their borders to the chagrin of the EU, which had previous demanded “migrant quotas” for each member nation.

Continue Reading

Latest

Why Trump revoked former CIA Director’s security clearance

John Brennan loses his security clearance under suspicion that he was monetizing intelligence – this claim put forth by Senator Rand Paul.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

On Wednesday August 15, 2018, President Trump revoked former CIA director John Brennan’s security clearance. The announcement was a significant story on Fox News as shown here:

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

President Trump […] revoked the security clearance for former CIA Director John Brennan, the White House announced Wednesday, in the first decision to come from a review of access for several top Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders read a statement on behalf of the president during the start of the press briefing, saying Brennan “has a history that calls his credibility into question.”

The statement also claimed Brennan had been “leveraging” the clearance to make “wild outbursts” and claims against the Trump administration in the media.

The President has a constitutional responsibility to protect classified information and who has access to it, and that’s what he’s doing is fulfilling that responsibility in this action,” Sanders said Wednesday.

A further report and video on this matter noted that John Brennan was the first of a fairly significant number of former Obama-era intelligence officials whose security clearances are under review for possible revocation. These agents are shown below:

Naturally, the group targeted for review is crying foul and pushing the narrative that “Trump is afraid of us and what we know…”, though this does not bear up under the scrutiny of a nearly two-year investigation that has revealed absolutely no sign of a collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian agencies.

The curious nature of American government and politics is worth noting here. In addition this newspiece raises a question:

Why are former intelligence agents allowed to keep their security clearances upon termination of their employment?

This is very strange. When corporate employees in a secured firm are fired or resign or retire, their security clearances are revoked immediately. This is how a company protects its information from falling into competitor’s hands or even to hostile powers beyond the corporate world. It is standard operating procedure.

But when the US Intelligence services are concerned, this is apparently not happening. It is very surprising to see the names on this consideration list.

This concern was shared by a healthy number of Republican Senators, as reported by CNN:

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, the chamber’s second-ranking Republican, said Thursday he doesn’t understand why former employees have access to classified information at all.

He said he hardly believes Brennan was assisting the Trump White House — a reason given for why some former intelligence community employees can maintain their security clearance — and that Trump’s concern has been individuals monetizing their access to classified information for personal gain.

“Unless there is some justification not to,” Cornyn said, suggesting it might be worth having all former employees lose their clearances when they are done being in office.

And he wasn’t the only one. Of the public statements made by Republican senators, more sounded supportive of the President than against.

While President Trump’s reasoning for revoking Mr. Brennan’s clearance is well-explained, it seems very peculiar that such an issue would even exist at all.

A more detailed report is shown in the video below. This is a far more serious issue than even the US networks are revealing.

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending