What ‘Alt-News’ Media Report About Ukraine’s War that Mainstream Ones Don’t

Eric Zuesse

April 29th is a typical day in the news:

A good example of its news is that the anonymous great independent investigative journalist “Moon of Alabama” headlined “Ukraine Doubling Down” and reported that America and its allies are becoming depressed about the increasing success militarily of Russia against Ukraine, and that

The typical U.S. reaction to losing is to double down.

This can be done financially:

Jack Detsch @JackDetsch – 19:25 UTC · Apr 28, 2022

DATA: A cumulative total of U.S. military aid to Ukraine since Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion.

February 25: $350m

March 12: $550m

March 16: $1.35b

April 1: $1.65b

April 5: $1.75b

April 13: $2.55b

April 21: $3.35b

April 24: $3.67b

April 28: $14.67b (if approved by Congress)

Most of above sums will go the U.S. arms industry to deliver weapons for which the Ukraine has little use or which never will reach the frontline. The rest will be pilfered by Ukrainian oligarchs.

That financial doubling down will not be very effective.

He offered reasons why it wouldn’t be. 

The Foreign Policy magazine reporter Detsch’s figures shown there totaled $15.52B committed and another $14.67B still awaiting passage, for a likely grand total of $30.19B thus far being allocated in April. These funds will come from future U.S. taxpayers. But more will come from future Ukrainian taxpayers:

Russia’s RT News bannered “Russia explains what US lend-lease really means for Ukraine” and reported that

Lend-lease isn’t free, and generations of Ukrainians are going to pay for the weapons that’ll be supplied by Washington to Kiev under the program, Vyacheslav Volodin, Russian State Duma speaker, has said.

On Thursday, the US House of Representatives approved the “Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act,” which makes it easier for Washington to send weapons to Ukraine amid its conflict with Russia. However, those deliveries are conditioned on Kiev having to pay for the “return of and reimbursement and repayment for defense articles loaned or leased.” The lend-lease bill, which now only needs Joe Biden’s signature, is separate from the White House’s ongoing efforts to arm the government of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky with weapons from the Pentagon’s stockpiles. … Many future generations of Ukrainian citizens are going to pay” for the weapons, ammo and food supplies delivered by Washington.

Read more Biden seeks $33 billion more for Ukraine

By agreeing to the land-lease scheme, “Zelensky is leading the country into a debt pit,” the parliament speaker insisted.

In other words: only America’s arms-makers such as Lockheed Martin will profit from these expenditures, and the taxpayers of both America and Ukraine will lose from them. Do the U.S. President and virtually all members of the U.S. Congress represent the interests of firms such as Lockheed Martin or instead represent the interests of the American people?

Also on the 29th, RT headlined “US government is running out of cash for Ukraine”, and reported that

The US government needs Congress to approve its $33 billion request as soon as possible because it only has $250 million remaining from the previous package of assistance for Ukraine, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki has said. 

US President Joe Biden signed the request on Thursday. He admitted that $33 billion “is not cheap” but claimed that “caving to aggression is going to be more costly.”

When America committed its coup that in 1953 overthrew Iran’s democratically elected and very popular leader Mohammed Mossadegh and replaced him with the U.S.-imposed regime that ended when that U.S.-imposed regime became democratically overthrown in a 1979 revolution, was that 1953 U.S. coup “aggression” against Iran?

When America committed its coup that in February 2014 overthrew Ukraine’s unpopular democratically elected leader Viktor Yanukovych and replaced him with the U.S.-imposed regime that immediately replaced its generals and started an ethnic-cleansing campaign to get rid of the residents in the areas of Ukraine that had voted the heaviest (such as 90% in Ukraine’s far-eastern Donbass) for the leader whom Obama had just overthrown, was that U.S. coup “aggression” against Ukraine? It started Ukraine’s civil war. It certainly was aggression against them. Russia has been responding to that coup ever since. Finally, Russia actually invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Was that defensive action by Russia, or was it instead aggression against Ukraine; and, if it was aggression against Ukraine, then how would the U.S. Government respond if instead of America having installed an anti-Russian regime next door to Russia, Russia had installed an anti-U.S. regime next to America in, say, Mexico? (Certainly, Americans have no authentic national-security interest in Ukraine, no more than Russians have any national-security interest in Mexico. So: why did America grab Ukraine in 2014? Was it in order ultimately to become able to conquer Russia, or was it instead ONLY in order to further-enrich the billionaires who control firms such as Lockheed Martin?)

Therefore: was what Joe Biden said, that “caving to aggression is going to be more costly” to Russia, actually promising that America’s aggressions against Russia will be increasing? If so, then why will they be increasing? What national-security interest do Americans actually have in Ukraine? Russians obviously have a national-security interest in their next-door neighbor, but Americans? We don’t. Is this actually theft from both the American people and from the Ukrainian people, which is being perpetrated by the very few people who actually DO control the American Government?

These are some of the things that are not reported (and questions that are never raised) in U.S.-and-allied mainstream ‘news’-media, but that can instead be found outside them — such as in THIS news-medium.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.