PB>>18414342

26 Feb, 2023 10:55

Putin reveals Moscow’s main issue with US

The Russian president said his country is opposed to the emergence of a unipolar world that revolves around Washington’s interests

Moscow is striving to create a multipolar world rather than one that is centered around the US, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said. In an interview with Rossiya-1 TV channel on Sunday, he argued thatWashington was trying to mold the world exclusively to fit its own agenda.

Putin suggested that America’s “satellite states” are also well aware of these “egoistic” intentions. However, for the time being, they have chosen to turn a blind eye to this due to “various reasons connected first and foremost with huge dependence in the economic sphere and defense,” the Russian leader said.

Some of Washington’s allies also see confrontation with Russia as a unifying cause, eclipsing any differences between them and the US, he added.

As an example, Putin cited the US government’s efforts to attract European businesses to American soil, as well as a submarine deal last summer, which saw Canberra abruptly exit a contract with a French manufacturer in favor of a US competitor. That incident was humiliating for Paris, the president said.

Putin emphasized that Moscow “cannot and will not behave like this.”

In the end, such a stance – the fight for a multipolar world, for respect for each and everyone in the international arena, for taking into account everyone’s interests – I don’t have the slightest doubt, will prevail.

Putin also claimed thatWestern elites will only be satisfiedand prepared to “admit us into the so-called family of civilized nations” if Russia disintegrates into several independent states. In such a scenario, he said, the West would “place [the resulting countries] under its control.” He added that the disintegration of Russia in such circumstances would call into question the existence of the Russian people in its current form.

Commenting on his decision earlier this week to suspend Russia’s participation in the New START Treaty – the last remaining nuclear accord between Moscow and Washington – Putin argued that the move was required to safeguard Russia’s security as well as its “strategic stability.”

According to the Russian president, he opted for this course of action in light of a more aggressive NATO, which “has announced as its prime goal” Russia’s strategic defeat.

https://www.rt.com/russia/572085-putin-russia-us-multipolar-world/

History: George H. W. Bush promised Russia when the Soviet Union broke apart in 1991 that NATO would not enlist countries in NATO even close to their border. No further than Germany. Clinton immediately enlisted countries such as Georgia but they weren't successful with Ukraine. Every president after Clinton enlisted more countries. Bush Jr said they broke their promise many times and lied to Russia. Obama created the coup in Ukraine to do the same. PDJT was the only president who held the US to its word. And Bidan immediately started right up and said this in 2014. “In April 2013-14, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden met with Ukrainian legislators and told them, “This is a second opportunity to make good on the original promise made by the Orange Revolution.”

https://blogs.ubc.ca/security/files/2014/08/Mearsheimer.pdf

Foreign Affairs: Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault. The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin

By John J. Mearsheimer SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2014 ISSUE

1/6

According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed

almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of

Ukraine.

But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro- democracy movement in Ukraine beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president which he rightly labeled a “coup” was the final straw.

He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsulahe feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.

Putin’s pushback should have come as no surprise. After all, the West had been moving into Russia’s backyard and threatening its core strategic interests, a point Putin made emphatically and repeatedly. Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics. They tend to believe that the logic of realism holds little relevance in the twenty-first century and that Europe can be kept whole and free on the basis of such liberal principles as the rule of law, economic interdependence, and democracy.

But this grand scheme went awry in Ukraine. The crisis there shows that realpolitik remains relevant – and states that ignore it do so at their own peril. U.S. and European leadersblundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border. Now that the consequences have been laid bare, it would be an even greater mistake to continue this misbegotten policy. U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border

THE WESTERN AFFRONT

As the Cold War came to a close, Soviet leaders preferred that U.S. forces remain in Europe and NATO stay intact, an arrangement they thought would keep a reunified Germany pacified. But they and their Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed that Western diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thought otherwise, and in the mid-1990s, it began pushing for NATO to expand.

The first round of enlargement took place in 1999 and brought in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. The second occurred in 2004; it included Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Moscow complained bitterly from the start.

During NATO’s 1995 bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs, for example, Russian President Boris Yeltsin said, “This is the first sign of what could happen when NATO comes right up to the Russian Federation’s borders. … The flame of war could burst out across the whole of Europe.” But the Russians were too weak at the time to derail NATO’s eastward movement – which, at any rate, did not look so threatening, since none of the new members shared a border with Russia, save for the tiny Baltic countries.

Then NATO began looking further east. At its April 2008 summit in Bucharest, the alliance considered admitting Georgia and Ukraine. The George W. Bush administration supported doing so, but France and Germany opposed the move for fear that it would unduly antagonize Russia. In the end, NATO’s members reached a compromise: the alliance did not begin the formal process leading to membership, but it issued a statement endorsing the aspirations of Georgia and Ukraine and boldly declaring, “These countries will become members of NATO.”

Moscow, however, did not see the outcome as much of a compromise…

https://blogs.ubc.ca/security/files/2014/08/Mearsheimer.pdf

>>18414449

2/6

Alexander Grushko, then Russia’s deputy foreign minister, said, “Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistakewhich would have most serious consequences for pan- European security.” Putin maintained that admitting those two countries to NATO would represent a “direct threat” to Russia.

One Russian newspaper reported that Putin, while speaking with Bush, “very transparently hinted that if Ukraine was accepted into NATO,it would cease to exist.”

Russia’s invasion of Georgia in August 2008 should have dispelled any remaining doubts about Putin’s determination to prevent Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who was deeply committed to bringing his country into NATO, had decided in the summer of 2008 to reincorporate two separatist regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But Putin sought to keep Georgia weak and divided – and out of NATO. After fighting broke out between the Georgian government and South Ossetian separatists, Russian forces took control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Moscow had made its point. -Yet despite this clear warning,NATO never publicly abandoned its goal of bringing Georgia and Ukraineinto the alliance. And NATO expansion continued marching forward, with Albania and Croatia becoming members in 2009–.

The EU, too, has been marching eastward. In May 2008, it unveiled its Eastern Partnership initiative, a program to foster prosperity in such countries as Ukraine and integrate them into the EU economy. Not surprisingly, Russian leaders view the plan as hostile to their country’s interests. This past February, before Yanukovych was forced from office, Russian Foreign MinisterSergey Lavrov accused the EU of trying to create a “sphere of influence” in eastern Europe. In the eyes of Russian leaders, EU expansion is a stalking horse for NATO expansion.

The West’s final tool for peeling Kiev away from Moscow has been its efforts to spread Western values and promote democracy in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states, a plan that often entails funding pro-Western individuals and organizations. Victoria Nuland, the U.S. assistant secretaryof state for European and Eurasian affairs, estimated in December 2013 that the United States had invested more than $5 billion since 1991 to help Ukraine achieve “the future it deserves.”

As part of that effort, the U.S. government has bankrolled theNational Endowment for Democracy. The nonprofit foundation has funded more than 60 projects aimed at promoting civil society in Ukraine, and the NED’s president, Carl Gershman, has called that country “the biggest prize.”

After Yanukovych won Ukraine’s presidential election in February 2010, the NED decided he was undermining its goals, and so it stepped up its efforts to support the opposition and strengthen the country’s democratic institutions.

When Russian leaders look at Western social engineering in Ukraine, they worry that their country might be next. And such fears are hardly groundless. In September 2013, Gershman wrote in The Washington Post, “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents.” He added: “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

CREATING A CRISIS

Imagine the American outrage if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico.

The West’s triple package of policies NATO enlargement, EU expansion, and democracy promotion added fuel to a fire waiting to ignite. The spark came in November 2013, whenYanukovych rejected a major economic dealhe had been negotiating with the EU and decided to accept a $15 billion Russian counteroffer instead. That decision gave rise to antigovernment demonstrations that escalated over the following three months and that by mid-February had led to the deaths of some one hundred protesters. Western emissaries hurriedly flew to Kiev to resolve the crisis. On February 21, the government and the opposition struck a deal that allowed Yanukovych to stay in power until new elections were held. But it immediately fell apart, and Yanukovych fled to Russia the next day. The new government in Kiev was pro-Western and anti-Russian to the core, andit contained four high-ranking members who could legitimately be labeled neofascists.

>>18414457

3/6

Although the full extent of U.S. involvement has not yet come to light, it isclear that Washington backed the coup. Nuland and Republican Senator John McCain participated in antigovernment demonstrations, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, proclaimed after Yanukovych’s toppling that it was “a day for the history books.” As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister in the new government, which he did. No wonder Russians of all persuasions think the West played a role in Yanukovych’s ouster.

For Putin, the time to act against Ukraine and the West had arrived.Shortly after February 22, he ordered Russian forces to take Crimea from Ukraine, and soon after that, he incorporated it into Russia. The task proved relatively easy, thanks to the thousands of Russian troops already stationed at a naval base in the Crimean port of Sevastopol. Crimea also made for an easy target since ethnic Russians compose roughly 60 percent of its population. Most of them wanted out of Ukraine.

Next, Putin put massive pressure on the new government in Kiev to discourage it from siding with the West against Moscow, making it clear that he would wreck Ukraine as a functioning state before he would allow it to become a Western stronghold on Russia’s doorstep.

Toward that end, he has provided advisers, arms, and diplomatic support to the Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, who are pushing the country toward civil war. He has massed a large army on the Ukrainian border, threatening to invade if the government cracks down on the rebels. And he has sharply raised the price of the natural gas Russia sells to Ukraine and demanded payment for past exports. Putin is playing hardball.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Putin’s actions should be easy to comprehend. A huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, Ukraine serves as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia. No Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine. Nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.

Washington may not like Moscow’s position, but it should understand the logic behind it. This is Geopolitics 101: great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory. After all, the United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders.

Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it. Logic aside, Russian leaders have told their Western counterparts on many occasions that they consider NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine

unacceptable, along with any effort to turn those countries against Russia – a message that the 2008 Russian-Georgian war also made crystal clear.

Officials from the United States and its European allies contend that they tried hard to assuage Russian fears and that Moscow should understand that NATO has no designs on Russia. In addition to continually denying that its expansion was aimed at containing Russia, the alliance has never permanently deployed military forces in its new member states.

In 2002, it even created a body called the NATO-Russia Council in an effort to foster cooperation. To further mollify Russia, the United States announced in 2009 that it would deploy its new missile defense system on warships in European waters, at least initially, rather than on Czech or Polish territory. But none of these measures worked; theRussians remained steadfastly opposed to NATOenlargement, especially into Georgia and Ukraine. And it is the Russians, not the West, who ultimately get to decide what counts as a threat to them.

To understand why the West, especially the United States, failed to understand that its Ukraine policy was laying the groundwork for a major clash with Russia, one must go back to the mid-1990s, whenthe Clinton administration began advocating NATO expansion. Pundits advanced a variety of arguments for and against enlargement, but there was no consensus on what to do. Most eastern European émigrés in the United States and their relatives, for example, strongly supported expansion, because they wanted NATO to protect such countries as Hungary and Poland. A few realists also favored the policy because they thought Russia still needed to be contained.

>>18414461

4/7

But most realists opposed expansion, in the belief that a declining great power with an aging population and a one-dimensional economy did not in fact need to be contained. And they feared that enlargement would only give Moscow an incentive to cause trouble in eastern Europe.

TheU.S. diplomat George Kennanarticulated this perspective in a 1998 interview, shortly after the U.S. Senate approved the first round of NATO expansion. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies,” he said. “I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anyone else.”

TheUnited States and its allies should abandon their planto westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer.

Most liberals, on the other hand, favored enlargement, including manykey members of the Clinton administration. They believed that the end of the Cold War had fundamentally transformed international politics and that a new, postnational order had replaced the realist logic that used to govern Europe.

The United States was not only the “indispensable nation,” as Secretary ofState Madeleine Albright put it; it was also a benign hegemonand thus unlikely to be viewed as a threat in Moscow. The aim, in essence, was to make the entire continent look like western Europe.

And so the United States and its allies sought to promote democracy in the countries of eastern Europe, increase economic interdependence among them, and embed them in international institutions.Having won the debate in the United States, liberals had little difficulty convincing their European allies to support NATO enlargement. After all, given the EU’s past achievements, Europeans were even more wedded than Americans to the idea that geopolitics no longer mattered and that an all-inclusive liberal order could maintain peace in Europe.

So thoroughly did liberals come to dominate the discourse about European security during the first decade of this century that even as the alliance adopted an open-door policy of growth,NATO expansion faced little realist opposition.

The liberal worldview is now accepted dogma among U.S. officials. In March, for example, President Barack Obama delivered a speech about Ukraine in which he talked repeatedly about “the ideals” that motivate Western policy and how those ideals “have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power.”Secretary of State John Kerry’s response to the Crimea crisisreflected this same perspective: “You just don’t in the twenty-first century behave in nineteenth-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext.”

In essence,the two sides have been operating with different playbooks: Putin and his compatriots have been thinking and acting according to realist dictates, whereas their Western counterparts have been adhering to liberal ideas about international politics. The result is that the United States and its allies unknowingly provoked a major crisis over Ukraine.

BLAME GAME

In that same 1998 interview, Kennan predicted that NATO expansion would provoke a crisis, after which the proponents of expansion would “say that we always told you that is how the Russians are.”As if on cue, most Western officials have portrayed Putin as the real culpritin the Ukraine predicament. In March, according to The New York Times, German Chancellor Angela Merkel implied that Putin was irrational, telling Obama that he was “in another world.” Although Putin no doubt has autocratic tendencies, no evidence supports the charge that he is mentally unbalanced. On the contrary: he is a first-class strategist who should be feared and respected by anyone challenging him on foreign policy.

Other analysts allege, more plausibly, that Putin regrets the demise of the Soviet Union and is determined to reverse it by expanding Russia’s borders. According to this interpretation, Putin, having taken Crimea, is now testing the waters to see if the time is right to conquer Ukraine, or at least its eastern part, and he will eventually behave aggressively toward other countries in Russia’s neighborhood.

>>18414488

5/7

For some in this camp, represents a modern-day Adolf Hitler, and striking any kind of deal with him would repeat the mistake of Munich.Thus, NATO must admit Georgia and Ukraineto contain Russia before it dominates its neighbors and threatens western Europe.

This argument falls apart on close inspection. If Putin were committed to creating a greater Russia, signs of his intentions would almost certainly have arisen before February 22. But there is virtually no evidence that he was bent on taking Crimea, much less any other territory in Ukraine, before that date. Even Western leaders who supported NATO expansion were not doing so out of a fear that Russia was about to use military force.Putin’s actions in Crimea took them by complete surprise and appear to have been a spontaneous reaction to Yanukovych’s ouster. Right afterward, even Putin said he opposed Crimean secession, before quickly changing his mind.

Besides, even if it wanted to,Russia lacks the capability to easily conquer and annex eastern Ukraine, much less the entire country. Roughly 15 million people one-third of Ukraine’s population live between the Dnieper River, which bisects the country, and the Russian border. An overwhelming majority of those people want to remain part of Ukraine and would surely resist a Russian occupation.

Furthermore, Russia’s mediocre army, which shows few signs of turning into a modern Wehrmacht, would have little chance of pacifying all of Ukraine. Moscow is also poorly positioned to pay for a costly occupation; its weak economy would suffer even more in the face of the resulting sanctions.

But even if Russia did boast a powerful military machine and an impressive economy, it would still probably prove unable to successfully occupy Ukraine.

One need only consider the Soviet and U.S. experiences in Afghanistan, the U.S. experiences in Vietnam and Iraq, and the Russian experience in Chechnya to be reminded that military occupations usually end badly. Putin surely understands that trying to subdue Ukraine would be like swallowing a porcupine. His response to events there has been defensive, not offensive.

A WAY OUT

Given that most Western leaders continue to deny that Putin’s behavior might be motivated by legitimate security concerns, it is unsurprising that they have tried to modify it by doubling down on their existing policies and have punished Russia to deter further aggression. Although Kerry has maintained that “all options are on the table,” neither the United States nor itsNATO allies are prepared to use force to defend Ukraine.

The West is relying instead on economic sanctions to coerce Russia into ending its support for the insurrection in eastern Ukraine. In July, the United States and the EU put in place their third round of limited sanctions, targeting mainly high-level individuals closely tied to the Russian government and some high-profile banks, energy companies, and defense firms.

They also threatened to unleash another, tougher round of sanctions, aimed at whole sectors of the Russian economy.

Such measures will have little effect. Harsh sanctions are likely off the table anyway; western European countries, especially Germany, have resisted imposing them for fear that Russia might retaliate and cause serious economic damage within the EU. But even if the United States could convince its allies to enact tough measures, Putin would probably not alter his decision-making.

History shows that countries will absorb enormous amounts of punishment in order to protect their core strategic interests. There is no reason to think Russia represents an exception to this rule Western leaders have also clung to the provocative policies that precipitated the crisis in the first place. In April 2013-14, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden met with Ukrainian legislators and told them, “This is a second opportunity to make good on the original promise made by the Orange Revolution.”

John Brennan, the director of the CIA, did not help things when, that same month, he visited Kiev on a trip the White House said was aimed at improving security cooperation with the Ukrainian government.

>>18414493

6/7

The EU, meanwhile, has continued to push its Eastern Partnership. In March, José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, summarized EU thinking on Ukraine, saying, “==We have a debt, a duty of solidarity with that country=, and we will work to have them as close as possible to us.” And sure enough, on June 27, the EU and Ukraine signed the economic agreement that Yanukovych had fatefully rejected seven months earlier. Also in June, at a meeting of NATO members’ foreign ministers, it was agreed that the alliance would remain open to new members, although the foreign ministers refrained from mentioning Ukraine by name. “No third country has a veto over NATO enlargement,” announced Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO’s secretary-general.

The foreign ministers also agreed to support various measures to improve Ukraine’s military capabilities in such areas as command and control, logistics, and cyberdefense. Russian leaders have naturally recoiled at these actions; the West’s response to the crisis will only make a bad situation worse.

There is a solution to the crisis in Ukraine, however – although it would require the West to think about the country in a fundamentally new way. The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia, akin to Austria’s position during the Cold War. Western leaders should acknowledge that Ukraine matters so much to Putin that they cannot support an anti-Russian regime there. This would not mean that a future Ukrainian government would have to be pro-Russian or anti-NATO. On the contrary,the goal should be a sovereign Ukraine that falls in neither the Russian nor the Western camp.

To achieve this end, the United States and its allies should publiclyrule out NATO’s expansion into both Georgia and Ukraine. The West should also help fashion an economic rescue plan for Ukraine funded jointly by the EU, the International Monetary Fund, Russia, and the United States – a proposal that Moscow should welcome, given its interest in having a prosperous and stable Ukraine on its western flank. And the West should considerably limit its social-engineering efforts inside Ukraine.It is time to put an end to Western support for another Orange Revolution.

Nevertheless, U.S. and European leaders should encourage Ukraine to respect minority rights, especiallythe language rights of its Russian speakers.

Some may argue that changing policy toward Ukraine at this late date would seriously damage U.S. credibility around the world. There would undoubtedly be certain costs, but the costs of continuing a misguided strategy would be much greater. Furthermore, other countries are likely to respect a state that learns from its mistakes and ultimately devises a policy that deals effectively with the problem at hand. That option is clearly open to the United States.

One also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great-power politics are at play.

Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaninglesswhen powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West. It is in Ukraine’s interest to understand these facts of life and tread carefully when dealing with its more powerful neighbor.

Even if one rejects this analysis, however, and believes that Ukraine has the right to petition to join the EU and NATO, the fact remains that the United States and its European allies have the right to reject these requests. There is no reason that the West has to accommodate Ukraine if it is bent on pursuing a wrong-headed foreign policy, especially if its defense is not a vital interest.Indulging the dreams of some Ukrainians is not worth the animosity and strife it will cause, especially for the Ukrainian people.

>>18414498

7/7

Of course, some analysts might concede that NATO handled relations with Ukraine poorly and yet still maintain that Russia constitutes an enemy that will only grow more formidable over time – and that the West therefore has no choice but to continue its present policy.But this viewpoint is badly mistaken. Russia is a declining power, and it will only get weaker with time.

Even if Russia were a rising power, moreover, it would still make no sense to incorporate Ukraine into NATO.The reason is simple: the United States and its European allies do not consider Ukraine to be a core strategic interest, as their unwillingness to use military force to come to its aid has proved. It would therefore be the height of folly to create a new NATO member that the other members have no intention of defending. NATO has expanded in the past because liberals assumed the alliance would never have to honor its new security guarantees, but Russia’s recent power play shows that granting Ukraine NATO membership could put Russia and the West on a collision course.

Sticking with the current policy would also complicate Western relations with Moscow on other issues.The United States needs Russia’s assistance to withdraw U.S. equipment from Afghanistan through Russian territory, reach a nuclear agreement with Iran, and stabilize the situation in Syria.

In fact,Moscow has helped Washington on all three of these issues in the past; in the summer of 2013, it was Putin who pulled Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire by forging the deal under which Syria agreed to relinquish its chemical weapons, thereby avoiding the U.S. military strike that Obama had threatened. The United States will also someday need Russia’s help containing a rising China.Current U.S. policy, however, is only driving Moscow and Beijing closer together.

The United States and its European allies now face a choice on Ukraine. They can continue their current policy, which will exacerbate hostilities with Russia and devastate Ukraine in the process – a scenario in which everyone would come out a loser. Or they can switch gears andwork to create a prosperous but neutral Ukraine, one that does not threaten Russia and allows the West to repair its relations with Moscow. With that approach, all sides would win.

Zelenskyy Tells Americans – If We Do Not Support Ukraine, We Will Lose Credibility in World

February 25, 2023 | Sundance |

A few interesting aspects to this soundbite before the hubris is displayed. Notice how Ukraine PresidentZelenskyy immediately affirms his knowledge that an increasing number of Americans no longer support the endless proxy war in Ukraine.

Apparently, theCIA and State Dept are focusedvery heavily on managing U.S. war fatigue and communicating that issue with the Ukrainian government they control. {Direct Rumble Link}

Zelenskyy is asked about the increasing number of Americans who no longer support the war. His response is to demand support andtell the stoopid Amerikaan voters, their opinion means nothing. The direct and implied message is, if America doesn’t continue funding the war in Ukraine, our global credibility will collapse and people around the world will start laughing at us.

The propaganda is pretty thick, yet there are millions of Americans asking if the war is really such a dire situation, why does it always seem like there is an endless amount of time to promote the theater of it? An auditorium filled with mindless captures, stares at a stage containing a leader who has unlimited time to play the role in the script…. yet somewhere, in some place… there is apparently a war happening.What I mean is, the “theater” of the Ukraine war narrative is consuming far more resources than the actual fighting of the ‘war.’ WATCH:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/02/25/zelenskyy-tells-americans-if-we-do-not-support-ukraine-we-will-lose-credibility-in-world/

https://rumble.com/embed/v287ehg/?pub=4

>>18414538

More and more are asking questions about Ukraine

https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/1629175986733416450?s=20

>>18414564

It surprises me how my siblings and I grew up in the 60’s and now they trust the government. I had a discussion with them and asked, do you now trust the government? No one would answer me! Very strange. One sister told me privately she does. They are lost.

https://twitter.com/DebraLyn16/status/1629493546083573760?s=20

>>18414505

Thx you are right, absolutely detailed history of Ukraine Coup to destroy Russia. There have been historians and war analysts on during the day but not much now.

This Is How the Biggest Arms Manufacturers Steer Millions to Influence US Policy

7 Mar 2021

Military.com | By Stephen Losey

Five of the nation's biggest defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon Technologies and General Dynamics spent a combined $60 million in 2020 to influence policy, according to a new report from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The paper, "Capitalizing on conflict: How defense contractors and foreign nations lobby for arms sales," details how a network of lobbyists and donors steered $285 million in campaign contributions and $2.5 billion in lobbying spending over the last two decades, as well as hiring more than 200 lobbyists who previously worked in government.

The amount of money at stake is immense, both at home and abroad, the center states on its website, OpenSecrets.org. Not only is a significant portion of the Pentagon's $740 billion annual budget spent on weapons, the report explains, but American defense firms agreed to sell $175 billion in weapons to other countries over the last year. That includes deals to sell $23 billion in F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and drones to the United Arab Emirates, and billions more in sales to Taiwan and Saudi Arabia, it adds.

Read Next: Key Lawmakers Question Justification for Keeping Troops at Capitol Through Spring

The practice appears unlikely to change significantly under the Biden administration. The report notes that while President Joe Biden issued an order restricting officials who leave the White House from quickly lobbying the executive branch or registering as foreign agents, several of his appointees have ties to the defense industry. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, for example, sat on Raytheon's board before joining the administration.

And since Biden's inauguration, the report states, the State Department has approved the sale of $85 million in missiles from Raytheon to Chile, and a $60 million deal between Lockheed Martin and Jordan to provide F-16 Fighting Falcons and services.

Foreign nations that are among the arms industry's biggest customers also spend heavily to influence U.S. policy, often to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in spending covered by the Foreign Agents Registration Act. However, the report notes that some nations that spend the most, such as South Korea and Japan, focus more on trade and commercial issues than military spending.

Australia, the United Arab Emirates, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia are some of the other major buyers of American weapons.

Defense lobbyists are also among the best-connected in Washington, D.C., the report states. Of the 663 lobbyists working for defense contractors, nearly three-quarters used to work for the federal government – the highest percentage of any industry, according to the report.

"These connections make for cozy relationships and highly useful contact lists," the report says. "Overworked and underpaid congressional staffers can also hope that lucrative lobbying jobs await them at the same companies who come to them pushing their own agendas."

The so-called "revolving door" also exists on Capitol Hill, the report adds.Over the last 30 years, nearly 530 staffers have both worked for a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees of both houses of Congressor the Defense Appropriations subcommittees, and then as a lobbyist for defense companies.

The report highlights former Defense Secretary Mark Esper as an example of the revolving door in action. Esper worked for the Senate Foreign Relations and House Armed Services committees in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as well as an assistant deputy secretary of defense, before moving to Raytheon's government relations office. After seven years in that job, President Donald Trump made him secretary of the Army and then head of the Defense Department.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/03/07/how-biggest-arms-manufacturers-steer-millions-influence-us-policy.html

Staggering Costs – U.S. Military Equipment Left Behind In Afghanistan

Adam AndrzejewskiAug 23, 2021,1/3

The U.S. provided an estimated $83 billion worth of training and equipment to Afghan security forces since 2001. This year, alone, the U.S. military aid to Afghan forces was $3 billion.

Putting price tags on American military equipment still in Afghanistan isn’t an easy task. In the fog of war – or withdrawal – Afghanistan has always been a black box with little sunshine.

Not helping transparency, the Biden Administration is now hiding key audits on Afghan military equipment. This week, our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com reposted two key reports on the U.S. war chest of military gear in Afghanistan that had disappeared from federal websites.

#1. Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit of U.S. provided military gear in Afghanistan (August 2017): reposted report(dead link: report).

(https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/6/GAO_Report_-_Afghanistan_Equipment1.pdf)

preview.png

GAO_Report_-_Afghanistan_Equipment1

PDF Document · 1.5 MB

#2. Special Inspector General For Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) audit of $174 million in lost ScanEagle drones (July 2020): reposted report (dead link: report).

(https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/6/SIGAR-20-44-AR1.pdf)

U.S. taxpayers paid for these audits and the U.S.-provided equipment and should be able to follow the money.

After publication, the GAO spokesman responded to our request for comment, “the State Department requested we temporarily remove and review reports on Afghanistan to protect recipients of US assistance that may be identified through our reports and thus subject to retribution.” However, these reports only have numbers and no recipient information.

Furthermore, unless noted, when estimating “acquisition value,” our source is the Department Logistics Agency (DLA) and their comprehensive databases of military equipment.

Vehicles and airplanes

Between 2003 and 2016, the U.S. purchased and provided 75,898 vehicles and 208 aircraft, to the Afghan army and security forces, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

Here is a breakdown of estimated vehicle costs:

Armored personnel carriers such as the M113A2 cost $170,000 each and recent purchases of the M577A2 post carrier cost $333,333 each.

Mine resistant vehicles ranges from $412,000 to $767,000. The total cost could range between $382 million to $711 million.

Recovery vehicles such as the ‘truck, wrecker’ cost between for the base model $168,960 and $880,674 for super strength versions.

Medium range tactical vehicles include 5-ton cargo and general transport truckswere priced at $67,139. However, the family of MTV heavy vehicles had prices ranging from $235,500 to $724,820 each. Cargo trucks to transport airplanes cost $800,865.

Humvees – ambulance type (range from $37,943 to $142,918 with most at $96,466); cargo type, priced at$104,682. Utility Humvees were typically priced at $91,429. However, the 12,000 lb. troop transport version cost up to $329,000.

Light tactical vehicles: Fast attack combat vehicles ($69,400); and passenger motor vehicles ($65,500). All terrain 4-wheel vehicles go up to $42,273 in the military databases.….

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/08/23/staggering-costs–us-military-equipment-left-behind-in-afghanistan/?sh=302b1bd541db

>>18414866

2/2update not 3

Just the sights on night-vision sniper rifle scopes can run as high as $35,000, however, most vary in price between $5,000 and $10,000.

Here are the costs of other types of weaponry provided to Afghan forces:

Machine guns, i.e. the M240 model, were priced between $6,600 and $9,000 each.

Grenade launchers cost between $1,000 and $5,000 each; however, in 2020, the manufacture sold 53 for $15,000 each.

Army shotguns were acquired for only $150 each, according to DLA.

Military pistols cost $320 each, such as the .40 caliber Glock Generation 3.

Key U.S.-Funded Intelligence, Surveillance, and [+]

OpenTheBooks.com

Each Aerostat surveillance balloon costs $8.9 million. Each ScanEagle drone costs approximately $1.4 million according to recent procurement news. Even as late at 2021, U.S. appropriations for the Wolfhounds radio monitoring systems approached $874,000.

Night vision devices: The total cost for the 16,000 night-vision goggles alone could run as high as $80 million. Individually, the high-tech goggles were priced between $2,742 and $5,000 by the DLA. Other equipment like image intensifiers are commonly priced at $10,747 each; however, sophisticated models run as high as $66,000 each.

Radio equipment: the cost of equipment adds up – receiver-transmitters ($210,651); sophisticated radio sets ($61,966); amplifiers ($28,165); repeater sets ($28,527); and deployment sets to identify frequencies run up to $18,908.

However, if the Taliban doesn’t have the expertise or technologies to program the equipment, it will become obsolete quickly. Or it could be sold off to other countries who wanted to acquire U.S. technology.

And there’s more… years 2017 through 2019

From 2017 to 2019, the U.S. also gave Afghan forces 7,035 machine guns, 4,702 Humvees, 20,040 hand grenades, 2,520 bombs and 1,394 grenade launchers, according to the since removed 2020 SIGAR report, reported by The Hill.

An unnamed official told Reuters that current intelligence assessment was that the Taliban took control of more than 2,000 armored vehicles, including American Humvees, and as many as 40 aircraft that may include UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters and ScanEagle military drones.

Crucial quote

“We don't have a complete picture, obviously, of where every article of defense materials has gone, but certainly a fair amount of it has fallen into the hands of the Taliban,” White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said Tuesday, The Hill reported. “And obviously, we don't have a sense that they are going to readily hand it over to us at the airport.”

Critic

Republican Senators have demanded that there be a full count of U.S. military equipment left in Afghanistan.

In a letter to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, the lawmakers said they were "horrified" to see photos of Taliban militants taking hold of military equipment, including Black Hawk helicopters.

"It is unconscionable that high-tech military equipment paid for by U.S. taxpayers has fallen into the hands of the Taliban and their terrorist allies," the lawmakers said in the letter. "Securing U.S. assets should have been among the top priorities for the U.S. Department of Defense prior to announcing the withdrawal from Afghanistan."

Note:

Procurement prices can vary widely over a 20-year period. Factors influencing prices include when the item was purchased, quantities, and other acquisition details.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/08/23/staggering-costs–us-military-equipment-left-behind-in-afghanistan/?sh=302b1bd541db

>>18414876

Bidan, Austin, Milley, Blinken made a conscious decision to leave everything in Afghanistan. It wasn’t incompetence to not remove the 20 years of equipment from Afghanistan.

First reason, they all hate Trump and the country with a passion, so Milley never intended to obey orders and bring the equipment back. As a matter of fact since there was 20 years worth of equipment they could have brought 1/2 the humvees and vehicles back before the end of 2020, he never even started it. What about the 700,000 new guns. They only had 12,000+ soldiers there, they would need them. As a matter of fact why did they leave so much for so many years? (MIC love!)

Second: All of them are beholden to the MIC, if they brought back the equipment our military wouldn’t need much for years to come.So Bidan did them a favor, left all equipment and told them “don’t worry we’ll start a couple of wars soon, one major in EU and you can start producing asap. As a matter of fact the companies starting producing armaments and jets without any office purchase order!

This was never a goof up, it was the first obvious display of their hatred for the people and country, it escalated after including Phantom of the Opera or Vampire speech. The latest is E. Palestine.

>>18414865

Fascinating

Anons I’ve a feeling there is another FF incoming today, really intense energy, anyone else feeling it. I’ve been agitated all day. Might be a big one

Maybe not but wanted to ask

>>18414943

Thats one thing I thought, so if there is an alliance it might be a good thing. I doubt it though, our military is depleted

>>18414954

Good

>>18414956

I would if I did it, but don’t…kek

>>18414941

So even full fledged pot heads are breaking free from the propaganda, hmmm

>>18414934

Yes, Harnwell on Bannon said yesterday that Italy was turning against the war. Berlusconi called out Ukraine for being responsible for killing ethnic Russians since 2014. Georgia Meloni turned out to be a liar and part of NWO so now Germany and italy revolting

Current >>18414934

26 Feb, 2023 11:52

People in Germany bring flowers to blown-up Russian tank (VIDEO)

Russia’s embassy says people in Berlin didn’t fall for the “provocation” by Ukraine supporters

People in Berlin have turned a blown-up Russian tank placed in front of Moscow’s embassy in the German capital by supporters of Kiev into a memorial to victims of the fighting in Ukraine, covering the crippled vehicle with flowers.

The T-72 tank appeared in central Berlin on Friday – the first anniversary of the conflict in Ukraine, which broke out on February 24, 2022.

Activists from the Berlin Story Bunker museum had won a lengthy legal battle against the city authorities, to be able to carry out the stunt.

The tank, which is said to have been damaged by a mine in the Kiev suburb of Bucha in late March and later transported to Germany, was intended to symbolize Russia’s failure in Ukraine, the museum’s curator Wieland Giebel explained. “This tank means that the [Russian] regime will crumble, it’ll turn into a pile of junk, just like this tank,” Giebel said.

However, people in Berlin, who took to the streets in their thousands on Saturday to decry the supply of weapons by Germany to Kiev forces, gave a different interpretation.They brought numerous flowers to the tank, and put anti-war banners on it, including: “Make peace, not war.”

Russia’s Embassy in Berlin posted on Telegram on Sunday that the “provocation”organized by supporters of Ukraine “didn’t meet understanding, support and sympathy of the German citizens.”

They “unambiguously spoke out in favor of a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, against escalation by pumping the Kiev regime with German weapons,” it said.

The Russian diplomats thanked everybody who laid flowers on the tank, which it said became “a symbol of the fight against Neo-Nazism in Ukraine.”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed that the Ukrainian government of Vladimir Zelensky and its Western backers have allocated “millions” for various stunts dedicated to the anniversary of the conflict.Most of this money has been “stolen,” while the installations that were made using the remaining sums turned out to be “so talentless that they backfired,” she wrote on Telegram.

In recent months, Moscow has repeatedly stressed its readiness to seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis. However, the government has accused Kiev and the West of making “unacceptable” proposals that showed that they were not interested in peace.

(Why does Zelensky think he can reprimand Americans, and not threaten people in EU?because he knows they are not duped by the propaganda; and they are directly effected by this useless war. If EU citizens revolt en masse to the Ukraine war funding, it will stop!)

https://www.rt.com/news/572081-berlin-germany-tank-ukraine/

26 Feb, 2023 15:43

China reveals plans to counter Musk’s ‘Starlink’

Beijing has expressed national-security concerns related to the SpaceX network

Chinese researchers are preparing to launch close to 13,000 satellites into a low-earth orbit, in a move which would dwarf – and potentially monitor – Elon Musk’s SpaceX ‘Starlink’ network, which first launched in 2019 and provides satellite internet access to 50 countries.

The project, which is codenamed ‘GW’ and is being led by associate professor Xu Can of the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) Space Engineering University in Beijing, will see 12,992 satellites operated by the China Satellite Network Group Co launched into orbit, and is designed to improve communications efficiency.

The launch schedule remains unknown but the team led by Xu said that they plan to deploy them “before the completion of Starlink.” They added that this would “ensure that our country has a place in low orbit and prevent the Starlink constellation from excessively pre-empting low-orbit resources.”

The projected number of ‘GW’ satellites would surpass Starlink’s current total of around 3,500. SpaceX plans to have 12,000 devices in its constellation of satellites by 2027, with that figure eventually rising to 42,000.

Xu’s team elaborated that they would place their satellites into “orbits where the Starlink constellation has not yet reached” and that they would “gain opportunities and advantages at other orbital altitudes, and even suppress Starlink.”

The ‘GW’ network could also be equipped with technology to provide “long-term surveillance of Starlink satellites,” the team of researchers added.

Xu and his team also suggested that the Chinese government could form an anti-Starlink coalition with various other governments which would “demand that SpaceX publish the precise orbiting data of Starlink satellites.”

Chinese military figures have previously expressed concern at the national security implications posed by SpaceX’s satellites, and called for the development of “hard kill” technology “to destroy the constellation’s operating system” should it be necessary.

China’s efforts to counter Starlink come amid growing concerns about the potential military applications of the global satellite network. The technology has been used to bolster communications by Ukrainian military forces throughout its conflict with Russia – though SpaceX took steps earlier this month to restrict its use in controlling military drones in the country.

https://www.rt.com/news/572102-china-spacex-musk-starlink/

26 Feb, 2023 16:24

Protesters gather outside major American airbase in EU

Demonstrators descended on the Ramstein military installation in Germany, calling for an end to arms deliveries to Ukraine

Several hundred people gathered on Sunday outside Ramstein US airbase in southwestern Germany to demand an end to weapons shipments to Ukraine. The military site is where Western officials have regularly held meetings over the past year to coordinate their aid to Kiev.

The demonstrators also called for a cessation of hostilities and peace talks between Ukraine and Russia.

They chanted slogans and beat drums, with an assortment of banners seen during a live stream of the event on YouTube, including the Russian and Soviet flags.

The placards called for the Americans to “go home,” and also featured slogans including “Freedom to Julian Assange” and “Stop the weapons deliveries.”

When the rally organizers notified the local authorities several days before the event, they said they expected it to kick off at midday and conclude around 5:30pm, with around 2,000 attending.

Ramstein air base has repeatedly made headlines since Russia launched its military campaign against Ukraine a year ago. It’s where the US-led Ukraine Defence Contact Group has held its meetings aimed at shoring up the Ukrainian military. The last such gathering took place on January 20.

On Saturday, tens of thousands of demonstrators turned up in central Berlin for the ‘Uprising for Peace’ protest organized by prominent Left Party politician Sahra Wagenknecht and author Alice Schwarzer.

They, too, denounced Western arms deliveries to Kiev and called for peace negotiations between the warring sides.

Earlier this month, approximately 10,000 people took to the streets of Munich for a similarly themed rally just outside of the Bayerische Hof Hotel, where world leaders convened for the Munich Security Conference. Further military support for Ukraine was among the topics high on their agenda.

Among the speakers addressing the crowd was former Christian Democratic MP Juergen Todenhoefer, who argued that “we have to serve peace and not the Americans.”

Much like the latest event outside Ramstein air base on Sunday, the demonstrators in Munich also called for American troops to leave Germany.

https://www.rt.com/news/572097-germany-ramstein-airbase-protest-ukraine/

26 Feb, 2023 15:01

Ukraine’s neighbor speaks out on NATO membership

Moldova must be able to protect itself, but not by joining the US-led military bloc, its parliamentary speaker says

The possibility of joining NATO isn’t being considered by Moldovan officials, the speaker of the country’s parliament Igor Grosu has said. President Maia Sandu had previously hinted that the country could become “part of a larger alliance” to guarantee its security.

“If we speak frankly about whether we want this, whether the issue of Moldova’s membership in NATO is being raised, then I’ll say that there’s no such issue,” Grosu told Prime broadcaster on Saturday.

The speaker, who represents the ruling Party of Action and Solidarity, said his clarification was intended “to refute all speculation and all hysteria” surrounding the matter in the country.

Moldova will remain “neutral,” but it must still pay extra attention to its security due to the ongoing conflict in neighboring Ukraine, he added. The emphasis should be put on protecting the country’s airspace, according to Grosu.

When asked about the possibility of Moldova becoming a NATO member in an interview with Politico last month, President Sandu said “there is a serious discussion… about our capacity to defend ourselves, whether we can do it ourselves, or whether we should be part of a larger alliance.” If the country ever decides to give up its neutrality, “this should happen through a democratic process,” she added.

On Saturday, there were protests in the capital Chisinau against the increasingly militant rhetoric of Sandu’s government, which, according to the demonstrators, could result in Moldova being dragged into the conflict in Ukraine. Activists carried banners reading “The Moldovans want peace” and “Stop scaring the people.”

Moldova – a country of 2.6 million people located between Ukraine and Romania – has been making a lot of headlines recently. Earlier this month, Sandu claimed that Russia was planning to orchestrate a coup in the country in response to its pro-Western policies.

Chisinau has also called for 1,100 Russian peacekeepers to be withdrawn from the breakaway region of Transnistria, where they’ve been monitoring a ceasefire between Moldova and local forces since 1992.

Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov advised the Moldovan authorities against “falling into anti-Russian hysteria,” pointing out that such statements were harming bilateral relations between Moscow and Chisinau.

On Friday, the Russian Foreign Ministry warned the US, NATO and Kiev authorities against any “provocations” aimed at the Russian peacekeepers in the area. The message followed a report by the Russian military that a significant number of Ukrainian troops, hardware and artillery was amassed on the border with Transnistria.

https://www.rt.com/russia/572093-moldova-nato-ukraine-grosu/

They are going to get unbelievable pressure from US and EU just like Finland and Sweden

26 Feb, 2023 13:13

UK urged to ‘take command’ of food production

A British farming union says Brexit, geopolitical tensions, the energy crisis and climate change are weighing on local growers

The UK government needs to “take command”of local food production, the deputy president of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) said on Saturday, warning that an ongoing shortage of fruit and vegetables across the country could be just the “tip of the iceberg.”

According to Tom Bradshaw, the deficit of some fruits and vegetables, including tomatoes and cucumbers, has been caused by volatility arising from geopolitical events, and climate change, which is putting intense pressure on supply chains.

“What we saw last summer with 40°C heat is climate change in action,” Bradshaw told Times Radio, adding that the weather had exacerbated a supply-chain crisis triggered by the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Bradshaw also said geopolitical tensions have driven up inflation, particularly energy inflation, to unprecedented levels, leaving UK farmers struggling to meet energy costs.

Moreover, Britain has been facing the additional challenge of “repositioning” itself with trading partners since the 2016 Brexit referendum, the union chief said.

He noted that the country’s exit from EU structures, in which it had favorable trade relations, has inevitably inflicted damage on its own cross-border trade.

“It’s really interesting that before Brexit we didn’t used to source anything, or very little, from Morocco but we’ve been forced to go further afield and now these climatic shocks becoming more prevalent have had a real impact on the food available on our shelves today,” Bradshaw concluded.

(The EU is intentionally punishing them to have a free country, but they are mistaking the UK gov doing this on purpose to get citizens to beg to go back. UK anons fight this lie! The war caused all of this purposely)

https://www.rt.com/business/572086-uk-farming-vegetables-shortage-brexit/

26 Feb, 2023 13:27

Award-winning cartoon dropped after creator’s racist tirade

‘Dilbert’ had been a regular fixture in newspapers since 1989

Award-winning cartoon dropped after creator’s racist tirade

26 Feb, 2023 13:27

Award-winning cartoon dropped after creator’s racist tirade

‘Dilbert’ had been a regular fixture in newspapers since 1989

‘Dilbert’, the hugely popular comic strip which has taken aim at corporate culture in the United States since 1989, has been dropped by numerous newspapers after its creator, Scott Adams, made a series of controversial statements on his personal YouTube channel.

In a video he published on Wednesday, Adams referred to black Americans as a “hate group” in response to a Rasmussen Reports poll which suggested that close to half of black people surveyed do not agree with the statement, “It’s OK to be white” - a slogan which originated in 2017 as part of an alt-right trolling campaign.

Adams also suggested that white Americans need to “get the hell away from black people.”

“If nearly half of all blacks are not OK with white people … that’s a hate group,” said Adams. “And I don’t want to have anything to do with them.”

He added: “I’m not saying start a war or anything like that. I’m just saying get away.”

The video ignited a storm on social media, with numerous commenters calling for Adams’ popular comic strip to be dropped by some of the United States’ most respected news publications.

“In light of Scott Adams’ recent statements promoting segregation, the Washington Post has ceased publication for the Dilbert comic strip,” the newspaper announced on Saturday. The USA Today Network, which publishes in excess of 300 newspapers, also said it was severing ties with Adams due to his “discriminatory comments.”

Other newspapers, such as the Los Angeles Times, followed suit – with the Times also revealing that it had removed four of Adams’ ‘Dilbert’ cartoons from publications after it was determined that they violated the publisher’s standards.

Adams reacted to the news of his ousting from many US publications in a subsequent video, saying that he expects “most of my income will be gone by next week” and that “my reputation for the rest of my life is destroyed. You can’t come back from this.”

‘Dilbert’ has been recognized for its impact on popular culture with a series of awards throughout its history, including the prestigious Adamson Award in 1995 which is given to cartoonists who make a sizeable impact in their industry. The comic strip has been published in 65 countries and in 25 different languages throughout its lifespan.

https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/572092-dilbert-scott-adams-dropped-pubishers/

He’s not the racist!

>>18415076

I trust that some staff are sincere but the board put them up to this

>>18415083

“Likely” is bs, the US and China worked together, how it was released who knows. But it was never as bad as US NIH and companies made it, so the US pharma killed more than the virus ever would have

>>18415067

No wonder she runs and hides from everyone