Here is from the transcript by MSNBC, of their broadcast on 17 January 2025 of President Joe Biden’s final interview (which was the prior day, by the Democrat Lawrence O’Donnell, on his “The Last Word” show) — it included one of the decrepit Biden’s ever-increasing number of unintentional slip-ups saying the truth that he never had intentionally revealed during his prior and less-decrepit period (and, of course, his interviewer, this Democrat, O’Donnell, simply ignored what the President had just said, instead of diving into it so as to perhaps get more details about this crucially important matter):
“The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell – Jan. 16 | Audio Only”
21:42
The Cotillion Brigade:...
Best Price: $12.95
Buy New $14.05
(as of 11:42 UTC - Details)
[O’DONNELL]: WHEN THIS WAR STARTED, THERE WAS A TREMENDOUS TENSION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF NUCLEAR CONFRONTATION,
21:48
THE POSSIBILITY OF VLADIMIR PUTIN USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. DID YOU HAVE ANY DIRECT COMMUNICATION
21:55
WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN TO DETER HIM FROM USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
[BIDEN]: WELL, I DID.
22:00
WHEN HE STARTED TALKING ABOUT TACTICAL, I THOUGHT THIS GUY WANTS TO USE TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS. NO.
22:06
I DON’T WANNA DO THAT. I DON’T DO THAT. NUCLEAR WEAPONS,
22:11
TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE SCARES THE HELL OUT OF EVERYBODY, INCLUDING THE RUSSIANS, INCLUDING THE RUSSIANS.
22:18
AND SO WHAT I, I MADE IT CLEAR TO HIM, LOOK,
22:23
HE SAID TO ME THAT WHAT HE WANTED WAS: HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WERE NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE,
22:30
I MEAN, IN, UH, IN UKRAINE; THAT, UH, THERE WAS, THEY WEREN’T A MEMBER OF NATO;
22:36
AND, UH, THAT, UH, THEY WOULD NOT BE, UH, UH — AND HE,
22:41
HE STARTED OFF ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS BY SAYING: I KNOW YOU CAN TAKE ME OUT TOMORROW. I KNOW YOU CAN TAKE THEM OUT TOMORROW FROM UKRAINE.
22:48
YOU CAN STRIKE MOSCOW. YOU CAN STRIKE. I SAID, THAT’S NOT A PROBLEM. WE’VE ALREADY TAKEN THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS OUT.
22:55
SO I TOOK THEM ALL OUT.
Ukraine is far nearer to The Kremlin than ANY other country is: around 300 miles or 500 kilometers away; and THIS is the reason why Russia will not allow Ukraine to be in NATO: It has the closest of all borders to The Kremlin.
Here is — with full documentation in its links, so that you can immediately see the evidence for any assertion you might doubt — the actual history of how the war in Ukraine actually started on 20 February 2014 and ultimately produced Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 — and all of it has to do with America’s determination to place its nukes a mere five minutes away from Moscow, and Russia’s determination to prevent that from ever being able to happen. Putin has done a terribly poor job of making clear to the public the reason why he invaded Ukraine on 24 Febuary 2022; but, as you will see from the evidences that are linked-to in the following, this — the distance to Moscow — is the reason why he did. Ukraine was far too close to Moscow. Putin needed to do this in order to protect Russia from the United States — to prevent a 5-minute blitz nuclear attack decapitating Russia’s central command. And it ALSO was the reason why the U.S. Government was so determined, for so many decades, to get Ukraine into its NATO military alliance against Russia. Putin didn’t only need Biden to remove America’s nukes from Ukraine — he knows that American Presidents come and go — he needed something irrevocable. Biden isn’t saying there that NATO will formally announce “Ukraine is banned from ever entering NATO.” Putin and all of Russia NEED that public and formal commitment. The historical truth is the exact opposite of what has been (and still is) touted by the media in the U.S. and in its colonies, as having been the case; America has been the aggressor, all along. This history is the exact opposite of the U.S.-empire myth about it; so, here it is — this is the historical truth about the matter:
The Ukrainian war started after the democratically elected President of Ukraine (an infamously corrupt country), who was committed to keeping his country internationally neutral (not allied with either Russia or the United States), met privately with both the U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010, shortly following that Ukrainian President’s election earlier in 2010; and, on both occasions, he rejected their urgings for Ukraine to become allied with the United States against his adjoining country Russia. This was being urged upon him so that America could position its nuclear missiles at the Russian border with Ukraine, less than a five-minute striking-distance away from hitting the Kremlin in Moscow.
The war in Ukraine started in 2014, as both NATO’s Stoltenberg and Ukraine’s Zelensky have said. This war was started in February 2014 by a U.S. coup which replaced the democratically elected and neutralist Ukrainian President, with a U.S. selected and rabidly anti-Russian leader, who immediately imposed an ethnic-cleansing program to get rid of the residents in the regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the overthrown President. Russia responded militarily on 24 February 2022, in order to prevent Ukraine from allowing the U.S. to place a missile there a mere 317 miles or five minutes of missile-flying-time away from The Kremlin and thus too brief for Russia to respond before its central command would already be beheaded by America’s nuclear strike. (As I headlined on 28 October 2022, “NATO Wants To Place Nuclear Missiles On Finland’s Russian Border — Finland Says Yes”. The U.S. had demanded this, especially because it will place American nuclear missiles far nearer to The Kremlin than at present, only 507 miles away — not as close as Ukraine, but the closest yet. This shows how crucial to the U.S. Government’s strategic planning it is, that America must place its nukes into position for a decapitating first-strike blitz annihilating Russia’s central command so as to prevent any retaliation. It displays how crazy with power-lust America’s Deep State actually are. As America’s leading expert on nuclear weapons, the physicist Theodore A. Postol, of MIT, had argued on 20 December 2014, the U.S. Government was developing a radical new technology strictly for the purpose of enabling a decapitating blitz first-strike against The Kremlin. Then, on 1 March 2017, he announced that it was now operational and being installed, and that “it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.” Furthermore, the Government was lying about it to the public, portraying it “to the public as an effort to ensure the reliability and safety of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal, rather than to enhance their military capabilities” to first-strike-annihilate The Kremlin.)
Ukraine had been neutral between Russia and America until Obama’s brilliantly executed Ukrainian coup, which his Administration started planning by no later than June 2011, culminated successfully in February 2014 and promptly appointed a rabid anti-Russian to impose in regions that rejected the new anti-Russian U.S.-controlled goverment an “Anti-Terrorist Operation” to kill protesters, and, ultimately, to terrorize the residents in those regions in order to kill as many of them as possible and to force the others to flee into Russia so that when elections would be held, pro-Russian voters would no longer be in the electorate.
The U.S. Government had engaged the Gallup polling organization, both before and after the coup, in order to poll Ukrainians, and especially ones who lived in its Crimean independent republic (where Russia has had its main naval base ever since 1783), regarding their views on U.S., Russia, NATO, and the EU; and, generally, Ukrainians were far more pro-Russia than pro-U.S., pro-NATO, or pro-EU, but this was especially the case in Crimea; so, America’s Government knew that Crimeans would be especially resistant. However, this was not really new information. During 2003-2009, only around 20% of Ukrainians had wanted NATO membership, while around 55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.” Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup, “Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes, one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.” However, afterward, the support averaged around 45% — still over twice as high as had been the case prior to the coup.
In other words: what Obama did was generally successful: it grabbed Ukraine, or most of it, and it changed Ukrainians’ minds regarding America and Russia. But only after the subsequent passage of time did the American billionaires’ neoconservative heart become successfully grafted into the Ukrainian nation so as to make Ukraine a viable place to position U.S. nuclear missiles against Moscow (which is the U.S. Government’s goal there). Furthermore: America’s rulers also needed to do some work upon U.S. public opinion. Not until February of 2014 — the time of Obama’s coup — did more than 15% of the American public have a “very unfavorable” view of Russia. (Right before Russia invaded Ukraine, that figure had already risen to 42%. America’s press — and academia or public-policy ‘experts’ — have been very effective at managing public opinion, for the benefit of America’s billionaires.)
Then came the Minsk Agreements (#1 & #2, with #2 being the final version, which is shown here, as a U.N. Security Council Resolution), between Ukraine and the separatist region in its far east, and which the U.S. Government refused to participate in, but the U.S.-installed Ukrainian government (then under the oligarch Petro Poroshenko) signed it in order to have a chance of Ukraine’s gaining EU membership, but never complied with any of it; and, so, the war continued); and, then, finally, as the Ukrainian government (now under Volodmyr Zelensky) was greatly intensifying its shelling of the break-away far-eastern region, Russia presented, to both the U.S. Government and its NATO military alliance against Russia, two proposed agreements for negotiation (one to U.S., the other to NATO), but neither the U.S. nor its NATO agreed to negotiate. The key portions of the two 17 December 2021 proposed Agreements, with both the U.S. and with its NATO, were, in regards to NATO:
Article 1
The Parties shall guide in their relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They shall not strengthen their security individually, within international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of other Parties. …
Article 4
The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.
Article 5
The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.
Article 6
All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.
And, in regards to the U.S.:
Article 2
The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 3
The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.
Article 4
The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.
Any reader here can easily click onto the respective link to either proposed Agreement, in order to read that entire document, so as to evaluate whether or not all of its proposed provisions are acceptable and reasonable. What was proposed by Russia in each of the two was only a proposal, and the other side (the U.S. side) in each of the two instances, was therefore able to pick and choose amongst those proposed provisions, which ones were accepted, and to negotiate regarding any of the others; but, instead, the U.S. side simply rejected all of them.
On 7 January 2022, the Associated Press (AP) headlined “US, NATO rule out halt to expansion, reject Russian demands”, and reported:
Washington and NATO have formally rejected Russia’s key demands for assurances that the US-led military bloc will not expand closer towards its borders, leaked correspondence reportedly shows.
According to documents seen by Spanish daily El Pais and published on Wednesday morning, Moscow’s calls for a written guarantee that Ukraine will not be admitted as a member of NATO were dismissed following several rounds of talks between Russian and Western diplomats. …
The US-led bloc denied that it posed a threat to Russia. …
The US similarly rejected the demand that NATO does not expand even closer to Russia’s borders. “The United States continues to firmly support NATO’s Open Door Policy.”
NATO-U.S. was by now clearly determined to get Ukraine into NATO and to place its nukes so near to The Kremlin as to constitute, like a checkmate in chess, a forced defeat of Russia, a capture of its central command. This was, but in reverse, the situation that America’s President JFK had faced with regard to the Soviet Union in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. would have invaded Cuba if Khrushchev wouldn’t agree to a mutually acceptable settlement — which he did, and so WW3 was averted on that occasion. But whereas Khrushchev was reasonable, Obama and Biden were not (they wanted to checkmate Russia); and, so, we again stood — and under Trump might still stand — at the brink of WW3, but this time with a truly evil head-of-state (Biden — no better than Obama), who might even be willing to go beyond that brink in order to become able to achieve world-conquest.
Russia did what it had to do: it invaded Ukraine, on 24 February 2022 (just as America would have invaded and taken over Cuba if Khrushchev had not agreed to the deal that JFK proposed during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis).
On 29 October 2022, I headlined “NATO wants to place nuclear missiles on Finland’s Russian border — Finland says yes”; and reported that if Finland hadn’t said yes, then the U.S. would have made sure that at least one of NATO’s member-nations would have said no to (i.e., vetoed) Finland’s joining. The U.S. Government controls NATO, and would have been able to do that (and routinely does wrangle votes within NATO for a U.S. objective). This Government started the war in Ukraine because a blitz decapitation-strike annihilating Russia’s central command is what the war in Ukraine (only 317 miles away from The Kremlin) has been about, ever since the war in Ukraine started on 20 February 2014.
It’s Good to Be ...
Best Price: $11.65
Buy New $14.99
(as of 05:12 UTC - Details)
The investigative historian Carleton Meyer presented, on March 15th, an excellent 12-minute video history of the U.S. Government’s hiring of Nazis and ‘former’ Nazis after World War Two in order to ultimately achieve what the U.S. Government and its European colonies almost achieved but now appear extremely unlikely to achieve (and you can also see about this my 7 April 2024 article “How & Why the UK, U.S., and Canada, Governments imported Nazis into Canada”): the usage of the former pro-Nazi organizations in Ukraine so as to enable the U.S. empire to add Ukraine to the U.S., Govenment’s list of colonies — and the closest border of them all to Russia’s central command. The title of Meyer’s video is : “Provoking Russian Intervention – Part 26 of The Anglo-American War on Russia”. That brief video places into the broader historical context of post-WW2 American history, the more-recent detailed history of the Ukraine war that I have documented in the present article (and, differently, in my 7 April 2024 article just referred-to).
All of this must be understood within the even broader context of the way that the U.S. empire functions; and this was brilliantly explained in a 16-minute video, by the author of the 2004 confessional book I Was an Economic Hit Man, “John Perkins at Thistle Hotel London in 2012”, which video summarizes and goes even beyond that best-selling and by-now-classic book. Natural resources have, thoughout history, been craved by imperialists and caused them to invade foreign countries; and no country is even nearly so rich in natural resources as Russia is. That’s what the phrase “natural resources curse” actually refers to, but imperialistic Governments define it instead as being the corruption within the unacquired-but-sought-after lands themselves, though this corruption is usually to a large extent greatly spurred-on by (or even mainly created by) the imperialist power itself, in the process of its acquiring the colony. And Russia is refusing to become acquired. Putin is refusing to be checkmated by the U.S. Government — refusing to allow Russia to be exploited by its enemies (such as John Perkins describes, from his personal experience, having carried out in other countries).
The U.S. regime knows that it is evil, and merely lies about it. The reason why it always lies about itself is that it ‘justifies’ its aggressions by saying that it is a democracy and the leader of ‘the free world’, while the nation it’s targeting for ‘regime-change’ is instead an “autocracy” or a “dictatorship.” But the truth is that, regardless of what the targeted-for-takeover country is, the aggressor is actually the U.S. Government itself, not the one it’s trying to take over. It is the U.S. Government that needs to be “regime-changed” and replaced by a totally new Government that ADHERES TO the U.S. Constitution — instead of (like the one we’ve had since 1945) routinely violating or even ignoring it.
The problem in America isn’t the Democrats versus the Republicans (such as the billionaires’ media portray it) but the billionaires versus the public; and it is the billionaires who must be pulled down and replaced by authentic democracy if ever Constitutional rule is to become restored in America.
This originally appeared on Eric’s Substack.
