A few weeks ago, the Guardian published a video of U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken performing a cover of Neil Young’s “Keep On Rockin’ in the Free World” with noisy band in a bar in Kiev. The video conjured embarrassing memories from my own distant past, when I occasionally inflicted bad performances of three chord songs on an audience at a grungy bar in Vienna’s 8th District.
I console myself that I was a young and drunk bohemian ex-pat, and not the U.S. Secretary of State. When I saw the video of Blinken’s performance, I was overwhelmed with a terrible foreboding. Who is this man making momentous decisions that could result in the deaths of millions? How could this possibly be happening?
For some time I have wanted to write an investigative piece about Blinken, but just haven’t found the time.
Pagan America: The Dec...
Best Price: $23.95
Buy New $20.60
(as of 12:30 UTC - Details)
This morning I read the following brilliant essay by fellow Substack author, Jeff Childers. Thank you Mr. Childers for taking the time to write such a thorough exposition of terrible, unprecedented territory into which our insane government is leading us.
In a story that is actually about what must either be the incalculable stupidity or planet-sized mendacity of the United States government about the single most important debate of our lifetime, a debate that is not being held, the New York Times ran more war propoganda yesterday headlined, “Blinken Hints U.S. May Accept Ukrainian Strikes in Russia With American Arms.” Antony Blinken is everywhere these days. He’s like the Pale Rider of Revelation, dragging Hell and destruction everywhere he goes. The headline is wrong; Blinken didn’t just hint. He said them; the most provocative and escalatory words ever uttered by a Secretary of State.
And it was much worse than the headline suggested. Blinken didn’t just say Ukraine could use American weapons to strike targets in continental Russia. The moronic Secretary of State said we would help Ukraine do it:
Where is the Congress while Blinken is out running his mouth like this? Is there anyone left in government who wants to stop World War III from breaking out over the rubble of Ukraine?
This is exactly what we all predicted would happen two years ago when Biden first drove us into the Ukrainian bog.
In a wordy but meaningless follow-up article last evening, the Times ran another hand-wringing story headlined, “From Allies and Advisers, Pressure Grows on Biden to Allow Attacks on Russian Territory.” The sub-headline explained the ultra-high stakes: “President Biden is weighing fears of escalation with a nuclear-armed adversary as he considers whether to let Ukraine shoot American weapons into Russia.”
Once again, the grotesque parody of a newspaper never quoted a single White House official. The only quotes are from Blinken. Not even Biden. The Times laughably offered Biden’s lack of public comment to his profound reflection on these complicated and important issues:
Haha! They don’t trust Biden to talk about this. And, again the Times attributed one of the most significant decisions of our lifetimes to invisible, unidentified “aides.” Who are these aides evaluating these critical decisions about whether it’s worth risking global thermonuclear war to help Zelensky? Why are they so secretive? Are they like fairies who leave security briefs on the doorstep if you put cookies out before you go to sleep?
Or, is the truth there are actually no ‘aides’ at all, and it is really just Blinken?
Even more hilariously, the Times explained that, even if Biden does decide to give Ukraine the nuclear green light, don’t ever expect him to say so. Why would he? It’s not like it affects the whole country or anything. The truth is they still don’t want Sleepy Joe answering questions about it:
Great. It will be an official unstated U.S. policy. Can you imagine the media outcry if Trump were stage-managing this disastrous train wreck of a foreign policy?
The awful, terrible, no-good New York Times failed to quote a single response from the Russians, in either article, about the proposed change in U.S. policy, even though the shift marks a historic moment, the first time in history a nuclear superpower has ever authorized a proxy and supplied the weapons with which to directly attack the other nuclear superpower. It would be like Russia giving Cuba long-range tactical missiles (able to carry nukes!) and providing all the telemetry and guidance for how to hit the White House.
We have lived long enough to witness the final failure of the long-lauded policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It’s been replaced with Mutually Assured Brinksmanship. And at the end of the day, it was us, the United States, that shattered MAD into a million dagger-like fragments.
In yet more journalistic malpractice, despite the unimaginably-high stakes, the Times never even tried to call the Russian embassy for a reaction. It never even went on Twitter. If we citizens wish to stay fully informed about what is happening, we are forced to visit the Kremlin’s website for ourselves.
Putin gave an interview yesterday. In the interview, he responded to this idiotic proposal to fire long-range strategic weapons directly at Russia. The full interview transcript is up on the Russian government website. The Times could easily have found it there, and quoted Russia’s president, but they ignored him, because they are Putin-deranged. Or something even worse.
Since nobody else will provide the life-and-death, critical Russian point of view about the Biden Administration’s ‘evolving’ policy, I will tell you what Putin said. (He’s a little wordy, and it’s translated, so I’ll edit for brevity and clarity.) You can read the original interview for yourself (and you should) at the link above. Here’s what Putin said, not responding to Blinken, but to similar comments made yesterday by UN Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, another intellectually-depleted gasbag.
First off, Putin clearly and logically pointed out the most massive problem with Biden’s proposed policy, totally obvious in hindsight, which of course has been completely ignored by corporate media and the New York Times. The biggest problem is that these high-tech missile systems don’t stand alone. They operate inside vast Earth-space technology infrastructures and networks that Ukraine absolutely does not have. In other words, even with a full belly packed with borscht, Olaf the Ukrainian soldier could not even hope to fire one of our long-range missiles.
Our long-range strategic weapons require a small crew of experienced, highly-trained U.S. or NATO technical specialists, to manage every single step of the process. Meaning, even if a missile were staged for launch from the territory of Ukraine, the United States would be the one pushing all the buttons. They would never let Olaf get anywhere near the costly weapon.
In Putin’s own words:
Concerning the strikes, frankly, I am not sure what the NATO Secretary General is talking about. When he was the Prime Minister of Norway, we communicated often, and I am positive he was not suffering from dementia back then. If he is talking about potentially attacking Russia’s territory with long-range precision weapons, even though he is a civilian like me, he should be aware that long-range precision weapons cannot be used by Ukraine without space-based reconnaissance assistance from NATO.
Final target selection and ‘launch mission’ can only be programmed by highly skilled NATO specialists who rely on NATO’s space-based technical reconnaissance data. For some attack systems, such as British Storm Shadow, these launch missions occur without help from any Ukrainian military. So who does it? Those who manufacture and supply these attack systems to Ukraine do it.
This can and does happen without the participation of the Ukrainian military.
Other missile systems, such as U.S.-supplied ATACMS, likewise rely on space reconnaissance data. Targets are identified and automatically communicated to the launch crews who may not even realise what targets they are programming the missiles to hit. In other words, the launch mission is assembled by NATO officers, not the Ukrainian military.
If you ask me, Putin’s next warning about the dire consequences was, if anything, highly restrained. Using diplomatic words, he soberly warned that Russia would retaliate against any nation that attacks it, regardless of picky technicalities like which base the missile launched from. In Putin’s careful words:
War, Christianity, and...
Best Price: $8.95
Buy New $9.95
(as of 09:10 UTC - Details)
These officials from NATO countries, especially the smaller European countries, should be fully aware of what is at stake. Before talking about ‘striking deep into Russian territory,’ they should remember that their countries are small and densely populated. It is a serious matter, and we are watching it very carefully.
This unending escalation can lead to serious consequences. If Europe were to face those serious consequences, what would the United States do, considering our strategic arms parity? It is hard to tell.
Do they WANT a global conflict?
Our corporate media loves wailing about how Putin is threatening nuclear war again, but have you noticed they never directly quote him? Honestly, I am no Putin fan, but I still find Putin’s arguments clear, thoughtful, and compelling. I defy anyone to explain how any of it was disinformation.
Do we really expect the Russians to just sit on their hands while nuclear-capable missiles are streaming across their border?
Putin’s interview included even more fascinating information unaccountably absent from our own media’s analysis. One great example is Putin’s precise, lawyerly discussion about why Zelensky is a non-president under Ukraine’s constitution, despite his self-serving martial law declaration.
I don’t know what could possibly be a more important and necessary national discussion than this debate about helping Ukraine attack Russian territory. But nobody except the Times’ mysterious “aides,” spooks, and ghosts appear to be having the debate. And as I said, you should read the whole Putin interview for yourself.
Where is Congress?
The above quoted text is from ☕️ T MINUS ☙ Thursday, May 30, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS by Jeff Childers. Please share Mr. Childers’s vitally important essay with your networks.
This originally appeared on Courageous Discourse.
