Which side is the aggressor in the war in Ukraine?
According to Ukraine’s Government, Russia’s 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine was entirely unprovoked, not at all responding to a threat that Ukraine was posing to Russia’s national security.
Ukraine is just a
5-minute missile-flying-time away from Moscow, and is therefore the Russia-bordering nation that would pose the
biggest danger to Russia if added to NATO. During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, America had threatened to initiate nuclear war against the Soviet Union if the Soviet Union would position its nuclear missiles in Cuba,
1,131 miles from Washington DC, which would today be about 10 minutes away from blitz-nuking Washington but was 15 minutes away in 1962. (Ukraine, by contrast, is only
353 miles away from Moscow.) Consequently, Ukraine’s joining NATO would be MUCH more dangerous today to Russia than the U.S.S.R.’s placing its missiles in Cuba would have been to the U.S. in 1962. And, yet, America was right in 1962 to threaten nuclear war over that, but nonetheless expects and demands that Russia will
allow Ukraine into NATO, and that Russia will enable Moscow to be nuked by America within only 5 minutes. What
sense does that U.S. demand make? Clearly, America is heading for
conquest against Russia. Russia refuses to allow it.
That is the real
issue in this war.
In other words: the actual aggressor in the war in Ukraine — which began by America’s 2014 coup there, NOT by Russia’s 24 February 2022 response to it — is America, not Russia. All else is mere lies. The documentation is here, and there is lots more of it. The links that are supplied in this brief article are merely some of the evidence, but a lot more exists as well, and ALL of it is consistent with — and helps further to explain — the evidence that is presented (linked-to) here. Some of it, for example, is public admissions by lower-level participants in the coup, who subsequently spoke to investigative journalists in the hope of finding out more about the operation in which they had been hired to perform only subordinate roles. None of that type of evidence is being cited (linked-to) here, because “confessions” are far inferior in reliability, as compared to the types of evidence that has been linked-to here.
And
here is a timeline of early stages of this war in 2014, as it developed soon
after America’s coup in Kiev. And
this is an article about how the U.S. regime was even planning to grab Russia’s largest naval base, which is in Crimea (which had briefly been a part of Ukraine), and to transform that Russian naval base (which it has been ever since 1783) into a new U.S. naval base. (It’s the
only part of Obama’s plan for Ukraine that was blocked.)
So, clearly, America is the aggressor here; Russia is the defender, and Ukraine is merely the battlefield on which Russian forces and America’s weapons and proxy forces (Ukrainians) encounter one-another. It’s the opening battlefield of WW III, between America (and its vassal-nations) versus Russia (and its allies). All else is merely lies, about the entire matter.
Your phrase “Europe struggles to contain a belligerent Russia” blows away your credibility. It’s as-if you had commented there that America was “belligerent” in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis for threatening WW III if the Soviet Union were to position its nuclear missiles in Cuba, which then was a 30-minute missile-flying time away from nuking Washington DC [it was actually 15 minutes — 1,131 miles — away];
but, this time, U.S. missiles would instead be in Ukraine a mere 5-minute missile-flying-time away from nuking Moscow. That would be intolerable. Russia is “belligerent”? The U.S. regime and its EU-NATO vassal-nations are belligerent to claim they’ve got a RIGHT to position their ground-based missiles THAT close to the Kremlin [only 353 miles away]
. Your saying such a thing as “Europe struggles to contain a belligerent Russia” utterly destroys your credibility, it is so counterfactual.
Unfortunately, lots of that sort of “news” and “news-commentary” articles are published in U.S.-and allied news-media — and sometimes
even in independent news-media (such as that one was). Falsehoods which are so
blatant ought to exclude from being published any article that includes even
one such blatantly false assertion. To make an assertion which is so blatantly false is damning against its writer, and discredits the publisher, too, even though such instances are common. In free media that are online-only (such as that one was), fact-checking of any sort might be too costly; and, so, factual errors there might be excusable — but
not in paid media (where such errors are, if anything, even
more commonly found).
NOTE: This commentary had been offered on a paying exclusive basis to each one of the U.S., UK, and Canadian, mainstream national newsmedia and major newspapers, and was rejected by each one, and is therefore now being made available to all English-language media, to publish without charge.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.