Showing posts with label Max Blumenthall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Max Blumenthall. Show all posts

15 January 2026

Why Socialists and Anti-Imperialists Should Support the Iranian Protest Movement Against the Regime and Defend the Regime Against Israel and US Imperialism

Liberation for the Palestinians and the people of the Middle East Will Not Be Achieved on the Backs of the Oppression of Iranian Workers, Women and Youth

We are witnessing the biggest rebellion of Iranians against the theocratic regime in Iran for decades. Whether the regime succeeds in repressing the demonstrations and surviving is an open question. I suspect, at least in the short term, it will survive because the Iranian state's repressive apparatus bears many similarities to those of classical fascism, e.g. in its abolition of trade unions and there is no strong or coherent opposition.

Let us be clear at once for the benefit of the 'anti-imperialists' who have forgotten what socialism means. Socialism is the emancipation of the working class and oppressed not the dictatorship of a theocratic regime.

As the statement of the independent Iranian trade unions make clear, neither Israel nor the United States are in the slightest bit interested in freedom for the Iranian masses. Both states were more than happy to support the vicious repression under the Shah of Iran, whose son Reza Pahlavi they are trying to bring back. The BBC as always is happy to act as their propaganda stooge.

Threats of military action and bombing by the US and Israel, far from weakening the regime, have the opposite effect by forcing people to rally round it. The cynicism of the genocidal Zionist regime and Trump’s neo-cons beggars belief.

This is the BBC's 'Balance'

The regime of Supreme Ruler Khameini and President Masoud Pezeshkian has been responsible for the murder of thousands of protesters, with the security forces using machine guns and live fire. It is impossible at this time to estimate how many people have been killed but it must run into thousands.

It is now resorting to mass hangings of protesters in an effort to coerce and intimidate the opposition.

There is no doubt that Israel and Mossad have played a part in the protests, but I also have no doubt that Israel has hyped its presence and operations for propaganda reasons.  I find it strange that those who usually doubt everything Israel says are now willing to believe these pathological liars.

It would be a grave mistake to believe that the demonstrations are the creature of Israel. People are on the streets because they have their own grievances with a dictatorial, corrupt and repressive regime.

Israel and the US want to see an end to the Iranian regime but what they don’t want is a democratic society to emerge in its place. Their problem is in finding a replacement which is why Trump’s words have not, so far, matched his actions. The last thing Trump, Israel and the West want is popular sovereignty.

Iran’s regime has its own neo-liberal agenda. Indeed its response to the sanctions has been to further privatise the economy, the exact opposite of what a socialist oriented regime would do. It is the poor in Iran who have paid the highest price for sanctions

Iran’s response to decades of sanctions has involved a turn to market-based policies rather than the socialisation of the economy. The state has pursued privatisation and liberalised certain market mechanisms, resulting in ‘crony capitalism’.

To withstand sanctions, Iran adopted a "resistance economy" strategy. This has integrated neoliberal-style policies, such as: 

·         Privatisation of State Assets: Successive governments have targeted the sale of state-owned enterprises to reduce government spending and settle debts.

·         Subsidy Reform: In late 2025, the government further reduced cash subsidies for energy and food, shifting toward a "ration-style voucher" system to manage fiscal deficits.

·         Price Deregulation: Major industrial producers in sectors like petrochemicals and metals are increasingly allowed to sell at international market prices domestically to maintain profitability despite sanctions. 

Iran’s privatisation efforts have largely benefited quasi-governmental entities. 

·         Institutional Control: Many 'privatised' firms were transferred to institutions linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or supreme leader-controlled foundations (bonyads).

·         Oligarchy and Corruption: These policies have fostered a "crony capitalist" system based on nepotism, where the powerful maintain control over wealth while the middle and working classes face extreme inflation—projected to reach 60% in 2026. 

The entrenchment of neoliberal ideology and policies has been an alternative to developing effective economic strategies to shield the working class and small craftsmen from the devastating effects of sanctions. Rather than adapting policies to protect vulnerable economic sectors, the establishment has doubled down on two core positions:

1.   Accelerating neoliberal policies

2.   Pursuing compromise with US imperialism, primarily to attract foreign investment.

See Neoliberalism Against Revolution: Iran’s Challenges for Resistance

The hypocrisy of Israel and the United States over the death of protesters is to be expected. However it would be a mistake to take their posturing as reflecting their true views. Israel has perpetrated a genocide of tens of thousands of people in Gaza. The US and the Trump regime has funded and supplied weapons for that genocide. They are hardly likely to be concerned about the death of Iranian protesters.

The ‘support’ of Israel and the US for the demonstrations and protests is cynical and self-serving. Both states are the partners of vicious dictatorial regimes all over the Middle East. The only disagreement they have with Iran’s clerical regime is in its independent foreign policy and its opposition to Israeli hegemony in the region.


There is a section of the anti-imperialist left, represented by people like Max Blumenthall, who take the view that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is a  mistake. The same people supported the Ba’athist regime of President Assad of Syria and we know how that turned out.


Anti-imperialism can never be successful when it relies on regimes which are hated by their own people. In the long term this can only strengthen the Israeli state. It allows Zionism and US imperialism to pass themselves off as the friends of the Iranian people.

The origins of the Islamic Republic lie in collaboration with the United States in order to thwart a genuine revolutionary challenge to capitalism and exploitation. This is not surprising since the clerical regime that emerged was based on the Bazaaris, the merchants and shopkeepers of the traditional marketplaces who represent a powerful and heterogeneous commercial class that has functioned as a central pillar of the country's economic and political history.

On 9 November 1978, in a now-famous cable, "Thinking the Unthinkable," the US ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, warned that the Shah was doomed. He argued that the US should get the Shah and his top generals out of Iran, and then make a deal between junior commanders and Khomeini.

Sullivan's suggestions caused friction with Jimmy Carter but by early January 1979 Carter had concluded that the Shah had to go.

While the U.S. did not formally support Khomeini, historical evidence confirms that the Carter administration engaged in secret diplomatic negotiations with him in January 1979 to ensure an orderly transition and prevent a radical leftist or workers revolution from taking hold. 

In 1979 during the Iranian revolution the US effectively backed Khomeini for fear of a workers revolution. Khomeini initiated a dialogue with the Carter administration to secure his return to Iran and prevent a military coup that might have kept him from power. 

From January 15 to 27, 1979, direct talks occurred in Neauphle-le-Château, France, between Khomeini’s chief of staff, Ebrahim Yazdi, and U.S. diplomat Warren Zimmermann. On 27 January Khomeini told the US just weeks before the overthrow of the Shah's government:

It is advisable that you recommend to the army not to follow Bakhtiar (...) You will see we are not in any particular animosity with the Americans. (...) There should be no fear about oil. It is not true that we wouldn’t sell to the US. (...)

The primary goal of Carter was to preserve US interests and prevent civil war and an opening to Soviet influence. U.S. policy makers believed they could "do business" with the incoming regime, especially with moderate, Western-educated figures like Yazdi and Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, who were close to Khomeini at the time

Their major fear was of a potential communist or socialist takeover, which was a real possibility given the strength of the working-class movement and the influence of the USSR. Accommodating Khomeini was seen as a way to prevent Iran from falling to the left. 

The primary U.S. motivation for communicating with Khomeini was the fear of a power vacuum that would benefit the Tudeh (Communist) Party or Marxist guerrillas. There were three components to US strategy:

·         The "Soft Landing" Strategy: U.S. officials, including National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, feared a chaotic collapse of the state would invite a Soviet invasion or a takeover by local Marxist groups.

·         Khomeini’s Guarantees: From exile in France, Khomeini sent messages to the White House promising that he was not anti-American and that an Islamic republic would be a "stable" bulwark against communism.

·         Neutralizing the Military: To avoid a bloody civil war that leftists might exploit, the U.S. sent General Robert E. Huyser to Tehran to convince the Shah's generals not to launch a coup against the burgeoning revolution. This effectively cleared the path for Khomeini's return. 

Suppression of the Working Class and Leftists

Below is a Collective Statement of Independent Iranian Organizations  and Trade Unions opposing both the threats from Israel and US imperialism and the Islamic regime.  It is a statement that puts to shame all those 'anti-imperialists' like Miller, Galloway and Blumenthall who forget that imperialism is the projection of western capitalism and its concomitant political domination of weaker countries. 

Capitalism is the source of the oppression of workers and peasants, be it the American or the Islamic version. To support the Iranian regime when it is waging class war against its own workers and people is unforgivable.

Once in power, Khomeini moved aggressively to dismantle the secular, working class and socialist movements that had participated in the revolution:

·         Crushing the Left: By 1983, the regime had totally crushed the Tudeh and Fedayeen parties, executing thousands and imprisoning hundreds of thousands of political opponents.

·         Banning Trade Unions: The new regime banned trade unions and independent workers' councils (shoras), replacing them with state-controlled "Islamic Labor Councils" to ensure control over the working class. This is exactly what Hitler did with the formation of the Labour Front on 2 May 1933.

While the Iranian Constitution (Article 26) theoretically permits "professional associations," the 1990 Labour Code and subsequent government actions have replaced genuine unions with state-controlled entities. The Islamic Labour Councils are tripartite organisations involving the Ministry of Labour, employers, and selected workers chosen based on loyalty to the state.

The "Workers' House" is a state-sponsored institution that ostensibly represents workers but is widely criticized for prioritising government policy over labour rights.

·         Intelligence Sharing: Reports indicate that even after the 1979 revolution, the U.S. provided the Khomeini regime with a "hit list" of Tudeh members in 1983 to help eliminate Soviet influence in Iran.

·         Leading global labor bodies like the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) rank Iran in their worst category for workers' rights.

Fear of a Leftist Takeover

·         Communist Strength: Various communist organisations, particularly the Tudeh Party, had significant support, including among the crucial oil workers, and posed an existential threat to both the Shah's regime and the nascent Islamic revolutionary government.

It was unfortunate in the extreme that after 1979 the Tudeh Party supported Khomeini until he turned on them.

·         Soviet Influence: During the Cold War, the U.S. was committed to preventing Soviet expansion. A communist Iran, with a shared border with the USSR, was a major strategic concern.

·         The Power Vacuum: The working-class movement, organised through factory councils known as shoras, had effectively taken control of key industries, including the oil sector, which paralysed the economy and created a power vacuum.

·         Khomeini's Assurances: Khomeini's secret messages to the Carter administration included assurances that he had no "particular affinity" for the Soviet Union and that an American presence was necessary to counterbalance Soviet influence. These messages made U.S. policymakers believe that they could work with the Islamists to maintain a non-aligned Iran. 

Today, unlike in 1979, the left is weak. That is the central problem facing the current demonstrations. Without a strong workers’ party it is difficult to see an alternative government arising.

Anti-imperialists see the present uprising in terms of, above all, the Palestinian question and Gaza. This is understandable but misplaced.

Iran’s anti-imperialism has been forced on the regime primarily by the opposition of the US and Israel to the regime. In order to preserve its power the Iranian regime constructed the Axis of Resistance, which today lies in ruins.

Hezbollah, an indigenous resistance movement, which arose out of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, has been severely weakened with the assassination of Nasrallah, its leader and the pager attack. Whether it will be able to respond to a renewed Israeli attack on Lebanon, which the US is trying to reconfigure by disarming  Hezbollah, is open to question.

Hezbollah was the jewel in the crown and was heavily engaged in supporting Assad in Syria at Iran’s behest. With the overthrow of Assad the route from Iran to Lebanon for arms supplies has been largely halted.

Hamas in Gaza undoubtedly obtained some help from Iran but it is noticeable that since October 7 Iran has not done anything to support the Palestinians facing Israel’s genocide. Even when it had a chance, when Israel sued for a ceasefire, Iran did not make its agreement conditional on an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

The reality is that the Iranian regime has been in confrontation with imperialism and Israel despite itself. We should not forget that from 1981-86 Israel was supplying Iran with weapons in what became known as the Iran Contra Affair.

Whether or not the Iranian regime survives, one thing is for certain. That it will continue to be a friend of the Palestinians only so long as it deems it in its interests.

The Islamic Regime is a Barbaric Regime

The Iranian regime, with its rate of executions estimated to have doubled to 1,500 last year, is a barbaric state. It has the second highest number of executions of any state after China. Its method of execution, hanging from a crane, strangulation, is also the most barbaric.

The human rights record in Iran includes the persistent use of torture and what Amnesty International called a ‘Wave of floggings, amputations and other vicious punishments.’ Iran is certainly not a model state for socialists or anti-imperialists to idolise.

As regards the current clashes between the Iranian state and protestors, I have no doubt at all that the regime is using massive, lethal violence against the demonstrators. Amnesty International talks about:

a coordinated nationwide escalation in the security forces’ unlawful use of lethal force against mostly peaceful protesters and bystanders since the evening of 8 January....

Verified audiovisual evidence depicts severe and, in some cases, fatal injuries, including gunshot wounds to the head, including eyes, as well as individuals lying motionless on streets or being carried away amid what is believed to be continued sound of gunshots. Other footage shows patients bleeding profusely or appearing lifelesson hospital floors. In several videos, the people filming state that individuals have been killed.

At least two videos show security forces chasing and directly firing at fleeing protesters who appear to pose no threat warranting the use of force, let alone firearms or other prohibited weapons.

In an account shared with Amnesty International, a journalist from Tehran said:

“Tell the world that unspeakable crimes are being committed in Iran… Tell the world that if they do nothing, they [authorities] will turn the country into a graveyard.”

There are shills for the Iranian state like David Miller who, whatever the state does, however many people it hangs, it can do no wrong. 

the Islamic Republic of Iran is on the front lines of anti-imperialism and is actually the main defender of human civilisation that we have left.

There is no reasoning with such nonsense just as talking to 99% of Zionist apologists for genocide is like conversing with a brick wall.



 Israeli Involvement in the Protests

A favourite argument of Miller,  Blumenthall and others is Israel’s claims of massive involvement in the Iranian protests. There is no evidence for this.  It is an attempt by Israel to recover from some of the damage caused by their genocide in Gaza and to pretend that for once they are on the side of human rights.  

Quite frankly I don’t believe half of the nonsense that they and their hasbarists are putting out. It serves Blumenthall and others to go along with this narrative but it is a narrative at the expense of the Iranian people for whom Israel doesn't give a damn.


I agree (for once) with Owen Jones. It is using the thousands of dead and murdered Iranian people for its own racist and genocidal purpose.  But nothing will make Zionism or Genocide smell more sweetly.  It is useful for Blumenthall and others to latch on to Israeli claims but why believe Israel now when normally we call them liars?

As I said at the beginning, our support for the Iranian state is only against imperialism and Zionism not its own people.

A Region Wide Strategy

The original mistake of the PLO was to always believe that it could become just another Arab regime, as we see with the Palestinian Authority today. Their trust in the Arab regimes was entirely misplaced.

It is also clear that a military strategy against Israel is also doomed. What then?  Is Israel invincible?  I don’t think so.  In addition to its own internal problems with deep divisions in its settler population which the attack on Gaza, Lebanon and Iran have hidden, there is the danger of over extending itself as it invades yet more countries.

The main use of Israel to imperialism has always been its ability to help neuter radical Arab regimes and come to the aid of quisling ones like Jordan. Israel’s utility to imperialism comes from its role as a counter-revolutionary state in the heart of the Middle East.

The real question is to develop a strategy aimed at toppling the main Arab client regimes of the United States, in particular Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Iran does not provide a model to the people of the Middle East. Nor does it seek to overthrow  any of the surrounding regimes. It looks for co-existence with them in much the same way as it would like to co-exist with the United States.

The overthrow of the Arab regimes is the key to the overthrow of Zionism and imperialist influence in the Middle East.  There is no other way.

Tony Greenstein 

Posted by at 24 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

30 June 2023

‘Why are we tempting nuclear annihilation?’ Watch Max Blumenthal address UN Security Council

 Is there anyone sane left on the planet who seriously believes that US/NATO support for Ukraine is motivated by a concern for self-determination?

If there is anyone who believes that NATO, i.e. US support for Ukraine and its supply of advanced weaponry to the Zelensky regime, is on account of its support for that country’s self-determination, then I can only suggest that they consult a psychiatrist.

How can the United States, which launched a war of aggression against Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 and which supports Israel’s war crimes against the Palestinians, be seriously concerned with the principle of self-determination?

To those who have any doubts about what is happening and the threat it poses to the survival of humanity, I recommend that you watch the video below of a speech by Max Blumenthall of the Grayzone, which was targeted by Paul Mason on behalf of British Intelligence.  I’m not sure how Max managed to address them but the video is well worth watching.

Below the video I have included a transcript of the speech. Please watch and share.

To those who don’t understand the background to what is happening in Ukraine or the possible consequences of provoking a nuclear war, I recommend the two following videos of talks and interviews with John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at Chicago University and a member of the realist school of thought.

Tony Greenstein

Max Blumenthal addresses UN Security Council on Ukraine aid

Thank you to Wyatt Reed, Alex Rubinstein and Anya Parampil for helping me prepare this presentation. Wyatt has first hand experience with the subject as a journalist whose hotel in Donetsk was targeted with a US-made howitzer by the Ukrainian military in October 2022. He was 100 meters away when the strike hit, and was nearly killed.

My friend, the civil rights activist Randy Credico, is also here with me today. He was in Donetsk more recently, and was able to witness regular HIMARS attacks by the Ukrainian military on civilian targets.

I’m here not only as a journalist with over 20 years of experience covering politics and conflict on several continents, but as an American dragooned by my own government into funding a proxy war that has become a threat to regional and international stability at the expense of the welfare of my fellow countrymen and women.

The West's neo-Nazi friends in Ukraine who are also fighting for freedom!

This June 28, as emergency crews worked to clean up yet another toxic train derailment in the United States, this time on the Montana River, that further exposed our nation’s chronically underfunded infrastructure and its threats to our health, the Pentagon announced plans to send an additional $500 million worth of military aid to Ukraine.

The development came as Ukraine’s army enters the third week of a vaunted counter-offensive that CNN describes as “not meeting expectations,” and which even Volodymyr Zelensky says is “going slower than desired.”

As Ukraine’s military failed to breach Russia’s primary defense line, CNN reported that by June 12, Kiev quote “lost” 16 US-made armored vehicles sent to the country.

So what did the Pentagon do? It simply passed that bill down to average US taxpayers like myself, charging us another $325 million to replace Ukraine’s squandered military stock. There was zero effort to consult the US public’s position on the matter; and the vast majority of Americans likely did not even know the exchange took place.

The US policy I just described — which sees Washington prioritize unrestrained funding for a proxy war with a nuclear power in a foreign land while our own domestic infrastructure falls apart before our eyes — exposes a disturbing dynamic at the heart of the Ukraine conflict: an international Ponzi scheme that enables Western elites to seize hard earned wealth out of the hands of average US citizens and funnel itI into the coffers of a foreign government that even the Western-sponsored Transparency International ranks as one of the most corrupt in Europe.

The US government has yet to conduct an official audit of its funding for Ukraine. The American public has no idea where their tax dollars have gone.

That is why this week, The Grayzone published an independent audit of US tax dollar allocation to Ukraine throughout fiscal years 2022 and 2023. Our investigation was led by Heather Kaiser, a former military intelligence officer and veteran of US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We found a $4.48 million payment from the US Social Security Admin to the Kiev government.

We found $4.5 billion worth of payments from the United States Agency for International Development to pay off Ukraine’s sovereign debt, much of which is owned by the global investment firm BlackRock.

That alone amounts to $30 taken from every single US citizen at a time when 4 in 10 Americans are unable to afford a $400 emergency.

We found tax dollars earmarked for Ukraine padding the budgets of a television station in Toronto, a pro-NATO think tank in Poland, and, believe it or not, rural farmers in Kenya.

We found tens of millions to private equity firms, including one in the Republic of Georgia, as well as a million dollar payment to a single private entrepreneur in Kiev.

Our audit also revealed the Pentagon’s $4.5 million contract with a company called “Atlantic Diving Supply” to provide Ukraine with unspecified explosives equipment. This is a notoriously corrupt company that Thom Tillis, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, previously lambasted for its “history of fraud.”

Yet once again, Congress has failed to ensure these shady payments and massive arms deals are properly tracked.

In fact, much of the military and humanitarian aid shipped to Ukraine has simply vanished. Last year, CBS News quoted the director of a pro-Zelensky non-profit in Ukraine who reported that only around 30% of aid was reaching the front lines in Ukraine.

The embezzlement of funds and supplies is at least as troubling as the potential consequences of the illicit transfer and sales of military-grade weapons. Last June, the head of Interpol warned that the massive transfers of arms into Ukraine means “we can expect an influx of weapons in Europe and beyond,” and that “criminals are even now, as we speak, focusing on them.”

This May, a group of anti-Kremlin Russian neo-Nazis outfitted with gear supplied by the Ukrainian government, was hailed by Western politicians for carrying out terrorist attacks in Russian territory using American-made Humvees. Although the group, the so-called “Russian Volunteer Corps,” is led by a man who calls himself the “White King” and includes numerous open admirers of Adolf Hitler, the Western weaponization of this militia against Russian forces has not prompted any outcry from Congress.

And while the Biden administration has promised that it’s keeping tabs on the weapons sent, a State Department cable leaked last December conceded that “kinetic activity and active combat between Ukrainian and Russian forces create an environment in which standard verification measures are sometimes impracticable or impossible.”

The Biden administration not only knows that it can not track the weapons it is shipping to Ukraine, it knows it is escalating a proxy war against the world’s largest nuclear power, and is daring it to respond in kind.

We know they know this because back in 2014, President Barack Obama rejected demands to send lethal offensive weaponry to Kiev because, as the Wall Street Journal put it, he had a “long-standing concern that arming Ukraine would provoke Moscow into a further escalation that could drag Washington into a proxy war.”

When Donald Trump entered office in 2017, he attempted to hold the line on Obama’s policy, but was soon branded a Russian puppet by the Washington press corps and Democratic Party for refusing to send Raytheon’s Javelin missiles to the Ukrainian military. Trump’s reluctance to send the Javelins became part of the basis for his impeachment. He unsurprisingly relented.

As the US-made offensive weaponry began to reach the front lines of the Donbas, the collective West exploited the Minsk Accords to “give Ukraine time” to arm up, as former German Chancellor Angela Merkel put it.

In January 2022, the US announced a $200 million arms package to Ukraine. By the 18th of February, observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe reported a doubling in ceasefire violations, with OSCE maps showing the overwhelming majority of targeted sites on the side of the pro-Russian separatist population in Donetsk and Lugansk. Five days later, Russia invaded Ukraine.

And since then, the US and its allies have been scurrying up the escalation ladder at every opportunity.

“Things we couldn’t give in January because it was escalatory were given in February,” a former State Department official complained after meeting with Ukrainian counterparts. “And things we couldn’t give in February we can in April. That has been the distinct pattern, starting with, for crying out loud, Stingers,” they said, referring to shoulder mounted missiles.

President Joe Biden himself said in March 2022, “The idea that we’re gonna send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks… don’t kid yourself, no matter what you all say, that’s called World War III.”

Just over a year later, Biden changed his tune, backing a plan to provide F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, and after pressuring Germany to send in the tanks he once feared would provoke World War III.

It would only take two months from receiving HIMARs systems from the US for the Ukrainian military to begin targeting critical infrastructure, using them to strike the Antonovsky Bridge over the Dnipro river, and again, two months later in a test strike on the Kakhovka Dam “to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings,” as the Washington Post reported.

Three weeks ago, the Kakhovka Dam was destroyed, triggering a major environmental catastrophe that caused mass flooding and contamination of the local water supply. Ukraine, of course, blames Russia for the attack, but has produced no evidence.

Around this time, Ukraine also baselessly accused Russia of planning a provocation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. This triggered a resolution by Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal (no relation to me) calling for NATO to intervene directly in Ukraine and attack Russia if such an incident occurred.

The move by Blumenthal and Graham thus established a de facto red line for initiating US military action, much like the one set down in Syria which, as a former US diplomat commented to journalist Charles Glass, “was an open invitation to a false flag.”

Will we see another Douma deception, but this time in Zaporizhzhia?

Why are we doing this? Why are we tempting nuclear annihilation by flooding Ukraine with advanced weapons and sabotaging negotiations at every turn?

We have been told by people like Sen. Dick Durbin that Ukraine is “literally in a battle for freedom and democracy themselves,” and we must therefore supply it with weapons “for as long as it takes,” as President Biden said. Anyone who opposes military aid to Ukraine opposes the defense of democracy, according to this logic.

So where is the democracy in Volodymyr Zelensky’s decision to ban opposition parties, criminalize the media outlets of his legitimate political opponents, to jail his top political rival, round up his top deputies, raid Orthodox Churches and arrest clergymen?

Where is the democracy in the Ukrainian government’s imprisonment of Gonzalo Lira, a US citizen, for questioning the official narrative of their war effort?

And where is the democracy in Zelensky’s recent decision to suspend elections in 2024 on the grounds that martial law has been declared? Well, it seems that Ukraine’s democracy is harder to find these days than its military’s suddenly inconspicuous commander-in-chief, Valeriy Zaluzhny.

Senator Graham has offered a much more grim – and on-the-mark – rationale for supplying Ukraine with billions in weapons. As the senator boasted during a recent visit with Zelensky in Kiev, “The Russians are dying…it’s the best money we’ve ever spent.”

Graham, we should remember, has also said that we, the US, must fight this war to the last Ukrainian. While official casualty numbers are strictly classified, we must worry that Ukraine is well on its way to fulfilling the senator’s ghoulish fantasies.

As a Ukrainian soldier complained this month to Vice News, we don’t know what Zelensky’s “plans are, but it looks like extermination of its own population — like of the combat-ready and working-age population. That’s it.”

Indeed, military cemeteries in Ukraine are expanding almost as rapidly as the Northern Virginia McMansions and beachfront estates of executives from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and assorted Beltway contractors benefitting from the second highest level of military spending since World War Two.

These are the real winners of the Ukraine proxy war. Not average Ukrainians or Americans. Or Russians or even Western Europeans.

The winners are people like Secretary of State Tony Blinken, who spent his time between the Obama and Biden administrations launching a consulting firm called WestExec advisors which secured lucrative government contracts for intelligence firms and the arms industry. Blinken’s former partners at WestExec advisors include Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, CIA deputy director David Cohen, former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, and almost a dozen current and former members of Biden’s national security team.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, for his part, is a former and possibly future board member of Raytheon, and ex-partner of the Pine Island Capital investment firm that collaborates with WestExec and which Blinken has advised.

Meanwhile, the current US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas Greenfield, is listed as a senior counsel at the Albright Stonebridge Group, a self-described “commercial diplomacy firm” that also finesses contracts for the intelligence sector and arms industry. This firm was founded by the late Madeleine Albright, who infamously declared that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children under the US sanctions regime was “worth it.”

So while middle-aged Ukrainian men are ripped off streets by military police and sent to the front lines, the financially and politically connected architects of this proxy war are planning to walk through the revolving door to reap unimaginable profits once their time in the Biden administration is over.

For them, a negotiated settlement to this territorial dispute means an end to the cash cow of close to $150 billion in US aid to Ukraine.

When the United States, a permanent member of this council, has fallen under the control of a government which seeks to perpetuate a proxy war for “as long as it takes,” which considers diplomacy synonymous with unilateral coercive measures to “turn the ruble to rubble,” as Biden has pledged to do; whose leadership subverts negotiations in order to pursue profit while refusing to properly inform its own citizens what they are paying for, and which pushes the sons and brothers of its supposed Ukrainian partners out onto a killing field in order to bludgeon a geopolitical rival; when both Zelensky and members of the US Congress are calling for preemptive strikes on Russia which contravene the spirit of Article 51 of the UN charter, this council must take action to enforce that charter.

Articles 33 – 38 of Chapter VI of that Charter are clear that the security council must use its authority to guarantee a pacific settlement of dispute, particularly when it threatens international security. That should not only apply to Russia and Ukraine. This council has an obligation to strictly monitor and restrain the US and the illegal military formation known as NATO.

John Mearsheimer: The West is playing Russian roulette

“Why is Ukraine the West’s fault”

Posted by at 15 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)