ERIC ZUESSE—When America committed its coup that in February 2014 overthrew Ukraine’s unpopular but democratically elected leader Viktor Yanukovych, and replaced him with the U.S.-imposed regime that immediately replaced its generals and started an ethnic-cleansing campaign to get rid of the residents in the areas of Ukraine that had voted the heaviest (such as 90% in Ukraine’s far-eastern Donbass) for the leader whom Obama had just overthrown, was that U.S. coup “aggression” against Ukraine?
US EXCEPTIONALISM
-
-
An Intellectual No-Fly Zone: Online Censorship of Ukraine Dissent Is Becoming the New Norm
41 minutes readThose in positions of influence were most aggressively vetted, leading to purges of academics, educators, and journalists. Many of the most celebrated individuals from the world of entertainment – including actor Charlie Chaplain, singer Paul Robeson, and writer Orson Welles – had their careers destroyed because of their political beliefs. “Socialism was canceled, dissent was canceled after World War Two,” Breakthrough News host Brian Becker recently said, warning that this new Cold War with Russia and China could usher in a new McCarthyist era.
-
Pomp’s article below is illuminating on the sneaky ways the US government is suffocating free speech, by using its enormous power over the financial ecosystem of “the West” (read: Washington’s abjectly dominated bloc of nations). The videos we include, by Caleb Maupin and about the rebel Canadian truckers, are eloquent. Caleb is a longtime activist for social change, peace, and justice, and a respected political analyst. In the video Caleb details how PayPal has already jumped on the financial censorship bandwagon by suddenly shutting down his account for no valid reason, thereby crippling his political work. As usual, the move was ut into effect with no appeal. (We first heard about such underhanded and illegitimate things when the US went after Wikileaks in 2012, and more recently when Trudeau froze access to the truckers’ own bank accounts).
-
TED GALEN CARPENTER—President Biden thus far has rejected the riskiest policies that hawks are pushing in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Despite being under intense pressure, he continues to rule out proclaiming a no-fly zone, and he flatly rejects suggestions (including from one close political ally) that he consider sending U.S. troops to Ukraine. However, even the policies the administration has embraced entail an unacceptable risk of entangling the United States in a military confrontation with a nuclear-armed power. The United States and some NATO allies are pouring increasingly sophisticated weapons into Ukraine to bolster that country’s resistance to the invasion. Russia recently reiterated its warning that such shipments are legitimate military targets. In addition to lavishing arms on Ukraine, Washington is sharing key military intelligence with Kyiv. The United States is skirting very close to becoming an outright belligerent in an extremely dangerous war.
-
ERIC ZUESSE—Russia’s first strategy against further enlargement of NATO was to demand, on 15 December 2021, to the U.S. Government; and, two days later, to America’s main anti-Russian military alliance, NATO; that NATO would never add any new member-nations — especially not Ukraine. This demand was firmly rejected, on 7 January 2022, by both America and its NATO arm. Worse yet for Russia: after Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th, hoping thereby to prevent at least that country joining NATO, both Finland and Sweden were so scared that they might be invaded next, that both countries expressed in early April 2022 a desire to join the anti-Russian alliance, and were welcomed by America and its NATO arm to apply to join. So, even if Russia wins its war in Ukraine, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will have actually failed, because NATO seems now more likely even than before to increase — exactly the opposite of what Russia had been intending.