Saturday 23rd of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the news in between the adverts...

kamalakamala

With events in Ukraine having obliterated other stories it is worth noting that truckers are still driving from California to DC, but other regular people have totally forgotten about the convoy, the virus, and the vaccine, etc. The war ended the pandemic overnight. Everyone is now proffering an opinion on who started it, who is trying to achieve what, who will suffer most, and who will benefit most from the conflict.

The main winners in the short term will be budding foreign affairs journalists who want to make names for themselves. The established figures will either be repeating the same things or scrambling to justify previous errors of judgment, if they are allowed any room for independent thought. New faces, perhaps even figures accidentally caught up in the action, will have the licence to write anything which gets headlines. If that rather than truth is the aim, the less experienced figures, who won’t have sources to keep sweet or need to know their subject too deeply, will rise to the fore.

Prince Andrew must also be quietly relishing Putin’s move. After all the headlines about his payoff to Virginia Guiffre, what it implies about his past and future and where he got the money, he must be glad to see someone else the centre of attention and opprobrium. There is no suggestion Andrew actually started the war, but there are many who will question why the press will seize this opportunity to brush another royal scandal, which all have far greater significance for states than the mere facts suggest, under the carpet.

A lot of other obvious suspects also benefit – military-industrial complexes, arms suppliers, politicians who are no good in peacetime but come to prominence in wars. But there is one group of people who benefit more than any other, not because they are clever, but because we let them get away with it.

War makes things simple, however complex the conflicts themselves may be. People follow wars for the same reason they hanker after quiet lives in villages where everyone knows their place – as we saw in the Iraq War, which wasn’t so simple, and faced much public hostility because it didn’t give people the moral certainties they wanted it to.

For a little while, we can all live simple lives again. We can consume everything our chosen media tell us without having to question it, and feel ourselves justified by accidents of birth.

But ultimately it won’t be the general population which benefits from this contrived simplicity. It will be all those the general public wouldn’t want to benefit from it – proving once again that in war, it is the losing side which ultimately ends up with better consequences.

Black and White and Oil and Water

The narrative of this conflict is easy to understand: Russia is the enemy, Ukraine the friend. If you have Ukrainian connections, you are on the side of those poor suffering people. If you have Russian connections, you are in league with the enemy in some unspecified way.

Perhaps that is fair enough in times of conflict, even a conflict few are really interested in except as a flag-waving exercise for themselves. The problem is not that people start to think that way, but that is where thinking ends.

There are many other ways of distinguishing right and wrong, good and bad, who you should support and who you should resist. Laws provide a framework. Religion, morals and societal ethics and give pointers, and usually these factors determine whether individuals, or courses of action, are appropriate at a given time.

Now all that is out of the window, at least for as long as such a high profile conflict goes on, the only measure of good and bad will be how Russian somebody is perceived to be. More complex measures will be ignored for as long as this is the only game in town.

How do you win such a game? Perhaps by being more anti-Russian than the next person, provided that you have anything to actually offer, no matter how anti-Russian you are, these positive ideas and skills must predominate. If your only response to everything is to get rid of everything Russian, you will get support but not achieve anything of value, as in the old American political saying, “there is no Democratic or Republican way to sweep the streets”.

After all the anti-racist rhetoric poured down our throats without explanation of why this is the right way to behave, even though it undoubtedly is, we are entering a period where overt racism will be the only way to the top. A new set of public enemies are in town: not those who are inclusive and liberal rather than exclusive and nationalistic, but those who can be branded as pro-Russian, however inaccurately, for whatever pretext.

This process has already begun with the vile Mr. Nigel Farage. Finding reasons to complain about Farage is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. His malicious lies about Europe and everything not English have had such a pernicious effect on his country, even in the eyes of previously prominent supporters of his, that his CV would be regarded as criminally liable defamation of character if attached to someone else’s name.

But Farage thinks that the EU is responsible for the conflict in Ukraine, and has said so publicly. Ordinarily, such a position would be met with hearty cheers by the Brexit Masochistic Machismo Squad. But now it is those same supporters are branding him as being pro-Russian, and that, in itself, has obliterated any argument about whether people like the EU or not.

Farage must now be bad not because of everything else he has done, but because he is considered pro-Russian. People on either side of the fence on the issues he has been associated with now have a common prism through which to view him. Both can condemn him as pro-Russian to avoid their own arguments, which are increasingly fatalistic on either side as everyone loses. Now the sole criterion for judging Farage will be whether you are prepared to put up with his apparent Russophilia, and therefore whether you see him as bad, or flawed, or misguided.

You will be able to get rid of anyone you don’t like by proving them Russian in substance or sympathy. You won’t have to offer a single positive thing of your own, and all the positive things the people judged pro-Russian may have done won’t help them. Real life will have no meaning, and any sacrifice will be acceptable to remove the stain of Russianness from our midst – provided those sacrifices are made by the general public, not those who they will now entrust to lead them.

Alleged Russian Money Breeds American Money

You would imagine that someone given the first name “Alexander” who has spent his professional life calling himself by the middle name “Boris” would be a prime target for suspicion of Russian connections. Indeed it is surprising he wasn’t declared persona non grata when he started using that name, during Cold War times – maybe all the jokiness is a means of trying to laugh off suspicions over his very convoluted origins, and the inherent corruption is designed to win friends in high places for the same reason.

Boris Johnson is making the usual noise about this war, and as usual no one takes him seriously. The United Kingdom used to be one of those countries whose diplomatic intervention carried weight, but not now, and certainly not as long as he is in charge.

Johnson is clinging to office by a thread, after all the stuff about illegal parties and Brexit blowing up in his face. Many in his own party are amongst those most desirous to see the back of him. Many of these are now drawing attention to his attempts to suppress, and then run away from, the so-called “Russia Report” into alleged Russian interference in the Brexit referendum.

But wouldn’t he want this? His party is alleged to have been accepting Russian money for years, so anyone from his own side who speaks against him over this issue can be portrayed as a tainted witness. Similarly, anyone who speaks against him over any other issue can be dismissed as someone who is only doing that to disguise what is now a greater crime, i.e. being financed by that same money as a Conservative candidate.

If BoJo is going to be forced out, as he has been in other jobs and is expected to be from this one sooner or later, suspected complicity with Russia provides the ideal excuse. But if that happens, he can link everything back to that.

If BoJo is removed over anything to do with Russia he will make a fortune on the US lecture circuit when it’s all blown over. No one will be interested in his serial lying and lawbreaking, the dodgy contracts to party donors, the wholesale attack on everything the United Kingdom and its democracy are supposed to stand for in order to con the public that those rules are persecuting them, and he is on their side.

Those crimes will continue under someone new, and less visibly, for as long as that person is perceived to be less Russia-oriented. The words will change, but the actions will be the same, because BoJo has made sure that only his gang have any levers, and they have pulled too many of them to back out now and implicate themselves.

The present British royal house is called the House of Windsor, rather than its original name, the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, because King George V gave up that name, and all his many German titles, during World War One. He didn’t do this as soon as war was declared, but they became an embarrassment as time went on. If he hadn’t have acted, he may have destroyed the monarchy, as his cousin the Kaiser did by being on the losing side – not because he lost, but because he represented an enemy which had to be cleansed of its past.

Loud Vows of Silence

The more crimes you know you have committed, the more you will want to see people dying in Ukraine, or any other hotspot you don’t have to go to yourself. A number of wars have been fought to cover crimes which would otherwise carry penalties – such as Mikheil Saakashvili laundering illegal arms sales through the Russia-Georgia war of 2008. It is not a question of needing more popular support, but of minimising the crimes which have eroded that support, or would if they were exposed.

If everything is reduced to what side people are on in the Russia-Ukraine conflict the ones who profit most are the ones under the greatest threat, real or imagined, the rest of the time. All conflicts have two sides, even if one has a far greater degree of truth and moral justification behind it than the other. No one will be able to resolve any conflict peacefully if it is all us and them; one side is uniformly praised and the other exclusively condemned.

International pariahs have come and gone. The white minority regime of Ian Smith in Rhodesia was one considered the worst on earth, due to its racist nature and unilateral declaration of independence designed to maintain white rule forever. Rhodesia was subject to long lasting sanctions, though everyone knew they must be being broken, until the unilateral regime was forced out by international pressure in 1980, through fully participatory democratic elections, whatever their faults.

Many white Rhodesians objected to being portrayed as racist then, and to being remembered as such today. Despite their connections with the far right in Europe, they maintained that in the local context their views should not have been seen as unacceptable.

Blacks were second-class citizens (or not citizens at all), but still financially better-off than what were the vast majority in most of Africa. Voting rights were based on levels of tax contributions, a law which also disenfranchised poor whites. If other British colonies with little experience of self-government were granted independence because they were run by blacks, but Rhodesia, which had successfully governed itself for decades, was not granted it because it was run by whites, who were the racists in Rhodesian eyes?

In the real world, such arguments have no merit. But no one would engage with them because everything the other side said must be bad. That is why the white regime lasted as long as it did, and why a lot of very dubious business persons, such as arms dealers, gained the most from its continuance.

The Russian conflict with Ukraine will be used to make everything simple enough to prevent people asking too many hard questions of those who will most benefit from it. Whichever side you are on, you will be expected to be part of the same process.

 

 

Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

 

READ MORE:

https://journal-neo.org/2022/03/04/ukraine-obliterates-other-stories-only-the-villains-can-win/

 

LET'S GO TO A COMMERCIAL BREAK...

 

FREE JULIA ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a stand-up comic...

 

BY 

 

Volodymyr Zelensky is the current President of Ukraine. He was elected in a landslide victory in 2019 on the promise of easing tensions with Russia and resolving the crisis in the breakaway republics in east Ukraine. He has made no attempt to keep his word on either issue. Instead, he has greatly exacerbated Ukraine’s internal crisis while relentlessly provoking Russia. Zelensky has had numerous opportunities to smooth things over​ with Moscow and prevent the outbreak of hostilities. Instead, he has consistently made matters worse by blindly following Washington’s directives.

Zelensky has been lionized in the west and praised for his personal bravery. But—as a practical matter—he has failed to restore national unity or implement the crucial peace accord that is the only path to reconciliation. The Ukrainian president doesn’t like the so-called Minsk Protocol and has refused to meet its basic requirements. As a result, the ethnically-charged, fratricidal war that has engulfed Ukraine for the last 8 years, continues to this day with no end in sight. President Vladimir Putin referred to Zelensky’s obstinance in a recent speech delivered at the Kremlin. He said:

“At yesterday’s event… the Ukrainian leadership publicly declared that they were not going to abide by these agreements. Not going to abide by them. Well, what else can you say about that?” (Vladimir Putin)

Most Americans fail to realize that Zelensky’s rejection of Minsk was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Russian officials had worked for 8 years on Minsk hammering out terms that would be agreeable to all parties. Then—at the eleventh hour—Zelensky put the kibosh on the deal with a wave of the hand. Why? Who told Zelensky to scrap the agreement? Washington?

Of course.

And why did Zelensky deploy 60,000 combat troops to the area just beyond the Line of Contact (in east Ukraine) where they could lob mortal shells into the towns and villages of the ethnic Russians who lived there? Clearly, the message this sent to the people was that an invasion was imminent and that they should either flee their homes immediately or take shelter in their cellars. What objective did Zelensky hope to achieve by forcing these people to huddle in their homes in fear for their lives? And what message did he intend to send to Moscow whose leaders looked on at these developments in absolute horror?

Did he know his actions would set off alarms in Russia forcing Putin to call up his military and prepare them for a possible invasion to protect his people from– what looked to be– a massive ethnic cleansing operation?

He did.

So, how are these actions consistent with Zelensky’s campaign promises to restore national unity and peacefully resolve Ukraine’s issues with Russia?

They’re not consistent at all, they are polar opposites. In fact, Zelenskyy appears to be operating off a different script altogether. Take, for example, his complete unwillingness to address Russia’s minimal security concerns. Did Zelensky know that Putin had repeatedly said that Ukraine’s membership in NATO was a “red line” for Russia? Did he know that Putin has been saying the same thing over-and-over again since 2014? Did he know that Putin warned that if Ukraine took steps to join NATO, Russia would be forced to take “military-technical” measures to ensure their own security? Does Zelensky know that NATO is Washington-controlled Alliance that has engaged in numerous acts of aggression against other sovereign states. Here’s a short list of NATO’s accomplishments:

  1. The destruction of Yugoslavia
  2. The destruction of Afghanistan
  3. The destruction of Libya
  4. The destruction of Iraq
  5. The destruction of Syria

Does Zelensky know that NATO is openly hostile to Russia and regards Russia a serious threat to its expansionist ambitions?

Yes, he knows all these things. Still, he publicly expressed his interest in developing nuclear weapons. What is that all about? Imagine the problem that would pose for Russia. Imagine if a US-backed puppet, like Zelensky, had nuclear missiles at his fingertips. How do you think that might impact Russia’s security? Do you think Putin could ignore a development like that and still fulfill his duty to protect the Russian people?

And why did Zelenskyy agree to allow shipment after shipment of lethal weaponry to be delivered to Ukraine if he sincerely sought peace with Russia? Did he think that Putin was too stupid to see what was going on right beneath his nose? Did he think he was normalizing relations by expanding his arsenal, threatening his own people, and jumping through whatever hoops Washington set out for him?

Or did he think that Putin’s requests for security assurances were unreasonable? Is that it? Did he think– that if the shoe was on the other foot– the US would allow Mexico to put military bases, artillery pieces and missile sites along America’s southern border? Is there any president in American history who wouldn’t have done the same thing that Putin did? Is there any president in American history who wouldn’t have launched a preemptive strike on those Mexican weapons and vaporized every living thing for a 20-mile radius?

No, Putin’s demands were entirely reasonable, but Zelenskyy shrugged them off anyway. Why?

Does Zelenskyy know that there are Right Sektor, neo-Nazis in the government, military and Security Services. Does he know that, while their numbers are small, they are a force to be reckoned with and factor heavily in the hatred and persecution of ethnic Russians? Does he know that these far-right elements participate in torchlight parades, imprint swastikas or SS tattoos on their arms, and revere the racialist ideology of Adolph Hitler? Does he realize that many these Nazis have engaged in criminal acts of brutality including the incinerating of 40 civilians at the Trade Union Building in Odessa in 2014? Does he think that the CIA’s covert programs to arm and train these right-wing militants builds confidence or does he think it reminds Moscow of a catastrophic war in which 27 million Russians were exterminated by Germany’s Wehrmacht?

Can you see how everything Zelensky has done, was done with the intention of provoking Russia?

All the talk of joining NATO, all the talk about building nukes, the steady buildup of lethal weaponry, the movement of troops to the east, the refusal to implement the Minsk Treaty and the rejection of Putin’s security demands. All of these were deliberate provocations. But, why? Why “bait the bear”; that’s the question?

Because Washington wants to lure Russia into a war so it can further demonize Putin, isolate Russia, launch a counterinsurgency operation against the Russian army, and impose harsh economic sanctions that will inflict maximum damage on the Russian economy. That’s Washington’s strategy in a nutshell, and Zelenskyy is helping Washington achieve its objectives. He’s allowing himself to be Washington’s tool. He is sacrificing his own country to advance the interests of the United States.

All this helps to underscore a point that is never considered by the media and never discussed by the pundits on cable news, that is, that Ukraine is going to lose the war, and Zelenskyy knows it. He knows the Ukrainian Armed Forces are no match for the Russian army. It is like a Giant swatting a fly. Ukraine is the fly. The public needs to hear this, but they’re not hearing it. Instead, they’re hearing blabber about heroic Ukrainians fighting the Russian invader. But this is nonsense, dangerous nonsense that is emboldening people to sacrifice their lives for a lost cause. The outcome of this conflict has never been in doubt: Ukraine is going to lose. That is certain. And, if you read between the lines, you’ll see that Russia is winning the war quite handily; they are crushing the Ukrainian army at every turn, and they will continue to crush them until Ukraine surrenders. Check out this brief interview with Colonel Douglas MacGregor on Tucker Carlson and you’ll understand what’s really going on:

Tucker: “Where is the war as of tonight”? (March 1)

Colonel McGregor: “Well, the first 5 days, we saw a very slow methodical movement of Russian forces entering Ukraine…. They moved slowly and cautiously and tried to reduce casualties among the civilian population, trying to give the Ukrainian forces the opportunity to surrender. That is over. And the phase in which we find ourselves now, Russian forces have maneuvered to encircle and surround the remaining Ukrainian forces and destroy them through a series of massive rocket artillery strikes, air strikes with Russian armor slowly-but-surely closing the distance and annihilating what’s left. So, this is the beginning of the end of the Ukrainian resistance. 

Tucker: What is Putin’s goal here?”

Colonel McGregor: “Putin set out to honor his word from 2007 at the Munich Security Conference where he said ‘We will not allow the expansion of NATO to a point where NATO is touching our border, specifically, Ukraine and Georgia. We see these as Trojan Horses for NATO’s military power and US influence... He repeated that (warning) over and over and over again, in the hopes that he could avoid taking action to effectively clean-out eastern Ukraine of any opposition forces whatever, and to put his forces in a position vis-a-vis NATO to deter us from any further attempts to influence or change Ukraine into a platform for the projection of US and western power into Russia. 

Now his goal–as of today– is to seize this whole area of eastern Ukraine (east of the Dneiper River) and he has has crossed the river where he is preparing to go in and capture that city (of Kiev) entirely.

At that point, Putin has to decide what else he wants to do. I don’t think he wants to go any further west. But he would like to know that whatever emerges from this as Ukraine… is “neutral” not-aligned and, preferably, friendly to Moscow. That he will accept. Anything short of that, and his war has been a waste of time.”(“Colonel Douglas MacGregor with Tucker Carlson”, Rumble)

 

What can we deduce from this short interview:

  1. Russia will prevail and Ukraine will lose.
  2. Ukraine is going to be partitioned. Putin is going to create the buffer he needs to assure his country’s security.
  3. Whoever governs the western part of Ukraine will be required to declare their “neutrality” (in writing) and reject any offers for NATO membership. If they violate that promise, they will be removed by force. 

But here’s the important thing: All of the main actors in this fiasco knew from the very beginning that Ukraine had no chance of defeating the Russian army. That was a foregone conclusion. So–what we want to know– is why Zelenskyy didn’t take steps to avoid the tragedy before it unfolded?

The answer to this question helps to reveal ‘who Zelenskyy really is’.

Ask yourself this: Why didn’t Zelenskyy negotiate with Putin when he had the chance? Why didn’t he pull back his 60,000 troops from the east? Why didn’t he stop Washington’s weapons shipments? Why didn’t he implement the Minsk Treaty? Why didn’t he reject NATO’s offer for membership?

Finally, why was so intent on doing the things that he knew would anger Moscow and increase the likelihood of a war? 

These questions are not hard to answer.

Zelenskyy has been acting on orders from Washington from the get-go. We know that. He’s also been implementing Washington’s agenda not his own and certainly not Ukraine’s. We know that, too. But that does not absolve him from responsibility. After all, he is a full-grown adult capable of distinguishing between right from wrong. He knows what he’s doing, and he knows that it’s wrong; worse than wrong, it’s inexcusable. He’s sending men to die in a war he knows they can’t win; he’s inflicting incalculable suffering and injury on his own people for no reason at all; and –worst of all– he’s cleared the way for the dissolution of Ukraine itself, the country he was sworn to defend. That country is going to be broken into bits as part of a final settlement with Russia, and Zelenskyy will share a good part of the blame. 

How does a man like this live with himself?

 

 

READ MORE:

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-man-who-sold-ukraine/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW..................

NATO helps, a bit...

 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky earlier expressed his disappointment with NATO failing to engage more in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, particularly for the alliance's reluctance to declare a no-fly zone over the country.

 

Volodymyr Zelensky is trying to provoke a conflict between Russia and NATO, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Saturday.

According to Lavrov, by expressing his disappointment with the bloc's refusal to intervene, Zelensky is demonstrating his desire to drag NATO into the conflict.

 

"The constant embittered statements by Mr Zelensky do not add optimism", Lavrov noted. "He was a little rude to his curators, accusing them of inaction. And I have a question: if he was so upset that NATO did not stand up for him, as he hoped, then he still hoped for a settlement of the conflict by involving NATO in this whole story, and not through negotiations ... It turns out that he still wants to provoke a conflict".

 

The date for the next round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine has not been settled yet, the Russian foreign minister said, pointing at the reluctance of the Ukrainian side to engage.

 

"The situation looks rather strange, it seems that everyone is interested in reaching an early agreement on how to fully resolve everything. And on the other hand, it would seem that the most interested side, the Ukrainian side, constantly comes up with pretexts to postpone the start of the next meeting", Lavrov said.

 

The top Russian diplomat suggested that Zelensky's "militaristic frenzy" indicates that he does not need the talks with Moscow. Still, Lavrov said Russia hopes that Zelensky's mood changes.

The negotiations between Russia and Ukraine are taking place in Belarus, with the first round occurring on 28 February, followed by a second meeting on 3 March. During the second round, the parties reached an understanding on the joint provision of humanitarian corridors to evacuate civilians, along with the delivery of food and medicine. The Ukrainian side said that a third round of talks is expected to kick off next week.

NATO previously said that it does not consider itself a part of the conflict, stressing that the alliance will not deploy troops in Ukraine or move planes into its airspace. However, NATO continues to supply weapons to Ukraine, and said it will increase these supplies.

 

READ MORE:

https://sputniknews.com/20220305/lavrov-zelensky-is-trying-to-provoke-conflict-between-nato-and-russia-1093612240.html

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW........

cancelling cats...

 

Western cancel culture has gone nuclear in targeting an entire country

 

The West doesn’t seem to have considered the campaign’s collateral damage, or how persecution could be expected to promote peace

 

 

By Rachel Marsden

 

 

By now, we’re all used to righteous people pitching fits and ganging up, mean-girl style, on those they feel have committed transgressions against the status quo. But amid the conflict in Ukraine, some are actually trying to deplatform the world’s largest country by attacking anyone and anything even remotely associated with it.

Back in 2003,  in the run-up to the Iraq War, when I was working in Washington, DC as the director of a think tank associated with the George W. Bush administration, I recall the moment when “French fries” were suddenly renamed “freedom fries” in the Congressional cafeteria. It was an attempt by the Republicans to stick it to the French, who had opposed the invasion of Iraq. 

French products were also subsequently boycotted over Paris’ refusal to support the US invasion, but such measures are almost quaint and sensible compared to the utter hysterical lunacy that’s transpiring today, as Russia and NATO member countries face off over Ukraine. 

According to various reports, North American government officials have been demanding the removal of Russian vodka from store shelves. But it turns out that almost none of it imported to the continent is actually made in Russia. The brands – Smirnoff or Stolichnaya, for example – just soundRussian. A bar in the state of Maryland has also renamed the classic Russian Mule cocktail, rebranding it a “Kyiv Mule”. And Magic Mountain ski resort, in Vermont, tweeted a video showing a bar man dumping bottles of Stoli – already bought and paid for, presumably – down the drain, apparently unaware that the brand is actually Latvian, with operations in Ukraine. 

Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky was cancelled by the University of Milano-Bicocca, in Italy, which suspended a course about him before reinstating it after a backlash. But the joke was on them, because Dostoevsky was already cancelled, you could say, having passed away in 1881, so the odds are fairly low that he had any involvement in the current Ukraine conflict.

It’s also improbable that cats or dogs from Russia are responsible for the situation in Ukraine – although, hey, you never know, right? One can never be too sure! So, the fact that the International Feline Federation has banned Russian moggies from competitions, and this year’s Crufts dog show, the world’s biggest annual such event, is reportedly prohibiting the participation of Russian pooches is totally sane and logical. Next up: a ban on migrating Russian birds?

Before Electronic Arts suspended the sales of its games in Russia, it issued a statement announcing it was cancelling all the Russian teams from its virtual soccer games because its “partners” in real life – as in the actual soccer leagues, FIFA and UEFA – were suspending the Russian team, including from World Cup 2022 qualifying matches. 

“In line with our partners at FIFA and UEFA, EA Sports has initiated processes to remove the Russian national team and all Russian clubs from EA Sports FIFA products including FIFA 22, FIFA mobile, and FIFA online,” the statement read. “We’re also actively evaluating related changes to other areas of our games.”

The games maker also announced it was removing Russian and Belarusian teams from its ‘NHL 22’ video game, which will surely hit these virtual hockey players right in their big virtual wallets.

 

A statement from EA SPORTS NHL: pic.twitter.com/2uX4h55ok4

— EA SPORTS NHL (@EASPORTSNHL) March 2, 2022

 

But real-life Russian hockey players are also facing cancellation. National Hockey League star and Washington Capitals captain, Alexander Ovechkin, has been dropped from advertising campaigns by insurance firm sponsor, MassMutual. Canadian apparel firm CCM has also stopped marketing the league record holder, along with his teammates Dmitry Orlov and Evgeni Malkin of the Pittsburgh Penguins. 

The “cancellation” of these players echoes a troubling sentiment expressed on social media by former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. “There are no more ‘innocent’, ‘neutral’ Russians anymore,” the former diplomat wrote in a now-deleted tweet. “Everyone has to make a choice – support or oppose this war.”

 

 

I think it's genuinely useful and illuminating when the people who run US foreign policy turn into Twitter pundits, drop the mask of obfuscating State Department diplomatic language, and let everyone know how they really think (and look how viral this vile tweet already is): pic.twitter.com/tXW4y094pt

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 2, 2022

 

 

Meanwhile, average Russian citizens – no matter what they think about the attack on Ukraine – are being hit by Western sanctions imposed on them by the same people seeking to manipulate them into doing their regime-change dirty work.

And speaking of innocent victims, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has moved to ban Russian and Belorusian athletes and officials from international sports federations, holding them responsible for political circumstances in which they have played no part. It’s an odd position for an organisation whose president, Thomas Bach, said of the US and Western diplomatic boycott of the Beijing games that the IOC would remain apolitical. 

Last year, Bach said that “by not commenting on political issues, you are not taking a side …  This is the mission of the IOC, otherwise we could not manage to accomplish the mission of the games to bring together and unite the world.”  Apparently, those words of principle, just months later, aren’t worth the wind on which they were written. 

Nor are those espoused by the European Union leadership and its member states about freedom of the press. All EU nations fell into line with the supranational governing entity, in total absence of due process, when it issued a blanket ban on journalism hosted on any Russian state-backed media outlets. In doing so, they deprived their countries’ citizens of the ability to access information and analysis that risks contradicting the highly controlled and oriented EU and member-state official narrative related to this conflict, as relayed by the heavily state-subsidised and consolidated Western press. 

And much like the aforementioned Russian athletes or the average Russian citizens of McFaul’s tweet, no journalist – even those of Western origin and residence – is free from having a target painted on their back as a result of their work appearing on a Russian media platform. Many such journalists here in France have reported being branded with this new era’s equivalent of scarlet letters, when Twitter tagged their personal accounts as “state-affiliated media” in the wake of EU authority requests. 

“It shall be prohibited for operators to broadcast, or to enable, facilitate or otherwise contribute to broadcast, any content by the legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex IX, including through transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed,”  reads the new regulation approved by the Council of the European Union, consisting of ministers of all 27 states, whose citizens or regulating bodies never had a say in the matter. 

When all’s said and done, Western cancel culture gone nuclear on Russia – much like other sanctions adopted amid hysterics – has a blast radius liable to cause so much collateral damage that it may end up harming those responsible much more than they now realise. Of course, some may disagree. Just as there are probably still some folks who think, with the hindsight of two decades, that freedom fries adopted in the heat of the moment were a good move in support of that righteous and super-wise war in Iraq.

 

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/551205-west-cancel-associated-russia/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.

 

Until Julian Assange Assange is free, the American Culture will be CANCELLED, and fought tooth and nails by Old Gus, for being beyond hypocritical.