Tuesday 9th of August 2022

getting closer to nuclear armaggedon...

The undersigned strongly and unambiguously express their opposition to your policy with regard to Ukraine. Your strategy is edging the world closer and closer to a nuclear war with Russia, and to another world war. Recently, you requested Congress for even more funds to be sent to Ukraine in order to help them buy more weapons for the military conflict with Russia. 

“So we need to contribute arms, funding, ammunition … so that they continue what they are doing,” you said on April 28 when asking for some more $33 billion in taxpayer funds to support Ukraine. “Robust military assistance” for Ukraine is your expression. Reuters reported that “President Joe Biden asked Congress for $33 billion to support Ukraine” and called it “a dramatic escalation of U.S. funding for the war with Russia.” At the same time, the U.S.-led NATO April 27 meeting in Ramstein, Germany urged NATO members to provide more military support to Ukraine, with Germany promising to send 50 self-propelled Cheetah anti-aircraft weapons. We reject your heightened escalation of this conflict as dangerous and a provocation.

The response from Russia? Just days before Biden’s appeal to Congress, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded to the increased U.S. military support of Ukraine by saying there was a “serious” risk of nuclear war over the conflict. “It’s real. It shouldn’t be underestimated,” he stated. 

Do we want to risk a nuclear war with Russia over a regional conflict in Eastern Europe? 

The independent journalist Glenn Greenwald just recently stated, “Whatever your views on the moral dimensions of this war, it’s hard to deny this is the most dangerous moment in US foreign policy in two decades. Every week, US/NATO involvement in the war intensifies, as Russia explicitly warns of nuclear war. For what?”

We hereby declare that your escalation of this conflict as the President of the United States has not been done in our name.

Nor did you act in our name when you, as Vice-President of the United States, were involved in the 2014 coup in Ukraine that toppled the officially elected leadership of Ukraine. At that time, a telephone conversation of your collaborator Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State under President Barak Obama) revealed how she discussed which leaders should be placed into the new government in Ukraine. The transcript of that conversation also exposed your own direct involvement in this interference with a foreign nation state. This intrusion into the internal affairs of a sovereign nation was not done in our name, either.

You designated this same official, Victoria Nuland, now as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. In that position, she has recently had to admit that Ukraine does have bio labs and that the U.S. is involved in them and is worried what Russia would do with its dangerous content should they get a hold of it. “Ukraine has biological research facilities which in fact we are now quite concerned Russian troops may be seeking to gain control of,” Nuland said. “So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.” Some of those very same Ukraine bio labs are ones that your own son, Hunter Biden, only months after the U.S.-led political coup in Ukraine in 2014, invested money by way of the U.S. Company Metabiota which is working with the Department of Defense. Additional evidence has been recently unearthed, effectively proving the U.S.’s involvement in Ukrainian bio labs.

This strange and troubling U.S. involvement in bio labs at the border of Russia – with direct involvement of your own family –  is not done in our name, either.

And let us also remind you that the United States does not have a good moral standing when it comes to condemning unjust wars of aggression. Recent U.S. history demonstrates a pattern of multiple military invasions of sovereign states – or military and tactical support for others to do so – most prominently the unjust 2003 invasion of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, but also in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria.

At this dangerous moment in history, the U.S. must exert its power to become a force for just peace, urging Russia and Ukraine to come to the negotiation table in order to agree on compromises that would enable and ensure peace in the region.

The U.S. should not engage in a policy of intensification of conflict with Russia that could lead to the deaths of millions of innocent people. There are grave consequences of cumulative provocations.

Not in our name, Mr. President.

You can sign the petition in opposition to U. S. escalation of war with Russia here


Dr. Chuck Baldwin, Pastor, Author, Columnist, Radio Talk Show Host, Presidential Nominee

Donna F. Bethell, Esq. 

Walter E. Block, Ph.D., Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics Loyola University New Orleans

Dr. Peter Chojnowski, philosopher and director of Sister Lucy Truth 

Patrick Delaney, journalist

Matt Gaspers, Managing Editor, Catholic Family News

The Most Reverend Bishop René Gracida

Carrie Gress and Noelle Mering, TheologyofHome.com, Fellows, Ethics & Public Policy Center

Scholars, Institute for Human Ecology, CUA

Dr. Robert Hickson (USA ret.), retired professor of literature and military history

Dr. Maike Hickson, journalist

mexican stand of…….


By Andrey Sushentsov, Valdai Club program director


Why do Russian-Ukrainian relations concern every Russian and Ukrainian? To some extent, what is happening is a delayed civil war, which could have happened in the early 1990s with the collapse of the USSR, when the first generation of Russian and Ukrainian leaders boasted that they had avoided a bloody divorce like the one in Yugoslavia.

In Russia, every other person has relatives in the neighboring country, and what is happening there is more a matter of domestic politics. For example, if the Ukrainian government closes Russian Orthodox churches or bans a pro-Russian opposition political party, the story gets immediate coverage on state TV and Russian politicians issue statements.

All post-Soviet countries gained independence on the same day, and each of these states is in some way an experiment in state-building; in establishing foreign and domestic political strategies.

The peculiarity of the Ukrainian state experiment is underscored by the following dilemma: How is it possible to reconcile the two pillars of Ukrainian statehood – Galician Ukraine and the eastern Russian community? At some point, people representing the western regions had a stick in their hands, and they began to use it in their dialogue with representatives of the east — that is why the last Maidan won. The path along which the Ukrainian experiment has developed reflects a gradual curtailment of the presence and interests of Russian identity.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, when trying to enlist support in the east of the country during the elections, promised that he would never ban the teaching of Russian in schools, that he would ensure the status of Russian as a language when communicating with government agencies, and that he would protect the memory of the Great Patriotic War. As soon as he came to power, it became clear that his intentions were to do the exact opposite.


Now, watching what is happening in the Western media, we can see everything portrayed as if big, strong Russia attacked small Ukraine. From the point of view of the strategic balance of power, however, the situation is not so obvious. Ukraine is the second-largest nation in Europe in terms of physical size after Russia. The population of Ukraine is about 40 million people – large by European standards.

The army of Ukraine is the third-largest in Europe after those of Russia and Turkey – between 220,000 and 240,000 people. Military spending as a share of Ukraine’s GDP was almost 6% (at the level of Israel), the armed forces have been modernized, and Kiev purchased modern armed systems from the West. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg directly pointed out that Western instructors had trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers. By pumping Ukraine with weapons, the West sought to create a counterbalance to Russia, facing off against it in a way that would completely absorb its attention and resources – akin to Pakistan’s confrontation with India.

A few weeks ago, Russian pranksters called the UK secretary of defense and, on behalf of the Prime Minister of Ukraine, asked how Britain would react if they were planning to create nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The defense minister replied that the UK would always support their Ukrainian friends.

It seems to many that the West would never allow Ukraine to obtain its nuclear weapons, but it is quite possible that the West would react in the same way as in the case of Israel: Formally, the country does not have WMDs, but, as one Israeli leader said, “If necessary, then we will use it.”Metaphorically speaking, we can say that the Americans put a bulletproof vest on the Ukrainians, giving them a helmet and pushing them towards Russia: “Success, buddy.” Ultimately, all this led to a relationship of one-sided dependence. Ukraine is highly dependent on the West, but the latter does not plan to systematically support it forever.

How would the Americans behave if Russia responded with a comparable threat? At one of the hearings in the US Senate, US Admiral Kurt W. Tidd stated that “Russia is expanding its presence in the region directly competing with the US for influence in our hemisphere.” Imagine if Russia started interacting with Mexico in the same way the West is now behaving with Ukraine: Unexpectedly for the Americans, Mexico begins to rapidly militarize itself, thinks about its own missile program, about nuclear weapons. Mexicans recall grievances from the 19th century, when Texas was not yet part of the United States. What would the United States do, given the very recent leaks about the desire of former President Donald Trump to invade Venezuela “because of a threat to regional security?”


We are probably at the starting point of an unfolding crisis, and not close to its end. The first diplomatic proposal that Russia made at the beginning of the crisis was that Ukraine remain neutral, that Crimea be recognized as Russian territory, and that the Donbass republics be recognized as independent. In response to these demands, Ukraine put forward its own: The complete repatriation of its pre-2014 territory and no steps towards Russia. The maximization of Ukrainian demands means that a point of balance has not yet been found in the ongoing military campaign. However, it has its own options for development.

In the first scenario, the current Ukrainian government and Russia enter into an agreement that takes into account Russian demands, and these agreements are recognized by the West as part of a European security package deal. The Russian-Ukrainian crisis would give way to a Russian-Western military-political confrontation, akin to the Cold War.

The second scenario assumes the development of events under the influence of the military situation on the ground. As a result, either a balance is inevitably found, or one of the parties prevails. In this case, there are risks that the West will not recognize the results of the deal, and a new Ukrainian government will arise, and be opposed by the government in exile. From the West, there will be a system of support for the Ukrainian underground, similar to the one that existed in the west of Ukraine in the 1950s.

The third scenario involves a sharp escalation of tension between Russia and the West. It is possible that the crisis will spread to the NATO countries or the escalation of the sanctions war against Russia follows in the hope of shaking the foundations of Russian statehood. In this case, the risks of a nuclear collision will increase. However, so far, we see that Western leaders are distancing themselves from such plans and saying they will not send NATO forces to this conflict. Nevertheless, we have repeatedly seen how the West crosses its own “red lines” – it can really happen again.

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








This also explains why Russia is pussyfooting (i. e. being VERY restrained) in the military operation and prepared to take more losses than being involved in a total obliteration of Ukraine...


FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^