The Ukrainian war is in its end game. Checkmate is at hand, Declan Hayes writes. 

March 20, 1945. With Berlin in critical danger, the Führer chooses General Gotthard Heinrici to replace Heinrich Himmler as chief of Army Group Vistula. Heinrici’s mission is to defend Berlin, which is now coming within striking distance of Red Army artillery fire, and to kick-start Zhukov’s retreat right back to Bakhmut, Moscow and Crimea, so as to give Hitler time to bring his wunderwaffe, his wonder weapons, into the fray.

Though Heinrici knows that these jet aircraft, together with the V1, V2 and V3systems are too little and much too late, as a Prussian officer, he will do as commanded and try to forestall, for however long he can, Zhukov’s 1,500,000 troops with his 100,000 strong scratch army at the Seelow Heights. Heinrici, the Reich’s greatest defense tactician, has no illusions as to how either this battle or this war will end.

Late January, 2023. With the Ukrainian rump Reich in critical danger, Kiev’s comedy king orders his remaining troops to go on the offensive and kick Gerasimov out of Bakhmut and right back to Moscow and Crimea. Zelensky’s NATO buddies declare that wonder weapons are on the way, Bradley personnel carriers and advanced air defense systems that Zelensky’s child conscripts haven’t a clue how to operate or maintain.

Though his generals and their remaining veteran troops know that Zelensky is talking rubbish, like Heinrici, they will do as commanded for, to disobey means instant death at the hands of the SBU not only for them but for their families as well. So says retired U.S. Army officer Douglas Macgregor, who is one of a small number of former NATO commanders, who consistently talk sense on Ukraine.

Although the pronouncements of all current and former NATO operatives have to be taken with a large dose of Soledar’s salts, when those statements are consistent and, when their analyses stack up with reality, as opposed to the fantasy worlds of Hitler and Zelensky, then we must listen.

Ukraine now faces the entire might of Russia’s armed forces. They are heavily outnumbered and outgunned. Their NATO masters have admitted Ukraine is only an expendable cat’s paw to maul Russia and nothing more. Ukraine’s leaders are hopelessly corrupt and they have no hopes of winning because their concept of victory is anathema to Russian General Gerasimov and the fearsome air, land and sea forces he now commands. It is time to abandon ship, to get out of Dodge and run Forrest run as there is nothing more to be done.

Whatever his other faults Heinrici, unser giftzwerg, literally “our poison dwarf” (roughly, “our tough little bastard”) as his troops nicknamed him, was not a quitter. He fought valiantly, bravely at the Seelow Heights but it was, in the end, he always knew, hopeless, prolonging the Reich’s inevitable defeat at a cost of hundreds of thousands more lives.

The Battle of the Oder-Neisse began on April 16, 1945 and, though Heinrici used the tried and trusted tactics he had previously employed to steady the 4th Army’s retreat from the Battle of Moscow, the Red Army quickly cracked his first, and then his second and, finally, his third lines of defense. By April 19th, only three days after it began, the Battle of the Oder-Neisse was over, thereby opening the road to Berlin and the end of the Reich and its doped-up Führer, following the criminally needless slaughter fest of the Battle of Berlin.

As with the Seelow Heights, so also now with Bakhmut. The Russians have cracked the Nazis’ best defenses, there are no signs of the wunderwaffe weapons and all that remains is for the hundreds of thousands of young 14 and 15 year old teenagers Zelensky has drafted into his Wehrmacht to die for absolutely nothing.

If patriotic Ukrainians must take a leaf out of the Third Reich’s play-book, they should look not only at the futile Battle of the Seelow Heights but also at the July plot, when Claus von Stauffenberg tried to rid the Reich of the Zelensky of his day. Though those Ukrainians, whose loved ones have died in this needless war, will quite naturally blame Russia for their loss, like the Germans before them, they should look more closely at those like Zelensky, who profited from their grief and those in NATO who promised them wunderwaffe weapons that would allow them goose step into Moscow but didn’t even give them a shroud in which to bury their loved ones, tens of thousands of whom are listed as missing in action.

Macgregor knows the war is lost. The American Democrats, who are now turning on the Biden organized crime family, know the war is lost. Though the Ukrainian Army fought as bravely and all too often often as savagely as their Wehrmacht heroes, they are not the Wehrmacht, who almost always inflicted far heavier casualties on their enemies than they suffered. Today, in Ukraine, Russia is killing up to a dozen Ukrainians for every Russian Zelensky’s Wehrmacht kills and, if this is to be a war of attrition, then Russian General Gerasimov has an abundance of men and materiel to carry the day. The Ukrainian war is in its end game. Checkmate is at hand. The only sensible move now for the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces is to lay down their arms, to tip over their comedy king, and surrender Zelensky and the thugs of the SBU, along with their empty dreams of glory and wonder weapons, to anyone stupid enough to grant these crooks asylum.

READ MORE:

https://strategic-culture.org/news/2023/01/22/zelensky-wunderwaffe-weapons/

READ FROM TOP.

MAKE A DEAL, VOLODYMYR.... THE NEXT STAGE COULD BE DEVASTATING....

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Former Marine Corps officer Scott Ritter says the U.S.-led NATO military alliance is driving the war in Ukraine with the ultimate objective of defeating Russia.

The conflict is not about defending Ukraine as the Western media would tell us, it is and always has been about defeating Russia.

NATO is already now in a direct war with Russia and Russia has every right to strike targets in NATO countries like Germany and Poland that are acting as logistical centers in the supply of munitions to Ukraine.

Washington and its NATO allies are recklessly raising the stakes of military victory or defeat, rather than trying to find a diplomatic, political solution to a long-running conflict. Ukraine is being callously exploited as a proxy for the U.S.-led NATO war on Russia.

As Ritter points out, NATO is a suicide pill for the world. If its objective proceeds, the result will be a general all-out war with Russia that will go nuclear, meaning the destruction of the planet.

That’s why, Ritter argues, every peace-loving person regardless of nationality should be praying that Russia wins this conflict in Ukraine and defeats the NATO agenda. NATO’s war plans have been seeded years ago with the coup in Kiev in 2014 and the weaponizing of NeoNazi Ukrainian forces. The Ukrainian top commander Valery Zaluzhny is a devotee of WWII Nazi collaborator and mass murderer Stepan Bandera. This is who the Americans and Europeans are now collaborating with in prosecuting their war plans against Russia.

Fortunately, Ritter predicts, Russia is going to win the war. This is a nightmare scenario for the U.S.-led Western powers who have invested so much in the war yet stand to incur a historic defeat.

But it should be understood widely that it is the United States and its allies who are pushing the world to the brink of disaster.

READ MORE:

https://strategic-culture.org/news/2023/01/23/scott-ritter-nato-is-suicide-pill-for-world-pray-that-russia-wins/

READ FROM TOP.

SEE: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171 

MEANWHILE, WE PLAY TENNIS AND WE GO TO SLEEP.....

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

How I tried to prevent the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, and why I failed

No amount of truth can stop the world’s most powerful war machine fueled by the lies of its president

BY SCOTT RITTER

In fulfillment of his solemn, constitutionally-enshrined obligation, the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush, on January 28, 2003, stood before the rostrum in the chambers of the United States Congress and addressed the American people.

“Mr. Speaker,” the President began, “Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished citizens and fellow citizens, every year, by law and by custom, we meet here to consider the state of the union. This year,” he intoned gravely, “we gather in this chamber deeply aware of decisive days that lie ahead.” The “decisive days” Bush spoke of dealt with the decision he had already made to invade Iraq, in violation of international law, for the purpose of removing the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, from power.

Regime change had been the cornerstone policy of the United States toward Iraq ever since Bush 43’s father, Bush 41 (George H. W. Bush) compared Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler and demanded Nuremberg-like justice for the crime of invading Kuwait. “Hitler revisited,” the elder Bush told a crowd at a Republican fundraiser in Dallas, Texas. “But remember: When Hitler’s war ended, there were the Nuremberg trials.”

American politicians, especially presidents seeking to take their country into war, cannot simply walk away from such statements. As such, even after driving the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait in February 1991, Bush could not rest so long as Saddam Hussein remained in power–the Middle East equivalent of Adolf Hitler had to go. GUSNOTE: BUSH SENIOR COULD NOT AFFORD TO KICK SADDAM OUT WITHOUT IRAQ FALLING INTO THE CLUTCHES OF IRAN (60 PER CENT OF THE IRAQ POPULATION ARE SHIITES LIKE THE MUSLIMS OF IRAN... SO GEORGE BUSH SENIOR "LEFT SADDAM IN CHARGE"....

The Bush 41 administration put in place UN-backed sanctions on Iraq designed to strangle the nation’s economy and promote regime change from within. These sanctions were linked to Iraq’s obligation to be disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction capabilities, including long-range missiles and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Until Iraq was certified as being disarmed by UN weapons inspectors, the sanctions would remain in place. But as Bush’s Secretary of State, James Baker, made clear, these sanctions would never be lifted until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. “We are not interested,” Baker said on May 20, 1991, “in seeing a relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.”

Despite the sanctions, Saddam Hussein outlasted the administration of Bush 41. Bush’s successor, Bill Clinton, continued the policy of sanctioning Iraq, combining them with UN weapons inspections to undermine Saddam Hussein. In June 1996, the Clinton administration used the UN weapons inspections process as a front to mount a coup against Saddam. The effort failed, but not the policy. In 1998, Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, making regime change in Iraq an official policy of the United States.

Saddam outlasted the Clinton administration as well. But, when it came to implementing US regime change plans in Iraq, the third time proved to be the charm–Saddam’s fate was sealed when Bush 41’s son, George W. Bush, was elected president in 2001. While Clinton had failed to remove Saddam Hussein from power, he did succeed in killing the UN inspection effort to oversee the disarmament of Iraq, allowing the US to continue to claim Iraq was not complying with its obligation to disarm, and therefore justify the continuation of economic sanctions.

This is where the issue becomes personal. From 1991 until 1998, I served as one of the senior UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, overseeing Iraq’s disarmament. It was my inspection team that the CIA tried to use, in June 1996, to help launch a coup against Saddam, and it was the continued interference of the US in the work of my inspections teams that prompted my resignation from the UN in August 1998. A few months after I departed, the Clinton administration ordered UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq before initiating a bombing campaign, Operation Desert Fox.

“Most of the targets bombed during Operation Desert Fox had nothing to do with weapons manufacturing,” I wrote in my book, Frontier Justice, published in 2003. “Ninety-seven ‘strategic’ targets were struck during the seventy-two hour campaign; eighty-six were solely related to the security of Saddam Hussein–palaces, military barracks, security installations, intelligence schools, and headquarters. Without exception, every one of these sites had been subjected to UNSCOM inspectors (most of these inspections had been led by me), and their activities were well-known and certified as not being related to UNSCOM.”

I concluded by noting that “The purpose of Operation Desert Fox was clear to all familiar with these sites: Saddam Hussein, not Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, was the target.” Following these air strikes, the Iraqis kicked the UN inspectors out for good.

This, of course, was the goal of the US all along. Now, with a new administration in power, the US was seeking to use the uncertainty about the status of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs as leverage with the American people, and the world, in order to justify an invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power once and for all. By the fall of 2002, it was clear we were a nation heading for war.

I took this personally and decided to take action to prevent it. I went to Congress and tried to get the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees to hold genuine hearings about Iraq. They refused. The only way to prevent the invasion was to get the inspectors back in to Iraq so they could demonstrate that the country was not a threat worthy of war, but the Iraqis were putting up so many preconditions that it just wasn’t going to happen.

I then decided to intervene as a private citizen. I met with Tariq Aziz, Saddam’s advisor and former Foreign Minister, in South Africa, and told him I needed to speak to Iraq’s National Assembly publicly, without my words being edited or vetted. That was the only way to have them let the inspectors back in. At first, Aziz said I was crazy. After two days of discussion, he agreed.

I spoke to the Iraqi National Assembly. For that alone, people have accused me of treason, even though in that speech, I cut the Iraqis no slack and held them accountable for the crimes they had committed. I warned them that they were about to be invaded and that their only option was to let the inspectors back in.

Having broadcast that, the Iraqi government had to deal with me. I met with the vice president, the foreign minister, the oil minister, and the president’s science advisor. Five days later, they convinced Saddam Hussein to let weapons inspectors back into Iraq without preconditions. I count this as one of the highlights of my life.

Unfortunately, it was not to be. Yes, UN inspectors returned, but their work was undermined at every turn by the US, which sought to discredit their findings. Now, on that fateful evening on January 28, 2003, the President stepped forward to complete the mission–to make a case for war on the basis of the threat posed by Iraq and its unaccounted-for WMD.

This was not a new debate. In fact, I had been trying to debunk this sort of argument ever since the US ordered UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq in December 1998. In June 2000, at the behest of Senator John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, and a critical member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I had put my case down in writing, publishing a long article in Arms Control Today which was then distributed to every member of Congress. In 2001, I had made a documentary film, In Shifting Sands, in an effort to reach out to the American public about the truth regarding Iraqi WMD, the status of their disarmament, and the inadequacy of the US case for war.

Nonetheless, here was the President of the United States, taking advantage of his Constitutional obligation to inform Congress, promulgating a case for war built on a foundation of lies.

“Almost three months ago,” Bush declared, “the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm [note: this is after I helped convince Iraq to allow UN weapons inspectors to return without precondition]. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.” Bush observed that Iraq had failed to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, noting that “it was up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.”

Iraq had declared that it had no WMD left, and as such was in no position to show anyone where it was hiding non-existent weapons. In fact, the UN weapons inspectors, working in full cooperation with the Iraqi government, had debunked the intelligence provided by the US alleging Iraqi non-compliance. The US was operating on principles dating back to James Baker’s May 1991 declaration that sanctions would not be lifted until Saddam Hussein was removed from power.

The President went on to articulate specific claims about unaccounted-for anthrax and botulinum toxin biological agents. He made similar claims about Sarin, mustard and VX chemical weapons. “The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb,” the President said.

This was true – I was one of the inspectors at the center of tracking down Iraq’s nuclear weapons ambition. But then the President went on to utter 16 words that would go down in infamy: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

CIA Director George Tenet was later compelled to admit before Congress that “[t]hese 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president.” As Tenet later noted, while the assertion regarding the existence of British intelligence was correct, the CIA itself did not have confidence in the report. “This [the existence of British intelligence] did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches,” Tenet said, “and the CIA should have ensured that it was removed.”

The fact of the matter is that the entire case made by President Bush about Iraq was a lie, and the CIA was complicit in helping the President promulgate that lie. The sole purpose of this lie was to engender fear among Congress and the American people that Iraq, and especially its leader, Saddam Hussein, was a threat worthy of war.

“Year after year,” Bush intoned, “Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation,” Bush said, answering his own question, “the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.”

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power, to make sure that that day never comes.”

The President then got down to the crux of his presentation on Iraq. “The United States will ask the UN Security Council to convene on February the 5th [2003] to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State [Colin] Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraq’s illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.”

The President stared into the camera, addressing the American people directly. “We will consult,” he said, “but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.”

I stared back at the television screen, sick to my stomach. The President’s speech was composed of lies. All lies.

I had expended every ounce of my energy trying in vain to debunk these lies, but to no avail. My country was on the verge of going to war on the basis of words I knew to be false, and there was nothing more I could do to prevent it.

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/570612-scott-ritter-iraq-war/

READ FROM TOP.

SEE: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171 

MEANWHILE, WE PLAY TENNIS AND WE GO TO SLEEP..... THE NEO-CONS (NAZIS WITH A SMILE) HAD THEIR PUPPET, GEORGE W. BUSH, LIKE THEY HAVE TURDBALL ZELENSKY PRESENTLY. HOPEFULLY THEY HAVE TAKEN A FAR TOO BIG ENTITY THIS TIME, AND THE US EMPIRE WILL COLLAPSE INTO THE DIRT OF MIDDLE AMERICA.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....