Date: Monday, 02 June 2025
3 articles:
Democracy
&
How Much Contempt the U.S.-UK-Israel Empire’s Rulers Have For Their Public
&
Ukraine’s First-Ever Successful Offensive Operation Was Headed By Zelensky
https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/democracy
https://theduran.com/democracy
Democracy
2 June 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)
doesn’t and never has existed, but political theorists ignore the empirical evidence on this (which is, for example, overwhelming that America is NOT a democracy of the people, but is instead an aristocracy of the extremely wealthiest few), and they falsify by saying that America is a democracy because it has elections — but so too did Germany have elections when it elected Hitler in 1933. Elections don’t necessarily produce democracy — rule by the public instead of rule by only the wealthest. Political theorists don’t know anything, but merely pretend to, because their theories are based on philosophers’ opinions, instead of upon the relevant empirical data (evidences such as were just linked-to above) — political ‘science’ isn’t yet actually a field of science, but of the humanities, which includes philosophers but no scientists. (The empirical works in political science — such as I linked-to there — ARE scientific, but the theoretical works aren’t based upon them, so the field isn’t yet a field in the sciences.)
The BBC respondent who tried to correct the almost universal misconception that Hitler was not a product of democracy that comes from elections was correct when saying:
“The plain fact is that Hitler was elected in 1933 on a popular vote and from then on went from strength to strength with the full backing of a clear majority of the German people. He would have undoubtedly won with a massive majority, had he not so despised democracy, even as late as 1943 and was strongly supported by the German people to the end.”
For example, on 20 August 1934 the New York Times headlined its lead story “HITLER ENDORSED BY 9 TO 1 IN POLL” and reported “Eighty-nine and nine-tenths per cent of the German voters endorsed in yesterday's plebiscite Chancellor Hitler's assumption of greater power than has ever been possessed by any other ruler in modern times. Nearly 10 per cent indicated their disapproval.”
Anyone who thinks that democracy can be achieved via elections and political Parties competing (to deceive enough voters so as to win power) is naive if not stupid, because the billionaires end up spending enough money to ensure that their political candidates will win — even if this means pitting many of the billionaires’ candidates against each other. The public are simply deluded by the political theorists and by the propaganda from the billionaires’ ‘news’-media, to think they live under a democracy — a Government whose policy-priorities are the same as the public’s policy-priorities are. In a country where the Government’s policy-priorities are controlled by the billionaires instead of by the public, that is a dictatorship by and for the billionaires, not a democracy by and for the people. Since the policy-priorities are by and for the billionaires, it is a dictatorship BY and FOR the billionaires, and is therefore NOT a democracy by and for the people. The extent to which a Government is a democracy is the extent to which the Government’s policy-priorities are the same as the public’s policy-priorities. The extent to which a Government is a dictatorship, is the extent to which that is not the case.
Back on February 25th, I headlined “It’s time to fire President Trump.”, and documented the following example of this fact in the American case (the fact that America is a dictatorship):
On February 14th, the AP headlined “Where US adults think the government is spending too much, according to AP-NORC polling”, and listed in rank-order according to the opposite (“spending too little”) the following 8 Government functions: 1. Social Security; 2. Medicare; 3. Education; 4. Assistance to the poor; 5. Medicaid; 6. Border security; 7. Federal law enforcement; 8. The Military. That’s right: the American public (and by an overwhelming margin) are THE LEAST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on the military, and the MOST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on Social Security, Medicare, Education, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid (the five functions the Republican Party has always been the most vocal to call “waste, fraud, and abuse” and try to cut). Meanwhile, The Military, which actually receives 53% (and in the latest year far more than that) of the money that the Congress allocates each year and gets signed into law by the President, keeps getting, each year, over 50% of the annually appropriated federal funds.
An important point to be made here is that both #s 4&5, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid, are “discretionary federal spending” (i.e., controlled by the annual appropriations that get voted into law each year), whereas #s 1&2 (Social Security and Medicare) are “mandatory federal spending” (i.e., NOT controlled by Congress and the President). So, Trump and the Republicans are going after the poor because they CAN; they can’t (at least as-of YET) reduce or eliminate Social Security and Medicare. However, by now, it is crystal clear that Trump’s Presidency will be an enormous boon to America’s billionaires, and an enormous bane to the nation’s poor. The aristocratic ideology has always been: to get rid of poverty, we must get rid of the poor — work them so hard they will go away (let them seek ‘refugee’ status SOMEWHERE ELSE).
Trump is increasing the military and border security, and decreasing education, assistance to the poor, Medicaid, federal law enforcement, and even Social Security and Medicare (the latter two by laying off many of the people who staff those bureaucracies). This Government’s policy-priorities are like the public’s turned upside-down — in other words: are the REVERSE of the public’s — and therefore the U.S. Government right now is a perfect example of a dictatorship. One might say that this is so in only the Executive branch, but it’s not necessarily true: As always when one political faction (regardless whether it it is one Party or a coalition of Parties) has control over both the Executive and the Legislative branches of the Government — as now the case in the U.S. — these two branches function as one, and there then will even be a totalitarian dictatorship if they can get the Judicial branch or Supreme Court to call it “Constitutional.” Currently, the U.S. is slipping from a dictatorship towards a totalitarian dictatorship; but America has been a dictatorship ever since at least 1980.
As the liberal (Democratic Party) wing of America’s aristocracy said, in the person of its Warren Buffett, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” (He told this to the conservative Ben Stein reporting in the aristocracy’s New York Times, under the headline “In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is Winning”, on 26 November 2006, but that newspaper won’t let readers access the article online, and instead prefer to charge anyone who seeks to see whether or not the quotation is authentic — it is. And the statement is true. But the 31 March 2019 issue of Forbes headlined “Reimagining Capitalism: How The Greatest System Ever Conceived (And Its Billionaires) Need To Change”, and reported: “‘America works, and it works now better than it ever worked,’ Buffett says.” Better for himself and other billionaires, that is. But not for the bottom 90%, and it worked lousy for the bottom 50%, and still worse — economic decline — for the bottom 25%. But to the liberal Buffett, that’s still “better than it ever worked.”
Liberal versus conservative makes little real difference nowadays, but is more of a difference in style, so as to distract the public from the REAL conflict. They do it all the time.
And, as I have documented previously, and in a number of different ways, this deceit about democracy is the norm throughout the nations that call themselves “a democracy”. Political theorists ignore it because they ignore the empirical data, but democracy doesn’t exist and probably never has existed. (Of course, for the billionaires, it is very convenient that political theorists ignore the empirical data and build their theories on philosophers’ opinions instead.)
Nor can one rely upon some alleged means of policing the truthfulness of the news media, because those media are themselves controlled by billionaires — not only by owning them but by having the other corporations that they control advertise in them, and thus funding the media in both ways.
The basic problem is that elected Governmental officials have actually been s‘elected’ by the billionaires who had funded their political careers by being the mega-donors to, and the controllers of the corporations that advertise in, the ‘news’-media so as to control what the voters will know, and thus how they will vote in those ‘democratic’ ‘elections’ (that are actually billionaires’ s‘elections’). I have further documented this problem here. At the end of that article, its last link is to my proposed solution to the problem.
To merely continue on the path toward which we are heading is unacceptable. The billionaires, left to their own devices, will not change their ways. An off-ramp from the present system must be taken now; and the only real question is: which one, and where to? Those are the two questions addressed in these two articles (each one of which contradicts the virtually universally-believed myths about what the term “democracy” fundamentally MEANS: re-DEFINING that term is crucial in order in order to get out of this rut.
The basic “rut” is that elections by the public in political campaigns that inevitably are contests by billionaires-selected nominees who are competing against each other to deceive voters the most, cannot produce a democracy: only a political system in which the Legislature and the Executive (head-of-state) are ordinary people — NOT EVEN POSSIBLY selected by some aristocracy or by any theocracy — can it be even POSSIBLE for an actual democracy to exist. Democracy is impossible on any other basis. Anyone who doesn’t want that basis, doesn’t want democracy. Perhaps they want rule by some sort of ‘God’s People,’ or else rule by supposed geniuses (such as the first fascist, Plato, advocated), but aristocracies have ruled for thousands of years very comfortably with both sorts of excuses to ‘justify’ their tyrannies. Both sorts of excuses are supported by aristocrats in order to deceive fools to accept their rule, or the rule by their chosen agents. And that’s not, and never was, the path toward democracy. It is the path toward tolerating and ‘justifying’ continued tyranny.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/how-much-contempt-the-us-uk-israel
https://theduran.com/how-much-contempt-the-u-s-uk-israel-empires-rulers-have
How Much Contempt the U.S.-UK-Israel Empire’s Rulers Have For Their Public
2 June 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dhE56VEBVc
“Labour begins plot to remove Keir Starmer”
June 2, 2025
0:00
CHRISTOFOROU: All right, Alexander, let's uh talk about
0:02
what is going on in the UK and what is
0:06
happening with uh Sir Keir Starmer.
0:10
Looks like he's
0:14
moved past the whole
0:17
arson stuff. Is that over now? Can
0:22
Keir focus on what he, what he loves
0:25
best, which is Project Ukraine now, or is
0:28
he still dealing with with all of that
0:30
stuff. Where is, where are, things with
0:32
Kier Starmer heading? MERCOURIS: Keir Starmer is still
0:35
dealing with project Ukraine, it remains
0:37
his underlying obsession and fixation, I
0:39
mean he's never going to stop talking
0:42
and thinking and discussing that, even
0:45
though, um, his own parliamentary party is
0:48
now in open rebellion about this, I mean
0:50
they're saying that he's spending far
0:51
too much time on this issue and is
0:53
neglecting questions closer to home, and,
0:56
to answer your question about this, the fire
0:59
business, the the arson attacks on
1:02
properties linked with him, as the media
1:06
elegantly describes them, um, that
1:09
story has not gone away and in fact um
1:12
we had, for about a 24-hour
1:16
period, the lead article in the Financial
1:19
Times was all about this [the arson story], and it was a
1:22
desperate attempt, based on no evidence
1:25
at all, as the article itself admitted, to
1:29
make out that it was the Russians who
1:31
were behind these arson attacks. There
1:34
was no evidence at all offered in the
1:35
article, there were admissions in the
1:38
article that there is actually no
1:39
evidence to support those claims, they
1:42
admitted that one of the arsonists has
1:44
been publishing admiring photos of
1:46
Ukrainian soldiers, but nonetheless uh
1:49
they also admitted that the arsonists
1:52
themselves might not be aware that the
1:55
the hand of Moscow was involved, and the
1:59
article also admitted that the Kremlin
2:01
itself might not know that the hand of
2:03
Moscow was involved, but nonetheless in
2:06
spite of all of that, the hand of Moscow
2:09
is suspected and we're told that the
2:12
counterterrorist police are now involved
2:14
in the investigation [so as to keep the false allegation in front of the public for as long as time as possible]. Remember, these,
2:16
these are arson attacks, these are, this
2:18
is criminal behavior, but you know, you
2:22
bring in the counterterrorist police to
2:24
investigate arson attacks. So, I mean, you
2:27
you you could see where all this is
2:28
going, and I mean it's not difficult to
2:31
work it out. So, there's no evidence to
2:33
support this, but clearly someone is
2:37
briefing the media, especially the
2:40
Financial Times, to to put a particular
2:43
spin on this story in order to
2:46
ultimately blame you know who. It's a very
2:49
bizarre story altogether, but no, to, to
2:52
answering your question again, he's not
2:53
given up on Project Ukraine, and the
2:55
arson business is far from ended, and I
2:58
suspect it will be revived and it will
3:00
be revived in all kinds of ways, probably
3:02
intended to deflect attention from more
3:06
embarrassing things including about
3:08
these arson attacks, and also perhaps to
3:12
make it appear that, uh, Sir is this
3:14
heroic figure who the Kremlin is out to
3:17
destroy, and that's why they’re, um um you
3:22
know, arranging for these young men to, uh,
3:27
law, you know, to plant fires in these
3:29
buildings linked to Keir Starmer.
3:32
4:03
CHRISTOFOROU: What’s Keir's position is, like is is he is in
4:07
trouble? MERCOURIS: Yeah, right, the economy is
4:09
dreadful, hope is basically draining
4:12
away, and I I am not in London at the
4:16
moment i've been outside London and I
4:18
see the same signs of economic distress
4:21
everywhere I go outside London uh to the
4:24
to an equal degree as in London itself. I
4:27
was recently in Bath, a
4:32
famous resort city, beautiful 18th
4:35
century architecture, famously
4:38
described by Jane Austin, who actually
4:41
lived there, you know the English writer,
4:44
um a very very prosperous place, and I
4:48
mean, parts of it look very rundown to me
4:51
in ways that I hadn't imagined before,
4:54
and again you see shop windows boarded,
4:57
you see cafes closed, you see all of the
5:00
same problems of distress that you see
5:02
in London, so the economic situation is
5:04
very bad. [Starmer] himself I believe is now
5:07
officially the most unpopular British
5:10
prime minister since polling records
5:13
began
5:14
6:55
What's going on in the UK, the
6:58
McDonald kind of timeline, yeah well
7:00
that's weeks or months I would say,
7:03
Macdonald is a is a major figure because
7:06
um obviously he is part of the previous
7:10
Labor leadership, I mean Corbyn's
7:13
leadership, and um he there is very
7:17
little support for him I suspect now
7:20
within the Labor parliamentary party who
7:23
are very well to the right of Macdonald,
7:27
uh, but the very fact though that
7:30
McDonald is saying that the left should
7:33
organize to bring down Starmer suggests
7:38
that McDonald, who is a Labor MP uh who's
7:41
still an MP um in the House of Commons
7:44
even though he's had his whip withdrawn,
7:46
in other words he's not able he's not
7:48
part of the Labor parliamentary group
7:50
but he's still a member of the party, I
7:53
suspect that he's um picking up all
7:55
sorts of gossip and talk within the
7:57
Labor Party the parliamentary
7:59
party even from people who are not on
8:03
the left who might once been called on
8:06
the right who are in other words Starmer's
8:08
key allies, that the dissatisfaction
8:11
with Starmer is simply boiling over, so I I
8:14
I would regard this article by Macdonald
8:17
which has received almost no attention
8:20
in the media here, I mean it's as if it
8:22
was never written, which is in in itself
8:24
an interesting sign, um, I I would suggest
8:27
that this is a clear uh indicator that
8:32
Starmer's leadership is in is in is
8:35
quite a lot of trouble now. I think he's
8:37
going to get through the summer, I mean
8:39
you know very difficult to organize
8:41
plots in the summer, but then they'll all
8:44
come back in the autumn the economy will
8:47
be in an even worse condition than it is
8:49
today, um it's absolutely clear that the
8:52
government has no real plan they've just
8:54
had to reverse their policy on cutting
8:58
um pension benefits or sorry benefits to
9:02
pensioners for um um you know cold
9:05
weather in winter, so they've had to
9:09
reinstate all of that. There's talk that
9:12
they might therefore have to put up
9:14
taxes, I mean tax levels are already the
9:18
highest in the UK that they've been at
9:21
any time since the end of the Second
9:23
World War.
9:25
——
In the UK., as in the U.S., and in Israel, we have elected (actually s‘elected’) leaders, who have very low job-approval ratings from their public. But that’s okay to them, because the only people whom they really need to satisfy is their Party’s megadonors.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/ukraines-first-ever-successful-offensive
https://theduran.com/ukraines-first-ever-successful-offensive-operation-was-headed
Ukraine’s First-Ever Successful Offensive Operation Was Headed By Zelensky
2 June 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)
On June 1st, the neoconservative (i.e., committed to the goal that the U.S. Government will become the dictator over all nations, the entire world) Max Boot, in the neoconservative Jeff Bezos’s neoconservative Washington Post, headlined “Ukraine just rewrote the rules of war; A drone attack damaged Russia’s bomber fleet — and exposed air base vulnerabilities worldwide.”, and he exulted over what incontestably is by far the most successful Ukrainian offensive military operation ever, and he compared it to Japan’s Pearl Harbor attack against the U.S. on December 7, 1941 (which, of course, didn’t culminate but started, America’s war with Japan). The far more expert and insightful anonymous geostrategic analyst “Simplicius76” headlined the next day, “Ukraine's 'Unprecedented' Operation Spiderweb: Russia's 'Pearl Harbor'? Or Just More Soggy Silk?” And he documented that Ukraine’s President Zelensky had overseen this project, “Operation Web” or “Operation Spiderweb,” during an eighteen-to twenty-four-month period, and that all participants in it were now safely back in Ukraine, none allegedly captured by Russia. Simplicius76 reported that:
The enemy's published footage of objective control shows that no artificial intelligence was used in the attacks. The drones were controlled via open-source software, and the communications were apparently conducted via mobile networks. This is indicated by the LTE signal receiver antennas that were captured in the footage.
It’s clear that with the loss of some of the trailers en route, and the intervening of Russian civilians on others, the operation was only a partial success — but, of course, such a result would have been calculated into the planning.
For Ukraine’s purposes, the success is enough: even destroying one or two of Russia’s strategic Tu-95 bombers is ample accomplishment because Russia no longer manufactures these airframes, and only has somewhere between 47-55 active — though it remains open to question whether 18 months of intense planning and sacrificed intel resources was ‘worth it’ for this result.
Thus far, Russian sources have reported that potentially anywhere between one to five Tu-95s were actually destroyed or disabled permanently, though nothing is conclusive yet, and the final tally could prove much smaller or greater than surmised. RussiansWithAttitude notes:
Final tally of confirmed hits so far seems to be 5 Tu-95s, 2 Tu-22s, one An-12. According to my info, two of the 95s can most likely be repaired relatively soon, as the damage is not super extensive. At least one is dead for good. The 22s, no idea. Sure hurts but not devastating
From what I’ve seen of the footage, only one looked to be potentially totally destroyed, with others merely suffering fires exaggerated by the heavy smoke of burning aviation fuel. Other videos show transport craft burning, which are mistaken for Tu-95s. For instance, here is said to be the Antonov AN-12BK burning:
The fact is, a tiny FPV drone will have a hard time entirely ‘destroying’ a gigantic strategic bomber — many different FPV hits would likely be needed unless the plane is full of fuel and on-base fire suppression teams do not respond in time — which is of course a possibility.
Russian bases have emergency fire suppression units for this very purpose, and Ukrainian-paid ‘saboteurs’ have lit several Russian aircraft on fire in the past two years which were always put out and repaired virtually in days. This means the likelihood of a large amount of Tu-95s being completely destroyed is low.
But as of this writing new Ukrainian OSINT Synthetic Aperture Radar pictures of Belaya airbase in Irkutsk claim to show 3 x Tu-95 ‘destroyed’. …
On June 1st, the retired CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson headlined “Ukraine Launches Terrorist Offensive with Western Assistance on Eve of Negotiations in Istanbul”, and wrote that:
Here is a more measured assessment of what was achieved [quoting now from a Russian source]:
“In general, it may be too early to talk about this, but we think some things need to be clarified, since the enemy IPSO is trying to use the information space and present its idle wishes as reality.
“First of all, let’s see the number of hits. The enemy cites a figure of about 40 units, which allegedly makes up 34% of the Russian strategic aviation aircraft. All Ukrainian information bases are now trumpeting this.
“Having analyzed all the videos published by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (and there are, of course, all of them, so we have no reason to hide the scale of Russian losses, because they are obvious), so far we have counted the hit, at most, 5 strategic bombers Tu-95.
“Of these 5, two are definitely beyond repair. …
“As of this morning, the Russian armed forces had 58 Tu-95 aircraft in service. Even if we assume that all five aircraft burned down, this would be less than 10% of the Tu-95 fleet (not counting the 19 Tu-160 units and 55 Tu-22M3M units, the video of which the enemy did not post).
“It is known that, of the planned strikes on five airfields, only two were successful. Three strategic aviation aircraft were not damaged. Thus, according to confirmed data, less than 4% of our strategic fleet was disabled. And if we count heavy bombers (only Tu-95 and Tu-160), then it is 6.5%.
“Now let’s consider the question of how much this will affect the strikes that the Russian Aerospace Forces will be able to carry out on the territory of Ukraine.
“Ukrainian sources, do not use their reason, but a calculator and “ceiling” figures for losses that they simply invented (say, by a third). In fact, these current losses will not affect Russian strike power in Ukraine at all. Here’s why:
“The number of cruise missiles – Kh-101 (the standard weapon of the Tu-95, used against targets in Ukraine), which this aircraft can simultaneously carry is 8 units. In the last attacks, no more than 40 of these missiles were launched simultaneously. That’s a full SIX aircraft. In other words, Russia needs only SIX combat-ready Tu-95 aircraft to carry out strikes with the same intensity as before. And there are many times more of them left. The Tu-160s should not be neglected either. They are not currently participating in strikes. The reason is quite justified. These are newer aircraft, the service life of which is being preserved, and the Tu-95MSM should still be used and gradually written off due to the age of the structure. Perhaps, even, the current war will be one of the last in which this type of aircraft will be used.”
Now back to Johnson:] In my opinion, none of these attacks could have been planned and executed without assistance, if not the direct involvement, of Western intelligence and NATO officers. The drones likely were activated by a remote signal made possible by Western satellites and/or systems like Starlink [Elon Musk]. Those systems also played a critical role in enabling the drones to navigate to the targeted airfields.
While this is clearly a PR victory for Ukraine, it is a classic example of a Pyrrhic victory – i.e., a tactical win, leading to a strategic defeat. The Trump administration is denying any knowledge of the attack. I take that disavowal with a big grain of salt. People within the CIA and USEUCOM offices, who are providing assistance to Ukraine, likely knew about the plan, and may even have provided intelligence support to get the drones to their targets. Like any covert operation, they may have tried to give Trump plausible deniability, but the Russians know how this game is played.
I expect Russia will launch a massive retaliatory strike after the talks in Istanbul on Monday conclude. The Ukrainian attacks on the bridges, the train and the airfields have done nothing to alter the situation all along the line of contact in Ukraine. News continues to pour in from the front, from both Ukrainian and Russian news outlets, painting a picture of growing desperation, even panic, among Ukrainian forces, as Russians capture more territory and kill more Ukrainian troops.
The thing to keep in mind is that the Russian leadership, not just Putin, are not going to react emotionally. I am not suggesting that they are not enraged — they are — but the Russians value brains and strategy over passion. They are calmly assessing these latest developments and will prepare and deliver some new blows on Ukraine that will signal a significant escalation in the weapons Russia will use on Ukrainian targets. I think that by the end of the week, Zelensky and his cronies will be singing a different tune.
The brilliant geostrategic analyst Alexander Mercouris headlined on June 2nd “Kiev Drones Attack Russian Air Bases, Inflict Damage; Russia Undeterred, Ukraine Army Chief Resigns”, and he indicated that the main damage that was done to Russia was not to its ability against Ukraine but to its strategic nuclear bombers, and that, in any case, even that was only slightly diminished by the Ukrainian operation.
On June 1st, Scott Ritter headlined “Playing with Fire: Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb has crossed the threshold when it comes to triggering a Russian nuclear response. How Russia and the United States respond could determine the fate of the world.”, and he said:
For Russia, the very red lines it deemed necessary to define regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons have been blatantly violated by not only Ukraine, but its western allies.
President Trump, who has been claiming to support a peace process between Russia and Ukraine, must now decide as to where the United States stands considering these developments.
His Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has acknowledged that under the previous administration of Joe Biden the United States was engaged in a proxy war with Russia. Trump’s Special Envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, recently acknowledged the same about NATO.
In short, by continuing to support Ukraine, both the US and NATO have become active participants in a conflict which has now crossed the threshold regarding the employment of nuclear weapons.
The United States and the world stand on the precipice of a nuclear Armageddon of our own making.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.