The Truth About Ukraine: There is Nothing Moral in This Game

Everybody with the capacity to think should back the immediate end of this failed Globalist project.

I don’t particularly want to waste time on Ukraine. I don’t want to ever hear another bullshit argument in support of Ukraine. I don’t want to ever see a Ukrainian flag. I don’t want to argue for or even against supporting Ukraine.

I’m sick to death of Ukraine.

But our world is full of stupid people who believe every psy-op going, and full too of crooked people who are happy to keep lying to everyone and paying the media and the politicians to lie too.

I’ll tell you what Ukraine is.

Ukraine is a sickness. Ukraine is a contagion. Ukraine is a symptom of a mind virus, and the sign of an intellectual pestilence fatal to 99% of brain cells. And Ukraine is a vast money laundering exercise just like COVID was.

Ukraine’s fate is indeed a crime, but it’s not an exclusively Russian crime. It’s a Globalist crime scene too.

Of all the zombie attitudes, the idea that we should care about Ukraine, give a shit about Ukraine, risk anything for Ukraine, is one of the most zombie brained attitudes there is. Perhaps the worst.

Examined outside the lens of Globalist distortions, there is nothing about Ukraine that would suggest it deserves our unflinching support, and nothing either to suggest that Globalist mandated love of Ukraine is actually a sincere, healthy love from the Globalist sources demanding it, or an alliance thar really serves the interests of the average western citizen.

Here is how the mainstream Globalist narrative on Ukraine goes:

Ukraine is an allied nation that was subject to an unjustified attack by an aggressor. We must support it to defend the principles of democracy and national sovereignty, to discourage military adventurism and invasions, and to prevent a repetition of the period when appeasers refused to confront Hitler. Putin is a dictator who will threaten and seize other nations if he’s allowed to get away with invading Ukraine. Other regimes will look to how we respond, and will be emboldened if we don’t confront Russia and preserve the international rule of law and the sanctity of national borders.

That’s a one paragraph summary of the bullshit. It lives in the 1% of brain matter remaining to a zombie, the bit that can allow them to express bullshit in words akin to those of a real person. Every element of it is immediately discernible as bullshit by the simple ability to know anything OTHER than the mainstream narrative.

Ukraine was not and is not an allied nation. It had no tradition of alliance with the West. It was part of the Russian sphere for centuries, and in some ways a birthplace of Russian identity. It was a Tsarist region, then a Soviet region, always a Russian controlled region, and never a possession of Western European nations with the exception, possibly of Greece via the Greek Byzantine Empire. Oh, and it had a Nazi phase too, in opposition to the Russian Marxists. It still looks back fondly on its Nazi years. Stepan Bandera, its most famous leader during its alignment with Nazi Germsny, remains a Ukrainian national hero.

In other words, it has rarely possessed the full elements of a nation state, and both when it has and when it hasn’t, it has been on the side of our enemies.

The last time England had any direct connection with Ukraine was during support to the last White Russian stronghold in the Russian Civil War. The last time before that was the Crimean War. The last time before that was probably when boatloads of fleeing Anglo-Saxons departing the England of the Norman Conquest settled a small corner of the region a thousand years ago, a people whose trace is entirely forgotten by Ukrainians and Russians and the modern English alike.

One forgotten link very long ago, two more modern links that only represent three or four years out of the last thousand where England, Western Europe or America had anything significant to do with Ukraine.

For the whole Soviet era Ukraine was a Stalinist administrative novelty, and an enemy of the West. Its existence as a sovereign nation is a modern invention, and not a recreated modern nation with the kind of deep background of sovereign identity in earlier periods of history that one might find with Greece or Israel. The idea that this is a long standing ally who shares lots of culture and values with us is a complete, laughable fantasy. The idea that borders based on Stalin’s pen are sacred is particularly absurd when it comes from people who consider all other borders, especially our own, as not being sacred.

The moral argument for intervention in Ukraine is a fiction on multiple levels.

1. It’s not really true thar the West has a moral duty to defend anyone and everyone. The West constantly ignores similar situations elsewhere. If we have this absolute moral duty to intervene, why does it not apply when multiple African nations invade the Congo? Why does it not apply to the Chinese occupation of Tibet?

2. It’s not really true that we have a particular moral duty to oppose Putin and Russia. If the invasion of a former Soviet satellite by Russia really is an enormous crime and an enormous threat, why were we completely indifferent to Russia’s war in Chechnya?

3. Recent military interventionism that has occurred hardly has a track record of success. In fact it has a track record of ruinously expensive disaster in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan. Why are we morally obligated to repeat disasters that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths with regimes just as bad, or anarchy even worse, replacing those we sought to oust? What is the moral justification for doing something that risks a far broader conflict, on behalf of people with whom we have no existing treaty obligations, when the regime we are defending is morally indistinguishable from the regime we are opposing, and when the only sure result of a conflict extended by our involvement is an increase in the number of deaths?

4. It’s not true that there is moral simplicity regarding who is responsible for the war. Yes, the Russians invaded a neighbour. But we sponsored a colour revolution that removed a democratically elected, more neutral or amenable to Russia Ukrainian leader. Ukraine then internally engaged in what might be described as ethnic cleansing of its native Russian speaking citizens in the East of the country. Ukraine and western nations broke the Minsk Accords that were supposed to preserve peace. 14,000 people died before Russia intervened. And Ukraine and the West proceeded towards NATO membership and western nuclear missiles in Ukraine and on Russia’s doorstep (as well as biolabs) despite more than a decade of Russian explanation of why they considered this a major security threat. None of this suggests an entirely innocent West and Ukraine OR an entirely guilty Russia. It suggests a murky interplay of factors with guilt on all sides for the eventual direct Russian engagement.

5. Compare the Russian invasion with US actions when Russian missiles were placed in Cuba during the Cold War. It’s the same reaction. If Kennedy was justified in opposing Russian missiles on America’s border, why is Russia not justified in opposing NATO missiles on its border? Or compare the Russian invasion with western invasions of Iraq. If those invasions, which were justified on the basis of IMAGINARY weapons of mass destruction, were not war crimes, why is Russia’s invasive reaction to REAL biolabs a war crime?

6. The moral argument that it is ok when we do it is no morality at all. The moral argument that all Russian fears are unjustified is not a moral argument, but a selective prejudice. The moral argument that what makes the difference between the invasion that is legitimate and the invasion that is a war crime is the endorsement or condemnation of western leaders is not a moral argument at all either, nor is applying the term ‘international rules based order’ to what our leaders want a moral argument. Finally, the idea that moral legitimacy is conferred by the supportive attitude of the UN does a very strange thing indeed. It says simultaneously that borders and the sovereignty of nation states are so sacred that they must always be defended, but that the decision to defend them is not one that nations can make in a sovereign fashion and must instead be decided solely on the say so of a non national body usurping the decision making of nation states.

7. The moral argument that the situation is a repeat of Nazi invasions of Poland or prior Nazi expansionism ignored by appeasers is based on fatuous historical ignorance rather than wise historical understanding. The people who apply ‘it’s 1939 again’ thinking apply it to everything they don’t want. They apply it to Trump or Elon Musk’s investigations of fraud as much as they apply it to Putin. It is an argument that represents zombie level lack of thought and pure propaganda programming. Hitler had outlined and published a plan of world conquest. Putin has not. Hitler moved towards expansionism everywhere, as quickly as possible. Putin has been in power for over 20 years and if he plans to conquer the world is going about it in a very slow manner. At current rates of expansion, he will be conquering London about the same time the Cow Fart Apocalypse comes. And as far as actual Nazism goes, Ukraine has the Azov Brigade and Nazi national heroes, while the rest of Russian Tsarist territory that became the Soviet Union has the historical record of the greatest casualties in the world opposing Nazism. Hitler invented ethnic protection of attacked German communities to justify invasions. Russian speakers in Ukraine actually were under attack by the Ukrainian government.

8. All of the moral argument is undermined by the behaviour of the Ukraine regime, which is not a democracy, which has suspended elections, banned rival political parties, murdered a US citizen journalist, banned a religion and murdered its own citizens.

9. All of the moral argument is undermined by the behaviour of the Globalist leaders themselves, who have shown total contempt for democracy at home, who do not protect our own borders, who have denied basic human rights at home, who have invaded other nations themselves, who have caused huge numbers of deaths by military adventurism themselves, who have blocked their citizens accessing information, who have used propaganda, who have sponsored coups and violent uprising, who have directly funded anti Putin movements, who have no mandate for increasing intervention, who have scuppered peace deals the Russians would have signed, and who have never put their Ukraine support to the test of public opinion by asking their citizens if they support it or not.

10. All of the moral arguments are an entirely insincere cover for the real motivations of our Globalist leaders. These have been eloquently summarised by Robert F.Kennedy Jnr and have nothing to do with strategic, moral or legitimate western interests (interests of western people and voters) and everything to do with the private wealth and power of the most corrupt people in the West (US politicians taking kickbacks from the billions missing in aid to Ukraine, US corporate military industrial complex profit, and BlackRock’s private interests regardless of whether those interests are aligned with the interests of the average US citizen).