At the onset of the Russian incursion into Ukraine I argued that US boots would be on the ground within a few months. I was wrong – As it turns out, US and European military boots were ALREADY on the ground. Ukraine was a proxy war from the very beginning.
But what is a proxy war, really? It means that Russian troops are fighting Ukrainian soldiers that are intermingled with western “advisors” and most likely US and European special forces, not to mention US intelligence operatives utilizing all the information gathering technology at the disposal of the Department of Defense. In other words, Russian soldiers are being killed by Western assets. Some pro-Ukraine people might ask why this is a problem?
To understand the gravity of this situation we have to first examine the historical significance.
The closest event in history that I could approximate Ukraine to is Vietnam, when communist elements within the country were receiving constant aid, weaponry and even some troops from China, along with monetary and technological aid from the Soviet Union. Vietnam was essentially a “safe” arena or cage match between the West and Communism; a place where the paradigm players could fight it out without risk of a larger nuclear exchange. The globalists could sit back, relax and watch the show while Americans sacrificed their lives over a conflict that did not need to exist.
Ukraine is similar, but the stakes this time are much higher. This is probably why the mainstream media and the White House have been in full denial that Ukraine is a proxy war at all, and have consistently downplayed the complex involvement of Western military assets. The fact is that Ukraine would have fallen completely by now had it not been for the fact that Russia is not really facing Ukraine; it is facing a proxy force of US and European support elements feeding intel, weaponry and likely direct kinetic support.
In my article ‘Ukraine Learns The Value Of An Armed Citizenry, But Far Too Late,’ published on March 2nd, I noted that the Ukrainian “militia” programs being instituted at the last minute while Russia troops swiftly marched across the Donbass were a side show. The media was acting as if citizens with no more than a couple of weeks of training were going to make some kind of difference in the war; this was nonsense. In my view, the insurgency narrative was meant as cover for well trained Western assets already in place with advanced anti-tank and anti-aircraft technology. As I stated in that article:
“Today, as Russia invades, the Ukrainians don’t even have basic [defense] measures in place. Their ability to hold off the Russians at all is predicated on American missile systems like the Javelin which are being steadily funneled into the Ukrainian military.
Also, the methods which Ukrainian forces are using to ambush Russian armor columns are rather advanced and familiar. I suspect the possibility that there are outside military “advisers” (perhaps US advisers) on the ground right now in Ukraine. The advanced guerrilla-style ambush tactics and the results look similar to training that is often given to Green Berets or SAS. The UK did send anti-tank weapons along with a small group of “trainers” to Ukraine in January.
Maybe I am mistaken, but if this is the case it would be diplomatically disastrous if such adviser teams were ever discovered to be involved in the fighting…”
Not long after I wrote this, a stream of information leaks revealed that US and EU military involvement was far deeper than I had expected.
French journalist and Le Figaro senior international correspondent Georges Malbrunot came back from Ukraine with revelations that Americans are “directly in charge” of the war on the ground. He added that he and the volunteers he was with “almost got arrested” by the officials and that they were forced to sign a contract “until the end of the war” which denied then the right to tell the public about the circumstances they witnessed.
Citing a French intelligence source, Malbrunot also tweeted that British SAS units “have been present in Ukraine since the beginning of the war, as were the American Deltas.”
This was obvious from the advanced tactics being used by “Ukrainian” forces to stall the Russian advance, but the first hand accounts confirm the problem is real. The New York Times and other media outlets have been publishing rare admissions of US involvement in intelligence sharing with Ukrainians which have led directly to the deaths of multiple Russian generals as well as the destruction of major assets such as troop transport planes and the Russian flagship Moskva.
In the meantime, Pentagon officials and Joe Biden have incessantly denied that Ukraine is a “proxy war.” If it’s not a proxy war, then I don’t know what is. Without US, UK and EU involvement, there is NO WAR. It would already be over and Ukraine would have surrendered weeks ago.
People can argue whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing. As I have mentioned in multiple articles, I have no feelings either way because the entire event appears to be a distraction from the much more important threat of global economic decline and the inflationary crisis. The thing to remember here is that this is indeed a proxy war and that the very presence of American and European military assets on the ground in Ukraine could be used as a rationale by Russia to expand their operations far beyond the Donbass region.
Not only that, but it also justifies wider tactics that directly target the US and Europe. For example, a proxy war allows Russia to reasonably argue in favor of completely cutting off the EU from oil and natural gas resources, which Europe relies on for around 40% of its energy needs. It justifies Russian economic strategies including alliances with China to cut out the US dollar as the world reserve currency. And, I continue to expect cyberwarfare attacks sometime this year as a result of the Ukraine situation. At the very least, such attacks will be blamed on Russia and China whether or not they are actually responsible.
Does the presence of US and European troops in Ukraine mean a global nuclear war is imminent? It;s unlikely. Just as Vietnam did not lead to a nuclear war between Russia, China and the US despite the NVC receiving steady supplies and training from Soviet and Chinese forces, there is minimal chance that global nuclear war will erupt from the Ukraine. Mutual destruction does not serve the interests of the globalists, at least not if they hope to predict the outcome in the slightest.
That said, I would not be surprised to see at least one mushroom cloud somewhere in the world this decade within a regional conflict. Also, world war does not have to become nuclear to be disastrous.
Sadly, because of Hollywood movies a large number of people have misguided notions of what World War III might actually look like. Entertainment media always depict WWIII as happening in a flash, an instant in which missiles are launched and a broken civilization of survivors is left to pick up the pieces. What they never show is a long grinding war of financial attrition, supply chain disruptions, cyber attacks, and drawn out regional battles in which Americans are shipped overseas to die for no purpose other than to pretend that these territorial disputes are somehow “our responsibility.”
What I see in Ukraine is the beginnings of a war unlike any other; a war in which the weapons are primarily indirect and financial rather than kinetic. Because of global interdependency in trade many Western nations have been left utterly defenseless in this kind of conflict. We don’t have the ability to fight back because our economic systems are built around a model that demands we abandon domestic production and rely on the resources and industry of other nations.
This is never more true than in our relationship with China, which controls around 20% of all export goods into the US. China has closely allied with Russia. This is not going to change because they know that there is nothing the West can do to about it; there is far too much economic leverage involved. Furthermore, the events in Ukraine are probably a precursor to China’s own invasion of Taiwan.
If this is the plan, then China would have to wait for optimal weather conditions after the monsoon season, sometime in September. This would start with missile bombardment and infrastructure attacks, followed by an amphibious assault sometime in early October.
The proxy war in Ukraine is a key moment in history going forward (along with the potential invasion of Taiwan), because it offers global power interests with dreams of a “Great Reset” the ability to offload the worldwide economic crisis they created years ago onto the “tides of fate.” They can say that the collapse only happened because of the hubris of sovereign nations and “meaningless borders.” If the US and Europe are directly involved in the killing of Russian troops, and this is widely exposed, then the Russian side of the narrative become clarified and the Western side becomes muddled. Direct Russian retribution becomes logical and rational rather than the crazed reaction of a nation led by a madman as the mainstream media claims.
Both sides of the Kabuki theater have to feel as though they are justified in escalating a small war into a world war. That is how this has always worked. When the working class population gets a little too unruly and the threat of rebellion against the establishment is at hand, the elites start a war. It’s like clockwork. This tactic weakens the general population, wears down the number of fighting age men that might have otherwise presented a threat to the ruling class and creates enough fear and panic to convince the public to trade away more of their freedoms.
The wild card right now is the US and European populations, and to some extent the Russian citizenry, and how they respond. The old joke is “What if they held a war and nobody showed up to fight?” This is a potential reality right now as it is in the hands of the public how far the Ukraine issue goes. Are most Americans and Europeans willing to send their sons and in some cases daughters to fight and die over the Donbass? Are Russian citizens willing to fight and die beyond the borders of Ukraine?
A lot of people are engaging in big talk lately, but is this really the hill they are ready to die on? I think not. Why? Because deep down most people know that this war is a farce, a play on the global chess board by elitists with nefarious aspirations. They know that the reasons for the war are not pure, on either side. They virtue signal in favor of Ukraine, but they will never be willing to go and risk their lives for Ukrainian soil. Nor are they willing to risk a family member’s life for Ukraine.
I suspect that the globalists know this by now, as the narrative has been shifting away from trying to convince Americans that open military involvement is needed. They will switch to the economic side of the conflict in the hopes that fiscal disaster will fog the minds of the public and make them more willing to support wider war tomorrow.
via zerohedge
