The USA – What Democracy? 311

Joe Biden will very probably be re-elected. No incumbent President has ever lost a primary (though it should be remembered the current primary system is younger than me). Only one sitting President has ever not been selected by their party to stand again, and that was knocking on two hundred years ago.

Both Biden’s main primary challenger, Robert F Kennedy Jr, and his likely Republican opponent, Donald Trump, are less than enthusiastic about promoting massive war in Europe and risking nuclear obliteration. (I hope everyone in the UK enjoyed the nationwide new alert test the other day and spent a few moments contemplating whether they would die instantly or slowly in agony).

The military industrial complex simply cannot permit a non-hawkish President. The sums of money at stake are enormous.

Trump, for all his many faults, was the only President in recent memory not to have started any wars. I know he continued some, but his entire Presidency needs to be seen as a dialectic between Trump and the intelligence service/military power base, in which to his credit Trump was never captured as completely as Obama. (Clinton and the Bush family did not need to be captured, they were always true believers).

Thirteen months ago, I wrote this:

The Biden laptop was leaked on 14 October 2020, three weeks before voting day in the Presidential election. Its suppression by the mainstream media, Twitter and Facebook, at the behest of the security services, is the biggest illegitimate interference in an election in modern western history.

The evidence has piled up since. It is truly astounding that incalculable volumes of media coverage have been given to largely groundless accusations of Russian interference in US Presidential elections, when this actual, entirely proven interference in a US Presidential Election, which arguably was key to Biden’s election, has in itself been largely suppressed.

The letter released by 51 former US intelligence officials, telling what we now know to be the outright lie that the Hunter Biden laptop was “Russian disinformation”, was initiated by the Biden campaign, according to sworn testimony from former Acting CIA Director Mike Morell – who was willingly a part of it with the declared aim of wanting Biden to win.

If you are not fully up to speed with this, this Wall Street Journal podcast is excellent.

It should be recalled that, apart from all the sex and drugs, the laptop contained emails showing plainly Hunter Biden leveraging his father’s influence to obtain lucrative business deals with, inter alia, Ukraine and China.

Three weeks before a close election, the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop could undoubtedly have swayed it, if it had not been massively and falsely derided as a Russian hoax by almost the entire mainstream media, and censored to death by Twitter and Facebook.

Since Elon Musk released Twitter files, we have known for certain that the FBI orchestrated the suppression of the story on social media. This Twitter thread is five months old but remains a must read.

It is, I think, the epitome of the corruption of modern mainstream media that, if you go to the CNN website you can still find a “fact check” item from CNN which states that Donald Trump was promoting Russian disinformation by referring to the Hunter Biden laptop.

Google searches differ depending on the person making them. But try this. Google for the exposure of the Hunter Biden laptop “Russian hoax” as itself misinformation. How many stories come up for you from the “liberal” media, from the BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC, Guaridan etc?

I get nothing on from them on the front page of my google search except the old CNN misinformation. That says a great deal both about the legacy media – and about Google.

So we have conclusive evidence from the Hunter Biden laptop story that the security services, corporate media and corporate internet gatekeepers were in cahoots to ensure the election of Joe Biden. What we see now is the same forces working to ensure that he is re-elected.

Now read this from Robert F Kennedy’s campaign website:

In the long term, a nation’s strength does not come from its armies. America spends as much on weaponry as the next nine nations combined, yet the country has grown weaker, not stronger, over the last 30 years. Even as its military technology has reigned supreme, America has been hollowing out from the inside. We cannot be a strong or secure nation when our infrastructure, industry, society, and economy are infirm.

A high priority of a Kennedy administration will be to make America strong again. When a body is sick, it withdraws its energy from the extremities in order to nourish the vital organs. It is time to end the imperial project and attend to all that has been neglected: the crumbling cities, the antiquated railways, the failing water systems, the decaying infrastructure, the ailing economy. Annual defense-related spending is close to one trillion dollars. We maintain 800 military bases around the world. The peace dividend that was supposed to come after the Berlin Wall fell was never redeemed. Now we have another chance.

As President, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. will start the process of unwinding empire. We will bring the troops home. We will stop racking up unpayable debt to fight one war after another. The military will return to its proper role of defending our country. We will end the proxy wars, bombing campaigns, covert operations, coups, paramilitaries, and everything else that has become so normal most people don’t know it’s happening. But it is happening, a constant drain on our strength. It’s time to come home and restore this country.

In Ukraine, the most important priority is to end the suffering of the Ukrainian people, victims of a brutal Russian invasion, and also victims of American geopolitical machinations going back at least to 2014. We must first get clear: Is our mission to help the brave Ukrainians defend their sovereignty? Or is it to use Ukraine as a pawn to weaken Russia? Robert F. Kennedy will choose the first. He will find a diplomatic solution that brings peace to Ukraine and brings our resources back where they belong. We will offer to withdraw our troops and nuclear-capable missiles from Russia’s borders. Russia will withdraw its troops from Ukraine and guarantee its freedom and independence. UN peacekeepers will guarantee peace to the Russian-speaking eastern regions. We will put an end to this war. We will put an end to the suffering of the Ukranian people. That will be the start of a broader program of demilitarization of all countries.

This is astonishing stuff to be put before the American people from the scion of one of the great American political dynasties.

(I am aware of his chequered past, his support for Hillary over Bernie, and his Covid vaccine scepticism, though the latter appears to be more based on his long term commitment to tackling the profiteering and corrupt influence of big Pharma than an actual anti-vaccine stance).

I did not predict that the USA would become a gerontocracy. Biden shows signs of the mental decay that is a natural part of the human condition. He will not have to face Kennedy in any Primary debates – the NDC could be relied on to stitch up that potentially huge hurdle for him – but the risk of Biden detariorating further mentally in a way that is impossible to hide must exist for anyone of his age. So the Kennedy challenge is not without a slim hope.

A slim hope for a declared opponent of the military industrial complex is one hope too many, therefore the twin agencies of social media suppression and corporate media ridicule have already swung in to action against Kennedy.

The challenge must be choked at birth. The range of acceptable opinion to the US Establishment is now extremely narrow.

Trump remains an enigma. He is a mixture of far right prejudice and serious outbursts of commonsense. I do not doubt that he does have interests beyond the personal advancement of Donald J Trump, but only in an incidental way.

In Ukraine we are either going to see death and destruction on a scale well beyond the terrible horrors already inflicted, or there is ultimately going to be a deal involving the ceding of some territory to Russia (Crimea+, as my FCO sources tell me it is currently called in Beijing based diplomacy).

Trump says this. It is the kind of thing that makes the US military-industrial-security service complex hate him, as they are seeing super profits, massive resources and political influence stretching ahead for at least another five years. They don’t care at all how many Eastern Europeans die.

Trump is a much greater threat to Biden, and the full weight of the state is therefore being thrown into stopping him through lawfare. Some of this is very dubious, and subject to the perfectly true response that Bill Clinton was never prosecuted for remarkably identical behaviours.

Watching the agencies of the state find a way to stop Trump is going to be fascinating.

Russiagate was a hoax. There is however a real interference with what the public are allowed to know which makes the notion of “democracy” in the USA meaningless, and that is the interference of the security state of the USA itself.

Those interests got Biden into power, and will do everything and literally anything to help him stay there.

The British security state is of course complicit. A final thought.

It is fast approaching a year since Julian Assange submitted his High Court appeal against extradition, and still the High Court has not even decided if it will hear the appeal or not. We had initially hoped the actual hearing might be before last Christmas.

The Assange prosecution is not popular in the USA, where even the mainstream media have come out against charging a journalist with espionage.  In addition everybody can now see the parallel with Evan Gershkovich and potential impact of Assange’s treatment on Gershkovich.

Assange’s arrival in Washington would be a free speech cause celebre with the potential to alienate some liberal support from Biden in a close election. The US security services therefore still very much want Julian imprisoned for life – but they do not want him extradited until after Biden is safely re-elected.

The British government therefore need to keep Julian in maximum security in Belmarsh for another two years, to keep the Biden campaign and its security service backers happy.

This can only be done by introducing lengthy and unnecessary delays into the judicial process. We see that happening, or rather we see it “inexplicably” not happening, before our very eyes.

The senior British judiciary do what the security services tell them to do. Discreetly suggested, in the club.


Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

311 thoughts on “The USA – What Democracy?

1 2 3
  • Greg Park

    Joe Biden is responsible for the mass famine in Afghanistan as well as the bleeding out of Ukraine. His half century as a US Senator was notable only for abetting war and corporate vulturism and for segregating and imprisoning black people. Nothing else, other than the rape of Tara Reade. His vice presidency is remembered only for Ukraine-related corruption. None of this is exactly a secret or redeemed by any good he has done or by any impression of inteligence, so why are we supposed to view him as a better human being than Donald Trump?

  • YesXorNo

    Yes, Mr. Murray, I concur completely. There is one hidden element. Due to the draining of the armories of most of the NATO nations, there is plenty of money to be made by the blood soaked arms manufacturers even after the Ukraine debacle is concluded, or at least the fighting stops. The other point is the recent release of classified US documents. It cannot yet be stated that it was definitely a controlled leak, though that is looking more likely day by day. Whatever, the case, this has undermined the existing administration by showing them to be inveterate liars, which to be honest is no surprise at all. However, if it was a controlled leak that indicates a faction within the intel/military community who are dead against the current policy. Whether they want rid of Biden of the triplet of trouble (Blinken, Sullivan and Nuland) is not yet clear. But, the election of a Republican gets rid of the lot.

    As you say, it will be interesting watching the internal battles within the administration and intel/mil communities.

  • no-one important

    RFK Jr speaks some excellent good sense and, were I an American, I would be tempted strongly to vote for him. My fear is that his views will lead to a similar fate to that suffered by his elder family members if he upsets the military/industrial complex. It is not known for its forgiving nature and has done far worse to protect itself over the decades. Besides, without innumerable foreign interventions and underhand domestic machinations, what on earth would it find to do?

    • Tom Welsh

      Murdering a third Kennedy president or presidential candidate would look suspicious even to the average US sheepizen.

      “First time is happenstance; second time is coincidence; the third time, it’s enemy action”.

      They can actually afford for RFK Jr to be elected President. Just like Mr Trump, he would sit helpless in the Oval Office while the bureaucratic machinery grinds on regardless, completely ignoring him. Even Mr Putin has observed in his mild way that presidents come and go, but the policies never change.

      There is also the testimony of a US President.

      ‘When contemplating General Eisenhower winning the Presidential election, Truman said, “He’ll sit here, and he’ll say, ‘Do this! Do that!’ And nothing will happen. Poor Ike—it won’t be a bit like the Army. He’ll find it very frustrating”’.
      – Richard E. Neustadt, “Presidential Power, the Politics of Leadership”, p. 9 (1960).

  • nevermind

    Not so Cleverly’s announcement to ‘work hard to negotiate a ceasefire in Sudan’ should not be translated as him wanting to see the same in Ukraine.
    It speaks more to the Tory right worried about more dinghy migration to these shores.
    Biden is a killer. By witholding Afghan billions he has done more damage to the country than the Taliban, imho.
    Thanks for another US-themed article on political shittery; I’m sure the tail will carry on wagging.

  • dearieme

    It is extraordinary that Trump, a narcissistic twerp, has sounder political instincts than virtually the whole of the US Establishment. Surely “not to have started any wars” would be a fine epitaph. And if he were to look like winning he’d probably be in need of an epitaph.

    The same may be true of Kennedy though I dare say the monopoly media will sink him without any need for the fine old tradition of assassination. The idea that this scion of a gangster family might be an improvement over the Clinton/Obama/Biden types is ironic.

    Dear God, western civilisation is in the soup.

  • glenn_nl

    CM on RFK Jr : “I am aware of his chequered past, his support for Hillary over Bernie, and his Covid vaccine scepticism […]”

    Indeed, he has had a bit of a chequered past. But he has also been a great champion of the poor, the environment, and against injustice perpetrated by the powerful.

    Instead of enjoying life with the idle rich, he went through law school, and has been successfully fighting for good causes along with Mike Papantonio. They have gone up against pharmaceutical giants, whose appalling practices doubtless led him to be unduly suspicious about their vaccines. He went for some environmental campaign in South America and ended up getting thrown in a filthy Peruvian jail for six months.

    It’s not as if this guy is without principles, and he’s certainly not afraid to stick his neck out in the pursuit of justice for no personal gain.

    • Denis Oven

      “unduly suspicious about their vaccines”

      There is lot of material I would suggest you read, had I actually maintained any sort of record.

      However, the economic characteristics are compelling.

      Vaccines are given to everyone, not simply sick people.

      In the US, children are virtually compelled (as a condition for school attendance) to have a staggering number of them.

      Placing a vaccine on the childhood immunization schedule removes liability for its harms from the manufacturer (in the US).

      When you see that sweet a deal, for robbing the taxpayer, you really should wonder whether anything about it is actually legitimate.

      • Clark

        Is that deal so sweet? It means that if the companies get sued, they get sued by the government with its formidable legal resources rather than individual taxpayers with limited funds for legal costs.

        Oh but of course no government would ever sue any companies (except the times they have) because it’s all a big international conspiracy, as is all public health data all over the world… obviously. Just like vehicle mechanics pretend that worn tyres are dangerous, and governments conspire with them by enforcing minimum tread depths.

        • glenn_nl

          No, no, no, Clark – you’re thinking of the Great Safety Belt Hoax!

          If you recall, a bunch of medics, police, so-called “safety” campaigners and even morticians, coroners, family “crisis” actors – the lot – got into the scam. They teemed up with mechanics who faked vehicle damage which supposedly caused injuries (made to look like people went through windscreens), and even got people made up with fake scars – horrible to look at – to scare people for no reason.

          Result? Corrupt government went for the scam – in it with the car manufacturers, obviously – and introduced COMPULSORY seat belts in cars (even in rear seats!), and fined people for not wearing them, obviously adding to the great rip-off. They even had adverts trying to hoodwink people into wearing them unnecessarily before making it a legal requirement.

          How gullible are people? Obviously the seat belts were completely unnecessary – my old grandad went years without wearing one, and he never came to any harm. What more proof do you need?

  • Ian Stevenson

    If R F K Jnr. was not a member of the Kennedy clan, would he have any chance of nomination?
    American elections seem to be fought over personalities rather than policies. He was a heroin user in his youth (though he overcame that) and is on his third wife, the second having committed suicide. He was a prominent anti-vaxer.
    His support of good causes is there but I expect the Democratic party would prefer someone with less ‘baggage’ when it comes to elections.

  • Athanasius

    Craig, Trump only remains “an enigma” for as long as you hold that schizophrenic “thesis-antithesis” view of history and the world that guides people on the political left. Once you ditch the idiotic notion of “historical inevitability” (and, in fairness, it IS very difficult to ditch; it took me decades) and come to understand that history doesn’t have sides, or a direction or an endpoint, that it doesn’t and cannot “validate” anything, and that the old wisdom of unchanging right and wrong was correct all the time, then Trump becomes much more understandable; wrong did not become right because “it’s the current year”. Basically, he’s a very flawed, but not particularly malicious human being. Like all of us, he’s learned throughout his life, and I suspect he just got sick of paying the Democrats protection money for licences to build. In blue dog New York, you don’t build a doghouse without paying off someone in the Democratic Party. This level of corruption is not always apparent to people on the left because of that “arc of history” horse shot that blinds them — “yeah, it’s technically wrong, but our goals are so noble and our vision so pure that history will justify us in the long run”. In fact, if you count the publication of the Communist Manifesto as the beginning of modern socialism, it’s been nearly 200 years and counting, and the jam promised for tomorrow is no nearer delivery than it was back then. In the meantime, love him or hate him, it’s been capitalist dogs like Trump who’ve been lifting the poor out of poverty, not more government. If some instinct within you is telling you to look a little more favourably on Trump — and only you know if that’s the case — then I would urge you to follow it.

    • Twirlip

      When has Craig ever espoused Marxist historical determinism or anything remotely like it? Indeed, he has frequently drawn attention to his Liberal political influences. Your comment barely has anything to do with the article. It seems to have little purpose other than to distract, and to allow you to indulge in irrelevant shadow-boxing with some prefabricated, monolithic construction of “the left” inside your own head.

      • Athanasius

        “The left” is defined by historical inevitabilism. If you don’t believe in it, you’re not on the left. That’s my point. I’ve never said Craig was a communist, I merely use the Communist Manifesto as the starting point of modern socialism because it’s the fons et origo of the poison which has infected people of even moderately liberal outlook. Once you ditch the toxic “arc of history” claptrap, a lot of things become clearer. I’m simply speculating that Craig — among many other people who aren’t trying to hold two conflicting ideas in their heads at the same time — is thinking that there are worse possibilities than another Trump presidency. I may, of course, be wrong about that. Perhaps in the future you might infer what YOU wish from one of Craig’s pieces and I will do the same.

        • Twirlip

          I probably shouldn’t take the bait (once was probably more than enough, especially on the first page of comments, and this thread remains irrelevant), but I’d like to know where you locate Chomsky on the left-right spectrum. If he isn’t “left” – and your comment implies that he isn’t – then who the chuffing hell is left, apart from diehard Stalinists and the like?

          • Athanasius

            Noam “Capitalism is evil. Pay me $20,000 a lecture to find out why” Chomsky? Make an educated guess which side I think HE’S on.

          • Twirlip

            [Replying to Athanasius’s later post of May 3, 2023 at 19:29.] That looks less like a doctrine of “historical inevitability” than what (according to Wikipedia) Popper apparently termed “moral historicism”. The latter is certainly a very widespread ethical fallacy, far more widespread than Marxist determinism – but it is every bit as irrelevant to Craig’s article! So I had better not encourage you by posting again in this thread. God give me strength. 🙂

          • useless eater

            “Noam “Capitalism is evil. Pay me $20,000 a lecture to find out why” Chomsky? Make an educated guess which side I think HE’S on.”

            Athanasius, Professor Chomsky starred in a commercial film made by a friend of mine. No fee was involved. When this friend contacted Chomsky, he got the phone number from the MIT website. Chomsky answered the phone himself and the arrangements were made in a minute or so. There’s “grassroots” and then there is the grass roots.

            Contrast this with Tony Blair speaking to hedgefund managers at $400,000 a pop. Imagine, a former “Servant of the People” generating a income from those who benefitted from the policies his long and corrupt reign implemented.

            I hold no candle for Chomsky – he was what he was, he is what he is; his time as an “emissary of truth” is over. I agree with AG, reading his work was crucial to my intellectual developement. Only a ungrateful cur would not recognise such a debt. Saint or shill, his work is done.

            Athanasius, I have to tell you to get real. Do not be afraid. In this act of getting real, think of what you might accomplish.

          • Athansius

            Replying to Useless Eater — Chomsky may toss out the occasional freebie, but you’ll find his regular speaking fee is $20,000 a pop.

        • Sidewinder

          I’m afraid the left is not defined by historical inevitabilism or ever determination. Certain CP analyses tend that way, and others which are not CP including some Trotskyists and neo-Trotskyists do not. If I had to decide anything was the definition of the left – and fortunately I do not – it would be the belief in the agency of the working class to decide how things work out. Pretty much that’s it.

          • Athanasius

            If you’ve ever said “you cannot/must do such-and-such because it’s the current year” (or some variation thereof) you’re a historical inevitablist. Do you think capital punishment is wrong “in this day and age”? Historical inevitablist. Do you think free health care is a human right “in the 21st century”? Historical inevitablist. Is Scottish independence “only a matter of time”? Historical inevitablist. It’s a poisonous doctrine because your idea of what is “inevitable” may not be the same as mine. I, for instance, support an independent Scotland, but I’m also very conservative on social issues. There are many social conservatives who would support an independent Scotland, but because the nationalist movement is dominated by the left — the historical inevitablists — their votes are not wanted because they would contaminate the purity of the inevitablist vision, which means Scottish independence ain’t going to happen in the near future. Leftist revolutions NEVER work.

    • useless eater

      What are you Athanasius, some kind of communist?

      He is a very old person and he probably has a few grandchildren. Problem solved – Occam would approve and everyone I know would get it. You should try to move on.

      He was relevant 20 years ago, maybe 10, I am not up to speed with him – whatever and the rest. His work is still relevant in linguistics and politics and history. His critique of Israeli historian Benny Morris stands out to me, in all his many works, as an exemplar in rigour, intellectual ambition fulfilled and yes that old cliché, honesty.

  • Lapsed Agnostic

    Re: ‘Only one sitting President has ever not been selected by their party to stand again’

    Here is a list of US Presidents that were not selected by the parties to stand for another term despite expressing a wish to do so:

    Franklin Pierce in 1856; Andrew Johnson in 1868; Chester A. Arthur in 1884; and Woodrow Wilson in 1920.

    Everyday’s a schoolday, as Jim McColl used to say on The Beechgrove Garden.

    By the way, for what it’s worth, I didn’t spend any time at all on St George’s Day contemplating whether I ‘would die instantly or slowly in agony’ should the worst happen since, as I now live several miles away from the nearest city, I’d imagine that if I have to die, I’ll be dying reasonably pleasantly from an intravenous overdose of heroin & cocaine (which, provided you have £20 on you and the relevant number in your phone, in most UK cities these days are literally easier to obtain than bread & milk), along with a few diazie chasers to ‘mak siccar’ as Roger de Kirkpatrick put it – though with decent harvests I may be able to last for several years before any of that.

    That said, London mayor Sadiq Khan has stated on record that the capital is “well prepared for a nuclear attack” (I guess he must have ordered a bunch of IRIS-T SLM launchers or similar to take down the Kh-102’s, which going by what’s been happening in Ukraine don’t appear to be as stealthy as we were led to believe – not sure about his plans for dealing with the ICBM RV’s but I’m sure he knows what he’s doing), so even though the rents are extortionate these days, perhaps I should just move down there instead.

    • Fazal Majid

      Lyndon Johnson read the tea leaves in 1968 and opted not to run again, rather than face a humiliating primary defeat at the hands of Robert F. Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy.

    • Tom Welsh

      “… I didn’t spend any time at all on St George’s Day contemplating whether I ‘would die instantly or slowly in agony’ should the worst happen since, as I now live several miles away from the nearest city…”

      I wouldn’t be so confident, if I were you. How far do you live from the nearest military target? Air base, army or navy base, arms factory, HQ, secret HQ, nuclear weapons factory, poison gas factory? (I live regrettably close to both Aldermaston and Porton Down, and I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if the Russians afforded each of those a love pat).

      The Russians will not launch a single nuclear weapon unless Russia is attacked with them – or is threatened with complete destruction.

      If they do launch, they won’t hold back. After all, who would want to live in a world without Russia?

      I really cannot understand the insane recklessness of the people who are poking the bear. It’s like trying to upset someone enough to make him see red, when he is holding a loaded shotgun that’s actually touching your ear.

      All that’s really required is a little politeness, and minding our own business.

      • Lapsed Agnostic

        Thanks for your reply Tom. I currently live miles & miles away from the nearest (overt) military base (which is used for the reserve anyway) or arms factory* etc, and a secret base nearby would have to be pretty secret for me not to know about it.

        So let’s get this straight: Russia will only use nukes if it’s attacked with them or if it’s threatened with ‘complete destruction’, but it’s ‘insane recklessness’ to in any way poke the Russian bear? Okay. I’m sure quite a few people wouldn’t mind living in a world without Russia – not least some in Ukraine.

        * I doubt whether the Russians will bother targeting arms factories anyway, as they’re much more likely to be interested in crippling infrastructure such as ports, power stations, data centres etc. I live miles away from any of those as well.

        • pretzelattack

          yes it is insane recklessness to threaten to completely destroy a nuclear power, or attack it with nuclear weapons. is there a problem with that statement?

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply PA. Of course, it would be insanely reckless to nuke Russia, but poking the Russian bear doesn’t necessarily mean doing that – or even threatening to do it, something that, as far as I’m aware, no senior politicians or prominent media figures in either the US, UK or France have done. It could just mean sending substantial amounts of (free) weaponry to Ukraine to be used against Russian troops, which both the US & UK (and to a lesser extent, France) have done.

        • Jeff

          A 1 megaton warhead flattens/vapourizes a radius of 2 miles from ground zero, 2 miles to 10 miles is mostly reduced to rubble and the blast wave will drive raging wildfires for about 20 miles.

          That’s one 1 megaton warhead. Modern warheads provide a much ‘better’ “yield” (sales blurb) and are up to 80 megatons, and primary targets can expect multiple strikes. (Every town of over 20,000 people can expect at least one, or so I’ve read).

          The millions of tons of earth sucked into the atmosphere by these blasts will then block out the sun, scientists predict northern hemisphere temeperatures would not get above zero degrees for around 700 days, by which time most humans will be long dead through radiation poisoning, hypothermia and starvation.

          Time to join CND maybe? To quote JFK – “…we must abolish all nuclear weapons, before they abolish us….”

          Apologies if my information is out of date, the reading may be even more grim than this….

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply James. Your information is out of date but not in the way you may think. Nuclear weapons are much less powerful today than at the height of the Cold War and there’s a lot fewer of them. The largest warheads Russia currently possesses are in their Topol-M ICBMs – they have a yield of 1 megaton. A nuclear weapon with a yield of 80 megatons has never been built – the largest ever was the Tsar Bomba at around 50 megatons.

            Currently Russia has about 1500 deployed nukes. In the event of a full-scale nuclear exchange between it and NATO, most of them would be heading to the US – the most we’d get in the UK is around 200, largely carried by Kh-102 cruise missiles which probably have a yield of 250 kilotons, and that would only be the case if the Russians decide not to really bother with France or the rest of Europe. That would still be bad enough: I reckon that 90-95% of the UK population would be dead within a year, though most them would not be killed directly by nukes but by the food & fuel systems collapsing and their lacking suitable survival skills. No. 1 survival skill: Be prepared.

            The nuclear winter theory has been debunked several times, not least by the late great Freeman Dyson, who called it ‘an atrocious piece of science’. Carl Sagan used to believe in it, until he saw what happened after Saddam’s forces set the Kuwaiti oil wells on fire during the first Gulf War but very little carbon entered the stratosphere. He then changed his mind. Sagan’s acolyte Brian Toon is still dining out on it, but then as Upton Sinclair (I think) observed: It’s hard to get a man to believe in something when his salary depends on him not believing in it (or vice-versa in this case).

  • Johnlm

    You’re overthinking it.
    If the Dems decide that Joe is to be the candidate, they will just arrange another postal vote.
    With 81million votes, Joe last time achieved more votes than any other president in history, whilst doing no campaigning.

  • Michael Droy

    Well obviously I agree on Biden, but your tolerance for RFK jr is hard to be onside with.

    He is not just sceptic of Covid vaccinations. he has been against all vaccinations, including being a strong anti-MMR vaccination leader.
    he leads the Child Heath Defense group (the name is disturbing in itself – kind of like integrity Initiative). That are both anti- all vax AND even PRO Homeopathy.

    Now it is one thing to take on the MIC – where the US spends 3% of GDP to get about 1.5% of GDP’s worth of aggression.
    Yes it is even braver to take on the Health industry where US spends 18% of GDP to get poorer results than Europe where 10-12% of GDP is spent (with bigger kickbacks to Washington than the MIC).

    But the guy is an idiot.

    • Tom Welsh

      “But the guy is an idiot”.

      Oddly enough, the Dunning-Kruger effect means that sometimes a person is called an idiot because he is so much more intelligent than the person who calls him that.

      • Michael Droy

        He believes in homeopathy and that MMR vaccines were evil.
        I feel pretty comfortable about calling him an idiot.
        you don’t?

        • Beware the Leopard

          “[RFK Jr] believes […] that MMR vaccines were evil.”

          Can you substantiate this claim, Michael Droy?

      • pretzelattack

        or it’s because he is providing cover for George Bush Jr, just like Obama and Biden and the rest of the right wing democrats.

    • Bayard

      ” he has been against all vaccinations, including being a strong anti-MMR vaccination leader.”
      Has he, or has he just been against their being compulsory? Or in the case of the MMR, the only vaccine for measles, mumps or rubella that’s available?

  • Pears Morgaine

    ” Robert F. Kennedy will choose the first. He will find a diplomatic solution that brings peace to Ukraine and brings our resources back where they belong. We will offer to withdraw our troops and nuclear-capable missiles from Russia’s borders. Russia will withdraw its troops from Ukraine and guarantee its freedom and independence. ”

    That’s easy to say, not so easy to achieve. I can’t believe there’s anybody here who still believes that politicians actually fulfil their election promises, many do the direct opposite. Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s freedom and independence once before, in 1991, but now claims Ukraine doesn’t exist as sovereign state at all; so how is this miracle to be achieved?

    Kennedy’s actual anti-vaccine stance started well before Covid and is well documented. He’s one of the dozen main funders of the anti-vaccine movement and a spreader of dangerous mis-information.

    I suppose the only good thing you can say about Trump is that he didn’t start any new wars but it’s bit like praising Mussolini for making the trains run on time or Hitler for building the Autobahns.

    So America has a choice between a misogynistic oaf, a conspiracy theorist and ‘Sleepy Joe”.

    God help us.

    • Reza

      “I can’t believe there’s anybody here who still believes that politicians actually fulfil their election promises, many do the direct opposite”.

      Indeed. Earlier today Robert F. Kennedy Jr tweeted a reminder of one of the most egregious examples of this in recent memory:

      “In 2019 actor and comedian Volodymyr Zelensky ran as the peace candidate winning the Ukrainian presidency with 70% of the vote. As Benjamin Abelow observes in his brilliant book, “How the West Brought War to Ukraine,” Zelensky almost certainly could have avoided the 2022 war with Russia simply by uttering five words — “I will not join NATO.” But pressured by NeoCons in the Biden White House, and by violent fascist elements within the Ukrainian government, Zelensky integrated his army with NATO’s and allowed the U.S. to place nuclear-capable Aegis missile launchers along Ukraine’s 1,200-mile border with Russia. These were provocations that senior U.S. diplomats like post-WWII foreign policy architect George Kennan, former U.S. Defense Secretary Bill Perry, and former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock had long described as “red lines” for Russian leadership. Let’s face it, the Neocons wanted this war with Russia, just as they wanted war with Iraq. Listen here to NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark describe how White House Neocons justified the Iraq invasion:

      • Pears Morgaine

        ” Zelensky integrated his army with NATO’s and allowed the U.S. to place nuclear-capable Aegis missile launchers along Ukraine’s 1,200-mile border with Russia. ”

        Utter rubbish. Aegis is a naval defence system anyway.

        • AG

          Pears & Andrew P. Booth

          @Aegis Ashore and Missile Defense

          recommended study from 2011, if curious:

          “Upsetting the Reset : The Technical Basis of Russian Concern Over NATO Missile Defense

          Federation of American Scientists” 50 pages

          The Missile Defense issue is complex and important.

          Aegis Ashore being one element of it.

          Along technical issues there are major psychological ones concerning matters of nuclear counterstrike/first strike capabilities of the US which we have discussed on this site past winter.

          It´s about mutual trust/distrust, about lack of warning time, it´s about inferior Russian ground radar which leaves major holes for enemy attacks, about dual use (offensive, defensive) of SM3 block interceptors on the AA systems etc.

          All this regardless of the eventual question whether these systems would hit anything at all in reality.

          It ought to be discussed much much more in the broad public in fact.

          (i.e. the near downing of the British surveillance plane in Sept. by RU jet fighters over the Black Sea is connected to this naturally since it would trigger the entire system of escalation in question.)

  • Reza

    This guy would tear Biden apart in a debate. Worse still he might denounce how empire/ military spending has hollowed out America. Hell, he might even let slip to a mass audience that the US state murdered his uncle and then his father. That of course is why the Democratic Party of The World’s Greatest Democracy (TM) has all of a sudden decided there will be no debates. A very reasonable and admirable decision if you’re the BBC, NYT etc.

    • Michael Droy

      He could only tear Biden apart in a debate – but so could anyone.
      Sure he could rant about conspiracies, but his policy seems to be to tone down his rantings recently.

      As most of the candidates from 2020 will tell you, the DNC shut down debates then if not in 2016.

      • Reza

        Televised debates took place both those years. Banning them is a first. Very obviously it’s because they fear Kennedy ruining Biden and speaking plain truths about the US establishment. (Who are themselves the specialists in promoting conspiracy theories and fake news, from Russiagate to Nord Stream, as well as smearing or silencing anybody who challenges them).

    • Courtenay Francis Raymond Barnett


      ” Worse still he might denounce how empire/ military spending has hollowed out America. Hell, he might even let slip to a mass audience that the US state murdered his uncle and then his father. ”

      Precisely – so he will not be permitted to win.

      Best democracy money can buy!

  • SleepingDog

    On and off I’ve followed Freedom News’ long-running Notes from the US series, which suggests an arc of political decay that pits the USA against the living planet. The question is therefore who is going to step up on the side of defending the planet, and furthermore what suggested strategies for planetary defence are there?

  • tonyopmoc


    Great post. I agreed with most of it..but please read “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health
    by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Bruce Wagner, et al.”

    It’s not as easy or as entertaining to read as “Murder in Samarkand” by Mr Craig J Murray…but after about 200 pages, even more completely riveting and shocking.

    For many years, I thought the pharmaceutical industry was highly corrupt, but I never realised it was quite “THAT” bad. It is not an anti-vax book, but partly about the most outrageous corruption, where known death killing drugs such as AZT, where authorised for distribution and massive profits, by the total faking of medical trials for vast quantities of money, with the total complicity of US Media.

    British Pharma companies were also heavily involved, but unlike now, UK Media exposed this atrocity, and AZT was withdrawn…Never published in America except now by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    He is an exceptionally brave man, though I don’t agree with everything

    If I was an American I would vote for him


    • Clark

      Eh? AZT isn’t withdrawn. It’s sold under the brand name Retrovir in the EU; generic formulations are also available. It’s a prescription-only medicine in the UK. Its recommended dosing regime was changed such that it is now rarely used alone or as a first treatment, but it is still available.

  • Jack

    A Biden win: Continued war.
    A Trump win: Efforts to end the war, neocons will hinder him
    A De Santis win: Snake, he will succumb to the neocons right away
    A RFK win: Not knowing too much about him, I can already see how media will frame him as a dupe for Putin.
    I do support him on many issues but he feels a bit feeble and lacks charisma. Does he have the power to stand up to intelligence services, media pressure on Ukraine? He should have learned quite a few things from JFK on this.
    Just today he criticized neocons, Zelensky:
    He also criticized the DNC establishment the other day, that they only serve the rich etc. Very on point but could he follow through?

    I guess it also boils down to how the war is played out coming weeks, months. It is not looking good for Russia on that front being completely unable to stop Ukrainian sabotage, build-up of troops and even drones going off over the actual Kremlin.
    It is absurd how unprepared Russia was for this war, total folly right on par or actually worse than western invasion of Iraq in my view.
    So if Ukraine manages to win land in the coming months, the anti-war sentiment in the West will vanish once again and the war will not be a big topic for the American presidential candidates.

  • George Dale

    It is horrible. See Judge Napolitano on You Tube. Right wing but sincere.
    You might also enjoy the clip of POTUS not being able to walk along a red carpet.

  • AG

    Branko Marcetic from the JACOBIN on Biden´s campaign backers:

    “Joe Biden’s Reelection Campaign Is Off to an Uninspiring, Oligarch-Driven Start

    By Branko Marcetic

    After talking with grassroots organizers for six minutes last Thursday, Biden spent the weekend hobnobbing with his real constituents: the hedge fund managers and executives he’s going to spend the next eighteen months begging for money.”

    Lee Fang from THE INTERCEPT on his own site about FBI-Facebook collusion re: Ukraine:

    “How The FBI Helps Ukrainian Intelligence Hunt ‘Disinformation’ On Social Media
    In an interview, a senior Ukrainian official defined “disinformation” as any news that contradicts his government’s message. ”

  • Baalbek

    It needs to be noted that many Republicans and right-leaning folk in the US that are against sending arms to Ukraine are extremely hawkish on China. e.g. John Mearsheimer. RFK Jr is also in this club.

    Even Glenn Greenwald and The Greyzone lads and pretty much any anti-imperialist/nominal leftist with a significant rw following is silent on the escalating tension between the US and China. GZ, which used to regularly push back against China hawks, even quoted the Epoch Times, the propaganda rag of the rabidly anti-PRC Falun Gong cult.

    This is what happens when people tailor their content to satisfy the demands of an audience rather than basing their work around firm principles (like our gracious host does).

    • Cynicus

      “This is what happens when people tailor their content to satisfy the demands of an audience rather than basing their work around firm principles….”
      Is this a function of the social media phenomenon of seeking approbation for online comment via upticks, “likes” and such?

    • U Watt

      That’s not true. Grayzone are virtually the only outlet to properly investigate and expose anti-China lies and propagandists. I note you didn’t elaborate on your Epoch Times claim. That’s because it was Max Blumenthal’s wife approving an ET tweet that pointed out both socialists and libertarians attended the Rage Against the War rally in Washington. Doesn’t sound quite as damning of the Grayzone’s credentials.

    • Beware the Leopard

      “Even Glenn Greenwald and the [Grayzone] lads and pretty much any anti-imperialist/nominal leftist with a significant [right-wing] following is silent on the escalating tension between the US and China. [Grayzone].”

      This claim of silence is simply false, as regards the journalists you actually name, like Greenwald or Grayzone-affiliated journalists (such as Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté).

      As regards outlets and journalists you don’t name, well, who can tell? But the verifiably false part of your claim impairs the credibility of your report, however sincerely you may believe it yourself.

      “This is what happen when people tailor their content to satisfy the demands of an audience rather than basing their work around firm principles […]”

      Do you, Baalbek, perhaps rank ideological purity at a higher priority than an informed electorate? Why this undertone of suspicion for any journalism that fails to sufficiently repel “the wrong half” of the polity?

      Do you grant the possibility that a principled journalist might rank their priorities differently than yourself?

      As for the Epoch Times thing, please provide a link to the Grayzone article that so offended you with its impure sourcing. News Flash: The Press in general obeys Sturgeon’s Law, but this does not mean everything they publish is devoid of informative value.

  • Philip Patrick

    Brilliant post, except that RFK JR is almost certainly right about the ‘vaccines’ too. It is strange this blind spot that even brave independent thinkers have for these ‘treatments’ (see Fraser Myers’ disgraceful assault on Andrew Bridgen for more evidence). You don’t need to search the dark web or indulge in ‘conspiracy theories’; the evidence of the jab’s inefficacy and appalling side effect ratio are clear in pharma and public health industry documents. And yet anyone who points this out is considered mad and dangerous. It is as if the story is just too big to process, even for many of the truth tellers, and thus needs to be internally denied.

    • squirrel

      I have been engaging in debate on twitter with provaxxers. Despite being a relative layperson, I can easily best any scientist or doctor, simply by asking them if they consider that there is sufficient evidence to rule out the possibility that aluminum adjuvants given with the killed-virus vaccines might be causing autism (spoiler – they are). They know, or quickly find out that they cannot answer in the affirmative, and at the same time know that anything other than a yes is unsatisfactory. So, they wriggle.

      Something I am noticing is that there are a few doctors joining the scepticism, this is welcome because for any doctor to publicly question vaccines in any way brings their career under tremendous pressure. Notably, Dr Sarah Myhill in the UK has done so, and she has literally had to face down the GMC in court thirty times.

      • glenn_nl

        The great Dr. Sarah Mayhill – isn’t she the one that reckons the contraceptive pill is a “dangerous medicine”, and was found by the GMC to have unethically used her medical credentials to promote unscientific, unfounded personal beliefs?

        The characters you denialist freaks put up as fonts of truth and wisdom are always such a hoot!

        • squirrel

          I rather think we all got played with MMR and autism. Bait and switch.
          Wakefield publishes a paper suggesting there might be a link with MMR -> media furore takes place
          Exley publishes a paper finding aluminum in the brains of ASD patients – > crickets

        • Bayard

          The mRNA COVID treatment is not a vaccine. Vaccines give you a non-virulent form of the disease which stops you being infected and hence passing the disease to others. No-one is any more claiming the mRNA treatment does this. All that the mRNA treatment is claimed to do is to reduce the severity of the symptoms so that the sufferer is less likely to be hospitalised or die. It is a palliative.

    • glenn_nl

      Good grief, I thought this would bring out the denialist lunatics.

      If you want your paranoid delusions about Covid and vaccines put to the test, put them down in the forums instead of going off topic here.

      Except I doubt that you’ll stick it out, because every single time – without exception – you conspiracy nuts come blustering along with a bag full of assertions and then disappear without trace when they get examined.

      It’s all very well boldly nodding away in agreement with other denialists, but you all turn into snowflakes when confronted with reality.

        • glenn_nl

          No thanks. Too many nutcases and too much grandstanding on Twitter. All desperate for likes and approval by their little mutual appreciation societies.

          You’re not up for testing your case in the forums here, then? Need the crowd of supporters – hysterics and denialists all – shrieking in the background in order to make your ‘case’ sound good?

          • squirrel

            okay. If you answer this question in the affirmative, I’ll drop by, we’ll discuss the second part.
            Do you consider that there is sufficient evidence to rule out a strong and causal association between aluminum adjuvants and autism? If so, what is it?

          • glenn_nl

            okay, I’ll answer your question if you answer the following in the affirmative.

            Do you agree that pseudo-scientific charlatans always give themselves sufficient wriggle-room to slither out of ever directly confronting their actual peers?

            If not, can you cite even a single example when they fail to do so?

            Sounds like you’re on the Wakefield bullshit train. Did you ever bother looking into his full story? Not just the recent rabble-rousing right wing nuttery grift in the USA over the last decade or so, I mean his seriously unethical behaviour, when he got really deluded and thought he could corner the market on supposedly non-autism causing vaccines (no, seriously), and get lawsuits going while winning a Nobel prize etc. etc. ?


            This is off topic here. Either take it to the forums, or chicken out.

          • squirrel

            Man you are all over the place! My question was clear and concerned objective evidence, you are producing loaded questions, a straw man, and talking about people.

            Do you want another go? Let’s be clear, if you can’t answer yes to my question, then it logically follows that you must accept the possibility that vaccines may be causing autism in great numbers.

            For your information, as you are clearly ignorant on the topic, the MMR vaccine, being a live vaccine, is not accompanied by an aluminum adjuvant.

  • John Seal

    Craig, I rarely comment because I almost always agree with you, but you are wrong on two counts here.

    1) It has become orthodoxy on the ‘post-left’ that Trump is not a hawk. However, Trump appointed psychopathic hawks such as John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to ‘national security’ positions, assassinated an Iranian general, tore up the Iran nuclear treaty, and stoked animosity towards China. These are not the actions of someone interested in peace. I urge you to read as much Daniel Larison as possible to disabuse yourself of this notion – he’s written extensively on the topic.

    2) RFK Jr is an anti-vaxxer, full stop. He has long subscribed to the long rebutted Andrew Wakefield autism claims regarding the MMR vaccine. He’s at least partially responsible for a measles outbreak in American Samoa that killed almost fifty children in 2019.

  • Sam

    My goodness, thank you for this, although it reads a bit like a child discovering that Father Christmas isn’t real.

    However, as to this: “Biden shows signs of the mental decay that is a natural part of the human condition.”

    All I can say is, no. Physical decay is part of the human condition as we age, but mental decay is not. It is only people who eat a Western diet who suffer from this horrific malady. And how awful it must be for you, on a personal level, to truly believe that your own brain is going to turn into porridge in a few short years.

  • Dom

    What justification have they given for hiding Biden from debates? Or have they even been asked to justify it?

    Btw I don’t buy RFKJr dramatically converting from.ardent Russiagater to antiwar leader in the space of a couple of years in his sixties. It reeks of political calculation and opportunism.

      • Dom

        From what I’ve read his dad was certainly more of an answer than anybody I’ve ever observed in US politics. If the son is genuinely of the same stuff you could do much worse. Just look at your other options, which of them would you prefer to him?

  • Vivian O’Blivion

    I agree in principle. It would require a sea change in the media environment to produce a different outcome.
    This said, there is some slim hope. An informal alliance has formed between the old, economic left / right, regards a new American isolationism. Krystal & Saagar, Joe Rogan, Jimmy Dore, Tucker Carlson, … .
    The subscription business model for Talking Points has taken off while the old cable “news” shows are collapsing. The revenue of CNN etc is subsidised by “must see” sports, where the “news” element comes as a package. Amazon Prime is expanding its “offer” to include major sports. MSNBC et al could be declared insolvent very quickly.
    Tucker Carlson will undoubtably find or create a new media vehicle to continue his business. Any no compete clause in his News Corp. contract will be rendered void by the nature of his sacking.

  • Peter Mo

    Clearly there has to be a mechanism for reapplying for bail. If the judiciary are saying Covid created a backlog then that should be grounds for bail. Now what if Assange is proved innocent? How much compensation will he be entitled to? Assange is no threat to anyone’s safety so in the interests of the taxpayer his case has to be speeded up and him placed on bail immediately.
    Applying the reasoning he may be a flight risk makes no logical sense. If that was the case everyone who ended up in jail would never be released because they “could reoffend”. Assange served his draconian sentence for gaining asylum which in hindsight he had every right to do as he was never charged.

  • Jimmeh

    > a deal involving the ceding of some territory to Russia (Crimea+[…])

    There’s no evidence that Russia is the least bit interested in withdrawing their troops or ending the invasion.

    From a military point of view, Russia can’t defend Crimea without a land-bridge through Donetsk Oblast. The Kerch Strait Bridge is much too vulnerable for Russia to rely on it as their primary route for resupplying Crimea; it was hit by a single missile a year ago, and it took them 9 months to get it back into service. Crimea also depends on water-supply from the Dniepro; that is, the “+” in “Crimea+” really stands for the whole of Eastern Ukraine, including the Ukrainian ports on the Azov Sea.

    Really, I don’t understand why Craig is agitating for Ukraine to cede land in the hope of peace. Russia’s invasion is plainly illegal, Russia’s stated aims remain maximalist, and I don’t see any reason why Ukrainians should trust any Russian guarantees. After all, it doesn’t seem to be just a Putin problem; ultranationalist sentiment in Russia hasn’t softened.

    I’m all for defanging the US MIC; this is a European problem, and none of the USA’s business. I have no time for Biden. I’ve never been very interested in his son’s laptop; after all, Hunter Biden isn’t running. But that’s not a good reason for minimising the anti-scientific lies of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I’ve never been very interested in Biden’s son’s laptop; after all, Hunter Biden isn’t running. The laptop story is just another small turd from the cesspit of US politics.

    It’s foolish to hope that Russia will respect Ukraine’s borders following some mythical “peace agreement”. Russia is still illegally occupying a large chunk of Georgia. If the international community signs off on a peace deal that requires Ukraine to cede territory, that would be a clear signal to Russia (and all other countries) that invading neighbours in pursuit of a “zone of influence” is perfectly OK. That’s not a path to peace; instead, it would lead to more wars.

    • pretzelattack

      lies. Russia wants security guarantees, and it has tried to negotiate, only for the west to subvert the process time and again.

      • Jimmeh

        Marching across your neighbours’ borders with tanks, and smashing up their cities, doesn’t seem calculated to elicit “security guarantees”.

        But that’s just misdirection; Putin and Lavrov have both made it clear, repeatedly, that they regard Ukraine as not a real state.

        • Republicofscotland

          Europe and the US didn’t seem too concerned when Ukrainian forces were killing Russian speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas for eight years, nor did they seem too perturbed when Russian speaking Ukrainians (some pregnant women) were locked in a building and it was set on fire as the crowd chanted and cheered as they burned to death.

          Some could say that Russian intervention actually saved many civilian lives in the Donbas.

    • Lapsed Agnostic

      The Kerch Bridge was partially destroyed last year by a bomb delivered either by a boat or a truck, Jimmeh, not a missile. So far, the US has given Ukraine nearly $50 billion in military aid (plus around $25 billion in financial aid to prevent its economy collapsing any more than it already has). In comparison, the UK has given about $5 billion, Poland $3 billion, and Germany $3 billion (and it had to have its arm severely twisted by the Americans to part with any of that). The amounts given by other European countries (including France) are negligible.

      If the US had decided that the War/SMO in Ukraine was none of its business, Ukraine would have run out of artillery shells, British NLAWs etc., nearly a year ago and Russia would now be in nominal control of most, if not all, of it, but would be facing a large-scale insurgency which would almost certainly last years and years and kill tens, if not hundreds, of thousands (look at Chechnya). A peace deal whereby Russia gets to keep Crimea and some/most of the Donbas(s) probably wouldn’t be the end of things, but I reckon would be better than that.

      • Jimmeh

        > not a missile.

        So you say, with no evidence. The contemporaneous reports indicated that it was a Neptune cruise missile. At any rate, how it was damaged is beside the point; it’s vulnerable.

        > If the US had decided that the War/SMO in Ukraine was none of its business

        The US has not decided that. I say it’s none of the US’s business.

        > but would be facing a large-scale insurgency

        Indeed; but that prospect doesn’t seem to have deterred Russia in the past.

        • Lapsed Agnostic

          Thanks for your reply Jimmeh. There’s plenty of evidence that it wasn’t a Neptune missile. For example, they have a specified range of 280 km, whereas the distance from the Kerch Bridge to the nearest bit of Ukrainian held land in Donetsk oblast is around 300 km. That would be pushing the inertial guidance system to the limit – for comparison, the Moskva was only around 100 km away from Ukrainian territory when it was hit. In addition, their 150 kg non-penetrator warhead would be unlikely to do that much damage to massive blocks of reinforced concrete. Can you provide any links to these contemporaneous accounts that indicate it was a missile? The bridge may have been vulnerable last year, but it’ll be a lot less vulnerable now, as every truck and van that crosses it will almost certainly be getting searched beforehand and regular boat patrols will be in force underneath.

          You appear to be strongly against the Russian invasion, but state that the US has no right to interfere even at the behest of the Ukrainian government, but seemingly that European countries do. I’ve already informed you of the likely outcome of that situation. How does a protracted insurgency lasting years, possibly decades, help the Ukrainians more than a deal where they surrender those parts of Donbas(s) almost all of whose current population don’t want to be part of Ukraine anyway?

          • Jimmeh

            > Can you provide any links to these contemporaneous accounts that indicate it was a missile?

            I can’t be bothered looking, because as I’ve already said, it doesn’t matter what weapon was used. The bridge is evidently vulnerable.

            > You appear to be strongly against the Russian invasion, but state that the US has no right to interfere even at the behest of the Ukrainian government, but seemingly that European countries do.

            If you’re going to quote my words, then quote my words. I didn’t say the US has no right to interfere, I said it was none of their business. A war in Europe is clearly the business of European countries.

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply Jimmeh. Not to worry – I’ve done a bit of searching on the interwebs for you. I can’t find anything about any reports of the Kerch Bridge being hit by a missile – Neptune or otherwise. As I stated in my previous comment, the bridge will now be considerably less vulnerable to attack than it was.

            When someone says that something is none of someone else’s business, they’ll generally be implying that that someone has no moral right to interfere in it. Perhaps I should have written ‘imply’ rather than ‘state’ – my bad, sorry. Anyway, if Russia were to invade, say, Estonia (a NATO member), would that also be none of the US’s business?

        • Bayard

          “If the international community signs off on a peace deal that requires Ukraine to cede territory, that would be a clear signal to Russia (and all other countries) that invading neighbours in pursuit of a “zone of influence” is perfectly OK.”
          By “other countries”, you presumably mean countries other than NATO members, who appear already to think that invading foreign states in pursuit of a “zone of influence” is perfectly OK.

          “So you say, with no evidence.”
          Apart from a video of the truck blowing up on the bridge, that is.

    • Jack


      You are too foolishly focused on Russia like most westerners. Luhansk, Donetsk declared their indepdence 6-7 years ago. We have 2 Minsk agreements that Germany, France, Ukraine have openly boasted about to be just a sham on their part. So who is not protecting what law? What border? What agreement?

      Of course there is no turning back now.
      And frankly, one can only imagine what would happen with ethnic russians if Ukraine were to somehow occupy Donbas and or Crimea. Ethnic cleansing, roundup, terror squadrons going from house to house. No, Luhansk, Donetsk, Crimea should certainly not belong to Ukraine. As for any other region I support referendums but west are not supportive of being part of that, thus the war will just go on.

      • Jimmeh

        > And frankly, one can only imagine what would happen with ethnic russians if Ukraine were to somehow occupy Donbas and or Crimea.

        What’s an “ethnic russian”? Are you referring to Ukrainians whose mother tongue is Russian? There are many of those in Ukraine; they are not being persecuted (although I hear that many of them are learning Ukrainian, out of disgust with Russian actions). With regard to collaborators and traitors, I imagine most of them will take their Russia-issued passports and go to Russia. But it’s difficult when you are under military occupation; there’s a difference between collaborators who collaborate under duress, and those who have taken up office in the rebel governments.

        > No, Luhansk, Donetsk, Crimea should certainly not belong to Ukraine.

        That’s an opinion about how things *should be*, and you’re entitled to it. Meanwhile those regions are within the internationally-recognized borders of Ukraine. It’s wrong (and illegal) to try to change those borders using tanks.

        Perhaps you disagree? Perhaps it is your view that if international borders are wrong, or your neighbour’s government has the wrong leaders, the right way to fix that is with tanks?

        • Jack

          An ethnic russian is a person belonging to the russian ethnicity. There are millions of ethnic russians inside of Ukraine.

          Yes the language issue is also an issue by itself and for the past years Ukraine have made their best to ban russian languages in some cases causing division in ukrainian society.

          You can believe that Luhansk, Donetsk, Crimea etc should not be free or not from Ukraine. However facts on the ground is that they already are free and it is Ukraine that simply refuse to respect the borders of these states. These states have a deep pro-Russian stance much because the largest ethnic majority is russian.
          You believe somehow that Donbas, Crimea deep down want to belong to Ukraine? The same state that have been shelling them for years?
          Remember also it took years before Russia even recognized these states and tried to use diplomatic means (Minsk I,II) etc to solve this peacefully the tanks came much later after thousands of ethnic russians, not to mention kids, had been shelled.
          I am not supportive of the invasion but surely it was not something out of the blue that happend. It all started with the violent coup of 2014, which was certainly illegal if anything.

          • Jimmeh

            > However facts on the ground is that they already are free

            It’s an odd kind of freedom, if the occupying authorities can scoop up children and deport them to Russia. That is in itself a warcrime, and Putin and others have publicly bragged about doing it.

          • Jack


            Why are you using such loaded words? “occupy” “warcrime” “bragged” “kidnapped”?
            Fact is that between 150-200 children have been killed past couple of years due to ukrainian shelling in eastern ukraine. Do you want to raise that number or what?

          • Jimmeh

            > An ethnic russian is a person belonging to the russian ethnicity.

            Gosh, knock me down with a feather. I’d never have worked that out for myself.

            As far as I can tell, “ethnic russian” means three things: Russian language; Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchy; and Russian nationalist imperialist.

            Most Ukrainians understand both Russian and Ukrainian – the languages are not greatly dissimilar.

            Orthodoxy, in terms of doctrine and practice, is much the same whichever sect you belong to, although the Moscow Patriarchy has recently been banned in Ukraine, because the Patriach has been consistently agitating for harsher(!) military measures against Ukraine.

            As far as nationalist imperialists is concerned, I have no time for imperialists. I don’t imagine that Ukraine will treat them with very much understanding, and I expect they will have to flee.

          • Jack


            You politicise the ethnic question to the absurd, (which is the first step toward ethnic cleaning and beyond..), ethnicity simply mean:

            The Russians (Russian: русские, romanized: russkie) are an East Slavic ethnic group indigenous to Eastern Europe, who share a common Russian ancestry, culture, and history.

            You imply the religious sect the Donbas people should preach is to the ukrainian priests calling for “harsher” measures against the very same people living in Donbas??

        • Johnny Conspiranoid

          “Perhaps you disagree? Perhaps it is your view that if international borders are wrong, or your neighbour’s government has the wrong leaders, the right way to fix that is with tanks?”

  • Harry Law

    Joe Biden is as corrupt as they come, remember when he was Vice President and visited Ukraine,then said to the PM, unless the Prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden was sacked before his plane took off for the US Ukraine would not get the $1 Billion dollar loan. “Son of a gun he got fired”. Then Hunter Bidens laptop contains hundreds of criminal offences including corruption, child sex and drug taking. He now disowns the laptop just as he disowns his own child [proved to be his in a maternity test]. The Biden crime family are evil gob shites.
    Here is Biden talking down to Scott Ritter, as a flavour of Bidens character….

    • glenn_nl

      HL: ” Then Hunter Bidens laptop contains hundreds of criminal offences including corruption, child sex […] “

      Hell of an accusation. You must have really strong evidence to say something like that. What is it? (A baseless assertion from a far-right nutcase and liar doesn’t count as evidence.}

        • glenn_nl

          You claimed, Harry – you, that this laptop contained the illegal items you mentioned above. I don’t care what the “Internet is full of” – since any reasonable person should know the I/N is absolutely full of disinformation.

          I’m asking you what proof _you_ can refer to about the crimes you listed. If you think that link above proves it had child abuse images, you’re wrong. Did you actually bother reading the article? It refers to wild accusations from lunatics like Giuliani, and it does not claim any of them are anything but that.

          • Johnny Conspiranoid

            In the absence of proof, what’s your best guess as to what’s on the Hunter Biden laptop?

          • Johnny Conspiranoid

            “You claimed, Harry – you, that this laptop contained the illegal items you mentioned above. I don’t care what the “Internet is full of” – since any reasonable person should know the I/N is absolutely full of disinformation. ”

            You can’t really dismiss something on the internet on the grounds that the internet is absolutely full of disinformation since everything is on the internet including this comments section. Perhaps glenn_nl could research the various claims that Harry refers to, by using the internet, and then give his reasons for dismissing them.

          • glenn_nl

            JC: “Perhaps glenn_nl could research the the various claims that Harry refers to, by using the internet, and then give his reasons for dismissing them.

            So let me see if I have this straight – Someone makes (or repeats) a claim, offering no evidence whatsoever.

            When asked, “What’s your source/ proof for that?” the appropriate response is “Oh! So you want proof, do you? Don’t you know it’s up to you to go out and do your own research to disprove it!”


          • Clark

            “You can’t really dismiss something on the internet on the grounds that the internet is absolutely full of disinformation[…]. Perhaps glenn_nl could research the various claims that Harry refers to, by using the internet, and then give his reasons for dismissing them.”

            Wrong; the burden of proof is on those making the claim:


            “Russell’s teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.”

          • glenn_nl

            This has precisely nothing to do with your claims about toxic content on the laptop.

            Either produce some evidence for your accusations, or man up and admit you don’t have anything.

          • Tatyana


            The computer repairman John Paul Mac Isaac wrote a book “American Injustice: My Battle to Expose the Truth”
            available on Amazon
            “…When the story broke, Big Tech and social and mainstream media blocked the reporting. I was instantly labeled as a hacker and a criminal. My actions were labeled Russian disinformation, and it didn’t take long before people started attacking my business and my character, forcing me to close my shop and flee the state.”

            Another book by Miranda Devine “Laptop from Hell: Hunter Biden, Big Tech, and the Dirty Secrets the President Tried to Hide”
            “…The dirty secrets contained in Hunter’s laptop almost derailed his father’s presidential campaign and ignited one of the greatest media coverups in American history.

            This is the unvarnished story of what’s really inside the laptop and what China knows about the Bidens, by the New York Post journalist who brought it into the open.

            It exposes the coordinated censorship operation by Big Tech, the media establishment, and former intelligence operatives to stifle the New York Post’s coverage, in a chilling exercise of raw political power three weeks before the 2020 election.

            A treasure trove of corporate documents, emails, text messages, photographs, and voice recordings, spanning a decade, the laptop provided the first evidence that President Joe Biden was involved in his son’s ventures in China, Ukraine, and beyond, despite his repeated denials….”

          • glenn_nl

            Still no proof from anyone, then? Just a reference to claims someone might have made.

            The standard for proof is not very high for some people, as long as they want to believe it in the first place.

            I am reminded of the phrase, “I’d never have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.”

1 2 3