We have also been lied to about Ukraine

What do covid, climate change and the Ukrainian war have in common? First, that our politicians defend foreign or supranational political and economic interests to the detriment of the interests of their own citizens.

Secondly, that the well-paid mass media engage in aggressive propaganda campaigns based on huge lies until the test of virtue of the good citizen consists in showing a strong adherence to the slogan or a deeply emotional hatred towards the designated “enemy”.

Thus, after two years of covid lies, Western media are now bent on lying about the Ukrainian war to give the impression that Ukrainian victory is just around the corner. Already in March last year, and in a display of rigor, many of them (including the pretentious Financial Times) uncritically quoted “official Western sources” as saying that Russia was running out of precision missiles[1]: since then, Russia has launched around 4,500. Also, a few weeks ago the New York Times claimed (quoting “US officials”) that the explosive mail letters sent to the Presidential Palace and the Ukrainian Embassy in Madrid were the work of Russian agents. After being echoed by many Spanish media, we have now learned that they had actually been sent by a now arrested 74-year-old pensioner from a small Castilian town who acted alone, according to Spanish police.

The media also said that Putin had cancer and Parkinson’s, that he had become a lunatic from covid isolation and was on the verge of using chemical and nuclear weapons. They launched all these narratives and then abandoned them without further explanation, exactly as they did with covid when overnight they stopped terrorizing people. If Russia clearly wins the war, as seems likely, will they simply quit talking about it?

Propaganda is useful to maintain the will to fight, which in the European case consists of the citizenry supporting their economic suicide decided by that US Protectorate called the EU. However, neither propaganda nor lies win wars. What is the real situation in Ukraine?

The recent decision to send Western tanks has been taken by politicians against the judgment of their senior military commanders. At the whim of the US, the German government has changed its mind for the umpteenth time and, in a new U-turn, has decided to send one Leopard tank company (14 units) and to allow other countries to send two battalions (about 80 units). It is stunning to see Germany, a country today controlled by the US, weak and without clear ideas, discrediting itself to the point of turning a blind eye and accepting the humiliation of having its Anglo-Saxon masters sabotage a gas pipeline that is key to its energy well-being (a casus belli).

Sending such different battle tanks involves enormous training and maintenance challenges. Moreover, the Russians also have the same anti-tank missiles that inflicted so much damage on themselves at the beginning of the conflict, and from a military point of view, sending a few dozen tanks is irrelevant in the face of a Russia that may have 8,000 operational tanks of varying tonnage[2].

Germany says that “the first” Leopards (3 or 4?) will arrive in two or three months. Poland will send another 14 and the British will send 14 Challengers. Other countries have said blah, blah, blah, but probably that dropper of 40-45 Western tanks will be all Ukraine gets. In this regard, I trust that Spain will not materialize the stupidity of giving away tanks that it badly needs to a country that is not its ally only to irritate another country that is not its enemy. In the past this reasoning would be self-evident, but logic and reason no longer apply, as shown by the fact that France has given Ukraine a third of its howitzer guns and Estonia the totality it had at its disposal.

And what about the US? Hasn’t Biden announced the dispatch of 31 Abrams? The enormous reluctance of the Pentagon (as of all Western military establishments, Spain included), the complicated technical and logistical requirements of these tanks, which run on gas turbines and consume jet fuel, and the artificial time horizon of eight months that the Americans have given for their delivery, lead me to conclude that it is most likely that not a single American tank will ever reach Ukraine, and that, therefore, the United States has played a new trick on Germany.

Let us not forget that the two strategic objectives of the US in provoking Russia was, on the one hand, to weaken it with a war of attrition, and on the other hand, to destroy the political and commercial ties between Europe and Russia (Nordstream 2 included) to the detriment of European (in particular German) economic and geopolitical interests. “Fuck the EU”, said the current Deputy Secretary of State Nuland in 2014. This was a crucial objective.

Thus, the Leopards that the servile German government is sending for scrap to Ukraine will serve no purpose except to further deteriorate long-term relations with Russia and provide Putin with a valuable propaganda image: for the first time since the Nazi invasion of 1941, German tanks will kill Russian soldiers without Russia ever having attacked Germany. Bravo.

But let’s back up for a moment. If the Ukrainians are winning, why are they so desperate to get tanks? The answer is that the reality in Ukraine is less rosy than we are told.

Since the beginning of the war, the publicists who make up actor Zelensky’s government have been effective in creating an iconic persona of carefully unkempt beard, permanently furrowed brow, and khaki green T-shirt, but they have proven to be very unreliable as sources of information for what is happening on the ground.

First there were the setups to denounce alleged massacres or the initial non-existent indiscriminate shelling of civilians (the falsehood of which could be verified in real time on Ukrainian webcams). However, what has marked a turning point in the Ukrainian government’s loss of credibility has been its attempt to blame Russia for the missile debris that fell on Poland killing two people. To the anger of Western countries, Zelensky blatantly lied with the aim of trying to drag NATO into a Third World War[3].

The best independent analysts paint a war scenario which is the opposite of the one portrayed by the wishful thinking Western media. In fact, for those who want to continue consuming mainstream media, the quickest way to understand what is happening in this war is to substitute the word Russia for Ukraine and vice versa. So, if you read that the Russians are demoralized, without armament or ammunition, understand that it really refers to the Ukrainians, and if you read that in six months Ukraine will retake Crimea (as the delusive British media does[4]), understand that maybe in six months Russian troops will be in Kiev or Odessa.

The most likely scenario, I insist, is that, after the Ukrainian mini counter-offensive in the autumn, which allowed Ukraine to obtain a pyrrhic propaganda victory at the cost of suffering heavy casualties, the Russian side will take advantage of its clear superiority to regain the initiative in an offensive that will break through the main Ukrainian lines of defense.

Russia is interested in systematically decimating what is left of the Ukrainian army before advancing, because, as we say in Spain, a scalded cat runs away from cold water and, after its initial strategic mistake, the Russians will advance in a methodical way avoiding exposing themselves with bold strokes.

After the mirage caused by the heroic Ukrainian resistance and the massive American aid (already practically exhausted), the media seem to have forgotten that Russia is still the second military power in the world, with immense reserves, air, ground, and electronic superiority and, above all, with an artillery that crushes the Ukrainian positions with a rate of fire several times higher than the Ukrainian one. The recent seizure of Soledar (which Ukraine took two weeks to recognize) and the imminent fall of Bakhmut, where Ukraine has concentrated many troops, may be a turning point.

The icy Putin will not repeat what he considers his initial mistake, i.e., to act with restraint towards a “brotherly” Slavic country in order to facilitate the negotiations. Given that former German Chancellor Merkel has acknowledged that the unfulfilled Minsk Agreements (signed between Russia and Ukraine in 2014 with the blessings of France and Germany) were just a Western ploy to buy time, I believe that this time Russia will go as far as it deems necessary to impose the conditions that might assure a lasting security at the other side of its border with more reliable guarantees than the fragile word of Western politicians. At that point it will not be Zelensky who will negotiate on behalf of Ukraine but a different government, perhaps composed of some military man outraged at the unnecessary destruction of his country.

When the tide turns, the Americans may be eager to cut the moorings before the ship sinks. Undoubtedly, what would be most convenient for them to save face would be a coup d’état in Ukraine with a new “illegitimate” government that would not receive international recognition but would negotiate a cease-fire. This would justify maintaining sanctions against Russia forever and NATO would not appear to be the loser.

But in the absence of such a scenario, the US may consider a Russian victory (in my opinion, inevitable) as an existential threat to its hegemony, in which case it could undertake a flight forward by delivering, for example, longer-range weapons to attack targets on Russian territory.

Many red lines have been crossed and the hatreds fueled by the horrors of war will endure. What is left of Ukraine will not forget the Russian aggression and Russia will not forget that the West sent weapons to kill Russian soldiers, but it will not accept being attacked on its own soil, a line of no return to which the warmongering of the Anglo-Saxon empire and the subservience of a Europe on the verge of dissolving into nothingness can drag us.

As time goes by, it is becoming crystal clear that this war was always a power struggle between the US and Russia in which the Ukrainian people – sent to a sterile sacrifice by their own rulers and by the US – provided the dead, and Europe (immolated by its political “elite”) provided the economic and geopolitical suicide.

Before the war, Ukraine was a failed State, denounced by the UN Human Rights Council for “restricting fundamental freedoms[5]“, impoverished and enormously corrupt, bleeding to death through the diaspora because Ukrainians did not want to live in their own country. In fact, no census had been conducted since 2001. Do you really believe the story that it is now an ideal democracy fighting for freedom? Why was NATO training, arming and encouraging the Ukrainian army to retake Crimea? Why is NATO defending a non-member country like this? Why is it indirectly fighting a country that has not attacked any member country?

It is clear to the non-Western world that this war was perfectly avoidable and that its genesis has been the constant provocation of Russia by NATO and the US. In order to prolong the war, they derailed the March 2022 peace talks when there were hardly any dead on the table and the conditions demanded were acceptable. One year later, 20% of Ukrainian territory has been annexed to Russia and tens of thousands of Ukrainians have died[6]. To achieve exactly what?

Of the two strategic goals that the US had in this conflict, it will achieve only one, i.e., the structural weakening of Germany and Europe and the diplomatic and commercial breakup of Eurasia thanks to the complicity of the pathetic European political class.

The other objective – weakening Russia – will fail. The economic sanctions have proven unsuccessful, the autocrat Putin has reinforced his iron leadership and Russia will end up driven to the East and strengthened, being the only army with (indirect) combat experience against another great power, having demonstrated that the world no longer backs the West (as shown by the UN votes on the conflict or the refusal to impose sanctions on Russia by most of the planet), and that the US may be a giant with feet of clay.

Undoubtedly, truth was on the US side when it fortunately won the Cold War against the Soviet Communist tyranny, today extinct (Russia is not the USSR!), but from a military point of view, it must be remembered that, since 1945 the US has fought mainly against ragtags lacking in technology or modern weaponry. Despite this, it drew in Korea, lost in Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Syria and, after 20 years, left nothing worth mentioning in Iraq, which it attacked on the basis of “official” lies (the infamous weapons of mass destruction).

The evidence shows that on this occasion, in Ukraine (as in Iraq) truth is not on the side of the US, but beyond the military, geopolitical and propaganda confrontation, what this war reflects is, in the words of French historian Emmanuel Todd, that “the West has lost its values and is entering a spiral of self-destruction”. Indeed.