World War III Inches Closer As US House Votes To Arm Ukraine


Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to urge the President of the United States to arm Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. The United States needs to be very careful here.

I travel to Ukraine often. I travel to Moscow often. Ukraine has a long, tortured history with Russia that most Americans don’t understand.

How can we effectively deal with a war like this when we may not have a full understanding of the situation and the history that has driven the conflict in East Ukraine to where it is today?

Slavic society started in Ukraine. After the tribes of Kievan Rus were overrun by the Golden Horde from the East almost nine hundred years ago, the princes moved to Moscow and started a new Slavic kingdom which became known as Russia.

The Russian Orthodox Church started in Kiev. Ukraine holds a special place in the Russian Slavic heart.

I am for democracy and for the right of people to determine their own destiny. I have to say I am torn with this situation.  It is not as easy as to say “ok, let’s just go kill Russians in Ukraine and make the world a better place.”

There will be serious consequences from Russia. Russia is bristling with modern nuclear weaponry and nationalist xenophobia.

I am concerned that arming Ukraine will fall right into Putin’s trap. Now, he will have a real enemy to keep his population’s eyes off the coming economic misery.

Let me say that NATO countries should be the absolute red line. There should already be multiple armored brigades in Eastern Europe to show America’s intent to defend the alliance and her allies.

However, I think we have to be much more clever in Ukraine. It seems to me there has to be some other way to stop the Russian advance in the East than for America to directly provide weapons. For instance, we could easily just provide funds secretly for the Ukrainians to arm themselves.

This is a serious situation and could easily lead to a world war which could go nuclear quickly. Russian President Vladimir Putin has often told the West to not forget that Russia has nuclear weapons. The problem is, he is willing to use them.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The U.S. And Israel’s Common Enemies

The White House Blog

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington and speaks to Congress, bypassing the Obama administration, the stakes could not be higher. But President Obama is not the only, and certainly not the most significant, opponent of Israel. The important new book, “The USA and The New World Order,” features a debate in which one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s key advisers, Alexander Dugin, criticizes Israel’s “imperialist” role in the Middle East and America’s role in the world as a whole.

A careful reading of this important debate, which occurred in 2011 and has recently been published in book form, demonstrates that it is Russia which is the main threat to Israel and the United States.

Dugin’s debate opponent, the anti-communist Brazilian writer and philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, sees Dugin as the brains behind Putin’s geopolitical strategy that embraces “genocidal violence.” He notes that Dugin has “advocated the systematic killing of Ukrainians—a people who, according to him, do not belong to the human species.”

As for Israel, the debate transcript shows that Dugin regards the Jewish state as “a modern capitalist and Atlantist entity and an ally of American imperialism.” This is a rather straightforward view of how the Moscow regime views Israel today, and why it backs the government of Iran with weapons, nuclear technology, and diplomatic support.

The term “Atlantist” or “Atlanticist” is meant to refer to trans-Atlantic cooperation between Europe, the United States, and Canada in defense and other areas.

Iran is a key part of the anti-American alliance. Dugin has explained in the article, “Eurasianism, Iran, and Russia’s Foreign Policy,” that a “strategic alliance” exists between Iran and Russia, and Russia “will not cease its efforts to reduce sanctions against Iran” over its support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In the debate with de Carvalho, Dugin proclaims, “I have nothing against Israel,” then quickly added, “but its cruelty in repressing the Palestinians is evident.”

To which de Carvalho counters, “The rockets that the Palestinians fire practically every day at non-military areas of Israel are never reported by the international big media, whereas any raid by Israel against Palestinian military installations always provokes the greatest outcry all over the world.”

He tells Dugin, “I know the facts, my friend. I know the dose of violence on both sides. I know, for instance, that the Israelis never use human shields, while the Palestinians almost always do it. I know that, in Israel, Muslims have civil rights and are protected by the police, while, in countries under Islamic rule, non-Muslims are treated as dogs and often stoned to death.”

This exchange is only part of a debate that puts Israel in the context of a global conflict that Dugin sees as “The West against the rest.” The world is going through a “global transition,” away from dominance by the U.S. and its allies, he asserts.

De Carvalho commented that Dugin, himself the son of a KGB officer, is “the political mentor of a man [Vladimir Putin] who is the very incarnation of the KGB.” He said that Dugin has emerged as “the creator and guide of one of the widest and most ambitious geopolitical plans of all time—a plan adopted and followed as closely as possible by a nation which has the largest army in the world, the most efficient and daring secret service and a network of alliances that stretches itself through four continents.”

De Carvalho describes Eurasianism as “a synthesis of the defunct USSR and the Tzarist Empire” that includes philosophical elements of Marxism-Leninism, Russian Messianism, Nazism, and esotericism. The last element is a reference to certain occult influences in Russia.

“In order to fulfill his plans,” de Carvalho explains, “he counts on Vladimir Putin’s strong arm, the armies of Russia and China and every terrorist organization of the Middle East, not to mention practically every leftist, fascist and neo-Nazi movements which today place themselves under the banner of his ‘Eurasian’ project.”

He says the historical roles played by Russia and China in sponsoring and arming terrorist groups help explain why global Islam has targeted the United States and Israel. “Some theoreticians of the Caliphate allege that socialism, once triumphant in the world, will need a soul, and Islam will provide it with one,” he notes.

In this global war for domination, however, he also identifies a “globalist elite,” including in the U.S. government and society, which wants to destroy traditional Christianity and share in “the spoils” from the decaying West.

What we are witnessing, he writes, is an “alliance of Russia with China and the Islamic countries, as well as with part of Western Europe,” that has come together in a “total war against the United States and Israel,” which is to be followed by “the establishment of a worldwide dictatorship.” It is the replacement of an “Atlanticist Order” by the “Eurasian Order.”

For those who doubt such global schemes could come to pass, de Carvalho says that Dugin “is not a dreamer, a macabre poet creating imaginary hecatombs in a dark dungeon infested with rats.” Rather, he is “the mentor of the Putin government and the brains behind Russian foreign policy,” whose ideas “have long ceased to be mere speculations.”

De Carvalho identifies among these “material incarnations” of the Dugin vision the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a group founded by Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which “intends to be the center of a restructuring of military power in the world.” Iran has been an observer state at the SCO since 2005. He also cites the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, a geopolitical term for countries which are seen as developing a mechanism to replace NATO, the one-time anti-communist alliance.

Another such international organization is the BRICS alliance of nations, incorporating Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Iran is also discussing joining BRICS.

On January 20, Iran and Russia signed an agreement expanding their military ties. Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu said Moscow wants to develop a “long-term and multifaceted” military relationship with Iran. Just a few days ago, Russia offered to sell the Antey-2500 anti-aircraft and ballistic missile system to Iran. “The United States and Israel lobbied Russia to block the missile sale, saying it could be used to shield Iran’s nuclear facilities from possible future air strikes,” Reuters reported.

For its part, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been warning about Iran while simultaneously conducting cordial relations with Russia and refusing to condemn Putin for invading Ukraine. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says Israel will maintain “neutrality” in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. “Maintenance of good relations with Russia is a priority moment for Israel and its principal stance,” Lieberman said.

It has been estimated that more than 6,000 people have died in eastern Ukraine since Russia’s invasion of the country. The Obama administration has refused to supply Ukraine with weapons for its own self-defense.

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

How Many More Wars Must The U.S. Government Start?

Photo credit: DVIDSHUB (Flickr)

Last week, President Obama sent Congress legislation to authorize him to use force against ISIS “and associated persons and forces” anywhere in the world for the next three years. This is a blank check for the president to start as many new wars as he wishes, and it appears Congress will go along with this dangerous and costly scheme.

Already, the military budget for next year is equal to all but the very peak spending levels during the Vietnam war and the Reagan military build-up, according to the Project on Defense Alternatives. Does anyone want to guess how much will be added to military spending as a result of this new war authorization?

The US has already spent nearly two billion dollars fighting ISIS since this summer, and there hasn’t been much to show for it. A new worldwide war on ISIS will likely just serve as a recruiting tool for jihadists. We learned last week that our bombing has led to 20,000 new foreign fighters signing up to join ISIS. How many more will decide to join each time a new US bomb falls on a village or a wedding party?

The media makes a big deal about the so-called limitations on the president’s ability to use combat troops in this legislation; but in reality, there is nothing that would add specific limits. The prohibition on troops for “enduring” or “offensive” ground combat operations is vague enough to be meaningless. Who gets to determine what “enduring” means? And how difficult is it to claim that any ground operation is “defensive” by saying it is meant to “defend” the US? Even the three year limit is just propaganda: who believes a renewal would not be all but automatic if the president comes back to Congress with the US embroiled in numerous new wars?

If this new request is not bad enough, the president has announced that he would be sending 600 troops into Ukraine next month, supposedly to help train that country’s military. Just as the Europeans seem to have been able to negotiate a ceasefire between the opposing sides in that civil war, President Obama plans to pour gasoline on the fire by sending in the US military. The ceasefire agreement signed last week includes a demand that all foreign military forces leave Ukraine. I think that is a good idea and will go a long way to reduce the tensions. But why does Obama think that restriction does not apply to us?

Last week also saw the Senate confirm Ashton Carter as the new Secretary of Defense by an overwhelming majority. Carter comes to the Pentagon straight from the military industrial complex, and he has already announced his support for sending lethal weapons to Ukraine. Sen. John McCain’s strong praise for Carter is not a good sign that the new secretary will advise caution before undertaking new US interventions.

As we continue to teeter on the verge of economic catastrophe, Washington’s interventionists in both parties show no signs of slowing. The additional tens of billions or more that these new wars will cost will not only further undermine our economy, but will actually make us less safe. Can anyone point to a single success that the interventionists have had over the last 25 years?

As I have said, this militarism will end one way or the other. Either enough Americans will wake up and demand an end to Washington’s foreign adventurism, or we will go broke and be unable to spend another fiat dollar on maintaining the global US empire.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

World War Inches Closer As Germany Intends To Change Defense Posture

European Council (Flickr)

Russia’s actions in East Ukraine and other parts of the former Soviet Union have caused a panic in the defense establishment of Western Europe. Most European nations have drastically drawn down defense spending as they basked in the umbrella of American security over the last few decades.

Germany is one of those nations that have allowed their defense posture to atrophy. This seems to be changing.

The Moscow Times reports this week: “Germany will overhaul its security strategy in coming years in response to Russian attempts to use “power politics and military force” to assert its interests, Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said on Tuesday.” This is a significant development from the last seventy years as Germany has been hesitant to involve itself militarily in world affairs since the end of World War II.  As Germans who were alive during the war pass away, Germany could become more aggressive in its response to threats around the world.

The Moscow Times goes on to report:

The new strategy would mean the German army would in future focus not only on missions far afield, for example in Afghanistan, but also become more involved in strengthening NATO’s defenses. Germany is already helping to boost NATO’s presence in eastern Europe.

Russia lost twenty million people at the hands of the Nazis during their invasion of Russia, which was ultimately defeated. This memory still runs deep throughout the Russian Federation. In fact, the possibility of fascist involvement in the government of Kiev has been used very effectively in promoting Moscow’s direct involvement in the war in East Ukraine and the Russian annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.

A mighty and aggressive Germany is definitely something the Kremlin fears. Even though it is rumored that Russian President Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have a cordial relationship, this German development could change that.

With the first shooting war in Europe between two nations now raging in Ukraine, the dogs of war are barking. In spite of all the danger, American leadership is absent.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

World War III Is Breaking Out And We’re Without A Leader

Twitter/Health Data Mgmt

Recently, Ukraine reinstituted the draft and started mobilizing a large number of troops to refresh battle-weary soldiers on the front lines in the East, where the fighting is raging. The pro-Russian rebels have stated they too are bringing their forces to 100,000 men.

We now have the first real shooting war between European countries since World War II. Think about that and consider the carnage the first two world wars caused.

Russia is pouring in armor, sophisticated weapons, and supplies to their proxy army against the West in East Ukraine. Their forces are expanding their territory and may be about to cement a land bridge to Putin’s newest enclave, the Crimean peninsula. Putin is also actively courting Eastern European countries that are part of the EU and coaxing them back into Russia’s orbit.

Greece and Hungary are two examples; their leaders have made strong pro-Russian statements recently. These two countries are also part of NATO. Think about that.

Now Obama is making noises about providing weapons. Don’t bet on it – it’s just a ruse.

The alliance which held the peace in Europe is crumbling. It is crumbling because America has abdicated her leadership role in Europe that has kept the peace on the continent for almost a century.

There is truth to the age-old maxim from Machiavelli: “It is better to be feared than loved.” What if Russia had understood very clearly that there would be significant costs to their intervention in Ukraine from the start? I think we would be seeing a much different outcome. Totalitarian governments only listen to one thing—power.

In the Middle East, our pathetic president has withdrawn all U.S. forces, after years of spent blood and treasure. It is a travesty. It is sickening.

Now we see ISIS taking over large parts of Iraq and Syria, executing thousands along the way. Our Dear Leader will not even call these people terrorists. Either he is living in some type of alternate reality, or allowing ISIS to take over the Middle East is his agenda. Again, I say, look at the results of his actions, not what he says.

In either case, we have a serious global security threat mushrooming in historically violent parts of the world. The United States is weak, absent, pathetic. The mainstream media may not want to call this president on these facts, but I will. We are witnessing the beginnings of World War III. They will write about this weakness in the history books one day as we are without a leader who can deal with the situation. I fear for my children.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom