boneyard bill
Veteran Member
NATO which, of course, means the US, appears to have formulated a new insane policy toward the Ukraine crisis to replace the old, failed insane policy.
The new policy is will violate the cease-fire and attack eastern Ukraine once again with an objective of destroying all resistance. The really objective, surely however, is to provoke Russia to invade. It is highly unlikely that Putin will stand by and allow the Donbass region to be occupied by Kiev forces. NATO will then use that as an excuse to send NATO troops to Kiev and produce a divided Ukraine with the Western sector eventually being admitted to NATO.
So the new policy isn't a whole lot different from the old strategy except that this new effort comes after Kiev's forces have already gotten their asses kicked by the out-number Eastern forces some months ago. The last time the newly "trained" Ukrainian National Guard went up against the Eastern militias, they were soundly defeated and ran away leaving their heavy weapons behind. That's why the US has had to re-supply them. This new strategy will only work if these units include experienced mercenaries from groups like Academi and Greystone. There is a very good chance, however, that that is secretly what is going on.
So, if the Eastern militia cannot hold off the new Ukrainian "International" Guard, Russia may be forced to intervene, and NATO will very likely send a small force to Kiev and dare the Russians to attack it. And what if the Russians DO attack it? Then what? Do we send reinforcements? Is there anything in Ukraine worth risking World War III? Is Putin's proposal for a federated Ukraine non-aligned between East and West, such a horrible prospect that we cannot entertain it?
Our Ukrainian policy has always been, first and foremost, all about provoking Russia. But why?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/all-out-war-in-ukraine-natos-final-offensive/5415354
The new policy is will violate the cease-fire and attack eastern Ukraine once again with an objective of destroying all resistance. The really objective, surely however, is to provoke Russia to invade. It is highly unlikely that Putin will stand by and allow the Donbass region to be occupied by Kiev forces. NATO will then use that as an excuse to send NATO troops to Kiev and produce a divided Ukraine with the Western sector eventually being admitted to NATO.
So the new policy isn't a whole lot different from the old strategy except that this new effort comes after Kiev's forces have already gotten their asses kicked by the out-number Eastern forces some months ago. The last time the newly "trained" Ukrainian National Guard went up against the Eastern militias, they were soundly defeated and ran away leaving their heavy weapons behind. That's why the US has had to re-supply them. This new strategy will only work if these units include experienced mercenaries from groups like Academi and Greystone. There is a very good chance, however, that that is secretly what is going on.
So, if the Eastern militia cannot hold off the new Ukrainian "International" Guard, Russia may be forced to intervene, and NATO will very likely send a small force to Kiev and dare the Russians to attack it. And what if the Russians DO attack it? Then what? Do we send reinforcements? Is there anything in Ukraine worth risking World War III? Is Putin's proposal for a federated Ukraine non-aligned between East and West, such a horrible prospect that we cannot entertain it?
Our Ukrainian policy has always been, first and foremost, all about provoking Russia. But why?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/all-out-war-in-ukraine-natos-final-offensive/5415354
