conflict
How the Biden-Harris admin pushed Russia into war with Ukraine

From LifeSiteNews
By Bob Marshall
I was … bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.… Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.
In September, Vice President Kamala Harris stated several points at the White House as to how she would handle the Ukraine-Russia war: “I will work to ensure Ukraine prevails in this war.… Putin started this war, and … Putin could set his sights on Poland, the Baltic states, and other NATO Allies.… [S]ome in my country … demand that Ukraine accept neutrality, and would require Ukraine to forego security relationships with other nations. These proposals are the same of those of Putin.”
But these are the same Biden-Harris tactics and policies that provoked war.
Harris blames Russian President Vladimir Putin for the war. But the proximate source of the Russia-Ukraine conflict goes back beyond Putin to the breakup of the Soviet Empire and even earlier.
End of the Cold War
In late October 1989, the famed Berlin Wall as a dividing line between Socialist German Democratic Republic (GDR) and West Germany, called a “wall of mistrust” by then former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, was crumbling.
Obviously, Gorbachev, with almost 400,000 troops in East Germany could have stopped the reunification. But Western officials gave Russian leaders assurances there was nothing to worry about. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told Gorbachev that NATO expansion would proceed, “not one inch eastward.” The next day, West German chancellor Helmut Kohl assured Gorbachev, “NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.”
The Los Angeles Times noted, “Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.… NATO’S widening umbrella doesn’t justify Putin’s … incursions in Ukraine or Georgia. Still, the evidence suggests that Russia’s protests have merit and that U.S. policy has contributed to current tensions in Europe.”
Documents at George Washington University testify to agreements made between Western leaders and Russian officials at this time – that western nations would not expand NATO to the East.
Boris Yeltsin was the first president of the Russian Federation from 1991 to 1999, coming to office immediately after Premier Gorbachev’s resignation with the dissolution of the Soviet Empire. In 1995, President Yeltsin met with President Clinton in St. Catherine’s Hall at the Kremlin.
Yeltsin said to Clinton, “I want to get a clear understanding of your idea of NATO expansion, because now I see nothing but humiliation for Russia if you proceed. How do you think it looks to us if one bloc continues to exist while the Warsaw Pact has been abolished? It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner, they ask. I ask it too. Why do you want to do this?”
When Clinton spoke to Yeltsin in 1995, there were 15 NATO member countries. When Clinton left office, there were 18.
Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion
In 2016, President Clinton’s former Defense Secretary Bill Perry said, “In the last few years, most of the blame can be pointed at the actions that Putin has taken. But in the early years … the United States deserves much of the blame.… Our first action … in a bad direction was when NATO started to expand, bringing in eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia.”
Former CIA Director Robert Gates, who also served as Secretary of Defense for President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, opposed the policy of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”
In June 1997, 50 former senators, retired military officers, diplomats, and foreign policy academics wrote to President Clinton about the problems and ill consequences of NATO expansion:
[T]he current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions.… NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability …
In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition … [and] bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement.
In 1998, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman asked George Kennan, who devised the successful “containment” policy to prevent the Soviet Union from achieving its goal of world domination through open warfare, what he thought of the U.S. Senate ratifying NATO expansion even up to Russia’s border. Kennan replied:
[I]t is the beginning of a new Cold War.… There was no reason for this.… No one was threatening anybody else.… We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so.
I was … bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.… Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.
In 2007, Putin noted, “NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders … and what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact … NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on May 17, 1990 … said … ‘The fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are these guarantees?”
Fiona Hill points to 2007 when Putin “put the world, and certainly Europe, on notice that Moscow would not accept the further expansion of NATO.… In 2008 NATO gave an open door to Georgia and Ukraine.… Four months after NATO’s Bucharest Summit, there was the [Russian] invasion of Georgia. There wasn’t an invasion of Ukraine then because the Ukrainian government pulled back from seeking NATO membership.”
William Burns, now President Biden’s Central Intelligence director and former U.S. ambassador to Russia, wrote to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008:
Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players … I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.
Putin told Burns in 2008: “No Russian leader could stand idly by in the face of steps toward NATO membership for Ukraine. That would be a hostile act toward Russia. We would do all in our power to prevent it.”
In 2015, the German Der Speigel magazine interviewed Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, regarding the status of Ukraine in response to the abrupt change in the presidential leadership and Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Brzezinski suggested that “Ukraine should be free to choose its political identity.… But … Russia should be assured credibly that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO.”
More recently in 2022, the Wall Street Journal reported, “Pope Francis said that the ‘barking of NATO at the door of Russia’ might have led to the invasion of Ukraine.… The pope … deplored the brutality of the war.… Pope Francis … described Russia’s attitude to Ukraine as ‘an anger that I don’t know whether it was provoked but was perhaps facilitated’ by the presence in nearby countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.… ‘In Ukraine, it was other states that created the conflict.’”
The caution of these experienced statesmen and world leaders is lost on President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
This article is reprinted with permission from the Family Research Council, publishers of The Washington Stand at washingtonstand.com.
conflict
EU leaders escalate war rhetoric with Russia in stark departure from Trump’s peace push

From LifeSiteNews
By Frank Wright
Germany’s leading academic authority on its army has said that Europe’s depleted armed forces would be “washed away” by Russia in weeks, and that it could take at least 15 years before Germany was ready for war.
Last night’s European Council summit responded to Donald Trump’s moves to end the war in Ukraine with a commitment to massive European rearmament.
The EU Council published a statement that, “In 2025, it will provide Ukraine with EUR 30.6 billion” and “increased military support” to Ukraine and proposes “a new EU instrument to provide Member States with loans backed by the EU budget of up to EUR 150 billion” in support to “non-EU members” to rebuild “defense.”
The extraordinary announcement comes two days after EU Chief Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen, an elected MEP appointed to the powerful leadership position by other MEPs, proposed to “rearm Europe” with the release of up to 800 billion euros ($867 billion) in funding. Details on how the money will be raised are set to be finalized later in March.
European and British statements on this issue directly contradict and defy moves towards a durable peace made by the Trump administration. They have also been met with stern rebukes from Russia.
Reuters reported two days ago that Trump had vowed to “end this senseless war” and “stop the killing”:
Trump also said he had been in “serious discussions with Russia” and had “received strong signals that they are ready for peace.”
“Wouldn’t that be beautiful?” he said. “It’s time to stop this madness. It’s time to halt the killing. It’s time to end this senseless war. If you want to end wars you have to talk to both sides.”
Trump is attempting to return the Western world back to the traditions of international diplomacy before and during international conflicts to save lives and prevent unnecessary massive destruction.
This is a major turn away from the top priority given to military power in recent decades. That appears to have been driven by globalist forces, including giant military-industrial complexes, moneylenders, and globalist investment companies like Blackrock who greatly profit from continuous war.
The Russians responded with “concern” over the “remilitarization” of Europe, with spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying the “confrontational rhetoric and confrontational thinking” from Europe goes against efforts to reach a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict.
France – nuclear escalation?
On Wednesday evening French President Emmanuel Macron made a direct address to the French nation in which he described Russia as a “threat to France and Europe” and said he had decided “to open the strategic debate on the protection of our allies on the European continent by our (nuclear) deterrent.” France is the only nuclear armed member state in the EU.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Macron’s speech was a “threat to Russia.”
“If he considers us a threat, gathers a meeting of the chiefs of staff of European countries and Britain, says that it is necessary to use nuclear weapons, to prepare for the use of nuclear weapons against Russia, this is certainly a threat,” Lavrov stated.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly emphasized Russia has no intention of invading any other nation or trying to resurrect the Soviet Union. It has been having trouble enough trying to protect endangered Russian-speaking Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine for the past three years.
There has been no evidence indicating Russia is planning or even capable of invading and conquering other nations, but it has been forced to prepare to repel possible attacks in response to increasing hostility and unwillingness to dialogue from Western globalist leaders.
Reliable analysts have emphasized that the CIA and other deep state entities in the U.S. and Europe, in order to justify their massive military spending and Russian regime change goal, are the ones who have been spreading false rumors that Russia has expansionist objectives.
Putin referred to Macron’s comments with a warning from history:
Some people still can’t sit still. There are still people who want to go back to the times of Napoleon, forgetting how it ended.
In a further sign that the U.S. is pursuing peace independently of the Europeans, Trump has suspended all military aid to Ukraine and cut off U.S. intelligence sharing, moves which dramatically reduce the war fighting capability of the Zelensky regime.
The EU-led initiative to fund European rearmament comes days after U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for a “coalition of the willing” to send troops to Ukraine and continue the supply of arms – whilst talk increases of Zelensky himself being replaced.
“We have to learn from the mistakes of the past, we cannot accept a weak deal which Russia can breach with ease, instead any deal must be backed by strength,” Starmer said, while failing to mention any nations actually willing to join his initiative. So far, none have – though suggestions have been made.
Western nations have been the ones breaching one agreement after another with Russia. Some of those are the promise to not expand NATO “one inch eastward” at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, plus the April 1,2022 Ukraine/Russia initialed agreement in Istanbul to end the Ukraine war, among others.
Starmer’s claim to place “boots on the ground, and planes in the air” did not attract any pledges of support from any European nation. A U.K. deal was signed agreeing to a “loan” of over £1.5 billion ($1.94 billion approx.) to permit Ukraine to purchase British missiles, which have not yet been manufactured and could not in fact be aimed or fired without U.S. intelligence and guidance systems.
Starmer’s bold statements produced a stern response from Russia, whose chief diplomat reminded the world that any placement of NATO troops in Ukraine would be seen as a declaration of war.
Speaking ahead of yesterday’s EU-led Ukraine summit, Lavrov told reporters in Moscow, “We see no room for compromise,” explaining that sending European troops to Ukraine would mean the “undisguised involvement of NATO countries in a war against the Russian Federation. It’s impossible to allow this.”
Responding to Macron’s televised address, Lavrov added that Macron wished to “fight Russia,” explaining the thinking behind the French president’s outburst:
They said directly “We need to conquer Russia, we need to defeat Russia.”
He [Macron] apparently wants the same thing, but for some reason he says that we need to fight Russia so that it does not defeat France.
Rhetoric and reality
The reality of European and British military capability is simply not reflected in any of these statements. Reports over the last few years have consistently shown that there is in fact no realistic European military power to confront the Russians.
Germany’s leading academic authority on its army has said that Europe’s depleted armed forces would be “washed away” by Russia in weeks, and that it could take at least 15 years before Germany was ready for war.
Speaking at a Berlin defense conference in November 2023, German historian Sönke Neitzel told military chiefs that in the case of a war with Russia, Germany’s soldiers “can only die” in a war they will certainly lose:
We are going to stand by the coffins at the soldiers’ graves and we are going to be asked: “What have you done?” We will have to explain to the mothers and the fathers why the soldiers could not fulfill their jobs. And at the moment we can only die gallantly if there’s a war.
Neitzel warned that men will be sent to certain death by their political leaders:
It’s very clear: if our armed forces are going to fight, they will die without drones, air defenses, without enough supplies. Are we now clear enough on our message [to Germany’s leaders]? They are going to die and it’s your responsibility.
In an updated report published March 7, Bloomberg reports that Europe’s “undersized and fragmented” forces would run out of ammunition within days and cannot manufacture sufficient gunpowder.
“Europe’s Defenses Risk Faltering Within Weeks Without US Support” the report says, noting that, “If attacked, Europe’s ammunition stockpiles could run low within days and rearming will take years.”
A report from the U.K.’s Guardian noted last week that the EU “spends more on Russian oil and gas than financial aid to Ukraine,” saying it had purchased “22 billion euros of fossil fuels” in 2024, against “19 billion in aid” to Kiev.
Real war not realistic
Why are EU and British leaders talking war with no realistic chance of fighting one? U.S. moves to scale down and possibly withdraw from NATO spell the end of the alliance, of course, but the wider implications are obvious for the remaining liberal-globalist governments.
Britain, France, Germany, and the EU itself are led by a political establishment whose only hope of unity is in forging a war coalition in a battle they cannot win. As the “Russianist” Professor Gilbert Doctorow has noted, this spells doom for a liberal coalition which has decided to oppose the United States.
“We have moved on from observations of people like myself from the sidelines saying that the leadership in Europe is not living in the real world but they’re living in a bubble,” Doctorow told Judge Napolitano this week.
“What we have now is the end game – and they have created it for themselves.”
The Ukraine war was never going to be won, and a new war between Russia and the liberals of Europe likewise has no basis in military reality. The moves by these failing states is a desperate bid for unity and relevance in a world which no longer corresponds to their values.
Alone among 27 EU member states in opposing increased arms supplies to Ukraine is Hungary. Its leader, Viktor Orbán, famously defined the values of the liberal order as “LGBT, open borders, and war.”
To protect itself from the widespread rejection of these “values” and the globalist agenda they project, the British and EU liberals have implemented totalitarian restrictions on free speech – and even thought and prayer – and have effectively suspended democracy in refusing to respect the results of elections while dramatically increasing digital surveillance and censorship efforts to maintain control of a narrative which has parted company with reality.
The EU initiative to do so is ridiculously called “The European Democracy Shield.”
As Doctorow told Judge Napolitano, it can only be a matter of time before the pro-war parties without an army part company with political power, too. The outbreak of peace is fatal to them, as these leaders have all invested their political capital in the black hole of crime and corruption which is another ugly dimension of reality to the failed proxy war in Ukraine.
Leaders like Von der Leyen, Macron, and Starmer do not fear the lights going out all over Europe. They fear the illumination of the darkness they have used their nations’ wealth to fund in Ukraine, which has been defended by years of outrageous lies. Having fought so long to keep their nations in the dark, the European liberal order is panicked into talk of Armageddon by the fear of the lights coming on at last. It is the end of their world that is nigh. Not ours.
conflict
Zelenskyy Suddenly Changes Tune On Russia Peace Deal After Trump Blocks Flow Of Military Aid

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Wallace White
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy dramatically changed his tune on peace negotiations with Russia just hours after President Donald Trump pulled the plug on military aid Monday.
Zelenskyy issued a long statement to X Tuesday, floating prisoner exchanges, a halt on air operations and naval operations as potential first steps towards peace, while also lamenting his fiery meeting in the Oval Office on Friday. Just a day earlier on Monday, Zelenskyy said that he believed an end to the war with Russia was “very, very far away,” prompting Trump to halt all military aid to the nation that evening and slam his comments on Truth Social.
“None of us wants an endless war,” Zelenskyy said on X. “My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts.”
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
“We do really value how much America has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence. And we remember the moment when things changed when President Trump provided Ukraine with Javelins,” Zelenskyy continued. “We are grateful for this. Our meeting in Washington, at the White House on Friday, did not go the way it was supposed to be. It is regrettable that it happened this way. It is time to make things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive.”
Zelenskyy originally came to the White House Friday to sign a mineral deal that would have allowed for U.S. investment in mining projects in the nation, which was seen as the first step towards a U.S.-brokered ceasefire. However, he was asked to leave the White House without signing the deal after making statements Trump and Vice President Vance deemed “disrespectful.”
For instance, Zelenskyy implied that the U.S. might “feel” the impact of war in the future. The U.S. has spent over $170 billion on Ukraine’s defense since the war began three years ago.
After the meeting, Trump said in a Truth Social post that Zelenskyy was “not ready for peace” because U.S. involvement grants him a “big advantage in negotiations.”
In Zelenskyy’s new post Tuesday, he said he was ready to sign the mineral deal at “any time and in any convenient format.”
“We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees, and I truly hope it will work effectively,” Zelenskyy said on X. The deal in its final form did not explicitly make any security guarantees from the U.S.
Trump’s exchanges with Zelenskyy are not the only example of his penchant for aggressive advocacy abroad, as earlier in his administration, he leveraged tariff threats to gain concessions from Mexico and Canada to crack down on the fentanyl epidemic among other issues.
The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry and the White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
-
Business2 days ago
“The insanity is ending”: USDA cancels $600k grant to study transgender men’s menstruation
-
International12 hours ago
Is Russia at War With Ukraine, or With the West?
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
How America is interfering in Brazil and why that matters everywhere. An information drop about USAID
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Biden’s Dumb LNG Pause Has Rightfully Met Its End
-
Business18 hours ago
Report: $128 million in federal grants spent on gender ideology
-
Agriculture2 days ago
USDA reveals plan to combat surging egg prices
-
Fraser Institute5 hours ago
New Prime Minister Carney’s Fiscal Math Doesn’t Add Up
-
Business4 hours ago
Carney must scrap carbon tax immediately