Connect with us

conflict

China Poised To Cut Off US Military From Key Mineral As America’s Own Reserves Lay Buried Under Red Tape

Published

10 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Nick Pope

 

China is planning to restrict exports of a key mineral needed to make weapons while a U.S. company that could be reducing America’s reliance on foreign suppliers is languishing in red tape, energy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Chinese government announced on August 15 that it will restrict exports of antimony, a critical mineral that dominates the production of weapons globally and is essential for producing equipment like munitions, night vision goggles and bullets that are essential to national security, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Perpetua Resources, an American mining company, has been navigating red tape for years to develop a mine in Valley County, Idaho,  that could decrease reliance on the Chinese supply of antimony, but the slow permitting process is getting in the way, energy experts told the DCNF.

It can take years to secure all the necessary approvals and permits to develop a mine like the one Perpetua Resources is trying to operate. One of the key permitting laws in place is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which also applies to federal land management actions and the construction of certain public infrastructure projects like highways.

“After six years of planning and early engagement, we began the [NEPA] permitting process in 2016. We are now eight years into NEPA,” a Perpetua Resources spokesperson told the DCNF. The company is hoping to extract antimony from the largest known deposit in the U.S., and Perpetua Resources’ development could also produce millions of ounces of gold as well.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate and Environment, argues that the Perpetua Resources mine poses real environmental considerations that should be addressed, but production in the U.S. is almost certainly cleaner than production that takes place in China. Moreover, depending on China for raw materials needed to produce key defense equipment poses a clear national security risk, Furchtgott-Roth said.

“The United States has the highest environmental standards in the world for its mines, as well as for some other things, too,” Furchtgott-Roth told the DCNF. “It’s a huge national security risk. Given what we’ve seen with Russia cutting off supplies of natural gas to Europe, we know that countries can cut off important supplies to other countries.”

“If the administration wants to pursue policies that push electric vehicles, green energy and other mineral-intensive technologies, it should look to streamline the permitting process across the board rather than selectively pursuing reform for some favored types of development and not for others,” Furchtgott-Roth added.

Steve Coonen, a former Department of Defense (DOD) official who focused on technology exports to China, agreed that relying on China for raw materials needed to produce crucial technologies presents a clear national security risk.

“The United States has all the rare earth elements it needs, not too dissimilar from its energy requirements,” Coonen told the DCNF. “However, Democrats have enchained U.S. industry by prohibiting the extraction of these materials for misplaced and ill-informed ecological reasons at a significant risk to national security and the United States’ long-term economic health.”

China is responsible for just under 50% of the world’s antimony production, and it is also the source of 63% of the U.S.’ current antimony imports, according to CSIS. The U.S., meanwhile, did not mine any “marketable” antimony in 2023, according to CNBC.

China’s recently announced export restrictions for antimony will take effect on Sept. 15, according to CNBC. To many in the industry, China moving to curb antimony exports would have come as a surprise just a few months ago, so the country’s decision to take action comes across as “quite confrontational in that regard,” Lewis Black, CEO of Canadian mining company Almonty Industries, told the outlet.

In addition to antimony, China has also flexed its muscles by restricting exports of other critical minerals that it dominates globally, like germanium and gallium, since 2023.

“The United States has some of the highest permitting standards in the world, and that’s something to be proud of. But NEPA gets criticism for being inefficient, and much of that criticism is justified,” the Perpetua Resources spokesperson told the DCNF. “When we are talking about minerals we need for America’s national and economic security — not to mention our clean energy future — we need an efficient regulatory process that still maintains robust protections for communities and the environment.”

The company is anticipating that the process — from initial deposit identification to the beginning of mineral extraction from the mine site — will take 18 years, the Perpetua Resources spokesperson told the DCNF. However, the spokesperson added that NEPA has been beneficial for transparency with the public and allowing stakeholder communities to weigh in about the project.

Nevertheless, Perpetua Resources “absolutely supports a commonsense, bipartisan approach to permitting reform” because “good projects should not wither in red tape.”

The antimony curbs may be even more pressing given existing concerns about the strength of America’s defense-industrial base amid wars in the Middle East and Europe, as well as rising tensions with China over Taiwan. Many experts have cautioned that the U.S. is allowing itself to become too dependent on an adversarial China’s mineral supplies at a time when those minerals are playing a much larger role in the American economy, thanks in part to the Biden administration’s massive green energy agenda.

“In the mid-twentieth century, domestic mining accounted for 90% of the U.S.’s antimony consumption. Today, the U.S. no longer mines antimony; instead, it relies on China, its chief geopolitical rival, for over 60% of its antimony imports,” Quill Robinson, an associate fellow in CSIS’ Energy Security and Climate Change Program, told the DCNF. “Effective China de-risking requires reducing reliance up and down the value chain.”

“Yet, increasing domestic resource extraction, such as critical mineral mining, has proven far more politically challenging than building new solar module factories,” Robinson added. “Addressing this issue will require specific policies, like permitting reform, but also a broader commitment from lawmakers to support the safe, environmentally responsible extraction of the U.S.’ natural resources.”

Independent West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Republican Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso teamed up to introduce a major permitting reform bill in July, designing the package to simplify the regulatory hurdles that major infrastructure and development projects must clear and expedite timelines without totally defanging regulators’ ability to ensure that environmental concerns and considerations are addressed. That bill has not yet come up for a vote in the Senate.

“There are legitimate environmental challenges that need to be mitigated for projects like this,” Arnab Datta, the Institute for Progress’ director of infrastructure policy, told the DCNF. However, government agencies are more strongly incentivized to avoid legal challenges of their reviews from third parties than they are to thoroughly review the more significant environmental concerns, meaning that regulators tend to chew up lots of time on those minor points and ultimately extend the timelines for permitting, Datta explained.

“The uncertainty from permitting and litigation compounds the challenge of reaching production in what’s often a volatile and uncertain market environment for these commodities,” Datta, who also works for Employ America as a managing director of policy implementation, continued. “These companies need a process with certainty and reasonable timelines and also support that helps mitigate the volatility that arises from China’s actions in the market.”

Featured Image: Photo by Dominik Vanyi on Unsplash

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

conflict

Israel, Hamas Reach Tentative Deal For Ceasefire

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Wallace White

Israel and Hamas have reached a temporary ceasefire deal Wednesday which would halt the 15-month conflict, the Qatar Prime Minister announced Wednesday.

The deal will reportedly cease hostilities for six weeks as both sides release hostages, set to be effective immediately, according to The New York Times Wednesday. The deal has yet to be ratified by Israeli officials, and neither side had officially endorsed the agreement as of Wednesday afternoon.

“This EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signaled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our Allies. I am thrilled American and Israeli hostages will be returning home to be reunited with their families and loved ones,” President-elect Donald Trump said on Truth Social Wednesday. “With this deal in place, my National Security team, through the efforts of Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, will continue to work closely with Israel and our Allies to make sure Gaza NEVER again becomes a terrorist safe haven.”

President Joe Biden said in remarks Wednesday that the deal was the same as what he proposed in May, and said he told his team to coordinate with the incoming Trump administration. When asked whether he or Trump should get credit for the deal coming together, Biden responded: “Is that a joke?”

It is so far unclear what the time frame will be for hostage release, according to The New York Times. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office told the NYT that much of the agreement remains in the air, with plans to discuss specifics later in the night.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health has claimed over 46,000 people have died in Gaza since the war began, however the official death count has been disputed, as Israel has claimed that they’ve killed 14,000 Hamas terrorists and 16,000 civilians.

Continue Reading

conflict

RFK Jr. blames US government for Russia-Ukraine conflict: ‘We wanted the war’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Giving an account which completely contradicts the narrative of Vladimir Putin as Adolf Hitler, with Volodymyr Zelensky’s Ukraine a brave defender of democracy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. states bluntly, ‘The Ukraine war should never have happened.’

In a brief interview released on January 10, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says the reasons behind the Ukraine war are not those which have been supplied to the American people. 

Giving an account which completely contradicts the narrative of Vladimir Putin as Adolf Hitler, with Volodymyr Zelensky’s Ukraine a brave defender of democracy, Kennedy states bluntly that “The Ukraine war should never have happened” – and it was effectively planned by the U.S. Deep State.  

“We wanted the war,” said Kennedy, explaining how the U.S. government has acted to provoke and prolong the Ukraine war for years.  

“Now six hundred thousand kids are dead. We have spent 200 billion dollars – which we need in this country. We can’t afford to be engaged in wars that are this close to nuclear engagement,” Kennedy concluded. 

Kennedy’s brief and stunning rundown of the truth behind the case for war in Ukraine exposes decades of deep state corruption. In this report, LifeSiteNews tests Kennedy’s claims against a historical record rich with evidence seldom seen in the news today.  

A diet of deception

Western news consumers have been fed a diet of war propaganda which has seen these facts framed as “Putin’s talking points” – and people who talk like Kennedy smeared as traitors. Yet Kennedy also points out,  

“My son Connor went over to Ukraine and fought in the Kharkiv Offensive because he looked at Putin as a bully who had invaded this country,” Kennedy stated.

Kennedy’s own son was radicalized to risk his own life, being prepared to die for this narrative. Yet his father says he was fighting an imaginary war. 

“What this war was about was really about security.” Against years of propaganda painting Putin as an expansionist dictator hell bent on conquering Ukraine – and then Europe – Kennedy says, “It was never about territory”.  

Everything Kennedy says about this war has been predicted and noted for over three decades. The people who have said what he is saying include George Kennan – one of the most celebrated postwar U.S. diplomats, and President Putin himself. As Kennedy explains that the Ukraine war is the result of years of broken promises made to Russia by the West, his charge that the U.S. government “wanted the war” appears not only credible, but the only rational explanation for the “fatal error” of NATO expansion which predictably led to this conflict.  

To the brink of nuclear war

The result of this reckless grand strategy – to bring the borders of NATO to those of Russia – created a security crisis which has rekindled the terrible prospect of all-out nuclear war.   

Yet Kennedy says there is a realistic hope of peace promised by the coming Trump administration. 

“Whatever you say about President Trump he’s a real estate guy – and he’d rather do a deal than have a war.”

Kennedy, however, warns it is “harder to do a deal now.” Why? 

“Everything the Russians were saying about this [war] from the beginning has turned out to be true.” What does Kennedy mean? His explanation shows the evidence leading to the crime scene of the proxy war in Ukraine today.  

It began, for the Russians, with the creation of a security threat on its borders.   

“Putin was scared that Ukraine would attack Russia.” As Kennedy explains, “Zelensky has confirmed that by a NATO-supported invasion of Russia… in Kursk.”

The invasion of Kursk, undertaken over the summer of 2024, was only one of a long series of reckless actions backed by NATO against Russia. Terrorist and drone attacks have struck deep into Russian territory, and long-range U.S. and NATO supplied cruise missiles have been fired into Russia in a dangerous step up the escalation ladder. This ladder, of course, leads to nuclear war.  

Kennedy believes, however, that Trump means to stop it. The question is then, if Trump can get the U.S. out – how should it go? 

A warning from recent history is given by Kennedy. 

“The Afghan withdrawal was a horrible calamity,” said Kennedy. He argues that the deadline was set for withdrawal for political reasons – setting a goal which was militarily unrealistic.  

“It was politically driven by a date that was impossible for the army to comply with.”

The same argument could be made about all the regime change wars from Afghanistan to Ukraine: driven by a political ideology, they demanded the impossible and delivered chaos and destruction in place of the promise of democracy and freedom. All these wars since 2001 have been lost, of course, though some have harvested vast profits from them. 

War without reason

They have all been fought for non-military reasons, as Colonel Douglas Macgregor has frequently noted. In 2019 he said Trump’s move to “break with the past” and “climb out of the Afghan and Middle Eastern money pits” were “anathema to the Washington Beltway.” 

“The quality of a great leader is the courage to break with the past when the facts change,” said Macgregor, as he explained, “For President Trump, facing facts means change. But real change—ending the Korean War, disengaging forces from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan—is anathema to just about everyone inside the Washington Beltway.” 

What Macgregor was saying was that the political class benefits from these “money pits,” at the expense of the Americans whose money – and lives – are being poured into them. 

Striking a hopeful note, Macgregor said of Donald Trump five years ago:  

Washington hates him for doing these things, but most Americans and future generations of Americans will love him for it.

Can Americans expect this sort of strength – and leadership, from the new administration? A break with the past would hopefully mean a break with the sorry tradition of excluding wise men and their wisdom from American grand strategy. 

Macgregor spoke truth to power 

A strong critic of the “forever wars,” it has been said that it was his wise opposition to continuing any of them which finished his career.  

As Responsible Statecraft said of him in 2020, “Senior military officers quietly admit that in terms of sheer intellect, no one quite matches Macgregor.”

This peerless intelligence had no place in the neoconservative grand strategy of forever war. The same article records that Macgregor told U.S. war planners to “[t]urn the governing of Iraq over to the Iraqis, then… get out.”

The report quotes a former West Point colleague of Macgregor who said, “I think it was at that point that Doug’s career ended.”

“Macgregor’s outspoken and often too-public critique of his own service hurt his chances for promotion. Macgregor questioned everything: why are we staying in Afghanistan? Or Iraq? Or Syria? Why are we prosecuting these endless wars?”  

With little chance of Macgregor being present in person to shape policy, it is encouraging to see his vision of an alternative to forever war is shared by Kennedy. 

The price of principle

Set for a significant role in the coming Trump administration, Kennedy echoes a position made so courageously by Macgregor over twenty years ago: that the U.S. has been waging war endlessly for no good reason. At least, no good reason from the point of view of the American people and their national interest. 

A man as wise as Macgregor must have known that speaking truth to power could very well be fatal to any ambition.  

He put country before career, and in trying to stop the needless killing his chances of promotion were buried instead. Macgregor reminds us there is a difference between a job and a vocation. His calling was to the truth, and he told it regardless of the cost to himself. 

With Kennedy and Trump comes the hope of a deal in place of the business of death. The new administration seems to speak here for the cause of life, of the truth, and of a new vision for America.  

Another break with the past?

Kennedy’s consistent position on the war in Ukraine is a direct contradiction of the “boomer neocon” foreign policy of the last four decades. 

Heavily influenced by Zionism, it has resulted in the routine “genocide of Christians,” as JD Vance pointed out last May.   

“Why can’t we stop genociding Christians?” he asked, noting the Iraq war alone resulted in “the slaughter of over a million historic Christians.” 

He said it was “weird” that in a so-called Christian and “conservative” Republican Party that, “No one makes this argument that traditional neoconservative foreign policy keeps on leading to the genocide of Christians. But it does, which is one of many reasons why neoconservative foreign policy is strategically and morally stupid.” 

Vance, soon to be Vice President, said this in a speech, “Towards a Foreign Policy for the American Middle Class”. Like Kennedy, he chose his words to count the cost in human blood and American treasure of  “the last 40 years of American foreign policy.” 

He said the “fruits” of these four decades was disaster. 

“Disaster in Iraq…disaster in Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, it’s on issue after issue after issue.”  

Vance appears to be serious about change, and a break with the broken “slogans” of the past forty years of the “endless wars” which Trump has long vowed to end – a view apparently shared by those he has chosen to staff his new government.  

Yet a troubling precedent was set in the previous Trump administration – in which Macgregor said Trump was trying to break with this awful past. 

To help make this break, the man who was promoted instead of Macgregor to National Security Chief under Trump was General H.R. McMaster.   

McMaster was “ousted” after only one year in post, following a lobbying campaign to remove him by the Zionist Organization of America.  

Though no wars were started under Trump, the struggle for control over U.S. foreign policy appears to have been decided in favor of the Israel lobby if the picks for the incoming admin are any indication. 

This lobby has a powerful partner in keeping neoconservative war policies on track: the mainstream media.  

Kennedy himself is now under attack from the pro-war press. A report from January 7 in The Atlantic compares “populists” like Kennedy and Trump to Rasputin – the mystical priest of the household of the murdered Russian Tsar Nicholas II. Author Anne Applebaum sees in the promise of peace a sort of madness, which she says is a sign of “The End of Enlightenment Rationality.”

In the bizarro world of the permanent war faction celebrated by “defense industry propagandist” Anne Applebaum, people who “promote ‘peace’ – a vague goal” – as she styles it – are crooks and cranks peddling “conspiratorial and sometimes anti-American ideas.”

The enemies of peace  

It was arch neocon and co-founder of the Zionist Project for a New American Century who said people who want the forever wars to stop are unAmerican – and “intolerant.” Writing for Foreign Affairs in 2021, Robert Kagan instructed Americans that it was their duty to support, pay for and even die in the wars he and his wife Victoria Nuland have devoted their careers to starting.  

Nuland herself gave credence to Kennedy’s claim, again made in the video, that the U.S. had compelled Ukraine’s Zelensky to abandon a peace agreement with Putin.  

“Biden sent [UK Prime Minister] Boris Johnson to force Zelensky to tear up that deal,” said Kennedy. 

That deal would have seen the 2022 war come to an end only weeks after the Russian invasion.  Responsible Statecraft said of her comments in September 2024, “Victoria Nuland’s comments lend further credence to the proposition that a settlement between Russia and Ukraine was on the table in Istanbul, that the West played a role in shaping Ukrainian thinking on the desirability of pursuing negotiations, and that Western leaders apparently conveyed the view that it was a bad deal.”  

Nuland masterminded the coup which began the longer war in Ukraine in 2014. Though she is no longer at the U.S. State Department, her husband continues the family business of promoting war to this day. 

Kagan’s latest piece in last week’s Atlantic warns that “Trump is facing a catastrophic defeat in Ukraine” – by seeking to stop the killing.  

In her report Applebaum sneers at the notion that the populist “right” can be serious about peace. She charges that Donald Trump is in league with Viktor Orban, who she frames as a thieving “autocrat.” Her view of Trump is of a criminal who “harasses women.” Of the new administration and its vision for the world, she says: “When conspiracy theories and nonsense cures are widely accepted, the evidence-based concepts of guilt and criminality vanish quickly too.”  

It is breathtaking that a woman who has made a career out of defense industry-funded war propaganda should accuse anyone of what she has done herself.  

The evidence, as Kennedy points out, points to the fact that the U.S. “wanted this war, and now 600,000 kids are dead” – at a cost of 200 billion dollars to Americans. Is that not evidence of a crime? Who is guilty of this crime? Surely people like Applebaum, who has been well paid for years to sell this and other wars to Americans would feature on that charge sheet. 

In a curious twist, she is married to disgraced former foreign minister of Poland, Radoslaw Sikorski. He briefly attained fame at the scene of another crime – the detonation of Germany’s NordStream gas pipeline. Here is an image of his now-deleted tweet thanking the U.S. government for bombing a vital part of Europe’s strategic energy supply. 

 

Spotlight on Russia war hysteria

As far back as 2017, the Ron Paul Institute warned that “Neocon Anne Applebaum has never seen a bed she did not expect to find an evil Russian lurking beneath.” In it, Daniel McAdams reveals her One Great Trick to keep the money rolling in. 

“Applebaum is, like most neocons, a one trick pony: the U.S. government needs to spend more money to counter the threat of the month. Usually it’s Russia or Putin. But it can also be China, Iran, Assad, Gaddafi, Saddam, etc.”  

This trick relies on countering evidence against the case for permanent war by smearing anyone who presents it – as Applebaum does. McAdam describes her type, common in the mass production of pro-war talking points.  

“She has apparently made a tidy fortune warning us that the Russians are coming, but she wants even more. She is buried in defense industry funded think tanks and she does the bidding of her masters. Every intelligent American reader should ridicule her as the propagandist she is.”  

The GrayZone’s Dan Cohen reported in 2021 how leading “U.S. national security reporters serve at [a] pro-war Pentagon-funded think tank.” Called the Center for a New American Century, it promotes the neoconservative Zionist worldview of the Project for a New American Century – founded by Robert Kagan and William Kristol in 1997. Its members directed the United States to remilitarize after the Cold War – and launch the “war on terror.” What followed were decades of regime change wars which produced, among others, the crisis in Ukraine.   

In addition to selling wars by demonizing alleged enemies and smearing sanity, neocon propagandists like Applebaum frame legitimate concerns as fantasies, and the dangerous dreams of neocons as the only rational point of view. They completely disregard the God-given sacred value of every human life, from innocent babies to the elderly, cruelly destroyed in each of their profitable wars. 

An earlier report by McAdam from 2014 recalled how Applebaum had written of “The Myth of Russian Humiliation” for the Washington Post – in which she describes the expansion of NATO up to Russia’s borders not as a threat to Russian security – but as a “success.”

This of course runs counter to the evidence presented by Kennedy. Following George Kennan, who predicted in 1997 that NATO enlargement would be “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era”, Kennedy pointed out in his video interview with Christian channel Daystar that, “In 1992 when Gorbachev disbanded the Soviet Union” U.S. and U.K. leaders promised “we would not move NATO one inch to the east. Since then we have moved it a thousand miles to the east.”

Kennedy says former U.S. Foreign Secretary James Baker, then-President H.W. Bush and former U.K. Prime Minister John Major “all said we will not move it one inch to the east.”

This promise has been repeatedly framed as a lie, as Russian propaganda, with “fact checkers” calling it “Putin’s Myth.”  

According to the National Security Archives of the U.S. government, however, “Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion [made] to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner.”

Documents from the meetings between President Bush, Gorbachev – and a range of Western leaders, show that these promises were indeed made to the Russians – and broken.  

Nothing gets the fact checkers busier than an outbreak of the truth – of course. 

The “debunkers” escalated their efforts after Putin himself raised this point in his annual news conference of December 2021.  

Replying to a question from the U.K.’s Sky News about Russian negotiations, Putin said the question was about whether Russia could trust any security guarantees given by the U.S.-led West, “We remember, as I have mentioned many times before and as you know very well, how you promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly: there have been five waves of NATO expansion, and now the weapons systems I mentioned have been deployed in Romania and deployment has recently begun in Poland. This is what we are talking about, can you not see?”  

Most people in the West cannot see, of course, because the mainstream media never show them. What is there in reality is too controversial to be seen by the public, because it would lead them to realize they have been misled in the march to war with Russia. 

Putin made an additional point – who is threatening whom? 

“We are not threatening anyone. Have we approached U.S. borders? Or the borders of Britain or any other country? It is you who have come to our border, and now you say that Ukraine will become a member of NATO as well. Or, even if it does not join NATO, that military bases and strike systems will be placed on its territory under bilateral agreements. This is the point.” 

This is the point that Kennedy is trying to make to Americans. There are reasons for this war we are not being told by a media whose main function today seems to be to sell them all to us – and silence the voices of sanity. Some of these voices warned us almost thirty years ago against creating the crisis we now inhabit.  

Kennan’s warning of a fatal error 

In his 1997 piece warning of the “fatal error” of NATO expansion, George Kennan asked, “Why, with all the hopeful possibilities engendered by the end of the cold war, should East-West relations become centered on the question of who would be allied with whom and, by implication, against whom in some fanciful, totally unforeseeable and most improbable future military conflict?”  

Kennan was the U.S. national security chief who is credited with decades of steering U.S.-Soviet relations away from the brink of nuclear war.  

His grand strategy of Soviet “containment” saw him mobilize the production of Western culture in tandem with the CIA in what he called “Organized Political Warfare.”   

An architect of Deep State propaganda and a master of diplomacy, his prescient warning of a “fanciful military conflict” was discarded. Why? As with Macgregor, speaking the truth about this new neocon power was simply inconvenient, and so it was dismissed.  

In the video, Kennedy stresses the urgent danger of this reckless strategy of escalation in place of sane diplomacy. 

“We walked away from two strategic missile treaties [with Russia] – which would have prevented us from putting missiles in Ukraine that can [now] hit Moscow.” 

Why else do the Russians have a “legitimate security concern” over Ukraine, as Kennedy claimed? He explained, “The last time the Russians were invaded through Ukraine Hitler killed one in seven Russians” – about 27 million people, a number vastly exceeding the lives lost by any allied nation, including the United States. It was the Soviet Union, above all, that defeated the Nazi regime.  

The simple truth of the war in Ukraine is explained in five minutes by Kennedy. His brief account of the facts of the case opens up a decades-long legacy of disaster by design, directed by a political and media class captive to a lucrative war machine. 

It is to be hoped his presence in the new administration – and his championing of the wisdom discarded by a corrupt political class – will finally see America make a break with the awful past of permanent war and death by design. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X