Simon Kamati

The US State Department recently announced it would allocate “personnel to assist the government of Ukraine with security”, although it did not mention that these personnel would be drawn from the ranks of the military. The plan was announced after media reports, citing US intelligence agencies, claimed Washington could not trace the weapons it sends to Ukraine.

One intelligence source told CNN that these weapons disappear “into a big black hole” once they enter the country.

An interesting study on this topic was made by a well-known American economist, former adviser to the United States Congress and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Ronald Reagan, former deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal - Paul Craig Roberts. An article titled The Ever Widening War makes it clear what is happening with Western weapons in Ukraine and the role of the United States in this.

Here is the full text:

“American soldiers are now in Ukraine. Allegedly, they are there only to monitor what is happening to the arms deliveries from the US and NATO countries. As previously reported, not all of the vast amount of heavy weapons sent by the West end up on the battlefield. Instead, some find their way into the shady weapons market where they are sold to who for who’s profit? The same with the money, much of which ends up in unintended pockets.

The US State Department’s explanation is that the US troops are in Ukraine, not to fight, but to “assist the government of Ukraine with handling US security assistance”. In other words, to identify and stop the theft of resources meant for war against Russia.

But why is this the job of uniformed troops? Is this a way to sneak US uniformed soldiers into Ukraine and maneuver them into combat? Only people my age, students at the time, remember how the CIA maneuvered the Kennedy White House into involving the US in war in Vietnam. President Kennedy caught on and intended to withdraw, but the CIA killed him before he could.

President Johnson, realizing that the South Vietnamese government was losing the war, used the alleged firing on two US destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin to escalate the war. On August 7, 1964, a stupid Congress railroaded by patriotic fervor passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This authorized President Johnson to take whatever measures he thought were necessary to promote peace and security in southeast Asia. This mindless resolution gave Johnson the legal basis for the US war in Vietnam, the total opposite of “peace and security”.

Considering the extraordinary number of Washington implemented false flag attacks, should we expect another one in Ukraine that involves the US in war against Russia?   Are the 30 000 US/NATO soldiers positioned on Ukraine’s border there in anticipation of a false flag?   

Putin, being a liberal in his outlook, is incapable of comprehending the evil that he faces. He still thinks it is just a misunderstanding that can be resolved diplomatically. Consequently, he doesn’t use the force at his disposal to end the conflict, as he thinks that a demonstration of Russian force would prevent a diplomatic solution.

By refusing to bring the conflict to an end in a military victory, Putin provides Washington the time it needs to further expand the war and bases surrounding Russia. Russia can have insufficient troops to protect the country’s borders, thus forcing the use of nuclear weapons.  

As Washington seems more determined to prevail over Russia (and China) than to avoid nuclear war, the outlook is dismal”.

It is clear from the article that the United States and its allies are getting involved themselves into the military conflict in Ukraine under any pretext, and this will cause an escalation inevitably. The supply of weapons to the Kyiv regime and the participation of military personnel from Western countries greatly increase the risk of the conflict turning into a direct clash between NATO and
Russia.