A Key Pivot Point in the Russia-Ukraine War

The fall of an important city to Russia puts the United States at a crossroads point this dangerous war. Sadly, we appear committed to moving even faster down the wrong path.

The city of Bakhmut has been a key flashpoint in the Russia-Ukraine War, with fighting having gone on over at least several weeks. The past weekend it was confirmed by both sides that Russia has taken the city. This is a military victory with big strategic implications and has significant takeaways, not the least of which is Bakhmut’s position as a transportation hub to other vital locations within the eastern part of Ukraine.

Corporate media in the West—defined as anything that includes Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, all of whose narratives weave into your local news broadcasts—is attempting to insist that Bakhmut really isn’t strategically significant. Of course, these same outlets were saying just a week ago that Ukraine was on the verge of winning. Draw from that what you will.

THE DIRECTION OF U.S. POLICY

The real question is where does the United States go from here? We’ve poured billions of dollars and military equipment into Ukraine. According to whistleblower reports we have more of our own military personnel committed to this fight than the public is being led to believe. In other words, that the United States is in what is, at least for now, a limited war with Russia.

So, will the U.S. respond to the fall of Bakhmut by dealing with reality and negotiating a peace agreement? The policy of the U.S. government has been to effectively ban Ukraine from going to the bargaining table and instead just keep pouring money, weapons and human beings into this territorial war rooted in ancient ethnic rivalries.

Or, will the U.S. decide that now is a good time to double down—to decide that the only reason the Russians took Bakhmut was that we weren’t committed enough?

Doing the latter, against a country with a huge cache of nuclear weapons, for a piece of land that has literally no impact on anyone in the United States, and for a cause that even the Ukrainian people themselves are fleeing from (forced conscriptions of teenagers are the order of the day in Ukraine) would seem like an insane thing to do.

Naturally, the latter is exactly what the United States government and whomever is in charge of it will be be doing.

What’s more, U.S. diplomacy is built around preparing the public for a long drawn-out war. One where lots of money will be spent. The policy of the United States government is going to make some people very rich. I’m not one of those people. I’m guessing you’re not either. But if you’re in the military industry or anyone else that benefits from laundering all this money through Ukraine, these are good times for you.

Lest anyone think the charge of money laundering is too harsh, a small minority of Republicans, from Marjorie Taylor-Greene (Georgia) and Matt Gaetz (Florida) in the House to Josh Hawley (Missouri) in the Senate, have been trying to get Congress to commit to a simple audit of the money spent on Ukraine. No one will get on board. Yep, your elected representatives are not even interested in whether your tax dollars are going where it’s alleged they are.

Nothing suspicious about that. Nor is there anything suspicious about the fact that the tiny cadre of Republicans who do push for oversight are routinely branded as conspiracy theorists, insurrectionists or whatever the juvenile taunt of the day is. Yes, I am convinced there is nothing suspicious about any of this.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The biggest takeaway has to begin with what I alluded to at the top—that the corporate media has been telling everyone for weeks that a Russian defeat in Bakhmut was imminent, when in fact the exact opposite has happened.

This represents, by my count, the 15,875^th time that the corporate media apparatus has blatantly lied to the public about a subject of considerable significance.

Even allowing that getting the facts right through the cloud of war propaganda is more than a small challenge, it is simply lying when every single major corporate outlet goes from saying things like “Russia is out of bullets”, “Putin’s health and grip on the government are failing”, or “Ukraine is on the verge of victory” to now saying “Oh, Ukraine lost. But it’s really not important.”

But thank goodness for alternative media. For me, the work of The Duran, a YouTube channel run by a former foreign affairs correspondent from Greece, has provided some reliable information. The guys at The Duran have been saying for weeks that Russia was going to take Bakhmut.

Media consumers have a choice—they can listen the commentators who get everything wrong while sitting in spiffy-looking studios. Or they can listen to people like The Duran who get it right while sitting in their living room in front of library books. I like people who get it right.

As of today, The Duran is expecting the U.S. to go ahead with the “double down” strategy, of pouring in more planes and pushing Ukraine to launch a heavy counteroffensive. Which, of course, means a lot more human beings dead.

That brings us to the implications of the Russia-Ukraine War, and the United States’ unconstitutional escalation for our own presidential sweepstakes.

Here’s the hard reality—there’s only one candidate in the race that’s publicly committed to finding a peaceful resolution to this and it’s Donald J. Trump.

“Who Do You Want to Win?” How The War Machine Manipulates The Debate

At his recent New Hampshire townhall, televised on CNN, Trump’s finest moment came when he was asked about this war. While the moderator attempted to goad him on with stupid questions like “Who do you want to win” (as though this is no more consequential than picking a team in the Stanley Cup Finals) or “is Vladimir Putin a war criminal” (as though labeling someone that is any way to get them to the peace table), Trump kept laser-focused with a simple message—“I think in terms of getting it settled so we stop killing all these people.”

Maybe you’re skeptical of Trump’s vow to end the war within 24 hours. Or of his claim that the invasion would never have happened if he were president. To that I would simply say this:

*Speculation about what would or would not have happened if Trump had been president on February 24, 2022 isn’t really speculation at all. We have an actual record of four years with Trump in office. In the years immediately preceding that, Putin took Crimea. Just over a year after Trump left, Putin took Ukraine. Saying Putin would not have invaded under Trump is really just an obvious conclusion from the historical record.

*The 24-hour timeframe can seem like vintage Trump grandiosity, but let’s not forget this—the man has a record of delivering world peace. He’s the only president since World War II not to put American troops on the ground abroad. He negotiated four peace deals in the Middle East, including an end to the Afghanistan War (which, unfortunately, he was not able to oversee the formal withdrawal). He defeated the ISIS caliphate that was running wild in the Middle East without putting a single American solider on the ground. If the Nobel Peace Prize were not so politicized, Trump would have multiple ones in his trophy case.

*And ultimately, we know that Donald Trump understands how to negotiate. It’s an art in of itself. If someone were to write a book about it, they might call it The Art of the Deal. He’s spent decades in high-stakes negotiations, both at home and abroad. The fact he calls Mar-a-Lago his home tells you he does it pretty well.

That’s why, even though I’m not holding him to the 24-hour window, I believe Trump can resolve this in a way that won’t get more people killed. And by the all-too-predictable reaction of the current U.S. regime to the fall of Bakhmut, I believe we need Trump now more than ever.