Pick a Side
Last week (18 March 2022), the US President reportedly told the Chinese President that he needed to pick a side in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The Chinese President was reportedly told that there would be severe consequences for the Chinese people, if he chose the wrong side. This is the world in which we live, and it shows how leaders make decisions that can harm their citizens.
Last week, the New York Times reported that the abandoned computer laptop did, in fact, belong to US President Biden’s son – who is currently under Federal investigation. A federal grand jury is currently examining evidence that implicates the President’s son in corruption in Ukraine. We should remember that Transparency International ranks Ukraine as the most corrupt country in Europe – by far. For context, Russia is ranked as slightly more corrupt than Ukraine.
THE END JUSTIFIES DISHONEST MEANS.
In 2020, before the US presidential election, there was credible evidence to prove that the laptop’s files were authentic. However, CNN and other major US news agencies claimed, without evidence, that it was “Russian disinformation”. Twitter and other social media sites actively suppressed information about the laptop. Many media houses worldwide repeated the “Russian disinformation” mantra – because they believed, without question, the US news media.
The laptop story is relevant, not only because of the reported damming evidence of corruption in Ukraine. But because major news and social media companies were willing to sacrifice their journalistic integrity, and intentionally deceive the public, with their end-justifies-the-means philosophy to pursue an agenda – in that case, to get Mr Biden elected President at any and all costs.
Last week, Russia finally used their new hypersonic missile in Ukraine. It reportedly travels at 10 times the speed of sound and cannot be stopped with current technology. We also learnt that NATO was able to track the weapon in real time – the first step in designing a weapon to intercept it.
All of this new evidence represents additional pieces of the puzzle, that continues to support the previous explanation of this conflict. The NATO military alliance exists to deter Russian aggression. If Russia attacks a member of the alliance, all countries are obligated to attack Russia – which will start World War 3, and ensure mutual destruction of all but neutral countries.
AVOIDING THE CONFLICT.
Ukraine was publicly insisting on joining NATO, which would likely have placed NATO missiles at the Russian border. Such missiles could strike Russia’s capital city, Moscow, with insufficient warning for Russia to intercept. Russia attacked Ukraine before it joined NATO, which avoided the risk of fighting NATO, and starting World War 3 at this time.
NATO could have prevented the current conflict, by agreeing not to admit Ukraine as a member for the next decade. Ukraine could have avoided the conflict by declaring itself a neutral country. Instead, Russia’s concerns were dismissed by both Ukraine and NATO – they were badly advised to figuratively ‘poke the bear’.
Unlike in Afghanistan, where the leaders of cities surrendered to the Taliban to save their buildings and people from being destroyed, leaders of Ukraine’s cities have vowed to fight until the last civilian. The Ukrainian Government armed its civilians with conventional weapons and taught them warfare. Most men are not allowed to leave Ukraine, and are expected to actively support the war. Therefore, this war will be unnecessarily messy for civilians.
NATO members have armed Ukrainians with advanced weapons, which are working remarkably well against Russia’s conventional weapons. The reported Russian military deaths are astonishing – approximately 14,000 to Ukraine’s 2,000. Russia has now resorted to using its advanced weapons, and NATO finally got what it wanted – the opportunity to study them in a theatre of war before they were used against NATO.
There are two wars being fought. One on the ground, and one by the news media. Depending on where one lives: one side is telling the truth and the other is spreading disinformation, one side is good and the other is evil, one side is doing righteous killing and the other is doing war crimes. The truth is that this is an unnecessary conflict, that just needed an independent and honest mediator.
Where were the blessed peacemakers? Why were only warmongers, who arrogantly and insultingly dismissed Russia’s security concerns, allowed on the US media? Every action seemed too perfectly aligned – like a movie script where Barbados was chosen to play the lead role. Barbados was being promoted positively internationally. We just had to take our place on the world’s stage and play the role written for us.
THE BARBADOS MISSILE.
Russia has thousands of nuclear missiles that are maintained to be launched at perceived enemy nations. As an indirect member of NATO, we attracted at least one of those missiles. The only public benefit of cancelling our military alliance with the UK, is that we had the rare opportunity to avoid attracting a nuclear missile – from either side.
To protect all Barbadian residents from a nuclear attack, and be a credible and trusted mediator, we simply had to declare Barbados to be a neutral country. That would have forced us to actively demonstrate that we were indeed friends of all and satellites of none. The Russia-Ukraine conflict presented an opportunity for us to do just that. Instead, we picked a side – perhaps we got a call.