Ukraine has a become a proxy for US neocons to push regime change in Russia

Editor’s note: This is Part 3 of a three-part series. Part 1 can be found HERE and Part 2 HERE.

(The Washington Stand) — Biden did not escalate the Ukraine-Russia war on his own. The Democrats, war party Republicans, and our feckless British allies have been laboring under their regime change armchair hobby to engineer some type of civil strife or disruption in Russia under the delusion that they could facilitate a regime change.

They have fantasized about using some type of external conflict or internal social disorder to provoke general disorder or civil strife within Russia to oust Putin from power to bring change about ever since the British developed and sold Hillary Clinton the 2016 “Steele dossier” to compromise Trump’s candidacy and later his presidency, which is the basis of the “Trump-Russia” hoax.

READ: Western media is trying to ‘whitewash’ Islamist terrorists in Syria as freedom fighters

For example, Biden pushed regime change while in Warsaw, Poland, on March 26, 2022, remarking, “For G––’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.” White House aides clarified that Biden, “was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change.”

Then, Biden undid his staff’s earlier reversal of himself by calling Putin a “war criminal” based on reports of mass killings of civilians in the town of Bucha. Previously in 2016, The Guardian had cited William Perry, former defense secretary for Bill Clinton, that after Putin “came to office, Putin came to believe that the United States had an active and robust programme to overthrow his regime.”

New Russian missiles in Ukraine-Russia war

President Putin described the Ukraine attacks that occurred on November 19 and November 21 using U.S. and British-operated and guided tactical ballistic missiles, which he said were counteracted by Russian air defense systems causing a fire in one facility and fatalities and casualties in another facility in Kurst.

Putin also said that a new missile named Oreshnik, a non-nuclear hypersonic ballistic missile, destroyed a Ukrainian weapons plant in “Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, one of the largest and most famous industrial complexes from the Soviet Union era, which continues to produce missiles and other armaments.”

Putin indicated that future attacks using hypersonic missiles will alert civilian and even opposing military forces beforehand, “without fear of counter-moves coming from the enemy … because there are no means of countering such weapons today. Missiles attack targets at a speed of Mach 10.”

Indeed, Putin was so confident that he alerted the Pentagon of his pending ballistic missile test attack. Pentagon spokesman Sabrina Singh acknowledged, “The United States was pre-notified briefly before the launch through Nuclear Risk Reduction channels.”

Biden widens US war efforts

In September, National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby said that if North Korean troops “do deploy to fight against Ukraine, they’re fair game. They’re fair targets.… the possibility that there could be dead and wounded North Korean soldiers fighting against Ukraine is – is absolutely real if they get deployed.”

But this will bounce back to American and NATO troops and civilian support personnel, according to a recent report. “The Pentagon said that the ban on the deployment of U.S. military contractors in Ukraine to help the Ukrainian Armed Forces maintain and repair the weapons systems provided had been lifted.… Contracts with these contractors are planned to be signed before Biden leaves office.”

While Kirby’s warning to North Korea is instructive, it also applies with reverse logic to American, British, or French soldiers and civilian arms contractors to copy his reasoning if they “deploy to fight against [Russia and North Korean soldiers]” – they’re “fair game.” They’re “fair targets” for the Russians retaliating for American, British, and French missiles. Biden made them targets with his violation and disregard of George Kennan’s successful containment policy.

READ: Bombshell report shows FBI had ‘informants’ in Washington, DC on January 6

Ukraine and nuclear weapons

Former NATO Commander, U.S. General Philip Breedlove, doesn’t mind putting U.S. and NATO troops in possible direct conflict with Russian troops.

Breedlove was cited as saying that “NATO must not be cowed by President Putin’s threat to use nuclear weapons and should send troops to establish a forward supply base for military and humanitarian supplies in Ukraine.… As more heavy weapons are sent to the region … ‘We must respect the fact that Putin might use nukes but we shouldn’t be paralyzed by it.’”

‘Accidental’ nuclear war

Prolonging this destructive and unnecessary war also prologues the opportunity for nuclear war to start by “accident.”

In late September 1983, for example, the Soviet Union’s early warning ICBM detection radar registered that several American ICBMs had been launched by the United States and directed at the Soviet Union. The Soviet rules of incoming missile detection required this to be routinely reported to military and political superiors.

But the duty officer at that time in a Soviet early warning radar station, Stanislav Petrov, on a gut hunch, ignored the radar station’s computer warning system’s alerts, thinking it was a false alarm.

Petrov notes that the alert was indicating the highest level of detecting hostile American missile launch reliability:

The siren howled, but I just sat there for a few seconds, staring at the big, back-lit, red screen with the word ‘launch’ on it … If I had sent my report up the chain of command, nobody would have said a word against it.

Petrov quickly checked with other Soviet remote radar stations and learned they were negative for incoming American missiles, but the launch directives were to be based on the computer readouts, not external radar support confirmation.

Petrov was in fact obstinate and insubordinate. We, who are here today reading this, can be prayerfully thankful he did not follow routine orders. And our fervent prayers, sober thoughts, and determined actions for peace must continue.

Citizen civic action suggested

Starting in March 2022 through December 1, 2024, Congress has passed four appropriations bills authorizing $175 billion for the Ukraine-Russia war effort, $106 billion of which went directly to the Ukrainian government.

A 1974 federal law requires the president to spend appropriations monies as Congress directs and as limited by the yearly Congressional Budget Act, which is a concurrent resolution, not signed by the president.

Therefore, the language of a Budget Resolution and/or a Supplemental Appropriations Act could prevent Donald Trump from legally pursuing steps to end the Russia-Ukraine war because of legal obligations to spend funds on weapons systems for Ukraine. He may request to rescind certain spending, but that must be approved by the House and Senate.

1. Let your congressman and senators know that whatever funds Congress appropriates in any Supplemental Ukraine Appropriations bill, should include no language restricting President Trump from securing a ceasefire, truce, or the end of the fighting or requiring funds to be spent for certain weapons should be part of any future Appropriations Act.
2. What authority does President Biden have to initiate bombing Russia, which has the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, absent a vote of direct authority from Congress to engage in such hostilities? And further, how would this bring peace or a ceasefire and not extend the war?
3. What grounds are there for thinking that giving Ukraine nuclear weapons as suggested by some in NATO would bring peace, and not enhance the likelihood of and/or expand the possibility of continued conventional war or even precipitate nuclear war?

This article is reprinted with permission from the Family Research Council, publishers of The Washington Stand at washingtonstand.com.