Connect with us


How Come US and NATO Wars Are Never Sanctioned?



How Come US and NATO Wars Are Never Sanctioned

Whatever one thinks of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the response has shown the West’s hypocritical standards.

The West has taken a harsh stance towards Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine. This reply reveals a high level of hypocrisy, given that US-led wars in the past have never gotten the harsh punishment they merited.

If the present events in Ukraine have shown anything, it is that the United States and its transatlantic partners can run rampant over a battle fatigued world — in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, to mention a few hotspots. Meanwhile, Russia and Vladimir Putin are being presented as the second coming of Nazi Germany in practically every mainstream media magazine today for their military operations in Ukraine.

Justified or not, just a couple of days ago, Tel Aviv attacked two sites on the outskirts of Damascus in the same week that hostilities between Russia and Ukraine began; this was not even covered in “Western” media, and the German chancellor this week visited Tel Aviv without remorse for not mentioning these activities.

So, let’s get one thing straight. Hypocrisy and double standards are insufficient justifications for any government to initiate wars. In other words, just because Allied nations have been wreaking havoc on the world without severe consequences since 2001 does not give Russia, or any other country, moral authority to do the same. A compelling justification must exist for a government to sanction the use of force, committing itself to what may be deemed a “just war.” As a result, the question is whether Russia’s actions now are ‘just’ or, at the very least, reasonable.

Only those who devour the mainstream press would be surprised to learn that Moscow has been warning about NATO expansion for well over a decade. Vladimir Putin, in his now-famous speech to the Munich Security Conference in 2007, urged the gathered global power brokers directly, “why is it necessary to put military infrastructure on our borders during this [NATO] expansion? Can someone answer this question?” During his address, he stated that the United States is pushing its military assets right up to the Russian border. “is not connected in any way with the democratic choices of individual states.”

Not only were the Russian leader’s worries treated with the usual level of dismissal amid the blaring noise of crickets, but NATO has gone on to admit four additional nations since that day (Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia). Picture America’s reaction if Moscow were to construct a constantly growing military bloc in South America, for instance, as a hypothetical scenario that even a complete moron could carry out.

The actual cause for concern in Moscow, however, was when the United States and NATO began supplying neighboring Ukraine with a broad variety of modern weaponry in response to requests for membership in the armed alliance. What could possibly go wrong? Ukraine, in Moscow’s opinion, was beginning to constitute an existential danger to Russia.

Moscow, reaching the end of its patience, submitted draught treaties to the US and NATO in December, asking that they prevent any further military expansion eastward, including the joining of Ukraine or any other states. It includes a clear declaration stating that NATO “shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine or other states of Eastern Europe, South Caucasus, and Central Asia.” Yet again, Western politicians responded to Russia’s offers with arrogance and apathy.

Despite people’s reactions to Moscow’s unexpected acts may differ, no one can claim they were not forewarned. After all, Russia didn’t wake up on February 24 and decided it was a great day to launch a military attack on Ukrainian soil. So, certainly, one might argue that Russia’s actions were justified by concern for its own security. Ironically, the same thing may be more difficult to say about the United States and its NATO allies’ hostile actions during the previous two decades.

Take the most well-known case, the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This terrible war, that Western media parasites have dismissed as a regrettable “intelligence failure,” is one of the most atrocious acts of unprovoked aggression in recent memory. Without digging too deeply into the confusing specifics, the United States, fresh off the heels of the 9/11 attacks, accuses Iraq’s Saddam Hussein of hoarding weapons of mass destruction. Instead of cooperating closely with the UN weapons inspectors on the ground who were in Iraq seeking to verify the accusations, the US, together with the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, started a shock-and-awe bombing campaign against Iraq on March 19, 2003. This gross breach of international law resulted in the murder, injury, or relocation of nearly a million innocent Iraqis in an instant.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, the Bush administration produced over 900 misleading assertions regarding Iraq’s supposed threat to the US and its allies between 2001 and 2003 in order to boost public support for the approaching bloodshed. Nonetheless, the Western media, which has become the most zealous proponent of military aggression, failed to discover any weakness in the case for war — that is, until the boots and blood were on the ground, of course.

In a better world, the US and its partners would have faced harsh consequences in the aftermath of this extended eight-year ‘mistake’ against innocent people. Sanctions were imposed, although not against the United States. Ironically, the only sanctions imposed as a result of this insane military endeavor were against France, a NATO member that had refused the offer to engage in the Iraqi massacre along with Germany. The global superpower isn’t used to being rejected, especially by its ostensible allies.

Because of the French government’s “ungrateful” opposition to the Iraq war, American lawmakers, self-assured in their Godlike superiority, sought a boycott of French wine and bottled water. Other proponents of war demonstrated their lack of seriousness by requesting that the popular menu dish known as ‘French Fries’ be renamed ‘Freedom Fries’ instead. So the absence of French Bordeaux, together with the time-consuming rewriting of restaurant menus, appears to have been the only significant consequences of the US and NATO mindlessly slaughtering millions of people.

Compare this leniency and Kid-glove attitude to the US and its allies to the current situation in Ukraine, where the scales of justice are obviously tipped against Russia, despite its not unreasonable warnings that NATO advances were threatening. Whatever one believes about the current crisis between Russia and Ukraine, it is impossible to deny that the hypocrisy and double standards charged against Russia by its chronic adversaries is as surprising as it is inevitable. The difference now is that bombs are being detonated.

Besides the heavy sanctions imposed on Russian individuals and the Russian economy, probably best summed up by the French economics minister, who stated that his country is dedicated to waging war on Russia.“a total economic and financial war on Russia,” There has been a truly worrisome attempt to stifle news and information coming from Russian sources that would allow the Western audience to comprehend Moscow’s objectives. On Tuesday, March 1, YouTube chose to restrict RT and Sputnik channels for all European users, allowing the Western world to take another piece of the global narrative.

Given how Russia has been maligned in the ’empire of falsehoods,’ as Vladimir Putin has nicknamed the country of his politically motivated persecutors, some may conclude that Russia deserves the constant threats it is presently facing. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Apart from inflaming an already combustible situation, this type of global grandstanding, which resembles some sort of mindless virtue-signaling campaign presently fashionable in liberal capitals, implies that Russia is completely wrong, period.

Quite a dangerous attitude, which leaves no space for debate, discussion, or hearing Russia’s viewpoint in this immensely complicated issue, only assures further standoffs, if not full-fledged world war, in the future. Unless the West intentionally seeks the onset of World War III, it would be prudent to halt the heinous hypocrisy and double standards directed at Russia and attentively listen to its ideas and version of events (even ones presented by foreign media). It’s not as unbelievable as others would have you think.

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.


Climate scientist condemns “political sabre-rattling” over nuclear weapons

Better leadership could thwart the risk of nuclear war, Dr Stuart Parkinson from an independent organisation: ‘Scientists for Global Responsibility’ tells us.



nuclear war

Concerns are mounting that the world could see a nuclear war erupt. As the war in Ukraine intensifies, Chinese President Ji Xinping warned Russia’s President Vladimir Putin not to resort to nuclear weapons, as he urged the international community to take steps to prevent a “nuclear crisis.”

A study conducted by Rutgers University warned a nuclear war could lead to global famine, starving five billion people in its wake. Analyst News spoke to climate scientist, Dr Stuart Parkinson SGR – from an independent organisation: ‘Scientists for Global Responsibility’ – to understand its tangible risks and how the world could thwart it.

What does the study say?

Commenting on the purpose of the study, Dr Parkinson tells us: “This latest study backs up the findings of numerous previous studies published since 2007 which have used the latest climate models to understand the potentially catastrophic environmental impacts of regional and global nuclear wars. These studies build upon early research in this field – carried out in the late 1980s – which first alerted the world to the threat of nuclear winter and helped end the Cold War.”

It used the latest climate models to understand the potentially catastrophic environmental impacts of regional and global nuclear wars.

But on how the spread of highly radioactive material could affect humans, he goes on to say:

“The quality of life in these circumstances would be reduced substantially leading to poor air quality in bombed-out regions. Electromagnetic pulses from nuclear explosions would fry electronic equipment within a few kilometres of each bomb site which would impact phones, internet, medical equipment, cars etc and would cease to work in those areas. The ozone layer protecting the Earth’s surface from damaging ultraviolet radiation would also be severely damaged allowing for ecosystems to collapse. In short, we would be looking at the potential collapse of human civilization.”

In May, the UN warned the world was at the brink of total societal collapse if urgent action was not taken to de-escalate the risk of natural disasters. Human activities, it stated, were interfering with planetary boundaries. These are systems that allow for the safe operation and development of the human race over generations.

Future of Life organisation provides much-needed hope in ensuring that such a life-destructing event does not occur again. The organisation’s concerns lay in making sure that advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and biotechnology along with nuclear weapons do not have detrimental effects on the world.

With influence across the United Nations, and European Union as well as other organisations in the United States including federal agencies, Congress, security agencies, and think tanks, Future of Life has supported the creation of policies that minimise the risk advanced technologies may pose to human life. The non-profit, independent organisation also provides grants for and conducts ethical research around AI.

A report from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute earlier this year found that increasing tensions between Russia and Ukraine have put countries on high alert. The worldwide arsenal of nuclear weapons since the cold war, it warned, is expected to drastically rise in the next few years.

Weapons expert Hamish de Bretton-Gordon said he thinks not much is being done by the British government to prevent the escalation of a nuclear war. We asked Dr Parkinson what Britain and the West can do to prevent its escalation.

“The first step could be to end the political sabre-rattling about nuclear weapons and the institution of ‘no first use’ policies,” he said, citing a pledge by nuclear powers to formally refrain from the use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.

He further said that countries should take nuclear weapons off the short notice ‘launch on warning’ status as well as remove US nuclear weapons from European soil.

He added that the US and Russia could extend the START treaty to cover a longer time period, as well as to make deeper warhead cuts with more nations following suit. They could also engage with the NPT, which stands for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, disarmament commitments in a serious manner along with Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) negotiations.

But whether such treaties have been respected in recent times is a point in question. Amid the advancement of Russian troops into Ukraine, unprecedented attacks on civilian nuclear facilities like the Zaporizhzhia power station, have reinforced the need for stronger international agreements in the event of a nuclear war. On whether such treaties have been effective in limiting the threat of such a war breaking out, Dr Parkinson stated:

“Currently, there are only 9 nuclear weapons states which are markedly less than the number predicted to be when the NPT was agreed. So it has significantly limited the threat. But nations are failing to implement Article 6 on disarmament and hence there is a need for the TPNW.” – The NPT stands for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

According to him, some of the legal instruments and frameworks that could be used to limit the threat include reinstating the treaties which have been abandoned or curtailed which include INF, ABM, and the Open Skies Treaty. Additional legal instruments which could be agreed upon include a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and the TPNW must be fully implemented to remove the threat of nuclear war.

Which countries would see the worst if a nuclear war were to occur?

He said that at first the nations which were hit by nuclear weapons would be hit severely and then their neighbours and finally the other most vulnerable nations around the world will also be able to feel the impact.

Last month, President Joe Biden pledged that the US “prepared to use all elements of its national power” to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. But what could the US itself do?

Dr Parkinson told us he thinks the country “should return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and fully implement the agreement as this would greatly reduce the risks of nuclear programmes in Iran”.

The JCPOA, dubbed Iran nuclear deal, was an agreement signed between Iran and some world powers, including the US. The aim of the accord was to ward off a revival of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which could have seen potential conflict between it and its regional opponents.

The agreement was called off under the Trump administration but there have been indications from Biden to revive it whilst ensuring the security of Israel. This month, Iran’s foreign minister, Hossein Amirabdollahian called on the US to show “goodwill and genuine resolve” in talks to bring back the agreement.

Is it realistic to think countries would pay heed?

The UN Secretary-General called for countries with nuclear weapons to commit to “no-first-use” of them, but how likely is it that nations will listen?

“It’s a reasonable ask, but national leaders are not hearing it at the moment. We need more mass protests in support of nuclear de-escalation/ disarmament,” said Dr Parkinson.

Given the current political climate, “it was very difficult” that we could see a world free of nuclear weapons, stated Dr Parkinson. But changes in leadership could bring much-needed “rapid political change.” He pointed to Mikhail Gorbachev’s rise in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s to illustrate how a change in those at the top could “profoundly change the debate.”

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading


7 Key points from Putin’s annexation speech



Vladimir Putin 2022 Annexation Speech

At a ceremony in the Grand Kremlin Palace’s St George Hall, Russian President Vladimir Putin, signed the treaties to annex the Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions, claiming that millions of people have, “made their unequivocal choice” to join Russia and “have become our citizens, forever.”

His subsequent speech revealed deep distrust of the west, its culture and hegemony. Invading Ukraine wasn’t about territory alone, it was about a clash of cultures and civilisations, and standing up to a West which was bent upon “enslaving” the world. Here are 7 key points from the speech which will give you an insight into the mind of the Russian premier. 

1. Regret over the collapse of the Soviet Union

When the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, those in power didn’t ask, “ordinary citizens what they wanted, and people suddenly found themselves cut off from their homeland”, Putin complained. “This tore apart and dismembered our national community and triggered a national catastrophe.”

He said that decision, “destroyed our great country” and while recreating it isn’t his ambition he claims, there is a determination by millions linked by “culture, religion, tradition, and language”, who consider themselves part of Russia and want to “return to their true historical homeland.” 

Russian is widely spoken in Eastern parts of Ukraine including the newly annexed areas and is the most common language. People there tend to view Russia and its past in a more positive light. But in 2018 the Ukrainian government made it compulsory to use Ukrainian in all media, schools and public spaces, whilst previously –  since 2012 Russianwas permitted to be a regional language in regions where at least 10% of the population spoke it. However, while Putin claimed the majority of people in Eastern Ukraine voted to join Russia, in the referendum which the West described as a “sham”, polls from previous years show that a very low number of people wanted to join Russia. International observers were present at the referendum but there are concerns that they were biased towards Russia. As with anything during such conflicts, nothing is clear. 

2. Anger over Western policies 

President Putin blamed the West for their continuing hostility towards Russia. He said, “the West continued and continues looking for another chance to strike a blow at us, to weaken and break up Russia, which they have always dreamed about, to divide our state and set our peoples against each other, and to condemn them to poverty and extinction. They cannot rest easy knowing that there is such a great country with this huge territory in the world, with its natural wealth, resources and people who cannot and will not do someone else’s bidding.”

President Putin emphasised that the West wants to control every other country. He said, “in certain countries, the ruling elites voluntarily agree to do this, voluntarily agree to become vassals; others are bribed or intimidated. And if this does not work, they destroy entire states, leaving behind humanitarian disasters, devastation, ruins, millions of wrecked and mangled human lives, terrorist enclaves, social disaster zones, protectorates, colonies and semi-colonies. They don’t care. All they care about is their own benefit.” 

3. Russian nationalism

President Putin considers the four regions annexed as part of Russia, taken by force, by Ukraine in 2014. People of these regions were Russian and have decided to remain with Russia and their choice must be respected. 

President Putin made it clear that this is not just a plea to uphold justice and respect the choice of people of the regions, rather, “we will defend our land with all the forces and resources we have, and we will do everything we can to ensure the safety of our people. This is the great liberating mission of our nation.” Not only defence, Russia will rebuild infrastructure of new regions.

A question that must be in every Russian mind is that there has been a significant loss of lives of Russian soldiers, was it worth it? President Putin acknowledged the sacrifice of soldiers and paid respect with a minute of silence. He, also explained the reason for who he considers the enemy of Russia.

4. Western hegemony seen as a threat 

President Putin presented the West as the real enemy of Russia. Expansion of NATO is seen as a threat which the West has been deceitfully dealing with Russia and the world.

“The West is ready to cross every line to preserve the neo-colonial system which allows it to live off the world, to plunder it thanks to the domination of the dollar and technology, to collect an actual tribute from humanity, to extract its primary source of unearned prosperity, the rent paid to the hegemon.” 

President Putin said that the domination of the United States is unjustly enforced on the world for currency or technology. Like if any country wants to trade in currency other than US dollars or develop a technology like China developed 5G communication equipment before the US, then unjust sanctions on trade or technology are placed.

There is no free competition of trade and technology in the world, according to President Putin, he said that the West shows aggression towards independent states. “It is critically important for them to force all countries to surrender their sovereignty to the United States.”

5. Crimes of the West

President Putin mentioned the crimes of the West and said that the Western elites are blaming Russia whereas the West is responsible for many crimes like, “the worldwide slave trade, the genocide of Indian tribes in America, the plunder of India and Africa, the wars of England and France against China, as a result of which it was forced to open its ports to the opium trade. What they did was get entire nations hooked on drugs and purposefully exterminated entire ethnic groups for the sake of grabbing land and resources, hunting people like animals”. He added “this is contrary to human nature, truth, freedom and justice”.

Crimes of the US include using nuclear weapons twice on Japanese cities. Being the only country that used nuclear weapons, they created a precedent. President Putin also mentioned the destruction during WWII as crimes of the West. 

6. “Satanism”, morality & traditional values 

President Putin called the attitude of the West towards the world against standard human morality and traditional values, rather it is “religion in reverse, pure Satanism”.

He quoted Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” And said that the poisonous fruits of actions of the West can be observed in Russia and other countries including the countries in the West. 

Addressing all citizens of Russia, Putin asked, “do we want to have here, in our country, in Russia, “parent number one, parent number two and parent number three (they have completely lost it!) instead of mother and father? Do we want our schools to impose on our children, from their earliest days in school, perversions that lead to degradation and extinction? Do we want to drum into their heads the ideas that certain other genders exist along with women and men and to offer them gender reassignment surgery? Is that what we want for our country and our children? This is all unacceptable to us. We have a different future of our own.”

7. Fighting for Russian survival 

Putin quoted the words of Ivan Ilyin calling him a true patriot “If I consider Russia my Motherland, that means that I love as a Russian, contemplate and think, sing and speak as a Russian; that I believe in the spiritual strength of the Russian people. Its spirit is my spirit; its destiny is my destiny; its suffering is my grief; and its prosperity is my joy.”

Mentioning the thousand years of Russian statehood, he said “today, we are making this choice; the citizens of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and the residents of the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions have made this choice. They made the choice to be with their people, to be with their Motherland, to share in its destiny, and to be victorious together with it. The truth is with us, and behind us is Russia!”

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading

Daily Brief

First Grain Ship Departs Ukraine After Six Months of Russian Blockade



Odesa pristav
  • The first shipment of grain departed the port of Odesa on Monday after Russia’s blockade of Ukrainian ports for the last six months trapped around 20 million metric tons of wheat and corn.
  • Russia recently made a deal with Ukraine, brokered by the UN and Turkey, allowing grain exports to resume, appeasing fears of a global food supply crisis and rising prices.
  • Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba celebrated the shipment, calling it a “day of relief for the world, especially for our friends in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.”
  • Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was more hesitant to celebrate the shipment, stating “it is too early to draw any conclusions and make any forecasts” and he wants to “see how the agreement works and whether security will be really guaranteed.”

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading

Daily Brief

Concerns Rise As US Teeters on the Brink of Recession



US Stock Market Investing in the United States
  • The US economy declines for the second quarter in a row, causing, what other countries would consider, an economic recession. 
  • The prices for groceries, gas, and other basics are rising at the fastest pace since 1981. The US Central Bank is quickly trying to raise borrowing costs in order to cool the economy and ease the prices on goods, but with the contraction, at the annual rate of 0.9% in the 3 months to July, many are still getting concerned. 
  • President Biden struggles to convince the public that the economy is sound, with the unemployment rate at a low 3.6%. But with inflation in the US hitting 9.1% in June, the fastest price appreciation in 4 months, consumer spending has slowed at an annual rate of 1%. 
  • Many other countries, such as China and the UK, have been hit harder by the surge in energy prices and the War in Ukraine, causing risks from abroad. Other countries are facing much more serious problems and once they’re hit, their problems can spill over and affect the US. 

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading


Russia cuts Germany’s Gas Supply causing Prices to Soar 



01 gazprom ru 5
  • Over the course of the Russian-Ukrainian War, Russia began to slowly cut off Germany’s gas supply through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. 
  • Before the war, over half of Germany’s gas came from Russia. By the end of June it was reduced to a quarter of its normal captivity, and now it operates at less than a fifth of it. 
  • Russia’s energy firm Gazprom has stated that this need to cut off Germany’s gas supply was due to maintenance work on a turbine that is needed. Critics have disagreed, claiming that Russia is using it’s gas as a ploy to cause terror to Europe. 
  • The cut of Gas supply to Germany and other central European countries has caused gas prices to rise almost 2%, causing the trade to close to a record high similar to that of when Russia invaded Ukraine. 
  • While Germany scrambles to find a solution to this, Poland states it will be fully independent from Russia by the end of the year in order to avoid blackmail from Russia.

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading

Daily Brief

Russia Limits Gas Supply to Germany



Black Sea port of Theodosiya panoramio
  • Gazprom, a major Russian energy provider, has stated it will reduce the supply of gas to Germany by half via the Nord Stream 1 pipeline due to repair work. 
  • Germany has said that they see no technical reason for the decrease in gas supply. The European Union continues to accuse Russia of weaponizing energy, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stating, “This is an open gas war that Russia is waging against a united Europe.”
  • Ukraine and Russia signed an agreement to allow the export of grain via the Black Sea after Russia continued to block millions of tonnes from being exported. The next day, Russia struck missiles at the port, some of which hit the infrastructure of the port.
  • The US and Ukraine are optimistic that the agreement will still be implemented, with the US State Department stating, “Despite these attacks, we do understand that the parties are continuing preparations to open Ukraine’s Black Sea ports for food and fertilizer exports…we also continue to expect that the Black Sea agreement will be implemented.”

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading

Recent Comments