Once again, it feels as if we’re tiptoeing toward an official war between the United States and Russia — as opposed to the proxy war that has endured for three and half years between Russia and NATO-backed Ukraine.
Although President Trump has downplayed the “rare and urgent” meeting of top military commanders from around the world at Quantico, Virginia, on Tuesday, the event has generated intense speculation. The Pentagon says that secretary of War Hegseth merely wants to deliver a speech on the “warrior ethos” and make sure that military leaders are all walking in the same direction. The president describes the focus of the gathering in general terms: “We’re talking about what we’re doing, what they’re doing, and how we’re doing.” Still, to gather the highest-ranking members of the U.S. military in one location for a chat with the president and secretary of War leaves the impression that something of significant importance will be discussed.
On Monday morning, ZeroHedge gathered data from several sites that analyze open-source intelligence to predict military engagements. Those sites were all tracking a large deployment of U.S. aerial refueling tankers crossing the Atlantic on their way to Europe. A social media account that tracks pizzerias near the Pentagon showed a spike in orders late Sunday night. The last time these sources noted a wave of air tankers leaving the United States and increased carryout orders from restaurants near the Pentagon, the U.S. military was preparing to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. When these open-source data points are viewed alongside the unusual meeting of top military commanders in northern Virginia, it is difficult not to conclude that a potentially significant military operation is imminent.
Notably, there has been a shift in public messaging from high-ranking government officials. U.S. special envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg told Fox News on Sunday that President Trump has authorized NATO to use U.S. missiles in direct strikes against Moscow. In a post on Truth Social one week ago, the president stated, “I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.” Trump’s rhetorical departure from months of effort directed toward peace came right after a meeting with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky at the United Nations in New York City. While answering reporters’ questions at the U.N., Trump said that allies should shoot down Russian aircraft that enter into the airspace of NATO nations. Marveling at the president, Zelensky called Trump a “game changer.”
In a separate interview on Fox News, Vice President Vance said that the administration might provide Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk missiles. Noting that President Trump would make the “final determination” on whether to equip Ukraine with weapons that can strike Moscow, Vance’s assessment of the situation nonetheless suggested that U.S.-NATO is about to take a more aggressive posture in the region.
While signs indicate greater U.S. involvement in the Ukraine-Russia conflict in the near future, the Russian foreign ministry has been highlighting uncorroborated online chatter claiming that the Ukrainian military intends to use captured Russian drones in staged “false flag” attacks on logistics hubs in Poland and Romania. There are no hard facts to back this assertion, but numerous media reports coming from Hungarian sources have repeated the claim in recent days. Should Poland or Romania be attacked, President Trump’s recent comments suggest that there would be a swift U.S.-NATO response. As is always the case in war, propaganda and misdirection make it almost impossible to analyze this information.
Ukraine has an obvious motive to undertake an operation against its allies in an effort to drag U.S.-led NATO into a larger war. Over the last three years, the Ukrainian military appears to have been involved in several attacks on NATO interests — including the sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines supplying Russian energy to Germany and the more recent attack on pipeline networks supplying oil from Russia to Hungary and Slovakia — as part of an overall strategy to separate Russia from European Union economic partners.
At the same time, it is entirely logical for Russia to flood the information space with allegations of a looming “false flag” attack while carrying out an actual attack of its own. If something were to occur in Poland, Romania, or Moldova in the next few days, both Russia and NATO will accuse the other of spreading disinformation. These competing “narratives” ensure that confusion will reign — ratcheting up the prospect of retaliatory attacks and perilous escalation.
I do not like where this is heading. The issue of U.S.-NATO support for the Kyiv government in its fight against the Russian Federation has divided American conservatives. Some Americans view Russia with such hostility that they almost appear eager for a direct U.S.-Russia confrontation. I believe that such a conflict has the potential to kill millions of people and put us on the path toward long-term global instability.
Those who rush to defend Ukraine’s territorial borders routinely ignore that the eastern territories in dispute belong mainly to Russian-speaking peoples who have repeatedly allied with the Russian Federation. When NATO and Kyiv deny people the natural right to determine their own future in the name of Ukraine’s national “self-determination,” I find the argument for war ludicrous.
This has always been a civil war involving historically Russian areas, and bloodshed began only after Obama’s State Department and European Union emissaries decided to expand NATO’s territorial grip right up to Russia’s doorstep by sacrificing Ukraine in a proxy war. Of all the reasons that U.S. and European politicians provide for the necessity of defending Ukraine, the idea that Russia’s invasion was entirely “unprovoked” is most laughable.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Ukraine has directly attacked property belonging to NATO nations. Nonetheless, NATO appears ready to protect a country that has attacked its members and to attack a country that has not.
This has always felt like another expedient “bankers’ war,” meant to put money into the hands of the world’s wealthiest financial institutions while stealing the lives and tax dollars of Western citizens. Over at The Conservative Treehouse, Sundance framed the issue aptly:
The reason why the EU member states of NATO want escalated war with Russia is financial and economic. Through policy and ideology, the EU/NATO members have walked themselves into an economic dead end. They are out of assets to leverage. The only way out for the EU/NATO leadership is to create a war to erase debt, expand assets and reset the economics.
While BlackRock, J.P. Morgan, and other World Economic Forum heavyweights divide up Ukraine’s assets and manage control over the Ukraine Recovery and Reinvestment Bank, international financial interests will turn wartime spending into a money machine. At the same time, all the self-inflicted economic damage caused by “green” energy regulations and central bank money-printing propping up the expansive European welfare state can be blamed on “Russian aggression.” Should the whole financial system near collapse, the perfect rationale will exist to implement central bank digital currencies and mandatory digital identities for Western citizens. Once again, governments will manufacture potentially catastrophic problems in order to justify “solutions” that nobody wanted in the first place.
In this case, however, the problem that NATO governments are creating comes with the certain loss of numerous lives and the inherent risk of cataclysm. I don’t like this game, and I wish that wiser heads would succeed in preventing this violent calculus from reaching its ever deadlier conclusion.
Right now, however, all signs point to madness. It looks as if a wider war with Russia will coincide with Antifa’s war against Americans at home. Prepare accordingly.
Image: The Presidential Administration of Ukraine via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0.
