“By choosing to invade Ukraine rather than exhaust all diplomatic options to resolve its grievances over the Donbas war and NATO expansion, Russia is legally and morally responsible for the carnage that it has caused.” - Aaron Mate

From the Minsk Accords to Russia’s draft treaty proposals in late 2021, all diplomatic proposals and treaties were blocked, ignored, or rejected by the West. No UNSC action was possible due to its permanent members’ veto power. So exactly which diplomatic options were not exhausted? What were Russia’s non-military choices in the face of Ukraine’s years-long shelling and military operations against the Donbass?

Expand full comment
Mar 31, 2022·edited Mar 31, 2022

I.m.o,despite the excellent article,Aaron is bowing to the mob in one instance when late in his article he gave the perfunctory declaration of the 'Russia is wrong' line.Just enough fear in Aaron to motivate an 'utterance' of the core of the prevailing narrative.

Having said that,Aaron is a go-to source for all things U.S.foreign policy and IC related.

Expand full comment

Agreed. I posted Putin Peace, Petrodollar Pain yesterday with extensive quotes from this article along with Scott Ritter and Michael Hudson. And I look at the US Peace Council to answer the question of whether Putin exhausted all diplomatic options, and then I added Putin's speech on why he needed to do this. Here's an excerpt:

"In this context, in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation.

"The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.

"It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force. At the same time, we have been hearing an increasing number of statements coming from the West that there is no need any more to abide by the documents setting forth the outcomes of World War II, as signed by the totalitarian Soviet regime. How can we respond to that?

"The outcomes of World War II and the sacrifices our people had to make to defeat Nazism are sacred. This does not contradict the high values of human rights and freedoms in the reality that emerged over the post-war decades. This does not mean that nations cannot enjoy the right to self-determination, which is enshrined in Article 1 of the UN Charter.

"Let me remind you that the people living in territories which are part of today’s Ukraine were not asked how they want to build their lives when the USSR was created or after World War II. Freedom guides our policy, the freedom to choose independently our future and the future of our children. We believe that all the peoples living in today’s Ukraine, anyone who want to do this, must be able to enjoy this right to make a free choice."


Expand full comment

That was exactly my question, and the one with which I'd planned to start my next episode. Did Russia have any diplomatic options to enforce the Budapest, Minsk I and II agreements? And what good is a new agreement when the other party has already wiped their arse with the old? BTW, really like your reading list!

Expand full comment

Russia is the one violating those agreements.

Expand full comment

Incorrect. Even the western-slanted OSCE has said that Russia was not sending troops to the break-away regions from 2014-2022. Russia was not a co-signer of the Minsk agreements.

Expand full comment

Video evidence I have watched involving armed troops who clearly were of Buryat or some other far eastern ethnic group fighting in donbas tells a different story. Russia clearly was sending troops to Donbas. But much like what happened with the take over of Crimea. It was done covertly.

Expand full comment

According to Western-based international groups (85% sure it was the Vienna-based OSCE), Russia was sending weapons (covertly) but there were 50 or fewer Russians involved in the militias there, and those Russians were acting on their own and not at the direction of the Russian government.

Crimea was a completely different situation, which is why Russia reacted completely differently. Russia annexed Crimea immediately, as Russia's largest naval port is located in Crimea. Russia has had that port in Crimea for about 300 years. Meaning there is a huge number of Russian military permanently located there, and a huge Russian infrastructure supporting that naval base there.

Russia very clearly rejected the calls from the Donbass to annex them after the 2014 coup. Completely different to Russia's attitude regarding Crimea.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately, that's the language a US journalist must use. Cancel culture and all that jazz.

Expand full comment

Russia's non-military choices were to mind their own business and stay out of Ukraine.

Expand full comment

Did the US / NATO have an obligation under those agreements to mind their own business and stay out of Ukraine? Not install military bases, train soldiers to be NATO-ready, build and operate bioweapons labs, dangle NATO membership even though they'd told them privately they'd never be part of NATO? To allow the Donbas region to have limited autonomy? What was the US / NATO obligation under those agreements, in your opinion, if not these things that are specified in them?

Expand full comment

No, the US and NATO did not have any obligation to stay out of Ukraine.

There are no US or NATO military bases in Ukraine. There are no bioweapons labs.

Expand full comment

Okay, I'll let you read Aaron for yourself. You have a lot of catching up to do.

Expand full comment

Are these the latest CIA talking points?

Who is your <mis>information dealer of choice?

Expand full comment

It's called the truth. The absurd nonsense about "bioweapons labs" is misinformation.

Expand full comment

Misinformation as defined by whom? Why should US (DoD?) fund and run such labs (over two dozens!!!) in Ukraine?

What does it mean when Victoria Nuland is concerned that if falls into Russian hands it will present a clear danger?

Now, wiggle out of this.

Expand full comment

Aaron, your coverage of the USA's proxy wars from Syria to Ukraine has been indispensable for US citizens seeking to understand the truth of USA foreign policy.

thank you!

Expand full comment

Dear Aaron,

Greetings from Montréal and thank you as always for the real journalism.

Given your coverage of the chemical weapons debacle in Syria, it seems like you’d be the guy to do a deep dive on the US biowarfare programs and Ukraine. More information is coming out everyday. But the efforts to confuse the narrative are great. People aren’t sure what to believe, and in that confusion, they become more susceptible to believing false convenient narratives or just settling for a “limited hangout.”

I think the West is in a situation where the saying “we’re only as sick as our secrets” is highly relevant. The more people see how twisted and disgusting these deep state machinations in Ukraine are, the better. For, the sooner we can get ALL this stuff on the table and out into the open, the sooner we can actually start the healing of our broader civilizational, cultural, and epistemological wounds.

A timeline was put out by the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Zavlanova. If we’re being very frank, I trust what they’re putting out in this chemical weapons and biological warfare programs WAY more than anything the West would say about these programs.

What we do know about the US biological weapons involvement in Ukraine. And this is just a thumbnail sketch…

1991 – the US launches the Nunn-Lugar programme for the former Soviet countries to control/eliminate Soviet weapons of mass destruction including bioweapons. The Pentagon's Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) was named as the programme’s main executor.

1993 – the Ukraine-US Agreement on the Prevention of Proliferation of WMD is signed.

2005 – an additional protocol is signed to the agreement between the Ukrainian Health Ministry and the DTRA on the prevention of the proliferation of technologies, pathogens and know-how that can be used to develop bioweapons. This is the start of the transfer of the Ukrainian military biological potential into US specialists' hands.

2000s – large US military-industrial companies are engaged in military biological activity in Ukraine.

2005-2014 – Black & Veatch Special Projects, a DTRA contractor, builds and upgrades 8 biolabs in Ukraine instead of eliminating military biological infrastructure, as was originally claimed. One of the facilities, a biolab in Odessa, has been financed since 2011 for the study of “pathogens that can be used in bioterrorism attacks.”

2007 – US DoD employee Nathan Wolfe founded Global Viral Forecasting Institute (subsequently - Global Viral), a biomedical company. The mission stated in the charter is non-commercial study of transborder infections, including in China.

2009 – Rosemont Seneca Partners is established by former US Secretary of State John Kerry’ stepson Christopher Heinz and incumbent US President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

2014 – anti-constitutional coup d’etat in Ukraine.

2014 – Hunter Biden joins the Board of Directors of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company.

2014 – Metabiota, a private commercial organisation specialising in the study of pandemic risks is detached from Global Viral. Neil Callahan and John DeLoche, employees of Hunter Biden’s company Rosemont Seneca Partners are appointed to the board of Metabiota. Global Viral and Metabiota begin to get funding from the US Department of Defence.

2014 - Metabiota shows interest in Ukraine and invites Hunter Biden to "assert Ukraine's cultural & economic independence from Russia".

2014 - Metabiota and Burisma Holdings begin cooperation on an unnamed "science project in Ukraine".

2014 - Metabiota, Global Viral and Black & Veatch Special Projects begin full-fledged cooperation within the US DoD programmes.

2014-2016 - Implementation of Metabiota and US DoD contracts, including a $300,000 project in Ukraine.

2016 – US citizen Ulana Nadia Suprun, a descendant of Ukrainian Nazis, is appointed Acting Health Minister of Ukraine. The US DoD and Ukraine’s Health Ministry cooperation programme is greatly expanded.

2016 – an outbreak of swine flu among Ukrainian Defence Ministry personnel guarding a biolab in Kharkov, Ukraine; 20 dead. The incident is hushed up.

2016 – former US Assistant Secretary for Defence Andrew Weber is appointed head of Metabiota’s global partnerships department.

2016 – EcoHealth Alliance, a Global Viral founder Nathan Wolfe’s structure, is engaged in the study of bat-transmitted coronaviruses at the research centre in a Wuhan laboratory, China.

2016 – the DTRA and Ukraine’s Health Ministry extend the contract after getting approval from the Ukrainian Defence Ministry.

2019 – the COVID-19 mutated bat coronavirus pandemic begins with an outbreak in Wuhan.

February 24, 2022 – launch of the Russian Army’s special operation in Ukraine.

February 24-25, 2022 – rapid elimination of strains in biolabs in Ukraine.

March 8, 2022 – US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland openly acknowledges the existence of cooperation between the US and Ukraine in pathogens.

I this is a huge story that’s only starting to unfold. For example, from “The Project for a New American Century and the Age of Bioweapons: 20 Years of Psychological Terror”:

“The earlier October 2000 RAD document emphasized the importance which the neocon cabal placed on bioweapons (and other next generation war tech) stating: “Combat will likely take place in new dimensions: In space, cyber-space and perhaps the world of microbes… advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool”.


I think many in the West have actually allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the whole Western Freedom Democracy talking points to the point that they just have no idea how much Koolaid they really drank, or just the extent of the evil being run by the Anglo-American establishment.

How can one say he’s living in a free country when paying for a government that is preparing for mass scale biological warfare using bio weapons that target specific genotypes?

It makes sense that the neocons would spearhead this, since outright nuclear weapons use has become untenable, biological warfare becomes the natural next most powerful, and much more subversive and covert means of effecting the destruction of other people. We’re definitely at a critical juncture where now there a chance to get everything on the table, from the need for a new global financial system to the acceptance of new multipolar order. Of course, if the West is to have any positive role in this, or not try to simply seal off the West from Eurasia and try to go for their technotronic fascism, then we in the West must make a fundamental leap in the level of discourse. People must become more active, organized, and unified around the major strategic elements, with the other lesser stuff put to the side.

Expand full comment

Superb stuff David, thank you. I have for many years tried to draw attention to PNAC's advocacy of gene-specific weaponry. In a perverse irony, at around the time that it was revealed the US was specifically seeking out Russian DNA, I pitched a story about this to Sputnik - it got dismissed on the basis it was too conspiratorial...

Throughout this time I have kept a keen eye on official statements regarding biological weapons - of course fearmongering about BW attacks reached its apex during the War on Terror, but it's been ongoing for many years. Major General John F Wharton wrote in 1961 that, "barring a miracle, the United States of America will be devastated by nuclear and CBR

[chemical, biological, or radiological] warfare not later than 1980." As we know from MKULTRA, and so many other crimes against humanity, when the threat of foreign adversaries mastering a particular dark art is perpetuated, it's to justify and legitimise the US trying to master that precise thing. Washington has since World War II engaged in all manner of bioweapon research the world over without any oversight, transparency, or regulation. The scale of their secret, unstated use in conflicts large and small is unquantifiable.

It's in this context that the State Department providing extensive training to Ukranian officials in identifying and responding to WMD attacks (https://www.state.gov/united-states-trains-ukraine-to-identify-and-respond-to-the-use-of-weapons-of-mass-destruction-in-targeted-assassinations/) in May 2021 gains an acutely suspicious - and sinister - character.

I heartily recommend reading my pal Jeff Kaye's article on the bioweapon *compounds* that were stored/investigated in the Ukranian labs - https://jeff-kaye.medium.com/the-destroyed-ukraine-bioagents-dangerous-or-benign-5bd59358b28e. Keep an eye on his work more generally, he's got more coming on this and he knows his stuff and then some.

Expand full comment

@ David Gosselin👍👀🔮

That's quite a read David....and an excellent recommendation for our astute host.💡🤔

As Usual,


Expand full comment

Why bother saying that "Russia is legally and morally responsible for the carnage that it has caused"? Legally and morally responsible to who?

Did international law prevent NATO from bombing Yugoslavia and invading Libya? Did international law stop the United States and the U.K. from invading Iraq? Did international law stop the United States from interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs and fomenting a coup against it's government in 2014? Has international law ever stopped the CIA from arming foreign mercenaries, staging 'color revolutions', and trying to overthrow any foreign government they dislike? Does international law stop the President of the United States from ordering a drone strike assassinating anyone anywhere in the world that he unilaterally decides is a "terrorist"?

The Ukrainian government is hostile towards Russia and the Russian people in general. That's why one of the first things they did after the 2014 coup was ban the Russian language. NATO is a lawless and belligerent military alliance that is openly hostile towards Russia. The government of Ukraine publicly made its intention to join NATO known before the Russian invasion.

Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government are facing an enemy that has proven over and over again that it has no regard whatever for international law. The United States and NATO have been making a mockery out of international law for years. Why should Vladimir Putin let international law constrain his actions when NATO is setting up shop on his border with a view to destabilizing, and potentially attacking, Russia?

Expand full comment

Yup. Aaron's reporting is indispensable and that last mistake is forgivable. No one is doing more to shed light on this war.

Putin can legitimately say that Russia should fight the faux-liberal West in Ukraine so that he doesn't have to fight them in Russia proper. Sad for the Ukrainians and Russians, but he is morally justified in drawing a line and not playing by rules that the West doesn't follow itself.

Expand full comment

I agree. Aaron's reporting is excellent. Since the loss of Stephen F. Cohen, Aaron's work on this subject is the best you're going to find anywhere in the Western world.

Expand full comment

It's no exaggeration to say that Aaron is the finest living journalist in North America today. His talent is absolutely boundless and he's been a tremendous influence on me and a great many others. Long may he continue.

Expand full comment
Apr 16, 2022·edited Apr 16, 2022

Putin can't LEGITIMATLEY say ANYTHING. He is not in any way morally justified in drawing a line in other people's countries.

Expand full comment

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In my view, Putin and Russia are right to stand up to the U.S. which has being lying consistently -- Trump - Russia collusion, chemical weapons in Syria, Maduro setting fire to humanitarian aid in Venezuela, etc. What do you think of all those incidents? Take care...

Expand full comment

Trump-Russia collusion and chemical weapons in Syria are both 100% true.

Meanwhile Putin and Russia invaded Ukraine, an action that has no possible justification. They seek to eliminate Ukraine as a nation.

Expand full comment

Glad that you agree re Syria and Russiagate. I think you're way off in terms of the neocons arming the NeoNazis and the degree of power the NeoNazis have within the Ukraine government. My opinion is that Putin was justified in fighting back against violence against Russians prodded by the US supplying lethal aid and seeking to undermine the Russian government. There is no evidence that Russia seeks to eliminate Ukraine as a nation, unless you have some that I don't know about. There is, on the other hand, considerable evidence that the US is implacably opposed to Putin and, as you acknowledge, has a long record of lying and using Putin/Russia as a scapegoat.

Thanks for the civil discussion, and be well...

Expand full comment

Russian state media openly talks about the endgame of this invasion being the elimination of Ukraine as a nation.

And you seem to be misunderstanding what I said. Trump did collude with Russia and Syria did use chemical weapons. Being implacably opposed to Putin is a good thing, since he's the closest thing we've seen so far to a 21st century Hitler.

Expand full comment

Ukraine did not "ban the Russian language." And the Ukrainian government is hostile toward Russia because Russia invaded them. Not just in 2022, but in 2014. Russia has no right whatsoever to dictate whether Ukraine can join NATO. And nobody was ever going to attack Russia.

Expand full comment

Cal-- My understanding is that the CIA was involved in overthrowing the previous government of Ukraine, working with neo-Nazis in Ukraine fomenting Russian hatred. Subsequent events unfolded predictably from there, including no serious attempt by the neo-Nazis and the neo-cons to implement the Minsk accords, which were agreed upon and could have settled the issue peacefully.

You probably believed Mueller in 2003 when he said the Saddam Hussein was poised to use weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. Amirite? You should have listened to Putin back then and perhaps we could have saved > 1 million lives.

Take care!

Expand full comment

No, I knew beyond any doubt that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs at all, let alone being poised to use them.

And your "understanding" about the CIA and neo-Nazis in Ukraine is factually incorrect.

Expand full comment

Then why do trust the US intelligence over Putin this time? Putin has been right time and again. Victoria Nuland was advisor to Cheney in 2003 leading to horrific Iraq war on false principles. She's been the lead US person in Ukraine since 2014. It's a fact that she was heard naming the new Ukraine president ("Yats") 2 weeks before the coup occurred.

Here's an article describing the 2014 "Sniper's Massacre" on the Maidan in Ukraine: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/06/03/how-why-us-government-perpetrated-2014-coup-ukraine/

As I said, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the role of neo-Nazis and the CIA. There's tons of evidence and it fits a pattern with other US intelligence work from Vietnam through Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, but this is not a good time or place to discuss all that.

So I'll just wish you a Happy Easter, or Passover, Ramadan, Spring, etc. Be well!

Expand full comment

Putin hasn't been right about anything. He's lied about everything.

And it's hilarious that you cite an article referring to the Russian puppet Yanukovych as "neutralist." And referring to the centrist Yatsenyuk as "far-right", while claiming that it's Ukraine rather than Russia that's a "clearly fascist country."

Expand full comment

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Be well!

Expand full comment

Exemplary work as ever, Aaron. You remain a brightly shining light at a very, very dark time indeed.

The war in Donbas is so little-understood and discussed and deserves much, much more attention. I suppose to do so now is to run the risk of legitimising or at least palliating the invasion to some degree. Even those sympathetic to Russia often miss the crux of what happened, which is only very, very rarely acknowledged by the mainstream media - and even then invariably very quietly and in the most mealy-mouth manner imaginable.

This 2019 report from International Crisis Group cuts to the core of things - https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/eastern-europe/ukraine/254-rebels-without-cause-russias-proxies-eastern-ukraine. Unsurprisingly, it received absolutely no media attention whatsoever at the time and has gathered dust and mothballs unmolested ever since.

In essence; Donbas was entirely local in nature at the start; Russian involvement reluctantly came later, inspired by a desire to have some influence on a process over which it initially had little clout, and remained limited thereafter; Moscow’s preference was always for the region to remain part of Ukraine, albeit as an autonomous region; the relationship between the Kremlin and the separatists is complex, and has frequently been anything other than cordial.

These interconnected points, particularly their relationships with the last, have enormous relevance for what's happening now. The few dozen Russian freelancers and volunteers who entered Ukraine to fight alongside the locals were led by Strelkov, a passionate proponent of 'Novorossiya'. The Kremlin seems to have been relaxed about tacitly endorsing this concept initially, although quickly determined it was a far too effective recruitment tool, with considerably more Russians than expected signing up to join the fight.

All governments consider citizens returning from warzones to be inherently problematic - reintegrating scores of battle-hardened, weapons-trained, PTSD-scarred individuals into society, and 'normal' life, is always difficult. In this specific context though, one must also factor in that these people would inevitably be bitter and disappointed in the extreme - after all, Moscow was determined that the dream for which they fought and died never became a reality.

As early as April 2014, Moscow began trying to rein in the rebels' aspirations and activities, warning them to stop trying to seize control of towns and cities outright, and instead focus on protecting civilians. These entreaties were ignored by Strelkov and the Donestk/Lugansk leadership, prompting the Kremlin to coax them from their positions in return for increased financial and military aid to the breakaway regions, and parachute in hand-picked replacements. Which in many cases didn't prove popular with the separatists, be they local or Russian.

Russia considered the Minsk Agreements to be a huge achievement, the Donbas 'problem' solved in every way. However, on top of Ukraine's refusal to implement the measures, the rebels were unwilling to give up their arms in the face of ongoing economic blockade, assaults on Russian culture and language, and blatant hostility from authorities, and Moscow wasn't prepared to allow them sanctuary either. So the fighting continued, the civilian population bearing the brunt of Ukranian military aggression, almost entirely unseen by the outside world. By contrast, Washington, via the National Endowment for Democracy, spent millions on citizen journalism and NGO efforts locally in order to meticulously document alleged Russian war crimes.

Moscow was certainly correct that returning fighters would feel acutely betrayed, and cause political problems as a result. From mid-2016 onwards, there were regular protests in major Russian cities condemning the government's tepid support for the separatists. Rarely receiving any Western interest - not least surely because the Communist party was frequently the demonstrations' biggest sponsor and constituency - these efforts united nationalists and leftists, and were perceived by Putin as a major threat to his rule. Far greater than a trifling figure like Navalny could ever be.

With atrocities ramping up in Donbas, a full Ukrainian offensive impending, the Pentagon and CIA out of control, and Western world acting as if a Russian invasion was already underway, presumably Putin decided there was little to lose by launching a full-blown military offensive. The objective since the start has been to cripple Ukranian logistics, tie up forces and resources around Kiev, and secure total control over Donbas. Most of this has been achieved. Whatever comes of the invasion though, I doubt integration of eastern Ukraine into Russia is on the cards.

Expand full comment

This is a really good comment. Have you ever thought about a career in writing? ;-)

Expand full comment

It has crossed my mind. Thank you x

Expand full comment

I hope you noticed my ;-) in my last reply. Your work is great. Just subscribed.

On the other hand, as a side-hustle for when the MSM eventually cancels you for too much truth, I suggest making cat (e.g. "Kitty Klarenberg") and/or beard grooming videos. You'll never go astray of the YouTube algorithm! ;-)

Expand full comment

Excellent article. I posted one on Substack that quoted you, Escape from Azkaban: Victoria Nuland & Ukraine. And then Ukraine Peace & US Petropocalypse. I'm looking forward to using this article in my next one, Putin's Peace & the End of the Petrodollar Party.



Expand full comment

I find this beyond questionable considering it was blatantly obvious Obama was looking to have Hilary replace him. While Putin was clearly looking to see Trump as president. Why would Putin do this if Obama was essentially doing exactly what he wanted?

Expand full comment

Regime in Russia seems to explain what's going on... I'm wondering why Putin? Why is the carnage worth ousting the man and who will take his place?🤔

Expand full comment

The RAND gambit is WEAK. In context, that entire quote is "Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages."

Additionally, RAND concludes with the following recommendation:

"The most-promising options to “extend Russia” are those that directly address its vulnerabilities, anxieties, and strengths, exploiting areas of weakness while undermining Russia’s current advantages. In that regard, Russia’s greatest vulnerability, in any competition with the United States, is its economy, which is comparatively small and highly dependent on energy exports. Russian leadership’s greatest anxiety stems from the stability and durability of the regime, and Russia’s greatest strengths are in the military and info-war realms. The table below draws from the earlier tables to identify the most-promising options.

Most of the options discussed, including those listed here, are in some sense escalatory, and most would likely prompt some Russian counterescalation. Thus, besides the specific risks associated with each option, there is additional risk attached to a generally intensified competition with a nuclear-armed adversary to consider. This means that every option must be deliberately planned and carefully calibrated to achieve the desired effect. Finally, although Russia will bear the cost of this increased competition less easily than the United States will, both sides will have to divert national resources from other purposes. Extending Russia for its own sake is not a sufficient basis in most cases to consider the options discussed here. Rather, the options must be considered in the broader context of national policy based on defense, deterrence, and—where U.S. and Russian interests align—cooperation."

RAND recommended that the US INCREASE ENERGY PRODUCTION, which in 2019, when the report came out, was EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP WAS DOING.

Expand full comment

I don’t speculate on efforts to make it happen but regime change in Russia would be a huge benefit to Russians and the world. The best we can realistically hope for is that they don't expand. Who wouldn't rather live in Western Europe or the rest of the West?

Expand full comment

Aaaron, have you watched the Stone documentary "Revealing Ukraine"? You need to watch at 1 hour 11 minutes into the doc. Your buddy Michael Isikoff gets exposed in an letter from Ali Chalupa in how he too was working in essence with the Clinton campaign. I know you interviewed Isikoff before (I remember him being dismissive and rude to you) and you should get him on again and dump this info on him and see how he reacts. Maybe you are aware of it already. If not, watch for a few minutes after 1 hour 11 minutes,

Expand full comment

Stone's latest piece of Kremlin propaganda?

Expand full comment

What propaganda do you endorse?

Expand full comment

I prefer reality, not propaganda.

Expand full comment

Just saw the reports of nerve gas being used of several of the peace talk negotiators 2 weeks ago. If this is true what are the chances of it being used on the Ukrainian population? If this happens will Aaron comment on the fact that the Russian government are soulless pieces of shit?

Expand full comment
Mar 29, 2022·edited Mar 29, 2022

This is a good example of the anti-Russian hysteria that has swept the West. Just savor this commentary:

"If this is true what are the chances of it being used on the Ukrainian population? If this happens will Aaron comment on the fact that the Russian government are soulless pieces of shit?"

We'd be better off if we calmed down and stopped vilifying the opposition as subhuman "soulless pieces of shit". See https://taibbi.substack.com/p/tk-mashup-the-media-campaign-to-protect?s=w -- A development in the infamous laptop story further proves the "Russian Disinformation" tale was itself disinformation,. Think twice before shouting "fire" in the crowded theater.

Expand full comment

If they did in fact use a nerve gas on peace talk negotiators then that Is subhuman

Expand full comment
Mar 29, 2022·edited Mar 29, 2022

I don't know what you're talking about. I do know that the U.S. falsely accused the Syrians of using chemical weapons against ISIS types, and corrupted the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons -- https://thegrayzone.com/2021/11/22/corrupting-science-in-syria-probe-opcw-erased-experts-inconvenient-findings

I trust Putin much more than the US intelligence agencies. See Iraq War 2003 for another example. Putin right, Mueller wrong.

Anyway, send a link on the event you are referring to and I will consider it. Thanks

Expand full comment

Just found this on Bellingcat. they are very good at doing investigative journalism that most ignore.


Expand full comment
Mar 29, 2022·edited Mar 29, 2022

I don't trust Bellingcat, going back many years. See https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/24/author-bellingcat-opcw-whistleblower/ Who is the mysterious author of Bellingcat’s attacks on OPCW whistleblower?

"Bellingcat’s carefully crafted public image as an 'open source' outlet is belied by its extensive NATO government ties and a conspicuous pattern of conduct in line with its state sponsors’ interests. Bellingcat has hauled in grants from the National Endowment for Democracy, a US government-funded CIA cutout. Leaked documents reported by The Grayzone revealed that Bellingcat has collaborated with a UK Foreign Office operation that aims to 'weaken Russia.'"

I looked at the article you referenced and it says that some people got slightly sick but not in any way life threatening. Seems like typical false US/British propaganda in my experience. The Skripal incident with the novichok allegations is a classic in this genre -- https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/19/5-facts-bbcs-the-salisbury-poisonings-forgot-to-mention/

"The BBC’s new drama 'The Salisbury Poisonings' concluded over the weekend. A three-part story 'based on actual events', claiming to tell the story of the alleged poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in 2018... There’s room for an in-depth review, and indeed Craig Murray has done a fine job deconstructing the series. But here, I just want to focus on everything they don’t tell you. Here are five key facts the BBC simply forgot to mention..."

Expand full comment

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.I don't trust The Gray Zone on every subject even though I'm subbed and donate to Aaron's substack feed.

It's hard to winnow out the truth these days because just about everyone has an agenda.

Except me ;)

Expand full comment

> hey are very good at doing investigative journalism

Thanks for playing.

Expand full comment
Mar 29, 2022·edited Mar 29, 2022

I saw it on BBC. Don't know if it's posted somewhere else. It might be on UTube. But I did say if true. I don't know for sure yet.

But the Russians are famous for poisoning political opponents, journalists, and just about anyone who might be a threat.

I've known that our government lies to us for 50 years. I spent a year and a half in Vietnam finding that out!

But I certainly don't trust Putin or the Russians anymore than our leaders.

They will both do subhuman crimes to their citizens and their enemies.

Expand full comment

>I don't know for sure yet.

> But I certainly don't trust Putin or the Russians anymore than our leaders.

>I've known that our government lies to us for 50 years

I just choose to trust them when what they say aligns with my bias.

Expand full comment

Well said.

I do think the details are important, especially before we get into dehumanizing the opposition. As you note, there is a lot of phony propaganda floating about. My understanding is that it's much worse on the Ukrainian/Western side than on the Russian side. I've been following a neutral observer from Singapore who has provide info from various Ukrainian and Russian sources, and that is his take -- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgGHiivhFq7M_1MLemh-cjg/videos

Expand full comment

And your proof of Russians doing this is what?

Expand full comment