Category: Politics

In America, how did we get to a place where we have difficulty putting ourselves in the shoes of Palestinians?

What do we expect of them?

According to the prevailing narrative in America, there was peace between the Palestinians and Israel until the militant wing of Hamas launched a terrorist attack against innocent Israeli civilians on October 7^th, 2023. In this attack, Hamas committed unspeakable atrocities and according to the official Israeli reporting, they slaughtered 1,139 people and took 252 hostages.

We are told the atrocities committed on October 7^th by Hamas were an order of magnitude greater than 9/11 in America because the slaughtered victims represent a higher percentage of the Israeli population (approximately 8 million) than the victims killed on 9/11 (approximately 3,000 vs. a U.S. population of approximately 285 million at the time).  

In response to the attack by Hamas, Israel has launched a comprehensive attack against the total population of Palestinians in Gaza.

Before firing one bullet or launching one bomb into Gaza, Israel stopped all deliveries of food, water, fuel, medical supplies, and other good and services needed to sustain the Palestinian population of 2.3 million.

Then Israel launched a military bombing campaign that exceeds the destructive capacity of any military action in the modern era. The military bombing campaign was followed by a full-scale ground invasion by one of the world’s most technologically advanced militaries.

Since October 7^th, 2023, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, Israel has slaughtered 34,904 people, including 14,500 children and 9,500 women.

In the bombing campaign, according to the United Nations and the World Health Organization, Israel has damaged or destroyed:

• Over half of all homes
• 80% of all commercial facilities
• 75% of all schools
• 85% of all groundwater wells
• All 35 hospitals (only 12 remain partially functioning)
• 267 places of worship (all faiths and denominations)

Yet the prevailing narrative in America persists that Israel’s response is a justifiable expression of the right of self defense for the Hamas attack on October 7th.

If October 7th was an order of magnitude worse than 9/11 because of Israel’s smaller relative population, what is almost 35,000 Palestinian deaths in Gaza out of a total population of 2.3 million?

Given the fact that Israel is not yet satisfied, as reflected by the newly launched attack on Rafah, the relative casualty count proves that Israel and her enabler, America, do not value a Palestinian life on par with an Israeli life. Consider, more than 10 Palestinian children have been slaughtered for every one Israeli slaughtered on October 7th [Palestinian children slaughtered: 14,500 vs. total Israelis slaughtered on 10/7: 1,139].

This is what dehumanization looks like.

To break the fog of dehumanization in our prevailing narrative, lets consider what Americans would do if we were Palestinians.

Imagine if in 1947, countries from around the world had determined in order to protect indigenous communities from genocidal suffering, 58% of the United States would be designated as a new country for the world’s indigenous communities. This new country, hypothetically called “Indigia”, would become the home of indigenous people from around the world. Any indigenous person from any country would have an absolute right of return to make a new life in Indigia.

As for the Americans who have lived on the land of Indigia for generations, they would be given a choice: move to the remaining 42% of United States or die. There would be no compensation or standing granted for redress for any harms suffered.

What would Americans do?

Our obvious response would be to resist the loss of our land by any means necessary.

Yet with each attempt to resist, Indigia, fortified by the financial, military, and diplomatic support of the wealthiest countries in the world, crushed our rebellions and punished us by taking more of the United States.

Reduced to two separate encampments comprised of approximately 22% of the former United States, we began launching waves of non-violent resistance that were met with violent oppression. We followed with increasingly violent protests that were put down with even harsher oppressive force.

What would Americans do?

Would we ever accept the sovereign legitimacy of Indigia to territory we occupied for generations?

Would we find the global consensus in favor of Indigia a compelling justification to agree to live peacefully on our splintered territory?

This is where we were on October 6^th, 2023.

What would Americans have done?

This email was sent to Breaking Points on February 23, 2024

Krystal & Saagar,

I am writing to you again on this topic because I view the Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladimir Putin as a historically important event and I believe your analysis on Monday’s show profoundly missed the mark. So you know, I am a multi-year premium subscriber because I appreciate the transparency and intellectual integrity you both exude by thoughtfully offering critiques of your own ideological allies. Please accept the following analysis in the spirit of constructive critique. One last side note: For most of the last 20+ years I have had complete contempt for Tucker Carlson because I viewed him as an intellectually dishonest shill for the Republican establishment. Over the last year I have begun to reconsider.

Critique of the Putin Interview

[Copy of Official Transcript was attached to original email]

1. When Tucker Carlson asked the first question [Why did Russia attack Ukraine?], framing it within the context of Putin’s quote regarding his concern that NATO (America) may launch an attack from Ukrainian territory, Putin responded by asking Tucker “whether this interview was a show or are we having a serious conversation?” Tucker agreed this was a serious conversation. To understand what Putin meant you must consider Russian culture. A serious conversation, as he demonstrated, involves addressing the root causes which necessarily considers the historical context that drives current events. In short, Russians are verbose but as Tucker’s introduction comment stated “Putin was not filibustering”. Putin’s history lesson explained how cultural identity in Eastern Europe did not align with national borders. To this Tucker made that same assumption you both did [he attacked Ukraine to unite the greater Russia], he twice asked “if Putin thought Ukrainian borders were illegitimate, why didn’t Putin attack when he took office in 2000?” Putin suggested he is getting there but had not finished his answer. Putin’s answer was Russia did not attack Ukraine until the U.S. had financed the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine (who was committed to neutrality) and installed an anti-Russian government open to joining NATO. This installed government launched a military weaponized attack on the ethnically Russian Ukrainians in the southeast provinces. This is when Russia first attacked Ukraine back in 2014. Russia negotiated a peace agreement with Ukraine, witnessed and guaranteed by Poland, Germany and France, called the Minsk Agreement, which protected ethnically Russian Ukrainians while leaving their provinces within the national borders of Ukraine. The U.S. installed Ukrainian government reneged on the Minsk Agreement and Germany and France announced publicly they would not enforce the agreement. The U.S. and NATO then began arming Ukraine and building military bases in Ukraine. This was Russia’s redline and where they committed to attack Ukraine in February 2022.    
2. Putin provided his perspective on the Russian – American relationship since the disbanding of the Soviet Union in early 1990’s. Key Points:
   • Soviet leadership agreed to support the reunification of Germany and for Germany to remain a member of NATO. In exchange, America gave the Soviet leadership a ‘private assurance’ that NATO would not expand one inch east of Germany. 
   • Russia had hoped to be accepted into normal political and economic relationships with western nations because they abdicated communism in lieu of western style free-market capitalism.
   • Putin opened the door to Russia potentially joining NATO by asking President Clinton if he would be supportive. Clinton ultimately said No.
   • Putin communicated with HW Bush, in response to W Bush’s decision to develop a missile defense system, that Russia would like to partner with the U.S. and Europe to develop a missile defense system to protect all nations. W Bush’s national security team lead by Condoleezza Rice rejected Russia’s offer. This is why Russia developed the hypersonic missile systems to overwhelm the U.S. developed missile defense system. 
3. Putin stated he has no expansionist interest.
   • Tucker asked him under what conditions would he attack Poland. Putin answered only if Poland attacked Russia. 
   • Tucker stated the Western countries’ concern regarding Russia’s attack on Ukraine is that he intends to go further into western Europe. Putin responded he has no interest in global wars that would threaten the existence of humanity.
   • Tucker asked how Putin “reconciles being a leader who has to kill with being a Christian?” Putin responded “It is very easy when it comes to protecting oneself and one’s family, one’s homeland. We won’t attack anyone.”
4. Putin stated Russia is prepared to negotiate peace now.
   • Russia negotiated a peace agreement in 2014 (Minsk Agreement)
   • Russia negotiated a peace agreement in April 2022 that was scuttled by Boris Johnson at the behest of the United States.
   • America has stated they intend to use the War in Ukraine to weaken the Russian Military. 
5. Putin stated America has made a stupid and grave mistake using the U.S. dollar as an instrument of force to control countries around the world. By seizing Russia’s U.S. dollar denominated reserves, America has sent a signal to the whole world that they may be subject to the same treatment. This has led to the expansion of BRICS and the increased use of the Chinese Yuan for international trade (including oil & natural gas). Putin stated these actions hurt American taxpayers in the same way they have hurt America’s allies, such as Germany. Putin warned America of the damage that will occur if we try to do the same with China.
6. Putin rejected Tucker’s framing of the Russo-China relationship “as trading one colonial power for another” by stating “you don’t pick your neighbors like you don’t pick your family. Russia shares a 1,000 km border with China. We have co-existed as neighbors for centuries. We are used to each other. Russia sees China’s foreign policy is focused on seeking compromise…we accept that. Trade with China is mutually beneficial. Trade between China and Europe is growing faster than China and Russia. He rejects the ‘boogeyman’ story regarding China.” 

Putin’s comments above beg a critical question for us: Is what he is saying true?

On the question of why Russia attacked Ukraine:

• The private assurance America gave the former Soviet leadership that NATO would not expand one inch east of Germany has been validated by multiple sources. The prevailing retort to this private assurance is Russia failed to get the agreement in writing. This is why Putin said America tricked Russia. At the height of the cold war during the Cuban Missile crisis, nuclear war was averted when President Kennedy gave Premier Khrushchev a ‘private assurance’ that if the U.S.S.R removed the missiles from Cuba, secretly, six months later, America would remove the nuclear missiles from Turkey.” Private assurances are very important tools used by nations to settle disputes in a manner that saves face for the participants. Given America’s history with the U.S.S.R, Gorbachev and Yeltsin had every reason to believe the U.S. when we gave them the private assurance not to expand NATO one inch east of Germany. It is important to also note the significance of Russia supporting the reunification of Germany as part of NATO. In WWII, the U.S.S.R lost over 20 million people at the hands of Germany. The creation of the Warsaw Pact, including East Germany, was to form a security buffer against western aggression [see Russian deaths in the Napoleonic Wars, WWI, and WWII].
• The violent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine is a matter of public record. The only question is whether America was involved. It has been reported that Victoria Nuland was recorded on tape informing the American Ambassador to Ukraine of who would comprise the new leadership in Ukraine before the overthrow had occurred. Since the point of the overthrow was to install Ukrainian leadership who would be open to joining NATO, anti-Russian Ukrainians were sought. Putin explained after the independence of Ukraine was granted in the early 1990’s, Ukraine sought to develop an independent identity, which they found in the anti-Russia collaborators with Nazi Germany during WWII. Putin stated the Ukrainians made heroes of the notable collaborators who had slaughtered Poles, Jews and Russians at the request of the Nazis. He referred to the debacle of the Speaker of the Canadian Parliament recognizing a Ukrainian Nazi, and along with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, gave the war criminal a standing ovation.

On the question of Russian Expansion vs. NATO expansion:

• Since the dissolution of the U.S.S.R, Russia’s territorial boundaries are a matter of public record. Putin has led/controlled Russia since 2000. Where has Russia expanded? Where has NATO expanded?
• Per a report by CNBC (see Two maps show NATO’s growth and Russia’s isolation since 1990 (cnbc.com)), NATO has expanded to include all the former WARSAW Pact countries and three countries that had been a part of the former Soviet Union.  
• In response to Russia’s redline against including Ukraine in NATO, America has further expanded NATO to include Finland and Sweden. 

On the question of a negotiated peace in Ukraine:

• Russia has negotiated peace agreements in 2014 and 2022 that were rejected by Ukraine at the behest of western countries. 
• The U.S. Secretary of Defense publicly stated the goal of the War in Ukraine is to weaken the Russian military.
• President Biden has publicly stated the goal of the War in Ukraine is for regime change in Russia.

On the question of why the dissolution of the U.S.S.R did not lead to full normalization and integration of Russia with western nations:

• Russia tried multiple times and were rejected:
  1. Russia agreed to German reunification as part of NATO in exchange for no eastern expansion of NATO. Russia’s support of German reunification is a matter of public record. NATO has expanded to include all Warsaw Pact countries and three countries within the former U.S.S.R.
  2. Russia opened the door for consideration of joining NATO. President Clinton declined support. This can easily be verified by asking former President Clinton.
  3. Russia offered to develop a missile defense system with the U.S. and Europe. U.S. rejected offer. This can be easily verified by asking Condoleeza Rice.
  4. Russia demonstrated a willingness to partner with the U.S. by agreeing to safely enrich Iranian uranium under the Iran Nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama Administration. UN inspectors were validating Russia’s compliance until President Trump pulled out of the deal.
  5. Russia signed the Minsk Agreement after the U.S. had financed the violent overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian government. The Minsk Agreement is a matter of public record that has been acknowledged by Germany and France.
  6. Putin stated Russia is willing to negotiate peace in Ukraine now despite the U.S. blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline. Side Note: Seymore Hersh reported, and most analysts acknowledge, the U.S. blew up the Nord Stream pipeline.

On the question of the grave error of using the U.S. dollar as an instrument of force:

• A cursory review of foreign sovereign U.S. denominated reserves confirms even America’s allies are diversifying:

(See Will The U.S. Dollar Lose Its Global Reserve Status? | Seeking Alpha)

My hope in taking the time to share this level of detail is to encourage you to invite Tucker Carlson on Breaking Points to have a ‘serious discussion’ [American style!] about the implications of the information shared by Vladimir Putin. Our government and our media have lied to us to a magnitude outlined in George Orwell’s “1984”. The War in Ukraine is not unique. The same playbook has been used in the War in Gaza. The prevailing narrative persistently is designed to ‘manufacture our consent’ [Thank you Noam Chomsky]. The Freedom of the Press is in the first amendment of the Constitution because it is the essential tool to inform the People of the truth so they can hold their elected officials accountable. 

Dear friend,

I have been thinking about our discussion regarding the War in Ukraine. I believe we have an understanding on where we each stand in regard to the conflict but I will restate for the sake of clarity.

Your view is Russia initiated the escalation of the conflict by launching a military attack against Ukraine. As the aggressor, you hold Russia responsible for the humanitarian crisis occurring in Ukraine. You are aware there are historical events that may have contributed to the current conflict, but no historical event justifies Russia’s military attack on Ukraine. Your hope is the Russians will overthrow Putin and his government apparatus.

My view is the United States instigated the conflict by breaking the verbal assurance given by Presidents H.W Bush & Clinton provided to Gorbachev and Yeltsin to limit NATO’s eastern expansion beyond the unified Germany. In exchange for the private assurance (the same type of assurance that resolved the Cuban Missile crisis), the former U.S.S.R agreed to support unified Germany’s admission into NATO and the peaceful dismantling of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union executed the dissolution, including gathering the nuclear arsenal from the satellite states to Russia, and supported German re-unification and entry into NATO. At the time of the private assurance, there were 10 former U.S.S.R. Warsaw PACT nations.

Starting in the late 1990’s, NATO began the practice of adding former Warsaw Pact nations. Currently seven of the original ten countries have been admitted into NATO. With each new addition, the American Military Industrial complex modernized the former Warsaw Pact countries to NATO grade military weaponry including some with ballistic missiles. With each new NATO addition, Russia lodged vigorous complaints and threats of military escalation to restore the security buffer between Europe and Russia.

One month since the beginning of the War in Ukraine, Russia has stated they will end the war and withdraw from Ukraine if the following four conditions are met:

1. Ukraine sign a neutrality agreement that would bar it from entering NATO
2. Recognize Crimea as Russian
3. Recognize Luhansk and Donetsk as independent
4. Agree to a mutual cease fire

Ukraine has indicated they would no longer pursue admission into NATO and are open to a neutrality agreement. Ukraine has asked America to empower them in the negotiations by tying the removal of international economic sanctions to the Ukrainian negotiated peace agreement. Thus far we have refused.

We are at a stalemate in our discussion. We must agree to disagree.

What remains is the question of regime change in Russia, which President Biden acknowledged on his recent European trip. On this issue I believe America, even as the sole superpower, is over her skis.

The world is watching as we have weaponized economic sanctions beyond any historical reference point, to overthrow a G20 & permanent UN Security Council nation for reasons we have been guilty of many times over. This is the latest example of how we have chosen to lead the world…as a petulant nation that has sacrificed our moral standing on the iron altar of brute force. This approach has only hardened our enemies and given our friends pause, because we have been arrogant enough to affirm many times our America first foreign policy agenda. Given the opportunity, the EU, UK, Canada and other ‘friends’ may jump at the chance to break free of our yoke.

Our overplay of the War in Ukraine by revealing the intent to overthrow Putin, may induce China to partner with Russia to establish an alternative to the Swift exchange system. This would be the opening needed to establish a new international currency of trade. Russia is already requiring the EU to pay for oil and natural gas in Rubles. Saudi Arabia is not accepting President Biden’s calls, and have demonstrated an interest in using a different currency for OPEC oil transactions. If an alternative exchange system is organized with China, Russia, and potentially OPEC, this will give our “friends” an alternative to our American dominated SWIFT system. My point here is force has a limit when you are interdependent on your subordinate nation-state partners.

At the heart of the matter, my world view is not political. My worldview is spiritual. When I look at the US-dominated prevailing narrative over the last 50 years, we are persistently given an enemy to focus our hate…U.S.S.R, Iran, terrorists (including Iraq & Afghanistan), North Korea and now Putin (Russia). Each of our “enemies” had verifiable facts that paint a foggier picture than the clear cut vilification story we are fed by the media and our government.

The pre-curser to the Cuban Missile crisis is the United States deployed ballistic missiles in Turkey. The Soviets responded by installing the missiles in Cuba. We then escalated to a threatened nuclear exchange because nuclear armed ballistic missiles deployed in Cuba violated the American security buffer. The crisis was resolved when America gave the Russians a private assurance to quietly remove the ballistic missiles from Turkey six months after the Soviets agreed to remove their missiles from Cuba.

In 1953, the United States orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Iran in order to protect British oil interests. Prime Minister Mosaddegh was ousted in favor of a pro-American government led by the Shah of Iran. By the 1970’s, after years of brutal treatment of dissidents, the Shah was overthrown by the Iranian Revolutionary Army. The new Iranian government’s first official act was to seize the American embassy in Tehran. When the US arranged safe asylum in the Philippines for the Shah, after seriously considering providing safe harbor in the US, negotiations for the hostages’ release broke down. After Iran surrendered the hostages at the start of the Reagan administration, we punished the Iranians by arming the Iraqis with chemical and biological weapons in the Iraqi-Iranian War of the 1980’s, effectively killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians. Our repeated aggression with Iran, only exacerbated by branding them a member of the Axis of Evil, inspired Iran’s proxy war with the US where they sponsored terrorist organizations throughout the region.

America’s role in the proliferation of terrorism in the 1990’s and beyond continued in the Soviet-Afghanistan War of the 1980’s. Here an Islamic militia called the Mujaheddin was armed and trained by the US to embroil the Soviets in a quagmire conflict that effectively broke the morale of the Soviet military as they were forced to retreat back to the Soviet Union.

Iraq, emboldened by their success at repelling the much larger Iranian military, turned their attention to Kuwait where they claimed the country as the 13th Iraqi state. The brazen act of aggression sent shock waves around the globe based on the fear the Iraqis may extend their aggression to include Saudi Arabia. To repel this threat on the Arabian peninsula, Osama Bin Laden offered the Saudi Royal Family to re-enlist the victorious Mujaheddin to repel the Iraqi forces back out of Kuwait. The offer was made to protect the home of Mecca, Islamic holy of the holies, from Iraqi infidels. Instead, the Saudi Royal Family made a deal with America to repel Iraq from Kuwait in exchange for a number of permanent US military bases in Saudi Arabia. The establishment of permanent US military bases in Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca, is the cited basis for Bin Laden’s Fatwa against America and the Saudi Royal Family that ultimately led to the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

Many countries have aspirations for developing nuclear weapons. Libya established a WMD program in the 1990’s. After years of US led pressure, in 2004, Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi agreed to dismantle the country’s nuclear weapons program. By 2011, a US-led NATO attack on Libya supported a successful uprising to overthrow the government of Muammar Gaddafi, who was murdered in October 2011. Is it mere coincidence North Korea has since accelerated their nuclear weapons program to include multiple launch attempts?

My point here is to illuminate geopolitical motivations are far more complicated than the black and white vilification narratives propagated by the media and our government. Manufactured consent is a virulent cancer to any healthy democracy. Resist first by rejecting the prevailing narrative, then seek the facts as best as you can.