A day after the kidnapping of Venezuela’s democratically elected leader, Spain signed a statement together with Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and Uruguay condemning the US action.
Talking about squirming politicians, I'm looking forward to see the reaction of our Nato Secretary-General when "daddy" annexes Greenland, part of a Nato country.
Scots know how Venezuelan's feel about losing control of their oil resource. For over 30 years Anglo-American oil corporations raided Scotland's part of the North Sea, enabled by our colonial masters in Westminster. Hence zero oil royalties for Scotland.
By holding on to its sovereignty Norway managed to avoid the same colonial plunder and is now $2 trillion better off, plus a fully modern national infrastructure, high standard of living and a happy people. Colonial Scotland remains under-developed by comparison and with just half the GDP-per-capita.
As Aime Cesaire wrote: "American domination - the only domination from which one never recovers. I mean from which one never recovers unscarred."
Like Ponti Min, I think the real issues here are not security. Both the USA and Russia are after the resource and commercial interests in Venezuela and Ukraine (and other places). The same goes for Greenland. The USA already has a base and listening posts on Greenland and my understanding is that the agreement between the US and Denmark just about allows them plenty of freedom in that respect. These large countries are bullies, that's all, and as pointed out in the article double standards come to the fore when dealing with bullies. Do you stand up to them, like Ukraine, or do you turn a blind eye? I reckon this is the dilemma leaders face when they seek to follow what they see as the interests of their country.
Venezuela and Ukraine are very different. The kidnapping of Maduro, a democratically elected president, on trumped up phoney charges in order to steal Venezuela's resources, is the polar opposite of what is happening in Ukraine.
The Ukraine war is not about Russia gaining access to Ukraine's resources. It has plenty of its own. It's about Russian security.
After the 2014 US-led Maidan coup that toppled another democratically elected president, Yanukovych, who wanted good relations with Moscow, the Kiev regime began to bomb its own citizens because they resisted the banning of the Russian language, the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian culture. 14k were killed because they refused to knuckle under to the thugs running Kiev. That's when the civil war started. The 4 eastern oblasts held referendums and voted overwhelmingly to join the Russian Federation - Zaporizhia, Donetsk, Kherson and Luhansk.
And the US was determined to make Ukraine a member of NATO - it had already made it a de facto NATO member with CIA bases and bioweapons labs in the eastern oblasts and throughout the country. Since the 1990s, the US relentlessly expanded NATO up to Russia's borders, despite having promised not to move 1 inch eastward after the USSR dissolved in 1991.
Imagine if Russia made Canada and Mexico members of a military alliance hostile to the US and put military bases on their territory. Would the US stand for this? I think you know the answer to that. Russia sees NATO on its borders as an existential threat. Why can't Europe see this?
In March 2022, Kiev negotiated a peace agreement with Russia in Istanbul, that would have made Ukraine neutral (as it was in its 1990 declaration of national sovereignty - https://uplopen.com/reader/chapters/pdf/10.1515/9783839466643-026) and ended the war before it really even got started. The 4 oblasts would have remained part of Ukraine. But the US sent its poodle, Boris Johnson, to Kiev to tell Zelensky not to sign the deal because NATO had Ukraine's back. Well, we can see how that has worked out. Over a million dead Ukrainians and a destroyed country. NATO its getting its ass kicked by Russia.
So no, it's not about resources. It's about Russian and European security. Russia has been asking the US for decades to help design a new European security architecture that takes into account not only European security but Russian. It has submitted numerous proposals, the last one in December 2021. The US has refused.
I've written a fair amount about this conflict because there is so much anti-Russian propaganda and outright lying in the western lamestream corporate media. And I've gotten a lot of pushback for it, too. So be it. People need to understand the causes of the conflict. Otherwise, if they continue to believe the lies they are being fed by their so-called leaders, Europe will find itself in a hot war with Russia - something Russia doesn't want - that would destroy the continent.
Further to Leah's comments, if you want a full understanding of the background to Russia / Ukraine conflict (and others) I recommend this recent speech by Professor Jeffrey Sachs to members (those that could be bothered!) of the European parliament;
Ukraine's problem is that it has no sovereignty: it is not standing up to a bully, it is being sacrificed on the altar of Nato's desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. If it had any sovereignty the situation would have been resolved in Istanbul in April 2022.
Also, I suggest you look into BRICS and what they are trying to achieve in terms of international relations, the basic principles of which are sovereignty, mutual respect, co-operation and mutual benefit - all alien concepts to the US! (the UK isn't much better.)
I should add that sovereignty, in these terms, is specifically centred on the right to self-determination, i.e. the politics and economics of a country are the sole concern of that country to determine for themselves (Putin has spoken often about this.) Thus, if you have an "illegitimate" leader it is for you to resolve not Team America. As for resources, you trade fairly for them, not steal them.
Yes. This totally irrational and seemingly pathological disease of Russophobia has always puzzled me and I feel it should be called out for what it is, mindless racism. And, for all those who suffer from it I have a simple question, "What are you afraid of?" Given the parlous state of this country compared to Russia it would almost be a welcome relief if Russia did invade. Just saying.
For the last thirty odd years, since I started to wake up, I have only considered one country to be any sort of threat whatsoever to my well-being (leaving aside my own, the UK). That country suffers from an equally irrational pathological illness called American Exceptionalism, the chief source, along with the apparently inextricably linked Zionism, of most of the evil afoot in the world these last hundred years or so. Of course, we all tend to arise during our formative years with a certain 'national pride' but most, I think, grow out of it in adulthood and see it for what it is, a simple, subconscious, tribal instinct: unfortunately, for the rest of the world, inhabitants of the USA, and especially WASPs, appear to suffer under the additional burden of arrested development. Simplicius' column today offers some fine specimens of sufferers.
I agree with most everything you've said, but are you able to say If the Dombas region has any oil, copper, precious metals, or commercial interests? I genuinely don't know! Leah could probably fill in the why & wherefore of the real reason that Russia invaded that region, and I'm guessing it's go nothing to do with what the US invade countries for!
In response to your specific question, eastern Ukraine, and Donbas in particular, holds most of Ukraine's mineral resources but that really is not important to Russia which is largely self-sufficient in just about everything - Russia is the closest thing to an autarky on the planet.
The reason the fighting concentrated in that area is because the vast majority of the population are ethnic Russians and Putin had repeatedly warned that Russia would protect them if the civil war and racial discrimination, begun by the Ukraine government in 2014, did not stop.
However, the primary reason for Russia's actions is to force Ukraine and the West to the negotiating table to finally resolve the security architecture of Eastern Europe and Russia, an issue that Russia has been actively pursuing for 25 years* without success - every proposal made being rejected out of hand.
* A lot longer actually, USSR first applied to join Nato in the 1950s!
I thought that I had commented before - maybe I was censored! Wow! I didn’t think they cared! Or that I mattered!
Anyway, I was saying that as far as Trump’s threat to annex Greenland is concerned, I think Denmark should make it clear that in the event of any U.S. military action there, the Danish Government would invoke NATO Article 5, requiring all other NATO members to come to her aid against the U.S.
But it’s past time for Scots to recognise that we should not be involved with rogue nations such as the U.S. and their partners in crime down in London.
The 'leaders' could do what Hungary is doing - talk to the Russians, do business with the Russians, both of which are in the interests of all Western European nations to do. The EU has morphed into an authoritarian superstructure that is crushing national sovereignty. But the member states are allowing this to happen. There is a paucity of real leaders, people who understand what is in their nation's best interests and who will execute the policies that will benefit their people. Sadly, the current crop of puppets are incapable of doing anything other than enrich themselves. They've been bought and paid for by the jewish zionist globalists.
I agree with le Pen: Maduro was a baddy, but attacking another country to steal their oil is wrong. it crosses a line.
Talking about squirming politicians, I'm looking forward to see the reaction of our Nato Secretary-General when "daddy" annexes Greenland, part of a Nato country.
Scots know how Venezuelan's feel about losing control of their oil resource. For over 30 years Anglo-American oil corporations raided Scotland's part of the North Sea, enabled by our colonial masters in Westminster. Hence zero oil royalties for Scotland.
By holding on to its sovereignty Norway managed to avoid the same colonial plunder and is now $2 trillion better off, plus a fully modern national infrastructure, high standard of living and a happy people. Colonial Scotland remains under-developed by comparison and with just half the GDP-per-capita.
As Aime Cesaire wrote: "American domination - the only domination from which one never recovers. I mean from which one never recovers unscarred."
Like Ponti Min, I think the real issues here are not security. Both the USA and Russia are after the resource and commercial interests in Venezuela and Ukraine (and other places). The same goes for Greenland. The USA already has a base and listening posts on Greenland and my understanding is that the agreement between the US and Denmark just about allows them plenty of freedom in that respect. These large countries are bullies, that's all, and as pointed out in the article double standards come to the fore when dealing with bullies. Do you stand up to them, like Ukraine, or do you turn a blind eye? I reckon this is the dilemma leaders face when they seek to follow what they see as the interests of their country.
Venezuela and Ukraine are very different. The kidnapping of Maduro, a democratically elected president, on trumped up phoney charges in order to steal Venezuela's resources, is the polar opposite of what is happening in Ukraine.
The Ukraine war is not about Russia gaining access to Ukraine's resources. It has plenty of its own. It's about Russian security.
After the 2014 US-led Maidan coup that toppled another democratically elected president, Yanukovych, who wanted good relations with Moscow, the Kiev regime began to bomb its own citizens because they resisted the banning of the Russian language, the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian culture. 14k were killed because they refused to knuckle under to the thugs running Kiev. That's when the civil war started. The 4 eastern oblasts held referendums and voted overwhelmingly to join the Russian Federation - Zaporizhia, Donetsk, Kherson and Luhansk.
And the US was determined to make Ukraine a member of NATO - it had already made it a de facto NATO member with CIA bases and bioweapons labs in the eastern oblasts and throughout the country. Since the 1990s, the US relentlessly expanded NATO up to Russia's borders, despite having promised not to move 1 inch eastward after the USSR dissolved in 1991.
Russia repeatedly warned the US about this expansion - it's the real reason for the war. See my earlier post about this: https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/the-root-cause-of-the-ukraine-war?utm_source=publication-search
Imagine if Russia made Canada and Mexico members of a military alliance hostile to the US and put military bases on their territory. Would the US stand for this? I think you know the answer to that. Russia sees NATO on its borders as an existential threat. Why can't Europe see this?
In March 2022, Kiev negotiated a peace agreement with Russia in Istanbul, that would have made Ukraine neutral (as it was in its 1990 declaration of national sovereignty - https://uplopen.com/reader/chapters/pdf/10.1515/9783839466643-026) and ended the war before it really even got started. The 4 oblasts would have remained part of Ukraine. But the US sent its poodle, Boris Johnson, to Kiev to tell Zelensky not to sign the deal because NATO had Ukraine's back. Well, we can see how that has worked out. Over a million dead Ukrainians and a destroyed country. NATO its getting its ass kicked by Russia.
So no, it's not about resources. It's about Russian and European security. Russia has been asking the US for decades to help design a new European security architecture that takes into account not only European security but Russian. It has submitted numerous proposals, the last one in December 2021. The US has refused.
I've written a fair amount about this conflict because there is so much anti-Russian propaganda and outright lying in the western lamestream corporate media. And I've gotten a lot of pushback for it, too. So be it. People need to understand the causes of the conflict. Otherwise, if they continue to believe the lies they are being fed by their so-called leaders, Europe will find itself in a hot war with Russia - something Russia doesn't want - that would destroy the continent.
Further to Leah's comments, if you want a full understanding of the background to Russia / Ukraine conflict (and others) I recommend this recent speech by Professor Jeffrey Sachs to members (those that could be bothered!) of the European parliament;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfb4mOk9A8c
Ukraine's problem is that it has no sovereignty: it is not standing up to a bully, it is being sacrificed on the altar of Nato's desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. If it had any sovereignty the situation would have been resolved in Istanbul in April 2022.
Also, I suggest you look into BRICS and what they are trying to achieve in terms of international relations, the basic principles of which are sovereignty, mutual respect, co-operation and mutual benefit - all alien concepts to the US! (the UK isn't much better.)
I should add that sovereignty, in these terms, is specifically centred on the right to self-determination, i.e. the politics and economics of a country are the sole concern of that country to determine for themselves (Putin has spoken often about this.) Thus, if you have an "illegitimate" leader it is for you to resolve not Team America. As for resources, you trade fairly for them, not steal them.
This article by Sachs is also useful: https://consortiumnews.com/2025/12/24/jeffery-sachs-two-centuries-of-russophobia-rejection-of-peace/
Yes. This totally irrational and seemingly pathological disease of Russophobia has always puzzled me and I feel it should be called out for what it is, mindless racism. And, for all those who suffer from it I have a simple question, "What are you afraid of?" Given the parlous state of this country compared to Russia it would almost be a welcome relief if Russia did invade. Just saying.
For the last thirty odd years, since I started to wake up, I have only considered one country to be any sort of threat whatsoever to my well-being (leaving aside my own, the UK). That country suffers from an equally irrational pathological illness called American Exceptionalism, the chief source, along with the apparently inextricably linked Zionism, of most of the evil afoot in the world these last hundred years or so. Of course, we all tend to arise during our formative years with a certain 'national pride' but most, I think, grow out of it in adulthood and see it for what it is, a simple, subconscious, tribal instinct: unfortunately, for the rest of the world, inhabitants of the USA, and especially WASPs, appear to suffer under the additional burden of arrested development. Simplicius' column today offers some fine specimens of sufferers.
Slainte Mhath from Torrisdale
I agree with most everything you've said, but are you able to say If the Dombas region has any oil, copper, precious metals, or commercial interests? I genuinely don't know! Leah could probably fill in the why & wherefore of the real reason that Russia invaded that region, and I'm guessing it's go nothing to do with what the US invade countries for!
Correct, Robert. See my comment above.
In response to your specific question, eastern Ukraine, and Donbas in particular, holds most of Ukraine's mineral resources but that really is not important to Russia which is largely self-sufficient in just about everything - Russia is the closest thing to an autarky on the planet.
The reason the fighting concentrated in that area is because the vast majority of the population are ethnic Russians and Putin had repeatedly warned that Russia would protect them if the civil war and racial discrimination, begun by the Ukraine government in 2014, did not stop.
However, the primary reason for Russia's actions is to force Ukraine and the West to the negotiating table to finally resolve the security architecture of Eastern Europe and Russia, an issue that Russia has been actively pursuing for 25 years* without success - every proposal made being rejected out of hand.
* A lot longer actually, USSR first applied to join Nato in the 1950s!
I thought that I had commented before - maybe I was censored! Wow! I didn’t think they cared! Or that I mattered!
Anyway, I was saying that as far as Trump’s threat to annex Greenland is concerned, I think Denmark should make it clear that in the event of any U.S. military action there, the Danish Government would invoke NATO Article 5, requiring all other NATO members to come to her aid against the U.S.
But it’s past time for Scots to recognise that we should not be involved with rogue nations such as the U.S. and their partners in crime down in London.
> European nations could still turn things around by reclaiming their sovereignty and hence agency and refusing US vassalage.
In practical terms, how would they do this?
The 'leaders' could do what Hungary is doing - talk to the Russians, do business with the Russians, both of which are in the interests of all Western European nations to do. The EU has morphed into an authoritarian superstructure that is crushing national sovereignty. But the member states are allowing this to happen. There is a paucity of real leaders, people who understand what is in their nation's best interests and who will execute the policies that will benefit their people. Sadly, the current crop of puppets are incapable of doing anything other than enrich themselves. They've been bought and paid for by the jewish zionist globalists.
Spineless cretins and hypocrites everywhere. Disgusting.