Former President George W. Bush has apparently described Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky as "the Winston Churchill of our time".
Uh . . . not so much.
For a start, Winston Churchill never paraded in front of the cameras wearing drag, or played the piano with his unmentionables.
Secondly, Winston Churchill didn't sock away millions - perhaps hundreds of millions - of dollars in foreign accounts, presumably the fruits of graft, corruption and other ill-gotten gains while serving his country. (He certainly didn't make that much from his career as an entertainer - not even close.)
There are also serious, credible accusations that Mr. Zelensky has used official resources to target - possibly even try to kill - political opponents. It's hard to find them in English-language sources, because there appears to be a concerted effort to silence such voices and prevent their publication. Read the linked articles in full, and follow the links they contain, to get more information.
I have no personal animus towards Mr. Zelensky. I have no axe to grind about the war in Ukraine, except to say - as I've said before in these pages - that neither side is trustworthy, both sides are corrupt as hell, and I distrust the propaganda flowing freely from both of them. As far as I can tell, the USA has no compelling national interest in Ukraine at all, and I don't see why we should be as involved there as we are - let alone get further embroiled in what might yet turn into a nuclear war. However, Sundance notes:
In the bigger picture I don’t think many Americans outside the DC beltway give a flip about internal Ukrainian squabbles and Russia’s support for the Eastern Ukrainian independence effort. However, inside the DC beltway Ukraine is very important, stunningly important, because Ukraine functions as the corrupt money laundry operation for DC politicians to receive taxpayer kickbacks from their financial support into Ukraine.
I think that's a very likely explanation for recent visits to Ukraine by some of the usual political suspects. I'd love to know how much money was promised and/or changed hands during those discussions.
Mr. Zelensky may be an effective wartime leader of his country, but he's carrying an awful lot of baggage with him. For that reason, another Winston Churchill, he ain't.
Peter
7 comments:
I get the impression (true or not) that "inside the DC beltway" it may be that the name Zelensky may sound Jewish ... just like Jankowicz.
Agreed that we have no compelling national interest.
That being said, Russia has no compelling reason to have started this war - or their 2014 grab of Ukraine's eastern provinces - except sheer greed.
Ukraine is, and was, corrupt in many ways. So is and was Russia. But Ukraine didn't attack Russia, and isn't raping, looting, and murdering Russian civilians. And on that basis alone I feel considerable schadenfreude whenever I hear of Russian military setbacks in their attacks.
And I would support supplying military support. Preferably of US politicians to be airdropped sans parachutes on the Russian advance.
When you read things like this and you wonder about the why just remember that in the US we actually have a UniParty. It's goal is to keep the people distracted and the profits going where they have been since WW2 ended.
Arguing about the "new" Churchill is a fine distraction!
In other news, Winston Churchill was a somewhat lesser man than Winston Churchill.
Courageous, yes.
Took some real chances early in life, yes.
Obsessive urge to get closer to the shooting regardless his wider responsibilities, yes.
Able to make a pretty good speech, yes.
War-mongering manic depressive drunkard, yes.
A weird obsession with Soft Underbellies, yes.
Up to his neck in debt all his life, yes.
Preserved from personal bankruptcy (and hence expulsion from the House of Commons) all through the 1930s and WWII by the Usual Suspects who needed him for their own purposes (understandably for them, but having less than zero congruence with the natural interests of UK or British Empire), yes.
Finally scraped up enough coin to support his Pol Roger Budget, yes.
Did the last one by sequestering all the relevant records so that nobody else could get access to them and making sure that he got in first with his History.
All that said, Zelensky not fit to tie his bootlaces.
I hope it hasn't taken 70 days to come to these conclusions that have been evident since dau one.
None of our business except to maintain graft.
The level of easily identifiable outright propaganda is absurd.
Javehead submitted Russia had no reason other than greed to attack the Ukraine. I strongly disagree. I would suggest Javahead study the history and demographic of this region starting circa 600 AD to 1400 and 1800 to current.
It's obvious to me at this point that the globalist want to widen this conflict to support their agenda. I believe the "oligarchs" are being targeted because they won't play ball with the globalists. They prefer to be " Russians". Therefore they must go.
Zelensky is just another scummy politician, he's fake. He has a script and handlers and all of this reeks as being a "production."
I marvel at exactly how absolutely bizarre our world has become. It's like the fable "The Emporers New Clothes" on steroids.
A couple points:
.
a)
I eliminated 'war in the Ukraine' from my vocabulary.
Instead, I say 'the biden war to protect the foreign-aid skim scam'.
.
b)
Obviously, the government agents in the Ukraine are corrupt.
They are the government agents, corrupt from the get-go.
Corruptable individuals are drawn to positions of power.
Why would anybody expect the Ukraine government agents to be different from any other government agents.
Given the large pile of supposedly pilfered cash he is rumored to have accumulated, I wonder who it is who can satisfactorily explain why Zelensky, were he the swamp creature of which so many are so assured, would pass up a ticket out, and instead chose to remain at risk in his own country, and tirelessly advocate for it non-stop in the face of such overwhelming odds, with a fate at the hands of the Russians that undoubtedly includes a wall, a stake, and several dozen incoming rounds at his person.
Many of you are thus now in the same position as that of the self-assured archaeologist, who explained away the miracle of Moses and the Hebrew Exodus to an audtorium of imagined bumpkins, by explaining that where they crossed, the "sea" was probably only a few inches deep.
Which sounded pretty convincing until an old pastor asked him to then please explain how Pharoah's army had drowned in six inches of water.
So you might maybe want to check your premises a little bit more critically. There is a whole range of options between Churchill and craven crook, and the one you light upon must account for all variables observed, unless you're selling magic beans for a cow.
Post a Comment