Will Ukraine be Yugoslavia 2025?

Will Ukraine be Yugoslavia 2025?

Henry Kissinger stated that he saw the partition of the Ukraine as the only solution to achive lasting peace by separating the two sides - non Russians and ethnic Russians that live in the present Ukraine. Western Ukraine and Eastern Ukraine fough on opposite sides during World War Two. 

Data:  Western and eastern Ukraine represent distinct regions with contrasting historical, cultural, and economic characteristics. Western Ukraine generally includes regions like Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Zakarpattia, formerly part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Eastern Ukraine, particularly the Donbas region (Donetsk and Luhansk), has a strong industrial and Russian-speaking identity, with a history tied to the Russian Empire and Soviet Union.

The meeting in Washington will be about parties that have different agendas. Trade, Defense and Geopolitical Interests will be on the table.

Not long ago Ursula von der Leyen negotiated an agreement with President Trump, agreement that was very much disliked by German politicans of all political colours that asked for the resignation of the President of the European Commission. In France, the French Prime Minister himself expressed strong opposition to such a deal that is defined by many as an act of surrender to American interest.

Given the troubles several European countries are facing at home, EU politicians are desperately trying to get something that they can call a win. President Trump has the aces. He conditioned American support to the signing of a trade agreement.

At the end of the meeting in Alaska, the sides mentioned their intention to improve trade relationships. President Trump himself needs a win. Some week ago, he made an agreement with Ukraine indicating that Ukraine will give USA access to Ukraine mineral resources in exchange for military support. What President Trump and President Putin agreed in Alaska was not reported. I suspect that trade and a peace agreement come as a package and that the Yugoslavia Option is on the table.

Rachel Reeves: trying to make numbers fit in is proving to be an impossible task

 

While Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Secretary for Defense John Healey, and other members of the British government can go around making all sorts of promises that they might not be able to deliver, it is up to Rachel Reeves to do all sorts of malabarismos to make numbers add up.

When she talked about pension reforms, she thought that would get more than 160 billion Pound to spend, but recent calculations show that the amount the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have available is less than 11 billion. 

In the meantime, John Healey, Secretary for Defense, has spoken publicly about building 6 munition factories, 12 nuclear submarines and so forth. More than 10 billion Pound are going to be paid to Mauritius for the transfer of the Chagos Islands. Billions of Pound are going to out to support military efforts in Ukraine, including training and sending of more than 100,000 drones (such is the number promised by Prime Minister Keir Starmer when he spoke about a tenfold increase. But there is a lot more. 

In the meantime, there is constant talk about budget cuts affecting Education, the NHS, the benefits system, the Civil Service, the BBC and so forth, on top of cuts for the elderly, the disabled and for those who look after the elderly and the disabled. But the list is a lot longer than that.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is sitting around the table on a daily basis, including Sundays, negotiating with interested parties that are not happy with salary increases and cuts being proposed. So being Chancellor of the Exchequer in these circumstances is not the best post in the British Cabinet. When the Home Office, the Secretary for Defense, the local and regional authorities and whoever else asks for money, she is the one on the spot. The question is how long Rachel Reeves will endure the present state of affairs, before she herself decides that it is an impossible task.

John Healey: if the money to support serving military personnel and their families was available, why no support was given until Reform appeared to be winning elections?

 

John Healey: if the money to support serving military personnel and their families was available, why no support was given until Reform appeared to be winning elections?

It is significative important to remark that just a few weeks ago there was massive austerity to the point the winter allowances for pensioners and welfare benefits were being cut, Now, after Reform won against Conservative and againts Labour, suddenly, out of the blue, there is money for everything.

So Rachel Reeves is willing to throw everything out of the Treasury to prevent Reform for winning elections. Sixteen times the Prime Minister mentioned Nigel Farage in a recent political gathering. Nigel Farage stated that he was happy to be living in the Prime Minister´s mind for free without having to pay rent.

Trust? What Trust? We have got a government that is willing to ruin Britain to keep itself in power. So, apparently, there was a budget gap left by the Conservatives. Well, a lot more than that has been spent or promised. More than 10 billion Pound for Mauritius, a very similar amount for Ukraine, 22 billion Pound for Ed Milliband Eco Projects, and now the promiss made by the Secretary for Defense that Britisn expenditure will rise exponentially to pay for defense? Where is the money coming from? From the 22 billion budget gap that Labour said that the Conservatives left behind. Ah, lets not forget billions of Pound promised for transport projects. 

Are you buying British debt bonds? Are you lending money to the British government? Are you afraid? I reckon you should be extremely afraid. One thing is to have to rescue the financial system. Another thing is to have enough money to rescue Britain which, as we know, would be something impossible to do given the size of the British economy.

BBC should be told that May 9th is one of the most important dates on the calendar of the Russian Federation

Dmitri Medvedev has stated that should anything unbecoming happen during the May 9th Celebrations in Moscow and should Ukraine be responsible for any attacks in Moscow on that day, the consequences for Ukraine will be catastrophic.

The former President of the Russian Federation has been very outpoken and very direct and has been asking for a stronger military response in the conflict in Ukraine.

No one should be in any doubt in terms of what such military response would be. While President Vladimir Putin has been very measured in terms of decisions made, Dmitri Medvedev wants to put an end to the conflict with a massive military response of the Russian Federation to wipe out any resistance in Ukraine.

While Western Politicians and Western Media, with their profound ignorance and lack of understanding of Russian Affairs have been constantly targetting President Putin, they are pretty oblivious of the fact that authorities in Kiev are still alive because the Russian Federation allows them to stay alive.

 

USA: Deal for Ukrainian Minerals

Why is a piece of land important? Land is a resource. It could be fertile land for farming. It could be strategic land allowing free passage. It could be many things but there has to be a value attached to it. For Ukraine it means surrendering mining that from now it will be exploited for the benefit of the USA and of American companies.

In 1973, the USA destroyed President Salvador Allende in Chile. Why? President Allende dared to nationalize Chilean copper mines that were American owned. This time, Ukraine has surrendered its mines to American interests willingly.

Now, what does it mean in the context of a military conflict? If some of the resources are in territories that are now a battlefield, the deal is only worth the papers used to sign the deal. The sides in the conflict will have to reach an agreement and if there is a territorial deal and the resources are not on land controlled by Ukraine, the deal is basically worthless. Therefore, we are dealing with non reality. Melodramatic, but not Reality, as real as works of fiction.

So, if more weapons are provided to Ukraine, the war will not stop and it does not give the Russian Federation any reason to stop fighting. Quite the opposite. It will reinforce the determination of the Russian Federation to continue fighting. On top of the human conflict of having to protect ethnic Russians, it adds the economic argument to prevent the enemy from controlling vital resources for industries.

In the present context, the deal is a Death Sentence for Ukraine.

Ukraine: When we have non entities making idiotic statements, it is practically impossible to reach peace

Germany breathed with relief when Ursula von der Leyen became President of the European Union Commission. She would no longer be able to ruin the German Armed Forces as Defense Secretary. Then we have got fifth or seventh rank politicians of Finland and the Baltic Republics - non entities - make warmongering statements and talking about going to war. Look at history. When were Finland or the Baltic Republics big decision makers in European Affairs? Never. They were colonies or about to be colonies of other European countries. Why? They do not have the size or the military might of other European countries. When it comes to European Wars, which countries write the headlines?

The media give a lot of space of statements made by leaders of Eastern European countries that are empty spaces when it comes to decision making. They want to fight wars. With what? Toothpicks? They do not have the numbers, do not have the money, do not have the infrastructure and do not have the mental strength to fight any wars. When it comes to wars on the continent, which countries have been at the top? Germany, France and Russia. The rest do not count. Borders have come and gone because of these three countries.

Since World War Two, Europe became an appendix of the USA. They could decide nothing and they could do nothing without the USA. Not much has changed. One European country has more American bases on its territory that any other country in the entire World and this country is Germany. Why? Because it was the way to ensure that Germany did not become Germany again. NATO was not created to protect Europe. NATO was created to control Germany. Because of present events, Germany has decided to put itself on the way back to being a European Master, but it might come at a cost even when 600 Billion Euros is not much money when it comes to real military might. Poland is the only country that is reportedly standing up to Germany in military terms. But will Poland have the stomach to stand up to Germany? People talking about Blitzkrieg and the rapid fall of Poland. What they do not talk about is that Poland, given that Poland was a militaristic state during World War Two, was not in such state of weakness to justify the speed with which Poland collapsed.

When it comes to France, France was better equipped, had better quality military equipment, had greater numbers, but even so it fell in a matter of weeks. What did Germany have? Superior soldiers that although fewer in numbers had what it takes to conquer. People talk about the brilliancy of the panzers in a mechanised war. Reality was much different. Much of the German Armies during World War Two still moved around with horses and this includes the French Campaign in 1940. France and Poland were defeated by the German Spirit. It was a fact since Roman Times, a smaller number of troops, better organised, could defeated greater armies. A country is the people. People occupy a territory, but the country is the people who live in it. I do not support Jus Soli. I support Jus Sanguini. A Fox is a Fox and a Rabbit is a Rabbit. A Rabbit does not become a Fox simply because it is born in a different country.

 

Unconditional Surrender: Lessons from World War Two

 

The words Unconditional Surrender bring echoes of World War Two to the present conflict in Ukraine. After the Battle of Kursk, the greatest tank battle in Human History, Germany knew that it would be all the way to Berlin.

It dawning on EU Leaders and UK Leaders that as a long as the battle goes on there will be no ceasefire and this is why they now understand that unless a permanent solution is found before forces of the Russian Federation reach Kiev there will be nothing left to negotiate. EU or UK could hardly stand as "peacekeepers" when they have been supporting one of the sides in the conflict against the Russian Federation.

Macron and Starmer should be under no illusion. This is why after making extraordinary statements they will be on their way to Washington. They very well know that France, Britain and others are fully unprepared at a time when they are facing extraordinary national challenges. Britain has no Independent Nuclear Deterrent. Without US support, Trident is finished. Without American aircraft, the Royal Navy has no jets for its newest aircraft carriers. No one has nearly enough the number of enlisted men and women to face any serious challenge. They can kick and scream against the USA, but they know that without the USA, EU and UK are finished. So back to the USA, to mend relations with the USA. Lord Mandelson was criticized for saying that UK should implement President Trump´s Plan for Peace. Now, France, UK and Ukraine go to kneel down in Washington and to accept terms of engagement.

Macron seizes opportunity to divert attention from France´s serious internal issues

 

It does not go amiss that having made several decisions that led to absolute political chaos in France and to the inability of passing a budget without the threat of having Prime Ministers forced to resign, President Macron is now using the present issues about Ukraine as an opportunity to unite France behind him. For this General Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri, Ukraine is his Islas Malvinas Moment. 

When things go bad at home, nothing better than making people look elsewhere and look for justifications to ask for monies when the European Union has been alerting France that France has surpassed the allowed National Deficit. So, we France have an independent Nuclear Deterrent and we want to use it to protect you. Very interesting since Britain´s nuclear deterrent is neither British nor Independent. France and Germany have decided to start rearming themselves at quick pace and so France is planning to do exactly the same.

The major problem is that that rules about the EURO will have to change and major deficits will have to be allowed at a time when economic uncertainties are undermining national economies. So as Paul Samuelson put it - Butter or Cannons - Macron has decided to go for Cannons. Elegant justification to forget about Health, Education and other major areas of public administration. France can still rely on Britain to unload tens of thousands of illegal migrants. But, for how long? Countries like Italy and France itself have decided to get rid of Ukrainian refugees. Hardlines on migration, across the Europen Continent, are rising and rearming Europe has other disadvantages. You can never trust that today´s allies will be real allies and flash political changes can certainly lead to confrontation within the EU itself.

As always, Europeans create wars and US lives are spent to rescue them

 

Europeans created wars and US had to intervene to rescue them. World War One? World War Two? 

How many of those protesting on the streets will be willing to join the Armed Forces to go and die?

So, now the new American government is telling them that the US is not willing to engage in WWIII.

Suddendly, quite a few warmongers will fall quiet. How was the Good Friday Agreement negotiated? How was the Camp David Agreement between Egypt and Israel negotiated? You need to talk to the sides involved in the conflict. Politicians and media want you to believe a lie and accuse US of selling out when it fact all US is trying to is to bring the sides to the negotiating table.

I have got many reasons to criticize the US, but the intention to bring the parties together to end the war is not one of them. Dealing with reality is the best thing that anyone can do. The longer the conflict goes on the greater the chances of having a catastrophe in Europe.

Geopolitics or Magnified National Politics: The effects are already strongly felt

This is more than Ukraine. This is an earthquake and the waves are spreading. In the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer had to turn around and deal with foreign aid, in the very same way President Trump decided to deal with foreign aid. This is a new world, Keir Starmer said.

Well, Keir Starmer should stop criticizing President Trump and listen and act accordingly. If you want to invest in defense, you must deal with budgets and waste. The Health Secretary is himself dealing with waste and cutting down redundant expenses in the National Health Service and pretty soon every cabinet minister will be asked to do exactly the same. Budgets will be cut in other areas to ensure that there are enough resources to invest in defense.

In France, in Germany and in every country associated with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will be doing the same and political parties will struggle to deal with financial stress with dramatic political consequences. Butter or Cannons, stated Paul Samuelson. That has not changed. 

Like or not, Environmentalists will be put aside. Those seeking improvements in Health, Education, Transport and other vital areas will be put aside. The emphasis is now on Defense. What are the resources for war? Those are the resources that are going to become crucially important. Societal changes will occur to reverse what has been happening for decades. Woke will be dead and replaced with traditional realism. It will be a no nonsense approach.

This might have something to do with American reluctance to follow warmongering politicians

 

The Ursula von der Leyen, the David Lammys, or the Grüne Leader Annalena Baerbocks of the world, might want a Europe-wide war, once again, but understandably President Donald Trump and those who support him do not want yet another European War because they know what the USA lost in terms of human lives left on the battlefield.

So the US does not want the maniacs to run the asylum. The idiots do not understand either that in order to put an end to a conflict you need to talk to those seen as your adversaries, the parties in the conflict. All the warmongering European politicians have done is to make matters a lot worse. After hundreds of thousands went to the slaughter, they want that more people go the slaughter. Do not talk, they say. Keep the war going, they say. 

I have no way of knowing how the German electorate will vote on Sunday. I do hope that they vote for those who want to maintain rationality, for those who are against keeping to war going for, if the war keeps going, sooner than later we will have a European-wide War in Europe.

Keir Starmer´s idea about sending peacekeepers to Ukraine has not gone down well

 

Keir Starmer´s idea about sending troops to Ukraine as peacekeepers did not go down well, and Chancellor Olaf Scholz made an early exit from the gathering in France, saying that it was extremely premature to talk about sending troops anywhere before any peace settlement had been agreed.

But this was not all, for obvious reasons, Germany does not want to send troops anywhere in Europe when there is even the slightest possibility of a conflict of major proportions. Given the perception that the Russian Federation might send a big number of troops via Belarus, that could threaten Polish borders and seize Kiev in no time, Poland does not think either that this could be a good idea. Spain under General Franco did not get involved in World War Two. There is no appetite whatsoever for any involvement. 

For the moment and in the foreseeable future, there will be no EU participation in any negotiation. USA and the Russian Federation are the only two players involved and statements made by Volodomir Zelensky that no peace agreement would be possible without Ukraine´s participation and calls for the formation of an EU Army have little weight. In the end, if Ukraine were to reject a settlement agreed by the USA and the Russian Federation, USA could unilaterally decide to cease military and financial support. At this point in time, many EU countries that happen to be members of NATO might be thinking about the possibility of a reduction of American military presence in Europe.  

US: NATO countries that send troops to Ukraine will not be protected by Article 5

For decades, the USA has been used and abused bz countries that have consistently cut down defense expenditure, expecting American soldiers to protect them, instead of building up their own defense capabilities. The US Secretary of Defense made it clear that countries will no longer be expected to invest 2 per cent but 5 per cent of their national budgets, to beef up their own military industries and Armed Forces.

With regards to Ukraine, he told NATO members and politicians that the way forward is peace with realism. Ukraine´s previous borders will not be restored and territorial concessions will have to be made. Ukraine will not be a NATO Member and any force, including European Forces and Non European Forces will not be protected by Article 5 if they enter Ukraine.

USA must give prioritz to the defense of its own borders and other threats in the Asia Pacific Region.

Link to talk about the issues Sunday, 16 February, 2025 from 2000 to 2200 GMT

Subjects to be treated on Sunday 16 February 2025 on Meetup via Zoom. Link bellow.

US NATO Forum

 

EU heats up: Olaf Scholz urgent travel to the Russian Federation

The announcement by Ukraine that it would halt vital supplies to the European Union prompted German Chancellor Olaf Scholz urgent trip to the Russian Federation.

Energy has been the key for the survival of the European Union and most importantly for the most important country of the European Union, the Federal Republic of Germany. Without energy, German manufacturing strength and support of its political system are in doubt. 

Germany faces a Federal Election in a few weeks time and the financial and industrial outcome is not brilliant. In the words of Alexander Gauland, co-founder of Alternative für Deutschland - the worse the situation becomes, the better for Alternative für Deutschland - and things are getting pretty bad. Ukraine is threatening the survival of the European Union. To make matters worse, an attack perpetrated today in Germany caused the death of several people and more than a 100 people were injured. It  does not play well in German politics when migration is one of the hottest topics.

As President Bill Clinton stated, 'it is the economy, stupid'. The German economy, its political stability, migration and geopolitical games are part of the same package.

The assertion that Alternative für Deutschland is the only political party that can save Germany did not go well with the usual culprits of the so called mainstream political parties that are used to win elections lying about those who challenge a disastrous status quo.

Angela Merkel started the debacle when she panicked and decided to get rid of nuclear power making Germany practically entirely dependent on foreign energy imports. The now former coalition headed by Olaf Scholz did the rest by associating itself with a warmongering movement that compromised vital energy supplies. No nuclear power, no oil, no gas. What could go wrong?

Olaf Scholz knows full well that energy shortages will be politically disastrous for so called mainstream political parties that do not protect fundamental German interests. Olaf Scholz knows in what could be the last days of his political career as German Chancellor that there are even greater risks that could lead to the disintegration of the European Union. There are conflicting interests within the European Union and this could well push countries to secede to follow their own paths. The promised Paradise looks increasingle like Hell on Earth.

Oil and Gas: they never learn

When in the 1970s, Britain was going under, North Sea Oil and Gas saved the day. When the war in Ukraine started the conflict led to a shortage of oil and gas that led many European countries and Britain to harsh economic realities.

Now, Britain has a Labour government that is bent on taxing oil and gas companies to the hilt. Companies pay almost 80% as taxes. There comes a point when exploration and production costs are no longer sustainable and the natural consequence is that the oil and gas business can become no longer viable. We already have the experience of what happened to British shipyards that could not remain competitive. They went under. They could not survive.

Now, we have a vociferous government that is bent in getting Britain into several wars, wars that could make oil and gas unattainable, unreachable. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and others happen to be in a region that could be engulfed by war and if that happens access to oil and gas produced in such region will no longer be a possibility. What will happen then? What happened before when we had no access to oil and gas?

The British Prime Minister that does not know what a woman is believes that carbon capture is energy production. The level of stupidity has risen exponentially. He talks about alternatives. Well, private business might not be interested in such alternatives when they don't make sense for business. In fact, in recent times that been public tenders and the private sector showed no interest in bidding.

It could be the case that everything will have to be financed mostly with public monies coming from taxation and not with private investment. But in the meantime, while the British governent struggles to transform dreams into reality we might find ourselves facing blackouts and mass unemployment should there be a military conflict that prevents from having access to present energy sources. 

Hermann Göring: No German cities will ever be bombed = NATO: we can attack the Russian Federation, but the Russian Federation will never attack us.

 

The concept of invincibility is still very much amongst us and we see it in the speeches and statements made by politicians and mass media personalities. We see in news reports and commentary about the conflict in Ukraine.

All the talk about using long range missiles is based on the concept of invincibility and of 'it cannot happen to us'.

Reality is exactly the opposite. A war by proxy can really and truly become a direct military involvement that could see Berlin, London, Paris, Warsaw and many other cities turned into ash and debris with no living soul in them.

We are not in the 1930s and 1940s. We are in 2024. The distances have become a lot shorter. What could be done in months and weeks can now be done in minutes.

It takes 15 minutes for a 100 megaton nuclear device to reach London and there will be scarcely the time to evacuate a city of more than 8 million people during the night and of more than 9 million people during the day. Not that policians, military men, mass media and civilians could take any notice of what could land on top of them all. They have got the same of awareness the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had in 1945. They believe - once again - in the concept of invincibility.  

One only has to read what those posting messages on social media say to know how convinced they are, believing that they can attack somebody else without a care in the world.

Understanbly, people have no personal memories of World War One or World War Two. The scenes of devastation is something that they can see in pictures, but they never had any personal experience of it. I guess those have an idea of what could happen to Europe are now being massacred by Israel and seeing their cities and towns turned into rubble with no living soul in them. It takes time for those who have not been exposed to total destruction to understand they themselves could suffer a similar fate.

Alternative for Germany - Is there an Alternative for Germany?

 

Is there an Alternative for Germany?

When the ruling SPD barely gets about 5% and his partners in the ruling coalition - Greens and FDP - get even less in state elections in Germany, something surely must change. Next stop? Brandenburg. If a disaster of the scale of what happened in Thuringen and Saxony also happens in Brandenburg then the ruling coalition must surely question its own future.

SPD and CDU quickly reacted proposing a ban on migration from two countries after lamentable events, but this did not seem to be enough to persuade voters to support the ruling coalition. In Thuringen, AfD got more votes than CDU and in Saxony the difference in favour of CDU was minimal compared to the level of support for AfD.

With Federal Elections around the corner, surely this is something to very much worry about. Geopolitical issues are dividing Germany, but internal issues seem to be equally divisive.

Immigration is being rejected by both sides of the political spectrum. A rising movement of the left is also anti-immigration.

The question is: have voters from both left and right of the political spectrum had enough of open borders? Let's remember that the official stance has been to punish Hungary for its reluctance to accept open borders. This beggars the question: are so called mainstream political parties out of tune? 

If they try to swim against the tide they will continue loosing support. SPD has even tried to ban Alternative für Deutchland. What will the argument in favour of banning Alternative für Deutschland? They got more than 30% of support and we got less than 6% and therefore we need to ban them because they are winning against us?

The Greens are the loudest party in favour of war in Europe. Do the Greens understand that their policies and stances are not supported by a vast number of German voters who have had enough of warmongers?

 

Rishi Sunak vs Keir Starmer?

Recent years in Britain has been the scene of a political catastrophe, from David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to the soon to be Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Is this a fait accompli or could there be other developments in the making?

Looking at the teams - and this is about teams - what are the major differences between the two teams?

This is a specially tricky time both in national affairs and in international affairs. There are major concerns in terms of international events that could send countries over the edge. We need to look in both directions - across the Atlantic to see what is happening in the USA and across the Channel to see what is happening in France. If the unthinkable happens, whoever is Prime Minister in Britain might be dealing with Donald Trump in the USA and with Marine Le Pen in France.

Could we end up with a hung Parliament? Could the unthinkable happen leading to a Conservative win, whatever tight it might be?

If anything, apart from mass media reactions and the fact that not less than 73 Conservative MPs announced that they will not be standing for re-election, there is widespread apathy. Could the Labout Party be divided along national borders, ethnic differences and ideological differences to the point that an easy victory can turn out to be not just a tight victory but also a tight defeat?

Who can we believe? Can we believe mass media? Both major parties are losing membership support and voters are crossing new boundaries. Both Greens and Reform did pretty well all things considered and this in local elections - particularly in London. Could disaffected voters look for other alternatives?

 

61 billion US Dollars will help destroy whatever is left of Ukraine

When we look at the pictures of Gaza, we can imagine the damage that 61 billion US Dollars will do to Ukraine, transforming Ukraine into a bombing site.

Those who believe that adding more weapons to the conflict in Ukraine they will help Ukraine they are fooling themselves. All they will do is to accelerate the process of complete destruction of Ukraine. Not a building, not a tree, will be left standing. There will only be rubble on top of rubble and it will be difficult to walk around without stepping onto unexploded munition. Polluted and dangerous land for many years to come. This will be the direct consequence of adding more weaponry.

Even if peace were to come as the consequence of peace negotiations, it will take decades to restore whatever has been destroyed and the memories of the conflict will stay in peoples' minds for generations. The monies spent today should have been spent decades ago to maintain a viable economy, but politicians that are very good at making meaningless declarations never intended to deliver what they were promising. Long before the conflict of today, Ukraine was the victim of endemic corruption and geopolitical games that created the conflict.

You can imagine that, as it happened in Iraq, vast amounts of money will ensure that there is even greater corruption and very little accountability and that very much of the said monies will end up in foreign bank accounts owned by the same oligarchs that created the situation that led to internal strife. A vast chunk of the weapons will end up in the black market and will be possibly used in conflicts worldwide.

War Readiness: Where is the money? Where is the infra-structure?

The debate in the House of Commons about Britain's readiness to go to war with few of the theoretical 650 MPs in attendance was quite elighhtening about the real state of the British Armed Forces. Britain is spending 2.1% of its budget in Defense and given the present situation in terms of being really and trully ready for any massive conflict, the amount to be spent would be not less than 15% and this includes cutting down the budget for health, education and other areas of the British budget. To put it mildly, it would be really and truly impossible.

So all the statements made by the British Prime Minister and other Members of the Cabinet are a lot of hot air, a pretense that is not based on real possibilities.

George Galloway and the SNP told things as they are. The total number of members of the Armed Forces could be put in Wembley Stadium. Britain has no real war industries. The Armed Forces are not only facing a recruitment crisis generated in part by British foreign policy, but also by the way Britain treats those who dare to become members of the Armed Forces.

Unfortunately, such a debate did not make headlines for the BBC, Sky News or any other mass media that keep broadcasting incessantly the pretense statements made by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defense and others. Nobody is asking questions that should be asked in the country as whole. At times, it feels like very few people care about it.