Why I Support Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

I have nothing against the Ukrainian people.  I have been to Ukraine and Russia.  Antonovs and Ilyushins were critical to my work from 2002 – 2019.  I worked extensively with both nationalities.  Many of the Ukrainians I met considered themselves ethnically Russian.  Many did not.  I liked them very much.  Regardless, this is not about the Ukrainian people.  This is about the Ukrainian government.  I fully support the invasion of Ukraine by Vladamir Putin.  Here is my reasoning.

Ukraine has been used by Western globalists as a base of operations for decadence, depravity, and cultural assault for the better part of two decades, but especially since 2014.  In essence, Kiev has been the launch point for anti-White and anti-Christian propaganda leveled not only at Russians, but also Eastern European neighbors, such as Belarus, Hungary, and Poland.  The latter two have had to fight off these calculated attacks on their culture and faith emanating from Kiev through democratic processes and sheer willpower.  The former has done so through a tightened grip on internal affairs by President Alexander Lukashenko. 

Whereas Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Poland’s Andrzej Duda have no love for the Russians – and therefore, will certainly not support an invasion of Ukraine – they also likely know that Kiev is the center-point of anti-Hungarian and anti-Polish leftist activity facilitated by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which seek to undermine their governments.  Specifically, two organizations have aggressively sought the destruction of traditional Western civilization: the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the Open Society Foundations (OSF).  In fact, Orban and Duda have openly railed against the activity that has largely come out of Ukraine.  Duda called it an “ideological hurricane” in 2020, while in 2021, Orban called George Soros, founder of the OSF, the “most corrupt man in the world.”  But neither could do anything about Ukraine, thanks to their European Union affiliations.  Yet, despite the aggressive leftist assaults on Eastern European traditional values, Russia has been the main target of leftwing globalist attacks.  The Russians rightfully have had enough. 

Before I go further, it is important to understand how it got to this point and why.

Since the Ukrainian Maidan Revolution (February 2014), powerful, leftist interests with roots in the United States established a stranglehold on Ukraine, installing a puppet government that has done the globalist American bidding for the past eight years.  In effect, Kiev became an American intelligence community and globalist rats’ nest that has sought to fundamentally change Europe forever.  How did we get here?  Like all conflicts, the complexities that occur prior to the launch of aggressive acts do not occur in a vacuum. 

After the fall of the Soviet Union, interest in the various Soviet states depended largely on their geographic location and populations.  Countries like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, located in Central Asia, were generally ignored.  The only real focus of Central Asian interest in states like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan were natural resources (Uzbek copper, Kazakh natural gas, etc.).  Russia, in its weakened state, was incapable of doing much from the globalist invasion of predatory actors coming from the West.  One such state, Ukraine, was more important than the others.

Ukraine’s geographical position on the edge of Europe and on the Black Sea made it more important than Turkmenistan or Azerbaijan.  First, it provides a strategic doorway to Russia – a point that the Germans exploited in the 1940s.  Second, it was home to the very few quasi-warm, deep-water ports for the Soviets, providing both military and commercial capacity.  Of course, like Romania’s Constanta and Georgia’s Poti, the Soviets were at the mercy of NATO member, Turkey, and its command of the Bosporus Strait.  With the Soviets out of the way, Ukrainian ports, like Odessa and Sevastopol, became more appealing for Western military interests.  In effect, no one knew how long Russia would be on its heels, and Western interests raced into Ukraine to take advantage of Russian weakness with their carving knives sharpened. 

Finally, Ukraine’s geographic proximity to other European states made her the perfect place for the placement of lucrative pipelines.  The only snag in that plan was that such pipelines would have to cross through the war torn, former Yugoslavia to achieve their commercial goals.  Consequently, Serbia became the target of immoral Western designs.  They manufactured a humanitarian crisis over a parcel of Serbian territory entitled, Kosovo.  Again, with the Russians weakened and Serbia’s regional historic allies (e.g. Romania) dependent on post-Cold War assistance, the Serbs were unfairly humiliated, and the West got its pipeline territory.  The conditions were ripe for Ukrainian exploitation.

Systematically, Western governments began to place various NGOs into Ukraine to ensure she was turned into a vassal state of the West.  According to the OSF website, George Soros has been in Kiev operating on behalf of “democracy” since 1991.  The International Republican Institute arrived at about the same time.  The Democratic Party’s sister institution to the IRI, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), arrived shortly thereafter.  Senator John McCain was the chairman of the IRI at the time, while Madeleine Albright chaired the NDI.

Note, these organizations – the IRI, NDI and the OSF – share almost identical ideals. On their webpages you can see their support for LGBTQ+ causes, as well as support for transgender affirmation and transition therapies for children.  All are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-open borders, pro-Muslim migration, and pro-Western cultural decadence.  Regardless, these organizations, and several like them, created a web in Kiev and unofficially made Ukraine their capital of operations against traditional Eastern European states – whether they were Soviet or not.  The European Democracy Youth Network (EDYN) established in 2018, is based in Slovakia, but it is aggressively active out of Ukraine, targeting Russian children with Western propaganda.  The EDYN claims that their goal is to fight “authoritarian revisionism,” but in reality, they seem to target conservative elected officials – like Orban, Duda, and Putin – for political elimination.  Among their many projects includes assistance to pre-pubescent children on safe, homosexual sex. 

All of this leads back to the 1990s.  Despite his weakness, Yeltsin’s advisors seemed to have realized what the West was doing.  At the time, the West was not nearly as openly hostile toward its own civilization (read as “White-Christians”).  Still, Russia maintained some semblance of a presence in Ukraine, largely because of its rather large ethnic presence in the Eastern portions of Ukraine.  When Vladamir Putin ascended to the presidency in late-1999 (officially 2000), he entered at a unique time in American history.  The Clinton presidency was coming to a close. 

Preoccupied with themselves, Putin astutely recognized the American strategy in Eastern Europe and Russia.  After all, Putin, a former KGB counter-intelligence officer who was once responsible for monitoring Western actors and organizations, recognized the Soviet playbook in reverse.  By introducing cultural decadence – such as homosexuality, transgenderism, free love, etc – you can disrupt and destroy the fabric of a nation.  The 1960s Counterculture Revolution was Marxist by design and effectively weakened the U.S. for almost two decades until Reagan’s team recognized it for what it was and reversed course in the 1980s.

In addition to understanding America’s corrosive cultural influences, Putin also saw the military and strategic pieces that the United States was putting into place to harm Russian interests.  Within a few short years, Putin, who recognized that his oil output and defense articles were the two most important economic and diplomatic weapons he held, used that leverage to re-enter Ukrainian affairs.  Throughout the early-2000s, Ukraine became ground-zero for competing Western and Russian influence in the former Soviet state.

While the Americans were largely preoccupied with Afghanistan and Iraq, pro-Russian governmental officials began winning elections.  The CIA orchestrated the “Orange Revolution” in late-2004, to reassert its authority over Ukraine just as the Russians were gaining strength.  A pro-American puppet president, Viktor Yushchenko, supposedly won “free and fair” elections, over Viktor Yanukovych, after a brief revolt within Ukraine, triggered by opposing political parties.   Yushchenko, a former banker, was seen as a political moderate by the people, but appears to have played a hand in the Russian Banking Crisis of 1998 – a George Soros special that nearly starved Russia at that time, but ultimately led to the ascension of Vladimir Putin.  In effect, Putin became the answer to Soros’ meddling in Russian affairs.

That which happened after the Orange Revolution is somewhat complicated, but eventually, pro-Russian President, Viktor Yanukovych, was reelected in 2010.  After Yanukovych declined an opportunity to enter into a trade agreement with the EU in late-2013 (which would have likely led to European Union admission at some point), another American-led revolution occurred, albeit a more violent one: the aforementioned Maidan Revolution of 2014.

Yanukovych, for his part, seems to have believed that opening the door to the EU would lead to the EU pitting Ukraine against Russia.  Putin seems to have agreed.  Given that nearly 20% of Ukraine is comprised of ethnic Russians, and those Russians hold majorities of the country within eastern Ukraine, this would not be good.  However, it should also be noted that the West was beginning to peddle aggressive anti-White, anti-Christian values.  Western Europe and the United States began taking millions of Islamic refugees into their respective countries, causing general chaos and destroying the fabric of their national identities.  Germany, which has always played a nuanced role between Ukraine and Russia, was especially hard hit by liberal concepts of open borders – peddled by organizations operating within Kiev, like Soros’ OSF.

The Maidan Revolution led to the ouster of Yanukovych.  More importantly, however, it emboldened the Obama administration to amp up its game in Ukraine.  The new American puppet government was directed to target Russian communities forcefully in order to mitigate the potential of yet another democratically elected, pro-Russian government.  This targeting of ethnic Russians was the very reason Putin entered Ukraine the first time in 2015.  He was largely protecting Russian interests in his strategic backdoor, as well as his people. 

While acting shocked by such provocative behavior, the Americans were too busy trying to nail down their Ukrainian hooks through bribery.  The American government flooded Ukraine with millions of dollars in aid, that were then funneled to the children of American political actors, such as Mitt Romney.  The Ukrainian government increased its donations to the Clinton Global Initiative, giving more money than any other world government.  The presumption was that Hillary Clinton would be the president of the United States by 2017 and this was largely designed to curry favor.  This is also why Hunter Biden was given what amounted to a “no-show” job at about the same time.  In effect, Kiev invested heavily in a Democrat victory, while hedging its bets with establishment Republicans like John McCain and Mitt Romney.  It used American monetary aid to bribe American politicians.  They never bet on a guy named Trump.

As Ukraine went through a series of governmental restructuring, the Americans ultimately settled on their chosen candidate, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  Zelenskyy was a popular television actor of Jewish-Ukrainian extraction.  In essence, Zelenskyy, a political neophyte, was easily controlled, with few morals (evidenced by his past performances), and strong ties to both American and Israeli celebrities.  George Soros has repeatedly called Zelenskyy, “his boy,” and has praised Zelenskyy’s cooperation with Soros’ OSF on numerous occasions.

It is no wonder that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy was at the center of an attempt to impeach Donald Trump in 2019, shortly after he became president.  The cabal was partially led by fellow Jewish-Ukrainian, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.  For his part, Zelenskyy claimed ignorance of the event and publicly praised Trump.  That stated, it was clear that much of the leaked transcripts of the call that were weaponized by individuals like Utah Senator Mitt Romney (who had financial ties to Ukraine at the time of the impeachment), originated out of Kiev.

Fast forward to 2020, while the world was entering into the Covid-19 hysteria and the American presidential election was getting underway.  Belarus was experiencing an American-orchestrated color revolution of its own – the Slipper Revolution – which sought to oust pro-Russian ally, Alexander Lukashenko.  Alexi Navalny, Putin’s political rival in 2018, was also receiving worldwide attention for allegations of poisoning when Navalny protested against proposed Russian constitutional reforms.  Of course, Navalny studied at Yale University on a Soros sponsored scholarship. 

More and more, as Trump was being knocked out of the way, either by means of a questionable election (I personally believe was stolen) or by means of a second impeachment, globalist actors began to increase their pressure against Putin, as well as other rightwing political leaders in Eastern Europe, like Orban and Duda.  Mass protests against populist-conservative party, Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria, emerged throughout 2020, and their Parliamentary majority ended in December 2021 after an election held earlier in July.  Regionally, a pattern of behavior for “regime change” against unacceptable, anti-globalist, anti-LGBTQ, anti-Western governments emerged: Ukrainian-based, American NGOs.

In effect, Kiev has become a rats’ nest of regime change on behalf of leftwing globalists.  Zelenskyy is hardly a leader.  He plays one on television, but the actual leadership appears to be a combination of George Soros and Langley.  The continued interference in Russian affairs on behalf of globalization and immorality has led to an understandable Russian response.  At present, it appears they seek to solidify their position among ethnic Russians and protect them from the same kind of harm that occurred after 2014’s undemocratic overthrow of an elected Ukrainian president who happened to be pro-Russian. Furthermore, it appears that Zelenskyy and Ukraine knew that Russia would eventually seek to clean out the rats’ nest, and as such, desperately pleaded for NATO admission.  Such an ascension to a clearly anti-Russian military alliance at the door of Russia was a provocation of immeasurable proportions.  The United States could have provided assurances that Ukraine would remain a neutral state.  Instead, it played coy little games with Moscow while seeking to defend their intelligence backwater.  Putin, for his part, was in no mood to play games with the safety of his country or Russian national integrity.  Whereas I feel horrible for the Ukrainian people, I feel no sympathy for the leftwing patsies in Kiev. 

Russia was right to invade Ukraine.