Why the Globalists Engineered the Ukraine War

Everyone knows the conflict in Ukraine did not arise organically, yet no one offers an actual explanation. So I will.

The study of history, it seems, is little more than a chronicle of wars and their aftermaths. The grand achievements of human intellect and enlightenment are mere footnotes, while wars are the episodes that etch themselves into our collective memory. Why? Because war is the ultimate tool of distraction and control in the hands of the power-hungry elite.

The majority of wars are not spontaneous eruptions of nationalistic fervor, but meticulously orchestrated spectacles. The puppet masters are the financial elites, who manipulate governments like chess pieces to achieve their desired outcomes.

Take, for instance, the rise of National Socialism in Germany. This wasn't a grassroots movement, but a corporate-funded venture. U.S.-based entities like Standard Oil, JPMorgan, and even IBM played significant roles. The latter even provided the collating machines used to organize the Nazi extermination camps, a chilling example of corporate complicity.

Adolf Hitler, once a laughing stock in German society, rose to power on a tide of corporate investment. The Keppler Fund, created through the Keppler Circle, was a prime example of this sinister support, with contacts largely based in the U.S.

And let's not forget Prescott Bush, the grandfather of George W. Bush. As director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation, he laundered money for the Third Reich throughout the war. Despite being charged for trading with the enemy, the case against him mysteriously vanished. The Bush family, far from being held accountable, ascended to become one of America's most influential political dynasties.

So, is the Ukraine crisis just another powder keg engineered by the globalists? The pattern of history certainly suggests so. The elite's playbook is old, but effective: fund both sides, stir up conflict, and profit from the chaos. It's a cynical game, but one that's been played time and time again. And unless we wake up to this reality, we'll continue to be pawns in their deadly game.

The ascent of communism in Russia through the Bolshevik Revolution was not a spontaneous uprising, but a meticulously orchestrated event. As Professor Antony Sutton meticulously documents in his book “Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution,” it was the globalist financiers who created the ideal conditions for the communist takeover. These same financiers, it's worth noting, also aided the Nazis.

National Socialism and communism, the two ideologies that defined the 20th century, were two sides of the same coin. They were both despotic governmental structures, conjured by the same group of elites. These two fraudulent ideologies were then pitted against each other in an engineered conflict that we now call World War II. The result? An estimated 140 million casualties globally and the ultimate formation of the United Nations, a precursor to world government.

Every major international crisis for the past century or more has ended with an even greater consolidation of world power into the hands of the few. This is no coincidence.

When I bring up the concept of the false left/right paradigm, I often see a spark of understanding. Some people see past the superficial rhetoric of Republican and Democratic party leadership. They notice the numerous similarities, including foreign policy, domestic defense policy, and economic policy.

The voting records of the major players in both parties are almost interchangeable. It's hard to find much difference in ideology between Bush and Barack Obama, for example; or Obama and John McCain; or Obama and Joe Biden.

However, when I suggest that similar false paradigms are used between two apparently opposed nations, the understanding fades. Despite the fact that globalist financiers funneled capital into the U.S., British, German, and Soviet military complexes all at the same time during World War II, many Americans do not want to believe that such a thing could be happening today.

In response, I present the crisis in Ukraine versus the crisis in Syria:

Ukraine vs. Syria

The public's memory is short-lived, it seems. In late 2013, the U.S. teetered on the brink of economic catastrophe and the precipice of World War III. The war drums in Washington were beating loudly for “intervention” in Syria and the overthrow of Bashar Assad. It was the relentless efforts of the independent media, exposing the darker motives behind the Syrian insurgency and the bloodlust of the Obama Administration, that saved us from the brink.

However, when the elites lose one avenue towards war and distraction, they simply create another. This is what I refer to as the “scattergun effect.” The public, overwhelmed by multiple trigger points and political powder kegs, loses track of reality.

The crisis in Ukraine is eerily similar to the civil war in Syria, leading me to believe that the intent is the same. The same puppet masters are pulling the strings, fomenting unrest, and creating a narrative that justifies intervention. The same globalist powers are exploiting the chaos for their own gain, using the crisis as a pretext for increased military spending and expansion of power.

Money

Money from globalist centers has been infiltrating the Ukrainian opposition since at least 2004. The Carnegie Foundation was caught funneling funds to anti-Russian political candidate Viktor Yushchenko and the groups who supported him.

The Ukrainian Supreme Court called for a runoff due to massive voter fraud, leading to the rise of the pro-Western Orange Revolution. The winner was Yushchenko over none other than Viktor Yanukovych. However, Yanukovych went on to win the 2010 elections, only to be ousted by the revolution that year. This is not a sign of a healthy democracy, but a game of political puppetry.

It has been discovered that the following revolutions have also been receiving funds from NATO and U.S. interests. The State Department and billionaires like Pierre Omidyar, and the chairman of eBay are among those funding these revolutions. These were not organic uprisings, but manufactured ones.

Much of the monetary support from such financiers was being funneled to men like Oleh Rybachuk, the right-hand man to Yanukovych during the Orange Revolution and a favorite of neoconservatives and the State Department in the U.S.

The International Monetary Fund has also jumped at the chance to throw money at the new Ukrainian regime, a calculated move to prevent default and allow the opposition movement to focus their attentions on Russia.

The revolution in Syria was also primarily driven by Western funds and arms transferred through training grounds like Benghazi, Libya. The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was possibly designed to cover up the arming of Syrian rebels by the CIA. This is not a conspiracy theory, but a well-documented fact.

After this conspiracy was exposed in the mainstream, globalist-controlled governments decided to openly supply money and weapons to the Syrian insurgency, instead of ending the subterfuge. This is a blatant disregard for international law and human life.

The Rebels

The elites, with their deep pockets and insidious influence, orchestrate uprisings to serve their own twisted agendas. Genuine movements for change are swiftly hijacked, their noble intentions corrupted and perverted. And when a rebellion is born from the very hands of these puppet masters, it is invariably steeped in the most vile and extreme forms of zealotry.

The Syrian insurgency stands as a glaring example of this hypocrisy. Its ranks are filled with the very men who pledge allegiance to al-Qaida, the supposed arch-nemesis of the Western world. Yet, governments in the United States and Israel, in a stunning display of double standards, continued to lend their support to these insurgents.

The atrocities committed by these so-called “rebels” are nothing short of barbaric - mass executions, torture of innocent civilians, and even the grotesque act of cannibalizing human organs. And yet, the powers that be turn a blind eye, content to let the bloodshed continue as long as it serves their interests.

In Ukraine, the initial revolution was spearheaded by the Svoboda Party, a gang of fascists masquerading as freedom fighters. Led by Oleh Tyahnybok, a man who proudly salutes in the manner of Hitler's Nazi regime, this organization embodies the very antithesis of democracy and justice.

While they may have avoided the same level of wanton violence that tarnished the Syrian insurgents' image for a while, it was only a matter of time before their true colors were revealed. The independent media, ever vigilant, exposed their atrocities, just as they did with the Syrian al-Qaida. And when that happened, Russia had all the justification it needs to flex its military might.

Russia’s Role

A few years ago, Russia found itself at the center of a brewing storm. The Syrian conflict, far from being a simple matter of toppling Assad, carried with it the terrifying potential of igniting a larger conflagration, dragging in the powerful players of Iran and Russia.

Russia, with its sole naval facility in the Mideast perched on the coast of Tartus, and its deep-rooted economic and political ties to both Syria and Iran, would have been compelled to respond to any Western intervention. The mainstream narrative would have us believe that it was the specter of Russian retaliation that stayed Obama's hand, but the truth is far more insidious.

The globalists, the true puppeteers behind the scenes, were thwarted not by fear of Putin, but by the lack of public support for their warmongering agenda. For any war to be waged, a certain threshold of popular backing must be met, and in this case, the people refused to be manipulated.

But the globalists are nothing if not persistent. With Syria failing to provide the desired catalyst for conflict, they turned their attention to Ukraine, once again stoking the flames of tension between East and West.

Crimea, an autonomous state linked to the Ukrainian mainland, is home to Russia's most crucial naval base. In response to the Western-backed regime change in Ukraine, Russia flooded Crimea with troops, a move that the new Ukrainian government, propped up by NATO, has decried as an “invasion” and an act of war. The usual cast of warmongering characters, such as McCain and Lindsay Graham, have dutifully parroted the propaganda line, painting Russia's actions as a result of Putin's perception of the Obama Administration as “weak.”

The true aim of this manufactured crisis is painfully clear: to engineer a state of heightened tensions, if not outright war, between Russia and the United States. The failure of the Syrian gambit has not deterred the globalists; they have simply shifted their focus to Ukraine.

Energy Markets

In the Syrian theater, any military action spearheaded by the U.S. would have inevitably prompted Iran to slam shut the Strait of Hormuz, imperiling up to 30% of the world's petroleum transportation. This audacious move could have easily fomented global resentment, leading to the abandonment of the U.S. dollar as the petro-currency standard.

Both China and Russia, in their characteristic subtlety, hinted at the possibility of an economic riposte to American intervention, though they stopped short of officially elaborating. The dollar's status as the world's reserve currency would have been dealt a severe blow, a consequence that would have been nothing short of catastrophic.

In the Ukrainian imbroglio, the specter of intervention had been met with stark and unequivocal threats from Russia, including the chilling prospect of a halt on natural gas imports to the European Union through Gazprom, which catered to approximately 30% of the EU's fuel needs.

In 2009, a transient closure of the Ukrainian pipeline resulted in a cascade of shortages across Europe. Contrary to the rosy picture painted by some in the mainstream media, Russia's sway over EU energy is still far from “diminished.”

Russia has also threatened to jettison its U.S. treasury bonds, a move that may not seem like a significant bargaining chip on the surface. However, when one considers that China has openly endorsed Russian efforts in Ukraine, just as it did with Russia's opposition to U.S. activities in Syria, the picture becomes considerably more alarming. A Russian bond dump would inevitably be followed by a Chinese one, a scenario that has been in the making since at least 2008.

I have been cautioning for years that globalists and central bankers have been in desperate need of a “cover event,” a distraction or scapegoat grandiose enough to shroud the chaos in which they could then orchestrate the demise of the dollar as the world reserve and pave the way for a global currency system. The Ukrainian crisis and subsequent war provided yet another opportunity for this nefarious plan to come to fruition.

The Truth

The correspondence of conspiracy between Syria and Ukraine, and the potential of each event to trigger regional conflict, dollar collapse, or world war, has been meticulously outlined. However, is this conspiracy one-sided? Are the West and NATO the only entities being manipulated by globalists to box in Russia and provoke a conflict? And what do globalists stand to gain by igniting such disaster?

As with every other catastrophic fabricated war, the ultimate goal is the erasure of sovereign identity while consolidating economic, political, and social power. It is not enough for global financiers to dominate the banking industry and own most politicians; they seek to transform the public psyche. They want us to beg them for global governance.

This manufacture of consent is often achieved by pitting two controlled governments against each other and then, in the wake of the tragedy, calling for global unification. The argument is always presented that if we simply abandoned the concept of nation-states and reformed under a single world body, all war would “disappear.”

The question is whether Russia's Putin is privy to this plan. Is he a part of it? Are we witnessing a repeat theater of a puppet Russia versus a puppet NATO, akin to the Cold War?

What I do know is that Putin has, on numerous occasions in the past, called for global control of the economy through the IMF and the institution of a new global currency using the IMF's Special Drawing Rights (SDR).

It was loans from the IMF that saved Russia from debt default in the late 1990s. And Putin has called for consultations with the IMF concerning Crimea. Remember, this is the same IMF that is working to fund his opponents in Western Ukraine.

In essence, if you believe in national sovereignty and decentralization of power, Putin is not your ally. Once again, we have the globalists injecting money into both sides of a conflict which could morph into something nightmarish.

Putin wants global economic governance and consolidation under the IMF just as much as the supposedly “American-run” IMF wants consolidation. Global governance of finance and money creation ultimately means global governance of everything else.

Is a war being created through the false paradigm of East versus West to pave the road for global government? Are East/West tensions being exploited as a smokescreen for the final destruction of the dollar's world reserve status? It is hard to say if Ukraine will be the final trigger; however, the evidence suggests that if a conflict occurs, regardless of who “wins” such a scenario, the IMF comes out on top.

Imagine you are playing a game of chess by yourself. Which side wins at the end of that game: black or white? The answer is it doesn't matter. You always win when you control both sides.

---

How you can support my writing

• Restack, like and share this post via email, text, and social media

• Tip me a bug-free meal with Ko-Fi

• Buy a discount subscription

Thank you; your support keeps me writing and helps me pay the bills. 🧡