Paul Craig Roberts

As previously reported, not all of the vast amount of heavy weapons sent by the West end up on the battlefield. Instead, some find their way into the weapons market where they are sold to who for who's profit? The same with the money, much of which ends up in unintended pockets.

The US State Department's explanation is that the US troops are in Ukraine, not to fight, but to "assist the government of Ukraine with handling US security assistance." In other words, to identify and stop the theft of resources meant for war against Russia.

But why is this the job of uniformed troops? Is this a way to sneak US uniformed soldiers into Ukraine and maneuver them into combat? Only people my age, students at the time, remember how the CIA maneuvered the Kennedy White House into involving the US in war in Vietnam. President Kennedy caught on and intended to withdraw, but the CIA killed him before he could.

President Johnson, realizing that the South Vietnamese government was losing the war, used the alleged firing on two US destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin to escalate the war. On August 7, 1964, a stupid Congress railroaded by patriotic fervor passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This authorized President Johnson to take whatever measures he thought were necessary to promote peace and security in southeast Asia. This mindless resolution gave Johnson the legal basis for the US war in Vietnam, the total opposite of "peace and security."

Considering the extraordinary number of Washington implemented false flag attacks, should we expect another one in Ukraine that involves the US in war against Russia?   Are the 30,000 US/Nato soldiers positioned on Ukraine’s border there in anticipation of a false flag?   https://www.rt.com/russia/565792-russian-nato-troops-border/