Abortion and Ukraine. How does Washington connect two separate issues?

The initiative is still in the hands of supporters of the military escalation in the American scene, while the warnings of supporters of “realpolitik” to slip into a direct war with Russia continue.

  • One of the most prominent American leaders who acknowledged their country’s responsibility for the outbreak of the Ukrainian war was the former Secretary of Defense under Clinton, William Perry.

The acceleration of the deluge of American leaks across Ukraine, and the boasting of providing highly sensitive intelligence information to target Russian officers and military units, suddenly dropped their media centrality in the American press as a major issue for about 60 % of American people, and about 83% of Jews for religious motives, who support “the right of Women in Abortion” as a daily consumption component in various media.

At first glance, it is difficult to see the connection between the two separate issues that occupy the political scene; Ukraine on the one hand, and the Supreme Court ordered the abolition of the acquired right of women on the other, but examination of the working mechanism of the US governmental institution and its various orientations confirms, if in part, their close interdependence, especially in terms of timing, which allows the conclusion that the institution and the ruling Democratic Party wing are clear More precisely, she realized that the war was over, and she just had to mobilize public opinion behind a deliberate “leak” of a draft decision in the Supreme Court. Court, despite the flow of weapons of all kinds and their allocation of unprecedented budgets to the Ukrainian “war effort”, hoping to mobilize their supporters to vote strongly in the upcoming midterm elections. , which controls the Democratic Party’s Congress or the House of Representatives at the slightest amendment.

Among the most important evidence of the foregoing is that the judicial concept was not a result of the moment, but rather came on February 10 this year, about two weeks before the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, and it is included in the court’s regular agenda to make a decision on it next July. This was accompanied by growing congestion within American society and widespread anger due to the unjustified rise in food prices, contrary to what the official narrative states by holding Russia primarily responsible for the high cost of living.

Consequently, in the opinion of the institution’s leaders, an issue should have fueled the emotions of the American community and diverted attention from the failures of President Joe Biden, especially for his failure to resolve the debt inflicted by students. of higher institutes and the widespread unwillingness of the youth sector to support him again.

And the media scene took a sharp leap to deal with the “leak” and its future consequences, and the New York Weekly welcomed it, saying, “The leak is actually helpful,” while Republican Party leaders’ reactions were limited. on the appeal of Chief Justice John Roberts, to conduct an investigation to stop at the identity of the actor (s) (New York Magazine, May 3, 2022).

The platform of the intellectual elite of the American right, the “Federalist Society,” regarded the leak as a personification of the leftist tendency to incite society to a state of “treacherous civil disobedience that sows chaos and (the independence) of the Supreme Court. ” And perhaps a criminal act, “but rather a” Dirty May surprise of Democrats for the midterm elections “(The Federalist, May 3, 2022, The New York Post, May 3, 2022, respectively).

The accusations of the “left” Republican Party currents came on more than one tongue without providing evidence, especially the Republican senator Marco Rubio, who wrote in a tweet to him: “The extreme left (has) the Supreme Court concept leaked in an attempt to intimidate judges regarding abortion ”(May 2, 2022).

As for Ukraine, the various political and intellectual elites who are influential in formulating the American political decision interacted by drawing attention to the fact that Russia’s victory in its war would usher in a new era, and decision-making centers to warn against the repercussions of its short- and medium-term leaks, that “Ukraine’s involvement in intelligence information on Russian officers is a risky bet.” The U.S. administration must “devise mechanisms to put an end to the conflict that threatens to develop into a nuclear war.” Some elites blamed the United States for the outbreak of war when “the West encouraged Russia to respond violently.”

One of the most prominent U.S. leaders who acknowledged their country’s responsibility for the outbreak of war was the former Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton, William Perry, who said: “Over the past few years, most of the debt. placed on decisions taken by (President) Putin. But in the early years it must be said that the United States bears a lot of blame, (especially) when NATO tried to expand eastwards and on the borders of Russia “(interview in 2017, included in the official congressional record, 10 February 2022) .

The warning against slipping into direct war came in response to the headline of the most prominent American newspapers that “American intelligence is helping Ukraine to hunt down Russian officers, according to officials.” In a parallel review, some leading intellectual elites wondered what the American response would be “in the event that a third world country with premeditated advice provided assistance to assassinate U.S. military leaders” (New York Times, May 4, 2022).

The newspaper continued to warn Washington against being “dragged into a direct war with Russia to a greater extent than it would like,” given the increasing levels of its danger as the war dragged on, especially after ” “American officials boasted a role in the killing of Russian generals and the sinking of the Moscow ship.” What is remarkable about the US coverage is that the newspaper explained that “US officials are focused on providing an explanation for President Putin’s failure to further escalate the attack on Ukraine” (The New York Times, May 7, 2022 ).

As for the American concern, it is, according to the newspaper, represented in Moscow’s celebrations of its victory over German Nazism on May 9, because of what it entails of “military parades and celebrations of the ingenuity of the Russian army, (and perhaps) to take some provocative measures “against the West, and the announcement of profits Great in Ukraine.

It is noteworthy that the Russian arrangements included the participation of “77 fighter jets and helicopters”, according to the number of years since the end of World War II, and the “L-80”, known as the “Doomsday Plane”, which was designed to become a flying command center in the event of a nuclear war.

Speculations of American concern include the possibility that “Russia will declare an air ban in the waters of the Baltic Sea”, and the accompanying Western pressure to declare parallel “no-fly zones”, placing US bases in Poland under Russian targets.

Before this picture of the escalation of tensions worldwide, and the recognition by some leaders of the US ruling establishment of encouraging the Ukrainian president to be tough and not conclude a peace agreement with Russia, there were parallel calls for the ” nuclear power “. option, ”and perhaps a preemptive strike against Russia in this regard.

It is embodied in a prominent headline in the American Business and Finance newspaper which calls for “the United States to prove that it can win a nuclear war,” recorded by the former Deputy Secretary of the Navy, Seth Cropsey, to more credibility to the orientations of the military leaders, explaining that “the acquisition of nuclear weapons It has a military objective and a political one, and the United States must reformulate its thinking to suit it” (The Wall Street Journal, 27 April 2022).

The author paved the way for his disastrous theory by claiming that the leaders of the Kremlin, as he calls them, believe that their determination to confront the United States and fight it with conventional weapons exceeds the reach of their American counterparts. . Consequently, according to its logic, the United States must “confront Russia with conventional weapons, which will create incentives for Russia to use its nuclear weapons, thus eliciting a NATO response and escalating into a broader nuclear conflict.”

And what the author demanded of measures “that the United States and its allies destroy the Russian military units deployed in the Black Sea, Syria and Libya, cut all oil pipelines to Russia, and exert the resulting economic influence to defeat China and others threatened. countries doing business with Russia, and imposing an economic ban on them. “

The threat of a “preventive” nuclear attack did not come from a political vacuum when we consider the unprecedented amount of US military and financial support for a country “not included in NATO membership”, and successive visits to Kiev has seen. by U.S. Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense Nancy Pelosi. And the latter’s statement to stabilize US support for Ukraine to victory.

On the side of the camp of intellectual elites and supporters of “realpolitik”, warnings continue to slip into a direct war with Russia, and of its repercussions on the extermination of mankind. They call on the US administration to “move urgently to reassure Russia that the US strategy is aimed at defending Ukraine, not to impose a humiliating defeat on Russia and to continue to do so. to weaken or destroy the Russian state. “

Giving priority to the “diplomatic option”, as they claim, is an essential prelude to resolving a number of issues, including “the final status of the Crimean and Donbas regions, and agreement to a ceasefire” in the event that Moscow announces the cessation of its operations in Ukraine. ” However, the initiative still remains supporters of the military escalation in the American scene.

Leave a Comment