By Mark Curtis, Declassified UK, 5/19/25

Declassified British files shed further light on the controversial question as to what assurances were made to Russia by U.K. officials about the expansion of NATO into eastern Europe.

The documents show then Prime Minister John Major telling Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov in February 1997 that “if he were Russian he too would be concerned by the possibility that NATO might move up to Russia’s borders.”

But Major added that “NATO has no intention of doing this” and was “not seeking to box in Russia.” 

Briefing notes drawn up by No. 10 Downing Street [the prime minister’s office] for Major’s phone call with Primakov stated: “We are not seeking to encircle Russia with NATO members.”

Primakov in 1991. (RIA Novosti archive /Prihodko / Wikimedia Commons /CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0)

The following month, Major wrote to Russian President Boris Yeltsin saying: “I am well aware of Russian concern that NATO enlargement may mean that NATO forces will effectively move nearer your own borders. I well understand the fears that may be aroused in Russia.”

However, he added:

“But let me assure you that such fears are quite without foundation.”

The reason was that

“NATO has no intention of stationing large conventional forces or nuclear weapons on the territory of new members.”

Major also reassured Yeltsin that NATO would only deploy “a modest amount of NATO infrastructure… such as storage facilities and command and control arrangements.”

The declassified files released to the National Archives covering 1996-97 are full of references by U.K. officials to Russian “concern,” “negative attitudes,” “fears,” “hostility” and “resentment” about NATO enlargement.

At the time, NATO’s expansion was being considered for only a small number of central European countries, not former states in the old Soviet Union, such as Ukraine — which was an even more sensitive issue to Moscow.

An August 1996 paper drawn up by Downing Street clearly noted Russia’s policy of “not allowing Ukraine or the Baltic States to join NATO.” 

‘Enlarge NATO anyway’

 Major in February 1993, during a visit to the Clinton White House. (White House Photograph Office/Wikimedia Commons /Public Domain)

U.K. officials believed the Russians reluctantly “tacitly accept that enlargement will go ahead” — subject to their opposition to nuclear and conventional force deployments — “but cannot say so publicly.”

In December 1996, Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin told Major in private: “Russia could not stop NATO enlarging, but this would create a fragile situation which could explode.” 

Major assured him: “We did not wish to do anything to unsettle Russia.”

[See: Tangled Tale of NATO Expansion at Heart of Ukraine Crisis]

The files show that Britain was intent on expanding NATO to include “some” central/eastern European countries.

A policy paper drawn up in September 1996 said U.K. objectives were “to enlarge NATO to the East” and “secure Russian acquiescence in enlargement … But if Russian acquiescence is not possible, for NATO to enlarge anyway.”

The paper was drawn up by Foreign Office official Matthew Rycroft, who in 2003 would be former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s private secretary during the war in Iraq.

‘Full Account of Russia’s Place’

Yeltsin waving at reporters in Moscow in August 1991. (Kremlin.ru /Wikimedia Commons /CC BY 4.0)

In the month Blair succeeded Major as prime minister, May 1997, Britain’s ambassador to Russia, Andrew Wood, cabled London saying: “NATO enlargement [is] a painful issue with domestic implications.”

He added: “The Russians are virtually at one in regarding the coming enlargement of NATO as a humiliating defeat, and in supposing that the West either consciously or unconsciously intends it to be seen as such.”

Please Donate to the

Spring Fund Drive!

However, Yeltsin also conveyed, in a phone call with Blair the same month, that he understood that “there was no turning back” on enlargement. But he again insisted that nuclear weapons should not be sited in new NATO members and that there should be “no permanent deployment of conventional forces.”

[See: Boris Yeltsin Privately Supported NATO Expansion Despite Public Stance]

A British prime minister again offered assurances to Moscow. A briefing for Blair’s meeting with Yeltsin in May 1997 stated on the subject of NATO enlargement: “We will not allow Russia’s legitimate security interests to be damaged in this process.”

It added that “an enlarged NATO will mean more security in Central Europe. This is in Russian as well as NATO interests.”

Blair told Yeltsin “he was aware of the view Russia took on NATO enlargement” and that “arrangements for the future had to take full account of Russia’s place and weight in Europe.”

Later that year, in October, Yeltsin told Blair again in a phone call that “he continued to oppose enlargement of NATO, which was a mistake. Europe should not be divided.”

At the time discussions were taking place about a comprehensive security system for Europe, replacing the old East-West divide and giving Russia a place in that system. It was clear, however, that NATO, led by the U.S., privileged expanding the organisation over bringing in Russia into a new European security architecture.

At NATO’s summit in Madrid in July 1997, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were invited to begin accession talks, and they joined NATO in 1999. A further wave of accession occurred in 2004 when Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia all joined NATO.

U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen giving a press statement on July 8, 1997, in Madrid, about NATO’s decision to invite Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to begin negotiations to join NATO. National Security Advisor Samuel Burger on left, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on right. (DoD/ R. D. Ward/Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain)

By 2017, NATO had established a “forward presence” policy in eastern Europe, deploying battalion-size battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. NATO claims this was needed in response to Russia’s “aggressive actions against its neighbours,” notably its [supposed] 2014 invasion of Crimea. 

Opposing Ukraine

British files from 2001 show that Defence Minister Igor Sergeyev warned NATO that any further enlargement would be “a major political error” requiring Moscow to take “appropriate steps.”

By 2002, when Britain was supporting a new wave of central/eastern European states becoming members of NATO, Blair’s government was explicitly opposed to Ukraine joining the organisation, the files show.

“We do not support Ukraine’s request to join MAP,” the Foreign Office noted in 2002, referring to NATO’s Membership Action Plan, which provided advice to countries aspiring to join NATO.

Though Kyiv was pushing strongly for an enhanced relationship with NATO, Ukraine’s bid was “premature” in the British view since the country was “far from meeting criteria expected of aspirants.”

The U.K.’s chief diplomat at NATO, Emyr Jones Parry, noted that Ukraine was “on notice that deepening relations with NATO will require more democratic and other reforms.”

But also critical for British officials was the impact on relations with Russia. U.K. strategy was “to steer Ukraine away from any suggestion of membership except in the very long term” given the “serious impact on NATO relations with Russia.”

“Ukraine membership of MAP would greatly complicate our handling of the new Nato-Russia relationship and would raise serious Russian concerns about Nato’s strategy,” reads a 2002 briefing note for the prime minister.

Barrier to Russia

U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and Russian President Vladimir Putin, 2000. (Kremlin.ru / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY 4.0)

At the time, the Labour government was seeking a “transformed relationship between Russia and the Alliance,” a process which was described as “truly historic.” Indeed Blair was courting Vladimir Putin after MI6 had helped him into power in 2000.

British officials were impressed with Moscow’s declared support for the U.S. following the 9/11 attacks in September 2001 and sought a new strategic relationship.

Though British officials opposed Ukraine joining NATO at this time, some spotted the country’s geopolitical importance. 

Roger Liddle, Blair’s special adviser, wrote that Ukraine played a key role as a supply route for Russian gas. But also Ukraine could act “as a formidable barrier to any resurgence of Russian Imperialism to the West.”

At its Bucharest summit in 2008, NATO pledged that both Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become members.

Mark Curtis is the co-director of Declassified U.K., and the author of five books and many articles on U.K. foreign policy.

This article is from Declassified U.K..

By Andrew Korybko, Substack, 6/18/25

NATO’s next summit will be held from 24-25 June at The Hague and almost certainly see the bloc expand upon its preexisting rapid militarization plans. Trump is demanding that all members spend 5% of GDP on defense as soon as possible, which Politico recently reminded everyone in their article about this is divided between 3.5% on “hard military spending” and 1.5% on defense-related issues like cybersecurity. Here are three background briefings on NATO’s rapid militarization plans to bring readers up to speed:

* 19 July 2024: “The EU’s Planned Transformation Into A Military Union Is A Federalist Power Play”

* 24 October 2024: “NATO’s Military Schengen”

* 7 March 2025: “The ‘ReArm Europe Plan’ Will Probably Fall Far Short Of The Bloc’s Lofty Expectations”

In short, the EU wants to exploit false fears of a future Russian invasion to further centralize the bloc under that pretext, with the “military Schengen” (for facilitating the free flow of troops and equipment between member states) and the €800 billion “ReArm Europe Plan” being its tangible manifestations. The first will create the desired military union while the second will then result in there being an urgent need for some mechanism to organize the division of defense investments between all members.

It’s here where the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) is expected to play a major role owing to the lack of any alternatives and the difficulty in getting members to agree on creating a new EU-wide one due to some states’ sovereignty concerns. Per the NSPA’s website, “[its] objective is to obtain the best service or equipment at the best price for the customer by consolidating requirements from multiple nations in a cost-efficient way through its turnkey multinational acquisition framework.”

The problem though is that the NSPA has been embroiled in a procurement scandal over the past month. To their credit, Deutsche Welle published a fair and detailed report about what happened, which can be summarized as employees passing along information to defense contractors in exchange for funds that were partly laundered to them through consultancy companies. The NSPA reportedly initiated the investigation itself, but that might not be sufficient for controlling the damage from this scandal.

While it’ll continue functioning, some member states might now be hesitant to rely more on its services than is absolutely necessary to avoid having to pay more for whatever it is that they’re looking to buy if more corrupt employees unluckily happen to service their request. Of course, the NSPA’s initiative to investigate itself – which led to three arrests thus far and has spread to several countries, including the US – might reassure some states, but few will likely take any more chances than they have to.

If enough NATO members practice this approach in understandable pursuit of their financial self-interest, especially if segments of the public pressure them to do so in order to not risk wasting taxpayers’ hard-earned funds, then this could collectively complicate NATO’s rapid militarization plans. It remains to be seen what effect it’ll ultimately have, but the NSPA’s procurement corruption scandal couldn’t have come at a worse time, and it’s important not to let the elite sweep it under the rug for convenience.

By Uriel Araujo, InfoBrics, 6/4/25

“Ukraine’s expulsion of Hungarian diplomats over a Transcarpathia spy scandal has escalated tensions, with Hungary halting minority rights talks. This rift reflects broader ethnopolitical strains with neighbors like Poland and Romania, which goes to show that the Ukraine’s ultranationalism is a problem well beyond Russian-Ukrainian issues”

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

In a region already fraught with geopolitical complexities, the latest rift between Ukraine and Hungary underscores a troubling pattern of ethnic and diplomatic tensions that threatens Kyiv’s broader regional relationships. The recent expulsion of Hungarian diplomats from Ukraine, following the alleged uncovering of a Budapest-run spy network, has escalated an already strained bilateral dynamic.

Hungary’s subsequent decision to suspend talks on minority rights in Transcarpathia—a region with a significant Hungarian minority—marks yet another low in this increasingly fractious relationship. This development in fact reveals deeper ethnopolitical fault lines that extend beyond the well-documented Russian-Ukrainian conflict, thereby complicating Kyiv’s aspirations for regional cooperation and integration into Europe and the political West.

The alleged spy ring, exposed by Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) reportedly operated in Transcarpathia, gathering intelligence on local defenses and public sentiment toward potential Hungarian military deployment. Ukraine accuses two former military personnel, directed by a Hungarian officer, of espionage activities that could facilitate territorial ambitions—a charge Budapest vehemently denies.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, known for his nationalist rhetoric and pragmatic relations with Moscow, has framed the accusations as a smear campaign, possibly timed to influence Hungary’s domestic politics, with the upcoming elections. This blunt exchange of accusations has only deepened mistrust, with both nations expelling diplomats and accusing each other of acts of espionage in a tit-for-tat escalation.

One may recall that Hungarian-Ukrainian tensions have simmered for years, largely over the treatment of the Hungarian minority in Transcarpathia. Budapest has repeatedly criticized Ukraine’s language and education laws, which discriminate against ethnic Hungarians. Kyiv, in turn, perceives Hungary’s advocacy for its diaspora as a pretext for meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs, thereby fueling suspicions of irredentist ambitions.

The spy scandal has only amplified these concerns, with Ukrainian officials warning that Hungary’s intelligence activities could signal preparations for territorial claims, as suggested by former Ukrainian politician Spiridon Kilinkarov. I’ve commented before about how such concerns are not unfounded in a region where post-Soviet borders remain contested.

This latest spat is in fact not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of ethnopolitical friction that hampers Ukraine’s relations with its neighbors. Beyond Hungary, Kyiv faces challenges with Poland, Romania, and others over minority rights and historical grievances.

For instance, Ukrainian-Polish relations are often strained by historical disputes, notably the Volhynia massacres. In September 2024 tensions flared as Kyiv refused to allow exhumation of victims, while officially glorifying (since the 2014 Maidan Revolution) the Ukrainian Insurgent Army—Nazi collaborators responsible for the genocide of Poles—as national heroes.

Romania in turn has expressed concerns about the treatment of its minority in Bukovina (Ukraine), with ethnic and religious tensions growing. Moreover, Greece too has raised similar issues regarding its ethnic kin and their plight in Mariupol and the Donbass region under the notoriously fascist Azov regiment—as well as other Ukrainian military and paramilitary ultra-nationalist elements.

All these tensions, often overshadowed by the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, risk angering potential allies at a time when Kyiv seeks regional support. Ukraine’s aggressive nationalist policies, aimed at consolidating a unified national identity, have alienated neighbors who perceive these measures as chauvinistic and exclusionary

Hungary’s response, led by Orbán’s nationalist government, has been characteristically assertive. Orbán, who has positioned himself as a defender of Hungarian minorities abroad, has arguably used the Transcarpathian issue to bolster his domestic standing, especially ahead of elections. His suspension of minority rights talks with Ukraine is likely a calculated move, signaling defiance while appealing to his own base’s nationalist sentiments. The issue further exposes a fracture within the West over the issue of Ukraine and the European Union.

The espionage allegations, whether fully substantiated or not, highlight a deeper issue: the fragility of trust in a region shaped by historical grievances and competing nationalisms. Ukraine’s accusations against Hungary may serve a dual purpose—deflecting domestic criticism of its minority policies while signaling to other neighbors that Kyiv will not tolerate external interference. However, this hardline stance risks backfiring. By expelling Hungarian diplomats and escalating rhetoric, Ukraine may further strain ties with Budapest.

Moreover, the timing of this scandal raises questions about its political motivations. Orbán’s critics argue that Ukraine’s accusations could be leveraged to discredit him domestically, particularly as Hungary approaches elections where his Fidesz party faces growing opposition.

Be as it may, the broader implications of this rift extend beyond bilateral relations. Ukraine’s ethnopolitical challenges, as mentioned, could embolden other neighbors to assert claims if Kyiv’s central authority weakens. In a region where frozen conflicts and disputed borders are unresolved matters, such tensions could destabilize Eastern Europe further.

Such geopolitical problems reflect domestic ethnopolitical civil rights issues. The hard truth is that Ukraine itself faces a civil rights crisis, with policies marginalizing Russian speakers, ethnic Russiand and pro-Russian people, potentially alienating a significant portion of its population post-war, according to Professor Nicolai N. Petro and many other commentators.

Over 40% of Ukrainians, especially in the east and south, have historically viewed Russians and Ukrainians as “one people” in some ways. Petro further highlights restrictions on religious freedom, press, and minority rights, particularly targeting Russophile Ukrainians. Moreover, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church faces crackdowns, and there are laws increasingly limiting use of the Russian language, in a historically bilingual nation.

Even the Venice Commission itself has criticized Ukraine’s minority laws, yet officials like Olga Stefanishyna deny the very existence of a Russian minority, despite at least 17.3% of the population identifying as ethnic Russians in the 2001 census—which is to date the only census since Ukraine’s 1991 independence, This marginalization, alongside the banning of “pro-Russian parties”, risks internal and regional conflict.

However, the problem goes beyond Russian-Ukrainian ethnopolitics—being inherent to ultranationalism in post-Maidan Ukraine—and with Hungary’s and Poland’s ongoing quandaries, this will become increasingly clear. The West doesn’t seem ready to have this conversation, but it is about time to acknowledge the issue, as it endangers, as I’ve argued before, the survival of Europe itself.

By Sylvia Demarest, Substack, 6/8/25

Sylvia Demarest is a retired trial lawyer.

First a brief discussion of 4 issues: 1) clarification of the term military Keynesianism; 2) why pushing for WW3 is societal suicide; 3) comments on Operation Spiderweb; and 4) the aborted exchange of bodies between Ukraine and Russia.

1–Military Keynesianism— Military Keynesianism refers to the use of war and military spending to stimulate the economy. The US is economically dependent on military spending. Keynesianism refers to John Maynard Keynes a British mathematician and economist who was very influential during the Great Depression, spearheading a revolution in economic thinking, and providing the theoretical basis for Keynesian economics. Keynes opposed setting German reparations payments so high during the Versailles peace conference that followed WW1, and was also involved in the negotiations that established the Bretton Woods system after World War 2. President Richard Nixon withdrew the US from Bretton Woods in 1971 initiating the era of neoliberalism. These issues were discussed in previous Substack’s.

2–World War 3–In the last Substack two reasons were given why the US and NATO could not fight and win WW3 against a peer enemy such as Russia or China: 1) the US and the NATO nations do not have the industrial capacity to produce the weapons needed to fight and win an industrial war, or to even provide the needed logistical support; and 2) since modern weapons were so powerful, a global war would destroy civilization. The basis for this opinion is the reality that in such a war, the US and NATO would probably face defeat, and, rather than accept defeat, would use nuclear (or biological) weapons). Should nuclear weapons be used against either Russia or China, both the USA and the EU would be destroyed in retaliation. Russia and China are very large countries so their capacity to retaliate is unlikely to be destroyed, even by a first strike. A nuclear war of this size would destroy civilization. Avoiding WW3 is the only reasonable option

3–Operation Spiderweb–On June 1^st Ukraine launched a drone attack against Russian strategic bombers parked on several bases. The attack is said to have taken 18 months to arrange. It involved hiding drones in wooden houses in trucking containers. An electronic signal opened the roofs of the containers, releasing drones. The container then self-destructed.

Several bases were attacked but not all were hit. Western media has been very congratulatory of Ukraine’s “daring do.” David Ingnatius even exalted “Ukraine’s Dirty War Is Just Getting Started”. The extent of the damage is uncertain. Ukraine claims to have destroyed 40 planes, the US claims 20 hit and 9 destroyed, the alternative media claims only 5 planes destroyed and damaged meaning some will be repaired. Given the ability to fake video and photos it is impossible to know the true facts unless Russia decides to tell us and offers proof. The USSR made hundreds of the planes that were hit (although some had been upgraded) and bone yards contain extra parts, so any loss may not be permanent. Moreover, these types of bombers have been superseded by other means of weapon’s delivery. Russia’s true loss may, or may not, be that significant. The loss of trust, security, and national pride are another matter.

The USA claims not to have been involved in this strike, but as Dmitry Kornev argued in an analysis published in RT, the drone strikes “blended high-tech sabotage, covert infiltration, and satellite-guided timing with the kind of precision that only the world’s most advanced intelligence networks can deliver.” If the USA was not directly involved, a questionable proposition, some western country with access to US data and systems, probably was involved.

The Russian strategic bombers, like similar US bombers, are parked outside, so they could be monitored by satellite, as required by a treaty between the US and the Soviet Union (today Russia) –the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Russia constantly moves these bombers –so Ukraine needed access to up to date satellite information for targeting purposes. The US is the most likely source of this data.

There have been several articles discussing the fact that the US and NATO run, arm, and fund this proxy war against Russia. For example, the CIA has operated throughout Ukraine for years before the SMO started in February 2022. It has also been acknowledged that the war is overseen by NATO and the US out of a military base in Germany, see “The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine”. The US and NATO are Ukraine’s eyes and ears assisting with imaging and SIGNIT intelligence for use in monitoring and targeting. It defies logic to claim that none of the countries in US/NATO alliance participated in this attack–in fact the best description is that this was a limited US first strike on Russia, by proxy.

Unfortunately, there is now ZERO potential for weapon limitation treaties with Russia, or for that matter, with China. The betrayal, and the distrust, is too great. This probably signals the end of any real effort to end the Ukraine war–after all, this attack came one day before another scheduled peace conference. The US and NATO have proven to be unreliable and untrustworthy partners. This is markedly different from the Cold War when trust and reliability levels were much higher.

Every effort is being made to goad Russia into striking outside Ukraine, such a strike could force the US to join the war and turn the Ukraine war into WW3. Russia is very wise not to take the bait. If we survive this era, we should all thank the rational, careful and levelheaded President of Russia, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, not the so called “western leadership.”

The lack of concern for the risk of a global nuclear war is very dangerous, it means there is no public pushback against either the Ukraine War or the talk of a wider war. Even the Washington Post is beginning to sound the alarm–see “Why We Should Worry About Nuclear Weapons Again.”

4 –The exchange of bodies between Russia and Ukraine During the last peace negotiation, Russia and Ukraine agreed to an exchange of bodies of deceased soldiers. Russia began publishing lists of names and showed up on the Minsk border with refrigerated trailers for the exchange. Ukraine refused to accept the bodies. Was this refusal because acknowledging 6,000 dead soldiers would contradict Ukraine’s casualty claims, and would require Ukraine to pay their families billions? To prevent this the Ukraine Rada passed a law requiring families to prove the death in court, giving the government two years to pay.

What are human biases, like confirmation bias and group think?

There are so many human biases entire books have been written about them, for example, The Biased Brain lists almost 200 biases, and an entire Cognitive Biases Codex has been set up.

Human biases are closely studied, not only to manipulate people and promote war, but by marketers and politicians. Human biases are poorly understood by most people–but we all have them. Cognitive Biases cause us to make irrational decisions and judgments on the information we process. A Cognitive Bias can be thought of as a programmed error in our brains. These biases can be manipulated, especially when combined with fear, greed, ideology, and the lust for power. Censorship and the manipulation of information through propaganda and fear is a feature of our media, which is often aligned with big business and the national security state.

Cognitive Biases can be divided into 4 parts:

1. Information: filtering information.

2. Meaning: connecting dots and filling in the gaps with what we think we know.

3. Speed: making decisions based on new information.

4. Memory: we can’t remember everything, so we have to use it efficiently.

For those who want to delve into cognitive biases more deeply a good place to start is Gust de Baker’ article Cognitive Biases (2025): A Complete list of 151 Biases.

For today’s essay I want to focus on two; confirmation bias and a combination of several biases that expresses itself in what is known as group think.

Confirmation bias “refers to the tendency of individuals to seek, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms their pre-existing beliefs or values. This bias leads people to focus on evidence that supports their views while dismissing or undervaluing information that contradicts them. As a result, confirmation bias can create a distorted understanding of reality, reinforce stereotypes and hinder effective communication in diverse settings.”

Group Think “..refers to a mode of thinking in which individual members of small cohesive groups tend to accept a viewpoint or conclusion that represents a perceived group consensus, whether or not the group members believe it to be valid, correct, or optimal. Groupthink reduces the efficiency of collective problem solving within such groups.”

From Britanica: “The eight symptoms of groupthink include an illusion of invulnerability or of the inability to be wrong, the collective rationalization of the group’s decisions, an unquestioned belief in the morality of the group and its choices, stereotyping of the relevant opponents or out-group members, and the presence of “mind guards” who act as barriers to alternative or negative information, as well as self-censorship and an illusion of unanimity. Decision making affected by groupthink neglects possible alternatives and focuses on a narrow number of goals, ignoring the risks involved in a particular decision. It fails to seek out alternative information and is biased in its consideration of that which is available. Once rejected, alternatives are forgotten, and little attention is paid to contingency plans in case the preferred solution fails.

How confirmation bias is used to manipulate people

We are all products of the information environment in which we live. Often it is this very information environment provides the propaganda that creates confirmation bias. Most people get their news from the corporate media. In corporate media, the news is often managed, information is censored, a narrative is created, dissenting points of view are excluded, and the approved narrative is constantly repeated. In the alternative media, all points of view can be found, but some are completely unreliable. The security agencies are also involved in media. The best option is to consult a variety of sources, supplemented by a constant study of history. Unfortunately, history has also been censored and manipulated. The best evidence usually comes from historians who rely on and cite original sources. Unfortunately, historians who contradict the approved narrative may not be able to publish their work. Those who get published may find their careers destroyed. Noam Chomsky has spent a career studying these issues. Ron Unz has conducted a historical re-evaluation in his American Pravda series and discusses many of these issues.

One significant feature of the information environment for the last 20 plus years has been the demonization and outright defamation of Russia and her president, Vladimir Putin.

–One historian, Dr. Vladimir Brovkin believes that this demonization began in 2003 when France and Germany combined with Russia to oppose the Iraq war. It is understood that one of the purposes of NATO was to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. The friendship and cooperation between Russia, Germany and France may have been seen as a threat to US influence.

—Vladimir Posner gave a lecture at Yale University in September, 2018 titled “How the United States Created Vladimir Putin” discussing the facts behind the extensive campaign to create a negative image of Putin and Russia. Posner also said he had hired people to examine the archives of the New York Times to locate positive stories from 2015, 2016, and 2017 about Russia or Putin. There were none. This level of negative reporting should be seen as evidence of a successful propaganda campaign intended to build support of a war against Russia.

–On September 25, 2015 John Mearsheimer gave a lecture titled “Why Is Ukraine the West’s Fault”. The lecture did not attract a great deal of attention at the time, but after February of 2022 has over 30 million views. In this lecture Prof Mearsheimer sets out how to resolve the civil war in Ukraine–abandon NATO expansion–guarantee minority rights in Ukraine especially language rights–and provide some autonomy to Eastern Ukraine. These were the basic principles Russia always supported, and were also behind Misk 1 and 2, which were never implemented–in fact Angela Merkel of Germany admitted the agreements were used to buy time to allow Ukraine to re-arm.

To think there was nothing positive to say about Russia or the accomplishments of President Putin is absurd. Julian Assange pointed to the objective of such coverage when he said that every war the US has fought for the last 50 years has been based on lies. This is also the case with the proxy war in Ukraine.

Constant repetition of negative coverage is likely to trigger confirmation bias. Confirmation bias often makes it impossible for people to change their minds about issues and events no matter how much contrary information they are shown. Lies once embedded often cannot be dislodged. Perhaps this is why Mark Twain is claimed to have said, “it’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.”

If we consider the entire array of societal rewards and punishments, it becomes obvious that the ability to control information, along with the power to bury or punish those who try to reveal prohibited information, can create false narratives and control our understanding of both current events and history. This information control, when combined with fear, can embed biases that can be manipulated to steer society in desired directions. Wars would never be fought if they weren’t profitable and served to enhance the power of favored groups. This has been the course of history throughout the ages.

How are group think is used to support militarism and war

In 1972, Irving.L. Janis did a study titled Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. In this study Janis defined “groupthink” as a psychological drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses dissent and appraisal of alternatives in cohesive decision-making groups. Janis used a group dynamics approach to explain aspects of American foreign policy decision making.

Janis found that the results of this small-group phenomenon often spelled disaster and paved the way for some of the major U.S. fiascoes: the Korean War stalemate, the escalation of the Vietnam War, the failure to be prepared for the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Bay of Pigs blunder. Yet there are cases, such as the handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the formulation of the Marshall Plan, where group think was avoided. It is through documented portrayal of these cases of the invasion and avoidance of group think that Irving Janis demonstrated his hypothesis and was able to offer suggestions for counteracting group think.

Janis’s work showed how group think was a major issue and made suggestions for avoiding the problems of group think in the future. To date, his suggestions have been ignored. One major issue in the effort to avoid group think is that those who adhere to the group’s narratives are encouraged and promoted, those who do not are excluded and lose influence.

If the past is any indication, U.S. foreign policy makers will learn nothing from another debacle like Ukraine. In the past, decision makers have been able to walk away from the ruins of their poor decisions without any political repercussions. If this is repeated with the Ukraine proxy war, it will reinforce the belief that such a proxy war represents a repeatable formula for sustaining a bloated military, for selling weapons, and for starting wars of convenience. This pattern of U.S. foreign policy failures stretches from North Korea to the present day, with a corresponding trail of death and destruction. The question: how can this destructive pattern be ended before it destroys us all?

From Armed Madhouse: Ukraine War Report

Conclusion

Today the cycle of war is in full flower–military Keynesianism rules the day. The US is in a proxy war against Russia, has bombed Yemen, and threatens war against Iraq and China. The US military budget is set to increase the power of confirmation bias and group think is undaunted.

Today is also the anniversary of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, an attack that was apparently designed to allow the US to enter the 1967 war on behalf of Israel,threatening a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. I raise these issues because we again face the risk of nuclear war. Also, the US alliance with Israel is implicated in every war the US has fought since 911, including the current campaign to force the US to go to war with Iran, again, for the security of Israel. Given the financial and political power of the Zionist lobby in the USA concern about war with Iran must be taken seriously.

The risk of that war with Russia, with Iran, or with China could lead to a civilization destroying nuclear war. Together, all these issues again highlight the need for people to put aside their differences, their biases, and come together in a citizen’s movement for reform.

By Sylvia Demarest, Substack, 6/4/25

Sylvia Demarest is a retired trial lawyer.

Recent events crystalize the growing risk of a global war, World War 3 (WW3). Some believe WW3 has already started, and point to the many smaller skirmishes that preceded formal declarations of war in World War’s 1 and 2. If so, WW3 has been going on for a very long time, perhaps back to the first Gulf War in 1990-91 that ended the “Vietnam Syndrome,” or to the NATO bombing of Serbia (then part of Yugoslavia) in 1999) reflecting US intention to contain Russia. The previous world wars were horribly destructive, but weapons technology has become even more dangerous since WW2. Given the destructive power of modern weapons, the thought of fighting a global war is clinically insane; the risk to civilization is much too great, yet current western leadership is actively discussing just such a war.

World War 2 and the adoption of military Keynesianism is credited with ending the Great Depression and providing the economic stimulus for several decades of economic growth after WW2. Militarism and military Keynesianism is a powerful economic and political force in the US. The policy of militarism and war is supported by both political parties and has persisted, election after election, for decades– yes, it’s always the same boss!

This essay will also explore a few examples of past US militarism and military Keynesianism; the next essay will look at how human biases, censorship, and propaganda contribute to this endless cycle of war.

Military Keynesianism

Before World War 2 the United States always demilitarized at the end of every war, including World War 1. The issues surrounding the return and demobilization of 2 million troops from Europe after World War 1 created huge issues, including economic dislocations. Many veterans faced issues with unemployment and readjusting to economic life. The difficulties faced in adjusting from a wartime to a peacetime economy “would have lasting implications for U.S. military policy and society in the decades ahead.”

The first public reference to “military Keynesianism” was on January 5, 1938, in a column in the New Republic by John T. Flynn. Flynn was convinced that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was plotting to involve the US in a foreign war to stimulate the US economy. Flynn, a well-known progressive journalist at the time, observed that in 1937 a new downturn in the US economy had sent unemployment soaring to the same level as the beginning of the Great Depression. Flynn stated that a top Roosevelt advisor had advocated a large dose of military spending i.e. “military Keynesianism”, and a major foreign war as the way to cure the nation’s economic problems.

The Great Depression had witnessed the collapse of the money supply when thousands of banks failed, companies closed, unemployment soared, and prices fell. When WW2 ended, the return of deflation was feared when the nation demobilized. There were over 12 million Americans in the armed services and many of these men wanted “to be home by Christmas”. The issue was resolved by a combination of social legislation to support and ease the transition to civilian life along with a commitment to continued militarism.

World War 2 finally ended the Great Depression. Economic relief began as orders from Europe and Asia provided an economic lift. After the US entered the war, military spending exploded, rising 600 percent from June 1940 to 1941, reaching 42 percent of GDP by 1943–44. Even though fifteen million workers entered the military, the economy expanded at its highest rate ever: real GDP jumped 54 percent from 1939 to 1944, and unemployment reached a historical low of 1.2 percent.

The US continued to benefit economically after the war ended. WW2 had devastated the economies and productive capacity of Europe and Japan, leaving US productive capacity unscathed. After years of economic rationing, Americans were ready to spend their money and US factories shifted from war to peacetime production providing employment to returning veterans. The US experienced several decades of exceptional economic growth, along with huge gains in employment and wages. War and military Keynesianism had been characterized by both “guns and butter,” along with at least twenty major technological innovations the war produced that were quickly applied to civilian life. Rather than being a “burden,” the establishment of military Keynesianism in this unique historical context—witnessed a large military budget that produced capital formation, employment, and technological dynamism. This is why many politicians today still see war as a “fix” for economic problems. In a world encumbered by slow economic growth and high debt levels the idea that war is a solution to political and economic problems is adding to the impetus for a new global war.

The huge economic surge that followed the end of WW2 permanently changed the US. The US became a consumer society as ordinary people were molded into consumers with an unquenchable thirst for more stuff. This was the perfect environment for the neoliberal ideology, discussed in previous essays, to become dominant, and to consume politics and economics.

Military Keynesianism has been used as an economic stimulus and a jobs program ever since. The production of weapons and equipment is one of the largest remaining manufacturing industries in the US. Congress has been careful to locate bases and production facilities in each district, spreading the funding and the jobs around the country. US militarism is an economic stimulus program, a jobs program, and a source of lobbying and campaign cash. This means that militarism, and the wars that support it, has enormous economic and political power in the USA, even though maintaining it requires perpetual war.

For military Keynesianism to work its economic and political magic, the United States needs to use up the military equipment it produces so the arms manufacturers can keep busy. This is why the US is the world’s largest seller of weapons, and why every US president is an arms dealer. Even with these arms sales, military Keynesianism requires the US to fight a war every two, or three years, or to be continuously at war.

A few examples of militarism in action

1–The Korean War–1950-53–The Korean war began in June of 1950 and lasted until July of 1953. It was fought between North Korea, supported by China and the Soviet Union, and South Korea backed by UN forces and the United States. On June 25^th 75,000 North Korean soldiers crossed the 38^th parallel. The country had been divided at that level in August of 1945 by two young aides at the US State Department. Rather than seeing this as a war between two unstable dictatorships, Syngman Rhee (south) and Kim Il Sung (north), the US feared it was a first step in a Communist campaign to take over the world. The fighting went back and forth, with a huge loss of life, until a stalemate was reached and the fighting was ended at the same place with the addition of a demilitarized zone.

What most Americans do not know is that the US bombed and napalmed cities and towns all across North Korea. US bombers faced little opposition as North Korea lacked air defenses. During the campaign, conventional weapons such as explosives, incendiary bombs, and napalm destroyed nearly all of the country’s cities and towns, including an estimated 85% of its buildings. The U.S. dropped 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, during the war on both North and South Korea. In May 1951, an international fact finding team from East Germany, West Germany, China, and the Netherlands stated, “The members, in the whole course of their journey, did not see one town that had not been destroyed, and there were very few undamaged villages. It is estimated that 20% of the population of North Korea perished. The American people may not have realized it, but major war crimes were committed by the US air force in North Korea. The North Korean people have not forgotten. The Kim family is still in power and have used these war crimes to remain in power.

2–The Vietnam War–1954-1975– This war represents perhaps an even greater tragedy than does the Korean War because it impacted not only Vietnam but all the surrounding countries. It began with an independence movement against the French and ended with the defeat of the US military. This war also impacted the US through the creation of a large anti-war movement that objected to the draft and the brutality of this war, adding to the pressure to end the war. There are dozens of books written about this war so this comment will be brief. The Vietnamese were fighting for independence and sovereignty, but their struggle got caught up in the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union.

The human costs of the long conflict were harsh for all involved. Not until 1995 did Vietnam release its official estimate of war dead: as many as 2 million civilians on both sides and some 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters. The U.S. military has estimated that between 200,000 and 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died in the war. In 1982 the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was dedicated in Washington, D.C., inscribed with the names of 57,939 members of U.S. armed forces who had died or were missing as a result of the war. Over the following years, additions to the list have brought the total past 58,200. (At least 100 names on the memorial are those of servicemen who were Canadian citizens.) Among other countries that fought for South Vietnam on a smaller scale, South Korea suffered more than 4,000 dead, Thailand about 350, Australia more than 500, and New Zealand some three dozen.

The public reaction to the war resulted in the Vietnam Syndrome. The Vietnam Syndrome is a term used to describe the growing public aversion to US military involvement abroad that arose from controversies that surrounded the Vietnam war. It reflected the public’s reaction to the negative experiences and outcome of the war and reflected public opposition to US involvement in military actions without clear objectives.

3–The Church Committee 1975–The Church Committee was a committee of the US Senate established in 1975 to investigate abuses by the intelligence agencies such as the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The committee uncovered serious misconduct including illegal surveillance of American citizens and plots abroad involving regime change operations, coups, and assassinations. The Committee’s publications can be found here. In total, the Committee published 14 reports in 1975 and 1976 that contain a wealth of information on abuses by US intelligence agencies. This included U.S. involvement in attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, particularly Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, the Diem brothers of Vietnam, and General Rene Schneider of Chile. It also contains findings on the development of a general “Executive Action” capability by the CIA i.e. an in house assassination team.

The Committees findings came from the acquisition of what was called “the family jewels”. The reports that constitute the CIA’s “Family Jewels” were commissioned in 1973 by then CIA director James R. Schlesinger in response to press accounts of CIA involvement in the Watergate scandal—in particular, support to the burglars, E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, both CIA veterans. On May 7, 1973, Schlesinger signed a directive commanding senior officers to compile a report of current or past CIA actions that may have fallen outside the agency’s charter. The resulting report, which was in the form of a 693-page loose-leaf book of memos, was passed on to William Colby when he succeeded Schlesinger as Director of Central Intelligence in late 1973. That binder was acquired by the Church Committee. Most of the documents were released on June 25, 2007, after more than three decades of secrecy.

The First Gulf War 1990-1991 ends the Vietnam Syndrome

The Vietnam Syndrome lasted, with a few small exceptions, until the first Gulf war. This war was fought to eject Iraq from Kuwait. It was also conducted in a way to end the public’s reluctance to support foreign wars i.e. the “Vietnam Syndrome.” This was accomplished by turning the war into a TV spectacle with video game type videos showing US precision laser guided weapons going into chimneys to blow up buildings. A huge invasion force was organized by the US, Iraq was ejected, and militarism and foreign wars were suddenly back in vogue.

The war ended on the highway of death, when the retreating Iraqi forces were attacked and destroyed.

But it took 911 and the announcement of the “war on terror” to regenerate the current cycle of war and the endless series of ongoing wars in the Middle East and East Asia. These wars include the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya, the successful covert war against Bashir al Assad in Syria, the drone war in many countries, the constant bombing of Yemen, the ongoing US support for the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, and the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, the threats of war against Iran, and the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. US militarism is as active as ever.

Conclusion

Whether the blame falls on military Keynesianism, the Cold War, or the push for global hegemony, the US has been constantly at war since the end of WW2. Even though these wars were fought against countries that lacked modern military capacity, including reconnaissance, and air defenses, the US still did not “win” any of these wars, including the wars fought during the “War on Terror.”

The US is no longer the sole military power globally–both Russia and China should be seen as peer competitors. Today, the US is involved in a proxy war with Russia and threatens a “pivot to Asia” to confront China. Both Russia and China have military capabilities that are at least equivalent to the US. Even Iran has highly capable air and missile defenses.

Modern war requires the industrial capacity to rapidly produce the needed weapons, along with the ability to supply armies fighting thousands of miles away. The US no longer has the capacity to fight a long foreign war. Moreover, both Russia and China can bring the war to the US homeland. Yet these factors are ignored, and US militarism persists. One reason? The US is economically dependent on militarism.

The US military budget is set to grow by $150 billion to over $1 trillion under the Trump budget proposal. The US is preparing for more war.

The next essay will discuss the human biases along with the use of censorship and propaganda to create support for these wars.