← Back to the Social Clinic TOC
d

An Analysis of the Situation in Ukraine

Evaluation in the Social Clinic

Robert M. Rennebohm, MD

Abstract:

There have been two main narratives, regarding the situation in Ukraine—the prevailing narrative, espoused by the US, EU, NATO, and the Ukrainian government, that focuses on an “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine by Russia; and an alternative narrative, provided by President Putin of Russia, that blames the Ukraine situation on a sequence of hostile anti-Russian actions taken by the US, EU, NATO, and the Ukrainian government. There is also a third, less discussed narrative, implicating the World Economic Forum. In this article all three narratives are reviewed in an effort to understand each.

To determine which of the three narratives is most accurate, it would be wise to establish an Independent Inclusive International Ukraine Commission— consisting of fairly selected historians, social philosophers, economists, geopolitical scholars, religious leaders, international lawyers, and other appropriate individuals—to engage in honest, thorough investigation and healthy dialogue about the Ukraine situation; with deliberations and discussions being publicly televised, globally, so that the global public can make up its own mind, regarding the quality and credibility of the three narratives?

It seems most likely that the alternative narrative is more accurate than the prevailing narrative. If so, the US, EU, NATO, and Ukrainian government should be strongly condemned for the cumulative atrocities they have committed and for provoking Russia. If the history recounted by the alternative narrative is accurate; if Putin’s invasion is truly intended to only destroy military infrastructure, carefully (i.e., with precision strikes and forewarning), without harming people (certainly sparing civilians, but also sparing Ukrainian soldiers); if it is true that Putin’s 8 year-long diplomatic efforts to stop the asymmetric bloodshed in Donbas have continually been rebuffed by the US, EU, NATO, and Ukraine; and if it is true that Putin has no other plans for Ukraine, other than the arrest and trial of Ukrainian neo-Nazis accused of war crimes; then condemnation of Putin and Russia is not warranted. If, however, the Russian military attacks are specifically intended to injure and kill people, then strong condemnation of these acts is warranted.

If the third narrative is correct, the World Economic Forum and all of its accomplices deserve the strongest condemnation of all and must be held to account.

Finally, it is concluded that a fourth narrative is needed— one that offers a fresh, positive, uplifting, more altruistic social philosophy and a new more altruistic economic model, as alternatives to the current prevailing social and economic models—-one that explains how humanity could create greater Social Beauty for all the world’s people to enjoy.

A. Introduction:

Good physicians approach medical problems in a disciplined fashion that starts with the taking of a complete and accurate history. This requires attentive listening, as well as knowing what questions need to be asked and what details need to be gathered. Good physicians also consider all plausible explanations for the problem. They do not just think of one explanation and rush to judgment. Further data are then obtained to determine (test) which proposed explanation (diagnosis) is most likely. When diagnosis and/or best treatment is unclear, good physicians ask other clinicians for their objective opinions and help. Good physicians provide thorough patient/family education and include the patients/families in the diagnostic and decision-making process. Good physicians carefully weigh the benefits versus risks associated with potential treatments and prepare themselves and the patient/family to make the wisest choice, which often requires a bold decision that entails risk but is wiser than taking no action or lesser action. Good physicians are humble, honest, and regularly worry about whether they know enough and whether their understandings are sufficiently accurate.

Not-so-good physicians fail to take a complete history; do not listen carefully and patiently to the patient’s concerns; do not ask the right questions or gather sufficient historical details; do not consider all possible explanations for the problem; rush to judgment; do not obtain the quality data that are necessary to test the accuracy of their presumed diagnosis; arrogantly think they do not need second opinions; do not fully educate the patient/family or include them in the decision-making process; and harm patients by either recklessly prescribing dangerous treatments without careful consideration of risks versus benefits, or by refusing to use treatments that, if used, would save lives that otherwise would be lost. Not-so-good physicians assume and insist that they are “exceptional” and “indispensable” and refuse to listen to anyone who questions that notion. Not-so-good physicians do not wonder about the possibility that they could be wrong.

Problems of society or between societies, such as conflicts between ideologies or between nations, can be brought before the Social Clinic, where all can participate as Social Clinicians to determine root cause and best remedy—applying the same disciplined problem-solving approach that good physicians use. (For an explanation of the “Social Clinic” and “Social Clinicians,” please see the following website and link:

https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/

https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/welcome-to-the-social-clinic/

If the Ukraine situation were brought before the Social Clinic, how would our evaluation proceed, what would we likely find, and what remedy would we suggest? We would start by taking a complete and accurate history.

B. The Alternative Ukraine Narrative:

Let’s start with the history, according to President Putin:

  • During late 2013 and early 2014 the Obama/Biden administration initiated, orchestrated, and funded an illegal, undemocratic, violent “regime change” operation (a coup d’état) deliberately designed to replace the democratically elected (but severely flawed) pro-Russia government of Viktor Yanuchovych with a new, rabidly anti-Russian (even more severely flawed) pro-US/EU/NATO government.
  • This US-backed coup occurred on February 20, 2014, when Maidan demonstrators (many of whom were peaceful, well-intentioned, and innocent) were infiltrated by armed members of US-backed neo-Nazi Right Sector militia, who ultimately stormed the Ukrainian parliament and forced Yanukovych and members of his party to flee for their lives. During this Maidan demonstration, US-backed snipers killed innocent peaceful demonstrators and governmental police. These US-instructed killings were falsely blamed on the Yanuchovych government and were used as a “false flag” pretext to justify the storming of the parliament building.
  • The chief engineer of this coup was Victoria Nuland, an unprincipled and vulgar Undersecretary of State in the Obama administration. (She of the “F**k” the EU” fame.) Joe Biden also played a major role, as did John McCain. They knowingly worked closely with rabidly anti-Russian, right-wing, neo-Nazi extremists, including leaders of the Azov Battalion and the founders (Andriy Parubiy and Oleh Tyahnybok) of the far-right Social-National Party of Ukraine (Svoboda)—a Party that combined ethnic ultra-nationalist, anti-Russian, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and anti-communist ideologies.
  • Biden and Nuland (not the Ukrainian people) handpicked the leaders of the new “coup government.” The leaders included:
    • Petro Poroshenko, President: a corrupt ultra-capitalist billionaire oligarch.
    • Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Prime Minister: An anti-Russian, Ukrainian nationalist who sympathized with (or at least tolerated and worked with) neo-Nazi, pro-fascist, pro-Stepan Bandera (Ukrainian WWII Nazi hero) right-wing extremists in Ukraine.
    • Vadim Trojan, Chief of Police in Kyiv: a neo-Nazi fascist, who was commander of the extreme right-wing Azov volunteer battalion, a battalion that openly displays Nazi symbols and, to this day, has continued to receive arms and training from the US.
    • Andriy Parubiy, Head of the Ukraine National Security and Defense Council: the far-right co-founder of Svoboda’s original party (mentioned above).
  • A substantial percentage of the Ukrainian people, especially ethnic Russians, especially ethnic Russians in the Donbas region and in Crimea, did not support the coup and were horrified by the heartless and intolerant behaviors and laws passed by the new coup government. (Approximately 22% of Ukrainian citizens are ethnic Russians.)
  • The rabidly anti-Russian, Nazi-sympathizing (or at least Nazi-tolerating, even Nazi-condoning) government soon started persecuting, discriminating against, terrorizing, and physically attacking ethnic Russians in the Donbas, Crimea, and in many other predominantly ethnic Russian communities in Ukraine—including Odessa, where some 1000 Ukrainian right-wing extremists, led by the Right Sector, surrounded, stormed, and burned the House of Trade Unions, burning alive at least 39 pro-Russia demonstrators who were locked inside the building.
  • The coup government’s persecution, discrimination, and terrorizing of ethnic Russians in the Crimea quickly prompted the Crimean people to hold a referendum regarding a return of Crimea to Russia. With a 97% positive vote, the Crimean people voted for Crimea to return to Russia (in 2014). Russia accepted their request, to the relief of the vast majority of the people in Crimea (relief that continues to this day).
  • During the spring of 2014, a brutal full scale military assault on the Donbas region was waged by the coup government. Right-wing paramilitary forces like the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion played the major role in this assault. The militarily inferior ethnic Russian citizens in the Donbass were no match and were brutally massacred but fought back. Civilians were killed, some even being beheaded. Genocide, committed by Ukrainian forces, was claimed by citizens of Donbas.
  • In response to these atrocities, the two regions within the Donbas (Donetsk and Lugansk) declared independence from Ukraine. They requested Russian protection from the Ukrainian coup government and its neo-Nazi militias. Russia declined to send Russian troops cross the Russian-Donbas border but was willing to supply citizens of Donbas with arms and training.
  • In 2015 the Minsk II Agreement declared a cease fire and legitimized the autonomy declared by Donetsk and Lugansk. However, the Ukrainian coup government never abided by the Minsk agreements, and the US/EU/NATO has never encouraged, much less insisted, that it do so.
  • Cumulatively, over the past 8 years, 14,000 people in the Donbas region have been killed during the ongoing Ukrainian military assault, many of them innocent civilians.
  • Then, after Joe Biden became President, attacks by the Ukrainian military on the Donbas region escalated. In recent months, the Biden administration has encouraged the Ukrainian government to ignore the Minsk Agreements and continue its assault on Donbas.
  • This recent escalation of attacks on the Donbas prompted Russia (in late February 2022) to, for the first time, officially recognize the independent states of Donetsk and Lugansk. It also prompted Russia to assemble troops on the Russian side of the Ukrainian border, as a show of force behind Russia’s continued efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the conflict in the Donbas. When the Ukrainian government continued to rebuff Russia’s diplomatic efforts, Putin decided to move Russian troops into the Donbas region (at the request of the people in Donbas) in a humanitarian effort to protect the ethnic Russians living in the Donbas.
  • But it was not just the above sequence of events in Ukraine that triggered the recent decision of Putin to move into the Donbas. Another major factor has been the breaking of a US promise made to President Gorbachev 32 years ago (in 1990) by US President George H Bush and Secretary of State James Baker, that NATO would “not expand one inch eastward” towards Russia. This promise was made in exchange for Gorbachev’s willingness to accept reunification between East Germany and West Germany.
  • The Bush/Baker promise was kept until 1999 when President Bill Clinton reneged on this promise and aggressively expanded NATO into 14 former Warsaw Pact countries—first, Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic, then Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia. Increasingly, NATO military equipment has been placed in these countries, aimed at Russia. Russia has had legitimate fears that Ukraine might be allowed to join NATO, which has always been an anti-Russia alliance. Russia does not want NATO arms and military activities in Ukraine or any of the other 14 countries mentioned. It certainly does not want nuclear weapons to be installed in Ukraine or any of the 14 countries—just as the US objected in 1962 when American deployments of missiles in Italy and Turkey were matched by Soviet placement of similar ballistic missiles in Cuba, 90 miles from US shores.
  • An additional concern of Putin has been the presence of at least 15 US Department of Defense-funded bio-labs in Ukraine, at least 8 of which are bioweapons labs operated exclusively by the US.
  • Because of the above-mentioned NATO expansion and the associated threat of military equipment (including nuclear arms and bioweapons) being positioned in countries that border Russia, Putin decided to do more than just provide protection for the Donbas region. He decided to wage a military attack on the Ukrainian government that would “demilitarize and de-Nazify” the Ukrainian government and, thereby, encourage subsequent withdrawal of the menacing military equipment that the US, EU, and NATO have installed in the 14 new NATO countries near the Russian border. Putin’s policy of diplomacy, preceded and backed by a show of power, is similar to President Ronald Reagan’s policy of “peace through strength.”
  • The recent Russian move into Donbas and the recent Putin decision to “demilitarize and de-Nazify” Ukraine was not undertaken without many preceding attempts by Russia over the past 8 years to negotiate a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian war on the Donbas and the menacing NATO expansion. This has included attempts to negotiate with President Zelensky, the Ukrainian comedian and actor, who was elected President of Ukraine in 2019, replacing Poroshenko, who was ousted because of corruption and ineptitude. Unfortunately, throughout the past 8 years, Russian efforts at diplomacy have been unsuccessful. Instead of listening to Russia and taking their concerns into consideration, the US, EU, NATO, and the Ukrainian government have escalated their threatening activities against Russia, particularly since Biden has become President. (Victoria Nuland, for example, recently returned to an active role in Ukrainian anti-Russian activities.) Putin concluded that diplomacy had failed and would continue to fail.
  • What Putin means, exactly, by “demilitarization and de-Nazification” of Ukraine is not entirely clear. He has stated that his military attacks on Ukraine will be limited to destroying Ukraine’s war-waging infrastructure, and that he will be asking for the arrest of neo-Nazi elements that have carried out genocidal atrocities against ethnic Russians in Ukraine. He has stated that he is assiduously avoiding military harm to innocent civilians and to infrastructure that is not essential for waging war.
  • Because of the poor quality and extreme bias of journalistic reporting, and because the US has a long history of using “false flag” operations and lies (think Iraq) as pretexts for regime changes and wars, it is difficult to know the extent to which Putin’s military operation has avoided attacks on civilians and non-war-waging infrastructure.
  • Finally, Putin’s actions have not been taken only because of Ukrainian governmental behaviors and menacing NATO expansion. Russia has also been concerned about the long list of US-led regime change operations and wars that have occurred in sovereign countries over the past 30 years—in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, and Honduras, for example. These US-led operations have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, war injuries, and refugees and have involved US training, funding, arming, and use of brutal mercenary terrorists. Russia agrees with Martin Luther King, that over the past 70 years the US has been the “largest purveyor of violence in the world.” Russia has felt a need to lead an effort to put a stop to US-led regime changes, wars, and terrorism, lest the US thinks it can continue these activities with impunity. Russia’s fears include concern that the US is planning regime change in Russia, with conversion of Russia into a pro-US vassal state, with associated exploitation of coveted natural resources in Russia.

C. The Prevailing Ukraine Narrative:

According to the prevailing narrative, espoused by the US, EU, NATO, and Ukraine:

  • In early 2014 Russia waged an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, starting a war in which ethnic Russian “separatists” in the Donbas were armed by Russia and encouraged to attack an innocent Ukrainian government.
  • Shortly thereafter, Russia illegally annexed Crimea, forcing its return to Russia. (The 97% vote in favor of a return to Russia was illegitimate, according to this narrative.)
  • Now Russia is waging a brutal unprovoked attack on all of Ukraine with the full intention of incorporating all of Ukraine into Russia, as part of an overall plan to re-establish an expansive Russian Empire, comparable in size to the former Soviet Union.
  • In addition to taking Ukraine, Russia plans to invade other neighboring countries, as well as former republics of the Soviet Union, bringing all under Russia’s control.
  • In other words, Russia is doing exactly what NATO was formed to prevent Russia from doing.
  • Given Russia’s behavior over the past 8 years, it is fortunate (according to this narrative) that NATO exists and has expanded to the 14 new countries—to serve as a deterrence to menacing Russian aggression.
  • Putin is evil, deranged, and must be stopped (and replaced) in order to maintain peace and stability in the world.
  • Putin’s alternative Ukraine narrative (the narrative described above) is a pack of lies—disinformation that should be scrubbed from the internet and proactively disallowed.
  • It is necessary to heavily arm Ukraine with military equipment and other aid, so that it can win (or at least bog down) Russia’s war against Ukraine and, thereby, stop Russia from capturing Ukraine and other neighboring countries.
  • Ukrainians (including civilians) who are currently taking up arms to fight Russian aggression are heroes—role models for “freedom fighters” everywhere. They should be given free rifles to defend their homeland.
  • The entire world must stand in support of Ukraine’s heroic defense of freedom and democracy. President Zelensky, in particular, is an inspirational hero.
  • Ultimately, regime change will be necessary in Russia. The goal would be a new Russian regime that is fully cooperative with the US, EU, and the new global social and economic system.

The prevailing narrative is quite different from the alternative narrative. It is also quite simplistic—lacking in historical detail and context. The prevailing narrative makes no mention of the Obama/Biden/Nuland initiation of a regime change operation in late 2013, early 2014. It makes no mention of US and Ukrainian support for neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine. It makes no mention of US supported Ukrainian atrocities in the Donbas and in Odessa, or discrimination in Crimea. It makes no mention of Ukraine’s violation of the Minsk Agreements, the US failure to keep its promise regarding expansion of NATO, or of US refusal to engage in genuine dialogue and diplomacy with Russia.

D. A Third Ukraine Narrative:

In addition to the prevailing narrative and the alternative narrative, there is third narrative that warrants discussion, at least for the sake of completeness—namely, the possibility that both Putin and Ukraine are deliberately being used by powers behind the World Economic Forum (WEF) to facilitate the implementation of a new ultra-capitalist, ultra-corporate, ultra-technological, ultra-controlling global social and economic system.

This third narrative should be understood as a mere (but important and plausible) hypothesis.

(Note: In Science and Medicine, truth is sought by creating and testing plausible hypotheses. So, please view this third narrative as an hypothesis, not as a “conspiracy theory.” Unfortunately, it has become all too common (particularly in the US) to quickly dismiss uncomfortable hypotheses as “conspiracy theory.” It is intellectually lazy, socially irresponsible, and abusive to simply brand any view that challenges one’s preferred narrative as “conspiracy theory.” Such branding prevents healthy dialogue and introspective analysis. So, please, do not summarily and reflexively dismiss this section as “conspiracy theory.” )

According to this third narrative:

A consortium of transnational, ultra-corporate, ultra-capitalists [1]—led primarily by the people who regularly attend the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos—have been eager (for many years) to develop a new global economic and social system, as has been articulated by Klaus Schwab (Founder and Executive Chairman of the WEF). This new economic and social system would tackle such problems as climate change, world poverty, “over-population,” food insecurity, terrorism, and global financial and political instability. This group of people believes it has exceptional abilities and unique “know how” to lead the world in addressing these issues, and they believe their leadership is essential and indispensable. [1]

Although addressing the above problems is the stated priority of this group, they also wish to increase their own wealth, power, and control over Humanity. Perhaps their very highest priority and greatest motivation is to not allow others to control their lives. Unfortunately, this group of people is prone to autocratic thinking and authoritarian actions, rather than democracy; they are excessively attracted to high technology (e.g. artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency schemes) and to surveillance and control of human activity; they are short on empathy and compassion; and many in the group have varying degrees of sociopathic tendencies. They are like-minded, know each other well, and have admiration for one another, while having little respect for much of Humanity.

The world they intend to create is one characterized by excessive technology; excessive surveillance of individual humans (e.g., the “social credit” surveillance system that has been trialed in China); extreme global health-related bio-surveillance and bio-intervention; extreme corporate capitalism; and further concentration of global wealth, power, and control in their hands. True democracy and important freedoms will be sacrificed, “for the good of the planet.” It will be a cold-hearted, sterile, “futuristic,” authoritarian, techno-corporate global society, short on genuine altruism and genuine caring; and short on democracy and freedom, especially the most meaningful and precious freedoms. The new culture will have the personality and “values” of its architects.

This transnational group of corporate ultra-capitalists has great allegiance to their group, but little allegiance to the rest of Humanity or to the nations in which they are citizens. In most countries of the world, political and governmental positions of power have become populated by compliant, indoctrinated “leaders” who have been chosen, promoted, and trained by the WEF’s Young Global Leaders program. That is certainly true in the US, Canada, France, the UK, and most of Europe, where compliant designates like Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, and Boris Johnson (and a young Angela Merkel before them) have been dutifully promoting and executing the wishes of the WEF/Davos group. Klaus Schwab has publicly boasted about how successful the Young Global Leaders program has been in “penetrating the cabinets” of governments around the world. Billionaires in China, Russia, and India are also members of the WEF/Davos group. It is unclear whether Xi Jin Ping (probably) and Putin (possibly) are also members—if not, there are candidates waiting in the wings to replace Xi and Putin, if they outlive their usefulness.

It is important to understand that there is no animosity of practical geo-political significance between members of this WEF/Davos group, regardless of their nation of citizenship. Whether the members are from the US, China, India, or Russia, they are part of the ultra-corporate “family” and have the same goals in mind. So, at the highest levels of power there is no true animosity between nations—between China and the US, or between Russia and the US. The animosity that is portrayed in the rhetoric and in the conventional media is largely fabricated. It serves a purpose. It creates enemies (like Russia) against whom people can unite. It strikes fear and anxiety. It divides people. It breeds hatred and intolerance. It undermines people’s confidence in the goodness of human nature, the goodness of Humanity, and in prospects for developing more Social Beauty. It creates chaos, confusion, mystery, hopelessness, and helplessness among ordinary people. It “conditions” and “prepares” the masses to eventually not only accept the authoritarian diktats of the Davos group but to be thankful for their “exceptional” expertise, foresight, and leadership.

The most difficult task of the Davos group is to convince the general public, worldwide (but particularly in North America and Europe, “which count the most”), that it is absolutely necessary and urgent to create this new social and economic system in order “to save the planet and Humanity,” and that the Davos group and their designates are the people who should be entrusted to create and preside over the new system. Among the group’s selling points is their assurance that their proven “know how” (as evidenced by the financial success of their giant corporations) and their transnational friendships and connections can dissolve animosities between nations and bring a coordinated peace, stability, and prosperity to the world. For example, the new economic and social system will be jointly operated by like-minded leaders (members of the Davos group and their chosen compliant, indoctrinated designates in governmental positions of power) in the US, Canada, European counties, Russia, China, India, Korea, Japan, etc., who will cooperate to bring about peace, stability, and prosperity for all. The Davos group will point to the EU as a model for cooperation among nations.

Here we get to the crux of this hypothesis: The COVID pandemic served to condition, prepare, and give practice to the general public’s willingness to accept and embrace authoritarian COVID policies (developed by members of the Davos group, like Bill Gates, and executed through the WHO and CDC) and feel virtuous about doing so, even being heartlessly intolerant of those who have hesitated to accept those policies (such as COVID vaccination). Now, the Ukrainian crisis serves as a further opportunity to prepare and convince the general public that, since the world is in such a mess and has become so dangerous, the time has come to turn the world’s governance over to members of the Davos group and the compliant, indoctrinated designates whom they (the Davos group) have chosen to populate key positions of power.

According to this hypothesis, Putin is either being used by the Davos group to play the role of villain (by invading Ukraine and causing the current crisis for Humanity, including fear of WWIII and nuclear holocaust) or, less likely, he agreed long ago to play this role, temporarily, in return for later reward. Either way, Putin and the Davos group know that he has no intention of a complete and long-lasting takeover of Ukraine, and no intention of using nuclear weapons. Either way, the plan is for Putin to reverse course when the Davos group thinks the time is right—at which point Putin’s demands (of the US, EU, NATO, and Ukraine) will be met. At that point Putin and leaders of the US, UK, EU, and NATO (in keeping with the wishes of the Davos group) will agree to a peace accord that will result in complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. In return, Ukraine will demilitarize and not be admitted to the EU or to NATO, and the 14 new NATO members will become substantially demilitarized.

If Putin has been a willing partner in this plan (i.e. if he volunteered to play the role of temporary villain in return for later reward), then Putin, the US, UK, EU, NATO, and the behind the scenes work of the Davos group will be credited for “saving the world from imminent catastrophe.” Putin will go from arch villain to co-peacemaker. As part of the agreement, the extent to which Putin’s alternative Ukraine narrative has been true will, conveniently, be kept a mystery, never to be fully exposed or determined.

If Putin has not been in on this plan and has been genuinely acting in accordance with the alternative Ukraine narrative he has espoused, then he will be severely punished by the WEF,US, EU, NATO (for war crimes, regardless of whether he is guilty of them) and will be replaced in Russia by a new Young Global Leader who is committed to carrying out the WEF/Davos plans for their new global social and economic system.

The combination of the COVID scare and the Ukraine scare, coupled with the current rapidly increasing global economic collapse associated with both crises, will drive citizens in the US, Canada, Europe, Russia, China, India, and other countries to accept (or at least not resist) implementation of the new global social and economic system, which is the goal that has been planned for years by the most powerful members of the Davos group.

Global peace and stability will appear, but it will be governed, undemocratically, by the autocratic and authoritarian diktats of compliant, indoctrinated “leaders” (in nations throughout the world) who have been put into positions of power by members of the Davos group.

So, according to this third narrative, the crisis in Ukraine has been a planned event (with Putin either volunteering or being used to play the role of villain) to drive people towards acceptance of the Davos group’s vision of a new global social and economic system—one that would never have been accepted, otherwise.

E. Which of the three narratives is closer to the truth?

Is it not important to thoroughly examine each narrative, with intention to determine which is closer to the truth—particularly since risk of WWIII and nuclear disaster is involved? Does it make sense to forbid presentation and discussion of the alternative Ukraine narrative, or of the third narrative? Is that the way democracy and civil society should work? Is that the best way to solve problems? Does it make sense to respond to a major international conflict (a potentially nuclear one) by allowing only the prevailing narrative; by refusing to consider opposing points of view; by refusing and preventing healthy dialogue; by refusing to negotiate; by stoking polarization, division, extremism, nationalism, hatred, and intolerance; and by glorifying, encouraging, and facilitating the taking up of arms?

Does a careful study of history suggest that the alternative narrative is closer to the truth than the prevailing narrative? Is there any truth to the third narrative? Is it likely that a major root cause of the Ukrainian crisis (and other global problems) is a long-standing failure, even an adamant unwillingness, to adequately examine and expose the social, economic, and geo-political philosophy and behaviors that have predominated in the world over the past 70 years? In particular, have the prevailing social, economic, and geo-political philosophy and actions of the US and EU— including the arrogance and hubris of supremacist “American exceptionalism”—played a major role in creating the chaos, fear, hardship, and animosity in Ukraine, in the entire region of NATO expansion, in the Middle East, and in the world as a whole?

Would it not be wise to establish an Independent Inclusive International Ukraine Commission— consisting of fairly selected historians, social philosophers, economists, geopolitical scholars, religious leaders, international lawyers, and other appropriate individuals—to engage in honest, thorough investigation and healthy dialogue about the Ukraine situation; to determine which narrative is closer to the truth; with all deliberations and discussions being publicly televised (and archived for posterity), so that the public can make up its own mind, regarding the quality and credibility of the three narratives?

F. Some similarities between management and understanding of the Ukraine situation and management and understanding of the COVID situation:

Before we go further, let’s note some instructive similarities between how the COVID situation has been managed and understood [2-4] and how the Ukraine situation is being managed and understood. In both instances there is a major prevailing narrative and a major alternative narrative. In both instances the prevailing narrative appears to be simplistic, not based on an accurate and complete history, not based on collection of quality data, and seems to be either IGnorant of history and the larger geopolitical picture or deliberately igNORant of history and the larger picture; while the alternative narrative appears to have a greater appreciation for complexity and history. In both instances, the prevailing narrative avoids examination of root causes. In both instances, social and economic philosophy are not deeply examined, particularly by advocates of the prevailing narrative. In both instances proponents of the prevailing narrative have refused to engage in healthy dialogue, despite efforts by proponents of the alternative narrative to arrange such dialogue. In both instances only the prevailing narrative has been allowed; the alternative narrative has been summarily dismissed, scorned, labeled as misinformation (often “debunked” as “conspiracy theory”), and censored. In both instances, the advocates of the prevailing narrative have been extraordinarily intolerant, demonizing, and punishing towards those who suggest consideration of an alternative narrative. In both instances the prevailing narrative encourages intransigent polarization and division, even within families, and encourages simplistic “virtuous” solidarity against a vilified enemy. In both instances fear has been maximally used to mobilize the public to accept the prevailing narrative, including that narrative’s autocratic, undemocratic policies. In both instances totalitarian thinking and intolerant behaviors have evolved among a large percentage of those who support the prevailing narrative. And the people (President Biden, for example) who have fostered this authoritarian intolerance regarding COVID and have demonized those who have suggested an alternative COVID narrative are the same people (President Biden, again) who have fostered intolerance and hatred against Russia and demonized those who have suggested an alternative Ukraine narrative. In both instances proponents of the prevailing narrative have engaged in incomplete and misleading public education about the crisis. In both instances the advocates of the prevailing narrative have underestimated the capacity of the general population to intelligently use their common sense and critical thinking ability to figure out what is wrong with the prevailing narrative. Finally, in both instances massive peaceful demonstrations by well-informed, ordinary, self-educated (by default) people have appeared to be the only realistic way to expose truth, create needed change, and avert disaster.

 

There is one difference, however, between the alternative COVID narrative and the alternative Ukraine narrative. The scientists and physicians who have provided the alternative COVID narrative [2-4] have exercised enormous patience; shown great compassion; remained calm and peaceful; taken the “high road;” performed and shared an extraordinary amount of careful homework; have sought to save all lives (regardless of ideology); have done all of this despite being demonized, abused, and punished by advocates of the prevailing narrative; and have not resorted to violence. In contrast, the leader of the alternative Ukrainian narrative (Putin) has lost his patience and has waged a military attack.

G. Recommendations to consider:

  • If the history recounted by the alternative Ukraine narrative is accurate—i.e., if it is true that neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine have played a major role in executing genocidal activities in Donbas; if it is true that Russia’s 8 year-long diplomatic efforts to stop asymmetric bloodshed in Donbas have continually been rebuffed by the US, EU, NATO, and the Ukrainian government; if Putin’s invasion is truly intended to only destroy military infrastructure and weaponry, carefully (through precision strikes and advanced warning), without harming people (certainly sparing civilians, but also sparing Ukrainian soldiers); and if it is true that Putin has no other plans for Ukraine, other than the arrest and trial of neo-Nazis accused of war crimes; then condemnation of Putin and Russia is not warranted.
  • Yes, of course, it is preferable to try to avoid violence of any kind. However, it is important to distinguish between violent destruction of inanimate objects (e.g. military hardware and weapons) and violent attacks on human beings. If all peaceful efforts to stop bloodshed have failed and one side (the Ukrainian army, with its neo-Nazi battalions) is continuing its 8 year-long killing and maiming of innocent human beings in the Donbas, then a choice has to be made—either allow the killing to continue without resistance, other than continued non-violent calls for peace and compassion; or destroy the military hardware and weapons of the killers? Which action is inferior, morally? When a Nazi organization commits genocide, is it be better to allow the genocide to proceed without any resistance, other than non-violent calls for peace and compassion? Or would it be appropriate to try to “demilitarize” the Nazi organization and take the organization to court for crimes against humanity? But is it fair to pass judgment as to which of those two choices is morally superior? Is it possible that both choices are morally acceptable, the difference being individual preference—-meaning that some people feel more comfortable with a decision to destroy military hardware, if that is necessary to save lives and will save lives; while others feel more comfortable avoiding violence of any kind, even if that violence (destruction of military equipment and weapons) would save lives?
  • If, however, the Russian military attacks are specifically intended to injure and kill people, including innocent civilians, then strong condemnation of those acts is warranted.
  • If any Ukrainians (e.g. neo-Nazi thugs) are intentionally attacking non-military structures (schools, churches, apartment buildings, public buildings) and/or attacking Ukrainian citizens and then falsely blaming these attacks on Russia, this is to be condemned in the strongest terms.
  • It is critically important to determine which of the following claims of the alternative narrative are true, and strongly condemn those claimed activities that have, indeed, occurred:
    • The February 2014 US-led “regime change operation” in Ukraine—a coup d’état that installed a new, pro-US, anti-Russian, right-wing, ethnic ultra-nationalist government in Ukraine.
    • Support for and use of Nazi paramilitary units by the new coup-created Ukrainian government, with full knowledge of the US government. [5]
    • Ukrainian government discrimination against ethnic Russians in Crimea.
    • Brutal military and paramilitary attacks by the Ukrainian government on ethnic Russians in the Donbas, starting in 2014—including genocidal atrocities.
    • The breaking of the 2015 Minsk Agreement by the Ukraine government.
    • The breaking of the 1990 US promise to not expand NATO “one inch closer to Russia.” Expansion of NATO into 14 countries near the Russian border, since 1999.
    • The increasing US/EU/NATO militarization of the 14 new NATO countries near the Russian border.
    • The placement of US funded and operated bioweapon laboratories in Ukraine.
    • The US refusal to engage in dialogue with Russia.
  • The following should also be condemned, regardless of which narrative is most accurate, but particularly if the alternative narrative is most accurate:
    • The current glorification of ordinary Ukrainian citizens taking up arms.
    • The continued shipment of military equipment and weapons into Ukraine, from NATO countries—which increases the level of violence and the possibility of nuclear disaster.
    • The refusal of the US/EU/NATO and their compliant media outlets to allow an alternative Ukraine narrative to be heard and considered.
    • Dishonest and uninformed journalism; execution of false flag operations; and the use of excessive fear to manipulate public opinion.
    • Blanket demonization of and discrimination against all Russian people.
    • US sanctions that hurt innocent people everywhere—in Russia, Europe, North America, and elsewhere in the world.
    • Cowardly use of the Ukrainian people (as fodder) to fight a US/EU/NATO proxy war against Russia.
    • The arrogance, hubris, and supremacist thinking of “American Exceptionalism.”
    • The numerous US orchestrated regime change operations and brutal wars that the US has conducted over the past 30 years—in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia.
    • The escalation of global war activity by for-profit manufacturers of military weapons, and by the military-industrial-complex in general, who have been only too glad to make huge profits off of wars.
    • The ultra-corporate, ultra-capitalistic, ultra-competitive transnational economic model that has been exploiting human beings and natural resources in countless weakened countries for many decades; has increasingly concentrated wealth, power, and control in the hands of a small number of billionaires; and has increasingly raised global tensions, which are now peaking in Ukraine.
  • The third narrative should also be thoroughly explored, to determine the extent to which it is true.
  • Putin should immediately offer to cease all military activity outside of Donbas and limit Russia’s activity in Donbas to defensive humanitarian peacekeeping (only for as long as that peacekeeping is necessary).
  • In return, Putin could insist that the alternative narrative, as well as the prevailing narrative, be fairly told and fully explained, worldwide, so that the world can decide which narrative is more accurate. An Independent Inclusive International Commission on Ukraine could be established to objectively, thoroughly, fairly, and publicly investigate both narratives (as well as the third narrative).
  • Putin should also promise that Russia has no intention of “capturing” or controlling Ukraine or any other neighboring countries or former Soviet republics. He should emphasize that Russia has no plans to create an expansive Russian Empire—that it simply feels compelled to put a stop to what the US/EU/NATO has been doing in Ukraine, in the neighboring region, and elsewhere in the world.
  • Putin could insist that, in return for Russia’s willingness to cease all military activity outside Donbas, NATO countries should stop arming Ukraine and should prepare to disarm the 14 recently added NATO countries.
  • Ukrainian President Zelensky should meet with Putin and Lavrov, as soon as possible, to discuss how to end the war as quickly and fairly as possible. Zelensky should realize that he and the Ukrainian people are being deliberately used by the US, EU, and NATO to engage Russia in a bloody war in Ukraine that the US, EU, and NATO hope will weaken Russia and cause the Russian citizenry to call for regime change in Russia. Zelensky should realize that his country is being sacrificed, not helped by the US, EU, and NATO. He should realize that his (and Ukraine’s) best option is to agree to work with Russia to create peace, stability, and prosperity in Ukraine. If Zelensky is willing to honor Russia’s requests, Russia (with potential help from China) would likely agree to repair the infrastructure damage done to date in Ukraine and agree to help Ukraine rebuild. By so doing, Zelensky has an opportunity to become a genuine hero in Ukraine, in Russia, and in the larger world—by playing the major role in stopping a war (preventing a potential WWIII), preventing a potential nuclear holocaust, and bringing peace, stability, and prosperity to Ukraine (thanks to help from Russia and China). President Zelensky has a unique opportunity to work out a peaceful solution with Putin. If he is sufficiently courageous and wise to do so (which is unlikely), he should be allowed to do so.
  • After thorough public education about the Ukraine situation and larger associated geo-political issues, referenda could be held by the citizens in all countries of the world to vote on whether NATO should be abolished—either because it is unnecessary or because it has misbehaved, or both.
  • After thorough public education about the Ukraine situation and larger associated geo-political issues, referenda could be held by the citizens in all countries of the world to vote on whether they think the US, over the past 30 years (actually over the past 75 years), has violated international law, and has been responsible for regime changes, wars, terrorism, racist policies, death, injury, and displacement of citizens of other countries, and should be held to account.
  • After thorough public education about the Ukraine situation and larger associated geo-political issues, referenda could be held by citizens in all countries of the world to vote on whether they think the WEF/Davos group has engaged in planning that has already caused great global chaos and instability and will be even more detrimental to Humanity once fully implemented.

Putin might not be willing to take the above steps. President Zelensky will probably be unwilling to take these steps. Zelensky is probably too invested in his commitment to the US/EU/NATO. Furthermore, he would fear for his life if he changed sides or conceded too much to Russia. Even if both offered to make peace, the US, EU, and NATO probably will not cooperate. Unfortunately, the US, EU, and NATO insist that only their prevailing narrative be heard, and that the alternative Ukraine narrative (and certainly the third narrative) be censored and dismissed as “disinformation” and “conspiracy theory.” They do not seem to want genuine healthy dialogue. They do not seem to want an accurate history to be exposed. They seem to prefer chaos, confusion, mystery, division, ignorance, animosity, fear, anxiety, hatred, extremism, and polarization—among the masses. Perhaps true dialogue and genuine truth seeking would interfere with their plans.

The people who are currently in positions of power, globally, seem unwilling to examine the root causes of the Ukraine crisis and the root causes of other serious problems facing Humanity, and they seem unable to recognize or seriously consider positive alternative solutions.

If Zelensky is unwilling to work with Putin in the above fashion, and/or the US, EU, and NATO block plans for genuine peace, then, as with the COVID pandemic, the best (and possibly only) realistic option for Humanity is to encourage all ordinary citizens of the world to individually and collectively examine all three Ukraine narratives, engage in healthy dialogue about the three narratives, arrive at and unite behind a best possible consensus, and hold massive impeccably peaceful demonstrations throughout the world—to let those who are currently in power know what they have concluded and what they would suggest. That is how democracy and civil society should work.

H. A fourth narrative:

Importantly, the above-mentioned mass demonstrations should not be limited to what the demonstrators strongly condemn, but also emphasize what the demonstrators are for. Those demonstrations could be an opportunity to articulate and propose a fourth narrative—the articulation of a fresh, positive, uplifting, more altruistic social philosophy and a new more altruistic economic model, as alternatives to the current prevailing social and economic models—-an opportunity to explain how humanity could create greater Social Beauty for all the world’s people to enjoy. [6-10] Please see the following website for further discussion of creation of Social Beauty: https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/

I. Conclusions:

Most likely, the alternative Ukraine narrative is more accurate than the prevailing narrative. If so, the US, EU, NATO, and Ukrainian government should be strongly condemned.

If the history recounted by the alternative narrative is accurate; if Putin’s invasion is truly intended to only destroy military infrastructure, carefully (i.e., with precision attacks and forewarning), without harming people; and if it is true that Putin has no other plans for Ukraine, other than the arrest and trial of neo-Nazis accused of war crimes; then condemnation of Putin and Russia is not warranted, particularly when it is considered that Russia’s 8 year-long diplomatic efforts to stop asymmetric bloodshed in Donbas have continually been rebuffed by the US, EU, NATO, and the Ukrainian government. If, however, the Russian military attacks are specifically intended to injure and kill people, then strong condemnation of these acts is warranted.

If the third narrative is correct, the World Economic Forum/Davos group and all of its compliant accomplices deserve the strongest condemnation of all and must be held to account.

Ideally, an International Inclusive Independent Ukraine Commission should be established to objectively and publicly investigate the three narratives.

If Putin, Zelensky, and the US/EU/NATO alliance are unable to quickly and properly stop this war in Ukraine, then, realistically, the best (and possibly only) option for Humanity is to encourage all citizens of the world to individually and collectively examine all three Ukraine narratives, engage in healthy dialogue about the three narratives, arrive at and unite behind a best possible consensus, and hold massive impeccably peaceful demonstrations throughout the world—to let those who are currently in power know what they (the people) have concluded and what they would suggest.

To empower the above demonstrators and to adequately resolve the Ukraine situation and global chaos in general, a fourth narrative is needed—one that offers a fresh, positive, uplifting, more altruistic social philosophy and a new more altruistic economic model, as alternatives to the current prevailing social and economic models—-one that explains how humanity could create greater Social Beauty for all the world’s people to enjoy.

Robert M. Rennebohm, MD

Pediatrician, Pediatric Rheumatologist, and Social Clinician

Email: rmrennebohm@gmail.com

Website: notesfromthesocialclinic.org

March 9, 2022

ADDENDUM (March 10, 2022):

Today, CNN and other conventional news outlets in the US provided numerous reports of criminal war atrocities committed in Ukraine—against civilians!! This included reports of a deadly bomb attack on a maternity hospital in Mariupol; the bombing of a children’s hospital; the killing of at least 500 civilians, in total, in Ukraine; blockage of refugee evacuation convoys; and the cutting off of food, water, electricity, and medications to civilians in Mariupol.

Who is responsible for these heinous war crimes? Here are the possibilities:

  1. It is possible that Putin has specifically directed Russian troops to commit such atrocities, as a way to emphasize the seriousness of his demands and the seriousness of the consequences of not meeting those demands.
  2. It is possible that rogue, out-of-control soldiers within the Russian army have committed these atrocities, despite and against Putin’s insistence that civilians and civilian buildings be spared.
  3. It is possible that elements within the Ukrainian army (e.g. members of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion) have committed these crimes, with the specific intent to blame the crimes on Russia and provide support for the prevailing narrative. If so, the top-ranking generals of the Ukrainian army may or may not be involved—they may be unaware of what these battalions are doing (unlikely) or may be turning a blind eye.
  4. It is possible that some of these attacks are examples of the unintended collateral damage of war.

Which of the above possibilities is the correct explanation? Which is most likely? Unfortunately, it is difficult to know, with certainty. Numbers 2 and 4 seem the least likely, especially number 4.

Number 1 would make sense if Putin is a reckless, deranged madman without a conscience or any capacity for empathy. Number 1 does not make sense, if he is a savvy, intelligent leader who is committed to the well-being of Russia and the Russian people—for he would have to know that commitment of such atrocities would rally the entire world against him, Russia, and the Russian people, with grave consequences, particularly for him. Number 1 does not make much sense if Putin is willfully playing the role of arch villain on behalf of “third narrative” plans—because it seems unlikely that he would sacrifice himself to that extent.

Number 3 is plausible. After all, neo-Nazi thugs certainly have the capacity to commit heinous atrocities, and they have done so, historically, on many occasions. Many of such thugs have little or no conscience or empathy, are extremely violent, and, of course, lie about what they are doing. It is appropriate to ask, “Why would the Ukrainian Army allow such battalions to be part of their Army?” One answer is that such battalions serve the purpose of carrying out heinous missions that ordinary decent soldiers would not be willing to carry out. That is why some armies (unscrupulous ones) would purposefully have such battalions in their army. The presence of such battalions within an army speaks loudly about the character and decency of the top-ranking generals in that army and their Commander-in-Chief.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to know which of the above explanations is correct. It is conceivable that a combination of them is at play. Number 3 seems most likely to me.

FURTHER READING:

  1. Current and Potential Global Economic Plans: https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/the-corporate-consortium/
  2. An Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians, regarding COVID Vaccination: https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/an-open-letter-to-parents-and-pediatricians/
  3. A Call for an Independent International COVID Commission: https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/a-call-for-an-independent-international-covid-commission/
  4. Analysis of COVID-19: An Additional Narrative—An Alternative Response: https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/analysis-of-covid-19-an-additional-narrative-an-alternative-response-long-version/
  5. Israel Is Arming Ukraine’s Blatantly Neo-Nazi Militia the Azov Battalion: http://therealnews.com/israel-is-arming-ukraines-blatantly-neo-nazi-militia-the-azov-battalion
  6. Welcome to the Social Clinic: https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/welcome-to-the-social-clinic/
  7. Social Beauty: https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/social-beauty/
  8. Create Vast Fields of Public Activity: https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/create-vast-fields-of-public-activity-victor-hugo/
  9. Human Nature: A Graphic Depiction: https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/human-nature-a-graphic-depiction-sowing-the-seeds-for-public-economy-and-social-beauty/
  10. Public Economy and Development of a Collaborative International Network of Unique, Creative, Self-determined, Self-reliant, and Democratic National Public Economies: https://notesfromthesocialclinic.org/public-economy/

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.