WHITE HOUSE ASKS CONGRESS FOR $32.5 BILLION TO FIGHT UKRAINE WAR AND COVID WAR

Last week, the White House said it wants $32.5 billion in emergency aid to keep fighting the COVID War and to help fight the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The aid will include $22.5 billion for more vaccines, antiviral drugs, and testing—and $10 billion for military and humanitarian aid for Ukraine. The request was delivered to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. 
The $10 billion for COVID is $4 billion more than the White House mentioned last month, the paper said. (See “THERE’S NO BUSINESS LIKE THE VAX BUSINESS,” “PFIZER DRUG LORD PUSHING YEARLY COVID JABS. CALLS THOSE WHO WON’T SWALLOW BULLSHIT, ‘CRIMINALS’” and “DRUG DEALER TRIO MAKE FORBES’ ‘RICHEST’ LIST.”)
Shalanda Young, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in the letter that the situation on the ground in Ukraine is “rapidly evolving.”
“I anticipate that additional needs may arise over time,” she said, referring to Ukraine. She said the money earmarked for COVID-19 will “help America move forward safely and get us back to our more normal routines.”
CBS News reported that the $32.5 billion could be added to the annual spending bill that is already being debated in Washington. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, told the network that Republicans hit a “snag” regarding the additional assistance for Ukraine.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, said, “Nothing would make Putin happier than having Democrats and Republicans divided.”
U.S., Europe Ramps Up Effort to Arm Ukraine
The U.S. and its European allies have been sending weapons into Ukraine non-stop since the Russian invasion, including 14 “wide-bodied” planes on Friday alone, according to a report.
The shipment included guns, ammunition, rocket launchers, and “a bristling array of Javelin anti tank missiles,” The New York Times reported. (See “WAR IN UKRAINE ECONOMIC OVERVIEW.”) 
The paper reported that soldiers from 22 countries are working 24 hours a day to unload these planes and get the weapons to the Ukrainian military. The weapons delivered from the U.S. included the munitions that were part of a $350 million package.
“All of the US have been tremendously impressed by how effective the Ukrainian armed forces have been using the equipment that we’ve provided them,” a senior Pentagon official told the paper. “Kremlin watchers have also been surprised by this, and how they have slowed the Russian advance and performed extremely well on the battlefield.”
As we have reported, since 2014, the U.S. has provided Kyiv with more than $3 billion in “security assistance” and about $1 billion of that amount was sent in the past year.
Bullshit Has its Own Sound 
“Ukraine will win this war,” Dmytro Kuleba, the Ukrainian foreign minister, said, after meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken Sunday at the border with Poland. “The question is the price of our victory. And if our partners continue to take bold, systemic decisions to step up economic and political pressure on Russia, if they continue to provide us with necessary weapons, the price will be lower.”
Blinken said, “We’re in it with Ukraine—one way or another, short run, medium run, the long run.” The paper said that Blinken mentioned he was in “awe” of the country’s resistance to Russia.
“The world is here with you; the world is with you,” Blinken told Kuleba, according to the paper.
TRENDPOST: “The world” is not with you, Tony. As we have detailed, countries that represent half the world’s population abstained from voting on a key UN measure to condemn Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. We have also noted that a number of countries are pro-Russia. Thus, we note this to, again, illustrate the pure media bias that is being fed to the people by providing a one-sided only context to a multi-dimensional conflict. 
Indeed, as detailed in yesterday’s Chinese newspaper, The Global Times, Cui Hongjian, director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies, said that China should not fall into the trap set by the Western media and that it needs to set its own pace and agenda on mediating the crisis.
“The Western media set up its own standards to evaluate China’s action on the Ukraine situation. For example, whether China follows the West-led sanctions on Russia, whether China follows the West-led condemnation of Russia or whether China persuades Russia for a ceasefire,” Cui said, noting that China has refused to take a unilateral stance.
“Instead, China has been doing everything it can to promote dialogue, which is seen as the only correct way to end conflicts and divergences,” he said.
A Call For Arms
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba took to social media calling on countries to provide Ukraine with fighter jets.
“Dear partners who still have not provided Ukraine with military aircraft: how can you sleep when Ukrainian children are under bombs in Mariupol, Kherson, Kharkiv, other cities? You can take this decision now. Do it!” he tweeted.
Who is Getting These Weapons
WSWS.org reported that the weaponry that is being provided to the Ukrainians could be seen as yet another example of a NATO provocation. The report also pointed to a recent comment by the commander of Ukraine’s Special Forces who announced that there will be no more Russian prisoners and artillerymen would be “cut up like pigs.”
“Such policies are in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, which call for the humane treatment of POWs “in all circumstances.”
The Azov Battalion, which has some members who wear SS symbols, has been accused of rape and assassination, WSWS reported. Members hold positions in the country’s National Guard and have been accused of posting photos of dead Russian troops on social media.
Jonathan Brunson, a former analyst for the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, told Newsweek that military aid to the “far-right” has been plausibly accidental. But he pointed out that Ukraine is willing to arm anyone willing to fight. He said all hands on deck “means just that—and enables Ukraine’s far right to play a heroic role they otherwise wouldn’t.”
TREND FORECAST: The United States will not enter into a one-on-one military conflict with Russia or China. Indeed, they could not even beat the Taliban or win the “Mission Accomplished” Iraq war. Yet, it will continue to ramp up the Ukraine War and promote vitriol that is not only aimed at the Kremlin and Putin, but as we noted in the article in this Trends Journal, “RUSSIAN ARTISTS LOSE JOBS FOR BEING RUSSIAN AFTER UKRAINE INVASION.” 
TRENDPOST: The White House has refused to acknowledge its own failed diplomacy that Ukrainians are now paying for. Russia told the U.S. and NATO clearly that it wants NATO to stop expanding and does not want Ukraine to join. 
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said no deal on both fronts. Moscow called those two issues its red line and decided to act. The Biden administration now finds itself having to tell Americans that they don’t need to worry about nuclear war. 
Putin has nothing to lose and will never let Ukraine or its comedian president embarrass him on the world’s stage. 
Despite all of America’s tough talk, Gerald Celente has pointed out that the American military has not won a war since WWII and has been stacking up defeats, including the recent retreat from Afghanistan. (See “DUH! PENTAGON SURPRISED BY CHINA’S TEST OF HYPERSONIC MISSILE,” “PENTAGON: TARGET CHINA” and “U.S. ‘ALREADY LOST’ AI WAR WITH CHINA, PENTAGON’S FORMER SOFTWARE CHIEF SAYS.”)
Yet, as they have since the end of World War II, Washington and their Presstitutes will continue their fear and hysteria Cold War rhetoric to frighten its masses while enriching the military manufacturing mob.
Gerald Celente’s forecast that America would lose the war when President George W. Bush launched it in October 2001—with 88 percent of Americans’ support—was prescient.
The vast majority of the nation believed Bush’s bullshit at the time and admonished Celente for his forecast.  
Indeed, as noted in the movie What Zizi Gave Honeyboy, after being a major media favorite, Celente was banned from the airwaves for telling the media America would lose the Afghan War. 
TRENDPOST: Former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev was promised back in 1989 that NATO would not reach farther east than the German border, but that has proven to be a lie and there are now NATO missiles 100 miles from the Russian border in Poland.
Chris Hedges, the independent journalist, wrote that there was a brief time of hope that the world could spend money on social projects instead of the massive military complex, but that proved to be wishful thinking.
The war industry acted fast to urge countries like Poland, Hungary, and Latvia to join the alliance to reap the benefits of having to militarize these countries to meet NATO’s standards. Hedges wrote that many of these smaller countries took out monster loans in their efforts.
He said NATO’s expansion was swift, Russia became the enemy again, and now there is a NATO missile system in a base in Poland 100 miles from the Russian border.
“War, after all, it’s a business, a very lucrative one. It is why we spent two decades in Afghanistan although there was universal consensus after a few years of fruitless fighting that we had waded into the quagmire we could never win,” he wrote.
He also pointed to the Clinton administration’s promise in 1997 to Moscow that no combat troops would be stationed in Eastern Europe, but he wrote that the promise turned out to be a lie.
TRENDPOST: Long forgotten was the U.S. and NATO’S pledge not to expand into Eastern Europe following the deal made during the 1990 negotiations between the West and the Soviet Union over German unification.
Therefore, in the view of Russia, it is taking self-defense actions to protect itself from NATO’s eastward march.
As detailed in The Los Angeles Times back in May of 2016, while the U.S. and NATO deny that no such agreement was struck, “…hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts from U.S. archives indicate otherwise.”
The article states:
“According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation with Germany, the U.S. could make ‘iron-clad guarantees’ that NATO would not expand ‘one inch eastward.’ Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks.
“No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.”
TRENDPOST: In 1997, when President Bill Clinton was expanding NATO’s borders eastward, fifty American foreign policy leaders sent him a letter saying that it would be “a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability,” and “NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement… .”
June 26, 1997
Dear Mr. President,
We, the undersigned, believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO, the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits, is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability for the following reasons:
In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties; In Europe, NATO expansion will draw a new line of division between the “ins” and the “outs,” foster instability, and ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included;
In NATO, expansion, which the Alliance has indicated is open-ended, will inevitably degrade NATO’s ability to carry out its primary mission and will involve U.S. security guarantees to countries with serious border and national minority problems, and unevenly developed systems of democratic government;
In the U.S., NATO expansion will trigger an extended debate over its indeterminate, but certainly high, cost and will call into question the U.S. commitment to the Alliance, traditionally and rightly regarded as a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.
Because of these serious objections, and in the absence of any reason for rapid decision, we strongly urge that the NATO expansion process be suspended while alternative actions are pursued. These include: 
opening the economic and political doors of the European Union to Central and Eastern Europe;
—developing an enhanced Partnership for Peace program;
—supporting a cooperative NATO-Russian relationship; and
—continuing the arms reduction and transparency process, particularly with respect to nuclear weapons and materials, the major threat to U.S. security, and with respect to conventional military forces in Europe.
Russia does not now pose a threat to its western neighbors and the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are not in danger. For this reason, and the others cited above, we believe that NATO expansion is neither necessary nor desirable and that this ill-conceived policy can and should be put on hold.
Sincerely,

This letter—signed by top U.S. government officials and politicians—has been totally ignored by the U.S. media and the White House who continually promote NATO expansion while ignoring the consequences as they violate the February 1990 U.S.-Russia agreement that NATO would not expand “one inch.”