The U.S. and NATO are pouring weapons into Ukraine. Kiev says it plans no offensive against Donbass, but if Washington forced one, Moscow would have a major decision to make, writes Joe Lauria.

It is so rare to see an actual journalist rather than a regime stenographer in the US mainstream media that there really needs to be a federal “endangered species” protection designation. In this case it would be AP’s Matt Lee, their diplomatic affairs correspondent, who’s been around the block many times and whose reputation is that he takes no crap from flacks regardless of party. Imagine that!

The Year of the Black Water Tiger will start, for all practical purposes, with a Beijing bang this Friday, as Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, after a live meeting before the initial ceremony of the Winter Olympics, will issue a joint statement on international relations.

This week our top story is on the formal U.S. response to Russian demands over Ukraine and European security, and how the Kremlin might respond. We also look at why scientists and journalists are raising questions about the efficacy of the coronavirus vaccine EpiVacCorona, and how geopolitics are driving the Russian markets.

“All concerned [must] take immediate steps to deescalate tensions and continue on the diplomatic path.” That is the emphatic plea of UN Secretary General Guterres. It was presented on January 31 to the Security Council. Its meeting that day was called by the United States to “discuss Russia’s threats to Ukraine,” according to the Guardian.

Hidden in plain sight, the extreme hypocrisy of the U.S. position on NATO and Ukraine cries out for journalistic coverage and open debate in the USA’s major media outlets. But those outlets, with rare exceptions, have gone into virtually Orwellian mode, only allowing elaboration on the theme of America good, Russia bad.

The West has promised a tough sanctions package against Moscow if it invades Ukraine. But when it comes to energy, Russia holds most of the cards.

Rather than examining the perspective of Russian national security interests, U.S. officials wrongly think the fate of European peace is in the hands of a single man: Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, writes Scott Ritter.

There is no doctrinal statement in American diplomatic history that is more fundamental than the Monroe Doctrine. It was designed to draw a strategic line between the New World and the Old, and to alert the European powers that their political influence and presence was no longer welcome in the Western Hemisphere.

Problematic: Calling the territorial integrity of Ukraine a ‘core principle’ of the US and suggesting entering the alliance is Kiev’s ‘right to choose.’