The Complex State of Democracy in Ukraine

The narrative that the United States must protect Ukraine's democracy at any cost is prevalent throughout the mainstream media, particularly notable in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.  That said, there have been some developments over the past year which show that pro-Western Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not necessarily as democratic as what our leaders would have us believe.  

Let's look at some examples:

1.) Shutting down and sanctioning of television stations in February 2021 as reported here:

 

...and here:

 

....and here by the pro-NATO Atlantic Council:

Here are comments on the issue from President Zerenskyy's website, keeping in mind that he is pro-West/anti-Russia:

  

"I would like to note the work of the Security Service of Ukraine in the fight against the danger of Russian aggression in the information space. Sanctions against the media are always a difficult decision for any government except for the authoritarian one. This decision is not emotional, it has been maturing, it has been prepared for a long time on the basis of information from many Ukrainian government agencies. This is by no means an attack on freedom of speech, this is a well-founded decision to protect national security."

At the time, even the European Union questioned the move and advised a cautious approach to banning Russian "disinformation) as reported by Radio Free Europe, a United States government-based propaganda disseminator:

2.) Shutting down of television stations in February 2022:

 

3.) Arrest of Ukraine's opposition leader Viktor Medvedchuk, putting him under house arrest, charged with high treason as shown here:

 

...and here:

 

 

ii) Ukrainian court authorizes the arrest of Viktor Medvedchuk, pro-Russian head of the Opposition Platform - For Life opposition party as shown here:

 

...extends his house arrest for the first time:

 

...and extends his house arrest again and adds a charge of financing terrorism for his alleged role in organizing a scheme to smuggle coals from non-government controlled areas in Donetsk and Luhansk with pro-Russian "terrorists" receiving more than UAH 200 million as shown here:

...and here:

Interestingly, the Eastern Partnership Summit meeting which included various EU leaders raised the issue of reprisals against opposition media and leadership in Ukraine at a meeting in December 2021 and demanded that Zelensky remove the sanctions against the shuttered television stations and release Viktor Medvedchuk from house arrest shown here:

 

 

In closing, let's look at one final graphic which shows that a majority of Ukrainians do not approve of President Zelenskyy's activities:

 

If Washington or any other nation is using the reasoning that the West must protect Ukrainian democracy through the use of both military action and economic sanctions, as you can see, it is a democracy of a very different sort than what most of us would consider to be a true democracy (at least as those of us in the West define it today).  It is, however, quite clear that the geopolitical situation on the ground in Ukraine is far more complex than our ruling class would have us believe or understand.

Understanding Vladimir Putin's Agenda in Ukraine

While you won't see or hear most of this on the Western mainstream media, the recent address to  his fellow Russians by Russia's President Vladimir Putin very clearly lays out his plan for Ukraine and why he felt that the actions taken by Russia's military were necessary.  Here are some quotes with my bolds throughout:

  

"I consider it necessary today to speak again about the tragic events in Donbass and the key aspects of ensuring the security of Russia.

 

I will begin with what I said in my address on February 21, 2022. I spoke about our biggest concerns and worries, and about the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.

 

It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.

 

Why is this happening? Where did this insolent manner of talking down from the height of their exceptionalism, infallibility and all-permissiveness come from? What is the explanation for this contemptuous and disdainful attitude to our interests and absolutely legitimate demands?

 

The answer is simple. Everything is clear and obvious. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union grew weaker and subsequently broke apart. That experience should serve as a good lesson for us, because it has shown us that the paralysis of power and will is the first step towards complete degradation and oblivion. We lost confidence for only one moment, but it was enough to disrupt the balance of forces in the world.

 

As a result, the old treaties and agreements are no longer effective. Entreaties and requests do not help. Anything that does not suit the dominant state, the powers that be, is denounced as archaic, obsolete and useless. At the same time, everything it regards as useful is presented as the ultimate truth and forced on others regardless of the cost, abusively and by any means available. Those who refuse to comply are subjected to strong-arm tactics.

 

What I am saying now does not concerns only Russia, and Russia is not the only country that is worried about this. This has to do with the entire system of international relations, and sometimes even US allies. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a redivision of the world, and the norms of international law that developed by that time – and the most important of them, the fundamental norms that were adopted following WWII and largely formalised its outcome – came in the way of those who declared themselves the winners of the Cold War."

  

Putin goes on to outlines history of how the West (i.e. the United States) has erred, in his opinion of course:

 

"First a bloody military operation was waged against Belgrade, without the UN Security Council’s sanction but with combat aircraft and missiles used in the heart of Europe. The bombing of peaceful cities and vital infrastructure went on for several weeks. I have to recall these facts, because some Western colleagues prefer to forget them, and when we mentioned the event, they prefer to avoid speaking about international law, instead emphasising the circumstances which they interpret as they think necessary.

 

Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya and Syria. The illegal use of military power against Libya and the distortion of all the UN Security Council decisions on Libya ruined the state, created a huge seat of international terrorism, and pushed the country towards a humanitarian catastrophe, into the vortex of a civil war, which has continued there for years. The tragedy, which was created for hundreds of thousands and even millions of people not only in Libya but in the whole region, has led to a large-scale exodus from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe.

 

A similar fate was also prepared for Syria. The combat operations conducted by the Western coalition in that country without the Syrian government’s approval or UN Security Council’s sanction can only be defined as aggression and intervention.

 

But the example that stands apart from the above events is, of course, the invasion of Iraq without any legal grounds. They used the pretext of allegedly reliable information available in the United States about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. To prove that allegation, the US Secretary of State held up a vial with white power, publicly, for the whole world to see, assuring the international community that it was a chemical warfare agent created in Iraq. It later turned out that all of that was a fake and a sham, and that Iraq did not have any chemical weapons. Incredible and shocking but true. We witnessed lies made at the highest state level and voiced from the high UN rostrum. As a result we see a tremendous loss in human life, damage, destruction, and a colossal upsurge of terrorism.

 

Overall, it appears that nearly everywhere, in many regions of the world where the United States brought its law and order, this created bloody, non-healing wounds and the curse of international terrorism and extremism. I have only mentioned the most glaring but far from only examples of disregard for international law."

 

Here are his reasons/justification for the military actions taken by Russia and its future plans:

 

"...The people’s republics of Donbass have asked Russia for help.

 

In this context, in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation.

 

The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.

 

It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force. At the same time, we have been hearing an increasing number of statements coming from the West that there is no need any more to abide by the documents setting forth the outcomes of World War II, as signed by the totalitarian Soviet regime....

 

In 2014, Russia was obliged to protect the people of Crimea and Sevastopol from those who you yourself call “nats.” The people of Crimea and Sevastopol made their choice in favour of being with their historical homeland, Russia, and we supported their choice. As I said, we could not act otherwise.

 

The current events have nothing to do with a desire to infringe on the interests of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. They are connected with the defending Russia from those who have taken Ukraine hostage and are trying to use it against our country and our people.

 

I reiterate: we are acting to defend ourselves from the threats created for us and from a worse peril than what is happening now. I am asking you, however hard this may be, to understand this and to work together with us so as to turn this tragic page as soon as possible and to move forward together, without allowing anyone to interfere in our affairs and our relations but developing them independently, so as to create favourable conditions for overcoming all these problems and to strengthen us from within as a single whole, despite the existence of state borders. I believe in this, in our common future."

 

And, finally:

 

"Those who aspire to global dominance have publicly designated Russia as their enemy. They did so with impunity. Make no mistake, they had no reason to act this way. It is true that they have considerable financial, scientific, technological, and military capabilities. We are aware of this and have an objective view of the economic threats we have been hearing, just as our ability to counter this brash and never-ending blackmail. Let me reiterate that we have no illusions in this regard and are extremely realistic in our assessments.

 

As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today’s Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.

 

At the same time, technology, including in the defence sector, is changing rapidly. One day there is one leader, and tomorrow another, but a military presence in territories bordering on Russia, if we permit it to go ahead, will stay for decades to come or maybe forever, creating an ever mounting and totally unacceptable threat for Russia.

 

Even now, with NATO’s eastward expansion the situation for Russia has been becoming worse and more dangerous by the year. Moreover, these past days NATO leadership has been blunt in its statements that they need to accelerate and step up efforts to bring the alliance’s infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders. In other words, they have been toughening their position. We cannot stay idle and passively observe these developments. This would be an absolutely irresponsible thing to do for us.

 

Any further expansion of the North Atlantic alliance’s infrastructure or the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold of the Ukrainian territory are unacceptable for us. Of course, the question is not about NATO itself. It merely serves as a tool of US foreign policy. The problem is that in territories adjacent to Russia, which I have to note is our historical land, a hostile “anti-Russia” is taking shape. Fully controlled from the outside, it is doing everything to attract NATO armed forces and obtain cutting-edge weapons...."

To put Putin's comments into perspective, here is a map from Statista showing the eastward expansion of NATO member states toward Russia:

Here is a serious of graphics showing NATO's partnership arrangements showing its spread around the globe:

As you can see, from the Russian perspective, the geopolitical situation in Ukraine is very complex and has not been fully explained by the Western media.  Russia is concerned about protecting its flanks from further moves by NATO that it views as potential threats its existence, a reality that is not surprising given the extremely high human cost of the Second World War to the Soviet Union.  Both Russia and the United States are guilty of meddling in Ukraine's affairs, a reality that has resulted in considerable suffering for the people of Ukraine who, through no fault of their own, find themselves at the front lines of the first Cold War II battle.

How Americans Feel About a War With Russia

Recent polling by AP-NORC provides us with insight regarding Russia, Ukraine and American involvement in a war with Russia.  Let's look at the results from the poll which was conducted between February 18 and 21, 2022 with 1,289 adults.

  

Let's look at the questions and responses keeping in mind that 46 percent of those polled have heard or read a lot about the military buildup on the Russia/Ukraine border, 29 percent have heard or read some and 25 percent have not heard or read about the buildup.  Additionally, among those who have been paying either a lot or some attention to the buildup, 32 percent believe that the United States should play a major role and 51 percent believe that the United States should play a minor role.

  

1.) How much of a role do you think that the United States have in the situation between Russia and Ukraine?

 

Overall - major role - 26%, minor role - 52%, no role - 20%

 

Republican - major role - 22%, minor role - 54%, no role - 22%

 

Democrat - major role - 32%, minor role - 52%, no role - 14%

 

2.) How personally concerned are you that Russia's influence around the world poses a direct threat to the United States?

 

Overall - 50%

 

Republican - 40%

 

Democrat - 53%

 

By way of comparison, 75 percent of all adults are concerned about the spread of misinformation, 63 percent are concerned about cyberattacks, 63 percent are concerned about extremist groups based inside the United States and 59 percent are concerned about China's influence around the world.

 

3.) Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way Joe Biden is handling the U.S. relationship with Russia?

 

Overall - approve - 44%, disapprove - 55%

 

Republican - approve - 18%, disapprove - 82%

 

Democrat - aprove - 72%, disapprove - 26%

  

4.) What is your level of confidence in the people running the U.S. military?

 

Great deal of confidence - 41%

 

Only some confidence - 46%

 

Hardly any confidence - 12%

 

5.) 4.) What is your level of confidence in the people running the U.S. intelligence gathering agencies?

 

Great deal of confidence - 24%

 

Only some confidence - 52%

 

Hardly any confidence - 242%

It would certainly appear that Main Street Americans have little interest in entering a conflict with Russia over a nation which isn't surprising given that only 34 percent of Americans can even find Ukraine on a map of the world as shown here:

As well, more than half of all Americans do not approve of Joe Biden's handling of the very important "Russia file" which hardly inspires confidence in the Russia-Ukraine issue on a going-forward basis.

Is Washington Begging for War with Russia?

In the February 16th press briefing by Maria Zakahrova, spokeswoman for The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, we find some interesting and even humorous comments regarding the ongoing narrative that Russia is preparing to invade Ukraine, many of which will never appear in the West's mainstream media.  Let's look at some of her key comments, in particular, her comments on the Western media.

Zakharova opens the briefing with this line:

"Sorry, I was held up for a minute. I was double-checking whether we are invading or not. We’re not invading!

 

After outlining the meetings that Sergey Lavrov will have over the next week with various world leaders and their underlings, Zakharova weighs in on Russia's viewpoint of "the fakes" (i.e. fake news) with my bolds throughout:

 

"Perhaps this is a standing section we have lacked until now and it’s high time we started one – enough to make a cat laugh. This is what Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has termed “information terrorism” on the part of the Anglo-Saxon countries, namely a “tandem” of official and media narrative. On the one hand, this is laughably absurd, while being terribly sad, on the other. The leading Western countries’ domestic and foreign policy thought has been exposed with a dramatic force. And these are the countries that are controlling the goings-on everywhere, including in NATO.  They are seeking to influence the processes unfolding inside even the associations of which they are not members. I am referring to the EU. These are the countries that laid claim to leadership in our world and posed as “guarantors” of this or that – security, freedom, whatever.  All of you can see what we have arrived at. Surprisingly, it is these countries that have created within organisations under their control (I have primarily NATO in mind, but their supervisee, the EU, is also in this category) a huge number of units whose duty it is to fight fakes. I think they have supplied themselves with postmortems to complete for a year ahead. It has been a long time since I last saw such an amount of fakes, disinformation, planted stories, slander and condensed lies. The concentration of disinformation was not as dense even in the case of Syria."

 

She then goes on to discuss "provocations concerning Ukraine", once again calling out the Western media:

 

"Today, we are marking yet another day of “non-aggression” against Ukraine. We are doing this from the point of view of common sense and reality, which defy any likelihood of a “war” which has been promised to us with such insistence. The West – Washington and London – and its media, including Bloomberg, CNN, The New York Times, The Sun, UK tabloids, and others were active in publishing fakes and even photographs of the “attack in progress.” Yesterday, a fantastically silly report was aired by CBS. Unfortunately for many Western media outlets, this “war” has failed to materialise again. It would be funny, but we are using the term “war,” which is scaring the whole world. Yes, they were trying to do all they can for it to occur. 

 

Unfortunately for The Washington Post, The New York Times, Bloomberg, The Daily Mirror, Bild, The Sun, and other disinformation media, the war has failed to materialise in the past few days. But they are not losing heart and await it with persistence worthy of a better cause. In the early hours today, according to a number of media reports, CNN made its correspondents and camera crew keep a round-the-clock watch to film what they called an “invasion of Russian tanks.” Reuters went on air in expectation of something terrible. I wonder if their advertising time was more expensive in that period, or they had sold it wholesale long ago. Even the post-exercise withdrawal of Russian army units to their bases was interpreted as a “cunning Russian trick” intended to sidetrack attention from the impending invasion....Is there some free space on the US Department of State website, where they have published a report on the alleged fakes disseminated by the Russian media, specifically RT? Insert a report about fakes spread by your US media. Do you need examples? I can let you have them.

 

However, this is not what I found surprising, because everything I described just now has happened in the past. What was particularly striking this time is the scale of the campaign. This must be the first time in history that not only the alleged “aggressor state” (the collective West assigned this role to Russia) but also the supposed “victim state” (this role in the US media performance was given to Ukraine) have refuted the war scenarios, which the Anglo-Saxon media has been forcing on us.

 

I believe this is the first time that both Russia and Ukraine are speaking almost in unison, even though they have diametrically opposite views on many issues and diverging (to put it mildly) approaches to many bilateral and international issues. First, there are no facts of any “invasion,” and second, everything we can read on this issue in the Western media is disinformation. How is it possible? Russia and Ukraine have been presented as hostile countries on the verge of a big European war, but they have refuted these allegations almost simultaneously, although their bilateral relations are far from positive....

 

Two countries – Russia and Ukraine – have been saying at all possible levels that there would be no war, that nobody would invade anybody or had any invasion plans, and that no preparations were being made for the “invasion.” But this has not stopped the Western propaganda machine. Official statements continued to be issued in an endless stream. You can see what this has led to.

  

We have witnessed yet another round in the misinformation campaign, initiated by the West, about the mythical Russian “invasion” of Ukraine and some kind of “aggression.” A lot of effort was invested into mounting this stunt and planting fake news, spreading far-fetched information, involving both major and lesser-known media outlets, prominent politicians, diplomats, and even heads of state. In countries located thousands of kilometres from Europe and which have no ties with Ukraine whatsoever, governments shared with everyone, including Russian ambassadors, their concerns about events unfolding according to a worst-case scenario. Even these countries have been receiving all kinds of misinformation from various channels....

 

In the meantime, NATO countries have continued to saturate Ukraine with weapons, rather actively, behind the cloak of their own information smokescreen. They are not the least bit concerned that these weapons can easily surface on the black market and be used against their own people, rather than against a mythical aggressor. We have seen this many times. Anything can happen there, considering the current NATO-inspired hysteria and psychosis in Ukraine....

 

In this context, President Vladimir Zelensky’s address to his fellow Ukrainians merits attention. I would like to note once again that he has declared openly that Ukraine is being scared with a big war (note that it’s not “us” who are scaring them), that once again an invasion date is being set (not by “us” again). In turn, we have made diametrically opposite statements and noted that we have no intention of invading, that there are no such plans, and that we are conducting military exercises. I will dwell on this aspect separately. Regarding invasion dates, everyone, including official representatives, politicians and journalists, has done their best to prove that these groundless rumours are worthless; they circulate without any reason and turn into fake news and misinformation in the West.

 

We are urging Western countries to stop inciting anti-Russia and essentially anti-Ukraine hysteria and stop saturating Kiev with weapons. These actions adversely affect the resolution of the conflict in Donbass and the entire situation regarding Europe’s security and stability."

 

There is no doubt that Russia's leadership is well aware that the West is living in a post-truth/propaganda saturated era where the mainstream media cannot be trusted in any sense.

As an aside, according to Russia's TASS news service, Zakharova also made a humorous reference to the ever-moving date of Russia's invasion of Ukraine as shown here:

 

 

While we don't know what the results of the potential meeting between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin will be, from what Russia's leadership has said to this point, the last thing that they (and the Ukrainians) want is war, despite the fact that Russia has moved peace-keeping troops into the western part of Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk) which were already controlled by rebels and are predominantly Russian-speaking   as shown here:

...and here:

But then again, we all know that there is a group of Americans who really want war in any and every form as shown here:

 

...and here:

 

...and here:

 

When the transcript from the February 23, 2022 press conference is released, I will provide you with an update on the situation in Ukraine.

Justin Trudeau Then and Now - The Influence of the World Economic Forum on Canada's Future

Back in January 2016, newly minted Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave a fascinating speech to the annual meeting of the "Davos Crowd", the world's self-annointed, self-appointed ruling/parasite class.  Let's look at some very interesting excerpts from both his speech and the question and answer period that followed.

 

Let's start by looking the introduction of Justin Trudeau by Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum (aka the Kult of Klaus) with all bolds being mine:

 

"Prime Minister, good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, friends.  As you know, the theme of this annual meeting is mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution.  I couldn't imagine anybody who could represent more the world which we come out of this Fourth Industrial Revolution.  It certainly will be a world, hopefully, not certainly, hopefully if we take the right decisions, which will be a diverse world characterized by plurality.  It will be a world which will (indistinct) combined significant investments into the future, into (indistinct) infrastructure with fostering entrepreneurial activity at the same time social responsibility   It will be a young world.  It will be a digital world.  Now, who could represent such a world better than you, Prime Minister.  We are very glad that at the beginning of this meeting you are talking to us to represent also a new open Canada.  I want to use this opportunity also to thank our Canadian constituency which always has been a very loyal and very much engaged constituency here at the Forum.  But now, I think with you, together with our constituents, Prime Minster, we can make sure that in the future we strengthen the cooperation even more with your country."

Wow.  That is quite an endorsement for Canada's easily manipulated Prime Minister, isn't it?

 

Here is the address in its entirety, highlights of which I have provided for your illumination below:

 

In the interest of avoiding further nausea and given the events that have occurred in Canada over the past few weeks, you can skip ahead to the 5 minute and 36 second mark.  Please note that all bolds throughout this portion of the posting are mine.

 

"I believe in positive, ambitious leadership. I don’t believe leaders should prey on the anxiety of the disenfranchised.

 

Leadership should be focused on extending the ladder of opportunity to everyone. On pursuing policies that create growth, and on ensuring that growth produces tangible results for everyone.

 

Positive leadership creates a virtuous cycle. The more results we achieve for people, the more we grow the middle class, and create real chances for those working hard to join the middle class, the more people will grant you a license for further ambition. 

 

We need to trust citizens. We need to give people the tools and ability to help them succeed.

 

The fourth industrial revolution will not be successful unless it creates real opportunity for the billions who weren’t able to join us here this week.

 

Frankly, our recent election showed the world that Canadians reject negative and divisive politics and policies.

 

And that makes me profoundly optimistic and confident."

 

I like that "weren't able to join us".  Actually, "were definitely not invited to be there" would be more accurate.

 

With that behind us, now, let's look at the question and answer portion of the address for some even more interesting comments from Justin Trudeau.

  

When asked how he got elected, here is part of his answer (16 minute 15 second mark):

 

"I spent the past 8 years as a politician having honest, open conversations with Canadians in which I listened an awful lot and, from a young age, I had the opportunity while my father was Prime Minister to travel across the country and meet with people and listen to people and understand the values, positivity, the optimism that underscores Canadians' world view.  So, in this election, at a time where so much has been made about the power of attacks in politics, of strategic division, of negativity as a powerful motivator to get people out to vote, we decided that by presenting a positive vision not only if it worked out would we be able to get elected but we would then have the kind of strong and inclusive mandate to provide a positive and good government for Canadians.  So, our focus on this was very much let's bring forward who Canadians are and want to be instead of focusing on what we're scared of and I think that has served us in good stead."

  

When the subject of nationalist/populist/protectionist political movements in the West was brought up, here is his response (17 minute 30 second mark):

 

"I think it comes down to a conception of what you think leadership is all about.  I mean, every person has competing instincts in us, we are good people, we want to be good, we want to be nice to our neighbours, we want to be open and respectful of everyone but, at the same time, we know that there are scary things in the world and we need to be careful and protective.  And, the question around leadership is "which one do you build on, which one do you enhance?".  And, yes, we've seen that it's very possible to get elected through playing up divisions and negativity and that happens, it's a tried true path.  One of the things that I feel is that once you get elected through dividing people, it's very hard to then govern responsibly for everyone.  You can't just keep scaring people and hope to move the world forward.  So, the choice we made was to try and call on the better angels of people's natures to use a great Lincoln line."

 

When asked if terror attacks were going to impact his policies, particularly toward immigration, here is his response (19 minute 10 second mark):

 

"I think people are open to not choosing to live in constant fear.  There are terrible things in the world, terrible people who want to attack our freed and open societies and we have to make a choice about how much we are going to close and limit and crackdown within our society in order to protect it because if you do that too much you lose part of the free and open nature of society.  I have a tremendous level of confidence in ordinary people who go through their lives, don't think a lot about politics, don't think a lot about terrorism, think a lot about their families, about their job, about their future and about their community and want to see things work in the right way.  And yes, one of the primary responsibilities of any government is to keep its citizens safe but one of the other primary responsibilities is keep us free and true to our values.  And getting that balance right in a responsible way as opposed to a way that raises fears and anxieties is, I think, what people are looking for."

 

Apparently, in Justin's world, people can choose not to live in fear but it's at their own peril and, in no way, can it interfere with his agenda.

 

And, that's enough of Justin for this posting.  Let's just say that his comments to the World Economic Forum made back in 2016 have not aged particularly well.

  

Given the Justin Trudeau who has sought to divide Canadians based on their vaccination status and on their willingness to protest against his leadership and response to the pandemic, one has to wonder what happened to the Justin Trudeau who made the comments that I have posted for your information back in 2016?  Has absolute power corrupted Canada's "sunny ways" Prime Minister?  Or, perhaps given Schwab's introductory remarks, has the World Economic Forum's "loyal and engaged constituents" who just happen to be Canadian impacted his views and his actions toward Canada's working class who are now acting as a stumbling block for his agenda particularly given this:

...and, let's not forget this fellow who holds no political office in Canada whatsoever:

...who penned this missive in Canada's mainstream Globe and Mail just days before Chrystia Freeland moved to freeze the assets of Canadians who had supported the protest through the use of the Emergency Economic Measures Order:

There is little doubt that the Kult of Klaus has had a powerful influence on Justin Trudeau.