The Real Truth About Ukraine War RFK Jr. Tell Who Really Profits Ukraine War Set Up

The Real Truth About Ukraine War RFK Jr. Tell Who Really Is Profiting From Ukraine War Set Up Has Led To A Significant Increase In Military Spending And Arms Sales, Benefiting The Defense Industry. Companies like Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing have seen their stock prices rise significantly in the week following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine In 2022.

Show more

The US has allocated $113.4 billion in emergency funding to support Ukraine, American partners affected by the war, and US national security programs since February 2022 and now Congress has approved $60 billion more in military aid for Ukraine on April 28 2024. After months of resistance from Republicans in Congress, President Biden today signed a $95 billion military aid package, which will arm Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr is going to be called a Putin puppet, but he is telling the truth. Americans have been snookered into war. He highlighted Republicans who were warmongering, but both parties pushed for the war in 2014 and in 2022.

In the video he explains that Russians repeatedly tried to settle the disagreement with very agreeable terms. Robert Kennedy points out the role BlackRock plays in war they want to buy up Ukraine’s farmland and hold the contract to rebuild Ukraine.

While he mentioned McConnell several times, he left out Schumer and Pelosi, who enthusiastically signed up for this. [the Uniparty]

RFK blames the companies, particularly BlackRock, for profiting from what he labeled a money laundering scheme. Additionally, US companies owned by BlackRock are buying up precious Ukraine farmland. Biden also gave BlackRock the contract to rebuild Ukraine.

[Democrats were in complete control when they went into a proxy war with Russia in 2022, with some enthusiastic Republican support.]

Russia waited over seven years for Minsk II, and the US finally admitted they would not implement Minsk II. Germany and France admitted they tricked Putin by signing Minsk II to give Ukraine time to build its army. They admitted they never intended to implement it when they agreed to it years before. The US and other nations in NATO called for Ukraine to join NATO and the EU. That was Putin’s red line.

Putin asked if the US would like Russia on its border with Mexico and RFK explained that they succeed by keeping us at each other’s throats. They keep us hating on each other.

Few people understand what the war in ukraine means for big business namely opportunity.

The ongoing war in Ukraine has created significant opportunities for big business, particularly in the energy and agricultural sectors. Here are some key points to consider:

Energy: The war has disrupted global energy markets, leading to increased prices and volatility. This has created opportunities for companies that can supply energy to the affected regions. The EU has implemented price caps on Russian oil and petroleum products to mitigate the impact of the war on global energy prices.

Agriculture: The war has affected Ukraine’s agricultural sector, leading to reduced exports of grains and other crops. This has created opportunities for companies that can supply alternative sources of these products. The EU has also implemented measures to stabilize food prices and ensure food security.
Infrastructure: The war has damaged Ukraine’s infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and ports. This has created opportunities for companies that can provide reconstruction and repair services.

Technology: The war has accelerated the adoption of digital technologies, such as remote work and e-commerce, in Ukraine. This has created opportunities for companies that can provide these services.

Defense: The war has increased demand for defense-related products and services, particularly from companies that can provide military equipment and training.

Benefits for the United States
The war in Ukraine also presents opportunities for the United States:

Economic benefits: The war has created economic benefits for the United States, including increased demand for American goods and services.
Strategic interests: The war has strengthened the United States’ strategic interests in the region, including its relationship with Ukraine and its position in the global energy market.

Investment opportunities: The war has created investment opportunities in Ukraine, particularly in the energy and agricultural sectors.
Challenges

However, the war also presents challenges for big business:

Uncertainty: The war has created uncertainty and volatility in the global economy, making it difficult for companies to plan and invest.

Sanctions: The war has led to sanctions against Russia, which has affected international trade and investment.

Humanitarian concerns: The war has raised humanitarian concerns, including the impact on civilians and the risk of further escalation.

In conclusion, the war in Ukraine presents both opportunities and challenges for big business. While there are economic benefits and strategic interests at stake, the war also creates uncertainty and humanitarian concerns. Companies must carefully consider these factors when making decisions about investment and operations in the region.

Democratic 2024 presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made a series of bold statements on Fox News this week, blaming the U.S. for precipitating the conditions that led to the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

Kennedy argued with host Sean Hannity that attempts to de-escalate violence between the Ukrainian Army and Russian separatist forces in the Donbas and Luhansk regions prior to the war had been hamstrung by U.S. involvement that took the journey toward peace off-course.

However, Kennedy's comments were quickly picked apart on social media, with claims that he had got several aspects of the history between the two nations wrong and misunderstood the context behind the conflict.

Speaking on Tuesday night, Kennedy made claims including that the U.S. pushed Ukraine into the war on two occasions, that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had signed a series of agreements intended to de-escalate violence, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin had withdrawn troops following the invasion in 2022.

Responding to Kennedy's comments in a tweet viewed 800,000 times, Financial Times Ukraine journalist Christopher Miller on July 26, 2023, wrote "Not a single thing RFK says here is even remotely accurate."

Referring to claims made about the Minsk Accords, a pair of agreements made in 2014 and 2015 that were meant to (but didn't) end violence, Miller said: "US didn't "push" Ukraine into war twice; Russia invaded twice. Zelensky didn't run on or sign Minsk 2. Minsk 2 wasn't 2019 or 2022; it was 2015." Miller added that "Putin didn't withdraw troops, he sent more."

While Kennedy's spokespeople have responded to some of these comments since the interview, Newsweek investigated in further detail whether a selection of his key claims held up to scrutiny.

"Ukraine (was pushed) into the war (by the U.S.) on two occasions"
The central premise of Kennedy's claims is the signing of the Minsk Accords. These agreements were designed to stop fighting in eastern Ukraine, signed in September 2014 and February 2015. While they did reduce fighting between Ukraine and Russian-backed separatists, the accords never stopped the violence entirely and Putin announced they "no longer exist" before Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022.

The U.S. was not a signatory or involved in either of these agreements and neither was Zelensky so, as we'll explore, it's not clear how RFK Jr's argument can stand up.

"(Zelensky) won...ran on one issue; signing the Minsk Accords"
This is not true. Zelensky didn't run on one issue, as articles assessing his campaign promises have shown. Although many of his promises were aimed at halting violence, it was not explicitly in tow with the agreements of the Minsk Accords, nor was it his only policy for election.

"As soon as he got in there (Zelensky becoming Ukrainian president) Victoria Nuland and the White House told him he couldn't do it (sign the Minsk Accords)"
Nuland was U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs from 2013 to 2017, during which time she was heavily involved with Ukraine policy. Currently, Nuland works as under secretary of state for political affairs at the State Department.

There is simply no evidence that Nuland intervened to halt the signing of the Minsk Accords or other policies designed to end conflict. As we've established, Zelensky did not sign the Minsk Accords. Newsweek has contacted RFK Jr.'s spokesperson for clarification.

Nuland has previously been the target of Russian misinformation efforts. In 2022, she was linked to unfounded claims that Ukraine had bioweapons labs, based on comments from a March 8, 2022, Senate hearing that were taken widely out of context. The claims were spread by Russian state media, as well as conservative U.S. news outlets including Fox.

"(Zelensky) signed a new agreement that was the Minsk Accords II in 2022"
Again, the Minsk Accords II were not signed in 2022. It was signed in 2015 and it did not stop fighting.

Zelensky and Putin did meet in 2019 in Paris, France, ostensibly to discuss peaceful solutions. A 2022 biography of Zelensky said all parties expressed the intention of agreeing on the legal aspects of local self-government in the regions of Donbas and Luhansk.

Parties were said to have also expressed interest in the Steinmeier Formula, described as a simplified version of the Minsk Accords calling for local elections, under the regulation of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, in the separatist-controlled region in the east of Ukraine, followed by a special self-governing status.

The formula was signed in October 2019, by representatives from Ukraine and Russia, but led to protests in Kyiv.

According to a 2019 article by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Zelensky said he had agreed to local elections in the Donbas but under Ukrainian law and not until both Russian forces withdrew and Ukraine retook control of its state border. Russia wanted elections first before the withdrawal of troops.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov called the agreement "an important step" but added that the "implementation of the Minsk agreements will continue."

Talks halted as the COVID pandemic swept the world. As lockdowns lifted globally, in February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine.

"(The Minsk Accords II) would have allowed Donbas to stay, and Luhansk, to stay...to remain as part of Ukraine"
This is an oversimplified description of events. As previously mentioned, the Steinmeier Formula was intended to halt the deadlock between the two nations over changing the governing status of Donbas and Luhansk which had not been realized as a result of the Minsk Accords.

As mentioned, even after the signing of the Steinmeier Formula, there was still hesitancy as to when local elections would take place, either before or after the withdrawal of troops and Ukraine's reclamation of its state border. The simplicity of RFK Jr.'s argument does not mention the thousands of people who had died since 2014 either, which grew as negotiations continued. By the start of the war in 2022, 14,000 people had already been killed.

The Steinmeier Formula also lacked popularity domestically. According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, it was opposed by 23 percent of Ukrainian respondents, with two-thirds saying they were "unable to rate" it.

"Putin in good faith, began withdrawing troops from the Ukraine (after Minsk II was signed)"
Because of the way RFK Jr. frames his argument, incorrectly citing the Minsk Accords and agreements on Donbas and Luhansk autonomy, it's not immediately clear whether he is referring to forces fighting in the east of Ukraine pre-2022 or Russian forces that entered the country in February last year.

The initial Russian invasion force in 2022 consisted of around 190,000 troops, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, and at no point did Putin begin "withdrawing troops" except in response to battlefield dynamics, as happened north of Kyiv in March and April of 2022.

A spokesperson for RFK Jr. told Newsweek earlier this week that the Democrat was, in fact, referring to the 2014 and 2015 agreements but insisted there was a troop withdrawal that came because of talks between Zelensky and Putin.

The spokesperson said: "The official reason given in the Western press was military setbacks. In fact, the Russians initiated the withdrawal as part of a tentative agreement with Zelensky, before Boris Johnson scuttled the agreement."

It has been suggested that in April 2022, then U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson tried to persuade Zelensky not to negotiate with Putin after Russian and Ukrainian negotiators met in late March in Istanbul for peace talks.

The extent of Johnson's influence has not been verified. The claim that Russian troops were "withdrawn" is dubious too. Troops retreated from Kyiv oblast in April, which they have failed to recapture since.

While described by National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan at a White House press briefing on April 4, 2022, as a "redeployment" rather than retreat, the notion that these frontline changes were influenced by talks in Istanbul, not battlefield strategy, seems doubtful and not supported by the available evidence.

No evidence was provided to support the claim Johnson blocked a peace agreement, and the claim that Russia withdrew its forces from Kyiv due to an agreement with Zelensky is widely disputed by political and military experts.

Newsweek has put each of the claims it investigated to RFK Jr.'s spokespeople via email. There has been no response as of the time of publication.

Unless RFK Jr. can provide substantive proof to support some of his arguments, the claims the Democratic hopeful made on Fox News simply do not match the facts.

It is not the first time that RFK Jr.'s spokespeople have had to clarify arguments he has made about the war in Ukraine. In June 2023, speaking on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, he claimed that the U.S. had spent "$8 trillion on the Ukraine war. That's $24 trillion that they had to print to pay for nothing."

His spokesperson added: "What he meant was that spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars totaled $8 trillion. He apologizes for the misstatement."

All war are started by Democratic party ?
While it is true that some major wars in the 20th century were started by Democratic administrations, it is not accurate to say that all wars are started by the Democratic party.

Historical context

The Democratic Party has a complex history, and its stance on war has evolved over time. In the 20th century, Democratic administrations did start several wars, including World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. However, it’s essential to note that these wars were not started solely by the Democratic Party.

Republican involvement

The Republican Party has also been involved in starting wars, such as the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War under the presidency of George W. Bush. Additionally, the Republican Party has supported military interventions and wars in various countries, including Vietnam, Grenada, and Panama.

Complexity of war

War is a complex issue, and it’s not accurate to attribute its initiation solely to one political party. Wars are often the result of a complex interplay of factors, including international relations, economic interests, and security concerns.

Recent trends

In recent years, the Democratic Party has been more critical of military interventions and has advocated for a more nuanced approach to foreign policy. The party has also been more divided on issues related to war and national security.

Conclusion

While it is true that some major wars in the 20th century were started by Democratic administrations, it is not accurate to say that all wars are started by the Democratic party. War is a complex issue, and both political parties have been involved in starting wars throughout history.

Democrats Are the Real Party of War Between the fall of Mosul to ISIS militants, the POW trade with Taliban officials and the revelation that almost every phone call made in Afghanistan since the US invasion has been recorded by the NSA, this month has seen politicians and journalists briefly (and perhaps reluctantly) turn their attention back to the chaos produced by American warmaking.

Since Obama’s election, few Americans have wanted to talk about Afghanistan, our longest war ever, now in its thirteenth year, nor the continuing violence in Iraq, which has claimed over 4,000 lives in 2014 to date. Liberal pundits have remained similarly quiet on Obama’s drone wars in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Syria, while cheering the attack on Libya. Meanwhile anti-war and feminist sentiments have been deployed to organize “grassroots” campaigns demanding further U.S. intervention in central Africa and Nigeria against Joseph Kony and Boko Haram.

Many of the liberals who rally around Obama and the flag probably don’t actually have a principled opposition to war. But what about those who do? They are trapped in the cognitive dissonance produced by one of America’s fundamental political falsehoods: that the Democratic Party is opposed to war.

The young anti-war activists who put their hope in Obama in 2008 can perhaps be forgiven this mistake. Coming of age under Bush, whose swaggering cowboy belligerence seemed to define modern conservatism, it was possible to believe the Democratic party—riding a wave of victories in 2006 midterms built almost entirely on opposition to the Iraq war—would recognize why they were elected and change the direction of the state. After all, in the massive wave of anti-war protests in 2003 many Democrats came out and marched together against the invasion. By betraying his anti-war supporters, however, Obama was part of a much richer Democratic tradition then he would have been if he had actually ended the wars.

An adept lawyer and legal scholar, Obama didn’t technically violate a promise about leaving Iraq. On the campaign trail he never said he would end the Iraq war immediately on gaining office, only that he would start ending it immediately, the kind of technically-not-lying he excelled at in 2008. In playing three-card monte with anti-war sentiment, Obama imitates no-one so much as Democratic predecessor Woodrow Wilson, who was narrowly reelected in 1916 on the slogan “he kept us out of the war.” Strictly speaking, this was true, but Wilson had also spent 1916—against the will of a powerful, mobilized and largely forgotten peace movement—preparing and expanding the armed forces. Within five months of his reelection, the United States entered World War I.

Indeed, all of the major U.S. wars in the 20th century—World War I, II, Korea and Vietnam—were entered by Democratic administrations. Harry Truman, a Democrat, is still the only world leader to use a nuclear bomb on a population. And with the exception of World War II, where almost all anti-war sentiment collapsed after Pearl Harbor, these wars were entered over the objections of the left wing of the Democratic Party. But while the presence of that left wing has guaranteed that anti-war liberals rally to the Democratic side, it not yet stopped a Democratic administration from going to war.

What about the way that war has been used throughout the 20th century to stomp on Civil liberties? Certainly the Republicans hold more responsibility for the Cold War and “patriotic” repression? It’s true that we tend to think of right-wing nationalist “Cold Warriors,” of Joseph McCarthy sneering at Hollywood screenwriters or Reagan yelling at Gorbachev in absentia. But blocking out the role the Democrats played in the Red Scare is a victory of liberal historicism, nothing else.

McCarthyism’s founding political act was an executive order by Harry Truman creating the “loyalty review boards” for federal employees. Under the review boards’ auspices, mere suspicion of any communist leaning was grounds for firing and blacklisting. And it was Democrats who founded and first staffed the infamous House Committee of Un-American Activities (HUAC). These organizations were the legal backbone and administrative agents of McCarthyism.

Furthermore, many of the more extreme strategies of McCarthyism go back to the first Red Scare of 1917-1920. Coordinated by the FBI’s predecessor (the Bureau of Investigation), the Committee on Public Information (Woodrow Wilson’s war-propaganda branch), and Wilson’s attorney general Mitchell Palmer (of Palmer Raids fame), Democrats gave the Federal government extraordinary legal powers to repress radical groups. The first Red Scare saw anarchists, communists, peace activists, immigrants and labor organizers targeted with arrest, detention, deportation and vigilante violence.

But the Democratic Party wasn’t only at the heart of the anti-communist witch hunt and its attendant restrictions of free speech and civil liberties. It is Truman’s administration that developed the doctrine of Containment that would set the bloody and disastrous course for the Cold War to come. And while JFK may have prevented nuclear apocalypse in the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was his administration’s hawkish deployment of missiles in Turkey, alongside their botched invasion of Cuba that brought the crisis to a head. Meanwhile, it was Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford who began the détente with China and the USSR, an easing of military tensions that Nobel peace-prize winner Jimmy Carter would end in a cynical (and failed) reelection ploy.

Considering the bloodthirsty militarists that make up today’s party, it can be hard to remember that for most of the 20th century Republicans were (at least avowedly) isolationist. Which is not to say that Nixon, Eisenhower, or Teddy Roosevelt weren’t all proponents of imperialism and violence. But since Reagan, the Republican right has come snarling out of its isolationist bunker. Ronnie and both Bushes started foreign wars of choice, each bigger and more deadly than the last. The aggressiveness with which Republicans have wrapped themselves in a blood-drenched flag since then encourages us to falsely project that kind of positioning backwards into the past.

Similarly, the Democratic Party’s domestic policy has been generally more progressive than the Republican Party’s, although there are major exceptions. For instance, when it comes to attacking the social safety net and deregulating international trade, Democrats are much better at pushing it through; see Clinton “reforming” welfare and de-regulating the financial industry, or Obama passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The (relative) progressive positioning of their domestic policy, along with the vulgar patriotic chest-thumping of Republican populism, and the fact that, when they’re out of power, Democrats loudly and publicly oppose war on principle, are all used to produce a false history of Democratic opposition to military intervention and war. But in fact, whenever they get a chance to vote on it, a majority of Democrats in power turn out to be hawks.

This is not to say that Republicans are in any way preferable to Democrats. Rather that the narrative that the Republicans have historically been the party of war, and Democrats all peace-loving doves, is an absurd fiction, one that both parties benefit from. And it’s a false narrative that keeps winning the Democrats the votes and loyalty of people who should know better.

It’s important to face this fact squarely: in the 20th century, it was the Democratic party that was the more aggressive pursuer of foreign wars. You can make whatever claim you like about historical contingency, necessity, or immediate context. None of them should convince anyone that the Democrats, as a party, are opposed to war. They’re not even more opposed to war than Republicans. They are a party of warmongers.

Many of those young anti-war Obama voters learned a hard lesson: when you put your faith, energy or activism into electing Democrats, no matter what domestic policy you support, you’re also putting your weight behind militarism, a crackdown on civil liberties, and foreign wars of aggression. Perhaps the most surprising thing about Obama’s wars, ultimately, is how, despite it all, many continue to hope for change from the Democratic Party.

Thinking It Through: Are Democrats truly the ‘war party’? Never far below the political radar is the Republican Party belief that Democrats are the “war party.” Based on the coincidence that Democrats happened to be in office when major wars broke out, that charge seems to collide with the party’s 20th century record of seeking accommodation with the Soviet Union and its 21st century opposition to the war in Iraq.

On Sept. 3, 1939, the United Kingdom and the Republic of France declared war on the Third German Reich, two days after Adolph Hitler’s forces invaded Poland from the west while the Soviet Union, with which he had signed a non-aggression pact a year earlier, invaded from the east.

Going to war is always a hard choice, especially since Britain and France had signed an agreement in Munich with the fuhrer, also in 1938, that guaranteed “peace in our time,” giving the former no peace and the latter more time, as things turned out.

Americans were overwhelmingly against fighting in another European war after seeing the disastrous consequences of the Great War of 1914-18 that left the world bitter and disillusioned. It took the incredibly short-sighted Japanese attack on our base in Pearl Harbor to turn public opinion overwhelmingly in favor of intervention in the Second World War.

Millions of American men volunteered for combat and millions of American women volunteered for overseas or stateside duty in support of the war effort. Plainly, it took the deaths of 2,403 American servicemen and the wounding of 1,178 more (not to mention the sinking of six ships and the destruction of 169 planes) to bring home to my parents’ generation that a stand must be taken against Axis aggression around the world.

To his credit, President Franklin D. Roosevelt foresaw this day, no stranger to war as he had served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy in World War I. But it is worth recalling also that, in his first inaugural address, he declared the Great Depression to be the equivalent of war.

One of FDR’s great admirers was a young Congressman named Lyndon B. Johnson, of Texas, who later, as vice president, became president after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and soon escalated the war in Vietnam that JFK had fought on a limited basis.

But LBJ also launched another war, on the domestic front, which he called the War on Poverty, a multi-billion dollar plan to lift millions of Americans out of poverty, the bureaucratic components of which are still in place and which made no noticeable dent in poverty but provided lots of government jobs.

What about Democrats today? Are they fighting more domestic wars? I believe they have been doing so for years in so-called sanctuary cities that provide refuge indiscriminately for both peaceful and not-so-peaceful illegal immigrants. They have been fighting a political war (called a Cold Civil War by some) against the Trump Administration from its inception. They have fought against enforcement of our immigration laws and now they fight against law enforcement (“defunding the police”).

The biggest war, of course, which Democrats only recently, and reluctantly, acknowledged, is being fought in many of our cities, most governed by Democrats, against local police, businesses, federal buildings and anyone else who gets in the way.

During last month’s Democratic National Convention not a single speaker on their Zoom stage so much as mentioned the months of rioting and certainly did not condemn it —until public opinion polling revealed that Republicans were gaining ground for their forthright stand against it.

Yes, wars are being waged in our country, and they have taken many casualties, such as policemen killed or wounded in the line of duty; businessmen and women whose life’s work has gone up in smoke or been ransacked; and people of all colors beaten down by rioters posing as peaceful protesters.

The troops on the ground are known as Black Lives Matter, which hides its anti-American motives under the guise of social justice while calling for race and gender conflict; and Antifa, which professes opposition to fascism while engaging in its violent tactics in our cities and neighborhoods. None of them will be voting Republican this year.

Don’t expect the Democratic Party that has been making excuses for, or soft-soaping, the rioting to admit the truth. Making war is in its leaders’ DNA.

American citizenship, according to the U.S. Constitution, is a privilege granted only to those who profess loyalty to our country and who obey its laws. It is time for all good citizens to assert their privilege in opposition to those who spurn this invaluable gift.

That would depend on what you mean by "started".

The following Presidents are (or were) Democrats except as noted.

Widrow Wilson - President when the US entered WWI

Franklin Deleno Roosevelt - President when the US entered WWII

Harry S. Truman - President when the US entered the Korean War.

Vietnam is a bit tricky to name the President who was in office when the "war started".
Harry S. Truman actively supported the French in their Indochina War
Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) was President when the US agreed to supply up to 10,000 advisors to support the new South Vietnam state following the Paris Peace Talks in 1954.
John F Kennedy was President when the US expanded it's role in Vietnam to exceed the 10,000 advisory limit, started flying South Vietnamese troops to and from battle in helicopters, and started flying limited air strikes in South Vietnam.
Lyndon Johnson was President when the US involvement escalated to the point where we had a half a million troops in Vietnam and was conducting and ongoing air war against North Vietnam.

President Clinton was in office when the US was involved in a the NATO air campaign in Kosovo.

During President Obama's Administration, the US was actively involved in pre-existing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but also engaged in a air campaign to oust Gadaffi in Libya and reengaged in Iraq and now Syria to fight ISIS.

Note that the only Democratic President since the start of the 20th century NOT on the above list is Jimmy Carter.

Related
Which wars have the Democrats started?
Well, let me think.

The Revolutionary War: There were no Democrats.

The War of 1812: Technically started by the US under a Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party (vs the Federalists) under James Madison, though it was just a corner of a larger global conflict and there was plenty of blame to go around. So hard to judge this one.

The Mexican-American War (1846): Started under Democratic President James Polk, though that Democratic party (esp. from Polk’s southern background) is only tenuously attached to the modern Democratic party.

The Civil War: The Democrats of the South rebelled against the national government, and technically started the war. I suppose you could blame them, though they have very little political DNA in common with contemporary Democrats.

The Spanish-American War (1898): Started under Republican President William McKinley.

World War I: US entry to the existing war (in 1917, three years on) was led by President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, after significant German provocation. Hard to say the Democrats started the war, though they led the US into participating in it.

World War II: The US had war declared upon it by the Axis Powers, following the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. The President was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat.

The Korean War: The US, as part of the UN, responded to the invasion of South Korea by North Korea. The President at the time was Harry Truman, a Democrat. Does that count as “starting”?

The Vietnam War: Yes, we’ll call it a war, not a police action. Involvement in Southeast Asia began under Eisenhower (a Republican), expanded under Kennedy (a Democrat), reached its peak under Johnson (a Democrat), and was prolonged, and eventually and essentially surrendered from by Richard Nixon (a Republican). Military action in Vietnam was supported whole-heartedly by the Republicans and by the war arm of the Democrats. Hard to easily answer the question on this one, but the Democrats probably “win” on points.

The First Iraq War: Started under the Republican administration of H W Bush.

The Second Iraq War / The Afghan War: Started (with some provocation) under the Republican administration of G W Bush.

I think that’s the list of the biggies, leaving out things like the invasion of Panama or Grenada, military support in places like Syria, etc. You can tally them as you will.

Interesting how few people will allow comments on their answers….

Before teh Civil War there was a Democratic Party and just barely a Republican Party but I don’t think it’s reasonable to look that far back since Parties and affiliation are not really the same as today.

Spanish - American War — McKinley…oh wait, he was a Republican.

WW1 - Oh wait, the US did not start that war, it had been running for three years before Germany tried to get Mexico to invade the US and be paid off with territory… well Wilson was in charge and he was a Democrat but he got the Congress to declare war but he did not start the war.

WW2 - Roosevelt for sure started this war by bombing Pearl Harbor — oh wait, that was Japan… and the World had been at war for over two years. I think Germany might have started it…but you could argue Japan did.

Korean War - Well TRUMAN obviously sent our forces to invade North Korea — oh wait, it was North Korea and China that invaded South Korea and attacked US Troops there…that’s what started the war.

The Vietnam War(s) started in 1945 and ended in 1975.

Vietnam started as an anticolonial war in 1945, became a Civil War in 1954, and ended in 1975 —— The US supplied weapons to the French, then weapons and “advisors” to the Saigon government, then sent combat troops to make it an actual war, then withdrew from combat entirely.

— in 1954 France surrendered and let Vietnam become a single independent nation — until that evil DEMOCRAT Dwight Eisenhower decided we’d pitch in where the French left off and support the South in a civil war. Without him we would not have had a Vietnam war.

Oh wait, he was a Republican.

So in 1961–3 Kennedy continued the support for Saigon and did not send combat troops and doubted whether there was a viable government in the South but helped anyway. OK it wasn’t the US starting the war…but he did escalate our involvement.

LBJ for sure sent combat troops and built up our presence in Vietnam and turned it into a full fledged war. I’ll point out the war was 21 years in progress before he did it but LBJ has to man up and take the blame for massively escalating and fighting a war he privately admitted (on tapes in the Oval Office) we could not win.

Nixon spent four years fighting a war he openly admitted (on tapes in the Oval Office) we could not win — oh wait he was a Republican…but fair enough he didn’t start it. Eisenhower did. Sorta.

Then Jerry Ford continued support for the South even though it was clearly a losing effort and finally the South collapsed and Vietnam was a united country as it had been for almost 2000 years. The South fell and Jerry gave up, so Yay Jerry.

Then there was the First Gulf War started by Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait and the US President who decided to make it a war was that awful Democrat George HW Bush —- oh, wait, he was Republican.

Then the Afghan War was started by the terrorist of 9/11 and the US attacked, invaded, and occupied Afghanistan under that horrible Democrat George W Bush — oh wait, he was a Republican.

Then the US - Iraq War also called the Second Gulf War was started by the US because Saddam was making WMDs (turns out he was not) and because he was behind 9/11 (he absolutely was not) by George W Bush, an infamous Demo oh, wait….

The USA has been at war almost continuously since it’s independence. While the commitment for eg WWI, WWI, Vietnam, Afghanistan have been higher than most; the USA has continuously been getting into wars. These have included:

1776 - Cherokee wars
1785 - NW American Indian Wars
1798 - Quasi War
1801 - 1st Barbary War
1811 - Tecumseh’s War and War of 1812
1813 - Creek War (First of many Indian Wars
1815 - 2nd Barbary War
1835 - Texas Revolution
1846 - Mexican American War
1856 - Second Opium War
1857 - Utah War / Mormon Wars
1859 - Harper’s Ferry War
1859 - Cortina Wars
1861 - US Civil War
1875 - Las Cuevas War
1891 - Garza Revolution
1898 - Spanish American War
1898 - Second Samoan Civil War
1899 - Philippine American
1899 - Moro Rebellion
1899 - Boxer Rebellion
I’ve omitted about 20 American Indian Wars.
1910 - Border War (Mexican Revolution)
1912 - Negro Rebellion (Banana Wars)
1912 - Occupation of Nicaragua (Banana Wars)
1914 - Occupation of Veracruz (Mexican Revolution)
1915 - Occupation of Haiti (Banana Wars)
1916 - Occupation of the Dominican Republic (Banana Wars)
1917- WWI
1918 - Russian Civil War
1923 - Last Indian Uprising (this is the last of the American Indian Wars)
1934 - Banana Wars end
1941 - WWII
1945 - Operation Beleaguer (US - China)
1950 - Korean War
1958 - Occupation of Lebanon
1955 - Start of the Indochina Wars (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos)
1966 - Korean DMZ Conflict
1965 - Dominican Civil War
1982 - Lebanon Intervention
1983 - Grenada Invasion
1989 - Panama Invasion
1990 - Gulf War I
1991 - Iraqi No Fly Zone Enforcement
1992 - Somali intervention
1992 - Bosnian intervention
1994 - Haiti intervention
1998 - Kosovo War
2001 - Afghanistan War
2003 - Iraq War
2007 - Second intervention in Somali Civil War
2009 - Ocean Shield
2011 - Intervention in Libya
2011 - Operation Observant Compass (Uganda)
2014 - Intervention in Syria
2015 - Intervention in Libya
2021 - Insurgency in Cabo Delgado

United States Broken 368 Treaties With Native American Tribes 1778-1871 Timeline - https://rumble.com/v2823wu-united-states-broken-368-treaties-with-native-american-tribes-1778-1871-tim.html

From 1778 to 1871, the United States signed some 368 treaties with various Indigenous people across the North American continent. The treaties were based on the fundamental idea that each tribe was an independent nation, with their own right to self-determination and self-rule. But as white settlers began moving onto Native American lands, this idea came into conflict with the relentless pace of westward expansion—resulting in many broken promises on the part of the U.S. government. In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the Native American Tribes were illegally confiscated, and awarded the Sioux more than $100 million in reparations. Sioux leaders rejected the payment, saying the land had never been for sale. Controversy continues over the sacred land—as well as other broken treaties.

Started a war or who had a war forced on them? Formally declared war or conducted a war authorised by Congress? A wholly American war or one that was part of a multinational or UN-mandated mission?

It’s a bit more complex than the question would suggest… made even more complicated by the unfortunate fact that those presidents involved in the early 19th Century wars tended to be “Democratic-Republican”.

So, if we ignore alll those “Military engagements authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by Congress” (including Korea, Lebanon, Bosnia, Haiti, Liberia, etc.) but include ‘Undeclared wars (Military engagements authorized by Congress)” we arrive at a list of five Democrat Presidents who have either formally commenced a war, or ‘responded to an act or hositility’ with Congressional approval.

These are:

James K Polk: Mexican-American War (1846–48)

James Buchanan: Redress against Paraguay for attack on USS Water Witch (1858)

Woodrow Wilson: Occupation of Vera Cruz against Mexico (1914)

Woodrow Wilson (again): declarations of war against Germany and various other Central Powers (April 1917)

Woodrow Wilson (what a warmonger!) : Intervention in Russian Civil War (1918–1919)

Franklin D. Roosevelt: War with Empire of Japan, followed by confirmation of war with Nazi Germany and its allies following their declarions of war on USA (December 1941)

Lyndon B. Johnson: Gulf of Tonkin Declaraton against N. Vietnam (1964)

The American Civil War was initiated by pro slavery democrats that succeeded from the Union because of the Election of the first Republican president Lincoln who was against the expansion of slavery and the ruling of the Supreme Court case Dred Scott VS Sanford.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
"In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that black people "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States." After ruling on these issues surrounding Scott, Taney continued further and struck down the entire Missouri Compromise as a limitation on slavery that exceeded the U.S. Congress's powers under the Constitution.
Although Chief Justice Taney and several of the other justices hoped that the ruling would permanently settle the slavery controversy—which was increasingly dividing the American public—its effect was almost the complete opposite.[4] Taney's majority opinion "was greeted with unmitigated wrath from every segment of the United States except the slave holding states,"[3] and the decision was a contributing factor in the outbreak of the American Civil War four years later in 1861."

Wilson- WWI
Roosevelt-WWII
Truman- WWII and Korea
Kennedy- Cuba Bay of Pigs, Vietnam
Johnson-Vietnam, Dominican Civil War,Communist insurgency in Thailand,Bolivian Campaign, South African Border War
Carter-Lebanese Civil War,Shaba I Zaire, Mozambican Civil War
Clinton-Kosovo
Obama- First Syrian Civil War, Second Syrian Civil War,

It is easy to point to President Johnson as the one who really cranked up the troop levels and made them active participants in the war instead of advisors.

But let’s look a little deeper. President Truman, at the end of WWII had literally no plans for stable peace on the Asian mainland, and the results of that were pretty disastrous — two hot wars in Korea and Vietnam, and the abandonment of our Nationalist Chinese allies to a post-war onslaught supported by the USSR and the many stockpiled weapons she had laying around.

The time to stop the Vietnam war was in 1946 and 1947. The Vietminh had fought the Japanese, and deserved treatment as co-belligerents. They should have gotten the same kind of deal the Philippines got, a gradual transition from colony/territory/protectorate/whatever to free and independent nation. The problem was that Vietnam was the colony of France, whose contribution to WWII was to do nothing and then surrender.

But Truman had this idea. He wanted the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), to be prepared to jointly repel Soviet aggression in Europe. And he wanted France to be a part of it. France, however, was having none of that, and wouldn’t participate unless Truman blessed them reimposing their colonial will on the world stage of foreign policy.

Truman did, and France went on to be an ersatz NATO member that we could have all done without. But that sealed the fate of Vietnam, France went back in and the Indochina wars started. Even though President Eisenhower was able to keep things low key and keep us out of the first one, it was headed in that direction, and presidents after him didn’t have the skill to keep things low key.

In 1945 the OSS recognized the Viet Minh and Ho Chi Minh as the leader of Vietnam. The rest is history.

In the summer of 1945, as the Allies made their push across France, General Charles de Gaulle, leader of the Free French, was placed in power of France's affairs, thus beginning the end of Vichy French rule.

This had a severe impact on France's colonial holdings in Indochina. The Vichy French officials in this area had been governing under Japanese control. The French Governor General of Vietnam ruling under this arrangement, was Admiral Jean Decoux. With the fall of Vichy, the Admiral would become a figure head as General Eugene Mordant became the representative of de Gaulle's government in Vietnam, and at the same time heading of all resistance and underground forces against the Japanese. Under General Mordant, efforts were made to rescue downed American pilots and to spy on Japanese.

In January 1945, six US flyers were recovered by the French and held at a Saigon prison. When the Japanese asked for these Americans, the French refused and smuggled the prisoners to a different hiding place. The indfuriated Japanese on March 9, 1945 took unexpected control from the French colonial leaders and their soldiers. Days later the Japanese declare Vietnam independent, installing the formerly deposed exiled leader Boa Dai.

With this new coup of Vietnamese leadership, the OSS was at a loss to retrive downed US pilots. The only organization still offering Japanese resistance was the Viet Minh, headed by Ho Chi Minh. On July 16, 1945 the OSS parachuted a team into North Vietnam to train the Viet Minh. Ho Chi Minh, running a high fever and having dysentery, would be saved from possible death by treatment provided by Pfc. Paul Hoagland, an American medic.

Once again things flipped over with Japan declaring its surrender. Ho quickly sought to take advantage of the political vacuum of the Japanese out of power in the north, while Frence forces moved into the south.

Ho heralded for a unification of all forces for the sake of Vietnamese Nationalism. He called for a general meeting where on display were holstered Colt 45s prominently displaying US. And a giant autographed picture of General Chennault to Ho Chi Minh, for saving downed flyers. This gave all attending delegates and leaders the thought that the United States fully backed Ho. Vo Nguyen Giap, who would later gain fame as the Viet Minh leader who caused the final defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu, was dispatched to Hanoi. The march was joined with some OSS agents who were under strict orders not to engage the Japanese, that still controlled parts of the country, which was disobeyed.

In Hanoi, 25,000 people had turned up at a rally sponsored by supporters of Boa Dai. Ho Chi Minh henchmen rushed the staged, grabbed the microphones, and took control. The crowd was impressed by this boldness and the message they espoused, independence for Vietnam. The Japanese who still controlled the city, did nothing to interfere.

On August 22, American personnel headed by Major Archimedes Patti of the OSS landed at Hanoi's airport accompanied by a delegation of five French under Major Jean Sainteny, of French intelligence. To the dismay of the French, Major Patti moved to accept the Viet Minh as the de facto government of Vietnam with Ho Chi Minh as its leader. The Viet Minh insisted that they were jailing the French for their own protection.

Ho, to consolidate his recognized power to govern, demand that Emperor Boa Dai immediately abdicate, surrender his official seal or suffer consequences. The Emperor submitted and was grant the ceremonial title, Supreme Counselor.

A wave of retribution was sweeping through North Vietnam, as anyone hostile to the Viet Minh was beaten, tortured or killed, and these included many who had collaborated with the Japanese. Ng Ngo Dinh Khoi, who had served as a governor under the French, would be buried alive by the Viet Minh along with his son, for refusing to join the communists. Khoi's brother, Ngo Dinh Diem would later become South Vietnam's first President.

Ho Chi Minh would seek full United States recognition by proclaiming Vietnam's Independence:

All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free…”

The French would disregard Ho Chi Minh and his movement, intent on reclaiming their former colony. Thus began the Vietnam War.

Before his presidency, Bill Clinton received a deferment from the draft for the Vietnam war in order to attend Oxford University for his Rhodes scholarship. The deferment required he attend the University of Arkansas when he completed his Oxford studies, and enroll for several years in the ROTC program there, but after the couple of years commitment, he would be excused from military service.

He decided to go to Yale Law school instead of the U. of Arkansas, and voided his arrangement. Accordingly, he was immediately subjected to exposure in the Vietnam war draft, but not called.

As president, Clinton engaged the US in two war-like actions. One was the NATO combat in the Kosovo war, seeking to force the removal of Slobodan Milošević from power. This combat action was not for the self-defense of the US or its allies, and not authorized by UN Security Council vote, and so, was illegal under international law and violative of the UN General Charter Treaty, which the US as signator was required to treat as the highest law of the land. Accordingly, these actions were colorably a war crime, and specifically were war crimes for the targeting of civilian infrastructure to change a nation’s policies, which is the definition of terrorism.

It was attempted to be ‘justified’ under a new doctrine of ‘Duty to Protect’ (D2P), and the claim that Milošević was engaging in mass genocide. He died while under trial at The Hague, which posthumously determined he had not been so engaged, but was guilty of violations of the Geneva Conventions for allowing them.

Clinton also ordered an attack on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Operation Desert Fox.

Over a four day attack, “97 sites were targeted in the operation with 415 cruise missiles and 600 bombs, including 11 weapons production or storage facilities, 18 security facilities for weapons, 9 military installations, 20 government CCC facilities, 32 surface-to-air missile batteries, 6 airfields, and 1 oil refinery. According to U.S. Defense Department assessments on 20 December 10 of these targets were destroyed, 18 severely damaged, 18 moderately damaged, 18 lightly damaged, and 23 not yet assessed. According to the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, the allied action killed (62) or wounded (180) some 242 Iraqi military personnel. American General Harry Shelton told the U.S. Senate on 5 January 1999, however, that the strikes killed or wounded an estimated 1,400 members of Iraq's Republican Guard”

“The contemporaneous justification for the strikes was Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions and its interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.”

The United Kingdom joined the US in these attacks, which was not run through NATO. Despite the apparent justification of enforcing validly voted out UNSC resolutions, this was also illegal under international law without the vote of the UNSC for enforcing it this way, and so, another example of war crimes, and also, a felony violation of the War Crimes Act, carrying the potential for capital punishment if convicted (because loss of life resulted from the actions).

I say that as a lifelong D who voted for Clinton twice, but also as a supporter of the US Constitution, which explicitly makes ratified treaties the highest law of the land. What the UN General Charter Treaty requires is very simple. No wars may be engaged in without the reason of national self-defense, defense of allies, or by the UNSC’s official approval. Neither action was put forward for the UNSC’s consideration, let alone gaining their authorization.

It is true that most US presidents, Ds and Rs, have taken such actions. I call them all out when they do it, to be consistent.

RFK blames the companies, particularly BlackRock, for profiting from what he labeled a money laundering scheme.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has accused companies, particularly BlackRock, of profiting from a money laundering scheme. According to him, billions of dollars being transferred to Ukraine are going back into the coffers of U.S. companies, specifically defense contractors. He claims that BlackRock owns these companies, including Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Lockheed.

Evidence

RFK Jr. points out that more than 99% of BlackRock’s total investments are in defense contractors. He also claims that the company is profiting from the money laundering scheme by providing all-cash offers to outbid prospective home buyers and turning homes into rentals.

Conspiracy Theory

RFK Jr. believes that BlackRock, along with Vanguard and State Street, is a huge behemoth that owns 88% of the S&P 500 and is now targeting ownership of all single-family residences in the country. He claims that this is a money laundering scheme to funnel money from Ukraine to U.S. companies.

Counterarguments

Some critics argue that RFK Jr.'s claims are unfounded and that BlackRock’s investments in defense contractors are legitimate. They also point out that the company’s connection to Blackstone ended in 1994, nearly 30 years ago, and that a lot has changed since then.

Top Secret Government Conspiracy Revealed Government Secrets & Cover Ups Revealed - https://rumble.com/v2a7ugy-top-secret-government-conspiracy-revealed-government-secrets-and-cover-ups-.html

10 Times America Helped Overthrow a Foreign Government and Our Sovereign Nations - https://rumble.com/v2ck7r4-10-times-america-helped-overthrow-a-foreign-government-and-our-sovereign-na.html

The USA has long facilitated regime change to support its own strategic and business interests. A sovereign nation is a nation that has one centralized government that has the power to govern a specific geographic area. Also A Sovereignty Nation or Government is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations. Throughout its history, the United States has used its military and covert operations to overthrow or prop up foreign governments in the name of preserving U.S. strategic and business interests. United States signed some 368 treaties with various Indigenous people across the North American continent. The treaties were based on the fundamental idea that each tribe was an independent nation, with their own right to self-determination and self-rule. But as white settlers began moving onto Native American lands, this idea came into conflict with the relentless pace of westward expansion—resulting in many broken promises on the part of the U.S. government.

Show less