A false flag, as Wikipedia informs us, comes from the idea of ships raising a false or misleading flag to fool an enemy into thinking the threat ship is in fact a friendly one. Another idea is that an attacker, in trying to make it seem that the other side started a fight, will raise the false, or opponent's, flag, fire a few shots in the air, that do little or no damage, and then falsely claim to have been attacked by the actual victim or target state.
And, as you might guess, being perceived a victim is almost always a useful posture for a big, military power to adopt, right before it attacks the almost always much weaker alleged victimizer.
History is full of such examples, of nation's faking some terrible injustice, that then supposedly justifies an extreme reaction by the fake victim.
At Mukden, for example, back in 1931, Japanese troops pretended to be Chinese troops, and pretended to attack a Japanese-controlled railroad. The Japanese immediately responded to the false-flag incident by attacking Chinese troops nearby, and then launching the invasion of Manchuria, the Asian beginning of World War II.
Thirty-three years later, in 1964, a United States spy ship, the USS Maddox, which was conducting a surveillance mission in the Gulf of Tonkin, off the coast of North Vietnam, reported it had been fired upon by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats. The Maddox claimed to have returned fire, and to have damaged the "attacking" North Vietnamese vessels. An additional action, two days later, was claimed to be a second attack on the US ship. Based on this claim of North Vietnamese aggression, the United States Congress passed a resolution empowering President Johnson to greatly expand the Vietnam War. Years later in 2005, unclassified information would reveal that the Maddox fired first at the North Vietnamese ships, and that the second alleged attack never in fact occurred at all. Learning that there was no real Tonkin Gulf incident—at least not one showing North Vietnamese aggression—did not bring back all the dead people on all sides from the Vietnam War.
In recent years, of course, we have the unbelievably cynical use of the false flag—or false threat—that of WMD allegedly possessed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. On that pretext, and with bounteous claims of dead certainty on the part of US officials—bleated unquestioningly by the pro-war MSM—George W. Bush invaded Iraq, overthrew Saddam's regime, and destroyed the links that bound the three competing ethnic groups in Iraq. The resulting violence has claimed countless lives, including thousands of Americans, and the best part of all: there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq. The alleged "slam dunk" intelligence was not only cooked, but it was spoon-fed to the American people to scare the crap out them, to make it seem as if America's real enemy, al-Qaeda, was actually allied with Saddam Hussein, who was about to hand over WMD to Osama bin Laden. Again, none of that was true.
Another kind of false flag favorite is the ethnic defense argument, where the invading nation claims to be coming to the rescue of people ethnically linked to them, to protect those alleged victims from some kind of abuse by the actual victim state.
Adolph Hitler's Nazi Germany made heavy use of this sort of false flag, employing it for example in Poland to help justify a more typical false flag attack on German troops—i.e. an attack perpetrated by German troops dressed up as Polish troops. But the Germans argued that one reason for the necessity of their invading Poland, was to secure the ethnic German minority in Poland. In addition to preparing ethnic German "fifth-columnists" in Poland in the run-up to the September 1, 1939 Nazi invasion, the Germans employed a standard false-flag attack as a pretext to begin their war. In the Gleiwitz incident, Germans pretending to be Poles attacked a German radio station, and broadcast anti-German statements. The Germans invaded Poland the next day.
Now, in Crimea, once again, the invader state is claiming to come to the rescue of ethnic Russians, allegedly living in fear of repression by the Ukrainian government. Just as in the 1930s, when soft, peace-at-all-costs leaders, condemned the world by their failure to militarily confront Hitler, to the worst of all wars, President Obama and his Western European counterparts, cannot come to grips with the idea of standing up militarily to Vladimir Putin. Geopolitical experts, or hacks, who a few days ago were assuring everyone that Russia would never take any military action against Ukraine—that would be so Cold War of Putin—now realize that, with all their basic assumptions in the trash, they have absolutely no clue what to do to stop Russia from moving towards what is its obvious goal, the reestablishment (geographically) of the Soviet-era Russian empire.
Putin could hardly have picked a better US leader to go up against than Barack Obama. It is almost as if Obama were born to be Putin's chump. Not only is that no solace or aid to the Ukrainians, it is daily of no use to Americans either.
Two bad presidents in a row is too many.