Category Archives: History

The Truth About the Covid Scamdemic is Slowly Going Mainstream

health workers wearing face mask

By John C. A. Manley at Global Research. Reposted with permission.

The truth about the Covid scamdemic is slowly going mainstream. 

Here are three recent examples:

On December 10, The Telegraph published a detailed article citing research that the COVID-19 jabs can cause immune cells to attack cardiac tissue, leaving micro-scars that interfere with the heartโ€™s electrical activity. Scientists found that the damage was long-lasting and could lead to sudden death years after injection.

This all coming from a mainstream news site that supported the scamdemic measures.

On September 26, a South Korean study examined the health insurance records of 8.4 million people, comparing those who received the shot to those who refused. What they found was a significantly higher rate of cancer among the vaccinated:

  • Breast Cancer: 20% increase
  • Colorectal Cancer: 28% increase
  • Gastric Cancer: 34% increase
  • Thyroid Cancer: 35% increase
  • Lung: 53% increase
  • Prostate: 69% increase

Of course, some of this could be explained by the possibility that people who avoid vaccines may lead healthier lifestyles. Nonetheless, it doesnโ€™t look like a great time to buy Pfizer stocks.

And here in the Netherlands, attorney Peter Stassen is charging forward โ€” despite his colleague being thrown in prison by Dutch paramilitary โ€” with their lawsuit against Pfizerโ€™s CEO, Albert Bourla, Bill Gates and other sociopaths behind the global roll-out of the mRNA injections โ€” alleging they have committed crimes against humanity.

To order the book, click here

People are becoming more and more receptive to hearing the truth. The medical police state that nearly emerged provided a concrete and hard-to-ignore example of inherent and inevitable corruption (on both sides of the political aisle) of so-called democratic governments, the โ€œfree pressโ€ and the medical mafia.

On the other hand, the counter movement the COVID agenda generated provided a concrete and hard-to-ignore example of the power of individuals working together to protect and improve their own lives and the lives of their family and community.

Thatโ€™s why I used the COVID caper as a backdrop to my novel, Much Ado About Corona. The challenge, of course, was to take those scary days of imminent totalitarian takeover, and somehow turn it into a novel that readers would enjoy revisiting.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

John C. A. Manley is the author of Much Ado About Corona โ€” the worldโ€™s best-selling COVID-dissent novel. Dr. Kevin Barrett, PhD (author of Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie), praises the book, saying: โ€œThis is it! The great Canadian COVID novel! Much Ado About Corona offers a pleasant world to be engrossed in, despite the dystopian backdrop, thanks to the well-drawn characters, wry humor, and accurate moral compass.โ€ Read more reviews, buy the book or get a free sample in ebook or audiobook format at: BlazingPineCone.com/subscribe/


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup dโ€™Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project โ€œdestroys peopleโ€™s livesโ€. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the โ€œpandemicโ€ โ€” from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

โ€œMy objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the โ€œdeadlyโ€ COVID-19 โ€œvaccineโ€. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.โ€

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. โ€”Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovskyโ€™s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. โ€“Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden โ€œplandemicโ€; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test โ€“ which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. โ€”Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that โ€œthere is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.โ€ In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. โ€“David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovskyโ€™s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup dโ€™รฉtat under way called โ€œThe Great Resetโ€ that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before itโ€™s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. โ€“Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

How Private Interests and the Banking Dynasties Control Washington

Guest Post by Shane Quinn at Global Research. Reposted with permission.

[Authorโ€™s note: The article below, first published on October 13, 2022, relates in part to the powerful forces at work in the United States. Iโ€™ve mentioned also the attempts by the Americans to encroach upon Russia in eastern Europe and the Caucasus. It was outlined by the US authorities during NATO talks that their plan was to incorporate Ukraine and Georgia into the US-led military bloc. As events have since shown, itโ€™s most unlikely this will ever occur. โ€”Shane Quinn, December 8, 2025]

The disappearance of the USSR in 1991, a strategic catastrophe for Russia, ensured that large numbers of Russian people were living outside of the Federation. Millions of Russians in fact found themselves residing in the newly independent Ukraine in the early 1990s, and many of them have lived there without adequate rights.

The Soviet Unionโ€™s existence had guaranteed a measure of security in the international arena, providing a bulwark against the expansionist forces of the United States, which was a considerably more powerful country than the USSR. A somewhat similar stability has been gradually re-emerging with the return of Russia in the 21st century as a world power, having overcome a period of significant decline in the 1990s.

This century the percentage of Russians living below the poverty line has been greatly reduced, to as low as 11%. In the US it was officially estimated that 15% of Americans were living below the poverty line in 2014, and the real percentage was most likely higher than that. These figures have not been reported widely in the Western media.

Political scientist Moniz Bandeira wrote that the US has relied โ€œon two fundamental pillars, NATO and the FED: 

  • NATO, consisting of the European countries subordinated to Washingtonโ€™s guidelines;
  • and the privilege of printing the dollar as fiat currency, the worldโ€™s single reserve currency. Only the Federal Reserve (FED), the central bank of the United States, could and can issue the dollar at willโ€.

Founded in 1913 the Federal Reserve, headquartered in Washington, is indeed very powerful. In 2012 for example the Federal Reserve, which is effectively controlled by some of the Westโ€™s most influential banks, amassed that year at least $9.5 trillion, which amounted to about 65% of Americaโ€™s annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Quite a number of Americans believe the Federal Reserve to be a government-controlled banking institution, but this view is mistaken. The Federal Reserve, as mentioned, is overseen by private interests and Americaโ€™s largest banks like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo.

These US banks are closely connected to their European counterparts such as Deutsche Bank, Barclays and BNP Paribas. Also intertwined with the Federal Reserve and the other banks are the energy multinationals ExxonMobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum (BP).

The strongest branch of the Federal Reserve is the New York Federal Reserve Bank, which fell under the control of 8 long-established banking families. Only 4 of these dynasties hail from largely American backgrounds, which are Goldman Sachs, the Rockefellers, Lehman Brothers and Kuhn Loeb. The other 4 are the Rothschilds in Paris and London, the Warburgs from Germany, the Lazards from France and Israel Moses Sieff from Britain.

These families were still privately controlling the Federal Reserve into the 21st century. They have continued to hold sway over the international financial system, and became even wealthier in the aftermath of the 2007-08 financial crisis, which the public was called upon to resolve by digging into their pockets. The above families have been performing a central role in the oil futures market, either directly or through subsidiaries, on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the London Petroleum Exchange.

The 19th century German-born banker Anselm Rothschild once said, โ€œGive me the power to issue the nationโ€™s money, then I do not care who makes the lawsโ€. His family members and colleagues have had that power. Moniz Bandeira noted, โ€œThis is why the United States has no regard for and flouts international law. It enjoys the privilege of manufacturing dollars when and how it pleases, without any backing, and manipulating its value through the discount rateโ€.

The privately-owned banks dominating Americaโ€™s central bank (Federal Reserve) require the military-industrial complex, and armed conflicts, to preserve its status as state creditors by funding the rearmament and production of war matรฉriel. This is more profitable to the financial institutions, by comparison to granting credits for non-military industries like agriculture.

Huge profits have been accrued from the manufacturing of conventional and nuclear weapons. According to the Brookings Institution in Washington, from the World War II years until 2007 US governments spent a total of $22.8 trillion on conventional and nuclear weapons. From 2007 onward Washington has spent further trillions on military hardware, as the already massive US arms budget expands. This expenditure has been most welcome to the weapons manufacturers and banks.

In the third year of president Barack Obamaโ€™s tenure, in 2011 Americaโ€™s GDP that year amounted to around $14.9 trillion. Washington owed approximately $14 trillion to the banks. The US Department of Treasury, and the Federal Reserve Board, estimated that Washington owed $4.4 trillion to foreign governments, who purchased US treasury bonds as investors would do when buying a stake in a company.

Republican Senator Barry Goldwater insisted that most people donโ€™t understand, or are unaware of, the operations of the most influential banking dynasties. Goldwater said, โ€œHow they acquire this vast financial power and employ it is a mystery to most of usโ€. He was referring to those such as the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Warburgs and Lazards. Even today, it is likely that some of these names would be unfamiliar to many people on the street.

The national banks in Europe have also been owned and guided by private interests. The international bankers manufacture the money and provide the credit to governments, which assists in driving up the debt of the political state. This is especially so in the neoliberal era of rampant capitalism from the early 1980s, when the decision making was placed in the hands of corporations and taken away from government leaders.

Americaโ€™s central bank operates outside the control of the US Congress. There is no scrutiny of its accounts; that is there are no audits, and the Federal Reserveโ€™s Board of Governors have manipulated the credit of the US, whose public debt had climbed to $17.9 trillion in October 2014.

Half a century ago Zbigniew Brzezinski, the well-known foreign policy adviser, suggested to the banker David Rockefeller that it would be wise to establish the Trilateral Commission, which was founded in 1973. This is an anti-democratic globalist organisation, which has helped Washington to maintain authority over its European and Asian allies. The Trilateral commission further allows commercial and financial interests to consolidate its hold in Washington, while handing over the means of force to the US military and NATO.

When George W. Bush succeeded Bill Clinton as president in January 2001, Bush sought to extend NATOโ€™s jurisdiction at a faster pace than Clinton, which he proceeded to do, as 7 European nations joined NATO during the Bush presidency (2001-09). Bush, as with Clinton, chose to enlarge NATO not out of security reasons, but in order to increase US hegemony and to broaden the market for the war industry. Bush also planned to absorb the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, an ambition which had been expressed clearly in April 2008 at a NATO conference in Romania.

It came despite the warning of William J. Burns, at the time the US Ambassador to Russia, and who is the current CIA Director. In a memorandum of February 2008, Burns wrote that Russia would strongly resist US attempts to incorporate the Ukrainians and Georgians into NATO. Burnsโ€™ memo was dispatched to various US bodies including the National Security Council and Joint Chiefs of Staff, and was sent to the Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice) and Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates).

In Washingtonโ€™s attempt to negate Russiaโ€™s influence, the Bush administration had dispatched 200 US military advisers to Georgia, a Caucasus nation directly bordering Russia to the north. Aside from its strategic significance on the map, Georgia is an oil transport hub where infrastructure passes through like the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which is managed by a consortium in which British Petroleum (BP) is the largest shareholder; it features other fossil fuel companies like Total from France and ExxonMobil from America. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is 1,099 miles long and originates in Azerbaijan, crossing through Georgia and finishing up in Turkey.

Four months after the NATO summit in Romania, during early August 2008 Russia launched a military intervention in Georgia. It was implemented, among other reasons, in order to safeguard Russiaโ€™s sovereignty and security along its borders, while protecting the ethnic Russians and pro-Russian elements living in the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They were being bombarded by the air force of Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, the US-educated puppet leader who was continuing to receive military aid from Washington.

The Russian military action was successful, strengthening Moscowโ€™s position, and it drew much anger in the West. Shortly afterwards president Bush and his European allies, in an emergency meeting, deliberated on how to respond to the setback, from suspending relations with Russia to possible sanctions or boycotting the Winter Olympics scheduled to be held in Sochi, Russia in February 2014.

There was nothing the Western leaders could do, nor did they have any moral standing. In February 2008 America and the leading European nations recognised the independence of Kosovo, which had been part of Serbia for many decades. In addition, a significant number of people living in the Caucasus favourably viewed the Russian military campaign in Georgia.

Through agreement with the Bush administration, the Pentagon was formulating a neo-containment policy of Russia, and they recognised Georgia as a key pawn in this. The goal was to try and prevent Russia from becoming the dominant power again in the Caucasus. Further stoking unrest in Georgia were US-based organisations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, Freedom House, and the Open Society Institute bankrolled by billionaire George Soros. During a 3 month period in the autumn of 2003, Sorosโ€™ Open Society Institute funnelled $42 million into fomenting the so-called Rose revolution in Georgia of November 2003. Soros, and the above groups, performed a role in enabling the pro-Western Saakashvili to come to power in January 2004.

The Pentagon likewise invested millions of dollars in what were titled color revolutions, which had been instigated by the Western powers in other regions, such as the Ukrainian โ€œOrange revolutionโ€ (Nov. 2004โ€“Jan. 2005). Washington pursued these actions through the United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (USACAPOC), the US State Department and non-governmental organisations like Freedom House and the NED. The roots of the Ukrainian crisis can be traced to US interference and imperialist expansion through NATO, as Washington refused to abandon its Cold War strategy of attempting to encircle Russia.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Sources

PBS, โ€œWho counts as poor in America?โ€ 8 January 2014

Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes (Springer; 1st ed., 4 Feb. 2019)

Greg Bocquet, โ€œWho Owns the U.S.?โ€

โ€œNyet Means Nyet: Russiaโ€™s NATO Enlargement Redlinesโ€, Ambassador William J. Burns

Congressional Bills 110th Congress, April 2008 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-110sres523ats/html/BILLS-110sres523ats.htm

Richard W. Carlson, โ€œGeorgia on his mind โ€“ George Sorosโ€™s Potemkin Revolutionโ€, The Weekly Standard, 24 May 2004

โ€œLavrov looks beyond army pull-outโ€, BBC News, 8 October 2008

France 24, โ€œIndependent Kosovo gains initial recognitionโ€, 19 February 2008

Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer; 1st ed., 23 June 2017)

Trump Says He Will Fix SNAP EBT Program by November 1st

Is it just more false bravado from Trump or will he make it happen via executive order? The USDA says that until a budget deal is signed there are no funds. Based on what Trump has said in past interviews (in the video) it doesn’t sound good! He talks about food riots, no water, no band aids!

Personally I believe he will let it crash in order to bring in the all digital economy, but I guess we shall soon find out. Of course if you want to participate in said digital economy you’ll have to get caught up on all of your shots including the MOTB COVID shots.

As believers in Christ let’s always pray for one another and remember the new commandment that Jesus gave us. A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. John 13:34.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-says-snap-benefits-will-be-solved-for-november-government-shutdown-10956329

Emergency Fundraiser

You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below.  Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options.  The buy me a coffee link is below.

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

Why Do So Many Rabbis Call Trump The Messiah?

Trump is the Antichrist and I’ve been saying it since 2018. Trump himself said he is the “Chosen One” in August of 2019, just as Wayne Allen Root said Trump is like the King of Israel or the second coming of God to Israel. Now in this video you can watch the Rabbis call him their Messiah, but at some point he is going to betray them.

You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below.  Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options.  The buy me a coffee link is below.

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

Russia and the Collective West: The Global Politics of the Cold War 1.0/2.0

Russia as the phoenix in global politics

After the end of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia became a less popular area of study and dealing with in comparison to before the end of the Cold War (1949โ€’1991). In the West, it was believed that after 1991, Russia was simply โ€œfinishedโ€ as Moscow was no longer the capital of a great power state (of the USSR) which had an important influence in global politics and international relations after WWII. In other words, the Western policymakers thought that after 1991, Russia would remain irrelevant as both economic and political power in global politics, and, therefore, for instance, many universitiesโ€™ studies programs on Russia in the USA and Western Europe were either canceled or downsized under the explanation that studying Russia was no longer important for international relations (IR) and global security.   

However, all of those who shared an opinion that Russia was โ€œirrelevantโ€ in global politics and international relations since the end of the Cold War realized at least from the 2008 Russo-Georgian War[i] onward their fatal mistake of judgment. Russia is โ€œback,โ€ and subsequently, Washington and Brussels declared a new Cold War (2.0) on Russia in 2008[ii] as they clearly understood that Russia is back as a military, economic, and political great power. In other words, the Collective West, especially (and led by) the USA, made a critical experiment of provoking Russia on the international stage, and they received a very clear answer. The second fatal experiment of challenging Russia was on the soil of the (Soviet) Ukraine from 2014 to 2022, when reborn post-Cold War 1.0 Russia accepted the thrown โ€œwhite gloveโ€ in February 2022 by launching a Special Military Operation (SMO) against the Russofrenic neo-Nazi political regime in Kiev, directly politically, logistically, financially, and militarily supported by the Collective West since the 2014 EuroMaidanโ€™s cup.   

Russia, as a country with tremendous energy resources, nuclear power, educated and talented people, simply cannot be ignored in global politics by the Collective West, as was the practice in the years from 1991 to 2008. It became true especially from the very point of fact that Russia has been actively since 2008 pursuing its own national interests and security policy near its borders (within the space of the ex-USSR). Nevertheless, it became totally wrong to believe that the post-Cold War Russia was going to be an adversary to the American โ€œNew World Orderโ€, as reborn Russia after 2000 clearly shows to be a respectful Eurasian global power with national interests and aspirations of her own to be both acknowledged and respected. It was finally proven by the start of the Russian Special Military Operation on the territory of Eastern (Soviet) Ukraine populated by the Russian speakers in February 2022. This operation, at the same time, clearly showed the Global West that Russia once again (after the dissolution of the Soviet Union) became a member of the top global powers in global politics and, therefore, its influence in IR cannot be ignored anymore.      

Transformation of post-Soviet Russia into a Great Power

It is a historical law that each state changes with time. However, only a few states experience such dramatic change during the short period of time as Russia has over the last 30+ years. In other words, Russia has changed as a state, nation, and military power, followed by its fluctuating position in global politics and international relations. From 1991 to today, Russia has transformed peacefully and rapidly its entire political and economic system, which is a relatively rare example in history. When the USSR dissolved in 1991, Russia was left to be one of its 15 constituent republics, which proclaimed independence forced to substantially redefine its role in global politics. The 1990s were very painful for Russiaโ€™s position in international relations as the countryโ€™s foreign policy was, in fact, supervised and directed by Washington and Brussels as the case of NATO aggression on Serbia and Montenegro in 1999, for instance, clearly showed but since 2008 Russiaโ€™s foreign policy once again became an independent and gradually returning the country to the club of the Great Powers.  

The importance of Russiaยดs influence in the world in the arena of global politics is based on the fundamental fact that Russia is one of the strongest international actors that is determining the global political agenda. It means that Russia is once again a member of the Great Power club as โ€ža great power state is a state deemed to rank amongst the most powerful in a hierarchical state-systemโ€œ.[iii] Russia, in this respect, surely fits the conventionally accepted academic criteria that define a Great Power:

  1. A Great Power state is in the first rank of military capacity.
  2. A Great Power state has the capacity to maintain its own security and to influence other states on how to behave.
  3. A Great Power state is economically powerful, although this is aย necessary but not aย sufficient condition for membership in the Great Power club (the cases of Japan or Germany are the best illustrations of this claim).
  4. A Great Power state has global but not only regional spheres of national interest and action.
  5. A Great Power state is running a โ€žforwardโ€œ foreign policy and, therefore, it has a real but not only potential influence on international relations and global (world) politics.[iv]
  6. A Great Power is aย state (at least according to the 18th-century concept) that could not be conquered even by the combined might of other Great Powers.[v]

Russia surely belongs today to the club of key global powers having powerful nuclear weapons, a growing economy, and prospective economic capacities, being one of the leading BRICS members. However, what is most important and different to others, Russia possesses almost endless natural resources (many of them are probably still even not discovered). For instance, in September 2025, the Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Russia has reserves of coal for the next one thousand years. From a geopolitical viewpoint, Russia is occupying the crucial segment of the Heartland โ€“ the focal geopolitical part of the world.[vi] Russia, with its rich history and national traditions, is today in the process of defining its new political role in the current century. Behind Russiaโ€™s policies, there is a comprehensible strategy based on a firm vision of the contemporary world and the protection of the Russian national interests.  

The six factors of Russian power in IR

A contemporary history of Russia starts after the dissolution of the USSR by Mikhail Gorbachev (according to the agreement with Ronald Reagan in Reykjavรญk in October 1986),[vii] which marked at the same time the beginning of the political and economic turmoil in the 1990s, when Russia under Boris Yeltsin and his pro-Western liberals was a puppet state of the Collective West. However, the country gradually emerged from the period of instability since 2000 mainly due to the well-combined six factors, which a new administration of President Vladimir Putin skilfully exploited to the full extent:

  1. Substantial mineral resources, particularly of oil, gas, and coal.
  2. Significant military power, based on the second greatest nuclear potential in the world.
  3. Relatively well-educated, productive segment of the population.
  4. A high-quality scientific and technological base that survived in several industries.
  5. Permanent membership in the UNSC, the G8, and the G20.
  6. Important political and economic influence on the territory of the former Soviet Union. ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย 

It is predicted that Russia will remain in the future as one of the focal and strongest international actors on the same or above level of influence, together with the US, EU, China, and rising Islamic cultures, especially Iran and Turkey. Russia’s natural resources and capabilities may allow it to follow an independent line in foreign policy and security national interests, both in the post-Soviet regions and in some key areas of the world: Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Predictably, however, Moscow’s interests will inevitably clash with those of other major actors โ€“ especially the US and its European clients. That is for sure that world order in international relations is going to continue to function according to World Systems Theory: a variant of structuralism that conceptualizes world order as being structured into 1) A rich and developed core, 2) Poor and underdeveloped periphery, and 3) A number of intermediary or semi-peripheral states. Russia is going to improve its own position within the first (leading) group, which includes all Great Powers who are hopefully (after the 2025 meeting of the Shangai Cooperation Organization-SCO) going to govern international relations and global politics according to the principle of Balance of Power which refers to a mechanism whereby Great Powerโ€™s states collaborate with each other in order to maintain their interests against threats from those who would seek systemic dominance.

Why study and respect Russia?

There are at least four focal and most important reasons for both studying and respecting Russiaโ€™s importance in global politics and international relations today:

  1. Geopolitical position and the size of the country: Russia is the largest country in the world, stretching over 17 million sq. km and covering 11 time zones. Russia borders the Baltic Sea in the west, the Black Sea and Caspian Sea (in fact, the lake) in the south, the Arctic Ocean in the north, and the Pacific Ocean in the east. Russia is both a European and Asian country, which, in fact, occupies the crucial geopolitical position in the world โ€“ the core of the Heartland. Russia shares borders with six NATO member states (Poland, Norway, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and Latvia), faces a seventh one across the Black Sea (Turkey), and is geographically separated by only 85,30 km wide Bering Strait from the USA (also a member of NATO). Russia borders 16 internationally recognized states, which is the largest number of neighbors that one country has in the world. A geopolitical factor of Russia can be shortly understood if we know that anything that is happening on the territory of Eurasia from Central Europe to Japan is affecting to a certain extent Russia and, therefore, Moscow has to react by some means to that.[viii]
  2. Regional power: Russia is surely a regional power within the perimeter of Heartland, which is striving to realize its own political, economic, national, and security interests. Russia, after 2000, succeeded in developing its own independent policies toward other states, including NATO and the EUโ€™s members. The โ€œproblemsโ€ with Russia in global politics and international relations started when, since 2008, Russiaโ€™s foreign policy did not in many segments correspond with the strategic interests of the USA and its European and other clients of NATO and the EU. To the full level of dissatisfaction by Washington and Brussels, Russia maintains friendly relations with the three main American enemies and competitors โ€“ North Korea, China, and Iran. The most โ€œproblematicโ€ issue of Russian foreign policy in the region for Washington is the fact that Moscow is continuing its efforts to build multi-state economic and political coalitions with neighboring countries, including super-powerful China, followed by rising powers of Iran and India. Russia, China, and India are already members of the international bloc, the BRICS, together with Brazil and South Africa as founders, followed by newly accepted member states.[ix] The Collective West finally 2008 recognized Russiaโ€™s claim to have โ€œprivileged interestsโ€ within the post-Soviet territories, except in those countries that joined the EU and NATO before (the Baltic States).[x] ย ย ย ย ย ย 
  3. Military power: With the total dissatisfaction by the Pentagon and Brussels, Russia still even during overwhelming economic, financial, and other sanctions by the Collective West introduced since 2022, remains a very strong military state with stable economic growth, respectful military and nuclear capacity, and developing potentials which are keeping it as one of the Great Powers (even a Super Power) in global politics. It is quite understandable that even after Cold War 1.0, when bare American imperialism received its full expression at least till 2008, Moscow continues with its security policy based on the priority of having strong military capacities. Historically, for the Russian authorities is quite clear that after NATOโ€™s establishment in 1949, Russiaโ€™s survival, independence, and sovereignty depended only on its military power, especially the nuclear one.[xi] Russia (at that time the USSR) started to produce nuclear weapons in 1949 when the US created its imperialistic military bloc of Western puppet states and reached nuclear parity with the US at the beginning of the 1970s. Russia is today maintaining a nuclear arsenal and delivery systems that are comparable to the arsenal of the US.[xii] Unfortunately, due to the USโ€™ policy of open gangsterism in international relations after the end of the Cold War 1.0, the so-called Western liberal democracies (the EU and NATO) are still an enemy to both Russiaโ€™s and global security and, therefore, one of the most important tasks for the near future in global politics has to be the creation of new reliable policies of common security based on justice, democracy, and friendship โ€“ a kind of multilateral global politics or at least the international relations founded on the form of the balancing power among the Great Powers. ย 
  4. Economic power: Russia remains a global economic power with a growing economy index higher than many Western countries, having a population of some 142 million, which makes it one of the ten most populous states in the world. Her GDP per annum is selecting Russia among the worldโ€™s top 10 economies. In 2007, the private sector, with 5 million private enterprises, contributed 65% of Russiaโ€™s GDP. Although an economic slowdown is possible, Russia is most likely to continue with its economic growth in the near future, regardless of the harsh economic and other sanctions imposed by the Collective West since 2022 onward. The main source of revenue (80%) is the exploitation of natural resources (and selling them to the world market), followed by a wide range of different industries. The most important Russian export of natural resources is oil, gas, coal, timber, and metals. We have to keep in mind that, for instance, Russia has 23% of the total worldโ€™s forested land[xiii] and is in the 8th place in the world according to the oil reserves (the first is Venezuela). After 2000, Russia became as well as one of the biggest worldโ€™s energy suppliers and the exporter of weapons (among the top 3). The potential economic power of Russia comes from the fact that this country possesses vast reserves of natural resources on its territory, for example, 30% of global gas reserves. The country is quite near to the Arcticโ€™s gas and oil reserves, a large but still unexplored source of energy, which is probably going to be mainly under Russian exploitation in the future. It is not so difficult to claim that energy resources are going to be the focal reason for the conflicts in international relations. ย ย ย ย ย ย ย 

Current reality of Russo-Western relations in IR

Questions about the nature of Russiaโ€™s political and economic systems and Russiaโ€™s policy after 2000 are of crucial importance in understanding its place in both Eurasia and the world (BRICS+), and assessing the prospects for dealing with some of the focal challenges to regional and global security. The policymakers of the Collective West understood this truth only after Russiaโ€™s military intervention in the Caucasus in August 2008, which was intended to clearly demonstrate that further incorporation of areas of special interest to Moscow into the Western client zone was totally unacceptable. What the same Western policymakers also understood was that this intervention was a clear counterpunch to Western-sponsored Kosovoโ€™s proclamation of โ€œindependenceโ€ in February of the same year. 

Russia is a leading political subject, a strong economic and military power, a rich energy producer and supplier, an extremely important player in global politics, which is still building its position in the post-Cold War 1.0 era (that, in fact, is already the era of the Cold War 2.0). Russia is and is going to be for a long period of time in the future both one of the crucial players in international relations and one of the most important decision-makers in global politics. However, up to 2022, Russiaโ€™s post-Cold War 1.0 geopolitics was forced to be accommodated to the behavior of NATO.[xiv] Nevertheless, since February 2022, when the SMO of Russia started, in fact, against the Collective Western Russofrenic imperialism, on the territory of the Soviet (Greater) Ukraine, NATO and the rest of the Collective West are forced to accommodate their politics on the global arena to the Russian behaviour.

Personal disclaimer: The author writes for this publication in a private capacity, which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution. 

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic

Ex-University Professor

Research Fellow at Centre for Geostrategic Studies

Belgrade, Serbia

ยฉ Vladislav B. Sotirovic 2025

http://www.geostrategy.rs

sotirovic1967@gmail.com


Endnotes:

[i] On this war, at least from the Western perspective, see in [Roger E. Kanet (ed.), Russian Foreign Policy in the 21st Century, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, 101โˆ’178].

[ii] Edward Lucas, The New Cold War: Putin’s Russia and the Threat to the West, Londonโ€’New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

[iii] Andrew Heywood, Global Politics, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, 7.

[iv] About world politics, see in [Jeffrey Haynes et al, World Politics, New York: Routledge, 2013].

[v] Richard W. Mansbach, Karsten L. Taylor, Introduction to Global Politics, Second Edition, Londonโˆ’New York: Routledge, 2012, 578.

[vi] About geography and history, see in [Halford John Mackinder, โ€œThe Geographical Pivot of Historyโ€, The Geographical Journal, 23, 1904, 421โˆ’437; Pascal Venier, โ€žThe Geographical Pivot of History and Early 20th Century Geopolitical Cultureโ€œ, Geographical Journal, 170 (4), 2004, 330โˆ’336].

[vii] About R. Reagan and M. Gorbachevโ€™s relations, see in [Jack F. Matlock Jr., Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended, New York, Random House, 2005].

[viii] On Eurasia and Great Powers, see in [Roger E. Kanet, Maria Raquel Freire (eds.), Key Players and Regional Dynamics in Eurasia: The Return of the Great Game, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010].

[ix] The BRICS is an acronym first used by the investment firm Goldman Sachs in 2003 (as the BRIC). Taking their rapid economic development, Goldman Sachs predicted that these economies are going to be wealthier by 2050 than the worldโ€™s current economic powers.

[x] About the foreign policy of Russia in the 21st century from the Western perspective, see in [Robert Legvold (ed.), Russian Foreign Policy in the 21st Century and the Shadow of the Past, New York: Columbia University Press, 2007; Roger E. Kanet (ed.), Russian Foreign Policy in the 21st Century, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011].

[xi] About this issue, see in [Richard Pipes, Survival is not Enough: Soviet Realities and Americaโ€™s Future, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984].

[xii] Robert Legvold, โ€œThe Russian File: How to Move Toward a Strategic Partnershipโ€, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2009, 78โˆ’93.

[xiii] World Resource Institute: http://www.globalforestwatch.org/english/russia (2009).

[xiv] About the post-Cold War 1.0 geopolitics of Russia, see in [ะกั€ั’ะฐะฝ ะŸะตั€ะธัˆะธั›, ะะพะฒะฐ ะณะตะพะฟะพะปะธั‚ะธะบะฐ ะ ัƒัะธั˜ะต, ะ‘ะตะพะณั€ะฐะด: ะœะตะดะธั˜ะฐ ั†ะตะฝั‚ะฐั€ โ€žะžะดะฑั€ะฐะฝะฐโ€œ, 2015]. About the new Cold War 2.0, see in [Robert Legvold, Return to Cold War, Cambridge, UKโˆ’Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2016].

Venezuela: Cartel of the Suns a Fictitious Excuse for Regime Change. Kurt Nimmo

Byย Kurt Nimmo Reposted with permission by Globalresearch.ca.

The seven US warships and a nuclear submarine sent to the waters off Venezuela have nothing to do with drugs or so-called โ€œnarcoterrorism.โ€ The Cartel of the Suns, like Saddam Husseinโ€™s weapons of mass destruction, is a cynical ruse designed as a pretext to invade Venezuela, assassinate its elected leader, destroy the Bolivarian revolution, and steal the largest reserve of oil in the world. 

On August 25, the president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, said the Cartel of the Suns does not exist and โ€œdenounced that this narrative, used by imperialism to criminalize Venezuela and carry out a military intervention to control its resources, is a fiction used by the far right to overthrow governments that do not obey Washingtonโ€™s whims,โ€ reports the Orinoco Tribune

Petro โ€œpointed out that the flow of Colombian cocaine through Venezuela is controlled by what he calls the โ€˜drug-trafficking junta,โ€™ whose bosses live in Europe and the Middle East.โ€ The Colombian president added the โ€œone who controls cocaine trafficking through Venezuela is not the โ€˜Cartel of the Suns,โ€™ that is a lie like Iraqโ€™s weapons of mass destruction, and it only serves to invade countries.โ€

The United Nations notes that a mere 5% of the illegal narcotics produced in Colombia pass through Venezuela. 87% of the drugs headed for US and European markets are produced in Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. The UN reports that 60% to 70% of narcotics that traffickers attempt to move through Venezuela en route to the US and Europe is currently seized by Venezuelan law enforcement agencies. Moreover, the Drug Enforcement Agency in the US did not mention Venezuela in its 2024 and 2025 reports on drug trafficking. 

Fernando Casado, a Spanish journalist and international analyst, writing for El Perro y la Rana Publishing Foundation, also argues the Cartel of the Suns does not exist. The cartel is โ€œa construction whose objective was and still is to portray Venezuela as a narco-State, that is, a rogue State with which nothing can or should be negotiated,โ€ Casado writes. The objective is to demonize President Nicolรกs Maduro and portray him as a drug kingpin.

โ€œMaduro would no longer be considered a dictator but rather a criminal who together with his gang of thugs is getting rich with the drug business. As a result, any intervention to overthrow a ruler turned drug-trafficker and put an end to the illegal organization ruling Venezuela would be justified.โ€ 

According to a report released by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Venezuela spent 15 years eradicating coca leaf cultivation and marijuana and cocaine processing. As previously noted, the vast majority of production is attributed to Colombia (67% of the worldโ€™s coca leaf cultivation) with the remainder produced in the Andean countries of Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. 

Beginning in 1999, when Hugo Chรกvez came to power, the US worked overtime to discredit and overthrow his popular socialist government. The late leader was insidiously linked to Colombian guerrillas, ETA, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas. US propaganda claimed the Chรกvez government was providing Iran with uranium for a nuclear weapon, in addition to โ€œevery fabrication brewed by right-wing media and intelligence laboratories,โ€ writes Clodovaldo Hernรกndez. The same treatment was applied to Maduro, who was Chรกvezโ€™s foreign minister for six years. When Maduro was elected president, the Cartel of the Suns ruse was added to the mix. 

โ€œAs US officials did before with Chรกvez and continue to do with Maduro, what they aim to achieve is the political objective of legitimizing an assassination, an invasion, or any other violent means to overthrow Venezuelaโ€™s government. With their recycled accusations, they seek to manipulate international public opinion so that any such action against the Caribbean nation will be accepted as legitimate.โ€

Venezuela and Colombia announced they have deployed 25,000 troops to the border region of the two countries to combat drug trafficking. The Venezuelan troops patrol Zulia and Tachira, two states on the Venezuelan side of the border.

Image:  President Daniel Noboa (Public Domain)

โ€œThe military operations are part of a bilateral strategy to combat organized crime and stimulate the legal economy in the border region, which has historically suffered from state neglect and violence caused by illegal armed groups,โ€ according to Colombia Reports

Headshot of Daniel Noboa. He is a clean-shaven, Latino man with very short hair, wearing a suit with a tie.

โ€œMarco Rubio is warmongering against Venezuela while having friendly meetings with Ecuador President Daniel Noboa, the man who actually traffics 60% of Colombian cocaine into the United States and Europe,โ€ Maduro tweeted on September 1.

Ecuadorian police documents reveal how a banana company, owned by Noboaโ€™s family, has been involved in exporting over half a ton of cocaine to a number of European countries since 2020. Ecuadorian journalist Andrรฉs Durรกn, who revealed the existence of the documents, left the country after death threats and legal harassment by the Ecuadorian ruling party Movimiento Acciรณn Democrรกtica Nacional (ADN).

โ€œThe Noboa family controls the entire chain of the banana export business, from planting and harvesting to transportation and private ports. There is no doubt that the death threats are closely linked to this investigation,โ€ Durรกn said. 

Juan Pablo Escobar, the son of Pablo Escobar, the former leader of the now defunct Medellรญn Cartel, argues that his father worked for the CIA.

โ€œMy father worked for the CIA selling cocaine to finance the fight against Communism in Central America,โ€ Escobar writes in his book, Pablo Escobar In Fraganti. โ€œHe did not make the money alone,โ€ Escobar said during an interview, โ€œbut with US agencies that allowed him access to this money. He had direct relations with the CIA.โ€

Image: Pablo Escobar

The CIA, under the cover of Plan Colombia, eliminated the Medellรญn and other cartels and took over the cocaine business. The CIA convinced Congress to fund Plan Colombia, a supposed aid project for the Colombian poor, but in reality, it allowed CIA front companies to profit from counter-narcotics schemes. The CIA eventually took control of the cocaine trade by eliminating drug cartel leaders. Colombian politicians and government officials were bribed to overlook the CIAโ€™s involvement.

The DEA was also involved in cocaine trafficking. US attorney Damian Williams published evidence that agents from the agency conspired to smuggle cocaine into the United States in 2017. Evidence โ€œsuggests that the DEA coordinated the export of cocaine it allegedly received from Colombiaโ€™s Prosecutor Generalโ€™s Office,โ€  writes Adriaan Alsema for Colombia Reports. โ€œDEA agent Brian Witek testified under oath that he coordinated the conspiracy to traffic the drugsโ€ to allegedly frame FARC guerrilla leader Jesรบs Santrich, who was later assassinated. Moreover, according to the New York Times, DEA officials helped a Mexican drug trafficker and his Colombian suppliers launder and smuggle money as part of an alleged scheme to infiltrate Mexican drug cartels. 

Banks in the US were prosecuted for laundering drug money.

โ€œIn March 2010, Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy act, through the US district court in Miami,โ€ The Guardian reported. Wachovia โ€œpaid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of cocaine.โ€ 

In 2020, BuzzFeed News reported a

โ€œhuge trove of secret government documents reveals for the first time how the giants of Western banking move trillions of dollars in suspicious transactions, enriching themselves and their shareholders while facilitating the work of terrorists, kleptocrats, and drug kingpins.โ€

UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa said in 2009 illegal drug money in banks helped save the US during the financial crisis.

โ€œIn many instances, drug money is currently the only liquid investment capital,โ€ Costa explained. โ€œIn the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking systemโ€™s main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor.โ€ 

The Trump administration is flooding the media space with lies about Maduro and the Cartel of the Suns as part of a psychological operation to deflect from the real reason for confronting Venezuelaโ€”the removal of a socialist government and the seizure of Venezuelaโ€™s bounty of petroleum. If Trump was sincerely interested in ending the flow of drugs into the United States, he would dismantle the CIA, the DEA, throw bank presidents in prison, and end the disastrous war on drugs, in this case used as a cover to overthrow a democratically elected government and allow transnational corporations to pillage the country and further impoverish the Venezuelan people. 

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Kurt Nimmo is a journalist, author, and geopolitical analyst, New Mexico, United States. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Some Books, Videos and Blogs I Recommend

person holding brown ceramic coffee mug

As I was studying and researching over the weekend I came across some great materials I’d like to share with you guys.

First up is Patrick Lancaster’s video where he speaks with a Russian soldier, a commander who seems like an old soul and from a family of military service. He says that WW3 has already begun and that Russia will eventually need to take the fight to NATO as they will never leave Russia alone until they do. He is correct. If only he knew about the Chabad forces behind the scenes that are manipulating the enmity between Slavic nations who should be brothers.

Then there’s this interview with Dr. William Schnoebelen that blew my mind! Talk about spiritual warfare on another level this guy has been through quite a bit including being a Satanist who made a “deal with the devil” and signed the black book and who eventually became a vampire! Oh you thought that was just the movies? Think again! I think you’ll find this interview fascinating as well as informative especially when it comes to the spiritual war, the war we are fighting in right now! Here is the Dr.’s YouTube Channel as well.

I also just finished a book entitled “Waking the Lion Within, Reclaiming Your Position in Christ”. It goes a long way explaining why Christians have no power in their prayers and how and why the roles of men and women got messed up. It also contains prayers you can use in spiritual warfare and cast out the demons that are afflicting you! When we learn to develop a real relationship with the Lord being able to hear from Him every day and to be directed and feel His presence your life will be forever changed. Amazon Affiliates Link

That’s all for now, I pray that you find these videos, books and links helpful in your walk with the Lord. Stand firm in the faith and be strong in the Lord and His might!

You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below.  Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options.  The buy me a coffee link is below.

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

PayPal Link

On Ukrainian Identity: Ukraine as a Buffer Zone

Editors note: If you’re like me and you love history this will give you some historical context as to what’s going on in Ukraine.

An imagined community

Ukraine is an Eastern European territory that was originally part of the western part of the Russian Empire and the eastern portion of the Polish Kingdom in the mid-17th century (the division according to the 1667 Peace Treaty of Andrusovo). That is a present-day independent state and separate ethnolinguistic nation as a typical example of Benedict Andersonโ€™s theory model of the โ€œimagined communityโ€ โ€“ a self-constructed idea of the artificial ethnic and linguistic-cultural identity [see, Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, Londonโ€’New York: Verso, 1983]. Before 2014, Ukraine was home to some 46 million inhabitants of whom, according to the official data, there were around 77 percent who declared themselves as Ukrainians.

Nevertheless, many Russians do not consider the Ukrainians or Belarusians/Belarus as โ€œforeignโ€ but rather as the regional branches of the Russian nationality. It is a matter of fact that, differently to the Russian case, the national identity of Belarus or the Ukrainians was never firmly fixed as it was always in the constant process of changing and evolving [on the Ukrainian self-identity construction, see: Karina V. Korostelina, Constructing the Narratives of Identity and Power: Self-Imagination in a Young Ukrainian Nation, Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2014].

The process of self-constructing identity of the Ukrainians after 1991 is, basically, oriented vis-ร -vis Ukraineโ€™s two most powerful neighbors: Poland and Russia. In other words, the self-constructing Ukrainian identity (like the Montenegrin or Belarusian) is just able to claim so far that the Ukrainians are not either the Poles or the Russians, but, however, what they really are is under great debate, and still it is not clear. Therefore, the existence of an independent state of Ukraine, nominally a national state of the Ukrainians, is of very doubtful indeed from both perspectives: historical and ethnolinguistic.

National self-determination

The principle of the so-called โ€œnational self-determinationโ€ became popular in East-Central, Eastern, and South-eastern Europe with the proclamation of Woodrow Wilsonโ€™s โ€œFourteen Pointsโ€ on January 8th, 1918. However, as a concept, the principle was alive since the French Revolution, if not even before. The French Revolution itself supported a principle of national self-determination, which was already used in practice since the American Revolution (started in 1776), followed by the American War of Independence (ended in 1783) against the United Kingdom as a colonial master. In short, the concept is based on a principle that the source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. Therefore, the idea of a plebiscite was introduced as the political support for either independence or annexation of certain territories. For instance, France organized a plebiscite in order to justify the territorial annexation of Avignon, Savoy, and Nice in the 1790s. The same principle was used for the Italian and German unifications in the second half of the 19th century or for the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in Europe by the Balkan states in 1912โ€’1913.

The new European political order after WWI was established according to the principle of national self-determination as the territories of East-Central and South-East Europe were fundamentally remapped. The new national states appeared, while some have been enlarged by the inclusion of their nationals from neighboring countries. Exactly using this principle, the four empires were destroyed: the German, the Ottoman, the Russian, and Austria-Hungary.

However, the same principle of national self-determination was not applied to all European nations for different reasons. One of them was that certain present-day known nations at that time were not recognized as such, at least not by the winning Entente powers. That was, in fact, the case of Ukrainians, or better to say, of those Ukrainians left behind the borders of the USSR. Those trans-Soviet Ukrainians were one of the losers of the Versailles System after 1918. While a large number of the smaller nations (compared to the Ukrainians), from Finland to the Balkans, were granted either state independence (for instance, the Baltic States) or inclusion into the united national state (for example, Greater Romania), Ukrainians were deprived of it.

Diferently to many other European nations, there were several Ukrainian political entities (state or federal unit) established during the years of 1917โ€’1920, either by the Germans or Bolsheviks. The Germans created a formally independent Ukrainian state in 1918, while the Bolsheviks established not only one Soviet Ukraine as a political entity within the Bolshevik state (later the USSR).

To be honest, there were several focal reasons why the Western winners did not create an independent Ukraine after WWI: 1) It could be considered as a German political victory on the former Eastern Front; 2) The country could be run by the nationalists close to the German concept of Mittel Europa and, therefore, Ukraine can become a German client state; 3) Independent Ukraine would be anti-Polish and anti-Semitic; 4) Independent Ukraine could become inclined to the Soviet side for the matter of the creation of a Greater Ukraine; 5) Many Westerners did not recognize an independent Ukrainian nation as a separate ethnolinguistic group; and 6) Ukraine as a federal entity already existed within the Soviet state.

Therefore, for all of above mentioned crucial reasons, the victorious powers after WWI decided not the sponsor the creation of an independent Ukrainian state as a national state of the โ€œUkrainiansโ€ applying the principle of national self-determination. Moreover, applying the historical rights, in 1923, the Entente powers gave reborn Poland Galicia and some other lands considered by the Ukrainian nationalists to be โ€œWesternโ€ Ukraine. The Ukrainians within Poland did not get any national autonomy (differently to the case of the Soviet Ukraine) for the very reason they have not been recognized as a separate nation, i.e., an ethnolinguistic group.

Ukraine?

The Slavonic term Ukraine, for instance, in the Serbo-Croat case Krajina, means in the English language a Borderland โ€“ a provincial territory situated on the border between at least two political entities: in this particular historical case, between the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as the Republic of Both Nations (1569โˆ’1795), on one hand, and the Russian Empire, on another. It has to be noticed that according to the 1569 Lublin Union between Poland and Lithuania, the former Lithuanian territory of Ukraine passed over to Poland.

A German historical term for Ukraine would be a mark โ€“ a term for the stateโ€™s borderland which existed from the time of the Frankish Kingdom/Empire of Carl the Great. The term is mostly used from the time of the Treaty (Truce) of Andrusovo (Andrussovo) in 1667 between Poland-Lithuania and Russia. In other words, Ukraine and the Ukrainians as a natural objective-historical-cultural identity never existed, as it was considered only as a geographic-political territory between two other natural-historical entities (Poland [-Lithuania] and Russia). All (quasi)historiographical mentioning of this land and the people as Ukraine/Ukrainians referring to the period before the mid-17th century are quite scientifically incorrect, but in the majority of cases politically inspired and colored to present them as something crucially different from the historical process of ethnic genesis of the Russians [for instance: Alfredas Bumblauskas, Genutฤ— Kirkienฤ—, Feliksas ล abuldo (sudarytojai), Ukraina: Lietuvos epocha, 1320โˆ’1569, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijลณ leidybos centras, 2010].

The role of the Vatican and the Union Act

It was the Roman Catholic Vatican that was behind the process of creation of the โ€œimagined communityโ€ of the โ€œUkrainianโ€ national identity for the very political purpose of separating the people from this borderland territory from the Orthodox Russian Empire. Absolutely the same was done by Vaticanโ€™s client Austria-Hungary in regard to the national identity of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian population when this province was administered by Vienna-Budapest from 1878 to 1918 as it was the Austro-Hungarian government created totally artificial and very new ethnolinguistic identity โ€“ the โ€œBosniansโ€, just not to be the (Orthodox) Serbs (who were at that time a strong majority of the provincial population) [ะ›ะฐะทะพ ะœ. ะšะพัั‚ะธั›, ะะฐัƒะบะฐ ัƒั‚ะฒั€ั’ัƒั˜ะต ะฝะฐั€ะพะดะฝะพัั‚ ะ‘-ะฅ ะผัƒัะปะธะผะฐะฝะฐ, ะกั€ะฑะธัšะตโˆ’ะะพะฒะธ ะกะฐะด: ะ”ะพะฑั€ะธั†ะฐ ะบัšะธะณะฐ, 2000].

The creation of an ethnolinguistically artificial Ukrainian national identity and later on a separate nationality was part of a wider confessional-political project by the Vatican in the Roman Catholic historical struggle against Eastern Orthodox Christianity (the eastern โ€œschismโ€) and its churches within the framework of the Popeโ€™s traditional proselytizing policy of reconversion of the โ€œinfidelsโ€. One of the most successful instruments of a soft-way reconversion used by the Vatican was to compel a part of the Orthodox population to sign with the Roman Catholic Church the Union Act recognizing in such a way a supreme power by the Pope and dogmatic filioque (โ€œand from the Sonโ€ โ€“ the Holy Spirit proceeds and from the Father and the Son).

Therefore, the ex-Orthodox believers who now became the Uniate Brothers or the Greek Orthodox believers became, in great numbers, later pure Roman Catholics and also changed their original (from the Orthodox time) ethnolinguistic identity. It is, for instance, very clear in the case of the Orthodox Serbs in the Zhumberak area of Croatia, from the ethnic (Orthodox) Serbs to the Greek Orthodox believers, later the Roman Catholic believers, and finally today the ethnic (Roman Catholic) Croats. Something similar occurred in the case of Ukraine.

The 1596 Brest Union

On October 9th, 1596 it was announced by the Vatican a Brest Union with a part of the Orthodox population within the borders of the Roman Catholic Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth (today Ukraine) [Arลซnas Gumuliauskas, Lietuvos istorija: ฤฎvykiai ir datos, ล iauliai: ล iaures Lietuva, 2009, 44; Didysis istorijos atlasas mokyklai: Nuo pasaulio ir Lietuvos prieลกistorฤ—s iki naujausiลณjลณ laikลณ, Vilnius: Leidykla Briedis, (without year of publishing) 108]. The crucial issue, nevertheless, in this matter is that today Ukraineโ€™s Uniates and the Roman Catholics are most anti-Russian and of the Ukrainian national feelings. Basically, both the Ukrainian and the Belarus present-day ethnolinguistic and national identities are historically founded on the anti-Orthodox policy of the Vatican within the territory of the ex-Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was in essence an anti-Russian political construction.

The Lithuanian historiography writing on the Church Union of Brest in 1596 clearly confirms that:

โ€œโ€ฆ the Catholic Church more and more strongly penetrated the zone of the Orthodox Church, giving a new impetus to the idea, which had been cherished since the time of Jogaila and Vytautas and formulated in the principles of the Union of Florence in 1439, but never put into effect โ€“ the subordination of the GDL Orthodox Church to the Popeโ€™s ruleโ€ [Zigmantas Kiaupa et al, The History of Lithuania Before 1795, Vilnius: Lithuanian Institute of History, 2000, 288].

In other words, the rulers of the Roman Catholic Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the GDL) from the very time of Lithuaniaโ€™s baptism in 1387โˆ’1413 by the Vatican had a plan to Catholicize all Orthodox believers of the GDL, among whom the overwhelming majority were the Slavs. As a consequence, the relations with Moscow became very hostile as Russia accepted the role of the protector of the Orthodox believers and faith, and, therefore, the 1596 Church Union of Brest was seen as a criminal act by Rome and its client, the Republic of Two Nations (Poland-Lithuania).

A buffer zone

Today, it is absolutely clear that the most pro-Western and Russofrenic part of Ukraine is exactly Western Ukraine โ€“ the lands that were historically under the rule of the Roman Catholic ex-Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the former Habsburg Monarchy. It is obvious, for instance, from the presidential voting results in 2010 that the pro-Western regions voted for J. Tymoshenko while the pro-Russian regions voted for V. Yanukovych. It is a reflection of the post-Soviet Ukrainian identity dilemma between โ€œEuropeโ€ and โ€œEurasiaโ€ โ€“ a dilemma that is common for all East-Central and Eastern European nations, who historically played the role of a buffer zone between the German Mittel Europa project and the Russian project of a pan-Slavonic unity and reciprocity.

In general, the western territories of present-day Ukraine are mainly populated by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Uniates. This part of Ukraine is mostly nationalistic and pro-Western (in fact, pro-German) oriented. Contrary, Eastern Ukraine is, in essence, Russophone and subsequently โ€œtends to look to closer relations with Russiaโ€ [John S. Dryzek, Leslie Templeman Holmes, Post-Communist Democratization: Political Discourses Across Thirteen Countries, Cambridgeโˆ’New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 114].

Since WWI up to today, the Germans have been the principal sponsors of the creation of the national state of Ukrainians for different geopolitical as well as economic reasons. Subsequently, different kinds of Ukrainian nationalists were siding with the German authorities. For instance, whereas the victorious Entente powers after 1918, supported by Poland, Yugoslavia, Romania, or Czechoslovakia, were executing the policy of preservation of the Versailles System, the Germans during the interwar period were opposing it and fighting against it. It is from this viewpoint that explains why the Ukrainian nationalists accepted the Nazi policy of a โ€œNew European Orderโ€ in which a Greater Ukraine could exist in some political form, in fact, as a buffer zone [Frank Golczewski, โ€œThe Nazi โ€˜New European Orderโ€™ and the Reactions of Ukrainiansโ€, Henry Huttenbach and Francesco Privitera (eds.), Self-Determination: From Versailles to Dayton. Its Historical Legacy, Longo Editore Ravenna, 1999, 82โ€’83]. Finally, even today, the main Ukrainian supporter and sponsor in its conflict with Russia is exactly Germany. Nevetheless, we have to keep in mind that after 1991, Russia left at least 25 million ethnic Russian outside the borders of the Russian Federation, a huge number of them in the post-Soviet Ukraine [see more in, Ruth Petrie (ed.), The Fall of Communism and the Rise of Nationalism, The Index Reader, Londonโ€’Washington: Cassell, 1997].

Personal disclaimer: The author writes for this publication in a private capacity, which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution. 

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotiroviฤ‡

Ex-University Professor

Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies

Belgrade, Serbia

http://www.geostrategy.rs

sotirovic1967@gmail.com

ยฉ Vladislav B. Sotiroviฤ‡ 2025

Hiroshima-Nagasaki: The Story They Want Us to Forget. Bruce Gagnon

ruins and debris in ibadan nigeria

Guest Post by Bruce K Gagnon at Global Research

The worldโ€™s first nuclear explosion occurred on July 16, 1945, when a plutonium implosion device was tested at a site located 210 miles south of Los Alamos, New Mexico, on the barren plains of the Alamogordo Bombing Range, known as the Jornada del Muerto (day of the dead). 

US President Harry Truman ordered the first atomic bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945. Days later (August 9) Washington dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki.

Official figures of those killed by the atomic bombs is well over 150,000 from the two cities. More than 100,000 were injured with most likely dying. Then over the years many thousands have died from the initial radiation poisoning.

Trip to Hiroshima & Nagasaki

On a trip to Japan for memorial events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1984 I met many Hibakusha (survivors of the US bombing attacks in 1945). One told the story that after the bomb was dropped the US military would not initially allow medical personnel to come tend the injured. Instead US radiological teams came in to study the effects of the bombing on the people. Arms and legs were cut off and taken back to the US. Photos were taken. Skin samples and blood were taken. The Japanese people were lab rats for the Americans to study.

When I returned home to Orlando, Florida where I was working for the Florida Coalition for Peace & Justice I decided that I had to share this story with the larger community. The Orlando Sentinel newspaper had a regular column called โ€˜My Wordโ€™ so I sent in a piece about what the Hibakusha told me. The paper refused to print it saying that I could not prove what I had written.

Weโ€™ve been dealing with this same kind of censorship ever since.

A soldierโ€™s story

In 1997, while still working for the Florida Coalition, we were organizing a campaign to stop NASAโ€™s launch of 72 pounds of deadly plutonium-238 to be used for on-board heat and power on a deep space mission called Cassini. Prior to the launch we were holding a rally at Cape Canaveral (now called Cape Canaveral Space Force Station) and before we began an older man walked up to me and asked to speak. I asked him what he wanted to say.

He said that when the first a-bomb was exploded at Alamogordo in 1945 he was just a new recruit in the Army. He was a paratrooper. His unit was put on a transport plane and dropped into the mushroom cloud. The troopers were then medically tested and put on a train for a long trip around the country. While on the train every now and then it would stop and the GIโ€™s would be medically tested again.

He said it wasnโ€™t until years later he learned that at each stop was a Department of Energy (DoE) nuclear lab that helped work on the bomb program. The GIโ€™s were tested for time, space, longitude, latitude and other key variables. This man told me he was dying of cancer. His daughter had cancer. He was the only member of his unit that chuted into the toxic bomb cloud still alive.

US soldier guinea pigs watching the first atomic bomb test

Needless to say I invited him to speak and listened closely as he warned us never to trust NASA safety claims when they launch nuclear devices into space.

This is a history Washington wants us to forget  

I recently heard Vladimir Putin say that some number of young people in Japan these days think it was Russia that dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This mis-education is being done to turn the Japanese people into an uncritical US ally as the US-NATO make their aggressive military moves on China and Russia.

We canโ€™t let the world ever forget the true story of August 6 & 9, 1945.

What kind of nation would do these terrible things?

Never forget!

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Bruce Gagnon is coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.

You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below.  Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options.  The buy me a coffee link is below.

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

PayPal Link

Armenia deepens its submission to the West

Armenia is willing to cede part of its territory to the control of foreign powers.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

Armenia’s political subordination to the Collective West continues to advance. The Pashinyan regime is increasingly implementing measures that threaten national sovereignty and favor NATO expansionism in the Caucasus and the post-Soviet space. This creates an atmosphere of constant tension and instability, damaging the regional security architecture within the Russian strategic environment.

Western media recently announced that Armenia is discreetly negotiating the transfer of a strategic portion of its territory to direct US control. The area is located in Armenia’s central region, more specifically in the 42-kilometer Zangezur Corridor connecting Azerbaijan to the exclave of Nakhichivan. Local disputes have intensified since 2023, when Azerbaijan assumed full control of the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh (called Artsakh by Armenians). Baku’s territorial ambitions have been expanding, as has Armenia’s desperation for Western support to address this issue.

Essentially, the terms of the agreement stipulate that Armenia must hand over local security management to an American private military company (PMC). The goal would be to receive international support in the face of a possible Azerbaijani incursionโ€”something many analysts expect to happen in the near future if tensions escalate again.

The news of the agreement was expectedly denied by the Armenian government, but Yerevan failed to provide concrete evidence of its real plans for the region. This makes the Armenian denial a weak narrative, sounding like mere cover-up. The media has been reporting on the case, claiming to have received reliable information from sources familiar with the matter in France โ€“ a country where the ethnic lobby of the Armenian diaspora is massive and exerts significant influence over foreign policy.

Furthermore, US officials have made ambiguous statements, suggesting that a major change in Armenia’s territorial configuration is imminent. For example, the US ambassador to Turkey recently commented on a proposal to hand over southern Armenia to the US. Furthermore, the ambassador stated that the agreement was negotiated in partnership with Turkey – which is Azerbaijan’s biggest supporter.

“They are arguing over 32 kilometers of road, but this is no trivial matter. It has dragged on for a decade – 32 kilometers of road (…) So what happens is that America steps in and says: ‘Okay, weโ€™ll take it over. Give us the 32 kilometers of road on a hundred-year lease, and you can all share it’,” he said.

For years, the situation in the South Caucasus has been progressively worsening. Historically, Armenia and Russia have enjoyed strong and stable relations, but this has changed since the rise of Pashinyan, who promoted a pro-Western shift as a way of distancing his country from Moscow. The result was clear: the military defeat in Nagorno-Karabakh and heightened tensions, leading to an escalation of foreign interventionism in the region.

For the foreign powers involved in the geopolitics of the Caucasus, Russia increasingly appears as a common adversary. While France and the US influence the Armenian decision-making process, Turkey, which is also a NATO member despite its ties with Moscow, is interested in a military occupation of the Caucasus through Azerbaijan.

This NATO expansionism violates the legitimate strategic interests of the Russian Federation in the post-Soviet region. In this sense, it is clear that inviting an American PMC into the Zangezur Corridor poses a major threat to Russia – as well as to Iran, a country with access to the Caucasus and in open enmity with the US.

Once again, it is clear that tensions in the Caucasus are carefully planned by NATO powers to generate regional instability against their geopolitical enemies. While Russia and Iran want peace and stability in their shared strategic environment, countries like France and the US see the heightened historic tensions between Azerbaijan and Armenia as an opportunity to advance their geopolitical projects in the region.

In the end, Armenia fell into a real trap. The country was persuaded by its Western “partners” to abandon Russia, its historic ally, and is now being militarily occupied by foreign powers. It seems only a matter of time before any vestige of sovereignty disappears from the Armenian state.

To stop this wave of public demoralization, submission to foreign powers, and political defeats, Armenia must halt the legacy of Westernization initiated by the Pashinyan regime. It is up to Armenian citizens to seek the necessary changes to save their own future.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

infobrics.org

You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below.  Patreon is gone so now we have PayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options.  The buy me a coffee link is below.

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

PayPal Link

« Older Entries