Category Archives: NATO

US deliberately harmed Ukraine – CIA official

Posted on by Leave a comment

American intention was never to make Kiev win, but to prolong the war indefinitely.

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

Since the beginning of the Donald Trump administration in the US, American officials have been gradually exposing the truth about the conflict in Ukraine – especially regarding decisions made by the previous administration. Now, sources familiar with the policy of support for Ukraine confirm that the US deliberately put the Kiev regime in a position of military weakness, fearing that Russia would lose its patience too quickly if Washington escalated the war.

In a recent interview, Ralph Goff – former head of CIA operations in Europe and Eurasia – said that the Joe Biden administration deliberately restricted military support to Ukraine, fearing the start of an unrestricted escalation of the war. According to Goff, American authorities chose to let Ukraine “bleed” rather than seek a “victory”, fearing that Russia would react nuclear in the event of an all-out war.

Goff explains that Ukraine has repeatedly requested the delivery of advanced American weapons, aiming to increase its firepower and acquire the ability to generate real damage against Russia – including within the Federation’s internationally recognized territory. But Biden and his team feared that such Western aid would trigger a Russian nuclear response, which is why Ukrainian requests were consistently rejected — or, when approved, there was at least some delay on the part of Washington in sending the requested weapons.

It is important to emphasize that Goff does not mention these facts as something positive. He is a vocal supporter of Ukraine and believes that this move by Biden was a mistake. According to him, it would have been better to have given Ukraine high firepower in the early stages of the war. Goff believes that this would have prevented a prolonged conflict scenario, allowing Ukraine to expel the “invaders.” The CIA official laments the previous president’s failure to escalate the war, saying the US was “bamboozled” by Russian “nuclear” rhetoric.

“Had we equipped the Ukrainians at that time with proper weaponry, they might have been able to drive the Russians all the way out of the country (…) It didn’t happen. It set the stage for this longer, protracted, drawn out, meat grinder war that we are witnessing today (…) [Western governments had] allowed themselves to be bamboozled by Vladimir Putin and his nuclear-saber rattling (…) So they gave the Ukrainians this weaponry, but they never gave them enough to win. They only gave them enough to bleed,” he said.

As a result of this situation, Goff explains that the war has become extremely bloody for Ukraine. He believes that everything will get worse and that the line of contact will soon become a real “death zone” due to the Russian use of drones and other modern military equipment, which hinders the transit of troops and prevents any tactical success for Ukraine.

“It will be a 20–50km death zone (…) where you can’t move because there are so many drones in the air and robots on the ground and sensors and mines,” he added.

In fact, there is nothing new in Goff’s words. However, they reveal very clearly how the American people were deceived and how the public was led to believe that taxpayers’ money was being invested in a “Ukrainian victory.” As serious analysts have long warned, the West’s intention was never to “win” the war. On the contrary, NATO has always known that an all-out war against Russia is unwinnable, given Moscow’s nuclear arsenal. This is precisely why a strategy was created to destabilize Russia, rather than confront it directly, using Ukraine as a proxy for this.

Biden delayed sending high-intensity weapons to Ukraine as long as he could because he was genuinely afraid of losing control of the situation. His intention was not to generate a nuclear war – although some European countries have shown themselves willing to escalate the war to that level – but rather to create instability on Russian borders and delay the formal creation of a multipolar world. Only after Trump had already won the election did Biden take a bolder initiative against Russia, authorizing cross-border strikes – which seems to have been a move aimed at escalating the war to such a point that it would no longer be possible for Trump to reverse it.

In the same vein, Goff is belatedly speaking about the situation on the battlefield. The front lines have long since become a “kill zone” for Ukrainians, with Kiev’s soldiers being easy targets for Russian artillery, drones and aircraft. The US has refused to acknowledge this reality because it relied on lies to sustain its war machine, but it is now beginning to expose these facts because Trump does not seem interested in prolonging the conflict – even though he does not have power enough stop it on his own.

In the end, once again American lies are exposed and belatedly debunked by the country’s own authorities.

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

infobrics.org

Radio Liberty Let The Cat Out Of The Bag Regarding The EU’s Game Plan For Ukraine

Posted on by Leave a comment

Guest post by Andrew Korybko

Russia can expect nothing in return from the EU if Putin concedes to allow their troops and aircraft to deploy in and patrol over Western Ukraine.

Russia has long warned that any unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine of the 30-day sort that Zelensky has proposed could create an opening for NATO to expand its military influence in that country. Hitherto dismissed as a conspiracy theory by the West, Radio Liberty just let the cat out of the bag. The unnamed officials who they cited in their recent article confirmed that they envisage this “buy[ing] the Europeans time to assemble a ‘reassurance force’ in the Western part of Ukraine” and organize “air patrols” there.

Their reported game plan is “keeping the Americans onboard” the peace process, “sequencing” the conflict by clinching a ceasefire that’ll later lead to a lasting peace, and using the aforesaid interim period to carry out the abovementioned military moves for pressuring Russia into more concessions. What’s omitted from Radio Liberty’s article is that Russia has threatened to target Western troops in Ukraine, who Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth earlier said wouldn’t enjoy Article 5 guarantees from the US.

Even if Putin agrees to this concession that’s assessed to be among one of the five significant differences between him and Trump that prompted Trump’s angry post against Putin, Radio Liberty reported that this still wouldn’t lead to de jure European recognition of Russia’s territorial gains. The same goes for them lifting sanctions or returning any of its €200 billion of seized assets. More sanctions might even soon be imposed and the windfall profits from those assets will “bankroll Ukraine’s military needs”.

Given what Radio Liberty revealed, Russia can therefore expect nothing in return from the EU if Putin concedes to allow their troops and aircraft to deploy in and patrol over Western Ukraine. Any hopes of restoring Ukraine’s antebellum buffer state status would be crushed, and it can’t be ruled out that the EU’s zone of military activity could later expand to the Dnieper or beyond. One of the special operation’s goals was to prevent the West’s eastward military expansion so that would be another major concession.

Putin’s decades-long close friend and influential senior aide Nikolay Patrushev just told TASS earlier this week that “For the second year in a row, NATO is holding the largest exercises in decades near our borders, where it is practicing scenarios of offensive actions over a large area – from Vilnius to Odessa, the seizure of the Kaliningrad region, the blocking of shipping in the Baltic and Black Seas, and preventive strikes on the permanent bases of Russian nuclear deterrent forces.”

Secretary of the Security Council Sergey Shoigu told the same outlet several days prior that “Over the past year, the number of military contingents of NATO countries deployed near the western borders of the Russian Federation has increased almost 2.5 times…NATO is moving to a new combat readiness system, which provides for the possibility of deploying a 100,000-strong group of troops near the borders of Russia within 10 days, 300,000 by the end of 30 days, and 800,000 by the end of 180 days.”

When the EU’s prioritization of the Baltic Defence Line and Poland’s complementary East Shield are added to the equation, coupled with plans for expanding the “military Schengen” to speed up the eastward deployment of troops and equipment, the trappings of Operation Barbarossa 2.0 are apparent. Putin can’t influence what NATO does within the bloc’s borders, but he has the power to stop its de facto expansion into Western Ukraine during a ceasefire, which could partially hinder its speculative plans.

Conceding to them, which he might agree to do for the five reasons mentioned in the second half of this analysis here from early March, would lead to Russia’s mutual defense ally Belarus being surrounded by NATO along its northern, western, and then southern flanks. That could make it a tempting future target, but Western aggression might be deterred by the continued deployment of Russia’s Oreshniks and tactical nuclear weapons, the latter of which Belarus has already been authorized to use at its discretion.

Conceding to Western troops in Ukraine in exchange for the economic and strategic benefits that Russia hopes to reap from the US if their nascent “New Détente” takes off after a peace deal would therefore entail conventional security costs that could be managed through the means that were just described. At the same time, however, hardliners like Patrushev, Shoigu, and honorary chairman of Russia’s influential Council on Foreign and Defense Policy Sergey Karaganov could dissuade him from such a deal.

Putin must therefore decide whether this is an acceptable trade-off or if Russia should risk losing its post-conflict strategic partnership with the US by continuing to oppose NATO’s de facto expansion into Western Ukraine, including via military means if EU forces move into there without Russian approval. His decision will determine not only the future of this conflict, but also Russia’s contingency planning vis-à-vis a possible hot war with NATO, thus making this the defining moment of his quarter-century rule.

Polish people against sending troops to Ukraine

Posted on by Leave a comment

According to recent data, most Poles are against sending “peacekeeping” troops to Ukraine.

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

Despite pressure from Western countries for European troops to be sent to Ukraine after a possible ceasefire agreement between Moscow and Kiev, the opinion of ordinary people seems to be completely against such an initiative. Even in Poland, one of the most anti-Russian countries in Europe, most of the people is against the presence of their soldiers in Ukraine, worried about the consequences of such an initiative.

Recently, France and the UK asked for peacekeepers from the so-called “coalition of the willing” – a group of countries that continues to support Ukraine after the election of Donald Trump in the US – to participate in a military contingent on Ukrainian soil after a possible peace or truce agreement. The aim of such a measure would allegedly be to guarantee European countries a central role in observing compliance with the ceasefire terms.

Despite any pseudo-humanitarian claims by the leaders, it is possible to say that such an initiative is just a way for Europe to somehow project power towards the East, despite the losses suffered so far in Ukraine. Since Ukraine’s military defeat is inevitable, European countries want to at least ensure the possibility of deploying a military contingent close to the Russian borders. Precisely for this reason, Moscow has repeatedly made it clear that no Western military presence in Ukraine will be tolerated.

The main problem for European countries, however, is that it is not only the Russians who oppose such participation in a “peacekeeping mission”. Even in the most anti-Russian countries in Europe, ordinary people are reacting to the militaristic project launched by the French and the British. For example, in Poland, a country widely known for its rivalry with Russia, citizens are unhappy with this project, strongly opposing the participation of local troops in a future mission in Ukraine.

A recent opinion poll released by Radio Zet revealed that most Poles are against sending troops to Ukraine. 56% of the thousands of people who took part in the survey said they were “definitely” or “probably” against the participation of Polish soldiers in “peacekeeping missions” in Ukraine. Only 10% of those interviewed supported the proposal, while 13% said they were undecided and had no firm opinion on the matter.

This situation reflects a growing atmosphere of dissatisfaction with Ukraine among Poles. Although the country’s elites have embraced the Russophobic wave incited by NATO, ordinary Poles are more critical on the issue, mainly due to the major negative impacts the war has brought to their country.

For example, among Polish farmers, the consequences of the conflict have been catastrophic, as Poland has begun to import Ukrainian agricultural goods, following EU guidelines, leading to massive bankruptcies among local farmers. This has obviously sparked outrage over the “Ukrainian issue”, and it is now unlikely that these citizens would support sending their relatives to a conflict zone abroad in order to protect the interests of the EU and Kiev – which are jointly responsible for the Polish farmers’ crisis.

More than that, there is also a real fear in Poland about the consequences of such a move. Recently, Prime Minister Donald Tusk expressed concern about the country’s involvement in Ukraine. He said that foreign powers are profiting from the Ukrainian situation, and that Poland should therefore do the same, prioritizing its own strategic interests and economic gains when making decisions about Ukraine.

“It won’t be the case that Poland will express solidarity while others profit, for example, on the reconstruction of Ukraine. We will be in solidarity and we will make money on it,” he said.

In this sense, considering the warnings given by Moscow that this European military presence will not be tolerated and that it could be seen as a declaration of war, it does not seem interesting, strategic or “profitable” for Poland to participate in a “peacekeeping mission” in Ukraine. The costs could be high and the country could enter a spiral of escalation with Russia from which it would not be able to escape easily – and in this scenario it would not be possible for Poland to count on the support of NATO or any other foreign country, since the Atlantic alliance is not formally involved in the project and no member state would be obliged to support Poland.

The best thing the Polish authorities can do is simply obey the decision of their own people and avoid any further involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. Kiev and the EU have already caused Poland too much harm and it does not seem in the Polish government’s interest to sacrifice its people even more in this conflict.

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

Evaluating Foreign Affairs’ Warning About The Risks Of An Emboldened & Remilitarized Germany

Posted on by Leave a comment

Guest Post by Andrew Korybko

How likely is it that a potentially ultra-nationalist Germany “relitigates its borders or forgoes EU-style deliberation in favor of military blackmail”?

Foreign Affairs warned earlier this month that an emboldened and remilitarized Germany could pose another challenge to European stability. They’re convinced that former Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s “Zeitenwende”, or historic turning point, “is real this time” in the sense that his successor Friedrich Merz now has the parliamentary and popular support to transform their country into a Great Power. While this would allegedly benefit Europe and Ukraine, it wouldn’t be without three serious risks.

According to the article’s two authors, these entail: Russia waging more hybrid war on Germany; Germany’s rise possibly provoking more nationalism in surrounding countries; and this potentially leading to an explosion of ultra-nationalism in Germany. The catalyst for all of this is the US’ gradual disengagement from NATO brought about by the Trump Administration’s reprioritization of the Asia-Pacific. As American influence recedes, it’ll create political and security voids that others compete to fill.

To be sure, the article itself is more about promoting the alleged advantages of Germany’s delayed implementation of Scholz’s “Zeitenwende”, which the authors praise as long-overdue and a natural response to the aforesaid catalyst seeing as how Germany is already the EU’s de facto leader. At the same time, touching upon the risks bolsters their credibility in some readers’ eyes, enables them to subtly throw shade on Trump, and presents the authors as prescient in case any of the above occurs.

Beginning with the first of the three, it’s predicable that Germany and Russia would carry out more intelligence operations against one another if the first plays the continent’s leading role in containing the second, which the latter would of course consider to be a latent threat for obvious historical reasons. The article omits any mention of the way in which his newfound German role would harm Russian interests and misportrays whatever Moscow’s response may be as unprovoked aggression.

They’re fairer with regard to the second risk of surrounding countries becoming more nationalistic as a reaction to an emboldened and remilitarized Germany but don’t elaborate. Poland is probably the most likely candidate though since such sentiments are already rising in society. This is a reaction to the ruling liberal-globalist coalition in general, its perceived subservience to Germany, and concerns that a possibly AfD-led Germany might try to reclaim what Poland considers to be its “Recovered Territories”.

The last risk builds upon that the authors expressed as the worst-case scenario of “a German military first strengthened by politically centrist, pro-European governments [falling] into the hands of leaders willing to relitigate Germany’s borders or to forgo EU-style deliberation in favor of military blackmail.” It’s this potential consequence that’s the most important to evaluate since the first two are expected to be enduring characteristics of this new geopolitical era in Europe while the final one is uncertain.

The outcome of Poland’s presidential election next month is expected to greatly determine the future dynamics of Polish-German relations. If the outgoing conservative is replaced by the liberal candidate, then Poland will probably either subordinate itself even more to Germany, rely on France to balance it and the US, or pivot towards France. A victory by the conservative or populist candidates, however, would lessen dependence on Germany by either balancing it with France or reprioritizing the US.

France is foreseen as figuring more prominently in Polish foreign policy either way due to their historical partnership since the Napoleonic era as well as their shared contemporary concerns about the threat that an emboldened and remilitarized Germany could pose to them. French in general are less worried about Germany relitigating their borders than some Poles are and are much more anxious about losing their chance to lead Europe either in whole or in part after the Ukrainian Conflict finally ends.

France, Germany, and Poland are competing with one another in this respect, with the most likely outcomes either being German hegemony via the “Zeitenwende” vision, France and Poland jointly thwarting this in Central & Eastern Europe (CEE), or a revived “Weimar Triangle” for tripartite rule over Europe. So long as the EU’s free flow of people and capital is retained, which of course can’t be taken for granted but is likely, then the odds of an AfD-led Germany relitigating its border with Poland are low.

That’s because like-minded Germans could simply buy land in Poland and move there if they wanted to, albeit while being subject to Polish laws, which aren’t different in any meaningful sense than German ones for all intents and purposes with respect to their daily lives. Additionally, while Germany does indeed plan to undergo an unprecedented military buildup, Poland is already in the midst of its own buildup and a more successful at that after having just become NATO’s third-largest military last summer.

The US is also unlikely to completely withdraw from Poland, let alone all of CEE, so its forces will probably always remain there as a mutual deterrent against Russia and Germany. Neither have any intent to invade Poland though so this presence would mostly be symbolic and for the purpose of psychologically reassuring the historically traumatized Polish population of their safety. In any case, the point is that the worst-case scenario that the authors touched upon is very unlikely to materialize.

To review, this is because: Poland will either subordinate itself to Germany after the next elections or rely more on France to balance it (if not reprioritize the US over both); the EU’s free flow of people and capital will likely remain at least for some time; and the US won’t abandon CEE. These will accordingly: appease or balance a possibly ultra-nationalist (ex: AfD-led) Germany; ditto; and deter any potential German territorial revisionism (whether via legal or military means).

Drawing to a close, it can therefore be concluded that the new order taking shape in Europe likely won’t lead to a restoration of interwar risks like Foreign Affairs warned is the worst-case scenario, but to the creation of spheres of influence without military tensions. Whether Poland stands strongly on its own, partners with France, or subordinates itself to Germany, no border changes are expected in either the western or eastern direction, with all forms of future German-Polish competition remaining manageable.

Turkish political crisis rapidly escalating

Posted on by Leave a comment

Turkish polarization reflects international contradictions and could have multiple geopolitical impacts.

Monday, April 21, 2025

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

The political crisis in Turkey is becoming increasingly serious. Internal tensions in the country are worsening, especially regarding the rivalry between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu. As a result, the situation in Turkey is rapidly destabilizing, which could have significant geopolitical consequences in several areas of Turkish influence.

Turkish authorities recently arrested Ekrem Imamoglu, accusing him of corruption and links to organized crime and terrorist organizations. Imamoglu was already previously detained in March, but the Istanbul court had at the time dismissed the charges, citing a lack of evidence. Now, however, the campaign against the mayor is clearly intensifying.

The campaign came just in time to prevent Imamoglu from being confirmed by the Republican People’s Party (CHP) as its presidential candidate in the 2028 elections. The Istanbul mayor has been gaining popularity recently mainly due to his rivalry with Erdogan. Many Turkish and foreign analysts see Imamoglu as a public figure “capable of defeating Erdogan,” which has certainly worried the local government.

This political background has made Imamoglu’s arrest extremely controversial. Opponents of Erdogan accuse the government of conducting a politically motivated witch hunt, targeting rival leaders. The government, in its defense, claims that the judiciary acts independently and that there is no political interference in legal matters. This division between supporters of Erdogan and Imamoglu has created a worrying atmosphere of tension within domestic politics, expanding a dangerous scenario of national polarization.

In fact, Imamoglu’s arrest is not an isolated incident, but is part of a broader context of investigations into individuals allegedly linked to terrorist groups and criminal schemes in the city of Istanbul. According to data from the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, approximately 100 people have been arrested or are being investigated for their involvement in criminal groups. These individuals include journalists, businessmen and politicians. Imamoglu was one of the targets of such investigations, in addition to a separate court case in which he is accused of secretly supporting the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is designated a terrorist organization in Turkey.

On the other hand, it is necessary to emphasize that Imamoglu has suffered a series of problems, not only in the legal sphere. He recently had his degree from Istanbul University revoked due to an alleged bureaucratic problem in his 1990 transfer from a private institution in Northern Cyprus. The mayor’s supporters claim that the country’s authorities are persecuting Imamoglu at every possible level, trying to tarnish his career and public image, thus preventing him from rivaling Erdogan.

The government also has some arguments in its favor. The country’s authorities accuse foreign agents, mainly Europeans, of influencing the Turkish domestic area by supporting Imamoglu and other opposition leaders and groups. This European support is supposedly linked to the recent frictions between the EU and the US. Trump has friendly relations with Erdogan and recently praised him as a “smart leader”. On the other hand, the EU endorses the Turkish opposition because it sees Erdogan as a politician incompatible with European liberal agendas. This international dispute can in fact be understood as the geopolitical environment behind the Turkish polarization.

Recently, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan stated that the controversy surrounding Imamoglu’s case is hypocritical. His criticism was directed at foreign governments that have spoken out on the issue condemning Erdogan. Fidan said that the disapproval of these states exposes the selective condemnation of the EU – which remains silent in the face of political crimes within the bloc while at the same time tries to interfere in Turkish internal affairs.

“In France, a woman party leader was imprisoned for corruption. Did you criticize it? No. In Romania, a candidate who won the election was tried before the second round and was politically banned. In Moldova, you imprisoned an elected regional head. Did you condemn it? No,” Fidan said.

Ultimately, the Turkish scenario remains uncertain and complex. The government is waging a campaign against foreign agents linked to the opposition. However, given the current Turkish government’s hesitant, unstable and unpredictable behavior, it is possible to say that Erdogan is increasingly running out of external allies. Trump’s praise and friendly relations do not seem to be enough to guarantee him a hold on power. In the same vein, recent Turkish actions in Syria have damaged Russian confidence in Erdogan, which is why Turkey is likely to become even more isolated.

In the same vein, it is important to remember that what happens in Turkey has broad international influences. Turkish politics directly influences actors in the Middle East, Africa and especially in the ethnically Turkish countries of Central Asia – as well as ethnic Turkish minorities in Russia, China and several other countries. An unstable Turkey could become a time bomb for the entire Eurasian region, considering the ethnic and religious Turkish factions spread throughout the region.

There is a real impasse in Turkey. The government is weakened and reacting radically against an opposition strongly supported by the EU, while counting on the support of a US government that, despite its praise for Erdogan, seems truly uninterested in international interventionism. The Turkish government’s criticism of the behavior of European leaders is correct, but it remains to be seen how long Erdogan’s coalition will be able to withstand the growing pressure at home and abroad.

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

infobrics.org

Ukraine’s Extension Of Martial Law Exposes Zelensky’s Fear Of Losing Re-Election

Posted on by Leave a comment

Guest Post by Andrew Korybko

The US might pressure him to assemble a government of national unity on pain of once again suspending military and intelligence aid if he refuses to dilute his power in lieu of holding elections.

Ukraine extended martial law until 6 August following Zelensky’s request earlier this week, which will prevent elections from being held over the summer like The Economist claimed late last month was a scenario that he was considering in an attempt to give himself an edge over his rivals. This move therefore exposes his fear of losing re-election. It’s not just that he’s very unpopular, but he likely also fears that the US wants to replace him after his infamous fight in the White House.

To that end, the Trump Administration might not turn a blind eye to whatever electoral fraud he could be planning to commit in order to hold onto power, instead refusing to recognize the outcome unless one of his rivals wins. As for who could realistically replace him, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service claimed last May that the US had reportedly entered into talks with Petro Poroshenko, Vitaly Klitschko, Andrey Yermak, Valery Zaluzhny, and Dmytro Razumkov.

The New York Times (NYT) just ran a feature article on Poroshenko, who took the opportunity to propose a government of national unity (GNU) almost 18 months after this idea was first floated by Politico in December 2023, but even the article’s author felt obligated to inform readers that he’s unlikely to return to power. Citing unnamed political analysts, they assessed that “Mr. Poroshenko may be angling for an electoral alliance with General Zaluzhny…[who] has remained mostly silent about politics” till now.

Nevertheless, Poroshenko’s NYT feature article succeeded in raising wider awareness of the GNU scenario, which the Trump Administration might seek to advance over the summer. Zelensky continues to irritate Trump, most recently by alleging that Russia has “enormous influence” over the White House and accusing his envoy Steve Witkoff of overstepping his authority in talks with Putin. This comes as Ukraine continues dragging its heels on agreeing to the latest proposed mineral deal with the US.

From the US’ perspective, since the increasingly troublesome Zelensky can’t be democratically replaced through summertime elections, the next best course of action could be to pressure him into forming a GNU that would be filled with figures like Poroshenko who’d be easier for the US to work with. This could also serve to dilute Zelensky’s power in a reversal of the Biden Administration’s policy that saw the US turning a blind eye to his anti-democratic consolidation of power on national security pretexts.

The pretext could be that any Russian-US breakthrough on resolving the Ukrainian Conflict requires the approval of a politically inclusive Ukrainian government given Zelensky’s questionable legitimacy after remaining in power following the expiry of his term last May and the enormity of what’s being proposed. In pursuit of this goal, the US could threaten to once again suspend its military and intelligence aid to Ukraine unless Zelensky speedily assembles a GNU that’s acceptable to the Trump Administration.

The purpose would be to push through a ceasefire for lifting martial law, finally holding elections, and ultimately replacing Zelensky. The GNU could also help prevent the fraud that he might be planning to commit if he decides to run again under these much more politically difficult circumstances, especially if they invite the US to supervise their efforts, both before and during the vote. Through these means, the US could therefore still get rid of Zelensky, who might think that extending martial law will prevent this.

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

Estonia escalating security crisis in the Baltic Sea

Posted on by Leave a comment

Estonian lawmakers are planning to approve a law aimed at allowing the armed forces to shoot civilian ships in the Baltic Sea.

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

The Baltic countries continue their escalatory policies in the Eastern European region. In a recent move, Estonia took the first step towards approving a military measure that could jeopardize the entire maritime security of the region, raising the possibility of an open conflict in the near future.

Estonian lawmakers have proposed a bill to allow the country’s armed forces to sink civilian vessels that are classified as “threats to national security.” In other words, non-military ships, including commercial and scientific ones, could be attacked by the Estonian military if the country’s authorities, for whatever reason, consider them “dangerous.”

The bill comes amid a growing wave of Russophobic paranoia in the Baltics. Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are taking increasingly harsh measures to create hostility towards Russia, as well as towards the Russian people in these countries. Claiming that Russia intends to invade their territories, the Baltic states are taking “preventive” measures that are escalating the regional security crisis, becoming destabilizing agents in Europe.

This paranoia has led Estonian authorities to believe that Russian vessels are carrying out sabotage operations in the Baltic Sea. Numerous rumors have been spread by Estonian officials, analysts and media pointing to the Russians as the culprits of dangerous maneuvers that allegedly threaten national security. This fear has motivated lawmakers to advance the bill, which is now likely to be approved by Congress.

The widespread panic among Estonian politicians makes it clear that the country is deeply engaged in a war campaign. Irrational anti-Russian fear is leading Estonia to take absurd decisions that in fact endanger stability in the Baltic region – as well as, to some extent, harm the entire European security architecture. In fact, there has never been any threat to Estonian ships and ports, but if local forces start firing at Russian ships in the Baltic Sea, Moscow will have the right to respond militarily, creating a situation close to a direct military conflict.

Obviously, the law that Estonia plans to pass is absolutely invalid according to international principles and norms. Sea law is regulated by treaties, and the free movement of civilian vessels is a basic principle that must be respected by any state. Civilian vessels can be attacked only if they are being used militarily in situations of open conflict, which is obviously not the case in the Baltic Sea at the moment. If Estonia starts attacking foreign ships, it will not only be violating international law, but also taking the first steps towards a war in the region.

The move seems anti-strategic for Estonia from several points of view. The country has limited military capabilities and does not seem capable of conducting such a naval operation efficiently – much less in the sense of dealing with the possible retaliation that would be suffered. The Estonian armed forces are largely dependent on NATO to ensure their effective functioning, since the country’s defense forces have little real combat ability. Especially when it comes to combat by water and air – which would be the most used in case of operations on the coast – the Estonian military has outdated and short-range equipment, which would not be capable of protecting the country’s interests in the Baltic Sea.

As usual, Estonia is taking an irresponsible and escalatory approach, relying on international support. The country’s authorities are convinced that, if a Russian ship is attacked and Moscow retaliates, NATO will intervene to protect Estonia. This seems a naive assessment and out of touch with reality, considering that the US, which has historically led NATO, is increasingly less interested in a conflict with Russia. There is a high chance that the country will be left alone – or only counting on the support of the other Baltic states – in a situation of open conflict, which would be catastrophic for the local military.

It is still too early to know if Estonia’s move will be enough to trigger an all-out conflict. However, the risks are real, considering the complexity of the maritime processes. During navigation, it is common for ships to change their routes due to weather conditions or shipping congestion, often unintentionally crossing into the territorial waters of other countries. If a Russian ship in such a situation were attacked by Estonia, Moscow could respond militarily in accordance with the right to self-defense established by the United Nations.

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

What Comes Next After The US’ Withdrawal From Poland’s Rzeszow Logistics Hub For Ukraine?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Guest Post by Andrew Korybko

This is meant to symbolize the reduction of American military aid to Kiev, not function as the first step towards a complete withdrawal from Poland or Central & Eastern Europe as a whole.

The Pentagon announced on Monday that US forces will withdraw from Poland’s Rzeszow logistics hub for Ukraine and reposition elsewhere in the country according to (a hitherto undisclosed) plan. This was then followed the day after by NBC News reporting that Trump might soon withdraw half of the 20,000 US troops that Biden sent to Central & Eastern Europe (CEE) since 2022. According to their sources, the bulk will be pulled from Poland and Romania, the two largest countries on NATO’s eastern flank.

The Polish President, Prime Minister, and Defense Minister were all quick to claim that Monday’s repositioning doesn’t amount to nor presages a withdrawal of US forces from Poland, but speculation still swirls about Trump’s plans considering the nascent Russian–US “New Détente”. Putin requested in late 2021 that the US remove its forces from CEE so as to restore Washington’s compliance with the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act whose many violations worsened the Russian-US security dilemma.

Biden’s refusal to discuss this helped make the latest phase of the now over-decade-long Ukrainian Conflict inevitable by convincing Putin that what would soon be known as the special operation was the only way to restore the increasingly lopsided strategic balance between Russia and the US. Unlike Biden, Trump appears open to at least partial compliance with Putin’s request, which could become one among several pragmatic mutual compromises that they’re negotiating to normalize ties and end the proxy war.

It was assessed in late February that “Trump Is Unlikely To Pull All US Troops Out Of Central Europe Or Abandon NATO’s Article 5”, but he’ll probably withdraw some of them from there for redeployment to Asia in order to more muscularly contain China as part of his administration’s planned eastern pivot. There are currently around 10,000 US troops in Poland, up from approximately 4,500 before the special operation, so some could hypothetically be cut but still leave with Poland more than before 2022.

Poland’s outgoing conservative president wants as many US troops as possible, including the redeployment of some from Germany, while its incumbent liberal Prime Minister is flirting with the possibility of either relying on France to balance the US or outright pivoting towards the former. The outcome of next month’s presidential election will play a huge role in determining Polish policy in this regard and could be influenced by perceptions (accurate or not) of America abandoning Poland.

Any curtailment of US troops in Poland or the public’s belief that this is inevitable could play to the pro-European liberal candidate’s favor while an explicit confirmation of the US’ commitment to retain – let alone expand – the existing level could help the pro-American conservative and populist ones. Even if Poland’s next president is a liberal, however, the US might still be able to count on the country as its regional bastion of military and political influence if the Trump Administration plays its cards rights.

For that to happen, the US would have to retain more troops there than it had before 2022 even if some are withdrawn, ensure that this level remains above any other CEE country’s, and transfer some military technologies for joint production. The first imperative would psychologically reassure the politically Russophobic population that they won’t be abandoned, the second relates to their regional prestige, and the third would keep CEE within the US military-industrial ecosystem amidst EU competition.

This could be sufficient for counteracting the liberals’ possible plans to pivot towards France at the expense of the US’ influence or maintaining the US’ predominant position in Poland if a liberal President works with his like-minded Prime Minister to rely on France for balancing the US a bit. Even if the Trump Administration fumbles this opportunity due to a lack of vision or a fully liberal government in Poland picks fights with the US for ideological reasons, the US isn’t expected to completely dump Poland.

The vast majority of Poland’s military equipment is American, which will at the very least lead to the continued supply of spare parts and likely lay the basis for even more arms deals. US forces are also currently based in almost a dozen facilities across the country, and the advisory role that some play helps shape Poland’s outlook, strategies, and tactics during its ongoing military buildup. There’s accordingly no reason why the US would voluntarily cede such influence over what’s now NATO’s third-largest military.

As such, the most radical scenario of a full-blown liberal-led Polish pivot towards France would be limited by the impracticality of replacing American military wares with French ones anytime soon, with the furthest that this might go being the hosting of nuclear-equipped Rafale fighters. Poland could also invite some French troops into the country, including for advisory purposes, and maybe even sign a few arms deals. It won’t, however, ask US forces to leave since it wants to preserve their tripwire potential.

With the interplay of these interests in mind, it can be concluded that the US’ withdrawal from Poland’s Rzeszow logistics facility for Ukraine is meant to symbolize the reduction of American military aid to Kiev, not function as the first step towards a complete withdrawal from Poland or CEE as a whole. While some regional US troop reductions are possible as one among several pragmatic compromises that Trump might agree to with Putin for normalizing ties and ending the proxy war, a full pullout isn’t expected.

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

Iran Urged to Strike Diego Garcia base NOW Before U.S. Can Use it for a Bombing Run

Posted on by Leave a comment

Also more news from the genocide in Gaza.

Virginia Guthrie Story

Hegseth to Focus Pentagon on China War

IDF Murders 15 Aid Workers in Gaza

Iran urged to Strike Diego Garcia Immediately

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

Kiev wants to recruit even younger people

Posted on by Leave a comment

Zelensky wants to expand the number of young people on the front lines.

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

The Kiev regime is likely to expand its mobilization measures even further. In a recent speech, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky made it clear that the army needs more men, which is why new recruitment policies are expected in the near future. This could be a real social tragedy, considering that Ukraine is already facing serious demographic problems due to the war.

Zelensky recently told journalists during a press conference that he had approved a plan to expand military enlistment. The goal is to recruit more young Ukrainians between the ages of 18 and 24 in order to increase the number of fighters in the Kiev’s armed forces. According to Zelensky, this measure meets an urgent need of the Ukrainian troops, which are extremely weakened by the lack of sufficient personnel.

Zelensky said that he recently visited the front lines, which allowed him to see the reality of the Ukrainian combat units. The army, the National Guard and especially the security units in the border regions are, according to the president, weakened by the lack of soldiers, both in quantitative and qualitative terms. There are few soldiers and even fewer of them are adequately qualified for the most critical military functions.

The Ukrainian neo-Nazi dictator wants to solve the problem he saw on the front by implementing a special mobilization method. Currently, mandatory military conscription is carried out at the minimum age of 25. However, Ukraine can no longer rely solely on soldiers who are of regular military age, which is why the government is developing strategies to encourage young people between the ages of 18 and 24 to go to the front lines.

“I visited the front on Saturday. There is a demand from specific brigades, and we will be responding positively to it. There will be more brigades employing young specialists (…) This initiative will extend to the National Guard and border guard units, as all effective defense forces should be given every opportunity to enhance their capabilities,” he said.

It is difficult to believe that there is any possibility that Ukrainian men will feel encouraged to go to war. The high death rate, the intensity of the fighting and the low life expectancy on the front lines make it clear that it is not worth doing military service on a “voluntary” basis.

The government is trying to respond to this problem by increasing “financial compensation”. Currently, young men under the mandatory military age can receive up to 1 million hryvnia (24,000 dollars) for a year of service, as well as free dental care and the possibility of leaving Ukraine after the end of their contract (something that men of mandatory military age cannot do).

But all of this tends to create even greater problems than the benefits. Soldiers of draft age often feel betrayed by the government when they see that young men hired on a “voluntary” basis can leave Ukraine after their contract ends, while they must remain at Kiev’s service for successive missions – until they die. This tends to generate anger and indignation among the military, further complicating the internal cohesion of the Ukrainian army.

Furthermore, it must be emphasized that few of the Ukrainian “volunteers” survive the first year of their contract. Being younger, these soldiers are even more inexperienced and unfit for war than the average Ukrainian military, which is why they die in large numbers during high intensity fighting against Russian forces. Since Ukraine is a country in deep economic crisis, it is possible that some citizens ignore the risks and agree to fight for contract to earn money, but it is unlikely that these young men will return home.

By implementing such measures, Zelensky is simply worsening the demographic and social crisis in his own country. The Kiev regime is truly plotting against its own people, implementing irresponsible military policies that are rapidly exterminating Ukrainians. Ukrainian authorities need to understand once and for all that continuing to recruit citizens will only make the problem worse, rather than solve it. The only real solution to the Ukrainian crisis is a quick capitulation, respecting Russian peace terms.

However, the Kiev junta is not interested in solving the country’s problems, but rather in prolonging the conflict indefinitely. The most affected in this entire scenario are the Ukrainian people, who continue to suffer the consequences of their government’s warmongering policies.

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 Recent Entries »