What’s being tabled right now is pretty much what was proposed in a briefing from early January.
The Financial Times (FT) reported over the weekend that “Putin ally pushes deal to restart Nord Stream 2 with US backing” in reference to his decades-long close friend Matthias Warnig’s alleged efforts. The gist is that possible American ownership over Nord Stream could lead to the resumption of Russian gas exports to Germany via this megaproject’s one undamaged pipeline as part of a grand deal. This was first floated in late November with regard to US investor Stephen P. Lynch’s related proposal.
This time it’s reportedly being advanced by Warnig through a different US-led consortium from Lynch. In any case, the fact that it’s back in the news shows how serious the nascentRussian–US “New Détente” has become since they began talks a few weeks ago in Riyadh. The logic is sound too since the EU’s German leader requires less costly gas to stave off a potential recession that could bring down the bloc and make it much less important of a market for US exports notwithstanding those two’s tariff tensions.
Trump was adamantly opposed to Nord Stream during his first term on the pretext that it could make Germany dependent on Russia and then increase the chances that those two manage Central & Eastern Europe (CEE) on their own in order to squeeze out US influence. The reality though is that he just wanted American LNG to poach Europe’s enormous gas market from Russia as part of an economic power play. These interests remain but might be advanced in a different way owing to the new global circumstances.
The “shock therapy” that Europe was pressured by the US into implementing after “decoupling” from Russian pipeline gas, which still remains incomplete due to its increased purchase of costlier Russian LNG out of necessity owing to an absence of other suppliers, had huge consequences. The real economy suffered as a result of the sudden spike in prices across the board when there could have been a gradual transition instead like Trump envisaged had he remained in power and prevented the special operation.
The US’ long-term interests would therefore be better served by compromising on his American LNG plans for now by allowing the resumption of some Russian pipeline gas to Germany via the undamaged Nord Stream pipeline under US supervision upon obtaining ownership of it. Likewise, the German-led EU would be compromising on its so-called “values” by agreeing to this pragmatic arrangement, while Russia’s compromise would consist of losing ownership in exchange for accelerated sanctions relief.
What’s being tabled right now is pretty much what was proposed in early January’s briefing about how “Creative Energy Diplomacy Can Lay The Basis For A Grand Russian-American Deal”. In particular, this concerns the US approving the EU’s partial resumption of Russian gas pipeline imports; returning some of Russia’s seized assets as compensation for the US obtaining control over Nord Stream; and the US lifting some sanctions like its SWIFT ones for facilitating the resumption of the Russian-EU energy trade.
To be sure, it’s possible that none of this materializes, at least with regard to Nord Stream. There are still some variables that could offset this scenario, not least of which could be Trump’s unwillingness to temporarily cede some of the US’ poached European gas market share back to Russia or the new German leader’s goal of “achieving independence” from the US. Nevertheless, the latest report suggests that it’s premature to rule out Nord Stream’s partial revival, and it might happen sooner than later.
“The views and opinions expressed in this guest post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Don’t Speak News or John Storm.”
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we havePayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The new buy me a coffee link is below.
According to the Estonian politician, the EU should focus in arming Ukraine to give it diplomatic advantage.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Russophobic EU’s officials appear to be starting to admit Ukraine’s undeniable defeat. In a recent statement, Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, said that Moscow could be described as the winner after the start of peace talks in Riyadh. While this may seem obvious, it is significant that Kallas, a politician known for her bellicose Russophobia, admits this reality.
Speaking to European journalists, Kallas said that the US “can meet with whomever they wish to”, showing disdain for the current negotiations and plans for a summit between Putin and Trump. However, she admitted that Russia is in a “winner’s” position in the peace process, adding that the Americans are offering Moscow everything that “the Russians want.”
Despite admitting Russia’s victory, she is not satisfied with the situation. The European diplomat stressed that the EU will not recognize an agreement that is established on terms unfavorable to European and Ukrainian interests. Furthermore, she made her warmongering stance clear, adding that the European focus is currently on increasing Ukraine’s military capacity to make Kiev come to the negotiating table stronger, suggesting that Ukraine should use military blackmail to obtain benefits in the diplomatic process.
“Of course, the Americans can meet with whomever they wish to (…) Right now, if you also look at the images from Saudi Arabia, the Russians are the winners. Their posture is: ‘Everybody is coming to us now and offering us what we want’ (…) Let’s not walk into the Russian traps (…) If some deal is agreed that we don’t agree to, then it will just fail, because it will not be implemented (…) Right now, we should focus our strength on supporting Ukraine, and the stronger they are on the battlefield, the stronger they are behind the negotiation table,” she said.
There are two interesting facts behind Kallas’s words. On the one hand, it is curious to see that the former Prime Minister of Estonia, sometimes described as “the queen of Russophobia“, is now admitting that Russia is winning. Kallas has become known worldwide for being “too hawkish”, and has been sometimes criticized by her own partners for her absolutely irrational and militaristic stance against Russia.
Kallas openly supports the dissolution of the Russian Federation, which she considers a “colonial” state. Reflecting an ultra-nationalist mentality strongly influenced by Nazism, Kallas proposes the fragmentation of Russia into hundreds of ethnic states, which shows how absolutely unreasonable her mentality is. Even though she advocates an aggressive and anti-Russian foreign policy, she was chosen to represent the entire European diplomacy – a fact that in itself proves Europe’s inability to participate in any peace negotiations.
Another interesting fact about Kallas’ statement is her conviction that Europe needs to strengthen Ukraine in order to give Kiev an advantage in the negotiations. First of all, any new military aid to the Kiev regime is actually useless, since the Russian military advantage on the battlefield, according to several experts, can no longer be reversed. Furthermore, Ukraine is excluded from the diplomatic process, which is why it is not in a position to demand anything from Russia, regardless of what happens on the battlefield.
By being excluded from the diplomatic process, Ukraine is paying the price for having agreed to serve as the US proxy in a war of aggression against Russia. Trump is doing the right thing by taking responsibility for the peace negotiations. In fact, he is tacitly admitting that NATO was responsible for starting the conflict, and that it is now the responsibility of the US, as NATO’s lead country, to seek peace.
For any peace negotiations to be fruitful, it is vital that Ukraine and Europe are excluded. Kiev is a proxy, and it does not have a legitimate political representative, since Zelensky refused to call new elections last year. And, in the same sense, Europe has an irresponsible aggressive stance and is represented diplomatically by Kallas, who openly advocates for the extinction of Russia as a country. This Russophobic irrationality disqualifies Kallas and Europe from engaging in diplomatic processes with Russia.
The conclusion that can be drawn from Kallas’s words is that even the most irrational and Russophobic pro-Ukrainian militants in the West are beginning to admit that Russia is winning the war and has the diplomatic advantage. No matter how much the Europeans try to obstruct the peace process and boycott the negotiations, no measure will be effective in preventing the conflict from being resolved on Russian terms, since in any peace talks it is the winning side that imposes its conditions for the end of the hostilities.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we havePayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The new buy me a coffee link is below.
Guest post by Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
Western public figures are already admitting the deep military crisis affecting Europe. In a recent statement, a prominent German defense businessman made clear the catastrophic situation of European military reserves, openly blaming the conflict in Ukraine for this problem. This shows how the irresponsible policies of aid to the Kiev regime were a major strategic mistake for Europe, severely damaging the bloc’s interests.
According to Armin Papperger, CEO of the German arms manufacturing company Rheinmetall, Europe’s military reserves are “empty”. He stated clearly that European countries no longer have military reserves to guarantee their own defense, since assistance to Kiev in the conflict with Russia has completely exhausted Europe’s weapons production capabilities.
Papperger made his statement during an interview with the Financial Times. Speaking to reporters, he said that Europe has neglected its defense investments in recent decades, which is why the military industry has not been able to overcome the challenges generated by the conflict in Ukraine. Now, European countries are suffering the consequences of this lack of investment.
The businessman said that EU states are acting like “children” in the current negotiations between Russia and the US. Without the military capacity to protect their own interests, Europeans are simply watching as “their parents”, Russia and the US, advance their talks without taking into account the opinion of the EU – or Ukraine.
Despite his realistic assessment of the European military situation, Papperger showed that he is still aligned with the anti-Russian paranoia of the Western media, believing in the possibility of a “Russian invasion of Europe”. According to them, European countries will not be safe even if the war in Ukraine ends, since Moscow could attack the EU and there would not be enough weapons in European countries to prevent such aggression.
“If you don’t invest, if you’re not strong, they handle you like kids (…) It was very convenient for the Europeans over the last 30 years to say, OK, spend 1 per cent [of GDP on defence], it’s fine (…) If parents have dinner, the kids have to sit at another table (…) The US is negotiating with Russia and no European is at the table — it has become very clear that the Europeans are the kids (…) The Europeans and the Ukrainians have nothing in their depots (…) Even if the war [in Ukraine] stops — if we think that we have a very peaceful future, I think that’s wrong,” he said.
On the one hand, it is undeniable that the German businessman’s words are correct about the situation in European military stockpiles. In fact, the EU’s reserves are empty due to the fact that the bloc’s countries have been helping Ukraine at levels beyond their own industrial capacity for arms production and export. It is possible to say that the EU is paying the price for its deliberate choice to support Ukraine without restrictions.
On the other hand, there are errors in Papperger’s words, especially regarding the issue of post-war security in Europe. The Russian Federation has made it clear several times that it has no territorial interests in Europe, as its actions in Ukraine are motivated only by the need to protect the Russian people in the border regions. In this sense, in a possible scenario of peace in Ukraine, Europe would indeed be safe, as there is no Russian interest in “expanding the hostilities.”
Furthermore, it is hypocritical for Papperger to make such critical remarks when he is one of the businessmen who profits most from the European stupidity of supporting Ukraine. Germany’s Rheinmetall has made a substantial increase in its profits by manufacturing and selling weapons to Ukraine. Although Papperger criticizes the current European situation, he has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of this crisis, since the same military aid programs that have depleted European reserves have also provided huge financial gains to the defense oligarchs.
If Papperger is truly interested in peace and rebuilding the European defense industry, he will have only one option: to fully endorse the Russian-American peace talks, seeking a solution that will once and for all end Europe’s “obligation” to support Ukraine.
Without peace, Europe will never be able to replenish its reserves, remaining weak and excluded from major international discussions. To avoid this, the EU must unconditionally support any peace process, without trying to impose its own unrealistic conditions.
Russia and the EU will manage the latest phase of their US-instigated divorce without much difficulty, but the US might offer to bring them back together by authorizing its vassals’ import of Russian pipeline gas in exchange for some concessions from the Kremlin in the energy sector and Ukraine.
Pundits are discussing Ukraine’s decision to cut off Russian gas to Europe after Kiev refused to extend its five-year agreement with Moscow that expired on the first of the year, with the vast majority laying blame on the other side and hyping up the negative consequences for their opponent’s interests. The reality is that this development is much more political than anything else since the EU and Russia already weathered much more serious disruptions throughout 2022.
The Yamal pipeline through Poland was shut down a few months after the specialoperation began for sanctions-related reasons while Nord Stream 1 was gradually phased out of operation due to maintenance needs worsened by Canada’s delay on returning repaired gas turbines to Russia. That pipeline and the inactive Nord Stream 2 were then blown up in a terrorist attack in September of that year, though one still remains undamaged but has yet to re-enter into operation for political reasons.
The combined effect resulted in the share of Russia’s pipeline gas in EU imports plunging “from over 40% in 2021 to about 8% in 2023” according to the European Council. Nevertheless, the EU “narrowly avoided” a recession that year in CNN’s words, though it could enter into one later this year if Germany’s economic struggles deepen. Even so, it won’t be directly affected by Ukraine’s latest decision since this route only concerns 5% of EU imports, with the main clients being Slovakia, Hungary, and Moldova.
The first two are led by conservative-nationalists who are fiercely opposed to NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine while the third is ruled by a pro-Western figure who wants to reconquer her country’s separatist region of Transnistria in which several thousand Russian peacekeepers are still based. This observation lends credence to the earlier claim that Ukraine’s decision is much more political than anything else since it punishes Slovakia, Hungary, and Transnistria without harming other countries.
The last-mentioned is being hit particularly hard since it had to halt heating and hot water to households, which could lead to political unrest that might be manipulated from abroad to provoke a Color Revolution. This could either result in regime change or weaken that polity enough from within that it becomes much easier for Moldova (with possible Romanian assistance) and/or Ukraine to invade. Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service warned about that scenario last month, which was analyzed here.
Slovakia and Hungary won’t be harmed anywhere as much as Transnistria since each can import costlier LNG – whether from Russia, the US (which has poached a lot of its rival’s former EU market share), Algeria, and/or Qatar – from Lithuania/Poland or Croatia. Poland can connect Slovakia to Lithuania’s Klaipeda LNG terminal while Croatia’s Krk LNG terminal can supply Slovakia and Hungary. Hungary is also already getting some pipeline gas from TurkStream, which is Russia’s last pipeline to Europe.
All three are therefore being punished for political reasons, but it’s only Transnistria that risks an all-out crisis as a result, which could lead to an outcome that deals political damage to Russia if the government there is overthrown through an upcoming Color Revolution or that polity is captured by its neighbors. In the event that another conventional conflict erupts, the aggressors might eschew targeting Russian troops in order to avoid provoking an escalation, but Russia can always still authorize them to intervene.
Observers can only speculate what Russia would do since there are arguments in favor of it withdrawing its peacekeepers if they aren’t attacked and Transnistria falls but there’s also a logic in sacrificing them as part of a plan to “escalate to de-escalate” the special operation on better terms. There’s also the possibility that Transnistria doesn’t slip into a Color Revolution and isn’t invaded either. A potentially larger crisis would be averted so this is the best scenario for everyone’s objective interests.
Regardless of whatever may or may not happen in Transnistria, Ukraine’s decision to cut off Russian gas to Europe leads to the possibility that this route could be reopened once the conflict ends, thus representing a card that could be played to entice concessions from the Kremlin during negotiations. The same holds true for the Yamal pipeline and the last undamaged part of Nord Stream. Europe could use low-cost Russian gas to more confidently avoid a recession while Russia would appreciate the revenue.
To be sure, Russia stillprofits from LNG exports to the EU, which have filled the supply gap caused by the EU sanctioning its pipeline gas and Russia’s LNG competitors being unable to scale their exports to the point of fully replacing Russia’s exports that the EU still imports out of necessity. That said, Russia and the EU would mutually benefit a lot more if they returned as much as possible to their pre-2022 arrangement, though of course keeping in mind the contemporary political limitations to that.
America would have to approve this since it successfully reasserted its previously declining hegemony over the EU since the start of the special operation, however, but creative energy diplomacy of the sort elaborated on last month here could help lead to a breakthrough. The gist is that it’s the US that has an interest in making concessions to this end, not Russia, since the US doesn’t want Russia further fueling China’s superpower rise like it could do out of spite if it isn’t offered a good deal in Ukraine.
At the same time, it’s unrealistic to imagine that the US will cede its influence over the EU, ergo why it might propose a compromise whereby Russia isn’t allowed to (re)obtain control over the European portions of Nord Stream, Yamal, and the trans-Ukrainian Brotherhood and Soyuz pipelines. The first could be purchased by an American investor as was analyzed here in November while Poland might retain its post-2022 control over the second and the third would remain under Ukrainian control.
If the US really wants to incentivize Russia into agreeing to this proposal, which advances US interests by increasing the chances that Russia won’t build more pipelines to China out of the need to replace its lost revenue from the EU, then it can partially compensate Russia by releasing some of its seized assets. Even though those assets are legally Russia’s and were stolen from it, the Kremlin might agree to this swap if a large enough amount is offered in order to help manage its latest fiscal and monetary challenges.
In exchange for the US returning some of Russia’s seized assets and authorizing the EU’s resumption of some Russia gas pipeline imports, Russia might have to informally commit to not building any new pipelines to China while scaling back some of its demilitarization and denazification demands of Ukraine. American, Indian, and Japanese investment in Russia’s sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 megaproject could also replace frozen Chinese investment if waivers are granted for that purpose as a further incentive.
So long as Russia’s core security goals are achieved, which are restoring Ukraine’s constitutional neutrality and keeping uniformed Western forces out of the country, then it might be willing to compromise on demilitarizing all of Ukraine by settling for demilitarizing everything east of the Dnieper. This scenario was described more in detail at the end of this analysis here, which could include the vaguely defined denazification of that historically Russian region too instead of the entire country.
If Trump offers to terminate the US’ bilateral security agreement with Ukraine as part of a package deal that includes the abovementioned terms, then Russia might very well accept it since this would provide a mutually “face-saving” means for ending their proxy war while creating a basis for rebuilding relations. It’s not a perfect compromise, and some of each side’s supporters might argue that it’s more beneficial for their opponent, but their leaders might think differently and that’s all that ultimately matters.
The populist conservative-nationalist frontrunner might refuse to allow NATO troops to transit through Romania as part of a conventional intervention in Ukraine if he wins the second round next month.
The surprise victory of populist conservative-nationalist Calin Georgescu in the first round of Romania’s presidential election gives this heterodox outsider the chance to enter into office next month. The Mainstream Media is apoplectic since he criticized Romania’s hosting of the US’ missile defense infrastructure and is against perpetuating NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine. He’s also a devout Orthodox Christian and praised some of his country’s most controversial World War II-era figures.
Interestingly, he was also the diaspora’s favorite, with the added twist being that more in Western Europe voted for him than those in Eastern Europe. This suggests that his appeal is also due to the hope that he’ll bring long-overdue accountability to his infamously corrupt country and finally help its people improve their living standards through more effective economic, financial, and developmental policies. Foreign policy is important, but local issues and economics far outweigh the former for average voters.
If Georgescu becomes President of Romania, he’s therefore much more likely to try to change his country’s internal workings than he is to radically transform its foreign policy, but it also can’t be ruled out that his potential victory could adversely affect NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine. Those who voted for him dislike how Ukrainian grain flooded their domestic market to local farmers’ detriment and also aren’t pleased with the government financially supporting Ukrainian refugees.
Additionally, the latest military-strategic developments in this conflict raised worries among many about the spectre of World War III, in which case Romania would be directly involved due to its hosting of the previously mentioned US missile defense infrastructure. Their country also plays an important logistical role in arming Ukraine and its newly built “Moldova Highway” could facilitate the deployment of NATO troops there if the bloc or a “coalition of the willing” therein decides to conventionally intervene.
Even if Romania doesn’t dispatch troops, the transit role that it could play in others’ intervention there could put a Russian target on its back, especially if this leads to direct NATO-Russian hostilities. For this reason and keeping in mind his criticism of NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine, he as Supreme Commander might not approve of these plans. After all, he’s a populist conservative-nationalist who prioritizes what he sincerely believes to be national interests, which this scenario is contradictory to.
If he wins, then he’ll assume office on 21 December, which could therefore make it impossible for the US to rely on Romania in the abovementioned respect from there on out. That would be significant, provided that Georgescu has the political will to implement such a policy, since it means that the outgoing Biden Administration might thus only have less than a month to do this if it wants to. After all, even if Trump decides to “escalate to de-escalate” through such means, he too might not be able to.
There’s always the possibility that Poland might serve as the only route through which conventional NATO troops could enter Ukraine, even if it doesn’t dispatch its own, but neither the outgoing conservative-nationalist president nor his liberal-globalist rivals in the ruling coalition might allow this. The reason is that both want to appeal to Ukro-skeptical voters ahead of next year’s presidential election, the first in order to keep the second in check while the second wants to finally be unrestrained.
That’s why each have been trying to outdo the other in populist rhetoric, with the ruling coalition even going as far as to trump the former conservative-nationalist government of which the outgoing president is a part by taking an even harder line towards Ukraine. To that end, they demanded that it exhume and properly bury the Volhynia Genocide victims’ remains like it earlier did for 100,000 Wehrmacht troops, and it’s now only offering more military aid in exchange for a loan and no longer for free.
In fact, one of the Deputy Prime Ministers went as far as accusing Zelensky of wanting to provoke a Polish-Russian War in Ukraine, which powerfully signals that the ruling liberal-globalist coalition isn’t really interested in facilitating a conventional NATO intervene there and thus can’t be relied on for this. If Romania is ruled out in this respect too should Georgescu win, assume office next month, and promulgate the proposed policy, then the US might therefore be more willing to cut a deal with Russia.
Therein lies the most globally significant consequence if this populist conservative-nationalist becomes President of Romania since it could greatly limit the ways in which the US – whether under the outgoing Biden Administration or the incoming Trump one – could “escalate to de-escalate” on more of its terms. By removing the likelihood of a conventional NATO intervention, the odds might then greatly increase for Russia ending this conflict on more of its own terms instead, which could lead to a more lasting solution.
NATO might be willing to test Putin’s patience by crossing yet another of Russia’s perceived red lines in spite of its updated nuclear doctrine and new Oreshniks.
The NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine might be on the brink of an unprecedented escalation that could easily spiral out of control if Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) is correct in claiming that NATO is planning a 100,000-strong military intervention in Ukraine under the guise of peacekeepers. The purpose is to freeze the conflict, presumably by having these troops function as tripwires for deterring a Russian attack that could spark World War III, and then rebuild Ukraine’s military-industrial complex (MIC).
SVR revealed that Poland will have control over Western Ukraine (like it did during the interwar period); Romania will be responsible for the Black Sea coast (which it seized during World War II via and ruled as the “Transnistria Governorate”); the UK will lord over Kiev and the north; while Germany will deploy its forces to the center and east of the country. The latter’s Rhinemetall will lead the efforts to rebuild Ukraine’s MIC by investing heavily, dispatching specialists, and providing high-performance equipment.
Another important detail is that “NATO is already deploying training centers in Ukraine, through which it is planned to drag at least a million mobilized Ukrainians”, while police functions will be carried out via Ukrainian nationalists that SVR likens to World War II-era Sonderkommandos. The last part is intriguing since it raises the question of why 100,000 NATO troops/peacekeepers would be required. Only a fraction of that is needed for tripwire and training purposes so perhaps those numbers are inaccurate.
In any case, this latest move isn’t surprising, and readers can review the following analyses to learn why:
The last analysis also includes a map at the end depicting the most realistic best-case scenario for Russia.
To summarize, Biden is beating Trump to the punch by “escalating to de-escalate” on better terms for the US, which Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine and the historic first use of the MIRV-capable Oreshnik hypersonic medium-range missile in combat are meant to deter. The 10 obstacles described above still stand, however, so it’s unclear exactly how viable NATO’s reportedly planned conventional intervention in Ukraine (regardless of the numbers involved and the pretext relied upon for justifying it) actually is.
Nevertheless, the fact that SVR warned the world about it suggests that it’s no longer the far-fetched scenario that it was thought to be, though the clock is also now ticking for NATO too since the possible rise to power of a populist conservative-nationalist in Romania next month could spoil these plans. NATO might therefore intervene before 21 December when that figure will take office if he wins. If he loses, then they might bide their time to prepare better, possibly placing this responsibility on Trump’s lap.
At any rate, SVR’s claim that NATO is setting up training centers in Ukraine shows that the bloc is still expanding there. If Russia doesn’t target these facilities, which could spark World War III, then it might have to accept as a fait accompli what SVR just warned about. In that event, as proposed in the “escalation ladder” analysis above, Russia might then reach a deal allowing NATO to safely enter Ukraine up to the Dnieper if Ukraine first demilitarizes everything east of it and north of Russia’s new regions.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we havePayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The new buy me a coffee link is below.
He wants to deter the even greater provocations that the West might now be plotting, such as destabilizing and then invading Belarus, with the intent of coercing him into freezing the existing LOC and then possibly accepting the deployment of Western/NATO peacekeepers there.
Putin surprised the world on Thursday when he addressed the nation to inform them that Russia had tested a new hypersonic medium-range missile earlier that morning in an attack against a famous Soviet-era industrial complex in the Ukrainian city of Dnepropetrovsk. He explained that this was a response to the US and UK recently allowing Ukraine to use their long-range missiles inside of Russia. Their decision resulted in the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine “assuming elements of a global nature” in his words.
As was explained here with regards to the “moment of truth” that this latest phase of the conflict led to, he was faced with the choice of either escalating or continuing his policy of strategic patience, the first of which could foil attempts by Trump to reach a peace deal while the second could invite more aggression. Putin chose the former and did so in a creative way that few foresaw. The Oreshnik missile system whose existence he disclosed on Thursday has Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs).
It’s essentially the same sort of weapon that Russia could use in the event of a nuclear conflict with the West since the aforesaid feature coupled with its hypersonic speed means that it’s impossible to intercept. In other words, Putin rattled Russia’s nuclear saber in the most convincing way possible short of testing a nuclear weapon, which his government previously confirmed that it wouldn’t do for the reasons that were explained here. He’s therefore finally climbing the escalation ladder.
Putin hitherto declined to escalate in response to the over 1,000 days’ worth of NATO-backed Ukrainian provocations that included bombing the Kremlin, early warning systems, strategic airfields, nuclear power plants, and the Crimean Bridge, among many other sensitive targets, so as to avoid World War III. He also prioritized political goals over military ones up until this point, but that’s all changing now since he realized that his strategic patience was interpreted as weakness and only invited more aggression.
Seeing as how Ukraine’s latest use of Western weapons inside of Russia’s pre-2014 territory isn’t unprecedented due to the HIMARS already having been used in Belgorod and Kursk Regions, the latter of which Ukraine invaded with NATO’s support over the summer, the question arises of why it took over three months for his views to change. It should also be noted that Russia didn’t significantly respond to Ukraine fielding the F-16s despite Lavrov previously warning that they could be nuclear-equipped.
Russia might have therefore received intelligence that the West is plotting an even greater provocation in the future. Belarusian media just aired a documentary exposing a Western plot to destabilize and invade their country, which readers can learn more about by reviewing the seven analyses that were listed in this one here. Correspondingly, it was assessed that “Russia’s Updated Nuke Doctrine Aims To Deter Unacceptable Provocations From NATO”, and the aforesaid would certainly constitute such.
Putin’s strategic patience would have finally reached its limits if he caught wind that anything of the sort was afoot, which would explain why he’d order the Oreshnik to be used against that Soviet-era industrial complex in Central Ukraine in order to send an unmistakable message to the West to reconsider its plans. Recalling how concerned he is about avoiding World War III, it also makes sense why his spokesman confirmed that Russia informed the US about this approximately half an hour ahead of time.
After all, launching an intermediate-range hypersonic missile westward without any advance notification could have prompted the US to panic by interpreting this as the start of a potential nuclear first strike by Russia, thus setting into motion the exact same scenario that he’s worked so hard to avoid. His motive was to deter the West from carrying out unacceptable provocations that cross Russia’s most sensitive redlines, which the West might be plotting out of desperation to “escalate to de-escalate” on its terms.
It was written here, here, and here that Trump might resort to that, but the latest ATACMS escalation – which can be regarded as a provocation due to these missiles having a much longer range than the HIMARS – suggests that the “Collective Biden” decided to do so first out of fear that whatever deal he might reach with Putin would compromise on too many of the US’ interests. Accordingly, Putin might now have decided to beat the US to the punch by “escalating to de-escalate” on Russia’s terms instead.
Thursday morning was the first time that a MIRV was used in combat, which is much more significant than the US “boiling the frog” by expanding the range of the missiles that Ukraine has already been able to use inside of Russia’s pre-2014 borders after once again signaling its escalatory plans long in advance, especially since few saw it coming and the US only had around a 30-minute notice. Putin also warned that Russia’s new doctrine allows it to use such weapons against those who arm Ukraine.
It’s unlikely that he’ll throw caution to the wind by launching Oreshniks against military targets in NATO countries at the risk of sparking World War III, but it can’t be ruled out that the next escalation that he’s considering in response to more aggression could be bombing Moldova instead. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zakharova said earlier in the week that the Western-backed government there is “turning the country at a rapid pace into a logistics hub used to supply the Ukrainian armed forces.”
It’s not a NATO member though so Russia could bomb it without crossing the West’s red lines while still signaling that he’s not the pushover that they convinced themselves that he was after misreading the reasons for his strategic patience if they still keep provoking him even after Thursday’s escalation. They want him to accept Western/NATO peacekeepers along the Line of Contact (LOC), Ukraine’s continued militarization, its future membership in NATO, and no change in its anti-Russian legislation.
By contrast, Putin wants to expel Ukraine from the four regions that voted to join Russia in September 2022, no Western/NATO peacekeepers along the LOC, Ukraine’s demilitarization, the restoration of its constitutional neutrality, and the rescinding of its anti-Russian legislation. Beating the West to the punch by “escalating to de-escalate”, or at least finally climbing the escalation ladder in response to their provocations, is therefore aimed at achieving as many of these maximum goals as he can.
If he sticks to his guns and doesn’t waver from his newfound approach, which is arguably long-overdue since some believe that he should have begun applying it after the failure of spring 2022’s peace talks, then he stands a much greater chance of achieving at least part of the most important ones. NATO can always conventionally intervene in Ukraine west of the Dnieper to salvage some of its geopolitical project so Russia should assume that it won’t be able to demilitarize or denazify that part of the country.
What it can do, however, is employ military and diplomatic means (both individually and in combination through its abovementioned newfound approach) to obtain control over all the territory that it claims as its own east of the Dnieper, possibly including Zaporozhye’s eponymous city of over 700,000 people. The new LOC could then be patrolled by purely non-Western forces deployed as part of a UN mandate while Ukraine might be coerced to demilitarize everything that remains under its control east of the Dnieper.
All heavy weapons would have to be withdrawn westward as part of a massive demilitarized zone (DMZ), while the possibility also exists that this “Transdnieper” region might also receive political autonomy or at least cultural autonomy to protect the rights of ethnic Russians and those who speak that language. This scenario was first tabled here in March and could take the form shown below, with the western part of the country in blue possibly hosting NATO troops as part of the arrangement that’ll then be described:
Ukraine could be deterred from breaking the ceasefire due to the DMZ placing it at a disadvantage, while Russia would be deterred by the “security guarantees” that Ukraine clinched with a bunch of NATO countries this year, which amount to de facto Article 5 support. While Russia could storm into the DMZ, NATO could also storm into Western Ukraine or possibly even cross the Dnieper, whether due to a swift intervention or having already deployed its troops west of the river per tacit agreement with Russia.
What was detailed in the three preceding paragraphs is the maximum that Russia can realistically achieve given the new military-strategic circumstances in which it finds itself over 1,000 days since the specialoperation began. Putin finally started climbing the escalation ladder in order to deter the even greater provocations that the West might now be plotting with the intent of coercing him into freezing the existing LOC and then possibly accepting the deployment of Western/NATO peacekeepers there.
Such a scenario would be completely unacceptable for him from the perspective of Russia’s national security interests and his own reputational ones after promising to check NATO’s expansion in Ukraine. Keeping that bloc west of the Dnieper while demilitarizing everything east of it and north of the administrative borders of the four former Ukrainian regions that joined Russia in September 2022, tentatively known as the “Transdnieper” region, would be a tolerable compromise though.
Trump might deem this to be pragmatic enough of a deal for him to go along with since it could still be spun by all relevant parties to the conflict as a victory (e.g. Russia gained land and created a DMZ deep inside Ukraine; Ukraine continued to exist as a state; and the US de facto incorporated Western Ukraine into NATO). It could even enter into force prior to that if either side “escalates to de-escalate” before his inauguration and this is the “mutually face-saving” compromise that they reach to avoid World War III.
Of course, it would be better if they agree to this without sparking a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis that risks spiraling out of control, hence why their diplomats should begin discussing it now or a third country’s ones like India’s should propose it behind the scenes to get the ball rolling. Putin’s newfound (and arguably long-overdue) approach signals that he won’t accept freezing the existing LOC, nor especially the deployment of NATO/Western peacekeepers there, and will escalate to avert that.
He might even go as far as using tactical nukes in Ukraine (and/or NATO’s logistics hub in Moldova) if he feels that he’s being cornered by the evolving circumstances in which the West might soon place him through its possibly forthcoming greater provocations (e.g. destabilizing and invading Belarus). The West must therefore start taking Putin seriously after he finally began climbing the escalation ladder otherwise the worst-case scenario of World War III might become unavoidable if they push him too far.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we havePayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The new buy me a coffee link is below.
You may find this harrowing, as it must be for Reiner. He has now been in solitary confinement in prison for over one year, with no sign of an actual trial taking place. I’m afraid he must be considered a political prisoner and one the perpetrators intend to keep locked up indefinitely. – Dr. Mike Yeadon
13 October 2024 will be the first anniversary of Reiner Fuellmich’s pre-trial prison custody. His conditions, especially for someone who has not committed and is not suspected of a criminal act of violence are, to say it benignly, horrendous, bordering on torture.
Let me remind you, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich in 2020 founded the Corona Investigative Committee (CIC) in Germany, investigating the worldwide corona fraud. In a CIC internal strife, probably instigated from outside forces and secret services, he was unjustly accused of embezzlement. The CIC collapsed. Dr. Fuellmich attempted to return to California, where he had a license to practice law and where he also owned a house.
For some “bureaucratic” formalities (cooperation secret services Germany-US), he was “temporarily” refused entry to the US. He then settled with his wife in Mexico, where he created the International Crimes Investigative Committee (ICIC), and continued investigating crimes committed by the covid scam, as well as related social and economic misconducts by those who dictated the “rules-based order”, overriding all international, national and local laws.
In March 2023, the German Government issued an arrest warrant for Dr. Fuellmich. Since he had not committed a violent crime, an extradition order has no value outside of the EU / Schengen countries.
Therefore, the German Government – through their secret agents – lured him to a German representation in Mexico, where they kidnapped him on 12 October 2023, took him immediately – as is, without a change of clothes, or even a toothbrush – to the airport, and flew him between two German guards to Frankfurt, where he was immediately arrested on 13 October 2023. Ever since, Reiner has been in pre-trial custody, under the most inhumane conditions, in the Göttingen high-security prison in Rosdorf.
Pretrial custody is on average six months in Germany, at most 11 months. He is detained in solitary confinement, cannot see and talk to anyone, not to his fellow prisoners, must walk alone for his daily hour of exercise in the prison yard, and can have contact by phone or visits by his family for no more than three hours a month.
For every court appearance, Reiner is body-searched, then handcuffed, tightly foot-shackled, and accompanied by two fully machine-gun armed prison guards with bulletproof vests – as if he was a mass murderer.
He is shackled and body-searched, naked, every time the court interrupts, and he is led to an isolated basement room of the court to wait.
This deeply dehumanizing humiliation reminds of German concentration camps during Hitler’s Third Reich regime over 80 years back.
One would think that humanity has learned from the horrors of WWII, but nada, zilch, nothing.
Humanity is led by the same inhumane monsters; except much worse today.
Then, the Third Reich was confined to Europe and North Africa; today, the New World Order or One World Order – one that wants to become One World Government, for which Germany is again playing a leading role, spans the entire globe, all 193 UN member countries.
There is seemingly no way to escape.
But as history has shown time and time again, any system of excesses, be it injustice no end, war atrocities, abhorrent dehumanization with torture, corruption and genocide no limits, will fall. There is no doubt that the diabolical Cult that allows Germany to hold an honest citizen in such atrocious prison conditions, wants to scare and shut up any others that may speak up against the crimes committed, and are still being committed, by the German Government, and by association, other western governments.
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is a western world political prisoner.
Reiner’s description, illustrations and photos speak for themselves.
Reiner Fuellmich – A Political Prisoner in the Federal Republic of Germany
A report by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich on his conditions of detention in the Göttingen high-security prison in Rosdorf, in response to the author Kerstin Heusinger, Germany correspondent for the French-language online publication BAM! With exclusive photos from the courtroom and sketches.
7:00 a.m., court date for the civil rights activist and lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich:
“Heavily armed officers with pistols and submachine guns equipped with bulletproof vests are there to greet me. They try to persuade me to put on a bulletproof vest, which I consistently refuse. They then make me sign a waiver releasing them from liability if I am injured or killed by gunfire.
One of the officers searches my body and then, as always, forces me to kneel on a stool while he puts ankle cuffs on me.
He ties a wide leather belt around my waist and then puts handcuffs on me, which are attached to the belt with chains that are in turn secured with a large padlock.
The ankle cuffs force me to take very small steps, making it difficult to get in and out of the transport vehicle. If I were to trip while cuffed like this, I would not be able to stop or soften my fall and would likely break my wrists.
Prison officials told me that they had never seen a defendant held in pre-trial custody for more than 11 months for a simple offense (and not for a serious crime or an act of terrorism), kept in solitary confinement, and, above all, brought to court hearings handcuffed at the hands and feet.
In court, I was taken to the basement, to a tiled cell with a simple wooden bench. Another strip-search. Then I had to wait to be handcuffed and led into the courtroom. Each time the proceedings were interrupted, I was handcuffed again and taken back to the “basement”.
Each time I returned from court, I was stripped naked in a transit room to undergo a thorough body search.
Harassment, humiliation, punishment
Mr. D., the deputy director responsible for pre-trial detention, ordered my complete isolation on the grounds that my legal advice to other detainees could incite them to revolt.
The Rosdorf prison is divided into two sections: the penal section (400 detainees) and the pre-trial detention section (80 detainees), where I have been detained since October 13, 2023.
The pre-trial detainees are spread over 4 levels. Those considered to be particularly dangerous or vulnerable are isolated on level A0, where security is increased and additional restrictions are imposed. I was placed there.
Like the other inmates on level A0, I am strictly forbidden to talk to any other inmate.
For 11 months I have had no internet access, no computer, and no cell phone. I am only allowed to watch TV. My only contact with the outside world is my lawyer and the 3 hours per month for visits or phone calls with my family. Yes, a total of 3 hours per month.
My isolation goes so far that even my daily walk in the courtyard must be done alone. This one-hour walk is suspended if I am caught communicating with another inmate, even if it is only a hand signal. Yes, if I exchange a greeting with a fellow inmate through the bars of a window, even if I just nod my head – he and I will be punished immediately.
All disciplinary measures are imposed without stating reasons and without the possibility of appeal.
Everyone is guilty!
The treatment of pre-trial detainees is particularly poor and borders on torture. Mr. D., who administers pre-trial detention, and also works as a social worker, makes no secret of his convictions: he believes that if you are in pre-trial detention, you are guilty.
His disregard for the presumption of innocence is the main reason why I was placed in solitary confinement.
He has committed serious and intentional breaches of duty, which I have witnessed. These violations were covered up by the prison management. With two exceptions, the security officers carry out the orders they receive without compunction, like robots.
On August 8, 2024, I asked to speak to the deputy director of the penal institution. I informed her that personal belongings and documents had disappeared from my cell during my absence for court hearings. The cells are normally searched regularly according to strict rules. These thefts occurred outside of the official inspections, which are recorded.
Persecution: Dr. Reiner Fuellmich refers to the case of Redzep [another, former case of unjustly incarcerating a man for murder which he did not commit, and the court knew it]
“The seriousness of the situation is demonstrated by the attacks on a pre-trial detainee, Kevin Redzep, who was seriously injured. He has allowed me to publish his name and story. He comes from Montenegro and although he is intelligent and speaks several languages, he cannot write or read German fluently. He was placed in a department where there were several violent inmates or those accused of premeditated murder.He was called a “gypsy” by his fellow inmates, threatened, and asked for help from Mr. D., who refused to take him to the high-risk inmates. The next day, Kevin Redzep was attacked by three fellow inmates during a walk. He was hit over the head with a glass bottle so severely that the zygomatic bone above his left eye was crushed and his vision was at risk.
On July 9, 2024, Kevin Redzep had to undergo surgery before returning to Rosdorf Prison, even before he had recovered. He was involved in another physical altercation with five or six prison officers who threw him to the ground and injured him again in the head. Mr. D. then ordered the isolation of Kevin Redzep, who was already severely traumatized.
Kevin Redzep, who wanted to sue Mr. D, the penal institution, and the state of Lower Saxony for assault, asked me for help. When Mr. D. learned that I had advised this inmate and provided him with a lawyer, Kevin Redzep disappeared.It is assumed that he was transferred to another prison. Since then, Ms. Wörmer, my lawyer, has been trying in vain to find him, hoping that he is still alive.
A glimmer of hope.
Despite the disciplinary punishments they face, the pre-trial detainees show solidarity with me. They encourage me. They shout to me, for example, “Don’t give up, keep going.”
Some prison officials have seen through the pandemic scam and know that my trial is a sham staged by the secret services. They let me know and wish me well.
What helps me most is the enormous support from the international public.
I receive a large number of letters that are no longer read by the prison administration. I read all the letters and I am deeply touched by the affection they show. I try to respond as best I can.
Sometimes I see the pickets and the people who greet me, while I’m sitting in the transport vehicle to court.
I feel the remarkably strong connection to all those who support me. It is this connection that allows us to overcome adversity together.
I have to go to the medical service twice a week to be examined because I refused to give blood. I argued that any medical act, especially any invasive medical act, constitutes a violation of physical integrity if the patient does not voluntarily give consent. I am therefore regularly examined because a prisoner suffering from tuberculosis could potentially have infected people with whom he has been in contact.
One of the prison doctors expressed sympathy for my work. He also told me that the medical staff believe that the health of many detainees is incompatible with detention. However, the prison management prefers to ignore this fact.
After having personally witnessed what happens in pre-trial detention – the suspension of the fundamental rights of the accused, their difficulties in accessing a defense that really cares about their fate – I am convinced that prisons only benefit those who profit from them, with pre-trial detention being more lucrative than post-sentencing detention.
I have not met a defendant who I would describe as “evil”. I have met many, many remand prisoners who appear innocent to me, or who, above all, need therapeutic treatment, as a prison doctor admitted.
If we did not need a few prisons for a few sociopaths, for example those responsible for the pandemic, the wars, the massacres like in Gaza and for the corrupt of the system, I would be in favor of abolishing prisons.”
Editors Note: Please join me in praying for this man, he is suffering horribly for daring to tell the truth. What was most shocking was the fact that he was essentially KIDNAPPED from Mexico by the German government who is now treating him worse than a suspected terrorist! Remember we are always to pray for the prisoners like him Matthew 25:36. Pray for all of those who are in prison for telling the truth!
Recent “anti-fascist” protests have been presented as an organic uprising of the British working class. A closer inspection shows this not to be the case.
The following is a clip from yesterday’s UK Column News where Ben Rubin discussed why the government doesn’t want us to know what is happening on the streets during protests and riots. It is because they may well be coordinating it.
Last week it was claimed that there was a spontaneous, organic anti-fascist uprising in response to riots across the north of England; in response to so-called “far-right thugs” and “fascists.”
Last Wednesday, the Daily Mail reported that “nearly 6,000 police officers have been drafted in after a list of 39 locations where the yobs could wreak havoc – including immigration centres, refugee shelters and lawyers’ homes – emerged late last night.”
Rubin showed a copy of the messages listing the 39 locations that were being widely spread. “It was very well distributed,” Rubin said, everyone in London was talking about it. “In response to that, we saw a whole bunch of street-level activity,” he said.
The street-level activity that Rubin was referring to has been dubbed “counter-protests” by corporate media.
On the same day that the Daily Mail was reporting on the list of 39 locations, Paul Mason, who is a confirmed MI6 asset, was tweeting about the counter-protests it gave rise to:
Walthamstow Central – about 10k ppl – peaceful, calm, determined, chatting to the cops: the actual working class of East London … let's hope it stays this way #HopeNotHatepic.twitter.com/iNjWSl8XYl
The next day, 8 August, Hope Not Hate’s Chief Executive Nick Lowes confirmed the list of 39 locations was a hoax. He tweeted: “Yes, the list was a hoax, but just look at the front pages of today’s papers. An anti-racist message is being transmitted to millions of homes this morning.”
That a false message was widely publicised by corporate media was “a big propaganda win [for Hope Not Hate],” Rubin said.
The week before, on 3 August, Lowles had disseminated propaganda about an acid attack on Muslim women in Middlesbrough. His false report was quite rightly branded as dangerous by Conservative MPs.
Hope Not Hate is sinister, The Spectator wrote earlier this year. “It wishes to change the political weather in our country, and it operates like a gangster. As with so many self-proclaimed ‘anti-fascists’, their name is wrong. They really should drop the ‘anti’ bit and rename themselves Hate Not Hope.”
Another person who is using the situation to terrorise the population is Stand Up to Racism’s Jo Cardwell. Stand Up to Racism’s website was stripped down to the bare minimum sometime in 2019; it now shows very little information. However, a March 2019 archived copy shows that Diane Abbott, Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, was the organisation’s President.
The 2019 ‘About’ page listing the organisation’s officers also features a video which includes a speech by Jeremy Corbyn, who has been the MP for Islington North since 1983 and was expelled from the Labour Party in 2024. On Stand Up to Racism’s website, the featured video (below) was shown under the heading ‘Why You Should Join the Movement’ and was embedded from Stand Up to Racism’s Facebook page. The video was uploaded onto Facebook in 2016; at the time, Corbyn was the leader of the Labour Party, a position he held from September 2015 to May 2020. The video was accompanied with the following comment:
Join the movement – Stand Up to Racism
On Saturday 8 October [2016] over 1,500 people – including Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott and Alf Dubs – launched a mass movement against racism. We want to build a network of activists to support refugees and confront racism, islamophobia and antisemitism.
We need a Stand Up to Racism group in every town and city. Join, donate and get involved in your local group.
The video ends with a statement from Stand Up to Racism co-convenor Weyman Bennett. He said: “Where is the EDL? One of our biggest problems is to make sure there’s an anti-racist atmosphere where they can’t come back. And that’s why we need a mass movement. We need an organisation that can do it. Join us. Organise. You’re the leadership. We can defeat Thersa May and we can unite our class and our people and make sure that we aren’t divided. Stand together and join. Let’s fight back.”
It sounds very much like a political party campaign speech that is weaponising racism to defeat its political opposition. Which political party was running such a campaign? Labour, which is now the party that forms the UK government.
Public protests are a crucial means of exercising the right to free speech and assembly, allowing people and groups to express dissent, demand change and hold those in power accountable.
If Labour, the governing party, is orchestrating protests on the streets, it will be perceived by the population as endorsing a particular viewpoint or ideology and alienating other groups or communities. It will be seen as coercive or manipulative and will fuel existing or spark further unrest. By organising “counter-protests” against the “far-right,” the Government would be escalating tensions and creating more conflict.
Fascism arose during the 1920s and 1930s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems.
The term was coined by Benito Mussolini to describe his movement, the National Fascist Party. Shortly afterwards other movements adopted fascism, one of them being Adolf Hitler’s National Socialists (“Nazi”) Party.
Once in power, Hitler’s Nazi regime responded to public protests by appeasing protests by “racial” Germans, attempting to discredit others, banning extra-party demonstrations and, when protests grew in size and frequency, employing mass repression tactics. Hitler’s regime was known for its authoritarian nature and suppression of dissent but even the detestable Nazi regime did not stoop so low as to organise protests to counter genuine public protests.
“While social media is full of violent scenes, across the UK thousands have come out to challenge racism, support their neighbours and take care of each other. Racism has no place in our society.” Amnesty International on Twitter, 7 August 2024
Remember EVERYTHING YOU SEE on the mainstream media is manipulated in some way and is usually an outright lie. The “news anchors” and reporters are just actors who couldn’t make it in Holly Weird and are now playing their roles in the so called news (some are even AI generated now). This article did a good job exposing them at their game and it shows how they’ve planned this for decades if not centuries.
The armies to take over Europe and the United States are already in place through what they called “Dreamers”, people who were coming to America for a better life and blah blah blah…all the while very few families were coming through. Most who have come through the borders, especially over the last 3 years have been predominantly fighting age males, mercenaries if you will who have come here to help the UN take over once the order is given.
In the EU it’s no different as most of the videos I see are fighting age men coming in on the boats and landing on the beaches. What are these mercenaries being paid? Free room, board and spending money. Also they’re exempt from the laws that all of us must follow as they’re deemed too ignorant to understand the law since they don’t know the language etc. I experienced that firsthand in the early 2000s. Now they get away with all kinds of crime and it’s increasing exponentially all over the world.
Of course the Bible predicted that during these times lawlessness would increase as people’s love for one another would grow cold. Matthew 24:12-13 We are seeing lawlessness increase in the cities all over the world but especially now in the UK and in America.
The Biden Administration has been flying and bussing them all over the nation including to small towns in order to make sure everything is in place for the NWO takeover. Make no mistake that event is coming VERY soon, it’s not 3-4 years away like the media has been telling you.
Instead let’s remember what Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic had to say a couple of months ago in an interview he gave in Switzerland: “We are getting closer to a real disaster. Who is ready to lose 1 million, 2 million, 5 million, 10 million, and 15 million people? I’m not ready to lose a single man and won’t participate in that.”
Vucic also criticised NATO officials who suggest that President Putin is “bluffing” about deploying nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
He commented: “If you bet that someone is bluffing, it means you don’t have better cards. I would always be very careful when assessing Putin’s will and his next move.”
The Serbian president also mentioned that many European leaders have “underestimated Putin and Russia”.
He commented: “In today’s Europe, they all act as the big heroes, but they are not honest and do not tell their citizens that they will all pay a big price if it comes to war.”
President Putin heightened tensions last week with pointed warnings, sparking fears that Ukraine’s turmoil could escalate into World War 3.
Speaking to diplomats on Friday, he declared: “Calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, which possesses the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons demonstrate the extreme recklessness of Western politicians.”
“They either do not understand the scale of the threat they are creating or are simply obsessed with their own sense of impunity and exceptionalism. Both can lead to tragedy.”
He said that the war could start within 3 months and that was about 2 months ago. We’ve also got the Middle East ready to erupt in all out war with Iran and Israel!
When the war begins expect the migrant armies to be armed and unleashed upon the public in order to “restore order” during the ensuing chaos that will follow a nuclear exchange. Pray that you are worthy to escape all of these things, REPENT on a daily basis and stay prayed up and prepped up, time is SHORT!
Johnny
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we havePayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The new buy me a coffee link is below.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Since 2022, there has been a major discussion among officials and experts about the possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member. In response to Russia’s special military operation, some NATO countries promised Kiev membership in the alliance. However, it has become increasingly clear that the bloc is not interested in accepting Ukraine as a member.
In a recent statement, US President Joe Biden said that his “vision of peace” does not necessarily include Ukraine’s entry into NATO. His words were spoken during an interview with the Times on May 28. In the interview, he commented on relevant issues in current US politics, including Ukraine, Israel and the elections. According to him, a proper understanding of “peace” should prioritize ensuring that Russia does not repeat its military actions in Ukraine in the future, with being Kiev’s possible NATO membership unnecessary.
Biden emphasized the “importance” of relations between the US and Ukraine, especially with regard to the supply of weapons in the current conflict. He seems to value the material aspect of relations with Ukraine more than the formal aspect. In this sense, he understands that the US is already fulfilling its role in terms of helping Ukraine, and there is no need to achieve the country’s membership in the military bloc.
Biden also believes that, by supplying weapons to Ukraine, the US is already helping Ukrainians to “defend themselves” in the future. In other words, he has made it clear that Washington is not willing to do anything for Ukraine beyond what it is already doing – and the future of Kiev is the responsibility of the Ukrainians themselves.
“Peace looks like making sure Russia never, never, never, never occupies Ukraine. That’s what peace looks like. And it doesn’t mean NATO, they are part of NATO (…) It means we have a relationship with them like we do with other countries, where we supply weapons so they can defend themselves in the future,” he said.
At the same time, Biden repeated the fallacious rhetoric that the conflict in Ukraine is some kind of initial stage of the Russian interests. The American president believes that, if Ukraine loses the war, Poland, the Baltic States and other European countries will soon face wars with Russia as well. He also praised his own work as the leader of a military superpower, recalling Finland’s entry into NATO and the expansion of the military bloc as a victory, despite the conflict situation with Moscow.
In fact, Biden’s position reflects an atypical political realism in his statements. The American president usually uses excessively aggressive and unrealistic rhetoric in his speeches, advocating an openly bellicose policy against Moscow. However, despite these characteristics, Biden does not seem willing to admit Ukraine’s entry into NATO, which is no surprise.
For any serious military analyst, Ukraine’s entry into NATO has always seemed extremely unlikely. Despite maintaining very close relations with the main Western powers, Kiev plays a proxy role in NATO’s war plans. It is not in the alliance’s interest to have a country at war among its members, since this would require the invocation of the collective defense clause, automatically involving all members in a conflict situation. What seems more interesting for the bloc at the moment is to maintain Ukraine as an external ally, capable of being used against a military enemy without provoking any need of mobilization for the member countries.
Biden is obviously being hypocritical when he says that the US is already helping Ukraine enough. The only purpose of US military assistance is to prolong the conflict, as the US weapons are incapable of changing the final outcome of the conflict or ensuring that Kiev “can defend itself in the future.” Biden is simply trying to disguise the fact that his country is using Ukraine to wage war with Russia, without any concern for Kiev’s future.
As Ukraine approaches complete military collapse, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no future for Kiev. The regime will not be granted accession to the Western defense bloc, and it also seems unlikely that NATO will intervene directly against Russia. The situation seems obvious: Ukraine has engaged in a suicidal war to protect the interests of its sponsors and will now have to deal with the consequences of this decision alone.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we havePayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The new buy me a coffee link is below.
