Tag Archives: Europe

Szijjarto’s Leaked Calls With Lavrov Prove That He’s Europe’s Last Real Diplomat

Circular European Parliament building under a dark stormy sky with lightning strikes.

Guest Post by Andrew Korybko. Reposted with permission.

The EU has no tolerance for real nationalists and the diplomats that represent them.

Leaked calls between Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov recently circulated in which he’s shown to have discussed his country’s attempts to remove Russians from the EU’s sanctions list. He posted on X that they only “proved that I say the same publicly as I do on the phone”, namely that “Hungary will never agree to sanction individuals or companies essential for our energy security, for achieving peace, or those with no reason to be on a sanctions list.”

That’s true, and they also prove that he’s Europe’s last real diplomat in the sense that he engages with Russia despite Hungary voting against it at the UNGA, which shows that he understands the importance of dialogue for achieving peace and ensuring his country’s objective national interests. The longer that the conflict rages, the more tenuous Hungary’s energy security becomes due to its reliance on easily disrupted Ukrainian-transiting Russian supplies, ergo his and Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s peace efforts.

Nevertheless, these same efforts have been dishonestly misportrayed as “treason” per the Mainstream Media’s framing of Szijjarto’s leaked calls with Lavrov, the perception of which is aimed at manipulating voters into casting their ballot for the opposition ahead of the upcoming parliamentary elections. The EU wants to subordinate Hungary, the continent’s last remaining conservative-nationalist outpost, to liberal-globalism. Here are five background briefings about how they’re meddling in the upcoming elections:

* 19 September 2025: “Hungary Warned About Brussels’ Three Regime Change Plots In Central Europe

* 13 February 2026: “Orban Is Right: Ukraine Has Truly Become Hungary’s Enemy

* 12 March 2026: “The West’s Accusation Of Russian Meddling In Hungary Is Actually A Confession

* 22 March 2026: “Istvan Kapitany Might Succeed In Hungary Where George Soros Failed

* 27 March 2026: “What’s Poland’s Role In The ‘Battle For Hungary’?

Discredited Russiagate conspiracy theories like the one that’s lent false credence by Szijjarto’s leaked calls with Lavrov are aimed at delegitimizing Orban’s potential re-election, which can then justify any of the five ways in which the EU is already preparing to handle Hungary in that event. Politico reported on them here, which boil down to: changing how the EU votes; introducing a multi-speed Europe; more financial pressure; suspending Hungary’s voting rights; and possibly even expelling it from the EU.

Just like Szijjarto is Europe’s last real diplomat, so too is Orban its last real nationalist who always puts his country’s interests first, which is why he authorized Szijjarto’s diplomacy with Lavrov. Circling back to that, there’s nothing scandalous about helping a partner’s unjustly sanctioned nationals nor in updating them about how ties could change due to their obligations to the bloc in which they’re a part. Szijjarto therefore did nothing wrong, but rather, he did everything right and that’s why he’s being targeted.

The EU has no tolerance for real nationalists and the diplomats that represent them, which contextualizes its campaigns against not only Orban and Szijjarto, but also Germany’s AfD, Poland’s conservative and populist-nationalist opposition parties, and Romanian nationalists too, et al. The difference between them and Hungary is that its nationalists are in power and actively advancing national interests, which is why the EU is actively working to remove them by hook or by crook.

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

Here’s Who Really Weaponizes Children in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

boy in black long sleeve shirt holding books

As accusations of abductions resurface, it’s clear the West doesn’t care about facts on the ground if they contradict the narrative

By Eva Barlett at Global Research. Reposted with permission.

For the last three years, Ukraine and concerted legacy media campaigns have been screaming that Russia has abducted, or forcibly displaced, thousands of Ukrainian children – even up to 1.5 million!

The accusations resurged in December, with a UN General Assembly vote on a draft resolution on the return of Ukrainian children.

During the meeting, Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mariana Betsa once again pushed claims that “at least 20,000 Ukrainian children have been deported to Russia,” in spite of the fact that months prior, during the June Istanbul talks, the Ukrainian side finally provided a list of the children it accuses Russia of abducting: 339 children, surprisingly far fewer than the number alleged for years.

The absence of over 19,500 on the list indeed leads to many questions, mainly: is Ukraine lying again? Recall that in 2022, the accusations by the (now former) Ukrainian ombudswoman, Lyudmila Denisova, about “sexual atrocities” allegedly committed by Russian soldiers, were revealed to be lies and propaganda. So much so that Denisova was sacked. But before her dismissal, legacy media and the UN all backed the lies.

Some recent accusations are that children were being sent to labor camps in Russia – “165 re-education camps where Ukrainian children are militarized and Russified” – or even of being sent to North Korea, as Katerina Rashevskaya of the Ukrainian Regional Center for Human Rights told the US Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs on December 3.

The footnotes of the claims made by Rashevskaya, instead of a source for the information, say “The Regional Human Rights Center can provide information upon request.” In other words, her sources are “trust me, bro.”

Regarding the North Korean camp in question, if two Russian teens were sent there, they’d potentially be made to enjoy water slides, basketball and volleyball courts, an arcade room, a rock climbing wall, art and performance halls, an archery range, a private beach, and hikes in the mountains.

Regarding the list of 339 children Ukraine says were abducted by Russia, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova remarked,

“30 percent of the names on the list could not be verified, as most of those children were never in Russia, are now adults, or have already returned to their families. As for the Ukrainian children who are actually in our country, they are under state care in appropriate institutions. They are safe now; in many cases, their evacuation from combat zones saved their lives. Local children’s rights commissioners are now working to reunite them with their relatives.”

Just as legacy media has whitewashed the eight years of Ukraine’s war against Donbass civilians prior to Russia commencing its military operation in 2022, including the Ukrainian shelling which killed 250 children starting in 2014, media likewise ignore the children Russia says are missing.

During the talks in Istanbul, Zakharova noted,

“the Russian side presented Ukraine with a list of 20 Russian children who are either currently in Ukraine or relocated from Ukraine to Western Europe, including to countries that endorsed this very statement. Now, the burden falls on these states to provide Russia with a substantive response regarding our ‘list of 20.’”

Over 500 Ukrainian Orphans Abused in Türkiye

Recently, Donbass-based journalist Christelle Néant wrote about a report published on a pro-Ukrainian website which broke the story of 510 Ukrainian children who had been evacuated by a Ukrainian oligarch in 2022 from Dnepropetrovsk to Türkiye, where the benevolent foundation which brought them there allegedly allowed its staff to beat the children, sexually assault them, and deny them food if they refused to perform on camera to raise funds for their lodging. These are just some of the reported violations of the orphans’ rights.

The details of the report show that the children suffered physically and psychologically. Additionally, two underage teens were impregnated by staff at the hotel they stayed in, with educators allegedly aware of the interactions.

According to Néant, the orphanage director’s response to the fact of one of the teens in her care becoming pregnant was to blame the girl:

“This young girl comes from an asocial family. Well, this way of life is already inscribed in every cell, in the blood of these children.”

“In almost 10 years of work in Donbass,” Néant wrote, “I have conducted or filmed many humanitarian missions to orphanages in the region. And never ever have I heard a director make such vile remarks about one of the children in her care. Even the most difficult and recalcitrant were cared for with pedagogy, love, and patience.”

Ukraine Hunting Down Children

In April 2023, Christelle Néant and I interviewed Artyomovsk civilians who had recently been rescued by Russian soldiers. In addition to being deliberately shelled by Ukrainian forces who knew they were sheltering in the basement of a residential building, the civilians we spoke to told us about Ukrainian military police hunting for children.

The evacuees told us some of these police went by the name ‘White Angels’, and were taking childrenaway without their consent or that of their parents.

.

Click here to watch the video

.

Around that time, more reports came out about these abductions or attempted abductions, including an 11-year-old girl who spoke of how White Angels, who introduced themselves as military police, came to the basement she was sheltering in with a photo of her, looking for her, and saying they needed to take her away, because “Russia killed her mother.” According to the girl, her mother was alive and with her.

Reports of these abductions also emerged in AvdeyevkaKupyansk, Slavyansk, Chasov Yar and Konstantinovka, as well as in Ukrainsk and Zhelannoye.

Néant wrote of a July 2023 conference on Ukraine’s crimes against the Donbass children, in which Liliya and her daughter Kira from Schastye, in the Lugansk People’s Republic, spoke.

They gave evidence of how,

“at the start of the special military operation (when Ukraine controlled Schastye), around ten children were taken from a school in Schastye to western Ukraine by the headmistress of the school, on orders from Kiev, without informing their parents.”

The children were even forbidden to call their parents, Néant wrote,

“But Kira knew her mother’s telephone number by heart and managed to call her to let her know that they were in Lviv and then Khoust. Thanks to Liliya’s determination to find her daughter, we discovered how Kiev ‘exports’ the children it abducts.” Ukraine had forged a new “original” birth certificate for Kira.

The girl said she and the other children were to be sent to Poland.

Former SBU officer Vasily Prozorov spoke at the same conference, where he explained, according to Néant,

“that one of his investigations had revealed that some of the children abducted by Ukraine are sent to pedophile networks in Great Britain, via a whole network of Ukrainian and British officials or former officials who work together. On the British side, members of MI6 and the Foreign Office are involved.”

Prozorov, she wrote, spoke of

“another of his investigations on organizations registered in EU countries involved in ‘exporting’ children from Ukraine under the pretext of providing them with shelter. These organizations take unaccompanied Ukrainian children out of Ukraine. What happens to them afterwards is unknown.”

Evacuees from Kherson Reject ‘Abduction’ Claims

In November 2022, in the southern Russian seaside city Anapa, I met numerous people displaced from Kherson who were being lodged in hotels and apartments in the city.

The first site I visited was a few minutes by taxi outside of the city, one of many hotels along the coast. The hotel director showing me around said they don’t call them refugees, “we call them guests of the building,” and spoke affectionately of them, how grateful they were to be there, far from any shelling. Just under 500 refugees had been living there since October, she told me.

No guards monitored the entrance/exit; the refugees walked around tidy grounds. But in any case, I asked about their freedom of movement, or lack thereof.

“They move freely, of course. We don’t prohibit them from going out. Many aren’t here now because they’re in town, looking for jobs, getting documents. Children are at school.”

With my hired translator, I spoke with two Kherson women, a young mother and her own mother, to hear their stories.

“We were living with explosions at night, it was very scary, not only for myself, but for my children and for my grandchildren,” the older woman said. “When you go to bed, you don’t know if you will get out of bed in the morning. We were forced to leave.”

I asked who was shelling them.

“Word of mouth transmits very clearly, and people around us spoke about it. We were bombed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Russian soldiers protected us.”

The younger woman said she used to speak with the Russian soldiers there.

“They are friendly. We wanted to hug them, because we felt protected. They helped us, gave us humanitarian aid, brought it to the house.”

Some minutes’ taxi ride away, I visited an apartment complex that could have served tourists in summer. There, fifty buildings housed around 1,500 refugees who had also arrived in October, mostly from Kherson Region.

My translator and I walked around, passing playgrounds, a pharmacy, a library, a swimming pool, a gym, a small petting zoo with peacocks, and a kindergarten. Near a playground, I spoke with a mother sitting on a bench with two of her four children.

.

Click here to watch the video

.

“In the early days, there was bombing. We spent two and a half weeks in the basement. It was unbearable, the children were very afraid.” One of her daughters became ill. “She had acute inflammation of the lower jaw, we think due to hypothermia. We took her to Simferopol and she had surgery.”

In Anapa, she said, her children had full medical examinations.

“We were helped by the mayor of the city of Anapa. We are grateful for everything.”

I mentioned that according to Western media, she and her family were kidnapped by Russia. She replied that her husband’s parents had demanded to see the children, having been told that children were being separated from their parents in Russia.

“His mother called three days in a row, saying, ‘Where are the children?’ We answered, ‘They went to the cinema. They’re playing, etc.’ She said, ‘Show me the children, they say that they took your children from you.’”

Details Matter

Whereas legacy media continue to push the “Evil Russia child kidnapper” narrative, there is ample evidence that Ukraine is guilty of doing precisely what it accuses Russia of. The is also a significant absence of evidence regarding the ‘20,000 kidnapped children’ claims still being pushed.

Will media investigate the reports of abuse of Ukrainian children in Türkiye? Surely not. It wouldn’t suit their scripted anti-Russia bias.

*

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

Our thanks to CRG Research Associate Mark Taliano for bringing this to our attention.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian freelance journalist and activist who has lived in and written from the Gaza Strip, Syria, and Lebanon. Read other articles by Eva, or visit Eva’s website.

President Trump’s Ultimate Intent: The Annexation of Canada, The Annexation of Greenland, the Militarization of the Arctic. Militarization of the Western Hemisphere

Guest Post written by Prof Michel Chossudovsky from Global Research. Reposted with permission.

Editors note: While this post was updated at the end of December its more than relevant considering what just happened in Venezuela! And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? Rev. 13:4

Author’s Introduction

Update: The article below is of utmost relevance, specifically pertaining to  President Donald Trump’s stance with regard to the Annexation of both Canada and Greenland.

We recall Donald Trump’s statement last December at  his luxury Mar a – Lago residence, in a conversation with Canada’s former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. 

President Elect Donald Trump had intimated in no uncertain terms that Prime Minister Trudeau should become Governor of the 51st state of the United States of America.

This was no joking matter. Canada described as the 51st State of the USA signifies the outright Annexation of Canada.

The takeaway from Trudeau's trip to Mar-a-Lago: For Trump, fentanyl is ...

Trump and the National Security Strategy (NSS). “Combat Command” Entities

In recent developments, December 2025, coinciding with the launching of the Pentagon’s National Security Strategy (NSS),

“the War Department (DoW) is now envisaging the most significant changes in the US military’s history” including the merger of several of the regional combat command entities Worldwude. 

CENTCOM (US Central Command), EUCOM (US European Command) and AFRICOM (US Africa Command) are slated to be integrated. 

According to Drago Bosnic: “It seems all three will be merged into the new US International Command (presumably with the acronym INTERCOM), marking the first-ever reduction in the number of American “combatant commands” (currently standing at 11)”

The Sovereignty of Canada and U.S NORTHCOM

The issue of annexation of Canada –which is now being cautiously addressed by the Canadian media– goes back to 2004. It relates to the instatement of US Northern Combat Command.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien refused to negotiate with the Bush Adminstration, more specifically with Donald Rumsfeld.  He resigned in 2004 in the wake of the war on Iraq. A new Prime Minister was appointed.

That same year, I addressed the issue in an article entitled: Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush’s Military Agenda? (November 23, 2004) (which at the time was the object of censorship by the Canada’s mainstream media).


See also

Canada’s Sovereignty in Jeopardy: “51st State”, Déjà Vu: The Militarization of North America under President Donald Trump

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 04, 2025


Jean Chrétien

We will also recall the powerful statement of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in his Letter to Donald. “From One Old Guy to Another”.  

A few days prior to Trump’s inauguration, Jean Chrétien in an open letter to Trump pointed to:

“The totally unacceptable insults and unprecedented threats to our very sovereignty from U.S. president-elect Donald Trump”. 

“I have two very clear and simple messages. To Donald Trump, from one old guy to another: Give your head a shake! What could make you think that Canadians would ever give up the best country in the world … to join the United States?

I can tell you Canadians prize our independence. We love our country.

We also had the guts to say no to your country when it tried to drag us into a completely unjustified and destabilizing war in Iraq.”[March 2003] (complete text of letter)

Jean Chretien intimated with astute foresight what is now unfolding under the Trump Presidency:

Now there is another existential threat.

And we once again need to reduce our vulnerability.

That is the challenge for this generation of political leaders  

The Process of US Militarization of Canada under USNORTHCOM

Jean Chrétien was opposed to USNORTHCOM, which implied the militarization of Canada.

Most Canadians are unaware that under the clauses of US Northern Command –which were accepted and by Prime Minister Paul Martin– following the resignation of Jean Chrétien, the U.S. had acquired  the de facto right to “invade” both Canada and Mexico. (see map below). 

The map below reveals the territory of USNORTHCOMwhich allows the US military to deploy from southern border of Mexico and part of the Caribbean up to the North West territories and Canada’s Artic, not to mention the strategic waterways in Canada’ Northern territories.

The second map indicates USSOUTHCOM

These two immense militarized Combat Command Territories are slated to be merged and integrated. They are described as “Areas of Resposibility” from the military standpoint.

USNORTHCOM

USSOUTHCOMMap: U.S. Southern Command's Area of Responsibility. (DoD image)

Monroe Doctrine 2.0. “Combat Command”

In the context of Trump’s Monroe Doctrine 2.0 and the expansion of U.S. military operations in the Western hemisphere (e.g. Venezuela), the merger of USNORTHCOM (US Northern Combat Command based in Colorado) and USSOUTHCOM (US Southern Command based in Florida) into the new US Americas Command is contemplated (presumably with the acronym AMERICOM).

Is this part of a U.S. Hegemonic Agenda which consists in imposing a Combat Command Entity at the level of the entire continent.

No agreements or negotiations with independent nation states. It’s a process of hegemonic intrusion, in derogation of international law. 

“Combat Command”: Unspoken Process of “Military Occupation”.

“It will most likely be the largest and most important command, encompassing not only the entire Western Hemisphere, but also the Arctic, where Western powers have become increasingly aggressive in desperate attempts to challenge Russia’s northern dominance. When implemented, the plan will reduce the number of US military commands to “just” eight.

Reports indicate that the Pentagon also discussed creating a separate Arctic Command at one point. The idea was for it to be a “junior” command that would be subordinate to AMERICOM, but the plan never left the drawing board.” (Drago Bosnic, December 19, Global Research, 2025)

What is unfolding is an extensive US Americas Combat Command territory with the acronym AMERICOM –which extends from Canada’s Northern territories in the Arctic to the tip of Argentina in South America and The Antartica, whiich hosts a U.S. military facility.

This militarized  AMERICOM territory project under the auspices of the War Department is based on the merger of USNORTHCOM and USSOUTHCOM. It extends over more than 45 countries and territories. Indelibly it constitutes an encroachment of the fundamental rights of sovereign nation states.

Historically the Monroe Doctrine consisted in confronting the intrusion of competing colonial powers in the Americas, namely Spain, the British Empire and France.

In contrast, Monroe Doctrine 2.0 is a hegemonic agenda directed against independent nation states. It consists in regime change coupled with the militarization of the entire continent from the Artic to the Antarctic.

The Annexation of Greenland

In March 2025, President Donald Trump: “renewed his threat of using military force to annex Greenland“.

“saying in an NBC News interview he wouldn’t rule it out to make the self-governing Danish territory a part of the United States”

It’s the latest in Trump’s many comments about seizing control of the resource-rich island, which he insists the US needs for national security purposes.

 “I don’t rule it out,” he told NBC News’ Kristen Welker in an interview that aired on Sunday“I don’t say I’m going to do it, but I don’t rule out anything.”

The Annexation of Canada 

President Trump has been persistent in his intent: As confirmed in an incisive October CBC report: the Annexation of Canada is so to speak “on the Table”.

“Is [Trump] trying to change political views in this country?

If so, that’s foreign interference,” said Dick Fadden, who also headed CSIS and served as national security adviser to former prime minister Stephen Harper.” (CBC)

A recent report by the Globe and Mail  (October 3, 2025) examines the Annexation issue in detail. Professor Franklyn Griffiths intimates that A Trump Annexation would likely start in the North” 

In other words, it would have an impact on “Canada’s maritime sovereignty”.

“Canada needs to consider the possibility that U.S. President Donald Trump will soon, and without our permission, send American warships into and through the waterways of the Canadian Arctic archipelago, commonly known as the Northwest Passage.

We owe it to ourselves to imagine what an imminent show of American force (rather than an invasion) would mean. We should also use the prospect to deal with and not write off Mr. Trump’s threats to annex us.” (Professor Griffiths)

51st State is “No Joking Matter” 

On October 8, Prime Minister Carney meets President Trump in Washington D.C.

On a positive side:

“The Prime Minister and the President welcomed the progress achieved to date in building a new economic and security relationship between their nations. Canada currently has the best trade agreement of any U.S. trading partner, with 85% of Canada-U.S. trade now tariff-free, and our cooperation is further improving border security” (pm-gc-ca PM of Canada)

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 17, 2025, Updated on December 20, 2025.

“If threats to the Kaliningrad region are created, Russia will destroy them.” President Putin

BREAKING: Putin says that if NATO countries start a blockade of the Kaliningrad region, Russia will start a full-scale war in Europe “If threats to the Kaliningrad region are created, Russia will destroy them. Everyone must understand and be fully aware that such actions will lead to an unprecedented escalation of the conflict, taking it to an entirely different level, up to a full-scale armed conflict,” Putin said.

There you have it, Putin couldn’t make it any more clear. If NATO tries to blockade Russia’s enclave of Kaliningrad there will be all out war against Europe. At the end of the day I believe that’s what will end up happening sooner or later anyway, it’s just about how that comes to pass. God willing I will cover this in a video later today.

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

The US’ Latest Energy Power Play Could Worsen Russian-Turkish Tensions

By Andrew Korybko Reposted with permission.

Russia wouldn’t just lose tens of billions of dollars’ worth of yearly revenue if the US’ plans succeed, but tensions with Turkiye might become unmanageable if the complex energy interdependence that tied them together till now is broken, which could destabilize the South Caucasus and Central Asia.

Zelensky announced last month that Ukraine will import American LNG from Greece via the “Vertical Gas Corridor” pipeline. This project complements Poland’s joint LNG plans with the US and to a lesser extent Croatia’s to lay the basis for American LNG completely replacing Russian gas in Central & Eastern Europe (CEE) one day. Although it’s much more expensive, policymakers on the continent are going along with this on energy security pretexts, but US pressure upon them likely played a major role in their decision.

The US’ latest energy power play could also put an end to Russia’s Turkish gas hub plans. These were announced in late 2022 after talks between Putin and Erdogan, but Bloomberg reported last June that they’d been shelved due to technical difficulties in supplying CEE from Turkiye as well as disagreements between it and Russia. Neither party confirmed their report, but now that the US captured more of the CEE market through the “Vertical Gas Corridor” pipeline, the odds of this hub being built have declined.

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou wrote an insightful post on X about this, which importantly noted that the “Eastern Mediterranean (Israel and Cyprus) is watching the start of this vertical corridor closely as it can be utilized to sell future EastMed gas into Europe.” The “EastMed” refers to the proposed underwater pipeline of the same name for exporting Israel’s enormous offshore gas reserves to the EU. Its completion would likely eliminate the need for Russian gas in CEE for good when combined with US LNG.

To make matters even more concerning for Russia, Reuters reported last month that “Turkey’s gas shift threatens Russia and Iran’s last big European market”, which drew attention to how increased domestic production and LNG imports could greatly reduce Turkiye’s future need for Russian gas via TurkStream. Trump’s threatened sanctions on all those who continue importing Russian energy without provably weaning themselves off of it, which could take the form of up to 500% tariffs, could accelerate this trend.

Russia wouldn’t just lose tens of billions of dollars’ worth of yearly revenue if all the aforementioned American plans succeed, but tensions with Turkiye might become unmanageable if the complex energy interdependence that tied them together till now is broken. It’s already expected that Turkiye will inject Western influence into Central Asia through the new TRIPP corridor, thus posing challenges along Russia’s entire southern periphery, which will further complicate Turkish-Russian ties.

If their complex energy interdependence weakens by then, such as if their gas hub plans essentially remain frozen or are officially canceled and Turkiye begins importing less Russian gas from TurkStream, then Turkiye might be emboldened to more aggressively challenge Russia on this front. After all, the scenario of Russia cutting off gas exports in order to coerce concessions from Turkiye during a crisis would be less effective, which could result in more hardline Turkish positions that raise the risk of war.

Russia should therefore seek to revive their gas hub plans and reach an agreement with the US, perhaps as part of the grand deal that they’re trying to negotiate right now, to secure Russia’s gas market share in Turkiye and possibly restore part of it in CEE. That would almost certainly require Russia compromising on some of its maximalist goals in Ukraine, and the US’ word can’t be taken for granted since future presidents could rubbish any deal, but Russia should still consider this possibility instead of ruling it out.

BREAKING: “U.S. Has Approved This Escalation”. Kiev Regime Attacks Civilians Within Russian Territory. Russia Downs U.S. Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). Act of Sabotage of Trump’s Peace Plan?

Guest Post by Drago Bosnic and Prof Michel Chossudovsky. Reposted with permission.

In the afternoon of November 18, 2025 the Kiev regime and Ukraine’s Armed forces (controlled by two neo-Nazi parties) once again escalated the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict by firing the US-made MGM-140 ATACMS missiles at undisputed Russian territory (specifically Voronezh).

With a maximum range of 300 km, the ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) is a serious threat to any undefended Russian settlement. At least four missiles were launched from the Kharkov oblast (region), targeting civilian infrastructure in the adjacent Voronezh oblast, prompting a swift Russian defensive response and retaliatory precision strikes.

The incident underscores the intensifying role of US/NATO weapon systems in the Kiev regime’s attacks on Russia proper.

The involvement of Western ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets is virtually guaranteed, as the Kiev regime lacks such capabilities. The attacks came at a time when its frontlines are collapsing, prompting desperate measures, such as “PR victories” and terrorist/sabotage attacks.

The sequence began at approximately 14:31 Moscow time (11:31 UTC) on November 18, when the Kiev regime forces fired four ATACMS missiles from a position near Volosskaya Balakleya in the Kharkov oblast, approximately 50 km southeast of the city of Chuguyev.

This launch site, later identified by Russian ISR, used two US-made  which are compatible with ATACMS munitions.

ATACMS Missile and Launch Vehicle

“U.S. Has Approved This Escalation”

According to the U.S. based  Military Watch Magazine:  November 19, 2025

“The Ukrainian Armed Forces have reported the first launch of an MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) ballistic missile strike into internationally recognised Russian territory, with the system’s reliance on Western advisors and satellite guidance indicating that the United States has approved this escalation of the country’s attacks. Commenting on the attack, the Ukrainian Armed Forces General Staff pledged: “The use of long-range strike capabilities, including systems such as ATACMS, will continue.”

Unconfirmed reports indicate that the target may have been the Pogonovo training area in the Voronezh region, although Russian sources reported that the missiles were launched against civilian targets.

Although the ATACMS has been used to significant effect multiple times in the past, it has been restricted to targets in disputed territories claimed by both Russia and Ukraine in the Donbas regions and on the Crimean Peninsula

The US/NATO missiles were directed at non-military targets in the Voronezh oblast, including the regional geriatric center and an orphanage, signaling an intent to terrorize civilian populations rather than disrupt military operations.

The Map below indicates the Voronezh target within Russia’s territory as well as the Ukraine-Russia border.

The distance between the Russia-Ukraine border and Voronezh is of the order of 70 km.

Act of War against the Russian Federation, Under International Law?

This is not the first time that the Kiev regime (with the support of US/NATO) has targeted urban areas in Russian territory (eg. Kursk and Belgorod).

 What is distinct in this attack is the deliberate targeting of civilians in the city of Voronezh which has a population of more than one million people.

Without Russia’s S-400 Missile Defense System coupled with its advanced air force interception technologies, civilian deaths would have been exceedingly high.

An Act of War “includes any military incursion, no matter how temporary”

Similarly, the bombardment of another state’s territory by land, sea, or air forces constitutes a clear act of war.

Source: Google Map

Visita Voronezh: scopri il meglio di Voronezh, Oblast di Voronezh, nel ...

City of Voronezh

According to the Russian Ministry of Defensethe strikes were part of a broader strategy to divert Moscow’s attention and resources away from frontline advances in the Donbass, where the Russian military continues to move forward and recapture key territories.

The importance of these areas is confirmed even by the Western media which keeps trying to present them as “diminished in strategic value” (a standard operating procedure used as a coping mechanism).

Attempts to diminish the importance of Moscow’s effective counter-attacks, don’t really change anything in practice, as the situation on the ground keeps deteriorating for the Kiezv regime. This is no different from the claims that its air and missile defenses “intercept” more missiles and drones than the Russian military actually fires. In stark contrast, when the Kremlin says it intercepted something, it rarely does so without providing undeniable evidence.

Namely, as Russian air and missile defenses reacted almost instantaneously, they shot down all four ATACMS missiles.

Mere minutes after the launch, the S-400 long-range SAM (surface-to-air missile) and the “Pantsir” hybrid air defense systems detected and engaged the incoming US/NATO threats.

Renowned for its unprecedented 600-km detection radius and 400-km range hypersonic interceptors, the S-400 tracked ATACMS (flying at speeds up to Mach 3) and promptly neutralized them, saving countless lives.

All four missiles were successfully eliminated before reaching the airspace of any major city.

Eyewitness accounts and publicly available footage captured four distinct plumes of smoke rising over Voronezh, visible from ground level and corroborating the interception timeline. Debris was scattered across the area, causing minor structural damage but no human casualties. Falling shrapnel punctured the roofs of the Voronezh Regional Geriatric Center, a nearby orphanage and a single private residence.

This outcome highlighted ATACMS’s vulnerability to modern systems. Despite its advanced features designed to evade air and missile defenses, the missile’s predictable trajectory allowed Russian radars to calculate the exact flight path and counter it more effectively. Russian ISR assets then pinpointed the exact launch coordinates in the Kharkov oblast, with space-based assets, high-altitude reconnaissance drones and electronic warfare units providing real-time data on the MLRS’s position, also revealing the presence of ammunition stockpiles and up to 10 personnel. In a calibrated (no pun intended) retaliatory move, Russian forces deployed a 9K720M “Iskander-M” system that fired one of its 9M723 hypersonic missiles.

Launched from approximately 200 km away and reaching its target in less than a minute, the unrivaled weapon slammed into the launch site with a high-explosive warhead. The strike obliterated at least two M270 launchers, their accompanying ammunition trailers and an estimated 10 servicemen (presumably Ukrainians, although the presence of NATO personnel is also highly likely). The Russian Ministry of Defense released comprehensive visual evidence to substantiate these claims. At 09:47 Moscow time, official photos were disseminated showing wreckages of the downed ATACMS missiles: twisted metal fragments riddled with shrapnel holes from S-400 and “Pantsir” interceptors, including tail sections marked with American serial numbers.

These images provided definite proof of these interceptions, precluding potential Western denials. Footage from the Voronezh oblast depicted the interception sequence: the missiles’ vapor trails arcing toward the city, followed by bright flashes and smoke clouds from the defensive engagements. Additional footage from the subsequent “Iskander-M” precision strike showed the initial impact plume, a massive fireball from detonating ATACMS stockpiles and lingering smoke over the cratered launch site. The response serves both as a warning and deterrent: by publicizing the launcher’s destruction, Russia signaled its ability to track and neutralize Western-supplied assets, thus discouraging further strikes.

Casualty figures from the “Iskander-M” hit are yet to be acknowledged by the Kiev regime, but local sources report “logistical disruptions” in the Kharkov oblast (unsurprisingly, without providing specifics or any additional information). Comically enough, NATO, which sponsored the attack, “expressed concern over escalation risks”. In reality, it was mainly concerned that one of its most potent missile systems not only failed, but was also destroyed mere hours after the unsuccessful launch. The destruction of four ATACMS demonstrated Moscow’s air and missile defense prowess, while the near-instantaneous retribution will likely temper ambitions of further ATACMS, M270 and HIMARS deliveries by the US.

Russia’s Retaliation

Visibly there are divisions within the Trump administration. Was the attack against Voronezh on November 18 intended to side track peace negotiations? The Kremlin retorted on November 19, 2025. An official statement by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation regarding the “attack by long-range American missiles on the city of Voronezh”.

.

“On November 18, 2025, at 14.31 Moscow time, the Kiev regime attempted to launch a missile attack on civilian targets deep in the territory of the Russian Federation. The enemy used four US-made ATACMS tactical missiles in the city of Voronezh. … The fallen fragments of the destroyed missiles damaged the roofs of the Voronezh Regional Gerontological Center and an orphanage for orphaned children, as well as one private household. There are no casualties among civilians,” the Defense Ministry stated.What the western media fails to acknowledge is the following:

.

“The Iskander-M combat crew launched a missile strike on the missile position of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as a result of which two MLRS launchers with ammunition, as well as combat crew personnel (up to 10 people), were destroyed,”

.

In other words, the Kremlin launched a Retaliatory Strike “Iskander-M Targets Ukrainian MLRS on November 19 following the intercepted attack on Voronezh. “Russian forces identified the launch site of the missiles near the settlement of Volosskaya Balakleya in the Kharkov region”. 

“The strike reportedly destroyed two US-made MLRS launchers, along with their ammunition and up to ten personnel. The Iskander-M is a highly accurate, mobile missile system known for its ability to overcome various defense systems. Its use in this instance signals a clear message of escalation from Moscow.” (Archyde)

“War and Peace”. Trump’s 28 Point Peace Plan 

Are there divisions within the U.S administration, not to mention America’s so-called European Allies?

The timing of this operation officially supported by Washington was carried out on November 18, 2025 two days prior to the formal announcement by Trump of a detailed 28 point Peace Plan (November 20, 2025)

Was this an intent to sabotage Trump’s Peace Plan? Trigger an Act of War against the Russian Federation as a means to undermine the Peace Project. 

“US President Donald Trump says he is giving Ukraine [Zelensky] until next Thursday [November 27, 2025] to accept a peace plan the US drafted with Russia.

The White House has reportedly threatened to withdraw American support for Ukraine if the deadline is not met.

The 28-point plan is closely aligned with Russian demands.

It calls for Ukraine to give up territory to Russia, shrink its own military, and drop its plans to join NATO – concessions military analysts say would make Ukraine more vulnerable to any future attack.”

Transcript (Excerpts and Quotations)

President Zelensky

“The pressure on Ukraine is among the heaviest it has ever been. Ukraine may soon face a very difficult choice. Either the loss of dignity or the risk of losing a key partner, either a complex set of 28 points or an extremely difficult winter, the hardest one yet, followed by further risks. A life without freedom, without dignity, without justice. It’s almost 4 years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion”.

Ukraine’s EU-NATO Allies 

Ukraine’s European allies were quick to reiterate their support for President Zelensky.

“The EU is providing military support to Ukraine to help to defend itself and we will continue to do so.”

President Vladimir Putin 

In Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave his cautious backing to the plan, but said that further discussion was needed.  He added that both Ukraine and Europe needed to understand what would happen if Kiev refused.

“I believe the text can be used as the basis for a final peace settlement, but it has not been discussed with us in detail, and I can guess why. The US government has so far failed to secure Ukraine’s consent. Ukraine is against it.

If Kiev does not want to discuss President Trump’s proposals and refuses to do so, then both they and the European war mongers must understand that the events that took Kubansk will inevitably be repeated in other key areas on the front”

The 28 Points Peace Plan. Informative Video, Biased? Produced prior to the attack on Voronezh.

28 Points of Pain: The Plethora of Problems with the U.S./Russia Peace Plan

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

IRAN SAYS WAR IS IMMINENT with Israel and the US

Plus war news from Russia, Germany, France, Netherlands and more!

Drones Over Germany

Iran says war with US and Israel Imminent

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

Trump says he ‘hates’ his opponents at Charlie Kirk memorial

All kinds of blasphemous signs and speeches were given at the Charlie Kirk memorial, much of it driven by the NAR movement or Christian nationalism.

Thailand Freezes over 3 million bank accounts

Trump says he hates his opponents

Trump says Ukraine can win it all back

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

On Ukrainian Identity: Ukraine as a Buffer Zone

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

An imagined community

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

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

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

National self-determination

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukraine?

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

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

The role of the Vatican and the Union Act

It was the Roman Catholic Vatican that was behind the process of creation of the “imagined community” of the “Ukrainian” national identity for the very political purpose of separating the people from this borderland territory from the Orthodox Russian Empire. Absolutely the same was done by Vatican’s client Austria-Hungary in regard to the national identity of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian population when this province was administered by Vienna-Budapest from 1878 to 1918 as it was the Austro-Hungarian government created totally artificial and very new ethnolinguistic identity – the “Bosnians”, just not to be the (Orthodox) Serbs (who were at that time a strong majority of the provincial population) [Лазо М. Костић, Наука утврђује народност Б-Х муслимана, Србиње−Нови Сад: Добрица књига, 2000].

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

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

The 1596 Brest Union

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

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

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

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

A buffer zone

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

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

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

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

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

Ex-University Professor

Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies

Belgrade, Serbia

http://www.geostrategy.rs

sotirovic1967@gmail.com

© Vladislav B. Sotirović 2025

Ukraine’s Romanian-Moldovan Flank Might Soon Be Used By NATO Against Russia

Guest Post by Andrew Korybko

It can invade Transnistria, occupy neighboring Odessa, and threaten nearby Crimea from there.

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) warned in mid-July that “NATO Is Turning Moldova Into A New Military Ram Against Russia”. Airfields are being modernized, the railway gauge is being switched to the European one to facilitate military logistics, and warehouses are being built to store equipment. If NATO helps President Maia Sandu’s party win late September’s next (already unfree) parliamentary elections, SVR warned, she promised that they’ll annul Moldova’s constitutional neutrality.

TASS’ interview with Russian Ambassador to Moldova Oleg Ozerov, which can be read here, describes this overall process more in detail. For geographic reasons, NATO’s militarization of Moldova and the West’s “Ukrainization” of it that Ozerov talked about in his interview follow them doing the same in Romania, which Russian Ambassador Vladimir Lipaev elaborated on here in his recent interview with RIA. He importantly drew attention to its hosting of what’ll soon be NATO’s largest airbase in Europe.

Coupled with the bloc’s modernization of constitutionally “neutral in name only” Moldova’s airfields, the combined effect is that NATO might soon be preparing to use Ukraine’s southwestern flank against Russia, which could take one of three non-mutually exclusive forms. These are invading Moldova’s separatist region of Transnistria that hosts ~1,000-1,500 Russian troopsoccupying neighboring Odessa (whether port and/or region) to preempt its potential capture by Russia, and threatening nearby Crimea.

The following background briefings detail the lead-up to these preparations that SVR just warned about:

* 4 April 2024: “Romania’s Draft Law On Dispatching Troops To Protect Its Compatriots Abroad Is Aimed At Moldova

* 7 November 2024: “Moldova’s Pro-Western President Was Predictably Re-Elected Due To The Diaspora

* 24 December 2024: “Will Moldova Soon Attack Transnistria Like Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service Warned?

* 18 April 2025: “France’s 3D Mapping Of Romania’s ‘Focsani Gate’ Might Not Really Be For Defensive Purposes

* 19 May 2025: “What Comes Next After The (Allegedly Fraudulent) Liberal-Globalist Victory In Romania?

It’ll now be summarized for the convenience of those that don’t have time to review everything.

In short, Romania already flirted with the legal pretext for militarily intervening in Moldova, which many Romanians consider to be an artificially detached historical region of their country. Sandu is also suspected of plotting to subsume Moldova into Romania, of which she’s a dual citizen, thus expanding Article 5’s realm of responsibility further eastward. For this geopolitical plan and its complementary military ones that were described above to advance, however, election meddling was required.

This accounts for Chisinau suppressing the Russian-based diaspora’s voting rights during last fall’s presidential election and the West encouraging its own Moldovan diaspora to vote for Sandu. After her re-election, the West then coerced Romania to annul the first round of its presidential election after a conservative-nationalist won, ban him from the re-run, and then Sandu encouraged Moldovans with dual Romanian citizenship like herself to vote for the liberal-globalist candidate, which helped him win.

With Moldova’s rear echelon secured, it can now become an “advanced bridgehead” against Russia in Transnistria and/or neighboring Odessa, while Moldova and Romania can both serve as outposts for NATO to threaten nearby Crimea. It’s also possible that France could use those two as launchpads for intervening in Odessa. Moldova and Romania’s importance to Ukraine during the conflict and in the post-conflict future contextualizes the comprehensive expansion of their ties via the new “Odessa Triangle”.

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