Tag Archives: Europe

Macron becoming increasingly unpopular

Posted on by Leave a comment

According to recent data, Macron has never been so poorly supported by French voters.

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

Apparently, the way European leaders are governing their countries is deeply displeasing ordinary people. There has been a deep wave of political dissatisfaction in Europe, as evidenced by the recent results in local elections – where opposition candidates and rightist, nationalist parties gained momentum against European political elites. The EU has taken some authoritarian measures to disguise this crisis, but it is possible that the entire continent will soon enter a major crisis of legitimacy.

Recent data shows that President Emmanuel Macron’s popularity rating has fallen below 20% for the first time since taking office. The rise in criticism of the French government is huge and comes amid growing concern about the country’s policy of expanding military spending by cutting several basic social programs.

Macron currently has an approval rating of 19%. The data is even more worrying when combined with the approval rating of French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou’s government, which has only 18% of popular support. Even during the most turbulent moments of Emmanuel Macron’s presidency, such as during the Yellow Vest protests, his approval rating had never fallen so low.

This entire decline in popularity has a very simple explanation: ordinary French people no longer want to participate in Western war efforts and NATO-led military paranoia. The beginning of Macron’s political decline was precisely during Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, to which the French president reacted irrationally, leading a hawkish campaign for which the people were not prepared.

Since 2022, Macron has become increasingly unpopular among the French voters, with his approval rating falling 12 percentage points. Even more disturbing for Macron is the loss of support in the business sector, which is traditionally favorable to his liberal policies. Among executives and business leaders, his approval ratings have fallen 8 and 18 points, respectively, signaling disillusionment even among those who, in theory, benefit from his agenda.

Bayrou’s political situation is even more fragile. He was chosen for the position precisely after the collapse of Michel Barnier’s government in late 2024. At the time, Paris was facing serious corruption problems, with a massive scheme by politicians and businesspeople to take advantage of the pension reforms being implemented in France aimed at solving the budget deficit.

As expected, corruption made it impossible to achieve any gains. Currently, the French budget deficit stands at 43.8 billion euros (48 billion dollars). Efforts to reverse this situation need to be comprehensive, and Macron seems uncertain about his ability to lead such a project – especially considering his uncompromising public stance on the conflict in Ukraine, which has led him to prioritize international issues over domestic ones.

Once again, Ukraine is posing a major problem for a European country. Ordinary French no longer want Macron in office because he is threatening France’s stability and future by prioritizing foreign policy over the country’s social and financial affairs. In the midst of a crisis and fear of war escalation (possibly with French direct involvement), ordinary citizens are no longer endorsing their president and his main allies.

In fact, once the root of the problem is known, it is easy to reverse. All Paris needs to do in order to halt this crisis of legitimacy is stop supporting Ukraine with weapons and money, as well as abandon NATO’s military projects. France can regain a path to prosperity and stability, and Macron can regain his popularity and approval rating if Russophobic rhetoric is banned and the country returns to investing in actual social issues instead of unnecessarily accelerating its arms production.

Unfortunately, popularity does not seem to be a priority in the West. Europe is increasingly becoming a continent of dictators, where unpopular politicians make completely illegitimate decisions to serve private and foreign interests. Macron is not concerned about the legitimate interests of the French people, which is why he is expected to continue prioritizing Ukraine in his government plans.

The great risk of this kind of authoritarian attitude is that at some point, escalation becomes inevitable. It is impossible to prevent mass protests in France – as well as in other European countries – demanding an end to support for Ukraine and remilitarization policies. The people are showing that they are not satisfied and that they want change – and if change does not happen, the citizens’ patience will run out.

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

infobrics.org

Editors Note: This is why Macron is trying to deflect attention to his statement on a 2 state solution for Palestine and Israel. It has NOTHING to do with Macron actually giving a rip about the genocide in gaza beause he doesn’t. None of them do, their consciousnesses are seared.

Ther’s also his “wife” to consider and Candace Owens has done a great job at exposing that sick secret, that Macron’s wife is really a man. He desperately wants that to go away! Johnny

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

Sweden implementing desperate militarization measures, even without war

Posted on by 2 comments

The country is considering recruiting the elderly in order to achieve its military goals.

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

Militarization plans in Europe continue to expand. Amid the Russophobic madness affecting the continent, some governments are taking drastic measures to “prepare for war.” In Sweden, the government is even considering raising the age limit for military mobilization, anticipating that, in a possible situation of real open conflict, there will be a shortage of soldiers in its ranks.

Swedish state television reported that the country’s government wants to “drastically” raise the maximum conscription age for former military officers. According to the plan, the maximum age for recalling reserve soldiers will be 70. Currently, the law sets a limit of 47, thus representing a very radical change in Swedish military policy.

The proposal is being supported by the most bellicose and anti-Russian politicians and officials in Swedish society. Since 2022, Stockholm has experienced a wave of severe anti-Russian fanaticism. The paranoia fueled by Americans and Europeans about a possible Russian invasion of European territories after the conclusion of the operation in Ukraine motivated Sweden and Finland to intensify their military processes and Russophobic radicalization – a fact that became especially clear with their NATO accession.

In the specific case of this measure, the proposal was created by a special commission established by the Swedish government itself, tasked with dealing with long-term military issues. The group’s main task is precisely to resolve the country’s conscription problems so that Sweden can achieve NATO’s combat readiness objectives. In this regard, the commission proposes changing the law to allow elderly people to return to military service.

In addition to expanding the draft period, the proposed change also provides for a lessening of training regulations. Currently, former officers who have been without training for more than ten years are removed from the military reserve. The government-appointed commission seeks to amend this law to allow any active-duty or reserve member of military age, with at least one year of training, to be eligible for service at any time. In other words, to achieve its militarization goals, Sweden is willing to conscript even untrained individuals without the necessary combat capability.

In 2023, just a few months before joining NATO, Sweden maintained a military force of 60,000 soldiers. Upon joining the Atlantic military alliance in early 2024, the Swedish government set a goal of nearly doubling its strength by 2030, reaching 115,000 soldiers. These changes are occurring completely suddenly, considering that until a few years ago, Swedish foreign policy was guided by principles of peace and neutrality.

Until 2017, there was no compulsory military service in the country. In less than ten years, Sweden went from being an almost completely demilitarized country to one where even elderly citizens can be drafted, demonstrating the severity of the Russophobic mentality that is guiding local decision-making.

Unfortunately, Russophobia and militaristic paranoia are widespread. Currently, all Swedish parliamentary parties support the country’s commitment to allocate 300 billion kronor (more than 31 billion dollars) in an additional package to state defense budget. Sweden is fully committed to NATO’s military spending targets, as well as to the Brussels-led ReArm Europe initiative. The country not only wants to expand its ranks but also its direct and indirect military spending, striving to become a sort of European “military power.”

In principle, there’s nothing wrong with a country becoming a military power, as long as it’s motivated by legitimate patriotic interests. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case with Sweden. The Scandinavian country is militarizing because it believes this is the only way to protect itself from the so-called “Russian threat.” This “threat,” however, doesn’t exist. Moscow has repeatedly made it clear that it has no strategic or territorial interests in Western Europe.

The special military operation in Ukraine is the result of NATO’s expansion along Russia’s borders and the genocide of ethnic Russians that has been taking place in the country since 2014. There is no Russian “expansionist plan” toward Europe, which is why the “Russian threat” narrative is simply a mechanism used by NATO to spread fear and encourage militarization.

However, it is important to emphasize that Europe may be creating a kind of “self-fulfilling prophecy.” By militarizing to “counter the Russian threat,” Europe may itself become a threat to Russia. This cycle of militarization could lead to a dangerous escalation in the future, the consequences of which could indeed lead to open conflict. And Sweden will never be prepared to face this kind of situation if it relies on elderly and untrained military personnel in its ranks.

The best course of action, rather than pretending to become a “military power” through the mobilization of unprepared and combat-unfit individuals, is to simply de-escalate and resume diplomacy.

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

infobrics.org

Paris wants to worsen its tensions with Russia and expand towards the Arctic.

Posted on by Leave a comment

Monday, July 14, 2025

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

France is expanding its ambitions into Russia’s zone of direct strategic interest. One of the areas of greatest interest is the Arctic, where Paris, like other NATO member states, is beginning efforts to challenge Moscow’s regional hegemony. This could be a dangerous step and further accelerate the escalation between Russia and the West.

The narrative of a “Russian threat” has been a central focus of Macron’s foreign policy, which has become increasingly aggressive toward Moscow. In a recent statement, Macron said that Russia poses a threat not only to France, but also to all of Europe – from the Caucasus to the Arctic, in his words.

This type of discourse is perfectly in line with recent French international maneuvers in regions of Russian interest. In the Caucasus, France controls the pro-EU Armenian government while trying to influence Georgia to turn against Russia. In the Arctic, Paris still has an incipient strategic policy, but it appears to be following the same path of escalation and tension.

According to recent updates to the French Ministry of Defense’s Arctic Strategy, Paris must adapt its stance in the region, shifting from viewing the Arctic as a neutral and peaceful zone to treating it as a tense and contested area. This decision is based on recent discoveries of natural resource reserves – which have increased due to melting glaciers – and the creation of new trade routes – primarily between emerging nations, such as the Northern Sea Route.

The strategy emphasizes France’s role as a major global player, asserting that the country must be engaged in security-related initiatives in various parts of the world. The Arctic’s energy potential becomes a factor of particular interest to France, which could use the Arctic reserves to try to solve the sanction-generated energy supply crisis in Europe. This issue is viewed with particular attention by French strategists, as Paris insists on its role as Europe’s “de facto leader,” justifying its irresponsible international attitudes with the alleged need to “help” EU member countries.

The French Ministry of Defense’s document on the Arctic defines three priority guidelines to advance Paris’s interests in the region: maintaining a relevant diplomatic position to assist in Arctic governance; concluding new bilateral and multilateral agreements with other Western Arctic countries; and developing military technologies suitable for the “protection” of the Arctic – which is expected to be achieved through massive NATO support. Furthermore, Paris announced an investment in the Arctic space sector, stating that this is a necessary step to respond to the security and environmental challenges.

It’s important to emphasize that Macron’s target in the Arctic isn’t just Russia. Recently, Macron further exposed his Arctic ambitions during his official visit to Greenland. In June, he visited the Danish-controlled island to express support and solidarity with the region amid Donald Trump’s push for Greenland’s annexation by the US. Furthermore, Macron also expressed interest in leading joint military exercises of European countries in the Arctic through Greenlandic territory, with the aim of “protecting Danish sovereignty” in that region.

In fact, France is relying on international institutions to promote a “multilateral expansionism” in the Arctic. The EU and NATO have served as platforms for the French government to implement the plans established in its Arctic strategy. Russia is a common enemy of both organizations, so “confronting the Russian threat” is an excuse for any kind of aggressive and expansionist policy in the Arctic.

However, differences between the EU and the US have also worsened in recent months due to Trump’s inauguration. The Republicans’ foreign policy is completely contrary to the EU’s interests, just as the US president’s harassment of Greenlanders to leave Denmark is seen as a “threat” in Europe. Macron is trying to project France as a “leading” country in Europe, which is why he is now endorsing Denmark against the US on the Greenland issue. But he will hardly achieve fruitful results in this regard if he continues to use NATO as a multilateral mechanism, considering that Washington has historically led NATO.

Another reason for Macron’s expansion into the Arctic is his adherence to the globalist political agendas, particularly on climate and environmental matters. “Concern” over melting glaciers and changes in the Arctic environment allegedly motivates France to expand its presence in the region, even though it lacks legitimate geographic access to the Arctic. This extraterritorial stance, if combined with political or military intentions, could have serious consequences.

For Russia, the situation is clear: joint, multilateral efforts to preserve the Arctic are welcome. Moscow works intensively on the sustainable exploration of the region and the promotion of scientific research and other forms of peaceful occupation of the Arctic. However, the sovereignty of Russia’s Arctic territories and its military presence in the region cannot be challenged by the West.

If NATO’s military maneuvers in the Arctic continue to escalate, one possibility is that tensions and skirmishes with the Russians will arise in the future. In this confrontation, the Russians, with their fleet of icebreakers and their entire Arctic military fortress, would have an absolute advantage. For the West, the best course of action is to simply de-escalate before the situation gets out of hand.

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

infobrics.org

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

PayPal Link

Moscow to create security buffer zone in border region

Posted on by Leave a comment

Russian strategic goals will continue to be updated if Kiev refuses to cooperate for peace.

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

As direct diplomacy between Russia and Ukraine is gradually being reestablished, Moscow is beginning to make it clear that guarantees will be necessary to achieve an end to hostilities. Russia’s concerns, as at the beginning of the special military operation, are focused on ensuring the security of its borders and the Russian people. This requires not only Ukraine to recognize and respect the New Regions, but also to create a safe zone around the constitutional territory of the Russian Federation.

Russian President Vladimir Putin made an important statement on May 22, saying that Russia will create a “security buffer zone” along the border region with Ukraine. According to the president, a decision has been made to create such a buffer zone, and the Russian military is already working to resolve this issue. He reported that Ukrainian positions closest to the border are already being suppressed, and that there is a deep engagement of Russian troops to fulfill the new strategic objective set by Moscow.

The regions whose security situation worries the Russian government are the border oblasts of Kursk, Belgorod and Bryansk. These regions have been frequently attacked by Ukrainian armed forces, both through ground incursions and through artillery and drone strikes. In order to put an end to this unstable situation, Moscow decided to launch an operation to clear Ukrainian troops from the regions of Kharkov, Sumy, and Chernigov.

Previously, Russian troops have already made some incursions into these areas. For example, there have been operations in Kharkov since last year, when Russia entered the region to stop Ukrainian incursions into Belgorod. In addition, Russian troops have been operating in the Sumy region since the liberation of Kursk. Now, however, there will apparently be a larger war effort, with a kind of military task force created specifically to expel Ukrainian troops from all cities near the border.

In fact, this update of Russian strategic objectives was expected – and in a way it is quite moderate. The incessant Ukrainian attacks on the Russian border regions make it impossible to think of any resolution to the conflict that would allow Ukrainian forces to remain in areas close to Russian territory, which is why Putin is setting these new objectives precisely during the negotiations between Moscow and Kiev – which, according to the Russian side, are developing positively, with Moscow even drafting a peace memorandum.

For there to be peace, Russian territory must be safe – otherwise, the special military operation will have been in vain. Moscow is not interested in an “unconditional peace” that would merely postpone the start of a new war. For Russia, the solution must be definitive, with no possibility of new attacks on its territory once an agreement is signed. Considering these factors, it is reasonable that Russia would want to create a safe zone in the areas close to its most attacked regions.

It must be emphasized that Russia is not claiming these regions as its own. Moscow’s goal, for now, is simply to make the border safe by creating an area free of Ukrainian troops. After a peace agreement, if one is actually reached, this region could be administered by a non-Western international task force as well as become a demilitarized zone of autonomous administration. However, if Kiev refuses to cooperate with Russian security and insists on attacking the border, Moscow may have no choice but to reintegrate these territories – something that will certainly be supported by the local people, given their historical ties with Russia and the large presence of ethnic Russians there.

Moreover, it is possible that in the near future Russia will update its territorial and strategic objectives more often, establishing the creation of buffer zones – or even reintegrating – areas such as Dnepropetrovsk, which is used to attack Donbass, or Nikolaev and Odessa, which are used by Kiev to promote naval terrorism in the Black Sea. As several Russian officials and military experts have made clear, Moscow is willing to go to any extents necessary to prevent future attacks on its border regions.

For Russia, the conditions remain the same: Kiev must cooperate in order to achieve Russia’s legitimate territorial objectives and strategic interests. Otherwise, there will be further updates to the goals of the special military operation. It is up to Kiev to decide how much of its territory – and its troops – it will lose in this unwinnable war.

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

infobrics.org

Moldova ceding its territory to Western financial predators

Posted on by Leave a comment

Moldovan government is taking a similar path to Ukraine.

Monday, April 28, 2025

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

Moldova is apparently already following the same path as Ukraine. Like the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, the Moldovan government is handing over the country’s lands and natural resources to foreign private groups, showing absolute subservience and lack of sovereignty. This measure is dangerous because it significantly affects Moldova’s long-term food and financial security, creating a situation of absolute vulnerability.

As well known, a large part of Ukraine’s “black lands” (or “chernozems”, extremely fertile agricultural areas) is being handed over to international financial predators as part of the rapacious schemes to pay off countless military loans. Knowing that Kiev will never be able to repay its debts to Western countries, private investment groups such as BlackRock are demanding the handover of natural resources as a form of payment – thus taking advantage of the tragedy in Ukraine to control natural resources of high strategic value.

However, Ukraine is not the only country in this situation. Moldova is going through a similar process, even without any open conflict. Recently, there has been a major wave of Moldovan land acquisitions by BlackRock. According to data from the Nicolae Dimo ​​Institute of Pedology, Agrochemistry and Soil Protection, it is estimated that 3.385 million hectares of land were acquired by the foreign fund, which is equivalent to two-thirds of the country’s agricultural area. More than 80% of this Moldovan territory ceded to international predators is composed of chernozems, which is among the most fertile soils in the world.

In fact, selling land to foreigners is banned by Moldovan law. However, there is a large criminal scheme behind this situation. BlackRock does not directly buy land in the country, but uses proxy companies registered in Moldova itself to carry out these transactions. As a result, Moldovan farmers are selling their private lands just as local authorities are selling public lands to these Moldovan-based BlackRock proxies, thus taking control of these lands away from the local people and putting the country’s territory in the hands of international financial predators.

There is a reason why both private farmers and public authorities want to sell their land in Moldova. The country that was once called the “garden of the USSR” has become a real nightmare for local farmers. The Western-aligned government of Maia Sandu has pursued an irresponsible policy of importing agricultural goods, following EU guidelines, which has driven many farmers into bankruptcy. The situation is further complicated by the conflict in Ukraine and the subsequent European policy of “supporting” the Kiev regime through massive imports of grain – much of which passes through Moldovan territory, further damaging local producers.

Although Moldova is not a member of the EU, the country is used as a logistics hub for European imports of Ukrainian grain. Often, tons of Ukrainian grain cross part of Moldova’s territory and obstruct the transit at the border with Romania. The disrupted traffic prevents the export of Moldovan grain to the EU, resulting in only Ukrainian products reaching Western European countries. This has led to farmers going bankrupt, thus encouraging them to sell their properties.

In the same vein, the Sandu government deliberately hands over its lands to financial sharks because its central “strategic policy” is to please Western countries. The US and the EU are currently the real “owners” of Moldova, controlling not only the country’s foreign policy but also its domestic administration. Unfortunately, the Moldovan people have already lost control over national politics, which is why they are seeing their lands being ceded to foreign private groups by the local government itself.

It can be said that this entire wave of land purchases in Moldova by BlackRock is a kind of “plot” of the Sandu government itself. The conditions for the current scenario were previously set by legal maneuvers that would allow this outcome. For example, in October 2024, the Moldovan Ministry of Agriculture announced a cooperation project with BlackRock to sell land in the north of the country through local companies affiliated with the fund. Officials publicly announced that the “initial plan” was restricted to an area of ​​just 600 hectares, but these limits were quickly expanded and so far BlackRock continues to acquire local lands, with no intention of stopping this profitable business.

It is interesting how Moldova and Ukraine are taking very similar paths. Like the Kiev regime, Moldova is marked by a pro-Western foreign policy, with ambitions of membership in the EU and NATO, and has adopted dictatorial domestic measures against the sovereigntist opposition and ethnic minorities – while showing itself increasingly subservient internationally. Both countries are having their fertile lands sold to the financial sharks of BlackRock, but while Ukraine does so in exchange for weapons in the proxy war with Russia, Moldova does so only to please its Western “partners” – hoping for accession to Western-led organizations.

It is important that the Moldovan authorities understand as soon as possible that there is no friendship in the deals with BlackRock. Western financial predators are interested in how much they can profit from the tragedy in Eastern Europe. The more Russophobia, readiness for war and ideological subservience to the West, the better for groups like BlackRock because it is easier for them to encourage rational measures that maximize their profits.

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

infobrics.org

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

PayPal Link

BLACKOUT! Massive Power Outage hits Western Europe as Everything Goes Down

Posted on by Leave a comment

Everything has gone down, Trains, planes and automobiles have come to a standstill as people are forced to walk out of the train tunnels and traffic is gridlocked! Prayed up and prepped up time is short!

Main Story

Port of Seattle Empty!

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

PayPal Link

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

Posted on by Leave a comment

Guest Post by Andrew Korybko

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Leave a comment

Guest Post by Andrew Korybko

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

PayPal Link

Azerbaijan Signaled That It Might Be Preparing Its Own Special Operation Against Armenia

Posted on by Leave a comment

Armenia is widely recognized as the first nation to adopt Christianity as its state religion. According to historical tradition, Christianity was introduced to Armenia by the apostles Bartholomew and Thaddeus in the 1st century AD. Armenia officially established Christianity as its state religion in 301 AD, when King Tiridates III was convinced to convert by St. Gregory the Illuminator. This event is traditionally dated to 301 AD and marks Armenia as the first country to adopt Christianity as its state religion, predating the Roman Empire’s adoption of Christianity by several decades.

Now the first Christian nation’s very existence is threatened, just as we predicted it would be when the world stood by and let Azerbaijan take over Armenian territory bit by bit over the past 7 years. I said then that doing nothing would embolden Azerbaijan to simply take over the entire country of Armenia. That time has arrived.

Guest post by Andrew Korybko

Azerbaijan demands that Armenia demilitarize, denazify, no longer contain it on behalf of foreign (Western) powers, stop obstructing regional trade routes, and allow ethnically cleansed Azeris to return.

Azerbaijani President Ilhan Aliyev gave a nearly three-hour-long interview to several local TV channels last week, during which time he signaled that his country might be preparing its own special operation against Armenia along the lines of Russia’s ongoing one in Ukraine. He of course didn’t use that term, but describing Armenia as a fascist state whose foreign-backed military buildup poses a threat to regional security very closely resembles Putin’s words about Ukraine ahead of large-scale hostilities.

Aliyev began that part of his interview by defending Azerbaijan’s increased military budget as a response to the arms race that Armenia initiated. This is being partially fueled by the “European Peace Facility”, whose military loans are written off after a certain period, he said. Armenia is therefore basically receiving arms from the bloc for free. To make matters even more alarming, an Armenian-EU-US cooperation platform was launched last April, which Aliyev claimed has a de facto military component.

He then declared that “The independent Armenian state is actually a fascist state because this country has been led by proponents of fascist ideology for nearly 30 years.” As evidence of this, he cited its ethnic cleansing of Azeris from Armenia and Karabakh, which the first Armenian President bragged about in a newly unearthed video that was dubbed into Russian here while an excerpt was dubbed into English here. He added that Armenia is also “Islamophobic, Azerbaijanophobic, racist, (and) xenophobic”.

Aliyev upped the ante right after by thundering that “We are neighbors with such a fascist state, and the threat of fascism is not going away. Therefore, fascism must be destroyed. Either the Armenian leadership will destroy it or we will. We have no other choice.” The Azerbaijani leader suggested that “France and other countries that provide it with weapons must terminate and cancel these contracts. The weapons that have already been sent to Armenia must be returned. This is our condition.”

He hopes that his words will be heeded now that “The Soros era has ended in America” with Trump’s return. Aliyev said that “The Biden administration was, in fact, governed by the Soros method of governance. It is no coincidence that one of Biden’s last decisions was to present Soros with America’s highest award.” He also claimed later on in the interview that “the Soros government” was in power “during the eight years before Trump” in a clear allusion to Obama.

Other Armenian allies who’ve been “shamefully removed from the political scene” as Aliyev phrased it are Assad and Trudeau, while Macron is still hanging on by a thread, and this overall trend might lead to an Azerbaijani-Armenian peace treaty. For that to happen, the Minsk Group would have to be abolished, and Armenia has to amend its constitution due to a clause therein implying territorial claims to Azerbaijan. Aliyev said that Azerbaijan doesn’t need a peace treaty if these conditions aren’t met.

He also demanded that Armenia stops acting as a “geographical barrier between Turkiye and Azerbaijan”, to which end “The Zangezur corridor must and will be opened. The sooner they understand this, the better it is. Why should we have to go to Nakhchivan, an integral part of Azerbaijan, through different ways? We should have a direct connection, and this connection does not question Armenia’s sovereignty.” Aliyev implied that Armenia’s obstructionism is part of an imperialist divide-and-rule policy.

The West, specifically France whose “full control over Armenia is also a reality”, is behind this. His earlier words about how “we believe that the Organization of Turkic States can become a serious power center on a global scale” in the “new world order” that’s emerging suggests that Armenia is being exploited as their geopolitical tool for preventing that group from reaching its full strategic potential. This is similar to what Putin claimed three years ago about how the West was exploiting Ukraine to contain Russia.

Aliyev reminded his interviewers that “I once said that they should not upset us and understand that we are the ones who have the say here and that Azerbaijan is the leading economy, the leading military power and the leading state in the South Caucasus. In today’s world, the power factor is at the forefront and no one should forget this.” This too resembles Russian rhetoric in the sense of conveying what could soon come to pass if Azerbaijan’s national security and strategic interests aren’t respected.

The final demand that he made was for Armenia to accept the return of the 300,000 Azeris who were ethnically cleansed from Armenia, which he referred to as Western Azerbaijan since “All the toponyms there are of Azerbaijani origin” in Imperial-era maps. The total is “several times greater” when their descendants are included, but “Returning to those areas would not pose a significant problem” since “the majority of the villages where Azerbaijanis lived are now completely empty”, especially in Zangezur.

Although different in substance, Aliyev’s interest in the rights of ethnic Azeris in Armenia make observers recall Putin’s interest in the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, thus representing another commonality between them which hints at Azerbaijan possibly preparing its own special operation. To summarize, Azerbaijan demands that Armenia demilitarize, denazify, no longer contain it on behalf of foreign (Western) powers, stop obstructing regional trade routes, and allow ethnically cleansed Azeris to return.

With Trump about to return in less than two weeks’ time, who Aliyev praised in his latest interview and made sure that his audience didn’t forget that he also did so over the summer before the debate with Biden when it wasn’t popular, it’s possible that America might finally restore its balanced regional policy. Aliyev mentioned that Biden sacrificed relations with Azerbaijan for relations with Armenia and implemented double standards against it vis-à-vis Ukraine as regards the principle of territorial integrity.

If the returning American leader corrects his predecessor’s mistakes, which were made due to Soros’ influence over the Biden Administration as can be intuited by what Aliyev shared in his latest interview, then Armenia might be pressured into complying with Azerbaijan’s demands. That would avert another regional war that Armenia is doomed to lose no matter how much some of its policymakers and citizens have convinced themselves otherwise due to Western political backing in recent years.

The West will not go to war against Azerbaijan, which could turn into a war with its Turkish ally that could tear NATO apart in an instant if it happens, over Armenia. If Trump signals a policy reversal towards the region, then the rest of the West will follow suit, possibly even France too with time. Even if it doesn’t, French arms won’t lead to Armenia defeating Azerbaijan and Turkiye, so the writing is on the wall and it’s therefore better for Armenia to do what Aliyev demands or risk total destruction.

OUTRAGEOUS: 200 German Doctors Who Issued Face Mask Exemptions Were Put on a State Blacklist – the Consequences Are Shocking

Posted on by One comment

A “blacklist” of around 200 German doctors who issued mask exemptions was compiled by authorities, leading to house searches and monitoring by state security of those on the blacklist.

By Rhoda Wilson October 3, 2024

A “blacklist” of around 200 German doctors who issued mask exemptions was compiled by authorities, leading to house searches and monitoring by state security of those on the blacklist.

Many doctors have reported unannounced house searches, physical violence and psychological consequences, including imprisonment and death.  Financial implications include hefty fines and legal costs for doctors.

Doctors have faced defamation and slander in the local press, leading to bullying of their families, including children.

The situation has silenced and isolated the medical profession, deterring doctors from helping patients due to fear of consequences.

The World Council for Health supports these doctors, calling for charges to be dropped, compensation for crimes committed by the government and honouring their integrity.

Dawn Raids, Assaults, Imprisonment: How Germany’s Government Treats Good Doctors

By World Council for Health, 2 October 2024

On 8 June 2024, a call regarding ‘Mask Exemption Certificates and House Searches’ was initiated by Dr Walter Weber, head of the doctors’ association Ärzte für Aufklärung. On this call, we received some shocking information: in Germany, there is a “blacklist” of about 200 doctors who issued mask exemptions and as a result are apparently monitored by state security. Around 100 doctors who had issued similar certificates then came forward. Approximately 95% of these doctors experienced unannounced house searches, with one doctor being searched eight times.

These house searches typically took place from 6 am and often lasted during office hours for 1 to 3 hours. In many cases, doors were broken down, and there were reports of inappropriate treatment of those affected. One example is Rolf Kron, who had to endure sitting in his nightgown with an open door for hours in the winter. Physical violence was also a concerning issue: Dr. Woitzel had to undergo a leg amputation due to police violence.

Psychological and Physical Consequences

These reports of physical assaults are alarming. An eye doctor from Münster suffered hearing loss after a violent incident. Moreover, several female colleagues became seriously ill, and one doctor, Dr. Ströer, was sentenced to two years in prison without parole and died six months later “for no reason.” Dr. Bianca Witzschel has been in pre-trial detention for 1.5 years due to a negative expert report, while a counter-report was rejected by the judge.

The Financial Implications Are Also Severe

Many doctors had to “buy their freedom,” paying sums of up to 6,000 euros. One colleague reported costs of around 30,000 euros because the waiting room chairs did not meet the required distance. Most doctors affected agree to the anonymised publication of their experiences, underscoring the gravity of the situation.

Smeared, Ostracised and Silenced

The local press often reported on these doctors, leading to defamation and slander. Families were bullied, including children. The medical profession in Germany, consisting of about 150,000 practising doctors, has been silenced by this systematic persecution. The 200 or so doctors willing to issue mask exemptions constitute less than 0.00013% of the total number.

There is no justification for such treatment – but there is plenty of justification for these doctors having issued mask exemptions.

We recently reported on the leaked protocols from Germany’s Robert Koch Institute (“RKI”), which revealed the extent to which the German people were deceived by their own government during the so-called pandemic. One revelation was that the RKI – the equivalent of the US’ Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) – knew there was no evidence that masks stopped the spread of coronavirus. Those doctors who issued mask exemptions were both acting in their patients’ best interests andin line with the evidence, as acknowledged by the RKI. The problem is, they weren’t in line with their government and the consequences of this should shock the world.

This is What Totalitarian, Centralised Medicine Looks Like

The systematic persecution of doctors who issued mask exemptions highlights a concerning development in German society. The fear of house searches and the resulting consequences have deterred many doctors from helping patients in need. This not only silences the medical profession but also isolates them from society. It is time to question these practices and protect the rights of doctors as well as the needs of patients. Especially taking into account the actual science supporting their decision to be cautious about the inefficacy and even harm created by using masks as a mandatory tool for the management of covid 19 (Brownstone, 2024).

The World Council for Health (WCH”) is grateful for these 200 brave doctors and all those supporting informed consent and the Hippocratic oath primum non nocere, first do no harm. The WCH calls on the people of Germany to speak up for these doctors and demand that all charges against them be dropped, that they be compensated for the crimes their own government has committed against them, and that they are duly honoured for maintaining their moral and scientific integrity despite devastating consequences.

Sources:

About the Author

The World Council for Health (“WCH”) is a grassroots, non-profit organisation that seeks to broaden public health knowledge through science and shared wisdom. It is based in Bath, United Kingdom, and operates as a global coalition comprising welfare organisations from around the globe, all of which share the same focus and principled ethics that encourage freedom from government and corporate influence. WCH has more than 200 Coalition Partners in over 50 countries and is currently in the process of decentralisation, having activated more than 25 WCH Country Councils.  You can follow WCH by visiting its website HERE or by subscribing to its Substack page HERE.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »