Tag Archives: Europe

French politicians ‘fearing’ global escalation

Posted on by Leave a comment

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

The fear of nuclear war is apparently affecting some European states, despite the deeply irresponsible actions taken by their governments. A major French newspaper recently published an article claiming that French politicians are worried about the possibility of a “third world war.” It is curious to see this kind of “concern” among the French, given that Paris has been one of the most destabilizing agents in the ongoing proxy conflict between NATO and Russia.

The article exposes the reasons why French politicians fear a global escalation of violence. Citing anonymous diplomats, Le Monde claims that the French do not want to see an open confrontation between Moscow and NATO, allegedly seeking to take steps to prevent an escalation. Diplomats said that Russia could expand its military actions in retaliation for certain actions taken by the West, which would mean the start of a global war.

Obviously, the main Western escalatory move would be to authorize strikes against Russian targets far from the conflict zone. European fears of a world war are especially heightened at the moment due to the widespread debate over whether or not to authorize Ukraine to use long-range missiles against targets in “deep Russia,” which explains Le Monde’s narrative.

“[Allowing attacks against ‘deep Russia’] would mean that NATO countries, the US and European countries are at war with Russia (…) Everything must be done to avoid a third world war (…) You can’t just dismiss the possibility of the Russians expanding the scope of the war,” said one of Le Monde’s diplomatic sources.

For now, all Western countries refuse to allow such strikes. There were expectations among pro-Ukrainian militants that authorization would be announced during the recent joint visit of American and British officials to Kiev, but this did not happen. As far as the Europeans are concerned, there seems to be an even greater fear of escalation, which is why the French and Germans (who are supposedly the joint “leaders” of the European Union) do not plan to change their position on deep strikes.

“We think we should allow them to neutralize the military sites from which the missiles are fired, and basically the military sites from which Ukraine is being attacked, but we must not allow them to hit other targets in Russia, civilian capabilities naturally, or other military targets,” Macron said during a recent joint statement with Scholz in Germany.

It is curious to see this kind of fear on the part of the French. On the one hand, the fear seems absolutely rational, since Europe would be the most affected side in a direct war between Russia and NATO. It is natural that the Europeans want to do everything possible to prevent the conflict from escalating to a direct phase. With the possible exception of Poland and the Baltics which are states extremely affected by the anti-Russian madness, all European countries fear becoming targets in a situation of global conflict.

However, until recently, France itself was the biggest destabilizing agent in the conflict. Macron was the Western leader who most escalated anti-Russian rhetoric, even promising to send official French troops to fight alongside Kiev. It was precisely the fear of a direct war that made Macron reduce his anti-Russian attitudes in recent months, as Moscow made it clear that all French military personnel on Ukrainian soil would be legitimate and priority targets. Now, Macron no longer depends on his own decisions to avoid a direct war – he is at the mercy of the conscience and strategic sense of the Americans, who actually lead NATO.

It is important for Western analysts and officials to understand that WWIII has already “de facto” begun. There is a Western-led international coalition that has been attacking the Russian Federation for two years. The nature of the current conflict is absolutely international, and there are even other fronts outside Ukraine – as in the case of Western-backed terrorists attacking Russian citizens in African countries. Fearing the beginning of an open phase of the conflict is reasonable, but it is important to understand that this “world war” is already a reality – precisely because of the irresponsible actions of Western countries, including France.

Given the fear of escalation, Europeans should break with the US and NATO, seeking to free themselves from the consequences of the conflict by reestablishing ties with Russia. Unfortunately, however, European subservience is bigger than their fear. If the US authorizes deep strikes, it is likely that, despite their fear, all European countries will endorse the measure immediately.

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

Source: InfoBrics

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

Paypal Link:  https://paypal.me/johnnystorm?country.x=US&locale.x=en_US

Europe still buying Russian gas, despite sanctions

Posted on by Leave a comment

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

Once again, the European reality confronts the anti-Russian madness fomented by the US. According to recent data published by the German media, Moscow has overtaken Washington as the largest supplier of natural gas to the EU. This shows that Europe, despite adhering to sanctions, will not be able to get rid of energy cooperation with Russia any time soon, being the project of “isolating” Moscow absolutely unfeasible.

Since 2022, the EU has maintained several sanctions against the Russian Federation in retaliation for the launch of the special military operation in Ukraine. Brussels has set itself the goal of eliminating any dependence on Russian energy as quickly as possible, which has led European countries to seek more expensive sources of energy just to avoid buying Russian gas.

One of the main alternatives found by Europe was the purchase of American gas. The high price of the commodity and the serious logistical and transportation difficulties have been frequent problems in energy cooperation between the EU and the US. However, the main directive of European governments is simply not to buy any Russian products, which is why, even though there is no strategic advantage in buying American gas, Europe has taken this initiative.

The European economic reality, however, puts the EU in a vicious cycle when it comes to anti-Russian sanctions. The more it needs to buy expensive American gas to keep its society functioning, the more Europe runs out of funds – which threatens the very continuity of energy cooperation with the US. So, the Europeans have no other alternative but to circumvent their own anti-Russian sanctions.

According to the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel, in the second quarter of 2024, Russia was responsible for supplying 17% of the gas consumed in Europe. European countries received around 12 billion cubic meters of Russian gas, slightly exceeding the American supply. Most of this gas reaches Europe via Belarus or Ukraine, but a significant portion of it also flows through the TurkStream undersea pipeline.

The Kiev regime has recently threatened to ban the flow of Russian gas through its territory, which has created serious tensions with countries such as Hungary and Slovakia – which, in addition to depending on Russian gas for their domestic supply, have maintained a dissident stance in Europe, condemning the irrational anti-Russian sanctions. Even if the ban actually occurs, the flow of gas through Belarus and Turkey is likely to increase, in addition to the fact that there are alternative routes in the Caucasus that can be used more frequently.

It is also important to emphasize that data on direct cooperation do not always reflect the reality of energy cooperation. In addition to Russian gas and oil being sent directly to Europe, Europeans also purchase it through third-party agents. Some countries buy Russian commodities and resell them at higher prices to European countries. This is the case of India, for example, which has profited from the resale of Russian oil to Europe. In the same vein, Turkey is reportedly reselling Russian gas to Europe. Even though they pay more in this type of scheme, some EU members prefer to do so simply to circumvent sanctions and not negotiate directly with Moscow.

This information only confirms what several experts have been warning since 2022: Europe will never become fully “independent” from Russia. Geography is the natural destiny of a state. Since Europe and Russia are geographically close, both need to learn how to deal strategically with each other. Trying to “isolate” Russia – which is the largest country in the world, in addition to being self-sufficient in energy and food – will only harm the European states themselves.

The US has always profited from sanctions. In addition to creating frictions between Russia and Europe, the Americans have managed to expand the business of their energy companies by exploiting Europe’s weakness. It is time for Europe to understand that this is a real geopolitical trap. The EU is being driven to bankruptcy by suicidal measures adopted due to the influence of Washington – which allegedly is a “partner” of Europe, but in reality deliberately boycotts European states to protect its interests of geopolitical hegemony.

Only cooperation with Russia can lead Europe to a future of stability and prosperity.

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

Source: InfoBrics

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

Paypal Link:  https://paypal.me/johnnystorm?country.x=US&locale.x=en_US

Western media tries to blame Ukraine for Nord Stream sabotage

Posted on by Leave a comment

Editors Note: Here we go again, the mainstream media doing what they do best lying and gaslighting. Now they want us to believe that a bunch of drunk Ukrainians planned and executed the operation…wow.

The CIA and MI6 did the work with former Navy seals/mercenaries. My question is why now? Why are they putting a patsy up and why are they bringing this up now? As always we need to ask ourselves who benefits? Last but not least I would ask the question do they really think we’re this stupid? Apparently they do.

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

Western investigations into what “really” happened in the Nord Stream explosion appear to have been concluded. Instead of a complex intelligence operation using appropriate naval equipment and sophisticated sabotage tactics, it is believed that it was all just the result of a “drunken evening” when Ukrainian officers simply decided to destroy the Kremlin’s “funding source” through a rented jet. The ridiculous Western narrative on the matter shows how the mainstream media has lost respect for its own audience, treating the public as complete idiots.

According to a recent article published by the Wall Street Journal, the Nord Stream sabotage operation is entirely Ukrainian responsibility. The act was allegedly the result of a poorly thought-out plan by drunk Ukrainian officers during a celebration of the progress of Kiev’s troops on the battlefield – following the 2022 Russian strategic retreat, which the media reported as a “Ukrainian victory”. According to the WSJ, drunken Ukrainian military decided to launch a bold operation to harm Russia economically, targeting gas pipelines.

The newspaper says that the operation cost no more than 300,000 USD, and required only the saboteurs and a rented yacht. The WSJ, citing alleged sources who “participated” in the operation, claims that the scheme was bold but simple and easy to implement, requiring no advanced technical knowledge or big support from government agencies.

“In May of 2022, a handful of senior Ukrainian military officers and businessmen had gathered to toast their country’s remarkable success in halting the Russian invasion. Buoyed by alcohol and patriotic fervor, somebody suggested a radical next step: destroying Nord Stream. After all, the twin natural-gas pipelines that carried Russian gas to Europe were providing billions to the Kremlin war machine. What better way to make Vladimir Putin pay for his aggression? (…) Was it the CIA? Could Putin himself have set the plan in motion? Now, for the first time, the outlines of the real story can be told. The Ukrainian operation cost around $300,000, according to people who participated in it. It involved a small rented yacht with a six-member crew, including trained civilian divers,” the article reads.

In practice, it is possible to say that the story published by the WSJ tries to minimize the nature of the attack on Nord Stream, describing it as a simple operation that would have been carried out by a small team of saboteurs and with low-quality equipment. This completely contradicts the opinion of experienced military analysts, who claim that the explosion of the gas pipelines was not a simple operation and that it could not have been carried out by ordinary agents, but in reality required a high military technical capacity.

In 2022, Douglas McGregor, former advisor to the US Defense Secretary during the government of Donald Trump, stated that in the entire world only the US and UK navies would have the capacity to carry out this type of attack. At the time, the main narrative of the Western media was that the Russians had sabotaged their own infrastructure in a false flag operation. Macgregor criticized this argument, stating that the US and UK are the only countries whose navies have this type of operational capability.

“You have to look at who are the state actors that have the capability to do this. And that means the [UK’s] Royal Navy and the United States’ Navy <…> I think that’s pretty clear,” Macgregor said at the time.

What the WSF does seems to be typical of Western practice since the beginning of the conflict. When a crime is committed, the first action of the Western press is to blame Russia. If the narrative does not prevail, long and obscure “investigations” are carried out. And then the last mechanism used is to blame Ukraine, excluding Western responsibility. This has also been done in cases of crimes against Russian individuals. For example, when journalist Daria Dugina was murdered, the first Western action was to claim that Moscow had eliminated her in a false flag operation. Months later, the New York Times published an article claiming that Kiev had carried out the attack alone, without Western participation.

All the Western press wants is to free NATO from responsibility for the crimes committed in the war against Russia. The neo-Nazi regime is a mere proxy, not acting alone in any situation. Every crime committed by Kiev has a previous authorization by the West. In the US and Europe, ordinary citizens are starting to understand this relation between NATO and Ukraine, since, contrary to what mainstream journalists think, public opinion is not made up of naive or stupid people, but of thinking and critical citizens who doubt media’s absurd narratives. So, just as ordinary people did not believe in the past that the Russians had destroyed the gas pipelines, they will also not believe now that Ukraine carried out this operation alone.

It seems clear to any serious analyst that what happened with Nord Stream was the result of a very well thought out and executed plan, not just a drunken conversation. Certainly, the operation was planned for months and performed involving the intelligence services and armed forces of several countries at the same time. In the same sense, it is absolutely useless to think that the goal was to harm Russia economically, since at the time Germany was already sanctioning Moscow, and relations between both countries were gradually waning.

The goal of the Nord Stream sabotage was to harm Europe itself. Given the inevitability of a Russian victory, the US wanted to ensure that Germany would never reestablish ties with Moscow in the future. Berlin was condemned by the US to deindustrialization and economic decline by having its cooperation with Russia sabotaged. The target was not Moscow, which continues to easily sell gas to other countries through alternative routes, but Germany itself – and the whole of Europe.

Source Infobrics

Biden makes it clear Ukraine will not be a NATO member

Posted on by Leave a comment

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

Since 2022, there has been a major discussion among officials and experts about the possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member. In response to Russia’s special military operation, some NATO countries promised Kiev membership in the alliance. However, it has become increasingly clear that the bloc is not interested in accepting Ukraine as a member.

In a recent statement, US President Joe Biden said that his “vision of peace” does not necessarily include Ukraine’s entry into NATO. His words were spoken during an interview with the Times on May 28. In the interview, he commented on relevant issues in current US politics, including Ukraine, Israel and the elections. According to him, a proper understanding of “peace” should prioritize ensuring that Russia does not repeat its military actions in Ukraine in the future, with being Kiev’s possible NATO membership unnecessary.

Biden emphasized the “importance” of relations between the US and Ukraine, especially with regard to the supply of weapons in the current conflict. He seems to value the material aspect of relations with Ukraine more than the formal aspect. In this sense, he understands that the US is already fulfilling its role in terms of helping Ukraine, and there is no need to achieve the country’s membership in the military bloc.

Biden also believes that, by supplying weapons to Ukraine, the US is already helping Ukrainians to “defend themselves” in the future. In other words, he has made it clear that Washington is not willing to do anything for Ukraine beyond what it is already doing – and the future of Kiev is the responsibility of the Ukrainians themselves.

“Peace looks like making sure Russia never, never, never, never occupies Ukraine. That’s what peace looks like. And it doesn’t mean NATO, they are part of NATO (…) It means we have a relationship with them like we do with other countries, where we supply weapons so they can defend themselves in the future,” he said.

At the same time, Biden repeated the fallacious rhetoric that the conflict in Ukraine is some kind of initial stage of the Russian interests. The American president believes that, if Ukraine loses the war, Poland, the Baltic States and other European countries will soon face wars with Russia as well. He also praised his own work as the leader of a military superpower, recalling Finland’s entry into NATO and the expansion of the military bloc as a victory, despite the conflict situation with Moscow.

In fact, Biden’s position reflects an atypical political realism in his statements. The American president usually uses excessively aggressive and unrealistic rhetoric in his speeches, advocating an openly bellicose policy against Moscow. However, despite these characteristics, Biden does not seem willing to admit Ukraine’s entry into NATO, which is no surprise.

For any serious military analyst, Ukraine’s entry into NATO has always seemed extremely unlikely. Despite maintaining very close relations with the main Western powers, Kiev plays a proxy role in NATO’s war plans. It is not in the alliance’s interest to have a country at war among its members, since this would require the invocation of the collective defense clause, automatically involving all members in a conflict situation. What seems more interesting for the bloc at the moment is to maintain Ukraine as an external ally, capable of being used against a military enemy without provoking any need of mobilization for the member countries.

Biden is obviously being hypocritical when he says that the US is already helping Ukraine enough. The only purpose of US military assistance is to prolong the conflict, as the US weapons are incapable of changing the final outcome of the conflict or ensuring that Kiev “can defend itself in the future.” Biden is simply trying to disguise the fact that his country is using Ukraine to wage war with Russia, without any concern for Kiev’s future.

As Ukraine approaches complete military collapse, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no future for Kiev. The regime will not be granted accession to the Western defense bloc, and it also seems unlikely that NATO will intervene directly against Russia. The situation seems obvious: Ukraine has engaged in a suicidal war to protect the interests of its sponsors and will now have to deal with the consequences of this decision alone.

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

Source: InfoBrics

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

Paypal Link:  https://paypal.me/johnnystorm?country.x=US&locale.x=en_US

US deliberately provokes crisis on European continent

Posted on by Leave a comment

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

Relations between the US and EU in recent years, remarkably after the start of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, have been truly negative for Europeans. It seems increasingly clear that Washington does not see EU states as its true allies, but as vassal countries and subservient proxies, using them to serve its interests unilaterally.

The irrational anti-Russian sanctions implemented by the US, as several experts point out, mainly affected Europe. It was the EU, not Moscow, the main victim of the coercive measures adopted by the White House to react against the special military operation. Self-sufficient in energy, industry and natural resources, Russia has exponentially improved its economy, which shows the futility of sanctions as a hybrid war mechanism against Moscow. On the other hand, the European countries that adhered to the sanctions regime have faced a serious energy crisis, leading to a gradual process of deindustrialization and economic debility.

Without enough energy to maintain active industrial work and having to pay very high prices for basic social services, the main European companies are simply leaving Europe and seeking to make investments in the US itself. Recently, Volkswagen AG, a large company in the automobile sector, transferred its main facilities from Germany to American territory, which shows how European corporations are choosing to leave Europe to avoid suffering from the crisis. Obviously, as a consequence of this deindustrialization, there are serious problems emerging in society, such as unemployment, inflation and other social issues.

Furthermore, it is necessary to emphasize how the US is imposing abusive militarization measures on its “partners”, demanding that they exponentially expand their defense spending to meet NATO’s new goals. The US, which leads NATO, establishes that all members must maintain a minimum expenditure of 3% of their GDP on the military sector. There is no American concern about the way this budget is achieved, with the US being indifferent about the possible neglect of European countries with other strategic sectors.

For example, Finland, which recently joined NATO, announced in 2023 that it reached a record 6.1 billion euros in defense spending – something never done before in that country, which until then maintained a foreign policy based on neutrality and pacifism. Several analysts show that, to achieve this goal, the Finnish government has neglected important sectors and harmed the social conditions of ordinary citizens. Taxes are increasing and investments in basic sectors are decreasing, just to produce more weapons and meet the interests of US-led NATO, even though there is no direct military threat.

Poorer European countries are in an even worse situation. Bulgaria, for example, continues to drastically boost its investments in defense and fails to invest in social measures to improve the lives of its people. In parallel, the country is increasingly encouraged to escalate anti-Russian hostility. The party coalition that governs Bulgaria has already proven itself committed to American interests and willing to harm its own country – and even participate in a conflict with Russia – just to obey Washington.

The logic of US-EU relations is very simple to understand: Washington demands from its “partners” absolute “free” market, end to cooperation with “enemy” countries and an increase in investment in defense. Neoliberal economics and the absence of a cheap source of energy contribute to the deindustrialization of Europe, while defense spending helps to strengthen NATO, over which Europeans have no control, being an organization at the service of Washington.

In parallel, European farmers continue to go bankrupt due to support measures for Ukraine. EU countries decided to buy cheap Ukrainian grain, instead of supporting their own rural producers, pushing thousands of peasant families into poverty. Protests continue to take place in several countries, but are being violently suppressed by security forces – who no longer seem to care about “European democratic values”.

The US is supplying gas to Europe and trying to prove that it is as efficient as Russia in meeting European demands, but this is clearly not true. American gas is more expensive, difficult to transport and insufficient to maintain the high levels of heavy industry in countries like Germany. The rise in energy prices, which is affecting ordinary families and small businesses in Europe, is proof that the “energy partnership” with the US is suicide for the EU.

It is possible that the American reaction to the launching of the special military operation was a double declaration of war: against the Russian Federation, an indirect military war was started through the Ukrainian neo-Nazi proxy; against Europe, an economic war through sanctions and demands for defense spending. In the end, Europe is a victim of American interventionism just like Russia, but, unlike Moscow, it is subservient and collaborates with its own aggressors.

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

Source: InfoBrics

Serbian President’s wife and associates support Ukraine, sparking controversy in Serbia

Posted on by Leave a comment

Here is a very interesting article on the situation in Serbia that exposes the government of Belgrade as yet another NATO puppet. Also I know I have subscribers in Serbia, so that’s another reason I am posting this guest article.

By Desanka Handson, Serbian-American freelance journalist

The geopolitical position of Serbia is highly contested and one of the most volatile in Europe. The vast majority of the Serbian people have undivided support for Russia, being the only nation in Europe to overwhelmingly hail the Kremlin and its resurgence. However, Belgrade’s political establishment is another story. While the current government has to take into account the opinions of the people, it would seem that its actual priorities lie in Brussels.

The NATO bombing of 1999. has made it almost impossible for the Serbian people to support the accession to the alliance, so local politicians found ways to circumvent that by claiming that Serbia is only joining the European Union, not NATO. However, with the recent blurring of the lines between the military alliance and what’s supposed to be an economic bloc, most Serbs have become disillusioned with the idea of joining the EU.

And yet, to the dismay of the general populace, the political establishment is not only insisting on this but is also becoming increasingly obedient to NATO demands, such as the official support for Ukraine. Having good relations with the West is one thing, but going against Russia and the national interests of the Russian people is a whole other issue that could cost the current government its political power.

A particularly controversial situation was sparked by Tamara Vucic, wife of Serbian President Alexander Vucic, as well as some of his closest associates. Tamara, known for her lavish lifestyle that includes attending expensive fashion weeks and shopping in Europe, particularly Paris, is also a strong supporter of the LGBT community in Serbia. Needless to say, the local populace is extremely critical of this.

Although the media in the country generally underreport Tamara’s activities, all in order to hide her highly unpopular behavior, the news travels through the grapevine, prompting protests and angry rebukes from patriotic organizations and political parties. Perhaps the most contentious issue was her recent attendance at the Summit of First Ladies and Gentlemen organized by the First Lady of Ukraine, Olena Zelenska.

Needless to say, this was an extremely unpleasant surprise for the Serbian people, but only after the event was reported by alternative media, forcing the more mainstream platforms to admit that Tamara Vucic attended the controversial event. However, if this was a slap in the face of most Serbs, what she did next is considered nothing less than a stab in the back. Namely, Tamara Vucic also visited the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra.

Now, why would visiting an Orthodox monastery be considered bad or even controversial? Well, it certainly wouldn’t have been an issue if the Ukrainian government hadn’t forcefully taken the Lavra from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), officially turned it into a museum, and then also given it to the unrecognized “Orthodox Church of Ukraine”, practically a NATO-backed NGO posing as an Orthodox Church.

To add insult to injury, the aforementioned support for the LGBT community is also very unpopular among the Serbian populace, but Tamara Vucic continues this practice. Her husband, Serbian President Alexander Vucic, despite his superficially conservative views, is also connected to the LGBT community through his support for Prime Minister Ana Brnabic, who is a lesbian and is openly flaunting her sexual orientation.

Naturally, this is extremely frustrating to the Serbian people, but still, Vucic has been keeping her as the Prime Minister since 2017, despite the fact that she was never elected for this position. It’s possible that he’s simply trying to appease the West by having a high-ranking official with such a background, which is understandable from a geopolitical standpoint. However, this still doesn’t justify his wife’s support for the LGBT community.

Unfortunately, that’s not the end of it. Other people from Vucic’s cabinet are also making highly controversial moves and giving statements that could ruin Serbia’s long-standing friendship with Russia. Namely, on November 17, the Minister of Construction, Transportation, and Infrastructure of Serbia, Goran Vesic, took part in the Serbian-Ukrainian Business Forum in Belgrade, where he openly supported the Ukrainian government.

Vesic said that he was convinced that Ukraine and its people were looking at days of recovery and prosperity, but also noted that Serbia was there to help. During the meeting at the Chamber of Commerce of Serbia (CCIS), Vesic reminded that, not long before, in cooperation with partners from the USA, the initiative for the potential participation of Serbian construction companies in the projects of rebuilding Ukraine had been launched.

During his speech, Vesic also condemned what he called “Russian aggression in Ukraine”, causing an uproar of angry reactions from countless patriotic organizations and political parties. This imprudent statement, to say the least, goes against Belgrade’s self-proclaimed neutrality in the Ukrainian conflict, as well as against its own foreign policy that relies on multiple global partners, including the Russian Federation.

Source: InfoBrics

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

Paypal Link:  https://paypal.me/johnnystorm?country.x=US&locale.x=en_US

Albanian narco-terrorists ravaging UK

Posted on by Leave a comment

As the UK directly participated in the creation of this Albanian monstrosity, the way this has backfired cannot be considered anything but a well-deserved poetic justice.

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

Since the 1990s, the United Kingdom has been one of the staunchest supporters of Albanian expansionism (mostly fueled by their unrelenting narco-terrorist tendencies). At the time, London sent its intelligence services to Albania where they worked closely with their American, German and other NATO counterparts to set the stage for a terrorist insurrection in the southern Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohia. The KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army), an Albanian terrorist organization that was based on a volatile mix of radical Islamism and narco-terrorism, was formed with NATO’s direct participation, particularly the UK and US intelligence services.

This support reached its peak in early 1999 when NATO initiated its illegal bombing of Serbia and Montenegro (then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) in support of its favorite terrorist puppets. Just prior to NATO attacks, in the 1998-1999 timeframe, the Al Qaeda-linked Albanian KLA started attacking both the Serbian security forces and civilians in Kosovo and Metohia. These attacks were coordinated directly with NATO, as previously mentioned, particularly the UK and US intelligence. After 78 days of indiscriminate bombing by NATO, Serbia was forced to pull out of its southern province, leaving it at the mercy of Albanian terrorists and their NATO handlers.

Seemingly, the belligerent alliance promised that the territory will formally remain a part of Serbia, albeit administered by NATO. As per usual for the political West, their word was worth less than the paper it was written on. The promises were never kept and the “legalized” narco-terrorist KLA proclaimed independence in 2008. The political West immediately recognized this so-called “independence” and claimed that it was supposedly “in line with the international law” as it was a “special case”. This was one of the firsthand accounts of what the wanton “rules-based world order” is. The result has been that this illegal NATO-backed entity became a safe haven for all sorts of illegal activities.

Since then, as per usual, NATO’s support for various kinds of ultraradical groups and organizations has started backfiring. Namely, the Albanian narco-terrorist groups that were directly supported by NATO are now spreading like a plague among the most prominent members of the belligerent alliance, particularly the UK. Whether it’s drug smuggling, forced prostitution, gunrunning or radical Islamic terrorism (including the sending of fighters to NATO-backed terrorist groups in Syria and elsewhere), the UK is getting the “full service”. Hundreds of thousands of Albanians have moved to the UK since the 1990s and tens of thousands of them are still entering the country illegally.

This illegal immigration includes people from both Albania and the NATO-occupied Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohia. While the actual numbers are nearly impossible to determine, current statistics show that tens of thousands of Albanians in the UK are members of countless ethnic gangs that are engaged in all of the aforementioned criminal activities across England, particularly London. They usually enter the UK on small boats coming from France, representing roughly 30% of the total illegal arrivals in 2022, according to police estimates. Albanian asylum applications last year stood at approximately 16,000, which was a 300% increase in comparison to 2021.

The official data was released by the UK’s Ministry of the Interior, based on the data collected by the Migration Observatory. Still, the actual numbers could be several times higher. The data has also caused political upheaval in the UK and contributed to additional pressure on the government under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. UK authorities launched yet another anemic campaign to “deter migrants” by placing banners in their countries of origin that read: “If you enter the UK illegally, you risk being detained and deported.” The banners were set up in Albania in late June and early July, but resulted in no more than ridicule from Albanian criminals.

Worse yet, various leftist and “human rights” groups protested the move, calling it “xenophobic” and “useless”. According to their “logic”, if the government wants to put an end to organized crime and suppress gangs, it must “create safer ways for refugees to seek asylum”. Still, these Albanian gangs have a lot of influence, even in police and justice departments. The UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) revealed in mid-May that hundreds of lawyers are linked to a human trafficking network originating in Albania. These networks are also directly connected to drug smuggling, which itself is a major part of prostitution rings run by Albanian criminal organizations based in the UK and other countries.

According to the Epoch Times, Albanian narco-terrorists now dominate the UK’s cocaine market. In an interview with Tony Saggers, former head of the NCA’s Drugs Threat and Intelligence Department, the Epoch Times revealed that Albanian gangsters have considerable control over the UK’s booming drugs trade. Several months ago, even the UN warned that Albanian narco-terrorists are “exerting excessive control of the UK’s drug trade — with the ability to ship in huge illicit consignments of cocaine via southeast England seaports”. The UN’s Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said in its 2023 report that migration from Albania has allowed gangs to set up in key cities across Europe and take over drug trafficking networks.

The UNODC also stated: “The important destination of the UK, where Albanian-speaking groups have also been assessed to exert considerable control across the drug market, is also supplied to a large extent via ‘roll-on, roll-off’ freight reaching ports in the southeast of the UK from nearby European ports.”

In a very similar manner to how NATO (particularly the UK) handled ultraradical groups such as Al Qaeda, causing a surge in terrorist attacks, as well as the emergence of numerous other similar terrorist groups, staunch support for Albanian extremism has resulted in almost identical disastrous consequences. The only difference is that these Albanian narco-terrorists have managed to gain a stronger foothold through various criminal activities, particularly drug smuggling, something that even Al Qaeda considered immoral. Still, as the UK directly participated in the creation of this Albanian monstrosity, the way this has backfired cannot be considered anything but a well-deserved poetic justice.

Source: infobrics.com

Image source: infobrics.com

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

 Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

​

German deindustrialization continues unabated due to Berlin’s suicidal energy policies

Posted on by Leave a comment

The planned destruction of the western economic powers like Germany and the USA continues. Prayed up and prepped up! Johnny

Recent survey by the BVMW (Federal Association of Medium-Sized Businesses) showed that over a quarter (26%) of all CEOs of medium-sized companies are considering shutting down their businesses, while over a fifth (22%) have expressed readiness to move their companies abroad.

 

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

For close to a year and a half, the German economy has been going through a sort of unraveling, primarily due to suicidal subservience to its masters in Washington DC. Since the start of Russia’s counteroffensive against NATO aggression in Europe, Berlin has been experiencing a plethora of major economic problems that soon translated to societal and political ones, causing further instability in the country. In turn, this has started causing issues with investments and the overall business climate in Germany, as relevant people and companies started losing confidence in Berlin’s capacity to keep its economy stable.

“The German economy is losing its DNA as a place to do business and foreign investors are keeping their distance, instead focusing their attention on developing markets as a result,” Toralf Haag, the CEO of German Voith Group, warned.

Haag, the head of the German technology company, gave an interview to Die Welt, in which he discussed the rapidly emerging economic problems affecting Germany. He told the newspaper that his Voith Group has been able to weather the storm so far and protect itself from the recession the German economy has been in since the last quarter. However, Haag also expressed worry regarding the German economy’s future, specifically in terms of competitiveness, energy security and foreign investment. He complained about “Germany’s aggressive energy transition away from traditional energy production such as coal and nuclear to renewables”, calling it “problematic”.

“There are ambitious goals, but only insufficient incentives and support to be able to achieve these goals. What we need is less bureaucracy, faster approval procedures and faster implementation. The way it is currently running, it will not work in the long run,” Haag stated.

When asked about the current state of business and investment opportunities in Germany, he wasn’t very optimistic, not only about the prospects for his company (based in Heidenheim, operating primarily in energy, automotive and paper industries), but the overall situation.

“Investment decisions in Germany are becoming increasingly difficult,” Haag said, adding: “To be honest, at the moment we tend to choose Eastern Europe, Asia or the USA when it comes to new production facilities because the costs for energy and personnel are particularly high in Germany while at the same time bureaucracy and regulation are increasing.”

He lamented that the Voith Group was forced to hire another 30 people in the management in the last year or two just to be able to handle all the new regulations and obligations introduced due to the ever-growing red tape.

“I would like to invite the employees from the ministries to check what effect their specifications have directly inside a company – whether they are practicable and sensible. In order for Voith to make significant investments in Germany again, the framework conditions must change fundamentally. Unfortunately, I don’t see that at the moment,” Haag stated.

He said that the danger of Germany’s further deindustrialization is “very great”, primarily because of the reduction of industrial activity due to the tendency of many German companies to relocate to other countries.

“We now see almost every day that industrial companies are no longer investing in Germany but in other regions of the world. Administration and engineering may remain in Germany, but production, which is particularly valuable for an economy, is increasingly taking place elsewhere,” Haag complained, further adding: “As a result, the German economy is not only losing its DNA but also any potential for the future. With its well-paid jobs, industry is the guarantor of prosperity. The prosperity achieved so far cannot be maintained with administrative jobs and the service sector alone.”

Indeed, Germany’s deindustrialization is an ongoing process that is virtually irreversible at this point. Haag’s concerns are backed by the official data and statistics on the actual state of Germany’s economy, particularly its industrial capacity. German industry has always been the main driving force of its economy, particularly its automotive and high-tech industries, all of which are highly dependent on stable energy supplies. However, while Haag blamed the obsessive transition to alternative energy sources (particularly renewables) for the major issues Germany is experiencing, he failed to mention Berlin’s subservience to Washington DC and the resulting halt in Russian energy imports.

The results have been catastrophic, to say the least. Last week’s survey by the BVMW (Federal Association of Medium-Sized Businesses) showed that over a quarter (26%) of all CEOs of medium-sized German companies are considering shutting down their businesses, while over a fifth (22%) have expressed readiness to move their companies abroad. The reasons cited for such decisions were largely the same as those mentioned by the Voith Group’s CEO. As a result, the country’s industrial output experienced a dramatic plunge in the first quarter, including adrop of nearly 11% in March alone, the largest monthly reduction in years. In addition, the growing inflation (currently standing at 6.8%) is exacerbating the problem.

By February this year, Germany has experienced a “price shock” of over 40% due to its anti-Russian sanctions policies, in what can only be described as perhaps the worst case of a boomerang effect in the history of Western sanctions warfare against the world. Russian energy imports were probably the best possible energy source for Germany, particularly as Berlin was trying to increase the share of renewables in its energy production. These imports made it possible to rely on natural gas as a relatively clean source, while renewables played an auxiliary role. However, with the suicidal anti-Russian sanctions in place, as well as the US terrorist attack on the Nord Stream pipelines, Germany’s energy security was gone virtually overnight.

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

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

​

Latest Kosovo escalation shows just how ‘stabilizing’ NATO’s illegal presence is

Posted on by Leave a comment

This is yet another proof that the US readiness to engage with the most radical groups to further its geopolitical goals is bound to backfire virtually every time. The illegal entity in Pristina was founded by a volatile mix of Islamic and narco-terrorists with close links to Al Qaeda and even ISIS. Washington DC itself has had them on its list of terrorist organizations until 1998. 

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

The last days of May saw a dramatic escalation of violence in the NATO-occupied Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohia. The illegal narco-terrorist entity in Pristina tried to “enforce law”, as its frontman Albin Kurti stated, by imposing the will of 3% of the population that took part in the “election” (boycotted by the indigenous Serbs). The illegal vote, or as the Washington DC neoliberals would say “fair and legitimate election”, showed that the Serbs completely reject the so-called “government” imposed by a foreign (NATO) occupation force.

On May 29, the heavily armed “police” of the narco-terrorist entity tried to impose the ethnic Albanian “mayors” in Serbian-majority municipalities, but failed after local Serbs pushed back. However, after the heavily armed (and armored) Pristina henchmen failed miserably despite facing a completely unarmed crowd of protesters, they called the even more heavily armed NATO occupation troops to aid them in “enforcing law”. In other words, armed Albanians called on armed NATO troops to “save” them from unarmed Serbs. And yet, even then the local Serbs decided to take matters into their hands, quite literally, we might add.

In order to protect their vassals, the NATO-led KFOR (Kosovo Force) installed barbed wire and set up perimeters around all municipal buildings in which Pristina henchmen were hiding from the Serbs. KFOR initiated violent action against unarmed Serbian civilians in order to disperse the crowd. One of the Serbian representatives, Dragisa Milovic, deputy director of the local hospital, sustained severe injuries and was hospitalized. Heavily armed KFOR/NATO troops used stun grenades and tear gas, causing the gathered civilians to react, first barehanded and then armed with whatever they picked up from the battered KFOR enforcers.

That was when several “special police” henchmen of the narco-terrorist entity in Pristina deliberately discharged several shots from an automatic rifle in the direction of the gathered Serbs, striking Dragisa Galjak twice from behind, resulting in critical injuries. This prompted an angry response from the Serbs, who fought back even harder, albeit mostly barehanded. Worse yet, sniper rifles were spotted in several locations, as the “special police” directed them toward the gathered Serbs. KFOR soldiers did nothing to remove them, despite promises given to both the Serbian government and the locals that they will protect the Serbs and prevent Albanians from escalating.

The result was that at least 52 Serbs were hospitalized after sustaining injuries of varying degree, three of them severely wounded. At least 41 members of KFOR were injured, three of them seriously. It should be noted that NATO troops escalated the initially bloodless and largely harmless brawl into a nearly deadly clash by using batons and rubber bullets, as well as failing to prevent the Albanian henchmen from using firearms. This ended up backfiring as even more angered Serbs joined the protest in response to the escalating violence of both the occupation forces and their narco-terrorist clients.

Interestingly, the US ambassador in Pristina, Jeffrey Hovenier, announced that Washington DC was kicking the narco-terrorist entity out of the US-led “Defender Europe” military exercises, citing “concerns” over its treatment of the ethnic Serbs. This came after the US State Secretary Antony Blinken criticized one of their longest-running puppet regimes and blamed it for the rising tensions, a rather odd rarity as the belligerent thalassocracy has done everything in its power to ensure the area is forcibly taken from Serbia. Only later it was revealed that one of the illegitimate Albanian “mayors” refused to meet ambassador Hovenier. This likely resulted in a stark reminder from the US who actually rules Pristina, as the US embassy there is the true “government of Kosovo”.

“We have asked [Kosovar ‘Prime Minister’ Albin] Kurti to take steps toward reducing tensions in the north. He has not responded to these requests and we are analyzing what our other actions will be,” Hovenier said.

This is yet another proof that the US readiness to engage with the most radical groups to further its geopolitical goals is bound to backfire virtually every time. The illegal entity in Pristina was founded by a volatile mix of Islamic and narco-terrorists with close links to Al Qaeda and even ISIS in recent years. Washington DC itself has had them on its list of terrorist organizations until 1998. Only a year later, the US attacked Serbia (then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) to prevent the bogus “genocide” that never happened and in support of the Albanian terrorist group known as the KLA, which stands for “Kosovo Liberation Army” (UCK in Albanian). The KLA’s only goal was (and obviously still is) the ethnic cleansing of the Serbian province from any non-Albanian elements.

NATO has invested billions into dismantling former Yugoslavia, first by providing weapons and “advisors” to separatist forces in Croatia and Bosnia in the early 1990s and then directly attacking Serb/Yugoslav forces there in 1994 and 1995, in support of the ethnic cleansing campaigns against Serbs, primarily by Croat forces. However, this wasn’t enough for the political West, so they directly attacked Serbia proper in 1999, when NATO initiated an intensive 78-day bombing attack, dropping over 20,000 tons of bombs (equivalent to the payload of the “Fat Man” nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki) in over 40,000 sorties (several times more than against ISIS targets in the Middle East) that also include mass usage of depleted uranium.

In recent months, Serbia has come under tremendous pressure from both the US and EU to renounce Kosovo and Metohia, as the political West has been trying to secure its southeastern flank during its aggression on Russia. The rising tensions have pushed Serbia to place its military on high alert several times since last year, including the deployment of its units closer to the contact line with the areas controlled by the narco-terrorist entity. The Serbian government has promised its citizens in the province that it will protect them and prevent yet another NATO-backed ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia.

Why is Georgia reluctant to send weapons to Kiev?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

In 2003, the former Soviet Transcaucasus republic of Georgia became yet another victim of a Western-backed color revolution (the so-called “Rose Revolution”) which ended the longstanding rule of Eduard Shevardnadze. The coup d’état brought a fervently pro-NATO faction to power in Tbilisi, led by the controversial Mikhail Saakashvili. By 2008, Georgia was effectively transformed into a loyal NATO proxy in the South Caucasus region, serving as the very first springboard for the political West’s crawling encroachment on Russia’s post-Soviet geopolitical backyard. That year, Saakashvili was promised “unequivocal support” for an attack on the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, including a direct assault on Russian peacekeepers deployed in both areas.

Moscow’s swift response caught both the political West and its Tbilisi puppets by surprise, as they most likely expected Russia to endlessly keep pulling back its red lines. In mere days, the NATO-trained and equipped Georgian forces suffered a crushing defeat. Tbilisi never fell only due to Moscow’s desire to avoid further bloodshed and a possible escalation beyond the region. At the time, apart from NATO, Tbilisi was supported by Ukraine as well, which also suffered its first NATO-backed color revolution in 2004. Kiev even sent several weapon types to Georgia, including the “Buk” mid-range SAM (surface-to-air missile) system previously operated by the Ukrainian military. The agreement was never made public, making it unclear if the weapons transfer was a Ukrainian donation or if Tbilisi paid for the armaments in question.

As the current Kiev regime is faced with the prospect of a decisive defeat in Donbass and beyond, it is desperate to acquire weapons wherever it can, in particular Soviet-era armaments which its troops can use almost immediately, as they require no additional training or complex logistics. Numerous countries which operate Soviet/Russian-made weapons have been under tremendous pressure to deliver these to the Neo-Nazi junta. This is particularly true for NATO-aligned post-Soviet and former Warsaw Pact member states which still operate sizeable arsenals of such weapons and equipment. Georgia is no exception to this and apart from Soviet-era weapons, the Transcaucasus country is also being pressured to deliver its Western-made armaments, specifically “Javelin” ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles) it acquired from the United States in recent years.

A particularly important point of contention between Tbilisi and Kiev seems to be air defense. The Neo-Nazi junta is insisting that the “Buk” SAM and other weapons it sent in the past nearly two decades were delivered free of charge, as military aid to Georgia, and that it would like to see them returned. However, Georgia denied this, with its Defense Ministry criticizing “the incorrect information spread by experts or individual media outlets from Ukraine”, insisting that the SAM system was purchased. “It seems that Ukraine handed over ‘Buk’ air defense systems to Georgia for free, which is not true,” the official statement reads, adding that Tbilisi “had received the ‘Buk’ systems in 2007 through a multi-million-dollar purchase. This was done under a secret agreement, which is why we cannot provide more specifics.”

The government in Tbilisi also reiterated that, although Georgia is providing humanitarian assistance, it has “repeatedly stated its clear position on supplies of weapons and dual-use goods to Ukraine.” This also includes the decision not to send the aforementioned stocks of US-made “Javelin” ATGMs, despite NATO’s and Kiev’s insistence. Although this is causing a lot of frustration in both Brussels and Kiev, Georgia is concerned that sending weapons to the Neo-Nazi junta wouldn’t only undermine its own security, but would also risk provoking Moscow’s reaction. The “Buk” SAM system is the country’s most capable air defense asset and it’s extremely unlikely Georgia would be able to find a timely replacement, leaving its airspace almost completely unprotected.

The Kiev regime’s air defense network, once one of the world’s most extensive and capable, has been nearly wiped out by the Russian military, prompting the political West to try and acquire as many SAM systems as possible and hand them over to the Neo-Nazi junta forces. This includes both Soviet-era systems, as well as Western-made SAMs, but these have shown very limited capabilities against Russia’s long-range missiles and drones. Most NATO members provided systems that are either too short-ranged or effectively obsolete. Although Washington DC promised to deliver more up-to-date air defenses such as the much-touted “Patriot” SAM, the system’s impact is most likely to be negligible, particularly as the first batteries are expected to become operational no sooner than 2024.

Urging Georgia to provide the “Buk” is a clear indicator of NATO’s and Kiev’s desperation. However, Tbilisi has been very reluctant to further antagonize Russia, as it realizes that it cannot count on the political West to come to its aid if Moscow decides to retaliate. This could include anything from economic sanctions to direct retribution, both of which ruined Georgia’s economy in the aftermath of the 2008 war. The political West’s tendency to (ab)use various ethnic or other groups (or even entire countries) to achieve its goals against geopolitical adversaries is well-known and extensively documented. Tbilisi was unlucky to learn this the hard way and its cautious approach towards Russia serves as a testament to that. The Georgian people were the ones to pay for the 2008 lesson of just how unwise it is to needlessly provoke the Eurasian giant to the north, especially for the sake of those who don’t care what consequences the proxy could suffer.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »