Tag Archives: France

FRANCE JUST DEPLOYED ITS AIRCRAFT CARRIER TO THE WAR ZONE. THE WAR IS NO LONGER JUST AMERICA’S.

blue aircraft on ship

It is now officially a world war as France enters the fray. The UK has already participated hence the Iranian strike on the British AF Base in Cyprus last week and Russia and China are helping Iran behind the scenes just as NATO is helping Ukraine vs Russia. Make no mistake this is a world wide war now and it will keep expanding. It’s just a matter of time before the nukes start flying.

France’s Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier is already in the Mediterranean Sea and RAPIDLY approaching the conflict zone. Let that sink in. This is the same France that REFUSED to join the Iraq War in 2003. Now they’re deploying their flagship carrier to the Middle East.

France deployed 12 top-tier Navy vessels in DAYS

France assumed NATO command for the ENTIRE Eastern Mediterranean

The Charles de Gaulle is replacing the USS Gerald R. Ford’s defensive role

The Ford is racing through the Suez Canal to the Gulf to reopen the Strait of Hormuz

The George H.W. Bush carrier group is being deployed as REINFORCEMENT

Greece deployed warships to defend Cyprus

Dutch, Spanish, and Italian ships joining alongside

Britain’s Royal Navy has ZERO ships on site — both aircraft carriers still DOCKED

Germany deployed RAF aircraft but no naval presence

The criticism of Britain is GROWING — the destroyer meant to join hasn’t even DEPARTED They’re showing you this as “allied solidarity.” They’re NOT showing you WHY every major European navy is suddenly rushing to the Middle East. If the U.S. was winning this war easily → why does it need France to backfill its Mediterranean position → so it can move the Ford to the Gulf → to try to reopen a Strait that’s been SHUT for 9 days? You don’t redeploy EVERY Western aircraft carrier for a war you’re winning. You do it for a war that’s SPREADING. NATO didn’t mobilize this many ships for Afghanistan. Not for Iraq. Not for Libya. This is the LARGEST Western naval deployment since the Cold War. And it’s happening because one 21-nautical-mile chokepoint is STILL shut — and nobody can open it. Prepare accordingly.

The world needs to see this. RT + Follow.

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

France Paraded Demon Hybrids in Broad Daylight… This Is Dark

NASA Spacecraft Capture an Earth Directed Coronal Mass Ejection

Until this morning I had no idea this had happened but this was an occult ritual being performed in broad daylight with full public support. The spiritual war is very real and I hope you’re paying attention! Stay ready! Stay prayed up and in God’s word!

France paraded demon hybrids — including Lilith and the Minotaur — in broad daylight during a public event filled with occult symbolism, hybrid mythology, and dark spiritual themes. In this video, I break down the hidden meaning behind Lilith, the Minotaur, the “Gate of Darkness” parade in Toulouse, and how all of this ties back to Scripture and biblical warnings like Genesis 6.

This wasn’t a movie — this was a government-funded spectacle watched by over a million people in France… including children. Today we’ll look at the deeper spiritual significance behind these demon-like hybrid beings, the occult meaning of Lilith in mysticism, and the connection to Nephilim-style hybrid corruption seen in the Bible.

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

The Middle East is Controlled by Freemasons, all the World is Their Stage

Iran is one of the arms of Zionist Freemasonry, Turkey too. Kuwaiti researcher ‘Aisha Rshed claimed, in a recent interview, that Iran, Israel, America, Britain, France, and Turkey were “tools of Zionist Freemasonry. According to Rshed, Ayatollah Khomeini was not Iranian and Hassan Nasrallah is not Lebanese, but both were “planted by Zionist Freemasonry.” The Americans, she claimed, have a plan for a third world war “in order to divide up the Arab world again,” and Hamas, the “military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood,” was “created by the Israeli Mossad.” “There is no war. It is merely an illusion,” said Rshed, when the interviewer protested that Hamas was waging a war against Israel,” adding: “You can say bye-bye to the rights of the Palestinian people.” The interview was posted on the Internet on May 9, 2018.

While there is definitely war going on in Gaza and Israel it is controlled by the Zionists and Freemasons. As I posted earlier today the plan that they have for Gaza has been the plan for a long time. They’re going to have Tony Blair running it all just like a British colony. Click here for that story.

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

IRAN SAYS WAR IS IMMINENT with Israel and the US

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

Drones Over Germany

Iran says war with US and Israel Imminent

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

Macron becoming increasingly unpopular

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Is Russia Really The “Greatest Threat” To France?

By Andrew Korybko

Russia’s support of multipolar processes in West Africa has dealt a heavy blow to French hegemony there, which France has responded to by waging a proxy war on Russia in Mali while going on the strategic offensive in the South Caucasus and Eastern Europe.

French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu claimed in an interview that Russia is his country’s “greatest threat” apart from terrorist groups. He pointed to its “aggressive” actions over the past year, “not only to our interests in Africa, but also directly to our Armed Forces”. Lecornu also accused Russia of “waging an information war” and “militarizing new environments, including the seabed and cyberspace.” The reality is that Russia does pose a threat to France, but only to its hegemony, not to its legitimate interests.

Russia’s African policy, which readers can learn more about here, seeks to accelerate multipolar processes there. This has taken the form of supporting the former French colonies of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, not only bilaterally, but also multilaterally with regard to their newly formed Sahelian Alliance and Confederation. Their patriotic military leaderships envisage reducing their outsized dependence on France by relying more on Russia in order to regain as much of their lost sovereignty as possible.  

In tangible terms, this has seen them replace France with Russia as their preferred anti-terrorist partner, with some speculating that the immediate quid pro quo is privileged Russian access to their resources. The short-term goal is to restore stability, after which the medium-term one of further disengaging from the French “sphere of influence” can more confidently be pursued, ideally by introducing a new regional currency to replace the CFA Franc that Paris continues to exploit for enriching itself at their expense.

These two developments threaten French hegemony since the first impedes its efforts to divide-and-rule these countries while the second has traditionally been responsible for buoying its economy. Taken together, Russia’s support of these multipolar processes does indeed deal a heavy blow to French interests, but once again, only to its hegemonic interests and not its legitimate ones. France can’t acknowledge the way in which Russia threatens it in Africa since the dark truth makes it look very bad.

It won’t go down without a fight, however, which is why it’s waging a proxy war on Russia in Mali together with the US and Ukraine through their patronage of Tuareg separatists and Islamist groups. Other battlefronts could be opened against the Sahelian Alliance/Confederation such as if Franco-American forces in the Ivory Coast try to destabilize southern Mali and Burkina Faso. Jihadist violence in the latter, which is already approaching critical proportions, could also soon worsen with their support.

France isn’t just playing defense since it’s also going on the strategic offensive against Russia in the South Caucasus through its efforts to accelerate Armenia’s pro-Western pivot. The ultra-nationalist Armenian diaspora that it hosts has played a crucial role in this process. France is also selling military equipment to Armenia too in order to exacerbate Russia’s suspicions of its intentions. Close Russian-Azerbaijani ties and impressively pragmatic Russian-Georgian ones put a check on the West’s plans though.

If they ever were to succeed, they’d pose a direct threat to Russia’s legitimate interests by provoking a major conflict along its southern periphery, thus making France’s meddling in the South Caucasus much more threatening in an objective sense than Russia’s support of multipolar processes in West Africa. The same goes for the other strategic offensive that France has gone on against Russia since losing its “sphere of influence” in the Sahel by signaling interest in conventionally intervening in Ukraine.  

French President Emmanuel Macron, whose spree of foreign policy mistakes was analyzed here, has since toned down his rhetoric but nevertheless still isn’t ruling out such a scenario. The reason why this is so dangerous to flirt with is because it could lead to the outbreak of conventional NATO-Russian hostilities in Ukraine that might escalate into World War III by miscalculation. France knows the enormity of what’s at stake but it’s still recklessly considering this course of action as revenge against Russia.

Reviewing the insight that was shared thus far, Russia’s support of multipolar processes in West Africa has dealt a heavy blow to French hegemony there, which France has responded to by waging a proxy war on Russia in Mali while going on the strategic offensive in the South Caucasus and Eastern Europe. Therefore, it’s not Russia that’s the “greatest threat” to France, but France that’s a “great threat” to Russia and the world in general due to the havoc that it’s wreaking in three separate regions out of spite.  

Source Link

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

French politicians ‘fearing’ global escalation

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 Linkhttps://paypal.me/johnnystorm?country.x=US&locale.x=en_US

« Older Entries