Norway is now seizing Russian science vessels illegally and Germany is falsely accusing Russia of a drone attack at one of their airports. Both sides have expelled diplomats and closed consulates. The next step has always been war, just like Lavrov from Russia has said. Lavrov went farther saying what Germany is doing “Is the start of a real war.”
Germany and NATO will soon have their real war, Russia is programming the targets into their systems now. Prayed up and prepped up, time is ticking!
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.
By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida at Global Research. Reposted with permission.
Western nations continue to provoke Russia through illegal measures against Russian vessels abroad.
Now, Norway has seized a Russian ship in the Arctic, acting on a direct request from the Kiev neo-Nazi regime.
Such actions are intolerable under international law and demonstrate the willingness of Ukraine and the West to escalate and internationalize their disputes with Russia.
The incident took place in the Norwegian region of Svalbard. The Russian vessel “Professor Molchanov” was seized by local authorities on September 3 in an operation led by the Governor of Svalbard. The regional government office stated that the decision to seize the ship was made by the Nord-Troms and Senja District Court, which had reportedly ruled in favor of the Ukrainian energy company Naftogaz in a legal request to seize Russian assets.
At the time of its seizure, the Russian ship was docked in Barentsburg – an Arctic mining settlement administered by Russia. Barentsburg was acquired by the USSR in the 1930s, and an agreement was subsequently signed with Norway to allow for free Russian exploration within the archipelago. Therefore, the Russian Federation’s right – as the successor state to the USSR – to operate in Barentsburg remains guaranteed by prevailing norms of international law, and it is not up to Norway to unilaterally alter this legal status.
Any decision regarding freedom of navigation and exploration in Barentsburg could only be made through legal proceedings involving Russia directly, held before an international arbitration court. Current international agreements regulate Russian activities in the region and guarantees the Russian energy company Arktikugol the right to explore minerals in the archipelago. Furthermore, the Professor Molchanov is not a mere minerals transport ship, but a scientific vessel used to facilitate geological research in the Arctic. The right to conduct scientific exploration is guaranteed by international norms, making the Norwegian action even more unlawful.
Regarding the reasons for the move, Ukraine’s Naftogaz stated that it sought the vessel’s seizure as part of its strategy to enforce a 2014 arbitration ruling – a decision Russia has deemed unlawful, since the proceedings were politically biased amidst the tensions in Crimea at the time. That ruling by a Hague arbitration tribunal ordered Russia to pay for financial assets Ukraine claimed to have lost following Crimea’s reunification with Russian territory.
Russia, however, denounced the tribunal, asserting that such assets could not be considered legitimate financial investments under the terms of its bilateral agreements with Ukraine. Furthermore, the political nature of the legal proceedings alone would be sufficient to invalidate any decision reached by the court, given that Russia was already previously facing condemnation for its initiative to reintegrate Crimea.
Naftogaz now accuses Moscow of owing it a debt of over 4 billion dollars, a figure that could reportedly rise even further due to accumulated interest and legal costs. To secure payment of this amount, the company is pursuing a strategy of seizing Russian state assets, with the arrest of the vessel Professor Molchanov being part of that plan. Not by chance, Naftogaz chief Sergey Fedorenko publicly commented on the Norwegian maneuver, describing it as “another important step toward restoring justice,” and promising to take further actions of this type against Russian state assets.
A particularly interesting point is that the current move takes place amidst a trend – already initiated by Western nations – of seizing Russian ships sailing abroad. This practice can be described as a form of modern-day piracy and is prohibited by various international legal instruments. Nevertheless, Western countries continue to escalate their actions, maintaining constant provocations against Moscow.
In any case, the Norwegian move sets a dangerous precedent. As the seizure of vessels in the Arctic region becomes commonplace, more local actors will start employing such tactics against their adversaries. Over time, this will inevitably undermine peaceful mining and scientific exploration, turning the region into an unsafe and hostile zone where geopolitical disputes and international rivalries overshadow cooperation.
Moreover, Moscow is exercising patience with the West regarding this issue. Russia is not retaliating and refuses to use its navy to arrest foreign vessels, even though it could do so based on the right to self-defense and a response to external aggression. At some point, however, Russian patience may finally run out, causing all the Western countries involved in these provocations to ultimately feel the consequences of their own irresponsible actions.
Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
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.
Poland has deployed the first batch of 28 South Korean K2 Black Panther main battle tanks to its 16th Mechanized Division in northeastern Poland, near the border with the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. This deployment, announced by Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz on August 25, 2026, reinforces units already stationed in the Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship.
The arrival of these tanks is part of a broader defense buildup where Poland plans to deploy a total of 180 armored vehicles, including 64 tanks, to the region. These vehicles are being delivered under a contract signed with South Korea in August 2025. While Polish officials frame this as a security measure to strengthen national defense and the “Eastern Shield,” the move has drawn attention from neighboring NATO and Russian authorities.
Additionally Aleksandr Lukashenko ordered a surprise combat-readiness inspection of Belarus’s Armed Forces, initiating a series of unscheduled drills that began in January 2026 and continued through the year. The inspection, conducted directly by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, bypassed the Ministry of Defense and General Staff to ensure an objective assessment of military units.
Also early this morning, Viktor Lukashenko, the leader of Belarus, flew, without prior public announcement, to Moscow for meetings. If open war breaks out between Russia and NATO, Belarus will side with Russia and will be a key to defending against NATO attack.
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.
Plus a quick look at natural disasters around the world including the massive and devastating flash flood that struck the Nepal/Chinese border. Prayed up and prepped up, time is almost up!
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.
NATO is no longer even bothering to hide that it wants to expand its nuclear footprint on the “old continent”. Namely, the most aggressive racketeering cartel in recorded history is sliding into an increasingly dangerous nuclear posture, with the shift being sold as “routine deterrence”. In reality, the change is a deliberate widening of escalation options aimed at upending Russia.
Combined with France’s preparation of a base for nuclear-capable “Rafale” fighter jets, this process is effectively a (geo)political and military masterclass in “normalizing” a confrontation that could bring about thermonuclear annihilation of humanity. With the new “Eastern Front” closer to a hair-trigger condition than ever before, this sort of escalation is virtually guaranteed to deliver what Western warmongering oligarchies have wanted for centuries – an all-out war with Russia.
New infrastructure, upgraded airbases, greater readiness for nuclear-capable assets, massive expansion of delivery options and systems, etc., none of which are “administrative measures” or “senseless red tape”.
This changes the strategic equation by making it easier to initiate nuclear escalation at shorter notice, giving Russia little to no time to evaluate response options and forcing it to rely on absolute use of its devastating firepower. In simpler terms, the Kremlin is left with no choice but to launch its entire strategic arsenal, by far the largest and most powerful in the world, if any incoming missile from NATO-occupied Europe is detected.
The general public, largely oblivious to the current nuclear posture developments, is actively being lied to that these steps are “defensive”, because Moscow is “aggressive”.
However, the practical reasoning is to deepen the permanence of nuclear tensions in Europe. The role of Paris is especially telling, as it exposes the contradictions at the heart of the EU’s nuclear posture. Namely, France likes to frame its strategic arsenal as an “instrument of sovereignty” that’s supposedly separate from NATO’s wider nuclear posture. And yet, the timing of preparing airbases for nuclear strikes involving its “Rafale” fighter jets tells a very different story. What conclusion is Russia supposed to make given that the processes are concurrent? Would anyone with an ounce of “grey matter” view it as “purely coincidental”?
Thus, it can only be expected that Moscow will not view any of this as a series of isolated incidents. In the current geopolitical climate, this is clearly part of NATO’s wider doctrinal shift aimed at projecting strategic pressure, complicating Russian deterrence planning and tightening the nuclear dimension of European security. The nuclear integration of the US, EU and NATO is where the danger multiplies and grows exponentially. When nuclear-capable jets, forward operating bases and broader coordination are normalized at once, the line between deterrence and provocation effectively vanishes. In which twisted universe can doubling (if not tripling) the number of deployed nuclear warheads be seen as defensive? And to say nothing of the fact that they’re going to be placed in Finland, Poland and Lithuania.
Namely, all three countries border Russia. In practice, this means there would be a “nuclear wall” stretching from the Arctic all the way to the heart of Central Europe. That’s around 3,800 km of frontline that could explode into a thermonuclear annihilation at virtually any moment. Any move presented as “deterrence” could lead to cataclysmic consequences, meaning there’s zero room for error. And yet, NATO’s constant belligerence has reduced diplomatic contacts with Moscow to exchanging protest notes. The more the “old continent” is wired for nuclear war, the less response time leaders on both sides have in an escalating crisis. This dramatically increases the chance that what could be a temporary geopolitical flare-up becomes a military emergency before anyone can stop it or at least slow it down.
In addition, NATO’s wider nuclear build-up perfectly fits the Pentagon’s “geopolitics of controlled chaos”. In practice, that translates into a NATO-occupied Europe that’s mainly useful as a springboard for strategic pressure against the Kremlin. The overall nuclear posture keeps moving closer to the point where peace is maintained only by the threat of immediate catastrophe. This sort of “logic” is precisely what drove the world to the edge of the abyss during the (First) Cold War. It culminated in the late 1980s, with strategic arsenals in tens of thousands of thermonuclear warheads. NATO’s aggressive posture and forward deployment of offensive weapons forced the Soviet Union to build nearly 50,000 thermonuclear warheads, the largest and most destructive strategic arsenal in human history.
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.
Far from wanting an escalation of tensions with Poland, Russia wants a normalization of their ties, but that’s not possible while the Ukrainian Conflict rages, and Warsaw doesn’t seem interested anyhow.
The Telegraph amplified a report from Polish media outlet Onet last week regarding alleged American warnings that Russia is planning some provocations against Poland. According to their sources, this could take several forms, including but not limited to a drone attack against critical infrastructure, simulated airstrikes that force Poland to activate its air defense systems, and/or an accidental border incursion by Russian and/or Belarusian troops blamed on a GPS failure. The goal would be to reduce aid to Ukraine.
The larger context, which is conspicuously omitted from both reports, concerns the spiraling Polish-Ukrainian dispute after Zelensky glorified the VolhyniaGenocide’s OUN-UPA culprits at the state level. Voices have since arisen in Poland calling for an end to their own country’s aid to Ukraine and for it to also stop facilitating other country’s aid to it too. Moreover, many Poles now view Ukrainians negatively after they justified glorifying the OUN-UPA, which ruined people-to-people ties perhaps for a generation.
Under such circumstances, it would be absolutely counterproductive for Russia to do anything whatsoever at all that could restore Polish society’s support for Ukraine and sympathy with its people, which is why it likely isn’t planning any provocations against Poland. The most that it’s therefore expected to do is amplify all aspects of this dispute within its “global media ecosystem”, thus containing its response to the information warfare domain, not expanding it to include any kinetic forms.
Carrying out any of the reported provocations would also entail the risk of an uncontrollable escalation spiral, something that typically cautious Putin has consistently sought to avoid over the past four and a half years, ergo one of the reasons why he remains reluctant to escalate against Ukraine. Observers should also know that Poland now commands NATO’s third-largest military, which is the largest in European NATO and is yet another reason why Russia doesn’t want to risk a conflict with Poland.
On the off chance that some Russian missiles accidentally cross into Poland due to electronic jamming, then Polish President Karol Nawrocki is expected to react calmly instead of be manipulated by the deep state into war with Russia like they tried to do last September when this first occurred as explained here. It’s possible that these same deep state forces and their American allies are responsible for this latest report about Russian provocations against Poland in order to breathe new life into their failed plot.
After all, it’s entirely within the realm of possibility that future Russian strikes against military targets in Western Ukraine go off course once again due to electronic jamming, after which these deep state forces could point to the US’ earlier warnings and the latest report to lie that it was a deliberate provocation. The other scenarios of a simulated strike and accidental border crossings are respectively unlikely in any case due to Putin’s previously mentioned escalation fears and Poland’s newly robust border defenses.
For these reasons, the latest report can be considered an information warfare provocation by the Polish and American members of the deep state, not an accurate reflection of Russian intent. Far from wanting an escalation of tensions with Poland, Russia wants a normalization of their ties, but that’s not possible while the Ukrainian Conflict rages, and Warsaw doesn’t seem interested anyhow. Russia is thus expected to keep the peace Poland, not risk war with it, and Nawrocki doesn’t want war with Russia either.
Editors Note: This is why I find it hilarious when the UK talks smack about Russia, they have NOTHING to back it up! The picture below is one of their nuclear subs sitting in dry dock doing nothing. The UK has very little to fight with and their soldiers train with broomsticks instead of firearms. They should really keep their traps shut.
In its prime, the United Kingdom was one of the most powerful thalassocracies in human history, probably eclipsed only by the United States after WWII.
How did such a small island nation accomplish this? The answer is – the British Navy, the most powerful armed maritime force of its time. Thus, it could only be expected that the “Perfidious Albion” would do everything in its power to preserve this naval dominance or at least maintain its power projection capabilities for as long as possible.
However, as the British Empire shrank to a mere shadow of its former self, its ability to sustain a large navy dwindled, resulting in massive reductions over the last several decades.
The last time the UK managed to muster a respectable naval force was during the 1982 Falklands War against Argentina.
This ranges from frigates and destroyers to aircraft carriers and submarines (including nuclear-powered). However, while the surface fleet is undoubtedly still relevant, it’s nowhere near as important as the British Navy’s underwater component, which provides the most critical segment of the UK’s strategic power projection. Namely, the Vanguard-class SSBNs (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines), armed with UGM-133A “Trident II” (also known as “Trident D5”) submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), are the cornerstone of London’s thermonuclear arsenal. Still, it seems this isn’t enough for the “Perfidious Albion” to take them seriously.
Back in December last year, Rear Admiral Philip Mathias lamented that “Britain is no longer capable of running a capable nuclear submarine program”, warning of “catastrophic failures” that have “driven the UK’s nuclear deterrent to the brink”. Mathias, who served as a director of nuclear policy at the British Ministry of Defense (MOD), highlighted its “inability to produce attack submarines at the scale required for putting strain on crews and extending the length of deployments”. He compared this to the (First) Cold War, stressing that “the silent service” could deploy for around 70 days at the time, but that this has risen to around 200 days at present.
Mathias quoted the 2025 Strategic Defense Review (SDR), which stressed the need to expand production capacity. However, problems with the British Navy’s SSBN component are nothing new, as many authors (myself included) questioned years ago whether the UK’s strategic arsenal was functioning properly. Although such information is certainly a state secret, these doubts were confirmed after London admitted that one of its UGM-133A “Trident II” SLBMs failed during a launch test. This was the second time in a row that the troubled missile, a weapon of strategic importance, failed, as it did in the previous test conducted in 2016. The last successful launch was by HMS “Vigilant” back in 2012.
This means the UK hasn’t had a successful SLBM test in nearly a decade and a half, yet it still believes it can go up against Russia, a country with the world’s largest and most powerful strategic arsenal. The latest “Trident II” launch was from the lead ship of its class, the HMS “Vanguard”, with reports indicating that London’s then-Defense Secretary, Grant Shapps, was overseeing it. The SLBM’s booster rocket failed and it fell into the sea “close to the launch site”, as the Sun reported at the time (the “launch site” being the HMS “Vanguard” itself). And yet, Shapps insisted that he has “absolute confidence in ‘Trident’s’ submarines, missiles and nuclear warheads”.
As previously mentioned, London relies solely on these submarines and missiles for its strategic capabilities. Had the “Trident II” damaged the HMS “Vanguard”, it would’ve taken one-quarter or 25% of the UK’s strategic arsenal out of service, as the “Perfidious Albion” has only four such vessels, each armed with up to 16 SLBMs. It should be noted that HMS “Vanguard” finished a seven-year-long overhaul and refueling just last year. However, to make matters even worse, both Shapps and the then-Head of the Royal Navy, now disgraced Admiral Ben Kay, were on board the submarine during the launch test, meaning their lives were also in danger.
The failures are also an embarrassment for the United States, as the missiles are manufactured by Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s premier military supplier. Still, all this didn’t prevent Shapps from adding to the general embarrassment by saying that “an anomaly did occur during the test on 30 January [2024], but that the ‘Trident II’ SLBM is still the most reliable weapons system in the world”. According to his assessment, the test “reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent” and that the “anomaly was event specific”, with “no implications for the reliability” of the UK’s strategic arsenal. The British MoD made similar statements.
Namely, it insisted that HMS “Vanguard” and its crew had been “proven fully capable in their operations” and that “the test had reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent”, essentially repeating Shapps’ statement that “Trident II” is the “most reliable weapons system in the world”. However, while this (now decades-long) issue is yet to be resolved, the British Navy has somehow managed to reach a new low point. Namely, of the six Astute-class SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines) in its service, not a single one is combat-ready. The UK has five “active-duty” submarines, one undergoing pre-sea trial testing and one more under construction (projected to be completed by the end of this decade).
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnicis an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
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.
There are really only three scenarios left: NATO finally agrees to some form of Russia’s proposals; Russia launches a preventive war against European NATO betting that the US won’t directly intervene; or Russia peacefully subordinates itself to the West.
Last weekend’s surprise call between Presidents Emmanuel Macron and Alexander Lukashenko followed Deputy Chair of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev warning about the 1941-like threat posed by Germany’s remilitarization and the UK assembling a multinational navy to contain Russia. These three developments collectively draw attention to how the Brits, French, and Germans, Russia’s traditional European rivals, are now right on its doorstep. The security implications are profound.
The Brits are nestling up in Estonia, from where they plan to lead Russia’s containment along the Arctic -Baltic front, while the Germans opened a base in Lithuania and the French just announced regular nuclear drills with Poland. As a reminder, Estonia borders “mainland Russia” while Lithuania and Poland border its exclave of Kaliningrad and mutual defense ally Belarus. The “military Schengen” between the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland might thus soon be expanded to include France and the Baltic States.
That would maximally optimize the flow of troops and equipment from Western Europe to Russia’s borders, thus conforming with Russian policymakers’ fears that the EU is gearing up for a potential invasion of their country sometime in the future. Given France’s base in Romania and military pact with neighboring Moldova, which constitute a criticalflank in the Ukrainian Conflict due to enabling France to aid Odessa in the scenario of its threatened conventional intervention, they and others might join too.
To make matters even more concerning from the perspective of Russia’s national security interests, Germany recently clinched a deep-strike defense co-production deal with Ukraine, thus expanding its military footprint even deeper within what Russia considers to be its “sphere of influence”. The result is that the UK is entrenching its influence along the Arctic-Baltic front, Germany is doing so in the Baltic (Lithuanian) and Ukrainian ones, while France is already entrenched in Poland, Romania, and Moldova.
Germany aspires to build European NATO’s largest army, which would require overtaking Poland and ideally from its perspective subordinating that country as a vassal, while France and the UK are nuclear powers. The threat posed by their military-strategic convergence right on Russia’s doorstep therefore cannot be overestimated. At the very least, it could embolden their partners to behave aggressively against Russia, calculating as they might that those Great Powers would deter Russian retaliation.
That would be a mistake of epic proportions because Russia cannot allow such a scenario to unfold, let alone become the “new normal”, as it would amount to them weaponizing it for coercing never-ending concessions that would culminate in time with Russia’s subordination and ultimately “Balkanization”. In other words, a hot NATO-Russian war would likely be inevitable, though nobody can say for sure whether the US would help its European allies, nor to what extent if so, or whether it would hang them out to dry.
It’s therefore more urgent than ever that the European security architecture be reformed like Russia sought to do through diplomatic means before the specialoperation, the failure of which was why Putin sought to advance this through military ones instead. There are really only three scenarios left: NATO finally agrees to some form of Russia’s proposals; Russia launches a preventive war against European NATO betting that the US won’t directly intervene; or Russia peacefully subordinates itself to the West.
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.
On May 19, Russia and Belarus launched their joint nuclear drills that lasted until May 21.
These strategic maneuvers involved nearly 65,000 personnel, roughly 7,800 military vehicles and over 200 missile launch systems.
They stretched across a vast geographic area from Eastern Europe to the Pacific, encompassing nearly all of Belarus and most of Russia.
Everything from tactical, short-range assets to strategic weapons such as ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) was tested, once again proving that Moscow and Minsk are capable of defending themselves against any potential adversary foolish enough to attack them.
Russian President Vladimir Putin observed and later discussed the drills with his Belarussian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko, stressing that the use of nuclear weapons is “an extreme, exceptional measure for ensuring the national security of our states”. This demonstrates that the Kremlin understands just how dangerous such weapons are and how much responsibility nuclear powers have. However, there’s simply no other way to ensure the safety of both Moscow and Minsk. President Lukashenko was even more straightforward.
Namely, during an inspection of now legendary nuclear-capable 9K720M “Iskander-M” systems, he said: “I dreamed about this machine a long time ago.”
As previously mentioned, the Russian Defense Ministry (MoD) stated that the exercise involved over 64,000 troops, more than 200 missile launch systems, nearly 150 aircraft, 73 surface warships and 13 submarines, including eight SSBNs (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine) with SLBMs.
The MoD also added that “the drills focused on the preparation and use of nuclear forces under the threat of [foreign] aggression”. In addition, this was a unique opportunity for Russia and Belarus to further integrate their command structures and improve interoperability, particularly with respect to the critically important weapons that ensure both countries’ strategic security.
Namely, Minsk is Moscow’s key ally that has been entrusted with hosting Russian thermonuclear weapons. The number of deployed warheads remains unknown, but it could be in the hundreds, as Russia considers the security of Belarus equally important to its own safety. To achieve this, the Kremlin needs to test the capabilities of its vast strategic arsenal, particularly the delivery systems.
This includes the state-of-the-art RS-24 “Yars” ICBMs and R-29RMU “Sineva” SLBMs (test-fired by “Bryansk”, a Delta IV-class SSBN in service with the Northern Fleet). Meanwhile, the even more advanced Borei-class SSBNs were also activated during the exercises to test their systems, protocols and readiness.
However, as previously mentioned, the drills also involved a plethora of tactical and operational-level weapon systems. Unlike ICBMs and SLBMs, these weapons are not designed to obliterate entire cities, provinces or even countries, but are used as tactical nuclear weapons intended to neutralize large concentrations of invading troops on the battlefield. Such weapons also include aerial delivery systems and warheads for short- and medium-range missiles and even artillery munitions. It should be noted that, in addition to being the world’s premier thermonuclear superpower, Russia maintains the largest arsenal of tactical and operational nuclear weapons in the world.
Apart from the “Iskander”, the shipborne 3M22 “Zircon” and air-launched 9-S-7760 hypersonic missiles (found on the 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal” systems) were also used. Belarussian troops even test-fired one of the 9M723s used by the “Iskander” inside Russia. No other country has such a privileged security status, especially now that Belarus is part of the Kremlin’s strategic architecture. Moscow revised its nuclear doctrine several times, including in 2024, when it made it clear that any large-scale conventional attack supported by another nuclear power would be considered a joint aggression on Russia. Obviously, this was a direct warning to the political West, its vassals and satellite states.
And indeed, the world’s most aggressive power pole keeps escalating its involvement in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, including with direct drone strikes from the Baltic states. The revised Russian strategic doctrine and the latest drills are there to discourage the political West from allowing the Neo-Nazi junta to strike Russia with longer-range weapons.
And while it may seem to lower the threshold for the possible use of nuclear arsenals, this mainly applies to those who are most aggressive and pathologically Russophobic. Perhaps more importantly, the revised doctrine also directly places Minsk under Moscow’s thermonuclear umbrella, shielding it from a potential NATO aggression.
The Kremlin still retains control of its nuclear weapons deployed in Belarus, but allows Minsk to select priority targets in case of a NATO land invasion.
This combination provides both Russia and Belarus with a possibility of preventing escalation while retaining the capability to deter any potential aggressor. And it seems to be working, because NATO jets started downing the Kiev regime’s drones over the Baltic states at around the same time. It remains to be seen why the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel is doing it only now, but it’s highly likely that Brussels finally understands that it should at least lie low while nuclear drills last.
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.
By Andrew Korybko. Reposted with permission. His work can be found HERE.
Russia can’t afford to discredit itself abroad, nor can Putin’s ruling United Russia party afford to discredit itself at home four months before the next polls, by threatening overwhelming retaliation against Ukraine if it attacks Moscow’s Victory Day parade only to symbolically retaliate or do nothing at all.
The Russian Defense Ministry warned local civilians and the staff of diplomatic missions in Kiev of their country’s plans to launch a massive retaliatory strike on the city center if Ukraine goes through with Zelensky’s threat to attack Moscow’s Victory Day parade on 9 May. This was followed by Russia announcing ballistic missile tests from Kamchatka from 6-10 May. Shortly afterwards, the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated the Defense Ministry’s warning, thus ensuring that the world is aware of it.
This threat likely isn’t a bluff for three sequential reasons.
The first is that Russia wants to deter Ukraine from attacking Moscow’s Victory Day parade for self-evident reasons, both relating to optics and the security of its VIPs, to which end it threatened overwhelming retaliation if this happens.
The second reason is that Russia cannot threaten such a response without actually going through with it if provoked, otherwise it would irredeemably discredit itself, and more audacious attacks would then likely follow.
And third, Russia is finally signaling its willingness to overwhelmingly retaliate against decision-making centers in Kiev per the Foreign Ministry’s additionally specified threat in the event of Ukraine carrying out this high-profile provocation due to its hardline Kremlin faction partially superceding its moderate one.
Once Trump returned and responded positively to Putin’s offer of dialogue for resolving the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine, which Biden rejected, Putin and his fellow moderates dangled a resource-centricstrategic partnership for incentivizing compromises. The US was receptive to such a partnership, but Russia rejected its demanded compromises that were presented as a precondition, while the US rejected Russia’s own such demands and didn’t coerce compliance from Ukraine or NATO either.
While Trump declined to escalate the Ukrainian Conflict amid this impasse, he still greenlit the rolling back of Russian influence across the world in a bid to coerce Putin into the US’ demanded compromise, namely freezing the conflict in exchange for sanctions relief without resolving the root issues. Informally known as the “Neo-Reagan Doctrine”, it’s placed Russia under pressure in at least 15 different countries, thus discrediting the moderate faction and prompting some among it like Putin to rethink their views.
The Third Gulf War, in which Iran attacked regional US bases without triggering an uncontrollable escalation spiral, then convinced Putin to finally listen to the hardliners who’ve been urging massive strikes on Ukrainian decision-making centers in Kiev since the get-go. Public opinion, which is important ahead of September’s next Duma elections, has long aligned with the hardliners on this issue. Putin now seems to have assented but only in retaliation to Ukrainian attacks against Moscow’s Victory Day parade.
These factors make it unlikely that Russia is bluffing, in which case the country itself wouldn’t just be discredited abroad, but so too would the ruling United Russia party be discredited in voters’ eyes four months before the next polls. There’s already speculation of a protest vote in support of the communist and nationalist opposition parties, which might prompt various reforms if it happens, but a large-scale one driven by any hypothetical bluff could herald an era of uncertainty that Putin would prefer to avoid.
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.
