Tag Archives: NATO

British soldiers in Ukraine would be legitimate target for Russia

Posted on by Leave a comment
silhouette of soldiers walking

Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

UK’s new defense secretary, Grant Shapps, is already involved in controversy, publicly proposing escalations in the Ukrainian conflict. During an interview to a Western media outlet, Shapps revealed that he plans to send British soldiers to Ukrainian territory, where they are expected to train Kiev’s troops. The case generated a Russian reaction and a failed attempt at clarification by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

The newly appointed secretary stated that there are plans for the British training program for Ukrainian soldiers to be conducted inside the Ukrainian territory. Furthermore, he said that British production of weapons and military equipment for Kiev could also be relocated to Ukraine, mainly in the west of the country, where the damage from the conflict is not so significant.

“I was talking today about eventually getting the training brought closer and actually into Ukraine as well (…) Particularly in the west of the country, I think the opportunity now is to bring more things ‘in country’, and not just training… but also we’re seeing BAE [an UK defense firm], for example, move into manufacturing ‘in country’, for example. (…) I’m keen to see other British [military] companies do their bit as well by doing the same thing. So I think there will be a move to get more training and production in the country”, he told The Telegraph’s journalists.

In the interview, Shapps also claimed to have spoken with President Vladimir Zelensky and other Ukrainian state officials about the possibility of British Royal Navy assisting Ukrainian “civilian” vessels, protecting commercial ships from attacks launched by Russian armed forces. He did not clarify how this “help” would be possible, but his words suggest that the British Navy could use direct deterrent methods against Russia, which sounds like a serious threat.

Obviously, all the measures suggested by Shapps will significantly escalate the conflict if they are actually implemented. British soldiers on Ukrainian soil would be a legitimate target for Russian attacks, even if their role on the battlefield is only to instruct Ukrainian troops, without directly participating in the fighting. All foreign military personnel working on Kiev’s side in Ukraine are legitimate targets, regardless of their role.

In the same sense, British weapons factories would also certainly be targeted by Russian artillery. Enemy military infrastructure will always be a target for Moscow, which is why British defense companies planning to move to Ukraine must be aware that their facilities will be at great risk due to the high-precision strikes regularly carried out by the Russian armed forces.

As far as vessels are concerned, the situation seems even more delicate. Russia decided to neutralize all Ukrainian ships in the Black Sea because Moscow’s intelligence discovered that many allegedly civilian vessels were carrying weapons and ammunition hidden in containers of grain and food items. This is a strategic decision by the Russian authorities and no country is able to prevent these attacks from occurring. If the British Navy becomes involved in hostilities in the Black Sea to “protect” Ukrainian ships, the consequences could be disastrous, as Moscow will not accept any type of Western direct “deterrence” within the special operation zone.

Russian authorities commented on the case, emphasizing the consequences of Shapps’ plans. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev even observed on how this could lead to World War III, as the Russians would be forced to attack NATO military personnel – no longer as mercenaries, but as UK’s official troops.

So, reacting to comments on the topic, the day following Shapps’ irresponsible statements, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak made a declaration trying to “clarify” the situation. He said that no UK instructors will be sent to Ukraine now, asserting that Shapps only meant that “it might well be possible one day in the future for us to do some of that training in Ukraine.”

“But that’s something for the long term, not the here and now, there are no British soldiers that will be sent to fight in the current conflict. That’s not what’s happening,” he explained.

Sunak however failed to clarify how the British Navy could play a more active role in “protecting” Ukrainian ships, as promised by Shapps. It appears that Sunak just tried to minimize the public impact of Shapps’ irresponsible words, but, in practice, the Prime Minister’s “clarification” was not enough to ease tensions and rule out the possibility of escalation.

Also, by stating that British soldiers could go to Ukraine “in the future”, Sunak is also making it clear that the UK will continue to promote a bellicose policy in Ukraine. One of the objectives of the Russian operation is to make Ukraine a neutral country after the demilitarization process is completed. Obviously, a neutral country cannot receive NATO troops to train its soldiers, so Sunak is just making it clear that London will not cooperate for peace at any time.

In reaction to this, it remains for the Russians not only to seek absolute victory through military means, but also to liberate even more territories, preventing Ukraine from returning to being a NATO occupation zone after the end of hostilities. For Moscow, the absence of NATO troops in Ukraine is an existential and non-negotiable condition, which is why all necessary measures to achieve this objective will be taken.

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Source: InfoBrics

Nagorno-Karabakh separatist Republic ceases to exist

Posted on by Leave a comment

Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

The history of the breakaway Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) appears to be coming to an end. After the humiliation suffered by the local people with yet another military defeat by Azerbaijani troops, the local government opted for the dissolution of the secessionist state, dissolving public institutions and handing over the local territory to Azerbaijani forces.

On September 28, Artsakh President Samvel Shahramanyan issued a decree to end the state’s existence by January. In an official statement it was literally said that “the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) ceases to exist”. Regarding the local people, it is said that ethnic Armenian citizens must “familiarize themselves with the conditions of reintegration offered by the Republic of Azerbaijan.”

The measure was taken “in connection with the current difficult military-political situation” and aims to save the lives of local citizens amid the growing process of ethnic cleansing promoted by Azerbaijani troops. To cease hostilities once and for all and guarantee conditions of coexistence between Armenians and Azeris, the authorities decided to give up political separatism, concluding a definitive process of capitulation.

As a region with an ethnic Armenian majority within the Azerbaijani territory, since 1991, Nagorno-Karabakh has struggled for international recognition. Seen by the global community as part of Azerbaijan, the Republic has only been officially recognized by other similarly separatist governments. However, relations with Armenia have guaranteed some level of stability for the region over the decades, avoiding direct conflicts with Baku.

This situation began to change radically in 2018, when Armenia experienced a pro-Western color revolution. The result of the local regime change was the rise of the current prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, whose policies focused on reducing ties with Russia and moving closer to Western powers. With Moscow being the side most interested in maintaining peace in the Caucasus, the worsening of relations between both countries could have no other end than catastrophe.

In 2020, Armenia/Artsakh and Azerbaijan had a new military confrontation in which the Armenian forces were defeated, and there has been a strong regional security crisis since then. Victorious in the war, Baku increased its anti-Armenian policies several times in the following years, including by imposing a blockade on humanitarian aid to Artsakh between 2022 and 2023.

The deterioration of local security reached an extreme point when earlier in September the Azerbaijani government ordered the start of an “anti-terrorist operation” with the alleged aim of neutralizing Armenian military facilities in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. The strikes killed dozens of ethnic Armenian civilians, but even so Yerevan cowardly refused to protect its people, claiming to have no troops in Artsakh and demanding military action against Baku from Russian peacekeepers.

Since 2020, Moscow has maintained peacekeepers in Artsakh under the terms of the trilateral agreement that ended hostilities that year. These troops, however, are few in number and their work is focused on peaceful and non-violent operations, such as rescue, demining and humanitarian aid. The Russians are not allowed to act militarily against either side in the conflict, which is why Pashinyan’s claims that it would be “Russian responsibility” to prevent the Baku operation are absolutely unfounded.

The Armenian government also requested Western help but did not receive any security guarantee – which was already expected, since the best scenario for Western interests is precisely chaos in the Caucasus. So, without any international support, the defense forces of Nagorno-Karabakh became absolutely incapable of protecting their claimed territory, leaving no option other than military and political capitulation.

Obviously, the decision to end the existence of the Republic was not accepted by all local politicians and separatist activists. For example, Artak Beglaryan, a former state minister and human rights ombudsman of Artsakh, said in social media: “Artsakh President’s decree on dissolving the Republic is illegal & illegitimate: 1. No President has the power to dissolve the Republic formed by the people with referendum; 2. That decree was signed as a result of Azerbaijani harsh aggression & threat of force. It’s null & void.”

From a legal point of view, this type of argument can be valid. Obviously, it is not a president’s right to dissolve an entire state by decree. But the particular case of Artsakh must be analyzed carefully, as it is a non-recognized separatist republic, and therefore does not have a conventional legal state structure.

Furthermore, even if “invalid”, Shahramanyan’s decision only admits the reality of Artsakh’s current situation. The Azeris already control the territory and if there is resistance on the part of the Armenians there will be greater chances of hostilities escalating. So, in practice, the government’s decision works as a conciliatory attempt to peacefully reintegrate the Armenian people into Azerbaijan and stop ethnic cleansing by Baku.

The problem is that this is unlikely to work in long term. Azerbaijan is a Turkish proxy and Ankara has expansionist interests in the Caucasus that will not be limited to the retaking of Nagorno-Karabakh. Indeed, there is a great possibility of Baku carrying out raids against Armenia’s undisputed territory in the future.

NATO’s objective is to place as many troops as possible close to the Russian border, which is why a Turkish incursion against Armenia would be “useful” for the West as it could “legitimize” the sending of forces under the excuse of “peacekeeping” – resulting in practice in the mere division of the Caucasus between Turkish and Western NATO forces. Only a responsible policy of friendship and military cooperation with Moscow will be able to avoid this.

 You can follow Lucas on 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. 

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

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

Funding Goal has been met and a Russia/NATO war update

Posted on by Leave a comment

Thank you 🙏 so much for your prayers and support. I’m always humbled when God moves and things change in a day or even a “in a twinkling of an eye” !

Thank you once again and here is a war with Russia update.

Here’s NATO and US troops in Moldova 🇲🇩 and it’s dated 2 days ago. This was a scheduled exercise and it doesn’t seem to show thousands of troops but rather hundreds.

I found this official press release that says it’s just a small scale exercise. https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/ArticleViewPressRelease/Article/3522645/news-release-us-romanian-and-moldovan-forces-conduct-exercise-rapid-trident-in/

Meanwhile as I reported the other day Russia is saying that NAT9 is now directly involved, not only with their intel and guidance but also with tank crews, snipers, special forces and more. More info as I get it but I am of the belief there’s been a lot more build up of NATO troops than we think.

Prayed up and prepped up!

Wests demands elections in Ukraine

Posted on by Leave a comment

Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

It seems clear that the West wants to remove Vladimir Zelensky – and is apparently trying to do so in a “democratic” way. According to media reports, Western officials are pressuring Ukrainian authorities to hold presidential elections next year, ignoring the fact that the country is under martial law. This makes it clear that there is a “rush” on the part of NATO to put in power in Kiev a more “efficient” leader than the current president.

The information was published by the Washington Post on September 24. According to the newspaper, many relevant Western politicians are involved in “negotiations” with their Ukrainian counterparts to hold elections despite the conflict. On the American political scenario, both Republicans and Democrats seem united on this agenda, which shows how the issue is becoming a kind of “priority” for all pro-war American politicians.

The main rhetoric used by those supporting the elections is the supposed “need” for Kiev to prove its “commitment to democracy”. Until now, one of the main arguments for systematically sending weapons to Ukraine has precisely been the narrative that Ukrainians are “defenders of democracy”, while Russia is a kind of “dictatorship” or “autocracy”. It is believed in the West that if Ukraine loses there could be a global “anti-democratic wave”, with countries going through de-democratization processes and becoming authoritarian regimes.

Obviously, this narrative is false, weak and increasingly unpopular. The conflict in Ukraine has nothing to do with a clash between “democracies and dictatorships”, but with Moscow’s need to protect the people of Donbass and neutralize NATO’s influence in the Russian strategic environment. Furthermore, neo-Nazi Ukraine is obviously not a democracy, and Western public opinion is gradually understanding this. With so many images, videos and reports showing authoritarian and illegal practices such as forced recruitment, murder of civilians and torture of prisoners, it already seems clear that the so-called “Ukrainian democracy” is nothing more than mere war propaganda.

So, faced with this problem, there is a “task” to be accomplished by Ukrainians: to appear democratic to Western citizens again. Only in this way will it be possible to legitimize the sending of weapons and money to Kiev, despite all the negative consequences that this military aid brings to Western taxpayers – such as economic, social crisis and inflation. For the West, the easiest way for Kiev to appear democratic is to hold elections.

Obviously, the electoral process in times of war is an extremely complicated thing to do. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians are on the front lines, while millions of other citizens have fled the country. Many civilians live close to the areas where hostilities are taking place, in addition to the fact that Ukraine considers as its territories many regions that have already been liberated and pacified by Russian troops. In practice, elections cannot really be “fair” and “democratic” – but what really matters is that they appear to be.

“Holding free and fair elections in wartime is virtually impossible and also ill-advised, according to Ukrainian officials, election experts and democracy advocates. Roughly one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory is now occupied by Russian forces. Millions of Ukrainians are displaced and many are living outside the country. Tens of thousands of soldiers are deployed to the front. The pressure to hold elections, despite such obstacles, highlights the constant demand by some in the West that Ukraine prove its commitment to democracy”, the article reads, adding that, despite risks, “Kyiv officials also cannot dismiss the idea of holding elections out of hand and risk alienating key political players in the West, who are demanding elections and are crucial for Ukraine to maintain international financial and military assistance.”

However, it would be naive to think that this Western pressure is only due to this “democratic” reason. The news must be analyzed also taking into account recent reports about Zelensky’s unpopularity and the growing rejection of the Ukrainian president among Western leaders. Zelensky is no longer seen as a “hero” or a “great leader”, but as an inconvenient, weak and inefficient public figure, who was unable to achieve any success in his so-called “counteroffensive”, despite having massive numbers of NATO-provided heavy weapons.

As revealed in recently leaked Pentagon documents, American officials believe that Zelensky is “exhausting his political capacity rapidly.” So, for Western officials, the best way to solve this problem is to hold elections and help another candidate to win – which will allow “renewing” the public image of the regime, thus legitimizing the continuation of the war efforts against Russia. This is the real reason why there is so much interest in elections.

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Source: InfoBrics

With pro-NATO politicians, security of Armenians is uncertain

Posted on by One comment

Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

The sides involved in the Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have fortunately reached a temporary ceasefire agreement. But the crisis seems far from over. Being governed by a pro-NATO junta, Armenia will have many problems in the near future, both in Artsakh and in its own territory, since evidently the West’s intention is to increase chaos in the region as much as possible.

There is no doubt that Nikol Pashinyan’s irresponsible and unpopular government is to blame for the recent escalations in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Having come to power through a pro-Western color revolution, Pashinyan has strived since 2018 to make Yerevan a NATO proxy state in the Caucasus, exponentially increasing ties between Armenia and countries such as the US and France while creating frictions with Russia.

Unable to achieve any real guarantee of security from his Western partners and adopting a hostile behavior towards Russia, Pashinyan led Armenia to absolute strategic weakness at a time of new high tensions with Azerbaijan, culminating in the attacks that occurred between 19 and 20 September during Baku’s so-called “anti-terrorist operation”. Cowardly, Pashinyan made it clear that he would not participate in the conflict, almost forcing the Armenians of Artsakh to surrender in order to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.

More than 120,000 Armenians are now fearing their future in the face of Azerbaijani aggression, without being able to count on their partners in Yerevan to help in the crisis. In practice, Pashinyan “handed over” the lives of his compatriots to an enemy country, putting his own people at risk and showing a lack of concern for the safety of ethnic Armenians. All this to continue following the government’s number one goal, which is to please Western “allies”.

It must be remembered that Pashinyan’s Western “friends” made a real trap for Armenia by mediating the so-called “Prague agreements“. At the time, Yerevan recognized Azerbaijani sovereignty, which was mistakenly seen by the mainstream media as a “step towards peace”. The problem is that the agreement did not establish any real conditions to resolve the dispute over Artsakh, therefore serving to further legitimize Baku’s interest in the region. With Armenia recognizing Azerbaijani territorial integrity, the country was left without any justification to prevent further Azerbaijani aggressions against the ethnic Armenians of Artsakh.

In practice, Pashinyan legitimized Turkish-Azerbaijani expansionism in Nagorno-Karabakh and “authorized” the beginning of ethnic cleansing, abandoning more than 120,000 Armenians. This was the Western intention when promoting such an “agreement”, whose terms, instead of achieving peace, legitimized even more conflicts. This obviously serves Western interests, since in the face of new hostilities, Yerevan, unable to intervene, tends to request help from NATO – exactly as the Armenian Ambassador in Washington did – thus allowing Western troops to arrive in the region. In this scenario, Baku would certainly also request international help, calling the Turks. In the end, the Caucasus would become a NATO zone of influence and the Russian presence in the region would be minimized or even terminated.

Of course, all of this became clear recently, leading to a wave of mass protests and criticism against Pashinyan. In addition, the “Civil Contract” party received the lowest number of votes in five years in the last Council of Elders elections, being supported by only 32% of voters. There is evidently a crisis of legitimacy, and it is possible that the end of the Pashinyan era is a matter of time.

The main problem, however, is that Pashinyan is not an isolated agent. He is just one of the members of the pro-NATO junta that rules today’s Armenia. In addition to him, there are other politicians similarly willing to make Yerevan subordinate to Western plans. For example, the Secretary of the Security Council, Armen Grigoryan, who many analysts see as someone with the possibility of growing politically and becoming the new prime minister, is an even more pro-Western politician than Pashinyan.

Linked to the Soros Foundations, Grigoryan openly says that he will promote Armenia’s integration into NATO, advancing the policies started by Pashinyan. Furthermore, Grigoryan is already notorious for his pro-Western militancy, having even been accused of leaking confidential documents from the CSTO to NATO, which shows his high level of subservience to foreign interests.

So, unfortunately, there is no good expectation about the future of Armenia. The country would need to undergo a radical political change to reverse the catastrophic effects of the 2018 coup. If this does not happen, Yerevan will continue to be governed by pro-Western politicians, and the only point of divergence between them will be on how to be even more obedient to NATO.

Pashinyan increasingly seems to understand that he will be replaced by someone more “competent.” Not surprisingly, there are rumors that his wife recently started looking for estate in Switzerland and his son is already living in Canada. Unlike the Armenian people of Artsakh, Pashinyan will be able to leave the country with his family, not seeing firsthand the catastrophe he created for his own people.

You can follow Lucas on 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. 

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

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

Wars and Rumors of War 9-6-23

Posted on by One comment

USA, China, Russia, North Korea and more are in today’s news report.

Russian TV talks about first strike on USA

Kim Jong Un Tells North Korea Troops to be ready

Russia, China and N. Korean Wargames

Russian MOD Says 66,000 Ukrainian Troops dead in counteroffensive

Bitchute Video

Rumble Video

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. 

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

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

UK about to send Ukrainian neo-Nazi mercenaries to Africa

Posted on by Leave a comment

British intelligence agency is allegedly involved in move to neutralize pro-Russian wave in African countries.

 

Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

Apparently, the UK is interested in expanding its anti-Russian provocations to Africa. The British agency MI6 is allegedly preparing a team of Ukrainian saboteurs to intervene in African countries and neutralize the growing wave of cooperation with Russia on the continent. The case clearly shows how the western powers plan to internationalize the conflict with Russia and raise it to the ultimate consequences.

Reports were made by several Russian news agencies, citing sources familiar with military matters. It is believed that around 100 Ukrainian far-right militants are being mobilized by British spies to carry out sabotage maneuvers in Africa. The anonymous informants also said that the team’s focus will be on destroying civilianinfrastructure and eliminating political leaders, thus affecting the social stability of the targeted countries. For this reason, sources classified the neo-Nazis recruited for the operation as an “assassination squad”.

There is also information that points to the existence of a broad scheme of cooperation between the British and Ukrainian sectors of espionage and special services. The plan to recruit Ukrainian veterans to Africa allegedly involves high ranking officials linked to Kiev’s Main Directorate of Intelligence. In other words, this is not just a UK hiring of Ukrainian mercenaries, but a joint state operation between London and the neo-Nazi regime.

“According to information, confirmed by several sources, UK special service MI-6 has formed and prepared for deployment on the southern continent a sabotage and assassination squad, comprising members of Ukrainian nationalist and neo-Nazi groups, in an attempt to prevent cooperation between African countries and Russia (…) The task of the Ukrainian squad, formed by the British special services, will be to carry out sabotage attacks at infrastructure facilities in Africa and to assassinate African leaders eyeing cooperation with Russia (…) Lt. Col. of GUR [Main Directorate of Intelligence] of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry V. Prashchuk was appointed to be the commander of the Ukrainian squad of cutthroats”, source told Russian journalists.

In the same sense, it is important to emphasize the danger represented by the leadership of an officer like VitalyPrashchuk. The officer of the Ukrainian Main Directorate is a well-known veteran of the war in Donbass, having actively participated in the hostilities between 2014 and 2016. His function was precisely to command a squad of intelligence agents focused on sabotage operations against the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. In addition, he has already previously participated in joint operations with British forces in Africa – more precisely in Zimbabwe.

Considering the several cases of sabotage against relevant public figures and civil facilities in Donbass during the early years of the conflict, it is expected that a wave of terrorist attacks will start to happen in the African continent. This raises a series of concerns from a strategic and humanitarian point of view, further pushing African countries to seek cooperation with Russia in order to guarantee the security of their populations.

Another point to be analyzed is how the case reveals the Western readiness to internationalize the conflict against Russia. The same actors involved in the Ukraine War are now directing efforts to Africa simply because local governments have showed a willingness to cooperate with Russia. This means that in fact the West’s involvement in the conflict is not because of any “solidarity” with Ukraine, as claimed by the media, but because of a real intention of war against Moscow.

Ukraine is just the most serious flank in this Western war effort. Now, they are betting on Africa as a new frontline, as Sahelian states have sought friendship with Moscow – something considered unacceptable by westerners. Wherever there is cooperation with Russia, there is some western provocation to create chaos, instability and conflict. This is because NATO does not expect to defeat Russia directly on a battlefield, since Moscow’s military power is massive, thus betting on the creation of different flanks and points of tension.

It must be remembered that in recent months it has been reported that Western weapons sent to Ukraine are ending up in the hands of African criminals. More than mereUkrainian corruption, some experts believe that what is happening is also a strategic redistribution of resources, with NATO officials sending equipment to African terrorists considered allies against Russia and its allied states. Now, with the data pointing to the sending of neo-Nazi mercenaries to carry out sabotage in Africa, there is even more evidence that in fact the West is deliberately cooperating with the rise of terrorism in Africa.

However, instead of neutralizing the pro-Russian wave in Africa and intimidating African leaders, the British-Ukrainian attitude tends to further increase the desire for cooperation with Russia in these countries. Having data that point to the Western intention to sabotage them, African governments will seek to sign even more cooperation agreements in defense and security with Moscow.

In practice, the West may succeed in generating chaos and conflict, but it will fail to prevent the growth of friendly relations with Russia in Africa.

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

WHO Pandemic Treaty gives them power over everything

Posted on by Leave a comment
Telegram link: https://t.me/mrn_death/50224

⚡️⚡️⚡️Dr. Meryl Nass explains how the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty would allow the WHO to “take over everything in the world, stating that climate change, animals, plants, water systems [and] ecosystems are all central to health.”

In addition to this, it would abolish human rights protections, introduce censorship and digital passports, require governments to promote a single “official” version, and allow the WHO to declare “pandemics” on a whim. “We are undergoing a soft test… under the pretext of pandemic preparedness and a biosafety program.”

A “soft coup”, for now. You can bet the beat downs will commence when people start rioting and looting because they’re starving. That’s what’s next in the USA after the big market crash. Stay tuned

Johnny

French invasion of Niger could turn into all-out Franco-African war

Posted on by 3 comments

If Paris doesn’t intervene, the uprising in Niger could lead to a complete collapse of the neocolonial system it left in place in the 1960s. The dilemma inevitably results in a geopolitical catch-22, as leaving things as they are could also encourage others to revolt against Western neocolonialism elsewhere in Africa and possibly beyond.

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

Ever since the Nigerien military under the command of General Abdourahamane Tchiani took power on July 26, there has been an exponential increase in tensions between Niamey and its former colonial masters in Paris. This has gone to the point where France is now seriously considering invading the West African country. The exploitation of “former” French colonies has continued unabated for over half a century even after they were granted a semblance of independence and Paris has been the main beneficiary of this one-sided relationship. Combined with France’s inability to deal with various terrorist insurgencies in the region, this unadulterated neocolonial theft has been the primary reason behind a series of popular uprisings in the Sahel.

Paris is now faced with a strategic dilemma. If it lets Niger continue its path toward actual independence, France will be unable to continue exploiting the country’s natural resources. Namely, several of its former colonies have served as a source of massive wealth extraction and given the recent troubles Paris is facing, these resources might be more important than ever. On the other hand, recent geopolitical changes in the area have left France largely impuissant. After the defeat of its nearly decade-long intervention in Chad last year, Paris has been left with bases in Ivory Coast, Senegal and Gabon. Neither of these can be used effectively as a staging ground for an invasion due to the limited number of troops stationed there.

However, even if France was to somehow find enough soldiers to launch the invasion, none of the three countries border Niger. Gabon is the least logical option, as Cameroon and Nigeria stand between it and Niger, leaving only bases in Senegal and Ivory Coast as viable possibilities. And yet, this is where the issues of basic geography for Paris stop and actual geopolitical ones start. Namely, in order to effectively use its forces from both countries to reach Niger, France needs to go through Mali and Burkina Faso, both of which have already stated that any military action against Niamey will be tantamount to aggression against them. In other words, if France wants to attack Niger, it will also need to attack two more African countries.

A possible alternative for Paris could be the use of its neocolonial influence in the ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States, also known as CEDEAO in French and Portuguese). However, this leaves its members at risk of more anti-Western uprisings, as the belligerent power pole is deeply unpopular in the area. Some members of the ECOWAS, such as Nigeria, might be the best geographical option, but given the fact that Paris has little to no influence in Abuja, this is extremely unlikely. Not to mention the fact that Nigeria has more than enough problems of its own and the last thing it needs is to serve as the staging ground for a neocolonial invasion. Logically, this leaves Chad as the only option, but this too is a very long shot.

To make matters worse for France, Algeria has joined the chorus of Niger’s allies. The French archrival that spearheaded the independence of many of its “former” colonies in the 1960s is effectively an African superpower, heavily armed and highly motivated to never allow Paris or any other Western (neo)colonial power to establish a firm foothold in the region. This still leaves Chad as the only viable option for an invasion, as the country was an instrumental staging ground for virtually all French military operations in the area, including the illegal invasion of Libya. However, reaching Chad at this point is easier said than done and this still leaves most of the geopolitical issues unresolved. Also, all geographical considerations remain.

Namely, the Nigerien capital of Niamey is located in the southwestern corner of the country, close to the border with Burkina Faso. Thus, even in the unlikely case that none of its neighbors intervene, Niger is still left with a comfortable window of opportunity to resist the invasion. This could end in a disaster for France, as yet another military defeat in the areawould inevitably lead to a complete collapse of the neocolonial system it left in place in the 1960s. On the other hand, if Paris doesn’t intervene, this will happen anyway, albeit at a somewhat slower pace. Either way, the dilemma inevitably results in a geopolitical catch-22, as leaving things as they are could also encourage others to revolt against Western neocolonialism elsewhere in Africa and possibly beyond.

As for France’s NATO allies, they’ve been largely quiet and non-militant, including the United States (a rather uncommon feature in their usually belligerent foreign policy). Washington DC has a military base in the central part of the country, the Niger Air Base 201, run by US AFRICOM (African Command), but its operational capabilities are mostly limited to drone strikes, with the troops deployed there largely composed of a skeleton crew that provides basic security. Coupled with the recent cooling of US-French relations, this makes it highly unlikely that the Pentagon would give the go-ahead for any sort of American involvement in a possible French invasion, even though it’s in Washington DC’s interest to keep Western neocolonialism in Africa alive for as long as possible.

​

Western media suggests that Zelensky could be assassinated

Posted on by Leave a comment

In a sensational article, a leading Western newspaper claimed that Kiev has a secret plan if the Ukrainian president is killed.

 

Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

In an article recently published by Politico, it was said that Kiev already has a secret plan in case the Ukrainian president is assassinated. Although it is normal for countries at war to think about the possibility of their leaders dying, the way that media is reporting the case suggests a kind of attempt to prepare public opinion for Zelensky’s replacement.

The report was based on interviews with Ukrainian officials and analysts. The sources believe that it will be necessary to circumvent Ukrainian constitutional norms if there is a need to replace Zelensky. The country’s constitution declares that if the president is no longer able to fulfill his duties, the head of parliament must ascend to the office. However, the current parliamentary leader, Ruslan Stefanchuck, is an unpopular public figure, with only 40% approval, which is why it would be inappropriate to appoint him president.

To handle this situation, Kiev plans to create a team of officials, forming a governing council. The office would consist of people like Andrey Yermak, head of the presidential cabinet, Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, Defense Minister Aleksey Reznikov and Ukraine’s military chief Valery Zaluzhny. Stefanchuk would be the formal leader of the group, but decision-making power would be shared with the other officers.

Informants argue that Ukraine achieved high levels of national unity during the conflict. This “unity” supposedly gave stability to the state, guaranteeing an institutional security independent of Zelensky or any individualpolitician. For this reason, in the current scenario no Ukrainian officer seems “indispensable”.

“(…) I don’t think it [Stefanchuck’s popularity] matters. There’s a strong leadership team and I think we would see collective government (…) The country has reached a point of very substantial solidarity and national unity, so if something terrible happened to Zelensky it would not be as decisive as you might think (…) I don’t want to say that Zelensky is hardly irrelevant to this (…) But I think the country’s unity is the indispensable thing”, Adrian Karatnycky, “a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council”, told Politico’s journalists.

In fact, this report leaves a series of unanswered questions. It does not seem surprising that Kiev actually has such plans, as certainly Ukrainian institutional security is a priority for the regime’s officials, especially in times of war. What seems unlikely is that these plans are easily accessible to journalists and public opinion.

Being a sensitive topic, relevant to national security, it is most appropriate that these discussions be taken in absolute confidentiality, with no possibility of information leaks. Discretion becomes even more necessary when these plans involve maneuvers to circumvent the constitution, violating the laws of the country.

So, it is necessary to think about what would be the interests of the Western media in spreading this type of information. It is possible, for example, that news agencies are trying to “prepare” global public opinion for an eventual replacement of Zelensky. There have been rumors for some time that NATO plans to remove the Ukrainian leader from power, given his discredited and deteriorated image. Zelensky is seen less and less as a “hero”, being classified by many as a “beggar” and a “loser“. Thus, putting a new politician in power could be beneficial to NATO’s plans to prolong the war, as it would generate more popular support in the West for the military assistance policies.

However, what is really curious is the fact that the article mentions the hypothesis of murder. This raises the possibility that Western intelligence is planning not only to replace but also to kill Zelensky. This would certainly be useful for the West to accuse Russia of having committed the crime, creating a false flag situation to move public opinion and justify new military measures in support of Kiev.

In the article, Politico reminds a series of recent requests made by Russian citizens calling for Zelensky’selimination in retaliation for the terrorist attacks in Moscow and other Russian cities. Despite such requests being real, the Russian government has never shown an interest in doing so. These were just sincere expressions on the part of the Russian people, emotionally affected by the Ukrainian terror. No strategic guidelines to actually kill Zelensky were adopted.

The article, however, seems to want to show that Moscow has such a plan. Thus, western readers are prepared to have a preconceived opinion if future news confirms Zelensky’s death. This is a well-known psychological and informational warfare tactic used frequently by the West.

So far, the only side that has shown interest in replacing Zelensky has been the West itself, which wants to put in his place someone more competent to lead the regime. For Moscow, it is irrelevant who is in power in Kiev, Russian interest being only to force Ukraine to accept its peace terms, regardless of whether it is Zelensky.

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

« Older Entries