Lucas Leiroz, researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
On November 29, the foreign ministers of NATO member countries met in Bucharest for a conference about the current issues involving the organization. One of the points commented on the occasion, including by the head of NATO, was the military impact of the air attacks that have been recently promoted by Moscow’s forces against the Ukraine’s side. In practice, the assertions at the summit contradicted many narratives previously spread by media and NATO itself about a possible “Ukrainian victory”.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in a press conference after the alliance ministers’ summit that the latest high-intensity Russian air strikes caused immense damage to Ukrainian forces. According to him, this meeting between representatives of NATO states was necessary and timely to discuss new forms of aid to Kiev and to advance new countermeasures in view of the losses that Ukraine has suffered on the battlefield.
“We need to realize that there are enormous effects of the attacks (…) These attacks have caused significant damage (…) I think we all have seen these pictures taken from satellites, where you see Europe in light, and then you see Ukraine dark, and that reflects the enormous consequences. So there’s a huge task to rebuild all of this (…) One of the important reasons why this meeting today [in Bucharest] is so important and timely, is that this provides us with the platform to mobilize further support to step up even more, and also for [Ukrainian Foreign] Minister Kuleba to meet all his colleagues in NATO and then to address those urgent needs. And I’m confident that Minister Kuleba will raise also the need for stepping up further when it comes to rebuilding their power infrastructure”, he said to journalists.
The secretary also stated that new efforts are needed on the part of the Atlantic alliance to continue helping Kiev and strengthening its defense capacity, since the recent maneuvers have enormously harmed the Ukrainian side. The first measure in response to Russian attacks would be to send new air defense systems to Ukraine. The objective is to increase the Ukrainian ability to neutralize Russian missiles and drones, preventing them from reaching their targets, mainly those related to critical infrastructure. In this sense, he also emphasized that Western countries need to help Ukraine rebuild its damaged infrastructure.
“Here in Bucharest, at the foreign ministerial meeting, the message from all Allies will be that we need to do more. Both to help Ukraine repair the destroyed critical infrastructure, including the power and gas grid, but also, to of course address the attacks itself, by providing more air defense systems (…) This is partly providing more air defense weapons systems, but also of course to ensuring that those systems that we have already provided – and many of them are actually a modern, NATO standard air defense system, including NASAMS and others, that they are functioning. Meaning that we need to provide spare parts and we need to provide ammunition”, he added.
It is curious how often Westerners contradict themselves in their narratives. According to western media outlets, Ukraine is winning the conflict and inflicting a lot of damage on the Russian side. On the other hand, Moscow would be launching heavy attacks against civilian targets, without success on the battlefield. However, the NATO meeting denied it admitted the irrefutable fact: Russian attacks are strategically aimed at military and infrastructure targets, destroying the combat logistics of enemy troops – therefore, Kiev is losing, although they have not yet clearly admitted this.
The media spreads lies about the conflict with only one aim: to make the public believe in the possibility of a Ukrainian victory and to encourage its leaders to send more aid. Now that it has been proven that even with Western assistance, Kiev is not succeeding on the battlefield, the right thing to do would be, instead of expanding, reducing aid, considering Ukraine a militarily lost battle, thus seeking a peaceful solution. However, NATO proposes precisely the opposite: to boost military interventionism by sending new defense systems. In other words, the alliance once again stresses that it wants to prolong the conflict as much as possible and that it will fight “until the last Ukrainian” – or foreign mercenary.
With this, NATO makes it clear that it is at war with Russia. It is not a question of mere “aid” to Kiev, but of active participation in a large-scale military confrontation against an enemy country. In this relationship between NATO and Russia, the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime is just a proxy, without any sovereignty, willing to obey all Western commands and unable to decide when to stop fighting.
Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher
Germany will not agree to deploy Patriot air defence missile systems to Ukraine despite insistence from Poland. Policymakers in Warsaw are aware of this fact, but this does not stop large elements of the Polish establishment and political class from trying to enforce this.
German Defence Minister Christine Lambrecht recently announced an agreement with her Polish counterpart to allow German Eurofighter war jets to patrol Polish airspace and deploy Patriot air defence systems in the country. Later, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, Chairman of Poland’s ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) Jaroslaw Kaczynski, and Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Mariusz Blaszczak came up with the idea of deploying the German Patriot air defence systems in Ukraine instead of Poland.
Although Warsaw initially accepted Berlin’s offer for Patriot systems, following the recent missile strike, claimed by the West to have killed two men after hitting Polish territory, suggestions have been made to deliver the systems to Ukraine instead.
“After further missile attacks [by Russia], I have asked the [German] side to transfer and deploy the proposed Patriot batteries along the western border [of Ukraine]. This will allow to protect [Ukraine] from further casualties and blackout and enhance security along our eastern border,” the Polish Defence Minister tweeted.
Blaszczak said in an earlier tweet that he would propose to his German counterpart “to deploy this system close to the border with Ukraine.”
Despite this audacious idea, it is unlikely that Germany will deploy Patriot missile systems in Ukraine instead of Poland. The fact that Germany will not supply Patriot systems to Ukraine is justified by a number of immediate factors, such as the Ukrainian military not being trained in how to use the Patriot systems as they only know Soviet-made weapons and air defence systems, such as the S-300. Ukraine has never operated a Patriot system and it would take half a year of training to learn its functions – and only at an elementary level.
It is very unlikely that Berlin will deploy Patriot systems in Ukraine as it will deepen its participation, and the whole of NATO, in the war, something which could cross the redline given by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Germany is unwilling to go into direct conflict with Russia and would rather focus on economic matters, and thus finding a resolution to the war in Ukraine is of higher priority.
In addition, Germany will not give up its Patriot systems to Ukraine because they do not want to lose this weapon. If German Patriot systems enter Ukraine, there is a very high probability that they will be destroyed by Russian artillery fire or airstrikes.
Russia previously sent a note to NATO countries because of their weapon shipments to Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted that any shipment of weapons to Ukraine would become the target of Russian strikes. The Russian Foreign Ministry also warned NATO countries that they are “playing with fire” by supplying weapons to Ukraine. Presidential spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, for his part, said that the supply of weapons from the West to Ukraine does not contribute to the success of negotiations between Moscow and Kiev, and will instead have a negative impact.
According to Jaroslaw Adamowski, Defense News’ Poland correspondent, the latest development with Berlin has exposed differences within the country’s ruling Law and Justice party. He highlighted that Polish President Andrzej Duda, who was re-elected in 2020 with the party’s support, tweeted on November 25, that if Berlin “does not agree to deliver the batteries to Ukraine, then we must accept this defence here [in Poland].”
Adamowski believes that Duda’s statement is a signal that some decision-makers in Warsaw are willing to reach an understanding with Germany.
This is necessary because Poland’s current proposal would force Germany to cross Russia’s redline. Any German Patriot system in Ukraine would involve German troops operating the launchers on the battlefield as Ukrainian personnel simply do not have the skills. Although the Germans have supported Kiev with weapons and military equipment, like all other NATO member states, Berlin has not officially deployed its armed forces for direct involvement in the conflict, and unlikely will despite Warsaw’s attempts of coercion.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon and PayPal are gone so now we have Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The new buy me a coffee link is below.
Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst
On November 15 at approximately 3:40 PM CET (Central European Time) at least one missile hit the village of Przewodow in Poland, close to its border with Ukraine. The Western mainstream propaganda machine was quick to start blaming Moscow. A senior US intelligence official even told the Associated Press news agency that “a Russian missile has killed two people in NATO member Poland.” Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki called an urgent meeting to discuss the incident, while the Polish Foreign Ministry issued a statement claiming that a “Russian-produced rocket fell on the village of Przewodow at 3:40 PM local time, near the border with Ukraine.”
Still, as soon as the footage of the missile wreckage was shown, it became clear that the weapon in question was fired by the Kiev regime forces. Multiple US officials admitted this was the case. According to the AP, “key questions around the circumstances of the missile launch remained amid the confusion caused by a blistering series of Russian airstrikes across the nearby border in Ukraine, none larger than who fired it. Russia denied any involvement in the Poland blast. Three U.S. officials said preliminary assessments suggested the missile was fired by Ukrainian forces at an incoming Russian one amid the crushing salvo against Ukraine’s electrical infrastructure Tuesday. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.”
The statement clearly contradicts the initial claim that the missile was Russian. Even the Polish government, which can be described as anything but sympathetic to Russia, issued a rather ambiguous press release, mentioning that the missile was “Russian-made” instead of just Russian. Most of the Kiev regime’s arsenal, particularly its surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems are Soviet/Russian-made and were inherited from the USSR. In addition, US President Joe Biden himself commented that it was unlikely the missile was fired by the Russian military.
And indeed, the location of the incident is nowhere near the engagement range of the system which can fire the missile. Preliminary reports and the footage acquired by various sources indicate that it was most likely fired from an older iteration of the Soviet-era S-300 SAM system. The Kiev regime forces operate several versions, but the vast majority belong to the S-300P/PS/PT series. The missile in question was most likely 5V55K, with a maximum engagement range of approximately 45 km. Modernized versions of the post-Soviet era were never deployed in Ukraine, while the closest Russian air defense units are at least 150-200 km away, in Belarus, and operate much more advanced systems such as the S-400.
In addition, it makes no sense for the Russian forces to fire a surface-to-air missile at a time when their long-range missiles are targeting Kiev regime’s strategic assets. On the other hand, it does for the Neo-Nazi junta forces, as their air defenses would certainly have the motivation to try and shoot down incoming Russian cruise missiles. Still, this didn’t prevent the Kiev regime foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba from claiming that “Russia now promotes a conspiracy theory that it was allegedly a missile of Ukrainian air defense that fell on the Polish territory. Which is not true. No one should buy Russian propaganda or amplify its messages. This lesson should have been long learned since the downing of MH17.”
On the other hand, Polish President Andrzej Duda urged the public to “remain calm” and issued on Wednesday a statement claiming that a missile was likely a Russian-made weapon fired by a Ukrainian air defense system. “We currently have no evidence that the missile was fired by the Russian side,” he said.
He also said that the Polish military and other state services such as the police, firefighters and border guards raised readiness, adding that “the military is increasing the monitoring of national airspace as investigators are still working to establish the causes of the explosion.” Duda also stated that “there are no indications that the incident would be repeated.”
And yet, the Kiev regime is adamant that anyone claiming this wasn’t fired by Russian forces is a “conspiracy theorist”, which obviously also includes the presidents of the US and Poland. “Hitting NATO territory with missiles… This is a Russian missile attack on collective security! This is a really significant escalation. Action is needed,” Zelensky was fuming during his Tuesday night video address. He claimed that it’s “only a matter of time before Russian terror goes further.” At best, the claims are indicative of the futile attempts to justify the Kiev regime’s incompetence. At worst, they imply that the Neo-Nazi junta is desperate to get NATO directly involved in the crisis.
The same could be true for certain Polish military and government services, as the implications that the much-touted “Patriot” batteries stationed along the border failed to intercept the incoming missiles mean that this either calls into question the system’s capabilities or indicates complicity.
In any case, regardless if the incident was accidental or a possible false flag aimed at escalating the conflict, the perpetrators are quite obviously unaware of the potentially cataclysmic consequences of their actions. Whatever interest they may have in seeing World War Three happen will fade into oblivion the moment strategic thermonuclear weapons start flying.
As the war in Ukraine continues to drag on, Russia is now being accused by NATO of planning an EMP attack on Ukraine in order to fry their power grid and communications gear. We shall see. I would give this more credibility than the “dirty bomb” that they talked about last month. Here is more from warnews 247.
The British and Americans are talking about a blow that will cause shock and awe to the Ukrainian Army, who confirm the revealing publication of WarNews247 and emphasize that the Russian Army will strike with a special weapon that will cause an EMP electromagnetic pulse.
In this context, the Financial Times, the newspaper “The Sun” and “The Times” two months after the disclosure of WarNews247 report that Spetsnaz units carry special equipment while the strike can be done through Zircon missiles.
If the Zircon missile is used then the first supersonic electromagnetic EMP attack in History will take place!
The non-nuclear version of the EMp carried by the Spetsnaz is believed to be capable of destroying electronic devices up to six miles away.
A relatively small nuclear EMP, easily deployed at high altitude by Russia’s supersonic Zircon cruise missiles, might not destroy any buildings or kill anyone. However, it could permanently disable electrical circuits across thousands of square miles of Ukrainian territory.
Electromagnetic pulse pulse EMP
So far, Russia’s threats of escalation against Ukraine have largely been interpreted as a veiled reference to the use of conventional nuclear weapons. But there is another weapon that the Russian leadership may be considering:
a regular electromagnetic pulse, known as an EMP.
These weapons – designed to create a powerful pulse of energy that short-circuits electrical and electronic equipment such as computers, generators, satellites, radios, radar receivers and even traffic lights – could disable Ukraine’s military and civilian infrastructure and leave the country without light, heat, communications or transportation.
EMP attacks have been amply explained, and even publicized, on Russian state TV talk shows. A Russian colonel has shown in the air, with maps, how such an explosion might work in the Baltic Sea. “Perhaps Putin and his generals have been warning us about this possibility all along, with their cryptic threats to unleash unspecified ‘military-technical measures’,” say British experts.
A tactical nuclear weapon used to create an explosion would likely be ineffective against the mobile, dispersed forces of a combination of guerrilla and conventional warfare that the Ukrainians are deploying to retake their territory. But using a nuclear weapon for electromagnetic warfare is a different matter.
The signature of this type of attack would not be a fireball and a mushroom cloud, but a strange electric blue orb like a Medusa pulsing directly overhead, followed by silence. At this altitude, sound is not carried.
A relatively small nuclear EMP, easily deployed at high altitude by Russia’s supersonic Zircon cruise missiles, might not destroy any buildings or kill anyone.
But it could permanently disable electrical circuits across thousands of square miles of Ukrainian territory. Almost all defense equipment deployed by NATO allies in Ukraine – such as radios, GPS navigation and aerial drones – depends on electronics for deployment, maintenance and integration.
The lingering electromagnetic effects of a hit could destroy 90 percent of the satellites above the affected zone within three months. However, Russian intelligence operations on the ground are also likely to be affected
The US and its allies are by no means ignorant of the dangers of an EMP, and most military equipment has some degree of built-in defense against this eventuality. But a strike would create a new battlefield that negates the superiority of NATO’s intelligence systems.
In Kherson, for example, a tactical EMP could disable the systems that operate the area’s dams, clog highways and bridges with miles of vehicles, and leave the civilian population scrambling for food and heat. In the aftermath of a successful EMP strike, Ukraine would have to cease fighting to replenish its damaged arsenal.
Putin could in the meantime rebuild and resupply his forces and seize the newly depopulated areas during a spring offensive.
What is perhaps most troubling is that Russia and NATO have such different approaches to these weapons. According to Russian military doctrine, EMP strikes are a branch of information, cyber and electronic warfare rather than nuclear warfare.
This lowers the bar and may make EMPs even more enticing to Putin’s strategists.
What NATO should do – What the British say
First, we must warn Russia that an EMP strike against Ukraine would cross the nuclear threshold and trigger a collective defensive response from NATO. The unforeseeable effects of downwind dispersion on the earth’s atmosphere, environment, satellites and populations should be sufficient grounds for invoking Article Five (the alliance’s collective defense clause).
Second, we should help the Ukrainian military prepare. We should support them in conducting EMP exercises with the participation of civil authorities. The Ukrainian people must be educated on how to mitigate and overcome such an attack, including by stocking analog radios, flashlights, and batteries. Preparation, fortitude, ingenuity and self-reliance are already qualities by which the Ukrainians have distinguished themselves in this war.
Finally, we need to reconsider our goals. If Putin is indeed considering the use of a tactical EMP, then what is at stake is not only the freedom of Ukraine but the very future of war. If we bow to the Kremlin’s nuclear blackmail, there is a risk that other countries will follow suit: China and North Korea already have EMP capabilities. The situation in Ukraine offers a glimpse into a potentially more dangerous and uncertain future. We cannot afford to lose this match.
Spetsnaz forces were equipped
Russian Spetsnaz forces in Ukraine are equipped with a weapon that allows them to knock out all electronic devices within a range of six miles or more, British and American experts believe, and may be ready to use it.
An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) strike would disable Ukraine’s civil infrastructure and smash its ability to defend itself like a hammer, experts say.
Such strikes are usually carried out using a low-yield nuclear explosion in space to create an electromagnetic pulse that short-circuits all unprotected electronic devices. The range of the hit is proportional to the height of the explosion.
An EMP strike – the weapon for the Russian villains in the 1995 James Bond film Goldeneye – from a 30-mile aerial blast would cover most of the Midwestern United States, according to Nasa. A blast into space at 120 miles would cover most of continental America.
The Kremlin has also developed non-nuclear EMP munitions that have a more targeted effect.
“Russia has a number of non-nuclear EMP munitions that could be launched from the ground using specialized projectiles,” said Justin Bronk, a senior researcher at the Royal United Nations Institute (RUSI) think tank.
Some Spetsnaz units operating in Ukraine carry these weapons, he added. “EMP strikes leave very few visible traces, so it’s hard to know if one has already been used.”
A non-nuclear attack of this kind is not considered a significant escalation, Bronk said, and could be used without the risk of provoking a direct confrontation with the West.
In July, Russian state media boasted that non-nuclear EMP missiles had increased their range to six miles after a series of tests over the summer.
President Putin has already sought to disable much of Ukraine’s critical energy and water infrastructure through cruise missile strikes on hydroelectric plants, substations and thermal power plants across the country.
A nuclear EMP strike would do the same, but on a much larger scale , said Francis Tusa, a defense analyst and former nuclear artillery officer . “Russia has already tried to make Ukraine as uninhabitable as possible ahead of winter, so I’m not ruling out the possibility of an EMP strike as part of what appears to be a ‘scorched earth’ policy.”
There would be no widespread loss of life as in the case of a direct nuclear attack, but a nuclear EMP strike would still be seen as an act of major escalation and would likely provoke a response from NATO.
The destructive effects of such a weapon are also difficult to contain and are likely to affect the infrastructure of neighboring countries, including NATO members.
Thomas Withington, an electronic warfare expert at Rusi, said the West had long viewed an EMP strike as a prelude to a major nuclear attack, and its use in Ukraine could be interpreted by NATO as a push for more deadly nuclear attacks by forcing them thus to intervene.
“I think the big danger for the Russian government is that once they have a nuclear EMP detonation, they risk losing strategic control of the situation, as they cannot know for sure how the international community, and most importantly NATO, might act.” , Withington said.
But Russia’s position is not desperate enough to consider using a nuclear strike, either directly or indirectly with an EMP, said James Rogers, director of research at the Council on Geostrategy. “Putin is increasingly looking for a break and we know there is pressure on him for the failure of their generals .”
“An EMP hit could give him that break that would turn the tide for him. But I don’t think he’s in a position yet. The real stepping stone to escalation — if there is one — is if the Ukrainians regain the ground they’ve lost and start marching into Crimea.”
Don’t fear any of this folks, a lot of this stuff has been just talk but I do believe that an EMP attack is more likely than a tactical nuke or a dirty bomb. This would not cause all of the collateral damage that a nuke would and it would only destroy electronic components and circuitry. Those items can be replaced and repaired at a fraction of the cost of rebuilding an entire city.
Of course if this happens then whoever lives in the affected areas will be without power and probably running water for the foreseeable future. War always affects the civilians the worst and no power would kill them off through cold, no potable water and no food except for what they have on hand or can scrounge up. During these times of great tribulation (yep we’re in it) our only hope is in Jesus Christ and the arc He provides.
Seek Him NOW while there’s still time! Jesus is the way, the truth and the life! No one gets to the Father but through Him!
Once again, remember God did not give us a spirit of fear but rather of POWER, LOVE AND A SOUND MIND! 2nd Timothy 1:7. With Jesus as your Lord and Savior you can have PEACE that surpasses human understanding, even during these dark times. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Philippians 4:7
REPENT and Ask Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Savior today. He’s waiting for you…
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon and PayPal are gone so now we have Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The new buy me a coffee link is below.
The story of the scam that was FTX is going to be epic when discovery takes place for all of the upcoming trials.
In the meantime, here are some of the latest facts about this crypto Ponzi exchange:
There is a lot more to this story, and it intersects with all of the usual Cult players, from BlackRock to the CIA to the WEF and various “nonprofit” slush funds, et al.
I have been warning for a long time now to stay the hell away from all centralized exchanges, and never ever leave your wealth parked with them. If your blockchain assets are not decentralized and not held by you, then you are missing the entire point and purpose of crypto.
How allegedly sophisticated hedge funds and investors at this stage of the game keep falling for these centralized crypto scams is truly baffling.
However, what is not surprising in the least is that the Democrat party is one giant grifting operation along with their totally illegitimate Federal government waging a full spectrum soft war on We the People.
One day it’s the DEATHVAX™, another day it’s a gargantuan crypto scam.
These people want you broke and dead.
Do NOT comply.
Edit: PSYOP-UKRAINE-INVASION was was a project to induce hyperinflation, take the focus off of the waning “pandemic” and launder all kinds of black ops money back to Washington, D.C. also involved FTX; to wit:
#BREAKING ⚡️🇺🇦UKRAINE "MILITARY AID" FROM USA – WAS INVESTED IN CRYPTO "FTX" BY UKRAINE!
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon and PayPal are gone so now we have Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The new buy me a coffee link is below.
Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst
After Moscow was forced to intervene in Ukraine and launch its counteroffensive against NATO aggression, the political West got an unprecedented opportunity to probe the Russian military, test and observe its capabilities. All of this provides invaluable insight into the doctrine of the Eurasian giant’s armed forces, which would help NATO optimize its military power to match Russian capabilities. Naturally, this is nothing out of the ordinary in comparison to any other conflict in known history. However, both sides are working on misleading the other by either concealing their actual military strategy and doctrine or providing false information which could give them both tactical and strategic advantages in the future.
For its part, NATO is providing the Kiev regime with unprecedented ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) capabilities, which has been of prime importance for its forces. Without them, the Neo-Nazi junta troops would’ve had a much harder time against the Russian military. What’s more, NATO expected Russia to play all its cards (short of direct confrontation with the belligerent alliance) in tackling this issue, particularly by using its extensive experience and capabilities in electronic warfare. In doing so, Moscow would’ve gotten several months of key advantages over the Kiev regime forces, but it would also provide NATO with crucial data on how this spectrum of its battlefield capabilities worked. This would then be used by the belligerent alliance to gain an important insight and create counters, possibly tipping the strategic balance of power to its advantage.
It’s precisely this scenario that Russia is trying to avoid, which is why it decided to show only a fraction of its capabilities. This is certainly affecting the performance of the Russian military, but since the High Command sees the intervention against the Kiev regime forces as a local operation, this is considered a fair trade-off. Simply, letting NATO gain too much knowledge of the Russian military strategy and doctrine would be a much bigger problem in the long-term. What’s more, NATO’s overreliance on its ISR advantage might as well create a false sense of security and push its military planners into thinking that Russia doesn’t have counters to these capabilities. However, in a possible confrontation, Russia would certainly destroy much of NATO’s ISR assets, leaving the belligerent alliance with much less battlefield information to work with than it currently has access to.
Still, the present situation is providing NATO with a better opportunity to hurt Russia than engaging in a direct clash ever could. Apart from using the Kiev regime forces as cannon fodder, the political West is also conducting a full-spectrum war against Moscow, involving economic and financial sanctions, incessant information warfare, cyber operations, etc. The aim is to make Russia’s life as hard as it could possibly be, with hopes of eventually turning it into a giant North Korea. The end goal is clear – a coup which would bring a more “cooperative” government to power in Moscow. And this prospect isn’t even in the realm of conspiracy theories anymore as several high-ranking US officials said so themselves, including the US President Joe Biden.
At present, the Ukraine crisis is slowly entering a new phase. While the mainstream propaganda machine is portraying the Kiev regime forces as “making spectacular advances, liberating many towns and villages, and forcing Russian forces to retreat,” the political West is trying to bring the Kiev regime to the negotiating table and buy some more time before the winter season gets worse, giving Russia a significant strategic advantage as the European Union struggles with energy prices and supplies.
By maintaining the image of Neo-Nazi junta troops supposedly “winning” against the Russian military, the political West is trying to convince its populace that financing the Kiev regime is justified, despite the economic and financial fallout. For its part, Brussels is doing everything it can to reduce gas consumption as it can neither afford additional US LNG shipments, nor does it have the necessary storage capacity. The alternative – buying more Russian natural gas – is considered “geopolitically sensitive”.
In addition to conducting the economic siege of Russia, the political West also needs to find ways to continue supporting the ever-cash-hungry Kiev regime. The fallout of these policies has been affecting Western and other global economies for months, resulting in ever-growing unrest and frustration among hundreds of millions around the world, particularly in the EU, whose member states are now bearing the brunt of the suicidal anti-Russian policies.
The detached policymakers in the political West think that this strategy is working, while ignoring the consequences for their own citizens. Dissent is being suppressed by accusing anyone who questions these policies of being “pro-Russian”. Worse yet, refusing to openly support the Neo-Nazi junta in Kiev is now a mortal sin, regardless if the person in question is a public figure or a regular citizen.
According to a US official, the Ukrainian tragedy appears to be just a “warmup” in the face of challenges Washington will see in the near future. US Navy Admiral Charles Richard, head of US Strategic Command, recently stated that his country has been preparing for prolonged conflicts with Russia and China.
Since 2018, Moscow and Beijing have played a central role in American international strategy, being seen as threats to the US-controlled world order. In this sense, major confrontations are expected, with the current conflict in Eastern Europe being a mere initial stage of this period of tensions.
Richard explains that the US would be entering a “great power competition”, in which the disputes with its two biggest geopolitical rivals would become intense. For him, Russia and China are the leaders in a process of overthrowing the American project for the post-Cold War world – and Washington seems really willing to take drastic measures to prevent the Chinese and Russian plans from materializing.
As head of the US nuclear arsenal, Richard analyzes the current global situation with concern and seeks realistic solutions to problems. The commander claims that the US is about to be “tested” in a very serious way. He believes that in the face of new dangers the quality of US military forces will not even matter, as there will simply not be enough resources to carry out US involvement in these conflicts. Therefore, Richard defends a rapid and effective reformulation of the American defense and security strategy, which adapts the country to the new geopolitical circumstances.
“We have to do some rapid, fundamental change in the way we approach the defense of this nation (…) This Ukraine crisis that we’re in right now, this is just the warmup (…) The ‘big one’ is coming. And it isn’t going to be very long before we’re going to get tested in ways that we haven’t been tested in a long time (…) It isn’t going to matter how good our [operating plan] is or how good our commanders are, or how good our horses are – we’re not going to have enough of them. And that is a very near-term problem”, he said during a recent interview.
Indeed, Richard seems pessimistic about his country’s ability to reverse its position in the power competition scenario. Currently, Washington is already behind China in terms of missiles. Beijing already has a new generation of ultra-long-range cruise missiles, in addition to a variety of ballistic missiles and hypersonic weapons, in the face of which the US has no equivalent equipment.
In addition, the Chinese armed forces also have warships equipped with radars capable of detecting stealth aircraft, surpassing the potential of the American F-22 and F-35 fleets. Also, as far as space warfare is concerned, China seems to grow much more than Washington, with the Pentagon having several times expressed concerns about the modern Chinese system of fractional orbital bombing.
Although such data are not enough to say that China is “overcoming” the American military power, they point to a scenario of Chinese growth in war technology in front of which the US, with so many internal and external problems, does not seem able to respond with equivalent progress. Washington remains the main military power but has fewer and fewer intermediate weapons preventing the use of the nuclear arsenal, which makes the situation quite tense and worrying, since in the face of eventual intense and prolonged conflicts the US will quickly tend to resort to the use of the extreme force.
It must also be mentioned that during the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, the US encouraged an irresponsible escalation of the conflict by supplying Kiev with weapons, including modern long-range missiles, but they did not achieve any success in their objectives, as Russia continues to maintain absolute control of the military situation. For this reason, the West quickly escalated the rhetoric, appealing to clear nuclear blackmail, worrying the entire international society. The case accurately illustrates what may happen in any new conflict situations – such as a possible Chinese intervention in Taiwan, in which the US would certainly send weapons and mercenary troops to support Taipei.
In fact, Richard’s analysis is supported by the recent US government document establishing a National Defense Strategy focused on Russia and China as central adversaries in a major global competition. The US is willing to use all its resources to prevent emerging nations from questioning the unipolar world order. And, in this sense, regional conflicts, which could be resolved quickly without foreign interference, are prolonged so that Washington “warms up” and “tests its strength” for the new “challenges”.
Faced with the emergence of Multipolarity, the best thing for the US to do is simply accept it and adapt to it, consolidating it as a regional power and abdicating any role of “global police”.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.
Guest post by Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst
On November 9, Russian High Command announced it will retreat from the right-bank areas of the Kherson oblast (region). The current commander of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, Army General Sergei Surovikin, announced the plan in a report to Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu. Russian units will be relocated to new defensive lines along the Dnieper River. According to Surovikin, the move is aimed at preserving the lives and fighting capacity of Russian soldiers engaged in this area of the frontline.
“We will save the lives of our soldiers and the fighting capacity of our units. Keeping them on the right [western] bank [of the Dnieper River] is futile. Some of them can be redeployed on other fronts,” the Russian general stated.
The announcement, although shocking to many, was hardly unexpected as the new authorities of the Kherson oblast have been conducting the evacuation of civilians for weeks, indicating that the area was likely expected to see intensive fighting. Various Western media outlets are already reporting that the move is a “major setback” for Russia and a “big win” for the Kiev regime.
However, top-level Kiev regime officials are cautious about the announcement, with some even calling it a possible trap. According to Reuters, Mykhailo Podolyak, the senior adviser to the Neo-Nazi junta frontman Volodymyr Zelensky, stated that it was “too early to talk about a Russian troop pullout from the southern city of Kherson.”
“Until the Ukrainian flag is flying over Kherson, it makes no sense to talk about a Russian withdrawal,” Podolyak said in a statement.
Expectedly, other Kiev regime officials and the Neo-Nazi junta’s propaganda machine are already boasting that the event is an “absolute triumph.” The Kiev regime forces have been targeting the infrastructure in the area for months, including all the bridges and transport vessels on the Dnieper River and even dams, in particular the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant, risking a major disaster if the floodgates were to be destroyed.
The US-supplied HIMARS MLRS and other Western weapons are also often used to target residential areas, killing dozens and wounding hundreds of civilians. General Surovikin himself also warned that the Neo-Nazi junta troops launching numerous rocket strikes on the Kakhovka hydroelectric plant and dam could cause thousands of civilian casualties.
“There will be an additional threat to the civilian population and a complete isolation of the group of our troops on the right bank of the Dnieper [River]. Under these conditions, the most rational option is to establish defense along the barrier line of the Dnieper [River],” Surovikin said, adding that the possible destruction of the dam would cause “an intensive discharge of water and a massive flooding of both banks of the Dnieper River.”
The right (western) bank of the Kherson oblast, although strategically important for possible future offensive operations toward Nikolayev, is certainly difficult to defend while also preserving the lives of civilians and preventing major damage to local infrastructure. Still, there are other possible problems that could arise if the Kiev regime forces gain uncontested control of the area, including putting Crimea within reach of artillery and missile units of the Neo-Nazi junta. Given their lack of concern for causing massive civilian casualties, this could become a major issue if not properly addressed. The main fresh water supply for the Crimean peninsula could also be in jeopardy, as it comes from the Kakhovka Reservoir which could end up becoming a direct frontline area.
However, it’s expected that the Russian military is already prepared for such contingencies. The Dnieper River is one of the largest in Europe, both by volume and in terms of width, making it an almost perfect defensive barrier and a major obstacle for the Kiev regime forces. Conducting offensive operations across the river could prove to be a deadly endeavor, one which the Neo-Nazi junta troops are hardly prepared for. Both sides are now sending additional reinforcements to the area, with the Kiev regime vowing to continue offensive operations despite suffering heavy casualties for months.
For its part, the Russian military has been conducting successful defense, but as General Surovikin stated, it wants to reduce military and civilian casualties as much as possible. However, the Kiev regime forces’ increasingly intensive shelling of the Kherson city in recent weeks is creating complications for the Russian military’s logistics, which might be one of the reasons for the withdrawal. Western media and intelligence sources claim that approximately 40,000 Russian soldiers are now being evacuated to the left (eastern) bank of the Dnieper River. It can also be expected that the Russian military has already set up a large number of new artillery positions and that it will use them to target any Kiev regime units attempting to approach the Dnieper River.
As previously stated, although the withdrawal is being hailed as a “victory”, the reaction from Volodymyr Zelensky’s office implies that the fighting is still ongoing and that “this could be a staged retreat meant to soften Ukrainian resolve at a decisive moment…” The aforementioned statement by Podolyak is a clear indicator of this. Many geopolitical and military experts are also puzzled by such a public announcement, as withdrawals are usually conducted without giving the enemy time to prepare for an all-out advance against retreating forces. This would explain the Kiev regime’s caution, as many of the top-level officials are afraid that the move could soon prove to be a trap.
The Russian submarine that is capable of using the nuclear Tsunami weapon has completed all of its tests including live fire drills and is ready to be deployed to the regular Russian Naval Fleet. Here is more from avia.pro.
The newest Russian nuclear submarine has successfully passed all the necessary tests.
The nuclear submarine “Generalissimo Suvorov” has fully completed the entire test cycle established by the plans, including live firing. This allows the Russian submarine to be on combat duty in the near future, and taking into account the unique capabilities of the newest Russian submarine, this will be a significant increase in Russia’s defense capability.
“The commissioning team of the enterprise and the crew of the ship worked out the tasks in full. “Generalissimo Suvorov” completed all stages of testing, having completed several exits to the sea. The ship’s systems have been tested in various modes , ”says Mikhail Budnichenko, head of the Sevmash Production Association.
That will give NATO something else to crap their pants about. Prayed up and prepped up!
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon and PayPal are gone so now we have Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The new buy me a coffee link is below.
Guest Post by Uriel Araujo, researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts
POLITICO reports that, according to a US diplomatic cable, the sending of upgraded B61-12 air-dropped thermonuclear gravity bombs to Europe, formerly scheduled for next spring, is now planned for this December.
American officials told this to their NATO allies in a closed-door meeting in Brussels last month. The new version is designed so that American and European fighter aircrafts and bomber planes may carry the nuclear weapon. The move is part of a policy of replacing older weapons with newer versions at several NATO storage facilities in the continent. The aforementioned meeting took place only days before the Alliance launched its Steadfast Noon annual nuclear exercise, which ended on October 30. On October 26, Moscow in turn held nuclear drills simulating a massive nuclear strike in retaliation for a nuclear attack on the country.
During the Russian exercise, a Yars land-based intercontinental ballistic missile was fired from its launch site at northern Plesetsk. In addition, a nuclear submarine also launched a Sineva ICBM. NATO’s drill in turn involved about 60 aircraft, including the American long-range B-52 bombers, and figther jets that can carry nuclear weapons.
These exercises took place amid Kremlin’s accusations and warnings that US-backed Ukraine’s plans to stage a provocation by detonating a “dirty bomb” to blame Russia, a claim that should be taken seriously, given Kiev’s record.
Amid such a tense situation, Washington is expected to soon release its Nuclear Posture Review. This review, according to US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, will support the full modernization of the American nuclear triad.
Washington moves to accelerate the timeframe regarding the sending of weapons to Europe now is quite risky; the timing could not be worse. Some experts, such as Tom Collina, a director of policy at the Ploughshares Fund, believe it is all about “assuring” US allies, who feel “threatened by Russia.” He reasons that there already are working B61 nuclear bombs in the continent, albeit older ones, and thus bringing new ones is “not really that much of a difference.”
But even Collina himself adds that any nuclear-related move (even a “small” one) can generate unintended results: “It could be escalatory.” Many analysts in fact believe it could bring the world closer to a global nuclear war.
Hans Kristensen, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project, for instance, has claimed that “It would be odd to rush it. They have been saying we don’t respond to this situation with nuclear weapons. I don’t think they want to go down that one.”
These developments are part of a larger context, which includes Washington’s policy of “dual containment” on Moscow and Beijing at the same time. Moreover, amazingly, calls for nuclear confrontation have been made in the West and not by lone voices. For instance, in late April, Britain’s Liz Truss (who has recently resigned) called for the creation of a “global NATO”.
Also in April, US Senator Chris Coons said Washington should “not merely send arms to Ukraine” but should actually consider sending “troops to the aid in defense” of that Eastern European country. This is basically to call for a regional conflict to fully turn into a Russia-NATO war (thereby making it an existential issue for the Kremlin), which could escalate into global and nuclear warfare. Fully aware of that, former Secretary of Defense assistant Seth Cropsey, who is an influential lobbyist in Washington, argued in May that the US must be prepared to “win a nuclear war”.
In today’s world, with weapons much more powerful than they were in 1945, one cannot win a nuclear war, though. According to a 2019 scientific study (which involved experts from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other institutions) the outcome of such a war would be simply apocalyptical.
One should keep in mind that NATO’s June 30 Summit for the first time, in its Declaration, addressed China as a “challenge” to the Atlantic Alliance “interests, security, and values”, while naming Russia “the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security.” The same document emphasized the “unprecedented level of cooperation with the European Union” and vowed to strengthen this “strategic partnership”.
In June US President Joe Biden claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin was looking for the “Finlandization of Europe”, but would get instead the “NATOization” of the continent. Before the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict, there were about 80,000 American troops in Europe. The figures in the near future are expected to reach 100,000. We have therefore seen an increasingly militarized European continent and Washington desires to make it increasingly nuclearized also.
This new further nuclearization developments can escalate tensions with Russia in an already dangerous situation in Europe, while the US is also sending B-52 strategic bombers to Australia (thus increasing friction with China there). Australia has become a focal point of American-Chinese tensions over the issue of the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal. Beijing claims it involves “the illegal transfer of nuclear weapon materials, making it essentially an act of nuclear proliferation.”
To sum it up, amid its own domestic crises, an overburdened and overextended American superpower is currently entrenched in two simultaneous arenas, trying to contain and encircle two nuclear great powers at once (Moscow and Beijing, namely), while dragging the whole world closer to a doomsday scenario of thermonuclear war. The only way out of it, on the West’s side, depends on European leaders conducting good diplomacy and the US, in turn, exercising restraint to stop the escalatory dynamic that has ensued.
