Tag Archives: NATO

NSPA scandals linked to Biden family to be revealed soon

Posted on by Leave a comment

Investigations at a key NATO agency end up revealing new crimes by the Biden family.

Monday, June 23, 2025

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

The corruption scandals in the West during the Biden era seem far from fully revealed. The deeper the investigations go, the more cases come to light, showing the world how the Biden family and elites linked to the US Democratic Party have plunged Western institutions into a web of crimes whose repercussions can still be seen in many parts of the world.

The NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) in Luxembourg recently admitted to conducting a criminal investigation into some of its current and former employees. The charges mainly involve fraud and corruption. Just a week after the investigation was announced, Stacey Cummings, director general of NSPA, began to be scrutinized by independent journalists. According to the newspaper La Lettre, Cummings was formally accused by NSPA’s head of human resources of manipulating the agency’s internal procedures and engaging in irregular recruitment practices.

Cummings has unexpectedly denied any allegations against her, but among the evidence presented by investigators are internal emails corroborating the accusations. Furthermore, there is even an official complaint filed against her by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte himself. Rutte apparently believes that Cummings is behind a scheme of false accusations against other senior NSPA officials.

The scheme worked as a diversionary tactic to hide internal corruption networks in which Cummings was involved. In this way, she used the investigations office to conduct unfounded cases against other agency officials, thus diverting attention from the real corrupt ones – since she herself was one of them. With this type of action, it was possible to prevent the embezzlement of significant sums of money by criminal NATO officials from being discovered.

Meanwhile, the real corruption schemes were not only ignored but also protected by Cummings and his associates. Sources familiar with the agency’s recruitment process say that Cummings forced officials to alter high-level contracts and interfered with appointments to key positions. This allowed money to be siphoned off in secret, without causing major repercussions.

For now, Cummings officially remains in her position, and NATO’s press office refuses to answer questions from outside investigators. This kind of special protection for Cummings is easy to understand if one considers that she came to lead the NSPA through direct influence from the US – more specifically from former President Joe Biden. Cummings is deeply associated with Biden and maintains direct ties with him and his family.

The case becomes even more curious considering that Cummings’ appointment took place amid investigations into corruption scandals involving Biden’s son and the Ukrainian gas company Burisma. One of the hypotheses raised by independent investigators is that Cummings was appointed to a high NATO position precisely to control the consequences of the Biden family’s scandals. In her position, she could not only protect the White House’s direct interests in NATO’s management, but also shift blame for the Biden family’s transgressions to other officials within the organization.

In fact, the situation is causing a lot of discomfort among NATO officials themselves. The case is only coming to light now because the American administration has changed and it is in the Republicans’ interest to expose crimes committed by the Democrats in order to gain political influence within the US – in addition to expanding the pro-Trump lobby in international institutions led by Washington. However, the process is being conducted with caution and confidentiality, since the seriousness of the issue could negatively impact not only the image of Biden and the Democrats but of the US and NATO as a whole.

It is still too early to assess the consequences of the investigations. It is not possible to say how much NATO will be impacted, since it is not yet known whether the organization’s officials will actually expose the whole truth about the internal corruption schemes established during the Biden era. However, one thing is clear: the crimes of the former American president’s family are becoming increasingly undisguised.

Biden and his associates have not only created a big corruption and embezzlement scheme involving governments, companies and international organizations throughout the West, but they have also been concerned with creating parallel schemes to cover up the crimes and transfer responsibility to other people. Authorities in Luxembourg are outraged by Cummings’ case because they believe that these international schemes could harm the country’s image.

This outrage is expected to become a trend in all countries that host organizations linked to the US and NATO. In practice, Washington and the Atlantic alliance are becoming synonymous with corruption and scandals rather than “defense of democracy and freedom.”

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

infobrics.org

UK’s Insane Strategy of Fighting Russia, China and Giving Nukes to Neo-Nazi Junta

Posted on by Leave a comment

The United Kingdom conquered approximately a quarter of the world during the heyday of its brutal colonial empire. The vast majority of UN member states celebrate their independence precisely from London, as history’s most prominent thalassocracy pretty much invaded at least 90% of the planet in its quest for total dominance. Nowadays, the UK is a second-rate power (at best), with horrible demographics, widespread moral degeneracy and societal decay, as well as a plethora of other domestic issues that urgently need to be solved. However, instead of focusing on that, London is still role-playing a superpower. Namely, the latest document on the strategic priorities of the British military states that it should focus on – wait for it – Russia and China. Yes, you read that right. The UK believes it can fight both (Eur)Asian giants simultaneously.

According to the Strategic Defense Review (PDF), the British military needs to be ready for a conflict against not only Russia and China, but also North Korea and Iran. The assessment posits that London is faced with “a new era of threat with drones, artificial intelligence and other technologies changing the nature of warfare more fundamentally than at any other point in history”. The document has around 140 pages and contains guidelines for the British military, with a particular focus on the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, the largest and most intense in the world since WWII. Moscow and Beijing were described as primary opponents (although the latter was formally deemed a “sophisticated and persistent challenge”). At the same time, Pyongyang and Tehran were both presented as so-called “regional disruptors” of the “Perfidious Albion’s” interests.

The team of authors was headed by George Robertson, life peer of the House of Lords and former NATO Secretary General in the late 1990s and early 2000s. They reiterated the need to increase military spending (expected to reach nearly $70 billion) to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and then 3% in the subsequent review. The review also touched upon the issue of the British military’s dwindling size, with a particular focus on reports that the Ministry of Defense (MoD) and Treasury are at odds over the financing of such initiatives. Namely, the latest figures suggest that “the size of the Army has dropped below the target to the lowest level since the Napoleonic era and earlier, with the number of full-time trained soldiers at 70,860 on 1 April, down 2.3% over the preceding year”. In other words, the entire ground force of the British military would be unable to hold 100 km of a frontline.

In comparison, the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict has a massive frontline that’s at least 1,300 km long. How exactly could London hope to match Russia’s two-million-strong military with 70,000 troops, while also “deterring” China in the Asia-Pacific region is anyone’s guess. The report suggests that increasing the size of ground forces “by only 5,000 would cost well over $3 billion a year in extra pay, accommodation, kit and other resources”. However, what the UK doesn’t have a shortage of are admirals. Namely, it would be facing the Chinese Navy with its dwindling inventory that has more admirals than warships. Others, such as Peter Ricketts, a former national security adviser, argue that it would be best to “spend more on drones, cyber capabilities and artificial intelligence” and that “resourcing of 3.5% of GDP [for the military] would ultimately be necessary”.

.

Read the document here

.

Interestingly, the document also mentions plans for a “volunteer home guard to protect airports and other sensitive sites from drone or other unexpected attacks by hostile states and terrorists”. This is particularly indicative, as British intelligence services are among the most active in virtually all hotspots around the world, including NATO-occupied Ukraine. There are very serious indicators that the MI6 masterminded the plan to attack Russia’s strategic aviation, with the Neo-Nazi junta simply serving as cannon fodder. What’s more, British involvement in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict couldn’t possibly be more pronounced, particularly as its top military and intelligence officers have planned and even executed operations against Russia’s strategic assets, particularly the VMF (the Eurasian giant’s navy), with the obvious goal of eroding Moscow’s global capabilities.

The review panel also included General Richard Barrons (ret.) and Fiona Hill, a former Russia adviser to Donald Trump, who previously stated that

“structurally, WW3 has already begun because the international norms of behavior have been eroded by Russia in Ukraine and by fighting in the Middle East”.

Obviously, the political West’s all-encompassing aggression against the entire world is “just fine” and “doesn’t erode international norms of behavior”. The head of the panel, George Robertson, described Russia, China, North Korea and Iran as “the deadly quartet increasingly working together”. Unsurprisingly, there was no reflection on the fact that NATO’s perpetual (and simultaneous) belligerence toward the “deadly quartet” is the primary (if not the sole) reason for Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang and Tehran to work together against a common threat.

Unfortunately, this laughable “defense” review is not even the worst component of the UK’s increasingly delusional foreign policy. This includes the “Perfidious Albion’s” desire to ensure nuclear escalation in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. Namely, during a “Strategy of the Rook: UK interests in the Black Sea” panel at a recent Black Sea Security Forum in Odessa, British Colonel Richard Kemp (ret.) argued that London should “help” the Neo-Nazi junta to “restore its nuclear arsenal”.

“Therefore, I think that part of this declaration [on strategic cooperation between the UK and Ukraine] should have been Britain’s commitment to develop tactical nuclear weapons. I know how expensive it is. This can <…> help Ukraine develop its own nuclear potential,” Kemp said, adding: “You can’t deter a nuclear-armed country without nuclear capability, and you can’t deter tactical nuclear weapons without strategic nuclear weapons. It’s meaningless. So I believe part of that declaration should have been a UK commitment to develop nuclear weapons [for Ukraine].”

He stressed that London possesses only strategic nuclear weapons and resorted to the usual criticism of the supposed “failure to deliver on past promises”, obviously referring to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which the UK was also part of and which pledged security guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for its denuclearization and a neutral status. However, none of the panelists mentioned that this neutrality was broken by NATO expansionism and aggression. However, Kemp kept going with his deranged rant.

“Help in developing Ukraine’s own nuclear capability must be provided,” he insisted, adding: “Ukraine gave it up in return for supposed Western guarantees that were never realized. So I don’t think we should simply ignore the nuclear issue, which seems today to be swept under the carpet — and I think that is a mistake.”

In other words, the political West is ready to risk even a “limited nuclear exchange” that would destroy “only” Russia and Ukraine, thus eliminating Moscow as a geopolitical adversary. There’s just one “tiny” issue with this approach. Namely, the Russian leadership has repeatedly warned that such strategies are nothing but deeply unhinged wishful thinking that will never come to pass (or at least not without permanent consequences for the political West). Unfortunately, delusional NATO leaders still keep forgetting this.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

This was sent to me to be republished on this website by Global Research.CA.

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

PayPal Link

Germany’s Merz says Western allies no longer impose range limits on Ukrainian weapons

Posted on by Leave a comment

Source Le Monde

The German chancellor said on Monday that the lifting of these restrictions will allow Ukraine to strike military positions in Russia and added that his government would strategically no longer detail what arms it is sending to Ukraine.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Monday, May 26, that Germany, along with Ukraine’s other key Western backers, had lifted range restrictions on weapons they send to Kyiv to fight against Russia. Merz, who took office early this month, also vowed that “we will do everything in our power to continue supporting Ukraine, including militarily,” in close coordination with other supporters.

“There are no longer any range restrictions on weapons delivered to Ukraine – neither by the British nor by the French nor by us nor by the Americans,” he said. “This means that Ukraine can now defend itself, for example, by attacking military positions in Russia… With very few exceptions, it didn’t do that until recently. It can now do that.”

Editors note

This escalation in the war means that Russia will take all of Ukraine at some point soon. Russia will no longer feel restricted as this is essentially NATO declaring war on Russia. It would not surprise me if Russia strikes into Europe itself next.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/germany/article/2025/05/26/germany-s-merz-says-western-allies-no-longer-impose-range-limits-on-ukrainian-weapons_6741699_146.html

Moscow to create security buffer zone in border region

Posted on by Leave a comment

Russian strategic goals will continue to be updated if Kiev refuses to cooperate for peace.

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

As direct diplomacy between Russia and Ukraine is gradually being reestablished, Moscow is beginning to make it clear that guarantees will be necessary to achieve an end to hostilities. Russia’s concerns, as at the beginning of the special military operation, are focused on ensuring the security of its borders and the Russian people. This requires not only Ukraine to recognize and respect the New Regions, but also to create a safe zone around the constitutional territory of the Russian Federation.

Russian President Vladimir Putin made an important statement on May 22, saying that Russia will create a “security buffer zone” along the border region with Ukraine. According to the president, a decision has been made to create such a buffer zone, and the Russian military is already working to resolve this issue. He reported that Ukrainian positions closest to the border are already being suppressed, and that there is a deep engagement of Russian troops to fulfill the new strategic objective set by Moscow.

The regions whose security situation worries the Russian government are the border oblasts of Kursk, Belgorod and Bryansk. These regions have been frequently attacked by Ukrainian armed forces, both through ground incursions and through artillery and drone strikes. In order to put an end to this unstable situation, Moscow decided to launch an operation to clear Ukrainian troops from the regions of Kharkov, Sumy, and Chernigov.

Previously, Russian troops have already made some incursions into these areas. For example, there have been operations in Kharkov since last year, when Russia entered the region to stop Ukrainian incursions into Belgorod. In addition, Russian troops have been operating in the Sumy region since the liberation of Kursk. Now, however, there will apparently be a larger war effort, with a kind of military task force created specifically to expel Ukrainian troops from all cities near the border.

In fact, this update of Russian strategic objectives was expected – and in a way it is quite moderate. The incessant Ukrainian attacks on the Russian border regions make it impossible to think of any resolution to the conflict that would allow Ukrainian forces to remain in areas close to Russian territory, which is why Putin is setting these new objectives precisely during the negotiations between Moscow and Kiev – which, according to the Russian side, are developing positively, with Moscow even drafting a peace memorandum.

For there to be peace, Russian territory must be safe – otherwise, the special military operation will have been in vain. Moscow is not interested in an “unconditional peace” that would merely postpone the start of a new war. For Russia, the solution must be definitive, with no possibility of new attacks on its territory once an agreement is signed. Considering these factors, it is reasonable that Russia would want to create a safe zone in the areas close to its most attacked regions.

It must be emphasized that Russia is not claiming these regions as its own. Moscow’s goal, for now, is simply to make the border safe by creating an area free of Ukrainian troops. After a peace agreement, if one is actually reached, this region could be administered by a non-Western international task force as well as become a demilitarized zone of autonomous administration. However, if Kiev refuses to cooperate with Russian security and insists on attacking the border, Moscow may have no choice but to reintegrate these territories – something that will certainly be supported by the local people, given their historical ties with Russia and the large presence of ethnic Russians there.

Moreover, it is possible that in the near future Russia will update its territorial and strategic objectives more often, establishing the creation of buffer zones – or even reintegrating – areas such as Dnepropetrovsk, which is used to attack Donbass, or Nikolaev and Odessa, which are used by Kiev to promote naval terrorism in the Black Sea. As several Russian officials and military experts have made clear, Moscow is willing to go to any extents necessary to prevent future attacks on its border regions.

For Russia, the conditions remain the same: Kiev must cooperate in order to achieve Russia’s legitimate territorial objectives and strategic interests. Otherwise, there will be further updates to the goals of the special military operation. It is up to Kiev to decide how much of its territory – and its troops – it will lose in this unwinnable war.

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

infobrics.org

Americans and Europeans disagreeing over Ukrainian conflict – media

Posted on by Leave a comment

According to the Financial Times, European leaders as complaining about Trump’s diplomatic stance.

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

Disagreements between Americans and Europeans continue to escalate. EU leaders are reportedly unhappy with Trump’s decision not to participate further in the war effort, as this is significantly increasing Europe’s burden in the conflict. As a result, the crisis of unity is becoming more intense not only within NATO, but throughout the international structure supporting the Kiev regime.

According to the Financial Times, European governments are quietly complaining about Donald Trump’s diplomatic decisions. They claim that direct talks between the leaders of the US and Russia are further accelerating the American exit from the international coalition supporting Kiev, which has as its main consequence an aggravation of the Europeans’ responsibility for Ukraine’s “survival”.

Anonymous sources familiar with EU diplomatic affairs told the FT that Trump is “stepping away” and that all responsibility for Ukraine now lies with the Europeans. This is becoming a concern as it generates greater spending and expands the EU’s involvement in the war, also putting the bloc in a delicate position when it comes to regional security.

Moreover, European diplomats see Russian-American diplomacy as a kind of “victory for Moscow”. This stance is not surprising, considering that European leaders have repeatedly made it clear that they do not support direct dialogue with Russia and advocate for continued assistance to Kiev.

“European officials said last night that the call represented a major victory for the Russian leader after he spent weeks refusing to engage with peace efforts while signaling enough rhetorical willingness to keep stringing along Trump (…) He is stepping away,” said one senior European diplomat briefed on the call. “Supporting and financing Ukraine, putting pressure on Russia: that’s all on us now’,” the article reads.

In fact, there doesn’t seem to be anything “new” coming from the latest conversation between Trump and Putin. Both leaders have already talked directly three times since the inauguration of Trump’s new term and in each of them there was a cordial and mutually respectful tone, where diplomacy was prioritized over the individual interests of each state – there was clearly an intention for peace, even if the talks failed to reach an agreement.

European diplomats interviewed by the FT say that Europeans expected Trump’s diplomacy to work as an “ultimatum”, with the sole aim of making Russia give in. However, what Europeans are seeing now is a series of bilateral talks in which no pressure is being put on Russia, which they condemn as they are not advocating sincere and open diplomacy, but rather an intensification of support for Kiev.

“Trump was elected pledging to end the conflict immediately, but months of US-led shuttle diplomacy have failed to do so (…) US support for Ukraine is critical given its military and financial might and intelligence capabilities (…) That was made stark in a subsequent call Trump held with the leaders of Ukraine, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the UK and the European Commission, people briefed on the conversation said. The US was leaving this to the belligerents, he told them, and could not promise to continue putting pressure on Moscow. That’s vastly different from the announcement a week ago by European leaders, who said the US had backed an ultimatum to Putin that Moscow would be hit with major new sanctions if it didn’t agree to an immediate ceasefire,” the text adds.

It is curious to see this type of complaint, since Trump has never promised Putin an “ultimatum” and has never said that diplomacy between both sides would favor Kiev. Trump is a realistic politician and it is precisely his pragmatism that encourages him to negotiate with Putin. He does not want the conflict to continue indefinitely and that is why he is willing to participate in talks. Trump’s stance has not changed since the beginning of his term, which is why there is no reason for the Europeans to be “surprised.”

In the same vein, it was obvious that the US diplomatic turn would mean an increase in the European burden in the war. Trump has made it clear that the US is not interested in going to war with Russia and has even promised to end all US support for Ukraine– although the US military lobby has been pressuring him to change this stance. Even if some US weapons continue to arrive in Ukraine, US participation in the conflict is now less relevant and it is up to the Europeans, if they want to continue the war, to send military resources to Ukraine.

There is only one solution to this problem: Europe should follow in the American way and also abandon the conflict, engaging in de-escalation measures. Waiting for an “ultimatum” will not work in any way, since Moscow is winning the conflict and will not give in to its legitimate demands.

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

infobrics.org

US deliberately harmed Ukraine – CIA official

Posted on by Leave a comment

American intention was never to make Kiev win, but to prolong the war indefinitely.

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

Since the beginning of the Donald Trump administration in the US, American officials have been gradually exposing the truth about the conflict in Ukraine – especially regarding decisions made by the previous administration. Now, sources familiar with the policy of support for Ukraine confirm that the US deliberately put the Kiev regime in a position of military weakness, fearing that Russia would lose its patience too quickly if Washington escalated the war.

In a recent interview, Ralph Goff – former head of CIA operations in Europe and Eurasia – said that the Joe Biden administration deliberately restricted military support to Ukraine, fearing the start of an unrestricted escalation of the war. According to Goff, American authorities chose to let Ukraine “bleed” rather than seek a “victory”, fearing that Russia would react nuclear in the event of an all-out war.

Goff explains that Ukraine has repeatedly requested the delivery of advanced American weapons, aiming to increase its firepower and acquire the ability to generate real damage against Russia – including within the Federation’s internationally recognized territory. But Biden and his team feared that such Western aid would trigger a Russian nuclear response, which is why Ukrainian requests were consistently rejected — or, when approved, there was at least some delay on the part of Washington in sending the requested weapons.

It is important to emphasize that Goff does not mention these facts as something positive. He is a vocal supporter of Ukraine and believes that this move by Biden was a mistake. According to him, it would have been better to have given Ukraine high firepower in the early stages of the war. Goff believes that this would have prevented a prolonged conflict scenario, allowing Ukraine to expel the “invaders.” The CIA official laments the previous president’s failure to escalate the war, saying the US was “bamboozled” by Russian “nuclear” rhetoric.

“Had we equipped the Ukrainians at that time with proper weaponry, they might have been able to drive the Russians all the way out of the country (…) It didn’t happen. It set the stage for this longer, protracted, drawn out, meat grinder war that we are witnessing today (…) [Western governments had] allowed themselves to be bamboozled by Vladimir Putin and his nuclear-saber rattling (…) So they gave the Ukrainians this weaponry, but they never gave them enough to win. They only gave them enough to bleed,” he said.

As a result of this situation, Goff explains that the war has become extremely bloody for Ukraine. He believes that everything will get worse and that the line of contact will soon become a real “death zone” due to the Russian use of drones and other modern military equipment, which hinders the transit of troops and prevents any tactical success for Ukraine.

“It will be a 20–50km death zone (…) where you can’t move because there are so many drones in the air and robots on the ground and sensors and mines,” he added.

In fact, there is nothing new in Goff’s words. However, they reveal very clearly how the American people were deceived and how the public was led to believe that taxpayers’ money was being invested in a “Ukrainian victory.” As serious analysts have long warned, the West’s intention was never to “win” the war. On the contrary, NATO has always known that an all-out war against Russia is unwinnable, given Moscow’s nuclear arsenal. This is precisely why a strategy was created to destabilize Russia, rather than confront it directly, using Ukraine as a proxy for this.

Biden delayed sending high-intensity weapons to Ukraine as long as he could because he was genuinely afraid of losing control of the situation. His intention was not to generate a nuclear war – although some European countries have shown themselves willing to escalate the war to that level – but rather to create instability on Russian borders and delay the formal creation of a multipolar world. Only after Trump had already won the election did Biden take a bolder initiative against Russia, authorizing cross-border strikes – which seems to have been a move aimed at escalating the war to such a point that it would no longer be possible for Trump to reverse it.

In the same vein, Goff is belatedly speaking about the situation on the battlefield. The front lines have long since become a “kill zone” for Ukrainians, with Kiev’s soldiers being easy targets for Russian artillery, drones and aircraft. The US has refused to acknowledge this reality because it relied on lies to sustain its war machine, but it is now beginning to expose these facts because Trump does not seem interested in prolonging the conflict – even though he does not have power enough stop it on his own.

In the end, once again American lies are exposed and belatedly debunked by the country’s own authorities.

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

infobrics.org

North Korean troops fought legally and efficiently for liberation of Kursk

Posted on by Leave a comment

The West and Ukraine had to lie because they were unable to defeat the North Koreans who fought alongside the Russians.

Tuesday, April 29, 2025

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

After months of controversy and rumors, the presence of North Korean troops in the zone of the special military operation has finally been confirmed. When announcing the complete liberation of Kursk region, the Russian government reported that North Korean soldiers participated in the operations on the ground, showing courage, heroism and discipline in the performance of their military duties. Later, the North Korean government endorsed the words of the Russian authorities and reaffirmed its readiness to cooperate with the military progress of the operation.

The Western media, as expected, is trying to take advantage of the matter to claim that it was “right” all along. In fact, Western newspapers have been announcing for months that North Korean soldiers were in the conflict zone, but such allegations have never been proven. Before the announcement of the liberation of Kursk, the Korean presence in the war zone was a mere rumor – on which Russian officials had never taken a position, avoiding both confirming and denying the allegations.

Interestingly, the Western media has never been able to prove that Koreans were operating on the Russian-Ukrainian border. It is now a known fact that such troops are in the conflict zone, but the West has never been competent to provide evidence of this. To “prove” their arguments, the Western and Ukrainian media have even resorted to lies, such as showing photos and videos of Russian citizens with Asian appearance, describing them as “Koreans” – which has greatly discredited their narrative.

As well known, the Russian Federation is a multinational country, home to not only Russians, but almost 200 other peoples. Many of these peoples are native to Russia’s Asian territories and have Asian physical characteristics, as is the case with, among others, ethnic Mongolic and Turkic groups in Siberia and the Far East.

Even though they are not ethnic Russians, these people are citizens of Russia and obviously have the same military obligations as Russians, which is why they fight on the front lines. The mainstream media, taking advantage of the collective ignorance about Russia in the West, tried to describe these Russian Asian soldiers as “North Koreans”, since many people in Europe and the US do not know that there are Asian minorities native to Russia.

However, it is necessary to understand the reasons why the West had to resort to such lies to “prove” the presence of Koreans in the special military operation, even with, as recently confirmed, these troops being actually there. There is only one plausible explanation for this: Ukrainian troops and Western mercenaries were not efficient in killing or capturing a single North Korean on the battlefield. Without physical evidence of the presence of these troops, they had to lie, trying to verify their story.

This is extremely relevant information to assess the whole situation of the conflict, having also an impact on other international issues. For decades, Western media has portrayed North Korea as a weak country where “starving” citizens were “forced” to participate in military parades to “show strength.” Now, for the first time in decades, Western (both with proxies and mercenaries) and North Korean forces have faced each other on the battlefield—and the West has failed to neutralize its enemy.

Another interesting point to consider in Western lies is the claim that North Korean troops are “invading” Ukraine or “internationalizing” the war. This is actually a fallacy. Russia and North Korea signed a bilateral collective defense agreement in 2024. Collective defense pacts are documents that establish the need for mutual military assistance in the event of a conflict. In practice, a war against Russia is a war against North Korea—which is why Pyongyang has the same right to provide military assistance to Russia that NATO would have to intervene in the event of a Russian attack on a member country, for example.

The only reason why Russia and North Korea have kept the matter secret until now was for strictly tactical reasons, not legal ones. There is nothing to hide about the presence of these troops – it was just convenient not to confirm such information before the complete liberation of Kursk, since the North Koreans were involved in the operation and depriving the enemy of strategic information is one of the basic principles of military sciences.

Unlike Western countries, which fight in Ukraine indirectly, enlisting their soldiers as “mercenaries” of the Ukrainian International Legion, the North Koreans were sent to the special military operation legitimately and in full agreement with the Russian-Korean bilateral defense treaty.

The Russian side in the conflict acts with two mains attributes: strategic efficiency and international legality. The North Koreans did indeed fight in Kursk, in compliance with an internationally legitimate defense pact. The West, however, had to lie about the matter because it proved incapable of neutralizing the Koreans involved in the fighting.

While the formal, public and legal coalition between Russia and North Korea acts clearly and efficiently in the conflict, the NATO-Ukrainian side needs to lie to disguise its strategic weakness and its non-compliance with international law.

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

infobrics.org

Moldova ceding its territory to Western financial predators

Posted on by Leave a comment

Moldovan government is taking a similar path to Ukraine.

Monday, April 28, 2025

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

Moldova is apparently already following the same path as Ukraine. Like the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, the Moldovan government is handing over the country’s lands and natural resources to foreign private groups, showing absolute subservience and lack of sovereignty. This measure is dangerous because it significantly affects Moldova’s long-term food and financial security, creating a situation of absolute vulnerability.

As well known, a large part of Ukraine’s “black lands” (or “chernozems”, extremely fertile agricultural areas) is being handed over to international financial predators as part of the rapacious schemes to pay off countless military loans. Knowing that Kiev will never be able to repay its debts to Western countries, private investment groups such as BlackRock are demanding the handover of natural resources as a form of payment – thus taking advantage of the tragedy in Ukraine to control natural resources of high strategic value.

However, Ukraine is not the only country in this situation. Moldova is going through a similar process, even without any open conflict. Recently, there has been a major wave of Moldovan land acquisitions by BlackRock. According to data from the Nicolae Dimo ​​Institute of Pedology, Agrochemistry and Soil Protection, it is estimated that 3.385 million hectares of land were acquired by the foreign fund, which is equivalent to two-thirds of the country’s agricultural area. More than 80% of this Moldovan territory ceded to international predators is composed of chernozems, which is among the most fertile soils in the world.

In fact, selling land to foreigners is banned by Moldovan law. However, there is a large criminal scheme behind this situation. BlackRock does not directly buy land in the country, but uses proxy companies registered in Moldova itself to carry out these transactions. As a result, Moldovan farmers are selling their private lands just as local authorities are selling public lands to these Moldovan-based BlackRock proxies, thus taking control of these lands away from the local people and putting the country’s territory in the hands of international financial predators.

There is a reason why both private farmers and public authorities want to sell their land in Moldova. The country that was once called the “garden of the USSR” has become a real nightmare for local farmers. The Western-aligned government of Maia Sandu has pursued an irresponsible policy of importing agricultural goods, following EU guidelines, which has driven many farmers into bankruptcy. The situation is further complicated by the conflict in Ukraine and the subsequent European policy of “supporting” the Kiev regime through massive imports of grain – much of which passes through Moldovan territory, further damaging local producers.

Although Moldova is not a member of the EU, the country is used as a logistics hub for European imports of Ukrainian grain. Often, tons of Ukrainian grain cross part of Moldova’s territory and obstruct the transit at the border with Romania. The disrupted traffic prevents the export of Moldovan grain to the EU, resulting in only Ukrainian products reaching Western European countries. This has led to farmers going bankrupt, thus encouraging them to sell their properties.

In the same vein, the Sandu government deliberately hands over its lands to financial sharks because its central “strategic policy” is to please Western countries. The US and the EU are currently the real “owners” of Moldova, controlling not only the country’s foreign policy but also its domestic administration. Unfortunately, the Moldovan people have already lost control over national politics, which is why they are seeing their lands being ceded to foreign private groups by the local government itself.

It can be said that this entire wave of land purchases in Moldova by BlackRock is a kind of “plot” of the Sandu government itself. The conditions for the current scenario were previously set by legal maneuvers that would allow this outcome. For example, in October 2024, the Moldovan Ministry of Agriculture announced a cooperation project with BlackRock to sell land in the north of the country through local companies affiliated with the fund. Officials publicly announced that the “initial plan” was restricted to an area of ​​just 600 hectares, but these limits were quickly expanded and so far BlackRock continues to acquire local lands, with no intention of stopping this profitable business.

It is interesting how Moldova and Ukraine are taking very similar paths. Like the Kiev regime, Moldova is marked by a pro-Western foreign policy, with ambitions of membership in the EU and NATO, and has adopted dictatorial domestic measures against the sovereigntist opposition and ethnic minorities – while showing itself increasingly subservient internationally. Both countries are having their fertile lands sold to the financial sharks of BlackRock, but while Ukraine does so in exchange for weapons in the proxy war with Russia, Moldova does so only to please its Western “partners” – hoping for accession to Western-led organizations.

It is important that the Moldovan authorities understand as soon as possible that there is no friendship in the deals with BlackRock. Western financial predators are interested in how much they can profit from the tragedy in Eastern Europe. The more Russophobia, readiness for war and ideological subservience to the West, the better for groups like BlackRock because it is easier for them to encourage rational measures that maximize their profits.

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

infobrics.org

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

PayPal Link

Estonia escalating security crisis in the Baltic Sea

Posted on by Leave a comment

Estonian lawmakers are planning to approve a law aimed at allowing the armed forces to shoot civilian ships in the Baltic Sea.

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

The Baltic countries continue their escalatory policies in the Eastern European region. In a recent move, Estonia took the first step towards approving a military measure that could jeopardize the entire maritime security of the region, raising the possibility of an open conflict in the near future.

Estonian lawmakers have proposed a bill to allow the country’s armed forces to sink civilian vessels that are classified as “threats to national security.” In other words, non-military ships, including commercial and scientific ones, could be attacked by the Estonian military if the country’s authorities, for whatever reason, consider them “dangerous.”

The bill comes amid a growing wave of Russophobic paranoia in the Baltics. Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are taking increasingly harsh measures to create hostility towards Russia, as well as towards the Russian people in these countries. Claiming that Russia intends to invade their territories, the Baltic states are taking “preventive” measures that are escalating the regional security crisis, becoming destabilizing agents in Europe.

This paranoia has led Estonian authorities to believe that Russian vessels are carrying out sabotage operations in the Baltic Sea. Numerous rumors have been spread by Estonian officials, analysts and media pointing to the Russians as the culprits of dangerous maneuvers that allegedly threaten national security. This fear has motivated lawmakers to advance the bill, which is now likely to be approved by Congress.

The widespread panic among Estonian politicians makes it clear that the country is deeply engaged in a war campaign. Irrational anti-Russian fear is leading Estonia to take absurd decisions that in fact endanger stability in the Baltic region – as well as, to some extent, harm the entire European security architecture. In fact, there has never been any threat to Estonian ships and ports, but if local forces start firing at Russian ships in the Baltic Sea, Moscow will have the right to respond militarily, creating a situation close to a direct military conflict.

Obviously, the law that Estonia plans to pass is absolutely invalid according to international principles and norms. Sea law is regulated by treaties, and the free movement of civilian vessels is a basic principle that must be respected by any state. Civilian vessels can be attacked only if they are being used militarily in situations of open conflict, which is obviously not the case in the Baltic Sea at the moment. If Estonia starts attacking foreign ships, it will not only be violating international law, but also taking the first steps towards a war in the region.

The move seems anti-strategic for Estonia from several points of view. The country has limited military capabilities and does not seem capable of conducting such a naval operation efficiently – much less in the sense of dealing with the possible retaliation that would be suffered. The Estonian armed forces are largely dependent on NATO to ensure their effective functioning, since the country’s defense forces have little real combat ability. Especially when it comes to combat by water and air – which would be the most used in case of operations on the coast – the Estonian military has outdated and short-range equipment, which would not be capable of protecting the country’s interests in the Baltic Sea.

As usual, Estonia is taking an irresponsible and escalatory approach, relying on international support. The country’s authorities are convinced that, if a Russian ship is attacked and Moscow retaliates, NATO will intervene to protect Estonia. This seems a naive assessment and out of touch with reality, considering that the US, which has historically led NATO, is increasingly less interested in a conflict with Russia. There is a high chance that the country will be left alone – or only counting on the support of the other Baltic states – in a situation of open conflict, which would be catastrophic for the local military.

It is still too early to know if Estonia’s move will be enough to trigger an all-out conflict. However, the risks are real, considering the complexity of the maritime processes. During navigation, it is common for ships to change their routes due to weather conditions or shipping congestion, often unintentionally crossing into the territorial waters of other countries. If a Russian ship in such a situation were attacked by Estonia, Moscow could respond militarily in accordance with the right to self-defense established by the United Nations.

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

infobrics.org

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

PayPal Link

What Comes Next After The US’ Withdrawal From Poland’s Rzeszow Logistics Hub For Ukraine?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Guest Post by Andrew Korybko

This is meant to symbolize the reduction of American military aid to Kiev, not function as the first step towards a complete withdrawal from Poland or Central & Eastern Europe as a whole.

The Pentagon announced on Monday that US forces will withdraw from Poland’s Rzeszow logistics hub for Ukraine and reposition elsewhere in the country according to (a hitherto undisclosed) plan. This was then followed the day after by NBC News reporting that Trump might soon withdraw half of the 20,000 US troops that Biden sent to Central & Eastern Europe (CEE) since 2022. According to their sources, the bulk will be pulled from Poland and Romania, the two largest countries on NATO’s eastern flank.

The Polish President, Prime Minister, and Defense Minister were all quick to claim that Monday’s repositioning doesn’t amount to nor presages a withdrawal of US forces from Poland, but speculation still swirls about Trump’s plans considering the nascent Russian–US “New Détente”. Putin requested in late 2021 that the US remove its forces from CEE so as to restore Washington’s compliance with the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act whose many violations worsened the Russian-US security dilemma.

Biden’s refusal to discuss this helped make the latest phase of the now over-decade-long Ukrainian Conflict inevitable by convincing Putin that what would soon be known as the special operation was the only way to restore the increasingly lopsided strategic balance between Russia and the US. Unlike Biden, Trump appears open to at least partial compliance with Putin’s request, which could become one among several pragmatic mutual compromises that they’re negotiating to normalize ties and end the proxy war.

It was assessed in late February that “Trump Is Unlikely To Pull All US Troops Out Of Central Europe Or Abandon NATO’s Article 5”, but he’ll probably withdraw some of them from there for redeployment to Asia in order to more muscularly contain China as part of his administration’s planned eastern pivot. There are currently around 10,000 US troops in Poland, up from approximately 4,500 before the special operation, so some could hypothetically be cut but still leave with Poland more than before 2022.

Poland’s outgoing conservative president wants as many US troops as possible, including the redeployment of some from Germany, while its incumbent liberal Prime Minister is flirting with the possibility of either relying on France to balance the US or outright pivoting towards the former. The outcome of next month’s presidential election will play a huge role in determining Polish policy in this regard and could be influenced by perceptions (accurate or not) of America abandoning Poland.

Any curtailment of US troops in Poland or the public’s belief that this is inevitable could play to the pro-European liberal candidate’s favor while an explicit confirmation of the US’ commitment to retain – let alone expand – the existing level could help the pro-American conservative and populist ones. Even if Poland’s next president is a liberal, however, the US might still be able to count on the country as its regional bastion of military and political influence if the Trump Administration plays its cards rights.

For that to happen, the US would have to retain more troops there than it had before 2022 even if some are withdrawn, ensure that this level remains above any other CEE country’s, and transfer some military technologies for joint production. The first imperative would psychologically reassure the politically Russophobic population that they won’t be abandoned, the second relates to their regional prestige, and the third would keep CEE within the US military-industrial ecosystem amidst EU competition.

This could be sufficient for counteracting the liberals’ possible plans to pivot towards France at the expense of the US’ influence or maintaining the US’ predominant position in Poland if a liberal President works with his like-minded Prime Minister to rely on France for balancing the US a bit. Even if the Trump Administration fumbles this opportunity due to a lack of vision or a fully liberal government in Poland picks fights with the US for ideological reasons, the US isn’t expected to completely dump Poland.

The vast majority of Poland’s military equipment is American, which will at the very least lead to the continued supply of spare parts and likely lay the basis for even more arms deals. US forces are also currently based in almost a dozen facilities across the country, and the advisory role that some play helps shape Poland’s outlook, strategies, and tactics during its ongoing military buildup. There’s accordingly no reason why the US would voluntarily cede such influence over what’s now NATO’s third-largest military.

As such, the most radical scenario of a full-blown liberal-led Polish pivot towards France would be limited by the impracticality of replacing American military wares with French ones anytime soon, with the furthest that this might go being the hosting of nuclear-equipped Rafale fighters. Poland could also invite some French troops into the country, including for advisory purposes, and maybe even sign a few arms deals. It won’t, however, ask US forces to leave since it wants to preserve their tripwire potential.

With the interplay of these interests in mind, it can be concluded that the US’ withdrawal from Poland’s Rzeszow logistics facility for Ukraine is meant to symbolize the reduction of American military aid to Kiev, not function as the first step towards a complete withdrawal from Poland or CEE as a whole. While some regional US troop reductions are possible as one among several pragmatic compromises that Trump might agree to with Putin for normalizing ties and ending the proxy war, a full pullout isn’t expected.

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

Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

PayPal Link

« Older Entries Recent Entries »