US Deploys 7 B2 Stealth Bombers to Diego Garcia While the EU Tells Citizens to Prep for War
Tag Archives: NATO
Poland and the Baltics want to plant mines on NATO’s eastern flank
The move would substantially worsen the regional security crisis.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Apparently, some European countries are ready to take all sorts of belligerent measures, putting the continent’s regional security architecture at serious risk. Anti-Russian paranoia and pressure from the EU itself to expand military policies are leading to a dangerous escalation of tensions, the consequences of which could be devastating in the future.
Recently, military from Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania formally requested their governments to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty. The agreement requires its signatories to ban the use of anti-personnel landmines, even in situations of open conflict. According to the Polish and Baltic military, this document prevents their countries from properly dealing with the current military challenges they are facing.
“We believe that in the current security environment it is paramount to provide our defense forces flexibility and freedom of choice to potentially use new weapons systems and solutions to bolster the defense of the Alliance’s vulnerable Eastern Flank. In light of these considerations, we—the Ministers of Defense of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland—unanimously recommend withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention. With this decision, we are sending a clear message: our countries are prepared and can use every necessary measure to defend our territory and freedom,” the joint statement reads.
As expected, the military used Russia as a justification for its bellicose actions. When referring to the “Eastern Flank,” the military simply used NATO’s official nomenclature to refer to the line of contact with Russia. In practice, the text is simply a request to revise these countries’ rules on the use of weapons considering the possibility of a confrontation with Moscow in the future.
The convention, to which Poland and the Baltics are signatories, is intended precisely to reduce the number of civilian casualties in cases of military conflict. However, the document has failed to achieve its objective, as several major world powers have failed to approve it. The three major military powers themselves, the US, Russia and China, are not members of the convention, and are free to use anti-personnel mines if they deem it necessary in a hostile situation.
Countries of lesser military relevance in the West, such as Poland and the Baltics, signed the treaty, which seems quite understandable. As NATO members, and the US being the alliance’s leading country, these states in theory do not need to worry about this type of issue, considering that in the event of war Washington which is not a member of the convention would protect them with its own military apparatus, in accordance with NATO’s collective defense clause.
However, what we are seeing recently is a deep process of polarization and conflict of interests within the Western alliance itself. Most European states support the prolongation of the Ukrainian conflict, while the US, since the election of Donald Trump, is increasingly interested in a quick and diplomatic solution. In this scenario, pro-war European countries are beginning to feel unprotected because they see the US’ attitude towards Ukraine as a kind of “abandonment”, which is why they fear that this will happen to them in the future.
The US itself has been fomenting paranoid Russophobic sentiments in European countries for decades. NATO’s anti-Russian narrative has brainwashed an entire generation in Poland and the Baltics. These countries’ decision-makers simply hate Russia and genuinely believe that there is a “Russian threat”. They fear an invasion of their territories after the end of the war in Ukraine, even though Moscow has repeatedly made it clear that it has no territorial or strategic interests in Western countries.
In practice, Poland and the Baltics, under the excuse of “preparing for war with Russia,” are creating real conditions for a future conflict. If these countries violate the Ottawa Convention and start using mines, a serious escalation could occur.
Poland has already made it clear that it wants to mine its border with Belarus and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. If these mines start causing fatal incidents against Russian and Belarusian citizens, Moscow and Minsk – which have a joint agreement on collective defense within the Union State – could interpret Poland’s actions as aggression, legitimizing appropriate responses.
The best thing Poland and the Baltics can do for their own security is to ban militarization policies and follow the path paved by Trump’s US for a de-escalation of NATO-Russia relations. There is no advantage for these countries in continuing to worsen the security crisis since they do not have sufficient military capacity to engage in an open conflict with Russia. De-escalation is the only viable option to prevent the worst-case scenario.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
“The views and opinions expressed in this guest post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Don’t Speak News or John Storm.”
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we havePayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The buy me a coffee link is below.
Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare
Cash App ID: $jstorm212
Merkel criticizes Germany’s anti-Russian hostility
According to the former German chancellor, it is necessary to engage in discussions to understand Russia’s reasons.
Tuesday, March 18, 2025
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Apparently, the anti-Russian hostility of German officials is causing controversy among the country’s politicians themselves. In a recent speech, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized the use of pejorative terms to refer to people who advocate a diplomatic approach with Moscow, stating that such attitudes harm political dialogue in Europe.
Recently, the term “Putinversteher” (Putin’s understander) has become popular among German officials and media. The “adjective” is used to defame any German or European who believes in the possibility of diplomatic talks with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. In other words, the German official media has deliberately adopted a rude and offensive term and is using it against German citizens themselves, justifying such attitude with anti-Russian arguments.
Merkel told journalists in a recent interview with Berliner Zeitung that using this word is wrong because it obstructs diplomatic initiatives. Merkel says that it is necessary to engage in talks to understand the real reasons for the conflict and possibly find a solution through a mutually beneficial agreement. For this reason, excluding people who support diplomacy from the public debate is a wrong move.
Merkel emphasized that “Putinversteher” is a “strange” word and that it should be avoided in order to ensure dialogue in Europe. More than that, she made it clear that it is necessary for the Europeans to understand Putin and “put themselves in his position”, thus showing a willingness for real diplomatic dialogue. According to Merkel, understanding the Russian side in the conflict does not mean supporting Moscow, and there is therefore no problem in doing so.
It is important to emphasize that Merkel at no time expressed any sympathy for Putin or Russia. She continues to adopt a completely pro-Ukrainian and pro-Western rhetoric, condemning what she calls Russia’s “unjustified invasion.” However, Merkel supports discussions that take into account the strategic interests of the Russian Federation – certainly because she understands that this is the only possible way to end the war.
“[This term is] Not good, because there has to be a discussion about it. You have to plan ahead for diplomatic initiatives so that they are available at the right moment (…) I find the accusation of being a Putinversteher inappropriate. It is used as a conversation-stopper, a way to shut down debate (…) No one has ever called me that – it’s a strange word. Understanding what Putin does and putting oneself in his position is not wrong. It is a fundamental task of diplomacy and something entirely different from supporting him (…) There is no justification for him [Putin] invading another country, but the discussion about Russia’s interests must be allowed,” she said.
In fact, Merkel governed Germany for many years and at that time her relations with Russia were marked by a certain ambiguity. While she was always committed to the Western hegemonic order on all major ideological and strategic issues, Merkel also had a reasonably pragmatic approach to Russia on some points. Having been educated in East Germany and having a good knowledge of the Russian language, she knew the Russian culture and history more deeply than her European allies and used this expertise to engage in fruitful dialogues – which was particularly possible with Putin, since the Russian president is also a deep connoisseur of German culture and language.
Despite being against Russia on several international issues, Merkel did not give up on the strategic partnership in energy and other relevant issues, which allowed for a period of reasonable stability in bilateral relations. After the end of the Merkel era, relations between Germany and Russia went into absolute decline as the political elites that came to power in Berlin were much more hostile to Moscow – as well as much more ignorant of Russian culture and interests.
So, it is understandable that there is a clash of opinions in Germany about how to deal with Russia. Merkel is herself hostile to Moscow, but she has a softer, more cultured and pragmatic approach. However, the current coalition is completely irrational and advocates for policies that, if implemented without restrictions, could easily lead Europe to an all-out war scenario in the near future.
It is possible to say that the extreme level of anti-Russian hostility in Germany is terrifying even the most experienced German politicians. Berlin has adopted actual madness as state policy and is ready to destroy the entire European security architecture just to defend interests that do not reflect the opinion of the German people.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Here’s What Comes Next After Putin & Trump Just Agreed To Start Peace Talks
Guest post by Andrew Korybko
“The views and opinions expressed in this guest post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Don’t Speak News or John Storm.”
The path ahead will be very difficult due to the sensitive issues that Russia and the US must resolve.
12 February 2025 will go down in history as the day when the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine officially began to end. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth started everything off by declaring that: Ukraine won’t join NATO; the US doesn’t believe that Ukraine can restore its pre-2014 borders; the US won’t deploy troops to the conflict zone; the US wants the Europeans to assume some peacekeeping responsibilities there instead; but the US won’t extend Article 5 guarantees to EU forces there.
This was followed by Trump and Putin talking for the first time since the former returned to office. They agreed to begin peace talks without delay, which was followed by Trump calling Zelensky to brief him about this and likely coerce the concessions from him that he presumably promised Putin. Trump also suggested that he’ll soon meet Putin in Saudi Arabia and that each of them might then visit each other’s countries as part of the peace process. Here are some background briefings about the larger context:
* 3 January: “Creative Energy Diplomacy Can Lay The Basis For A Grand Russian-American Deal”
* 17 January: “The Merits Of A Demilitarized ‘Trans-Dnieper’ Region Controlled By Non-Western Peacekeepers”
* 3 February: “Territorial Concessions Might Precede A Ceasefire That Leads To New Ukrainian Elections”
* 4 February: “Trump’s Interest In Ukraine’s Rare Earth Minerals Might Backfire On Zelensky”
* 7 February: “Trump’s Special Envoy Shed More Light On His Boss’ Ukrainian Peace Plan”
The first analysis about creative energy diplomacy contains a dozen proposed compromises for each side that could help move their talks along. In fact, the one about the US not extending Article 5 guarantees to EU forces in Ukraine is now policy per Hegseth, so it’s possible that some others might follow. Additionally, Trump just remarked about how unpopular Zelensky has become, which suggests that he’s planning the “phased leadership transition” via new elections that was also proposed in that piece.
It remains to be seen which of these other proposals might soon become US policy, with the same being said for the ones that Russia might implement, such as agreeing to limited military restrictions on its side of the DMZ that’ll likely be created by the end of this process for example. What follows are the five main issues that’ll shape the Russian-US peace talks on Ukraine between their leaders, diplomats, and whichever of their experts might be invited to participate in this via complementary Track II talks:
———-
* Territorial Parameters
The most immediate issue that must be resolved is where the new Russian-Ukrainian border will fall. Hegseth’s claim about Ukraine’s inability to restore its pre-2014 border hints that Trump could coerce Zelensky into withdrawing from at least all of Donbass, which is at the center of the territorial dimension of their conflict, though it’s possible that his forces might fall back as far as Zaporozhye city. Letting Russia control that city and the parts of its new regions west of the Dnieper is unlikely at this time.
That’s because Trump might not want to take the flak that would follow giving Russia a city of over 700,000 whose residents didn’t vote in September 2022’s referendum. The same goes for the parts of Russia’s new regions west of the river. Instead, he might propose a UN-supervised referendum sometime after the fighting freezes to resolve this aspect of their territorial dispute, all while allowing Russia to continue to officially lay claim to those areas. That might be pragmatic enough for Putin to agree.
* DMZ Terms & Peacekeeper Roles
The next issue to address after the above are the terms of the DMZ along their interim border and the role of the peacekeepers who’d then likely deploy there to monitor it. Hegseth’s declaration that the US will not extend Article 5 guarantees to EU forces there could deter them from playing a major role, which Russia would have to authorize via a UNSC Resolution in any case per Permanent Representative Vasily Nebenzia otherwise they’ll be legitimate targets. Non-Western ones are thus much more agreeable.
As it turns out, the vast majority of UN peacekeepers are from non-Western countries, so they could prospectively deploy there under a UNSC mandate per Nebenzia’s suggestion and possibly even result in the total exclusion of any Western peacekeepers if it’s agreed that none will contribute to this mission. Their terms would have to be acceptable to both Russia and the US in order for this resolution to pass, so it’s unclear exactly what they’ll be able to do or not do, but that directly segues into the next issue.
* Demilitarization & Denazification
Two of Russia’s main goals in the special operation are to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, which it initially sought to do by militarily coercing Ukraine into this per the terms established in spring 2022’s draft peace treaty, though that didn’t succeed due to the UK and Poland. It’s unrealistic to imagine that Trump will agree to let Russia deploy its armed forces throughout the entirety of Ukraine to implement this so it can only be accomplished through similar diplomatic means involving Kiev’s acquiescence.
Therein lies the possible role that UN peacekeepers can play in monitoring and enforcing whatever is ultimately agreed upon for demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine. This could take the form of inspecting suspected illegal arms sites and all of Ukraine’s cross-border traffic (including at its ports) while having the right to mandate changes to its media reporting and school curricula as need be. This is the only way to ensure that Ukraine remains demilitarized and denazified after the conflict ends.
* Sanctions Relief
Russia has repeatedly demanded the lifting of all Western sanctions, but the argument can be made that “deal-master” Trump wouldn’t ever agree to do this all at once, instead preferring to draft a plan for phased sanctions relief as a reward for Russia’s compliance with a ceasefire, armistice, or peace treaty. This could take the form of what was proposed in the creative energy diplomacy analysis whereby some Russian exports to the EU could resume during the first phase as a trust-building measure.
While Russia would prefer that they all be immediately lifted, its policymakers might conclude that it’s better to accept a phased plan if that’s all that Trump is comfortable offering instead of nothing at all. He’d do well though to engage in the goodwill gesture of lifting sanctions on Russia’s oil exports by sea too since that could convince those policymakers that he’s serious about relieving pressure on Russia. This would in turn make it easier for Putin to sell the compromise of phased sanctions relief at home.
* New Security Architecture
Russia envisaged creating a new European security architecture through mutual agreements with the US and NATO in December 2021 per the security guarantee requests that it shared with them at the time. These were in hindsight meant to diplomatically resolve their security dilemma, whose roots are in NATO’s continued eastward expansion after the Old Cold War and especially its clandestine expansion into Ukraine, in lieu of the special operation that Putin was secretly planning at the time if that failed.
So much has changed since then that separate comprehensive talks on this must start right after whatever agreement they reach on Ukraine. The new issues include NATO’s eastern military buildup, Finland and Sweden’s new memberships, Russia’s hypersonic Oreshniks, their deployment to Belarus, Russia’s deployment of nukes there too, the future of the New START that expires next year, and the new space arms race, et al. Agreeing on a new security architecture will therefore stabilize the world.
———-
As can be seen, the path ahead will be very difficult due to the sensitive issues that Russia and the US must resolve, but their leaders have shown that they have the will to negotiate in good faith. Neither side is likely to achieve their maximum objectives, but diplomacy is the art of the possible, so each will do their utmost to achieve as much as they can in this regard given the circumstances. The best-case scenario is a fair and lasting peace that truly resolves the root causes at the core of this conflict.
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we havePayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The new buy me a coffee link is below.
Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare
Cash App ID: $jstorm212
Azerbaijan Signaled That It Might Be Preparing Its Own Special Operation Against Armenia
Armenia is widely recognized as the first nation to adopt Christianity as its state religion. According to historical tradition, Christianity was introduced to Armenia by the apostles Bartholomew and Thaddeus in the 1st century AD. Armenia officially established Christianity as its state religion in 301 AD, when King Tiridates III was convinced to convert by St. Gregory the Illuminator. This event is traditionally dated to 301 AD and marks Armenia as the first country to adopt Christianity as its state religion, predating the Roman Empire’s adoption of Christianity by several decades.
Now the first Christian nation’s very existence is threatened, just as we predicted it would be when the world stood by and let Azerbaijan take over Armenian territory bit by bit over the past 7 years. I said then that doing nothing would embolden Azerbaijan to simply take over the entire country of Armenia. That time has arrived.
Guest post by Andrew Korybko
Azerbaijan demands that Armenia demilitarize, denazify, no longer contain it on behalf of foreign (Western) powers, stop obstructing regional trade routes, and allow ethnically cleansed Azeris to return.
Azerbaijani President Ilhan Aliyev gave a nearly three-hour-long interview to several local TV channels last week, during which time he signaled that his country might be preparing its own special operation against Armenia along the lines of Russia’s ongoing one in Ukraine. He of course didn’t use that term, but describing Armenia as a fascist state whose foreign-backed military buildup poses a threat to regional security very closely resembles Putin’s words about Ukraine ahead of large-scale hostilities.
Aliyev began that part of his interview by defending Azerbaijan’s increased military budget as a response to the arms race that Armenia initiated. This is being partially fueled by the “European Peace Facility”, whose military loans are written off after a certain period, he said. Armenia is therefore basically receiving arms from the bloc for free. To make matters even more alarming, an Armenian-EU-US cooperation platform was launched last April, which Aliyev claimed has a de facto military component.
He then declared that “The independent Armenian state is actually a fascist state because this country has been led by proponents of fascist ideology for nearly 30 years.” As evidence of this, he cited its ethnic cleansing of Azeris from Armenia and Karabakh, which the first Armenian President bragged about in a newly unearthed video that was dubbed into Russian here while an excerpt was dubbed into English here. He added that Armenia is also “Islamophobic, Azerbaijanophobic, racist, (and) xenophobic”.
Aliyev upped the ante right after by thundering that “We are neighbors with such a fascist state, and the threat of fascism is not going away. Therefore, fascism must be destroyed. Either the Armenian leadership will destroy it or we will. We have no other choice.” The Azerbaijani leader suggested that “France and other countries that provide it with weapons must terminate and cancel these contracts. The weapons that have already been sent to Armenia must be returned. This is our condition.”
He hopes that his words will be heeded now that “The Soros era has ended in America” with Trump’s return. Aliyev said that “The Biden administration was, in fact, governed by the Soros method of governance. It is no coincidence that one of Biden’s last decisions was to present Soros with America’s highest award.” He also claimed later on in the interview that “the Soros government” was in power “during the eight years before Trump” in a clear allusion to Obama.
Other Armenian allies who’ve been “shamefully removed from the political scene” as Aliyev phrased it are Assad and Trudeau, while Macron is still hanging on by a thread, and this overall trend might lead to an Azerbaijani-Armenian peace treaty. For that to happen, the Minsk Group would have to be abolished, and Armenia has to amend its constitution due to a clause therein implying territorial claims to Azerbaijan. Aliyev said that Azerbaijan doesn’t need a peace treaty if these conditions aren’t met.
He also demanded that Armenia stops acting as a “geographical barrier between Turkiye and Azerbaijan”, to which end “The Zangezur corridor must and will be opened. The sooner they understand this, the better it is. Why should we have to go to Nakhchivan, an integral part of Azerbaijan, through different ways? We should have a direct connection, and this connection does not question Armenia’s sovereignty.” Aliyev implied that Armenia’s obstructionism is part of an imperialist divide-and-rule policy.
The West, specifically France whose “full control over Armenia is also a reality”, is behind this. His earlier words about how “we believe that the Organization of Turkic States can become a serious power center on a global scale” in the “new world order” that’s emerging suggests that Armenia is being exploited as their geopolitical tool for preventing that group from reaching its full strategic potential. This is similar to what Putin claimed three years ago about how the West was exploiting Ukraine to contain Russia.
Aliyev reminded his interviewers that “I once said that they should not upset us and understand that we are the ones who have the say here and that Azerbaijan is the leading economy, the leading military power and the leading state in the South Caucasus. In today’s world, the power factor is at the forefront and no one should forget this.” This too resembles Russian rhetoric in the sense of conveying what could soon come to pass if Azerbaijan’s national security and strategic interests aren’t respected.
The final demand that he made was for Armenia to accept the return of the 300,000 Azeris who were ethnically cleansed from Armenia, which he referred to as Western Azerbaijan since “All the toponyms there are of Azerbaijani origin” in Imperial-era maps. The total is “several times greater” when their descendants are included, but “Returning to those areas would not pose a significant problem” since “the majority of the villages where Azerbaijanis lived are now completely empty”, especially in Zangezur.
Although different in substance, Aliyev’s interest in the rights of ethnic Azeris in Armenia make observers recall Putin’s interest in the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, thus representing another commonality between them which hints at Azerbaijan possibly preparing its own special operation. To summarize, Azerbaijan demands that Armenia demilitarize, denazify, no longer contain it on behalf of foreign (Western) powers, stop obstructing regional trade routes, and allow ethnically cleansed Azeris to return.
With Trump about to return in less than two weeks’ time, who Aliyev praised in his latest interview and made sure that his audience didn’t forget that he also did so over the summer before the debate with Biden when it wasn’t popular, it’s possible that America might finally restore its balanced regional policy. Aliyev mentioned that Biden sacrificed relations with Azerbaijan for relations with Armenia and implemented double standards against it vis-à-vis Ukraine as regards the principle of territorial integrity.
If the returning American leader corrects his predecessor’s mistakes, which were made due to Soros’ influence over the Biden Administration as can be intuited by what Aliyev shared in his latest interview, then Armenia might be pressured into complying with Azerbaijan’s demands. That would avert another regional war that Armenia is doomed to lose no matter how much some of its policymakers and citizens have convinced themselves otherwise due to Western political backing in recent years.
The West will not go to war against Azerbaijan, which could turn into a war with its Turkish ally that could tear NATO apart in an instant if it happens, over Armenia. If Trump signals a policy reversal towards the region, then the rest of the West will follow suit, possibly even France too with time. Even if it doesn’t, French arms won’t lead to Armenia defeating Azerbaijan and Turkiye, so the writing is on the wall and it’s therefore better for Armenia to do what Aliyev demands or risk total destruction.
The Political Consequences Of Ukraine’s Decision To Cut Off Russian Gas To Europe
Guest Post by Andrew Korybko
Russia and the EU will manage the latest phase of their US-instigated divorce without much difficulty, but the US might offer to bring them back together by authorizing its vassals’ import of Russian pipeline gas in exchange for some concessions from the Kremlin in the energy sector and Ukraine.
Pundits are discussing Ukraine’s decision to cut off Russian gas to Europe after Kiev refused to extend its five-year agreement with Moscow that expired on the first of the year, with the vast majority laying blame on the other side and hyping up the negative consequences for their opponent’s interests. The reality is that this development is much more political than anything else since the EU and Russia already weathered much more serious disruptions throughout 2022.
The Yamal pipeline through Poland was shut down a few months after the special operation began for sanctions-related reasons while Nord Stream 1 was gradually phased out of operation due to maintenance needs worsened by Canada’s delay on returning repaired gas turbines to Russia. That pipeline and the inactive Nord Stream 2 were then blown up in a terrorist attack in September of that year, though one still remains undamaged but has yet to re-enter into operation for political reasons.
The combined effect resulted in the share of Russia’s pipeline gas in EU imports plunging “from over 40% in 2021 to about 8% in 2023” according to the European Council. Nevertheless, the EU “narrowly avoided” a recession that year in CNN’s words, though it could enter into one later this year if Germany’s economic struggles deepen. Even so, it won’t be directly affected by Ukraine’s latest decision since this route only concerns 5% of EU imports, with the main clients being Slovakia, Hungary, and Moldova.
The first two are led by conservative-nationalists who are fiercely opposed to NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine while the third is ruled by a pro-Western figure who wants to reconquer her country’s separatist region of Transnistria in which several thousand Russian peacekeepers are still based. This observation lends credence to the earlier claim that Ukraine’s decision is much more political than anything else since it punishes Slovakia, Hungary, and Transnistria without harming other countries.
The last-mentioned is being hit particularly hard since it had to halt heating and hot water to households, which could lead to political unrest that might be manipulated from abroad to provoke a Color Revolution. This could either result in regime change or weaken that polity enough from within that it becomes much easier for Moldova (with possible Romanian assistance) and/or Ukraine to invade. Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service warned about that scenario last month, which was analyzed here.
Slovakia and Hungary won’t be harmed anywhere as much as Transnistria since each can import costlier LNG – whether from Russia, the US (which has poached a lot of its rival’s former EU market share), Algeria, and/or Qatar – from Lithuania/Poland or Croatia. Poland can connect Slovakia to Lithuania’s Klaipeda LNG terminal while Croatia’s Krk LNG terminal can supply Slovakia and Hungary. Hungary is also already getting some pipeline gas from TurkStream, which is Russia’s last pipeline to Europe.
All three are therefore being punished for political reasons, but it’s only Transnistria that risks an all-out crisis as a result, which could lead to an outcome that deals political damage to Russia if the government there is overthrown through an upcoming Color Revolution or that polity is captured by its neighbors. In the event that another conventional conflict erupts, the aggressors might eschew targeting Russian troops in order to avoid provoking an escalation, but Russia can always still authorize them to intervene.
Observers can only speculate what Russia would do since there are arguments in favor of it withdrawing its peacekeepers if they aren’t attacked and Transnistria falls but there’s also a logic in sacrificing them as part of a plan to “escalate to de-escalate” the special operation on better terms. There’s also the possibility that Transnistria doesn’t slip into a Color Revolution and isn’t invaded either. A potentially larger crisis would be averted so this is the best scenario for everyone’s objective interests.
Regardless of whatever may or may not happen in Transnistria, Ukraine’s decision to cut off Russian gas to Europe leads to the possibility that this route could be reopened once the conflict ends, thus representing a card that could be played to entice concessions from the Kremlin during negotiations. The same holds true for the Yamal pipeline and the last undamaged part of Nord Stream. Europe could use low-cost Russian gas to more confidently avoid a recession while Russia would appreciate the revenue.
To be sure, Russia still profits from LNG exports to the EU, which have filled the supply gap caused by the EU sanctioning its pipeline gas and Russia’s LNG competitors being unable to scale their exports to the point of fully replacing Russia’s exports that the EU still imports out of necessity. That said, Russia and the EU would mutually benefit a lot more if they returned as much as possible to their pre-2022 arrangement, though of course keeping in mind the contemporary political limitations to that.
America would have to approve this since it successfully reasserted its previously declining hegemony over the EU since the start of the special operation, however, but creative energy diplomacy of the sort elaborated on last month here could help lead to a breakthrough. The gist is that it’s the US that has an interest in making concessions to this end, not Russia, since the US doesn’t want Russia further fueling China’s superpower rise like it could do out of spite if it isn’t offered a good deal in Ukraine.
At the same time, it’s unrealistic to imagine that the US will cede its influence over the EU, ergo why it might propose a compromise whereby Russia isn’t allowed to (re)obtain control over the European portions of Nord Stream, Yamal, and the trans-Ukrainian Brotherhood and Soyuz pipelines. The first could be purchased by an American investor as was analyzed here in November while Poland might retain its post-2022 control over the second and the third would remain under Ukrainian control.
If the US really wants to incentivize Russia into agreeing to this proposal, which advances US interests by increasing the chances that Russia won’t build more pipelines to China out of the need to replace its lost revenue from the EU, then it can partially compensate Russia by releasing some of its seized assets. Even though those assets are legally Russia’s and were stolen from it, the Kremlin might agree to this swap if a large enough amount is offered in order to help manage its latest fiscal and monetary challenges.
In exchange for the US returning some of Russia’s seized assets and authorizing the EU’s resumption of some Russia gas pipeline imports, Russia might have to informally commit to not building any new pipelines to China while scaling back some of its demilitarization and denazification demands of Ukraine. American, Indian, and Japanese investment in Russia’s sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 megaproject could also replace frozen Chinese investment if waivers are granted for that purpose as a further incentive.
So long as Russia’s core security goals are achieved, which are restoring Ukraine’s constitutional neutrality and keeping uniformed Western forces out of the country, then it might be willing to compromise on demilitarizing all of Ukraine by settling for demilitarizing everything east of the Dnieper. This scenario was described more in detail at the end of this analysis here, which could include the vaguely defined denazification of that historically Russian region too instead of the entire country.
If Trump offers to terminate the US’ bilateral security agreement with Ukraine as part of a package deal that includes the abovementioned terms, then Russia might very well accept it since this would provide a mutually “face-saving” means for ending their proxy war while creating a basis for rebuilding relations. It’s not a perfect compromise, and some of each side’s supporters might argue that it’s more beneficial for their opponent, but their leaders might think differently and that’s all that ultimately matters.
Will Moldova Soon Attack Transnistria Like Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service Warned?
Guest Post by Andrew Korybko
The purpose behind publishing their report is to inform the Western public of Sandu’s alleged plans, signal that Russia isn’t interested in sparking a conflict there (no matter how she might spin its response to her potential provocations in Transnistria), and indirectly encourage her patrons to stop her.
Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) warned on Monday that Moldova might soon attack Transnistria. According to their sources, newly (but controversially) re-elected President Maia Sandu talked at a recent government meeting about taking out her rage at Ukraine’s plans to cut off Russian gas to Europe at the start of the year on her country’s separatist region, which could spark a larger conflict. Here are five background briefings to bring readers up to speed with the context of their report:
* 2 March: “Transnistria Could Become The Tripwire For A Wider War”
* 4 April: “Romania’s Draft Law On Dispatching Troops To Protect Its Compatriots Abroad Is Aimed At Moldova”
* 22 October: “Moldova’s EU Referendum Was Neither Free Nor Fair”
* 7 November: “Moldova’s Pro-Western President Was Predictably Re-Elected Due To The Diaspora”
* 16 December: “Romania’s Constitutional Coup Is Meant To Buy More Time For NATO In Ukraine”
To summarize, several thousand Russian troops are in Transnistria so an escalation there could lead to Moscow directly retaliating against Moldova, thus risking NATO-member Romania’s entrance into the conflict in support of this neighboring country that nationalists consider a part of their civilization. This scenario has been in the cards since the start of Russia’s special operation but wasn’t activated for reasons that can only be speculated upon, perhaps out of NATO’s fear of an uncontrollable escalation.
In any case, SVR’s report makes it clear that Sandu would be acting unilaterally if she goes through with what they reported, writing that “The European Union, of course, would not be against the emergence of a new crisis point in the zone of direct interests of Russia. But Brussels is not ready for this yet. And the EU border is nearby – it is dangerous. But no one can guarantee that the Moldovan president will not really try to unleash a real war in the region.”
Observers should also recall what was written at the beginning of their report about how “She categorically refused to discuss this issue (of soon-to-be cut-off energy supplies from Russia) with Ukraine and categorically placed all responsibility on Russia. According to Sandu, ‘if Moscow does not find a way to deliver gas here, then Chisinau will take it out on pro-Russian Transnistria.’” Regardless of the veracity of their claim, this framing is meant to portray her as rogue, vindictive, and irresponsible.
That appears to be an accurate description even if it can’t be proven that she actually said what they wrote. The purpose behind publishing their report is to inform the Western public of her alleged plans, signal that Russia isn’t interested in sparking a conflict there (no matter how Sandu might spin its response to her potential provocations in Transnistria), and indirectly encourage her patrons to stop her. The problem though is that some Western officials might want her to go through with this aggression.
The most hawkish anti-Russian members of the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) have long practiced the policies of “weaponizing chaos” and “escalating to de-escalate”. Some of their media surrogates are also very vocal in this regard too. It’s impossible to assess their influence within the “deep state” due to this shadowy network’s opacity, but it’s known that they sometimes get what they want.
For instance, arming Ukraine to the teeth and greenlighting what Russia claims was Kiev’s imminent offensive on Donbass ultimately pushed Putin to authorize the special operation, which some of their media surrogates have presented as preplanned “bear trap”. On the other hand, the well-known Transnistrian scenario and the associated Belarusian one (which readers can learn more about here) haven’t yet been activated, thus confirming that they don’t fully call the shots.
There’s also the concern among some observers that these ultra-hawkish anti-Russian members of the “deep state” sometimes go behind the backs of their peers in trying to provoke Russia without authorization such as what some believe drove Kiev to carry out its most audacious provocations. Other times observers believe that Zelensky or perhaps even more rogue military and intelligence officials around him might be acting unilaterally for the same purpose regardless of approval from US hawks.
These perceptions are important when analyzing SVR’s warning about Moldova’s impending attack on Transnistria. The way that they framed everything suggests that this isn’t what the West wants but that Sandu might still go through with it anyhow for her own reasons. If that’s what she’s really planning, then they should rein her in before she sets into motion a series of escalations that the West might be powerless to stop, thus risking a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis in the worst-case scenario.
EMERGENCY ALERT!! U.S. DOOMSDAY PLANES AIRBORNE!! HOUTHIS LAUNCH MISSILES AT ISRAEL AGAIN!!
This is a good summary of the wars/rumors of war from Greg over at NY Prepper channel. Rumor has it that Iran will strike Israel again as well and it’s a strong rumor! I’d say there’s an 80% chance it will happen. If it does expect the attack to be MASSIVE this time around. Below is some info I found on Telegram.
— 🇮🇷/🇮🇱 NEW: U.S. intelligence estimates that Iran is preparing to carry out a ‘significant attack’ against Israel before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump
On the one hand, Iran’s Supreme Leader has repeatedly stressed the need to retaliate for the Israeli attack on Iranian territory which killed 4 air defense personnel back in October. In addition to this, the Iranian leadership reportedly considers the risk of another Israeli attack to be ‘high’, especially after the ceasefire in Lebanon. Israel has openly said it will take the battle to Iran.
According to one high-ranking U.S. official, Iran is ‘probably willing to take preemptive measures’, both in order to carry out its promised retaliation and to preempt any possible upcoming Israeli attack.
The Iranian military leadership and political echelon, according to the U.S. official, has now concluded that only a more aggressive and proactive posture will sufficiently deter Israel, and is willing to carry out a large scale attack ‘even if it leads to war’.
@Middle_East_Spectator
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we havePayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The new buy me a coffee link is below.
Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare
Cash App ID: $jstorm212
Kiev regime kills Russian general who exposed Western Big Pharma’s crimes in Ukraine
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
The Kiev regime continues to use terrorist tactics against Russia, carrying out targeted assassinations against public figures outside the conflict zone. In yet another provocative move, Ukrainian intelligence assets in Moscow killed Igor Kirillov, head of the Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense Forces of the Russian Federation. The case clearly shows the terrorist nature of the Ukrainian regime and the impossibility of any kind of peace negotiations.
Kirillov’s assassination was carried out using a remotely activated explosion. This type of tactic has become commonplace in Ukrainian intelligence’s operations, being one of the main techniques used by the regime to eliminate specific targets. Along with Kirillov, his top aide, Ilya Polikarpov, also died in the attack. Both were leaving a building in Moscow when the explosive was remotely activated by a mercenary working for Kiev.
The main suspect has already been captured by the Russian security service. He is a citizen of Uzbekistan who was hired by Ukraine to carry out the terrorist attack in exchange for a reward of around 100,000 dollars, as well as relocation to a European country. The operation was carefully planned, with the Uzbek mercenary receiving a series of specific instructions to be successful in the plot.
The first step of the plan was to place the explosive device – which he received from the Ukrainian team – on an electric scooter parked near Kirillov’s residence. He then rented a car equipped with a surveillance camera and transmitted live footage to the organizers of the attack. According to the suspect, the organizing team is based in the Dnepropetrovsk region of Ukraine. Watching the images in live broadcast, the Ukrainians chose the most appropriate moment to detonate the explosive, giving the order to the Uzbek terrorist to carry out the attack.
The case has a number of similarities with other recent terrorist attacks carried out by Kiev. The Ukrainian regime often uses explosives to kill its opponents, in addition to hiring mercenaries from Central Asia to carry out operations on Russian territory. It is worth remembering cases such as that of Daria Dugina and Maxim Fomin, both journalists who were murdered with explosives, as well as the Crocus City Hall massacre, when Tajik terrorists were hired by Ukrainian intelligence to murder civilians in Moscow.
The choice of Igor Kirillov as a target is easy to understand. He was responsible for investigating Ukrainian and Western crimes involving biological and chemical weapons. Since 2022, the Russian Federation has been releasing several reports showing illegal Western biomilitary activities in Ukraine, with Kirillov leading this investigative effort. He has published data proving the involvement of several Western public figures and companies in the production of biological weapons on Ukrainian soil. Those responsible for financing the biolabs included Big Pharma corporations and the Soros Foundation, as well as individuals such as Hunter Biden, the son of the US president.
In fact, the impact of Kirillov’s revelations was so deep that it caused a crisis in the Western pharmaceutical lobby. Since 2022, the crimes committed by American and European Big Pharma companies have been more easily exposed. Even the Covid-19 vaccine lobby has lost strength, with mandatory vaccinations being banned in many countries. These companies started to be the target of lawsuits and their shares have lost market value, which has obviously made Kirillov a target for several Western oligarchs.
In the same vein, Kirillov was the main investigator of chemical weapons provocations by Ukraine. The use of chemical weapons by Kiev troops has become commonplace in the conflict, with several cases of Russian military personnel and civilians being poisoned by toxic substances deliberately released by Ukrainians.
In 2023, I was invited by the Russian Mission in Geneva to present a report at the UN Human Rights Council on this topic, where I recalled several cases of Ukrainian use of chemical weapons. It must be mentioned that the US, which is the biggest supporter of the Kiev regime, is the only country in the world that still publicly maintains stockpiles of chemical weapons, and is therefore a possible supplier of these toxic materials to Ukraine. Without the work of the investigative committee led by Kirillov, this type of violation of international law would never have been revealed, which is why his efforts were so important.
It is still too early to determine the level of Western involvement in the assassination of the Russian general, but it is safe to say that the Kiev regime never acts “on its own.” Ukraine always receives authorization to carry out each attack, since it is a mere proxy agent without any sovereignty.
In addition, Kirillov has caused a great damage to the Western pharmaceutical lobby, becoming a public enemy of many oligarchs. In the end, this is just further proof that any negotiation in the conflict is unfeasible. Both the West and Ukraine are betting on terrorism and all-out war against Moscow, leaving no alternative but a military solution.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Source: InfoBrics
UK’ s Starmer trying to escalate Ukrainian conflict
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
Despite all the Russian warnings that the conflict in Ukraine is reaching a dangerous point, the West continues its escalatory measures. Recently, British top politician called for expanding military assistance to Kiev, clearly showing that London is not interested in de-escalation. There seems to be no limit to the bellicosity of Western leaders, who want to take the war with Russia to its ultimate consequences.
In a private conversation with fellow G7 leaders, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said it is necessary to “continue maximizing Putin’s pain” through both military and economic measures. He said G7 countries need to expand their military assistance as well as economic sanctions, imposing even more coercive measures against the Russian Federation and its allies.
Starmer’s office released a statement about the meeting, clarifying the topics he commented on. The UK Prime Minister said that Russian President Vladimir Putin is looking strong and obstinate to continue military actions in Ukraine, which Starmer said is due to the West’s weakness in imposing “pain” on him. The British leader believes that only by inflicting damage on Russia will it be possible to make Putin “rethink” the special military operation, and eventually give up.
“The Prime Minister said that with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin showing no sign of relenting, it is vital that we bolster our support to put [Ukraine] in the best possible position for the future (…) He called on fellow G7 leaders to continue maximizing Putin’s pain by increasing military support to the Ukrainians and ramping up economic pressure, including via further sanctions where possible,” the statement reads.
Starmer does not seem to believe in any diplomatic path, completely ignoring any possibility of dialogue with Russia. Unlike his German counterpart Olaf Scholz, who recently talked with Putin and promised to do so again, the head of the British parliament claims that it is necessary to achieve Ukrainian victory by wearing down Russia, thus believing that NATO’s plan for a prolonged war with Moscow is viable.
By acting in this way, the British Prime Minister ignores all the recent warnings given by the Russian Federation about the dangers of an uncontrolled escalation of the conflict. Moscow is warning the West about the danger posed by NATO’s increasingly active participation in Ukrainian military actions, especially regarding the use of long-range missiles against targets in the recognized Russian territory. UK is among the countries supplying these weapons to Ukraine, and is therefore a participant in the crimes committed by the Kiev regime against Russian regions outside the conflict zone.
As well known, these long-range weapons contain special technology that NATO does not want to give to the Ukrainians. In this sense, the military equipment is operated by Western specialized personnel illegally based on Ukrainian soil. This means that such attacks are deliberate Western actions against recognized Russian territories.
According to the new Russian nuclear doctrine, such Western-Ukrainian strikes are legitimizing a Russian nuclear response. Moscow is refraining from taking such action in order to prevent a catastrophe, but if the provocations continue to escalate, the time may come when it will be impossible to avoid responding.
By ignoring such Russian warnings, Starmer is deliberately contributing to the escalation of the conflict and bringing it ever closer to the point of no return. It must be stressed that there are few military measures left to be taken. Given that long-range weapons are already being used, there is little the West can do to escalate further. Some NATO hawks are calling for the deployment of troops on the ground or the delivery of nuclear weapons to Ukraine, for example. Of course, any of these irresponsible actions would trigger a Russian nuclear response.
As for sanctions, Russia’s economic success over the past three years has made it clear that no coercive trade measures will have any practical effect. Moscow prepared for the West’s trade war by creating a strategy to enter the Asian market after losing its partnerships with Europe. In the end, Russian profits expanded and the West itself, especially the European countries, were hurt by the sanctions. So, calling for more coercive measures is just a waste of time, since this will affect the West itself, not Russia.
The West has now to choose between going to the extreme, potentially nuclear, consequences of the war or following the path of de-escalation. Hawks like Starmer seem to be ready to risk an all-out war, but it is hoped that a more rational view of the conflict will prevail to avoid the worst-case scenario.
You can follow Lucas o X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
Source: InfoBrics
You can support this ministry and keep us on the internet using the links below. Patreon is gone so now we havePayPal, Cash App and Buy me a Coffee as our online options. The new buy me a coffee link is below.
Free Ebook on Spiritual Warfare
Cash App ID: $jstorm212