NATO didn’t like Lt. General Kirillov due to how much he revealed to the world about their clandestine biowarfare programs in Ukraine and elsewhere. Also you’ll learn how the DOD and the White House can claim ignorance on the drone situation.
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.
The populist conservative-nationalist frontrunner might refuse to allow NATO troops to transit through Romania as part of a conventional intervention in Ukraine if he wins the second round next month.
The surprise victory of populist conservative-nationalist Calin Georgescu in the first round of Romania’s presidential election gives this heterodox outsider the chance to enter into office next month. The Mainstream Media is apoplectic since he criticized Romania’s hosting of the US’ missile defense infrastructure and is against perpetuating NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine. He’s also a devout Orthodox Christian and praised some of his country’s most controversial World War II-era figures.
Interestingly, he was also the diaspora’s favorite, with the added twist being that more in Western Europe voted for him than those in Eastern Europe. This suggests that his appeal is also due to the hope that he’ll bring long-overdue accountability to his infamously corrupt country and finally help its people improve their living standards through more effective economic, financial, and developmental policies. Foreign policy is important, but local issues and economics far outweigh the former for average voters.
If Georgescu becomes President of Romania, he’s therefore much more likely to try to change his country’s internal workings than he is to radically transform its foreign policy, but it also can’t be ruled out that his potential victory could adversely affect NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine. Those who voted for him dislike how Ukrainian grain flooded their domestic market to local farmers’ detriment and also aren’t pleased with the government financially supporting Ukrainian refugees.
Additionally, the latest military-strategic developments in this conflict raised worries among many about the spectre of World War III, in which case Romania would be directly involved due to its hosting of the previously mentioned US missile defense infrastructure. Their country also plays an important logistical role in arming Ukraine and its newly built “Moldova Highway” could facilitate the deployment of NATO troops there if the bloc or a “coalition of the willing” therein decides to conventionally intervene.
Even if Romania doesn’t dispatch troops, the transit role that it could play in others’ intervention there could put a Russian target on its back, especially if this leads to direct NATO-Russian hostilities. For this reason and keeping in mind his criticism of NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine, he as Supreme Commander might not approve of these plans. After all, he’s a populist conservative-nationalist who prioritizes what he sincerely believes to be national interests, which this scenario is contradictory to.
If he wins, then he’ll assume office on 21 December, which could therefore make it impossible for the US to rely on Romania in the abovementioned respect from there on out. That would be significant, provided that Georgescu has the political will to implement such a policy, since it means that the outgoing Biden Administration might thus only have less than a month to do this if it wants to. After all, even if Trump decides to “escalate to de-escalate” through such means, he too might not be able to.
There’s always the possibility that Poland might serve as the only route through which conventional NATO troops could enter Ukraine, even if it doesn’t dispatch its own, but neither the outgoing conservative-nationalist president nor his liberal-globalist rivals in the ruling coalition might allow this. The reason is that both want to appeal to Ukro-skeptical voters ahead of next year’s presidential election, the first in order to keep the second in check while the second wants to finally be unrestrained.
That’s why each have been trying to outdo the other in populist rhetoric, with the ruling coalition even going as far as to trump the former conservative-nationalist government of which the outgoing president is a part by taking an even harder line towards Ukraine. To that end, they demanded that it exhume and properly bury the Volhynia Genocide victims’ remains like it earlier did for 100,000 Wehrmacht troops, and it’s now only offering more military aid in exchange for a loan and no longer for free.
In fact, one of the Deputy Prime Ministers went as far as accusing Zelensky of wanting to provoke a Polish-Russian War in Ukraine, which powerfully signals that the ruling liberal-globalist coalition isn’t really interested in facilitating a conventional NATO intervene there and thus can’t be relied on for this. If Romania is ruled out in this respect too should Georgescu win, assume office next month, and promulgate the proposed policy, then the US might therefore be more willing to cut a deal with Russia.
Therein lies the most globally significant consequence if this populist conservative-nationalist becomes President of Romania since it could greatly limit the ways in which the US – whether under the outgoing Biden Administration or the incoming Trump one – could “escalate to de-escalate” on more of its terms. By removing the likelihood of a conventional NATO intervention, the odds might then greatly increase for Russia ending this conflict on more of its own terms instead, which could lead to a more lasting solution.
NATO might be willing to test Putin’s patience by crossing yet another of Russia’s perceived red lines in spite of its updated nuclear doctrine and new Oreshniks.
The NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine might be on the brink of an unprecedented escalation that could easily spiral out of control if Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) is correct in claiming that NATO is planning a 100,000-strong military intervention in Ukraine under the guise of peacekeepers. The purpose is to freeze the conflict, presumably by having these troops function as tripwires for deterring a Russian attack that could spark World War III, and then rebuild Ukraine’s military-industrial complex (MIC).
SVR revealed that Poland will have control over Western Ukraine (like it did during the interwar period); Romania will be responsible for the Black Sea coast (which it seized during World War II via and ruled as the “Transnistria Governorate”); the UK will lord over Kiev and the north; while Germany will deploy its forces to the center and east of the country. The latter’s Rhinemetall will lead the efforts to rebuild Ukraine’s MIC by investing heavily, dispatching specialists, and providing high-performance equipment.
Another important detail is that “NATO is already deploying training centers in Ukraine, through which it is planned to drag at least a million mobilized Ukrainians”, while police functions will be carried out via Ukrainian nationalists that SVR likens to World War II-era Sonderkommandos. The last part is intriguing since it raises the question of why 100,000 NATO troops/peacekeepers would be required. Only a fraction of that is needed for tripwire and training purposes so perhaps those numbers are inaccurate.
In any case, this latest move isn’t surprising, and readers can review the following analyses to learn why:
The last analysis also includes a map at the end depicting the most realistic best-case scenario for Russia.
To summarize, Biden is beating Trump to the punch by “escalating to de-escalate” on better terms for the US, which Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine and the historic first use of the MIRV-capable Oreshnik hypersonic medium-range missile in combat are meant to deter. The 10 obstacles described above still stand, however, so it’s unclear exactly how viable NATO’s reportedly planned conventional intervention in Ukraine (regardless of the numbers involved and the pretext relied upon for justifying it) actually is.
Nevertheless, the fact that SVR warned the world about it suggests that it’s no longer the far-fetched scenario that it was thought to be, though the clock is also now ticking for NATO too since the possible rise to power of a populist conservative-nationalist in Romania next month could spoil these plans. NATO might therefore intervene before 21 December when that figure will take office if he wins. If he loses, then they might bide their time to prepare better, possibly placing this responsibility on Trump’s lap.
At any rate, SVR’s claim that NATO is setting up training centers in Ukraine shows that the bloc is still expanding there. If Russia doesn’t target these facilities, which could spark World War III, then it might have to accept as a fait accompli what SVR just warned about. In that event, as proposed in the “escalation ladder” analysis above, Russia might then reach a deal allowing NATO to safely enter Ukraine up to the Dnieper if Ukraine first demilitarizes everything east of it and north of Russia’s new regions.
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.
🇷🇺❌🇺🇸Key Points from Putin’s Statements on the Oreshnik Missile System at the CSTO Meeting:
⚡️The General Staff and the Ministry of Defense are currently selecting targets for the Oreshnik missile to be destroyed on Ukrainian territory.
⚡️Decision-making centers in Kyiv could become a target for the Oreshnik.
⚡️In the event of a massive use of the Oreshnik, the force of the strike will be comparable to nuclear weapons.
⚡️The Oreshnik missile system is capable of striking deep-sea and well-protected targets.
⚡️The Russian Federation will continue combat tests of the Oreshnik in response to enemy actions.
⚡️The Russian Federation has begun serial production of the Oreshnik.
⚡️There are no analogues to the Russian “Oreshnik” in the world, and they will not appear anytime soon.
🚨 The Message Behind the Missile
Putin’s remarks on the Oreshnik missile system are not just about showcasing Russia’s technological prowess, they’re a clear signal to the West that the era of unchallenged NATO dominance is over. The Oreshnik, capable of delivering strikes comparable to nuclear force, represents a seismic shift in the global balance of power. Its ability to obliterate deep-sea and well-protected targets renders much of the West’s defensive posturing obsolete. This is not a weapon of escalation; it’s a weapon of deterrence, designed to compel adversaries to rethink their delusions of invincibility.
The implications are staggering. As serial production ramps up, Moscow is effectively telling NATO: “Push us further, and we will respond with overwhelming force.” The potential targeting of decision-making centers in Kiev underscores the Kremlin’s resolve to dismantle the very infrastructure sustaining the Western-backed puppet and the West’s aggression. For all of Washington’s talk of deterrence, it is now clear that Russia has redefined the concept entirely. The Oreshnik isn’t just a missile—it’s a doctrine, a declaration that Russia’s red lines are not negotiable.
The West should take heed: this is not a bluff, nor is it a gesture for theater. It’s the cold reality of a multipolar world where the rules are no longer dictated from Washington. The choice is clear: de-escalate, or face consequences that no amount of NATO summitry can reverse.
US nuclear Subs are on high alert, the Russian ambassador is sounding the warning but no one in the west is listening, just escalating. Time is short! Prayed up and prepped up!
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.
He wants to deter the even greater provocations that the West might now be plotting, such as destabilizing and then invading Belarus, with the intent of coercing him into freezing the existing LOC and then possibly accepting the deployment of Western/NATO peacekeepers there.
Putin surprised the world on Thursday when he addressed the nation to inform them that Russia had tested a new hypersonic medium-range missile earlier that morning in an attack against a famous Soviet-era industrial complex in the Ukrainian city of Dnepropetrovsk. He explained that this was a response to the US and UK recently allowing Ukraine to use their long-range missiles inside of Russia. Their decision resulted in the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine “assuming elements of a global nature” in his words.
As was explained here with regards to the “moment of truth” that this latest phase of the conflict led to, he was faced with the choice of either escalating or continuing his policy of strategic patience, the first of which could foil attempts by Trump to reach a peace deal while the second could invite more aggression. Putin chose the former and did so in a creative way that few foresaw. The Oreshnik missile system whose existence he disclosed on Thursday has Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs).
It’s essentially the same sort of weapon that Russia could use in the event of a nuclear conflict with the West since the aforesaid feature coupled with its hypersonic speed means that it’s impossible to intercept. In other words, Putin rattled Russia’s nuclear saber in the most convincing way possible short of testing a nuclear weapon, which his government previously confirmed that it wouldn’t do for the reasons that were explained here. He’s therefore finally climbing the escalation ladder.
Putin hitherto declined to escalate in response to the over 1,000 days’ worth of NATO-backed Ukrainian provocations that included bombing the Kremlin, early warning systems, strategic airfields, nuclear power plants, and the Crimean Bridge, among many other sensitive targets, so as to avoid World War III. He also prioritized political goals over military ones up until this point, but that’s all changing now since he realized that his strategic patience was interpreted as weakness and only invited more aggression.
Seeing as how Ukraine’s latest use of Western weapons inside of Russia’s pre-2014 territory isn’t unprecedented due to the HIMARS already having been used in Belgorod and Kursk Regions, the latter of which Ukraine invaded with NATO’s support over the summer, the question arises of why it took over three months for his views to change. It should also be noted that Russia didn’t significantly respond to Ukraine fielding the F-16s despite Lavrov previously warning that they could be nuclear-equipped.
Russia might have therefore received intelligence that the West is plotting an even greater provocation in the future. Belarusian media just aired a documentary exposing a Western plot to destabilize and invade their country, which readers can learn more about by reviewing the seven analyses that were listed in this one here. Correspondingly, it was assessed that “Russia’s Updated Nuke Doctrine Aims To Deter Unacceptable Provocations From NATO”, and the aforesaid would certainly constitute such.
Putin’s strategic patience would have finally reached its limits if he caught wind that anything of the sort was afoot, which would explain why he’d order the Oreshnik to be used against that Soviet-era industrial complex in Central Ukraine in order to send an unmistakable message to the West to reconsider its plans. Recalling how concerned he is about avoiding World War III, it also makes sense why his spokesman confirmed that Russia informed the US about this approximately half an hour ahead of time.
After all, launching an intermediate-range hypersonic missile westward without any advance notification could have prompted the US to panic by interpreting this as the start of a potential nuclear first strike by Russia, thus setting into motion the exact same scenario that he’s worked so hard to avoid. His motive was to deter the West from carrying out unacceptable provocations that cross Russia’s most sensitive redlines, which the West might be plotting out of desperation to “escalate to de-escalate” on its terms.
It was written here, here, and here that Trump might resort to that, but the latest ATACMS escalation – which can be regarded as a provocation due to these missiles having a much longer range than the HIMARS – suggests that the “Collective Biden” decided to do so first out of fear that whatever deal he might reach with Putin would compromise on too many of the US’ interests. Accordingly, Putin might now have decided to beat the US to the punch by “escalating to de-escalate” on Russia’s terms instead.
Thursday morning was the first time that a MIRV was used in combat, which is much more significant than the US “boiling the frog” by expanding the range of the missiles that Ukraine has already been able to use inside of Russia’s pre-2014 borders after once again signaling its escalatory plans long in advance, especially since few saw it coming and the US only had around a 30-minute notice. Putin also warned that Russia’s new doctrine allows it to use such weapons against those who arm Ukraine.
It’s unlikely that he’ll throw caution to the wind by launching Oreshniks against military targets in NATO countries at the risk of sparking World War III, but it can’t be ruled out that the next escalation that he’s considering in response to more aggression could be bombing Moldova instead. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zakharova said earlier in the week that the Western-backed government there is “turning the country at a rapid pace into a logistics hub used to supply the Ukrainian armed forces.”
It’s not a NATO member though so Russia could bomb it without crossing the West’s red lines while still signaling that he’s not the pushover that they convinced themselves that he was after misreading the reasons for his strategic patience if they still keep provoking him even after Thursday’s escalation. They want him to accept Western/NATO peacekeepers along the Line of Contact (LOC), Ukraine’s continued militarization, its future membership in NATO, and no change in its anti-Russian legislation.
By contrast, Putin wants to expel Ukraine from the four regions that voted to join Russia in September 2022, no Western/NATO peacekeepers along the LOC, Ukraine’s demilitarization, the restoration of its constitutional neutrality, and the rescinding of its anti-Russian legislation. Beating the West to the punch by “escalating to de-escalate”, or at least finally climbing the escalation ladder in response to their provocations, is therefore aimed at achieving as many of these maximum goals as he can.
If he sticks to his guns and doesn’t waver from his newfound approach, which is arguably long-overdue since some believe that he should have begun applying it after the failure of spring 2022’s peace talks, then he stands a much greater chance of achieving at least part of the most important ones. NATO can always conventionally intervene in Ukraine west of the Dnieper to salvage some of its geopolitical project so Russia should assume that it won’t be able to demilitarize or denazify that part of the country.
What it can do, however, is employ military and diplomatic means (both individually and in combination through its abovementioned newfound approach) to obtain control over all the territory that it claims as its own east of the Dnieper, possibly including Zaporozhye’s eponymous city of over 700,000 people. The new LOC could then be patrolled by purely non-Western forces deployed as part of a UN mandate while Ukraine might be coerced to demilitarize everything that remains under its control east of the Dnieper.
All heavy weapons would have to be withdrawn westward as part of a massive demilitarized zone (DMZ), while the possibility also exists that this “Transdnieper” region might also receive political autonomy or at least cultural autonomy to protect the rights of ethnic Russians and those who speak that language. This scenario was first tabled here in March and could take the form shown below, with the western part of the country in blue possibly hosting NATO troops as part of the arrangement that’ll then be described:
Ukraine could be deterred from breaking the ceasefire due to the DMZ placing it at a disadvantage, while Russia would be deterred by the “security guarantees” that Ukraine clinched with a bunch of NATO countries this year, which amount to de facto Article 5 support. While Russia could storm into the DMZ, NATO could also storm into Western Ukraine or possibly even cross the Dnieper, whether due to a swift intervention or having already deployed its troops west of the river per tacit agreement with Russia.
What was detailed in the three preceding paragraphs is the maximum that Russia can realistically achieve given the new military-strategic circumstances in which it finds itself over 1,000 days since the specialoperation began. Putin finally started climbing the escalation ladder in order to deter the even greater provocations that the West might now be plotting with the intent of coercing him into freezing the existing LOC and then possibly accepting the deployment of Western/NATO peacekeepers there.
Such a scenario would be completely unacceptable for him from the perspective of Russia’s national security interests and his own reputational ones after promising to check NATO’s expansion in Ukraine. Keeping that bloc west of the Dnieper while demilitarizing everything east of it and north of the administrative borders of the four former Ukrainian regions that joined Russia in September 2022, tentatively known as the “Transdnieper” region, would be a tolerable compromise though.
Trump might deem this to be pragmatic enough of a deal for him to go along with since it could still be spun by all relevant parties to the conflict as a victory (e.g. Russia gained land and created a DMZ deep inside Ukraine; Ukraine continued to exist as a state; and the US de facto incorporated Western Ukraine into NATO). It could even enter into force prior to that if either side “escalates to de-escalate” before his inauguration and this is the “mutually face-saving” compromise that they reach to avoid World War III.
Of course, it would be better if they agree to this without sparking a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis that risks spiraling out of control, hence why their diplomats should begin discussing it now or a third country’s ones like India’s should propose it behind the scenes to get the ball rolling. Putin’s newfound (and arguably long-overdue) approach signals that he won’t accept freezing the existing LOC, nor especially the deployment of NATO/Western peacekeepers there, and will escalate to avert that.
He might even go as far as using tactical nukes in Ukraine (and/or NATO’s logistics hub in Moldova) if he feels that he’s being cornered by the evolving circumstances in which the West might soon place him through its possibly forthcoming greater provocations (e.g. destabilizing and invading Belarus). The West must therefore start taking Putin seriously after he finally began climbing the escalation ladder otherwise the worst-case scenario of World War III might become unavoidable if they push him too far.
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.
The world sits on the pacifist of all out Armageddon/World War III. I would expect it all to erupt within the next two weeks. Prayed up and prepped up, time is very very short.
To paraphrase the famous saying, “Russians saddle slow but ride fast”, so it’s possible that everything might soon accelerate as a result of Russia finally adopting these tactics.
The Washington Post (WaPo) published a piece on Wednesday about how “Ukraine’s east buckling under improved Russian tactics, superior firepower” to coincide with Russia’s capture of the strategic Ukrainian fortress town of Ugledar at the junction of the Donbass and Zaporozhye fronts. According to them, Russia is now relying on assault teams as small as four soldiers each in order to evade drone surveillance. It also has much more equipment than Ukraine and is able to better coordinate its attacks as well.
An anonymous officer from the 72nd Mechanized Brigade that fought in Ugledar “for about two years with no relief” told them that “artillery volleys in the area sometimes reach 10 shells to 1 in favor of Russia and glide bombs launched unopposed from jets can destroy whole sections of a trench line and anyone manning them.” WaPo added that Ukraine still struggles to replenish its losses and has been distracted by its invasion of Russia’s Kursk Region, the latter outcome of which was predictable.
Another interesting tidbit from their report is that “The destruction of railways and bridges (around Pokrovsk) means it is effectively lost”. Readers can learn more about how that city’s capture can be a game-changer for the Donbass front from this analysis here, but it’s also significant that Russia is finally targeting Ukraine’s military logistics. It still won’t touch bridges across the Dnieper nor any of the railways connecting Ukraine to Poland, but at least it’s finally destroying those near the front.
While none of these tactics are novel, it’s the first time that they’ve been employed by Russia, let alone altogether. Dropping “meat assaults” in favor of small assault teams was long overdue, as was bombing Ukrainian trenches and targeting its military logistics near the front line. Russia has always been far ahead in the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition”, but it’s only just now doing something other than relying on brute force by finally devising more effective ways to leverage this advantage.
To paraphrase the famous saying, “Russians saddle slow but ride fast”, so it’s possible that everything might soon accelerate as a result of Russia finally adopting these tactics. The question still remains, however, about why it took so long to make these improvisations. This delay entailed enormous costs. The most likely explanation is that its armed forces didn’t have viable feedback loops until recently. Inaccurate portrayals of the front-line situation might also have mudded the command’s perceptions.
The combination of these two accounts for why it took so long for Russia to implement what its supporters have been wanting it to do for a while. These problems aren’t exclusive to its armed forces though since they plague Russia in general. It’s not uncommon for someone to tell their superiors what they think they want to hear instead of sharing brutal truths with them. Likewise, superiors rarely feel comfortable acknowledging that their plans aren’t working, hence why they don’t often seek feedback.
Sharing unsolicited advice is considered deeply offensive because it’s seen as questioning a superior’s judgement and is therefore almost always discarded. Constructive critiques are few and far between, which creates an echo chamber that contributes to groupthink and the creation of an alternative reality. This delays much-needed reforms since those responsible for ordering them don’t even know that they’re needed until problems become too serious to be denied or ignored by those below them.
Accountability doesn’t usually follow reforms either since those who denied or ignored the problems that gave rise to them are rarely punished, let alone let go from their positions. They simply plead ignorance or find scapegoats, either of which usually satisfies their superiors. These same superiors also don’t often decide to create feedback loops or improve whatever existing ones they have after ordering reforms to be made since groupthink has deluded them into thinking that no systemic problems exist.
The preceding paragraphs are admittedly harsh, but they explain why “Russians saddle slow”, whether in terms of bureaucracy, business, diplomacy, military affairs, or whatever else. They only begin to “ride fast” once superiors realize that systemic problems exist and require reforms to resolve, after which the “power verticals” that Russia is known for kick into gear due to discipline and fear of further upsetting the angry superior. Something of the sort might finally be happening with the specialoperation.
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.
Editors note: Everything is sitting on GO folks! Everything can and probably will erupt all at once and with very little warning other than the ones you’re getting now so PRAY UP and prep up today, tomorrow is not guaranteed. Just ask those who live in the SE United States. They lost everything (some even their lives) in an instant when the flood waters came. Head on a swivel, stay ready for anything.
Estonia wouldn’t talk about blockading the Gulf of Finland without prior encouragement from the US.
Most of the discourse surrounding the NATO-Russianproxy warin Ukraine naturally focuses on events inside that country. This nowadays includes the improvised “war of attrition” that’s being waged by both sides within it, false flag attack scenarios against its nuclear power plants, and what would have to happen for Russia or Belarus to use nukes in this conflict. What most commentators have forgotten about though is how NATO’s northeastern flank can stir up a lot of trouble for Russia if the order is given.
Lithuania’s failed blockade of Kaliningrad in summer 2022 and this year’s efforts to build an “EU defense line” along the Polish-Belarusian border to the Estonian-Russian one, which would de facto function as a new Iron Curtain that could expand to the Finnish-Russian border, aren’t discussed enough nowadays. That might change after the Commander of the Estonian Defense Forces spoke last week about Tallinn’s plans to close off the Gulf of Finland. Here are his exact words as reported by publicly financed ERR:
“Maritime defense is an area where cooperation between Finland and Estonia is set to increase, and we may be able to make more concrete plans on how, if necessary, we can completely block adversary activities in the Baltic Sea, literally speaking. Militarily, this is achievable, we are ready for it, and we are moving in that direction. If there is a threat and it is necessary, we are ready to do it to protect ourselves.”
That prompted the Russian Foreign Ministry to respond as follows according to Sputnik:
“If Finland and Estonia plan to impose a complete blockade of the Gulf of Finland for Russian shipping, Russia will regard such actions as an obvious violation of international maritime laws. Its norms do not contain provisions that allow, even based on some ‘threat,’ to introduce measures to restrict shipping, much less unilateral measures of a discriminatory nature aimed at a specific state…but we proceed from the fact that in this matter they will strictly adhere to the norms of international law.”
The scenario of Estonia and Finland blockading the latter’s namesake gulf in parallel with Lithuania reimposing its own blockade on Russian access to Kaliningrad via its territory from Belarus therefore can’t be ruled out. It might only be a response to escalating NATO-Russian tensions and not a surprise provocation, but it would still be serious enough to provoke a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis. Russia will not allow its exclave of Kaliningrad, which is its westernmost operating base against NATO, to be cut off.
Another possibility is that Trump threatens Putin with this after the election if he wins as a “negotiating tactic” for getting him to accept whatever deal he’s offered in Ukraine on pain of that happening if he refuses. Estonia wouldn’t talk about blockading the Gulf of Finland without prior encouragement from the US, and these same hawkish forces might either manipulate Trump into thinking this is a “good idea” or have already convinced Kamala to go through with it if she wins, which is a cause for global concern.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
The fear of nuclear war is apparently affecting some European states, despite the deeply irresponsible actions taken by their governments. A major French newspaper recently published an article claiming that French politicians are worried about the possibility of a “third world war.” It is curious to see this kind of “concern” among the French, given that Paris has been one of the most destabilizing agents in the ongoing proxy conflict between NATO and Russia.
The article exposes the reasons why French politicians fear a global escalation of violence. Citing anonymous diplomats, Le Monde claims that the French do not want to see an open confrontation between Moscow and NATO, allegedly seeking to take steps to prevent an escalation. Diplomats said that Russia could expand its military actions in retaliation for certain actions taken by the West, which would mean the start of a global war.
Obviously, the main Western escalatory move would be to authorize strikes against Russian targets far from the conflict zone. European fears of a world war are especially heightened at the moment due to the widespread debate over whether or not to authorize Ukraine to use long-range missiles against targets in “deep Russia,” which explains Le Monde’s narrative.
“[Allowing attacks against ‘deep Russia’] would mean that NATO countries, the US and European countries are at war with Russia (…) Everything must be done to avoid a third world war (…) You can’t just dismiss the possibility of the Russians expanding the scope of the war,” said one of Le Monde’s diplomatic sources.
For now, all Western countries refuse to allow such strikes. There were expectations among pro-Ukrainian militants that authorization would be announced during the recent joint visit of American and British officials to Kiev, but this did not happen. As far as the Europeans are concerned, there seems to be an even greater fear of escalation, which is why the French and Germans (who are supposedly the joint “leaders” of the European Union) do not plan to change their position on deep strikes.
“We think we should allow them to neutralize the military sites from which the missiles are fired, and basically the military sites from which Ukraine is being attacked, but we must not allow them to hit other targets in Russia, civilian capabilities naturally, or other military targets,” Macron said during a recent joint statement with Scholz in Germany.
It is curious to see this kind of fear on the part of the French. On the one hand, the fear seems absolutely rational, since Europe would be the most affected side in a direct war between Russia and NATO. It is natural that the Europeans want to do everything possible to prevent the conflict from escalating to a direct phase. With the possible exception of Poland and the Baltics which are states extremely affected by the anti-Russian madness, all European countries fear becoming targets in a situation of global conflict.
However, until recently, France itself was the biggest destabilizing agent in the conflict. Macron was the Western leader who most escalated anti-Russian rhetoric, even promising to send official French troops to fight alongside Kiev. It was precisely the fear of a direct war that made Macron reduce his anti-Russian attitudes in recent months, as Moscow made it clear that all French military personnel on Ukrainian soil would be legitimate and priority targets. Now, Macron no longer depends on his own decisions to avoid a direct war – he is at the mercy of the conscience and strategic sense of the Americans, who actually lead NATO.
It is important for Western analysts and officials to understand that WWIII has already “de facto” begun. There is a Western-led international coalition that has been attacking the Russian Federation for two years. The nature of the current conflict is absolutely international, and there are even other fronts outside Ukraine – as in the case of Western-backed terrorists attacking Russian citizens in African countries. Fearing the beginning of an open phase of the conflict is reasonable, but it is important to understand that this “world war” is already a reality – precisely because of the irresponsible actions of Western countries, including France.
Given the fear of escalation, Europeans should break with the US and NATO, seeking to free themselves from the consequences of the conflict by reestablishing ties with Russia. Unfortunately, however, European subservience is bigger than their fear. If the US authorizes deep strikes, it is likely that, despite their fear, all European countries will endorse the measure immediately.
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.
