Tag Archives: poland

Poland & Hungary Are Threatened By Ukraine Yet Still Remain Divided By It

Posted on by Leave a comment

Guest Post by Andrew Korybko. Reposted with permission.

The Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and intel agents that infiltrated their societies under the cover of refugees might carry out acts of terrorism against them, which could be averted by closer cooperation between their security services, but they still remain divided by Ukraine to its geopolitical benefit.

Poland and the other EU countries like Hungary that host Ukrainian refugees are poised to face more trouble from them after the conflict ends. As of February 2025, official police data showed that Ukrainians committed more crimes in Poland than any other foreigners. Some have also been accused of carrying out national security ones on behalf of Russia, which Russia denied while its media has instead suggested that they’re either anti-Polish ultra-nationalists (fascists) or Ukrainian intel agents.

Whatever the truth may be, former President Andrzej Duda warned in an interview with the Financial Times in early 2025 that “Ukraine’s Traumatized Troops Could Pose A Security Threat To All Of Europe”. Last fall, “The Ukrainian Ambassador To Poland Admitted That His Co-Ethnics Don’t Want To Assimilate” just before one of his country’s prominent online outlets predicted that “An Ethnic Ukrainian Lobby Might Soon Take Shape In The Polish Sejm”, which could altogether pose serious threats to Poland.

Instead of trying to thwart them, Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski encouraged Ukrainians to “knock out” the Druzhba pipeline supplying Hungary and Slovakia with Russian oil, thus earning him the nickname “Osama Bin Sikorski” from Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. As explained in the preceding hyperlinked analysis, this could backfire on Poland by inciting terrorism against it by those ultra-nationalists who lay claim to its southeastern parts where many Orthodox East Slavs used to live.

Circling back to his post, some of the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and/or intel agents that infiltrated the EU under the cover of refugees could attack Druzhba infrastructure in Hungary, knowing that they could then receive sanctuary in Poland just like the Nord Stream suspect that it refused to extradite to Germany. Although Poland and Hungary have a millennium of shared history and almost 700 years of friendship, Poland’s ruling duopoly nowadays despises Hungary for its pragmatic policy towards Russia.

Taking a cue from Sikorski, they might therefore turn a blind eye towards these “refugees” planning such an attack from their territory and/or plotting Color Revolution unrest in Hungary ahead of spring’s next parliamentary elections. About that scenario, Sikorski’s Hungarian counterpart Peter Szijjarto warned in mid-August that the EU could lead this effort, which came a day after Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service warned about the role that Ukrainians could play in advancing regime change there.

The EU, Ukraine, and Poland all want Viktor Orban out, the goal of which could be furthered by “refugees” (ultra-nationalists and/or intel agents) sabotaging the Druzhba pipeline within Hungary ahead of the next elections and then the economic consequences sparking large-scale preplanned protests. To be clear, none of this might materialize, but the point is that such a scenario is nonetheless credible for the reasons that were explained. Hungarian counter-intelligence would naturally do well to remain alert.

Closer coordination between the Polish and Hungarian security services for thwarting these threats from Ukrainian “refugees” is unlikely due to liberal-globalist Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s and new conservative President Karol Nawrocki’s shared hatred of his pragmatic policy towards Russia. A rapprochement between them through the Visegrad Group is therefore unrealistic, thus leaving their countries vulnerable to these hybrid threats and keeping them divided to Ukraine’s geopolitical benefit.

The Reported Russian Drone Incursions Into Poland Might Have Been Due To NATO Jamming

Posted on by Leave a comment

Guest Post by Andrew Korybko

It’s unlikely that Russia would risk rallying the West around a no-fly zone over Ukraine by staging a deliberate provocation against Poland or even just carrying out a recon mission in NATO airspace.

Poland claimed to have shot down several Russian drones on Wednesday morning that reportedly crossed into its airspace during the latest large-scale strikes against Ukraine. This occurred amidst the ongoing Polish, Lithuanian, and NATO drills involving 30,000 Polish troops and just ahead of the upcoming Russian-Belarusian Zapad 2025 drills. Some therefore suspect that this was either a deliberate provocation by Russia or a botched recon mission, but it might have just been due to NATO jamming.

It was recently argued that “There Might Be More To The Von Der Leyen-GPS-Russia Hoax Than Scoring Cheap Infowar Points” after the dramatic claim that Russia supposedly jammed her plane while it attempted to land in Bulgaria was debunked by Sofia itself and Western media. The alternative theory put forth was that this false narrative was meant to justify aggressive signals jamming in Kaliningrad, though this could also be directed towards Belarus given its hosting of the upcoming Zapad 2025 drills.

Such interference might have thus caused Russian drones to veer off course into Poland during the latest large-scale strikes against Ukraine. Aggressive signals jamming could also precede implementation of reported plans for imposing a no-fly zone over at least part of Ukraine in connection with the West’s security guarantees for that country. Although nowhere as foolproof as patrols over Ukrainian airspace and authorizing NATO-based Patriots to protect its skies, it would carry much less of an escalation risk.

Moreover, if NATO expected that its speculative signals jamming – possibly ramped up after the von der Leyen-GPS-Russia hoax, which might have been timed to coincide with the upcoming Zapad 2025 drills – would cause Russian drones to veer off course, then this might be part of a preplanned escalation. The objective could be to rally support for the abovementioned no-fly zone proposal or even begin the gradual process of implementing it on the pretext of “proactive defense” in light of this incident.

Over 3,5 years into the special operation, Russia would have by now presumably gamed out everything that could realistically follow the scenario of several of its drones crossing into Poland, with policymakers thus likely being aware that this could be exploited to advance the no-fly zone plot. The aforesaid insight accordingly reduces the odds that this was a deliberate provocation or a botched recon mission, either of which would have probably been carried out in force to make the cost-benefit tradeoff more worthwhile.

This is a similar logic as what was recently shared in this analysis here arguing that Russia probably didn’t deliberately target the Cabinet of Ministers building in Kiev so as to avoid fueling the no-fly zone plot. While that particular incident might have been randomly caused by drone debris, the latest one could have been planned to a much greater degree if NATO jamming was indeed responsible as conjectured. It remains to be seen, however, whether Poland will participate in any no-fly zone over Ukraine as a result.

Former President Andrzej Duda recently revealed that Zelensky tried to manipulate Poland into war with Russia over November 2022’s Przewodow incident, which he refused to fall for, while his successor Karol Nawrocki pledged ahead of the second round not to deploy troops to Ukraine. This policy continuity, which aligns with Poles getting fed up with Ukrainian refugees and this neighboring conflict, could foil NATO’s plans to manipulate Poland into this even though it might still agree to ramp up signals jamming.

Editors Note: If Russia is going to attack NATO proper it won’t do it with a couple dozen UNARMED drones. These drones were recon drones, not armed attack drones. Their primary mission is to distract air defenses away from the drones that are armed, all of which were sent against Ukraine. With all of the radar and GPS jamming being done on the borders in the warzone is it any wonder that a few veer off course?

This is why I didn’t jump on the hype bandwagon the other night when this was going on. My God given instincts told me it was a nothing burger because when Russia does attack NATO and the US it will be with hypersonic weapons, kinetic energy weapons and nukes, not unarmed drones. It will be MASSIVE and done in coordination with Iran, China, N. Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Mexico and more.

I believe that day is rapidly approaching! Prayed up and prepped up, time is short!

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

Polish people against sending troops to Ukraine

Posted on by Leave a comment

According to recent data, most Poles are against sending “peacekeeping” troops to Ukraine.

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

Despite pressure from Western countries for European troops to be sent to Ukraine after a possible ceasefire agreement between Moscow and Kiev, the opinion of ordinary people seems to be completely against such an initiative. Even in Poland, one of the most anti-Russian countries in Europe, most of the people is against the presence of their soldiers in Ukraine, worried about the consequences of such an initiative.

Recently, France and the UK asked for peacekeepers from the so-called “coalition of the willing” – a group of countries that continues to support Ukraine after the election of Donald Trump in the US – to participate in a military contingent on Ukrainian soil after a possible peace or truce agreement. The aim of such a measure would allegedly be to guarantee European countries a central role in observing compliance with the ceasefire terms.

Despite any pseudo-humanitarian claims by the leaders, it is possible to say that such an initiative is just a way for Europe to somehow project power towards the East, despite the losses suffered so far in Ukraine. Since Ukraine’s military defeat is inevitable, European countries want to at least ensure the possibility of deploying a military contingent close to the Russian borders. Precisely for this reason, Moscow has repeatedly made it clear that no Western military presence in Ukraine will be tolerated.

The main problem for European countries, however, is that it is not only the Russians who oppose such participation in a “peacekeeping mission”. Even in the most anti-Russian countries in Europe, ordinary people are reacting to the militaristic project launched by the French and the British. For example, in Poland, a country widely known for its rivalry with Russia, citizens are unhappy with this project, strongly opposing the participation of local troops in a future mission in Ukraine.

A recent opinion poll released by Radio Zet revealed that most Poles are against sending troops to Ukraine. 56% of the thousands of people who took part in the survey said they were “definitely” or “probably” against the participation of Polish soldiers in “peacekeeping missions” in Ukraine. Only 10% of those interviewed supported the proposal, while 13% said they were undecided and had no firm opinion on the matter.

This situation reflects a growing atmosphere of dissatisfaction with Ukraine among Poles. Although the country’s elites have embraced the Russophobic wave incited by NATO, ordinary Poles are more critical on the issue, mainly due to the major negative impacts the war has brought to their country.

For example, among Polish farmers, the consequences of the conflict have been catastrophic, as Poland has begun to import Ukrainian agricultural goods, following EU guidelines, leading to massive bankruptcies among local farmers. This has obviously sparked outrage over the “Ukrainian issue”, and it is now unlikely that these citizens would support sending their relatives to a conflict zone abroad in order to protect the interests of the EU and Kiev – which are jointly responsible for the Polish farmers’ crisis.

More than that, there is also a real fear in Poland about the consequences of such a move. Recently, Prime Minister Donald Tusk expressed concern about the country’s involvement in Ukraine. He said that foreign powers are profiting from the Ukrainian situation, and that Poland should therefore do the same, prioritizing its own strategic interests and economic gains when making decisions about Ukraine.

“It won’t be the case that Poland will express solidarity while others profit, for example, on the reconstruction of Ukraine. We will be in solidarity and we will make money on it,” he said.

In this sense, considering the warnings given by Moscow that this European military presence will not be tolerated and that it could be seen as a declaration of war, it does not seem interesting, strategic or “profitable” for Poland to participate in a “peacekeeping mission” in Ukraine. The costs could be high and the country could enter a spiral of escalation with Russia from which it would not be able to escape easily – and in this scenario it would not be possible for Poland to count on the support of NATO or any other foreign country, since the Atlantic alliance is not formally involved in the project and no member state would be obliged to support Poland.

The best thing the Polish authorities can do is simply obey the decision of their own people and avoid any further involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. Kiev and the EU have already caused Poland too much harm and it does not seem in the Polish government’s interest to sacrifice its people even more in this conflict.

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

Evaluating Foreign Affairs’ Warning About The Risks Of An Emboldened & Remilitarized Germany

Posted on by Leave a comment

Guest Post by Andrew Korybko

How likely is it that a potentially ultra-nationalist Germany “relitigates its borders or forgoes EU-style deliberation in favor of military blackmail”?

Foreign Affairs warned earlier this month that an emboldened and remilitarized Germany could pose another challenge to European stability. They’re convinced that former Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s “Zeitenwende”, or historic turning point, “is real this time” in the sense that his successor Friedrich Merz now has the parliamentary and popular support to transform their country into a Great Power. While this would allegedly benefit Europe and Ukraine, it wouldn’t be without three serious risks.

According to the article’s two authors, these entail: Russia waging more hybrid war on Germany; Germany’s rise possibly provoking more nationalism in surrounding countries; and this potentially leading to an explosion of ultra-nationalism in Germany. The catalyst for all of this is the US’ gradual disengagement from NATO brought about by the Trump Administration’s reprioritization of the Asia-Pacific. As American influence recedes, it’ll create political and security voids that others compete to fill.

To be sure, the article itself is more about promoting the alleged advantages of Germany’s delayed implementation of Scholz’s “Zeitenwende”, which the authors praise as long-overdue and a natural response to the aforesaid catalyst seeing as how Germany is already the EU’s de facto leader. At the same time, touching upon the risks bolsters their credibility in some readers’ eyes, enables them to subtly throw shade on Trump, and presents the authors as prescient in case any of the above occurs.

Beginning with the first of the three, it’s predicable that Germany and Russia would carry out more intelligence operations against one another if the first plays the continent’s leading role in containing the second, which the latter would of course consider to be a latent threat for obvious historical reasons. The article omits any mention of the way in which his newfound German role would harm Russian interests and misportrays whatever Moscow’s response may be as unprovoked aggression.

They’re fairer with regard to the second risk of surrounding countries becoming more nationalistic as a reaction to an emboldened and remilitarized Germany but don’t elaborate. Poland is probably the most likely candidate though since such sentiments are already rising in society. This is a reaction to the ruling liberal-globalist coalition in general, its perceived subservience to Germany, and concerns that a possibly AfD-led Germany might try to reclaim what Poland considers to be its “Recovered Territories”.

The last risk builds upon that the authors expressed as the worst-case scenario of “a German military first strengthened by politically centrist, pro-European governments [falling] into the hands of leaders willing to relitigate Germany’s borders or to forgo EU-style deliberation in favor of military blackmail.” It’s this potential consequence that’s the most important to evaluate since the first two are expected to be enduring characteristics of this new geopolitical era in Europe while the final one is uncertain.

The outcome of Poland’s presidential election next month is expected to greatly determine the future dynamics of Polish-German relations. If the outgoing conservative is replaced by the liberal candidate, then Poland will probably either subordinate itself even more to Germany, rely on France to balance it and the US, or pivot towards France. A victory by the conservative or populist candidates, however, would lessen dependence on Germany by either balancing it with France or reprioritizing the US.

France is foreseen as figuring more prominently in Polish foreign policy either way due to their historical partnership since the Napoleonic era as well as their shared contemporary concerns about the threat that an emboldened and remilitarized Germany could pose to them. French in general are less worried about Germany relitigating their borders than some Poles are and are much more anxious about losing their chance to lead Europe either in whole or in part after the Ukrainian Conflict finally ends.

France, Germany, and Poland are competing with one another in this respect, with the most likely outcomes either being German hegemony via the “Zeitenwende” vision, France and Poland jointly thwarting this in Central & Eastern Europe (CEE), or a revived “Weimar Triangle” for tripartite rule over Europe. So long as the EU’s free flow of people and capital is retained, which of course can’t be taken for granted but is likely, then the odds of an AfD-led Germany relitigating its border with Poland are low.

That’s because like-minded Germans could simply buy land in Poland and move there if they wanted to, albeit while being subject to Polish laws, which aren’t different in any meaningful sense than German ones for all intents and purposes with respect to their daily lives. Additionally, while Germany does indeed plan to undergo an unprecedented military buildup, Poland is already in the midst of its own buildup and a more successful at that after having just become NATO’s third-largest military last summer.

The US is also unlikely to completely withdraw from Poland, let alone all of CEE, so its forces will probably always remain there as a mutual deterrent against Russia and Germany. Neither have any intent to invade Poland though so this presence would mostly be symbolic and for the purpose of psychologically reassuring the historically traumatized Polish population of their safety. In any case, the point is that the worst-case scenario that the authors touched upon is very unlikely to materialize.

To review, this is because: Poland will either subordinate itself to Germany after the next elections or rely more on France to balance it (if not reprioritize the US over both); the EU’s free flow of people and capital will likely remain at least for some time; and the US won’t abandon CEE. These will accordingly: appease or balance a possibly ultra-nationalist (ex: AfD-led) Germany; ditto; and deter any potential German territorial revisionism (whether via legal or military means).

Drawing to a close, it can therefore be concluded that the new order taking shape in Europe likely won’t lead to a restoration of interwar risks like Foreign Affairs warned is the worst-case scenario, but to the creation of spheres of influence without military tensions. Whether Poland stands strongly on its own, partners with France, or subordinates itself to Germany, no border changes are expected in either the western or eastern direction, with all forms of future German-Polish competition remaining manageable.

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

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service Warned About A 100k-Strong NATO Intervention In Ukraine

Posted on by 5 comments

Guest Post by Andrew Korybko

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:

* 1 November: “Trump 2.0 would be no easy ride for Vladimir Putin”

* 7 November: “Here’s What Trump’s Peace Plan Might Look Like & Why Russia Might Agree To It”

* 8 November: “View from Moscow: Russia tepidly welcomes Trump’s return”

* 9 November: “The Clock Is Ticking For Russia To Achieve Its Maximum Goals In The Ukrainian Conflict”

* 10 November: “10 Obstacles To Trump’s Reported Plan For Western/NATO Peacekeepers In Ukraine”

* 11 November: “Five Reasons Why Trump Should Revive The Draft Russian-Ukrainian Peace Treaty”

* 15 November: “Trump Probably Really Does Appreciate Two Points From Zelensky’s ‘Victory Plan’”

* 18 November: “The Moment Of Truth: How Will Russia Respond To Ukraine’s Use Of Western Long-Range Missiles?”

* 20 November: “Russia’s Updated Nuke Doctrine Aims To Deter Unacceptable Provocations From NATO”

* 22 November: “Putin Is Finally Climbing The Escalation Ladder”

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.

Source

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

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

PayPal Link

Germany’s ‘Military Schengen’ Proposal: To Ease the Movement of NATO Troops across the European Union”

Posted on by Leave a comment

On November 23, Alexander Sollfrank, a Lieutenant General in the German Bundeswehr and effectively the chief of logistics in NATO, proposed the urgent creation of what he called a “military Schengen” to ease the movement of NATO troops across the European Union. Sollfrank complained that the current bureaucratic rules are a major obstacle to operations in Europe and that they’re supposedly “jeopardizing everyone” due to the mythical “Russian threat“. It should be noted that this isn’t the first time a German high-ranking official or military officer has suggested that Europe should prepare for war with Russia. Since the start of the special military operation (SMO), Berlin has been extremely hostile to Moscow, evoking its genocidal policies of the first half of the 20th century policies.

Germany’s ideas of racial superiority and desire for global dominance led to both world wars that killed up to 100 million people, the majority of whom were Russians (nearly 30 million in WWII only). Just like Berlin feels responsible for committing the Holocaust against Jews, it should be no different in regards to other peoples it killed en masse, including Russians/Soviets, Poles, Serbs, Czechs, etc. However, for some reason, Germany doesn’t feel the same responsibility toward any of these nations, particularly the Russians. Worse yet, German weapons have been killing the people of Donbass for nearly a decade now, while its unadulterated support for the Neo-Nazi junta is more than disturbing enough, as it’s yet another proof that Berlin has never actually renounced its Drang nach Osten ambitions.

Since last year, there have been several instances where Germany showed that its hatred for Russia hasn’t subsided in the least, as its Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock effectively declared war on Moscow, while the Bundeswehr even leaked plans for war against the Eurasian giant. The only difference is that this time, the conflict would be disguised as a “pan-European/Euro-Atlantic collective defense effort”. In this regard, Berlin’s actions are perfectly in line with the strategic goals of the United States and its other allies, vassals and satellite states. Namely, as Washington DC is shifting its attention to the Asia-Pacific region in an attempt to prevent Beijing’s rise to the world’s most dominant economy, it’s effectively delegating the so-called “containment of Russia strategy” to the EU.

Interestingly, this has led to some crawling tensions between Poland and Germany, as the former isn’t exactly thrilled to see Berlin “take the driver’s seat”, which is perfectly understandable given the murderous history of German militarism, with Poles usually being its first target for approximately a thousand years. In fact, despite the virtually endemic Russophobia in Poland, the Germans have been a far greater threat to Polish survival, which is something many Poles still remember vividly. However, for the time being, Warsaw will certainly continue playing along as it perceives Moscow as “the bigger threat”. At the same time, despite numerous divisions and power play games, NATO is still fairly united in the idea of using Ukraine as a source of cannon fodder to be thrown at the Russian military.

On the other hand, the EU has definitely exposed its role long before the SMO. Officially an economic alliance, the loose bureaucratic superstate demonstrated that it’s nothing more than a geopolitical pendant of NATO, and by extension, of the US. The EU “broke the ice” last year by officially sending weapons to the Kiev regime and hasn’t stopped doing so ever since. Its de facto unification with NATO structures is effectively over and the belligerent alliance is now simply looking for ways to make it de jure, which would give its forces free rein over the entire continent. The process of militarization of Europe is perhaps best seen in the speedy NATO accession of Finland and soon Sweden (de facto it’s already done). Normally, it takes years or even decades for any given country to join the belligerent alliance.

For its part, Russia will surely not leave this escalation unanswered. The Eurasian giant certainly anticipated such moves, so it’s making adequate preparations. In such a hostile environment, the return to the path of a virtually unrivaled military superpower is the only way for Moscow, despite its initial reluctance. For decades, Russia has been trying to create a comprehensive, mutually beneficial partnership with Europe. During the Gorbachev and Yeltsin years, Moscow went through an unprecedented demilitarization process that is unheard of in the entire history of mankind. Never has a global power willingly renounced such military dominance over its mortal enemies. And yet, the Eurasian giant’s rivals saw it as a “victory”and an opportunity to escalate their all-out aggression against the entire world.

Thus, it can only be expected that Russia’s recovery and resurgence to superpower status is an unpleasant surprise for the self-styled “victors”. However, despite the expectations of the political West, Moscow will not be fighting a WWII-style war in case of yet another Western aggression. This time, its unrivaled strategic arsenal will make sure any such invasion force is obliterated from afar.

Russia could easily reactivate officially dormant projects such as the RS-26 “Rubezh” that would give it complete control over the entire European continent and ensure that no sizeable invasion force could be mustered with impunity. The missile is perfectly capable of carrying not just (MIRV multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) warheads, but also HGVs (hypersonic glide vehicles) that would ensure the near-instantaneous destruction of any enemy.

*

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Don’t Speak News.

Poland training militants to attack Belarus – newspaper

Posted on by Leave a comment

NATO country proves to be involved in provocations against Russia’s ally.

 

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

Once again, the evidence makes it clear that the West wants to involve Belarus in the current conflict. In a report published by The Times it was informed that exiled Belarusian militants are being trained in Polish territory in preparation for a future insurrection in their country. 

According to the newspaper, the “Bypol” group, an extremist dissident militia that actively participated in the attempted color revolution in 2020, is based in the Polish city of Poznan, where an intense military training program is being conducted. Journalists went to the field to interview some of the militiamen and reported that the number of recruits is already “in the hundreds”.

The program would have started many months ago, bringing together “common Belarusians” who want to give a response to President Aleksandr Lukashenko’s “Stalinesque campaign of torture and detention [that] has all but silenced dissent” in Minsk. To add credibility to this narrative, the paper interviewed an exiled woman involved in the training nicknamed “Predator”. The 42-year-old dissident explained that she is the mother of a child who is unaware that she is currently in a military program. The option for combat would apparently have been motivated by the need to “fight for Belarus”.

“My daughter doesn’t know I am here. I told her I was going paintballing (…) []However] I came here today (…) to prepare for the fight for Belarus”, “Predator” told journalists during an interview.

This is a well-known media strategy, widely used by western outlets. The objective is to use an emotionalrhetoric to show the supported side as a victim of oppression and an example of heroism and resilience. But for those who know what really happened in Belarus in 2020, this narrative is nothing more than a weak and meaningless fallacy.

The 2020 mass protests were the result of a Western plan to overthrow Lukashenko’s legitimate government and replace him with pro-Western opposition candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya. Belarusian security forces were incisive in neutralizing the Western-sponsored threat, and, as in cases of failed regime change operations, the US regarded Lukashenko’s electoral victory as illegitimate and fraudulent, pointing to Lithuania-based Tikhanovskaya as the real winner.

At the time, the Bypol group was created, formed by several dissident former employees of law enforcement agencies. Bypol engaged in active militia work, physically fighting the security forces. The group alleges the supposed “necessity” to face the government’s “state violence”, receiving financial and logistical support from the western powers for this.

As a result of Lukashenko’s victory, most Bypol’smembers emigrated to neighboring countries hostile to Minsk, such as Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and the Czech Republic. This did not stop the group from operating sabotage and real combat missions on Belarusian soil, even carrying out a drone attack on a Russian A-50 radar at Machulishchy air base. However, Belarusian security forces closely monitor the militia’sactivities and have been effective in preventing further damage from being caused.

In practice, Bypol is an ordinary terrorist organization, which acts like any other extremist group in the world, using terror as a political tool and causing harm to ordinary civilians during its illegal raids. But the West has been openly pro-terror in recent years, being publicly involved in financing and supporting terrorist and neo-Nazi groups such as the Ukraine’s Azov, Right Sector and Aidar, which makes it unsurprising that it gives same support for Bypol. In fact, if the terrorists’ targets are NATO’s geopolitical enemies, then the criminals have “carte blanche” for their maneuvers.

The problem is that amidst the current scenario of tensions, any miscalculated act could lead to a serious escalation. Belarus has been the target of repeated terrorist attacks since the beginning of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine. Minsk is involved in a secondary way in the operation, only allowing Russian troops to use its territory to enter the enemy country, without sending soldiers and weapons directly. The Belarusian attitude is legitimate, considering that Belarus and Russia maintain a collective defense treaty within the Union State, and therefore military actions are absolutely integrated.

This means that western provocations against Russia’s ally are likely to be responded to by Moscow itself. And, in the same sense, considering that these are NATO countries that are training, supporting and infiltrating terrorists in Belarus, the eventual joint response of Minsk and Moscow could even be directed against NATO, which would involve the risk of nuclear escalation.

This only makes it even more legitimate for Minsk to receive Russian nuclear weapons on its territory. Minsk is taking pre-preventive action to dissuade hostile countries from realizing their war plans against the Belarusian people in order to avoid further escalation, as the consequences could be catastrophic.

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Funding for May and June 2023: https://dontspeaknews.com/2023/05/08/funding-for-may-june-2023/

Warsaw escalates tensions by transferring 10 MiG-29 fighter jets to Kiev

Posted on by 3 comments

Poland deepens servitude to Washington in delusional bid to attain great power status.

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher

In preparation for the expected Ukrainian spring offensive, Poland announced on May 8 that it had transferred 10 MiG-29 fighter jets to Kiev. Following Kiev’s plea for fighter jets, Poland became the first country to make the pledge and transferred four in April. In this way, it is evident that Poland is becoming a staging ground for providing military aid to Ukraine. Warsaw wants to show the US that it is a faithful partner in serving its hostile policies and actions against Russia.

Warsaw is also pumping Ukraine with weapons and is sending Polish mercenaries to battle on the frontlines. According to Polish media, Warsaw delivered military aid to Kiev worth around 2.2 billion euros as of February 2023. In addition, Poland is developing a military infrastructure for storing NATO equipment, and the US military presence is increasing in the country.

Poland dreams of restoring its status as a great country and a major power in Europe, something it was for a very short period over four hundred years ago. However, Poland’s delusions of grandeur have always been linked with wanting to destroy Russian civilisation. For this reason, throughout Poland’s history, they searched for another power that could help destroy Russia – in the 17th century, it was Lithuania; in other periods, it was Britain, France, and Sweden, and today it is the US.

Each foreign power has suffered defeat each time. Still, the Poles, likely out of frustration that they could never achieve great power status, now believe that the US is their best choice for opposing Russia and elevating its status. Due to this, Poland has become a stronghold of American influence in Europe and a military staging ground in which weapons are delivered to Ukraine.

Poland today serves as the most important logistical centre for the delivery of military aid to the Ukrainians by the West. However, Poland has only become a tool of American policy because Warsaw is a subjective player in these situations. The US does not believe in equitable relationships, except perhaps only with other Anglo powers, and for this reason, Poland has only become a puppet despite their intentions to show the Americans that they are their loyal friends and essential in the NATO bloc.

Poland is one of the most active supporters of Ukraine and one of the largest donors of military equipment to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, even though the Far-Right Kiev regime has a long history of opposing and pressuring the Polish minority in the country. Specifically, Poland has delivered 250 tanks to Kiev and plans to deliver another 60 RT-91 tanks (Poland’s modernised version of the T-72), 14 German Leopard 2 tanks and about 100 Wolverine armoured personnel carriers.

Polish authorities have also handed over Soviet self-propelled artillery units “Gvozdika”, multi-barrel BM-21 “Grad” missile systems (MLRS), anti-aircraft missile systems 9K33 “Osa” and S-125 “Neva”, as well as self-propelled howitzers “Krab”, along with a large amount of ammunition for various types of weapons to Kiev. In addition, Polish authorities intend to deploy infrastructure in the country to maintain American Abrams tanks.

Provocations by Poland is not only reduced to militarily opposing Russia but also involves cheap stunts, such as disrupting Victory Day celebrations. Protesters blocked the path of Russia’s ambassador to Poland on May 9 when he tried to place a wreath at a Warsaw memorial to Soviet soldiers who defeated the Nazis in World War II.

The Polish government was informed in advance of the ambassador’s plan to visit the Red Army cemetery and memorial site but made no effort to ensure his safety so that he could pay his respects.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said that the incident demonstrates “the duplicity of Warsaw’s policy in assessing the events of World War II and trying to forget about the role of our nation in saving European countries enslaved by Nazi Germany,” adding that the incident “will not remain without a proper reaction.”

At the same time, Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland said following her meeting with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence of Poland, Mariusz Błaszczak, that they “discussed how to continue holding Russia accountable for its illegal and barbaric invasion, including through further sanctions and using frozen Russian assets to pay for the rebuilding of Ukraine.”

Effectively, the pair discussed how they could use frozen Russian assets to finance Ukraine, something which will have considerable repercussions for Canada and Poland, especially when noting that as of the end of 2022, about $330 million of Russian assets were frozen in Canada.

It is demonstrated that Poland is making everything effort to oppose, pressure and antagonise Russia, as it has done for centuries, and this will continue unrelentingly so long as the US emboldens the country.

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

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

Poland’s new border fence and “Himars Academy” escalates tensions with Russia

Posted on by Leave a comment

Warsaw continues a policy of servitude to Washington.

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher

Poland is erecting a wall on Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave, announced its intentions to open a “Himars Academy” for military training, and is allowing the deployment of these American weapons on its territory. These highly provocative actions serve as a confirmation that Poland has aggressive plans to escalate tensions with Moscow.

Polish Defence Minister Mariusz Błaszczak tweeted on April 18: “The first US-made HIMARS missile systems will reach Poland this year. We want to establish a Himars Academy where training on this type of rocket artillery system will take place.”

Washington considers Poland as nothing more than the first front line in any future confrontation between Russia and NATO in Europe. For this reason, Washington is transforming the country into its main European base, which is why in addition to the Himars system, Warsaw decided to build a fence on the border with Russia, something likely made under US instruction.

Warsaw claims the border fence is needed to stem the flow of illegal immigration after falsely claiming in November 2022 that the Kremlin was planning to facilitate illegal border crossings by Asian and African migrants as part of its “hybrid warfare”. However, this is quite obviously a fallacy since Poland does not face major migratory threats like Europe’s Mediterranean countries.

From a military point of view, the wall will not stop columns of tanks if a conflict broke out. Russians living in Kaliningrad are not defecting to Poland, and at the same time, the wall is not a protection against migrants from Afghanistan and Africa as it is easier to get to Belarus, as occurred during the last migration crisis.

Rather, migration is a ludicrous claim to justify the construction of the wall. Poland aspires to be the main American ally in Europe, which will dictate the geopolitics of the region. Building the wall is for this purpose, even if it is just a mere demonstration that Poland is making some kind of effort against Russia. However, the US does not have allies, and instead only has vassals.

Polish Interior Minister Mariusz Kamiński announced that Poland has begun construction of a “state-of-the-art” wall along its 199-kilometre land border with Russia, which will be completed by the end of the year and includes 3,000 surveillance cameras.

In typical cold Russian humour, the governor of the Kaliningrad region, Anton Alikhanov, offered Poland construction materials for the wall, promising to give “even a small discount.”

Poland will place American Himars missile systems near the border with Kaliningrad, while at the same time the country plans to open the Himars Academy for the army to learn how to handle these systems. Himars are not a defensive type of weapon, and therefore the purchase of these systems is an aggressive gesture against Russia.

Warsaw has already bought 20 systems for $414 million, but the US Congress has already agreed to deliver about 500 more highly mobile systems, worth about $10 billion. This is in line with Poland’s aggressive plan to completely isolate the Kaliningrad region.

Alarmingly, the installation of the Himars system near Kaliningrad poses a danger to civilian aircraft flying into the exclave, while on the other hand, it is primarily more dangerous for Poland as Russia will only militarise Kaliningrad even further. Given that Russia has a lot more capabilities than Poland and the US does not have infinite resources to dedicate to the country, leaders in Warsaw have only made their country’s defences even more vulnerable as Moscow will certainly respond to this latest provocation.

Adding to its provocative crescendo, Poland, along with Germany and a few other EU countries, are pushing for sanctions on Russian nuclear energy as the bloc looks for new ways to try and hurt Moscow’s finances because the current embargoes have utterly failed to deter the special military operation in Ukraine.

According to CNBC, Poland and the Baltic States also called for sanctions on Russia’s civil nuclear energy activities, diamond imports, and on oil imports on the Druzhba pipeline.

Although the EU has imposed 10 sanction packages on Russia since the war began, another round of sanctions is being prepared, but again, this is unlikely to deter Russia and will once again backfire on the bloc. Although it is likely that the new set of sanctions would feature nuclear energy, a spokesperson for the European Commission refused to comment on ongoing confidential discussions.

“The preparations for the 11th package are ongoing,” the spokesperson said, “to have it all done and ready it takes time.”

In this way, it is evident that Poland is desperately positioning itself to be the US’ main European military base, even though Russia does not pose a threat to the country. Rather, by highly militarising the border, establishing a Himars Academy, and pushing for more sanctions, Poland is fully emersed in an anti-Russia hysteria that is being transformed into policy.

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

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

« Older Entries