Tag Archives: WW3

Serbia dangerously close to capitulation

Posted on by Leave a comment

Serbia is a perfect example that appeasement will not only fail to produce the desired results, but also backfire. Despite well over two decades of accepting virtually every political West’s “suggestion”, the blackmails continue.

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

For well over three decades, the political West has been exerting unprecedented pressure on Serbia. The incessantly belligerent and imperialist power pole invested decades and enormous resources to fragment and reduce Serbian ethnic space to only a fraction of what it was just 30 years ago. This was accomplished through the backing of various Neo-Nazi and terrorist groups and setting up their respective regimes in areas previously controlled by Serbia. These vassal entities would then conduct ethnic cleansing of native Serbs from the area, engineering their respective majorities in certain regions which would then be incorporated by the said NATO vassals or turned into new states and statelets by carving them up from Serbia.

A prominent example of this is the NATO-occupied Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohia, which the belligerent alliance took by force in 1999, after the illegal bombing that was the focal point of almost ten years of continuous US/NATO aggression. Now, after over two decades of crawling US-backed separatist actions by the illegal narco-terrorist government in Pristina, the European Union is pushing the final solution that would be the last nail in the coffin of Serbia’s sovereignty. Months of tremendous pressure from the US, EU and NATO have pushed Belgrade to the brink. The previously veiled threats by Brussels and Washington DC have become as direct as they could possibly be, particularly since the start of Russia’s counteroffensive against NATO aggression in Europe.

Serbia’s continuous refusal to impose sanctions on Moscow is seen as nothing less than “heresy” in the political West. The small country is rather unique in this regard, as it’s still the only one in Europe that has not imposed them. The result is a constant exacerbation of the political West’s hostility towards Serbia, which is now being forced to finally renounce its well-over-a-millennium-old land occupied by NATO forces. The so-called Franco-German plan, in the works for several months now, means the de facto recognition of the illegal “State of Kosovo”. One of its points represents quite possibly the pinnacle of the utter hypocrisy and double standards the political West is well-known (or rather infamous) for.

Namely, Article 3 states that “the sides… …reaffirm the inviolability… …of the border existing between them and undertake fully to respect each other’s territorial integrity”. It’s rather laughable to suggest that Serbia’s territorial integrity will be “respected” by the very separatists aiming to take approximately 12% of its land (recognized by the UN). Worse yet, Serbia is now forced to “respect the territorial integrity” of the illegal US-backed narco-terrorist entity currently occupying its southern province. Unfortunately, the Serbian government has also been trying to circumvent Western pressure by voting for anti-Russian resolutions in the UN General Assembly, hoping to relieve at least some pressure from Washington DC and Brussels, but it’s now obvious all this was in vain.

In doing so, the Serbian government went against the vast majority of its own electorate, which is overwhelmingly pro-Russian (and has been for centuries). For years, Belgrade has been trying to maintain its (official) neutrality, but as the political West operates under the “you’re either with us or against us” foreign policy framework, this is effectively considered “hostile” and now, the Serbian government is forced to make choices which will effectively mean political suicide in a country whose populace is well aware of the malice and harm caused by Washington DC and Brussels. And yet, even the attempts to appease the political West have been completely in vain, as the pressure on Serbia and its sovereignty and territorial integrity continues unabated.

On the anniversary of Russia’s special military operation, the UN General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution condemning Russia and “supporting the territorial integrity of Ukraine”. Serbia was forced to vote in favor, meaning that Belgrade officially supports the territorial integrity of the illegal Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, but it violates its own by “respecting” the “territorial integrity” of the NATO-backed narco-terrorist entity in Pristina. To make matters worse, it is doing so while siding with the political West, the greatest threat to its very existence, against Russia, its only true ally in the international arena. The cognitive dissonance in this case is hardly comparable to any other geopolitical situation anywhere in the world.

Serbia is a perfect example that appeasement will not only fail to produce the desired results, but also backfire. Despite well over two decades of accepting virtually every political West’s “suggestion”, the blackmails continue. The very next step is extremely likely to be the termination of Republika Srpska, forcefully integrated into “independent” Bosnia and Herzegovina nearly 30 years ago.

Soon after, the question of sanctions against Russia will surely be presented as “vital” to Belgrade’s “Euro-Atlantic future”. And yet, even if Serbia accepts this, Washington DC and Brussels will certainly demand further subservience, including possible sanctions against China, another global power Serbia has good relations with.

Unfortunately, Serbia is a perfect example of how any attempt to maintain sovereignty and territorial integrity while trying to appease the political West is not only absurd, but also a dangerous fantasy that will always end in utter disaster for anyone attempting it. True sovereignty and independence can only be guaranteed with the complete dismantling of the political West and the emergence of the multipolar world order which would ensure that neocolonialism and imperialism are defeated once and for all. Sadly, there’s only one known way to achieve this.

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

By rejecting China’s peace plan West pushes Beijing closer to Russia

Posted on by One comment

Now, the Chinese government is absolutely certain that its Western adversaries want war, not peace and diplomacy.

Lucas Leiroz, researcher in Social Sciences at the Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

On the first anniversary of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, China presented a peace plan, aimed at re-establishing diplomacy and bilateral negotiations. Consisting of twelve points, the proposal reflects the stance of neutrality of the Chinese government, which has refused to support anti-Russian resolutions at the UN, maintaining a strong direct dialogue with Moscow which allows it to develop more realistic proposals, unlike the Western unilateral demands of Russia’s retreat. However, the West does not seem interested in peace, havingimmediately rejected Beijing’s project.

Beijing calls for an end to hostilities and for the two parties to return to peace talks immediately. Defense of civilians and prisoners of war (POWs) is also a central topic of the project, as well as the safety and stability of the nuclear power plants. In addition, Beijing also advocates the banning of all unilateral sanctions, thus enabling the resumption of economic cooperation and the possibility of a rapid reconstruction of the zones affected by the conflict.

The points of the proposal are: 1. Respecting the sovereignty of all countries; 2. Abandon the Cold War mentality; 3. Ceasing hostilities; 4. Resuming peace talks; 5. Resolving the humanitarian crisis; 6. Protecting civilians and prisoners of war (POWs); 7. Keeping nuclear power plants safe; 8. Reducing strategic risks; 9. Facilitating grain exports; 10. Stopping unilateral sanctions; 11. Keeping industrial and supply chains stable; 12. Promoting post-conflict reconstruction.

As we can see, China proposes a broad diplomatic platform, indicating essential topics for achieving any peaceful solution to the conflict. It is not possible to point out any biased aspect to either side during the analysis of the proposal. These are points that, despite the proximity between Russia and China, reveal a true position of neutrality, seeking to meet, as much as possible, the interests of both sides.

However, as expected, the plan did not please Western governments, which rejected the measure without even establishing forums for prior discussion. According to several Western politicians and experts, the Chinese objective was simply to propose a “pro-Russian peace”, ignoring Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.

For example, according to Clayton Allen and Anna Ashton, analysts linked to the Eurasia Group, a consulting agency and think tank that advises several Western governments, the Chinese twelve points are biased in favor of Moscow and echo the “Russian justifications for the invasion”.

“Although several of the 12 points revealed Chinese concerns over actions primarily associated with Russia, it continued to echo Russia’s justifications for invasion and can largely be framed by Russia as supporting Moscow’s positions (…) China’s approach suggests that they are walking a diplomatic tightrope of strengthening ties to Russia – a key geostrategic ally and counterbalance to the West – while avoiding a position that is seen as openly hostile to Western aims”, they said.

This assessment seems extremely exaggerated. Proposing peace means seeking the best solution for both sides, but obviously also involves meeting the interests of the winning side, which, in this case, is the Russian one. The fact that Moscow seems to “benefit” from this plan is due to the evident reality that Russian troops have an advantage on the battlefield and it would be absolutely unrealistic to think of “peace” seeking to fulfill the Ukrainian objective of withdrawing Russian forces from the liberated regions. What Ukraine and the West understand by “peace” is the recapture of Russian territories, including Crimea, which obviously will not be accepted.

However, worse than that, NATO members and allies not only refused to consider the proposals but began to spread rumors about a possible Chinese intention to send weapons to Russia. According to the Western narrative, the Chinese peace project was a mere excuse to advance cooperation with Moscow and boost bilateral military relations, with plans to supply Russia with weapons in case of rejection of the proposal.

Beijing has denied the allegations, calling them “disinformation”, but at the same time Chinese officials seem aware of the danger caused by Western bellicoseness. In a recent statement, Mao Ning, the spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, informed that the Chinese attitude towards Ukraine is completely peaceful, but recalled that while supplying the Kiev regime with weapons, Washington also acts in a destabilizing way in Taiwan, thus posing a security risk to both Russia and China.

“On the Ukraine issue, China has been actively promoting peace talks and the political settlement of the crisis (…) [However] In addition to pouring lethal weapons into the battlefield in Ukraine, the US has been selling sophisticated weapons to the Taiwan region in violation of the three China-US joint communiqués”, Mao said.

What seems to be happening is yet another “self-fulfilling prophecy” on the part of the West. Believing in its own baseless narrative that China wants to send weapons to Russia, the US takes unnecessary preventive measures whose side effects can be precisely the increase of Russian-Chinese military cooperation. If before there was no plan on the part of Beijing to send arms to the Russian side, it is possible that this will happen now, since the peace proposals have been exhausted and the Chinese are aware that these same forces that push Ukraine towards a proxy war against Russia may soon act against Beijing in Taiwan.

In their anti-Russian and anti-Chinese paranoia, the US and the EU make the wrong decisions and put global peace at risk. Beijing is trying to resolve the situation diplomatically, but Western forces also need to prioritizepeace.

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram

Russia expands its partners as special military operation progresses

Posted on by Leave a comment

Contrary to what Westerners predicted, Moscow is gradually looking like an attractive alternative for emerging countries.

Lucas Leiroz, researcher in Social Sciences at the Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant. 

One year after the start of the special military operation, little seems to have changed in the Russian diplomatic landscape. NATO’s members and allies continue to condemn Moscow’s actions, while virtually the rest of the world remains neutral – in addition to a number of states openly supporting the operation. The Russian Federation is not isolated in the global society and all measures aimed at making it a “pariah” have had the reverse effect, making the collective West itself a “bad partner”.

Since the beginning of the special military operation for the demilitarization and de-Nazification of Ukraine, on February 24, 2022, Russia has maintained a team of great partners, guaranteeing strong diplomatic support. Countries with a more openly pro-Russian geopolitical position, such as North Korea, Belarus and Syria, support the operation and vote against anti-Russian resolutions at the UN, while countries with a more neutral position, such as China and India, abstain from voting and demonstrate tacit support for Moscow through economic cooperation.

Throughout 2022, the West tried to coerce emerging countries to adopt hostile policies against Russia, but this proved ineffective. Anti-Russian sanctions have become an exclusive practice of NATO allied countries, with no adherence to such measures among emerging nations. Even governments of emerging countries that act with ambiguity and try to maintain good ties with the West continue to insist on a neutral foreign policy, without actively joining one of the sides in the conflict. This is the case of Brazil, for example, which voted against Moscow in UN resolutions, but continues to refuse to comply with requests from the West to supply weapons to Kiev.

Indeed, this conclusion contrasts with what many Western biased analysts predicted last year. Many experts stated that as the conflict progressed, it was most likely that Russia would naturally become more isolated on the international arena. There was a bet on the propaganda capacity of the Western media to promote the narrative that Moscow would be blamed for the global security crisis, but apparently this type of discourse is no longer able to convince most state officials around the world.

Countries that remained neutral or pro-Russian were able to see over the course of one year what happened to states that, unlike them, adhered to the Western-Ukrainian axis. Among almost all NATO member countries or allies, the scenario arising from observance to the irresponsible policy of sanctions against Moscow was the same: economic crisis, energy instability, food insecurity and government unpopularity.

Europe entered a deep social crisis, with its development rates declining significantly. But the European states did not even consider banning sanctions against Russia, maintaining a posture of subservience to the US. In addition, there were some episodes of direct violence against European countries, such as the sabotage against the Nord Stream gas pipelines, which showed how relations between the US and its allies are maintained through coercion and fear.

Of course, this just made joining the anti-Russian side even less attractive for most countries. It is now evident to the emerging world that the US allied countries have beenseverely harmed due to their decision to side with Kiev in the conflict, although they continued to be absolutely submissive. This resulted, contrary to what optimistic Westerners predicted, in a growth in the number of neutral and pro-Russian countries.

For example, comparing the vote on the anti-Russian resolution of March 24, 2022, with the resolution of February 23, 2023, it is possible to see that the number of countries voting against the withdrawal of Russian troops increased from five to seven, as well as that abstentions increased from 32 to 38. In practice, this means that, as time passes, more countries are adopting neutral or pro-Russian attitudes.

If this has been the scenario so far, it is unlikely that this will change anytime soon. Countries that chose to maintain friendly ties with Russia at the beginning of the special military operation tend to continue to maintain them, regardless of what happens on the frontlines and of what the West does to try to persuade them. Neutrality has proven to be a more interesting, strategic and pragmatic path for most states, and that will certainly not change.

In fact, with the recent visit of China’s top diplomat to Moscow and the reaffirmation of the unlimited cooperation ties between both countries, this scenario seems increasingly clear to the whole world: Russia’s friendly countries will continue to cooperate with Moscow. The Western strategy of relying on coercion and propaganda to prevent Russia from having allies has absolutely failed. As the operation continues, Russia gains more allies and deepens ties with the already-existingpartners. The best the West can do is to prioritize diplomacy and accept the reality that Russia cannot be isolated.

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

USA NEEDS TO BE READY FOR A NEW FALSE FLAG AND MORE WAR NEWS FROM UKRAINE/MOLDOVA

Posted on by 2 comments

All of that and more is in today’s video podcast. All of the links are below.

Bitchute Version of my video

New Front in Moldova

Warning from Ukrainian Foreign Minister

False Flag USA Incoming

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

Washington gives Ukraine false hope that it can recapture Crimea

Posted on by Leave a comment

Nuland encourages Ukrainian terrorism against Crimea.

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher

By stating that the US will support Ukrainian attacks on Crimea, Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland confirms beyond doubt that Washington encourages Kiev’s aggression and escalation of war. However, a possible attack on Crimeawill not only fail because the peninsula is well protected, but it will lead to a more devastating retaliation by Russia against the ruling regime in Kiev.

“I’m not going to prejudge where the Ukrainians choose to fight or how they choose to deal with Crimea over the short term, medium term, or long term. We recognise Crimea as Ukraine,” Nuland said during an online discussion organised by Carnegie Endowment on February 16.

“Those [Russian military installations in Crimea] are legitimate targets, Ukraine is hitting them, and we are supporting that,” she continued, adding that Ukraine will not be safe unless Crimea is demilitarized as a minimum. 

Nuland is effectively inciting Kiev to a new escalation in the conflict even though it will bring more suffering to ordinary Ukrainians. None-the-less, by Ukraine being at war with Russia, it has brought great benefit to the US as their ultimate goal is to weaken the Eurasian Giant. By giving Kiev the false belief that it can conquer Crimea, Washington is effectively emboldening the Ukrainian military to continue their futile war effort.

The US overlooks that Crimea became part of the Russian Federation in accordance to international norms and standards. Crimeans overwhelmingly voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia, and this is a harsh reality that the West refuses to acknowledge. 

Denial of this reality is seen with the fact that Nuland is encouraging Ukraine to bring terror to Crimea. Effectively, she is not only advocating for the violation of Russia’s sovereign territory, but given her position and the fact that there is no denial or rejection from her superiors, she is expressing the official opinion of the Biden administration.

Washington does not only provide rhetorical encouragement for Ukraine though. The US has delivered billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to the Ukrainian military and American instructors are training new soldiers and are active on the battlefield. Moscow has repeatedly warned that military aid to Ukraine will only escalate the conflict further. 

Nuland is fully aware that if there was an attack on Crimea, there would be powerful strikes on Ukrainianfacilities. Besides this fact, Crimea is well protected and is effectively a fortress with an abundance of anti-aircraft defence systems, ship systems, fighter jets and a many troops. In fact, the bulk of Russia’s military forces in the Black Sea region is concentrated in the Crimean Peninsula.  

It should be noted that the Russian Embassy in the United States also responded to Nuland’s statement. The embassy emphasized that Nuland’s statement only confirms USinvolvement in the conflict.

“It should finally become obvious to the entire international community that the United States is the actual instigator of confrontation in Ukraine. However, Washington’s attempts to use the Ukrainians to inflict a strategic defeat on us are doomed. No one can have the slightest doubt that Russia will protect its citizens and territory,” the embassy warns.

Although President Joe Biden and his administration are undoubtedly provoking further war in Ukraine, not everyone within his party are convinced with the strategy. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said that most people accept that Ukraine will never retake Crimea.

“I think there’s more of a consensus out there that people realize that Ukraine is not going to militarily retake Crimea,” he said on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, adding that at some point there will be a negotiated end to the war. 

It is recalled that Pentagon officials told the House Armed Services Committee in a classified briefing in January that Ukrainian forces are unlikely to be able to recapture Crimea from Russian troops in the near future. This is of course a reality that any sensible person would conclude, but by Nuland doubling down that Ukraine could recapture Crimea, a core goal of Kiev’s war with Russia, it serves to only prolong the conflict and the suffering in the country. 

As Politico highlighted, the comments by Smith “reflect what appears to be a growing view in Washington that after a year of heavy fighting, some kind of agreement will need to be realized to end the war.”

Albeit, it should not be considered surprising that negotiations need to occur after nearly a year of the conflict, especially if Ukraine wants to quickly make an economic recovery. However, the comments by Nuland demonstrates that although Washington begrudgingly accepts that Moscow will win the war, it is prepared to fully exhaust Ukraine in the hope of weakening Russia. 

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

Tensions between Poland and Belarus on the rise

Posted on by Leave a comment

Despite it, Lukashenko’s offer to act as a mediator in Ukrainian conflict should be taken seriously by Washington.

Uriel Araujo, researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts

The Polish authorities in Warsaw announced they have closed border checkpoints in Bobrowniki in response to the fact that a Minsk’s court sentenced a Polish activist to 8 years in jail over charges pertaining to inciting hate. The ruling took place after months of mass protests in Belarus, and Poland believes the sentence is politically motivated. Other checkpoints had already been closed over alleged security concerns. Minsk has described the Polish measures as “catastrophic”, claiming it could “lead to a collapse on both sides of the border”. It will increase the load on the remaining two checkpoints, where there already are very long lines.

I have written before on the very real migration crisis which Europe has been facing and on how the role Belarus plays on it is exaggerated to hypocritically demonize that state. There have been, in any case, a number of tragic deaths at the Poland-Belarus border in the context of such a crisis.

Two weeks ago, Polish authorities busted a criminal organization involved in a huge smuggling operation. This is a police matter, but, in the context of a political crisis, the fact can certainly be explored to add fuel to the fire.

The main border concern here however pertains to the conflict. Belarus forces are “ready to fulfill any tasks, including the most difficult ones if we have to”, according to Vadim Lukashevich, deputy commander of the Special Operations Forces of Belarus. Troops outside the city of Brest run drills lust week near the 38th Separate Guards Air Assault Brigade. These exercises took place 50 kilometers from Ukraine and just two miles (four kilometers) from the border with Poland, a EU and NATO member. Belarus has been hosting a number of Russian troops, but President Alexander Lukashenko has stated he will not send his own forces to Ukraine. It is estimated his country possesses about 70,000 troops.

Although some journalists often describe Belarus as a “Russian puppet state”, the truth is that both countries’ relationship is much more complex and nuanced. In any case, Minsk has historically cultivated close bilateral relations with Moscow. It stands in a complicated position, “sandwiched” between republics such as Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine itself – all of them hostile to Russia and to itself.  In July 2022 Lukashenko claimed Kiev had tried to attack his country, with the missiles supposedly launched having being neutralized just in time by his armed forces. Ukraine could in fact benefit from draggin Belarus into the conflict, in the hope that this would force a direct Western intervention – however, it could also backfire, with disastrous results, in case the West does not act as expected.

The conflict in Ukraine has been part of a Western proxy war against Russia and, in spite of historical Polish-Ukrainian disagreements (worsened by post-Maidan Ukrainian ultranationalism), Warsaw has been a strong supporter of Kiev against Moscow. Even before the current conflict, both neighboring nations actively opposed the Russian-German Nord Stream 2 project (which in fact could have avoided today’s energy crisis in Europe). Moreover, Poland has antagonized Germany over the same issue, while also pressuring Berlin to send tanks to Ukraine. This is part of Poland’s American-backed quest for regional leadership, as Washington seems to have become “fed up” with its German partner over the Nord Stream issue.

To make things more complicated, Poland and Ukraine are near a confederation, which can only increase even more the risk of bringing NATO’s direct involvement into the latter.

Although Minsk’s defensive exercises have been described by Western media as aggressive provocations, President Lukashenko has urged his American counterpart to go to Minsk, Belarus, in a joint meeting with himself and Russian President Vladimir Putin to “end the war”. It remains to be seen how long Belarus can manage to refrain from directly taking part into the current conflict, amid an escalation of tensions.

During Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to Washington in December 2022, he and Biden took part in a joint press conference. During it, Biden said more potent weapons will not be sent to Ukraine because it “would have a prospect of breaking up NATO”. In addition, the American leader remarked that his Atlantic allies are “not looking to go to war with Russia. They’re not looking for a third world war.”

Ukrainian and Western actions for the last couple of years have been characterized by dangerous moves (such as crossing red lines) and provocations. While the US profits in a number of ways from making the Ukrainian conflict perpetual and from the resulting European energy crisis, it has no intention to escalate things into a world war, as Biden aforementioned remarks make clear.

The problem with escalations of tensions, as I wrote before, is that they may have quite unintended and unpredictable consequences – and those in turn can always spiral out of control – as both world wars have taught us. Before reaching a point of no return, Washington should establish good diplomacy, exercise restraint and stop its dual containment policy, which dangerously aims at “containing” both Moscow and Beijing at the same time.

In light of that, Lukashenko’s invitation should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, there is no indication it will be.

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 new buy me a coffee link is below. 

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

WW3 Updates, Israel’s New Extremist Govt. and the Marburg Virus Becomes Front Page News

Posted on by 3 comments
boy sitting in broken car

All of that and more is in today’s video. The links will be below. Prayed up and prepped up, things are moving FAST NOW!

Russia Says War with USA is CLOSE

Russian Bombers Norway

Israel’s New Right Wing Govt.

New Treaty for Partitioning Ukraine Possible

NATO Weakened by Shipping arms to Kiev

US General Warns UK No longer has fighting force

Marburg Virus in the news

Attorney Todd Calendar Says Marburg will be activated via 5G in the Vaccinated

Bitchute Video

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 new buy me a coffee link is below. 

Buy me a Coffee

Cash App ID: $jstorm212

PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=D4PHT9D92CFKJ

10 year old, Jeremy died and was taken to heaven where He was told future events, World War III and the alien wars

Posted on by 2 comments

While this video deals with some scary subjects like World War III and fighting actual demons, it’s also a very inspiring testimony! Jeremy was given a very special 3 year mission and at the end of his young life he saved 14 more for Gods kingdom!

Share this with everyone you know as time is so short!

Is America world’s No. 1 terrorist state?

Posted on by Leave a comment

If the United States is unconcerned with direct attacks on a country with the most powerful thermonuclear arsenal on the planet, who else can feel safe when having to deal with what Pepe Escobar described as the “Rogue Superpower”?

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

The United States legislature is one of the few in the world using the controversial designation of “state sponsor of terrorism”, colloquially often used in its shortened form, the terrorist state. At present, the State Department lists four countries as “state sponsors of terrorism”: Syria (1979), Iran (1984), North Korea (2017) and Cuba (2021). Countries that have been removed from the list are Iraq, Libya, former South Yemen and Sudan. The evidence that the US government usually gives to support claims that a country has indeed “repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism” is quite scant, to say the least. And yet, Washington DC has (ab)used the designation as a basis to attack all of the aforementioned countries, in addition to dozens of other states around the globe.

Unfortunately, the belligerent thalassocracy usually doesn’t suffer the consequences of its extremely aggressive foreign policy. After the brutal invasion of Iraq, the US claim that the unfortunate Middle Eastern country allegedly had WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) proved to be an unadulterated lie. Still, nobody in the political West suffered any consequences for this, despite their own admission that the accusations against Baghdad were based on “flawed intelligence”. The same people also claimed that the evidence was “rock solid” prior to the truly unprovoked NATO aggression on Iraq. The war didn’t just destroy the Middle Eastern country, directly causing at least one million deaths, but has also resulted in over two decades of (still ongoing) instability.

This also includes the rise of monstrosities such as ISIS/ISIL and numerous other terrorist groups that have killed hundreds of thousands of people across the Middle East and beyond, particularly affecting not just the neighboring Syria, but also Libya and a number of African countries, many of which have already confirmed that US-made weapons have ended up in the hands of terrorist groups attacking their security forces. Needless to say, the vast majority (if not virtually all) of such terrorist groups have been financed, trained and even directly supported by the US. Rather ironic, given the aforementioned US legislation designating other countries as so-called “state sponsors of terrorism”.

Still, perhaps the most dangerous consequence of this US foreign policy framework is that the belligerent thalassocracyhas already tried using the designation for Russia, which is even more ironic, as the Eurasian giant has been fighting actual (as previously mentioned mostly US-backed) international terrorism, including in Syria, another country the US considers a “terrorist state”. Despite all of this, Washington DC is constantly escalating the magnitude of its hypocrisy, especially in recent months. The best example of this is the terrorist attack that destroyed portions of the Nord Stream pipelines. As several senior Biden administration officials effectively admitted that Washington DC was behind this, including the infamous Victoria Nuland, the US is openly engaging in what can only be called state terrorism.

This is yet another term describing terrorist activities directly supported or even carried out by an intentionally recognized state actor. And it is precisely this that the latest report by a prizewinning US journalist Seymour Hersh confirms. The detailed account of how exactly the US sabotaged the strategically important natural gas pipelines is a clear indicator that the belligerent thalassocracy has upped the ante and is now ready to do virtually anything to prevent normal economic activities of its geopolitical rivals (and not just rivals, as this terrorist act essentially destroyed Europe’s energy security). Hersh’s report also reveals that US vassals (in this case Norway)also took part in the terrorist attack on Russia-built pipelines. Oslo also had a vested interest in seeing the Nord Stream fail, as it has a competing pipeline connecting it to northwestern areas of Europe.

Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar, a giant in global geopolitical analytics, thinks that the report is effectively a leak from Hersh’sDeep State insider, but that it essentially boils down to a futile attempt to hide (or at least trivialize) the decisive role of the CIA and other US intelligence services. He adds that the overfocuson Norway’s role is used as a scapegoat to divert attention from other participants in this terrorist act. Escobar also blasts the European Union, particularly “cowardly Berlin”, for not reacting to what is, in essence, economic warfare against the bloc. However, as he correctly notes, the Norwegian Navy doesn’t have any operational P-8 “Poseidon” (unlike the US) and this maritime patrol aircraft was key in conducting the attack.

While Moscow is still exercising remarkable restraint despite all this, it’s certainly making it clear that it now sees the US as waging a total hybrid war against Russia. Its Ministry of Foreign Affairs has already excluded the idea of negotiations on strategic nuclear weapons with the US, stating that any proposed gestures of goodwill are “unjustified, untimely and uncalled for.” The world is also following suit, as China has also called for Washington DC to “explain itself” regarding the terrorist attack on the pipelines. 

Naturally, countries around the globe are aware that the belligerent thalassocracy has essentially opened the Pandora’s Box by directly attacking Russian infrastructure and are certainly worried this could become yet another illegal mainstay of US foreign policy. And indeed, if Washington DC is unconcerned with direct attacks on a country with the most powerful thermonuclear arsenal on the planet, who else can feel safe when having to deal with what Escobar described as the “Rogue Superpower”?

Jihadists are recruited by Washington as Russia prepares for new offensive

Posted on by One comment

NATO warns that Ukraine is running out of ammunition.

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher

The US is actively recruiting Islamists for terrorist attacks against Russia according to the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation (SVR). Undoubtedly, this is another demonstration of Washington’s consistent and persistent strategy of pressuring and provoking Russia.

“According to credible reports, special attention is being paid to attracting people from the Russian North Caucasus and Central Asia,” the statement says, adding that in January of this year, US intelligence agencies recruited 60 militants in Syria who, after training at the El Tanf base, will be sent to Russia and neighbouring friendly countries to carry out terrorist attacks.

“Particular emphasis is paid to planning attacks on heavily guarded facilities, including foreign diplomatic missions,” the SVR statement adds.

The statement also stressed that the US plans to send small groups of militants to Russia and other former Soviet nations that make up the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

“Such actions put Washington on par with major international terrorist groups,” the SVR statement concludes.

The instrumentalization of jihadists is a constant theme of the American global strategic relationship towards Russia. Washington is fully aware that jihadism in Russia and its neighbourhood can be disruptive. Ever since Vladimir Putinbecame president in 2000, Russia has strengthened its security structures and found resolutions in the Islamic-majority Caucasus region. These actions significantly reduced Islamic terrorism that plagued Russia in the 1990’s and 2000’s despite American intelligence services supporting Caucasian terrorists.

It cannot be forgotten that the US instigated an Islamist uprising in Russia-allied Syria that eventually led to Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra and ISIS taking large swathes of territory and terrorising civilians for years. Given the failure to depose President Bashar al-Assad and Ukraine now being demilitarized at an unprecedented scale, Washington is seemingly so desperate to break Russian unity and bring terror to the civilian population that it is once again recruitingIslamic terrorism to serve its agenda. 

Although Moscow disclosed the intentions of the US to once again weaponize jihadism, it was not revealed exactly how they plan to respond to this threat. It can be assumed that Russia’s intelligence and security system will act in a timely manner to prevent any incidences.

According to the head of the Eurasian Security Forum, Retired Serbian Major General Mitar Kovač, the overwhelming majority of Islam is opposed to American foreign policy. 

“Many in the world appreciate that only five percent of Islamic countries or Muslims around the world are ready to follow US policy and be abused, while about 95 percent of countries or Muslim movements are on the side of sovereignty, the idea of sovereignty, and hence it is no

wonder that most Muslim countries in the world today supports the Russian Federation’s fight against Western aggression and against its national interests in Eastern Europe,” Kovač said.He effectively highlights those jihadists, who mostly serve Washington’s interests, make up a small percentile of Muslims.

The utilization of jihadists come as the head of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, admitted that the alliance has depleted stocks of munitions. This comes at a time when the Russian Army is preparing, according to the NATO chief, to launch a fresh offensive. As Newsweek reported, the fighting has intensified ahead of the first anniversary of the war, “leading to Kyiv using ammunition at an unprecedented rate.”

For their part, the Financial Times reported that the Ukrainian military is firing more than 5,000 artillery rounds each day— “equal to a smaller European country’s orders in an entire year of peacetime. Russia meanwhile, is estimated to be firing four times that amount each day.”

“It is clear that we are in a race of logistics. Key capabilities like ammunition, fuel and spare parts must reach Ukraine before Russia can seize the initiative on the battlefield. Speed will save lives,” Stoltenberg said. 

According to him, the new offensive has already started as Russian troops are closing in on the strategic town of Bakhmut in the Donbass region.

“We see how they are sending more troops, more weapons, more capabilities. The reality is that we are seeing the start [of a new offensive] already,” Stoltenberg said.

Although the expected major spring offensive has not yet started, as Stoltenberg claims, it is undeniable that Russia is amassing hundreds of thousands of troops and heavy equipment. Russia is anticipated to launch a new offensive once the snows has melted and the muds have dried. 

With Ukraine experiencing manpower, ammunition and supply issues, the US hopes that jihadist attacks within Russia can alleviate some pressure. However, not only will the SVR keep on top of terrorist activities, Russia will not be deterredfrom completing the demilitarization of Ukraine and the full liberation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye and Kherson. 

« Older Entries