Tag: russia

Retired US Army Officer: Scary How West Pushing World to Brink of Nuclear War

During a meeting with foreign press, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the West against thoughtless conflict escalation, stressing that Moscow could repel NATO attempts to threaten its sovereignty both asymmetrically and directly.

Russian President Vladimir Putin held a meeting with foreign journalists on June 5 within the framework of the 27th annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF).

Addressing the Ukraine conflict the Russian president noted that Western weapon deliveries to the Kiev regime, coupled with the approval to hit targets deep inside Russia, is fraught with severe escalation risks.

“How do you respond to this use of weapons and allowing them to attack and basically violate the sovereignty of Russia itself?” Earl Rasmussen, a retired US Army lieutenant colonel and international consultant told Sputnik. “If we look at these attacks, they’re not targeting military targets, or they’re targeting strategic targets. They’re targeting civilians, many of them, or strategic targets as well. It’s essentially, basically authorizing and supporting terrorism.”

Keep reading

Russia’s Advanced Yasen-M Class Nuclear Submarine Is Headed For Cuba

ARussian flotilla — including a modern nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine — is bound for Cuba for a rare deployment. Cuban officials state that none of the Russian Navy vessels headed toward the Caribbean will be carrying nuclear weapons, in an apparent effort to reduce tensions between Moscow and Washington, but the development once again reinforces renewed Russian interest in the operations in the wider region.

In a statement yesterday, Cuba’s Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces confirmed that the advanced Yasen-M class nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine Kazan and three other Russian naval vessels, including the Project 22350 frigate Admiral Gorshkov, the oil tanker Pashin, and the salvage tug Nikolai Chiker will dock in the Cuban capital from June 12-17.

“None of the vessels is carrying nuclear weapons, so their stopover in our country does not represent a threat to the region,” the ministry said.

“Visits by naval units from other countries are a historical practice of the revolutionary government with nations that maintain relations of friendship and collaboration,” the statement added.

The day before, U.S. officials said that they expected Russian warships and aircraft to arrive in the Caribbean for a military exercise that they said would be part of a Moscow’s broader response to American support for Ukraine. In particular, President Joe Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use U.S.-provided weapons to strike inside Russia has angered the Kremlin.

Keep reading

NATO Inciting WWIII While Israel Looks To Incinerate Middle East

TWEETER is aflury with NATO’s statement that it wants 300,000 US troops on Russia’s borders within eastern bloc countries.   Oddly, NATO did not call up British troops, German troops, or any other NATO troops which sounds alarm bells.   Secretary, Jens Stoltenberg, asserted at the Summit that NATO allies must pledge a stipulated amount to fund Ukraine’s rubble until the end of time.  Translation:  the stuttering, verbally challenged Alex Soros has spoken on behalf of daddykins who has owned Ukraine since 1992 and is not about to give up the $11.7 trillion in rare earth minerals if he has to murder every last Ukrainian and US soldier.

A Loss is NOT on the table despite Ukraine losing over 50,000 troops monthly.  In response to the US building up Europe’s weapons along Russia’s border, Putin claims Russia will begin providing weapons to those regions incompatible with western ideologies – most notably Afghanistan.   The end result will be a global tit-for-tat barrage of rockets similar to Israel and Palestine.   A constant state of war.

The fact that Ukraine and Russia are nonNATO countries seems to have evaded Stoltenberg’s understanding.   The Rules of Engagement are quite clear:  “Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation adopted by Heads of State and Government in Lisbon.”  

At the summit in St Petersburg, Putin stated that intel reveals the US is planning to ultimately lower the conscription age to 18 and get rid of Zelenskyy.  He has become an expensive puppet, much disliked by statesmen.

Perhaps NATO’s statement is much ado about nothing.  Perhaps its entire purpose was to ignite rage.    The timing weas not elaborated on and the readiness of troops was not discussed.   In fact, Germany, who has failed every single deadline for Climate Change, has now declared that ‘war readiness’ must be achieved by 2029.   No more solar powered tanks!

Defense Minister for Germany, Boris Pistorius, has stated that in order to achieve this readiness both men and women will potentially be subject to mandatory conscription.   In the US all 18—24 year olds are automatically registered for the draft given the military is  wholly short on recruits in all branches.

The Ukraine peace summit to be held in Switzerland did NOT include Russia.   Given the idiocy of the summit, many countries chose to avoid the plea for money, including:  China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Hungary, Brazil, and South Africa are notable.   The clear waste of time is the most pervasive reasoning.    But the pleading for money has also worn down enthusiasm.   The war weariness is evident to everyone except the Kabbalah.

Afghanistan cost the US 2.3+ Trillion.  Syria cost $1.2 Trillion.  Iraq cost us $1.1 trillion.   WWII = $330 billion ($5.75 trillion in 2024 dollars).  Vietnam $176 billion.  We are broke.  Our Treasury Balance Sheet reveals a Net Worth of -$30+ Trillion.

To add prospective to the financial collapse we are facing, the FDIC has stated that 63 banks are on the brink of failure.  The losses stem from unrealized residential mortgage backed securities and an office property glut.  The potential losses represent $517 billion for the FDIC to bailout depositors.  The vast majority are smaller banks, but a representation of the failed economy under Biden’s Handlers.

All of this comes under the real umbrella – Israel.  Hezbollah rockets hit northern Israel igniting fires across the territory.   Indonesia has rallied its support for Iran.  One of the ICJ judges in calling for criminal charges to be levied against Netanyahu has suddenly resigned citing ‘personal reasons’ – translation his family was likely threatened.  Simultaneously the AIPAC led US government is determined to sanction all the judges, defund UNRWA, and dismantle the ICC.

Keep reading

The 80th D-Day Anniversary Combines Historical Revisionism With A Proxy War Powwow

Zelensky’s attendance has more of a practical meaning than just reinforcing historically revisionist narratives about World War II since his discussions with the American, British, French, and German leaders will decide the coming escalations and the new peace process that might follow them by the end of summer.

A lot of media attention has been focused on the 80th D-Day anniversary considering its emotive significance and the participation of several international leaders at the event. Zelensky’s attendance alongside Biden and several of his Western European counterparts appears out of place since Ukraine had nothing to do with this operation. The only reason that he was invited was to advance NATO’s historically revisionist narrative about World War II and engage in a proxy war powwow.

To explain, the first refers to the false claim that the Western Allies were chiefly responsible for the Nazis’ defeat, not the Soviet Union. That twisted version of the truth has always been around but began to be fiercely propagated after 2014 and especially following the start of Russia’s special operation in 2022. This narrative was popularized in parallel with the one portraying the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, whose real importance was clarified here, as forging a Soviet-Nazi Alliance that made World War II possible.

It accordingly became unacceptable among the Western elite and opinionmakers to acknowledge the USSR’s role in defeating the Nazis. Since facts about the post-war order can’t be erased, however, they’ve instead taken to manipulating the events leading up to it in order to spin the tale that the First Ukrainian Front which played a leading role in the Battle for Berlin was a semi-independent force. To that end, they overlook that it was named as such for geographic reasons and instead claim that it was for ethnic ones.

Some Ukrainians’ collaboration with the Nazis is either ignored or dishonestly explained as “a misguided form of anti-Soviet resistance”, which combines with the preceding claim about the First Ukrainian Front to craft an entirely new narrative. In the average Western mind nowadays, Ukrainians were victims of the Soviets before World War II and then of the Nazis during it; semi-independent victors in that war; and then once again victims of the Soviets after it like the rest of Central & Eastern Europe (CEE).

The metanarrative that’s formed through the abovementioned means is to equate the USSR with Nazi Germany in terms of moral responsibility for starting World War II and then comparing the first’s prolonged military presence in CEE after the war with the Nazis’ brief but highly genocidal occupation. It’s upon this basis that Russia wasn’t invited to attend the 80th D-Day anniversary but Zelensky was since the latter’s participation reinforces these views in the Western imagination.

Having explained the historically revisionist reasons behind Zelensky’s invitation to Thursday’s event, it’s now time to segue into its practical importance with respect to the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine. He’s powwowing with the American, British, French, and German leaders precisely at the moment that those four are “escalating to de-escalate” as was argued here with a view towards coercing Russia into freezing the conflict on comparatively better terms for the West and Ukraine.

Keep reading

The New York Times Might Be Telling The Truth: US & Ukrainian Priorities Do Seem To Be Diverging

If the Biden Administration keeps capitulating to Zelensky, or at least does nothing to stop the Cuban-like crisis that he’s plotting by enticing Poland and/or France into conventionally intervening in Ukraine and setting into motion the worst-case scenario of forcing Russia to use tactical nukes in self-defense as a last resort, then World War III can’t be ruled out.

The New York Times reported on Monday that “In private, Mr. Biden’s advisers concede that American and Ukrainian priorities are diverging. At this point, Ukraine has nothing left to lose from escalating with Russia. Mr. Biden still does: Inside the White House, the obvious concern is that President Vladimir V. Putin will roll out battlefield nuclear weapons”. Despite this outlet’s history of putting a self-interested political spin on their reporting, they might actually be telling the naked truth this time.

Ukraine had earlier defied the US’ public demands not to strike Russian oil refineries, which the US was against due to fears that the consequent oil price spike could harm Biden’s re-election prospects while Ukraine saw this as a means of pressuring Congress to approve its long-delayed aid package at the time. Ukraine then attacked at least one of Russia’s early warning systems, which prompted an unnamed administration source to tell the Washington Post that the US was concerned by this latest escalation.

It was wondered at the time here whether Ukraine had gone rogue or if it had done this with American approval, but the latest New York Times report that was cited in the introduction suggests on the surface at least that this was yet another piece of evidence in support of those two’s divergent priorities. At the same time, those two outlets’ reports might just be disinformation planted by administration officials in an attempt to mislead Russia about the US’ intentions and plead plausible deniability in those attacks.

Nevertheless, the argument can be made that the US and Ukraine’s priorities have actually been diverging for some time even before those two high-profile examples, with the most compelling proof being the US’ continued reluctance to give Ukraine everything that it demands right away. Policymakers not only miscalculated that the sanctions would crush the Russian economy before last summer’s failed counteroffensive dealt Russia a strategic defeat, but they were also rightly worried about escalation risks.

They’re still worried about them too, to be sure, but they’ve also now engaged in “mission creep” brought about by Ukraine’s increasingly nasty public pressure campaigns across the world (led to a large extent by aggressive trolls and sympathetic “experts”) and changing battlefield conditions. This observation explains why the Biden Administration has thus far kept capitulating to all of Ukraine’s demands, albeit sometime after they were first made, not ever doing so right away.

Keep reading

Look Who’s Spreading Disinformation On Ukraine

‘Black kettle’ Tony Blinken’ accused Russia of spreading propaganda to mislead the Americans and Europeans, while hiding US decision to escalate the confrontation in Ukraine

Last week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, during a set of whirlwind meetings in several European NATO countries, warned against Russian propaganda programs he accused of spreading “misinformation and disinformation” about US intentions to escalate the conflict by allowing Ukraine’s military to use longer-range US missiles to strike targets as much as 200 miles inside of Russia — something that the Biden administration had since the start of that war had not allowed, correctly fearing that it could lead to a larger and possibly nuclear war.

Blinken’s lie, though, was that at the time he was accusing Russia of dishonesty, he himself knew that the decision had already been made by President Biden to do exactly that: authorize Ukraine to strike Soviet air bases, missile launch sites, troop concentrations and staging areas well inside the Russia’s borders using missiles supplied by the US.

This inconvenient truth was exposed by Politico, which ran a story on May 30th disclosing the secret Biden decision, which followed intense lobbying of the president by US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Sec. Blinken himself, as well as by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and various Ukrainian military leaders.

From the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine over two years ago, Biden had made it clear that no US troops would be sent to fight for Ukraine, and no US weapons would be used against Russian territory. Nothing would be done that could risk turning the conflict into a head-to-head battle between US and Russian forces, because it was felt (correctly!) that such a situation could quickly lead to the use of nuclear weapons.

What changed to make Biden suddenly stop worrying about taking the first steps up what Pentagon strategists have, since the early days of the nuclear era in the late 1940s and early ‘50s, referred to as the “nuclear ladder” of tit-for-tat nuclear escalation?

Clearly it was the fact that Ukraine has begun losing the war. It’s out of ammunition, out of anti-aircraft missiles, short of troops, is facing a mass flight of draft-age men from the country’s recently expanded conscription efforts, and it is loosing ground around Kharkiv , Ukraine’s second-largest city of 1.5. million located near the Russian border in eastern Ukraine.

Additionally, it has become evident that the supposedly marvelous US weapons (as well as some widely banned ones like anti-personnel shells, rockets and bombs, and depleted uranium shells) have not turned the tide against Russian forces as optimistically predicted.

The reality is that this idea of attacking Russian targets — for the moment only in Russian territory relatively close to Kharkiv, but perhaps later much more deeply inside Russia — is nothing short of terrifying.

Keep reading

Russian Warships Steam For Caribbean As Ukraine Tensions Go Global

In a show of force perhaps prompted by President Biden’s authorization of Ukrainian strikes inside Russia using US weapons, a group of Russian warships is en route to the Caribbean, a senior US official has told McClatchy and the Miami Herald. White House officials alerted members of Congress to the Russian move on Wednesday. 

The deployment signals Russia’s capacity to operate globally while still fully engaged its third year of war in Ukraine. “This is about Russia showing they are still capable of some level of naval power projection,” the official said. “We should expect more of this activity going forward.” In March, Ukraine claimed it had either sunk or disabled a full third of Russia’s ships in the Black Sea.

CBS News reports that long-range Russian bombers will rendezvous with the ships for combined naval and air maneuvers. Such exercises are not without precedent: Russia conducted similar combined-arms Caribbean maneuvers in 2019, and had a streak of sending ships into the Western Hemisphere at least annually from 2013 to 2020. Following the summer exercises, Russia is expected to engage in a worldwide naval exercise this fall, sources tell CBS. 

The Pentagon is tracking a “handful” of ships and support craft that are expected to reach Caribbean waters in the upcoming weeks. US analysts speculate that the flotilla will make port calls in both Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba’s likely relishes the opportunity to host the Russian warships: Last year’s docking of a US nuclear submarine at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base ruffled feathers in Havana, with the Cuban government calling it a “provocative escalation.”

Keep reading

The Coming Novus Ordo Seclorum – Change We Must; There Is No Choice!

On a visit to Oxford a few weeks ago, Josep Borrell, the EU’s High Representative, (Walter Münchau writes), made an interesting remark: “Diplomacy is the art of managing double standards”. Münchau illustrated its inherent hypocrisy by contrasting the enthusiasm with which EU leaders supported the ICC’s decision to seek an arrest warrant against Putin last year, and “yet not to accept it – when it hits a member of your team” (i.e. Netanyahu).

The most egregious example of such double ‘thinking’ concerns its correlate – the western ‘management’ of created realities. A double standard – a ‘narrative’ of us ‘winning’ – is crafted, and then set against a narrative of ‘them failing’.

A resort to the manufacture of narratives of winning (instead of actually doing the winning) may seem rather clever, but the uncertainty it causes can have unforeseen potentially disastrous consequences. For instance, President Macron’s deliberately obfuscated threats to send NATO forces to serve in Ukraine – which only contributed to Russia preparing for a wider war against all NATO, accelerating its offensive operations.

Instead of deterring – as likely intended by Macron – it brought about a more determined adversary, with Putin warning that Russia would kill any NATO ‘invaders’. It was not so clever, after all…

Take as a more substantive example President Putin’s response to a press query during his visit to Uzbekistan: ‘These representatives of NATO countries, especially in Europe, … firstly provoked us in the Donbas; led us by the nose for eight years, deliberately deceived us into supposing they [the West] wanted going to resolve things peacefully – notwithstanding their seemingly contrarian attempt to force the situation ‘towards peace’ – through armed means.

‘Then they deceived us during the negotiation process’, Putin continued, ‘having, a priori decided in secret to defeat Russia on the battlefield – and thereby to inflict a strategic defeat on it. This constant escalation can lead to serious consequences (Putin probably refers to a ratchetting missile exchange ending – even – with nuclear weapons). If these serious consequences occur in Europe, how will the United States behave in view of our strategic arms parity? Do they want a global conflict? It’s hard to say… Let’s see what happens next’, he concluded. (This is a paraphrase of what was a long and extensive question and answer session by President Putin).

Naturally, some in the West will say that this is just a Russian ‘story’ – and that the West has acted reasonably throughout, in response to Moscow’s actions.

Keep reading

False Flag On The Horizon? The Strange Case of the Destroyed Russian Nuclear Radar

If we accept the fundamental truth that Ukraine is nothing more than a proxy battleground between Russia and the west, then you might say WWIII has already begun. The powers-that-be have been content to keep the situation contained primarily to Ukraine so far, but a recent event suggests things are about to change. There’s something very strange happening on the nuclear front between NATO and Russia and I believe it might be time to consider the possibility that a false flag threat is in the works.

In the past two weeks Ukraine has taken credit for at least two separate strikes on peculiar targets – Russian “over the horizon” radar stations using drones with an impressive flight range of at least 1200 miles. Until this point, long range attacks into Russian territory have been exceedingly rare. So, why these specifics radar stations?

The Voronezh-DM stations were positioned outside the city of Orsk and the region of Krasnodar (Armavir); far away from the front lines in Ukraine. The strikes are being hailed as the furthest Ukraine has attacked into the heart of Russia, but the corporate media has ignored the wider implications of the situation.

It is likely that the drones used were of US or European origin. NATO has (until the past couple of days) enforced tight restrictions on how their weapons can be used by Ukraine. Long range drones and cruise missiles hitting targets deep in Russia invites major blowback, including the threat of a nuclear response.

That said, it’s not so much the weapons used that concerns me, it’s the specific targets that Ukraine supposedly chose.

Russia’s over-the-horizon radar systems have a detection range of at least 6000 miles (the real range is classified) and scan specifically for high altitude ballistic missiles. They are not designed to detect lower flying medium range cruise missiles (ATACMS) and drones. Meaning, the two stations destroyed by Ukrainian weapons are meant to act as an early warning system for nuclear attack.

The Ukrainians supposedly defied NATO restrictions, not once, but twice, to target radar systems that have nothing to do with them. In fact, the arrays sit in permanently fixed positions and neither array was actually aimed at Ukraine, they were aimed to the North and Southwest of Russia. The Armavir radar was constructed in 2009 to close a gap created by the loss of radars in Ukraine, and was also meant to replace an older Daryal radar in Gabala. Interestingly, Armavir and Orsk “search fans” watches the skies primarily above the Middle East, including Israel, and a large chunk of Europe including Switzerland.

Keep reading

Are They TRYING to Start a Nuclear War?

The steady path toward World War III continues. U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine in the war with Russia has been one long failure, but that hasn’t stopped them from escalating the war with new weapons and tactics.

Russia has met the escalation with its own escalation every step of the way. At what point do rational leaders in the West (if there are any left) pause, consider that the war is lost in Ukraine, deescalate and seek a treaty to end the war?

There’s no sign of that yet. In fact, all of the signs point to further escalation, which is a sure path to nuclear war. What good has escalation accomplished?

The West supplied Ukraine with HIMARS precision-guided artillery, but that largely failed because the Russians quickly learned how to jam the GPS guidance systems, so the missiles went off course.

That doesn’t mean the Russians shoot down or jam every HIMARS rocket Ukraine launches. Some will always get through. But overall, their effectiveness has been limited compared with expectations.

The U.S. and NATO also supplied Ukraine with Abrams, Leopard and Challenger tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles that have been left burning on the battlefield. They also require intensive maintenance Ukraine can’t necessarily provide, and are often unsuited for the battlefield conditions in Ukraine. Many Ukrainian soldiers have actually expressed a preference for Russian-made equipment over NATO’s.

Keep reading