Category Archives: Anglozionism

The Royal Rabbit Hole

 We are approaching one of those “turning points” in history, which remake our lives in ways radically different from the past. No, not in the way that WEF planned it. Not at all.

Graham Greene wrote that men’s lives have a turning point, a point of no return. (He added that most men do not recognize it at the time.) This also applies to societies, to cultures. We are at such a turning point for generations to come.

For one, the UK is due for a makeover. The firebrand Liz Truss is the gal who is appointed to bring down the House of Windsors. Think about it. Two days after the Queen anointed her as the Prime Minister – the Queen dies. Just like that. What was the cause of death? What medical procedures were done, how, where, etc? Not a word.
Still, more interesting is who is Liz Truss. She is the “abolish the monarchy” firebrand of the Liberal Party. Watch her in her youth. Yes, go Liz!


The video below is a 20-minute documentary published by Nicholas Veniamin, of “We The People.” It was produced by Jay Myers Documentaries, before the Queen’s recent alleged death.

This documentary does a great job including clips of actual news reports and interviews, and it covers a LOT of material in only 20 minutes, so it is easy to see that topics such as sexually abusing minors, kidnapping children, ties to Freemasonry, Satanic Ritual Abuse, and the alleged murder of Princess Diana all have solid evidence behind them.

This is not a picture of the “Royal Family” you will see in the corporate media. The video is called “Royal Rabbit Hole.”

You may skip the first 11 minutes, the real interesting part starts at around 11:00. And then the last 2-3 minutes of the interview with the member of the royal retinue are quite shocking, even if the testimony is only half true.

UN Declares War on ‘Dangerous’ Conspiracy Theories: ‘The World Is NOT Secretly Manipulated By Global Elite’

via NEWSPUNCH.COM

The United Nations has declared war on conspiracy theories, describing the rise of conspiracy thinking as “worrying and dangerous”, and providing the public with a toolkit to “prebunk” and “debunk” anybody who dares to suggest that world governments are anything but completely honest, upstanding and transparent.

The UN also warns that George Soros, the Rothschilds and the State of Israel must not be linked to any “alleged conspiracies.”

UNESCO has teamed up with Twitter, the European Commission and the World Jewish Congress to launch the campaign dubbed #ThinkBeforeSharing: Stop the spread of conspiracy theories.

The UN wants you to know that events are NOT “secretly manipulated behind the scenes by powerful forces with negative intent” and if you encounter anybody who thinks the global elite are conspiring to consolidate power and dictate global events, you must take action.

According to UNESCO, “if you are certain you have encountered a conspiracy theory” on the internet then you must “react” immediately post a relevant link to a “fact-checking website” in the comments.

(Never mind the fact that “fact checkers” are mostly untrained and unqualified hacks performing “fact checks” from the comfort of their bedroom in between posting far-left political content on personal blogs and getting high.)

UNESCO also provide advice for anyone who encounters a real live conspiracy theorist in the flesh. According to the UN agency, you must not under any circumstances be lured into an argument with the conspiracy theorist. “Any argument may be taken as proof that you are part of the conspiracy and reinforce that belief” and the conspiracy theorist will probably “argue hard to defend their beliefs.“

Instead you must show “empathy“, avoid “ridiculing them“, and if you are a journalist you must “report” them to social media and “contact your local/national press council or press ombudsman.”

Remarkably, hidden in the fine print, UNESCO admit that conspiracy theories do exist. Under the heading “What is a real conspiracy?” the United Nations bureaucrats explain that “real conspiracies large and small DO exist.”

According to the UN, it’s only a REAL conspiracy theory if it’s “unearthed by the media.”

“They are more often centered on single self-contained events, or an individual like an assassination or a coup d’etat. They are unearthed by whistleblowers and the media, using verifiable facts and evidence.“

There is just one problem with the UN’s definition of a “real” conspiracy theory. The media has been fully bought and paid for by the elite. And it’s the elite who are conspiring against the masses.

Ask yourself, when was the last time the media unearthed a conspiracy?

Also ask yourself, when was the last time the media covered up a conspiracy?

Would-Be British PM Rishi Sunak – WEF Front Man

BY NATALIE WINTERSRAHEEM J. KASSAM
via The National Pulse

Former British finance minister Rishi Sunak – a frontrunner to become Britain’s next Prime Minister – has family ties to a technology partner of the World Economic Forum that has advocated for a Chinese Communist Party-style economy complete with trackable, digital identities and currency.

Sunak, who topped the second round of voting by Conservative Members of Parliament (MP) in the Tory leadership race on July 15th following Boris Johnson’s resignation, is widely considered the “neoliberal” or “globalist” candidate.

The father of Sunak’s wife Akshata Murthy is the founder of Infosys, an Indian information technology company that provides services to a host of Fortune 500 companies and banks. One of the company’s leading services is Finacle, a digital banking platform. Murthy remains a foreign citizen with “non dom” i.e. non UK tax-paying status despite her husband’s work as Britain’s most senior finance chief, and expectation of becoming Prime Minister.

Infosys is listed as an official partner of the World Economic Forum (WEF), which has been accused of seeking to develop the technological infrastructure to implement a global “social credit score” system.

Social credit scores have been used by authoritarian regimes to deny rights and restrict the movements of individuals who fail to comply with diktats. For the World Economic Forum, social credit priorities would likely focus on left-wing social issues like climate change, diversity, and equity.

Klaus Schwab’s Candidate.

Far from being a silent partner, InfoSys has earned praise from the WEF, being dubbed a “global leader in next-generation digital services and consulting.”

“With three decades of experience in managing the systems and workings of global enterprises, it steers clients through their digital journey by enabling them with an artificial intelligence-powered core that helps prioritize the execution of change…”
– WEF on the Sunak-linked InfoSys

Several Infosys executives have also contributed articles to the WEF website, including the company’s Global Head, President, and Chief Compliance Officer.

Infosys President Mohit Joshi has penned articles for the site in favor of digital banking, which provides the technological framework for the “social credit score” system the WEF has come under scrutiny for attempting to effectuate across the world.

Joshi echoes these sentiments in an article for the WEF from August 2020: “Why it’s time to take central banks’ digital currencies seriously.”

“What is clear is that the crisis of COVID-19 presents many challenges – but also a unique opportunity to rethink how money is managed and used in our society,” he asks.

“There also credible concerns that paper money can transmit the virus,” he claimed before asking:

“Who then can blame the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) when it announced in February that it would be destroying cash collected in high-risk environments, such as public transport, markets or in hospitals?”

“Digital currencies could remove the cumbersome operational and security apparatus which surround conventional forms of money transmission,” continues his article, before claiming “there are political and social benefits as well.”

China’s Candidate.

“The potential for China here is immense. If the e-RMB is adopted broadly as a system to streamline trade and reduce risk, China could become the world’s trade banker, as well as its factory. Yet the bigger goal for China is actually more local, and relates to financial inclusion. Digitising the RMB will grant access to financial services to hundreds of millions of citizens, including some of the most disadvantaged. This benefit is something that can be applied to any country across the world,” continues the article, which also revealed that Infosys is contributing to digitization efforts.

Another op-ed by Joshi – “Digital identity can help advance inclusive financial services” – advocates for granting every person a “unique digital identity” to conduct financial transactions. He points to the Chinese Communist Party as a successful example of this policy:

“The Chinese government in Zhejiang Province has developed an “enterprise digital code” for just this purpose, responding to small and mediums banks (SMBs) with easy-to-access financial resources. MYBank, a subsidiary of Ant Financial, the Chinese Big Tech firm, collaborates with the Chinese government through this scheme to provide cheap loans and other financial products to SMBs.”

He also calls for the creation of a “digital stability board” to regulate all payments.

“This “digital stability board” would give members the platform to share best practices and monitor risks in digital commerce and health care, for instance. With this board in place, data trusts could be built to manage individuals’ and SMBs’ data,” he explains.

Infosys is also a member of the WEF’s Partnering Against Corruption Initiative (PACI), which includes cross-industry representatives from the world’s largest corporations. The National Pulse recently exposed how the initiative, which purports to fight for transparency in business practices, is the former CEO of Reuters who now serves as a board member at COVID-19 vaccine maker Pfizer.

Its leaders are also involved with different WEF sub-groups, such as the Global Head of Sustainability and Design Consulting Services Corey Glickman, who is a member of the WEF Pioneer Cities working group.

Sunak himself has a history of being soft on China, telling the Telegraph that he wanted a “complete sea change” in relations with the Chinese Communist Party in favor of increased trade ties and economic collaboration. China, in turn, has endorsed Sunak’s candidacy.

Britain, the Sinister Head of the Snake against Russia

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says there’s no room for improvement in relations

There is no way of improving Russian-British relations while London wants to bring Moscow “to its knees,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

He was answering a question from the UK’s state broadcaster BBC, on Thursday, about the dismal state of relations.

“I don’t think there’s even room for maneuver left anymore,” Lavrov replied.

“Because both [Prime Minister Boris] Johnson and [Foreign Secretary Liz] Truss say publicly: ’We must defeat Russia, we must bring Russia to its knees. Go on, then, do it.”

Asked about how Moscow currently sees Britain, Lavrov said: “A country that once again tries to sacrifice the interests of its people for the ambitions of politicians, who only think about the next election and nothing else.”

The UK is among many countries that have imposed sweeping sanctions on Russia in response to its military campaign in Ukraine. London has supplied Kiev with weapons, including surface-to-air and anti-tank missiles.

Truss argued last month that Russia’s actions in Ukraine “must be met with force.”

“We must be adamant in ensuring the victory of Ukraine with military assistance and sanctions. Now we can no longer take our foot off the gas pedal,” she said.

In February, the UK blacklisted Lavrov, as well as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In April, Russia sanctioned Johnson, Truss and other senior members of the British government for “unprecedented hostile actions.” They have been banned from entering the country.

Bill Promoting Internet Censorship And Violations of The 1st Amendment


by Chris Menahan via Information Liberation

The House on Wednesday voted 420-1 in favor of a bill that “promoted internet censorship and violations of the First Amendment” in the name of “combatting anti-Semitism.”

Republican Kentucky Rep Thomas Massie was the lone vote against the bill.

“I don’t hate anyone based on his or her ethnicity or religion. Legitimate government exists, in part, to punish those who commit unprovoked violence against others, but government can’t legislate thought,” Massie said Thursday after getting attacked by the media. “This bill promoted internet censorship and violations of the 1st amendment.”

The bill, which was sponsored by Democratic Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and appears to have been written by the Anti-Defamation League, does indeed promote internet censorship and violations of the First Amendment, as you can see below:

Haaretz reported in 2012 that Jewish groups get 97% of of Homeland Security’s Vital Nonprofit Security Grants.

In 2014, that number was 94% according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

“The Department of Homeland Security allocated to Jewish institutions $12 million, or 94 percent, of $13 million in funds for securing nonprofits,” JTA reported.

I can’t find any more recent numbers but the Biden regime is currently asking for $360 million in funding for the aforementioned Nonprofit Security Grant Program and the ADL is leading the charge to get it passed.

For voting against the bill, Massie was immediately smeared as an anti-Semite.

Massie was targeted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) last year for repeatedly voting against giving billions of US taxpayer dollars to Israel.

“How is THIS not foreign interference in our elections?” Massie commented on Twitter, highlighting an ad AIPAC was running against him on Facebook targeting voters in his district.

Massie said after the voting against giving another billion to Israel to fund their Iron Dome that people have a fantasy that “foreign aid buys US influence abroad” when the reality is that “foreign aid is the result of foreign influence exerted on US politicians at home.”

Despite AIPAC targeting him, Massie easily secured a victory in the Republican primary on Tuesday with 75% of the vote and is likely going to sail to victory again during the general election in November.

Read the full article at Information Liberation

 

Has Russia Already Won? Is it “Game Over” for the Rothschild/Rockefeller Empire?

Russia/Putin & the West Part 1

by Sam Parker
Behind the News Network Edited by Algora

Background

(1991Present)

The fall of the Soviet Union marked the beginning of a highly dangerous new phase of American aggression against a severely weakened Russia. For the Rockefeller Empire, it represented a golden opportunity to destroy their former adversary, Russia, as a functioning agent. If they could succeed in destroying Russia, they believed they could eliminate the only remaining serious obstacle to what the Pentagon called Full Spectrum Domination – total control of land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. One Sole Superpower could dictate to the entire world as it saw fit. This was the mad dream of David, his family and allies.

The 1990s was a time of immense suffering for the Russian people. As the impending collapse of the USSR became discernable, insiders created a planning group to ensure the continued influence of Soviet-era officials by transferring Russian state assets to offshore shell companies and thus stripping the country’s wealth. One such offshore company, FIMACO, was used to pilfer an estimated $50 billion from the nation. It was through this looting that liquid capital was generated and used by future oligarchs to build their fortunes. An early beneficiary of this arrangement was Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who had started his career as a minor Soviet official and whose Yukos oil conglomerate was tied to FIMACO. And FIMACO was tied to Jacob Rothschild, in London.

In 1991 the Soviet Union finally collapsed. That August, state treasurer Nikolai Kruchina, responsible for Russia’s gold reserves, died by falling from his window. He had been a member of the planning group which originated the plot to steal state assets. His successor Georgy Pavlov fell to his death from a window two months later: the oligarchs were cleaning house. In September, the Russian central bank announced the Kremlin’s gold reserves had inexplicably dropped from the estimated 1000–1500 tons to a mere 240 tons. Two months later, Victor Gerashchenko announced Russia’s gold reserves had actually entirely vanished. While the Russian public was horrified at the revelation, European bankers were less surprised. It was whispered frequently among those circles that Soviet transport planes had been flying to and from Switzerland for months and selling off large amounts of gold. Boris Yeltsin announced his plans to privatize the nation’s assets and the real looting began.

During the privatization period, the networks of the 2 families wasted no time in opportunistically swooping in to take over Russian industries. The Clinton administration sought to redesign the economic policies of the nascent Russian Federation according to the Washington Consensus: privatization, deregulation, austerity, and the opening up of Russia’s companies to purchase by ultra-wealthy Americans. Foreign investors flocked in and the level of greed among this fifth column of new Muscovites was truly astonishing.

Enter Putin

Soon after taking office in 1999, Vladimir Putin, a nationalist with a long career in Russian intelligence, faced the daunting task of trying to undo, or at least limit, the damage that the criminal cronies of Yeltsin and their foreign partners had done to Russia.

Putin Kicks out the Rothschilds

The criminality was not limited to foreign speculators. During the early period of privatization in the 90s, the Rothschilds organized a secret society of seven Russian oligarchs entirely controlled Boris Yeltsin’s administration. This group called itself Semibankirschina, named after the Seven Boyars who controlled Russia during the 17th century. The secret society included the following oligarchs: Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven, Vladimir Gusinsky, Vladimir Potanin, and Alexander Smolensky. They all worked for the Rothschilds – or London – and more specifically, for Jacob Rothschild.

In late 1999, Vladimir Putin became president of Russia and the fortunes of these self-appointed rulers rapidly turned for the worse. A new group of Putin insiders formed – the Siloviki (made up of Russian nationalists from the security and business world) and began supplanting the previous access that the Semibankirschina had to the president. From a strong position, Putin negotiated a “grand bargain” with the remaining oligarchs: they retained most of their existing assets in return for alignment with Putin’s vertical rule of Russia. The era of financial gangsterism from the 1990s was over. In 2001, a state takeover of media seized the television networks previously owned by the Rothschild puppets. It was with these moves by Putin, from early March 2000, that led to a break up of Rothschild control over Russia. These oligarchs all belonged to Jacob Rothschild. And, they were robbing Russia blind.

David Rockefeller couldn’t be bothered with such small takings. Here, the key was to bring Russia into the dollar world – this was more profitable for his empire. In addition, a series of geopolitical confrontations on Russia’s borders served his empire greatly. The first such was the Chechen wars of 1994, and 1999/2000. This, Putin ended quickly and ruthlessly.

The military occupation of Iraq was the first major step in the American strategy to move oil into the oil companies of the 2 families. Then, Russian investments in Iraq were lost after the US invasion in March 2003. In addition, following the Afghanistan invasion in October 2001, the Pentagon began spreading its presence in Central Asia – to the discomfort of both Russia and China. For obvious military and political reasons, Washington could not admit openly that since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, its strategic goal had been to dis-member or de-construct Russia, thereby gaining effective control over its huge oil and gas reserves.

These two wars were but the opening shots of a series of geopolitical oil and energy “pipeline wars” – undeclared wars, but wars in every sense of the word. They were wars, overt and covert, spanning Eurasia, the Middle East and Africa. The energy wars were fought with bombs, with terror tactics, and with drones. They were also fought with sophisticated new methods of political destabilization of uncooperative regimes through what were called Color Revolutions. The goal was simple: Rockefeller control through the Pentagon and the CIA of all significant oil and gas deposits PLUS pipelines to transport, this in order to be able to control the emerging Eurasian economic colossus, especially China and Russia (and later India). The goal would be achieved by any means necessary. The NATO encirclement of Russia, the Color Revolutions across Eurasia, and the war in Iraq were all aspects of one and the same American geopolitical strategy: a grand strategy to de-construct Russia once and for all as a potential rival to a sole US Superpower hegemony. The end of the Yeltsin era put a slight crimp in Washington’s grand plans. Following the Wall Street–City of London guided looting of Russia by networks of the 2 families, a shrewder and more sober Putin cautiously emerged as a dynamic nationalistic force, committed to rebuilding Russia.

Putin Breaks with the Rockefellers

A defining event in Russian energy geopolitics took place in 2003. Just as Washington had taken over Iraq, Putin ordered the spectacular arrest of Russia’s billionaire oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky – or MK, on charges of tax evasion. Putin then froze shares of Khodorkovsky’s giant Yukos Oil group, putting it under state control. What had triggered Putin’s dramatic action?

MK was working for Jacob Rothschild. He was a Rothschild front. In March 2000, MK was present with all the other oligarchs called to a meeting by Putin. The oligarchs had made a pledge to Putin – that if they stayed out of Russian politics, and repatriated a share of their stolen money (in effect, stolen from the state in rigged bidding under Yeltsin) they would be allowed to keep their assets. All of these oligarchs were Rothschild fronts. Most accepted, with the exception of Rothschild’s Jewish oligarchs. Putin went after them, as they broke their pledge to him. And so did MK. He was busy buying up the Duma – Russia’s parliament – as a first step, in a plan to run against Putin in 2004.

In the meantime Mikhail Khodorkovsky was negotiating with 2 Rockefeller oil companies, Exxon and Chevron, to sell 40% of Yukos Oil (for the sum of $25 billion). Had this deal gone through, Russia’s economic and financial independence would be over. This 40% stake would have given Washington, the US oil giants, and the Rockefeller family a de facto veto power over future Russian oil and gas deals and pipelines. At the time of his arrest, Yukos had just begun steps to acquire Sibneft, a very large Russian oil company. The combined Yukos–Sibneft enterprise, with 20 billion barrels of oil and gas, would then have owned the second-largest oil and gas reserves in the world – in private hands, and not state-owned. The Exxon buy-up of Yukos–Sibneft would have been a literal energy coup-d’état. David Rockefeller and Jacob Rothschild knew it. So did the White House. MK knew it. Above all, Vladimir Putin knew it and moved decisively to block it. Putin moved against him in October 2003, and arrested him.

It was during the purge of oligarchs and vulture capitalists that the true power behind Mikhail Khodorkovsky emerged. When it became likely he would be arrested, he arranged to have all his shares from the Yukos Oil Company transferred to the ownership of Jacob Rothschild. The transfer took place in November of 2003, giving Jacob Rothschild a 40-45% control of Yukos, estimated to be worth $25 billion. Putin subsequently liquidated and nationalized Yukos by seizing and selling off its shares to state oil companies. Putin restored to Russia what was stolen by Jacob Rothschild. Once the richest man in the country, Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s fortunes turned for the worse. In 2003, Khodorkovsky was criminally prosecuted by Putin for tax evasion and fraud for which he ended up serving 10 years in jail, and was subsequently exiled. When the rigged auction sales of state assets took place in 1995/96, most of the companies got sold for as little as 5% of their value. And, Yukos got “purchased” for less than $400 million, when its true worth was far more than that.

So Putin has declared war on the most powerful families on the planet. From this moment on, it would be a fight between Putin and the 2 families. Putin has survived many attempts on his life by these 2 networks of power. Ever since Putin arrested Khodorkovsky in 2003, the Kremlin had been putting the engines of economic control into state hands once again.

One of Putin’s first agenda items was to pay off all debt to the IMF and holdover loans from the Soviet era, thus freeing the nation from Rothschild interference. This enabled Putin to reduce their influence over Russia’s destiny.

The events in Russia were soon followed by CIA-financed covert destabilizations in Eurasia – the Color Revolutions against governments on Russia’s periphery.

Putin began to make a series of defensive moves to restore some tenable form of equilibrium in the face of Washington’s increasingly obvious policy of encircling and weakening Russia. Subsequent US strategic blunders made the job a bit easier for Russia. Now, with the stakes rising on both sides – NATO and Russia – Putin’s Russia moved beyond simple defense to a new dynamic offensive aimed at securing a more viable geopolitical position by using its energy as the lever.

By 2003, after Iraq was occupied by US and British forces, the most urgent priority for the US was the control of Russian oil, gas, and its associated pipelines. For that to happen, a coup in the tiny Republic of Georgia was deemed essential, as well as a similar coup in Ukraine. If pro-US regimes could be installed in both countries, not only would the military security of Russia itself be mortally threatened, but also Russia’s ability to control the export of its oil and gas to the EU would be severely hampered.

In January 2004, the Rose Revolution put into power Washington’s candidate for President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili. With their man firmly installed in Tbilisi, BP and the Anglo American oil consortium moved swiftly to complete a 1,800 km pipeline from Baku via Tbilisi to Ceyhan on Turkey’s Mediterranean shore, at a cost of some $3.6 billion. With the construction of this (BTC) pipeline, a major part in the weakening of Russia’s oil and energy independence appeared in place.

In November 2004, the CIA put their man into power in the Ukraine. This coup was dubbed the Orange Revolution. Ukraine was of greater strategic importance for Russia than Georgia. This was due to the several oil and gas pipelines transiting Ukraine to the EU. To cut these pipelines at the Ukraine border would have dealt a severe economic blow to Russia when she could ill afford such a loss. With Poland already in NATO, NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia would almost completely encircle Russia with hostile neighbors, creating an existential threat to the very survival of Russia itself. Putin knew this, but his options were limited. Washington knew what the stakes were, and it was doing everything short of open war against a nuclear opponent to push the agenda.

By 2005, the key oil companies of the two families (London) BP, Shell, Total; and (New York) Exxon, Chevron, had gained control over most of the oil of the Caspian Sea. The control of energy – globally – by the Big Four oil companies of the 2 families, Chevron and Exxon (Rockefeller), and BP and Shell (Rothschild) – was the cornerstone of their global strategy.

It was clear within the Rockefeller family discussions, and in Washington policy circles, that in order to control those global oil and gas flows, the US needed to project its military power far more aggressively, to achieve total military supremacy, which was what Full Spectrum Dominance was all about. The strategists of Full Spectrum dominance envisioned control of pretty much the entire universe, including outer and inner-space, from the galaxy, to the body, to the mind. Now, you know the sick, devious and cunning minds that brought about Covid, in order to lock down the global economy – Why? – in order to save the Rockefeller Empires financial and banking systems.

Russian Energy Geopolitics

In 2004, Russia was not a world-class power. In terms of energy, it was a colossus. In terms of landmass it was still the largest nation in the world, spanning 11 time zones. It had vast territory and natural resources, and the world’s largest reserves of natural gas, while its oil reserves stood at 150 billion barrels, with the potential to increase this figure greatly as large parts of Russia are still not explored.

Russia’s state-owned natural gas pipeline network, the ‘unified transportation system’, includes a vast network of pipelines and compressor stations extending more than 400,000 kms across Russia. Just the modern replacement cost of this, today, would be in the region of $1 – 2 trillion! By law, only the state-owned Gazprom was allowed to use the pipeline. This network was perhaps the most valued Russian state asset other than the oil and gas itself. Here was the heart of Putin’s new energy geopolitics. Putin was using Russia’s energy trump card to build economic ties across Eurasia from West to East, North to South. Washington was not at all pleased.

Russia had never stopped being a powerful entity that produced state-of-the-art military technologies. While its army, navy and air force were in poor condition in 1990, the elements for Russia’s resurgence as a military powerhouse were still in place. Russia had consistently fielded top-notch military technology at various international trade shows, using the world arms export market to keep its most vital military technology base intact. Weapons exports had been one of the best ways for Russia to earn much needed hard currency in the 1990s till now. The Russian nuclear arsenal also played an important role, providing fundamental security for the Russian state.

The Russian Central Bank had become the world’s 3rd largest dollar reserve holder behind China and Japan. In addition, it was the only power on the face of the earth with the potential military capabilities to match those of the US. In 2005, in a speech delivered in front of Russia’s Federal Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in Russia’s history. What he meant is that the fragmentation of the Soviet Union would cost Russia the element that had allowed it to survive foreign invasions since the 18th century: strategic depth.

For a European country to defeat Russia decisively, it would have to take Moscow. The distance to Moscow is great and would wear down any advancing army, requiring reinforcements and supplies to be moved to the front. As they would advance into Russia, the attackers’ forces would be inevitably weakened. Hitler and Napoleon reached Moscow exhausted. Both were beaten by distance and winter, and by the fact that the defenders were not at the end of their supply line.

At the height of the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,600kms from NATO forces, and Moscow about 2,100kms. Today, St. Petersburg is about 150kms away and Moscow about 800kms. For Putin, the primary threat to Russia is from the west. It has always been the goal of the Rockefellers to secure total economic and political control over Russia. The British father of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder, stated in 1904 that control over Russia who determine who would control the vast expanses of Eurasia, and by extension the entire world. British foreign policy, from 1904, was dedicated to preventing, at all costs, the emergence of a cohesive Eurasian pivot power centered on Russia and capable of challenging British hegemony.

Mackinder summed up his ideas with the following dictum:

  • Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland
  • Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island
  • Who rules the World-Island commands the world.

Mackinder’s Heartland was the core of Eurasia – Ukraine and Russia. The World Island was all of Eurasia, including Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Britain was never a part of Continental Europe; it was a separate naval and maritime power, and should remain so whatever the cost.

The Mackinder geopolitical perspective shaped Britain’s entry into both World War 1 and 2. It shaped American involvement in Europe from 1941.

The gradual re-emergence of a dynamic Russia in the Heartland of Eurasia, one that was growing economically closer to China and to key nations of Western Europe, was the very development that Brzezinski had warned could mortally threaten American dominance. It was Halford Mackinder’s worst nightmare. Ironically, Washington’s bungled invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and its crude elaboration of its “war on Terror,” had directly helped to bring that Eurasian cooperation about. One of Putin’s favorite sayings is, “We must trade as a single market, from Vladivostok to Rotterdam.” Both the families get a heart attack when they hear Putin saying this. It also created the backdrop for the Georgian conflict in August 2008.

But first, let’s look Putin’s speech at Munich – this changed the contours and dynamics of international relations from that point on.

Putin’s 2007 Munich Speech

At the 2007 annual Munich Security Conference, as the Bush administration had announced plans to install US missile defense systems in Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic, Russia’s Putin delivered a scathing critique of the US lies and violation of their 1990 assurances on NATO. By that time 10 former communist Eastern states had been admitted to NATO despite the 1990 US promises. Furthermore, both Ukraine and Georgia were candidates to join NATO following US-led Color Revolutions in both countries in 2003-4. Putin rightly argued the US missiles were aimed at Russia, not North Korea or Iran.

In his 2007 Munich remarks Putin told his Western audience, “It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them.”

Putin added, “But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: ‘the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee’. Where are these guarantees?” That was 15 years ago.

Putin spoke in Munich in general terms about Washington’s vision of a “unipolar” world, with one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision making, calling it a “world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within the system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.”

Putin was talking about the US. Then Putin got to the heart of the matter:

“Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. Finding a political solution becomes impossible. The United States has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?”

Putin warned about the destabilizing effects of space weapons

“It is impossible to sanction the appearance of new, destabilizing high-tech weapons – a new era of confrontation, especially in outer space. Star wars is no longer a fantasy. In Russia’s opinion, the militarization of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the world, and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era – plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defense system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race?”

Few people were aware that the US, a month earlier, had announced that it was building massive anti-missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. As Putin replies to this at the same Munich Conference, “Missile weapons with a range of 5 to 8,000kms that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries. And any hypothetical launch of a North Korean rocket to American territory through Western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.

Moscow Reacts

Moscow lost little time in reacting to the announcement of US plans for its ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems in Eastern Europe. The commander of Russia’s strategic bomber force said on March 5, 2007, that his forces could easily disrupt or destroy any missile defense infrastructures in Poland and the Czech Republic – precisely where the US was preparing to install them. In clear words, Putin was responding to the escalating Washington provocations by declaring openly that a New Cold War was on. It was not a new Cold War initiated by Russia, but one where Russia, out of national survival considerations, was forced to respond. A new, nuclear-based arms race was in full bloom.

This statement of Putin sent shock waves through the world, especially the highest policy levels of the West. Putin was declaring that – “enough is enough!” From this moment on, Putin knew that a military confrontation between Russia and the West was only a matter of time. Wasting no time, he used his energy trump cards to beef up his military, and after the 2008 crash, to beef up Russia’s financial strength.

Nuclear Primacy

What Washington did not say, but Putin alluded to in his speech, was that the US missile defense was not at all defensive. It was offensive. If the US was able to shield itself effectively from a potential Russian retaliation for a US nuclear First Strike, then the US would be able to dictate its terms to the entire world, not just to Russia. That would be Nuclear Primacy. For the Rockefeller Empire and its chief vassal, Washington, the Cold War never ended. They just forgot to tell the rest of the world.

The US attempt to take control of oil and energy pipelines worldwide. Its installation of military bases across Eurasia, its modernization and upgrades of nuclear submarine fleets and bombers, only made sense when seen from the perspective of the relentless pursuit of US nuclear primacy. In December 2001, Washington withdrew from the US-Russian Ballistic Missile Treaty. This was a critical step in Washington’s race to complete its global network of ‘missile defense’ capability as the key to nuclear primacy. The US missile talks with Poland and the Czech Republic began at the end of 2003. The Pentagon found two sites in the mountains of southern Poland for radar stations. These sites would be the first such installations outside America and the only ones in Europe. A missile fired from these silos in Poland or the Czech Republic would be within minutes of potential Russia targets. No one would be able to say whether they contained nuclear warheads or not. That would put the world on a hair-trigger to possible nuclear war, by design or miscalculation. Then, in the March 2006 Foreign Affairs, the journal of the CFR, an article by two US military analysts came to the following conclusion:

“Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the US stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the US to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. Unless Washington’s policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces…” – and, they concluded: “The sort of missile defenses that the US might deploy would be valuable in an offensive context, not a defensive one – as an adjunct to a US First Strike capability, NOT as a standalone shield. If the US launched a nuclear attack against Russia or China, the targeted country would be left with only a tiny surviving arsenal – if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest missile defense system might be well enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes.“

This was the real agenda in Washington’s Eurasian Great Game.

Then, in August 2008, Georgia foolishly invaded Russia, and were promptly defeated by the Russian military. Not long after this, Putin began an upgrade of the Russian military. He knew that a confrontation was in the making. In 2016, Putin unveiled some of the new weapons being rolled out. The West was shocked – nay, they had a heart attack. It was at that moment that the Pentagon knew they could not win a military confrontation with Russia. Then, Russia was called in by the Syrian government to help defeat ISIS (a creation of the CIA/Mossad/British Intelligence). That Russian military action signaled a new era in global politics, with Russia appearing as a formidable force to be reckoned with for the first time since the end of the Cold War. America was no longer the sole military superpower. The world was visibly moving towards a new world war, one claiming to have religion at its core, but in reality a war, like all wars, about money and power. Islam was being instrumentalized as a weapon of that global war – by the two families.

Why was it so important for London and New York to gain control of Russia? The answer to that question lies in the fields of geopolitics, especially oil and gas.

Eurasian Geopolitics

Zbigniew BrzezinskI, geopolitical advisor to David Rockefeller, wrote a book in 1997 called The Grand Chessboard. It shows the thinking of the Rockefeller Empire in regard to Eurasia. Let us show a few extracts from the book to give an idea of how to control Eurasia.

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia.”

“Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power.”

“… But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.”

To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geo-strategy are toprevent collusion, maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians (Russian, Chinese, and Arabs) from coming together”. “It follows that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.”

“America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe’s central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and to America’s historical legacy.”

“Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene.” With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design.”

“That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to preempt the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy…”

“The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role “.

“Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an “anti-hegemonic” coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances. It would be reminiscent in scale and scope of the challenge once posed by the Sino-Soviet bloc, though this time China would likely be the leader and Russia the follower. Averting this contingency, however remote it may be, will require a display of U.S. geostrategic skill on the western, eastern, and southern perimeters of Eurasia simultaneously.”

We see that US foreign policy followed the advice closely. But the US failed. Iran, China and Russia are close allies, and all three are working to expell the US, the West, NATO and Israel from dominating Eurasia. They dismissed Putin when he formulated a new paradigm in Munich in 2007 – and when he returned to the Kremlin in 2012. Putin made it very clear that Russia’s legitimate strategic interests would have to be respected again, and that Russia was about to recover its de facto “veto rights” in managing world affairs. Well, the Putin doctrine was already being implemented since the Georgian affair in 2008.

The Caucasus

There is another potential entry into Russia from the south. The Russian Empire used this route as a buffer zone with Turkey, especially during the numerous Russo-Turkish wars. Russia was protected by the Caucasus, a rugged, mountainous region that discouraged any attacks to the point that NATO never considered this option. But if anyone managed to force their way through the mountains, they would be about 1,500kms from Moscow on flat, open terrain in far better weather than attackers from the west would face.

If the South Caucasus states formed an anti-Russia coalition, and the United States, for example, supported a rising in the North Caucasus, the barrier might be shattered and a path northward opened. Therefore, Russia followed a strategy of imposing strong controls in the North Caucasus while engaging in a war in 2008 with Georgia, its most significant southern threat, based on geography and Georgia’s alliance with the U.S. The war demonstrated the limits of American power while it was engaged in wars in the Muslim world. It was a successful strategy save for the fact that the long-term threat from the south was not eliminated. Russia needed a strategy in the west and one in the south. In the west, part of that strategy evolved in Ukraine, keeping it from being a threat without the use of major Russian force. A tacit agreement was reached with Washington: The United States would not arm Ukraine with significant offensive weapons, and Russia would not move major forces into Ukraine beyond the insurgencies already in place. At that time, neither Russia nor the U.S. wanted war. Each wanted a buffer zone. That is what emerged.

Belarus

Another piece of the lost buffer became, so to speak, available. Belarus is about 600kms from Moscow. Poland, to its west, is hostile to Russia and contains some American forces. This represents a significant threat to Russia, unless Belarus could be brought into the Russian fold. The elections in Belarus held last year created an opportunity. President Alexander Lukashenko, a long-time rule, faced serious opposition. This was another attempt by the CIA to start a Color Revolution in Belarus. Had the CIA succeeded in Belarus, the squeeze on Russia would have been fatal in case of war.

The Russians backed Lukashenko and have essentially preserved his position. Alexander Lukashenko has been the head of state of Belarus since 1994 and did not have a serious challenger in the previous five elections. On 23 September 2021, Belarusian state media announced that Lukashenko had been inaugurated for another five-year term in a brief ceremony which was held privately. The following day, the EU published a statement that rejected the legitimacy of the election, called for new elections, and condemned the repression and violence – standard tactics from the West. Strategic depth is vital in the very long term, and its importance is burned into Russia’s memory.

Destabilization of Kazakhstan

The year 2022 started with Kazakhstan on fire, a serious attack against one of the key hubs of Eurasian integration. Leaders of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) held an extraordinary session to discuss Kazakhstan.

The head of the Russian National Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, is Putin’s right-hand man. He is the head of all the security and intelligence services of Russia, a very powerful man indeed, a master of how to foil the CIA and MI6. Just to give you an example: Between 2018 and 2021 – a period of three years – Russia caught more than 2,000 spies, and foiled many plots. So he is extremely well aware of the plots and plans of Russia’s enemies.

Putin was aware that the West were intent on creating a wave of hybrid-war across Central Asia.

Back in November, Patrushev’s laser was already focused on the degrading security situation in Afghanistan. Tajik political scientist Parviz Mullojanov was among the very few who were stressing that there were as many as 8,000 Salafi-jihadi assets, shipped by a rat line from Syria and Iraq, loitering in the wilds of northern Afghanistan. That’s the bulk of ISIS-Khorasan – or ISIS reconstituted near the borders of Turkmenistan. Some of them were duly transported to Kyrgyzstan. From there, it was very easy to cross the border from Bishek and show up in Almaty.

It took no time for Patrushev and his team to figure out, after the empire’s retreat from Kabul, how this jihadi reserve army would be used: along the 7,500 km-long border between Russia and the Central Asian ‘stans’. That explains, among other things, a record number of preparation drills conducted in late 2021 at the 210th Russian military base in Tajikistan.

Virtually no one knows about it. But last December, another coup was discreetly thwarted in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek. Kyrgyz Intel sources attribute the engineering to a rash of NGOs linked with Britain and Turkey. That introduces an absolutely key facet of The Big Picture: NATO-linked Intel and their assets may have been preparing a simultaneous color revolution offensive across Central Asia. During his 29-year rule, Nazarbayev played a multi-vector game that was too westernized and which did not necessarily benefit Kazakhstan. He adopted British laws, played the pan-Turkic card with Erdogan, and allowed a tsunami of NGOs to promote a Western agenda. The breakdown of the messy Kazakh op necessarily starts with the usual suspects: the US Deep State, which all but “sang” its strategy in a 2019 RAND corporation report, “Extending Russia.“ Chapter 4, on “geopolitical measures”, details everything from “providing lethal aid to Ukraine”, “promoting regime change in Belarus”, and “increasing support for Syrian rebels” – all major fails – to “reducing Russian influence in Central Asia.” That was the master concept. Implementation fell to the MI6–Turk connection.

The CIA and MI6 had been investing in dodgy outfits in Central Asia since at least 2005, when they encouraged the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), then close to the Taliban, to wreak havoc in southern Kyrgyzstan. Nothing happened. It was a completely different story by May 2021, when the MI6’s Jonathan Powell met the leadership of Jabhat al-Nusra – which harbors a lot of Central Asian jihadis – somewhere on the Turkish-Syrian border near Idlib. The deal was that these ‘moderate rebels’ – in US terminology – would cease to be branded ‘terrorists’ as long as they followed the anti-Russia NATO agenda. That was one of the key prep moves ahead of the jihadist ratline to Afghanistan – complete with Central Asia branching out.

MI6 is deeply entrenched in all the ‘stans’ except autarchic Turkmenistan – cleverly riding the pan-Turkish offensive as the ideal vehicle to counter Russia and China. Yet both Russia and China are very much aware that Turkey essentially represents NATO entering Central Asia.

Every color revolution needs a ‘Maximus’ Trojan horse. In our case, that seems to be the role of former head of KNB (National Security Committee) Karim Massimov, now held in prison and charged with treason. Hugely ambitious, Massimov is half-Uyghur, and that, in theory, obstructed what he saw as his pre-ordained rise to power. His connections with Turkish Intel are not yet fully detailed, unlike his cozy relationship with Joe Biden and son. A former Minister of Internal Affairs and State Security, Lt Gen Felix Kulov, has weaved a fascinating tangled web explaining the possible internal dynamics of the ‘coup’ built into the color revolution.

According to Kulov, Massimov and Samir Abish, the nephew of recently ousted Kazakh Security Council Chairman Nursultan Nazarbayev, were up to their necks in supervising ‘secret’ units of ‘bearded men’ during the riots. The KNB was directly subordinated to Nazarbayev, who until last week was the chairman of the Security Council.

When Tokayev understood the mechanics of the coup, he demoted both Massimov and Samat Abish. Then Nazarbayev ‘voluntarily’ resigned from his life-long chairmanship of the Security Council. Abish then got this post, promising to stop the ‘bearded men,’ and then to resign. So that would point directly to a Nazarbayev-Tokayev clash. It makes sense as, Tokayev is a very smart operator. Trained by the foreign service of the former USSR, fluent in Russian and Chinese, he is totally aligned with Russia-China – which means fully in sync with the masterplan of the BRI, the Eurasia Economic Union, and the SCO. Tokayev, much like Putin and Xi, understands how this BRI/EAEU/SCO triad represents the ultimate imperial nightmare, and how destabilizing Kazakhstan – a key factor in the triad – would be a mortal coup against Eurasian integration. Kazakhstan, after all, represents 60 percent of Central Asia’s GDP, massive oil/gas and mineral resources, cutting-edge high tech industries: a secular, unitary, constitutional republic bearing a rich cultural heritage. It didn’t take long for Tokayev to understand the merits of immediately calling the CSTO to the rescue: Kazakhstan signed the treaty way back in 1994. After all, Tokayev was fighting a foreign-led coup against his government.

Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev framed it succinctly. Riots were “hidden behind unplanned protests.” The goal was “to seize power” – a coup attempt. Actions were “coordinated from a single center.” And “foreign militants were involved in the riots.”

Putin went further: during the riots, “Maidan technologies were used,” a reference to the Ukrainian square where 2013 protests unseated a NATO-unfriendly government. Defending the prompt intervention of CSTO peacekeeping forces in Kazakhstan, Putin said, “it was necessary to react without delay.” The CSTO will be on the ground “as long as necessary,” but after the mission is accomplished, “of course, the entire contingent will be withdrawn from the country.” CSTO forces left after a week, whereby they crushed the CIA coup. But here’s the clincher: “CSTO countries have shown that they will not allow chaos and ‘color revolutions’ to be implemented inside their borders.” Putin was in synch with Kazakh State Secretary Erlan Karin, who was the first, on the record, to apply the correct terminology to events in his country: What happened was a “hybrid terrorist attack,” by both internal and external forces, aimed at overthrowing the government.

Yet, they are just one nexus in western nebulae of Hybrid War fog deployed across Central Asia, and West Asia for that matter. Here we see the CIA and the US Deep State crisscrossing MI6 and different strands of Turkish Intel. When President Tokayev was referring in code to a “single center,” he meant a so far ‘secret’ US-Turk-Israeli military-intel operations room based in the southern business hub of Almaty, according to a highly placed Central Asia Intel source. In this “center,” there were 22 Americans, 16 Turks and 6 Israelis coordinating sabotage gangs – trained in West Asia by the Turks – and then rat-lined to Almaty.

The op started to unravel for good when Kazakh forces – with the help of Russian/CSTO Intel – retook control of the vandalized Almaty airport, which was supposed to be turned into a hub for receiving foreign military supplies.

The Hybrid War the West had planned and lost must have stunned it and made it livid at how the CSTO intercepted the Kazakh operation at such lightning speed. The key element is that the secretary of Russian National Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, saw the Big Picture eons ago. So, it’s no mystery why Russia’s aerospace and aero-transported forces, plus the massive necessary support infrastructure, were virtually ready to go.

Putin, among others, has stressed how an official Kazakh investigation is the only one entitled to get to the heart of the matter. Rushed to only a few days before the start of the Russia-US ‘security guarantees’ in Geneva, this color revolution represented a sort of counter-ultimatum – in desperation – by the NATO establishment.

Central Asia, West Asia, and the overwhelming majority of the Global South have witnessed the lightning fast Eurasian response by the CSTO troops – who, having now done their job, and left Kazakhstan in a couple of days – and how this color revolution has failed, miserably. It might as well be the last. Beware the rage of a humiliated Empire.

This spectacular run of defeats suggests that the age of the U.S. dominating the world as its one remaining superpower is now at a cross-roads. It suggests that the fearsome spectre of violent military might is losing its fangs. It seems the era of the U.S. Empire is coming to an end. Then there’s the clincher, revealed by a high-level U.S. Intel source.

In 2013, the late Zbigniew “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski was presented with a classified report on Russian advanced missiles. He freaked out and responded by conceptualizing Maidan 2014 – to draw Russia into a guerrilla war then as he had done with Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Chronology

  • 1999: Putin become President. He faces his first challenge from the two families in Chechnya. He crushes the jihadist insurrection in the Caucasus.
  • 2001 June: The SCO is formed, which leads a panicked Rockefeller Empire to activate a military move into Central Asia , which then took place on September 2001 – 9/11.
  • 2003 March: The US invades Iraq – Putin helps the Iraqi Resistance with military equipment, including the Kornet anti-tank missiles.
  • 2005 May: The CIA attempts a Color Revolution and a coup in Uzbekistan. The leader, Karimov, then cuts US ties, and closes a US base next to the Afghan order. Uzbekistan moves closer to Russia, while the US is out.
  • 2007 February: Putin’s speech at Munich shocks the 2 families- now the gloves are off
  • 2008 August: Georgia invades Russia – and is defeated within 3 days
  • 2008 September: Financial crash
  • 2010 December: Arab Spring
  • 2011 March: Destabilization of Syria begins
  • 2012: Xi Jinping becomes President of China- and the US “pivots” East
  • 2014: the Maidan coup in Ukraine
  • July 2014: As Putin was returning to Russia after the BRICS summit in Brazil, his plane overflew Ukraine. The CIA targeted his plane, but the wrong plane was shot down – Malaysian Airlines MH17.
  • 2015 September: Russia goes to help Syria
  • 2018: Putin unveils Russia’s advance military hardware – the Pentagon has a cardiac event
  • 2021 September: Belarus color revolution fails against Putin ally Lukashenko
  • 2021 December: Russian intelligence thwarted a coup attempt in Bishkek, capital of Kyrgyztan. NATO missile systems in Romania and Poland about to become operational. This last point has been explained above.
  • 2022 January: Russia puts down an attempted CIA/MI6 coup in Kazakhstan

And here we are now: it’s all a matter of unfinished business. And, now we come to Ukraine.

Russia/Putin & the West Part 2

by Sam Parker
Behind the News Network

Ukraine

Ukraine and Russia were so intertwined economically, socially and culturally, especially in the east of the country, that they were almost indistinguishable from one another. Most of Russia’s natural gas pipelines from West Siberia flowed through Ukraine on their way to Germany, France and other European states. In military strategic terms, a non-neutral Ukraine in NATO would pose a fatal security blow to Russia. In the age of advanced US weapons and anti-missile defenses, this was just what Washington wanted.

A look at the map of Eurasian geography revealed a distinct pattern to the CIA-sponsored Color Revolutions after 2000. They were clearly aimed at isolating Russia and ultimately cutting her economic lifeline – her pipeline networks that carried Russia’s huge reserves of oil and gas from the Urals and Siberia to Western Europe and Eurasia-straight through Ukraine.

The unspoken agenda of Washington’s aggressive Central Asia policies after the collapse of the Soviet Union could be summed up in a single phase: control of energy. So long as Russia was able to use its strategic trump card — its vast oil and gas reserves – to win economic allies in Western Europe, China and elsewhere, it could not be politically isolated. The location of various Color Revolutions was aimed directly at encircling Russia and cutting off, at any time, her export pipelines. With more than half of Russia’s dollar export earnings coming from its oil and gas exports, such encirclement would amount to an economic chokehold on Russia by US-led NATO.

Russia was the only power with enough strategic nuclear deterrence potential, as well as sufficient energy reserves, to make a credible counterweight to global US military and political nuclear primacy. Moreover, a Eurasian combination of China and Russia, plus allied Eurasian states (mainly Central Asian ), presented an even greater counterweight to unilateral US dominance. Following the 1998 Asian financial crises, Beijing and Moscow formed a mutual security agreement with surrounding states, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. In June 2001, Uzbekistan joined, and the group renamed itself the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, or the SCO. This was the catalyst that forced the Rockefeller Empire to carry out the terror act of 9/11, in order to justify an invasion of Central Asia – with the aim to disrupt this alliance.

One of the leading advocates of an American global supremacy – Rockefeller strategist and close friend – Zbigniew Brzezinski, described the significance of Ukraine’s pivot in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard. He wrote:

“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire…If Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia…”

Brzezinski, a student of Halford Mackinder geopolitics, described the role of “pivot” states:

“Geopolitical pivots are the states whose importance is derived not from their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location… which in some cases gives them a special role in either defining access to important areas or in denying resources to a significant player…”

“It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire”

Ukraine, like few other Eurasian countries, is a product of its special geography, as it uniquely straddles east and west. It is what Halford Mackinder, the British father of geopolitics—the study of the relations of political power to geography—called a “pivot” state. Ukraine uniquely transforms the geopolitical position of Russia, for better or worse.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Washington went all out to support a break between Russia and Ukraine. The goal was to use Ukraine as a buffer to block closer integration between Russia and Europe, especially Germany.

The country Ukraine itself is an historical anomaly. Almost 1000 years ago, Kievan Rus under Vladimir the Great had been the empire of the East Slavic peoples of today’s Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. For more than 350 years, Kievan Rus east of the Dnieper River had been a part of the Russian Czarist Empire. After 1795 Ukraine was divided, as a result of wars of partitioning Poland, between the Orthodox Tsardom of Russia and Roman Catholic Habsburg Austria.

As such a pivot state, Ukraine’s history has been tragic. In 1922 it was forced to become one of the founding republics of the Soviet Union after a bloody war with the Red Army. In the 1930’s, Stalin initiated a gruesome chapter in both Russian but especially Ukrainian history, which still burns in the memories of the descendants in the Catholic rural agricultural west of Ukraine. In 1932 and 1933, millions of people, mostly peasants, in Ukraine starved to death in a politically induced famine, the Holodomor, due to Stalin’s “liquidation of the Kulak class,” the more or less independent farmers to introduce forced collectivization of agriculture. Some 6 to 8 million people died from hunger in the Soviet Union during this period, of which at least 4 to 5 million were Ukrainians. Ironically, Nikita Khrushchev, the man who in the 1950’s initiated de-Stalinization, was the head of the Ukrainian Communist Party in 1935 overseeing Stalin’s Holodomor.

After Stalin’s death, now as head of the Communist Party of Soviet Union, Khrushchev decided to administratively transfer the Crimea to the Ukraine within the USSR in 1954, though the Crimean population was overwhelmingly ethnic Russian.

In the largely agricultural west of Ukraine, the famous “breadbasket of Europe,” the population is historically Roman Catholic, going back centuries. The Eastern parts of Ukraine—Donbass, Donetsk, Crimea—are historically Eastern Orthodox in religion and are Russian-speaking. The east is also the center of most Ukrainian industry from military manufacture to steel, to coal to oil and gas.

The 2014 Maidan Coup d’état

In 2013 there was intense debate inside the cabinet. The issue was the economic future of the floundering Ukraine—whether east with Russia into the new Eurasian Common Market together with Belarus and Kazakhstan, or to the west with a “special” association (not even a real full membership) with the European Union.

After a period of vacillation, and a final economic offer from Russia, Janukovich told EU ministers in November, 2013 that Ukraine would postpone talks for EU association and would join Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union, given the situation, a far more attractive proposition for Ukraine.

At that point, within minutes of Janukovich’s announcement, Ukraine’s “Second Color Revolution,” was initiated. The protests started in the night of 21 November 2013. Via Twitter, Yatsenyuk called for protests, which he dubbed as Euromaidan, on Maidan Square, outside the main Government buildings.

What then ensued in Ukraine is to this day almost entirely unknown in the West. The reason is a total media blackout, led by CNN, BBC, the New York Times, and Washington Post. It has been a de facto NATO wartime press censorship, originating in Washington at the highest levels

That Kiev coup regime proceeded after February 22, 2014 to wage a war of extermination and ethnic cleansing of Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine, led to a large degree by a private army of literal neo-Nazis from Pravy Sektor (Right Sector), the same ones who ran security in Maidan Square and launched a reign of terror against Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Battalions were formed of neo-Nazi mercenaries. They were given official state status as “Ukrainian National Guard” soldiers, the Azov Battalion, financed by Ukrainian mafia boss and billionaire oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky, the financial backer of Zelenskyy as president.

Today

By the late 2021, a huge military buildup had taken place within eastern Ukraine. The aim was to crush, kill, and destroy the Donbass region, and its citizens. There was a calculation by the CIA that Putin would be forced to enter Ukraine in order for this conflict not to enter into Russia itself.

The Russian military was undergoing exercises on its borders with Ukraine during the last quarter of 2021. It moved equipment and troops to its western front. Putin was receiving reports from his intelligence services of an imminent attack by the Ukrainians towards the Donbass region.

In late November, Putin sent a demand to Washington that peace requires guarantees from Washington. These were three: Ukraine to be a neutral state. No nuclear missiles to be stationed in Ukraine. Ukraine will not be a member of NATO. Weeks had passed, but Washington did not respond. Their intention was to force Putin to enter the Donbass in support of the Russian-speaking people there.

Starting on February 17th, the Ukrainian military began shelling the Donbass, practically non-stop. A few days later, Putin received intelligence that Ukraine has prepared a “dirty nuclear “bomb, and were prepared to use it. The tipping point was when confirmation came that Washington was preparing to install nuclear-tipped missiles (which would take 5 minutes from launch to target – meaning not enough time for the Russian military to detect, confirm, and launch counter measures) were poised to strike Moscow from either Poland or Western Ukraine. On February 19, at the Munich Security Council (the very same place where Putin shocked the world in 2007), Ukrainian President Zelenskyy made his threat to deploy nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. He expressed this as his unilateral revocation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, although Ukraine was not a signatory of the agreement. Two days later on the evening of February 21, Putin made his speech recognizing the sovereign independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, and the start of the military campaign in the Ukraine. He explicitly referenced Zelenskyy’s Munich nuclear weapons pledge: “This is not empty bravado,” Putin stressed in his speech. The next morning, Russia began its special operations, by moving into Eastern Ukraine, and removing the threat to Russia.

Gas Pipelines from Russia into China

The truth is that the Empire has been preparing a war against Russia since at least the mid-90s and that these preparations dramatically accelerated in the past eight years. It means that while western politicians spent the past 30 years or so slowly encircling Russia, Russian force planners successfully reformed the Soviet/Russian armed forces (which were in a terrible shape in the 90s and in a very uneven shape during most of the 80s) into a military capable of taking on all of NATO at once and quickly and very painfully defeat it.

PS: Russian Defense Minister Shoigu just reported that in November the USAF used 10 strategic bombers coming in from both the east and the west to rehearse nuclear strikes on Russia and that they changed course only 20km from the Russian border. It’s a game called “nuclear chicken “. Let’s begin by looking at the AngloZionist policies towards Russia.

The West’s Actions

Second is the now total colonization of Western Europe into the Empire. While NATO moved to the East, the US also took much deeper control of Western Europe which is now administered for the Empire. The Russians are most dismayed at the re-colonization of Western Europe. The ‘loss’ of Western Europe is far more concerning for the Russians than the fact that ex-Soviet colonies in Eastern Europe are now under US colonial administration. Why? Look at this from the Russian point of view.

The Russians all see that the US power is on the decline and that the dollar will, sooner or later, gradually or suddenly, lose its role as the main reserve and exchange currency on the planet (this process has already begun). Simply put – unless the US finds a way to dramatically change the current international dynamic the AngloZionist Empire will collapse. The Russians believe that what the Americans are doing is, at best, to use tensions with Russia to revive a dormant Cold War v2 and, at worst, to actually start a real shooting war in Europe. So a declining Empire with a vital need for a major crisis, a spineless Western Europe unable to stand up for its own interest, a subservient Eastern Europe just begging to turn into a massive battlefield between East and West, and a messianic, rabidly russophobic rhetoric as the background for an increase in military deployments on the Russian border. Is anybody really surprised that the Russians are taking all this very serious?

The Russian Reaction

So let us now examine the Russian reaction to Empire’s stance.

First, the Russians want to make sure that the Americans do not give in into the illusion that a full-scale war in Europe would be like WWII which saw the continental US only suffer a few, tiny, almost symbolic, attacks by the enemy. Since a full scale war in Europe would threaten the very existence of the Russian state and nation, the Russians are now taking measures to make sure that, should that happen, the US would pay an immense price for such an attack. The Russians are now evidently assuming that a conventional threat from the West might materialize in the foreseeable future. They are therefore taking the measures needed to counter that conventional threat.

Since the USA appears to be dead set into deploying an anti-ballistic missile system not only in Europe, but also in the Far East, the Russians are taking the measures to both defeat and bypass this system.

The Russian effort is a vast and a complex one, and it covers almost every aspect of Russian force planning, but there are four examples which would best illustrate the Russian determination not to allow a 22 June 1941 to happen again:

  • The re-creation of the First Guards Tank Army
  • The deployment of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system
  • The deployment of the Sarmat ICBM
  • The deployment of the Status-6 strategic torpedo

The Re-creation of the First Guards Tank Army

To put it simply – Russia clearly did not believe that there was a conventional military threat from the West and therefore she did not even bother deploying any kind of meaningful military force to defend from such a non-existing threat. This has now dramatically changed.

Russia has officially announced the First Guards Tank Army – 1TGA. Make no mistake, this will be a very large force, exactly the kind of force needed so smash through an attacking enemy forces.

The Deployment of the Iskander-M Operational-Tactical Missile System

The new Iskander-M operational tactical missile system is a formidable weapon by any standard. It is extremely accurate, it has advanced anti-ABM capabilities, it flies at hypersonic speeds and is practically undetectable on the ground. This will be the missile tasked with destroying all the units and equipment the US and NATO have forward-deployed in Eastern Europe and, if needed, clear the way for the 1TGA.

The Deployment of the Sarmat ICBM

Neither the 1TGA nor the Iskander-M missile will threaten the US homeland in any way. Russia thus needed some kind of weapon which would truly strike fear into the Pentagon and White House in the way the famous RS-36 Voevoda (aka SS-18 “Satan” in US classification) did during the Cold War. The SS-18, the most powerful ICBM ever developed, was scary enough. The RS-28 “Sarmat” (SS-X-30 by NATO classification) brings the terror to a totally new level.

The Sarmat is nothing short of amazing. It will be capable of carrying 10-15 MIRVed warheads which will be delivered in a so-called “depressed” (suborbital) trajectory and which will remain maneuverable at hypersonic speeds. The missile will not have to use the typical trajectory over the North Pole but will be capable of reaching any target anywhere on the planet from any trajectory. All these elements combined will make the Sarmat itself and its warheads completely impossible to intercept.

The Sarmat will also be capable of delivering conventional hypersonic warheads capable of a “kinetic strike” which could be used to strike a fortified enemy target in a non-nuclear conflict. This will be made possible by the amazing accuracy of the Sarmat’s warheads.

The Sarmat’s silos will be protected by a unique “active protection measures” which will include 100 guns capable of firing a “metallic cloud” of forty thousand 30mm “bullets” to an altitude of up to 6km. The Russians are also planning to protect the Sarmat with their new S-500 air defense systems. Finally, the Sarmat’s preparation to start time will be under 60 seconds thanks a highly automated launch system. What this all means is that the Sarmat missile will be invulnerable in its silo, during its flight and on re-entry in the lower parts of the atmosphere.

It is interesting to note that while the USA has made a great deal of noise around its planned Prompt Global Strike system, the Russians have already begun deploying their own version of this concept.

The Deployment of the Status-6 Strategic Torpedo

What is shown here is an “autonomous underwater vehicle” which has advanced navigational capabilities but which can also be remote controlled and steered from a specialized command module. This vehicle can dive as deep as 1000m, at a speed up to 185km/h and it has a range of up to 10,000 Km. It is delivered by specially configured submarines.

The Status-6 system can be used to target aircraft carrier battle groups, US navy bases (especially SSBN bases) and, in its most frightening configuration, it can be used to deliver high-radioactivity cobalt bombs capable of laying waste to huge expanses of land. The Status-6 delivery system is capable of delivering a 100 megaton warhead which would make it twice as powerful as the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated, the Soviet Czar-bomb (57 megatons). Hiroshima was only 15 kilotons.

Keep in mind that most of the USA’s cities and industrial centers are all along the coastline which makes them extremely vulnerable to torpedo based attacks (be it Sakharov’s proposed “Tsunami bomb” or the Status-6 system). And, just as in the case of the Iskander-M or the Sarmat ICBM, the depth and speed of the Status-6 torpedo would make it basically invulnerable to interception.

Take the Kalibr cruise-missile recently seen in the war in Syria. Did you know that it can be shot from a typical commercial container, like the ones you will find on trucks, trains or ships? Just remember that the Kalibr has a range of anywhere between 50 Km to 4000 Km and that it can carry a nuclear warhead. How hard would it be for Russia to deploy these cruise missiles right off the US coast in regular container ships? Or just keep a few containers in Cuba or Venezuela? This is a system which is so undetectable that the Russians could deploy it off the coast of Australia to hit the NSA station in Alice Springs if they wanted, and nobody would even see it coming.

The reality is that the notion that the US could trigger a war against Russia (or China for that matter) and not suffer the consequences on the US mainland is absolutely ridiculous. So sometimes things have to be said directly and unambiguously – western politicians better not believe in their own imperial hubris. So far, all their threats have achieved is that the Russians have responded with a many but futile verbal protests and a full-scale program to prepare Russia for WWIII.

First, he confirmed that the Sarmat ICBM would replace the old but already formidable SS-18 “Satan”. Then he turned to new weapon systems:

  • A nuclear powered cruise missile with basically unlimited range
  • A nuclear powered unmanned submersible with intercontinental range, very high speed, silent propulsion and capable of moving a great depths
  • A Mach 10 hypersonic missile with a 2,000 kilometer range (named: Kinzhal)
  • A new strategic missile capable of Mach 20 velocities (named: Avangard)

All of these systems can be armed with conventional or nuclear warheads. Just think of the implications! Not only does that mean that the entire ABM effort of the USA is now void and useless, but also that from now US aircraft carrier battle groups can only be used against small, defenseless, nations!

It Is Official and It Is Over

While the whole Western media are shaking (incompetence will do this to one) in their boots from Vladimir Putin’s address, where he demonstrated, among many things, new RS-28 Sarmat ballistic missile, behind that revolutionary weapon system, one was almost completely ignored by media. Again, “education” based on catch phrases (such a “nuclear weapon) will do this to one. By far most shocking (albeit inevitable) revelation was deployment of a new hyper-sonic missile Kinzhal weapon. The missile is… well, for the lack of better word, stunning – it is M10+ highly maneuverable missile with the range of 2,000 kilometers. The naval warfare as we know it is over. Without any overly-dramatic emphasis – we are officially in new era. No, I repeat, NO, modern or prospective air-defense system deployed today by any NATO fleet can intercept even a single missile with such characteristics. The salvo of 5-6 of such missiles is a guaranteed destruction of any Carrier Battle Group (CBG).

The mode of use of such weapon, especially since we know now that it is deployed (for now) in Southern Military District is very simple – the most likely missile drop spot by MiG-31s will be international waters of the Black Sea, thus closing off whole Eastern Mediterranean to any surface ship or group of ships. It also creates a massive no-go zone in the Pacific, where MiG-31s from Yelizovo will be able to patrol vast distances over the ocean. It is, though, remarkable that the current platform for Kinzhal is MiG-31 – arguably the best interceptor in the history. Obviously, MiG-31’s ability to reach very high supersonic speeds (in excess of M3) is a key factor in the launch. But no matter what are the procedures for the launch of this terrifying weapon, the conclusions are simple:

  1. It moves aircraft carriers into the niche of pure power projection against weak and defenseless adversaries;
  2. It makes classic CBGs as main strike force against peer completely obsolete and useless; it also makes any surface combat ship defenseless regardless its air-defense capabilities.
  3. Sea Control and Sea Denial change their nature and merge. Those who have such weapon, or weapons, simply own vast spaces of the sea limited by the ranges of Kinzhal and its carriers.

I don’t want to sound dramatic and I know that there were and are always surprises in Soviet/Russian weapons development but today’s revelations from the highest podium in Russia about Kinzhal were shocking. The balance of power just shifted dramatically, and with it the naval warfare, as we knew it, is no more.

It is OVER!

“There is nothing in the U.S. arsenal now and in the foreseeable future which can intercept Mach 9 -10+, let alone Mach 20 – 27, targets. That’s the issue. It is indeed set, match and game over for the Empire: there is no more military option against Russia. So what do these people want? They want to provoke Moscow by all means available to exercise “Russian aggression”, resulting in an attack on Ukraine, but with zero casualties for NATO and the Pentagon. Then the Empire of Chaos will blame Russia; unleash a tsunami of fresh sanctions, especially financial; and try to shut off all economic links between Russia and NATO.

All exponents of Russian leadership, starting with President Putin, have already made it clear, over and over again, what happens if the Ukro-dementials start a blitzkrieg over Donbass: Ukraine will be mercilessly smashed – and that applies not only to the ethno-fascist gang in Kiev. Ukraine will cease to exist as a state.

It’s all about Minsk

It remains to be seen how this “de-confliction” will happen in practice when Defense Minister Shoigu revealed U.S. nuclear-capable bombers have been practicing, in their sorties across Eastern Europe, to enhance “their ability to use nuclear weapons against Russia”. Shoigu discussed that in detail with Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe: after all the Americans will certainly pull the same stunt against China. The root cause of all this drama is stark: Kiev simply refuses to respect the February 2015 Minsk Agreement. In a nutshell, the deal stipulated that Kiev should grant autonomy to Donbass via a constitutional amendment, referred to as “special status”; issue a general amnesty; and start a dialogue with the people’s republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.

Over the years, Kiev fulfilled exactly zero commitments – while the proverbial NATO media machine incessantly pounded global opinion with fake news, spinning that Russia was violating Minsk. Russia is not even mentioned in the agreement. Moscow in fact always respected the Minsk Agreement – which translates as regarding Donbass as an integral, autonomous part of Ukraine. Moscow has zero interest in promoting regime change in Kiev. On the Minsk agreements, Putin’s to Zelinsky message was blunt: “The President of Ukraine has said that he does not like any of the clauses of the Minsk agreements. Like it, or not – be patient, my beauty. They must be fulfilled.”

Looking at all of these moves against Russia since taking office, plus knowing full well the aim of the Rockefeller Empire was to “de-construct Russia, and break it up into three parts, Putin said “enough is enough” It was time to fight back. Since 2000, Putin bided his time, making Russia strong, getting rid of internal and external enemies, building up her military and financial strength, and producing such advanced weapons for which the West has no defense against. For the first time in a century, a military superpower Russia, having had enough of U.S./NATO bullying, is now dictating the terms of a new arrangement.

Coming straight from President Putin, it did sound like a bolt from the sky:

“We need long-term legally binding guarantees even if we know they cannot be trusted, as the U.S. frequently withdraws from treaties that become uninteresting to them. But it’s something, not just verbal assurances.” And that’s how Russia-U.S. relations come to the definitive crunch – after an interminable series of polite red alerts coming from Moscow.

Putin once again had to specify that Russia is looking for “indivisible, equitable security” – a principle established since Helsinki in 1975 – even though he no longer sees the U.S. as a dependable “partner”, that diplomatically nicety so debased by the Empire since the end of the USSR. So in the end it comes down to Europeans facing “the prospect of turning the continent into a field of military confrontation.” That will be the inevitable consequence of a NATO “decision” actually decided in Washington.

Incidentally: any possible, future “counter threats” will be coordinated between Russia and China.

Most people by now know the content of the Russian draft agreements on security guarantees presented to the Americans. Key provisions include no further NATO expansion; no Ukraine admission; no NATO shenanigans in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia and Central Asia; Russia and NATO agreeing not to deploy intermediate and short-range missiles in areas from where they can hit each other’s territory; establishment of hotlines; and the NATO-Russia Council actively involved in resolving disputes.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs extensively reiterated that the Americans received “detailed explanations of the logic of the Russian approach”, so the ball is in Washington’s court.

In fact, whether U.S. and NATO functionaries like it or not, what’s really happening in the realpolitk realm is Russia dictating new terms from a position of power. In a nutshell: you may learn the new game in town in a peaceful manner, civilized dialogue included, or you will learn the hard way via a dialogue with Russia’s missile stars – Iskandr, Kalibr, Khinzal , Zircon, and many more in the pipeline. The Pentagon has nothing close to any of these. These weapons are game-changing.

Do note that the US military has been on a technological decline over the past two decades. In addition, the cost structures of new systems are such, that its peer competitors – Russia and China – do build better equipment at FAR LOWER COSTS. And, they work, unlike many new systems in the Pentagon and western militaries. Finally, the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have broken the back of the US military. It is not what it once was.

President Putin declared that the Russian ultimatum was not an ultimatum, as have several other Russian officials. Putin said:

We already see that some of our ill-wishers, frankly speaking, interpret them as an ultimatum from Russia. Of course not. I remind you once again, I want to remind you: everything that our partners did, so we will call them, Yugoslavia was bombed under what pretext? What, with the sanction of the Security Council, or what? Where is Yugoslavia and where is the USA? Destroyed the country. Yes, there was an internal conflict, they had their own problems, but who gave the right to strike at the European capital? No one. They just decided that, and the vassals ran behind them and nodded. That’s all international law.

And under what pretext did you enter Iraq? Development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You entered, destroyed the country, created a hotbed of international terrorism, and then it turned out that “we” were mistaken, and then they said: “The intelligence let us down.” Wow! The country was destroyed! Intelligence failed – and the whole explanation. It turns out that there were no weapons of mass destruction there, no one was preparing them. On the contrary, once there was an attempt, [but] everything was destroyed as it should be.

How did you go to Syria? With the approval of the Security Council? No. They do what they want. But what they are now doing on the territory of Ukraine, or trying to do and planning to do, is not thousands of kilometers from our national border – this is at the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere to retreat further.

Specialists sit here; I am in constant contact with them. There are no hypersonic weapons in the United States yet, but we know when they will appear, they cannot be hidden. Everything is recorded: the tests are successful – unsuccessful. Clearly, we roughly understand when it will be. They will supply Ukraine with hypersonic weapons, and then under its cover – this does not mean that they will use them tomorrow, because we already have Zircon, but they do not have it yet – they will arm and push extremists from a neighboring state into including to certain regions of the Russian Federation, say the Crimea, under favorable, as they believe, circumstances for themselves.

Do they think we don’t see these threats? Or do they think that we will helplessly look at the threats posed to Russia?This is the whole problem, we simply have nowhere to move out – that is the question.”

This then is Putin’s red line.

In plain English, this means this: oh no, this is not at all an ultimatum. But we remind you that you attacked other countries and all we are saying is that if you continue or do not heed our warnings, then we will be free to do whatever we deem necessary. But no, of course not, this is not an ultimatum at all.

First, Putin is both very predictable and, at the same time, very unpredictable. The predictable thing about Putin is that he only uses force when there is no other option left. The very unpredictable thing about Putin is how and where he is willing to use force. Russia has a huge advantage over US+NATO in electronic warfare (from the tactical to the strategic level) and it can easily use it to a devastating effect while NATO has nothing to retaliate in kind. This, by the way, also applies to the Middle-East where, apparently, Russia has the means to disrupt/spoof GPS signals over the entire region.

The power of the Russian ultimatum is precisely in the fact that the Russians have promised to do “something” military and/or military-technical, but have not spelled out what that “something” might be. In reality, we are not dealing with one single “something”, but a succession of gradual steps which will bring more and more pressure to bear on the US and NATO/EU . Keep in mind that while the USA can make counter-proposals they are in no position to make any credible threats, hence the fundamental asymmetry between the two sides: Russian can make credible threats, while the US can produce only mere words, something the Russians have basically stopped paying attention to.

From now on, the game is simple: Russia will gradually turn up the “pain dial” and see how the Empire will cope with this. China will be doing the exact same as Russian and Chinese actions are obviously carefully coordinated. At which point Russia and China would have won.

How soon will Russia turn up the pain dial? Putin has just repeated today that no US delaying tactics will be acceptable to Russia. A not-so-diplomatic message was sent to the West. “If you don’t want to talk to Lavrov, then you will have to deal with Shoigu” – the best one-liner in years.

Putin has declared today that he is “fed up” with the West: “And when international law and the UN Charter interfere with them, they declare all this obsolete and unnecessary. And when something corresponds to their interests, they immediately refer to the norms of international law, the UN Charter, and international humanitarian rules. I’m fed up of such manipulations”.

Now, a very high-level Deep State intel source, retired, comes down to the nitty gritty, pointing out how “the secret negotiations between Russia and the US center around missiles going into Eastern Europe, as the US frantically drives for completing its development of hypersonic missiles.”

The main point is that if the US places such hypersonic missiles in Romania and Poland, as planned, the time for them to reach Moscow would be 5 minutes. It’s even worse for Russia if they are placed in the Baltics. The source notes, “The US plan is to neutralize the more advanced defensive missile systems that seal Russia’s airspace. This is why the US has offered to allow Russia to inspect these missile sites in the future, to prove that there are no hypersonic nuclear missiles. Yet that’s not a solution, as the Raytheon missile launchers can handle both offensive and defensive missiles, so it’s possible to sneak in the offensive missiles at night. Thus everything requires continuous observation.”

The bottom line is stark: “This is the real issue behind the present crisis. The only solution is no missile sites allowed in Eastern Europe.” That happens to be an essential part of Russia’s demands for security guarantees. The West slowly is discovering that that it has no pressure point versus Russia (its economy being relatively sanctions-proof), and its military is no match for that of Russia’s.” In parallel, how “the threat to US dominance is that China, Russia and Mackinder’s Eurasian World Island heartland are offering better trade and investment opportunities than are available from the United States with its increasingly desperate demand for sacrifices from its NATO and other allies.”

The Rockefeller Empire and Washington are at the end of American geopolitical control over Eurasia. Occupied Germany and Japan enforcing the strategic submission of Eurasia from the west down to the east; the ever-expanding NATO; the ever de-multiplied Empire of Bases, all the lineaments of the 75-year-plus free lunch are collapsing.

Way back in August 2020, “the goal of Russian and Chinese policy is to recruit Germany into a triple alliance locking together the Eurasian land mass a la Mackinder into the greatest geopolitical alliance in history, switching world power in favor of these three great powers against Anglo-Saxon sea power.”

The new groove is set to the tune of the New Silk Roads, or BRI; Russia’s unmatched hypersonic power – and now the non-negotiable demands for security guarantees; the advent of RCEP – the largest free trade deal on the planet uniting East Asia; the Empire all but expelled from Central Asia after the Afghan humiliation; and sooner rather than later its expulsion from the first island chain in the Western Pacific, complete with a starring role for the Chinese DF-21D “carrier killer” missiles. So the rules have changed drastically. The Hegemon is naked. The new deal starts with turning the post-Cold War set-up in Eastern Europe completely upside down. The East Med will be next. The Bear is back, baby. Hear him roar.

To achieve its Full Spectrum Dominance, Washington needed not only the resources of its Color Revolutions across Eurasia to encircle Russia. The Pentagon also needed to draw the rope tight around the emerging colossus of Asia, China. There, a different approach was required, given the extreme US financial dependence on China and its economic ties and investments there. To that end, our next article is on China.

Twilight of the Oligarchs?

by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D. via The Occidental Observer

Russian Jewish Oligarchs, from left: Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven, Moshe Kantor,
Roman Abramovich

The subject of Jews and money is controversial and essential, and yet not without its darkly comic aspects. Back in November I wrote an essay on criticism of Bram Stoker’s Dracula for its alleged anti-Semitic qualities, and noted one scholar’s angst about a scene in which Jonathan Harker slashes at Dracula with a knife, cutting the vampire’s coat and sending a flood of cash to the floor. Instead of fleeing immediately, Dracula snatches up handfuls of money before sprinting across the room. The offended scholar, Sara Libby Robinson, complained that “This demonstration of putting the preservation of one’s money on par with the preservation of one’s life shows that stereotypes regarding Jews and their money were alive and well in the late nineteenth century.”

Those who spend enough time observing Jews, however, will know that the curious thing about them is that associated stereotypes have an uncanny habit of finding constant empirical confirmation. Take, for instance, a recent news article pointing out that Israel has experienced an influx of Jewish refugees since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24. The punchline is that the influx has involved many more economic refugees from Russia, who are seeking relief from Western sanctions and dropping currency values, than Ukrainian Jews seeking safety from violence. Faced with warfare, Jews really are “putting the preservation of one’s money on par with the preservation of one’s life.” In one of my favorite anecdotes from the Ukraine crisis thus far, the Russian-Israeli immigration lawyer Eli Gervits claims to have received thousands of calls from Russian Jews issuing an appeal he calls SOS: “Save our Savings.” This remarkable story is emblematic of the fact Putin’s war in Ukraine is a net negative for the Russian-based international Jewish oligarchy, and the international Jewish networks that survive and thrive on their patronage.

The Fall of Moshe Kantor

Few things have raised my spirits in recent times like the news the UK government has finally imposed sanctions on Moshe Kantor. Russian billionaire, pernicious oligarch, and one-time president of no less than the European Jewish Congress, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation, the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, the European Jewish Fund, and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress, Kantor is the quintessential strongly-identified Jewish activist, fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group. A devoted Zionist, Kantor is a citizen of Israel, as well as both Russia and the UK. Kantor, with his curious blend of citizenships, didn’t so much straddle East and West as use plunder in the former to fuel activism in the latter. One of his primary projects in recent years has been to lobby the European Union for greater restrictions on individual freedom and for the imposition of a vast, draconian apparatus for the protection and enforcement of multiculturalism across the continent. In his treatise Manifesto for Secure Tolerance, Kantor writes with Orwellian flair that “Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.” Reading between the lines, the message becomes clearer: “Restrictions on Europeans are necessary for the freedom of Jews to live a secure life.” Among Kantor’s proposals was the creation of a continent-wide apparatus for internet surveillance targeting opponents of multiculturalism, enforced promotion and ‘education’ on multiculturalism across Europe, and a significant increase in prison sentences for all infractions against the cult of diversity.

Kantor escaped the wave of Western sanctions on Russian (often Jewish) elites until last week, but was finally targeted because of his role as the largest shareholder of the fertilizer company Acron, which has strategic ties to the Russian government. Needless to say, the sanctioning of yet another one of their hugely influential oligarchs is sending shockwaves through international Jewish institutions reliant on the wealth and influence of such figures. On April 6, the European Jewish Congress, Kantor’s primary vehicle for the advance of his war on European freedoms, issued a statement stressing that it was

Deeply shocked and appalled by the decision today of the British government to sanction Dr Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress, the World Holocaust Forum Foundation and the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation. The decision is misguided and lacks any factual or evidence-based merit. Dr Kantor is a British citizen who has lived for over three decades in Western Europe, many years of which has been in the UK. He is a long-standing and respected Jewish leader, who has dedicated his life to the security and wellbeing of Europe’s Jewish communities and the fight against antisemitism, racism and xenophobia. … We call for this decision to be reversed as soon as possible.

Moshe Kantor hobnobs with the boss

The most recent statement issued by the British government is low on detail, stating only that Kantor will be subject to an “asset freeze.” Since Kantor owns, and spends much time in, a substantial mansion on London’s Winnington Road, where property prices average over $8 million, this is sure to be a sore point for the oligarch. Much more worrying for Kantor is that the European Union followed suit a few days later, issuing its own asset freezes and travel bans. His bank accounts, homes, and other economic interests across the continent have been locked down.

Hungary and Austria, influenced by Zionist sympathies, both attempted to save Kantor from sanctions, with the Hungarian envoy expressing “surprise at the blacklisting of somebody he described as a highly decorated man.” However, Kantor’s fence-sitting strategy of being an Eastern kingpin and Western multiculturalist preacher has been demolished by the Ukraine conflict. Like a game of musical chairs, he finds that the music has stopped and he’s left standing, his hands full of Russian assets that were once so precious and central to his power. Ironically, the envoys of Estonia and Lithuania, two countries accused of anti-Semitism and fascism by Russia, successfully urged their partners not to remove Kantor, one of the most influential Jewish activists in Europe, from the list. And so poor Moshe, who once proposed that restrictions were a pathway to freedom, will now have to live by his own words. As his homes and possessions are seized by European governments, as the value of his companies declines, and as he finds himself with fewer places to go, I can only offer to Moshe the reassurance of his own dictum: Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life!

Stadtlans in the Spotlight

As leader of so many groups and mover in so many high circles, Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlan—Court Jews of the early modern period who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships with non-Jewish elites. And he exemplifies many of the same qualities, acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles, seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe. Look at any country of significance and you will find not only a Jewish clique ensconced in the heart of its political machinery, but often also a small number of Jewish individuals so influential that they can be regarded as political actors in their own right. These figures are the tip of the spear of Jewish activism, and in the past such men and their families have been so impactful on the course of history that their names have passed into common parlance — Rothschild, Schiff, Warburg, and more modern corollaries such as Soros, Adelson, and the constellation of Jewish billionaires infesting Ukraine and orbiting Vladimir Putin.

For these eastern Jewish elites, the war in Ukraine has had the doubly concerning effect of impacting their finances and raising their profile. Petr Aven, Mikhail Fridman, German Kahn, Roman Abramovich, Alexander Klyachin, Yuri Milner, Vadim Moshkovich, Mikhail Prokhorov, Andrey Rappoport, Arkady Rotenberg, Boris Rotenberg, Igor Rotenberg, Viktor Vekselberg, God Nisanov, Oleg Deripaska, Alexander Abramov, Gavril Yushvaev, Zarakh Iliev, Vladimir Yevtushenkov, Arkady Volozh, Eugene Schvidler, Leonid Simanovskiy, Yuri Shefler, Kirill Shamalov, Aleksandr Mamut, Lev Kvetnoy, Yevgeniy Kasperskiy, Yuriy Gushchin, Oleg Boyko, Leonid Boguslavskiy, are just some of those who have hidden in plain sight for some time, but now find themselves not only discussed, sanctioned, and blacklisted, but also grouped together in lists that highlight the startling patterns of their wealth accumulation and ethnic partnership.

In 2018 the U.S. Treasury department published a list of Russians they were considering for sanctions, and the list has continued to cause unease in Jewish circles. The Times of Israel recently tried to downplay the Jewish prominence by arguing that “At least 18 of the figures on [the Treasury list] are Jewish oligarchs,” while adding that the list consists of 210 names (meaning a Jewish representation of 8.5%). But they don’t mention that the Treasury separated their list into 114 politicians and 96 oligarchs, and there are in fact 29 confirmed Jewish oligarchs in the latter list, with a further two (Aras Algarov and Alisher Usmanov) married to Jews and raising Jewish children. In other words, at least 30% of Russia’s most influential oligarchs are Jews in a country in which Jews comprise an estimated 0.1% of the population. One cannot honestly speak of the eastern oligarchs without on some level discussing the Jews.

Russia’s billionaire Jews might be almost untouchable, but they have a history of worrying that their Jewishness might become a topic of public discussion. In 1998, the Irish Times published an article outlining the beginning of the end of the Yeltsin era. Titled “Russia Bows to the Rule of the Seven Bankers,” the article explained that Russia had fallen largely into the hands of six Jewish financiers (Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Guzinsky, Alexander Smolensky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Fridman and Vitaly Malkin), and a token gentile (Vladimir Potanin). The most interesting part of the piece is the discussion of the old Jewish strategy of using a European frontman to disguise the Jewish nature of the power structure:

In the run-up to the 1996 election, the tycoons contributed millions of dollars to Yeltsin’s re-election campaign, spurred on by Berezovsky, who later boasted that the seven members of the club controlled half of Russia’s economy. It was an overstatement but reflected their hubris. After the election, according to several sources, the tycoons met and decided to insert one of their own into government. They debated who — and chose Potanin, who became deputy prime minister. One reason they choose Potanin was that he is not Jewish, and most of the rest of them are. They feared a backlash against Jewish bankers.

Putin’s Increasing Control of the Jewish Oligarchs

As with Yeltsin, the seven bankers, especially Berezovsky, initially claimed to have promoted Putin and insisted on his candidature as a Prime Minister and President. As the Guardian pointed out in 2013, Berezovsky’s fatal flaw was simple: he misread Putin:

Berezovsky met Putin in the early 1990s, when the KGB spy was working for St Petersburg’s mayor. The two socialised and even skied together in Switzerland. By the late 1990s, Putin had become head of the FSB, the KGB’s successor agency. Yeltsin’s entourage was seeking a successor to the ailing president. They dispatched Berezovsky to offer the job to Putin — who became prime minister in the summer of 1999, succeeding Yeltsin as acting president six months later. Berezovsky had reckoned that his friend would be a pliable successor — and that he, the ultimate Kremlin insider, would continue to pull the strings. It quickly became apparent that Putin had his own vision of Russia: a darker, less democratic place, in which the country’s spy agencies would play a vanguard role, and with Putin unequivocally in charge. The two clashed; Putin seized Berezovky’s ORT TV station; and Berezovsky decamped to London. Their feud was nasty and would lead ultimately to Berezovsky’s death at the age of 67 in exile.

Other members of the Semibankirschina (Seven Bankers) were either exiled or brought to heel. Gusinsky left Russia in 2000 following accusations of misappropriation of funds. Khodorkovsky was arrested by Russian authorities in 2003 and charged with fraud. He served 10 years in prison, during which time his wealth was decimated, and he fled to Switzerland and then London upon his release. Alexander Smolensky sold off many of his assets, lowered his profile, and reportedly moved to Vienna. Vitaly Malkin became an outward Putin loyalist, while trying for almost 20 years to relocate to Canada, investing millions in Toronto, and taking Israeli citizenship. Curiously, Vladimir Potanin, the lone gentile among the Semibankirschina, prospered most under Putin, becoming Russia’s wealthiest man.

Ukraine-born Mikhail Fridman has steered a mostly steady course, focusing on financial matters, cultivating an East-West persona from his London mansion, and avoiding political confrontations. The wheels have recently started to come off for Fridman, however, thanks to the Ukraine conflict and his desire to avoid personal financial repercussions. Fridman was one of the first oligarchs to make clear his opposition to the war, and in a later interview with Bloomberg he admitted that his statement decrying the conflict as a tragedy “could make it dangerous for him to return to Russia.” The Bloomberg interview highlights the shock that Fridman felt on finding himself frozen out of the Western sphere despite, like Moshe Kantor, investing years in careful networking:

None of this helped him avoid the fate of some fellow Russian tycoons. Nor did his years of networking in the U.S. and Europe. On Feb. 28 his lawyer pulled him out of a meeting with the news that the European Union had sanctioned him and his longtime business partner, Petr Aven [also Jewish], who was heading Alfa-Bank, Russia’s largest privately held bank and a key part of Fridman’s Alfa Group Consortium. The lawyer started to rattle off what it meant: travel bans, frozen accounts. Fridman could barely register the words. “I was in shock,” he tells me. “I almost didn’t understand what he was saying.”

Fridman claims that sanctions are politically useless because the oligarchs have no influence over Putin, only business relationships:

What’s clear to him now, he says, is that the EU doesn’t get how power actually works in Russia. If the point of sanctions is to motivate people like him to apply pressure on Vladimir Putin, he says, that’s worse than unrealistic. “I’ve never been in any state company or state position,” Fridman says. “If the people who are in charge in the EU believe that because of sanctions, I could approach Mr. Putin and tell him to stop the war, and it will work, then I’m afraid we’re all in big trouble. That means those who are making this decision understand nothing about how Russia works. And that’s dangerous for the future.”

Sanctions and other economic impacts of the war have already wiped out a third of Fridman’s wealth, and although he’s still incredibly rich, he is more or less trapped in London and has no access to cash. Stephanie Baker, interviewing Fridman for Bloomberg, points out that “he now must apply for a license to spend money, and the British government will determine if any request is ‘reasonable.’” Jewish organizations in Ukraine keep calling him asking about progress on a $10 million donation he promised them but can no longer fulfil. Baker adds,

Fridman’s argument that he’s not positioned to exercise influence over the Kremlin reflects how the role of Russia’s billionaires has been turned on its head since the 1990s. Back then, Fridman was one of the original seven oligarchs, the semibankirschina. As a group they backed President Boris Yeltsin’s reelection campaign and had sway over the Kremlin. When Putin came to power in 2000, he imposed his own model: The new deal was that if they stayed out of politics, they could continue running their businesses. Putin destroyed oligarchs who violated that arrangement.

Fridman’s inability to contain his frustration at sanctions, and willingness to express opposition to the war, may well mark the end of his direct involvement in Russian life. Perhaps more than any other oligarch, his actions provoked the now infamous speech in which Putin attacked anti-war oligarchs seeking after their own economic interests:

The Russian people will always be able to distinguish true patriots from scum and traitors and will simply spit them out like a gnat that accidentally flew into their mouths — spit them out on the pavement. … I am convinced that such a natural and necessary self-purification of society will only strengthen our country, our solidarity, cohesion and readiness to respond to any challenges.

“A natural and necessary self-purification of society”

News that thousands of Russian Jews are fleeing to Israel to protect their money, and the ongoing signs that many Jewish oligarchs now outside Russia may never return, are suggestive that Putin’s “natural and necessary self-purification of society” will involve a reduction in the Jewish presence, in Jewish wealth, and in Jewish influence in the country. As well as the oligarchs already mentioned, there are several Jewish billionaires, including the recently sanctioned Boris Mints, on Russian most-wanted lists, for a variety of crimes including embezzlement and fraud. Leonid Nevzlin, a Jewish oligarch, friend of the exiled Khodorkovsky, and former oil tycoon who fled to Israel from Russia 20 years ago in order to escape a life sentence for murder and financial crimes, recently undertook the symbolic act of renouncing his Russian citizenship. Russian requests for Nevzlin’s extradition have been repeatedly ignored by Israel. Nevzlin recently told a journalist: “I was one of the first to be hit by Putin. He threw my friends in jails, and killed some of them.”

One of the most fascinating aspects of Putin’s political career is that it combines an often flamboyant rhetorical and performative philo-Semitism with actions that directly harm or obstruct Jewish interests. As mentioned in a previous essay, Putin is one of Europe’s foremost promoters of the Holocaust narrative, but it is a Holocaust narrative significantly less useful to Jews than the Hollywood/Spielbergian version we are so used to in the West. It’s a Holocaust narrative stripped of Jewish exclusivity, imbued with geopolitical moral codes favorable primarily to Russia, and unashamedly directed by, and for, Moscow rather than Jerusalem. In another curious example of rhetoric clashing with reality, in 2016 Putin invited Jews to come and settle en masse in Russia, presumably knowing full well that thousands of Jews were already leaving Russia at an increasingly rapid pace. In 2014, more than double the number of Jews left Russia than in any of the previous 16 years.

One of Putin’s strengths in overcoming Jewish financial power at the highest level, which he has unquestionably done, might have its basis in the fact he is not an anti-Semite in the classical understanding. He may well not think in racial terms, but, as a former member of the secret service, he is finely tuned to cliques, intrigue, subversion, and the subtleties of identity — the standard hallmarks of Jewish activism in European cultures. He appears fully capable of eliminating such strategies when he confronts them on an individual basis and with autocratic power. He can depose a Berezovsky, for example, not on the grounds of Jewishness, but, nonetheless, on certain behaviors and associations that are an outgrowth of Jewishness. They say a broken clock will still be right twice a day, and in the same way if one sets out to eliminate opposing, group-based strategies, even in a “race blind” manner, then confrontations with Jews become inevitable. In this way, Putin is a kind of accidental, or rather incidental, anti-Semite who has dominated or eliminated Jewish financiers in his country in a way probably not seen since the days of the Court Jews and the rise of parliamentary democracy.

Jews as Warmongers and Pacifists

There is an irony in the latest predicament of Russia’s Jewish financiers given that war, historically, has been very good for Jews. For this reason, it is worth looking for some historical precedent and parallels. Derek Penslar, in his Princeton-published Jews and the Military (2013), points out that Jews might be notorious for shirking actual military service, but have been prolific in profiting from conflicts all over the world:

Jews were prominently involved in an international banking system that derived considerable profit from lending funds directly to governments or packaging and selling government debt. Much of this activity took place during or in the wake of wars. During the American Civil War, the Union government’s debt skyrocketed from $65 million to $3 billion, some 30 percent of the Union’s gross domestic product. Much of that debt was marketed in the form of government bonds in small denominations and bought by ordinary citizens. The Rothschilds had pioneered this practice in France during the 1830s, and the banker Joseph Seligman picked it up in the United States during the Civil War. After the war, the Seligmans, along with the bankers Mayer Lehman and Jacob Schiff, energetically marketed U.S. bonds as well as those of cash-strapped southern-state governments.[1]

It was Schiff who provided some $200 million in loans to Japan to fuel its expansionist aims in the Far East against a Czarist Russia that was much hated by Jews, and it was the Seligmans who “encouraged the United States’ intervention in Colombia in 1903 to carve out a quasi-independent Panama, where the Seligmans had invested in land along the prospective route of the canal.”[2] One of the most obvious and notorious examples of a war for Jewish interests is of course the Boer War, 1899–1902. South Africa had been regarded as a rural backwater by the Jews until a diamond strike in 1884 and the discovery of gold in the Witwatersrand in 1887. Following these events there was a substantial influx of Jewish traders, who quickly became a clique of millionaires. Claire Hirschfeld, writing in the Journal of Contemporary History, describes how Jews “were able in a relatively short period of time to create powerful financial syndicates and extended empires within a Boer republic of farmers still clinging to a pastoral life-style.”[3] Financial power soon evolved into a desire to achieve political domination, which required the toppling of the Boers. This would require the use of the British army, and Hirschfeld points out that much of the fever for war was whipped up by a British press dominated by Jews: Oppenheim’s Daily News, Marks’ Evening News, Steinkopf’s St. James Gazette, and Levi-Lawson’s Daily Telegraph. One of the foremost opponents of the war was the English Marxist Henry M. Hyndman, who accused “Semitic lords of the press” of hounding the government into a “criminal war of aggression” in South Africa. He was joined by the editor of Reynolds’ Newspaper, W. H. Thompson, who wrote at the beginning of the war:

At the bottom of the war are the Jewish syndicates and millionaires … counting the chickens shortly to be hatched. … The Stock Exchange pulls the strings and the government dances. But behind the Stock Exchange is the sinister figure of the financial Jew who is gradually enmeshing the world in the toils of the money-web which day and night the great racial freemasonry is spinning in every corner of the globe.

Penslar agrees that Jews worked together to profit from war, writing that “it is a fact, not an antisemitic fantasy, that Jews played vital roles in coordinating the allocation of raw materials during the First World War, not only in Germany but also in the United States.”[4] This involved overlapping cliques of Jews profiting from every aspect of war production.

Conversely, Jews can flip the pacifist switch when it is judged that war can harm their interests. Penslar points out that the Rothschilds worried in 1914 that “a war could divide the great banking dynasty,” while Max Warburg began hastily dumping his shares in companies trading on the Vienna exchange. Baron Rothschild pleaded with The Times to tone down its anti-German rhetoric, only for the editor to publicly retort at this “dirty German-Jewish financial attempt to bully us into advocating neutrality.” The German-Jewish shipping magnate Albert Ballin looked on despondently when his merchant fleet sank to the bottom of the Atlantic.

Conclusion

The present war in Ukraine carries more echoes of Ballin than of the war against the Boers. Faced with the Russian invasion and the perennial question “is it good for the Jews?” the scattered Jewish oligarchs of Russia would probably answer a resounding “No.” The most important reason would, of course, be the decline in their individual and collective wealth. Billions have been wiped from their accounts, their businesses have been hobbled, their movement and ability to do business is restricted, and their access to cash is limited. The nature of international finance — politically, philosophically, and technologically — has evolved to such an extent that Jewish profiteering in the old style is more difficult than ever. In addition, it’s also made the individual targeting of financiers in the context of conflict and war not only feasible, but easy and immediate.

The oligarchs find themselves between a rock and hard place, viewed with hostility and suspicion by the West, despite years of Holocaust promotion and Jewish philanthropy (as if this actually contributes anything to the West), and increasingly distant from, and fearful of, the Kremlin. The natural settling place for most of them is Israel, which itself tries to cultivate a relationship with both East and West, dropping one and fawning at the other according to the winds of its needs. Even Israelis, however, are viewing the oligarchs as “toxic,” and have been warned by the US government about taking in “dirty money.”

Forbes has discussed speculation from some experts that Putin is secretly happy about the twilight of the oligarchs. Sanctions may force them into asset sales that ultimately benefit his security agencies. Or they may return to Russia and be forced not only to invest in the Russian economy rather than spread their wealth globally (like property empires in London, opulent yachts etc.), but also to adopt an even more servile position under Putin. Diminished oligarchs will lead to a vast diminishment in the coffers of international Jewish organizations. A key financial well will have dried up. Putin’s war may well have breathed some truth into an edited version of Moshe Kantor’s dictum: Restrictions on Jewish financiers are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.

Are Russia and China in on the Great Reset? My Response to James Corbett

by  via The Duran


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

Yesterday, I was invited by my friend Hrvoje Morik onto his new show on TNT Radio to discuss a short response to a new viral video that has been produced by James Corbett earlier this week.

Corbett’s video advances the thesis that Russia and China are both controlled opposition to the western unipolar Great Reset Agenda and are actually in cahoots as part of a grand game to enslave the world. The principal device used by Corbett in this video are two February 4th Joint Statements (one on US-Canadian Relations and another on Sino-Russian Relations) which use identical language. Although Corbett may have used this device as a piece of sarcasm to push the thesis of Russia-China complicity in the Great Reset, the fact is that based upon countless comments from viewers who have watched his video on many online platforms, including dozens of subscribers who wrote into me after having watched Corbett, these documents were both treated as factual.

Just to be clear with the many people who were confused about this: the Canadian-US Joint Declaration does not exist.

Despite this, I share interview because the willingness to believe that every nation is controlled by a sociopathic oligarchy out to kill us is tied to a deep cultural sickness of nihilism, pessimism and the belief that humanity is intrinsically corrupt and doomed. That level of cynicism is attractive partially because it alleviates each of us from having to take responsibility for righting injustices or risking our personal security in order to intervene upon an evil self-destructive system (for how could we make something Good which is evil by its very nature?)

This cynical way of thinking also appeals to our own tendency to wish to remain voyeurs watching and commenting upon reality as if each of us were not also integrated into the system which we were voyeuristically trying to watch as if it were reality TV.

My preliminary written remarks (which I feature here below) were shared by our mutual friend Joaquin Flores on his excellent Telegram Channel (T.me/NewResistance), and the discussion with Hrvoje are also featured below.

Listen on Soundcloud

Or watch on Bitchute here

Preliminary Thoughts Upon Watching Corbett’s new Viral Video ‘Shocking Document Reveals Trudeau (Putin and Xi’s) Real Plan’

My preliminary reaction after watching this argument is a bewilderment that Corbett is completely incapable of ever looking at what Russia or China are actually doing in terms of actions which undermine the depopulation agenda. There are currently the largest development projects now underway pulling over 1 billion out of poverty led by China’s Belt and Road Initiative which is in total opposition to the depopulation program yet it’s like none of that exists.

Another paradox that Corbett seems to be happy ignoring: if all sides are all controlled and have been so long, then why didn’t the oligarchy get their technocratic feudalism a LONG time ago. I mean George Soros had his own agent (Zhao Ziyang) in thee highest position of power in China ready to privatize everything under the fourth industrial revolution (in 1983!!) So why was that agent arrested with his allies (a few who evaded arrest by sneaking off to the USA and Canada) and Soros given a lifetime ban from China?

All of Russia was brought under total control during the privatization 1990s of Yeltsin with NATO and Soros taking control of the entire post Soviet space. Today Soros is banned and many of the leading Russian oligarchs created during that time are in sanctuary in London and Florida. Why? Why didn’t that level of influence continue? Why did oligarchs get sent to prison and see their privatized state assets re-nationalized? Why did Russia not let the Syrians get the Iraq treatment or let Venezuela get a regime change in favor of WEF agent Juan Guaido? Why not let Kazakhstan get a Soros regime change treatment a couple of months ago? Why promote National banking when the oligarchy wants all central banks private?

Yes AI and digital currency will be used by Eurasia, but what is their function?

How is the system functioning differently in which such things would be used? Are digital currencies or AI intrinsically evils or is there a principle of function, design and intent that determines whether tools will be used to enslave or support human life?

I get really annoyed with pattern-formation thinking advocated by alt media black pilled libertarian commentators who appear to have giddy-fetishes for dissecting evil to such an extreme degree that when evidence of the Good is right in front of their face, their polarized intellectual lenses cannot see it.

Im going to write something on this with the title “so you’re too smart to hope” or “an ode to the black pilled”

Supplementary Reading Material for those Hungry for More Context:

The Collision of Two Opposing Green Destinies

The Multipolar Alliance as the Last Line of Defense of the UN Charter

How China’s Gorbachev Was Flushed in 1989

Who is Creating a New Chinese Boogey Man? (An Examination of Modern Psychological Warfare)

Beijing, Five Eyes or Something Else: Who’s to Blame for the Covid Pandemic

Today’s Emergencies Act, and Anti-Russian False Flags Echo the Gouzenko Hoax That Unleashed the Cold War

Do Xi Jinping’s Davos Remarks Prove He is a Globalist Shill? “By their fruits ye shall know them”

Debunking Anti-Chinese Psy Ops Part 1: Social Credit as Distasteful Necessity in an Age of Asymmetric Warfare

Debunking Anti-Chinese Psy Ops Part 2: Opium, Synthetic Cults and the Haunting of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom

Debunking Anti-Chinese Psy Ops Part 3: Jesuits, Tavistock and the Battle for the Soul of China

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation .

The Bolshevik Revolution and the Ukraine Crisis: What Can They Possibly Have in Common?

by

Dr. Karin Kneissl is Austria’s former minister of foreign affairs. In June 2020, Dr. Kneissl published her book titled ‘Diplomacy Makes History – The Art of Dialogue in Uncertain Times’ (Olms Verlag, Hildesheim). The central point of the book is “Diplomacy means commitment to dialogue – no matter the circumstances.”

Almost 40 years ago, I learnt in history class that the German general staff had organised a secret operation during World War I to bring Russian communist Vladimir Lenin from his exile in Geneva to Petrograd (now known as St. Petersburg) in a sealed train in April 1917. This chapter of the war fascinated me. Since then, I have been under the impression that it was a spontaneous operation to pacify the so-called Eastern Front. The real consequences, of course, were the October Revolution and the collapse of Russia.

The warlike chessboard of Helphand, aka Parvus

It wasn’t until I read a book written in 2000 by Austrian historian Elisabeth Heresch titled ‘Geheimakte Parvus – Die Gekaufte Revolution’ (‘Secret Files: Parvus – The Bought Revolution’), that I realized preparations for a power change in Russia had been long in the making. It was almost a fixed agenda of the foreign ministries in Vienna and Berlin. In their traditional rivalry with the Russian tsars, the Habsburgs were primarily concerned with their power in the Balkans.

The key lobbyist for this foreign interference in Russia was a Minsk-born man, Israel Lazarevich Helphand, who later went by the name of Alexander Parvus. As a publicist and, above all, as a financier of various revolutionary circles in Europe and in the Ottoman Empire, he pulled many strings from the 1890s onwards. On his chessboard, he moved figures such as Lenin and Trotsky but also the revolutionary Young Turks.

Using thoroughly researched documents, Heresch describes the intrigues of European diplomacy at the beginning of the 20th century, which aimed to stop Russia through anarchy and bring down the country and its people. So, it was not an ad hoc decision to ship the sidelined extreme Bolshevik Lenin to Russia, where the pragmatic Mensheviks had gained the upper hand. Rather, it was the last stone to be added to a pile of stones that had been building up for a long time. It would first affect Europe and later bury Russia.

Germany’s General Erich Ludendorff wrote in 1917: “Lenin’s entry into Russia was successful. It is working just as we wanted.” Parvus was always involved in this operation. Not only did he pull the strings and place his pieces on the political chessboard, he also made millions doing it. However, his plan to become a minister in Lenin’s revolutionary cabinet did not work out as intended.

Interference then and now

“Only internal unrest will shake the Russian colossus,” wrote the Viennese diplomat Alexander Hoyos in September 1914. A few weeks earlier, the old Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria had sent Serbia a declaration of war. The text was based on false reports and the world staggered into the Great War. All attempts by Russian Emperor Nicholas II, in particular with telegrams to the German Emperor Wilhelm II, his cousin, to persuade him to find a diplomatic solution failed. Nicholas suggested in vain that the facts surrounding the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in June 1914 should be clarified by means of a precise legal investigation. Incidentally, the two cousins, Niki and Willi, often corresponded in English.

Austrian diplomacy also proved to be particularly active in its commitment to promoting revolutionary movements in Russia, as well as the formation of a Ukrainian state. In her book, Heresch cites reports such as the following: “Simultaneously, with the beginning of Austria-Hungary’s war with Russia, the Austrian government took measures to spark revolutionary unrest in Russia. To this end, Austrian politicians offered some political émigrés staying in Austria the opportunity to leave for Russia – after providing them with false passports – and carry out revolutionary propaganda there. They were also offered sums of money.”

At the same time, an effort by Vienna and Lausanne was underway to promote the separation of Ukraine via publications such as the German-language daily Der Bund. It was supposedly about “freeing the Ukrainian people from the Russian yoke once and for all”.

Heresch goes on to say that these “proclamations were received extremely negatively by Russian socialists, largely thanks to the fact that the venality of their authors was so clearly expressed”.

Some parallels may come to mind in view of the current situation regarding Ukraine, in which it is almost impossible to distinguish between right and wrong. The media machine started up in October with a Washington Post report on Russian troop movements on Russian soil, which apparently agitated Ukraine less than it did NATO.

Nuland’s Ukraine Biolab Bombshell

Authored by Glenn Greenwald via greenwald.substack.com,

Self-anointed “fact-checkers” in the U.S. corporate press have spent two weeks mocking as disinformation and a false conspiracy theory the claim that Ukraine has biological weapons labs, either alone or with U.S. support. They never presented any evidence for their ruling — how could they possibly know? and how could they prove the negative? — but nonetheless they invoked their characteristically authoritative, above-it-all tone of self-assurance and self-arrogated right to decree the truth and label such claims false.

WASHINGTON, DC – MARCH 08: Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland testifies before a Senate Foreign Relation Committee hearing on Ukraine on March 08, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Claims that Ukraine currently maintains dangerous biological weapons labs came from Russia as well as China. The Chinese Foreign Ministry this month claimed: “The US has 336 labs in 30 countries under its control, including 26 in Ukraine alone.” The Russian Foreign Ministry asserted that “Russia obtained documents proving that Ukrainian biological laboratories located near Russian borders worked on development of components of biological weapons.” Such assertions deserve the same level of skepticism as U.S. denials: namely, none of it should be believed to be true or false absent evidence. Yet U.S. fact-checkers dutifully and reflexively sided with the U.S. Government to declare such claims “disinformation” and to mock them as QAnon conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately for this propaganda racket masquerading as neutral and high-minded fact-checking, the neocon official long in charge of U.S. policy in Ukraine testified on Monday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and strongly suggested that such claims are, at least in part, true. Yesterday afternoon, Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), hoping to debunk growing claims that there are chemical weapons labs in Ukraine, smugly asked Nuland: “Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?”

Rubio undoubtedly expected a flat denial by Nuland, thus providing further “proof” that such speculation is dastardly Fake News emanating from the Kremlin, the CCP and QAnon. Instead, Nuland did something completely uncharacteristic for her, for neocons, and for senior U.S. foreign policy officials: for some reason, she told a version of the truth. Her answer visibly stunned Rubio, who — as soon as he realized the damage she was doing to the U.S. messaging campaign by telling the truth — interrupted her and demanded that she instead affirm that if a biological attack were to occur, everyone should be “100% sure” that it was Russia who did it. Grateful for the life raft, Nuland told Rubio he was right.

But Rubio’s clean-up act came too late. When asked whether Ukraine possesses “chemical or biological weapons,” Nuland did not deny this: at all. She instead — with palpable pen-twirling discomfort and in halting speech, a glaring contrast to her normally cocky style of speaking in obfuscatory State Department officialese — acknowledged: “uh, Ukraine has, uh, biological research facilities.” Any hope to depict such “facilities” as benign or banal was immediately destroyed by the warning she quickly added: “we are now in fact quite concerned that Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to, uh, gain control of [those labs], so we are working with the Ukrainiahhhns [sic] on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach” — [interruption by Sen. Rubio]:

Nuland’s bizarre admission that “Ukraine has biological research facilities” that are dangerous enough to warrant concern that they could fall into Russian hands ironically constituted more decisive evidence of the existence of such programs in Ukraine than what was offered in that same Senate in 2002 and 2003 to corroborate U.S. allegations about Saddam’s chemical and biological programs in Iraq. An actual against-interest confession from a top U.S. official under oath is clearly more significant than Colin Powell’s holding up some test tube with an unknown substance inside while he points to grainy satellite images that nobody can decipher.

[ . . . ]

At the very least, Nuland’s surprising revelation reveals, yet again, just how heavily involved the U.S. Government is and for years has been in Ukraine, on the part of Russia’s border which U.S. officials and scholars from across the spectrum have spent decades warning is the most sensitive and vulnerable to Moscow. It was Nuland herself, while working for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry’s State Department under President Obama, who was heavily involved in what some call the 2014 revolution and others call the “coup” that resulted in a change of government in Ukraine from a Moscow-friendly regime to one far more favorable to the EU and the West. All of this took place as the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid $50,000 per month not to the son of a Ukrainian official but to Joe Biden’s son, Hunter: a reflection of who wielded real power inside Ukraine.

Nuland not only worked for both the Obama and Biden State Departments to run Ukraine policy (and, in many ways, Ukraine itself), but she also was Vice President Dick Cheney’s deputy national security adviser and then President Bush’s Ambassador to NATO. She comes from one of America’s most prestigious neocon royal families; her husband, Robert Kagan, was a co-founder of the notorious neocon war-mongering group Project for the New American Century, which advocated regime change in Iraq long before 9/11. It was Kagan, along with liberal icon Bill Kristol, who (along with current editor-in-chief of The Atlantic Jeffrey Goldberg), was most responsible for the lie that Saddam was working hand-in-hand with Al Qaeda, a lie that played a key role in convincing Americans to believethat Saddam was personally involved in the planning of 9/11.

That a neocon like Nuland is admired and empowered regardless of the outcome of elections illustrates how unified and in lockstep the establishment wings of both parties are when it comes to questions of war, militarism and foreign policy. Indeed, Nuland’s husband, Robert Kagan, was signaling that neocons would likely support Hillary Clinton for president — doing so in 2014, long before anyone imagined Trump as her opponent — based on the recognition that the Democratic Party was now more hospitable to neocon ideology than the GOP, where Ron Paul and then Trump’s neo-isolationism was growing.

You can vote against neocons all you want, but they never go away. The fact that a member of one of the most powerful neocon families in the U.S. has been running Ukraine policy for the U.S. for years — having gone from Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton and Obama and now to Biden — underscores how little dissent there is in Washington on such questions. It is Nuland’s extensive experience in wielding power in Washington that makes her confession yesterday so startling: it is the sort of thing people like her lie about and conceal, not admit. But now that she did admit it, it is crucial that this revelation not be buried and forgotten.