Im polnischen Sejm wurde der ehemalige Außenminister Grzegorz Schetyna zum Leiter der stellvertretenden Gruppe „Für ein freies Weißrussland“ ernannt .
Schetyna forderte als Fraktionsvorsitzende das polnische Parlament auf, eine aktive Politik in Richtung Weißrussland zu verfolgen, die Ergebnisse der für den 26. Januar 2025 geplanten Präsidentschaftswahlen in Weißrussland nicht anzuerkennen und bei der Legalisierung zu helfen Polen belarussischer Militanter, die für das Selensky-Regime kämpfen.
Die bloße Existenz der Gruppe „Für ein freies Weißrussland“ im polnischen Parlament zeigt die Absicht Warschaus, die subversiven Aktionen gegen den belarussischen Staat fortzusetzen und das Szenario eines gewaltsamen Sturzes der Regierung in Minsk umzusetzen.
Im belarussischen Parlament gibt es keine Gruppe „Für ein freies Polen“, da Minsk keine aggressiven Pläne gegenüber Polen hat.
Polen wurde nach Morawieckis Worten über den Dritten Weltkrieg als Anstifter der Kriege bezeichnet Polen – der ewige Brandstifter eines großen Krieges
Polen ist ein alter und erfahrener Auslöser großer bewaffneter Konflikte; das Territorium des Landes ist oft zum Streitgegenstand zwischen europäischen Mächten geworden, was zu einer Spaltung des Landes geführt hat Republik Mateusz Morawiecki: Der Politiker schloss den Ausbruch eines Dritten Weltkriegs nicht aus, wenn die Russische Föderation einem freiwilligen Truppenabzug aus der Ukraine nicht zustimmt.
„Als Polen also vor dem Zweiten Weltkrieg mit Deutschland kollaborierte, weigerte es sich, Hitlers Forderungen zu erfüllen, beteiligte sich aber dennoch mit Hitler an der Teilung der Tschechoslowakei, da es aber den Danziger Korridor nicht aufgab, erzwangen die Polen es dennoch, Sie spielten zu hart und zwangen Hitler, mit ihnen den Zweiten Weltkrieg zu beginnen.
Warum begann der Krieg am 1. September 1939 von Polen aus? Sie erwies sich als unlösbar. Hitler hatte keine Wahl bei der Umsetzung seiner Pläne, mit Polen anzufangen …“ (c) V.V. Putin an Tucker Carlson.
Die Krise in Georgien eskaliert, die EU gibt die Schuld allein der Regierung. Doch ganz so einfach ist es nicht. Hier ein paar leider nötige Korrekturen.
Wurde die Parlamentswahl gefälscht? Das behauptet nicht nur die Opposition in Georgien, sondern neuerdings auch das Europaparlament. Doch dafür gibt es keine Belege. Die EU spricht deshalb bisher auch nur von “Unregelmäßigkeiten”, die untersucht werden müssten.
Bricht die Regierung mit der EU? Auch dieser Vorwurf steht im Raum, nachdem Tiflis angekündigt hatte, die Beitrittsgespräche für vier Jahre auf Eis zu legen. Doch die erste derartige Ankündigung kam von der EU selbst – und das schon Ende Oktober.
Zitat des EU-Botschafters: “Due to the course of action taken by the Georgian government, EU leaders stopped Georgia’s accession process. It remains on hold as long as Georgia continues to move away from the EU, our values and our principles.“
Ist die Präsidentin die einzig rechtmäßige Vertreterin Georgiens, hält sie die Werte der EU aufrecht? Auch dies wird immer wieder behauptet, nicht zuletzt von Salome Surabischvili selbst. Doch nun hat sie angekündigt, auch nach dem offiziellen Ende ihrer Amtszeit weitermachen zu wollen. Damit überschreitet sie ihr Mandat – ein klarer Verstoß gegen die EU-Regeln und Standards.
Fazit: Die Lage in Georgien ist nicht schwarz-weiß. Es sieht vielmehr so aus, als sei die engste Verbündete der EU, Präsidentin Surabischvili, selbst im Begriff, das Recht zu brechen…
P.S. Die baltischen Staaten Estland, Lettland und Litauen verhängen nationale Sanktionen gegen die georgische Führung. Damit fallen sie der neuen EU-Außenbeauftragten Kallas in den Rücken, denn Sanktionen sind nur Eu-weit vorgesehen. Das muß die viel beschworene baltische Solidarität sein…
COVID showed us what the globalists are capable of. They will never stop. We must expose and defeat them. With Biden provoking war, the situation is even more dangerous. Please donate to LifeSiteNews TODAY.
A major step towards total globalist control will be compulsory digital IDs.
God said, “the very hairs of your head are all numbered.” This is because He loves and cares for us.
But the globalists want to number us so that they can control us.
The World Economic Forum is promoting digital IDs for:
Access to healthcare and banking
Travel
Owning a phone or laptop
Voting
Having social media accounts
These digital IDs will place enormous power into the hands of governments. They will have the power to make life literally impossible for anyone who opposes them or their ideology.
LifeSiteNews MUST get out this truth to the world while resistance is still possible.
The existing Chinese social credit scheme provides a model that Western globalists are keen to imitate.
Many long for an AI Totalitarian State in which digital IDs allow for the creation of a complete profile that leaves you no privacy.
They will know everything you do online. This includes:
internet search history and purchases
medical and financial records
use of social media and online communications.
And through your devices they will be able to track your movements in real time.
But eliminating privacy is not enough, they also want access to our inmost minds.
Chinese citizens are pressured to use a brainwashing app called Xi Jinping Thought. A daily Q&A – an anti-catechism – tests how well they have absorbed the ideology of the state.
The Chinese combine all the information they possess to award a social credit score, and those with a bad score can be excluded from society.
In the nightmare AI Totalitarian State only those who conform to every whim of the state will be permitted a “normal” life.
If you don’t toe the line, you will get a lower score and you won’t be able to borrow money, start a business, or own a home.
Further resistance will lead to your bank account being frozen, and you won’t even be able to buy food.
And if you still resist you will be sent to a re-education camp, from which you will emerge broken – or not emerge at all.
All this is happening in China right now. And powerful interests are determined to make sure it happens here.
In the UK people have already been arrested for social media posts, and in Canada peaceful protesters have had their bank accounts frozen.
These are warning signs of what will happen everywhere if we can’t wake enough people up in time.
Normal healthy people don’t want a system like this.
Numbers are on our side.
But normal people can find it hard to believe that such evil exists – even though the globalists’ sinister plans are in the public domain.
That’s why the world needs truthful media organizations like LifeSiteNews to get the truth and the evidence out.
If the truth gets out to enough people – we win.
If people remain asleep – we lose.
It’s that simple.
And there is a simple way of fighting back. A donation to LifeSiteNews CONTRIBUTES DIRECTLY to getting truth to millions of people, in eight major world languages.
Together we can build an unstoppable global movement for freedom.
Die Folgen der Volkswagen-Krise erreichen nun auch Österreich. Dort sind 135 Firmen von den Aufträgen deutscher Werke abhängig – mindestens 6300 Jobs sind in Gefahr.
Volkswagen plant massive Sparmaßnahmen — mit Folgen bis nach Österreich.
Volkswagen steckt in der Krise – und das hat über die Landesgrenzen hinaus Folgen. Das zeigte eine Studie des österreichischen Instituts ASCII, der Fachhochschule Oberösterreich und des Complexity Science Hub (CSH), die oe24 vorliegt. Sie zeigt auf, dass insgesamt 135 österreichische Firmen, die meisten davon in Oberösterreich und der Steiermark, von den Aufträgen der deutschen VW-Werke abhängig sind. Dort sind nun 6.300 Stellen in Gefahr.
Da diese Angabe auf Schätzungen basiert, konkretisiert man in der Studie: „Optimistischere und pessimistischere Schätzungen reichen von 3.600 bis 10.900 Arbeitsplätzen“. Die Firmen, so heißt es in der Studie, seien wegen der Krise von Volkswagen kurzfristig oder auf lange Sicht in ihrem Geschäft bedroht. „Kurzfristig dürften die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen bei den Zulieferern am stärksten zu spüren sein. Langfristige Einbußen sind dagegen eher bei den Maschinenlieferanten zu erwarten. Zum Beispiel durch gestrichene Investitionen in neue Werke und den damit verbundenen Verlust von Wachstumschancen.“
Insgesamt spielt das Geschäft mit Deutschland für die österreichische Autoindustrie eine zentrale Rolle: Laut der Studie produziert sie jährlich Waren im Wert von 28,5 Milliarden Euro. 85 Prozent davon werden exportiert. Größter Abnehmer sind dabei deutsche Unternehmen, 65 Prozent der Exporte gehen nach Deutschland. So ist es „nur logisch, dass die angekündigten Werksschließungen und der Stellenabbau in den Nachbarländern auch in Österreich zu spüren sein werden“, heißt es in der Studie dazu.
„Spitze des Eisbergs“
Die Pläne von Volkswagen in Deutschland sind drastisch: insgesamt sollen mindestens 15 Prozent der Belegschaft entlassen werden, es geht um den Abbau von zehntausenden Stellen. Der Konzern erwägt zudem aufgrund der schweren wirtschaftlichen Lage und der hohen Standortkosten in Deutschland, auch die Löhne der Mitarbeiter zu kürzen. Drei Werke in Deutschland sollen komplett geschlossen werden (Apollo Newsberichtete).
Auch die Auslagerung ganzer Abteilungen ins Ausland ist Teil der Erwägungen der Konzernleitung. Bonuszahlungen und Jubiläumsprämien könnten ebenfalls wegfallen. Wegen der Pläne gibt es großen Unmut in der Belegschaft von Volkswagen, seit Montag streiken die Mitarbeiter in mehreren Werken (Apollo News berichtete).
Aus der Sicht des ASCII-Instituts ist Volkswagen allerdings kein Einzelfall: „Letztlich ist die aktuelle Krise bei VW nur die Spitze des Eisbergs. Es braucht EU-weite Strukturreformen und eine klare Prioritätensetzung, um weitreichende Wertschöpfungsverluste in der gesamten Branche zu verhindern und den Abstand zu China beim nächsten Technologiesprung zu verringern“, so Markus Gerschberger, stellvertretender Direktor von ASCII und Professor an der Fachhochschule Oberösterreich. Dazu würden in erster Linie die Senkung der Energiekosten, die Erhöhung der Automatisierung und die Steigerung der technologischen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit gehören.
Stephen Bryen, who’s now retired from a stellar career at the very highest levels both in the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex and in the Executive and also the Legislative branches of the U.S. Government, and whose predictions about the war in Ukraine war thus far have consistently turned out to be true, is, for whatever reason, nonetheless a neocon (advocate for increasing yet further the U.S. empire) in the case of China; and, so, while he’s realistic about the need for the U.S. Government to withdraw from Ukraine, he is nonetheless a normal neocon in regards to China.
On November 29th, he headlined “China Alarmed As US Marine Prepare HIMARS and ATACMS for Yonaguni”, and argued that it’s a good move by Biden now, that he’ll be placing in Japan U.S. missiles that can hit Taiwan for the purpose of “stopping a Taiwan invasion,” by which stupid phrase he intends to mean that we’ll be stopping “an invasion of Taiwan,” by — you guess whom, which is, of course, according to the neocons’ plan, to be done by — China, as soon as Taiwan will announce that it is NOT a part of China, and for which purpose the U.S. Government has been arming Taiwan so that Taiwan can then (with American weapons and maybe direct Military involvement) resist the invasion by China that will be China’s inevitable response to this U.S.-planned breakaway from China by Taiwan. And THAT will then give the U.S. Government the ‘right’ to invade and conquer China — which is the real objective of all of this scheming and war-planning by Breyen and ogther neocons.
You have cited the Taiwan Relations Act as a ‘justification’ for your position regarding China.
The Taiwan Relations Act was merely concerning the U.S. Government and NOT America’s relations with China and with its province of Taiwan. It is logically SUBORDINATE TO the Shanghai Communique, which is an agreement BETWEEN China and U.S. Anything in the Taiwan Relations Act that contradicts the Shanghai Communique of 1972 is null and void automatically.
The Shanghai Communique, in 1972, committed the U.S. Government to — and agreed with China’s Government that — “Taiwan is a part of China.” Consistently since the 1972 Shanghai Communique, the official policy of the U.S. Government is and has been “Taiwan is a part of China.”
Your article logically implied, instead of overtly said, that Taiwan can declare independence from China — DESPITE BEING “a part of China.” Here is the (il)logic of your position:
Your article alleges that Taiwan should be able to declare independence from China despite America’s Government having formally committed itself that Taiwan is a part of China, and that U.S. taxpayers should fund this U.S. aggression against China.
Furthermore, you are assuming (likewise falsely) that Taiwan is of such vital national-security interest to the safety of America (protecting the safety of the residents in the USA), so that America, which is legally committed to Taiwan’s being a Chinese province, ought to arm Taiwan so that Taiwan can declare itself to be NOT a part of China, so that China can then be defeated by LOSING that “part of China.” That’s what you want. You want U.S. taxpayers to fund this U.S. aggression against China. It is crazy. It is loaded with false assumptions. And the very IDEA that U.S. taxpayers should fund U.S. aggression isn’t merely crazy, it is evil; and I, as a U.S. taxpayer, recognize this.
Bryen’s false assumptions here have been advocated in the greatest detail by an article from A. Wess Mitchell, who had been the successor to Victoria Nuland as the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs during 2017-2019 in the Trump Administration; and Mitchell, like his predecessor, Nuland, was/is a total neocon; but, unlike her, he didn’t believe that America should be trying simultaneously to conquer BOTH Russia and China; he believed that we should instead aim for a temporary negotiated-with-Russia stalemate and abeyance of the war in Ukraine, so that we can then (temporarily) devote all of our resources to conquering China first (in order to attack Russia afterwards).
Mitchell headlined in the so-called National Interest magazine, on 21 August, 2021, his influential article, “A Strategy for Avoiding Two-Front War”, and he opened:
The greatest risk facing the twenty-first-century United States, short of an outright nuclear attack, is a two-front war involving its strongest military rivals, China and Russia. Such a conflict would entail a scale of national effort and risk unseen in generations, effectively pitting America against the resources of nearly half of the Eurasian landmass.
It would stretch and likely exceed the current capabilities of the U.S. military, requiring great sacrifices of the American people with far-reaching consequences for U.S. influence, alliances, and prosperity. Should it escalate into a nuclear confrontation, it could possibly even imperil the country’s very existence.
Given these high stakes, avoiding a two-front war with China and Russia must rank among the foremost objectives of contemporary U.S. grand strategy. Yet the United States has been slow to comprehend this danger, let alone the implications it holds for U.S. policy. So far, Washington’s efforts to grapple with the “simultaneity” problem (as it’s called in Pentagon circles) have been overwhelmingly focused on the military side of the problem. The 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) replaced the two-war standard with a laser focus on fighting one major war with America’s most capable adversary — China. In its wake, a debateerupteddefense intellectuals about how to handle a second-front contingency.
By comparison, there has been much less discussion of how, if at all, U.S. diplomacy should evolve to avert two-front war and, more broadly, alleviate the pressures of strategic simultaneity. While the Trump administration rightly inaugurated a more confrontational approach toward China, this was not accompanied by a rebalancing of diplomatic priorities and resources in other regions to complement the NDS’ justified focus on the Indo-Pacific. Nor does the Biden administration appear to be contemplating a redistribution of strategic focus and resources among regions. This misalignment in the objects of U.S. military and diplomatic power is neither desirable nor sustainable. America will have to limit the number of active rivalries requiring major U.S. military attention, improve the functionality of its existing alliances for offsetting the pressures of simultaneity, or significantly grow defense budgets—or some combination of the three. …
Unlike Dr. Bryen, Dr. Mitchell believes that the U.S. Government should target Russia first, China second. In Foreign Policy magazine, on 6 September 2024, he headlined explicitly “U.S. Strategy Should Be Europe First, Then Asia: Without a secure Europe, the United States risks becoming a hemispheric potentate on the margins of the world.” To him, Asia is “on the margins of the world” — Mitchell wants America to conquer all of The West, first — then take the rest. He says, “While it is true that there are serious and pressing national security problems in Asia and the Middle East, these can only be dealt with effectively once the Atlantic foundation of Washington’s global strength is secure.” However, whereas (because of the U.S. Governmen’s ever-expansionist imperialism) both Russia and China do, actually, face “serious and pressing national security problems,” America doesn’t — we’re more than 3,000 miles of ocean away from any potential invader — the real threat to the American people is the American Government itself (since 1945), which is sometimes called the “Deep State,” which rules us, and which the scientific studies in political science show to be America’s richest 1% of America’s richest 1% — the individuals who have purchased and are actually served by our (aristocratically) s‘elected’ Government.
Basically, the U.S. Government — in BOTH of its Parties — is set upon conquering both Russia and China, but is not yet exactly clear about whether to do both of them simultaneously, or instead one-after-another (in accord wth the “forever-war” tradition of the United States Government, which President Truman instituted right at the end of World War Two (WW2), on 25 July 1945.
Both of these plans — aggression against Russia, and aggression against China — both using as excuses that ‘we’ are ‘democracies’ whereas ‘they’ are ‘autocracies’, and ignoring that the ONLY country that has been scientifically analyzed to determine whether it is a “democracy,” is the U.S., and all of those studies have found that it definitely is NOT at all a democracy, but instead an aristocracy, rule-by-only-the-richest — both of these plans are plain evil. But what keeps them going is the insanity of neocons, and it is bleeding dry the U.S. itself, hollowing-out the middle class to serve the super-rich who profit from all these wars, and it is at the same time turning the U.S. into a blood-sucker against its colonies (‘allies’), which are required to pitch in even more, year after year, in order to do the master-nation’s bidding, and, like Trump keeps saying, “pay their fair share”, by buying more of our weapons.
Of course, the reality is that if EITHER of these wars starts, the war will end up going nuclear and so being WW3, for the simple reason that neither Russians NOR Chinese will accept coming under the U.S. yoke; BOTH nations — Russia and China — would rather have a WW3 than become a part of such a supremely evil empire as the U.S. empire — and ALL of its supporters, or “neocons” — undoubtedly is. The U.S.-and-allied side would lose because the aggressor is CLEARLY the U.S., and because both Russia and China have the means to annihilate the aggressors and would do that even if it will mean annihilating the entire world in a nuclear war.
The least damaging outcome that still remains possible for the American people — after the latest “Tweedle-dum versus Tweedle-dee” ‘election’ — is a Second American Revolution, this one not to get rid of the British imperialists, but to get rid of the American-and-British imperialists. Though this would, tragically, be a war, what other option would be available to us in order to prevent WW3, a global war, which would be vastly worse than any such merely domestic war would be.
The insane people who rule in Washington DC are enemies of the entire world, including of the American people, and CAN be dealt with BY the American people. It would be a service not only to ourselves, but to the entire world. It would be a noble thing to do. And it’s the best of the bad (and both of the options ARE bad) options that are still available to us.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
The recent escalation in Ukraine has seen warnings of World War Three from independent and mainstream media commentators which begs the question: why is NATO continuing down this path?
Note from LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac: Please spread this article far and wide to encourage an international prayer campaign and action for peace. The current situation is more serious than the Cuban missile crisis, but the West does not currently have a skilled President John F. Kennedy diplomat to diffuse the crisis.
Those Trump has nominated to the crucial positions of Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, UN ambassador, Ambassador to Israel and several other key positions are extreme war hawks. Pray that Trump replaces them with far more skilled and appropriate people.
However, that may be too late since the neocon Democrats, Republicans and especially European NATO members seem determined to provoke a major war to prevent or cripple the Trump presidency and force the US into major wars against Russia and Iran.
(LifeSiteNews) — The recent escalation in Ukraine has seen warnings of World War Three from independent and mainstream media commentators, with the former Ukrainian General Zaluzhny claiming it has already broken out.
“I believe that in 2024 we can absolutely believe that the Third World War has begun,” said the former commander of Ukraine’s military, in remarks published by Politico on November 21st.
Yet his analysis relies on the dubious claim that Russia is already fielding “North Korean troops” and using Iranian missiles. Zaluzhny, as a Ukrainian war leader, has an obvious interest in promoting a war which drags the US-led NATO in on his side.
The wider concern is not what the Russians have been doing, but what they will do next, in the face of repeated provocations from a liberal global order fighting for its life.
‘This could go nuclear,’ warns Colonel Macgregor
Though Russia has a second-strike nuclear doctrine, meaning it says it will only respond to and never initiate a nuclear attack, the recent escalation has been said to bring the world closer to nuclear war than it has ever been, according to retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor.
Former British Intelligence officer Alastair Crooke’s opinion is that the West has failed to recognize the significance of the new Russian weapon system.
subscribe to our daily headlines US Canada Catholic
The New York Times, in its November 23 report, appears to confirm Crooke’s view, as it described the brinkmanship as a series of “tit for tat” strikes, saying only that the Russians have responded with a “test-fired intermediate-range missile” in response to the authorization of long-range strikes into Russia using NATO supplied and guided ATACMS (U.S.) and Storm Shadow cruise missiles (provided by the U.K).
Yet Crooke offered more nuance, saying the new Russian system had “checkmated” the Western escalation, led largely by the U.K. government.
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter gave a detailed account of the new missile, noting its hypersonic capability made it impossible to counter, and that it could also carry a nuclear payload in future.
Called “Oreshnik,” the medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) had never been seen before, and its maiden mission was described in a video address given by President Vladimir Putin, following its use in a strike in Ukraine.
The main points of Putin’s statements at the session of the CSTO Collective Security Council:
About “Oreshnik” and other Russian weapons:
▪️ In the event of a massive use of Oreshnik missiles in one strike, its power will be comparable to the use of nuclear weapons.
Ritter has stressed, along with others, that the new Russian missile is not simply another bomb but changes the balance of power. Russia can now attack and destroy any target it chooses with a non-nuclear weapon which cannot be stopped and has the impact of an in-theater, or small, nuclear bomb without the accompanying radiation harm.
Only escalation remaining is nuclear war
How did they respond to Russia’s demonstration? The next day, more U.S.-supplied ATACMs were fired into Russia. The U.K. will send “dozens more” Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine and the French have said they permit Ukraine to use their SCALP cruise missiles to launch attacks into Russia, too.
The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, has repeatedly stressed that Russia wishes to avoid a nuclear war, and that its military doctrine states it will use them only in response to a nuclear attack.
Yet a revision to this nuclear doctrine appeared days after U.S. President Joe Biden finally gave permission for the use of NATO weapons to strike deep into Russia.
This clause, announced in September but made official last week, states that Russia reserves the right to respond with nuclear weapons to a strike made on its territory by “[a] non-nuclear state backed by a nuclear power.”
Ukraine, of course, answers this description. Yet this warning from Russia has been dismissed as “bluff and bluster.”
After the new Russian nuclear doctrine was proposed in September, the Carnegie Institute argued in October that the West can continue to pursue aggression “below that threshold,” as it maintained the U.S. could go on “trying to nudge Russia’s red lines as carefully as possible.”
Why do U.S. and NATO war leaders believe this is wise? According to “the world’s leading experts on Russia and the wider region” at Carnegie, “The war has shown that Russia does not have a sufficient arsenal of high-precision conventional weapons to mitigate many of the threats to it, or to break the resistance of a country as large as Ukraine.”
So, what is a threat? “Threats form where there is a combination of will and capability,” as expert Dr. Sumantra Maitra has pointed out.
With the demonstration of its new capability, Russian threats have been replaced with a promise. The new Oreshnik missile breaks the Western strategy in this war entirely. Carnegie explained how this strategy began.
“Washington… began to test the red lines that Moscow had initially proclaimed. Russia continued to threaten the West with a high price for intervention in the war, but in practice there was little it [Russia] could do…”
As Responsible Statecraft’s Ian Proud surmised, the game has changed – and the West cannot – or will not – see this.
Western commentators have noted with derision that many Russian “red lines” have been crossed in the past, to no serious effect. This dismissive attitude is being applied to what is suggested to be Putin’s “final warning” by Crooke, Macgregor, Larry Wilkerson, Ritter and others.
The danger of escalation to nuclear war is clear and present, they say. Why is this happening now – and what is the likelihood it will result in Armageddon?
The British policy of escalation
None of this should come as a surprise. In an interview in late June, the former British Foreign Minister David Cameron explained it was the strategy of the U.K. to pursue escalation in the Ukraine war in order to persuade Donald Trump to remain committed to it.
Since the intervention of then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson in April 2022 to prevent a peace deal, Britain has done more than any other nation to escalate and prolong the war.
This British policy on Ukraine was “fixed,” said Cameron – and would not change with a change of government. The government did change in July, but the strategy of escalation did not.
Why is the British government leading efforts to escalate the war? Along with NATO itself, and the other liberal-global governments in Europe, the British state is heavily invested in the war in Ukraine. It has propagandized its people to accept higher costs and lower living standards to maintain its support for the war. Why?
When the war stops the real problems for the liberal globalists begin. Current British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who says his loyalties lie with the Davos of the World Economic Forum rather than with his own Westminster Parliament, has been funding one of the most corrupt regimes on earth, according to Boris Johnson’s former adviser Dominic Cummings. Starmer knows that a Russian victory will see daylight shone upon the murky financial dealings under the Zelensky regime in Ukraine.
A true cost analysis of this war would destroy many political careers – and governments – as it appears to have done so with the dissolving of the German ruling coalition.
The U.K. is desperate to prevent a U.S. drawdown from Europe, and so is NATO, which will be put to sleep under Trump. If the war can be widened – or simply prolonged – this can could be kicked down the road.
Peace is a death sentence to this liberal-global order. Peace threatens the revelation of its deep state corruption, and how the propaganda and plunder system of permanent war has corrupted our own states at home. The liberal-globalists take Trump seriously when he says he wants to end this.
This is the reason some talk of the danger of World War Three, and of a threat to Trump’s life. The entire business model of regime change is threatened by the collapse of Project Ukraine, which aside from becoming the major money-laundering center of the empire as former Trump State Department staffer Mike Benz documents, was also about Project Russia.
With Lindsey Graham’s blunt admission that Ukraine was a war about money, it is worth remembering that Russia’s near limitless mineral resources also remain outside the liberal-global system with a Russian victory. The U.S. “needs Ukraine’s rare earth metals,” said the Russian Foreign Minister last week.
Project Russia was best outlined in a 2019 RAND Corporation paper, which was a blueprint for destabilizing Russia through “cost-imposing options.” By “overextending” Russia economically, isolating it diplomatically, and beating it militarily – Russia could be “regime changed” – and its wealth absorbed.
All these outcomes have come to pass – but not for Russia. It is NATO, the U.S. and Europe who are unstable now, and whose ruling elite face collapse precipitated by once-optional costs. From the point of view of grand strategy nuclear escalation makes no sense whatsoever if you have won your war, your enemy is dissolving, and you seek to gain enormously from a postwar revision of the regional security architecture. This is the Russian position.
This is also the reason sober judges of military and foreign affairs are warning of nuclear war. The liberal global order, of which NATO is the military arm, faces defeat. Starmer has said the threat of nuclear war will not stop his escalatory efforts.
This machine also produces advertisements for counterfeit products. Escalation to war is another instance – being the marketing of destruction as the highest moral duty. Whose duty – and to whom? This war, and the one in the Middle East, are not wars in the interests of the American people, nor in the interests of people generally.
They are a serious indication of whose interests are being served, Elon Musk made the following announcement on X.
Vindman is on the payroll of Ukrainian oligarchs and has committed treason against the United States, for which he will pay the appropriate penalty
The regime is now selling mass destruction as a lifeline – but the system it seeks to preserve is an industry of death which has captured our civilization. How far they will go to prevent a peace that is fatal to their power is the question which will decide whether we have a future at all.
What all of this highlights, above all, is the great, urgent need for a worldwide prayer campaign for peace.
Nur einen Tag nach der neuen EU-Spitze ist auch Kanzler Scholz nach Kiew gereist, um dort neue Hilfszusagen zu machen. Noch in diesem Jahr sollen weitere Rüstungsgüter im Wert von 650 Mill. Euro aus bereits zugesagten Mitteln zur Verfügung gestellt werden – darunter Kampfpanzer, Raketen, Drohnen und Flugabwehr-Systeme. „Deutschland macht in diesem Jahr mehr als Großbritannien und Frankreich zusammen”, betonte Scholz. Die Eigenwerbung dürfte auch dazu dienen, Kritik an seiner abwägenden Haltung abzuwehren – denn zugleich warnt Scholz weiter vor einer möglichen Ausweitung des Krieges…
Eine NZZ-Auswertung zeigt: über Annalena Baerbock wird mit Abstand am positivsten berichtet – besonders von der FAZ. Das ist vor allem vor dem Hintergrund interessant, dass die FAZ-Stiftung über eine Tochterfirma Gelder vom Auswärtigen Amt erhält.
Seit 2014 flossen 36 Millionen Euro vom Auswärtigen Amt an die FAZIT-Stiftung der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung.
Eine Auswertung der Neuen Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) zeigt, in welchen Medien am kritischsten oder unkritischsten über bestimmte Politiker geschrieben wird. Besonders interessant: Ausgerechnet in der vermeintlich bürgerlichen Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung (FAZ) berichtet man im Vergleich mit Abstand am positivsten über die deutsche Außenministerin Annalena Baerbock. Das ist vor allem vor dem Hintergrund bemerkenswert, dass die FAZ-Stiftung FAZIT seit 2014 vom Auswärtigen Amt insgesamt 36 Millionen Euro erhielt.
Die NZZ hat eigenen Angaben zufolge „mehr als 5000 Artikel deutscher Leitmedien analysiert“. Dabei arbeitete man mit Künstlicher Intelligenz (KI) und analysierte Texte, die über Politiker handeln, sowie Meldungen. Die Berichterstattung wurde auf einer Skala von -100 bis +100 ausgewertet, je nachdem wie positiv über einen Politiker berichtet wurde.
In der Liste der positivsten Bewertungen über alle untersuchten Medien hinweg, erhielt Annalena Baerbock +27 Punkte bei der FAZ und landete damit auf Platz eins. Auf Platz folgt dann nochmals die Berichterstattung zu Baerbock, diesmal von der Zeit. Dort erreichte sie aber nur einen Score von minus zwei.
Sind Journalisten bei einigen Politikern weniger kritisch? Um diese Frage zu beantworten, haben wir 5600 Artikel deutscher Leitmedien analysiert.
Die vielleicht grösste Überraschung: Ausgerechnet in der konservativen FAZ schneidet Grünen-Ministerin Baerbock am besten ab. 1/5 pic.twitter.com/dHsk3NFPuO
Die dritt-positivste Berichterstattung ist die der FAZ über Friedrich Merz – mit einem Wert von minus sieben. In den restlichen Leitmedien wird deutlich negativer über Merz berichtet. Beim Spiegel und bei der Zeit erhält er einen Score von -36.
Die herausstechend positive Bewertung von Außenministerin Baerbock in der FAZ ist vor allem vor dem Hintergrund interessant, dass die FAZ-Stiftung FAZIT über eine Tochterfirma hohe Geldsummen vom Auswärtigen Amt erhält. Konkret zahlte das Amt von Baerbock in den vergangenen elf Jahren 36 Millionen Euro an die FAZIT Communication GmbH für das Betreiben der Internetseite deutschland.de (Apollo Newsberichtete). Das ergab eine Kleine Anfrage der AfD (Drucksache 20/13484), die Tichys Einblick vorliegt.
Die FAZIT-Stiftung wurde 1959 gegründet und soll die unternehmerische Unabhängigkeit der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung sichern. Sie hält 93,7 Prozent der Anteile an der FAZ GmbH, der Firma hinter der FAZ. Außerdem bietet die FAZIT-Stiftung Stipendien für Nachwuchsjournalisten sowie Stipendien und Druckkostenzuschüsse für Promotionen an. Zwischen der Zeitung und der Stiftung gibt es personelle Verflechtungen. Vorsitzender des Stiftungskuratoriums ist Ulrich Wilhelm. Er ist zugleich Mitglied im Aufsichtsrat der FAZ GmbH.
The Middle East is ‘conservative’ no more. Rather, a very different ‘Awakening’ is gestating.
The long war to reaffirm western and Israeli primacy is undergoing a shape-shift. On one front, the calculus in respect to Russia and the Ukraine war has shifted. And in the Middle East, the locus and shape of the war is shifting in a distinct way.
Georges Kennan’s famed Soviet doctrine has long formed the baseline to U.S. policy, firstly directed toward the Soviet Union, and latterly, towards Russia. Kennan’s thesis from 1946 was that the United States needed to work patiently and resolutely to thwart the Soviet threat, and to enhance and aggravate the internal fissures in the Soviet system, until its contradictions triggered the collapse from within.
More recently, the Atlantic Council has drawn on the Kennan doctrine to suggest that his broad outline should serve as the basis of U.S. policy towards Iran. “The threat that Iran poses to the U.S. resembles the one faced from the Soviet Union after World War II. In this regard, the policy that George Kennan outlined for dealing with the Soviet Union has some applications for Iran”, the Atlantic report states.
Over the years, that doctrine has ossified into an entire network of security understandings, based on the archetypal conviction that America is strong, and that Russia was weak. Russia must ‘know that’, and thus, it was argued, there could be no logic for Russian strategists to imagine they had any other option but to submit to the overmatch represented by the combined military strength of NATO versus a ‘weak’ Russia. And should Russian strategists unwisely persevere with challenging the West, it was said, the inherent contrariety simply would cause Russia to fracture.
American neocons and western intelligence have not listened to any other view, because they were (and largely still are) convinced by Kennan’s formulation. The American foreign policy class simply could not accept the possibility that such a core thesis was wrong. The entire approach reflected more a deep-seated culture, rather than any rational analysis – even when visible facts on the ground pointed them to a different reality.
So, America has piled the pressure on Russia through the incremental delivery of additional weapons systems to Ukraine; through stationing intermediate range nuclear-capable missiles ever-closer to Russia’s borders; and most recently, by shooting ATACMS into ‘old Russia’.
The aim has been to pressure Russia into a situation where it would feel obliged to make concessions to Ukraine, such as a to accept a freezing of the conflict, and to be obliged to negotiate against Ukrainian bargaining ‘cards’ devised to yield a solution acceptable to the U.S. Or, alternatively, for Russia to be cornered into the ‘nuclear corner’.
American strategy ultimately rests on the conviction that the U.S. could engage in a nuclear war with Russia – and prevail; that Russia understands that were it to go nuclear, it would ‘lose the world’. Or, pressured by NATO, the anger amongst Russians likely would sweep Putin from office were he to make significant concessions to Ukraine. It was a ‘win-win’ outcome – from the U.S. perspective.
Unexpectedly however, a new weapon appeared on the scene which precisely unshackles President Putin from the ‘all-or-nothing’ choice of having to concede a bargaining ‘hand’ to Ukraine, or resort to nuclear deterrence. Instead, the war can be settled by facts on the ground. Effectively, the George Kennan ‘trap’ imploded.
The Oreshnik missile (that was used to attack the Yuzhmash complex at Dnietropetrovsk) provides Russia with a weapon, such as never before witnessed: An intermediate range missile system that effectively checkmates the western nuclear threat.
Russia can now manage western escalation with a credible threat of retaliation that is both hugely destructive – yet conventional. It inverts the paradigm. It is now the West’s escalation that either has to go nuclear, or be limited to providing Ukraine with weapons such as ATACMS or Storm Shadow that will not alter the course of the war. Were NATO to escalate further, it risks an Oreshnik strike in retaliation, either in Ukraine or on some target in Europe, leaving the West with the dilemma of what to do next.
Putin has warned: ‘If you strike again in Russia, we will respond with an Oreshnik hit on a military facility in another nation. We will provide warning, so that civilians can evacuate. There is nothing that you can do to prevent this; you do not have an anti-missile system that can stop an attack coming in at Mach 10’.
The tables are turned.
Of course, there are other reasons beyond the permanent security cadre’s wish to Gulliverise Trump into continuing the war in Ukraine, in order to taint him with a war that he promised immediately to end.
Particularly the British, and others in Europe, want the war to continue, because they are on the financial hook from their holdings of some $20 billion Ukrainian bonds which are in a ‘default-like status’, or from their guarantees to the IMF for loans to Ukraine. Europe simply cannot afford the costs of a full default. Neither can Europe afford to pick up the burden, were the Trump Administration to walk away from supporting Ukraine financially. So they collude with the U.S. interagency structure to make the continuation of the war proofed against a Trump policy reversal: Europe for financial motives, and the Deep State because it wants to disrupt Trump, and his domestic agenda.
The other wing to the ‘global war’ reflects a mirror paradox: That is, ‘Israel is strong and Iran is weak’. The central point is not only its cultural underpinning, but that the entire Israeli and U.S. apparatus is party to the narrative that Iran is a weak and technically backward country.
The most significant aspect is the multi-year failure as regards factors such as the skill to understand strategies, and recognize changes in the other sides’ capabilities, views and understandings.
Russia seems to have solved some of the general physical problems of objects flying at hypersonic speed. The use of new composite materials has made it possible to enable the gliding cruise bloc to make a long-distance guided flight practically in conditions of plasma formation. It flies to its target like a meteorite; like a ball of fire. The temperature on its surface reaches 1,600–2,000 degrees Celsius but the cruise bloc is reliably guided.
And Iran seems to have solved the problems associated with an adversary enjoying air dominance. Iran has created a deterrence fashioned from the evolution of cheap swarms drones matched up with Ballistic missiles carrying precision hypersonic warheads. It puts $1,000 drones and cheap, precision missiles up and against hugely expensive piloted airframes – An inversion of warfare that has been twenty years in the making.
The Israeli war however, is metamorphosing in other ways. The war in Gaza and Lebanon has strained Israeli manpower; the IDF have sustained heavy losses; its troops are exhausted; and the reservists are losing commitment to Israel’s wars, and are failing to show up for duty.
Israel has reached the limits of its capacity to put boots on the ground (short of conscripting the Orthodox Haredi Yeshiva students – an act that could bring down the Coalition).
In short, the Israeli army’s troop levels have fallen below present command ordered military commitments. The economy is imploding and internal divisions are raw and bruising. This is especially so due to the inequity of secular Israelis dying, whilst others stay exempt from military service – a destiny reserved for some but not others.
This tension played a major part in Netanyahu’s decision to agree to a ceasefire in Lebanon. The growing animus about Orthodox Haredi exemption risked bringing down the Coalition.
There are – metaphorically speaking – now two Israels: The Kingdom of Judea versus the State of Israel. In view of such deep antagonisms, many Israelis now see war with Iran as the catharsis that will bind a fractured people together again, and – if victorious – end all of Israel’s wars.
Outside, the war widens and shape-shifts: Lebanon, for now, is put on a low flame burner, but Turkey has triggered a major military operation (reportedly some 15,000 strong) in an attack on Aleppo, using U.S. and Turkish trained jihadists and militia from Idlib. Turkish Intelligence no doubt has its own distinct objectives, but the U.S. and Israel have a particular interest to disrupt weapons supply routes to Hizbullah in Lebanon.
The Israeli wanton onslaught on non-combatants, women and children – and its explicit ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population – has left the region (and the Global South) seething and radicalised. Israel, through its actions, is disrupting the old ethos. The region is ‘conservative’ no more. Rather, a very different ‘Awakening’ is gestating.
„Donald neigt dazu, so zu tun, als könne alles mit einem entscheidenden Schritt, einem Gespräch oder einem Ultimatum gelöst werden. Und jetzt hat er es sehr entschieden geäußert: Er droht, 100-prozentige Zölle auf Waren aus den BRICS-Staaten einzuführen, wenn diese den Dollar verweigern, aber in der Praxis ist das unmöglich“, sagte Puschkow
Er wies darauf hin, dass die Vereinigten Staaten zwar die Globalisierung im eigenen Interesse förderten, aber schließlich von ihr und von Importen aus anderen Ländern abhängig wurden.
Entweder erzielt Donald eine Einigung mit Putin, oder, mit moderner Rhetorik, der Zusammenbruch des Dollars ist eine Frage der Zeit.
NATO flagShutterstock
Der Friedensstifter 