Trump’s Assassination Attempt, Real?

A perfect picture for the MAGA crowd – Donald Trump has just been elevated to ‘hero’ status. The iconic Iwo Jima photo is now appropriated and  impersonated by Trump, the charlatan.  The new parody.

My first reaction was that it was staged. Five bullets from a sharp shooter 150 meters away and only one of the bullets pierced Trump’s year!? He ducked under the lectern, spent a bit of time there with the special service people and appeared with this “blood” on his face, which was no longer actually pouring. He is now declared a “hero”.

That was my first reaction. – How could this be staged? These people can stage 9/11, anything…

There are widespread concerns and questions about how a sniper was able to obtain rooftop access roughly 150 yards from the former president’s position at the podium at an outdoor rally.

Notably, the shooter’s location was outside the security perimeter, raising questions about both the size of the perimeter and efforts to sweep and secure the American Glass Research building, and how the shooter was able to obtain rooftop access.

Further reading:

Local cop climbed ladder and encountered would-be Trump assassin on roof moments before he opened fire – but climbed back down and shooting proceeded | 14 July 2024 | A local cop spotted attempted-assassin Thomas Crooks just moments before he tried to kill former president Donald Trump — but failed to stop the gunman despite the clear threat, according to a report. After rally-goers spotted Crooks on the roof of a manufacturing plant just 130 yards from the stage where Trump was speaking just after 6 p.m. Tuesday, police were notified and one officer climbed a ladder to investigate, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity. The officer — whose department had been enlisted by the Secret Service to help with security — encountered Crooks, who pointed his AR-style rifle at them. The officer then backed down the ladder, and Crooks immediately took aim and loosed about eight shots at the former president — grazing him in the ear, killing one bystander in the rally crowd, and gravely wounding two others, the source said. After that volley of shots, Secret Service snipers shot Crooks dead.

NATO’s Endgame Appears to Be Nuclear War

by Chris Wright via

The world is at its most dangerous moment since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Back then, however, the fear of total destruction consumed the public; today, few people seem even to be aware of this possibility.

It is easily imaginable that nuclear war could break out between Russia (and perhaps China) and the West, yet politicians continue to escalate tensions, place hundreds of thousands of troops at “high readiness,” and attack military targets inside Russia, even while ordinary citizens blithely go on with their lives.

The situation is without parallel in history.

Consider the following facts. A hostile military alliance, now including even Sweden and Finland, is at the very borders of Russia. How are Russian leaders – whose country was almost destroyed by Western invasion twice in the 20th century – supposed to react to this? How would Washington react if Mexico or Canada belonged to an enormous, expansionist, and highly belligerent anti-U.S. military alliance?

As if expanding NATO to include Eastern Europe wasn’t provocative enough, Washington began to send billions of dollars’ worth of military aid to Ukraine in 2014, to “improve interoperability with NATO,” in the words of the Defense Department. Why this Western involvement in Ukraine, which, as Barack Obama said while president, is “a core Russian interest but not an American one”? One reason was given by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in a recent moment of startling televised candor: Ukraine is “sitting on $10 to $12 trillion of critical minerals… I don’t want to give that money and those assets to Putin to share with China.”

As The Washington Post has reported: “Ukraine harbors some of the world’s largest reserves of titanium and iron ore, fields of untapped lithium, and massive deposits of coal. Collectively, they are worth tens of trillions of dollars.” Ukraine also has colossal reserves of natural gas and oil, in addition to neon, nickel, beryllium, and other critical rare earth metals. For NATO’s leadership, Russia and, in particular, China can’t be permitted access to these resources. The war in Ukraine must, therefore, continue indefinitely, and negotiations with Russia mustn’t be pursued.

Meanwhile, as Ukraine was being de facto integrated into NATO in the years before 2022, the United States put into operation an anti-ballistic-missile site in Romania in 2016. As Benjamin Abelow notes in How the West Brought War to Ukraine, the missile launchers that the ABM system uses can accommodate nuclear-tipped offensive weapons like the Tomahawk cruise missile. “Tomahawks,” he points out, “have a range of 1,500 miles, can strike Moscow and other targets deep inside Russia, and can carry hydrogen bomb warheads with selectable yields up to 150 kilotons, roughly 10 times that of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.” Poland now boasts a similar ABM site.

American assurances that these anti-missile bases are defensive in nature, to protect against an (incredibly unlikely) attack from Iran, can hardly reassure Russia, given the missile launchers’ capability to launch offensive weapons.

In another bellicose move, the Trump administration in 2019 unilaterally withdrew from the 1987 Treaty on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces. Russia responded by proposing that the U.S. declare a moratorium on the deployment of short- and intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe, saying it wouldn’t deploy such missiles as long as NATO members didn’t. Washington dismissed these proposals, which upset some European leaders. “Has the absence of dialogue with Russia,” French President Emmanuel Macron said, “made the European continent any safer? I don’t think so.”

The situation is especially dangerous given what experts call “warhead ambiguity.” As senior Russian military officers have said, “There will be no way to determine if an incoming ballistic missile is fitted with a nuclear or a conventional warhead, and so the military will see it as a nuclear attack” that warrants a nuclear retaliation. A possible misunderstanding could thus plunge the world into nuclear war.

So now we’re more than two years into a proxy war with Russia that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and has seen Ukraine even more closely integrated into the structures of NATO than it was before. And the West continues to inch ever closer to the nuclear precipice. Ukraine has begun using U.S. missiles to strike Russian territory, including defensive (not only offensive) missile systems.

This summer, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Belgium will begin sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, and Denmark and the Netherlands have said there will be no restrictions on the use of these planes to strike targets in Russia. F-16s are able to deliver nuclear weapons, and Russia has said the planes will be considered a nuclear threat.

Bringing the world even closer to terminal crisis, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg states that 500,000 troops are at “high readiness,” and in the next five years, NATO allies will “acquire thousands of air defense and artillery systems, 850 modern aircraft – mostly fifth-generation F-35s – and also a lot of other high-end capabilities.” Macron has morphed into one of Europe’s most hawkish leaders, with plans to send military instructors to Ukraine very soon. At the same time, NATO is holding talks about taking more nuclear weapons out of storage and placing them on standby.

Where all this is heading is unclear, but what’s obvious is that Western leaders are acting with reckless disregard for the future of humanity. Their bet is that Russian President Vladimir Putin will never deploy nuclear weapons, despite his many threats to do so and recent Russian military drills to deploy tactical nuclear weapons. Given that Russian use of nuclear warheads might well precipitate a nuclear response by the West, the fate of humanity hangs on the restraint and rationality of one man, Putin – a figure who is constantly portrayed by Western media and politicians as an irrational, bloodthirsty monster. So the human species is supposed to place its hope for survival in someone we’re told is a madman, who leads a state that feels besieged by the most powerful military coalition in history, apparently committed to its demise.

Maybe the madmen aren’t in the Russian government but rather in NATO governments?

It is downright puzzling that millions of people aren’t protesting in the streets every day to deescalate the crisis and pull civilization back from the brink. Evidently the mass media have successfully fulfilled their function of manufacturing consent. But unless the Western public wakes up, the current crisis might not end as benignly as did the one in 1962.

Will the Falklands Again Be a Focus of Conflict Between Argentina and Britain?

by Germán Gorraiz López- Political analyst

The former Argentine President, Lionel Fernandez in his visit to Putin offered him the possibility of being “the gateway to Latin America” and in his meeting with Xi Jinping, confirmed Argentina’s adherence to the Belt and Silk Road Project, which could mean a staggering $24 billion in investments for Argentina and the end of its pivot in the orbit of the United States.

This set off alarms in the Biden administration who expressed concern over the growing presence of China and Russia in the country and in particular the possibility of China installing a joint military base with Argentina in Ushuaia in exchange for financial support Chinese to install a gigantic logistic Pole in the province of Tierra del Fuego.

After being elected President, Milei announced a “new foreign policy doctrine of Argentina based on a special relationship with the United States” after meeting with the head of the US Southern Command, General Laura Richardson to discuss the installation of a joint US-Argentina base in Ushuaia that will control the traffic of mega containers through the Drake pass.

This, coupled with the future installation of a pseudoscientific base of Britain in the South Shetland Islands, will ensure maritime control of the Anglo-American axis of a route that will be the alternative to the Panama Canal.However, the Falklands could be the black swan of Milei, after his optimistic claims in which he did not rule out “reaching a long-term agreement with Great Britain similar to that of Hong-Kong involving the Malvinas return to the country”, the appearance of immense oil reserves in Sea Lion would be a missile on the geopolitical waterline of Milei.

Thus, according to the English newspaper The Telegraph “the British local authorities of the Malvinas Islands intend to organize a popular consultation to extract 500 million barrels of oil in a well located 240 kilometers north of Port Argentino, in Sea Lion.The drilling and exploitation tasks would be carried out by the Israeli company Navitas Petroleum who plans to extract 300 million barrels in the next 30 years, which would ward off the possibility of a British-Argentine co-rule over the disputed islands.

Milei is aware that if he positions himself far from the space acceptable to Argentine society and his decisions do not manage to move the window to his point of interest, the frame could end up breaking. At this point, it would not be ruled out that Milei assumed the flag of the historic claim of the Argentinian Islands and thus reinstate the previous frame of the window agreed by the vast majority of the Argentine population, decision that however could trigger a new war with Britain in the horizon of the next quinquennium.

Zelenski Changes His Peace Plan

via Moon of Alabama

Zelenski’s ‘peace summit’ in Switzerland had failed:

The reviews of Zelenski’s latest show ain’t positive:

The summit served warmed up bullshit without any significant nutritional value. The most important points weren’t even discussed:

The war will continue until the complete destruction of the Ukrainian forces can no longer be ignored.

The last point may have come earlier than anticipated.

On June 27 Zelenski had changed tact (machine translation):

During a speech in Brussels, the president said that Ukraine wants to start negotiations on ending the war in the near future.“Ukraine does not want to prolong the war, we do not want it to last for years. We need to put a settlement plan on the table within a few months, ” he said.

Zelensky said that in the near future it is planned to develop a plan for the second world summit.

On June 28 he gave more details (machine translation):

President Volodymyr Zelensky has said that Ukraine will present its detailed peace plan “this year”.The President announced this during a press conference in Kyiv.

“It is very important for us to show an end-of-war plan that will be supported by the majority of the world. This is the diplomatic path that we are working on. Not everything depends on us, our production of technology, drones, and artillery is really increasing, because we need to be strong on the battlefield. Because Russia understands nothing but force. These are two parallel processes: be strong and develop a detailed, clear plan, and it will be ready this year, ” Zelensky said.

Note that the Ukrainian peace plan has long been presented by Zelensky. It implies the withdrawal of Russian troops to the borders. However, many countries of the world (especially representatives of the “global South”) consider it unrealistic.

In other words, a new plan will probably be prepared.

Earlier Russia’s President Putin had announced his conditions for a permanent peace agreement. How many of them will Zelenski accept within his new ‘peace plan’?

Uncompromising US, Long-Term Confrontation

by Andrey Sushentsov, program director at the Valdai Club.

The desire of the US to dominate and its refusal to see other countries as equals, willing and able to assume equal responsibility for peace and stability, is the short answer to the question of why Moscow-Washington relations cannot get out of the current state of crisis. This attitude also leads the US to the same difficulties in its relations with China, India and even some of its own allies, such as Turkey.

The Russian and Chinese position is buttressed by the principle that peace is the result of compromise between the major centers of power, and that without their mutual agreement – without equality, mutual respect, a willingness to recognize each other’s interests, and adherence to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs – a stable order is impossible. The US believes, however, that peace is a deterministic given, and that no special effort is needed to maintain it. This leads to paradoxical solutions: the more weapons, the more peace. The West is not yet ready to become just one of the Atlanteans holding up the sky. It still believes it should be in charge.

Are changes in relations between Moscow and Washington possible with a change of administration in the United States? I expect that this will not have a significant impact on the American line towards Russia. It is useful to look at American politics as an independent factor in our planning – we need to assume we cannot rely on the US elites. Washington will in most cases act with hostility towards Russia, in some cases opportunistically, engaging Moscow at time when it suits its own interests.

There is still a paradigm gap between Russians and Americans in their understanding of the world in the 21st century. US experts believe that Russia is part of the West and will inevitably end up in the Western camp at the end of this crisis, with China as its opponent. This set of paradoxical ideas has been present in the American narrative since the early 1990s.

The Americans believe that ultimately Russia has no alternative, and will therefore accept any offer from Washington. With the dollar sure to remain as the dominant currency for the medium term, the US will be an important country. And much depends on its turbulent domestic political life.

When it comes to Ukraine, the Americans think in investment banking terms and say straight out that Ukraine is a fairly cheap instrument that serves two purposes: to weaken Russia and to stifle any voices in Europe calling for strategic autonomy from the US.

Over the past two years, Washington has found this method of mobilisation quite cheap. Indeed, Russia-EU relations have been disrupted, the main gas pipeline linking the Russian and Western European energy systems has been destroyed, Eastern Europe has been militarised, the US military-industrial complex has been strengthened, and economic activity has flowed from Europe to the US. The American economy has gained from this crisis, while the Western European economy has suffered badly.

What are the US objectives in the Ukraine crisis? It wants a weakened Russia, which has lost control of key advantages in the Eurasian space, such as in transport, economics, production and energy. The US wants to knock Russia out of the top five world powers and make it strategically secondary.

However, the US is beginning to realize that Ukraine as an instrument of deterrence against Moscow is no longer a cheap resource. Kiev’s own military, material and human resources are close to exhaustion, and maintaining the viability of the Ukrainian state is becoming increasingly expensive for the US and the EU.

The US has been looking at Russia as a declining strategic player for some time. They were waiting for the moment when the country would leave the top-five leading countries in order to deal with China. Why did the US abandon negotiations with Moscow at the end of 2021, push Ukraine towards a military solution to the crisis, and then forbid it to negotiate with Russia? They believed that a quick victory over Russia was achievable, that the 52 countries the US had gathered in a coalition around Ukraine – their economies, resources, military arsenals, intelligence, satellite constellations, arms supplies, political intelligence and other support – would be enough to defeat our country. The West had not properly assessed Russia’s potential and that of their own coalition, and the short-term goals they set themselves have proved unattainable. They believe that a country whose economy apparently accounts for 3% of the world’s nominal GDP cannot fight the entire grand coalition on its own. But when Western countries have 65-80% of their GDP in the service sector, rather than in heavy industry and weapons-related areas, a situation arises in which Russia alone produces more artillery shells than all the Western states. This is a paradox that the US has not taken into account.

The US-Russian standoff should be seen as a long-term confrontation. It will continue even after Washington realizes that Ukraine has lost its importance as a tool. As a result, the US will shift the center of anti-Russian activity to another country that, like Ukraine, is willing to sacrifice itself and be at the forefront of the fight against Moscow. The US will not cease to be a strategic rival, and therefore we cannot afford to ignore it in our planning. We must regard the Americans as a constant threat, and prepare for a long confrontation.

This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.

Gaza Truce? Who Benefits Most? Biden or Netanyahu?

by Germán Gorraiz López – Political analyst

Summary: The cruel casualties in Gaza have provoked a split in the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, there are signs of a possible Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which could benefit Netanyahu. If Biden loses and thus Trump wins, the Israeli Prime-Minister will be granted exoneration for all current and forthcoming crimes in Gaza and Lebanon (maybe).

The asymmetry of the punishment carried out by Israel in Gaza has provoked disaffection towards Biden in the left wing of the Democratic Party. And at the same time a proverbial black swan has popped up during Biden’s reelection campaign: the protests by university students at Columbia University and UCLA against the invasion of Gaza and the violent eviction of them by the police. This protest movement extended to the rest of US universities (recalling the 1968 protests against the Vietnam War) provoking a schism within the Democratic Party and weakening the solidity of Biden’s nomination as presidential candidate at the Democratic National Convention to be held in Chicago from August 19 to 22.

Such a set back for the Biden campaign could facilitate the triumphant return of Donald Trump in the November presidential elections. So the Biden Administration is desperately trying to get Netanyahu to declare “an indefinite truce” which would allow the exchange of Israeli hostages still held by Hamas as well as restore the circulation of humanitarian aid trucks for more than 1 million Palestinians confined in Rafah.

Thus, Biden would distinguish himself as a successful diplomat and clean up his image as a collaborator of Israel in the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, thus enabling him to present himself to left-wing Democrats as the winner of the truce in Gaza. This would bring him back up in the polls.

In this context, a recent telephone call between Biden and Netanyahu laid the foundations for an agreement that benefits both leaders. It consists of the total withdrawal of the Israeli army from Gaza, which will remain as a demilitarized zone under the control of the UN Blue Helmets. This also allows Israel to refocus its military campaign and target Lebanon.

For his part, after ending the Gaza campaign, Netanyahu reportedly decided to invade southern Lebanon and displace the 400,000 inhabitants across the Litani River, in the hope of gaining time until the foreseeable victory in November of Donald Trump. Netanyahu is probably certain that he can count on Trump’s blessings and have Trump exonerate him of all guilt before the International Criminal Court.

More Trouble in Dagestan

By Sergey Markov

More trouble ahead. Dagestan. Radical Islamism is again raising its head in Russia.

I just returned from the Caucasus. And they told me there that radical Islamists are now holding demonstrations that should show their power.

In the evening, at about 7 p.m., a group of about 5 women in thick hijabs and a couple of people in niqabs come out onto the main street. They walk along the entire street, and on the sidelines they are accompanied by 5 – 10 young bearded men. And this is going on in many cities. This is how the Islamists show that they have an informal “night power” and that everyone should be afraid of them. And they are afraid.

Russia in Deadly Confrontation with the West

By Yelena Panina and Oleg Pavlov

This article was first published in Russian on

For more than two years, the special military operation has continued in Ukraine. Undoubtedly, this war against Russia was provoked by the “collective West” and globalist circles standing behind it, and is being waged by them through their proxy forces.

The leaders of Western countries and their top ‘think-tanks’ (FA, CSIS) have recently stepped up the rhetoric regarding our country and are obviously set on the military defeat of Russia. NATO participation in combat operations is not only coming into the open but the military escalation is being ramped up by leaps and bounds, i.e. supplies of ever more lethal types of weapons to Ukraine are gaining scale, the US and other countries of the West have decided to shift military activities deeper into the territory of Russia, and active preparations are underway for sending a contingent from NATO and its member states to Ukraine.

Russia has no other alternatives under the circumstances but to either win or die. This is our Patria o Muerte.

The comprehension of what victory is to us should underlie the recognition of this fundamental truth. Making no claims to present a complete clear image of the future victory, we shall try to formulate those major goals without attainment of which the victory is impossible.

First of all, let us ask ourselves how inevitable a special military operation (SMO) was and whether it was possible to somehow come to an agreement with the West.

The scale of the military force deployed against Russia, coordination of actions of almost all countries of the Western bloc, and their political declarations and demarches according to pre-written patterns leave no doubt that an anti-Russia operation had been prepared for many years. By all appearances, it has been financed and administered by Western countries, and primarily the United States, since 2012. In fact, everything that is going on in Ukraine today is the hot phase of the war unleashed by the West against us as far back as 1946 (after Winston Churchill’s Fulton speech). In its first stage, the task was set to destroy the USSR and at the second – to assimilate the Russian Federation and definitively solve the ‘Russian question’.

In practice, immediately after the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the USSR, the West, taking it as its absolute victory, got down to the implementation of the second stage and embarked on the exploration of the geopolitical space left by the Soviet Union, seeing it as a resource to expand and enhance its own hegemony that it had already gained at that time. The goal was to bring about such a model of unipolar globalization that would secure the latter as a form of the domination of the West for many decades, if not centuries ahead.

Despite verbal promises not to expand the NATO bloc to the territories of the countries of the former Warsaw Pact given to Mikhail Gorbachev, the United States used NATO as an instrument of expansion to bring the situation to admitting the Baltic States, and later Sweden and traditionally neutral Finland into the bloc. And before that, NATO began to woo Ukraine and Georgia. At the same time, NATO is far from being a harmless organization, as Mikhail Khodorkovsky recently called it. Only think about the large-scale bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 using depleted uranium ammunition, the 20-year war in Afghanistan under the auspices of NATO, the Iraq war of 2003–2011, which was fought even without a UN mandate on the basis of falsification – the “Powell test tube” – the war in Libya in 2011 or the reprisal against its leadership and the actual destruction of the country. In just 30 years, NATO conducted 23 military operations against other countries with over one million civilians becoming victims, while the toll of ethnic cleansing or environmental and humanitarian disasters after invasions by NATO troops is impossible to calculate. White phosphorus, depleted uranium, cluster bombs against civilians, tortures, photo sessions with the bodies of the dead – all these crimes are on NATO’s conscience.

After signing the treaty that gives the full souvereignty back to Germany the politicians pose for a family picture in Moscow, 12 September 1990. © Global Look Press / Roland Holschneider / dpa

In 2004, when Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia joined the alliance, this monster moved nearer to the borders of the Russian Federation. Could Russia indifferently watch NATO missiles in close proximity, aiming at St. Petersburg, Moscow and our other cities? Most certainly not!

Nevertheless, we still hoped to bring some sense into the presumptuous Western elites. Then followed Putin’s Munich speech. But the United States ignored these signals and, through its own military support, provoked a full-scale invasion of Georgian troops into South Ossetia. One of the goals was to create conditions for Georgia to join NATO. Even Russia’s tough response did not stop the West. Washington organized a coup in Kiev in 2014 and started preparing for Ukraine’s accession to NATO. They perfectly realized the consequences and deliberately went for this aggravation.

All these events also cannot be considered outside the context of the US activities on the complete abolition of the international security system and arms control treaties. Over the past three decades, through the efforts of Washington and other Western countries, the entire supporting frame of this structure was destroyed almost to the ground. International legal nuclear deterrence mechanisms in essence ceased to exist.

A united, nationally strong, sovereign Russia with its special civilizational code did not fit at all into the globalist plans of the United States and it openly moved to implement the Brzezinski formula: “A new world order under the US hegemony is being created against Russia, at the expense of Russia and on the ruins of Russia.” Since the West failed to swallow Russia and finally turn it into its spiritual and resource colony – although it would seem that this was at arm’s length, and Putin set a course for its revival – the Anglo-Saxons decided to implement the old plan. It has existed since the Russian Empire emerged on the world stage as a global power at the beginning of the 18th century. The idea is to dismember and destroy the country, as far as it obviously interferes with hegemonic plans.

That is why this war was inevitable, and it was not us who started it. Another question is whether it was possible to start the SMO, since it was inevitable, in some other way, or to wait as in 1941 for a direct attack from Ukraine against us in order to have an indisputable right to self-defence? The counter question would be: “Are you really sure that if we continued to wait for the end of the development of Ukraine by NATO and its attack on us from territories that are thousands of kilometres closer to Moscow than the USSR border before the start of Hitler’s aggression, then we would be able to withstand this blow with modern missile technologies when the flight time from Kharkov to Moscow would be four to five minutes for hypersonic missiles?”

More than two years of the special military operation have convinced us that Russia’s battle for its security and sovereignty will be long and dramatic. All this time, the stated goals of the SMO have remained the same, i.e. to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, protect the citizens of Donbass and ensure the security of the Russian Federation.

However, life and the course of combat operations made their own adjustments to the implementation of these goals. By April 2024, Russia took control over parts of Kherson and Zaporozhye Oblasts, which, along with the Donetsk and Lugansk Oblasts, were included in Russia in accordance with its Constitution, and the creation of a safe zone near Belgorod began. As for the achievement of other goals, the parameters of the final settlement that would ultimately ensure the security of the Russian state for the coming decades have not yet been formulated and made public, as well as the way by which this and other goals of the SMO can be accomplished.

Ukrainian soldiers, military in uniform, combat gear, rifles, weapons, on the occasion of celebrations on March 24th, 2023 in Kiev. © Global Look Press / Presidential Office of Ukraine

Some time ago, despite the official belligerent rhetoric, voices started to be heard in the West of those who called for a truce to be declared in Ukraine as soon as possible.

On June 15–16 this year, a ‘peace conference’ took place in Switzerland, where it was proposed to take the ‘Zelensky formula’ as the basis for a peaceful settlement, providing for the return of Ukraine to the 1991 borders. Since Russia had refused to take part in it under any circumstances, and the leading countries of the Global South did not participate in this farce, they tried to reduce the formula to three items. But it does not change the essence. The main idea is to present Russia as a country that does not wish to accept peace talks and then to put forward an ultimatum allegedly on behalf of the ‘international community’.

We also hear soft options: to recognize de facto Russian control over the territories liberated during the SMO and accept the rest of Ukraine into NATO.

It is also clear that the West is actively managing the conflict on the territory of Ukraine. It does not give Kiev the necessary weapons and ammunition and at the same time puts increasing pressure on Russia through strengthening primary and secondary sanctions. Then, by contrast, it ‘throws wood’ onto the fire, as the US Congress did by allocating more than $61 billion to Ukraine.

What is behind all these manipulations, including ‘peace initiatives’? The goal of the West was and is unchanged – the strategic defeat of Russia, final resolution of the ‘Russian question’, and termination of the statehood of the Russian Federation in a much harsher way than it was with the USSR.

Since the ‘Zelensky formula’ is absolutely unacceptable to Russia, they decided to boil the frog slowly: first, to force the parties to agree to an unsatisfactory truce or some kind of a peace, and thereby consolidate preconditions for a new conflict. Here comes all the stuffing about the truce, where the preservation by Russia of the already acquired territories is used as a carrot.

It is easy to predict the way the events will develop in this case. The truce, even without access to the borders of the Donetsk and Lugansk Oblasts, means that Russia will be cut off from the rest of Europe for a long time, for many decades, by the ‘Pilsudski barrier’; the zone of control of the buffer lands by the Western bloc will stretch from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Russia will lose Kaliningrad, and the Baltic will finally take shape as a ‘NATO lake’. Russia will completely lose control over the Western Black Sea region that has existed historically for centuries (since 1711), Moldova will be absorbed by NATO member Romania, and the Transnistrian region by Ukrainian authorities.

At the same time, the Anglo-Saxons, who have conceptual power in the Western world, build on the views of such geo-politicians of the early twentieth century as Sir Halford Mackinder. According to him, the “pivot area, or heartland of Eurasia – much of Russia and Central Asia – is the key to the global balance of power. The state that gains control over this territory will rule the world.”

To master the ‘heartland’ it is necessary to destroy Russia. That is why after the ‘peace treaty’ imposed on it, ‘plan B’ will come into effect, according to which the West will continue to isolate Russia as if “at the will of the international community” and strangle it with increasingly harsh economic sanctions according to the Iranian model. The ‘Anaconda ring’ around our country will begin to shrink even more intensely due to the dragging of limitrophes into its camp. Primarily, Armenia and Kazakhstan, and then other, still Russia-friendly countries. Sabotage will intensify and shatter internal unity, taking advantage of the undermining of interethnic relations. The aim of these medium-term measures is clear, i.e. in 3-5 years (as luck would have it), using ‘salami-slicing tactics’ – numerous small but painful blows – to prepare a lightning disarming military strike against a country weakened by sanctions. It will possibly include the use of nuclear weapons, using both Ukraine’s membership in NATO by that time and the proximity to our borders of new alliance bases, which will be located in the south (Romania) and in the north (Sweden, Norway and Finland). The signs of this have already emerged from the calls of a number of politicians in Eastern European countries. Primarily, from the statements of Poland’s authorities on the placement of nuclear weapons on the territory of their country. Another “intelligence indicator” is a strike on the Russian early warning system, which will provoke Moscow to use tactical nuclear weapons, thus enabling the West to implement the option of a disarming strike.

If you look from a historical depth at the methods that are now being used by the ‘collective West’ and the Anglo-Saxons leading them, then it is quite obvious that London and Washington, with outwardly different tactics, use familiar and historically proven techniques based on the classic thalassocracy principle of ‘divide and rule’. The first one is a method that has been tested more than once, i.e. blockade and massive sanctions. This is exactly the way the United States acted against Iraq in two or three steps. First, in 1991, Baghdad was weakened by military means through Operation Desert Storm, and later by crushing 13-year sanctions, only to be finally finished off afterwards by a lightning military strike.

The second method is the use of a proxy to inflict unacceptable damage and to radically weaken the enemy. This was the way the Ottoman Empire was destroyed. At that time, in 1916, the role of Ukraine was played by the Arabs, who were armed by the Anglo-Saxons, exactly as today, and their military commanders (in that epoch it was, in particular, Thomas Edward Lawrence, or Lawrence of Arabia) achieved military successes.

Now Russia, since it is a powerful country with nuclear weapons, is being subjected to an unprecedented and multi-aspect hybrid technology of struggle in all areas, where the methods used against the Ottoman Empire and Iraq in different historical periods are being complemented by the ‘Anaconda Strategy’ – surrounding us with unfriendly regimes in parallel preparation for the ‘big war’. This will inevitably be followed by a new, much more destructive and bloody war, but directly with the entire NATO bloc, forcing Russia to surrender and be destroyed.

Vladimir Zelensky (M), President of Ukraine, is greeted by Ursula von der Leyen (R), President of the European Commission, and other attendees at the start of a meeting on January 16 2024, Davos, Switzerland. © Global Look Press / Hannes P Albert / dpa

These will be the consequences of failing to achieve the stated goals of the special military operation. It goes without saying that any country that finds itself in the situation Russia is in now should do everything to avoid dead isolation and set up coalitions that would allow the legal, psychological, informational and other walls erected by the enemy to be destroyed. This problem is being solved so far with greater or lesser success. They failed to drive Moscow into international isolation and they recognize it in Washington. The Global South did not fall for Western hysterics about ‘Russian aggression in Ukraine’ and the massive Israeli bombing of residential areas in the Gaza Strip, which led to colossal casualties, finally buried the West’s ability to manipulate with theses about ‘Moscow’s cruelty’. These arguments lost their validity for the Arab-Islamic world and Africa.

It has also been a surprise for the organizers of Russia’s isolation that Moscow manages, although not immediately and not without effort, to start building ad-hoc coalitions, albeit of different sizes and weights. Beside Great China, which is becoming a strategic rear area for Moscow, it manages to get on well with restive Türkiye, millennia-old Iran, and principled North Korea, i.e. with those who were called the other day (except for Ankara) rogue states as well as with SCO and BRICS countries.

However, this struggle as a whole makes sense only if the main military tasks are fulfilled during the SMO. That is why it is absolutely important to identify them. We can already feel a breeze of slight disappointment today among our well-wishers in the Islamic world and in Africa because the front line has remained practically the same for over two years. It influences many processes, including the efficiency and scale of BRICS expansion, as well as the readiness of our friends to resist secondary sanctions.

First, it is necessary to determine the boundaries of our territorial advance in the south and north, which will protect our country for a long time from any threats from the West. It is obvious that in the south there are no other alternatives but access to Odessa and further to connect with the Transnistrian region, where 220,000 of our compatriots live, right up to the mouth of the Danube and full control of it. But in this case, the Pilsudski-drawn arc ‘from sea to sea’ will be broken and the prospect of restoring relations with Western Europe, primarily with Germany, within the next 10 to 15 years will remain (in fact, the Anglo-Saxons’ fear of an alliance between resource-rich Russia and high-tech Europe under the leadership of Germany was precisely the cause of many events).

The fate of the western lands of the former Ukrainian SSR, and the Polish, Hungarian, and Romanian territories before World War II is not so clear. The fact is that the redistribution of territories between Ukraine and Russia is actually the review of the badly drawn administrative boundaries inside the USSR, which did not take into account (and it was not needed) language or ethnic factors. That is why their revision does not actually affect the fundamentals of the valid Helsinki Act of 1975 on the inviolability of European borders, while changing the borders of Western Ukraine in favor of third countries requires a global revision of the foundations of the European security system.

Second, regarding the demilitarization of Ukraine within the new borders (without the Donbass, Lugansk, Kharkov, Zaporozhye, Nikolaev and Odessa Oblasts and without access to the Black Sea), it is doomed to become a state with a neutral status enshrined in the Constitution. The military industry should be completely abolished; the armed forces should perform only the functions of the police and dealing with emergency situations (natural and man-made disasters).

Third, as for denazification, after the trial of neo-Nazi criminals, Bandera ideology should be completely prohibited and all its followers should be strongly prosecuted. Bilingualism should be introduced in the country with equal use of Russian and Ukrainian languages.

Of course, the outcome of any conflict is a reflection of the balance of power at the time it ends or freezes. At this stage the analysis shows that any truce or ‘freeze’ in Ukraine would be extremely unstable and only benefit the ‘collective West’ without realizing the above components of the picture of victory. They will provide Europe and the United States with the possibility to carry out the rearmament of their armies, preserve the Ukrainian proto-Nazi regime and prepare for a new, large-scale NATO advance on Russia. No change of power in the White House or the hypothetical arrival of Donald Trump to power will alter this scenario.

© Global Look Press / Petrov Sergey / via

Summarizing all of the above, we can draw only one conclusion: Russia has no other options but to achieve victory along the described contours. It may seem impossible now, but we don’t want to die, do we?! Therefore, the half-war must be ended. The slogan “Everything for the front! Everything for Victory!” should become the raison d’être of our entire policy, both foreign and domestic. The victory banner should rise in Kiev – the mother of Russian cities and the sacred center of the Russian world.

Without detailing every tectonic shift that Russia is destined to make, we would like to re-emphasize: there is no other historical choice.