Has the West gone insane?

How Western powers steer us toward a nuclear World War III

A lot has been happening, and a good deal remains woefully under-reported.

Let’s begin with the idea expressed in the title I chose for this article. It is clear by now that the fighting in Ukraine is not between Ukraine and Russia, but between the collective West, a conglomerate of about 50 countries around NATO, and Russia. The goal for the West: to break up Russia in smaller pieces, under leadership of puppets they can control, so they can have access to all the reserves of natural resources that Russia has. For Russia, the stakes are thus very high: naked survival.

This is not a misrepresentation.
There is a long history of animosity between the US and Russia, starting in the aftermath of WWI. The US sent a contingent of soldiers to fight the Bolsheviks, and they stayed in Russia for a year and a half, a much forgotten episode of that horrendous World War.

As an interesting aside: it is from the very chaotic later years of WWI, well into the 1920s, that the British already actively used the brand-new country of Ukraine as a pawn against Russia. That ultimately failed, but the idea stuck.

At the foundation of modern American foreign policy is undoubtedly Zbigniew Brzezinski. His ideas about Russia, at the height of the Cold War, were never discarded, not even when the USSR finally imploded in 1991.

At that junction, the US had a huge advantage: it had just won the Cold War, and was the sole superpower left on Earth. It enjoyed unprecedented political, economical, military, ideological and moral supremacy and goodwill, having stood up against the Bolsheviks, and stared them down, protecting people all over the world from their bloody tyranny.

But this went to the heads of the people in the State Department, and instead of turning down the military presence and influence all over the world, now the USSR was gone, they only ramped up their attempts to bring the whole world under their control. According to Lindsey O’Rourke, in her book ‘Covert Regime Change: America's Secret Cold War’, the United States had undertaken 64 covert and 6 overt attempts at regime change. This continued, among other attempts through many color revolutions, such as the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia in 2003, the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine in 2004, the "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan in 2005, or the "Arab Spring" in 2011, and of course the Maidan uprising in 2014.

Even today, the US is trying exactly that, again in Georgia. The pretext is a law the Georgian lawmakers have approved that would require organizations that receive more than 20% of their funding from foreign sources to register as ‘agents of foreign influence. The most vocal opponents are, not surprisingly, linked to NGOs with extensive ties to the US, the EU or NATO. In demonstrations, European top leaders and ministers have participated: what a breach of neutrality, and what a statement of influence. It is precisely this type of overt meddling in another country by the US/EU/NATO cabal that necessitated such a law. The EU does not really care about Georgia, nor does it really want them as a full member state. But any opportunity to open another front against Russia, is taken. Whatever the cost. And whatever the Georgians themselves think about that.

Of course, the US denounces that law as a threat to democracy, an attempt to silence political opponents. Of course, within the mindset of the sole superpower, they also threaten to get their way, as a commentator reported on Telegram: “US Assistant Secretary of State Jim O’Brien announced on May 14 that Georgian MPs could be subjected to sanctions for "undermining democracy" over passing the bill.” The commentator continues immediately, pointing out the inherent hypocrisy: “However, the law, which obliged Georgian media and NGOs to register as "pursuing the interests of a foreign power" if they receive over 20 percent of their funding from abroad is reminiscent of the US' own Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).”

So, what did Brzezinski offer as strategy?

“Given (Russia’s) size and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia’s vast natural resources. A loosely confederated Russia — composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic — would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with its neighbors. Each of the confederated entitles would be able to tap its local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow’s heavy bureaucratic hand. In turn, a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski, “A Geostrategy for Eurasia”, Foreign Affairs, 1997)

An article dating back to 2014 (!!), long before the Special Military Operation started, but right when the US and NATO overthrew the duly elected Ukrainian president Yanukovich, offers this insight:

“The Polish-American intellectual Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was US President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor and an architect behind the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, has actually advocated for the destruction of Russia through gradual disintegration and devolution. He has stipulated that «a more decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization». [1] In other words, if the US divides Russia up, Moscow would not be able to challenge Washington.”

The article continues, and mentions the following:

“Dmytro Sinchenko published an article on September 8, 2014 about dividing Russia. His article is titled «Waiting for World War III: How the World Will Change». Sinchenko was involved in EuroMaidan and his organization, the Ukrainian Initiative «Statesmen Movement» (Всеукраїнської ініціативи «Рух державотворців»), advocates for an ethnic nationalism, the territorial expansion of Ukraine at the expense of most the bordering countries, reinvigorating the pro-US Georgia-Ukraine-Azerbaijan-Moldova (GUAM) Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, joining NATO, and launching an offensive to defeat Russia as part of its foreign policy goals.”

This was broadcast through the Ukrainian service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which is basically a Cold War remnant US propaganda tool.

But we see this not only in obscure propaganda articles in Ukraine, but in the headlines of top Western news media. Bloomberg states in a 2022 article “Is Breaking Up Russia the Only Way to End Its Imperialism?”. The Commission on Security & Cooperation in Europe (known also as the U.S. Helsinki Commission, created by Congress in 1975 to monitor compliance with the Helsinki Final Act, an accord signed by 35 countries, including Russia, about political and military issues, including territorial integrity, the definition of borders, peaceful settlement of disputes and the implementation of confidence building measures between opposing militaries, on economic issues, including trade and scientific cooperation, and about human rights issues, including freedom of emigration and reunification of families divided by international borders, cultural exchanges and freedom of the press) ran a panel titled: “Decolonizing Russia: A Moral and Strategic Imperative”.

The Atlantic headlined “Decolonize Russia - To avoid more senseless bloodshed, the Kremlin must lose what empire it still retains.” The Hill, in a 2023 article, warns that “It’s time to start taking the potential disintegration of Russia seriously.” Even if it acknowledges that such a breakup of Russia would most likely be very messy, and leave a small but very unpredictable Russian rump state, “which would presumably be more dangerous.”

Why is Russia able to turn the tables, despite massive sanctions by the US and all of the EU? Because it has all the necessary natural resources, not in the last massive energy resources, to become self-sufficient. It is precisely access to those resources that the West want to deprive Russia of, and wants to exploit for themselves.

Instead of allowing Russia to reform and be drawn into the Western world, as a fellow European country, the US decided that Russia had to remain the enemy. Instead of dismantling NATO when it’s sole raison d’être, a military alliance to protect against the Soviets, became obsolete when the USSR collapsed, they strengthened it, explicitly aimed against Russia. With the result it is now being pushed in the arms of China. What incredible shortsightedness. The US cannot reasonably fight either China or Russia (that is for another analysis), but both together? Absolutely impossible.

Add to all this the emergence of BRICS, and the impending collapse of the US Dollar as reserve currency, when the BRICS countries start their own gold and silver backed currencies, in a direct move against the US. How did it come to that? Because the US made the incredible mistake to weaponize the Dollar. They had control over it, with all the power and benefits that came with it, but the world accepted it, as the US had been working hard to protect and serve: militarily, in the Cold War, and through humanitarian aid wherever needed. Since 1991, however, the Dollar became a weapon, military aid a pretext to build more bases all over the world, and humanitarian aid a back-door to export LGBTQ, abortion and other liberal ideals in what cannot be described but a cultural neocolonial expansion, enforced under threat of withholding military, financial or humanitarian aid, or under threat of economic sanctions.

BRICS is the topic of another article (likely series) that I am working on, so stay tuned for that. For now, back to Ukraine.

With all this in the background, as examples of shortsighted arrogance on part of the West, look again at the situation in Ukraine. Look at where all the aid is coming from:

While the West is massively supporting Ukraine, by sending billions of dollars in cash, billions of dollars’ worth of aid, including ammunition, weapons and other military hardware, it’s whole intelligence gathering apparatus (satellites, drones, spy planes, etc.), and ‘advisors’, and is training tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers on NATO bases all over Europe, the US and EU sanction and threaten any country that dares send support to Russia, even in the form of parts that could be used to build weapons.

For example, the Telegram Channel Multipolar Market posted: “Chinese authorities are demanding the cancellation of unilateral sanctions recently imposed by the United States on about 20 national companies from mainland China and Hong Kong for working with Russia, stated He Yadun, an official spokesperson for China's Ministry of Commerce.

According to He Yadun, the United States maintains trade contacts with Russia when it is in their interest, and at the same time, applies so-called Russia-related sanctions against Chinese enterprises. Such actions by Washington are considered in China as a policy of intimidation and economic coercion.”

Read this interesting reply by Scott Ritter to this tweet by Ben Hodges, retired US Army commanding general of the United States Army Europe:

Scott Ritter highlighted from Gen. Hodges tweet: “Russia is already at war with us.”

And then continued:

✅ We used the CIA to funnel money and weapons to Chechen rebels to help foment violence intended to break up Russia into component parts.

✅ We used the CIA to create a malignant political “opposition” designed to undermine the Russian government.

✅ We continued to push for the expansion of NATO to include Ukraine even though a sitting U.S. Ambassador warned it could lead to war.

✅ We facilitated a violent coup in Ukraine for the purpose of installing an anti-Russian ultra-nationalist government.

✅ We allowed the CIA to build 12 bases inside Ukraine for the purpose of carrying operations targeting Russia.

✅ We built a Ukrainian military designed for the sole purpose of fighting Russians.

✅ We facilitated the genocide of Russians in the Donbas by supporting Ukrainian/German/French non-compliance with the Minsk accords.

✅ We ignored all efforts by Russia to resolve the Ukrainian issue peacefully.

✅ We supplied tens of billions of dollars in military assistance to Ukraine in order to sustain a conflict we hoped would lead to the strategic defeat of Russia.

You have a warped understanding of the world, General.

Russia isn’t at war with us.

We’re at war with Russia.”

And this is absolutely true (see my 10 part series on ‘Russia’s War in Ukraine’, staring here). The current war was forced upon Russia, but was staged by the West.

It is at this point in time also a proxy war, but where is the line between waging a proxy war and actual war? This line in Ukraine is increasingly blurry.

Take, for instance, this report, from a pro-Russian Telegram channel:

Ukraine, together with its allies, works on plans in advance for flights of drones that are trying to attack targets on Russian territory, the American television channel CNN reported, citing a source familiar with the Ukrainian drone program.

The flights are determined in advance with our allies, and the aircraft follow the flight plan to enable us to strike targets with meters of precision.”  the TV channel quotes the source as saying. Source also mentions the usage of an AI technology in planning the drone strikes.

————

So, Basically, the drones strikes are all conducted by the NATO. Imagine my shock. Whatever the "limitations" America puts for Ukraine for the Russian targets it effectively puts them on itself.

If American satellites and spy planes/drones are used to detect Russian targets, and if that information is then shared through US military ‘advisors’ on the ground in decision centers in Ukraine, who then direct weapons to be aimed at those targets, does it matter if those weapons are Ukrainian or American? Does it matter who pulls the trigger?

In the meantime, a good number of foreign troops are fighting with Ukraine. They are not officially regular soldiers from any of the NATO countries, but again: where is the line? If a soldier receives leave, and then ‘volunteers’ in Ukraine, is he a NATO soldier? Look at the amount of Polish troops in Ukraine: there is a constant stream of notifications from Russian channels that talk about Polish speaking soldiers in Ukraine. Those are then labeled as members of the ‘Polish Volunteer Corps’, and conveniently, the Polish government states that “the Polish Volunteer Corps described in the media is in no way connected with the Polish Armed Forces or any Polish institution.”

Emblem of the Polish Volunteer Corps, the “Polski Korpus Ochotniczy”

This offers plausible deniability, which is a lot harder to maintain when you hear news stories about how a Ukrainian command post in the hotly contested Chasiv Yar was targeted by an Iskander missile, and the next day the Polish announce that a Polish general suddenly died, of unspecified causes.

Stephen Bryen, a former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense and a leading expert in security strategy and technology, wrote on his own substack the following: “Chasiv Yar was extremely important during the battle for Bakhmut. It was the feeder for troops being sent into Bakhmut, and for rotation of soldiers fighting there. It was the source of supply of ammunition, food and medical support for Ukraine’s army in the city. Chasiv Yar was also the command center not only for the Ukrainians, but for their Western military advisers.”

The general in question was Brigadier General Adam Marczak, a career soldier. The official news from Poland stated that his death was “unexpected (sudden) and caused by natural causes”, and that it happened “while off duty.” A Russian article on the website TopWar stated that “According to the latest data, it was at this command post that some time before the strike, representatives of the command of NATO countries, including from the United States and Poland, arrived.” Bryen explains the very unusual presence of such top officers so close to the front as a sign of ‘desperation’, based on a deep concern that the Russians might successfully push through.”

As if that is not enough, France and now also the UK were openly talking about sending troops to Ukraine. Boots on the ground! Biden and the Germans immediately tried to backtrack, but a news report stated that France had already sent 100 soldiers, with another 1400 to follow, drawn from the 3rd Infantry Regiment of its famed Légion étrangère, or Foreign Legion. They were to be sent to support the Ukrainian 54th Independent Mechanized Brigade in Slavyansk, consisting of artillery and surveillance specialists.

Macron has been posturing as a tough guy for months, talking about sending troops to Ukraine. Sending the Foreign Legion is an easy way out of the many problems sending French troops would bring with it: soldiers of the Foreign Legion are not French citizens (except their officers), and so no conscription of French men could be held to replenish those numbers, and no French citizens would be dying far away from home. Others contest that those troops were ever sent to Ukraine.

Bryen added in another article (worth a full read): “The second reason is Macron’s anger at having French troops, almost all from the Legion, getting kicked out of Sahelian Africa and replaced by Russians. Control of Francophone Africa, and the riches it provides to French politicians, has been broken by the revolt and revolution in Africa and a decisive tilt to Russia, either directly or through PMC Wagner (the Wagner Group) now clearly under Putin’s direct control. This “humiliation” is felt in the Élysée Palace and particularly by Macron who, his opponents says, has lost France’s influence and harmed France’s overseas mining and business interests.”

This is a pattern, following the ‘advisors’ in Vietnam. Several sources talk about Polish, French, British, Finnish and other NATO troops present in Ukraine, often with their own uniform, or their own patches.

Russian channel Rybar posted this collage, showing the presence of Finnish troops. If they are volunteers, or ‘advisors’, cannot be distinguished, which is surely exploited. According to Belgian sources, 14 volunteers have left for Ukraine since the beginning of the fighting, 9 of which have since returned, 3 who are still fighting, and 2 who died. A year ago, however, I spotted Belgian uniforms, worn by soldiers manning a NATO supplied mobile artillery piece. Make of it what you will.

The British, not to be outdone, spoke openly about not imposing any restrictions on the weapons they delivered to Ukraine. Until now, the rule was ‘use them against targets in Ukraine, but do not fire them towards Russia itself’. That would be a huge escalation. Imagine of Russia gave Cuba missiles, and Cuba fired them at the US. Would we accept that Russia is blameless, and that it was Cuba who fired them? To ask the question, is to answer it.

In reply, Russia held exercises with tactical nuclear weapons (the ‘small’ ones, not aimed at destroying whole cities, but smaller, targeted, military targets, and more limited radiation and fallout). In Russian military doctrine, nukes would only be used in a very specific set of circumstances: "Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened."

The moment NATO openly starts attacking Russia, Russia finds itself in a very tough situation, despite the problems NATO has shown with production and the economic support of any large scale military campaigns, and the huge improvements Russia has made in her own supply chains and economy. Look at the chart below.

While only valid on July 2023, and certainly improved on Russian side (Earlier this year, the Telegraph reported that “Russia produced 1,530 tanks and 2,518 armored fighting vehicles in 2023, said Sergei Shoigu, the newspaper wrote, citing the Russian defense minister. Shoigu announced an increase in tank production by 560% since February 2022, combat vehicles by 360%, and armored personnel carriers by 350%.”), this shows that Russia would be at a marked disadvantage against the combined NATO armies. With their tactical nuclear weapon drills, Russia sent a clear message.

PBS reported “Russia’s Defense Ministry said Monday that the military would hold drills involving tactical nuclear weapons — the first time such an exercise has been publicly announced by Moscow.” Amazingly, PBS managed to completely miss the important message that Moscow was sending, to France, to the UK, and to the US: keep out of Ukraine, and do not target Russia with your weapons. Don’t escalate this war! It is clear red line Putin is drawing. He also ordered the British and French ambassadors in Moscow to appear for a meeting. What was said, is unknown, but both France and the UK suddenly backed down.

That meeting, and the clear warning through the nuclear drills, seem to have hit their intended mark. Still, it is incredible how the West keeps provoking Russia, and keeps pushing, blurring the lines between proxy war and actual war.

This is not a game. Yet Western leaders behave as if any sense of diplomacy, long term thinking, wisdom and carefulness are to be shunned.

How is it that such leaders can remain in power? Can we blame the American public, or the Europeans, for the absolute debacle that is their foreign policy? They are the ones who keep voting in those bumbling idiots, are they not?

If only it was that simple. While the story goes that Putin is the dictator, a threat to democracy, he just got reelected in a proper election, and with an overwhelming majority. Russians stand behind their president, and their president has a very clear democratic mandate to keep protecting Russia and keep building it up. Even the attempt to blame Putin for Navalny’s death (a Western backed opposition leader) failed, as even WSJ admitted:

Where the US newspaper still try to insinuate at least some culpability of Putin and the Russians for Navalny’s death, Ukrainian intelligence chief Budanov simply admits that Navalny died of a blood cloth, period. “Well, I may disappoint you, but all we know is that he died from a blood cloth.” For more info on the farce that is Navalny, and his links with Western intelligence agencies as an ‘agent provocateur’, see this article.

So no, Putin is not against democracy. On the contrary, he is a stickler for following the rules and laws, as a 2020 article by Indian news channel NDTV reported “For most of his two decades in power, Putin, 67, was a stickler for the appearances of democratic procedure, if not the substance, taking pains to make Russia seem to be playing by something like western rules.”

Contrast that with Zelensky. He abolished the opposition parties in Ukraine, as the Guardian reported. They cited a telegram post by Medvedev: “The most democratic president of modern Ukraine has taken another step towards the western ideals of democracy. By decision of the Council for National Defense and Security, he completely banned any activity of opposition parties in Ukraine. They are not needed! Well done! Keep it up!”

This was not enough, and Zelensky banned a good number of media outlets, including TV and internet news. Of course, while blaming Russia. An event by the Wilson Center focused on this move by Zelensky, and held a panel among Ukrainians.  “Ukraine has long been the laboratory for Russian disinformation campaigns. As a result, the Poroshenko and Zelensky administrations have named combatting Russian disinformation a top priority. Recently, President Zelensky signed a decree sanctioning three television stations affiliated with Viktor Medvedchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch with ties to the Kremlin. However, Ukrainian citizens are divided on this decision, with some believing it to be a necessary step and others finding it a restriction on citizens’ rights.”

Ukraine is similarly repressive of journalists (RIP Gonzalo Lira). Even the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate, with a strong presence in Ukraine, is not safe, and their churches, services and priests are mercilessly attacked, burned down, beaten. It is forbidden to be part of this Church, as even NPR reported: “Government officials effectively banished clergy loyal to the Moscow patriarch from the most sacred parts of a nearby gold-domed monastery complex called the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra.” It is not just this church, but widespread across Ukraine. The Verkhova Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament, passed a law banning the Orthodox Church of Ukraine – Moscow Patriarchate , as reported by the Guardian, in a first step to make this the law of the land: "The Ukrainian parliament gave initial approval on Thursday to a law that would ban the Moscow-linked Ukrainian Orthodox Church after Kyiv accused it of collaborating with Russia following last year’s invasion.”

This is nothing limited to Ukraine. The EU sees no problems in any of those moves by Zelensky or Ukraine, nor will those be an impediment towards Ukraine’s acceptance into the EU or NATO.

In the EU itself, similar moves happen. News outlets blamed of being ‘pro-Russian’ are banned in the EU. Just this past week, the EU banned four more Russian media outlets within her borders, as reported by AP. The reason? The same as Zelensky’s for his blatant breaches of proper democracy: “the spread of propaganda about the invasion of Ukraine and disinformation”. AP wrote: “The latest batch of broadcasters consists of Voice of Europe, RIA Novosti, Izvestia and Rossiyskaya Gazeta, which the EU claims are all under control of the Kremlin. It said in a statement that the four are in particular targeting “European political parties, especially during election periods.””

(Robert Fico)

Meanwhile, the Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico was shot, in an assassination attempt. The leader of the Bulgarian Revival party, Kostadin Kostadinov, was very clear in his condemnation of this attempt:

"Robert Fico is an exceptionally brave politician! He stated categorically that he would not allow:

-  additional military aid to be sent to Ukraine

-  Ukraine should not be accepted into NATO

-  the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine could lead to a third world war.

It is obvious that his courage led to the assassination attempt.

At this stage, we can only make assumptions about the true motives of the crime. A possible option is some kind of special operation, or the second option is that the assassination attempt occurred as a result of large-scale anti-Russian hysteria, which is being deliberately fanned in Europe.

That is why I am anxiously asking the question of who may be the next target of the assassination attempt. I don't have an answer to this question. Now a terrorist act has been committed, the terrorists want to intimidate us."

According to Kostadinov, this was either a political murder attempt, some ‘special operation’, or else simply the result of the mass hysteria against anything Russian that is running rampant in Europe, unchecked, promoted by all the top leaders.

A telegram poster was livid, seeing the above snippet: “These pieces of shit are in full panic mode, desperately trying to disown their would-be assassin and instead hilariously try and pin this on Russia. The assassin had pro Ukraine opinions. He was videoed at a pro-Ukrainian protest. And his wife, who has just been arrested is, you've guessed it, Ukrainian.”

Barely a month ago, Fico predicted his own assassination attempt, as he was denouncing the attitude of the progressives in his country, dehumanizing anyone who they disagreed with, powerfully amplified by a complicit media.

And boy, is the media complicit. Instead of strongly condemning political assassinations, they seem to welcome and agree with this attempt!

As posted by commentators (click to hear the SkyNews clip): “The presenters of the British SkyNews channel spoke frankly in a few minutes of live broadcast dedicated to the assassination attempt on Fico:

🔶 "He is a source of discord in Slovakia and in the EU. Therefore, it is not surprising that this happened. Because Slovakia was determining how to develop in the future - as an authoritarian country or as a more Western European one."

🔶 "Fico is in government as part of a coalition, but he holds it together with authoritarian methods."

🔶 "Hungary, Slovakia, Austria - they are all now resisting the pan-European line in support of Ukraine, and they are undermining the general consensus, which at the moment is very anti-Russian."

🔶 “I’m sure the Kremlin will present it this way: peacekeepers in Europe are in danger, everyone who talks about peace in this place called NATO, which is called upon to wage war against Mother Russia, is being assassinated.”

You dare speak out against the EU, and you are now ‘sowing discord’, a ‘pro-Russian shill’, and ‘no surprise you get assassinated!’ This is absolutely stunning, that such commentary is allowed.

Scott Bennet, a US psyop vet, is brutally open about this: “The assassination attempt of the Slovakian Prime Minister seems to be a NATO operation”.

He continued, after comparing this to the Kennedy assassination: “The laughing ridicule shown by the western press is the same that was demonstrated when the Nordstrom pipeline was destroyed by the United States, which not only a celebration of action, but the tweets and messages of various western governments will no doubt implicate themselves in the coming hours as they blame this on Russia and attempt to galvanize European unity.” That predication already came true, as Russia is indeed already blamed, see Anders Aslund’s tweet earlier.

Here are the British The Independent and The Sun:

In their headline they are adding that Fico was ‘pro-Putin’, in this current climate in the EU. As Fico himself is fighting for his life in the hospital, the newspapers besmear him, and try to justify the attempt on his life, by linking him to the devil incarnated, Putin.

Slovak Prosecutor General Maros Zilinka did not mince words, and was clear that the assassination attempt was ‘a culmination of sentiments nurtured in society’:  “It is a manifestation of hatred, it is a manifestation of an attack not only on a person, but also as an attack on the prime minister and on the very essence of statehood.”

In Germany, Olga Petersen, member of the Hamburg Parliament for the Alternative for Germany party  (AfD) was expelled from the AfD faction for calling the elections in Russia open and free, and the whole process democratic.

Free speech, and democracy, are dead in the West.

These are very dangerous times, as the leadership in Europe is desperate. They gambled they could take on Russia, but vastly underestimated Russian resilience, and vastly overestimated their own power. Now they scramble to save face, and act like a trapped animal: unpredictable and wild. Their main concern is more and more about saving their own hide, and no longer on the good of the people they are supposed to represent.

The upshot is that more and more people are waking up to the fact that their own leaders are no longer representing them. Protests mount, even as the media tries to either silence any news about them, or tries to paint them in as negative a light possible. People notice how the unbridled immigration, another ploy by the ruling elites to cement their own positions and goals, is destroying their own countries they love. While the media tells them that such love for your own country is bigoted, is nationalist, is fascist.

I love Europe (and Russia is part of it!). I love the US. There is strength, still, in the US, and in Europe. But we are in a very precarious situation, at the edge of a knife, where our ruling elites are blindly pushing for escalation, hoping to save their own hides and agenda.

To be continued.

(A report on the recent battlefield events is coming, as is a series on the situation in Israel. Stay tuned!)