Logo: Rhondda Records logo 2

Discussion Page

The Crux of the Putin-Xi Revolution

 for a New World OrderArresting

 the Slide to Nihilism

by Alastair Crooke

November 29th, 2022


It becomes questionable whether the West can

 compete as a civilisational state and maintain

 a presence.


The world ‘Map’ is accelerating its shift away from the 

paralysed Washington ‘hub’ – but to what? The myth 

that China, Russia, or the non-western world can 

be fully assimilated to a Western model of 

political society (any more than 

Afghanistan was) is over. So

 to where are we headed?


The myth of the pull of acculturation into western

 post-modernity lingers on however, in the 

continuing western fantasy of pulling 

China away from Russia, and into an 

embrace with U.S. Big Business.


The bigger point here is that former wounded 

civilisations are reasserting themselves: 

China and Russia – as states organised

 around indigenous culture – is not a 

new idea. Rather, it is a very old one: 

“Always remember that China is a 

civilization – and not nation-state”, 

Chinese officials repeat regularly.


Nonetheless, the shift to civilisational statehood

 emphasised by those Chinese officials arguably 

is no rhetorical device but reflects something 

deeper and more radical. Moreover, the 

culture transition is gaining wide 

emulation across the globe. Its 

inherent radicalism however, 

is largely lost to western 



Chinese thinkers, such as Zhang Weiwei, accuse

 Western political ideas of being a sham; of 

masking their deeply partisan ideological 

character beneath a veneer of supposedly

 neutral principles. They are saying that 

the mounting of a universal framework 

of values – applicable to all societies 

– is finished.


All of us must accept, that we speak 

only for ourselves and our societies.


This has arisen because the non-West... now sees 

clearly that post-modern West is not a civilisation 

per se, but really something akin to a de-cultured

 ‘operating system’ (managerial technocracy). 

Europe of the Renaissance did consist of 

civilisational states, but subsequent 

European nihilism changed the very 

substance of modernity. 


The West promotes its universal-value stance, 

however, as though it be a set of abstract 

scientific theorems which have 

universal validity.


The accompanying promise to the latter that

 traditional ways of life could be preserved 

under the wholesale application of these 

intentionally secular western norms – 

ones that demanded enforcement 

by the western political class – 

has proved a fatal conceit 

...these alternative 

thinkers contend.


Such notions are not confined to the Orient. Samuel

 Huntington, in his book The Clash of Civilizations, 

argued that Universalism is the ideology of the 

West contrived for confronting other cultures. 

Naturally, everyone outside the West, 

Huntington argued, should see the

 idea of ‘one world’ as a threat.


The return to plural civilisational matrices precisely 

is intended to break the West’s claim to speak – or 

to decide – for anyone other than themselves.


Some will see this Russo-Chinese defiance as mere 

jockeying for strategic ‘space’; as a rationale to 

their claims for distinct ‘spheres of interest’. 

Yet, to understand its radical underside, we 

should recall that the transition to civilisation 

states amounts to a full-throated resistance 

(short of war) being mounted by 2 wounded 

civilisations. Both Russians (post-the '90s) 

and Chinese (in the Great Humiliation)... 

feel this deeply. Today.. they are intent 

on reasserting themselves forcefully,

 in uttering: ‘Never Again!’


What ‘lit the fuse’ was the moment when China’s

 leaders saw – in the plainest terms – that the 

U.S. had no intention whatsoever to allow 

China to overtake it economically. 


Russia of course, already knew the plan to destroy
her. Even the smallest amount of empathy is 

sufficient to understand that recovery from 

profound trauma is what binds Russia and 

China (and Iran) together in a joint 

‘interest’ that transcends

 mercantile gain. It is 

‘that’ which allows

 them to say:-- 

Never again!


One part to their radicalism therefore, is the national

 rejuvenation that propels these two states to ‘step

 confidently onto the world stage’; to emerge from 

the western shadow, and to stop mimicking the 

West. And to stop assuming that technological 

or economic advance can only be found within 

the western liberal-economic ‘way’. For, it 

follows from Zang’s analysis, that the 

West’s economic ‘laws’ similarly are 

a simulacrum posing as scientific 

theorems: A cultural discourse 

– but not an universal system.


When we consider that today’s Anglo-American world

 view rests on the shoulders of three men: Isaac

 Newton, the father of western science; Jean-

Jacques Rousseau, the father of liberal 

political theory, and Adam Smith, the 

father of laissez-faire economics, it

 is plain that what we confront here 

are the authors of the ‘Cannon’ of 

individualism (in the wake of the 

Protestant triumph in Europe’s 

30 years’ war). From it comes 

the doctrine -- that the most 

prosperous future... for the 

greatest number of people 

comes from ------ the free 

workings of the market.


Be that as it may, Zhang and others have noted that

the western focus on ‘finance’ has come at the

expense of ‘stuff’ (the real economy), and has 

proved to be a recipé for extreme inequalities 

& social strife. Zhang argues, contrarily, that 

China is poised to evolve a new kind of non-

Western modernity that others – especially 

in the developing world – can only admire, 

if not emulate.


The decision has been made: The West then, 

in this view, can either ‘shut up, and put up’

 – or not. So be it.


Steeped in cynicism... the West sees this stance, as 

bluff or posturing. What values, they ask, lie behind 

this new order; what economic model? Implying 

again that universal conformity is mandatory, 

and thus missing Zhang’s point completely. 

Universality is neither necessary, nor 

sufficient. It never ‘was’.


In 2013, President Xi gave a speech which sheds

 much light on the shifts in Chinese policy. And 

though its analysis was firmly focused on the 

causes to the Soviet implosion, Xi’s 

exposition... very clearly intended

 a wider meaning.


In his address, Xi attributed the break-up of the Soviet 

Union... to ‘ideological nihilism’: The ruling strata, Xi

asserted, had ceased to believe in the advantages

and the value of their ‘system’ --- yet lacking any 

other ideological coordinates within which to

situate their thinking, the élites slid 

into nihilism:


“Once the Party loses the control of the ideology, 

Xi argued, once it fails to provide a satisfactory

 explanation --- for its own rule, objectives and 

purposes, it dissolves into a party of loosely

 connected individuals --- linked only by the

personal goals of enrichment & power”. 

“The Party is then taken over by 

‘ideological nihilism’”.


This, however, was not the worst outcome. The worst 

outcome, Xi noted, would be the state taken over by

 people with no ideology whatsoever, but with an

 entirely cynical and self-serving desire to rule.


Put simply: Were China to lose its sense of a Chinese

 ‘rationale’, embedded for over a millennia in a unitary 

state with strong institutions guided by a disciplined 

Party, “the CPC, as great a Party as the CPSU was — 

would be scattered like a flock of frightened beasts! 

The Soviet Union — as great a socialist state as it 

was — ended shattered into pieces”.


There can be little doubt: President Putin would 

concur with Xi whole-heartedly. The existential 

threat to Asia is to allow its states to assimilate 

into soulless western nihilism. This then, is the 

crux of the Xi-Putin revolution: Lifting the fog 

and blinkers imposed by the universalist 

meme to permit states a return to

 cultural rejuvenation.


These principles were in action at the G20 in Bali. Not

 only did the G7 fail to get the wider G20 to condemn 

Russia over Ukraine, or to insert a wedge between

 China and Russia, but rather, the Manichean 

offensive targeting of Russia produced 

something even more significant for 

the Middle-East than the paralysis 

and lack of tangible results, 

described by the media:


It produced wide and open defiance of the western 

order. It spurred pushback – at the very moment 

that the world political ‘map’ is on the move, 

and as the rush towards BRICS+ is 

gathering pace.


Why does this matter?


Because the ability of western powers to spin their

spiders’ web notion that their ‘ways’ should be the

World’s ways, remains the West’s ‘secret weapon’. 

This is plainly said when western leaders say 

that a loss in Ukraine to Russia would mark 

the demise of the ‘Liberal Order’. 


They’re saying, as it were, that ‘our hegemony’ 

is contingent on the world seeing the western

 ‘way’ – as their vision for their future.


Enforcement of the ‘Liberal Order’ largely has 

rested on the underpinning of an easy 

readiness of ‘western allies’ to fall 

into line, with Washington’s 

instructions. It - therefore - 

is difficult to overplay the 

strategic significance 

of any withering of 

compliance to U.S. 

diktat. This is the

 ‘why’ to the war

 in Ukraine.


The U.S.’ crown and sceptre are slipping. The peril of

 U.S. Treasury ‘N-bomb’ sanctions have been key to

 induced ‘allied’ compliance. But now, Russia, 

China and Iran have charted a clear path out 

from this thorny thicket, through dollar-free 

trading. The BRI initiative constitutes 

Eurasia’s economic ‘high road’.


 India, Saudi Arabia and Turkish inclusion (and now, 

an expanded list of new members are waiting to be

 signed up) give it an energy-based 

strategic content.


Military deterrence.. has constituted the secondary 

pillar to the architecture of compliance to western

 models. But even that - though not gone - is 

lessened. In essence, smart cruise-missiles, 

drones, electronic warfare and – now – 

hypersonic missiles, have capsized 

the former paradigm. So too, has 

the game-breaker event... of 

Russia joining with Iran, as

 a military force multiplier.


The U.S. Pentagon, even a few years ago, dismissed

 hypersonic weapons as ‘boutique’ and a ‘gimmick’. 

Wow – did they miscalculate on that one!


Both Iran and Russia, are at the forefront, in

complementary areas of military evolution. 

Both, are in an existential fight. And both 

peoples possess the inner resources to 

sustain sacrifice from war. They will 

lead. China will lead from behind.


Just to be clear: This Russo-Iranian link says: U.S. 

‘deterrence’ in the Middle East itself now faces a 

formidable deterrent! Israel too, will need to 

ponder that.


The Russo-Iranian force-multiplier relationship, the

 Jerusalem Post opines: “provides proof that the 

two states … together – are better equipped to 

make good on their respective ambitions – to 

bring the West to its knees”.


To fully understand the anxiety lying behind The Post 

opinion piece, we must first grasp that the geography 

of the ‘shifting map’ towards a BRICS+ --- new 

corridors, new pipelines, new waterway and 

railway networks --- is but the outer 

mercantilist layer to a nesting 

Matryoshka doll. To unstack 

to the inner doll layers is to 

espy in the final innermost 

Matryoshka – a layer of 

kindled energy and 

confidence latent 

to the whole.


What is missing? Well, the fire that finally bakes the 

New Order Z -‘dish’; the event that instantiates the 

new World Order.


Netanyahu keeps threatening Iran. Even to Israeli ears

 however his words seem stale and passé. The U.S. 

does not want to be led by Netanyahu into war. 

And without the U.S., Israel cannot act alone. 

The recent MEK-led attempt to wreak havoc 

in Iran, reeks somehow, of a ‘last 

resort’ push.


Will the U.S. try some risky game-changer in Ukraine 

to ‘take out’ Russia? It’s possible. Or might it try to 

derail China somehow?


Is a Mega-clash inevitable? After all, what is
 prospect is not the dominance of any one 

civilization, but a return to the natural, old 

order of non-universal realms of influence. 

There is no reason in logic for a Western 

boycott to try to explode the shift – 

except one:


In any assimilation to what this future portends, 

the collective West inexorably must become a

 civilizational state per se – simply to maintain 

an enduring presence in the world. But the 

West has opted for a different route (as 

Bruno Maçães, commentator & former 

Portuguese Secretary of State for 

European Affairs, writes):


“[The West] wanted its political values to be accepted

 universally … In order to achieve this, a monumental 

effort of abstraction and simplification was needed …

 Properly speaking, it was not to be a civilization at 

all but something closer to an operating system … 

no more than an abstract framework within which 

different cultural possibilities could be explored. 

Western values were not to stand for one 

particular ‘way of life’ against another —

 they establish procedures, according to 

which those big questions (how to live) 

may later be decided”.


Today, as the West turns away from its own key 

leitmotif – tolerance – and towards weird ‘cancel 

culture’ abstractions, it becomes questionable

 whether it can compete as a civilisational 

state and maintain a presence. And if

 it can’t?


A new order may come into being following one of two

 events: The West may simply self-destruct, following 

some systemic financial ‘breakage’, and the

 consequent economic contraction. Or.... 

alternatively a Russian decisive victory

 in Ukraine just may be enough finally 

to ‘cook the dish’.



Wow...   Mr Crooke certainly knows

how to serve up a fascinating dish.


What do you think?




Europe cannot agree on 

what the price ceiling 

on Russian oil and 

gas should be

November 26th, 2:34pm



How strange it is! EU diplomats said.... that most 

European countries, led by France and Germany, 

supported a price ceiling on Russian oil and gas. 

They have not yet accepted it, but simply 

because they cannot agree... on what 

the ceiling should be.


The only thing they are concerned about is whether

they will be able to comply with it. It has to be

respected… They are not worried about EU 

energy prices, cutting down trees, about 

36 000 elderly people froze to death in 

England last year --- because there
n't enough money for high 

temperatures in their 

homes (this is not 

propaganda, the 

BBC has it).


Some in the EU are straightforwardly convinced that 

we should make the ceiling no higher than $30 and

 it will surely punish Russia, hurt it. Obviously,
 is what individuals from the countries
limitrophs think – the Baltic states,
Poland, but they are really
it with them.


Erdogan is starting to build a gas hub; Qatar sent them

 and signed a long-term contract with China; Algeria is

 asking to join BRICS; the U.S. says bluntly: sorry, we 

will not have much gas. But stupidity is like 

space – limitless.


These freaks in the European Parliament, in the 

leadership of individual countries, the entire 

European Commission, do not learn history, 

and their knowledge is fragmentary. They 

even have all sorts of Ph.D. degrees or 

some J.D., but to explain to this Ph.D. 

that regulating gas and oil prices... 

is impossible.


The funny thing is, in the short term oil prices, for

 example, will fall. They will fall, because there 

will be a recession in the world, demand will 

go down and prices will go down with it. And

 then these idiots will decide -- why not limit 

prices on everything and end inflation? For

 Russian fertilizers, wheat, and then they 

will decide to regulate the prices of
only Russian products…


And maybe we, as humanitarian aid, should unload

 their stupid macroeconomics textbooks, with 

which we have been brainwashed? By the 

way, one of the authors, is economist 

Jeffrey Sachs, ---once one of the 100 

most influential people in the world, 

who has now, incidentally, had an 

epiphany and says that the US is 

the main Mordor… Everything is 

mixed up…



What do YOU think?


Are you mixed up too?




 ‘Is Washington Our Ally or Not?’: 

EU Officials Accuse US 

of Profiteering Off 

Ukraine Crisis

November 25th, 6:41pm



The allegations come as temperatures across Europe

 continue to drop, and amid the bombshell revelation

 by former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson this

 week that the UK’s European allies recognized the 

economic fallout which would accompany a long 

Russia-Ukraine conflict, and sought its speedy

 resolution in the spring.


European Union officials and diplomats have accused

 Washington of profiteering off the Ukraine crisis via

 energy and weapons sales -- and warned that the 

mood is shifting against the US among its allies 

on the other side of the Atlantic.


“The fact is, if you look at it soberly, the country that

 is most profiting from this war is the US because 

they are selling more gas, and at higher prices, 

and because they are selling more weapons,” 

one senior European official told a German-

owned media group --- on condition 

of anonymity.


“We are really at a historic juncture…America needs

 to realize that public opinion is shifting in many EU

 countries,” the official added, warning --- that

 skyrocketing energy costs & transatlantic 

tensions over trade, risk fracturing the 

Western bloc.


An unnamed US official dismissed these concerns,

 assuring that American energy companies “have 

been transparent & reliable suppliers of natural 

gas to Europe,” that prices are set by market

 considerations, and that resellers, not US 

exporters, skim much of the profits off 

energy deliveries destined for Europe.


European officials expressed similar concerns

 regarding America’s profiteering from arms 

sales, with one EU diplomat saying “the 

money they are making, on weapons” 

should help Washington realize: that 

the profits they’re making from gas 

deliveries may be “a bit too much” 

...and that a discount for fuel to 

Europe could “keep united.. 

our public opinion.”


“It’s not good, in terms of optics, to give the

 impression... that your best ally is actually 

making huge profits out of your troubles,” 

the anonymous diplomat complained, 

citing concerns in Brussels that 

building up depleted weapons 

stocks could take “years” 

to achieve.


Another official complained about the Inflation

 Reduction Act (IRA), a controversial law 

passed in August, designed to curb

 inflation and ramp up domestic 

energy production and clean 

energy, but which Brussels 

has condemned.. for its 

discrimination against

European goods ---- in 

violation of WTO rules.


The IRA “changed everything” and has 

prompted questions in Europe to the 

effect of:  “is Washington still our 

ally or not?” the EU official said.


One French Foreign Ministry official complained 

that the law amounts to.... “discriminatory 

subsidies that will distort competition.”


A US official assured... that the IRA was not aimed at 

undermining European industry or competitiveness. 

“This is not a zero-sum game,” the official said. 

“The IRA will grow the pie for clean energy

 investments, not split it.”


Open Acrimony


The exchange of anonymous comments... by officials

 and diplomats to media comes against the backdrop 

of harsh back-and-forth remarks by officials on both

 sides of the Atlantic in public regarding the IRA and

 energy, with French President, Emmanuel Macron..

 leading the increasingly angry rhetoric.


“Their costs of energy are so much lower, as they are

 producers. They sell their gas for 3-4 times less than

 we have to pay, and they have also great subsidies

 from the state in some areas, up to 90 percent. 

That is unfair. These are double standards,” 

Macron complained, in October.


“The United States produces cheap gas that they sell

 to us at a high price, and on top of that, they have

 taken massive state aid measures in certain 

sectors that are completely outside our 

market projects,” Macron expanded,

 earlier this month. 


Paris estimates that the IRA could cost France alone

 up to eight billion euros in investments if companies

 shift operations to the US to take advantage of

 the subsidies.


Hundreds of European companies, including steel and

 chemical manufacturers, carmakers, pharmaceutical 

companies, and food producers have already shifted 

operations to the US to take advantage of lower

 energy costs and state incentives, threatening 

the European Union with deindustrialization

 and widespread job losses.


European officials appeared to have been cognizant of

 the threat the Ukraine crisis posed to their economic

 well-being, as far back as the spring, with Boris

 Johnson revealing this week, that there were 

“sound economic reasons” for Germany to 

seek a swift Russia-Ukraine peace 

agreement to prevent the crisis 

from turning into a long, 

drawn-out conflict.


Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly

 warned French, German...  and other European 

leaders of the folly of their anti-Russia policy, 

characterizing EU sanctions on Russian 

energy as “suicidal” and stressing that

 the loss of cheap and dependable 

Russian oil and gas - would strip 

the bloc of its global economic




Rhondda Records believes in

fighting for better leadership.


What do YOU believe in?



Journalist-Run, Intelligence-Linked 

Operation That Warped British 

Pandemic Policy
by Kit Klarenberg

November 23rd, 2022

(Strategic Culture Foundation)


Presented as an independent voice for “unbiased”

 scientific advice --- iSAGE provided a channel for 

media spinmeisters, spies & psy-op specialists 

to influence Britain’s pandemic policy without 

accountability. Leaked internal emails show 

members fretting over its unethical methods.


Throughout Britain’s response to the COVID-19 crisis, 

a lobbying group... known as the Independent 

Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies 

(iSAGE) served as a key driving force 

behind the government’s most 

draconian lockdown policies.


While it presented itself..... as a non-governmental 

organization composed of forward-thinking health

 experts, The Grayzone can reveal iSAGE not only

 maintains an array of ties to the British security 

state, while relying largely on political, rather 

than scientific, considerations when crafting 

policy recommendations.


With Winter ahead in Europe and calls for the

 reimposition of COVID-19 restrictions... 

growing once again — not least from 

iSAGE itself - the outfit’s endeavours 

provide a disturbing look at the role 

of the security state and the main-

stream media -- in corrupting 

British public health policy.


Nearly three years since the world first heard of

 COVID-19, societies across the globe, are still 

reeling: from prolonged lockdowns and harsh 

social restrictions which many governments 

implemented in order to supposedly “stop 

the spread” of the virus. Britain is no 

exception, and while the full long-

term impact of such measures 

remains unknown, some 

grueling effects are 

already painfully 



Patients receiving care for cancer, cardiovascular, and

 respiratory disease were prevented from accessing

 routine treatment; rates of clinical depression, and

 mobile phone addiction among university students

 skyrocketed; adults of all ages report worsening

 mental health conditions; and the number of 

Britons seeking help for drug addiction

 increased by 81% between 2020

 and 2021.


Meanwhile, school closures exposed Britain’s youth, 

to food insecurity and increased likelihood of falling

 victim to domestic abuse, while a rapid digitization 

of education, further widened learning gaps 

between wealthy and low-income 

students in the country.


“We were mesmerized by the once-in-a-century scale

of the emergency -- and succeeded only in making a

crisis even worse. In short, we panicked,”
Professor Mark Woolhouse,
an Edinburgh 
University epidemio-
logist, in
January 2022.


As with many contemporary critics of the British

 government’s initial “Zero COVID” strategy,

 Woolhouse argued a targeted response to 

protect the most vulnerable members of 

society, such as the elderly, would have 

done more to curb Britain’s death toll 

than blanket, nationwide lockdowns.


“This was an epidemic crying out for a precision

 public health approach and it got the opposite,” 

he explained.


Behind some of the most socially destructive

 pandemic policies implemented by the British 

government was iSAGE, a shady organization 

...founded by a Russia-obsessed Guardian 

pundit, and advised by spies, behavioral 

psychologists and media influencers,

 without backgrounds in science 

or medicine.


Founded in May 2020, by David King, a former chief

scientific adviser, to Labour Prime Ministers, Tony 

Blair and Gordon Brown, iSAGE initially set out to

agitate for greater transparency around state 

health policy, while providing “robust, 

unbiased advice”... to the public and

government. It rapidly transformed 

into a powerful, wholly unaccount-

able lobbying group, aggressively 

pushing for “Zero COVID”



For almost two years, iSAGE members were a fixture 

in both British and international media. Senior

 politicians and pundits effusively endorsed 

the group’s pronouncements... on the 

pandemic, and its weekly YouTube 

briefings, racked up tens of 

thousands of views.


 Its representatives used their popular platforms
 call for extensive control and suppression 

measures, including contact tracing, mass

 testing, border quarantines, lockdowns, 

and the implementation of mitigation 

software... in order to stop the

 transmission of COVID-19.


Confusion regarding iSAGE’s name, given its obvious

 similarity to the British government’s official 

Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies 

(SAGE) --- only increased the group’s 

prominence. Very quickly after its

 launch, iSAGE began to not only 

work in parallel with its govern-

ment namesake, but supplant
in the public mind.


Despite its enormous influence.... iSAGE and its 

members have largely avoided public scrutiny. 

Little is known about the forces guiding and 

shaping its activities, or whether its 

representatives.. are advancing an 

ulterior agenda at odds with their 

stated commitment to providing 

“unbiased” scientific advice.


iSAGE pushes lockdowns “without sufficient 

scientific expertise or scientific evidence

 to inform it”


It was on iSAGE’s official launch date in May 2020 that

 its founding objective... of securing publication of the

 identities of SAGE, and its papers, was achieved. 


Previously, the body’s composition, and the evidence

 underpinning its decisions was entirely hidden from

 public view - which stoked significant controversy, 

particularly given its initial heel-dragging over the 

implementation of protective COVID-19 measures.


Emboldened by this immediate success, former iSAGE

 member, Allyson Pollock, claims the group “rapidly

 moved away” from its initial transparency agenda 

“to wanting to make policy” itself. Unknown to

the public at the time, iSAGE’s transformation

 from government watchdog project into the

premier public health policy-making 

activist group, prompted an

 internal revolt.


“Often, [iSAGE] ended up advocating things... when it

 hadn’t sufficiently thought through the uncertainties

 in the evidence and the potential for harm,” Pollock,

 who worked as a clinical professor of public health 

at Newcastle University, alleges. She cites 

“prolonged lockdowns, school closures, 

and mass testing,” as examples 

of iSAGE’s misguided 



According to Pollock, the group offered policy advice 

“sometimes without sufficient scientific expertise or

 scientific evidence to inform it.”  She expressed 

vehement opposition  when the group officially

 adopted its “Zero COVID” position in July 2020,

 believing it lacked any basis in science. Two 

months later, the group declined to renew 

her membership.


iSAGE’s push for Zero COVID appeared.. oddly timed,

 and the group itself acknowledged total eradication

 of a disease --- had only ever been achieved once in

 history, in the case of smallpox. Britain was at that 

point, beginning to reopen after a four-month lock-

down, in line with SAGE advice. In theory though, 

as iSAGE was an entirely separate entity from 

SAGE --- it was free to advocate for whatever 

mitigation strategies it deemed appropriate.


In practice though, an overlap in the membership 

of both bodies as well as their virtually identical

 names, blurred lines between the two groups. 

British government chief scientific advisor 

Patrick Vallance claims he explicitly 

warned iSAGE founder David King 

against using any derivation of 

“SAGE” for the title of his new 

group, believing it would 

puzzle and mislead

 the public.


Despite apparently pledging to not emulate the name, 

King did so anyway. The “Independent” prefix was

 even more problematic, as it clearly implied that 

SAGE was not a trustworthy, autonomous

 organization.... while iSAGE issued 

impartial, more credible advice,

 by contrast.


iSAGE gathers influence by fueling confusion


As predicted, the two groups’ duplicate names 

muddied the waters on public and government 

messaging around COVID-19, leading to 

numerous troubling -- if not outright 

dangerous -- blunders on the part 

of journalists, pundits, and 

elected lawmakers alike.


SAGE member, Ian Boyd, claims such chaos was

 intentional. In October 2021, he told The British

 Medical Journal the 2 groups’ names “created 

confusion... and was a device used by those 

organising [iSAGE] to set up unnecessary 

friction.” In the same article, another 

academic, suggested iSAGE’s title 

implied the body was “somehow 

more authoritative than it 

actually is.”


Public disorientation was compounded by the fact that 

several members of SAGE also moonlighted as iSAGE

 experts. Take the example of Susan Michie --- a left-

wing political activist and self-styled “behavioural 

change” expert, who served with both iSAGE and

 SAGE, advising the secretive governmental SPI-B

council of behavioral psychologists, that fear

-mongered the public into compliance with 

official pandemic policy. Media reports on 

Michie almost universally referred to her 

simply as a “SAGE scientist,” creating 

the impression that her comments

 represented the British 

government’s official



Michie became a symbol of iSAGE’s advocacy for a

 permanent biomedical security state. During a 

June 2021 interview, she argued that social 

distancing and mask mandates should 

“continue forever.”


Susan Michie says we will need to wear masks and

 socially distance from our fellow human beings ‘for

 ever’. Remember she is a member of SAGE and 

‘Independent’ SAGE. https://t.co/ewuzyvNozV


— Neil Clark (@NeilClark66) June 10, 2021


At no point did the mainstream British media

 acknowledge that Michie’s background did 

not necessarily qualify her to recommend 

policy for a public health crisis. Rather,
clinical psychologist represented 

precisely the type of character 

who could be called upon to 

manipulate the public into 

accepting extreme



Michie was not the only iSAGE representative that

 news outlets presented as a “scientist” despite 

an apparent lack of relevant credentials in 

epidemiology, virology -- or public health 

management. Another long-time media 

favorite was...  iSAGE mathematician 

Christina Pagel, who was promoted 

as a credible expert, despite her 

routinely misreading and 

misrepresenting data.


On the flip side, mainstream media wrongly

 characterized members of iSAGE who were 

not part of SAGE as representatives of the 

latter on numerous occasions. Similarly, 

the press erroneously presented iSAGE

 recommendations as official SAGE 

advice more than once.


In May 2020, Labour party deputy leader Angela

 Rayner, mistakenly declared that SAGE had 

warned against the planned June the 1st 

reopening of schools as “too soon,”

 implying the British government 

was recklessly ''discounting'' 

recommendations from its 

own in-house scientific 

advisors. She was in 

fact referring to a 

report produced 

by iSAGE ----

 not SAGE.


Conversely, SAGE’s own research cautioned that 

blanket school closures would result in children

 experiencing “a shock to their education which 

will persist and affect their educational and 

work outcomes for the rest of their lives.”

 It predicted that extended periods of home

 learning would gravely deepen inequalities 

between pupils, and leave early-stage

learning and behavioral disorders 



As scheduled, England began to reopen schools

 in September 2020 ----- although they were shut 

down once again that December. Independent 

SAGE representatives then steadfastly 

opposed mass reopenings in Spring 

2021, and regularly criticised the 

move for months thereafter.


In October that year, a United Nations report

 concluded countless children worldwide had 

been harshly impacted emotionally and 

psychologically, by school closures, 

leading to greatly increased “fear 

and stress, anxiety, depression, 

anger, irritability, inattention” 

as well as “irregular physical 

activity and sleep patterns.”


A total confirmation of SAGE’s

 initial warnings --- against 

blanket school closures.


The UN’s withering judgement may explain why iSAGE

 representatives have since deleted social media

 posts in which they  aggressively advocated for

 keeping children out of classrooms until COVID

-19 was completely eradicated. Still, some 

evidence of their advocacy remains 

extant today, including a July 2020 

livestream on mask mandates ---- 

billed as a “public consultation.”


“I don’t believe schools should be opened until we’ve

 approached Zero COVID. This is a big challenge,”

 David King declared in that discussion. “It means,

 over to the government, ‘please lock us down, 

manage the disease, bring it right down to 

roughly a level of one in a million people,’ 

and we’ll manage to open schools
 more safely.”


Not-so-Independent SAGE riddled 

with conflicts of interest


It was not until July 2021 the British media began

 probing into the scientific collective with any 

critical scrutiny. That month, The Daily 

Telegraph revealed.. a shadowy outfit 

called The Citizens was responsible

for establishing iSAGE.


The Citizens was itself led by Carole Cadwalladr, the

 Russia-obsessed Guardian columnist who won a

 series of high profile awards for reporting 

claiming the data firm SCL-Cambridge 

Analytica served as a channel ----- for 

Russian meddling in the Brexit vote. 

As Alex Rubinstein reported for The 

Grayzone, Cadwalladr’s reporting 

was comprehensively discredited 

by a 2020 British parliamentary 

report that found no evidence 

whatsoever of Russian 

involvement in Brexit.


Not the first time Facebook has had a fake

 whistleblower! https://t.co/AvoRlHPtEQ


— Alex Rubinstein (@RealAlexRubi) October 6, 2021


In response to the revelation that The Citizens had

 spawned iSAGE, Cadwalladr insisted The Citizens’

connection to the group had been publicly stated 

on iSAGE’s website since its launch. Though her 

claim was technically accurate, the link had 

never been acknowledged in media 

appearances by iSAGE members, 

let alone by Cadwalladr herself. 


What’s more, the relevant passage on iSAGE’s 

website merely refers to The Citizens as a 

“small support team, helping Independent 

SAGE with its public events and 

media activities.”


This characterization significantly downplays the 

scale and nature of the relationship between The

 Citizens and iSAGE. It was around the time of the

 Telegraph exposé that Cadwalladr updated her 

own Twitter profile to describe herself as a 

“cofounder” of The Citizens, the “parent” 

of iSAGE. Meanwhile, The Citizens’ 

Twitter characterizes itself as

 iSAGE’s “founder and 



Official records of a June 2020 meeting of iSAGE’s

 ‘Behavioural Advisory Group’ show the organization

 received significant direction and assistance from

 another unacknowledged source. Zack King, 

representative of PR firm Firstlight Group, 

took a lead role in proceedings,

 introducing “the work of 

Independent SAGE to 

date,” and leading a 

dedicated discussion 

on press relations.


Along the way, King stressed that he and Cadwalladr
“handled press issues,” and iSAGE “can use both of
them” if the organization’s behavioral scientists
wanted to “involve” the media in its activities.


“Zack and Carole work together on press side.
Most press relations are undertaken via Zack
and his PR firm,” the minutes state.


In January the next year, a blog titled, “Holding the

 government to account” was published on Firstl-

ight’s website, laying out the “ambitious media 

plan” the company pursued in order to “build 

the group’s profile as quickly as possible” 

and “grow the group’s influence” upon 

launch. The proposal called for 36 

weekly media and public briefings

 and “countless one-to-one inter-

views and bylines.”


Within six months, iSAGE was “agenda-setting,”

 Firstlight boasted --- “and this publicity 

empowered them --- to drive change,”

 including its “Zero COVID” approach 

“being adopted by parts of the Welsh, 

Scottish & Northern Irish devolved 

governments.” At no point was it 

disclosed that Zack King is the 

son of iSAGE chief David King, 

a fact the former is keen 

to conceal.


Leaked iSAGE communications reviewed by The

 Grayzone, indicate Firstlight was rewarded

 handsomely, for its media manipulation. In

 late May 2020, when Cadwalladr proposed

 starting a crowd-funder for the operation, 

iSAGE member Allyson Pollock, said she
 growing uneasy about the initiative.
was “extremely anxious” re seeking 

such finance for a “short-term project,”

 and proposed raising funds, via other 

non-public means, even offering to 

contribute to expenses herself.


Pollock’s concerns were extensive. There was no

 clarity, on what the money was needed for “and 

how much and how long and exactly who for,” 

she complained, especially given that iSAGE

 members were working pro bono. Further, 

the group had collectively decided to 

recruit resident academics with 

stable incomes plus volunteers 

living off guaranteed govern

-ment financial support.


“Everyone on the committee is in employment and

 some of us are on very good salaries. So, should 

we not be contributing if we need to, that would 

be public spirited and in the spirit of what we
doing,” Pollock fretted. “The public are
very hard
 pressed at the moment and I
don’t feel at all 


David King attempted to reassure Pollock that any 

sums received would not be used to enrich iSAGE

 members, but to instead cover invoices to the 

PR firm, Firstlight. Remuneration for 

“professional expertise” would be

 solicited elsewhere, he promised.


Cadwalladr also weighed in, remarking that Pollock

 “won’t be aware.. of the behind-the-scenes work 

that has been involved... in getting the project 

this far,” including “the unavoidable expense

 involved particularly in handling the media.” 

What services those costs would have 

covered in the midst of a national 

lockdown remains unclear.


That June, The Citizens launched a dedicated 

crowdfunder for iSAGE which raised £60,000. 

An accompanying blurb was vague on how 

donations would be spent, merely stating 

it would help the organisation yo “keep 

following the science.” No mention 

was made.. of bankrolling a wide-

ranging media blitz, courtesy of 

the son of iSAGE’s founder.


The Citizens rakes in donations from

 regime change cut-out Omidyar


The decision by iSage to launch a fundraising

 campaign, while the British public suffered 

widespread unemployment, hardship, and 

financial uncertainty – and despite wholly 

reasonable & legitimate internal dissent 

is rendered all the more perverse, given 

The Citizens has received hundreds of

 thousands of dollars from Luminate.


As Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal documented in 

an investigation with Alex Rubinstein, Luminate is 

an integral component of intelligence-linked US

 oligarch, Pierre Omidyar’s global propaganda 

and regime change network.


The 2018-2022 strategic plan of @Pierre Omidyar’s

 @luminategroup lists “counter[ing]” Russia and 

China & “provid[ing] critical support” to groups

 in “countries in transition” as top priorities.


That’s code for supplementing US regime 

change operations. https://t.co/

AXFBhAduCR pic.twitter.com/



— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal)

 September 9, 2020


In 2020, Luminate gifted The Citizens $150,000 to

 develop the “Real Facebook Oversight Board”,

 and $300,000 ostensibly to produce “impact 

journalism to hold government and big tech

 to account.” Cadwalladr also claims... the 

CIA-connected Ford Foundation provided

 some support, although no record of the 

donation is recorded on the 

Foundation’s website.


A 2016 report on Omidyar Network activities in West

 Africa underlines how the billionaire’s media assets

 are used to further his commercial interests. One

 passage refers to “converting passive readers to

 active citizens” by sponsoring the publication of 

“politically opportunistic” content, in order to

 “motivate citizens and government to act.” 

The report went on to cite “recent, major 

successes” the billionaire’s network had

 enjoyed in Nigeria, where Omidyar 

effectively owns the local 

tech sector.


“With the spectre of potential citizen mobilization

 looming in politicians’ minds, media outlets also 

have the potential to elicit government response

 directly,” the report boasted. “In some cases…

government was motivated to act in order to

 prevent citizen action [emphasis added], 

instead of in response to it.”


Between March and July 2020, Omidyar’s personal

 wealth grew by $9 billion, in no small part due to

 the “Covid-proof” business interests he had 

fostered around the globe. These included 

expansive investments in ed-tech, digital 

health & online content, which became

 major growth industries.... due to 

lockdown policies.


By contrast, it’s difficult to identify how The Citizens

 put its lavish Luminate grants to work. Omidyar was

 clearly happy with the results, however, giving the

 organisation another $300,000 in 2021.


Today, the Real Facebook Oversight Board consists 

of an infrequently updated Medium blog with 225 

followers. There is no sign either of any “impact

 journalism” from The Citizens, save for a long-

dormant Substack, and legal action against 

the British government ...over its purported 

failure to investigate Russian interference 

in elections.


Despite their lavish Omidyar financing, Cadwalladr’s

 group again turned to crowdfunding for that effort, 

raising tens of thousands from the public before 

its legal push was thrown out by a High Court 

judge as the case was “inarguable.”


Discredited former MI6 agent Christopher
teele advises iSAGE


The Citizens’ website, which has been ''in construction”

 for most of its existence, once featured a dedicated

 profile of disgraced former MI6 spy and former FBI

 contractor Christopher Steele. And The Citizens

 founder Cadwalladr --- has been a fervent fan of
 intelligence huckster, lionizing him despite 

his ‘Trump-Russia’ dossier having been

 comprehensively exposed as a fraud - 

compiled with rumours and tall tales

 fed to him by a single dubious 

source --- for cash.


Orbis Director Christopher Steele.... moderated a 

fascinating panel discussion following a special

 screening of #TheGreatHack hosted by

 @liviafirth and @firthcom. Thank you to 

@carolecadwalla, @edwardlucas and 

Mike Lerner @roastbeeftv for your 

participation. pic.twitter.com/



— Orbis Business Intelligence 

(@OrbisBIOfficial) January 

7th, 2020


In email exchanges with The Grayzone, Zack King,

 the PR agent and son of iSAGE’s founder, initially 

contended The Citizens “drew on a wide and 

diverse collection of unpaid advisors before 

it launched.” Christopher Steele was among

 them, though according to King, he “never

 played any active or other role” in The 

Citizens or iSAGE.


Requests for details on the services Steele provided

 for The Citizens before its public inauguration were

 ignored. When asked why the group’s website

 featured his profile... if he was no longer 

involved in any capacity,  King revealed

 Steele was actually part of “a network 

of pro-bono advisors we can call upon 

as needed.” He therefore implied
former spook could provide 

indeterminate support at any
time, to The Citizens, 

and perhaps iSage,

 as well.


Steele’s intimate but mysterious involvement with an

 influential outfit that shaped government policy and 

public perceptions on COVID-19 is troubling, given 

the power grab --- that British security and 

intelligence services carried out, under 

cover of pandemic prevention.


Britain’s security state merges with the public 

health sector under cover of tracking Covid


In May 2020, the same month iSAGE was launched, 

London rolled out an initiative called the Joint 

Biosecurity Centre (JBC). The JBC... was 

advertised as a state-of-the-art system 

providing “evidence-based, objective 

analysis to inform local and national 

decision-making in response to 

COVID19 outbreaks.”


 Purportedly tracking the virus’ spread, in real-time, its 

coronavirus “alert level” was directly modeled on the

 Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre’s “traffic light” 

system, established in 2003.


JBC was first led by Tom Hurd, a veteran intelligence

 official who months earlier had been put forward as

 the likely next MI6 chief. Hurd... soon returned to 

running counter-terrorism for the Home Office, 

however, and was replaced by senior GCHQ

 operative Clare Gardiner. Her appointment 

reportedly came at the behest of Cabinet 

Secretary Simon Case, GCHQ’s former 

Director of Strategy.


At the time, concerns were rising... about the growing

 role of intelligence service personnel --- in managing 

the pandemic - particularly given their abject failure

 to sound any alarm on COVID-19 before it circulated 

among the general public. But any resistance to the

 integration of the security state with the public 

health sector -- was comprehensively shunted 

aside, when the British government replaced 

Public Health England, with the Health 

Security Agency, of which, the JBC 

became a subdivision.


Despite the body’s enormous and constantly

 expanding power, the opaque JBC, has 

entirely eluded scrutiny from British 

media since its launch. 


Its membership, the minutes of its meetings, data,

 analysis, and arguments, all remain a secret,

while it maintains the power -- to impose 

restrictions if not outright lockdowns

 -- without explanation or warning 

at any time.


In October 2020, as Britain edged towards a second

 national shutdown, parliamentarians demanded the

 publication of JBC’s deliberations, evidence 

sources, and key personnel be published. 

On each point -- they were shut down by 

the government. In justifying its refusal 

to disclose members’ identities, 

Downing Street... claimed the 

Centre is “largely staffed by

 civil servants,” meaning it 

was “not appropriate” to

 name them.


Given that the veteran GCHQ spy Clare Gardiner was

 merely referred to as a “senior civil servant”.. in an

 official press release announcing her appointment

 to lead JBC, the question must be asked: is the 

centre “largely staffed” by intelligence 



Gardiner left her post in mid-June 2021 without any

 official announcement, and the position has been

 vacant ever since. At least, no replacement has

 been publicly mentioned, and no one has asked 

officials for clarity.   Given the enormous clout 

exerted by the body to this day it's staggering 

that not one single journalist or campaigner 

...has demanded answers.


Indeed, contrary to their professed, principled

 commitment to scientific transparency, and 

their initial calls to break the wall of official 

silence surrounding the British government’s

 scientific advisory group’s composition, and

 thinking, iSAGE and The Citizens have made

 no attempt to pressure the government to 

release any information on the JBC or 

Health Security Agency.


As we will see in further installments in this

 investigation, leaked emails absolutely 

debunk the stated commitment by 

iSAGE and The Citizens to 

“following the science.”




The views of individual contributors do not 

necessarily represent those of the 

Strategic Culture Foundation.


[or Rhondda Records]


Murky, eh? What 

....do YOU think?




Raids at Kiev-Pechersk Lavra 

point to Kiev regime’s moral 

degradation — HRC

November 22nd, 5:47pm (TASS)


Conducting raids at Kiev-Pechersk Lavra monastery,
indicates a complete moral degradation of the Kiev
regime, according to the head of the permanent
committee on international cooperation in the 

sphere of human rights of the Presidential 

Council for the Development of Civil 

Society and Human Rights, 

Kirill Vyshinsky.


"The image of the Lavra as a pillar of spirituality.. has

 always been a beacon for people during the hardest 

times. And when it is being brazenly dragged into

 politics, and pummeled with absurd accusations, 

this testifies to a complete moral degradation of 

the Kiev regime. It is clear that the SBU would

not have dared to do so without a 

presidential order," he said, as 

quoted by the HRC press 

service on Tuesday.


Vyshinsky added that Ukrainian nationalists have

 always wanted to take possession of the Kiev-

Pechersk Lavra. According to him, slogans to 

take over the oldest monastery were voiced 

during the Maidan events in 2004 and 2014.


"Yet I will reiterate that there have always been the

 devout who defended the Lavra from adversaries.

 I hope to God, there will be some now as well," 

he added.


Earlier, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), 

confirmed it was conducting searches at the 

Kiev-Pechersk Lavra; explaining them by the 

need to protect residents from provocations 

and terror attacks. On November 13th, the 

SBU opened a criminal case over chants 

about Russia being performed at one of

the churches of the Kiev-Pechersk 

Lavra of the Ukrainian Orthodox 



The SBU also reported that its members were 

inspecting the premises of two Ukrainian 

Orthodox monasteries, in Rovno region.

What do you think?
Moral degredation
or much ado...?


The West is preparing 

an invasion of Belarus

November 20th, 9:19am



Svetlana Tikhanovskaya publicly declares that her 

victory in the presidential election in Belarus, was

stolen by Alexander Lukashenko & Vladimir Putin.


Authorities have been talking about possible foreign

 invasion of Belarus since 2020. Today, the threat of

 intervention has begun to take real shape. A not

 inconsiderable role is being played here by the

 fugitive Belarusian opposition.


By now, it is not only about the incessant military

 exercises of the NATO countries near the borders 

of Belarus and Russia. Poland --- and the Baltic 

states have already started to form a bridge-

head for a future intervention. 


This is evidenced... by the modernization of Polish and

Baltic airfields, the reconstruction of training centres 

and firing ranges, and the increases in the number of 

armed forces stationed near the Belarusian border. 


Poland is planning to increase its army to 300 000 men

 and arm it with 1 500 modern tanks and BMPs, 1 200

 mobile artillery units and several thousands of light 

armoured vehicles. Tanks, helicopters and HIMARS 

are to be bought from the United States, and 

howitzers and artillery rockets from 

South Korea.


 It is planned to expand the presence of US troops on 

the borders of Poland with Belarus, primarily the 

101st Airborne Division, which can become 

the strike fist of the invasion.


However, it is impossible to organise an intervention 

without a political and ideological justification. This 

is what a runaway Belarusian opposition... is

 needed for.


First, we are talking about Svetlana Tikhanovskaya

 and her entourage. Over the last month the fugitive

 opposition activist made several trips to European

 countries where she was welcomed on an official

 level. In early November, Tikhanovskaya went to

 Strasbourg for the first meeting of the contact 

group of the Belarusian opposition and the 

Council of Europe (CoE). 


After that, she was welcomed in Iceland, which now

 chairs the Council of Europe and will preside over 

the Nordic Council from 2023. In Reykjavik, 

Tihanovska was met by the Prime Minister, 

the head of the Foreign Ministry and 

members of parliament. The hosts 

heard from the guest a request for 

assistance in raising her inter-

national status. 


In particular, she suggested initiating “the launch of

 projects to support civil society & prepare reforms

 within the framework of the Contact Group under 

the Council of Europe”, inviting “representatives 

of Belarusian political organizations and parties 

to PACE as observers”, “to initiate an 

investigation of the Lukashenko 

regime crimes in international 

institutions in one of three 

areas: crimes against 

humanity, aiding... to 

military aggression, 

migration crisis”.


On 14 November, Tikhanovska spoke to the EU foreign

 ministers on the sidelines of a meeting of the Council 

of the European Union for Foreign Affairs. There she

 demanded to “put Belarus back on the agenda”, 

“institutionalise relations with democratic forces

 in the European Parliament following the 

example of the Council of Europe”, and 

“support Belarusian activists, 

volunteers and volunteers

 in Ukraine”. 


Two days later, Tikhanovska could be 

seen in Prague, where she met with 

representatives of the 

Czech parliament.


The crowning feature of Tikhanovska’s ideological

 work was her article in Politico “I am the elected

 president of Belarus, and together we will win”. 

In it Tihanovskaya proclaimed herself 

“president”, claiming that her victory 

had been stolen ---- by Alexander 

Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin.


She accused the Russian president of sending

 “propagandists to Belarus and preparing 

forces for an invasion”, securing from 

the Belarusian leader “support for 

armed aggression against 



The purpose of Tikhanovska’s surge is to justify a

 Western invasion of Belarus. The rhetoric of the

 Belarusian opposition has increasingly referred 

to the “occupation” of the republic by Russia 

and the need for Western support for the 

“national liberation movement”. 


Representatives of the Kiev regime have already

 addressed international institutions with a 

proposal to declare Belarus an “occupied”

 territory. All this resonates in the EU. 


Thus, at the beginning of November, a member of the

 Polish Sejm Pawel Kowal stated that Brussels and 

Washington should “recognize Tihanowska as the

 president of Belarus, recognize her government, 

recognize them as members of the anti-Putin 

coalition”, unless Lukashenko refuses to 

support Russia.


In parallel, work is underway to destabilise the

 situation in the republic -- under the Peramoha 

(Victory) plan. According to Franak Viachorko, 

advisor to Tihanova, “guerrillas” are already 

operating in Belarus and the plan itself has

 been restructured - “to fight the Russian

 occupiers”. According to him, there is 

a large “underground” in the republic, 

structures are being prepared and 

“at the right moment”, will be 

mobilized for a coup, and 

tens of thousands... of 

“volunteers”, transmit

information about the 

movement of the 

Belarusian and 

Russian military.


According to Sergei Terebov, first deputy chairman 

of the Belarusian State Security Committee, the

 opposition ''has one goal: to delegitimize the 

incumbent authorities and justify terrorist 

acts and sabotage.'' 


Among the main activities of Lukashenko’s opponents

 in the coming winter, the KGB calls the work in the

 ''student and teaching environment.'' It is known

 that the administrations of some Telegram 

channels set tasks to their subscribers

 ''to equip hiding places... for tools, 

construction, and other special

 equipment, that can be used

 in riots and for subversive 



Meanwhile, the fugitive opposition, which previously 

denied any such allegations, is now making no 

secret of the fact that it is preparing the 

ground for an armed coup.


According to the “joint transition office” of

 Tikhanovska, their nearest plans include 

“the establishment of cooperation with

 the units of the Belarusian volunteers 

in Ukraine,” “raising the capacity of 

power units to the level necessary

 to perform key tasks”  --- and ''the 

establishment of stable working 

relations, with the Ukrainian 

state authorities --- with the 

aim of jointly counteracting 

the Russian aggression and 

de-occupation of Belarus.''


The main intention is to create a situation in the

 country that would allow the West to declare 

the need for a “peacekeeping” or “de-

occupation” mission in the republic. 


Groups of trained fighters, such as the “Kastus

 Kalinovsky regiment”, will be used as the first 

wave to cover a full-scale invasion of Belarus.


 Minsk cannot fail to understand this. This means 

that the Belarusian authorities will strengthen 

their control over the situation as soon as 

possible, and the regional grouping of the

 Union State forces will be increased and

 re-equipped with modern weapons.


Igor Novitsky, FSC


Yellow journalism?


Or a warning to stop.

What do you think?





Borrell’s ideas instilled inside EU
provoking Europe’s prolonged 

split — Russian diplomat

November 19th, 10am (TASS)


The ideas that EU top diplomat Josep Borrell
disseminates among member states of the

European Union show no sign of the bloc’s

strategic vision on the Russian track and 

provoke a new prolonged split in Europe, 

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman 

Maria Zakharova said in a commentary 

on Saturday.


"Unfortunately, the ideas that EU top diplomat Borrell 

spreads among member states of the European 

Union do not contain, as before, any hint at the

EU’s strategic vision on the Russian track and 

only provoke Europe’s new prolonged split.'' 


''They offer no recipes for resolving accumulated
problems, as if Russia and the European Union 

as geographical and civilizational neighbours 

can get away from each other," the diplomat 

said, commenting on Borrell’s six-point 

proposals on the EU’s common 

approaches to relations with 

Russia... amid the 

Ukraine crisis.


Hence the conclusion: that the goal of the current

EU leaders, is to be quick to give a reasonable
explanation to the attempts at bringing the 

relations with Russia to the state of 

political confrontation, depriving 

them of their common history 

and their economic base, 

Zakharova pointed out.


"There can be seen the desire... to limit the

opportunities for future politicians to find 

a way out of this profound crisis. Beyond 

any doubt --- most of European society 

shows the need for quite the opposite

 in the current conditions," the 

spokeswoman said.


Borrell - apparently - does not abandon the desire: 

to write his name into world and European history 

with dubious initiatives, the diplomat pointed out.


"However, the Spaniard has, so far, distinguished

himself ---- as the EU’s most confrontational high-

level official for all time who will be remembered 

for his belligerent calls for ‘the war must be won 

on the battlefield’ and racist pronouncements 

about the ‘European garden’ and ‘the jungle’ 

besetting Europeans," the spokes-

woman recalled.


It is still early to talk about the results of the

discussions within the EU on the bloc’s 

relations with Russia --- as these 

discussions continue --- but 

Moscow has no illusions 

on this score ------ the 

diplomat stressed.


Six-point proposal


Commenting on the essence of Borrell’s six-point proposal,
the Russian diplomat said this was 
evidence that the
Ukraine problem with the 
2014 state coup inspired
by the West --- had 
been artificially created as an
cover-up for the political, economic, 

technological and humanitarian containment
of Russia 
to ensure the West’s hegemony
in Europe 
and the world as a whole.


"This is why, there is not a word in J. Borrell’s

proposals on settling the Ukraine crisis 

through negotiations and, generally, 

on ensuring security in Europe,"

 Zakharova pointed out.


Brussels has staked on "destabilizing" the internal

political situation in Russia, cleansing the EU’s 

information space from alternative viewpoints,

securing the Western Balkans as the sphere 

of the EU’s influence, transferring rivalry 

with Moscow to the post-Soviet space, 

imposing West-centric "rules" and 

"isolating" Russia, the diplomat

 pointed out.


"The latter...   is the obsessive idea, that has become a

real goal in itself for the EU - a futile intent that bears 

solely costs for European Union countries and their

citizens ---- who have to pay for their politicians’ 

strategic blunders from their own pocket,"

 Zakharova added.


"Indicatively most world capitals are unready to follow

the EU’s Brussels - which, by its mediaeval logic -
returns the world.. to the time of the split, high 

walls and besieged fortresses. Using present 

day terminology, it can be said that the EU 

leadership that has - apparently - been 

infected by some abnormal political 

virus... has decided to self-isolate 

from Russia," the spokeswoman 

went on to say.


Moscow believes that the practical relevance of

the results of intra-EU discussions will largely 

depend on accepting new realities.. "on the 

ground" and the awareness of the need to 

build security on the common European 

continent together with Russia, as the 

option that has no alternative, the 

ability of European capitals.. to 

protect --- relying on their own 

sovereignty --- the interests of 

their citizens...  and the EU as 

a whole, "without turning into 

the secondary instrument of 

the geopolitical expansion 

of the United States and 

NATO," the Russian

diplomat stressed.



What do you think?


If Russia is strong

and good, why are

we being told that

it's evil and weak?


The U.S. has started talking about

 rights to some Russian territories

November the 11th, 10:11am



The US has recalled its claims to part of Chukotka, 

Yakutia and Kamchatka. However, these claims 

show that the Russian-American convention on

the cession of Alaska was invalidated in 1881.


The Wall Street Journal in New York has published

another provocative piece. It urged the Biden

administration to “return” the Wrangel and 

Herald islands, which supposedly, since 

1881 “belong” to the United States, 

and since 1924 are “held” 

by Russia.


Note: The Wall Street Journal is a “business”

publication that specializes in information

provocations. The purpose of these 

provocations is to attract attention 

and engage in discussion. 


Therefore, there is no point 

in parsing the publication.


Another thing ---- our citizens 

should remember some facts.


Wrangel Island is a large island in the Arctic Ocean, 

named after the 19th century Russian navigator

 Ferdinand Petrovich Wrangel. It is located 

north of the coast of Chukotka and is 

administratively part of the Chukchi 

Autonomous District of Russia. To 

the east, the tiny Russian island 

of Geralda adjoins it.


The existence of Wrangel Island was known to 

Russian navigators long before there was a US

of A. It was first mapped by Russian explorer,

 Ivan Lvov. This happened no later than 1707. 


Later, Mikhail Lomonosov recorded the island’s name, 

Doubtful, on a map. The first documented description 

of Doubtful was left by “geodesy sergeant” Stepan

 Andreev. In 1764, he observed it from a distance 

of 20 versts. Andreev called the island the Land 

of Tykegen. According to the ‘Siberian Herald’ 

of 1823, even at that time the land of Tikene 

had a permanent population of Russians 

and ‘natives’.


At that time, the internationally recognised eastern

 borders of the Russian Empire extended to the

 territory of present-day Canada. Thus, the 

Land of Tikene (Doubtful) was within the 

territorial waters of Russia and 

belonged to it.


In 1867 the Russian Empire signed a convention with

the US, ceding Alaska. Russian America was ceded 

to the States. According to the convention, the new

 state border between the two countries was drawn 

on the middle line between Ratmanov and 

Krusenstern islands.


Both were situated opposite each other in the Bering

Strait: one east of Chukotka, the other, west of 

Alaska. To the north, the boundary was drawn 

from the midpoint between Ratmanov and

Kruzenshtern islands in a straight line to

the North Pole. Thus the Wrangel and

Herald Islands, remained under 

Russian jurisdiction.


However, as early as 1881, the States broke this

 agreement. An expedition of the American 

explorer George De Long landed on 

Henrietta Island and declared it, 

as well as neighbouring Bennett, 

as US territory. The Americans 

planted their flag on Henrietta. 


Both islands are west of Wrangel Island. They are

 located north of the coast of Yakutia and are 

part of the Novosibirsk group of islands, 

which are now administratively part of 

the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia).


Soon the De Long expedition suffered a catastrophe.

 It was then rescued by the American steam cutter 

Thomas Corwin. Passing by the Wrangel and 

Herald Islands, Captain Calvin Hooper 

landed a search party. But instead of

 searching for traces of De Long’s 

stay, the Americans declared the

 islands… US territory.


 Hooper’s subordinates did not search for any more 

of their compatriots. The members of De Long’s

expedition... died of hunger and cold. Their 

remains were later found by the Russians 

and handed over to the States.


The violations of the 1867 convention 

did not stop there.


In 1921, at the height of the Russian Civil War, 

an expedition by anthropologist Wiljalmur 

Stefansson landed on Wrangel Island. 


The US citizen raised Canadian and British 

flags before declaring the local territory 

the possession of the United Kingdom. 


At the same time, reindeer herder Carl Loman 

landed on neighbouring Herald Island and 

declared the local territory “possession 

of the United States”. The invaders 

were not expelled until 1924, when 

the gunboat “Krasny Oktyabr” 

arrived on the islands and 

planted the Soviet

 flag there.


In order to prevent new provocations once and for 

all the Soviet government in 1926 officially 

reminded all countries of its jurisdiction 

over Wrangel and Herald islands.


It should be added that after the collapse of the USSR, 

the US again violated the 1867 convention. In the 

1990s, the parliaments of the states of Alaska 

and California demanded that the U.S. 

government “return” Wrangel, Herald, 

Bennett, Henrietta and Medny from 

the Commander Islands... 

(Kamchatka) to the US. 


All these territories, according to the 1867 

convention, were under Russian jurisdiction. 


Now the Americans have completely lost their way. 

They have gone so far as to make fun of those who

 have exercised their will. In particular, they refer 

to the fact that they deceived Mikhail Gorbachev 

when they were discussing the Beringia project. 


The Beringia Project is a project to create an

 international biosphere park comprising the 

Seward Peninsula (Alaska, USA), the Bering 

Strait and Chukotka, together with Wrangel 

and Herald Islands. The initiative was 

proposed in 1990 by George Bush Sr. 

and Mikhail Gorbachev. 


The project provided for the creation of a demilitarized 

zone on the territory of Chukotka and its adjacent 

islands. The “park” was to be managed jointly. 

That is why even at the time when Beringia 

was being discussed, in the USSR, there 

were fears that under the guise of 

creating a “park”, the US wanted 

to establish a Russian-American 

condominium over Chukotka. 


At the time, the US government gave “guarantees” 

of the inviolability of Russian borders. Now the 

Wall Street Journal says that at the time the

“guarantees” were given, reservations 

were made ------ that render the 

“guarantees” meaningless.


It is yet another lesson for those who expect ever 

to negotiate with the West. Any agreement with

 the West is not worth the paper it is signed on.

The Anglo-Saxons understand only one 

language – the language of force.


One last thing. The Frontier Clause was an integral 

part of the Russian-American Convention on the

 Cession of Alaska. It was violated in 1881. 


Since then, the 1867 convention

 has been null and void.


Yuri Gorodnenko, RenTV



Wow... so... at one time,

Russia owned Canada!


Do you know better?




Berlin Goes to Beijing: 

The Real Deal

by Pepe Escobar

November 4th, 2022

(Strategic Culture Foundation)


The Scholz caravan went to Beijing to lay down the

preparatory steps...  for working out a peace deal 

with Russia, with China as privileged messenger.


With his inimitable flair for economic analysis steeped

 in historical depth, Professor Michael Hudson’s latest 

essay, originally written for a German audience,

 presents a stunning parallel, between the 

Crusades and the current “rules-based

 international order” imposed by 

the Hegemon.


Professor Hudson details how the Papacy in Rome 

managed to lock up unipolar control over secular

 realms (rings a bell?) when the game was all 

about Papal precedence over kings, above 

all the German Holy Roman Emperors. 

As we know, half in jest, the Empire 

was not exactly Holy, nor German 

(perhaps a little Roman), and not 

even an Empire.


A clause in the Papal Dictates provided the Pope with

 the authority to excommunicate whomever was “not

 at peace with the Roman Church.” Hudson sharply

 notes, how US sanctions are the modern 

equivalent of excommunication.


Arguably there are Top Two 

dates in the whole process.


The first one would be the Third Ecumenical Council

 of 435: this is when only Rome (italics mine) was

 attributed universal authority (italics mine). 

Alexandria and Antioch, for instance, were 

limited to regional authority within the 

Roman Empire.


The other top date is 1054 – when Rome and

 Constantinople split for good. That is, the 

Roman Catholic Church split from 

Orthodoxy, which leads us to 

Russia, and Moscow as The 

Third Rome ------ and the 

centuries-old animosity 

of “the West” against 



A State of Martial Law


Professor Hudson then delves on the trip by “Liver

 Sausage” Chancellor Scholz’s delegation to China 

this week to “demand that it dismantle its public

 sector and stops subsidizing its economy, or 

else Germany and Europe will impose 

sanctions on trade with China.”


Well, in fact this happens to be just childish wishful

 thinking -- expressed by the German Council on 

Foreign Relations in a piece published on the 

Financial Times (the Japanese-owned 

platform in the City of London).


 The Council, as correctly described by Hudson,

 is “the neoliberal ‘libertarian’ arm of NATO: 

demanding German de-industrialization 

and dependency” on the US.


So the FT -- predictably -- is 

printing NATO wet dreams.


Context is essential. German Federal President

 Frank-Walter Steinmeier, in a keynote speech 

at Bellevue Castle, has all but admitted that

 Berlin is broke: “An era of headwinds is 

beginning for Germany – difficult, 

difficult years are coming for us. 

Germany... is in the deepest 

crisis since reunification.”


Yet schizophrenia, once again, reigns supreme, 

as Steinmeier, after a ridiculous stunt in Kiev
complete with posing as a unwitting actor 

huddled in a bunker – announced an 

extra handout: two more MARS 

multiple rocket launchers and 

four ''Panzerhaubitze 2000'' 

howitzers to be delivered 

to the Ukrainians.


So even if the “world” economy – actually the EU – is 

so fragilized that member-states cannot help Kiev

 anymore without harming their own populations, 

and the EU is on the verge of a catastrophic 

energy crisis, fighting for “our values” in 

Country 404 ---- trumps it all.


The Big Picture context, is also key. Andrea Zhok,

 Professor of Ethical Philosophy at the University 

of Milan, has taken Giorgio Agamben’s “State
 Exception” concept to new heights.


Zhok proposes that the zombified collective West is

 now... completely subjugated to a “State of Martial

 Law” – where a Forever War ethos is the ultimate

 priority for rarified global elites.


Every other variable – from trans-humanism to

 depopulation -- and even cancel culture -- is

 subordinated to the State of Martial Law, 

and is basically inessential. The only 

thing that matters, is exercising 

absolute, raw control.


Berlin – Moscow – Beijing


Solid German business sources completely contradict

 the “message” delivered by the German Council on

 Foreign Relations on the trip to China.


According to these sources, the Scholz caravan went

 to Beijing --- to essentially lay down the preparatory

 steps for working out a peace deal with Russia, 

with China as privileged messenger.


This is – literally – as explosive, geopolitically and

 geoeconomically, as it gets. As I pointed out in

one of my previous columns, Berlin and 

Moscow were keeping a secret 

communication back channel

 – via business interlocutors – 

right to the minute the usual 

suspects, in desperation, 

decided to blow up the 

Nord Streams.


Cue to the now notorious SMS from Liz Truss’s 

iPhone to Little Tony Blinken, one minute 

after the explosions: “It’s done.”


There’s more: the Scholz caravan may be trying to

start a long and convoluted process of eventually

 replacing the US with China, as a key ally. One 

should never forget that the top BRI trade/

connectivity terminal in the EU, is 

Germany (the Ruhr valley).


According to one of the sources, “if this effort is

 successful, then Germany, China and Russia, 

can ally themselves together and drive the 

US out of Europe.”


Another source provided the cherry on the cake: “Olaf

 Scholz is being accompanied on this trip, by German

 industrialists who actually control Germany and are

 not going to sit back...... watching themselves 

being destroyed.”


Moscow knows very well what the imperial aim is

when it comes to the EU.... reduced to the role of 

totally dominated - and deindustrialized - vassal,

exercising zero sovereignty. The back channels, 

after all, are not lying in tatters on the bottom
the Baltic Sea. Additionally, China has not 

provided any hint... that its massive trade 

with Germany and the EU, is about 

to vanish.


Scholz himself, one day before his caravan hit Beijing,

 stressed to Chinese media --- that Germany has no

 intention of decoupling from China, and there’s

 nothing to justify “the calls by some
 isolate China.”


In parallel, Xi Jinping and the new Politburo are very

 much aware of the Kremlin position, reiterated 

again and again: we always.. remain open for

 negotiations.. as long as Washington finally

decides to talk about the end of unlimited 

NATO expansion.... drenched 

in Russophobia.


So, to negotiate, means the Empire signing on the

 dotted line of the document it has received from

 Moscow on December 1st, 2021, focused on

 “indivisibility of security”. Otherwise,

there’s nothing to negotiate.


And when we have Pentagon lobbyist Lloyd

 “Raytheon” Austin advising the Ukrainians 

on the record to advance on Kherson, it’s 

even more crystal clear - there’s nothing 

to negotiate.


So could this all be the foundation stone of 

the Berlin-Moscow-Beijing trans-Eurasia

 geopolitical/geoeconomic corridor? 

That will mean Bye Bye Empire. 


Once again: it ain’t over - till the 

fat lady goes Gotterdammerung.

What about that, then!
Stranger things have
occurred - what do
YOU think?




US rapidly losing 

supporters in 

Islamic world

October 18th, 8:28am



Just last Monday, Joe Biden signed a new US National 

Security Strategy in which he named Russia and 

China as major threats to which America will 

respond, by strengthening its alliances and 

partnerships around the world. And after 

just two days, the US president has 

made notable progress on this 

important issue.


Speaking in California at a meeting with local

 Democratic Party activists, Biden said he 

had spent more than 225 hours in direct 

consultation with leaders of other NATO 

allies and EU members. So much effort 

had to be expended, he said, “just to 

keep the coalition of countries 

together” on issues of support 

for Ukraine.


 Clearly --- rallying against the “Russian threat” requires a 

lot of effort -- the cost to Europe (and not just financially)

 of breaking with Russia is too high. It has to be stressed
all the time that the Russians are
 threatening everyone
with a nuclear bomb --- 
exacerbating already
growing tensions. 


Biden has been talking recently about Putin’s possible

 use of nuclear weapons, while there are persistent

 bogeymen.. about Iran’s nuclear programme (the 

deal to control it is now off the table) ...and the 

DPRK is expected to resume its nuclear tests.


 More generally, the prospect of a nuclear threat never 

left Biden in California – and he blurted out, “I think

 that Pakistan may be one of the most dangerous

 nations in the world. Nuclear weapons 

without any cohesion.”


The phrase itself was a political nuclear explosion: the

 head of a superpower declaring that the world’s fifth

 most populous and sixth most nuclear-capable 

country poses a threat to peace! Moreover, 

Pakistan is the only Muslim country that 

possesses nuclear weapons, and other 

Islamic countries treat Pakistan’s 

nuclear bomb as an Islamic 



While Pakistan’s very emergence of nuclear weapons

 was a response to India’s related programme. In the

 1960s, before the bomb was made, Zulfikar Bhutto 

stated it was wrong that Christians, Buddhists, 

Jews and soon to be Hindus had atomic 

weapons, while Muslims did not have 

them. As a result, by the end of the 

twentieth century, Pakistan gained

 its own nuclear weapons, despite 

all the displeasure from the West.


 And now the US is calling it one of the most dangerous 

countries in the world – that is, putting it on a par with

 “terrible” Russia and hostile North Korea?


Islamabad was, to put it mildly, very surprised by the 

American president’s words – Prime Minister 

Shehbaz Sharif said his country was a 

“responsible nuclear state”:


“We are proud that our nuclear assets have the best

 safeguards as required by the IAEA. We take these

 safeguards seriously. Let there be no one in any 

doubt about this.


The US ambassador was summoned to the Foreign

 Ministry, where he was formally protested to, and

 Washington immediately tried to keep things quiet.


 “The US is confident in Pakistan’s resolve to protect 

nuclear assets,” the State Department said... and 

Biden’s spokeswoman said the president “views 

a safe and prosperous Pakistan as critical to 

US interests.”


Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari (grandson of

 Bhutto, the man behind the nuclear project) said, 

“Let`s consider this a misunderstanding arising 

from a misunderstanding of our regional 

problems,” but the residual effect was 



Yes, Pakistan’s situation is not only complicated

 externally, but also internally – especially in the

 last 6 months, after Prime Minister Imran Khan 

was ousted. Who has bluntly accused the US 

of both plotting against him and seeking to 

subjugate Pakistan – and is now fighting 

to regain power by demanding snap 

elections. Either way, Imran Khan 

has a good chance of returning

 to power --- sooner or later.


But inter-clan and political infighting is commonplace

 in Pakistan, and this in itself could not justify such

 an alarmist statement by Biden. The more so 

because only the day before General Qamar 

Bajwa, the strongest man in the Islamic 

Republic and the head of the army that 

controls not only nuclear weapons but 

also the state itself (Pakistan’s army 

has a key influence on power and 

political processes), had been 

received in Washington.


What, then, is the reason for Biden’s surprise

 statement? There is no way that one can 

put it down to age-related problems, as 

Biden sometimes forgets and speaks 

out loud about things that are not 

meant for public discourse. It is 

very serious, so there must be 

some clear reason. 


And there it is: the United States realises that it 

is losing the Islamic world. Yes, not individual 

countries, but the Islamic world as such. 

This has been evident for a long time, 

but this year the process has come

 to the surface.


Problems with Turkey (escalating after the failed coup

 attempt in 2016), tensions with Saudi Arabia (which 

last week escalated to the point of promising

 consequences and intending to review

 relations with it), misunderstandings 

with Pakistan. And these three 

countries are not just ordinary 

Islamic countries; they are 

three key states in the 

Muslim world ------- of a 

billion & a half people. 


Turkey is a member of NATO; Saudi Arabia is the leader 

of the Arab world and the richest Islamic country; 

Pakistan is the only nuclear weapon state and 

the second most populous. Although relations

 within the Ankara-Riyadh-Islamabad triangle 

are not always smooth (there is rivalry 

between Erdogan and the Saudis, but 

Pakistan has close ties with both 

countries), the simultaneous 

deterioration of atmosphere 

with all three is absolutely 

disadvantageous to the

Americans. However, 

that is exactly what

 is happening.


Not because the “collective Biden” is doing it

 deliberately; they are just nervous to find 

that not only the initiative, but also control

 of the geopolitical game is slipping out of

 their hands. Although they pay lip service 

to the fact that we have rallied the world 

against “aggressive” Russia and are 

ready to fight back against 

revisionist China, in reality 

the situation is exactly

 the opposite.


From the start of our special operation, the Islamic

 world refused to side with the West – as did key

 Muslim countries (and Pakistani Prime Minister 

Imran Khan was, by sheer coincidence, in the

 Kremlin just on February 24th). The longer it 

goes on, the more noticeable it has become, 

and the recent OPEC+ decision to cut oil 

production (despite US requests) was 

only confirmation of this.


And Pakistan, formerly one of the closest military

 partners of the United States (it was from its 

territory that they waged war against the 

USSR in Afghanistan) -- has been looking 

more and more intently towards Moscow

 in recent years. 


The growth of the closest Pakistani-Chinese ties has

 not helped the Americans to maintain their position 

either. The inglorious end of the American 

occupation of Afghanistan strengthened 

the mood in Pakistan for a turn away 

from the Anglo-Saxons.


Of course, the US and UK positions in Pakistan are still 

very strong, especially in the same Pakistani army. 

But the generals are well aware of how things are 

changing – not only in the region, but also in the 

world. Now Russia is selling arms to Pakistan 

(as a response to increase of US shipments 

to our main partner India), now Pakistan is

 a member of Russia-China SCO (together

 with India), and the project of building 

Pakistani Stream gas pipeline (going 

from southern ports to the north of

 the country) is getting closer to 



And the issue of pipelines from Russia via Central Asia 

to Pakistan will be solved sooner or later as soon as

 joint efforts are made to establish peaceful life in

 Afghanistan (and this will require inter alia cutting 

off the possibility for Anglo-Saxons to provoke the 

inner-Afghan contradictions). In other words, 

Pakistan has the most serious arguments in 

favor of rapprochement with Russia, as do 

quite a large part of the Islamic world.


Therefore, despite the change of power in Islamabad,

 Putin has met with Pakistani prime ministers three

 times this year: in addition to meeting with Imran 

Khan in Moscow in February, he met with 

Shehbaz Sharif twice in the past month

 (a separate meeting in Samarkand in 

September, and later they 

communicated on the

 sidelines of the 

Astana Summit).


 That is, Pakistan’s interest in Russia does not depend

 on domestic politics – and the two nuclear powers 

have common interests and projects.


Not to mention the fact that the Americans call both 

of our countries “the most dangerous countries in 

the world”: in the current conditions of global 

transformation it sounds like a compliment 

from the mouth of the US to the rest of the

 world. Because everyone understands 

what they really mean – ‘dangerous to 

the world’ in the American way.


Peter Akopov, RIA

What do YOU think?

Kadirov will LOVE it!



US scared of armageddon

October 14th, 8:53am



“Armageddon” is probably the most popular word in the 

Western media space right now. And not only because

 the local media came up with this nickname for 

General Sergei Surovikin, who was recently 

appointed commander of the combined 

group of Russian troops in the zone
a special military operation.


The word was uttered last week by US President Joe

 Biden, at a cocktail party with Democratic Party

 donors that the world has never been closer to

 nuclear Armageddon than it has been since 

the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960s. And 

since then he has been accused of

 excessive alarmism.


Biden has been attacked on all sides --- by Democrats,

 Republicans & even European leaders who normally

 look into the mouth of the US president. Not to 

mention the fact that even French President 

Emmanuel Macron criticized his overseas 

boss for the remark, describing it as 

“political fiction”.


The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial, felt that Biden

 had dealt a blow to US interests, with his statement. 

“His comments unnecessarily frightened Americans

 and may have undermined containment policy,” the

 newspaper, usually loyal to Democrats, proclaimed.


And The Washington Times accused its president 

of “reviving old fears”. The chief sin of Biden, 

according to the editorial board, was to “give

 the impression.. that the United States is no 

longer a superpower”. If they can’t confront 

a nuclear-armed Russia, then what kind of 

superpower can it be!


Obviously, the Republicans are trying especially hard.

 Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Biden’s 

remarks “put the American people at terrible risk”. 

And former US Presidential National Security

 Adviser John Bolton opined that Biden had

 “exaggerated the seriousness of 

the situation”.


It should be noted that the American leader did say 

some pretty silly things that day. For example his

 remark about Vladimir Putin: ''He is not joking 

when he talks about possible use of tactical 

nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.''


Of course Putin has never threatened anyone with
the use of biological or chemical weapons that 

Russia destroyed long ago. And regarding 

nuclear weapons our president stressed 

that it could only be a response to a 

threat to our country and nothing 

else – this essential point is

 assiduously left out... in

 the West.


But the point is that Biden is not being accused of

 outright lying about Putin’s statements – this has

 become commonplace in the Western 



The White House master is being crucified... for using 

a word “Armageddon” to describe the consequences 

of nuclear war. In particular, for the phrase: “I don`t 

think it`s possible to use tactical nuclear weapons 

and not end up in armageddon”.


That is, from the point of view of Biden’s critics, by his

ill-considered statement, he undermines the morale of

Americans and Europeans, who are assured that they

can and must -- defeat Russia. But how can they win, 

with the end of the world around them? So the word

“Armageddon” ..scared the average American. So 

much so, that the White House had to clarify the

words of its chief separately, by saying that no 

new information about Russia’s intention to 

use nuclear weapons, has emerged. 


And Biden himself even had to arrange a short

 interview this week for CNN, a faithful servant 

of the common cause of the Democratic Party. 

Judging by the content of the performance, 

which was remembered more for the 

obsequious presentation of a cheat 

sheet that fell out of Biden’s sleeve 

by a flattering journalist, it was a 

special occasion to explain the 

pithy word “Armageddon”.


The speech had no other 

informational function.


And all the establishment’s beef with Biden ---- was

 expressed in a statement and follow-up question 

by CNN host Jake Tapper: “When people hear 

the word ‘armageddon’ coming out of the 

mouth of the American president, they 

get scared. Don’t you think that by 

doing so our European allies will 

be even more frightened by a 

confrontation with Putin?” 


That’s what Biden’s supporters are really outraged

about: that he has inadvertently revealed to the

Western community, the real horrors of a 

nuclear war with Russia. And to do that,

is by no means an option, say all of the

supporters of increased confrontation.


This is precisely why Biden was

forced to make excuses for 

predicting nuclear 



After all, with just one word, just by assuming there will 

be no winners in a nuclear confrontation between the

 West and Russia, Biden crosses out the years-long

 efforts of anti-Russian propagandists who have 

been painstakingly preparing public opinion...
the possibility of such a confrontation. 


One may recall how, at the beginning of the special 

operation, The New York Times - angrily - criticised 

those who warned that NATO’s direct intervention 

in the Ukrainian conflict, could escalate into a 

third world war. In the newspaper’s opinion, 

such a formulation of the issue itself is 

“a manifestation of weakness”.


The Western public... has long been persuaded 

that threats of a nuclear war with Russia are 

exaggerated and that the term “nuclear 

winter” is an invention of the KGB, 

which ran a brilliant information 

operation in the 1980s to 

intimidate the West.


The result of the lengthy public opinion warfare was

complete silence on direct calls for a pre-emptive

nuclear strike on Russia -- even from the lips of

American legislators, as was the case with 

Senator Roger Walker’s statement.


American citizens have been persuaded, that a nuclear 

conflict... will not affect their country at all. The same 

Tapper, questioning Biden, spoke of “Putin’s threat to

 use nuclear weapons in Ukraine” (as if the Russian

 president had ever said or meant it). The White 

House, when attributing the “nuclear threat”
Putin, constantly stresses --- that it is
about war........ 
in Europe. 


That -- is why the Americans so calmly and benignly 

discuss how they will bomb Russia in case it uses 

tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The only 

question they have, is whether to first nuke 

the desolate Russian Arctic and Siberia or 

to immediately bomb the Black Sea Fleet, 

as the adventurous General Ben Hodges 

has suggested... many times before.


And the fact that Russia would be forced to respond

 with a strategic nuclear strike against the invading 

states and alliances, is not even considered – it 

cannot be discussed, as the story with the 

carelessly uttered word from the mouth 

of the US President... has shown.


This is why the Western media is much more emotional 

about this word than the far more dangerous statement 

by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg about the 

alliance’s actual involvement in the war against Russia. 


Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, he said, bluntly and 

openly: “If Putin wins, it will not only be a great defeat 

for the Ukrainians, but it will be a defeat and a danger 

for all of us.” And so.. this scandalous tirade about

 NATO’s direct involvement in the conflict against 

Russia caused no resonance at all in the West –

 everyone is engrossed in condemning Biden 

for warning about the consequences of 

nuclear war.


British newspapers all rushed to interview the retired

 General Richard Shirreff, former deputy commander 

of NATO forces in Europe, who 6 years ago became

 famous --- for his scandalous as well as talentless 

book “2017: War with Russia”. In it, he described 

an utterly insane scenario for a nuclear war that 

would begin with the murder of two American 

military trainers in Kharkiv and a Russian 

attack on Donbass and Latvia.


The book certainly says a lot about the mental state of

 Western officers commanding NATO forces. But it was

 just that kind of fiction ---- “political fiction”, to use

 Macron’s term. 


And now this fantasy general is openly calling for a

 nuclear war with Russia, saying that the West and

 NATO “should by no means hesitate” to do so.


“If we promise massive retaliation, one way or 

another, we must prepare for the worst-case 

scenario, and the worst-case scenario, is 

war with Russia. There will be no peace 

in Europe as long as either Putin or the 

Putin regime sits in the Kremlin,” 

declares Shirreff emphatically. 


And this, is all printed in Britain’s leading newspapers. 

And all this does not meet with the slightest criticism 

--- which Biden got for the word “armageddon”.


In fact, the US President’s words (even if carelessly

uttered over a cocktail party) are a useful and 

timely reminder to the West of the threat 

of nuclear catastrophe. 


Duma member Oleg Morozov made a very good point: 

“I am calm about the dialogue going on between us 

and the collective West about the nuclear threat. 

When we say: ‘Guys, don’t even think! <…> – 

they should be afraid of that. Even if it is at 

the level of rhetoric, but let this fear sits in 

their brain. They have to understand:  we 

will not let them win this war, even when

 they are rattling their nuclear suitcases.''


Fear of a global nuclear threat has been holding the

planet back from a third world war ---- for decades. 


Dulling this fear could - indeed - lead to irreversible
consequences. It is this threat that Vladimir Putin

warns the overseas adventurers about. That is

why it is very important to remind those 

Stoltenbergs, Hodges, Shirreffs, 

Wickers & other warmongers 

of the global nuclear war 

between the West and 

Russia ---- that there 

will be no winners

in it.



Vladimir Kornilov, RIA