by MoA

In a speech held at the Munich Security Conference Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for a renewal of the colonial age:

In a perfect world, all of these problems and more would be solved by diplomats and strongly worded resolutions. But we do not live in a perfect world, and we cannot continue to allow those who blatantly and openly threaten our citizens and endanger our global stability to shield themselves behind abstractions of international law which they themselves routinely violate.
This is the path that President Trump and the United States has embarked upon. It is the path we ask you here in Europe to join us on. It is a path we have walked together before and hope to walk together again. For five centuries, before the end of the Second World War, the West had been expanding – its missionaries, its pilgrims, its soldiers, its explorers pouring out from its shores to cross oceans, settle new continents, build vast empires extending out across the globe.
But in 1945, for the first time since the age of Columbus, it was contracting. Europe was in ruins. Half of it lived behind an Iron Curtain and the rest looked like it would soon follow. The great Western empires had entered into terminal decline, accelerated by godless communist revolutions and by anti-colonial uprisings that would transform the world and drape the red hammer and sickle across vast swaths of the map in the years to come.
Against that backdrop, then, as now, many came to believe that the West’s age of dominance had come to an end and that our future was destined to be a faint and feeble echo of our past. But together, our predecessors recognized that decline was a choice, and it was a choice they refused to make. This is what we did together once before, and this is what President Trump and the United States want to do again now, together with you.

Arnaud Bertrand summarizes:

The man literally laments the outcome of WW2 because it marked the end of the era during which “the West had been expanding”, a “path” he “hopes [the US and Europe] walk together again.”
And just to ensure you’re clear about what he means: he wants to restore the building of “vast empires extending across the globe” and blames “anti-colonial uprisings” for what they did to “the great Western empires.”
He also says that “we cannot continue” to allow “abstractions of international law” get in the way of US interests.
Basically the man is openly saying that the whole post-colonial order was a mistake and he’s calling on Europe to share the spoils of building a new one.
Some of the dimwits in the room did applaud that revisionist nonsense.

Bertrand cautiones:

What’s the thinking here? That Trump’s America – “America first” – would suddenly become magnanimous and share with Europe just out of sentiment? That’s not how imperialism works: the whole premise of it is that the strong dominate the weak.

When an imperial power is speaking to you of sentiments, of how much they like you and how they want to partner with you – the much weaker party – that’s cause for worry, not applause …

Rubio’s speech was a call up of satraps who are willing to be the proxy forces fo fight for U.S. global hegemony – just as the Europeans already are with regards to Ukraine.

But Rubio is living in the past. A past in which the Europeans, through their supremacy in warfare, could conquer and devastate vast areas of the planet:

“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

The West, thankfully, no longer has exclusive access to weaponry. It can no longer raise the forces needed – the technology, money, people and ideology – to subjugate the planet. Any attempt to do so will only end in disaster.

Europe would thereby be well advised to stay away Rubio’s unhinged nonsense.

Ed. Note: This article writing in 2017 describes pretty much today’s events.

Mujahid Kamran

August 1, 2017

The history of the First World War is a deliberately concocted lie. Not the sacrifice, the heroism, the horrendous waste of life or the misery that followed. No, these were very real but the truth of how it all began and how it was unnecessarily and deliberately prolonged beyond 1915 has been successfully covered up for a century. A carefully falsified history was created to conceal the fact that Britain, not Germany, was responsible for the war. Had the truth become known after 1918, the consequences for the British Establishment would have been cataclysmic.”
Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor

The Planners and the Plan
The First World War did not just happen. There is undeniable evidence that the war was planned by the international-banker controlled British oligarchy almost two decades before it broke out (see e.g. [1-3]). In their outstanding book Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor have established beyond reasonable doubt that indeed the First World War was planned by a tiny group of members of the British oligarchy including Nathaniel Rothschild [1].
King Edward VII
While building upon what was first revealed by the late Professor Carrol Quigley, they have not only provided detailed evidence in favor of this thesis, but have also revealed the astonishing role of the British monarch, King Edward VII, in secretly building alliances against Germany. They have provided ample evidence that the playboy King, much disliked by his mother Queen Victoria, went along with the secret group that had, in the first place, planned this horrific war.
The secret group of people, whose existence was first revealed by Professor Carrol Quigley, thus putting his own life in danger, decided to work behind the scenes with the utmost secrecy. The revelations of Professor Quigley were based on documents provided by the Secret Elite, as they are referred to sometimes. The documents were provided for the purpose of writing a sanitized history.
The goal of the Secret Elite was the expansion of the British empire to the total exclusion of other powers.
This cabal was extremely wealthy. Cecil Rhodes, who, with Rothschild help, had amassed a huge fortune in South Africa, first discussed his plans with Nathaniel Rothschild in February 1890 in the presence of a few members of the British oligarchy.
In 1891 a five-member secret group comprising Cecil Rhodes, Nathaniel Rothschild, William Stead, Lord Esher and Alfred Milner became, unknown to anyone else, the core group that decided to steer the world towards a war aimed at the destruction of Germany. They called themselves the Society of the Elect. Around themselves they built, as if in a concentric circle, The Association of Helpers, eminent men, who did not know of the Society of the Elect. Other men were gradually involved in the plan but they were not aware of the separate existence of the five-member core. Together, these men steered and controlled the course of British foreign policy, unknown to the Parliament, the people, the Cabinet, and others who were constitutionally relevant.
These men represented a new phenomenon on the world stage – the money kings, who held no office and yet had real power to decide the fate of nations. When Rhodes died at age 48, he left all his money to these men for the sole purpose of extending the British empire over the entire globe. Secrecy was of utmost importance to this group.

The destruction of Germany, the Secret Elite knew, would entail enormous bloodshed. They also knew that Britain could not do it alone. It needed the strength of the Russian and French armies to achieve that end.

Russian soldiers WW1
And maybe the Secret Elite wanted Russia and France to shed their own and German blood for them. But France had been a traditional enemy of the British and vice versa whereas Russia and Britain had vied for the control of the Black Sea and the annexation of Constantinople i.e. Istanbul. There was rivalry between Russia and Britain regarding the Russian urge southwards and eastwards to warm waters, seaports that could function round the year. In the south lay the “jewel” of the British empire – India.
Despite these rivalries the Secret Elite was determined to befriend and woo both France and Russia because it considered Germany the most potent threat to the existence of the British empire. Germany was not fully aware of this heinous plan aimed at its utter destruction. And Russia and France, both were trapped by the Secret Elite. In fact, the Secret Elite succeeded not only in destroying Germany, they also destroyed Russia, and by prolonging the war, destroyed the Ottoman as well as the Austro-Hungarian empires. Britain, in the end, did not really benefit. The Zionists did – the Illuminati Zionist bankers emerged as the real force on the world stage. The Milners and the Eshers and Balfours, and all others became powerless eventually and faded away.
The Rothschilds have continued into the 21st century enhancing their power and wealth with every major bloodshed. They and their illuminati banking brethren were the real beneficiaries. The Christian West was the real loser. And so were the Muslims.
It is well known among historians that Queen Victoria disapproved of her son’s womanizing and kept his royal stipend at a minimum while she was in power. The expenses of the womanizing of King Edward VII, when he was a playboy Prince of Wales, were borne by the Rothschilds and by Sir Ernest Cassel, both bankers of German-Jewish extraction. When he came to power Edward VII was keen to oblige his patrons who, apparently, wanted to destroy the emerging German nation. And, in any case he was under the impression that the destruction of Germany would pave the way for a global British Empire – it was to be his empire.
The Zionist/Illuminati international bankers had other plans. King Edward VII was the architect of the Entente Cordiale of 1904. His image as a playboy concealed the fact that he was traveling all over Europe to build alliances against Germany, while Germany never suspected that traditional enemies like England and France could or would become friends.
Docherty and Macgregor also describe the infiltration of the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office of Great Britain by agents of the group that had planned the First World War. They were able to control the officers of both government departments. They also controlled the War Office as well as the highly important and secret Committee of Imperial Defense. The Group had influence in both parties. Their policy of destroying Germany not only transcended party politics, it also went beyond which party was in power – it transcended governments.

The Parliaments and the prime ministers came and went without knowing that a tiny cabal was planning and relentlessly driving Britain to total war with Germany.

*
Cover up and Fabricated History
Docherty and Macgregor have further revealed that (p 5, ref. [1]):
The Secret Elite dictated the writing and teaching of history, from the ivory towers of the academia down to the smallest of schools. They carefully controlled the publication of official government papers, the selection of documents for inclusion in the official version of the history of the First World War, and refused access to any evidence that might betray their covert existence. Incriminating documents were burned, removed from official records, shredded, falsified, or deliberately rewritten, so that what remained for historians was carefully selected material.”
Docherty and Macgregor point out (their book was published in 2013) that even “To this day researchers are denied access to certain First World War documents because the Secret Elite had much to fear from the truth, as do those who have succeeded them.” Why such a vehement cover up that even a century later the British authorities do not grant access to certain documents pertaining to the first World War? They want to maintain the myth of German culpability and their innocence, whereas the reality is the reverse of what establishment history portrays. The truth will shift the onus of responsibility to the shoulders of the Secret Elite and of every other consequence that followed: the Second World War, Bank of International Settlements, IMF, World Bank, the U.N., Israel, the Korean and Vietnam wars, continuing wars in the Middle East, right up to the dangerous situation today. They have lied to generations and rather than let the truth be known they have chosen and attempted to perpetuate the lie worldwide and for all times.
They can do so because the international illuminati-Zionist bankers are all powerful and control the American and British governments. Israel is a Rothschild fiefdom, a source of perpetual war and a possible eventual Armageddon. The academia is, by and large, part of this cover up and that is very sad, to say the least. Any historian in a university who challenges the establishment version will be ostracized, if not thrown out of his job. Nick Kollerstrom had to lose his job despite the fact that he is an outstanding academic. One of his colleagues, whom he had known for years, was so angry that he told Kollerstrom that he wanted to hit him with his racket!
Guido Preparata was ostracized for his outstanding book Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Built the Third Reich,and had to quit his job, leave the U.S., and even give up his research career for some time. It is therefore significant that Docherty and Macgregor, though British (both are Scottish) do not work for any British university. They, therefore, cannot be thrown out of their jobs.
On the surface of it, the strategic aim behind the instigated and covertly planned World War I was to destroy both Germany and Russia and thereby kill the possibility of emergence of a dominant Eurasian power, or a powerful coalition of Eurasian countries, that could threaten the British Empire. The initial group, the Circle of the Elect, appeared to have, as its aim, the establishment of a worldwide British Empire. It only included one banker, Nathaniel Rothschild. With hindsight, the evolution of global affairs indicates without any doubt that the Zionists (Communism and Zionism sprouted from the same Illuminati “tribe” and had a common origin) were the real beneficiaries and the deeper instigators of this war.
The world today is headed towards a global slave state controlled by the Illuminati cum Zionist international bankers. The Bolshevik Revolution was led and controlled by “atheistic Jews” (to use Churchill’s phrase) most of whom came from outside Russia and both Lloyd David George and President Wilson were stooges of the Zionists. Today both, the U.S. and the U.K., are completely controlled by the Zionist cum Illuminati international bankers.
However, other deeper aims of the international bankers were to weaken Christianity through widespread death and destruction of Christian life and property, to weaken European governments by exhaustively bleeding them and bringing them under deep debt bondage, to instigate the Bolshevik Revolution, to facilitate the creation of Israel and the establishment of a supra-national organization through which to set up a One World Government under their ruthless and absolute control (The New World Order). The international bankers were simultaneously Zionists and Freemasons/Illuminati.
A photo of the 1914 Christmas Truce illustrates how the British and Germans had no antipathy until it was created by propaganda and the war itself
*
Building Japan, Bruising and then Wooing Russia after Sabotaging a Russo German Treaty
It was the Secret Elite that was behind the strategy to build Japan’s navy that was then used to destroy the Russian fleet that traveled around the world to confront the Japanese navy. The Russian fleet was utterly destroyed in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 and the small island nation managed to inflict a humiliating defeat on a giant. This was part of the strategy of the Secret Elite to curtail Russia’s ambitions in the Far East and to bruise and weaken her. Ships for the Japanese navy were quietly built in the shipyards of Britain. On the one hand, the Rothschilds in London secretly provided loans to Japan, while on the other the Rothschilds in France provided loans worth 400 million francs to the Russian government to build the 6365 miles long trans-Siberian railway (p 86, ref. [1]). The Russians had expressed their gratitude to the Rothschilds when the czar decorated Alfonso de Rothschild of Paris with Grand Cross. The London Rothschilds made double profits because the armament industry which manufactured battleships for the Japanese navy were partly owned by the Rothschilds. The Rothschilds had the greatest shares in Vickers armament. Docherty and Macgregor write (pp 92, 93 ref [1]):
Manipulators at the heart of the Secret Elite, like Esher, facilitated meetings held on Rothschild premises to help the Japanese financial envoy, Takahashi Korekiyo, raise their war chest. While banks with strong links to the Rothschilds were prepared to raise funds for Japan quite openly, the Rothschilds had to tread carefully because of their immense Russian investments, not least in the Baku oilfields. They were also very aware of the political repercussions that might ensue for Russian Jews who bore the harsh brunt of czarist anti-Semitism. That changed once the war was over. The London and Paris Rothschilds negotiated a further £48 million issue to help Japanese recovery. At every turn the war profits flowed back to the Secret Elite.”
It was Japan that attacked the Russian fleet in Port Arthur, a Chinese port that was functional all year round and had been leased to Russia. Although Japan issued a declaration of war on Feb 8, 1904, its navy attacked the Russian fleet three hours before the ultimatum was delivered to the Russian government.
In order to go to war with Germany the Secret Elite took four decisions. These are summarized by Docherty and Macgregor in the following words (pp 73,74, ref. [1]):
“Foreign policy had to be sustained no matter what political party was in office; the British Army needed a complete overhaul to make it fit for the purpose; the Royal Navy had to maintain all its historic advantages; the general public had to be turned against Germany.”
The British public did not want to go to war with Germany and therefore a secretly driven but powerful propaganda campaign against Germany was launched in order to poison the minds of the public. The Belgian ambassador apparently noticed by 1903 that jingoism was on the rise in Britain and people were turning against Germany. He wrote to his government that this was merely because of jealousy. Docherty and Macgregor point out that the ambassador did not know that secret manipulation behind the scenes had resulted in this attitude.
The Secret Elite worked relentlessly using the vast Rhodes fortune at its disposal to buy politicians and men of influence in all countries that were relevant. One of the men in their pocket was Alexander Islovsky, who served them loyally to the immense detriment of Russia, Europe and the Christian West. Kaiser Wilhelm had made a brilliant move in 1905 – he wanted to have an agreement between Russia and Germany that would have averted the war by forming a defensive alliance.
The Kaiser and the Czar secretly met and signed an agreement on July 24, 1905 at Bjorko Finland, whereby if any one of the countries was attacked by a European power the other shall come to its aid. However, when the czar returned to Russia the agents of the Secret Elite as well as a bribed press opposed the ratification of the treaty. Actually no one knew of the contents of the treaty until the Czar confided in is his foreign minister Count Lansdorff who betrayed the secret to King Edward VII.
The Czar was in need of money after the Russo-Japanese war in which Russia suffered heavy material and human losses. He therefore needed loans and the Rothschilds in Paris were far richer than any Berlin banks. The Secret Elite threatened to block the much needed loans. This was crucial and the Czar backed off despite having signed the proposed treaty. This treaty, had it gone through, would have averted the planned world war. This caused the Kaiser immense pain and he wrote to the Czar (p 95 ref. [1]): “We joined hands and signed before God who heard our vows.” This mistake by the Czar was to cost Russia and Germany dearly during World War I.
Having sabotaged the Russo-German alliance the Secret Elite then used King Edward VII to woo Russia. The King invited the Russian navy to Britain and the British public was softened towards Russia through a media campaign. The Secret Elite managed to lure and trap Russia by a false promise of allowing Russia to control Constantinople (Istanbul) and the Black Sea Straits. A Russia that had been mauled militarily, that was in dire financial straits, and that was presented with a dangling Constantinople carrot succumbed and fell in the trap. An Anglo-Russian Convention was signed on 31 August 1907. Docherty and Macgregor write (pp 95,96 ref. [1]):
The Secret Elite was prepared to use any nation as cat’s-paw and Russia became the victim of British trickery, manipulated into a different treaty that was designed not to protect her or the peace of Europe but to enable the Secret Elite to destroy Germany. . . It was yet another secret deal hidden from Parliament and the people. . .”
By such deceptions, lies, bribery and manipulations, the brutal and absolutely ruthless and utterly shameless Secret Elite proceeded to steer and goad nations to a path of unprecedented bloodshed in which Christian, and to a lesser extent Muslim blood was shed. The beneficiaries were the satanic illuminati international bankers and their brethren. Their determination to destroy Germany masked a deep and malevolent desire for a conflagration that would burn Christian Europe to ashes with tens of millions of casualties. That was their goal and they drew the deepest delight and satisfaction by turning men into savage animals.
The Myth of Belgian Neutrality
When World War I began the British public had been exposed to false propaganda for a long time. Two issues on which their mind had been falsely influenced were Belgian neutrality and German militarism. Facts were the opposite of what people were led to believe. As for Belgian neutrality, it was utterly untrue. Belgium was not only not neutral it had had close military links with Britain since 1905 when Britain offered to send “4 cavalry brigades, 2 armored corps, and a division of mounted infantry” to Belgium (p 106, ref. [1]). At that time nobody outside the close knit Secret Elite know of, or suspected, possible war with Germany.
Docherty and Macgregor write (pp 106, 107ref. [1]): “Britain’s military link with Belgium was one of the closes guarded secrets, even within privileged circles.” General Grierson, who was director of military operations was present at a secret 1905 meeting along with Lord Roberts, PM Balfour, Admiral Fisher and the head of naval intelligence, where a decision to take forward joint military planning with France and Belgium was taken. This was so secret that it was agreed that “the minutes would not be printed or circulated without special permission from the prime minister.” Docherty and MacGregor write further (p 107, ref. [1]):
Documents found in the Belgian secret archives by the Germans after they had occupied Brussels disclosed that the chief of the Belgian general staff, Major General Ducarne, held a series of meetings with the British military attache’ over action to be taken by British, French and Belgian armies against Germany in event of war. A fully elaborated plan detailed the landing and transportation of British forces, which were actually called ‘allied armies’, and in a series of meetings they discussed the allocation of Belgian officers and interpreters to the British Army and crucial details on the care and ‘accommodation of the wounded of the allied armies.’”
The British allowed Belgium to annex Congo Free State in return for a “secret agreement that was in everything but name an alliance. King Leopold II sold Belgian neutrality for African rubber and minerals.” Thus Belgium bargained away her neutral status and in return entered into a deep and hidden relationship with Britain against Germany. Docherty and Macgregor point out that here too King Edward VII played a hidden but important role because the King of Belgium was a cousin of Queen Victoria and was very fond of her. So much for Belgian neutrality that became a rallying cry to war for the misled and deliberately misinformed British public. The technique of using the media to control the public mindset continues to date and entails an incredible cost in terms of loss of human life and property.
The Myth of German Militarism
As for German militarism, Docherty and Macgregor have provided irrefutable data that clearly establishes that Britain was spending far more secretly on arming itself compared to Germany. In reality it was British militarism but the cunning and, in a sense, deep characterlessness of the Secret Elite, which hoodwinked everyone and which worked outside and in contradiction with the constitution, and which lied to and shamelessly deceived everyone, created the opposite impression. When the Liberal leader Campbell-Bannerman won a landslide victory in 1906, the Liberals were committed to peace.
Edward Grey and Haldane were committed to war and along with other members of the Secret Elite, steering the country towards war. Cabinet was never informed of this, nor was the prime minister. The crafted biographies of men like Haldane contain lies and are unreliable. And if one reads Docherty and Macgregor they have exposed the lies in Haldane’s biography and private notes. In fact, there is evidence that Campbell-Bannerman was kept in the dark about the military contacts with other countries. His untimely death in 1908 relieved the Secret Elite of the pressure for a peaceful world! In fact, the Secret Elite were very worried soon afterwards, because in 1910, their key patron King Edward VII died at age 68, while the Liberals were still in power.
False propaganda about German military preparations was carried out at the behest of the Secret Elite in the British media. As Docherty and Macgregor put it (pp 134, 135, ref. [1])
From the beginning of the twentieth century, the Secret Elite indulged in a frenzy of rumor and half-truths, of raw propaganda and lies, to create the myth of a great naval race. The story widely accepted, even by many anti-war Liberals, was that Germany was preparing a massive fleet of warships to attack and destroy the British navy before unleashing a military invasion on the east coast of England or the Firth of Forth in Scotland. It was the stuff of conspiracy novels. But it worked. The British people swallowed the lie that militarism had run amok in Germany and the ‘fact’ that it was seeking world domination through military superiority. Militarism in the United Kingdom was of God, but in Germany of the Devil, and had to be crushed before it crushed them.”
These authors are quick to point out that when Germany was defeated and all their prewar records became available to the Allies, not a shred of evidence in favor of such secret plans to invade Britain were discovered. They point out that the statistics were thoroughly abused by an “almighty alliance of armaments manufacturers, political rhetoric, and newspaper propaganda” that conjured a frightening image of a German naval armada and the German will to dominate the world.
Rothschild and Ernest Cassel, who paid for the lechery of King Edward VII when he was a playboy Prince of Wales, were major owners of the largest armament factory Vickers. They point out that in the decade prior to war the British naval expenditure was £351.9 million whereas the German naval expenditure was £185.2 million, i.e. almost half of the British expenditure. Similarly, the Allies, i.e., the Triple Entente spent £675.88 million on warships in that same decade whereas Germany and Austro-Hungary spent £235.9 million, almost a third of what the Entente had spent, on their navies in the same period.
Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff (R) lead Germany as virtual military dictators from mid-1916 to the end of the war
The German army was 7,61000 strong, the French and Russian armies had, respectively, 794,000 and 1.845 million personnel. So, where is the evidence of German militarism running amok? Who was running amok? Who was spending far more than the Germans? This lie of German military buildup has been perpetuated by establishment historians when the numbers speak out for themselves. The establishment historians should be ashamed at propagating lies and holding the so-called nonexistent German militarism responsible for the war. They have lied to, and continue to lie to their own people as well as the whole world. What a shame! The Germans should stand up with their heads high. They did not lie or deceive.
The sanitized history taught worldwide seems to hold Germany as the aggressor. This is utterly untrue as established by Docherty and Macgregor. Preparata also states in his fascinating book (published 2005) (p 14 of ref [3]):

“From the beginning Britain was the aggressor, not Germany.”

The Russian ambassador to France Isvolsky, who was an agent of the Secret Elite, sent a telegram to Moscow on August 1, 1914 (p 320, ref. [1]):
“The French War Minister informed me, in hearty high spirits, that the Government have firmly decided on war, and begged me to endorse the hope of the French General Staff that all efforts will be directed against Germany…”
Germany did not order mobilization until 24 hours later! The Kaiser had sent a message to the Russian czar asking that Russia stop her military movements on her borders. The Kaiser waited for 24 hours without any reply before ordering mobilization. Docherty and Macgregor correctly observe that Germany was the last of the European powers to order mobilization. Does that indicate that Germany wanted war? It only indicates that Germany did her best to avoid war.
A detailed study of the interactions between the British leaders and the Germans and others during July and the first days of August reveals clearly that the British leaders were shamelessly lying to the Germans and deceiving them. Their conduct had descended to the level of common criminals and crooks.
The Germans conducted themselves with integrity and a degree of innocence. The Secret Elite had also advised the Russians and the French to mobilize to attack, but not actually attack Germany, because the British public would never support the aggressor in a European war. They wanted Germany, as Docherty and Macgregor put it, to “swallow the bait.” Britain had trapped Germany into a war, in collusion with Russia and France. Docherty and Macgregor write (p 321, ref. [1]):
“What else could Germany have done? She was provoked into a struggle for life and death. It was a stark choice: await certain destruction or strike out to defend herself. Kaiser Wilhelm had exposed his country to grave danger and almost lost one precious advantage Germany had by delaying countermeasures to Russian mobilization in the forlorn hope of peace.”
When Germany declared war against France on August 3, 1914, the French Under-Secretary of State, Abel Ferry, noted in his diary (ref. [3], p 24):
The web was spun and Germany entered it like a great buzzing fly.”
The Illuminati international bankers and other secret society members of the British oligarchy had colluded together for a destruction of Christian Europe. Only the Zionist international bankers and their fellow “tribesmen” saw this outcome clearly – they had planned for it and the non-banking oligarchy was used. The lie parroted in standard history books that Germany bore the responsibility of the war is an utter and shameful lie. The responsibility of the war rested with the Secret Elite controlled British leadership.
Western Front WW1 British soldier
Zionism and the American Involvement
Almost two months before war broke out, on May 29, 1914, the Rothschild agent Col. House, who handled and controlled President Wilson, had written to him:
“Whenever England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany.”
It is well known that Col. Edward Mandel House was a Rothschild agent as was his father. Col. House played a diabolical role in prolonging World War I, and in dragging the U.S. into the World War. It is important to understand how influential he was with President Wilson. President Wilson had once referred to him as his alter ego. In his seminal book, that has sold over five million copies since it was first published, Gary Allen states [4]:
“Colonel” House was front man for the international banking fraternity. He manipulated President Wilson like a puppet. Wilson called him “my alter ego.” House played a major role in creating the Federal Reserve System, passing the graduated income tax and getting America into WWI. House’s influence over Wilson is an example that in the world of super-politics the real rulers are not always the ones the public sees.
Col. House represents a new phenomenon – the emergence of “advisors” to the U.S. President who do not hold any formal office, are unelected, and are intimately tied to the international banking families, apart from being members of secret societies. These advisors hold the president of the United States “captive.” In his profound book The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed, a Times (London) correspondent in Central Europe right up to the beginning of WW II, mentions that four men held President Wilson captive – Col. House, Rabi Stephen Wise, Justice Brandeis and Bernard Baruch. Reed states [5]:
Thus three out of the four men around President Wilson were Jews and all three, at one time or the other, played leading parts in the re-segregation of the Jews through Zionism and its Palestinian ambition ….
Such was the grouping around a captive president as the American Republic moved towards involvement in the First World War, and such was the cause which was to be pursued through him and his country’s involvement. After his election Mr. House took over his correspondence, arranged whom he should see or not receive, told cabinet officers what they were to say or not to say, and so on.
In order to understand how and why the preplanned WWI was prolonged it is important to know who influenced or controlled the elected leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. and what were the aims of these controllers. It is also important to know that Justice Louis Brandeis had founded a secret society by the name Parushim, for promoting Zionism in U.S.A. The initiate was asked to accept the following oath at a secret initiation ceremony [6] :
You are about to take a step which will bind you to a single cause for all your life. You will for one year be subject to an absolute duty whose call you will be impelled to heed at any time, in any place, and at any cost. And ever after, until our purpose shall be accomplished, you will be fellow of a brotherhood whose bond you will regard as greater than any other in your life – dearer than that of family, of school, of nation. By entering this brotherhood, you become a self-dedicated soldier in the army of Zion. Your obligation to Zion becomes your paramount obligation… It is the wish of your heart and of your own free will to join our fellowship, to share its duties, its tasks, and its necessary sacrifices.
Rabi Stephen Wise was on board regarding Parushim and, almost certainly, Bernard Baruch was also on board. Bernard Baruch’s connection with the international bankers is well known. It is also important to point out that the international bankers had planned World War I to, among other things, promote the Zionist cause. As Douglas Reed, using information provided in Chaim Weizmann’s book Trial and Error, stated in his book Far and Wide [7]:
The First World War began in 1914; long-memoried readers may recall that it appeared to be concerned with such matters as the rape of Belgium, ending Prussian militarism, and making the world safe for democracy. At its start Baron Edmond de Rothschild told Dr. Weizmann that it would spread to the Middle East, where things of great significance to Political Zionism would occur.
How did Edmond de Rothschild know right at the beginning of the war that the war would spread to the Middle East where things will work out to the great advantage of Political Zionism? He could only know this if it was planned that way and if he was one of the planners. And, as we will see, this was one of the reasons why World War I was deliberately prolonged.
Prolonging the War
The war was prolonged through several tactics. Firstly, all overtures of peace from the side of the Germans, and later the Ottomans, were defeated by agents of the international bankers. Secondly when Germans ran short of food, the deception named Belgian Relief Commission was set up by the international bankers through their front men, by which food was supplied to Germany and the German army, under guise of food supplies to Belgium, so that the German army could keep on fighting. Thirdly Germans were supplied with vital chemicals, metals, and other war materials by Allied Big Business, to enable them to keep fighting. Finally, wherever the Allied rulers seemed to resist the expansion of the war into the Middle East, they were eliminated politically, and if need be physically. They were then replaced by agents of the international banking cabal.
Sabotage of German Peace Offers of February 1915 and December 1916
A lone French soldier in a wet trench
Early in the war, on November 3, 1914, Britain declared the North Sea a theater of war. It blockaded ports of neutral countries illegally. On February 3, 1915, i.e. three months later, the Germans announced a counter blockade. They announced that with effect from February 18, 1915, the entire English channel along with territorial waters of Britain and Ireland would be considered a war zone. One must appreciate the fact that the Germans waited for three months before announcing a counter blockade. They were within their rights to do so.
However simultaneously, in February 1915, the Germans approached James W. Gerard, the U.S. ambassador in Germany, and expressed their desire to end the war. The German authorities wanted the ambassador to convey their desire for peace to President Wilson. They were however utterly unaware that President Wilson was a captive of the “advisors” installed around him by the international bankers. This German overture for peace is not something that is mentioned in textbooks but it has been mentioned by James W. Gerard in autobiography My First Eighty Three Years in America.
The response from Washington was most astonishing. Instead of commenting on the German proposal for peace, the White House directed the ambassador to communicate with Col. House instead of the President of U.S.A.! Dr. Stanley Montieth quotes from ambassador Gerard’s biography [8]:
In addition to the cable which I had already received informing me that Colonel House was “fully commissioned to act” he himself reminded me of my duty in his February 16 postscript. In his own handwriting these were the words from House. “The President has just repeated to me your cablegram to him and says he has asked you to communicate directly with me in future . . .” All authority, therefore had been vested in Colonel House direct, the President ceased to be even a conduit of communications. . . . He, who had never been appointed to any position, and who had never been passed by the Senate, was “fully instructed and commissioned” to act in the most grave situation. I have never ceased to wonder how he had managed to attain such power and influence.
One may notice that the German counter blockade was to begin on February 18, and the Germans communicated their desire for peace before that date as Colonel House’s handwritten postscript was dated February 16th. So it appears that the Germans expected that since the counter blockade represented an increased and new level of hostility, the Americans would be concerned to defuse the situation. They had no idea that Wilson was a stooge, a puppet in the hands of those who had planned a long war.
And one may recall that although the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated as late as June 28, 1914, Col. House had, a month earlier, on May 29th, communicated to Wilson the arrangement that as soon as England indicated, France and Russia would pounce on Germany. So Colonel House wanted a long war, and destruction of both Germany and Russia, in accordance with the desire of the Zionist international bankers. Therefore, the ambassador never heard anything from Col. House about the peace proposal of February 1915. The peace proposal was sabotaged by Col. House.
Realizing that Col. House was in control of Wilson the Germans made another overture of peace in December 1916. This has been revealed by historian Leon Degrelle [9]. He mentions that on December 12, 1916, German officials expressed a desire for peace and talks with their adversaries. He also writes that Germans expressed the hope that Col. House would persuade the Allies. The freemason Col. House ruled out peace and thus helped sabotage the second peace initiative within the same year. The Germans did not know that Col. House had played an important role in precipitating the First World War by secretly entering into a secret agreement with Britain, well before Wilson’s re-election, that the U.S. would join the war, on the side of the Allies. Degrelle further writes [9]:
“On December 18, 1916, U.S. ambassador to Britain, Walter H. Page, relayed a peace offer to the Allies from Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria. On January 9, 1917, Prime Minister Lloyd George quickly repudiated the offering and declared that Britain would fight to the victory, which possibly prompted the Germans to re-initiate submarine warfare. Ambassador Page, in touch with President Wilson and Secretary of State Robert Lansing, defended British policies. This was William Jenning Bryan’s resignation, after he described Britain’s collapsing financial situation and the need for America’s neutrality.”
If the war had ended in 1916 million of lives could have been saved and destruction and devastation of numerous cities avoided. But the international bankers had planned a long war. It is important to note that, according to writer Juri Lina, who had access to records of numerous important Masonic lodges, Lloyd George was a Freemason, a Masonic Grand Master, and a Jew, whose real name was David Levi-Lowitt [10]. His connections with international bankers are very well known and he was installed in power as a result of an intrigue with the object of promoting the Zionist cause, as will be described later.
The picture of dead men among trees is a censored photo that was banned from publication by the French government. Those are dead Frenchmen mowed down by German guns during the Battle of the Frontiers in August/September 1914.
*

And that pivot does not serve American national interests.

By MICHAEL MCFAUL

Professor of Political Science, Director of Freeman Spogli Institute & Hoover Senior Fellow all at Stanford University. U.S. Ambassador to Russia, 2012-2014.

https://michaelmcfaul.substack.com/p/trump-is-once-again-acting-as-putins

I admit I made a mistake. I thought President Trump had finally realized that placating Vladimir Putin had not served either American national interests or his own reputation. The details of a new “peace plan” for Ukraine, endorsed by Trump and his team, confirm that I was wrong in this assessment. Trump has once again shunned the role of neutral mediator and is again taking Russia’s side. This pivot back to the old, pro-Putin Trump is bad for Ukraine, bad for Europe, and bad for the United States.

As my readers know, I have written and commented critically about President Trump’s embrace of Vladimir Putin for over a decade. During his first presidential campaign, Trump went out of his way to praise the Russian dictator. This enthusiasm for Putin continued throughout his first term, including a shocking moment at their summit in Helsinki in 2018 when Trump sided with Putin against his own intelligence community, falsely claiming there had been no Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. (Incidentally, it was in Helsinki that Trump volunteered to hand me over to Moscow for interrogation regarding crimes I allegedly committed against Russia while working at the National Security Council! Read about it here.) At the beginning of his second term, Trump continued to praise and support Putin. Most embarrassingly, the United States under Trump joined Russia, North Korea, Belarus, and a bunch of other rogue nations in voting against a UN resolution criticizing Russia for invading Ukraine. Even China abstained.

More recently, however, there were signs that Trump was beginning to understand Putin. After Trump and his aides offered Putin all sorts of concessions to end his war in Ukraine, Putin just asked for more. Trump seemed frustrated by that. In April, Trump questioned in a Truth Social post whether Putin was “tapping me along.” Putin was. Most encouragingly, in October—for the first time in 2025—the Trump administration finally implemented new sanctions on two Russian oil companies. I thought optimistically that Trump might be changing his mind about Putin.

The publication this week of a so-called new “peace plan” has undermined that optimism. Trump and his team are right back to appeasing Putin and undermining Ukrainian sovereignty. This reversal is dramatic and tragic.

Ukrainian and Western leaders had no say in the drafting of the plan, which requires extreme concessions from Kyiv and demands nothing from Moscow. It is not a “peace plan.” It is a Russian proposal for Ukrainian capitulation endorsed by the Trump administration. Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev reportedly leaked the plan to the American press to tie Trump’s hands. (I hope the president and his aides realize what a sinister move this was by Dmitriev.)

There is little new in the plan. The proposal simply repeats all of Putin’s maximalist demands from years ago. Most outrageously, this new Russian plan calls on Ukraine yet again to abandon territory still held by its soldiers in Donbas. Putin has been trying to seize this area of eastern Ukraine since 2014; it seems he has now given up on his soldiers and is just asking Trump to hand it over to him. Equally egregious are the provisions in the plan that place limits on Ukraine’s sovereignty, including caps on the size of the army and a prohibition on joining NATO. Most arrogantly, the proposal states that Ukraine will be “eligible” to join the European Union—as if Russia had any say in this matter. Trump apparently also decided unilaterally to speak on behalf of the other G-7 countries – all of which are democratic allies of the United States—when agreeing in this document to invite Russia to rejoin what would become the G-8. And, of course, in a pattern now consistent with other Trump-backed deals, the plan offers all sorts of ways for Americans to make money. One bullet point even describes how “$100 billion in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine,” with the important caveat that the US “will receive 50% of the profits”! Finally, there is nothing in this document identifying Russia as the instigator of this barbaric war.

A Trump-led pressure campaign on Zelenskyy to accept this deal—the Ukrainians reportedly have only until Thursday to say yes—will not advance American national interests. Here’s why:

First, this Russian plan rewards imperialism and acknowledges annexation. Acquiescing to such an agreement will not produce long-lasting peace but only result in a temporary pause in Putin’s aggression, much like that which followed Putin’s first attack on Ukraine in 2014. And an emboldened Putin will escalate his threats to our NATO allies in Europe. Just as appeasement in the run-up to World War II eventually resulted in large-scale war, the same tactics could produce more conflict, not less—again in Europe, and in the near future.

Second, the very publication of this “peace plan” has already exacerbated tensions with our European allies. Pursuing its implementation will do even further damage to our relations with our NATO allies.

Third, the provision in the plan that weakens Ukraine, such as a cap on the size of the Ukrainian military, is antithetical to American national interests. To deter war between Russia and NATO countries, NATO—an alliance that includes the United States, in case some in the Trump administration forgot—needs a strong Ukrainian military. Right now, even after fighting the Russian army for over three years, the Armed Forces of Ukraine remain the most effective military in Europe. NATO needs that army to stay strong to deter any future aggression from Russia. Eventually, to enhance deterrence, that army should be fully integrated into NATO. The United States benefits from a strong Ukraine, not a weak Ukraine.

Fourth, acceding to the erosion of norms regarding sovereignty sends a terrible signal to Beijing that Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party can also use force for territorial gain. Such a signal could wrongly tempt Xi into trying to seize Taiwan by force, a military action that would destroy the global economy and easily drag the United States into war with the People’s Republic of China.

Fifth, supporting this Russian proposal aligns the United States with the autocratic, imperial aggressor in this war. How does that enhance our international reputation? As I wrote about in my new book, the United States needs to be firmly on the side of the free world in the fight between autocrats and democrats unfolding over the next century. Trump’s siding with Putin blurs our commitment to freedom and undermines our once iron-clad reputation as the leader of the free world.

Finally, this Russian plan, as published, will not work. It will not end this war. Even if Zelenskyy wanted to accept it, his citizens and warriors would not. Trump, therefore, will look like a weak and failed negotiator if he tries to force Ukraine to capitulate.

The only path forward is a serious amendment to this draft document that removes the most egregious violations of Ukrainian sovereignty and calls upon Putin to make concessions, too. Most importantly, Putin cannot have a say in Ukraine’s sovereign affairs, be it the size of the army, Ukraine’s agreements on security guarantees with European and American partners, or relations with multilateral organizations such as NATO and the EU. NATO leaders did not seek Stalin’s permission when they established the alliance in 1949. And no one phoned up Khrushchev and asked for his blessing to bring part of Germany into the alliance in 1955. Asking for Moscow’s permission now—giving Putin a veto over how Ukraine conducts its own foreign policy—harkens back to earlier centuries of “spheres of influence”. We all know how poorly that system ended.

Hopefully, in the coming days, our European allies will engage with Trump and his team to propose substantive amendments to this Russian plan. After Trump’s failed summit with Putin in Alaska in August, which produced no tangible gains for American security or meaningful steps to end the war in Ukraine, the Europeans came to Washington a few days later to help get us back on course. Let’s hope they will so again in the coming days.

A strong, democratic, and independent Ukraine advances American security and values, both in Europe and around the world. A weak Ukraine subjugated to Russia undermines American security and values, both in Europe and around the world. Standing up to Putin makes the United States look strong. Appeasing Putin makes the United States look weak. It’s just that simple.

I hope Trump’s reversal to his old Putin-admiring self is just a temporary relapse. But I will not be fooled again by any changes in what Trump says, I will judge the president’s policies only by changes in his actions.

The Republicans and Democrats have almost agreed to end the Shutdown — a situation where the budget is not passed and the government is not funded. Several aspects are important here.

1. This is the longest Shutdown in US history. This indicates the growing overall crisis in the USA.
2. The Shutdown was initially beneficial to Trump — to cut those government programs previously adopted by the Democrats. And Trump provoked the Shutdown.
3. But then the Shutdown began to be very disadvantageous to Trump because it started causing many problems for ordinary people.
4. The main problem — due to lack of funding for air traffic controllers and airports, 10% of flights were canceled. But there are also dozens and even hundreds of other various minor problems.
5. The main politically public reason for the Shutdown: Trump wants to cut funding for healthcare for the poor. And the Democratic Party is sharply against it.
6. The actual main reason: at first, Trump wanted to use the Shutdown to destroy programs adopted under Biden and Obama.
7. Then the Democratic Party wanted to use the Shutdown to reduce Trump’s popularity in the November elections in various states.
8. As a result, the Democratic Party won.
9. Trump’s ratings fell. Trump risks losing the majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
10. The Democrats achieved their goal and technically made concessions. Trump realized his problems were growing and also made concessions.
11. The Shutdown will apparently end now. But the growing dysfunctionality of the US government’s work will continue.

via S. Markov

by Mark Brolin via The Telegraph

Mark Brolin is a geopolitical strategist and the author of ’Healing Broken Democracies: All You Need to Know About Populism’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/comment/2025/10/28/putin-is-losing-the-weirdest-war-in-150-years/

The Ukraine conflict has descended into farce. But behind the fog, Russia’s desperate state is becoming ever clearer

Lord Palmerston is famously said to have joked of the 1864 Danish-German war that only three people ever understood the reason behind it: one who had died, one who went mad, and the third who had forgotten. If that conflict once felt like the apex of strategic absurdity, the Russia-Ukraine war has somehow raised the bar.

Consider the behaviour of the main parties.

First up is team Putin, which hoped to showcase strength and strategic mastery by seizing Ukraine. So how did that turn out? Well, the bubble of 19th century Kremlin yes-men turned out to know so little about the ways of the real world that Moscow’s sphere of influence has contracted across the Middle East, Central Asia and Europe, with Finland and Sweden joining Nato, and Russia drifting closer to becoming a de facto Chinese vassal state. Moscow has been losing its Western oil markets, while its supposedly mighty army has only managed to gain control of a fraction of Ukrainian territory. This has come at vast human and economic cost, with no persuasive case as to why the world’s largest country needed those extra square miles.

Then there is Ukraine and president Zelensky. There is, of course, nothing bizarre about Kyiv’s heroic fight to drive back the Russians. If only the same could be said about its efforts to keep America in the fight. Ukraine has tended to frame the case urgently: help now, or the consequences would be dire, including the threat of Moscow starting a world war. But today’s Russia is a dwarf next to the US in every respect besides the nuclear bombs that even Putin knows he cannot use. Exaggerating Russia’s strength has not helped Ukraine in the court of American opinion.

Next comes Europe. For years, many European countries disarmed while deepening energy dependence on one of their main adversaries, while ignoring explicit warnings from countries like Poland and Ukraine. They lectured about principles while buying Russian oil, thereby funding the very war machine they condemned. Despite the war in Europe and their own sclerotic economies, European leaders continue to moralise as if they are somehow sitting on top of the best recipe for peace and prosperity on the planet.

Finally, there’s the US and its president. Donald Trump’s opening gambit in his attempt to achieve peace in Ukraine was to push for Moscow’s desired end-state (telling Ukraine to cede stolen ground and ditch its hopes of joining Nato even before sitting down at the negotiating table). Then came the Tomahawk episode: for a few days, Trump brandished the threat of giving Ukraine these long-range missiles. Just as the threat seemed to work – when the Kremlin reached for the phone – it was oddly withdrawn. So leverage was first applied and then removed in a heartbeat.

All of this makes this conflict feel so odd that it can drive anyone who prizes logic and consistency a little mad.

Yet despite all the frustrating backsliding, the forces of reason might just be winning out. Inch by inch, Europe and the United States are, for the first time, pushing back in concert in a significant way. Europe is rearming; its energy dependence on Russia is falling; frozen Russian reserves are being explored as a way of funding for Ukraine; and recent US policy moves have tightened the oil squeeze. Chinese and Indian energy firms appear to be acting more cautiously than before while, seemingly not without reason, afraid of second tier sanctions. The West continues to supply Ukraine with crucial technological, logistical and intelligence support.

Perhaps most significantly, the myth of “Great Power” Russia may at least be about to be punctured. This myth let the Kremlin swagger, and encouraged Europe to act like cowards. It allowed appeasers and Russian apologists to demand that Ukraine “adapt to the facts” – conveniently ignoring the equally important facts about Russia. Here are a few:

Russia’s war-economy is overheating

Year-on-year inflation ran about 8pc in September (Russian source), with prices re-accelerating into the autumn. This is a classic symptom of a state-directed wartime splurge, not durable strength. The Russian central bank has set interest rates at almost 17pc – a banana-republic number.

Guns are crowding out butter

Moscow’s 2025 plan lifted defence to roughly a third of total spending and around 6pc of GDP – levels that squeeze everything else and lock in future austerity.

Moscow is bleeding manpower

Estimates vary, but some credible sources put Russian deaths at more than 200,000 (Feb 2022 – Aug 2025), while total casualties (deaths and wounded) are thought to have exceeded 1.1 million by October 2025; Nato has estimated that around 100,000 Russians have died in 2025 alone. However you slice it, losses are highly likely to be dwarfing sustainable replacement.

Economic growth is an illusion built on war outlays

Russia has been posting positive GDP figures, but these have been driven by state orders and price spikes, fuel for today’s inflation and tomorrow’s hangover. Even senior Russian bankers are now warning about the economic situation, as softer oil assumptions and Ukrainian refinery strikes erode profits from Russia’s core asset.

The labour supply is being squeezed

Unemployment sits at historic lows because workers are scarce; almost a million Russians are thought to have left after 2022, deepening shortages.

This has exacerbated the brain drain

The Russian people are among Europe’s poorest and unhealthiest (the average life span for males is around ten years lower than within EU countries). Freedom of expression? A joke that is not only a human but also an economic tragedy. Understandably many of the brightest and richest have left the country for greener pastures – taking both their brains and capital with them.

Russia’s dependence on China is deepening

Around 35-40pc of Russia’s trade now runs through China; Beijing is by far the top buyer of Russian energy, but trade growth has been hampered by Chinese payment hurdles, underscoring Moscow’s weaker hand. The fact that Russian business has no straightforward access to any competitive market economy is another hardly envious position. This is starting to hit home in all sorts of respects. For example, aviation safety has deteriorated as carriers “cannibalise” grounded planes for parts; more than half of Western-built aircraft could be parked by 2026 without spares. That is what high-tech isolation looks like.

Return fire is now hitting deep inside Russia

Even without Tomahawks, Ukraine’s deep-strike capabilities – long-range drones, Storm Shadow/SCALP, Atacms – are now regularly hitting air bases, refineries, logistics hubs and the Black Sea coastline. The Russian Black Sea Fleet has been degraded, dispersed, and pushed east; Crimea, once a sanctuary, is a firing range. The war has been brought to the Russians.

None of this argues for rewarding aggression with land – or for the idea that Russia can “comfortably fight for years”. It argues for tightening the screws that actually matter: enforcing the oil price cap and hitting shippers/insurers, choking off machine-tool and dual-use inputs, and allowing even deeper Ukrainian strikes on Russia’s logistics aorta. Thankfully, all this is finally happening.

The real danger for Ukraine is that the Russian situation is so dire that Putin might personally want to prolong the war, regardless of the cost. When focus returns to the domestic situation, the spotlight will swing to a mess of his own making: inflation, shortages, a shrinking workforce, and a kleptocracy that cannot modernise. If he keeps fighting, the bill might grow, the body count might climb and the backlash might be even greater once the guns stop firing, but he can at least postpone the problem for another day.

In short, Putin may no longer be living in reality, but in a bizarre version curated by the yes-men around him. That is why pressure must be kept up: to make the reality of his situation impossible to ignore.

via MoonofAlabama

Back in 2012 U.S. foreign policy analysts were concerned about a possible nuclear alliance between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Scholars from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and the Stimson Center wrote an essay about it:

The Pak-Saudi Nuke, and How to Stop It – The American Interest, March 2012

The opening paragraph:

One morning, perhaps in the not too distant future, the President of the United States may wake up to an announcement that, given new dangers in the Middle East, the Saudi government has requested the stationing of Pakistani troops on Saudi soil. The announcement might go on to explain that these troops will also bring with them the full complement of conventional and strategic weapons necessary to ensure their security and that of Saudi Arabia. Word would quickly follow from Islamabad that Pakistan has accepted a generous aid package and low-priced oil from Saudi Arabia. Both parties would stress that the agreement simply reaffirms their decades-long special relationship.

As Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state one had to assume that any such a pact would supply Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons. It was something that the U.S. and its sidekick Israel were very concerned about.

It was assumed at that time that the reason for such a move by Saudi Arabia would be its concern over Iran and its nuclear program:

Over the past decade, Saudi Arabia’s threat perception has sharpened as the dangers from Iran have grown along with doubts about the reliability of U.S. protection.

The time to wake up to a new Saudi-Pakistani alliance has finally come today:

Saudi Arabia signs ‘strategic mutual defence’ pact with Pakistan (archived) – Financial Times

But the strategic circumstance under which the alliance happens are very different from those that had been envisioned in 2012 essay:

Saudi Arabia has signed a “strategic mutual defence” pact with Pakistan, signalling to the US and Israel that the kingdom is willing to diversify its security alliances as it looks to bolster its deterrence.

The agreement with the nuclear-armed south Asian state comes a week after Gulf states — traditionally reliant on the US as their security guarantor — were deeply rattled by Israel’s missile strikes targeting Hamas’s political leaders in Qatar.

“We hope it will reinforce our deterrence — aggression against one is aggression against the other,” a senior Saudi official told the Financial Times. “This is a comprehensive defence agreement that will utilise all defensive and military means deemed necessary depending on the specific threat.”

This is a NATO Article 5 like pact. ‘All means deemed necessary’, as empathized, undoubtedly includes Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

The U.S. was, the FT say, not at all involved in it:

Riyadh is believed to have informed Washington about the Pakistan defence agreement after it was signed.

Saudi Arabia already has a strategic missile force which is armed with Chinese DF-21 missiles which have a range of up to 1,700 kilometer. They can hit Tehran, but also Tel Aviv. The missiles are conventionally armed but can be fitted with nuclear warheads.

Pakistan’s development of nuclear weapons had largely be financed by Saudi Arabia. The two countries have a long history of military cooperation:

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have a defense relationship stretching back decades, in part due to Islamabad’s willingness to defend the Islamic holy sites of Mecca and Medina in the kingdom. Pakistani troops first traveled to Saudi Arabia in the late 1960s over concerns about Egypt’s war in Yemen at the time. Those ties increased after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution and the kingdom’s fears of a confrontation with Tehran.

Pakistan developed its nuclear weapons program to counter India’s atomic bombs. However, there long have been signals of the kingdom’s interest in the program. Retired Pakistani Brig. Gen. Feroz Hassan Khan, in his book on his country’s nuclear weapons program called “Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb,” said Saudi Arabia provided “generous financial support” for its effort.

Today Saudi Arabia no longer fears a confrontation with Iran. In 2023, with the help of Chinese mediation, the two countries did bury their hatchets. The move was an early sign that the U.S. was losing ground in the Middle East.

The reasons why the is being closed these days is obvious:

The agreement was signed by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in Riyadh. Sharif’s office’s reiterated that the agreement “states that any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both”.

The Israeli attack on Doha, one of the US’s major non-Nato allies, exacerbated Gulf leaders’ long-running concerns about Washington’s unpredictability and its commitment to their defence, as well as fears about Israel acting unrestrainedly with its military across the region.

The Saudis had worked on, and hoped for, a deeper alliance with the U.S. But the genocide in Gaza, and the unlimited U.S. support for it, have made such an alliance impossible:

Riyadh had been hoping to seal a defence pact with the US, as well as co-operation with Washington’s nuclear plans, as part of a grand deal that would have led to it normalising diplomatic relations with Israel.

However, those plans were upended after Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, triggering the war in Gaza and conflict across the region.

Riyadh has become increasingly outraged by Israel’s 23-month war in Gaza and the conduct of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government.

Prince Mohammed accuses Israel of committing genocide, and has made it clear that normalisation is off the table unless Netanyahu ends the conflict and moves to establish a Palestinian state.

China, which is allied with Pakistan, will be happy about the deal. So will be Iran. It was likely already informed about it:

Before the defense pact was signed, Iran dispatched Ali Larijani, a senior political figure who now serves as the secretary of the country’s Supreme National Security Council, to visit Saudi Arabia. That may have seen the kingdom acknowledge the pact to Tehran, with which it has had a Chinese-mediated détente with Iran since 2023.

India will be concerned about the deal. A lot of the oil it purchases is coming from Saudi Arabia. With a Saudi-Pakistani alliance in place any conflict with Pakistan will likely cause it additional difficulties with the purchase of energy.

The U.S., and Donald Trump, are the big losers in this. The unrestricted support for Israel is coming at an ever increasing price. The Gulf countries are – slowly, slowly – moving away from it.

via Zero hedge

At least three people were killed and two others injured overnight in western Russia due to Ukrainian drone strikes, according to regional governors, with one signifcant attack sparking a fire at an oil refinery in central Russia after it was hit.

Ukraine’s military confirmed it Russia’s Ryazan and Novokuibyshevsk oil refineries, triggering large fires. It also said it struck the Annanefteprodukt oil storage site in the Voronezh region, which was likely a long-range drone attack, but few details were disclosed.

Moscow Times: Screengrab of the Novokuibyshevsk refinery, operated by the state-owned oil giant Rostneft, in Russia’s Samara region.
In the Penza region, Governor Oleg Melnichenko reported that a woman was killed and two others injured following a drone strike, and in the Samara region, Governor Vyacheslav Fedorishchev said an elderly man died after drone debris ignited a fire in a residential building.

In Rostov, a security guard at an industrial site was killed when a drone attack caused a fire in one of the buildings, per regional authorites. This was amid Russian trying to intercept the large-scale drone assault which went on for many hours into the morning, downing drones across seven districts.

Additionally, Ukraine’s SBU intelligence agency said its drones hit the Primorsko-Akhtarsk military airfield, known as a launch site for Russian drone attacks on Ukraine. The SBU also claimed responsibility for striking a Penza factory involved in supplying electronics to Russia’s military-industrial sector.

In total, Russia’s milmitary said it shot down 112 Ukrainian drones over Russian territory, including 34 over the Rostov region. In all, the attack reportedly lasted at least nine hours.

“Last night, SBU drones continued targeting Russian military infrastructure deep in enemy territory. The first target of our long-range UAVs was the military airfield in Primorsko-Akhtarsk (Krasnodar Krai), which stores and launches Shahed drones used to attack Ukraine. A fire broke out in the area following the SBU drone strikes,” the SBU said.

“This facility manufactures equipment for digital networks in military command systems, devices for aviation, armored vehicles, naval vessels, and space systems. SBU drones successfully struck the site, and smoke was observed following the explosions,” the agency said.

Ukraine’s military said these stepped-up attacks are in response to the heightened deadly Russian attacks on Ukrianian cities, including one this week on Kiev which killed at least 31 people after nine-story apartment building was directly struck.

Via EUOobserver

On 28 September, parliamentary elections will be held in Moldova.

While this may seem like a minor event on the EU’s periphery, its implications for Europe’s security and political cohesion are far-reaching.

Moldova, sandwiched between Romania and Ukraine, signed an association agreement with the EU in 2014, symbolising a commitment to reform and integration and the ruling Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) has vigorously pursued European integration since it came to office in 2021.

However, the PAS government led by president Maia Sandu is projected to lose significant ground in the upcoming parliamentary elections. This decline stems from domestic dissatisfaction with the party’s attitude and policies as well as ongoing interference by Russia.

This interference aims to undermine trust in Moldova’s institutions through corruption narratives and hybrid threats and increase electoral support for pro-Russian political parties.

The likely outcome is that PAS will be forced into a coalition with one of the pro-Russian opposition parties, groups that advocate distancing Moldova from Europe and often exhibit autocratic tendencies.

Such a coalition would almost certainly shift Moldova’s trajectory away from European alignment. This potential shift threatens the European Union’s interests on three key fronts: digital security, regional stability, and political cohesion.

1. Testing ground for hybrid warfare

Moldova has become a laboratory for Russian hybrid warfare tactics, including cyberattacks and large-scale disinformation campaigns.

This was evident in previous election cycles, where attempts at manipulation and foreign influence were widely documented.

We can expect similar, if not more, interference in the upcoming elections.

Should a pro-Russian party gain power, efforts to counter such threats are likely to weaken, or worse, be co-opted. A government with little incentive for transparency will likely tolerate or may even facilitate Russian influence operations.

As a result the focus of these destabilising tactics are likely to migrate westward, EU member states will increasingly become the target and we will see a rise in cyber intrusions, disinformation targeting democratic institutions, and interference in national elections.

2. Strategic buffering and support for Ukraine

Moldova plays a vital role in supporting Ukraine, both morally and practically, serving as a critical humanitarian and logistical corridor.

Even though it is Europe’s poorest country, it has hosted over 1.5 million refugees and absorbed over 100,000 for long-term stays. It also helped reroute grain shipments through its Danube ports, alleviating pressure on Ukraine’s blocked Black Sea routes.

Should Moldova pivot toward Moscow, Ukraine’s support structure will be weakened, undermining the EU’s eastern resilience.

More importantly, an ambivalent Moldova will erode the eastern buffer between the EU and hostile actors, increasing the risk of military provocations near EU borders.

This not only raises the stakes for Nato but also increases the likelihood that EU member states, especially those with Nato commitments, will be drawn into more direct responses.

3. Erosion of democratic norms and EU cohesion

Moldova’s democratic trajectory is also a symbolic battleground for the values underpinning the European project: democratic governance, rule of law, and respect for human rights.

A shift toward autocratic governance in Moldova would contribute to the broader erosion of these values in the EU’s neighbourhood.

This will further weaken the EU’s credibility as a global advocate for democracy and human rights and will complicate enlargement policy.

The EU’s failure to prevent democratic erosion in candidate countries like Georgia and Serbia has already dampened public enthusiasm for enlargement.

A similar trajectory in Moldova would not only complicate accession talks but could also bolster eurosceptic narratives in western Europe, where support for further expansion is increasingly fragile.

Moreover, such a shift will send a damaging message that democratic principles are negotiable, even in states that aspire to EU membership.

This narrative emboldens not only autocratic regimes abroad but also anti-democratic actors within EU borders. This will increasingly threaten internal cohesion.

Despite its internal challenges, the Moldovan population remains broadly supportive of European integration.

The upcoming elections are a decisive moment, not only for Moldova’s future but for the EU’s ability to safeguard its values and interests at a time of global democratic backsliding.

The EU must therefore continue to provide as much political and financial support as it can to fight Russian interference and ensure free and fair elections in Moldova.

Not just through election-monitoring and support for civil society watchdogs but also through its fights against disinformation and cybersecurity support.

A democratic, European-oriented Moldova is a stabilizing force on the Union’s eastern flank that helps safeguard our digital space, supports our geopolitical resilience, and defends the normative foundations of the European project.

The rise in insolvencies is attributed to high borrowing costs and shrinking demand

via RT

The Russian infrastructure construction sector is expected to see a wave of bankruptcies this year, according to CEO of National Projectstroy, one of Russia’s largest construction firms.

Aleksey Krapivin, whose firm oversaw the construction of the Crimean Bridge as well as key motorway projects, pointed to high interest rates and a drop in orders as key drivers of the oncoming challenges.

Three years ago the Bank of Russia raised its key rate from 9.5% to a high of 21% to stabilize the ruble and contain inflation in response to Western sanctions.

Last month, the regulator cut its key interest rate by 100 basis points to 20%, citing a slowdown in inflation, the first rate reduction since 2022.

About half of the companies in Russia’s civil construction sector are nearing insolvency, Krapivin told RBK in an interview published on Monday. National Projectstroy, he said, is already under pressure from borrowing costs and had tightened financial discipline and delayed investment plans.

Infrastructure projects are particularly exposed due to their high capital intensity and long execution timelines, Krapivin claimed, adding that new developments are not viable. “Building today is always cheaper than building tomorrow,” he said.

Smaller firms in the sector are especially vulnerable due to risky investments in non-core activities or allocating profits from future projects in advance while virtually all construction companies are feeling the burden of “expensive money.”

Krapivin acknowledged that the government and private sector are exploring ways to mitigate the impact of high rates, including expanded use of public-private partnerships, and expressed confidence that the situation would gradually improve.

Bank of Russia Deputy Governor Aleksey Zabotkin has also claimed that key rates could be cut by over 100 basis points at the bank’s upcoming July 25 meeting, adding the move depends on inflation trending toward the 4% target by 2026.

by Evi Kiorri , via EUObserver https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar56575dcd

On 25 December last year, Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 took off from Baku, headed for Grozny in Russia but it never made it. The plane crashed near Aktau, in Kazakhstan, killing 38 of the 67 people on board.

Seven months later, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev has gone public with an accusation: that the plane was shot down by Russian air defences, specifically, a Pantsir-S missile system. But why is this crisis between the two countries escalating just now?

On December 25th last year, Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 took off from Baku, headed for Grozny in Russia but it never made it. The plane crashed near Aktau, in Kazakhstan, killing 38 of the 67 people on board. Seven months later, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has gone public with an accusation: that the plane was shot down by Russian air defences, specifically, a Pantsir-S missile system. But why is this crisis between the two countries escalating just now?

So, according to Aliyev, this allegation isn’t a suspicion. It’s a fact. “We know what happened, and we can prove it, we know that Russian officials know what happened,” he said.

So far, Moscow’s line is that the incident was a “tragedy” – yes. But their investigation is still ongoing and crucially, no one in Russia has accepted responsibility.

Aliyev isn’t waiting around. He’s preparing lawsuits in international courts, demanding compensation, prosecution of those involved, and a formal acknowledgment from the Kremlin.

But the real story is: why now? Why is this crash, tragic as it is, triggering such open hostility between Baku and Moscow?

Well, because this is about a changing regional order. And it’s about two strongmen who no longer need, or trust, each other.

But, let’s rewind.

For decades, Russia and Azerbaijan maintained warm, even strategic ties. Trade, energy, diaspora links, Moscow was a key partner. But since Russia invaded Ukraine, things have shifted.

Russia has become overstretched, distracted. Azerbaijan saw the opportunity and took it. So, with backing from Turkey, it won back control of Nagorno-Karabakh, ending decades of conflict with Armenia. Russia, officially the peacekeeper in the region, barely lifted a finger. which left both Armenia and Azerbaijan questioning Moscow’s reliability.

Now, Baku is growing bolder. It’s drawing closer to Kyiv. It’s arresting Russian nationals, it’s raiding Kremlin-backed media outlets, and is openly challenging Moscow’s version of events.

Meanwhile, Russia has responded with police raids on ethnic Azerbaijanis, detentions, and what Azerbaijan calls extrajudicial violence. The crash of Flight 8243 didn’t cause this crisis, it just exposed it.

And let’s not forget the politics behind the scenes: a transit corridor through Armenia that Azerbaijan desperately wants, growing Turkish influence in the region, and the Kremlin’s increasing paranoia about losing control in its post-Soviet backyard.

So, what we’re seeing is the public unraveling of a geopolitical relationship and it’s getting messy.

But, what can we expect now?

Aliyev says Azerbaijan is prepared to take its case to international courts. And he’s also made it clear that this is now a matter of national dignity. As I mentioned, Baku is demanding compensation, prosecutions, and a public admission of guilt from Russia, something the Kremlin is rarely in the habit of doing.

Whether this escalates further remains to be seen. But relations are at their lowest point in decades with open diplomatic snubs, tit-for-tat arrests, and accusations of state-sponsored violence.

And while Russia may be used to operating from a position of strength, in the South Caucasus, that dominance is crumbling.