Supporters outside a hospital in Handlova, Slovakia wait for medical announcements about the survival and gradual recovery of Slovak PM Robert Fico (pronounced FEET-so), who was shot four times by a would-be assassin for, like PM Viktor Orban in Hungary, opposing military aid to Ukraine. PM Fico also, again like Orban, opposes the EU over muslim migration and wants it ended, and is against Big Pharma vaccines.
Robert Fico (PM in intervals for most of the last 25 years)… Slovakia was pro-NS in WWII under the Catholic priest, Father Tiso.
Slovakia map:
Scott Ritter said the bodyguards were scandalously inattentive to their duties. It is incredible (or is the right word “suspicious”?) that this creep who shot Fico was able to 1) pull out a pistol in the presence of security and fire one-two-three-four shots into the prime minister’s body.
Bodyguards are supposed to scrutinize everyone next in line to shake the leader’s hands, and look for that strange, tense look that assassins get in their eyes just before the momentous deed which will forever change their life.Beyond that, in America the Secret Service orders people to “show both hands.” Pretty hard to shoot anyone while showing both hands, or to stab, unless you are a GMO human with three hands!
The weird thing is that the guy who shot him, a Juraj Cintula, a poet and literary fellow, had recently published pro-Russian, anti-muslim and anti-Gypsy comments.
“Besides his literary inclinations, in 2016 the perpetrator of the attack founded a political platform called Movement Against Violence.
“The world is full of violence and weapons, as if people had gone crazy,” he declared in a video posted on social media. Cintula urged citizens to “take to the streets again, fill the squares, show strength but not violence” and asserted that Slovak democracy was threatened by “the oligarchs and rich people who buy political representatives.” https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-05-17/robert-ficos-attacker-a-poet-with-past-ties-to-an-ultranationalist-and-pro-russian-group.html)
So many important white men and women on our side have been murdered. Here is a list of famous leaders who were assassinated, many of them good rulers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_and_executed_heads_of_state_and_government
King Henry IV of France was killed by François Ravaillac, a crazy ultra-Catholic who had been rejected as insane by several Catholic priestly orders, convinced himself the king was a bad Catholic who wanted to declare war on the Pope and move the Holy See to Paris.
Wiki:
On May 27 he was taken to the Place de Grève in Paris and was tortured one last time before being pulled apart by four horses, a method of execution reserved for regicides. Alistair Horne describes the torture Ravaillac suffered:
“Before being drawn and quartered… he was scalded with burning sulphur, molten lead and boiling oil and resin, his flesh then being torn by pincers.”
Following his execution, Ravaillac’s parents were forced into exile, and the rest of his family was ordered never to use the name “Ravaillac” again.
This German poster shows the spectacular goings-on: torture in the foreground, then, in the rear of the drawing, Ravaillac is being ripped apart by horses, and then, upper left, his body parts are burned (with the ashes thrown in the river).
.
It is outrageous that one complete nut can affect the lives of millions by murdering a qualified leader.
.
…….NATO and America prepared to fight Russia until the very last Ukrainian
A writer on Telegram sent this to my staffwriter. He informed me that “the author works with an Iranian think tank. It was written from an anti-Zionist albeit Islamic perspective. I am sure the spirit of these words will suit both our respective worldviews. Thank you and John de Nugent’s Telegram activist. You do great work.”
NATO and America prepared to fight Russia until the very last Ukrainian
Article edited and adjusted for our audience by JdN staff writer.
Original article by Lieutenant Tariq Khan. Submitted by Iranian Resistor.
***
War is a curious thing, but the term is, nevertheless, all-encompassing. It involves confrontation in many dimensions and is not necessarily a military conflict. The rationale for confrontation could be resource-oriented, or the enhancement of influence, or even have an ideological basis, but more often than not, it is all three. To achieve these objectives is usually at the cost of one’s adversary.
The usual method to this madness lies in the fact that when one individual or group of belligerents sets out to achieve the goals they set for themselves, the other belligerents try to preserve, defend, or keep whatever the other wants to take from them.
The confrontation can take place in a wide spectrum including diplomacy, economics, infrastructure, communication, energy, fuel, etc. However, military conflict is the last rung in an inter-state “escalatory” ladder and is the smallest component. It comes into play when all else fails. It aims to cause sufficient pain to the adversary to coerce him into acquiescing in one’s demands.
When engaged in a military struggle, one finds the conflict oscillates between total war and limited war. The former, at the theoretical level, in the extreme case, implies the total destruction of every person before coming to a resolution. This is highly unlikely since a stage is always arrived at when the losing side decides to surrender before it is totally annihilated.
Thus, most military conflicts are limited to the moment comes when it is mutually decided to cease firing. This limit is determined by the side that must surrender.
The character of the war is determined by the method that is adopted by the two belligerents. It could be asymmetric (fighting with very different weapons) —and maneuver-oriented as opposed to fighting kinetic battles.
The nature of war is determined by the type of war that is adopted, i.e. low intensity, conventional, missile-based, defensive or offensive, urban-based or rural, etc.
NATO: Knocking on Russia’s Door
As such, Russia’s war in Ukraine must be seen in the context of how wars have been understood over the ages. The war in Ukraine did not start in the last few weeks or a month ago. This has been a war waiting to happen since 2014, yet in many ways, it goes back to even 1991. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, the basic rationale for NATO was in question since its primary objective was to contain the Soviet Union.
Thus, to justify existing AFTER the Soviet Union was gone, it listed secondary roles such as ensuring peace in Europe and had even applied itself selectively in some places in Europe at opportune times, such as Serbia and Kosovo, etc., to ensure this purpose.
Nevertheless, NATO’s original member states in 1949 were 12 countries, which expanded to 15 countries with Turkey and Greece joining it in 1952, and then grew to 17 countries when West Germany and Spain joined it later. This slowly changed after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and many nations who were in the Warsaw Pact were lured into NATO, which today counts 30 nation-states. This was despite the assurance (a verbal one) given to Russia by US Secretary of State James Baker, that NATO would “not move one inch eastward,” limiting the possibility of any NATO expansion.
NATO in blue in 1991
NATO today, with Sweden and Finland in and both Belarus and Ukraine intended also as NATO countries. NATO moved a lot more than an inch.
Every nation has its own sphere of influence depending on its capacity, and Russia has inherited this influence, not from the Soviet Union but from the Russian Empire since the 18th century. With NATO meddling in the affairs of Eastern Europe, Russia was losing its sphere of influence, and NATO forces were gradually creeping closer to Russian borders. Soon, the West in general, and the United States in particular, began to influence Ukraine and attempted to get Ukraine to become part of the EU and NATO. This was a direct threat to Russia.
Subsequently, the West organized the “Revolution of Dignity,” overthrowing in 2014 a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and installing a Western-friendly administration. This led to uprisings in the southeast of Ukraine in the ethnic Russian region of Donbas, comprising the two rebel states, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic, which now demanded independence. Russia also claimed that Crimea, which comprised Sevastopol—one of the three warm water ports—had an ethnic Russian majority population and was under threat by Ukraine at the behest of Western influence.
Russia’s war
Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, based on the historical basis that it had always belonged to the Russian Empire and was merged with Ukraine by the Soviet Union for administrative purposes only, and as such, the transaction was neither legal nor recognizable.
Based on its language and ethnicity, Crimea was given independence and made into an independent republic, which then voted to join Russia. In 2014, civil war in Ukraine picked up against the Donbas region, resulting in the Minsk Agreement, which failed and ultimately led to Minsk Agreement 2.
The agreement was concluded on the Normandy Format by an informal group that included France, Germany, the rebel states, Ukraine, and Russia. Both sides now claim that the Minsk Agreement was not implemented by the other, and Russia used it as a casus belli to invade Ukraine to give the Donbas region its independence. The Donbas region allows an alternative connection to Crimea via land for Russia. The invasion of the Donbas region by Russia was motivated by the alleged threat to Crimea by a NATO-inspired plan, where, Ukraine was being encouraged to re-annex the state, thereby denying Russia Sevastopol, a parking spot for its Black Sea Fleet.
What are Russia’s Objectives in the War in Ukraine?
Russia’s objectives in the war are to create an independent zone in the Donbas region, allowing it land contiguity with Crimea, and develop a buffer zone between itself and Ukraine. Secondly, it wants Ukraine to announce its neutrality so it does not align with the EU or NATO. Ukraine is not willing to give up the Donbas region or declare neutrality. So now the nature of this war has become gradual and incremental, swinging more and more towards total war as NATO wants to continue the conflict until the last Ukrainian.
Thus, Russia is applying more and more pressure to convince Ukraine to acquiesce. Until Ukraine comes to terms, the war will continue. The Ukrainians have decided that the nature of the war will be urban and have thus exposed the civilian population to the collateral effects of the war. Having done so, the Ukrainians are exploiting this nature of war to accuse Russia of war crimes and genocide. Whereas these accusations remain futile until now since there is no practical way to implement anything against Russia, they create a legitimate cause to rally the world against Russia.
In the midst of Russia’s war, Ukraine has tried to buy time, hoping that resources and weapon systems will arrive. This buying of time and fighting in the cities has swung the pendulum of the conflict more towards totality rather than being limited, and civilian casualties are mounting even when the world has shifted its focus away from Ukraine. If Ukraine is eventually going to accept Russian conditions for a ceasefire, then it should do it sooner rather than later. Russia has no intent of occupying Ukrainian territory and would withdraw once its conditions are met, but what’s more important is that unnecessary civilian casualties, destruction, and displacement of people cease.
In the meantime, the West is egging the Ukrainians on to continue to fight, knowing very well what the likely outcome will be. Ukraine either does not seem to understand that it is being used to get to Russia or that its leadership is deliberately towing the NATO line at the cost of its own country.
A New World Order needed to counter Zionist imperialism
In an analysis, it appears that the Russian offensive into Ukraine was actually a defensive maneuver triggered by the threat of NATO expansion. Also, the possibility of cutting off Crimea from Russia and denying Russia the warm waters of Sevastopol would make this a pre-emptive strike to deny NATO any military advantage detrimental to Russian national security. The West, having been caught off guard, did what they do best: put in a knee-jerk response leading to sanctions, cutting off Russia from financial integration, and withdrawing businesses. These steps created a global food crisis, fuel and energy issues, and a hit on the petro-dollar financial status system.
The United States’ center of gravity lies in its dollar reserves and the international status of the dollar in this vein. As long as this is intact, it will go along with anything. That is why democracy, as a US battle cry, is only possible when everything else is going its way, but if it’s not, the US can live with dictators, extremists, and sovereignty with equal ease. The major effect of this war will be a change in the dollar reserve constitution, and the Chinese yuan may gradually take over, which it’s already on the path to doing. Bullion [gold bricks] trading may take over the dollar economy. As it is, India is paying for fuel from Russia in roubles, as are other countries.
Russia’s war
The Russian news channels have been blocked in much of the West, and only one side of the picture is being fed to people. The obsession with Ukrainian casualties and suffering, as displayed by the Western media, has exposed their bias when they ignore Palestine, Kashmir, Libya, Syria, and Iraq. This war will end soon. Russia will probably have the upper hand, but it is China that will emerge as the winner.
Whatever the future may bring, one thing is certain: the Russo-Ukrainian world has shaken up the globe in more ways than one, and it will never be the same again. The world is shifting back to regional approaches as opposed to global ones. What happens or does not happen in a region will be determined by regional nations and not by external parties any longer. A new world order will emerge where the East and the West will have defined lines, separating one world from the other. It may take years to happen, but Western prejudices, phobias, and biases will define this more than any political propriety.
The United Nations has outlived its utility and has managed to reduce itself to a debating club. It may end up being replaced by a more even-handed, unbiased organization that could act without the prejudice and political pressure that we see every other day. Maybe this leads to a fairer world where everyone is equal and no one is more equal than the other. One may even be accused of hoping for a world that can deal with the international environment, climate change, famine, and issues such as displaced people in a far more humane way.
The Hypocrisy of the West
“Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future, and renders the present inaccessible.“
Western hypocrisy and duplicity scream out in the wake of Russia’s war in Ukraine.
The world was silent, looking the other way when Iraq was invaded on the basis of a lie: “weapons of mass destruction.” What’s worse is the condescending Western tv anchor broadcasting that Ukraine was a country in Europe and belonged to the civilized world—unlike Iraq—and that they should not have been treated like this. The ignorant bumpkin had no idea that Baghdad was the center of culture and civilization and was at one time recognized as such the world over.
However, his narration represented Western thought, that some deserved better things from this world and while Ukraine was one of them, Iraq was not. The world thought little of the 100,000 Bosnians slaughtered in Yugoslavia either until there were points to win against Russia, a nation allied with Serbia.
Those who were murdered and publicly slaughtered had equally white skin, and blonde hair, and their eyes too were blue, but that was irrelevant until points were to be won against the Russian bear.
Being Muslim was likely an aspect of initial western reluctance… but what the West did to the Serbs tells you that was not the deciding factor either.
People go about their business while Yemen burns with an occasional squawk that there is an imminent disaster awaiting the population, no food, medicine, housing, or even water. No one cares, and no one will. Afghanistan was another story, Iraq still another one, while Syria lies prostrate in the throes of chaos and in pandemonium. All this unfolded before the very eyes of the same people who are now bleating their rationale and logic on a self-acclaimed high-moral note when it comes to Ukraine being invaded by Russia.
Why they care
One wonders whether the objection is because Ukraine was invaded or because it was Russia that did the invasion. One comes away with the feeling that had the West in general, and NATO in particular, done this invasion for whatever reasons under US auspices, the UN would have tripped over itself to legalize it. The West in general would have clashed their cymbals in celebration, as they would have accused Ukraine of having it coming to them for something the West had discovered that they, the Ukrainians, had or had not done.
The West now arms Ukraine feverishly, but one does not know for what purpose. The asymmetric situation between Ukraine and Russia is not only well understood but also very visible. Does the West think that Ukraine can go into an endless war, engaging Russia indefinitely through an urban guerrilla conflict? Well, whichever geniuses have come up with this plan should know that Russia will not relent but in fact, more than likely escalate. They would be forced to introduce lethal weapons into the cities while ensuring a stand-off for themselves and mass destruction for the civilians.
In its typical twist of things, the West will proclaim that this is genocide and that war crimes are being committed by the Russians, whereas all along they themselves are facilitating the conflict. One’s heart goes out to the beleaguered Ukrainians, but one would wish to bring the matter to a close rather than egg them on to continue fighting for the glory of the motherland in vain. So what are the Ukrainian objectives that they hope to achieve through this resistance—gain time and hope the West is more forthcoming in their help and assistance? That they are welcomed into the European Union and are invited to be part of NATO?
What Does the West Hope to Achieve?
There is hope among some Westerners that the Russian economy will suddenly collapse, that there will be street agitation in Russia and that Putin will be forced to resign on account of the chaos created by the sanctions. This is not likely to happen, and instead, there will be unnecessary destruction and loss of life, which could be avoided, and irreparable infrastructural damage to Ukraine.
The Russians must have war-gamed these possibilities and their consequences and would have most certainly worked out a response. Russia’s objectives in Ukraine are achievable through a mutually acceptable political dialogue between Russia and Ukraine and there was no need to fight over these questions. Yet the West goaded Russia into a corner where it probably had no other alternative other than an invasion of Ukraine.
The Russians undertook a massive multi-directional offensive and probably hoped that it would be enough to force Ukraine to capitulate and accept the Russian demands. After days 4 and 5 of the offensive, Russia went into an operational pause to facilitate talks in Instanbul/Turkey, but the talks broke down. Ukraine is now totally immersed in urban warfare. The nature and character of such a war are high causalities, slow progress, and heavy disinformation. Civilians, more often than not, get caught up in crossfire or are inadvertently used as human shields, while collateral damage is a common method of this madness.
Civilians are being recruited by the government to undertake street fighting, while the West is arming them with Javelin shoulder-held anti-tank weapons. The method to this madness is escalatory and graduated in application. The Russians will continue to raise the level of violence, and the West will continue to turn it into a case of genocide—that is just the form of this kind of war.
The West sees this as a good opportunity to promote Ukraine as a victim and use it as a reason to galvanize international support for Ukraine and punitive action against Russia. The end-state will depend upon the Russian appetite to continue to destroy whatever it can or the Ukrainian determination to sustain the punishment and survive—someone will yield first, and that will become the basis of future Ukraine.
An Unfair World
One cannot help but admire the Western media’s temerity to show their hero stand before the tank, alone, unarmed, and vulnerable. This white-skinned, blue-eyed blond is a testimony to freedom and sovereignty in Ukraine but an 8-year-old child throwing a stone at an Israeli tank is a terrorist.
Afghanistan is another case to start with war crimes where marriage parties were bombed and schools obliterated, but who will initiate it—the UN? It’s an unfair world, and the people of Kashmir, Palestine, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, and many more will always be treated as children of a lesser God unless they can pick themselves up from this state of misery, discrimination, injustice, and downright unfairness.
It is a crime to be weak in this world and to be members of a skewed organization such as the United Nations, which is neither united nor does it represent all the nations. It is time for countries to consider leaving this circus and no longer give credibility to it by being a part of it. For nations like us, there will never be hope if we continue down this line. Russia, China, and many other nations need to set up a new order. Most of the world would join it. The global South is ready as was witnessed by the fabulous success of BRICS
The principles of such an organization must be based on equality, justice, and integrity. We cannot continue like this. If we do not change our ways, we shall always be subject to international resolutions, fake news, false pretexts for invasion, arm twisting, and bullying, all in the name of our respective national interests. The suggestion is farfetched, maybe even utopian, but the powers that be must begin to think along these lines. If not, there will always be a Ukraine and a West howling like jackals that can smell blood; the Mideast will remain burning; Palestine will continue to suffer –for some a resistant fighter, and conveniently for another a terrorist.
.
.
Leave a Reply