Repost by Permission: Terrified Leftist Media Stokes “Dictator” Fears As Biden Supporters Flee To “Orange Jesus”
December 7, 2023
Terrified Leftist Media Stokes “Dictator” Fears As Biden Supporters Flee To “Orange Jesus”
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
A compelling new Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today first noting President Putin announcing this morning: “The Russian economy grew by 3.2% in the first ten months of 2023 and will post 3.5% growth by the end of the year, beyond the levels recorded prior to the conflict in Ukraine”, says this announcement was joined by the export news: “Trade turnover between Russia and China continues to grow at an unprecedented pace, hitting a historic high in November despite the pressure of Western sanctions”–and also this morning, the Federation Council adopted a resolution, according to Article 102 of the Russian Constitution, scheduling presidential elections in Russia for 17 March 2024.
With 2024 also being a presidential year for the United States, this report notes, instead of focusing his attention on any issue important to the American peoples, yesterday it saw Supreme Socialist Leader Joe Biden trying to extort more money for Ukraine from the United States Senate with the comical warning: “If Putin takes Ukraine, he won’t stop there…If Putin attacks a NATO ally, well, we’ve committed as a NATO member that we’d defend every inch of NATO territory…It could result in American troops fighting Russian troops”—a warning that’s comical because any war between Russia and the United States wouldn’t involve troops but nuclear weapons, which is why the United States Senate ignored it and blocked all aid to Ukraine—and in quick response to this comical warning, Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov to the United States observed: “In an attempt to add fuel to the fire of the Ukrainian proxy war, American authorities have finally lost touch with reality”.
Following the United States Senate blocking all aid to Ukraine, this report continues, former neocon Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who was fired by President Donald Trump, rushed to leftist MSNBC to warn what could happen if President Trump regains power: “With regard to NATO, and having lived through this with him, I think one of the first things that would happen is he would withdraw support for Ukraine…And of course if that were to happen, I think the whole effort to support Ukraine in its war against Russia would eventually crumble…Because the United States is kind of like the big block in the Jenga tower – you pull us out and everything else collapses…I think his next move would be to begin pulling us out of NATO, certainly troops out of NATO countries, and eventually that could cause the collapse of the alliance…And then the next move would be – does he start looking, as he would discuss with me and others at the time – does he look to pull troops out of Korea, out of Japan and out of other countries who are allied with us…So look, it’s quite disconcerting from a national security standpoint”.
Shortly after fired Defense Secretary Esper issued his warning, this report details, the Republican Party held its forth and final presidential primary debate last evening, where Vivek Ramaswamy tore into the other candidates for knowing nothing about Ukraine and ignited a social media firestorm when he held up a “Nikki = Corrupt” sign against neocon candidate Nikki Haley—and was a debate quickly followed by the observation: “The central question in this year’s GOP primary has been stark and consistent: Can any candidate peel a large number of Trump voters away from the former president?…The answer, so far, has been “No”…Nothing that happened on Wednesday looked likely to change that”.
On Tuesday evening, this report notes, President Trump held a televised town hall meeting viewed by 3.2 million Americans to become the most watched program that day—in a tongue-in-cheek manner, President Trump suggested that on his first day, he would be a dictator to close the southern border and drill for oil, then he said: “After that, I’m not a dictator”—immediately prior to the town hall, the Politico article “Trump’s Revenge? GOP Braces For Daily Blasts From ‘Orange Jesus’” revealed: “Congressional Republicans are steeling themselves for a return to daily life with Donald Trump…With Trump far ahead of the GOP primary pack and leading President Joe Biden in some polls, Republicans are getting a preview of future shellshock akin to their experiences in 2016 and his presidency…It’s likely to continue for the next 11 months…And perhaps four more years after that…“Shit, yeah,” Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) replied when asked whether his colleagues are worried about clashing with Trump…“The orange Jesus?” he added with a laugh”—and immediately after the town hall, top Republican Party lawmaker United States Senator J.D. Vance posted a clip of President Trump’s humorous dictator remark saying: “Trump’s super power is that he’s the most quick witted leader in a generation. ..Every grown man hyperventilating about this clip needs to find a sense of humor…I’m pretty sure you can buy them on Amazon…Free two day shipping”.
Among those not taking advantage of Amazon two day free shipping to buy a sense of humor, this report continues, was Socialist Leader Biden, who proclaimed in terror about “Orange Jesus”: “Trump’s not even hiding the ball anymore…He’s telling us exactly what he wants to do…He’s making no bones about it”—a proclamation of terror quickly joined with the Politico article “Trump’s ‘Dictator’ Remark Puts 2024 Campaign Right Where Biden Wants It”, wherein it revealed: “Donald Trump keeps returning the 2024 presidential race to the ground where Joe Biden wants to fight it…After Trump told a Fox News town hall he would not be a dictator upon returning to office “other than Day One”, the Biden campaign pounced…It highlighted Trump’s remarks as another moment in which the GOP frontrunner showcased his undemocratic and dangerous plans for a possible second term”—the leftist Axios article “GOP’s “Dictator” Test” then observed: “Republicans in Congress and across the country — including on the GOP debate stage — are facing a new litmus test: Should former President Trump’s remarks that he will be a “dictator” only on “Day 1” be taken seriously?”—all which followed the leftist New York Times article “It’s Time to Fix America’s Most Dangerous Law”, wherein it hysterically warned: “There is a land mine embedded in the United States Code, one that Donald Trump, if re-elected president, could use to destroy our republic…But it’s not too late for Congress to defuse the mine now and protect America…I’m talking about the Insurrection Act, a federal law that permits the president to deploy military troops in American communities to effectively act as a domestic police force under his direct command”.
As to the real socialist terror about “Orange Jesus”, this report details, is leftist CNN having just reported: “Biden is less popular than any of his modern predecessors at this point in their presidencies…Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they disapprove of his job performance…His job approval rating ticked down again in the latest CNN poll, dropping to 37 percent”—and the leftist New York Times, in its just released article “‘This Is Grim’ One Democratic Pollster Says”, beyond fearfully revealed: “From Nov. 5 through Nov. 11, Democracy Corps, a Democratic advisory group founded by Stan Greenberg and James Carville, surveyed 2,500 voters in presidential and Senate battleground states as well as competitive House districts…In an email, Greenberg summarized the results: “This is grim”…The study, he said, found that collectively, voters in the Democratic base of “Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, L.G.B.T.Q.+ community, Gen Z, millennials, unmarried and college women give Trump higher approval ratings than Biden””.
While Socialist Leader Biden supporters of every color, gender and age flee to “Orange Jesus” in hopes of finding freedom, this report concludes, it is no surprise to see it reported: “Leftist media outlets — the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Atlantic — are stoking fear about a second Trump administration as former President Donald Trump leads President Joe Biden in key polling”—a report joined by popular American conservative television host Jesse Kelly releasing his video explaining how communist forces work to demonize those like President Trump—and are communist tactics of demonetization well known to world-renowned American feminist activist Dr. Naomi Wolf, who, in a just released interview, recounted her amazing journal from being a leftist icon, then canceled because she told the truth, afterwards she awakened from madness, then apologized to every American conservative for unjustly demonizing them for decades because of what she discovered were all socialist lies. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]
December 7, 2023 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.
Repost by Permission: Putin Receives Hero’s Welcome In Arab World As Biden Calls Peacemakers “Absolutely Crazy”
Putin Receives Hero’s Welcome In Arab World As Biden Calls Peacemakers “Absolutely Crazy”
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
An informative new Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today first noting Putin President arrived to a hero’s welcome in the United Arab Emirates this morning to meet with President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, complete with a massive honor guard, booming cannons and fighter jets streaming Russia’s tricolors of red, white and blue across the sky, says Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also revealed when opening talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian in Moscow: “We have just signed a declaration on ways and means to counter, mitigate and offset the negative consequences of unilateral coercive measures…Undoubtedly, this is an important step in increasing coordinated efforts by members of the global community to overcome illegal sanctions, which the United States and its allies use as a substitute for diplomacy”.
While Russia continues to work towards achieving sustainable global peace, this report notes, Supreme Socialist Leader Joe Biden declared about American peacemakers yesterday: “The failure to support Ukraine is just absolutely crazy…It’s against US interests”—a repugnant declaration against peacemakers quickly followed by United States Congressman Thomas Massie most factually telling America’s most trusted and popular newsman Tucker Carlson: “The so-called Euromaidan protests in Kiev culminated in the February 2014 coup d’etat, which brought radical pro-EU and pro-NATO politicians to power and plunged Ukraine into crisis, leading to the current conflagration…Washington has been sabre-rattling against Russia ever since, drumming up sanctions and restrictions that were obviously going to have consequences, and that is exactly what happened…You know, they’re saying the quiet part out loud that congressmen tend to vote for this stuff because a lot of this federal spending that goes to Ukraine is actually laundered back to the military-industrial complex…And in some ways, not very efficiently, but in some ways, it enriches people in their districts and the stockholders, some of whom are congressmen”.
Among the United States Congressmen enriching themselves from the needless bloodshed in Ukraine, this report continues, are neocon Republican Party lawmakers House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul, Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers and Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner, who yesterday released their 28-page document “Proposed Plan For Victory In Ukraine”, wherein it comically claimed: “A path to victory for Ukraine will require (1) providing critical weapons to Ukraine at the speed of relevance, (2) tightening sanctions on the Putin regime, and (3) transferring frozen Russian sovereign assets to Ukraine”.
Greeting the comical neocon “Proposed Plan For Victory In Ukraine” document, this report details, were the Ukrainian officials who “swarmed Washington” yesterday, all of whom were led by top puppet leader Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky aide Andrey Yermak, who warned that unless America gives them more money immediately: “Of course, it will make with very high possibility impossible to continue to liberate and give the big risk to lose this war”—a warning quickly followed by the news: “Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky abruptly canceled a briefing with United States senators and White House officials on Tuesday due to a last-minute snag”.
As to what caused the “last-minute snag” keeping puppet leader President Zelensky from addressing American lawmakers, this report notes, the leftist Washington Post revealed: “At least a dozen Republicans walked out of a classified briefing led by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other Biden officials on the status of Ukraine’s war effort Tuesday afternoon, shrugging off a presentation that was meant to pressure them to back the aid”—a revelation quickly joined by the news: “A classified, high-stakes US Senate briefing on Ukraine has spiraled out of control, with some Republicans storming out of the meeting, fuming over Democrats perceived reluctance to cut a deal on aid to Kiev by making concessions on tighter immigration controls”—and this morning it was reported: “Senate Republican leaders, ahead of a key procedural vote Wednesday, are urging their GOP colleagues to block legislation to provide more than $61 billion in military and foreign aid for Ukraine because the package does not include immigration and asylum reforms…Any hopes of getting a bill passed this week were dashed when tempers boiled over at a classified briefing on the war in Ukraine and senators got into a shouting match over border security”.
Following the classified briefing on Ukraine the socialist Biden Regime staged for Republican Party lawmakers yesterday, this report continues, House Speaker Mike Mike Johnson assessed: “I don’t think we got the clarity that we’ve been requesting…It remains to be seen whether members are satisfied with the answers provided”—Congressman John Duarte revealed: “The briefing was prescriptive and staged…I didn’t get a sense that any minds were changed in there…It wasn’t impressive or insightful in any way other than what you might see in the news…It was just a hopeful pressure effort”—and Congressman Byron Donalds told reporters: “The classified Ukraine briefing was boring…These guys are just speechifying about most of the stuff you guys already report on the news”.
After watching the socialist Biden Regime go down in flames, this report details, puppet leader President Zelensky videoed himself while taking a predawn stroll through Kyiv this morning urging for more war—Ukrainian journalist Anatoly Shariy quickly responded with a video reminding Zelensky: “The war is lost”—former top President Zelensky aide Oleksiy Arestovych also admitted that the West can’t match the military industrial power of Russia—an admission that joined the just released Wall Street Journal article “The U.S. Can Afford A Bigger Military. We Just Can’t Build It”, wherein it revealed: “Intensifying security challenges from the western Pacific to Ukraine to the Middle East have fueled debate over whether the U.S. can afford a bigger military…In fact, the more pressing question is whether it can build one—when its principal adversary possesses vast industrial capacity…It isn’t just defense; the entire U.S. manufacturing base shrank as labor-intensive production migrated to East Asia…There are fewer suppliers, factories, shipyards and, most important, workers available to meet the rising demand”.
In a speech that resonated not only through the grand halls but across the European political landscape, this report concludes, socialist European Union and NATO member leader Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban proclaimed: “Now it is obvious that Ukraine will not win on the battlefield…Russia will not lose”—a proclamation followed by influential Politico editor Jack Blanchard for the United Kingdom revealing: “Ukraine’s big counteroffensive was not anything like the success people hoped, and that is raising big questions about Ukraine’s ability to win this war in any meaningful military way…In light of this, there are rumors in British diplomatic circles about putting pressure on Kiev to sit down and negotiate”—and is a revelation joined by world-renowned American historian Tarik Cyril Amar, in his just released open letter “Endgame: How Will Ukraine Look After Its Defeat?”, warningly assessing:
It’s all over bar the shouting for Zelensky and his followers, so what will be the reaction in Kiev and beyond?
Toward the end of World War II (in Europe), Germans often shared a dark joke, reflecting their well-deserved dread at the prospect of defeat: “Enjoy the war, the peace will be terrible”.
Of course, despite the worst efforts of the Ukrainian far right to damage both the politics and the image of their country, no objective observer would equate Ukraine with Nazi Germany.
Nevertheless, that old German piece of gallows humor points to a question that is now pertinent for Ukraine. Even the militantly anti-Russian Economist is spotting “war fatigue” in both the US and the EU. The Western funding on which Kiev depends is in danger of drying up; and current promises of more cash are not reliable.
When And How Will The War End?
Bloomberg reports a “sense of gloom” in Ukraine and the Wall Street Journal admits that “Moscow holds the advantage on the military, political and economic fronts”. The prominent American military commentator Michael Kofman, often treading a fine line between professional analysis and pro-Western bias, is close to facing reality. Still insisting that “it’s inaccurate to suggest that Russia is winning the war”, he acknowledges that “if the right choices are not made next year on Ukraine’s approach and Western resourcing, then Ukraine’s prospects for success look dim”. He also suggests that Kiev should shift to the defensive. Frankly, it has already, and it had no choice.
Yet a defensive strategy cannot achieve Ukraine’s official war aims, because they include retaking territory from Russia. For Ukraine, Kofman’s “right choices” imply giving up on that. Former war monger and Zelensky adviser – and now foe – Aleksey Arestovich, for one, has correctly spotted that fact. Such an outcome is called “losing”. Redefining it as a form of “success” – a shifting of goalposts popular in the West now – comes across as a clumsy attempt to rationalize and sell a defeat.
Regarding “right choices” for the West, despite desperate clarion calls by the Cold War re-enactor and Ukraine proxy war booster Tim Snyder and the US grand strategy maitre penseur Walter Russell Mead, the West may continue some funding of Ukraine, but it is unlikely to once again up the ante. Why would it, when all its previous strategies – economic, military, diplomatic, and by information war – have failed at great cost? What is happening instead is an American attempt to shift more of the burden of the proxy war onto the EU.
If Donald Trump wins the US elections in less than a year, then that trend is certain to accelerate, as even British state broadcaster BBC has long recognized. Western observers who think that this is a reason for Russia to be in no hurry to make peace before November 2024 are probably right.
But what if the West and Ukraine suddenly come up with a whole new suite of brilliant, game-changing strategies? After the “miracle weapons” have crashed, perhaps we’ll see “miracle ideas”? We won’t. Because if Western elites could have them, they would have utilized them already.
Concerning Ukraine, Maryana Bezuglaya, a member of parliament, has just caused a stir by accusing the military of failing to produce any genuine plan for 2024. Clearly, this attack is part of a power struggle – and blame game – between President Vladimir Zelensky and commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny. But Bezuglaya is not lying, just exploiting facts.
Regarding the West, after initial Russian blunders, it has not only been out-fought but also been out-thought by Moscow. Keeping alive the persistently unsophisticated Western tradition of stereotyping Russia at great cost, NATO think-tankers like Constanze Stelzenmüller at the Brookings Institution may go on underestimating Moscow as “not that strategic and not that intelligent” but merely very “determined”. On that assumption, Westerners – including think tankers – stymied by what they insist on imagining as not-so-smart Moscow, must conclude they are even less bright.
But if nothing succeeds like success, the opposite is also true – nothing fails like failure: Ukraine’s and the West’s setbacks are a self-reinforcing trend already. Hence, the pertinent question now is: when the current war ends, most likely with a Ukrainian (and Western) defeat, what will come after it? It’s a question that is both timely and difficult to answer.
For one thing, there are still all too many, in Ukraine and the West, who believe – or pretend to believe? – that the war should and can continue, perhaps for years. German chancellor Olaf Scholz, for instance, has just claimed that the EU must go on supporting Ukraine because it is essential for the bloc that Russia must not win. Such intransigent positions – or rhetoric – betray an unrealistic assessment of Ukrainian, Western, and Russian capacities. They also imply sacrificing more Ukrainian lives in the EU’s interests.
Scholz, for one, is speaking from an almost touchingly perfect position of weakness. His personal approval ratings have just hit a record low; the coalition government he is trying to lead is not doing much better. No wonder: the International Monetary Fund is now expecting Germany to end up as the world’s worst-performing major economy this year, while the government’s unconstitutional financial trickery has triggered a severe budget crisis that will cause painful cuts in public spending.
Scholz may, of course, be lying. There also are unconfirmed reports – or leaks? – that Berlin plans to join Washington in forcing Ukraine to come to terms.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba may still boldly deny feeling any pressure from his country’s Western sponsors.
In reality, multiple signals point in another direction: Western leaders are at least considering the option of cutting their losses by making Ukraine give up territory.
Conversely, Western stay-the-course talk on the war in Ukraine has an ever-hollower ring to it. It is ironic that only a few months ago – but before the predictable failure of Ukraine’s summer offensive turned into an undeniable fact – Foreign Policy surmised that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine policy was falling prey to the sunk cost fallacy. By now it is clear that it is the West that is experiencing a feckless gambler’s reluctance to give up before incurring even greater losses. Cynicism, the will to squeeze the last bit of blood from Ukraine, and an obstinate refusal to acknowledge past errors are certain to also play a role.
Yet it should be noted that even some observers who are not suffering from such Western biases are pessimistic about a quick end to the war. That’s because they believe that ultimately Washington will keep fueling its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, whoever is or seems to be in charge in the White House. For Ukraine and Ukrainians, such a strategy would still mean defeat, but after even more losses and suffering.
On the other hand, given the dire state of Ukraine’s manpower and other resources, a sudden change in the situation on the ground cannot be ruled out. The war could enter a new phase marked by (initially) local breakdowns of Ukrainian forces and such significant Russian breakthroughs that Kiev would have to accept defeat in one form or another, whether under the Zelensky regime or a successor.
The fear of some Western officials that Ukraine could “unravel” as early as this winter is not baseless. In that scenario, fighting would be over comparatively soon, i.e. at the latest at some point next year, even if it might take much longer (compare the Korean case) to replace a formal state of war with peace in the full sense of the term. As John Mearsheimer has warned, a genuine or inherently stable peace may well be impossible, but a de facto cessation of hostilities – call it a frozen conflict, if you wish – can precede it. It may not be pretty, but it would make a big difference, nonetheless.
All of the above entails a paradox. We cannot yet tell if the end of the war is close, but it is not too early to think about the post-war period. The unknowns of the current situation also complicate the question of what exact shape that post-war era will take.
The Fate Of Ukraine’s Military And NATO Ambitions
Let’s assume the following: first, while a formal state of war may continue, the more important question is what it will take to end the actual fighting. Kiev would lose territory and, in general, would have to make additional concessions to Russia. The one that is easiest to predict is Ukraine reverting to neutrality and, in particular, giving up on its NATO ambitions (and, of course, its current de facto integration in the alliance). The second outcome that Russia is bound to pursue is capping Kiev’s military potential. The third result that Moscow will not let go off is to either completely neutralize (probably impossible) or strongly diminish the influence of Ukraine’s far right.
Thus, post-war Ukraine will be smaller, neutral, militarily weak, and its official politics and institutions (especially those with arms, such as the police and army) will have to let go of far-right personnel and influence, at least on the surface. No more ‘Black Suns’ on display, except maybe at private parties. If these conditions are not met, fighting may still temporarily cease, but not for long.
Regarding NATO (that is, the US), the fundamental question here is whether Russia will even seek a grand settlement again, a principal reset, but this time from a position of increased strength or, instead, leverage its advantage to achieve the more limited aim of pursuing its security interest by shaping “only” the settlement in and about Ukraine.
Russia may or may not want – or be able to – also make NATO explicitly give up on Ukraine and, more broadly, its misconceived strategy of expansion. Moreover, Moscow may or may not try to insist once more on a fundamental revision of Europe’s security architecture and its relationship with the US and NATO, as in its prewar proposals of late 2021.
What is certain is that once Moscow has created facts on the ground in Ukraine and Kiev has to revert to neutrality (in word and deed), NATO’s posturing will lose much of its relevance. There are unofficial signals that the bloc may be considering admitting only a part of Ukraine (neither Kiev nor its Western backers will recognize Crimea or other Moscow-controlled territories as Russian and will probably refer to them as ‘occupied’). If such a Plan B is serious, despite the fact that it would break NATO tradition and be foolish, Ukraine is rejecting it. And again, any signs of its implementation would be likely to restart the fighting quickly. It is true that some smart observers have speculated that Moscow may be willing to live with a reduced Ukraine being part of NATO. But on this, they are likely to be wrong.
Whatever approach Russia chooses, the key point is that it now has the initiative. That, dear NATO, is what happens when you lose a war: The agenda won’t be the West’s to set.
The Future Of Kiev’s EU Membership Bid
What about the EU? After all, one key cause of the current war and preceding crisis was a regime change in Kiev in 2014, which was triggered by a conflict over Ukraine entering into a special association with the bloc. At this point, the EU shows no intention to change this course. Indeed, it seems to be about to open a formal process leading to full membership. There is resistance from some member states, however. Open pushback is coming from Hungary, whose Prime Minister Viktor Orban is threatening to block this policy as well as more money for Kiev. Where Orban is sticking out his neck, he may not be alone in having misgivings about integrating a large, poor, very corrupt, devastated, and revolution-prone new member state with a security issue from hell.
In any case, let’s assume that, for now, the EU elite gets its way – for instance by releasing more frozen funds for Hungary – and Ukraine enters into official membership talks. As has long been pointed out, starting accession talks is not the same as getting membership. At least years, possibly decades, can separate one point from the other, and the process can also get stuck in the mud. Moreover, as the recent electoral successes of Slovakia’s Robert Fico and the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders have once again demonstrated, the ground is also shifting inside the EU. Add the AfD’s surge in Germany, and the EU’s own ability to stick to the plan is very much in doubt.
Post-war Ukraine will probably not be a full member of the European Union. Either for a long time or maybe forever.
Will Zelensky’s Regime Survive?
What about Ukraine at home? It is hard to imagine the political survival of the current President Vladimir Zelensky in a post-defeat Ukraine. Even now, internal Ukrainian government polling quoted by The Economist shows a drastic decline in his approval ratings. What is worse, while Zelensky is down to 32%, commander-in-chief Zaluzhny still scores 70%, and the especially sinister head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, Kirill Budanov, who proudly runs assassination programs, has a solid 45%.
And, of course, The Economist publishing such figures is yet another sign that Zelensky is also losing Western support. The initially intense personality cult Zelensky enjoyed in the West as an almost miraculous leader may have fooled him into a false sense of security and irreplaceability. In reality, it now makes him the perfect scapegoat. As we know from classical tragedy, with great elevation, comes the potential for a deep fall.
What would come after the Zelensky regime? This is where it’s time to stash away the crystal ball because things become simply too opaque. One thing that true friends of Ukraine should hope for is that whatever is next will actually still be some form of coherent and minimally effective government. Those with ill-conceived fantasies of a “South Korean miracle” in what will be left of Ukraine, may want to refocus on more elementary, Hobbesian issues: In a country full of disappointed citizens and veterans and awash in arms, with a far right second to none in the world, things could turn very ugly indeed.
[Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]
December 6, 2023 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.
December 5, 2023
Biden Launches “Desperate Gambit” To End Ukraine War Before CIA Ends Him
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
A compelling new Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today first noting President Putin declaring: “Russia, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, will continue to contribute to the settlement of acute regional and global problems, consistently defend approaches to ensure equal and indivisible security, to form a fair system of international economic relations, free from unfair competition, unilateral sanctions and politically motivated restrictions”, says this declaration was joined by top Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov factually telling reporters: “President Putin has repeatedly stated that achieving our goals in the conflict with Kiev is our top priority…And we would prefer to do that through political and diplomatic means…We are still ready for negotiations…Kiev itself had derailed the talks with Moscow that were held in the Spring of 2022…Ukrainian officials have themselves admitted that it was done on the orders of the United Kingdom”.
Instead of seeking negotiations before his nation is completely obliterated, this report notes, socialist Western colonial puppet leader Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky will address United States Senators at a classified briefing today via a secure video conference feed, about which it was reported: “Zelensky will brief senators on the state of the war in Ukraine and the need for another round of military aid a day before the Senate is scheduled to vote on proceeding to the legislative vehicle for a $106 billion emergency foreign aid package that includes more than $61 billion for Ukraine”—and last evening, top socialist Democrat Party lawmaker Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer posted the notice: “The administration has invited President Zelensky to address senators as part of our classified briefing tomorrow so we can hear directly from him precisely what’s at stake in this vote”.
Prior to hearing what puppet leader President Zelensky has to say, this report continues, top Republican Party lawmaker Senator Ron Johnson assessed: “The war between Russia and Ukraine is not a fair fight…The only way this war ends is in a negotiated settlement…We’re not gonna like the result…Russia will not lose this war”—an assessment joined by the article “Clock Ticks Down On Ukraine Aid As Senate Border Talks Falter”, wherein it revealed: “Time is running short for lawmakers to provide aid to Ukraine as talks among Senate negotiators over a possible border security package are faltering…Republicans say taking action on the border is necessary to unlock money for Kyiv, and the White House said Monday it would run out of money for Ukraine by the end of the year without congressional action…But talks broke down in recent days as negotiators struggled to advance the ball”—a revelation quickly joined by top Republican Party lawmaker House Speaker Mike Johnson declaring: “The Biden Administration has failed to substantively address any of my conference’s legitimate concerns about the lack of a clear strategy in Ukraine, a path to resolving the conflict, or a plan for adequately ensuring accountability for aid provided by American taxpayers…Meanwhile, the Administration is continually ignoring the catastrophe at our own border…House Republicans have resolved that any national security supplemental package must begin with our own border…We believe both issues can be agreed upon if Senate Democrats and the White House will negotiate reasonably”.
Joining NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warning the socialist Western colonial powers: “Be prepared for bad news from Ukraine”, this report details, today it was shockingly reported: “President Zelensky communicates with some commanders of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, avoiding Commander-in-Chief General Valerii Zaluzhnyi and preventing him from holding overall command of the army”—and as puppet leader President Zelensky battles to the death against his top military commander General Zaluzhnyi, the hugely popular Kyiv Mayor Vitaly Klichko picked a side with his just issued scathing proclamation: “General Zaluzhnyi told the truth…Sometimes people don’t want to hear it…Of course we can euphorically lie to our people and our partners…But you can’t do that forever…Some of our politicians have wrongly criticized Zaluzhnyi for his honesty…I stand with him”.
Over the past 24 hours, this report notes, the leftist Washington Post, that’s best known for being “the official mouthpiece of the CIA”, released its two-article series “Miscalculations, Divisions Marked Offensive Planning By U.S., Ukraine” and “In Ukraine, A War Of Incremental Gains As Counteroffensive Stalls”, about which the anonymous American military and intelligence experts at the Moon of Alabama organization assessed in their just released document “The War In Ukraine Is Done”:
The Washington Post has produced a long, two part piece, about the failed ‘counter-offensive‘ in Ukraine. It dispenses equal blame on the U.S. and British planning of the whole mess and the Ukrainian execution of it.
The bullet points from the first part:
Miscalculations, divisions marked offensive planning by U.S., Ukraine
Ukrainian, U.S. and British military officers held eight major tabletop war games to build a campaign plan. But Washington miscalculated the extent to which Ukraine’s forces could be transformed into a Western-style fighting force in a short period — especially without giving Kyiv air power integral to modern militaries.
U.S. and Ukrainian officials sharply disagreed at times over strategy, tactics and timing. The Pentagon wanted the assault to begin in mid-April to prevent Russia from continuing to strengthen its lines. The Ukrainians hesitated, insisting they weren’t ready without additional weapons and training.
U.S. military officials were confident that a mechanized frontal attack on Russian lines was feasible with the troops and weapons that Ukraine had. The simulations concluded that Kyiv’s forces, in the best case, could reach the Sea of Azov and cut off Russian troops in the south in 60 to 90 days.
The United States advocated a focused assault along that southern axis, but Ukraine’s leadership believed its forces had to attack at three distinct points along the 600-mile front, southward toward both Melitopol and Berdyansk on the Sea of Azov and east toward the embattled city of Bakhmut.
The U.S. intelligence community had a more downbeat view than the U.S. military, assessing that the offensive had only a 50-50 chance of success given the stout, multilayered defenses Russia had built up over the winter and spring.
Many in Ukraine and the West underestimated Russia’s ability to rebound from battlefield disasters and exploit its perennial strengths: manpower, mines and a willingness to sacrifice lives on a scale that few other countries can countenance.
As the expected launch of the offensive approached, Ukrainian military officials feared they would suffer catastrophic losses — while American officials believed the toll would ultimately be higher without a decisive assault.
And from the second part:
In Ukraine, a war of incremental gains as counteroffensive stalls
Key findings from reporting on the campaign include:
Seventy percent of troops in one of the brigades leading the counteroffensive, and equipped with the newest Western weapons, entered battle with no combat experience.
Ukraine’s setbacks on the battlefield led to rifts with the United States over how best to cut through deep Russian defenses.
The commander of U.S. forces in Europe couldn’t get in touch with Ukraine’s top commander for weeks in the early part of the campaign amid tension over the American’s second-guessing of battlefield decisions.
Each side blamed the other for mistakes or miscalculations. U.S. military officials concluded that Ukraine had fallen short in basic military tactics, including the use of ground reconnaissance to understand the density of minefields. Ukrainian officials said the Americans didn’t seem to comprehend how attack drones and other technology had transformed the battlefield.
In all, Ukraine has retaken only about 200 square miles of territory, at a cost of thousands of dead and wounded and billions in Western military aid in 2023 alone.
All those points played a role.
My personal ones:
Both, the Ukraine and its supporters, systematically underestimated Russian capabilities. (And still do.)
Satellite reconnaissance showed Russian defense preparations on the level of the Battle of Kursk. There the German Wehrmacht, after way too long preparations, failed to break the Russian lines. The unlearned lesson from 1943: When you see defense lines like these, try something else.
Battle simulations and table top war games have a ‘moral factor‘ input for each side. Setting your sides’ factor to 10 and the enemy’s factor to 0, as the U.S. and UK obviously did, will let you win every time – but has no relation to reality.
Air support would not have helped. Russian air defenses are too strong to counter it.
The decision to use barely trained, ‘green‘ brigades without any fighting experience was a serious error.
Not to use smoke grenades and, in general, means of deception, was not reasonable at all.
To have half of the new troops, the more experienced part, fight Zelenski’s already lost battle for Bakhmut, was a major political mistake.
All together made sure that the so called ‘counter-offensive‘ never had a chance to take off. The bickering now is just an attempt to put the blame for the failure onto the other side of the table.
The Ukrainian General Zaluzny has learned from the battle. He now puts up somewhat realistic numbers to let the U.S. understand how small its chances to win really are:
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was informed during a visit to Kyiv that Ukraine needed 17 million rounds of ammunition and that US$ 350-400 billion worth of assets and personnel would be required to liberate the country.
Quote from a senior Defence Forces official: “Austin was told 17 million rounds of ammunition were needed. He was stunned, to put it mildly, because you wouldn’t be able to collect that many rounds in the whole world“.
The Ukrainian army does not have the ten thousands of barrels required to fire 17 million rounds. Nor has it the men to feed those imaginary guns.
Zaluzny obviously thinks that the war is lost and done with. And that it is time for politics that pursue peace:
In addition, according to a source, Austin also said Zaluzhnyi had complained privately to American generals about interference from the President’s Office: “Austin told us privately that Zaluzhnyi was always complaining to his generals about the President’s Office and how it obstructed him. Well, obviously the president learned about those conversations too. And that isn’t conducive to trust“.
However, the President’s Office is inclined to believe that Zaluzhnyi’s dismissal would facilitate his political career.
It is high time for the Biden administration to wrap this whole thing up. Do the usual thing: declare victory, leave and forget-about-it.
With it not known if Supreme Socialist Leader Joe Biden will end the failed proxy war against Russia using his corrupt puppet state Ukraine before the CIA ends him, this report concludes, world-renowned Russian historian Gilbert Doctorow, Ph.D., in his just released open letter “Seymour Hersh, Anatol Lieven And The Desperate DC Gambit To End Hostilites In Ukraine While Claiming ‘Victory’”, assessed:
Several days ago, the renowned, Pulitzer prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published on his substack.com account an article entitled “General to General. A potential peace is being negotiated in Ukraine by military leaders”.
To be specific, Hersh said that secret talks about a possible peace are presently being conducted by Ukraine’s military commander-in-chief General Valery Zaluzhny and Russia’s highest military officer Valery Gerasimov.
The main attention grabbing paragraph in the article was the following:
“The driving force of those talks has not been Washington or Moscow, or Biden or Putin, but instead the two high-ranking generals who run the war, Valery Gerasimov of Russia and Valery Zaluzhny of Ukraine”.
The next most sensational point in the article was that part of the settlement foresees Russian acceptance of Ukraine joining NATO on condition that NATO formally commits ‘not to place NATO troops on Ukrainian soil’ or to put offensive weapons in Ukraine.
And the final key element in the settlement that would reward Russia for its acquiescence on NATO membership would be Ukraine’s recognition of Crimea as irrevocably Russian and the holding of a referendum in the Donbas and Novorossiya (Zaporozhie and Kherson) oblasts that were liberated by Russia and then joined the Russian Federation, a measure which in effect would be a fig-leaf for formal settlement of the fate of these territories as Russian once and for all.
This article has been widely commented upon in anti-establishment media outlets, which for the most part find Hersh’s revelations to be so incredible as to be unworthy of serious discussion. In a review article carried by the unofficial Chinese journal Asia Times, Stephen Bryen suggests that ‘Hersh has been sold a bill of goods, or duped…’ See “Is Hersh story on secret Ukraine peace talks true?”
In what follows, I will consider
1. why Seymour Hersh was the chosen vehicle of American intelligence operatives for bringing this remarkable story to the broad American and Western publics.
2. how elements in the story have been appearing in the writings of other more consciously (com)pliant journalists in recent weeks as a face saving ‘exit ramp’ from the failed Ukrainian adventure is being prepared by the White House
3. what from among the incredible elements exposed by Hersh may actually have some factual basis and give us a foretaste of the end-game in Ukraine as it is currently envisioned in Washington, and maybe even in Moscow
After passing through a number of years in relative obscurity, after being blacklisted by all U.S. mainstream media outlets, Seymour Hersh emerged center-stage this past February when he published on his substack account a lengthy article which set out in great detail how the bombing of the Nordstream I pipeline was planned and carried out under instructions from the White House and Biden’s close advisers.
Though Washington formally denied any involvement in what was arguably the biggest act of state terrorism in history, and though Germany and other interested states in Europe have since done their utmost to divert attention to a cock-and-bull story of Ukrainian responsibility for the bombing of Nord Stream I, Hersh’s account was an expose worthy of the journalistic exploits that once won him the Pulitzer and it remains highly persuasive.
Of course, at age 86 Hersh did not go out and track down the story he published in February. It was brought to him on a silver platter from unidentified sources, i.e. actors within the Administration whose motives remain unclear.
The unidentified sources who have now brought the story of secret negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian generals to end the war could count on Hersh’s profound ignorance of Russia and his desire to again win plaudits for a ‘scoop’.
Here the motives of the ‘leakers’ are not hard to find: Hersh was indeed being duped in an operation to condition Western publics for an end to the Ukraine war under conditions that present defeat as victory.
Let me be perfectly clear: the notion that Russia’s General Gerasimov could on his own volition enter into talks with his Ukrainian opposite number to end the hostilities is a notion that can be entertained only by someone who fails to comprehend what the ‘vertical of power’ in Russia is all about.
At the same time, presumably to illustrate the high standing of Gerasimov, Hersh has placed at the very start of his article a photo of Putin and Gerasimov seated face to face under which we read the following caption:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin meeting with General Valery Gerasimov at the headquarters of the Russian armed forces in Rostov-on-Don in October”
This photo is more interesting than Hersh and most readers of his article could imagine. Indeed, this very meeting in October was given video coverage on prime time Russian television on the day it occurred.
We saw how Putin arrived by car well after dark following a flight to the Rostov headquarters by helicopter, how he shook hands with Gerasimov and with Defense Minister Shoigu who was also present; then we were shown how Putin departed. There was not a word about the content of these top level talks. Only a couple of days later in a dedicated television news segment did we learn that Russia had just carried out a full scale test of the battle readiness of all three arms of its strategic nuclear triad, which may be described as a direct message to Washington to proceed with great care in the Ukraine war and to think twice before authorizing any further escalation of its deliveries to Kiev of advanced offensive weapons.
A similar news report on Russian state television less than two weeks ago showed Putin, Gerasimov and Shoigu holding talks in secret at the Rostov-on-Don military headquarters. However, in the time since then no extraordinary event in the war or in overall military activities that could be matched with the talks in Rostov. I believe that Putin’s preparing Gerasimov for a meeting with Zaluzhny would fit that description.
At the same time, it is fantasy to think that Ukraine’s general Zaluzhny would risk accusations of treason if he were on his own, acting out of ambition or out of motives to save what is left of the Ukrainian armed forces, to defy President Zelensky and the standing decree prohibiting talks with the Russians so long as Putin remains in power.
To suggest that he was doing so because he received backing from Washington as the Americans seek to bypass the obstinate or delusional Zelensky and find an escape path from the Ukrainian disaster is also to misunderstand how things work even in Ukraine, however dysfunctional the ruling elites may appear to be.
Let us instead, turn things around: Zaluzhny would assume the role of savior of the nation only at the urging and with ironclad guarantees of protection coming from the Biden administration.
The elements of a possible peace set out in the Hersh article have been circulating for weeks now in the publications and television appearances of mainstream U.S. journalists and academics. There are numerous variations in the combinations of compromises that both Ukrainian and Russian sides are called upon to make according to which academic or pundit is penning any given article.
Let us pause for a moment to look at what one widely read academic / journalist is saying. I have in mind Anatol Lieven and his latest article published on responsiblestatecraft.org: “Biden’s Role In Ukraine Peace Is Clear Now”.
In popular estimation, Lieven is a middle of the road expert with great depth of experience reporting on Russia. In my estimation, he is a chameleon who speaks out of both sides of his mouth to win over the maximum number of fans. Lieven wallows in the celebrity he enjoys while saying what the bosses in the Administration want him to say.
Going back more than a year, Lieven was especially sympathetic to the Ukrainian side in the war, never more so than when he returned from a visit to Ukraine during which he landed in a hospital and soaked up the anti-Russian vitriol of his fellow patients. He was a longtime defender of Ukrainian resilience and moral strength in standing up to the Russian bully. He was a seeming believer in ultimate Ukrainian victory. Now he has shifted to a position acknowledging the failure of the Ukrainian counter-offensive and the hopelessness of the Ukrainian military prospects.
His message today has changed 180 degrees and yet he seeks to find a way to present defeat as victory, in keeping with the boys in the White House staff. I quote at length:
A ceasefire and negotiations for a peace settlement are therefore becoming more and more necessary for Ukraine. Indeed, if the fighting stopped along the existing battle lines, more than 80 percent of Ukraine would be fully independent of (and bitterly hostile to) Russia and free to do its best to move towards membership of the European Union.
Given the Kremlin’s original aims when it launched the invasion last year, and of the history of Russia’s domination of Ukraine over the past 300 years, this would be not a Ukrainian defeat, but, on the contrary, a tremendous Ukrainian victory. If, on the other hand, the war continues indefinitely, there is a real possibility that Ukrainian resistance may collapse, whether through the exhaustion of its manpower or because Russia’s additional forces allow it to reopen the fronts in northern Ukraine that it pulled back from last year and that Ukraine lacks the troops to defend.
Following from this, Lieven argues for a settlement now, well in advance of the U.S. elections, when a Ukrainian collapse would be very damaging for any Democratic candidate.
He says that to bring the Russians around, Washington will have to make major concessions to the fundamental Russian demands from before the start of the war:
[Russia] will need to be assured that Washington is prepared to discuss seriously a final settlement involving neutrality for Ukraine (of course, including international security guarantees), mutual force limitations in Europe, the lifting of sanctions, and some form of inclusive European security architecture to reduce the danger of more wars in the future.
Lieven hopes that the Global South and China, in particular, can be induced “to issue a strong collective call for a ceasefire and peace talks”.
The elements in the concessions to Russia that Lieven proposes are somewhat vague. They are considerably more generous than what Seymour Hersh is proposing.
Both gentlemen and dozens of their peers are being encouraged by the policy formulators in the Administration to prepare the Russians to enter into talks and to prepare the American and European publics for an end to the war that is a defeat dressed up as a victory.
As I intimated above, it is entirely possible that there have been direct talks about ending the war between Gerasimov and Zaluzhny in the past couple of weeks, though neither would be an independent actor as Hersh mistakenly believes.
I will go one step further and say that it is entirely possible that the Russian side suggested that it could accept Ukraine’s entry into NATO if there was a public commitment never to post NATO forces on Ukrainian territory and not to deliver offensive weapons to Ukraine. Such things can be monitored and if there are violations they can lead directly to revocation of the agreement before any harm is done to Russian security interests.
The possible advantage to the Russian side would be to offer the Americans a face-saving exit ramp, thereby ending any possibility of dangerous escalation of American – NATO involvement on the ground should the Ukrainian forces collapse.
Vladimir Putin has been very cautious in conducting this war precisely because the Russians have a decidedly low opinion of the professionalism, and at times even of the sanity of their American counterparts.
Putin is strong enough in his entourage of elites and in the broad Russian public to make a persuasive case for any settlement that ensures Russian security interests are served and that the sacrifices in men and fortune that this war has cost will be justified by the outcome.
Even in the less attractive peace terms set out by Hersh, the positive results for Russia would be the definitive liberation of most of the Russian speaking territories of Ukraine from rule by Kiev and their incorporation into the Russian Federation, the de facto demilitarization of Ukraine given its losses on the order of one million men dead or incapacitated, and the confidence that Ukraine can no longer be used as an advance attack platform of NATO against his country.
[Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]
December 5, 2023 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.
Repost by Permission: Biden’s Insane “Bombenomics” Job Creation Plan Skyrockets Gold To Historic High
December 4, 2023
Biden’s Insane “Bombenomics” Job Creation Plan Skyrockets Gold To Historic High
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
A thought-provoking new Security Council (SC) report circulating in the Kremlin today first noting top socialist Biden Regime official Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announcing at the Reagan Defense Forum: “We’ve launched what the Army calls the most ambitious modernization effort in nearly 40 years for our defense industrial base…Some $50 billion of our supplemental budget request would flow through our defense industrial base…And that will create or support tens of thousands of good American jobs in more than 30 states”, says in quick response, Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev most factually observed: “A straightforward and simple-minded person, the general unhesitatingly stated the reason for the United States involvement in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine…The United States is not driven by a desire to help stop Ukraine from disappearing from the world map or by an intent to fight for democracy against tyranny…Moreover, the United States is apparently not even motivated by its repeatedly proclaimed goal of even confronting Russia to diminish its defense capacity…It turns out, it’s all about defense goods commissioning to increase military production output and create jobs…And, possibly, about the enormous profit that the companies close to the Biden administration get from it”.
Immediately prior to Secretary of Defense Austin making his announcement, this report notes, Politico released its article “Bombenomics: Biden Admin Circulates Map Showing States That Benefit From Ukraine Aid”, wherein it revealed: “Battleground states Pennsylvania and Arizona are reaping billions of dollars from Washington’s efforts to arm Ukraine, according to a graphic the Biden administration has circulated on Capitol Hill…The circulation of the graphic is part of the administration’s push to sell the American public — and their congressional representatives — on President Joe Biden’s proposal to spend billions of additional taxpayer dollars on the wars in Ukraine and Israel”—as to whom really benefits from “Bombenomics”, however, the just released article “US Dominating Global Arms Trade” reported: “The revenues of the 42 American firms in the top 100 accounted for 51% of total weapons sales”—all of which was joined by the economic article “Trading In Death Responsibly: ‘Woke’ Funds Funnel $5 Trillion Into Arms Industry”, wherein it beyond all belief revealed: “ESG – or Environmental, Social, and Governance investing – provides a framework for investing in funds that take into account environmental, social, and governance factors…It is often used interchangeably with terms like socially responsible investing and sustainable investing…Surprisingly, these funds, celebrated for their ethical foundations, have funneled a jaw-dropping $5 trillion into the arms industry”.
Among those not noticing the insanity of creating American jobs based on destruction and human misery, this report continues, is top socialist Biden Regime official Director Shalanda Young of the Office of Management and Budget, who just warned the United States Congress: “I want to be clear: without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from U.S. military stocks…There is no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment…We are out of money — and nearly out of time”—American neocon warmonger John Bolton also declared: “Ultimately, if we don’t help the Ukrainians out, ultimately Russia will win”—and this morning it was reported: “Political disputes in European countries ahead of the December 14-15 summit in Brussels have put Ukraine at risk of a sovereign default because it is underfunded by €50 billion”.
Joining its economy about to default on its sovereign debts, this report details, socialist Western colonial puppet leader Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s former top aide Oleksii Arestovych is now warning Ukraine is heading towards a military coup—a military coup warning coming at the same time protests in Ukraine are growing in size against Zelensky’s war—and in knowing the end is soon coming, the leftist Washington Post this morning released its article “Miscalculations, Divisions Marked Offensive Planning By U.S., Ukraine”, the first of its two-part series written anonymously by “The Washington Post Staff” to explain the epic American failure of the conflict and place blame on everybody but the socialist Biden Regime, and wherein it revealed: “This examination of the lead-up to Ukraine’s counteroffensive is based on interviews with more than 30 senior officials from Ukraine, the United States and European nations…It provides new insights and previously unreported details about America’s deep involvement in the military planning behind the counteroffensive and the factors that contributed to its disappointments”.
With the world’s top money markets and financiers guided by factual reality instead of socialist Biden Regime “Bombenomics” job creation insanity and leftist American media propaganda, this report notes, it was no surprise to see it reported this morning: “The price of gold touched an all-time peak on Monday, soaring past $2,100 per ounce as the global safe-haven rush continues”—the just released economic article “Gold And Bitcoin Spearhead A Rebellion Against The Dollar” also revealed: “Gold has achieved a remarkable milestone, hitting a new all-time high above $2,100 on Monday, while Bitcoin broke through the psychological level of $40,000…This remarkable surge is underpinned by several factors, notably the Federal Reserve’s anticipated dovish pivot and a weakening dollar”—and Fox Business just grimly reported: “The financial world legend who predicted Lehman Brothers’ collapse is sounding the alarm over America’s “serious” financial troubles…”I hate to say this because, you know I love America, but America is in serious trouble financially because of the debt load”, Rich Dad Company co-founder Robert Kiyosak said during his appearance on “Cavuto: Coast to Coast”…”I think the biggest problem, Neil, is we have the Three Stooges, you know, one in the presidency, one in the Treasury and one at the Fed”…”America is broke right now”, Kiyosaki told host Neil Cavuto”.
During a speech at the White House on 26 June 1954, this report concludes, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously proclaimed: “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war”—a proclamation worthy of notice because Politico just revealed that the late American senior diplomat Henry Kissinger said in his last interview: “Right now, the greatest difficulty with respect to Russia is that we have not heard what their thinking is because there is no dialogue with Russia at all”—and was a revelation that came at the same time the death was announced of the first 17-year-old Ukrainian boy child pulled out of his orphanage along with all the other orphans by puppet leader President Zelensky, and who died on a battlefield only demons would have sent untrained children to. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]
December 4, 2023 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.
NOW WE HAVE PROOF! TGP EXCLUSIVE: Massive 2020 Voter Fraud Uncovered in Michigan – Including Estimated “800,000 Ballot Applications Sent to Non-Qualified Voters” – Bags of Pre-Paid Gift Cards, Guns with Silencers, Burner Phones, and a Democrat-Funded Organization with Multiple Temporary Facilities in Several States