Surovikin’s Difficult Choice

Russia Abandons Kherson

Big Serge |11 hr ago

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General Armageddon

In January, 1944, the newly reconstituted German Sixth Army found itself in an operationally cataclysmic situation in the southern bend of the Dnieyper River, in the area of Krivoi Rog and Nikopol. The Germans occupied a dangerous salient, jutting out precariously into the Red Army’s lines. Vulnerable on two awkward flanks, and facing an enemy with superiority in manpower and firepower, any general worth his salt would have sought to withdraw as soon as possible. In this case, however, Hitler insisted that the Wehrmacht hold the salient, because the region was Germany’s last remaining source of manganese - a mineral crucial for making high quality steel.

A year prior, in the opening weeks of 1943, Hitler had intervened in another, more famous battle, forbidding the previous incarnation of the Sixth Army from breaking out of a pocket forming around it at Stalingrad. Prohibited from withdrawing, the Sixth was annihilated wholesale.

In both of these cases, there was a clash between pure military prudence and broader political aims and needs. In 1943, there was neither a compelling military nor political reason to keep the 6th Army in the pocket at Stalingrad - political intervention in military decision making was both senseless and disasterous. In 1944, however, Hitler (however difficult it is to admit it) had a valid argument. Without manganese from the Nikopol area, German war production was doomed. In this case, political intervention was perhaps warranted. Leaving an army in a vulnerable salient is bad, but so is running out of manganese.

These two tragic fates of the Sixth Army illustrate the salient issue today: how do we parse the difference between military and political decision making? More specifically, to what do we attribute the shocking Russian decision to withdraw from the west bank of the Dnieper in Kherson oblast, after annexing it just a few months ago?

I would like to parse through this issue. First off, one cannot deny that the withdrawal is politically a significant humiliation for Russia. The question becomes, however, whether this sacrifice was necessary on military or political grounds, and what it may signify about the future course of the conflict.

As I see it, the withdrawal from west bank Kherson must be driven by one of the four following possibilities:

1. The Ukrainian Army has defeated the Russian Army on the west bank and driven it back across the river.

2. Russia is setting a trap in Kherson.

3. A secret peace agreement (or at least ceasefire) has been negotiated which includes giving Kherson back to Ukraine.

4. Russia has made a politically embarrassing but militarily prudent operational choice.

Let us simply run through these four and examine them in sequence.

Possibility 1: Military Defeat

The recapture of Kherson is being fairly celebrated by Ukrainians as a victory. The question is just what kind of victory it is - political/optical, or military? It becomes trivially obvious that it is the first sort. Let’s examine a few facts.

First off, as recently as the morning of November 9 - hours before the withdrawal was announced - some Russian war correspondents were expressing skepticism about the withdrawal rumors because Russia’s forward defensive lines were completely intact. There was no semblance of crisis among Russian forces in the region.

Secondly, Ukraine was not executing any intense offensive efforts in the region at the time the withdrawal began, and Ukrainian officials expressed skepticismthat the withdrawal was even real. Indeed, the idea that Russia was laying a trap originates with Ukrainian officials who were apparently caught off guard by the withdrawal. Ukraine was not prepared to pursue or exploit, and advanced cautiouslyinto the void after Russian soldiers were gone. Even with Russia withdrawing, they were clearly scared to advance, because their last few attempts to push through the defenses in the area became mass casualty events.

Overall, Russia’s withdrawal was implemented very quickly with minimal pressure from the Ukrainians - this very fact is the basis of the idea that it is either a trap or the result of a backroom deal that’s been concluded. In either case, Russia simply slipped back across the river without pursuit by the Ukrainians, taking negligible losses and getting virtually all of their equipment out (so far, a broken down T90 is the only Ukrainian capture of note). The net score on the Kherson Front remains a strong casualty imbalance in favor of Russia, and they once again withdraw without suffering a battlefield defeat and with their forces intact.

As for Ares, he has been hard at work in Pavlovka.

While the world was fixated on the relatively bloodless change of hands in Kherson, Russia and Ukraine fought a bloody battle for Pavlovka, and Russia won. Ukraine also attempted to break Russia’s defenses in the Svatove axis, and was repulsed with heavy casualties. Ultimately, the main reason to doubt news of a secret deal is the fact that the war is continuing on all the other fronts - and Ukraine is losing. This leaves only one option.

Possibility 4: A Difficult Operational Choice

This withdrawal was subtly signaled shortly after General Surovikin was put in charge of the operation in Ukraine. In his first press conference, he signaled dissatisfaction with the Kherson front, calling the situation “tense and difficult” and alluding to the threat of Ukraine blowing dams on the Dnieper and flooding the area. Shortly thereafter, the process of evacuating civilians from Kherson began.

Here is what I think Surovikin decided about Kherson.

Kherson was becoming an inefficient front for Russia because of the logistical strain of supplying forces across the river with limited bridge and road capacity. Russia demonstrated that it was capable of shouldering this sustainment burden (keeping troops supplied all through Ukraine’s summer offensives), but the question becomes 1) to what purpose, and 2) for how long.

Ideally, the bridgehead becomes the launching point for offensive action against Nikolayev, but launching an offensive would require strengthening the force grouping in Kherson, which correspondingly raises the logistical burden of projecting force across the river. With a very long front to play with, Kherson is clearly one of the most logistically intensive axes. My guess is that Surovikin took charge and almost immediately decided he did not want to increase the sustainment burden by trying to push on Nikolayev.

Therefore, if an offensive is not going to be launched from the Kherson position, the question becomes - why hold the position at all? Politically, it is important to defend a regional capital, but militarily the position becomes meaningless if one is not going to go on the offensive in the south.

Let’s be even more explicit: unless an offensive towards Nikolayev is planned, the Kherson bridgehead is militarily counterproductive.

While holding the bridgehead in Kherson, the Dnieper River becomes a negative force multiplier - increasing the sustainment and logistics burden and ever threatening to leave forces cut off if Ukraine succeeds in destroying the bridges or bursting the dam. Projecting force across the river becomes a heavy burden with no obvious benefit. But by withdrawing to the east bank, the river becomes a positive force multiplier by serving as a defensive barrier.

In the broader operational sense, Surovikin seems to be declining battle in the south while preparing in the north and in the Donbas. It is clear that he made this decision shortly after taking command of the operation - he has been hinting at it for weeks, and the speed and cleanliness of the withdrawal suggests that it was well planned , long in advance. Withdrawing across the river increases the combat effectiveness of the army significantly and decreases the logistical burden, freeing resources for other

sectors.

This fits the overall Russian pattern of making harsh choices about resource allocation, fighting this war under the simple framework of optimizing the loss ratios and building the perfect meatgrinder. Unlike the German Army in the second world war, the Russian army seems to be freed from political interference to make rational military decisions.

In this way, the withdrawal from Kherson can be seen as a sort of anti-Stalingrad. Instead of political interference hamstringing the military, we have the military freed to make operational choices even at the cost of embarrassing the political figures. And this, ultimately, is the more intelligent - if optically humiliating - way to fight a war.

https://bigserge.substack.com/p/surovkins-difficult-choice

Witnessing the Rollout of Agenda 21’s Depopulation and Undermining of Society

Prof. Dolores Cahill: We Are Witnessing the Rollout of Agenda 21’s Depopulation and Undermining of Society

NOVEMBER 6, 2022

In mid-October, Professor Dolores Cahill spoke with Zeee Media about how the depopulation and infertility program using Covid “vaccines” fits into Agenda 21.  They also discussed digital currencies and how Agenda 21’s “demoralisation agenda,” a psychological operation, is used to undermine the rule of law.

Professor Dolores Cahill is the co-founder and president of the World Freedom Alliance and president of the World Doctors Alliance.  She has a background in molecular genetics and immunology and has achieved key breakthroughs in developing and demonstrating applications of high throughput array technology in biological, diagnostics and medical research.

During the mid-1990s, Prof. Cahill together with others in the German Max Planck Institutesdeveloped high-throughput protein array or “high protein content chips.”

“We can show that a lot of antibodies used in diagnostic tests, to diagnose diseases like cancer and autoimmune diseases were wrong. And then I started to get a lot of pushback because it meant that the manufacturers of the diagnostic tests – which were shown to be inaccurate – couldn’t sell their products anymore,” Prof. Cahill told Maria Zeee during the interview (see below).

What Prof. Cahill and associates showed is that a lot of people who were diagnosed with cancer and autoimmune diseases didn’t actually have the disease they were diagnosed with.

The next discovery Prof. Cahill made was that babies were dying 2 and 4 months after being injected with “vaccines” but no one was “stopping it.” 

She went on to advise the Irish government and the European Union and during this time attempted to alert academic, diagnostic, pharmaceutical and government officials to vaccine adverse events and treatments of serious diseases. “All [of] my career has been trying to give the information that you can treat these so-called serious diseases by simple lifestyle changes: reducing stress [and] good nutrition including vitamins.”

---

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

Did you know that less than 0.1% of people who read this article will go on to support us even though we rely solely on your support?
Please support The Expose today by clicking here.

---

Click on the image below to watch the video on Rumble.  For those who are unable to access Rumble, you can watch the video on Bitchute HERE.

Maria Zeee: Uncensored: Prof. Dolores Cahill – We’re in the Mass Killing Phase of Agenda 21 & What People Can Do,
19 October 2022 (68 mins)

Agenda 21

In the video above Prof. Cahill said Covid-19 was the eighth planned “pandemic.” “There were many of these before including the ones that were stopped by Professor Wodarg,” she said.

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg exposed and was instrumental in ending the 2009 Swine Flu Scandal.  His actions resulted in an investigation by the European Parliament “to look into the issue of ‘falsified pandemic’ that was declared by WHO in June 2009 on the advice of its group of academic experts, SAGE, many of whose members have been documented to have intense financial ties to the same pharmaceutical giants such as GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, who benefit from the production of drugs and untested H1N1 vaccines.”

(Related: Undeniable links between the Oxford / AstraZeneca Covid-19 Vaccine & the British Eugenics Society)

In 2002, when the first so-called coronavirus pandemic – that never was – occurred Prof. Cahill was “looking at it in real-time.”  She was aware at the time that the side effects of the vaccines were all the areas that governments and the European Union were financially investing in.

“If you inject people, particularly children, with poisons – like mercury and aluminium – the toxic effects … are allergies, autoimmune disease, intestinal dysfunction like Crohn’s disease … infertility.  Mercury and aluminium are also neurotoxins so you have neuro-cognitive impairment that shows in Alzheimer’s… [or] autism,” she said.

“When I started studying the health issues – and I knew that a lot of what was going on in science in the 1990s was inaccurate – and then when the coronavirus came, the initial one in 2002/3, I started then studying what was happening [beyond health issues] because I knew there was prevention and treatment – even then, 20 years ago – and also vitamins.

“Then I started looking into the World Health Organisation and how they were implementing [Agenda 21] and the control of the media.  Also, I was also aware of CIA documents and United Nations documents of how they were going to intimidate people who spoke up, particularly experts and scientists.”

Prof. Cahill explained that a 1971 book titled ‘None Dare Call It Conspiracy’ laid out Agenda 21.  And a 1992 book titled ‘The Committee of 300’ describes, exactly, the poisoning agenda she had become aware of.  It also names the people involved in the conspiracy at that time.

Agenda 21 is the United Nations Agenda for the 21stcentury. It was published in 1992 and covers the period up to 2099. “So, it’s the agenda for this entire century … You have Agenda 2020, Agenda 2030, 2040, 2050.  And what is behind Agenda 21 is a detailed roadmap for every year from 1992 through the century,” Prof. Cahill said.  “They are basically planning, and are implementing, the destruction of each area of our society from within.”

The plan is very detailed.  It includes. for example. police turning on their vehicle sirens at random times or reducing street lighting at night with the aim to increase the levels of anxiety or feelings of insecurity within people.

There was a stock market collapse on 17/18 September 2019. “I knew that was the trigger event for the next pandemic,” Prof. Cahill said, “and that was a month before Event 201 … I was watching Event 201 in real-time.”

(Related: Cock-Up or Conspiracy? Understanding Covid-19 As A ‘Structural Deep Event’ and Building an Empire – The United Nations Using the World Economic Forum to Roll Out Its Agenda)

At the end of 2019, Prof. Cahill had a voluntary role representing Ireland as vice chair of the European Union’s innovative medicine initiative. “They were pushing money into mRNA vaccinations as part of an EU funding mechanism in January/February 2020.  And from the inside [of the EU], I was given the information around vitamins and that it was not necessary, which was not edict.” 

Prof. Cahill then asked the Central Statistics Office of Ireland how many people had died of Covid-19 up until March 2020. When the statistics office said there had been zero Covid deaths in Ireland and after checking further information through her “network,” Prof. Cahill gave an interview in May 2020 with Computing Forever host Dave Cullen explaining what she had discovered as well as explaining that there was prevention and treatment.  The interview went viral.

Depopulation and Infertility

The Agenda for the 21st century will “say a reduction in population but also an increase in infertility that is brought about through these injections,” Prof. Cahill explained.  “Twenty/thirty years ago they said the killing years were between 2020 and 2026.”

For this decade, the aim is to vaccinate people in response to a “pandemic” and have coordinated media deception and intimidation.  “[The aim is] to make people very unwell to reduce their life expectancy and to kill people.  But, and this is why I spoke out, it seems this mRNA [injection] is designed to interfere with fertility in both males and females.  So, their plan … is to inject the younger generation … What we don’t know … [is] can they transmit the infertility agent through sexual intercourse,” Prof. Cahill said.  Their plan is to have a huge increase in infertility during this century, she said, “their aim is to collapse the number of people” by the end of the century.

There were infertility agents in the tetanus injections for decades, Prof. Cahill said, “and this was highlighted in Africa because they had the army coming into towns and villages over Africa injecting, forcibly … and they only injected tetanus [vaccines] into women ages 14 to age 45.”

The spike protein in the Covid injection acts in a similar way to the tetanus injection in that it seems to attack the lining and the sheath of the uterus. “That’s why there was a lot of clotting and heavy bleeding in people whether they were injected or not,” Prof. Cahill explained.

Combined with the HPV vaccine, the effect is that the body attacks the ovaries so there is a shrivelling of the ovaries in 10-15 years. “The girls that got the HPV vaccine at age 12 are going into early menopause [which also] has an impact on their fertility,” she said.

Life Expectancy of the Vaccinated

In May 2020, during the interview with Dave Cullen on Computing Forever and again a few days later in an interview with Del Bigtree host of The Highwire, Prof. Cahill said that no mRNA injections were ever licensed anywhere in the world until 2020. The reason for this, Prof. Cahill said, was that:

“In some of the animal studies, all of the animals died.  But in a longer period after the injection … because it is priming the immune system and it takes months or years for the immune system to activate – all in a bad way – in order to then kill people … and I stand by [what I said in May 2020].  [What I said relates to] the mRNA injections – not all of [the injections] are mRNA.”

She explained that some batches of injections are placebos and others, because of poor mixing of the ingredients in the manufacturing process, may have very little mRNA. “But for people who get the mRNA, as I said in May 2020, that then primes their body to attack itself.  It is the immune system that is primed [and] may have homology to where ever the mRNA or the peptide or the protein is in their organs.  So, the immune system will attack that organ.”

“They will present to the medical system with unusual symptoms like an enlarged heart or sudden adult death or breathlessness or sepsis.

“What I said [in May 2020] was, for those with the mRNA, the time that they would die would be within 3 years to 5 years after the injection.  But it depends then how young they were, how healthy they were, and whether they had other comorbidities.

“So, that, unfortunately, is true.  Unfortunately.”

Earlier in the interview, she mentioned the animal trials where all the animals injected with mRNA died.  But in some of the animal experiments, only half of the animals died after being injected with mRNA. Prof. Cahill explained that in the animal trials where only 50% of the animals died within six months, the 50% deaths results were because they stopped the experiment and killed the remainder of the animals. If they had kept the animals that survived after six months alive and continued the experiment for a year, then the results would have been that all the animals would have died within the time frame that would have been the equivalent in humans of 3-5 years.

“If people have had multiple injections, there are toxic agents [within the vaccines] that have a different mechanism of killing people.  So, the ones we see in Open VAERS, of people who die within the first month … one in four dies within 48 hours.  And it probably is that they are dying with a different mechanism, that they are hyper allergic to ingredients that are in the injection like polysorbate 80 … or polyethylene glycol (“PEG”) or SM-102.”

Real Money versus Digital Currency

The Agenda started in a serious way in 1913.  Their plan has been implemented, in the background, for about two generations. “In a way, they have really implemented maybe 50% of the Agenda. So, this is a systematic and incremental and a nudge Agenda,” Prof. Cahill said.

Agenda 21, published in 1992, is a continuation of the same Agenda, and part of it is to undermine society from within. It’s a 108-year plan which is being rolled out incrementally so people wouldn’t be aware from one generation to the next that it was happening.  One of the main levers is the so-called vaccine and another is the banking system.

The plan incorporates undermining all aspects of society – whether it’s law, lawful policing, the education system, the health system, the regulatory system, the media current affairs, the government or the banking system, Prof, Cahill explained. 

“Cash is freedom …  If you have money, cash money, you can just buy and sell and you can also earn a living in private. Privacy is very important in the law.  And proper money that actually has a value, and cash, is the way that men and women operate under the law, in private … We have an inalienable right to privacy.  If you have real money and cash that ensures privacy.”

If you want to undermine the law and undermine society, how do you do that?  It can be done through the banking system by interfering with gold-backed money and then attempting to track and trace everybody’s digital transactions, Prof Cahill said.

“And then move from a system where you can have ‘own your assets under the law’ and nobody can trespass on them or interfere with them, to a system where they try [to] transfer all of your assets into their system and they can then cut it off by any means.”

In their digital system, all our assets will no longer belong to us, they will belong to the banking system. So, they will own our assets.

“What we have under this Agenda 21 is an unlawful layer, in the banking system, on top of what we think is the lawful system … Everything they do is to increase fear and to impoverish people.

“This is a multi-generational program … if they can do it in one generation, the generation that is five-year-olds now, in 20/30 years’ time, will think it’s normal that real money and cash isn’t accepted.”

As far as the real money moving to digital currency part of the Agenda is concerned, “they’re [probably] halfway through [implementing it],” Prof. Cahill Said.

The Demoralisation Agenda

“But I think what’s very hopeful,” Prof Cahill said, is “the whole thing is very simple to solve … No one is above the law … and if every man or woman is liable for any criminality they do, under the law, and no one is above the law.  Once people realise that we can actually stop this very simply.”

In other words, the solution is to hold each person – doctors, policemen, coroners, judges, and care homeowners – accountable in their personal capacity for what they have or have not done.

By way of example, in Ireland, there is an organisation called the Irish Republican Brotherhood(“IRB”), the oldest political movement in Ireland. “We have reconstituted the [IRB] … and what we’re doing now – we have hundreds of people, thousands of people that are aware to solve all this – we just have to ask people that are paid as judges or regulators or the police: ‘is what you are doing lawful and what is your role?’,” Prof. Cahill said. 

She gave an example of 10 care homes in Ireland in January 2021 where people died shortly after being injected with a Covid “vaccine.”  The local police constable is paid and has sworn an oath to investigate those deaths.

“We in society have a societal bond and that is that people cannot go around killing people [no matter who you are or the position you hold].  It’s very simple. And who do we pay to ensure people literally do not get away with murder? … When there are mass deaths, like 8 people [in one care home] within 48 hours, we then have to investigate and say ‘well, did the local policeman report that as a suspicious death, did the undertakers report it, did the owners of the care home [report it], did the people we pay, the coroners, did they investigate?’.

“For a coroner or a doctor to put the wrong cause of death on a death cert[ificate], that’s five years in prison for them for one case.  That is the law … If a family makes a complaint and the [police] don’t investigate whether the coroner is doing their job, or the people we pay as judges [don’t investigate] – it is the second highest crime of malfeasance, malfeasance in public office and criminal misconduct, for a judge to not investigate that type of crime.”

Why have people so far been unsuccessful in getting the police, for example, to investigate?

How Agenda 21 has undermined the rule of law, for the last generation, is by the courts, police, coroners and pathologists not operating lawfully.  “Within Agenda 21 they have a detailed program of analysing the psychology behind the criminal behaviour … [its] what’s called a ‘demoralisation agenda’,” Prof. Cahill said. 

They want people to be unsuccessful in stopping criminal behaviour to demoralise populations so they feel “hopeless.” The unsuccessful legal actions of “freedom fighters” is part of the demoralisation agenda to make it look like certain systems will not work.

https://expose-news.com/2022/11/06/agenda-21s-depopulation-and-undermining-society/

Further resources:

• None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen with Larry Abraham, 1971
• Pdf: The Conspirators’ Hierarchy, The Committee of 300 (1991) by John Coleman
• Video: The Conspirators Hierarchy, The Committee Of 300 (1992)
• Video: Infertility, A Diabolical Agenda, Zee Media, 15 September 2022
• Video: Debunking the Narrative with Prof. Dolores Cahill, Computing Forever, 11 May 2020
• Video: Dolores Cahill and Del Bigtree on the Covid19 Fraud, Dolores Cahill, 17 May 2020
• Dolores Cahill website
• Dolores Cahill Show on TNT Radio

---

Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

PREEMPTIVE NUCLEAR WAR

ANALYSIS 07.11.2022 

“PREEMPTIVE NUCLEAR WAR”: THE HISTORIC BATTLE FOR PEACE AND DEMOCRACY. A THIRD WORLD WAR THREATENS THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY

Illustrative Image

Written by Prof Michel Chossudovsky. Originally published on GlobalResearch

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable. All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort”, have been scrapped.

Vladimir Putin’s statement on February 21st, 2022 was a response to US threats to use nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis against Russia, despite Joe Biden’s “reassurance” that the US would not be resorting to “A first strike” nuclear attack against an enemy of America: 

“Let me [Putin] explain that U.S. strategic planning documents contain the possibility of a so-called preemptive strike against enemy missile systems. And who is the main enemy for the U.S. and NATO? We know that too. It’s Russia. In NATO documents, our country is officially and directly declared the main threat to North Atlantic security. And Ukraine will serve as a forward springboard for the strike.” (Putin Speech, February 21, 2022, emphasis added)

Last July 2021, the Biden administration launched its 2021 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) to be completed and formally announced in 2022. The 2021 NPR is to include what is described as a “nuclear declaratory policy of the United States”.

It is unlikely that the 2021 NPR will repeal the nuclear options of  the Obama and Bush administrations which are largely predicated on the notion of preemptive nuclear war raised in President Putin’s speech.

The underlying US nuclear doctrine consists in portraying nuclear weapons as a means of “self defense” rather than as a “weapon of mass destruction”. 

Moreover, there are powerful financial interests behind the NPR which are tied into the $1.3  trillion nuclear weapons program initiated under President Obama. 

Although the Ukraine conflict has so-far been limited to conventional weapons coupled with “economic warfare”, the use of a large array of sophisticated WMDs including nuclear weapons is on the drawing board of the Pentagon.

According to the Federation of American Scientists, the total number of nuclear warheads Worldwide is of the order of 13,000.  Russia and the United States “each have around 4,000 warheads in their military stockpiles”.

The Dangers of Nuclear War are Real. Profit Driven. Two Trillion Dollars

Under Joe Biden, public funds allocated to nuclear weapons are slated to increase to 2 trillion by 2030 allegedly as a means to safeguarding peace and national security at taxpayers expense. (How many schools and hospitals could you finance with 2 trillion dollars?):

The United States maintains an arsenal of about 1,700 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and at strategic bomber bases. There are an additional estimated 100 non-strategic, or tactical, nuclear weapons at bomber bases in five European countries and about 2,000 nuclear warheads in storage. [see our analysis of B61-11 and B61-12 below]

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in May 2021 that the United States will spend a total of $634 billion over the next 10 years to sustain and modernize its nuclear arsenal. (Arms Control)

In this article, I will first focus on the Post Cold War shift in US Nuclear Doctrine, followed by a brief review of  the history of nuclear weapons going back to the Manhattan Project initiated in 1939 with the participation of both Canada and the United Kingdom.  

A Note on the History of US-Russia Relations. The Forgotten War of 1918

From a historical standpoint the US and its Allies have been threatening Russia for more than 104 years starting during World War I with the deployment of US and Allied Forces against Soviet Russia on January 12, 1918, (two months following the November 7, 1917 revolution allegedly in support of Russia’s Imperial Army).  

The 1918 US-UK Allied invasion of Russia is a landmark in Russian History, often mistakenly portrayed as being part of a Civil War. 

It lasted for more than two years involving the deployment of more than 200,000 troops of which 11,000 were from the US, 59,000 from the UK. Japan which was an Ally of Britain and America during World War I  dispatched 70,000 troops. 

US Occupation Troops in Vladivostok 1918

US and Allied Troops in Vladivostok in 1918

The Threat of Nuclear War

The US threat of nuclear war against Russia was formulated more than 76 years ago in September 1945, when the US and the Soviet Union were allies. It consisted in a “World War III Blueprint” of nuclear war against the USSR, targeting 66 cities with more than 200 atomic bombs. This diabolical project under the Manhattan Project was instrumental in triggering the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. (See analysis below).

Chronology

1918-1920:  The first US and allied forces led war against Soviet Russia with more than 10 countries sending troops to fight alongside the White Imperial Russian army. This happened exactly two months after the October Revolution, on January 12, 1918, and it lasted until the early 1920s.

The Manhattan Project initiated in 1939, with the participation of the UK and Canada. Development of the Atomic Bomb.

Operation Barbarossa, June 1941. Nazi Invasion of the Soviet Union. Standard Oil of New Jersey was selling oil to Nazi Germany.

February 1945: The Yalta Conference. The meeting of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.

“Operation Unthinkable”: A Secret attack plan against the Soviet Union formulated by Winston Churchill in the immediate wake of the Yalta conference. It was scrapped in June 1945.

April 12, 1945: The Potsdam Conference. President Harry Truman and Prime Minister Winston Churchill approve the atomic bombing of Japan.

September 15, 1945: A World War III Scenario formulated by the US War Department: A plan to  bomb 66 cities of the Soviet Union with 204 atomic bombs, when the US and USSR were allies. The Secret plan  (declassified in 1975) formulated during WWII, was released less than two weeks after the official end of WWII on September 2, 1945

1949: The Soviet Union announces the testing of its nuclear bomb.

Post Cold War Doctrine: “Preemptive Nuclear War”

The Doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) of the Cold War Era no longer prevails. It was replaced at the outset of the George W. Bush Administration with the Doctrine of Preemptive Nuclear War, namely the use of nuclear weapons as a means of “self-defense” against both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states.

In early 2002, the text of George W. Bush’s Nuclear Posture Review had already been leaked, several months prior to the release of the September 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS) which defined, “Preemption” as:

“the anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent attack”. 

Namely as an act of war on the grounds of self-defense

The MAD doctrine was scrapped. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review not only redefined the use of nuclear weapons, so-called tactical nuclear weapons or bunker buster bombs (mini-nukes) could henceforth be used in the conventional war theater without the authorization of the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States..

Seven countries were identified in the 2001 NPR (adopted in 2002) as potential targets for a preemptive nuclear attack 

Discussing “requirements for nuclear strike capabilities,” the report lists Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria as “among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies.”  …

Three of these countries (Iraq, Libya and Syria) have since then been the object of US-led wars. The 2001 NPR also confirmed continued nuclear war preparations against China and Russia.

“The Bush review also indicates that the United States should be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, citing “the combination of China’s still developing strategic objectives and its ongoing modernization of its nuclear and non-nuclear forces.”

“Finally, although the review repeats Bush administration assertions that Russia is no longer an enemy, it says the United States must be prepared for nuclear contingencies with Russia and notes that, if “U.S. relations with Russia significantly worsen in the future, the U.S. may need to revise its nuclear force levels and posture.” Ultimately, the review concludes that nuclear conflict with Russia is “plausible” but “not expected.” [that. was back in 2002] ( Arms Control) emphasis added.

The Privatization of Nuclear War

With tensions growing in major regions of the World, a new generation of nuclear weapons technology was unfolding making nuclear warfare a very real prospect. And with very little fanfare, the US had embarked on the privatization of nuclear war under a first-strike “preemptive” doctrine. This process went into full swing in the immediate wake of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (2001 NPR) adopted by the US Senate in 2002.

On August 6, 2003, on Hiroshima Day, commemorating when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (August 6 1945), a secret meeting was held behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. Senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex were in attendance.

This mingling of defense contractors, scientists and policy-makers was not intended to commemorate Hiroshima. The meeting was intended to set the stage for the development of a new generation of “smaller”, “safer” and “more usable” nuclear weapons, to be used in the “in-theater nuclear wars” of the 21st Century.”

“Nuclear war has become a multibillion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”.

Nuclear War against both China and Russia is contemplated

Russia is tagged as  “Plausible” but “Not Expected”. That was back in 2002.

Today at the height of the Ukraine war, a Preemptive Nuclear attack against Russia is on the drawing of the Pentagon. That does not however mean that it will be implemented.

A Nuclear War Cannot be Won?

We recall Reagan’s historic statement: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used.”

Nonetheless, there are powerful voices and lobby groups within the US establishment and the Biden administration that are convinced that “a nuclear war is winnable”.

Flashback to Inter-War Period: Wall Street Finances Hitler’s Election Campaign 

According to Yuri Robsov, Wall Street and the Rockefellers were funding Germany’s war machine as well as Adolf Hitler’s election campaign:

American cooperation with the German military-industrial complex was so intense and pervasive that by 1933 the key sectors of German industry and large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Danat-Bank (Darmstädter und Nationalbank), etc.  were under the control of American financial capital.

The political force that was intended to play a crucial role in Anglo-American plans was being simultaneously prepared. We are talking about the funding of the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler personally.

On January 4th, 1932, a meeting was held between British financier Montagu Norman (Governor of the Bank of England), Adolf Hitler and Franz Von Papen (who became Chancellor a few months later in May 1932) At this meeting, an agreement on the financing of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP or Nazi Party) was reached.

This meeting was also attended by US policy-makers and the Dulles brothers, something which their biographers do not like to mention.

A year later, on January 14th, 1933, another meeting was held between Adolf Hitler, Germany’s Financier Baron Kurt von Schroeder, Chancellor Franz von Papen and Hitler’s Economic Advisor Wilhelm Keppler took place, where Hitler’s program was fully approved.

It was here that they finally resolved the issue of the transfer of power to the Nazis, and on the 30th of January 1933 Hitler became Chancellor. The implementation of the fourth stage of the strategy thus begun.

World War II: “Operation Barbarossa”

There is ample evidence that both the US and its British ally were intent upon Nazi Germany winning the war on the Eastern Front with a view to destroying the Soviet Union:

.

“Stalin and his entourage’s growing suspicions, that the Anglo-American powers hoped the Nazi-Soviet War would last for years, were based on well-founded concerns. This desire had already been expressed in part by Harry S. Truman, future US president, hours after the Wehrmacht had invaded the Soviet Union.

Truman, then a US Senator, said he wanted to see the Soviets and Germans “kill as many as possible” between themselves, an attitude which the New York Times later called “a firm policy”. The Times had previously published Truman’s remarks on 24 June 1941, and as a result his views would most likely not have escaped the Soviets’ attention. (Shane Quinn, Global Research, March 2022)

Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa initiated in June 1941 would have failed from the very outset had it not been for the support of Standard Oil of New Jersey (owned by the Rockefellers) which routinely delivered ample supplies of oil to the Third Reich. While Germany was able  to transform coal into fuel, this synthetic production was insufficient. Moreover, Romania’s Ploesti oil resources (under Nazi control until 1944) were minimal. Nazi Germany largely depended on oil shipments from US Standard Oil.

Trading with the Enemy legislation (1917) officially implemented following America’s entry into World War II did not  prevent Standard Oil of New Jersey from selling oil to Nazi Germany. This despite the Senate 1942 investigation of US Standard Oil.

While direct US oil shipments were curtailed, Standard Oil would sell US oil through third countries. US oil was shipped to occupied France (officially via Switzerland, and from France it was shipped to Germany: “… The shipments went through Spain, Vichy France’s colonies in the West Indies, and Switzerland.”

Without those oil shipments instrumented by Standard Oil and the Rockefellers, Nazi Germany would not have been able to implement its military agenda. Without fuel, the Third Reich’s eastern front under Operation Barbarossa would most probably not have taken place, saving millions of lives. The Western front including the military occupation of France, Belgium and The Netherlands would no doubt also have been affected.

The USSR actually won the war against Nazi Germany, with 27 million deaths, which in part resulted from the blatant violation of Trading with the Enemy by Standard Oil.
“Operation Unthinkable”: A World War III Scenario Formulated During World War II

A  World War III scenario against the Soviet Union had already been envisaged in early 1945, under what was called  Operation Unthinkable, to be launched prior to the official end of World War II on September 2, 1945.

Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin met at Yalta in early February 1945 largely with a view to negotiating the post war occupation of Germany and Japan.

Meanwhile in the wake of the Yalta Conference, Winston Churchill had contemplated a Secret Plan to wage war against the Soviet Union: .

 .

“If you thought the Cold War between East and West reached its peak in the 1950s and 1960s, then think again. 1945 was the year when Europe was the crucible for a Third World War.

 .

The plan called for a massive Allied assault on 1 July 1945 by British, American, Polish and German – yes German – forces against the Red Army. They aimed to push them back out of Soviet-occupied East Germany and Poland, give Stalin and bloody nose, and force him to re-consider his domination of East Europe. … Eventually in June 1945 Churchill’s military advisors cautioned him against implementing the plan, but it still remained a blueprint for a Third World War. …The Americans had just successfully tested an atomic bomb, and there was now the final temptation of obliterating Soviet centres of population”

.

Churchill’s “Operation Unthinkable” against Soviet Forces in Eastern Europe (see above) was abandoned in June 1945.

During his mandate as Prime Minister (1940-45), Churchill had supported the Manhattan Project. He was a protagonist of nuclear war against the Soviet Union, which had been contemplated under the Manhattan project as early as 1942, when the US and the Soviet Union were allies against Nazi Germany.

A  Blueprint for a Third World War using nuclear weapons against 66 major urban areas of the Soviet Union was officially formulated on September 15, 1945 by the US War Department (see section below).

The Potsdam Conference

Vice President Harry S. Truman was sworn in as president of the United States on April 12, 1945, after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who died unexpectedly of a cerebral hemorrhage.

 .

At the Potsdam meetings, President Truman entered into discussions (July 1945) with Stalin and Churchill: (see image right). The discussions were of a different nature to those of Yalta, specifically with regard to both Truman and Churchill who were both in favour of nuclear warfare:

.

“[British] PM [Churchill] and I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told PM [Churchill] of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time. (Truman Diary, July 17, 1945, emphasis added)

What this statement from Truman’s Diary confirms is that Japan would “fold up” and surrender to the US  “before Russia comes in”. Ultimately this was the objective of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

While Stalin was casually informed by Truman regarding the Manhattan Project in July 1945, sources suggest that the Soviet Union was aware of the Manhattan Project as early as 1942. Did Truman tell Stalin that the atom bomb was intended for Japan?

“We met at 11.00am. today.[ That is, Stalin, Churchill and the US president].

But I had a most important session [without Stalin?] with Lord Mountbatten and General Marshall [US joint Chiefs of Staff] before that. [This meeting was not part of the official agenda] We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley era, after Noah and his fabulous ark. Anyway, we think we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling – to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused a crater six hundred feet deep and twelve hundred feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower a half mile away, and knocked men down ten thousand yards away. The explosion was visible for more than two hundred miles and audible for forty miles and more.

This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th.I have told the secretary of war, Mr Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I’m sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler’s crowd or Stalin’s did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.” (Truman’s Diary, Potsdam meeting on July 18, 1945)

The discussion on the Manhattan Project does not appear in the official minutes of the meetings.

The Infamous “WW III Blueprint” to Wage a Nuclear Attack against the Soviet Union (September 15, 1945)

Barely two weeks after the official end of World War II (September 2, 1945), the US War Department issued  a directive  (September 15, 1945) to “Erase the Soviet Union off the Map” (66 cities with 204 atomic bombs), when the US and USSR were allies, confirmed by declassified documents. (For further details see Chossudovsky, 2017)

According to a secret (declassified) document dated September 15, 1945, “the Pentagon had envisaged blowing up the Soviet Union  with a coordinated nuclear attack directed against major urban areas.

All major cities of the Soviet Union were included in the list of 66 “strategic” targets. The tables below categorize each city in terms of area in square miles and the corresponding number of atomic bombs required to annihilate and kill the inhabitants of selected urban areas.

Six atomic bombs were to be used to destroy each of the larger cities including Moscow, Leningrad, Tashkent, Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa.

The Pentagon estimated that a total of 204 atomic bombs would be required to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”. The targets for a nuclear attack consisted of sixty-six major cities.

One single atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima resulted in the immediate death of 100,000 people in the first seven seconds. Imagine what would have happened if 204 atomic bombs had been dropped on major cities of the Soviet Union as outlined in a secret U.S. plan formulated during the Second World War.

Hiroshima in the wake of the atomic bomb attack, 6 August 1945

The document outlining this diabolical military agenda had been released in September 1945, barely one month after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (6 and 9 August, 1945) and two years before the onset of the Cold War (1947).

The secret plan dated September 15, 1945 (two weeks after the surrender of Japan on September 2, 1945 aboard the USS Missouri, see image below) , however, had been formulated at an earlier period, namely at the height of World War II,  at a time when America and the Soviet Union were close allies.

The Manhattan project was launched in 1939, two years prior to America’s entry into World War II in December 1941. The Kremlin was fully aware of the secret Manhattan project as early as 1942.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Dress Rehearsal for Planned Nuclear Attack against the Soviet Union

Were the August 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks used by the Pentagon to evaluate the viability of  a much larger attack on the Soviet Union consisting of more than 204 atomic bombs? The key documents to bomb 66 cities of the Soviet Union (15 September 1945) were finalized 5-6 weeks after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (6, 9 August 1945):

“On September 15, 1945 — just under two weeks after the formal surrender of Japan and the end of World War II — Norstad sent a copy of the estimate to General Leslie Groves, still the head of the Manhattan Project, and the guy who, for the short term anyway, would be in charge of producing whatever bombs the USAAF might want. As you might guess, the classification on this document was high: “TOP SECRET LIMITED,” which was about as high as it went during World War II. (Alex Wellerstein, The First Atomic Stockpile Requirements (September 1945)

The Kremlin was aware of the 1945 plan to bomb sixty-six Soviet cities.

The documents confirm that the US was involved in the “planning of genocide” against the Soviet Union. 

Let’s cut to the chase. How many bombs did the USAAF request of the atomic general, when there were maybe one, maybe twobombs worth of fissile material on hand? At a minimum they wanted 123. Ideally, they’d like 466. This is just a little over a month after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Of course, in true bureaucratic fashion, they provided a handy-dandy chart (Alex Wellerstein, op. cit)

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1945-Atomic-Bomb-Production.pdf 

Soviet Cities to be targeted with Atomic Bombs

Map of 66 Soviet Urban Strategic Areas to be Bombed with 206 atomic Bombs (Declassified September 1945)

The Nuclear Arms Race

Central to our understanding of the Cold War which started (officially) in 1947, Washington’s September 1945 plan to bomb 66 cities into smithereens played a key role in triggering the nuclear arms race.

The Soviet Union was threatened and developed its own atomic bomb in 1949 in response to 1942 Soviet intelligence reports on the Manhattan Project.

While the Kremlin knew about these plans to “Wipe out” the USSR, the broader public was not informed because the September 1945 documents were of course classified. They were declassified 30 years later in September 1975

Today, neither the September 1945 plan to blow up the Soviet Union nor the underlying cause of the nuclear arms race are acknowledged. The Western media has largely focussed its attention on the Cold War US-USSR confrontation. The plan to annihilate the Soviet Union dating back to World War II and the infamous Manhattan project are not mentioned.

Washington’s Cold War nuclear plans are invariably presented in response to so-called Soviet threats, when in fact it was the U.S. plan released in September 1945 (formulated at an earlier period at the height of World War II) to wipe out the Soviet which motivated Moscow to develop its nuclear weapons capabilities.

The assessment of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists mistakenly blamed and continue to blame the Soviet Union for having launched the nuclear arms race in 1949, four years after the release of the September 1945 US Secret Plan to target 66 major Soviet cities with 204 nuclear bombs:

“1949: The Soviet Union denies it, but in the fall, President Harry Truman tells the American public that the Soviets tested their first nuclear device, officially starting the arms race. “We do not advise Americans that doomsday is near and that they can expect atomic bombs to start falling on their heads a month or year from now,” the Bulletin explains. “But we think they have reason to be deeply alarmed and to be prepared for grave decisions.” (Timeline of the Doomsday Clock, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 2017)

IMPORTANT: Had the US decided NOT to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclear arms race would not have taken place. 

Neither The Soviet Union nor the People’s Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of “Deterrence” agains the US which had already formulated plans to annihilate the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union lost 26 million people during World War II.

The Cold War Era

The Nuclear Arms Race was the direct result of America’s September 1945 plan to “blow up the Soviet Union”, formulated by the US War Department.

The Soviet Union tested its first nuclear bomb in 1949. Without the Manhattan Project and the War Department’s September 15, 1945 “World War III Blueprint”, the Arms Race would not have occurred.

The September 15, 1945 War Department set the stage for numerous plans to wage World War III against Russia and China:

The Cold War List of 1200 Targeted Cities

This initial 1945 list of sixty-six cities was updated in the course of the Cold War (1956) to include some 1200 cities in the USSR and the Soviet block countries of Eastern Europe (see declassified documents below). The bombs slated for use were more powerful in terms of explosive capacity than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Excerpt from list of 1200 Soviet cities targeted for nuclear attack in alphabetical order. National Security Archive, op. cit.

“According to the 1956 Plan, H-Bombs were to be Used Against Priority “Air Power” Targets in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe. Major Cities in the Soviet Bloc, Including East Berlin, Were High Priorities in “Systematic Destruction” for Atomic Bombings.  (William Burr, U.S. Cold War Nuclear Attack Target List of 1200 Soviet Bloc Cities “From East Germany to China”, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 538, December 2015

Source: National Security Archive

 

Rand Corporation

During the Cold War, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevailed, namely that the use of nuclear weapons would result in “the destruction of both the attacker and the defender”.

In the post Cold war era, US nuclear doctrine was redefined.  “Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”.

Humanitarian Nuclear Warfare under Joe Biden

 US-NATO led military Interventions (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen) which have resulted in millions of civilian casualties are heralded as Humanitarian Wars, as a means to ensuring Peace.

This is also the discourse underlying US-NATO intervention in Ukraine.

“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace” said George W. Bush

“Humanitarian Nuclear Bombs”

This kind of window dressing of “humanitarian nuclear bombs” is not only embedded into Joe Biden’s foreign policy agenda, it constitutes the mainstay of US military doctrine, namely the so-called Nuclear Posture Review, not to mention the 1.2 trillion nuclear weapons program initiated during the Obama administration.

The B61 Mini-nukes Deployed in Western Europe

The latest B61-12 “mini nuke” is slated to be deployed in Western Europe, aimed at Russia and the Middle East (replacing the existing of B61 nuclear bombs).

B-61-12 is portrayed as a “more usable” “low yield” “humanitarian bomb” “‘harmless to civilians”. That’s the ideology. The reality is “Mutual Assured Destruction” (MAD).

The B61-12 has a maximum yield of 50 kilotons which is more than three times that of a Hiroshima bomb (15 kilotons) which resulted in excess of 100,000 deaths in matter of minutes.

If a preemptive attack using a so-called mini nuke were to succeed, targeted against Russia or Iran, this could potentially lead humanity into a WW III scenario. Of course these details are not highlighted in mainstream media reports.

F-15E Eagle Strike Eagle Fighter for the Delivery of the B-61-12 

Low Yield Nukes: Humanitarian Warfare Goes Live

And when the characteristics of this “harmless” low yield nuclear bomb are inserted into the military manuals, “humanitarian warfare” goes live: “It’s low yield and safe for civilians, let’s use it” [paraphrase].

The US arsenal of B61 nuclear bombs directed against the Middle East are currently located in the military bases of 5 non-nuclear states (Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey). The command structure pertaining to the B61-12 is yet to be confirmed. The situation with regard to Turkey’s Incirlik base is unclear.

Upholding WMDs as Instruments of Peace is a Dangerous Gimmick

Throughout History, “Mistakes” have Played a Key Role 

We are at a Dangerous Crossroads. There is no Real Anti-war Movement in Sight.

Why? Because War is Good for Business!

And the powers of Big Money which are behind US-NATO led wars control both the anti-war movement as well as the media coverage of US led wars. That’s nothing new. It goes back to the so-called Soviet-Afghan War (1979-) which was spearheaded by US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. 

Through their “philanthropic” foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Soros et al) the financial elites have over the years channelled millions of dollars into financing so-called “progressive movements” including the World Social Forum (WSF)

It’s Called “Manufactured Dissent”: Big Money is also behind numerous coups d’état and color revolutions.

Meanwhile, important sectors of the Left including committed anti-war activists have endorsed the Covid mandates without verifying or acknowledging the facts and the history of the so-called pandemic.

It should be understood that the lockdown policies as well as the Covid-19 “Killer Vaccine” are an integral part of the financial elite’s “broader arsenal”. They are instruments of submission and tyranny.

The World Economic Forum’s Great Reset is an integral part of  the World War III scenario which consists in establishing through military and non military means an imperial system of  “global governance”.

The same powerful financial interests (Rockefeller, Rothschild, BlackRock, Vanguard, et al) which are supportive of the US-NATO military agenda are firmly behind  the “Covid Pandemic Op”.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Grain Deal Sabotaged To Add Food Crisis To Nuclear Blackmail In Ukrainian Conflict
• Russian Military Wiped Out Ukrainian Sabotage Group Near Zaporozhye Nuclear Plant (Video)
• Evidence that U.S. Intends Blitz-Nuclear Strike at The Kremlin