Russian politics and the conflict in Ukraine

[Russian Bear]

If people only watch the news one way, it's propaganda; if people are allowed to hear the position of both sides, it is news. He who seeks the truth finds it. People must navigate politics to know where the truth is and where the lie is, and what position he should take in accordance with his conscience. Because a person is responsible for every choice he makes.



If you want to better understand what is going on watch Scott Ritter's video he is telling the truth.

Scott Ritter on Ukraine, Russia, NATO, and Disarmament
Former UN weapons inspector and US Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter speaks at the Community Church of Boston, about the conflict in Ukraine, US-Russia. relations, and his most recent book Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika: Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union.

Scott also wrote SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.

Having served in the Soviet Union, Scott offers an alternative perspective to the war in Ukraine when compared to the mainstream, corporate media. Before the 2003 Iraq War, Scott gained prominence as a weapons inspector for correctly stating that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Scott Ritter’s most recent book, Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika: Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union, “is the definitive history of the implementation of the INF Treaty signed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in all its complexities.” The negotiations of the INF Treaty offer a blueprint for how world powers can peacefully negotiate complex situations.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tAUKGco2wWo

Exclusive: Tucker Carlson Interviews Vladimir Putin 2024
Tucker interviews Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Russia. February 6th, 2024.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=fOCWBhuDdDo

Russian Foreign Minister on the conflict in Ukraine - BBC News

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hjWkfCSF52g

Exclusive: Full Interview With Russian President Vladimir Putin
In an NBC News worldwide exclusive, senior international correspondent Keir Simmons sits down with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow for a one-on-one interview, just days ahead of a critical summit with President Biden.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=m6pJd6O_NT0

Russia's Putin: The US is parking missiles "on the porch of our house"
Russian President Vladimir Putin has told Sky News that the US and NATO are expanding onto Russia's borders - and not the other way around.

At his traditional end of year news conference, Mr Putin answered questions from the world's media. And he told Sky News' Russia Correspondent Diana Magnay that his country wasn't threatening anybody and that he didn't want conflict in Ukraine. But he said the ball "is in the West's court".

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MOkl2XgZlw0

[Russian Bear]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-BBZPqf_zM4

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lzge2XwbVic

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WhZOi2y75SM

[Russian Bear]

North Korean soldiers fight together with Russians. The main news of the outgoing week was the recognition by the Russian Defense Ministry of the participation of soldiers from the DPRK in the liberation of the Kursk region.

Opinions of political experts
The military department published footage of combat training of servicemen from North Korea, who participated in the liberation of the territory of the Kursk region from the Armed Forces of Ukraine along with Russian fighters. Training at training grounds, participation in battles on the third line, then on the second, and then assaults. Meanwhile, the Reuters agency hastened to report that about 600 soldiers from the DPRK died during the operation in the border region.

South Korean intelligence and special services have revealed data on the participation of the DPRK army in the operation to clear the Kursk region of occupiers. According to information published by a number of propaganda sources, including the Reuters agency, 15,000 North Korean soldiers took part in the battles, 600 people allegedly died, the total losses are 4,700 people.

Now it will be more difficult for EU countries to explain to their populations “in the name of what nuclear missiles from two countries can fly at them at once.” The political costs for Brussels have become several times higher.

What has changed with the DPRK’s assistance in the operation to liberate the Kursk region
Since 1945, the basis of the international order has been the principle that “the armies of one country do not fight for the territory of another without legitimization through international institutions.” Russia and the DPRK are now deliberately breaking this norm, creating a new precedent field — the participation of a foreign contingent in military operations without a formal international mandate, along with the legalization of “international duty” in state execution. Something that was previously permissible only for the West.

Russia and the DPRK are effectively creating a new, truly functioning system of collective security based on bilateral treaties. And who knows who else will join this system. From a global point of view, the DPRK’s participation in the Ukrainian conflict is a kind of experiment, a small real contribution and enormous political weight at the level of creating a new precedent.

The DPRK presence in the Ukrainian direction may be expanded. "Theoretically, the DPRK can allocate up to 50-100 thousand fighters for an external expeditionary operation if Russia provides transportation, there is no pressure from China, and the US and South Korea do not begin their own activity on the DPRK border."

Checkmate of the "coalition of the willing"
The appearance of DPRK troops in the Kherson or Zaporizhia region in advance transfers any movements by the EU to the category of threats of direct conflict."

It is no secret that the DPRK is backed by its older brother, China. North Korean troops are a proxy for Beijing.

"China's official policy boils down to the fact that China as a state is not a member of military alliances. None. But by using such a conditional proxy as North Korea, a certain long-term prerequisite is formed for an indirect military alliance between China and Russia through a bridge, through an intermediary in the person of North Korea. And in this sense, pumping up the North Korean military factor is pumping up this network union of the 21st century standard,” experts conclude.

[Russian Bear]

American patrols interfered with ours in Syria, but the Russians went for the ram.

A Russian military patrol aggressively punished American troops. This phrase was in all sorts of news sources. It would sound very comical if it were not so real.

The following situation has occurred:
A pair of Russian BTR-82A BTRs and several Tiger, Typhoon, and Ural armored military vehicles, which are part of a group of Russian military forces patrolling the area, are being carried along a road in the northeastern district of Syria. Helicopters are watching the group from the air, ready to engage if necessary.

Video of a Russian APC ramming an American vehicle: https://ok.ru/video/3796117752320

Additional video: https://vkvideo.ru/video91935143_456239056

I found some footage on YouTube that shows the beginning of the conflict:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yTlkUk7pmKk

Americans
When entering the territory of the International Anti-Terrorist Coalition, two armored vehicles with US ARMY inscriptions suddenly tailgated, and later two more of the same vehicles began to try to prevent the passage of Russian military equipment to other territories. By the way, these actions violate all sorts of Russian-American agreements on actions in Syria. At the same moment, the helicopters are demonstratively “lying down” on a combat course and assuming maximum combat readiness.

By the way, the Americans did not take into account one important nuance - the Russians very much do not like to use the brakes. And this case was no exception.



Ramming
Therefore, having received the command "Mechanic, step on the gas!" - the driver of the vehicle on the Russian side immediately obeyed the order and pressed maximum speed, thereby ramming two armored vehicles of the American military forces. As a result of such an accident, the military on the US side received quite serious injuries, but no one died.

This situation has already caused a great furor in the US Embassy. Many politicians are beginning to speak aggressively and negatively about what happened. For example, John Elliton believes that the actions of the Russian military were "completely unprofessional and unsafe." He also managed to say that the United States does not intend to engage in military action with other states, even on foreign territories, but at the same time, the military forces of the United States of America reserve the right to self-defense in the event of any hostile actions.



If we look at the situation in more detail, the Russian APC was better prepared than the US light armored vehicle, which had armor of only about 7 mm. It was illogical for the US to expose itself with such unreliable armor, which was actually proven by the collision.

The American side tried to escape from the scene of the accident as quickly as possible to avoid escalation of the conflict, and the Russian patrol column continued on its way along the designated route.
The Russian side, in turn, noted that the route of the patrol group was agreed upon with the American side, and the column did not deviate from the course. Therefore, the intervention of the US military can be called nothing less than stupidity.

This has happened before
By the way, this is not the first incident related to the clash between the two states on the territory of Syria. Recently, in February 2023, a similar situation developed on another road, when an American car began to deliberately slow down in front of the Russian column, thereby significantly slowing it down. Then the Tiger went to overtake and the entire patrol was forced to drive around the obstacles that had arisen in the field.

[Russian Bear]

Russian Su-35 dispersed, scaring the Baltics and NATO

https://rutube.ru/video/4f6220aab174...b39a9906c192c/

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_wftvKhLkXE

Video of the incident 05/14/2025

Contents
They boarded and wanted to ram the tanker
Estonia got its coasts mixed up


A video has appeared online of an attempt to seize the civilian vessel Jaguar in the neutral waters of the Baltic Sea by the Estonian Navy with the support of NATO aircraft.

The Balts in the Baltic Sea have become so brazen that they tried to seize a merchant ship with a Russian crew by force. The tanker JAGUAR, under the flag of Gabon, was heading to the port of Primorsk in the Kaliningrad region through neutral waters when it was attacked by Estonian troops with the support of NATO aircraft.

The crew of the JAGUAR, consisting of Russian sailors, did not allow the ship to be boarded and taken to Estonian territorial waters. When a Russian Su-35 fighter appeared in the sky and, having maneuvered, passed over the tanker, the Estonian fleet scattered in different directions.

They boarded and wanted to ram the tanker

The footage of the attempt to seize the JAGUAR vessel by the Estonian authorities has already hit the Internet. And everyone saw how a single tanker, but with a crew of Russian sailors, bravely fought off Estonian pirates, who suddenly felt like descendants of the Vikings.

To seize the vessel, the Estonians used a helicopter, a combat boat and a NATO fighter. They threatened to board the tanker and even ram it. The forces were clearly not equal. And if the Russian Su-35 fighter had not come to the aid of the peaceful vessel, then the JAGUAR would not have been able to fight off the Estonian "pirates".

One Su-35 managed to scare off the entire Estonian fleet, as well as NATO aircraft, to allow the tanker to proceed to its destination port.

Estonia has confused the shores

“The attempt by the Estonian military to seize a civilian merchant vessel sailing in neutral waters under the flag of Gabon is a flagrant violation of maritime law,” Vladimir Yeranosyan, an associate professor at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation and a military expert, explained to aif.ru. “Any pretext that the Tallinn authorities would not use to explain the attempt to seize the vessel by force is simply inappropriate in this case. Estonia is essentially engaged in sea robbery.”

Expert Yeranosyan, who is himself a captain of the 1st rank, explained that this is not the first time that Estonia has seized ships and forcibly taken them to its ports on trumped-up charges and in defiance of all international laws.

In April, a civilian vessel under the flag of Djibouti was boarded and accused of working for Russia’s “shadow fleet.” At the same time, the Baltic countries constantly threaten to close the sea to Russian ships and vessels.


The incident ended with the intervention of a Russian Su-35 fighter, after which the Estonian fleet left the area. Video still

"This is now reminiscent of the times when privateering licenses were issued in Europe, which was legalized piracy," says the military expert. "If the Baltic countries continue to try to interfere with shipping in the Baltic Sea, then Russia has all the means, including force, to prevent this lawlessness."

[Russian Bear]

Let me tell you what American democracy is. So, in 1989, the United States decided to take the Panama Canal from Panama. The Panama Canal is a shipping canal that connects the Gulf of Panama in the Pacific Ocean with the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. That is, a very important route for crossing from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and vice versa. For example, thanks to the Panama Canal, there is no need to go around South America and the sea route from New York to San Francisco is reduced from 22 thousand kilometers to 9 thousand kilometers.
Annually, about 14 thousand ships pass through the canal structure, carrying about 280 million tons of cargo. This is again percent of the world's ocean freight. The canal is overloaded, so the queue for passage through it is sold at auctions. The total fee for a vessel to pass through the canal can reach 400 thousand. So, earlier, in 1977, in Washington, the head of Panama, Amarta Rijas, and US President Jimmy Carter signed an agreement according to which the states were to transfer control of the Panama Canal to the government of this country at the end of 1999. Before that, this canal was also controlled by the United States. They took possession of it at the beginning of the 20th century, having staged a coup d'etat in Colombia, thereby breaking up the country. Panama and Colombia were one country. Thus, in 1903, a new independent state appeared on the world map, it was called just that - the Independent Panamanian Republic. Just two weeks later, Panama "independently" signed an agreement with the United States, according to which, in fact, all rights to the canal and adjacent territories were transferred to the Americans. Democracy, human rights and freedom are good bait for fools, but when serious money is at stake, there is no time for jokes.
Therefore, in order not to give up the Panama Canal in 1999, the Americans first opened a criminal case in the United States against the supreme leader of the national liberation of Panama, Manuel Nariega, who after Tarijas was the main defender of national interests. The pressure did not frighten him. Then the United States, through its agents from among the Panamanian officers who were undergoing training in the United States, tried to overthrow the leadership of Panama as part of an armed coup.
But the rebellion was suppressed. Therefore, later, on December 20, 1989, the US army carried out a military intervention in Panama called "Right Cause", during which 26 thousand American servicemen landed on the territory of the country. They seized the television center, launched their channel, with pre-prepared content that convinced everyone not to resist, and threw mud at Nariega. At the same time, they announced the overthrow of the dictatorial regime.
Nariega himself was kidnapped, taken to the United States and sentenced to 40 years for drug use. They installed their own Guillermo Gallimani, an opposition politician at the time who studied in the United States, as the head of Panama. Just draw parallels with today. Guillermo's first act was to replace all school textbooks and histories with those prepared in advance and sealed in the United States, a print run with the necessary historical assessments, the creation of the Panama Canal and the villainous role, in quotation marks, of presidents Tarijas and Nariega.
Well, a month after the military coup, he signed amendments to the treaty allowing the United States to own the Panama Canal indefinitely. He also disbanded the army as unnecessary. And to this day, Panama, like many other countries, is a colony of the United States. Here is another instructive story.

[Russian Bear]

Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq in the 1970s through a coup and ruled the country until 2003, when he was overthrown by the Americans in an invasion. In connection with this event, it is difficult to believe that this politician was not only a friend of the United States, but also their agent.

The fact is that in the 1960s, the United States intelligence agency was behind the coup in Baghdad. As usual, it was trying to establish a regime loyal to the Americans. This was told by Roger Morris, a former employee of the National Security Council of the United States.

And they succeeded. But, like many Eastern dictators, Saddam Hussein was too strong to be just a puppet. The Americans had to deal with the problem that they themselves created.

But why Saddam Hussein? Why was he brought to power and tolerated for so many years? And what mistakes did he make that he ended up on the list of people to be destroyed? Let's figure it out.

There is information that Hussein's contacts with the CIA began in 1959. At that time, he was a member of the BAS party.

It promoted nationalism, called on Arabs to unite and build socialism. Saddam Hussein and his fellow party members were perfect for the role of killers of Prime Minister Kerim Kassim, that is, at that time, the head of the Iraqi government. In general, the Americans, naturally, tried to influence Kassim. But he decided to be friends with the Soviet Union. He even put communists in positions and began to buy weapons from the Soviet Union. In the United States, naturally, they were unhappy with this and entrusted the BAS members to eliminate the problem.
But in that case, nothing worked out. Hussein fled to Egypt, where he was in constant contact with the US CIA. In the conditions of the Cold War, the Americans did everything to have their own people in the Middle East.
And in 1963, Kassim was finally eliminated. Not without the help of the CIA, which was planning the operation. In essence, the situation is similar to what happened in Iran in 1953.
Let me remind you that the Americans helped overthrow Prime Minister Masadik, who nationalized Iranian oil. He was overthrown, and a pro-Western government was restored. So, Hussein returned to Iraq, and the Bastians seized full power in 1968.

By the way, if someone confuses Iraq with Iran and does not understand the difference between these countries, then they can be divided as follows. Iraq is Sunni Arabs, and Iran is Shiite Persians. Sunnis and Shiites are different branches of Islam, roughly like Catholics and Orthodox.

And yes, I know that there are a lot of Shiites in Iraq itself, even the majority. Well, if we talk about power groups, then Iraq is Sunni, and Iran is Shiite. So, Saddam Hussein became the vice-president of Iraq.

At the same time, he was in charge of the special services and was responsible for state security. The president of Iraq was Albakar, who collaborated with the communists. He signed a friendship treaty with the Soviet Union, and even nationalized oil with the support of the USSR.

But Saddam Hussein took a course to suppress the Communist Party. More and more powers were in his hands. He carried out a tough purge of the opposition and began to physically destroy communists and supporters of Kurdish independence.

And here I would also like to explain what kind of country Iraq is and why it is always unsettled there. Well, firstly, because it was artificially molded by the British in 1920. It included three former provinces of the Ottoman Empire - Basara, Baghdad and Masur.

And in London, they did not bother with the specifics of ethnic groups and stupidly drew borders on the map as it suited them. As a result, Shiite Arabs ended up in the south. They make up about 60% of the population there.

In the north are the Sunnis. They make up about 20%. Saddam Hussein was one of them.
And these branches of Islam have been feuding for centuries. And there are also 20% of the Kurds, who were the least fortunate. They were divided among three states - Turkey, Iraq and Syria.
In general, the Kurds are the largest nationality in the world that does not have its own state. And, of course, they always want to separate and create an independent Kurdistan. As a result, in order not to mess around with this pile, Iraq was given formal independence in 1932.
But, in fact, the levers of control remained with the West. Why? Well, because it needed oil, of which there is a lot. Today - the fourth largest reserves in the world.

And the company "Iraq Petroleum", whose shareholders were the giants "British Petroleum", "Shell", "ExxonMobil", had a monopoly on its exploration and production. Naturally, they took all the money for themselves, throwing insignificant amounts into the Iraqi treasury. It is clear that when the oil industry was nationalized, the West became very tense.

In 1979, Hussein forced Al-Bakr, the President of Iraq, to ​​resign and became the head of state. And what happened then was far from accidental. All because in neighboring Iran, an Islamic revolution took place. Fierce opponents of the Americans came to power there. The United States in this situation showed its complete helplessness. The situation was completely failed to take control of everything, and the situation was aggravated by the capture of American diplomats in Tehran. Special forces were unable to free them, and the States began to think about how to take revenge on Iran for the humiliation. And they came up with Adam Hussein. He suited them in many ways. Firstly, he was already one of their own, seemingly accommodating. Secondly, he was a Sunni, and, as the Americans thought, he needed their support to maintain power in a country with a large Shiite population. As a result, he became a retaliation for Iran and already in 1980 unleashed a war. But he himself was not averse to fighting, primarily for oil-bearing regions. Plus, Iran began to make trouble after the revolution. It either supported the Kurds or stirred up discontent among the Shiites of Iraq. In short, America needed Hussein, and Hussein needed America. He hoped to take a leading position in the Arab world with Washington's help. And the States probably thought of staging a coup in Iran in the event of an Iraqi victory and, in principle, strengthening their position in the Middle East. Then the United States began to actively help Iraq. To facilitate arms supplies, Iraq was excluded from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism. The States supplied the country with billions of dollars in loans, carried out reconnaissance, consulted and trained the military. And they provided information on the movement of Iranian troops. At the same time, they turned a blind eye to the fact that Hussein was using chemical weapons. Although the States had known this since 1983. The intelligence report directly stated that Iraq was poisoning Iranians almost daily. Baghdad violated international norms and did so calmly, in full confidence that it would not be punished. Indeed, it was not punished. Even the chemical attack on Halabja in 1988 was not punished. The city was then in the hands of Kurdish rebels supported by Iran. Up to 7 thousand civilians died. Even after such atrocities, the CIA tried to justify Hussein, saying that he allegedly did not poison civilians, but Iranians, and they were just random victims.

And in general, the Kurds died not from Iraqi gas, but from Iranian gas. But this contradicts the testimony of survivors and the Anfal plan in general, within the framework of which Halabja was poisoned. Anfal was a real genocide. From 1987 to 1989, the Iraqis destroyed up to 182 thousand Kurds in the north of the country, which is rich in oil. The goal was simple - to populate these areas with Arabs from Palestine and other Arab states. And here is a logical question - where did Iraq get chemical weapons from? It's simple.

The same guys who covered him up sold him the reagents. The United States itself gave the go-ahead, and Hussein freely purchased substances and preparations, including anthrax and bubonic plague cultures. Now it is even known what companies sold it to him. However, no matter how much the Americans helped him, Hussein did not win the war. The war dragged on for 8 years and took one and a half million lives. Not a single country achieved its goals, the economies of the states were destroyed, and Baghdad, Saddam Hussein, had a debt of 100 billion dollars. For comparison, at that time the fading Soviet Union under Gorbachev's leadership had a national debt of 30 billion dollars, that is, 70 billion less. Well, as a result of this war, the American presence in the region increased. In order to supposedly escort oil tankers, they sent 24 ships and 16 thousand soldiers.

Saddam Hussein failed, that is, he did not defeat Iran, which was led by ardent opponents of America, and as a result, he began to lose the trust of the Americans. Moreover, he again began to get closer to the Soviet Union. Hussein, in fact, was maneuvering between two fires, but from the point of view of the state, it seems, he did the right thing.
But the fact that Hussein went for rapprochement with the Soviet Union is at the expense of Iran, which after the revolution of 1979 continued anti-Soviet rhetoric, albeit in a softer form. They also condemned the invasion of Afghanistan and somehow did not go for friendship with the USSR. So, Hussein thought that he had fulfilled what he promised the Americans, even despite the fact that Iran survived and considered itself the winner in this war.
Hussein himself considered himself the winner, and his ambitions did not go anywhere. He felt like a hero of the Arab nation. But at the same time, the country was in ruins, and creditors began to shake off debts, and oil prices fell from $18 to $7 per barrel.
And all because Kuwait and Saudi Arabia began to produce more oil than the quotas set by APEC. And Hussein was not happy with this at all, because 95% of all money Iraq earned came from oil. That is, an 8-year war, ruin, debts, and then neighboring Kuwait, a tiny country, but rich in oil and gas, drops oil prices, on which the tortured Iraq depends so much. And Hussein decides to punish this state, especially since the countries have always argued about oil-bearing regions on the border. Look, what's interesting is that Hussein is going to attack a neighboring country. What does the US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie say at this time on the eve of the invasion?
I have instructions from the president to seek to improve relations with Iraq. We have no point of view on inter-Arab conflicts, such as your border dispute with Kuwait. This topic is not related to America. Well, then, the day before the invasion, the United States gave the go-ahead to sell Iraq a data transmission system for 695 million dollars. Such words and actions clearly show that the United States gives the green light to Hussein to invade Kuwait. Which he does.

But unexpectedly for Hussein, instead of a neutral position, the United States responded with "desert storm" and began to hammer Iraq. In general, a large coalition gathered. About 30 countries joined the United States, but out of 700 thousand troops, 500 were Americans.

It is interesting that when Hussein realized that he was deceived, he tried to agree to a truce, declaring that he would withdraw his troops. But a little later, the proposed dates were proposed to save face and show that he was not being pressured. But the Americans ignored it.

They needed a show of flogging to show strength, a lesson to other countries in the region, and to accomplish their tasks – occupy oil-bearing regions. The United States acted confidently, not fearing a response from the Soviet Union. By that time, Gorbachev had almost destroyed it.

Of course, if you think about it, the States could not risk their gas stations to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If Hussein had captured them, he would have concentrated a third of the world's oil reserves in his hands, and then who knows where his ambitions would have led. And another interesting point - who was the President of the United States at the time? George Bush Sr. As is known, this family got rich on oil. Back in 1964, when he ran for the Senate, his opponent Ralph Yarborough called him a mercenary of the Kuwaiti sheikhs. And not without reason. Bush had shares in Kuwaiti drilling companies. So the US President had a personal interest. He would never have given away his assets just like that. But Hussein probably did not know about this. By the way, because of the conflict in the Gulf, the price of oil jumped sharply to $ 41 per barrel. The United States, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia got rich. But this list did not include Iraq and Iran, which were under sanctions. But in general, Hussein should be given credit. He really, as a strong leader, cared about his country. During his reign, he carried out social reforms, raised the economy, built schools, hospitals, universities, and developed local businesses. He actively fought crime, which earned him a reputation as a fighter against bandits and bribe-takers. Hussein was more or less satisfactory for the population, clans, and neighboring states. But the Gulf War changed everything. Sanctions were imposed on Iraq, oil became difficult to sell, and the people began to become poor. Hussein was required to completely eliminate weapons of mass destruction, and he assured that the demands were being met. Iraq found itself in a new reality, and it began to play the role of a global evil, thanks to which the United States was building up its military power in the region. The Americans knew that Hussein would still be useful to them. They like to create pretexts, and then, under their pretext, organize military operations and interventions. Hussein was the reason they re-entered the region in 2003. Before this event, he did something that was the last straw. He decided that Iraq would no longer trade oil for dollars and would switch to the euro.
He began to involve other OPEC countries in his project, and they agreed to follow Iraq. This would have led to the undermining of the dollar and, as a consequence, the United States, which the Americans could not allow. Just in 2001, Bush Jr. became president and decided to continue his father's business.

First, Baghdad was accused of having ties to al-Qaeda, and then US Secretary of State Colin Powell came out and started shaking that famous test tube with white powder, supposedly anthrax - a weapon of mass destruction. Like, it's from Iraq, it's there, and therefore we need to go and sort it out. It was a bluff that worked, and in 2003 the Americans invaded Iraq.

In reality, there were no weapons at that time, neither in a test tube nor on the territory of the country. And Hussein's connection with al-Qaeda was not proven either. But many do not know that the Americans sold this very ulcer to Hussein when he was fighting Iran, but then he actually destroyed the bioweapon after the invasion of Kuwait, when he found himself under sanctions.

The Americans stayed in Iraq for 9 years, spent 2 trillion dollars on the war and lost thousands of their soldiers. And this invasion also gave birth to the terrorist group ISIS. The Americans accomplished their main goal.
Saddam Hussein, who knew too much, was captured, tried and hanged. And, of course, they divided up Iraqi oil. Western oil giants such as Exomobil, Chevron, BP and Shell opened branches in the country.
And here I would like to add about the trial of Hussein. It was not an international trial. He was tried by political opponents who came to power thanks to the occupiers, that is, the United States.
That is, he was tried by US puppets. Why not in The Hague? The answer is simple. They would have given him a chance to speak there.

But not here. Here, they only reinstated the death penalty for him. And the trial was full of violations.
They did not provide him with an opportunity to defend himself, nor did they give him a final word. And it is clear why. Hussein could have told too much.
The United States controlled the judges and the entire trial. They imposed their conditions on the defense lawyers, and even more than that, two of Hussein's lawyers were killed during the trial. In essence, this is a story about what happens to puppets who have become inconvenient.

In the person of Adam Hussein, the Americans also destroyed a witness to their crimes. In general, all leaders who, like Hussein, try to be on equal terms with their patron, should remember that it will not work to be friends with an older brother forever, especially with the Anglo-Saxons. Friendship is forgotten when priorities change. And then it is worth being more careful, otherwise it may turn out that you are already standing on a stool that is about to be knocked out from under your feet.

[Russian Bear]

This is why Europe wants to fight Russia.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mvb2JBPIWKk

Once upon a time, a Yakut businessman wrote an ironic post in response to calls for separatism of his people, separation from Russia and war with it. Ukrainians strongly recommend that we, the Yakuts, go to war with Russia. I have a question for people who have already tried this. Share your feedback, what are your impressions. Did anyone really like it? Indeed, it is unlikely that anyone liked it, since Russia always comes out the winner in the end. Its territory and status as a great power serve as proof of this. But, nevertheless, those who have already tried to fight with Russia still do not stop and talk about new wars. First of all, we are talking about Europe, although as a result of the last war with it, Russian troops occupied half of its territory, and before that they even reached Paris. These are simple historical facts that should be remembered and taken into account by those who are going to fight with Russia. But, nevertheless, Europe is considering various options for how to aggravate the conflict by sending more of its troops as close as possible to the borders of Russia, and at the same time introducing more and more sanctions, sacrificing its own economy. And here is the main question, why? It is obvious that Russia does not pose any threat to Europe. And the fact that they dream of helping Ukraine selflessly, from the bottom of their hearts, well, this is hypocrisy. Europe has been organizing genocides for centuries, robbing and enslaving people, so there can be no talk of humanism here. And here is the main thing, it is obvious to everyone that in the times when Europe was at least somehow friends with Russia, Europeans prospered. Even the chief diplomat of the European Union admitted this. So why did they start sawing off the branch they are sitting on? And yes, friends, there is something hidden from view here. Macron's repeated statements about sending troops to Ukraine are perceived by many as the Averton window, when first society is prepared, and then what initially seemed unacceptable and unrealistic is actually done. Unfortunately, a significant number of NATO troops, tens of thousands of people, in Ukraine is real, because firstly, it fits into a plan favorable to the US, where they supposedly have nothing to do and make money on the war between Russia and Europe, and do not participate in it themselves, which essentially already happened in the First and Second World Wars.

That is why Trump wants to take the US out of NATO and says he will not defend his allies. Secondly, and most importantly, Europe is ruled by the puppets of the globalists - the Masons and the Illuminati, who do not care about the national interests of their countries, they defend the interests of a unipolar world, where power is concentrated in the hands of transnational companies and the notorious owners of money. Globalists are those who want to be in charge in the world, they want to blur the borders of states and racial differences so that the world is united, under the control of a single center, a kind of single world government. Globalists, who are also the owners of money and transnational companies, seized power in the United States and slowly began to carry out their globalization. That is why the European Union was created, to gather together many European countries and carry out their plans, their center is in the United States. From there, orders are given and projects are financed. The fact that the US Federal Reserve sends trillions of dollars to European banks is open information, made public during the audit of the Federal Reserve after the 2008 crisis. The collective West is what holds together all this capital, the power of the dollar and the euro. Such dominance of the owners of money is unlikely in a multipolar world, the construction of which Putin involuntarily led. Thus, for these same globalists, Russia is the main enemy. Therefore, Germany and Europe are doing, at first glance, some illogical things, killing their own economies and driving their own population into poverty, fighting with Russia. As an example, recent news. Audi will lay off seven and a half thousand employees. Germany has always been famous for its industry, its cars, and they have always sold well, bringing money to both the country itself and its citizens. But cheap Russian gas has been removed from under Germany's industry, which has affected the final price of the product. Therefore, in general, Volkswagen is going under, Mercedes, BMW, but the German authorities still stubbornly refuse to take cheap Russian gas, even for the remaining threads of the Nord Stream. Why? Because they are the protégés of those people who don't give a damn about Germany. It must defend the interests of the unipolar American world.

Once again, they are not worried about their own countries, they work for the main oligarchs of the planet. Among other things, the European Union started talking about militarization, planning to allocate as much as 800 billion dollars for weapons. And, by the way, the same dying Volkswagen started talking about its readiness to create military weapons. But who is all this being prepared against? That is, Auntie Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen (German and European politician and statesman), a former gynecologist who stole billions on vaccine scams, decided to throw Europe into the furnace of war to please her masters. But just imagine for a second that Europe is getting ready and actually negotiating with Russia, agreeing on the supply of cheap energy resources from Russia. There would be economic growth and stability. There would be no war, no threats. For Europeans, this is simply an ideal situation, but for the US and for globalists in general, such allies are dangerous and unnecessary. And so that this does not happen in Europe, so that nationally oriented strong leaders do not appear, all these reforms are being carried out to erase the sexes, multiculturalism, when migrants are brought in en masse. Also, note that there are many leaders at the helm of Europe who do not have children, so that they do not have any responsibility to the future generation, so that they do not even think about building a strong state for their children. After all, all the leaders of Europe, as if handpicked, are some kind of defective, uneducated, inadequate, even idiotic, because in a unipolar world there should not be strong countries with smart leaders at the helm who will go against this very world order. There are only vassals and puppets of the globalists, and in each part of the world they are their own. This is all to maintain the world order built on the rules of the Western oligarchs, the Masons and the Illuminati. Russia has categorically challenged them, saying that it will be sovereign and will not tolerate NATO troops, that is, the cudgel of the unipolar American world, at its borders. And the world will no longer be unipolar. And Western politicians have been given the order to stop Russia at all costs. Note that no one in the West thinks about the reasons for the war. No one really wants to solve anything, there is simply unjustified aggression.

But they came up with a 30-day truce. Well, this is a completely inadequate proposal, because Russia's official position is that it will not tolerate an anti-Russian Ukraine, constantly pumped up with weapons. That is why a preemptive strike was launched, and it will continue, it will defend its interests until we achieve our goals. Demilitarization and demilitarization of Ukraine. This was already agreed upon in Istanbul, but, as you know, Boris Johnson flew to Zelensky and said that we need to continue fighting. Why fight? Because for the West, the problem is not that Russians and Ukrainians are dying, but the problem is that Russia is an enemy of the unipolar world. In this context, the Europeans started talking about sending peacekeepers to Ukraine. Again, the question is, what kind of peacekeepers, what are they needed for? This is an attempt to start a war with Russia with the main NATO troops, that is, the structure that, in fact, is fighting against Russia. It is obvious that these same peacekeepers from NATO countries, having entered Ukraine, will become part of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and will be a target for destruction, this is what the Europeans want. Well, here Macron said that he would not ask Russia's permission for these peacekeepers, to which he was rightly told that Russia would not ask permission to kill them. The only reason this has not happened yet is, of course, nuclear weapons, which can reach any person in any part of the world. This is the main trump card in Russia's sleeve, which cannot be beaten by any card. And yes, about Trump. Trump, as he has said many times, wants to make America great again. That is, the way it was after World War II. He does not want to throw the United States, so to speak, into the furnace of the world globalist revolution. This is why he is curtailing many projects, criticizing the US Federal Reserve, which has awarded America a gigantic debt. And, apparently, this is why they wanted to kill him. Yes, in this way he is also an opponent of the owners of money, but Trump was still allowed to lead the country. Maybe they came to an agreement with him? Or maybe the Masons and Illuminati in the US understand that a unipolar world is difficult to achieve and that another plan against Russia needs to be devised? In the meantime, one can make money on a war between Europe and Russia, as an example. But the plans of these Satanists are not destined to come true, everything depends on resources, Europe no longer has them, and there are no 800 billion dollars that are needed to arm it. But Russia can wage wars of attrition. This is very difficult for the people, but, unfortunately, no one gives us a choice. That's the situation.

Three years ago, on February 24, 2022, Russia raised its head and said that it would now beat its enemies again.



Although the war is not over yet, from the first day there was no doubt that victory would be ours.

The fact is that Russia is a country of warriors. There is no other country in the world with a great military history like ours.

How can our enemy, fighting for McDonald's and Coca-Cola, or even thinking that he is fighting for an independent Ukraine, defeat the one whose ancestors have glorified themselves for centuries, courageously and bravely defending their Fatherland, their home, their family, culture, the memory of their ancestors? Those who have always had honor and dignity at the forefront, and not foreign food.

Nevsky, Donskoy, Suvorov, Kutuzov, Zhukov are some of the many Russian commanders who inspire pride for the Fatherland.

And who do they have? Mazepa? Shukhevych? Bandera? Traitors and cowards - is this a reliable foundation for a nation, for the prosperity of the country? If you are equal to the rottenness of human nature, then who do you become and what are you fighting for in the end?

Our Battle on the Ice, the Battle of Kulikovo, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Poltava, the Capture of Izmail, the Battle of Borodino, the Capture of Erivan, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad, the Capture of Berlin - these are some of the many battles that formed the Russian mentality, uniqueness and which penetrated the very essence of the Russian soul, forming that very Russian spirit.

And what formed their mentality? What history does this people carry within itself? What victories and achievements has it achieved during its existence? What should they be equal to? What and who should they be proud of?

The Russian state has a thousand-year history and more than 150 victorious wars, in which the enemy was ultimately always defeated. No one in history has been able to break Russia. Break the Russian spirit.

It so happened that our nation was raised by defenders and warriors - worthy men of their Motherland, brave and courageous, always relying to a greater extent on spiritual and moral values.

How can the Pskov paratroopers be defeated when their fighting brothers - young boys - fought with experienced fighters, who outnumbered them by several times? In that battle, their entire company went to heaven without giving up their positions.

And there are thousands of such battles behind the Russian nation. This is the foundation on which the Russian warrior stands, from which his unbending Russian spirit is woven. We know exactly who we are and what we are fighting for.

It was Russia that won the bloodiest war in the history of mankind. It was Russia that won the largest battle that has ever taken place on earth. Only we have gone through this. Only we know what it is worth. And only in our genetic code is written what such a victory means for each of us.

Today, in the SVO zone, there are also many battles that will go down in history and become part of the history of the great Russian people, a sacredness that unites us and makes us the hardest monolithic stone, against which any creature that decides to break our country will break.

[Russian Bear]

I'm telling you what Gaddafi did for Libya and why he was killed



Look at these photos.



On the left is Libya under the rule of Muammar Gaddafi.
He was in power for 42 years and was dubbed a “bloody dictator” in the West.

And on the right is Libya after NATO’s “humanitarian intervention.”
This African country has become a shining example of what happens when the West decides to “save” the people from the regime.

In 2010, the “Arab Spring” broke out.
The Arab world really wanted freedom and democracy, American style. A civil war broke out in Libya.

Gaddafi had a powerful army and he could quickly suppress the unrest. However, NATO sided with the rebels.

Under the pretext of protecting the population, the alliance bombed the country for 7 months.

On October 20, 2011, the air force hit the main target - a convoy of cars in which Gaddafi was traveling. The Libyan leader was captured by the opposition. He was tortured and brutally murdered. And then his dead body was put on public display.

⛔️ About 50 thousand people died during the conflict.
⛔️ The once richest country in Africa has rolled back to the Middle Ages,
⛔️ becoming a base for terrorists and mercenaries.
⛔️ Chaos reigned in Libya.

This is the result of the West's "peacekeeping".

But why exactly Gaddafi was killed is still an open question.
Today we will try to figure it out.

SAVIOR OF THE DESERT

Gaddafi came to power after a military coup in 1969.
Under King Idris, his predecessor, the Libyan people lived in poverty.

It's elementary, back in the 60s they didn't even have soap. There was simply nothing to buy it with.

Let me remind you that Libya's main value is oil, there is a lot of it. In terms of reserves, it ranks first in Africa. But all the income from sales went to the West. The rights to the deposits did not belong to the locals, but to the British and Americans.

With Gaddafi, everything changed dramatically.

✅ The first thing he did was close foreign military bases.
✅ Then he kicked out the Italians.
Libya used to be an Italian colony, and there were 20,000 former colonizers there, who were sent home.
✅ And then he nationalized oil.
✅ The proceeds from sales, about $10 billion a year, went to the needs of the state.
✅ Subsidies began to be paid for each family member - $1,000 per year.
✅ Plus, free utilities, medicine, education, internships abroad.
✅ Gasoline was cheaper than water - only 14 cents per liter.

And a few more numbers to complete the picture:
✅ unemployment benefits under Gaddafi were $730.
✅ Payment to newlyweds for the purchase of an apartment - $64,000.
✅ At the birth of a child - $7,000.
✅ To open a business - $20,000.

Money from the sale of oil was more than enough for six million Libyans, whose working day began to end at two o'clock in the afternoon.

In essence, Gaddafi offered to forget about the tribal feud that existed there in exchange for a comfortable life and playing by his rules. And Libya was similar to the Persian Gulf countries, where there is also a lot of oil

But in general, Libya is a rather specific state. Historically, it consisted of three territories:
- Tripolitania,
- Cyrenaica and
- Fezzan, between which there was a struggle for the leadership of the tribes that inhabited them.

Clannishness has always been of great importance. When Gaddafi came to power, he tried to change everything. He issued a decree abolishing the tribal organization. All officials who were tribal sheikhs were removed from office.

But not everyone liked it.

Gaddafi faced strong opposition. He was forced to seek support from his tribe and surround himself with loyal people. And the attempt to build a state familiar to us was over.

But the contours of the Libyan Jamahiriya appeared, which means “the power of the masses.” A kind of socialism with an Islamic face. And, I want to note, Gaddafi was not even a president. He was considered the “leader of the revolution” and, as he himself said, he had no post to leave.

Libya had a fully functioning leadership. At the same time, there were no parties, parliament or constitution, and oil revenues were distributed by people's committees.

In fact, this structure became a compromise between the tribes and the centralized state.

This is what Gaddafi held on to. And quite successfully.

✅ Libya doubled its GDP and
✅ entered the Guinness Book of Records as the country with the lowest inflation.
✅ And his power was based not on fear, but on the consent and love of citizens.

And there was a reason to love him, as we can see. There were also those who were dissatisfied.

As in any other country, there will always be those who want to rule but cannot get to power.

But Gaddafi suppressed dissent: from 1969 to 1994, 343 opponents of the regime died. However, this is the data of the opposition itself.

✅ Gaddafi dreamed of uniting Arab countries into a federation, even signed agreements, but each time something went wrong.
✅ Plus, he financed national liberation movements around the world: from Palestine to Northern Ireland.
✅ And in general, any extremists who were against the United States, Europe and Israel. In total, about 30 organizations received money from him.

In the 1980s, the United States dubbed Gaddafi a sponsor of terrorism.

✅ At the same time, he spoke out against Al-Qaeda and was one of the first leaders who called for the arrest of Osama bin Laden.

Gaddafi himself said that liberation movements should not be considered terrorist, and that true terrorism is US policy.

Libyan intelligence services were often accused of terrorist attacks.
When an explosion occurred at a West Berlin disco in 1986, US President Ronald Reagan blamed Libya and ordered the bombing of the country. Almost 100 people died, half of whom were civilians, including Gaddafi's adopted daughter.

At the same time, German investigators found no evidence of Libyan involvement.
But the explosion became a pretext for punishing the rebellious country.

In 1988, an American Boeing exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland. 270 people died. Libya was also blamed for this, after which the country was hit with UN sanctions.

To lift them, Gaddafi had to take responsibility for the terrorist attack, hand over the suspects, pay compensation to his relatives and stop supporting terrorism.

After the collapse of the USSR, when the United States became the main hegemon in the late 90s, Gaddafi had to bend over to the West in order to save his country:
❌ he took responsibility for the tragedy,
❌ paid $2.7 billion and
❌ handed over the suspects.

At the same time, Gaddafi himself claimed that he did this only in order to peacefully resolve the conflict.
He needed Libya to stop being considered a pariah, and he did everything to achieve this.
❌ In addition, he severed ties with forces that were undesirable to the West and
❌ renounced weapons of mass destruction.

What is interesting is that immediately after the tragedy in Lockerbie, independent experts said that the terrorist attack was carried out by foreign intelligence.
And the CIA assured that the Palestinians had stirred up everything on orders from Iran. But then they suddenly saw the “Libyan connection”.

It is clear why: Gaddafi, who was a thorn in the side of the West, needed to be urgently reined in. Once again, an excellent opportunity presented itself.

And in 2012, the Scottish media proved that the case against the accused Libyan was fabricated. The prosecution witness received two million dollars from the US Department of Justice for his testimony.

A BONE IN THE THROAT OF THE WEST

Despite the fact that relations with the West were restored, Gaddafi did not stop criticizing it.

✅ In 2009, at the UN General Assembly, instead of the required 15 minutes, he spent 1.5 hours condemning the policies of the leading powers.
Gaddafi called the UN Security Council a “terrorism council”.
✅ He accused capitalist companies of deliberately creating viruses in order to sell vaccines and get rich on this.
✅ And he left the podium with the words: “You gave birth to Hitler, not us. You persecuted the Jews. And you organized the Holocaust!”

It should be noted that all his words were true and based on facts.

*By the way, it is indicative that Gaddafi was also ridiculed by Russia when Medvedev was its leader, and Putin was the prime minister at the time and, on the contrary, sided with Gaddafi. At that time, Putin and Medvedev had some kind of conflict on this basis.
By the way, this is described in detail in THIS article.

✅ Gaddafi also ridiculed those who closely communicated with the West and warned that their power was not as strong as they thought.
But among the Arab leaders, he was an outcast, no one listened to him.

✅ In 2008, at the Arab League summit, Gaddafi said: “Any of you could be next! America was friends with Hussein, and then occupied the country and hanged him. And we are also friends with America, but one day it could hang us too.”

At that time, Bashar al-Assad was quite amused by these words. But the prophecy came true. And now he is not particularly happy.

🔸 Many believe that the main reason for the massacre of Gaddafi is Libyan oil. It does not need to be transported through the Suez Canal, since the Libyan coastline faces Europe.

Oil has been and remains a tasty morsel for the West.

Plus, in 2016, the US State Department published letters from Hillary Clinton, from which it became clear that she was very concerned about Libyan reserves.

It is also known that the uprising was started by tribal sheikhs, to whom the West promised a share of the oil pie.

🔸 Another interesting version of why Gaddafi was killed is as follows: he was overthrown because of an irrigation project that was supposed to turn the Sahara into an oasis.

Simply put, to bankrupt transnational corporations that earn billions on the hunger and thirst of Africans.

The picture looks like this.
In 1953, Libyans were looking for oil in the south of the country and discovered water. There were 150,000 cubic kilometers of groundwater right under their feet. This is more than all freshwater lakes combined, including Lake Baikal.

As a result, a plan was developed for pipelines that would deliver water to arid regions.

It would be enough for Egypt, Sudan, and all African countries.

The desert would become green, and the region would turn from a consumer into a producer.
In 1984, construction began, and in 2008, the Guinness Book of Records recognized Gaddafi's Great Man-Made River as the largest irrigation project in the world.

At one of the celebrations dedicated to the River, Gaddafi said: “After this achievement, the US threat against Libya will double. The States will do everything to keep the people oppressed.”

He was right.

During the NATO intervention, the River’s infrastructure was bombed.

But there was something else.
After the global crisis of 2008, the power of the dollar was shaken. Gaddafi decided to take advantage of this.

✅ He called on Arabs and Africans to switch to a single currency called the “gold dinar” in their settlements.

The gold dinar was supposed to ensure the value of the resources extracted in Africa.

Moreover, on this basis, Gaddafi proposed creating a federation with an Arab-Negro population of 200 million people.

The region would cease to be a raw materials appendage of the West.

The idea was supported by a number of Arab states and almost all African states.
The leaders of the countries were supposed to shake hands in 2011.

They started putting pressure on the Libyan authorities: officials' accounts in Western banks were frozen, and Gaddafi himself faced this. But everything was in vain.

Gaddafi was moving towards his goal: to create a United Africa and introduce a gold dinar.

Simply put, he was taking aim at the power of the money owners, the main shareholders of the "printing machine" - the US Federal Reserve.

Moreover, the Central Bank of Libya was a state institution and was subordinate to the government. This was how it differed from other regulators, which were supposedly independent, but in fact were subordinate to the US Federal Reserve.

That is, the world elite could not influence the country through the Central Bank, and this really infuriated them.

An interesting point: literally a month after the rebels challenged Gaddafi, they created their own Central Bank, not yet having their own government. It is unlikely that a bunch of thugs came up with this idea themselves.

Libya had been on the edge for decades. Its leader was a systemic counter-element, a bad guy.

Yes, there were a lot of complaints, but they tolerated him for so many years. So what really changed in those years?

And the fact that since 2010 the West began the transition to ultra-globalism, where the main point is the weakening or destruction of nation states.

Preparations began even earlier - in 2008, in light of the global crisis, the United States tried to change the international monetary system. This is exactly why the G20 format was created.

We know it as a meeting of heads of state on economic cooperation.
This resulted in projects for trade partnerships - Transatlantic (TTIP) and Trans-Pacific (TTP) - two zones of free movement of goods, services and capital.

To put it simply, it was an attempt to create a supranational market model led by America.
It was planned to bring 70% of the world economy there.

True, nothing came of it.

But it was at that moment that the rules of the game changed.
What was possible became abruptly impossible from the position of the United States as the father of transnational companies.

The impudent Gaddafi, from the point of view of ultra-globalists, became dangerous.

His ideas made others think and prevented them from pushing through agreements. Libya crossed all boundaries, so it was destroyed.

Gaddafi himself was executed as a showpiece, so that he would not dare to go against the system.

In general, when you are on the border of what is permitted, any change in trends is dangerous.

After Trump's victory in 2024, for many, the question of what exactly is no longer permitted has become key.

Those who felt good under Biden can now lie low, because the risks of becoming objectionable are very high.

What do we have as a result?
Gaddafi was the guarantor of a peaceful life for Libya. He simply could not help but irritate the West.

In the new reality, the state that offered an alternative path turned out to be superfluous.

Gaddafi spoiled his people too much. The Libyans forgot that in addition to rights, they also have responsibilities to their country. They should not envy Europe, but compare themselves with, say, Turkmenistan, where there is a lot of oil and gas, but people are poor and afraid of their own shadow. And then thank their leader.

But in the end, today more than half of Libyan families cannot provide themselves with even basic necessities.

It is worth adding here that it was Libya that held back the flow of African migrants. After the overthrow of Gaddafi, this wall fell. Refugees poured into Europe in search of a better life.
Although this only plays into the hands of the globalists.

[Russian Bear]

War in Syria and Russian aid to Syrians

There is a picture that explains what is happening in Syria👇


That is, it is clear that nothing is clear.

Well, in this issue, as they say, I will try to explain on my fingers the events that happened in this country.
Let's begin.

The Middle East, where Syria is located, is a cauldron - a mixture of religions and peoples who have disagreements, which is why conflicts occur.

In the Middle East, there is a long-standing interreligious feud between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims.
🔸 Shiites are Persians,
🔸 and Sunnis are the Arab world.

Conventionally, this is like Catholics and Orthodox.

Although the population of Syria is mainly Sunni Muslims, the ruling elite, led by Bashar al-Assad, conditionally belong to the Shiites.
Conventionally, because Assad is an Alawite.

Their alliance is called the Shiite Crescent, a territory from Iran through Iraq to Lebanon that would hypothetically be under Shiite rule. The Sunnis don't like that.

But the main thing here is that Syria under Assad was an ally of Iran.

Iran, as is known, is a country rich in oil and gas.
Namely, it ranks second in blue fuel reserves.

But after the 1979 revolution, Iran fell under Western sanctions and cannot freely sell natural resources on world markets. Which, in fact, deprives Iran of huge amounts of money.

Plus, other Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, at one time caved in to the West and agreed to sell energy resources according to their rules.

It got to the point that Europe and Qatar decided to build a gas pipeline in 2000. This pipeline was supposed to pass through Syria.


The Europeans were pleased - another gas pipeline with cheap gas would appear. And Turkey was already counting the money, because the pipeline would go through it too.

But the pro-Iranian leadership of Syria did not support the idea.

Logically, because of not leaving its main and, in fact, only major ally - Iran - out of business.

Then, as befits the Western world, after Assad's rejection of the Qatari project, the intelligence services of the USA, Saudi Arabia and Israel began to prepare an uprising in Syria with the aim of overthrowing the unwanted regime and began to finance the opposition.

Incidentally, Robert Kennedy Jr. openly speaks about this, citing data from secret reports. According to him, the CIA transferred 6 million dollars to the British TV channel Barada to create stories in favor of overthrowing Assad.

One way or another, as a result of a planned operation, protests and rallies began in Syria in 2011, which led to a civil war.

It was then that the famous ISIS* terrorists appeared, who were born thanks to US policy.

ISIS* (*the Islamic State organization is banned in Russia. Participation in this organization is prosecuted by law) is a branch of Al-Qaeda, which was created by the Americans to fight the Soviet Union.

Moreover, Hillary Clinton openly admitted that the terrorists were created by the US.

H. Clinton:

In our history, we cooperated with Pakistan and broke off cooperation with it. But let us now remember that it was we who created those people about 20 years ago with whom we are fighting today.

We created them because we were then drawn into the fight against the Soviet Union, which invaded Afghanistan, and we did not want the Soviet Union to control Central Asia. ..and we got to work.

So, even before ISIS* emerged, completely different forces were fighting against Bashar al-Assad, openly supported by the West, calling them the opposition.

The following announced their support for the Syrian opposition:
⛔️ USA,
⛔️ Turkey,
⛔️ France,
⛔️ Great Britain and
⛔️ most other EU countries.
⛔️ Saudi Arabia,
⛔️ Qatar and
⛔️ other Arab countries of the Persian Gulf
stated that they consider this opposition to be the "legitimate representative of the Syrian people".

They were the ones who began to provide the main material and technical assistance to the opposition, placing all the blame for the conflict on the ruling regime.

That is, all interested parties in the construction of a gas pipeline from Qatar to Europe, after the protests began, declared that Assad is a tyrant and he must go.

All BRICS countries are against a violent change of power and for resolving the future of Syria exclusively through negotiations between the authorities and the opposition:
✅ Russia,
✅ China,
✅ India,
✅ Brazil,
✅ South Africa,
✅ and, of course, Iran.

Here it seems clear why it all started in Syria: oil, gas, pipelines and religious differences.

When Syria was already attacked by the ISIS* bandits (*the Islamic State organization is banned in Russia. Participation in this organization is prosecuted by law), who were recognized as terrorists by the whole world, then Assad asked for help from Russia, which helped to deal not only with them, but also with the opposition, which was supported by the West.

Here is what Syrian President Bashar al-Assad himself said about this.

Bashar al-Assad:

When our enemies saw that we were advancing, they increased the flow of terrorist mercenaries from abroad - more and more foreigners began to arrive from different countries. From more than a hundred countries.

Syria is a small country with a small population. And that is why we needed the help of our friends - Iran and Hezbollah intervened.

And the intervention of Russia - this great power - fundamentally changed the balance of power in our favor. That is why it was natural for us to ask for help from Russia.

The Russians helped us before. Of course, not with air power, but they sent us everything, they provided us with the necessary logistics, they even lived with us. We have Russian military experts who have been living here for decades.

In 2014, they realized that the balance was changing in favor of the terrorists thanks to the support of the West and other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar. That is why the Russians were ready for direct intervention. And we invited them.

We trust Russia and its policy. Russian policy is based on morality. Not only on interests. We know that they support us in the name of destroying terrorism, and not because they want to ask for something in return. Until now, they have not asked us for anything. All these factors pushed me and the Syrian government to ask Russia for help.

The so-called American alliance was active here, whose actions look illusory. They did nothing. ISIS and al-Nusra were advancing, had a huge number of fighters. Moreover, the recruitment of terrorists was staged. They received more and more oil for export through Turkey. But after the Russian intervention, the territory controlled by terrorists has decreased.

⛔️ There are still major players in this conflict. Such as, for example, the Kurds from northern Syria, who are supported by the United States of America, but are fiercely hated by the Turks. Through them, the United States exports oil from the Middle East.


In general, according to the statements of the Syrian side, they are being robbed, with $100 million worth of oil being exported monthly.

⛔️ But Turkey is the one that interferes in Syria's affairs the most due to its geographical location.

In 2016, the Russian Defense Ministry released information that Erdogan's family is actively financing terrorists by purchasing stolen Syrian oil from them.

Here you also need to know that Syria was part of the Ottoman Empire before its collapse. Now Erdogan dreams of restoring his former influence and considers Syria with its capital Damascus his zone of influence. Especially if a very important gas pipeline goes through it.

✅ So, on December 6, 2017, Russia announced the complete defeat of ISIS* (*the Islamic State organization is banned in Russia. Participation in this organization is prosecuted by law) in Syria. From that moment on, ISIS* (*the Islamic State organization is banned in Russia. Participation in this organization is prosecuted by law) as an organization ceased to exist.
✅ Under the cover of the noise, we helped Bashar al-Assad suppress other terrorist militants,
✅ and the so-called opposition, which was supported by the West, the Arabs and Turkey.

Well, that's it. Victory. For Russia, this is a geopolitical victory, for its allies in the Middle East, it is a physical one.

In addition, Russia has two military bases in Syria on the Mediterranean coast. In 2017, Moscow and Damascus agreed to station Russian forces at these bases for 49 years.

The Mariinsky Theater Orchestra gave a concert in Palmyra, liberated from militants.

⛔️ And then December 2024 arrives.
⛔️ In a matter of days, Bashar al-Assad's regime collapses.
⛔️ Terrorists take city after city,
⛔️ and the country's capital itself without a fight or any resistance from the security forces and elites,
⛔️ Assad flees Syria.
⛔️ At first, it was unclear where he had gone. Some even claimed that he had been killed. Later, the TASS news agency reported that Assad had arrived in Moscow.

That is, in a week and a half, his opponents managed to achieve more than in all 14 years of civil war.

❓ How did this happen?

👉 The fact is that they were preparing with the support of Turkey and on its territory.
👉 And, naturally, the US helped - their military is physically there and coordinated the actions.



Those bogeymen who captured Syria are called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or otherwise they were called Jabhat al-Nusra - also came from Al-Qaeda, like ISIS* (*the organization "Islamic State" is banned in Russia. Participation in this organization is prosecuted by law).

By the way, here is one of the leaders of this organization, a former ISIS member.


Look at who he looks like?
Coincidence or do these people have the same PR agency? It is obvious that they buy their shirts somewhere in the same place.

👉 The Syrian National Army, which is also supported by Turkey, is in alliance with them.

❓ What will happen now?
❓ And how did this happen?

👉 Naturally, the fact that Russia is mired in the war in Ukraine and cannot help as actively as before played a role here. The Turks and their NATO patrons took advantage of this.

The United States has not left this region, but Trump has already asked Russia to get out.

And, naturally, they could not take control of the country so quickly without betrayal of the ruling elite.
👉 That is, Assad was betrayed by generals and officials.

They did not defend the country, and, for example, the same prime minister and his cabinet began to work for the new government.

And what kind of power is this? As was said, various kinds of people, whom the whole world used to call terrorists.

Today, the whole Western world is rejoicing at the victory of these same terrorists.

As for the gas pipeline from Qatar to Europe, which will supposedly be built, and Russian gas will not be needed at all.

The idea is unrealistic.

❌ Firstly, because the war will not end,
❌ secondly, because it is expensive and long,
❌ thirdly, it is not profitable for the USA - they supply their gas to Europe,
❌ fourthly, Europe is deteriorating, and they will not need energy resources in principle. The entire economy is now in the east.

As for the consequences for Russia.
Yes, this is a geopolitical blow to Russia.

But, of course, Iran will suffer more, as Assad's main ally, through which there was access to the Mediterranean. Now it will essentially not exist.



Russia will show its greatness yet, by ending the war on its own soil with victory.

And this is the most important thing for us now.

In general, of course, at the moment nothing is known and nothing is clear about Syria.

Terrorists are terrorists, they are difficult to control. Al-Qaeda was financed by America, and then began to fight against it. The same may happen now. The motives of their actions are unknown. But peace on this earth will definitely not come anytime soon.

The most important thing for us now is the fate of our bases, which will be negotiated.

To sum it up: I suggest not to become despondent and to treat this situation philosophically - nothing happens in vain, as they say, we'll live and see how it all ends.

Here's the deal, comrades.

Write comments and read other articles on my channel.

Good luck!

Syrians react to the entry of the Russian army

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8Loz08zpBKg

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vvotVrlvW-M

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=QtKfPqRFLvY

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VzSooeqgHL8

[Russian Bear]

What Putin Really Wanted to Convey to Tucker? Analysis of the sensational conversation between the American journalist and the President of Russia.

Well, friends, last year we watched the most significant interview, I'm not afraid of this word, IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY - Putin's interview with the American journalist Tucker Carlson. Which people from different corners of the world continue to watch.

Exclusive: Tucker Carlson Interviews Vladimir Putin 2024
Tucker interviews Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Russia. February 6th, 2024.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=fOCWBhuDdDo

This is a huge, truly information bomb that worked for the benefit of Russia💣

The thing is that in the West there is very powerful censorship, where people simply do not know an alternative point of view. As for "our" or pro-Russian media, they were recognized as foreign agents a long time ago, and later were completely closed.

And what Russia is doing now in terms of closing foreign media is only a response.

What can I say? Even in the Russian sector of YouTube, there is powerful censorship from the West. They still determine what Russians can watch and what they cannot. Try to say something that is prohibited by the US government, and you'll get an axe-head.

And as for America itself, everything is naturally much tougher there. There, journalists who adhere to alternative points of view are fired. For example, those who support Palestine, not Israel.

And the famous Tucker Carlson was also fired for his divergence of views from the official point of view.

So, Russia's position is such that what it says either does not reach the Western average person at all, or the information undergoes very strict censorship.
Looking ahead, I will say that even journalist Carlson sat and was surprised by what Putin was saying.



As an example, it turns out that Russia is not averse to negotiating peace and has always called for it. Tucker was very surprised by this. Even he! And what can we say about the average person?

The main points of the interview, however, are clear: Ukraine, war, Nord Stream, relations between the West and Russia.

For us, Russians, this information is well known. We know all this.
Therefore, this interview was aimed mainly at the average Western person.

You also need to know that Tucker Carlson is a very popular journalist in the United States.
His show "Tucker Carlson Tonight" was one of the most popular news programs in the United States.

Politically,
➡️ he is a supporter of Trump and
➡️ the Republican Party,
➡️ criticizes the neo-liberal policy of the United States and
➡️ American aggression aimed at other countries,
➡️ adheres to conservative ideas.
And, in general, he is a more or less adequate journalist of the United States.

So, naturally, this interview interested hundreds of millions of people around the world, and what Putin said in it HAS VERY STRONG WEIGHT.

There are even opinions that Putin, through Tucker, will be able to influence the mood of citizens and part of the elite of the West. So to speak, he will open their eyes, and their attitude towards Russia will change. But as Putin himself said in the interview, it is very difficult to win in the propaganda war against the United States, which controls all the media in the world.

So, Putin's interview was a really important event. And at first I was even a bit nervous. The thing is that Putin tells this information about Ukraine, NATO and relations with the West like a wind-up dog in every speech. And perhaps, due to fatigue from this repetition, he will simply miss many important things for the Western layman.

But no such luck! He simply began to read Tucker a whole lecture on the history of Russia and Ukraine. There were even a lot of jokes about how Tucker would now be able to pass the Unified State Exam in history.

Answering Tucker's question about the beginning of military actions in Ukraine, Putin, frankly speaking, went very far - from the foundation of the Russian state. And for 30 minutes he told the entire prehistory of relations between Ukraine and Russia.

And so, for me, a person who is well acquainted with Putin's speeches, it was clear what he was leading up to. But Tucker, as he later admitted, was even irritated by the answers, and thought that Putin was getting off topic.


Tucker admitted after the interview that he was initially irritated by Rutin's answers and thought he was getting off topic.

Well, and then it turned out that everything was interconnected, and the journalist received a very detailed, expanded answer to his question. Such that even a schoolchild should understand it.

I will not repeat what exactly Putin said. Better see for yourself!

I would like to add here a very important omission that Putin made.

It is clear that it is impossible to remember everything - all the important things that need to be voiced to the American viewer.

But still, this⬇️ had to be said.

➡ The fact is that Tucker several times suggested to Putin, so to speak, to call the United States and negotiate peace.

➡ Putin began to give his arguments about the fact that agreements with the West do not work, using the Minsk agreements as an example.

In my opinion, Tucker did not really understand this, and repeated that Putin needed to call Biden. That is, Tucker really has a Western agenda in his head about how it is Russia that does not want peace and has closed itself off from everyone.

Yes, Putin told many examples of how
➡ he asked to join NATO (although this is not new - the USSR did this too),
➡ told how he wanted to create a safe world together with the USA and Europe, but they refused.
➡ He told how NATO expanded and put pressure on Russia.

But Tucker, apparently at the time of the interview, did not fully understand how wrong his country was.

➡️ And it was also necessary to tell a very recent example from 2021, after which Russia began military action in Ukraine.

Remember in December 2021. The United States of America was sent a treaty on collective security in Europe. That is, Russia once again, countless times, came to the United States and said: "Let's make the world safe - let's agree on how to live in a world without wars." Russia drafted the treaty and sent it. It was quite recently - in December 2021. That is, before the start of the military special operation.

And think about it: then it would have been possible to agree on peace, sign the agreements and today nothing would have happened - no military actions in Ukraine!

The meaning of the treaty is simple: for security in Europe, so that there are no wars, you do this, and we do that. And that's it. We all live in peace.

But what did the Americans answer? Sorry, they wiped their ass with our peace proposals.

They showed that they are not capable of reaching an agreement, which means they will continue to threaten our country by promoting their military infrastructure, thereby bringing the war closer, only this time on our territory. Which Putin, as he stated on February 22, 2022, wanted to avoid.

Also very important things that Putin missed are that,

➡️ that he, in addition to this, has offered the "Big Five" countries many times, i.e. permanent members of the UN Security Council, who are authorized to decide the fate of the world, to gather and agree on a new world order, where again the world will be safe.

And again the West spat on Russia's proposal.

And this is what was really needed, I really wanted Putin to tell this information to an American journalist and a Western citizen.

I am simply very surprised by Putin's restraint when he is asked such stupid questions and made proposals that hint that Russia does not want to negotiate and does not want peace.

Yes, Putin always calmly answers this:
⚠️ about the Minsk agreements,
⚠️ NATO expansion,
⚠️ air defense at our borders,
⚠️ about the fact that Zelensky himself banned peace talks,
⚠️ and the British Prime Minister, so to speak, ordered him to do so.

All this is listed, but still, one can feel in the American's words the position, the conviction that Russia does not want this.

And think about it: how powerful is Western propaganda that even one of the best journalists in the US is susceptible to its false theses!

But nevertheless, Tucker is a good man. He went against the Western agenda, gave the floor to Putin - the Russian side. That is, he really acted as required by America's values ​​of freedom of speech. Thus, he does not go against his country - he implements the declared values.

And here it is even funny: the USA - a country that teaches the whole world these liberal values, democracy and freedom of speech, tried as much as possible to silence this interview.

Think about it: only one large Western newspaper placed a photo with the interview on its cover.



In addition, it turns out that back in September, Carlson wanted to interview Putin, but, as he claims, the US authorities did not allow him to do so.
This is such "freedom" of speech.

In order to interrupt the news agenda, to clog the news of TV channels and other media, Biden's team even announced the president's address to the nation.

What has the once powerful country come to, so that no one talks about Putin's interview - they urgently announce an address to the nation. Moreover, the US made a laughing stock of itself twice: the first time by trying to interrupt the news agenda, and the second time by showing Biden barely moving after Putin's interview.
Many have noticed this contrast - Putin freely lectures on history, and Biden cannot string two words together without a piece of paper.

In addition, the official US authorities asked Americans not to believe what Putin says in the interview.



But it still didn't work to silence the interview of the most famous politician and journalist.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of journalists, politicians and generally famous people actively watched and commented on this interview.

Including the richest man on the planet, according to Forbes, Elon Musk. Who allowed everyone to watch the interview without blocking it on his social network, formerly Twitter.

No interview in history has had such views! (write in the comments if I'm wrong).
Putin's name is at the top of the world trends (although he is always trending anyway, but those trends are usually set by Western media.

In general, the interview was a kind of cognitive dissonance for the average Westerner.

Let's say about the same Nord Stream gas pipelines. Here is some interesting information for the Germans: it turns out that Germany can still receive inexpensive pipeline gas from Russia, but they are essentially not allowed to do so by Poland, Ukraine, which they finance, and the German authorities themselves.

Naturally, in the US, those forces that are promoting themselves on the topic of freedom of speech began to accuse Tucker of giving the floor to the Russian president. There is even an opinion that Tucker may be accused of espionage in the US for an interview with Vladimir Putin.

The reaction of ordinary Western citizens is also interesting. In general, if you look at the comments, they support Putin and admire him. Especially in comparison with Biden, who talks to the dead, confuses words-names-countries and etc.

And here's an interesting point: Putin confused Zelensky's grandfather with Zelensky's father in a conversation with Tucker. Nothing special, Putin simply said that Zelensky's father fought in the Great Patriotic War. But in fact, of course, he meant his grandfather. Because of this slip of the tongue, all the garbage dumps that don't pay attention to Biden's inadequacy started giggling, pointing out Putin's mistake. What hypocritical propagandists. Sickening.

Well, as for Tucker, he's been depicted in all sorts of ways on the Russian Internet, even with the flag of the Russian Empire seen on his tie.



After the interview, Tucker commented a little on the past, saying that Russia will never return Crimea to Ukraine and that Russia does not want a war, because Russia has enough of everything.

Yes, it was an interesting and important event. So to speak, a breakthrough in the information war.

But this is not just like that. Tucker is still a representative of one of the elite groups in the United States that stand behind him. This group is not friendly with Russia. It is simply using the situation to topple its opponents, for example, the Democratic Party, and take more levers of control into its hands. But the fact that this is happening is good.

And the main thing that needs to be mentioned is Putin's words that the world has essentially already changed. And the US attempts to prevent this have failed. America has lost its hegemony.
AND NO ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO DISUNITE THE RUSSIANS AT SOUL, THE PEOPLE❤️

[edina]

Hi Russian Bear,
Will you source your article above, on Tucker and Putin?
By this I mean, who is the author of the article and the outlet that published it.
With a CLEAN live link to the source, no malware or anything like that, if possible.
Thanks, e

[Russian Bear]

I take all the information from Russian websites. It can be 1 or several websites from which I collect information. I am not the author of the articles. I only search for them, analyze information from many resources: videos, articles, books. They are all in Russian. The resources are completely different. I translate them for you into English using Google Translate since the foreign audience does not know Russian. I do not attach the sources, since they are still in Russian and are aimed at the Russian audience, not the English-speaking one. I read these articles myself, and then share them with you. There are also authoritative sources from which I take information. So this is all a Russian view of the situation in closed access only for Russians who communicate with each other, and not for foreign comrades. So I am a kind of volunteer who reads them, analyzes and publishes them for foreign comrades. Although I already know all this and know how to find it and what exactly I need to look for, it saves time, so I do not write articles from scratch with copyright. The information that I take is not prohibited to distribute. If you want me to publish an article for you, just tell me what topic you are interested in and I will do it. Also my articles are edited over time when I find more information. So the article you read may be supplemented with new information over time and become longer.

[edina]

Posted by Russian Bear (here)
I take all the information from Russian sites. It can be 1 or many sites where I combine information. I am not the author of the articles. I only search for them, analyze information from many resources: which include videos, articles, books. They are all in Russian. The resources are completely different. I translate them for you into English using Google Translate. I do not attach the sources, since they are still in Russian and aimed at a Russian audience, and not for an English audience. I read these articles myself, and then share them with you. There are also authoritative sources from which I take information. So this is all a Russian view of the situation in closed access only for Russians who communicate with each other, and not for foreign comrades. So I am a kind of volunteer who reads them, analyzes and publishes for foreign comrades. Although I already know all this and know how to find it and what exactly I need to look for, this saves time so that I do not write articles with 0 author's. If you want me to publish some article for you, just tell me what topic you are interested in and I will do it.

Thanks Russian Bear,

If I understand you correctly, the article you shared is a compilation of many articles?
I actually wanted to see the link to the Russian source, or at least the name of the author and/or site.
I like to get to know a bit more about who is writing what I'm reading. It helps for context.

Some of the article sounded familiar to me, maybe like Andrew Korybko?

As as aside, so you will know, while Tucker Carlson may have been surprised by some of the information Putin shared with him, many, if not most, of the long-term Avalon members were not. We, too, already knew about it. You're sharing information with a fairly well-informed audience.

It takes time to do what you do, so that effort is appreciated.