Poking the bear with a Storm Shadow

Russia's take on the NATO summit

Under the new dystopia, the momentous decision to allow British Storm Shadow missiles to be fired into Russia was effectively announced by the vaudeville performer President Zelenskyy via social media.  In days gone by we would have had at least a piece of paper brandished aloft, or a solemn radio address.  The complete absence of any meaningful debate was striking.  The decision to fire British supplied missiles into the world’s largest nuclear superpower seems to have been relegated to a minor administrative decision, along with an order for paperclips.  Notably, there has been no sign of any harrumphing from the U.K.’s 650 MPs that there should be any debate on this existential topic.

The Russian news coverage on this development has been somewhat matter-of-fact.  One article did produce this map showing the ranges of various Western missiles, one of which, the Taurus, is capable of reaching Moscow from what remains of Ukraine¹.

In my previous post on this topic, I covered the fact that Russia already understood that the West was enabling such long distance strikes (well worth reading if you missed it²).  Putin’s response then was guarded as he sensibly understands that going to war with the whole of NATO should be avoided.     

The TV coverage in Russia has focused China’s significant denouncement of NATO’s aggressive and inflammatory language³.  Russian news also shows the Hungarian peace initiative and provided a clip of a great performance by Hungary’s minister of foreign affairs on CNN, who made the obvious point that peace is preferable to war (well worth watching⁴).

The NATO summit declaration is a series of outrageous inversions and outright lies, especially the central lie that NATO is a force for stability and peace⁵.  Many people realise that NATO and/or its principal members have been a force for instability and war for about the past twenty years (Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc.).  The eastwards expansion towards Russia, was not only provocative, but was also part of a plan hinted at by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997 and explicitly spelled out in an important 2019 RAND strategy paper “Overextending and unbalancing Russia”.

The real reason for instability in the world is the U.S. Deep State’s insistence on global hegemony.

Regardless of the morality, or otherwise of Brzezinski’s position, it is becoming increasingly unrealistic given differing growth rates between U.S. and China (in particular) and the U.S.’s rapidly deteriorating fiscal position.  We were fortunate that several previous empires fell apart gracefully, unfortunately the fading of the U.S. empire seems destined to be accompanied by engineered bloodshed.

Perhaps the most offensive part of the summit declaration is the repeated lie that most of the NATO attendees are defending “shared values”, with repeated references to democracy and freedom.  The true colours of many of our political leadership were on display during the COVID tyranny, when those same politicians were happy to oppress those citizens who insisted on their God given right to informed consent.

This same political elite is actively engaged in destroying rather than protecting every recognisable Western value including free speech, social cohesion, growth of the domestic population, and the existence of the nation state itself.  Each one of those foundational aspects of Western life is under sustained, but subtle attack from many of the political “leaders” present in Washington.

I respectfully disagree with some of my colleagues who believe that the war with Russia is confected and that Putin is part of the show.  The war in Russia, like in almost all other wars, is about power and money and as I explained in my film “Russia’s 5^th column”⁶, Mikhail Khodorkovsky was almost certainly the globalists’ anointed country manager for Russia.  President Putin upset those plans by having Khodorkovsky arrested in 2003 and a very real conflict has been brewing since then.

What next

Putin of course wants to avoid a conflict with NATO, the military calculus shows that this would be a disaster for Russia.  However, the longer the globalists drive Russia and China together, the more this calculus changes as a combined Russia and China would match-up against NATO⁷.  Even with the odds in NATO’s favour there would have to be questions about the willingness to fight for several member countries.  In reality though, such a wide ranging conflict would likely lead to nuclear Armageddon at some stage, this is the ultimate no-win.