It's only a matter of time, right? Before Ukrainian tanks are rumbling into Red Square? Because that's what Zelensky would have us believe – him and the entire propaganda network masquerading as Western media. According to their narrative, Putin has bitten off more than he can chew and will soon be vanquished. In fact, the past year's misadventures in Ukraine and righteous sanctions have been bleeding Russia dry. That and northwards of $113 billion in funny money and war materiel, some of which might actually have been used for the purpose intended. That's why we've got to send more of both, until the latter day Hitler has been consigned to the dustbin of history or, alternatively, the inside of a cell in the Lubyanka.
Perhaps you will be less surprised than you might have been previously if I state that this version of events is yet another hot mess. Putin has undoubtedly made mistakes, especially at the outset of his 'special military operation', but some dissonant truths should still be self evident to the critical thinker. The Russian army is still in Ukraine, for one, and it's not going backwards. It's the Ukrainians who are retreating; those that haven't already been slaughtered. This article will use sources that seldom see the light of day to explain the conduct of the war to date and speculate on some likely outcomes.
Putin's initial error was not to underestimate the level of force needed to bring Zelensky to the negotiating table – which was his original intention – but rather to retain even a morsel of trust in the intentions of the United States government. As detailed in my previous offering, he was in possession of overwhelming evidence that American policy in Ukraine had been explicitly anti-Russian since at least 2014; indeed, he might say since 2004 and the Orange Revolution. Other NATO countries (France and Germany) had also shamelessly misled the Russians as to their commitment to the Minsk Protocols. There was no reason to suppose that Western regimes would be reluctant to stick their oar in once again.
In the light of these facts, it seems as though sending a small force into the Donbas was a tactical error. True, it did bring the Ukrainians to the negotiating table, but Putin had nonetheless ignored an important principle; a client state (which is what Ukraine is) must do the bidding of its master. And so it proved. The British PM was dispatched, so that the facts of life might be reiterated and any chance of an early resolution was scuppered. At least, that's how it appears. Negotiations were discontinued in March of last year, but it wasn't until September that Putin seems to have concluded that there was now no-one to talk to in the West and then called up 300,000 reservists.
It is possible, however, that Putin was playing to an entirely different audience. We tend to forget that it's not necessarily our Western opinion that matters most – the rest of the world matters too and Putin would have needed to keep the likes of India and China and their respective spheres of influence onside if he was to nullify the effects of the sanctions that were inevitably imposed. He may have calculated that a heavy-handed shock and awe offensive would not have been favorably received by potential economic allies and therefore decided to adopt the softly softly approach instead.
In this scenario, Putin is not outflanked by the West. NATO's overreaction and subsequent meddling in a war that it should have absolutely nothing to do with was to be anticipated. Either way, the early stages of the conflict were marked by Putin's reluctance to give his generals their head. Despite the Ukrainian deployment of military hardware and troops in civilian locations (which is an endemic, ongoing tactic)(1) in an attempt to make use of a human shield, the Russian leadership was insistent upon limiting civilian casualties. The difference in approach may be cultural or there may be a more prosaic reason – the Russians feel kinship with the ethnic Russians in the region, whereas the Ukrainians have spent years treating them as second class citizens and shelling them.(2)
The more impactful mistake, and one of the main reasons for the long drawn out nature of the Russian campaign, was the initial message that the Russians weren't going to be staying in the region once the operation was over. This may have been seen as a politically expedient stance, but it took no account of the reality on the ground. Russia expected much more support from ethnic Russians and didn't get it; largely, anecdotally, because they feared reprisals from the Ukrainian secret police when the Russians left. These fears are hardly unrealistic; paranoia and brutality in Ukraine are commonplace.(3)(4)
These two factors slowed the Russian advance down and may have occasioned an unfortunate (and irrecoverable) misunderstanding in the collective mind of NATO. The America way of making war is considerably more indiscriminate; in the Vietnam War, around two million civilians lost their lives.(5) After three years of the Iraq War, The Lancet estimated that 650,000 civilians had died from war-related causes.(6) The Russians, in contrast, are executing a different doctrine. When Putin finally lost all hope of a compromise, he allowed his generals to adopt a defensive posture while the mobilized reservists were equipped and trained. This was just prior to the winter season, which made large scale armored deployments problematic. He then allowed the Ukrainians to go on the offensive and gradually degraded their armed forces.
The winter war developed a pattern that was hugely detrimental to Ukraine. At the very outset of the conflict, Ukraine's air force and air defense systems were neutralized. That's why those massive stationary Russian armored columns that we saw on the news were in no immediate danger. Control of the air means that Russian artillery units can deploy drones that overfly the battle ground and report back the GPS co-ordinates of Ukrainian positions, which then get pulverized by those same units. The Russians are capable of firing 60,000 rockets/missiles/hard shell munitions a day; the Ukrainians can only muster around 10% of that total daily. Hence, around 75% of Ukrainian casualties have come from artillery fire.(7)
Whether via an excess of zeal, military incompetence or because of a need to be seen to be worthy of Western support, Ukraine has frittered away its manpower on doomed offensives throughout the past six months, especially in the meat grinder at Bakhmut, which is key to the solidity of the Ukrainian front line. Estimates vary, but Ukraine began the war with approximately 700,000 men under arms; this in a country of 37 million. (The UK, by way of contrast, has an army that is around 75,000 strong.) The rate of attrition has been appalling – perhaps 200,000 dead and 300,000 wounded.
The Russians have called up the 300,000 previously mentioned and around 180,000 citizens have also volunteered. They have approximately 700,000 troops in or near the theater, in three major groupings (plus reserves).(8) They also have a virtually unlimited supply of equipment and ammunition, due to their industrial 'surge capacity', although it seems as though they are husbanding artillery shells at present, which is indicative of an impending offensive. There are two particular extras worthy of note – firstly, the ground has just started freezing, which means that armored operations can begin in the next ten to fourteen days and, secondly, Bakhmut has fallen in all but name to the Russians.
The head of the Wagner Group, the unit heavily involved in the attack on the eastern city, had publicly urged Zelensky to surrender his forces as they are almost completely surrounded.(9) Zelensky's aide talks about a 'strategic pull-back' from the city, but his words betray the truth:
"Our military is obviously going to weigh all of the options," the Zelensky aide told CNN. "So far they’ve held the city, but if need be, they will strategically pull back because we’re not going to sacrifice all of our people just for nothing."(10)
Clearly, if they were winning, they wouldn't be concerned about sacrificing all their manpower. A retired American marine, fighting for the Ukrainians, stated that the average life expectancy of new recruits thrown into the line at Bakhmut is around four hours.(11) This simply is indicative of another reality. There is only one possible outcome to the war; the Russians are going to win it. The question is, where do they stop? What is their desired outcome?
At the outset, Putin declared that he wanted the Donbas to have a degree of autonomy, the rump of Ukraine to remain neutral rather than be subsumed into NATO and that he also intended to deNazify the Kiev regime. He had no interest in occupying any part of Ukraine.(12) Those objectives may well have been updated, particularly in relation to the Donbas. And the West's treatment of Russia, its refusal to allow Ukraine to negotiate terms, its openly hostile rhetoric concerning regime change in the Kremlin and the subjugation of the Russian state to near vassal status, has prompted a much more muscular response.
While little reported in the West, Putin made his Federal Assembly speech (a Russian version of the State of the Union address) in late February 2023. It seems sensible to perhaps pay some attention to what he had to say. He began by noting that Ukraine, historically part of Russian civilization, was now occupied by western civilization that “became hostile to us”. Further,
“The promises…of western rulers turned into forgery and cruel lies. The west supplied weapons, trained nationalist battalions. Even before the start of the SMO, there were negotiations…on the supply of air defense systems… We remember Kyiv’s attempts to obtain nuclear weapons.”(13)
The element of trust between Russia and the West (particularly the US) has gone. For that reason, the START Treaty was to be suspended and no inspections of Russian nuclear facilities would be allowed. This doesn't seem unreasonable. NATO is already at war with Russia; it's got feet on the ground inside Ukraine (20,000 Polish troop are fighting the Russians in Ukrainian uniforms)(14) and it is openly supplying money and materiel. One doesn't let the enemy inspect one's weapons. In addition, the other two weapons treaties between Russia and the US have already been nixed, but by the Americans.(15) Putin also articulated his view that:
“Ukraine is being used as a tool and testing ground by the west against Russia. The more long-range weapons are sent to Ukraine, the longer we have to push the threat away from our borders.”(16)
Russia's representative to the UN provided more context:
"As for our country, we see all of this as a war with the West for survival, for the future of our country, for our children, for our identity... Ukraine is nothing but a bargaining chip in this plot."(17)
The longest range missile that the Ukrainians are in possession of is capable of hitting targets 150km away. One would therefore assume that Putin will need to advance at least that far beyond the breakaway republics' borders with Ukraine and then de-militarize the area. Of course, if he wishes to deNazify the regime, one suspects that he's going to have to go as far as Kiev to do it, but the situation is complicated by the NATO insistence that Ukraine will definitely be a member at some point in the future.(18) This, as we know, is unacceptable to the Russians.
However, it may be that this reiteration of NATO's position was considered apposite because of China's proposed peace plan, which will be popular with the Global South as peace in Ukraine opens up the Belt and Road initiative. Zelensky himself was open to discussions.(19) But peace would interrupt the West's plan to bring down Putin. Clearly, any negotiation that features preconditions such as NATO membership - and also a demand that no such talks take place as long as Russian troops are on Ukrainian soil (20) – is not worthy of Russian consideration.
The United States has claimed that the Chinese are about to provide the Russians with weapons. It's difficult to know where this information comes from; quite possibly from the fevered imaginations of those who have sought to gaslight us with every other aspect of this conflict. If China were to do so (and Russia seems to be doing just fine on its own), her industrial base is twice the size of America's at the height of World War II. Chancellor Scholz, the cuck who has done nothing to investigate US complicity in the Nordstream sabotage, has reportedly been advised that China will stay out of the conflict.(21) So, once more, the West thinks it can involve itself in others' business, but that this right does not extend to anybody else.
It's entirely possible that Scholz is simply deluding himself again, given the deliberately opaque Chinese statement addressing Sino-Russian co-operation:
The People’s Republic of China is ready to join forces with Russia to decisively stand up for national interests and promote mutually beneficial cooperation in all areas... and then, just in case we weren't paying attention the first time around “...We are ready to join forces with the Russian side, in accordance with the high-level agreements, to decisively stand up for national interests and virtues, and promote mutually beneficial cooperation in all areas.”(22)
And so, while there would appear to be close ties between Eurasia and West Asia there does, however, seem to be the beginnings of a schism within the EU and NATO. Von der Leyen, of the EU, stated that the US had no evidence to back its claims. Reportedly, behind the scenes, there is division. Burgeoning protests and polling in both Europe and the US show that a major role in the conflict is not what a majority wants and yet that is what they've clearly got.(23)(24) Over the winter there have been anti-war protests in Moldova, Greece, the UK, the Czech Republic, France, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Germany and Albania.(25)
Despite this, the regimes in Poland and Norway (the latter for some unknown reason) are all in and, nominally, so are the French and German juntas. Based on past conduct, one would expect the Lithuanian government to be pro-conflict and the US and their handmaiden, Great Britain, are clearly leading the charge, but Turkey and Hungary seem particularly skeptical. Orban has been at pains to stress that Washington has become the primary decision maker in the conflict and that
"Europe has retired from the debate. In the decisions adopted in Brussels, I recognize American interests more frequently than European ones.... In a war that is taking place in Europe the Americans have the final word.”(26)
This in addition to approving of China's peace plan, refusing to send arms to Kiev and delaying a vote on the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO's ranks.(27) This last action, in concert with Turkey, may actually be clandestinely welcome to the Scandinavian elites; when they applied for membership, it seemed (to those of a delusional mindset) that Russia might be defeated. Now, the picture looks somewhat less rosy and the risk that the Swedes and the Finns might actually have to commit to military involvement is commensurately higher, due to the incessant American provocations. And that wasn't part of the plan, which was to benefit from the NATO umbrella while contributing the square root of bugger all to a combined defense.
In addition to defeats on the battlefield for its proxy, the West's other brilliant idea – sanctions – have also not worked as advertised; if one believes that they weren't always a double edged sword, designed to hurt the Russians but also instrumental in degrading the West's living standards in service of the Build Back Better agenda. The latter aim has largely been accomplished, the former not so much. It may seem incomprehensible, but part of the reason for Russia's robust response (Putin reckons the economy shrank by 2.1% last year, not the 15-20% the West was predicting)(28) is the complicity of EU countries in buying Russia's fossil fuels, while simultaneously mouthing their approval of the sanctions regime. EU countries have imported nearly half of Russia's output since the conflict began.
Figure 1
China has, predictably, accounted for most of the rest. Any attempt to isolate Russia by the West will inevitably founder, in any event. BRICS, effectively the Global South, as it historically consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa is Putin's soft landing and antidote to G7/G20 bullying. BRICS represents 40% of world population, 25% of the global economy and over 50% of global economic growth.(29) Despite Western sanctions, in 2022 Russia fulfilled its trading obligations with its partners. By 2030, a quarter of the world's oil demand will come from China and India alone and Russia will be the major supplier.
Other consequences of US led retribution are also becoming apparent. When the West hijacked Russia's foreign dollar reserves and banned it from the SWIFT payment system, it merely accelerated a discussion that had been ongoing for the best part of two decades – the design and implementation of an international reserve currency, as opposed to the Western elites' preference for the imposition of a global digital currency.
The hegemony of the US dollar is already being comprehensively undermined. When discussing the way ahead for Eurasia, the Russian Foreign Minister was explicit, as is his wont. He rejected a proposal for a G8 – in his judgement, there was an alternative organisation that operates with a fundamentally different philosophy:
“It is BRICS. This association is relying less and less on the Western style of doing business, and on Western rules for international currency, financial and trade institutions. They prefer more equitable methods that do not make any processes depend on the dominant role of the dollar or some other currency... The G20 may deteriorate if the West uses it for fanning up confrontation. The structures I mentioned...rely on consensus, mutual respect and a balance of interests, rather than a demand to accept unipolar world realities.”(30)
Over a dozen other countries have applied to join BRICS, including Iran, Indonesia, Argentina and Algeria. Others (including Turkey and Egypt) are interested in doing likewise. The Chinese, Russians and possibly even the Saudis are open to buying oil in denominations other than the dollar.(31) Even Saudi Arabia has gone so far as to float the idea of joining BRICS.(32) Twenty three countries, making up 60% of the world's GDP have set up swap lines which bypass the dollar and the SWIFT system and they aren't just the usual suspects; Germany, France and the UK are among this cohort.(33) American control of the global financial system is under sustained attack, via the medium of opting out. At present, the likes of the World Bank and the IMF can be relied upon to prop up the status quo, but momentum is shifting away from the collective West – it seems likely that critical mass will eventually be achieved.
Counter-intuitively, I'm not convinced that this is a prospect that alarms elite globalists. The repatriation of trillions of dollars, due to the ongoing, persistent devaluation of the currency and the subsequent hyper-inflation, won't hurt them in the way that it will us. Central bankers are leading the way in this regard; they have been stockpiling gold for months.(34) The coming financial meltdown (on which, more soon), exacerbated by the inevitable reaction to the West's sanctions, is part of a deliberate campaign to break everything. Plus, hyperinflation probably offers the only solution to paying off unsustainable national debt.
It's entirely possible that the knee-capping of the United States – in terms of global influence and reputation – are also by design. Perhaps, instead of merely displaying epic stupidity, they are smarter than we think. The WEF have been at pains to forecast the near future, remember? One of their eight predictions was this: “The US won't be the world's leading superpower. A handful of countries will dominate.”(35) It's conceivable that this handful doesn't even include the United States, but don't expect the puppet masters to care – they are globalists. They don't care about nation states, even their own. Their wealth and power transcends geographical borders. Therefore, viewing US or NATO actions through the traditional prism of national self interest is outmoded and any analysis that utilizes this metric alone is likely to be misleading.
There are indications that Zelensky and co can see the writing on the wall. The Russian plan is to have 1,500,000 men under arms. Sources in Ukraine estimate that 30-50% of US money is going missing, along with perhaps two thirds of the materiel supplied. Ukrainian artillery has run out of 155mm rounds, whereas the Russians have stockpiled enough artillery rounds to last thirty months. Cypriot bank accounts and property in the West are de rigeur for the regime elites.(36)
If Putin prosecutes this war in the way that seems likely, he will eventually move on Kiev. He has no need to negotiate with Zelensky, nor with anyone else in the West (least of all the US) and particularly if the preconditions remain in place. Peace will come eventually and I suspect that the western half of Ukraine will remain intact, but forcibly neutral. The million dollar question on that segment of likely outcomes is this; what will NATO do once it can no longer pretend that Zelensky is anything other than a busted flush?
Humiliation is not a dish that appeals to the elites' palate. And yes, I know that the withdrawal from Afghanistan was a debacle, but that may have been at least partly by design and in order to project weakness, the better to encourage Putin's intervention. Certainly, if we are to go by the regime media's behavior, Afghanistan is a mere bagatelle, unworthy of their time and coverage. Not so with Ukraine. They have spoken of little else for the past year.
Zelensky just gave a speech in which he urged Americans to send their sons and daughters to fight for (and die in) Ukraine. He was responding to a reporter who was referencing 'Ukraine fatigue' amongst the American public:
"If they do not change their opinion…they will lose NATO, they will lose the clout of the United States, they will lose the leadership position they are enjoying in the world."
He then claimed that Russia would enter NATO states and
"...then the US will have to send their sons and daughters exactly the way as we are sending their [sic] sons and daughters to war."(37)
It's difficult to believe that this was simply a flight of rhetorical fancy, at least partly because the Biden administration did not push back on these statements. Instead, it sounded a lot like another cog in the wheel of normalization of a boots on the ground US involvement in the war. It followed on from clueless statements by an American functionary within NATO, who asserted (in the complete absence of evidence) that Russia's strategic objectives go beyond Ukraine and that the alliance is therefore prepared for armed confrontation.(38)
He wasn't the only apparatchik deployed; an ex British Defence Minister shared his expert opinion, which holds that Ukraine is too big to fail, that Russia has ulterior motives and that further support from NATO troops will be necessary.(39) It is known that the US Army's 101st Airborne Division is currently stationed close to the Ukrainian border and are “fully prepared” to cross into Ukraine at a moment's notice.(40)
It may seem unthinkable, but I believe that it is likely that the United States will go to war with Russia. This pattern of behavior has been seen before, in the run up to World War II in particular. FDR wanted war, the American public most assuredly did not. The administration, progressive to its core and therefore suffused with the certainty that they were right and that the ends justified the means (just as Biden's cabal also believes), adopted a strategy that would leave Japan no viable alternative to offensive operations against the United States.
Central to that effort was the McCollom memorandum, an eight point action plan that combined seven punitive policies which denied the Japanese access to oil, supplied their enemies in China with copious war materiel and simultaneously brazenly violated Japanese airspace and territorial waters. The other policy decreed that the Pacific Fleet be unwittingly set up, by basing them in Hawaii, rather than on the west coast of the mainland. Eventually, Japan took the bait, public sentiment rapidly changed course and FDR got his war.(41)
Russia will resist any temptation, I suspect. She certainly has so far, despite the fact that in supplying intelligence, cash, equipment and the personnel to operate it (all of which NATO is doing), the alliance and Russia are already at war. But I'm not convinced that this restraint will be sufficient to avoid open conflict. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was used as a pretext to engage more directly in the war in Vietnam, never actually happened. But as long as the United States said it happened, nothing more was required. Perhaps in the modern day, more evidence might be required. A false flag operation could take care of that; the Nordstream sabotage demonstrates a willingness to engage in underhand tactics, after all.
Because what is the alternative? That the United States loses face? That the hated Russians win out? That the multipolar economic model exemplified by BRICS overtakes the Western dominated global financial model and that the Great Reset (or the one-world technocratic superstate) founders? I just can't see it. I can find no evidence of humility in any of their other actions, either on the world stage or domestically, but there is plenty of hubris to go around. If a US-led coalition of the willing presses on regardless, I cannot see NATO surviving, nor can I see the US prevailing. However, the former may stagger on, at least in name, if the elites truly do see Russia as an existential threat to their globalist plans. The chances of the US winning any confrontation with Russia are much lower.
Leaving aside the nuclear threat – a habit that the West has adopted with very little encouragement – NATO forces simply aren't up to it. The massive transfers of military stockpiles to Ukraine has so depleted reserves that supplies are running dangerously low and manufacturers cannot keep up.(42) In addition, the Army is at least 25,000 down on numbers (460,000 instead of 485,000), can't meet its recruitment targets due to the lack of suitable candidates (43) and is riven with woke ideology and the catastrophic after-effects of 'vaccine' mandates.(44) Despite this, 43.4% of US voters think that the country is on the verge of World War III.(45)
This is not entirely surprising, given the sweep of events and I imagine that number may have jumped since, as the poll was conducted prior to the USAID director admitting that the US was already at war with Russia.(46) The Brits, predictably, are singing from the same hymn sheet. The head of parliament's defense committee opined:
“Britain should engage directly in war against Russia, we are at war in Europe, we need to move to martial law.”(47)
Martial law, of course, would be the holy grail; lock-downs on steroids and probably an easier sell than WHO mandated curfews due to 'climate change', which will also probably be an available tool from May onwards when the Pandemic Treaty and assorted amendments to the WHO's constitution are agreed (another upcoming topic for an essay).
There is one piece of evidence that perhaps points to de-escalation on the part of the West. The New York Times, a regime mouthpiece, this week published a story which could be read as a first step in the abandonment of Ukraine. It accuses an unnamed Ukrainian group of the Nordstream sabotage, while at the same time intimating that a state actor must have been involved, due to the resources required. They then elaborated on their theme, for the hard of thinking club, informing us that the Germans might perhaps be a little upset if this turned out to be true (i.e that the Ukrainians are the state actor), given the logistical support that they have supplied Zelensky.(48) Accordingly, the coalition constructed by Washington may come under threat, according to the Times. And, shortly thereafter, according to the Washington Post, too.
It's a fairly obvious lie, of course, as delineated in a previous offering, as is any suggestion that the Ukrainians are loose cannons that cannot be controlled by their US counterparts. But, nonetheless, that's a narrative that's currently being spun:
“Despite Ukraine’s deep dependence on the United States for military, intelligence and diplomatic support, Ukrainian officials are not always transparent with their American counterparts about their military operations, especially those against Russian targets behind enemy lines. Those operations have frustrated U.S. officials, who believe that they have not measurably improved Ukraine’s position on the battlefield, but have risked alienating European allies and widening the war.”(49)
It's worth noting that neither US intelligence, nor the newspapers they use to propagandize, will feel an urge to provide any evidence to back these assertions. We're expected to just take their word for it. And it definitely wasn't the US, obviously, according to anonymous European officials. It's not the lack of attribution and detail that is of primary interest, nor even the timing (coming as it does as Bakhmut falls); it's the evidence of a face saving off ramp that might be significant. If it's developed further in the coming days, then it may be more than simply an option and come to be the option, especially if it accompanied by more polling that suggests that the US public is not behind the regime. Currently, only 19% think that Biden knows what he's doing with Ukraine.(50)
Let's hope so. And let's hope that Western military leaders are having honest conversations with their political masters. Globalist elites embroiling us in a war that we might win, simply so that they can then complete their digital enslavement of us would be bad enough. Getting us involved in a war that we will inevitably lose might actually be just as bad.
Citations
(4) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/31/world/europe/ukraine-spies-saboteurs.html
(5) https://study.com/learn/lesson/vietnam-war-casualties-statistics.html
(6) https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/sizing-civilian-casualties-war-iraq
(7) https://www.youtube.com/@DouglasMacgregorStraightCalls
(8) Ditto
(10)
(13) https://rumble.com/v2aay62-putin-delivers-address-to-federal-assembly.html
(14) https://www.youtube.com/@DouglasMacgregorStraightCalls
(16) https://rumble.com/v2aay62-putin-delivers-address-to-federal-assembly.html
(17) https://tass.com/politics/1580725
(19) https://consortiumnews.com/2023/03/03/chinas-peace-plan-for-ukraine/
(21) https://tass.com/world/1580047
(22) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/germanys-scholz-signals-assurances-china-wont-arm-russia
(23) https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-(24 crisis/germanys-central-berlin-witnesses-protest-against-weapon-supply-to-ukraine-articleshow.html
(25) https://thegrayzone.com/2023/02/27/europeans-protest-natos-proxy-war/
(26) https://hungarytoday.hu/no-one-can-win-this-war-says-viktor-orban/
(28) https://rumble.com/v2aay62-putin-delivers-address-to-federal-assembly.html
(29) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/escobar-behind-tin-curtain-brics-vs-natog7
(30) https://vk.com/@580896205-we-are-seeing-today-that-the-west-has-declared-a-war-on-the
(32) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/saudi-arabia-discussion-join-brics
(33) https://www.truthandaction.org/23-countries-now-abandoning-us-dollar-2/
(34) https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/central-banks-start-q4-buying-more-gold
(35)
(36) https://www.youtube.com/@DouglasMacgregorStraightCalls
(37) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/zelensky-berates-threatens-unsupportive-americans
(41) Day of Deceit, Robert B Stinnett, pgs 6-10
(42) https://spectator.org/the-empty-arsenal-of-democracy/
(43) https://www.thoughtco.com/us-youth-ineligible-for-military-service-3322428
(45) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/over-40-americans-think-ww3-imminent
(46) https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/24/politics/takeaways-cnn-ukraine-war-town-hall/index.html
(47)
(49) Ditto
Figure 1 https://www.visualcapitalist.com/which-countries-are-buying-russian-fossil-fuels/