World War III fears

Reality strikes back! The real Ukraine invasion came a week later

As most will no doubt be aware by now, Russia launched a "specialy military operation" in Ukraine on the 23rd of February. Most of us would call it simply an invasion. This came a week after the official invasion date pronounced by the U.S., which was supposed to be the 16th of February.

I must admit that I thought the news of the invasion was a hoax. I am not, however, completely willing to abandon that idea. 

Russia has large military drills on its Western flank every year, almost always in conjunction with Belarus. Every time they have had those drills over the past few years the West has warned of an invasion but nothing has come of it. Of course, it could be that they had been plotting an invasion all this time, and I cannot rule that out. 

However, when I look at how the U.S. officials were behaving before this happened, it's difficult to conclude that even they saw talk of a Russian invasion as anything else than a way for Biden to play tough on Russia for an invasion which they were convinced would never come. If you had wanted Russia to invade Ukraine, you would have done exactly everything that the Biden administration and NATO did prior to the 23rd of February. 

Russia had very clear lines and since I have been following the Ukraine situation for a long time, I think I can pretty much narrow it down to these two:

  • Ukraine must not be a member of NATO or host NATO weapons systems.
  • Ukraine must not attempt to take the Donbass by force.
Any violation of these two conditions are red lines which Russia had said would result in a military solution. Well, all the rhetoric prior to the invasion was of Ukraine some time later perhaps entering NATO and that Russia should not get to decide who was to be in NATO. Then they decided to ship massive amounts of lethal weapons to Ukraine under the cover of repelling a Russian invasion.
On top of that it is now very obvious that Ukraine had a lot of forces surrounding the Donbass region and that there had been a military escalation there with preparations to retake the areas. This would explain why Ukraine doesn't seem to have had any forces defending its border with Belarus.
The real trigger for me was when Zelensky in the weekend before the Ukraine invasion whent to the Munich Security Conference and more or less demanded that Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO, or else they would develop nuclear weapons. As soon as he said that I felt sick in my stomach. I realised things were looking ugly and given that shelling in the Donbass by that point had increased 6-fold over the previous weeks, it seemed to me as though we had crossed aline.
When Vladimir Putin then recognised the break-away republics I thought that might offer some respite, but the shelling continued. On top of that, the West responded with the most ridiculous sanctions to that event to the point where if I was a Russian leader I may well have wondered "what is the point of holding back now"?
We shall never know whether the invasion was planned all along, but all I can write and say is that had one wanted an invasion of Ukraine by Russia, one could hardly have done more to bring it about than what the puppet rulers of the West and the Ukrainian leadership did in the run-up to the war.
Now that the war has started, I think the military result is a foregone conclusion. It will either be a relatively quick Russian victory or if others intervene, possibly a world war.
I hope for the latter, for the sake of Ukrainians and all the world, and hope to have more to write on this later.

What is certain is that the fantasy of the West, of their non-existent-in-practice values, has met the reality of Russian weapons and been found to be nothing but a castle built on sand - or perhaps that should read quick sand.

A problem so urgent it can be put off for 5 months, and making the Chinese military great again - Sunday 9th of September to Saturday 6th of October

This has been another Bergoglian month, full of scandals and distasteful accusations and insults against the few remaining faithful Catholics.

Much can be written about Bergoglio's implication in the McCarrick scandal, but I feel no need to engage that topic much more. We already know what we need to know: Bergoglio is a pervert, almost certainly a sodomite, who surrounds himself with sodomites and who promotes sodomy at virtually every given opportunity. He has already said that one can make up one's own idea of right and wrong, and he seems to pick people whose moral deviancy is beyond dispute. Anything else is just details, and I feel no desire to soil my blog with more of Bergoglio's sordid affairs.

This does not mean that we still can't cover his many other scandals, and indeed we ought, lest we lose sight of the sustained assault in which Bergoglio has engaged against the faith. In the secular world too, things are not looking good, and Bergoglio's assault on the Church from within has strengthened the Church's enemies on the outside.

By far the most thought-provoking pieces  I have read over the past month were on the Remnant. In a series of articles titled A Wilderness of Mirrors, columnist Jesse Russell laid out "as to why the media, after all this time of knowing about both Bergoglio's and McCarrick's perversions, seems to have decided to turn against them by highlighting stuff they could very easily have done previously, and much earlier, as I summarised them on the 4th of October. His general contention is that, just as news of the Boston clerical scandal was used to undermine Pope John Paul II's opposition to the Iraq war as it was in its planning phase, so too the revelations of Bergoglio's involvement in the McCarrick scandal have been brought up to undermine Bergoglio's assumed opposition to any America-led war on Iran.

I too have wondered "why now?" It turns out that the information about the Boston sexual abuse cases was pretty much well-known in the Boston area at least, and an inquisitive mind ought to at least wonder in that case why the scandal blew up in 2000, just as the American political establishment was making its case for a war in Iraq. So too, information about Bergoglio's perversions has been all-too-easy to find, yet we are supposed to believe that the media has only now got wind of it. The question I have had all along is why the media has not been following up leads on Bergoglio's many scandals, given how much the media likes to drag up dirt on the Church, but it did not take me long to conclude that whoever controls the media sees Bergoglio as their man, and does not wish to see his demolition of the Church come off course by airing his dirty linens in public.

That brings us to the question of why the media now is tentatively covering this scandal, and the only explanation I can come up with is that they simply could not igore it outright, given how hard they have worked to undermine the Church on its handling of sexual abuse, a problem which is not worse in the Catholic Church than it is in other organisations both secular and religious. That is, of course, no excuse, and I do not mind this exposure, because the Church is supposed to be held to a higher standard. It is, in fact, supposed to set the standard. Still, the media coverage of what for any other pope would be a witch-hunt is very half-hearted at best. For this, Bergoglio probably has to thank the media's general homosexualist stance, since any digging into this scandal would reveal its homosexual roots, but that hardly explains everything.

For that reason, Jesse Russell's contribution was an eye-opener in that it allowed one to step back and look at the whole situation from a larger perspective, to see the whole chess board as it were.

I have often maintained that it is important to give Bergoglio credit for what little good he has done, and as far as I am concerned he has done only one good thing since becoming pope, and that is opposing what seemed to be a certain U.S. attack on Syria in 2013 on account of one of the many false/hoax flag events we have seen during that proxy war. Not only did he oppose it, but he called for worldwide prayer for a peaceful solution, which allowed my main man Vladimir Putin to come in and steal the U.S.'s excuse from war from under its nose when he declared that a deal had been reached with the Syrian government to transfer all chemical weapons out of the country. This was later verified by the OPCW and has been re-verified on multiple counts since, not that it has stopped Donald Trump and his neo-cons from attacking Syria on further false/hoax flags.

The main goal for Trump and the American kleptocracy has always been Iran, and so we should not be surprised that the lies against Iran have been ramped up. Iran being what it is - a rather powerful nation - the groundwork for an attack has to be planned out long in advance and opposition to a war has to be snuffed out considerably more methodically than was done against Iraq. Witness false flags against Russia in the U.K., Ukraine and Syria, and Trumps obsession with demonising Iran's presumed allies in Turkey and China, trying to put economic pressure on them, presumably so they can cave in to his war plans in return for an allevation of the economic pressures.

If you ask me, Jesse Russell's conspiracy theory is a bit too clean for my liking. It's too neat, and explains too much too well. I don't see particularly much methodology in the Trump administration, although I must admit that confusion and madness may well be its...


Subscribe to World War III fears