The US Gave Clear And Explicit Assurances To Russia That NATO's Membership Would Not Be Expanded To Include Nations To It's East

 


I felt it necessary to make a few documents available from the National Security Archive at George Washington University at Washington DC. 

The reason should be self evident to anyone keeping up with international affairs. Both NATO and the US Foreign Policy elite reject such a proposal. This dishonest way of characterising recent geopolitical developments is perpetuated throughout Western influenced media, pop-culture and the internet thanks to the dominance of the crown jewel of the US Security State which is (of course) Google. The usual tactic is to avoid the direct and falsifiable little lies and to create a great a big lie through omission, gaming of search results and (see screenshot below) a net assessment by AI that is intended to prejudice anyone with curiosity before they get a chance to even go through the direct evidence.


Google Assessments made by its AI reflect the conclusion expected from its gaming of the system.

Here above is just an example of the AI assessment problem produced by Google's decision to prioritise chosen propaganda outlets such as CIA run Wikipedia and a host of think-tank sponsored quasi-statal institutions.

Now compare such a conclusion with direct evidence in documents I have linked to in the National Security Archive with respect to NATOs eastward expansion. I have chosen documents in the context of German Reunification since this required the express permission of the Soviet Union leadership just prior to the end of the Cold War. It includes formal documents sanctioned by official apparatus of state and concerns top diplomats such as James Baker and Russia leaders from Gorbechov to Yeltsin.



The Double Slit Illusion/ Lie

 

A guest post I wanted to host because I find it so worthwhile.

By Jason Verbelli  

This is an introduction to a chapter in my book series

There are 4 completely different double slit experiments which yield 4 different results thay have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

There are 16 possible combinations of outcomes for the double slit experiment(s) and none of them depend on a particle-wave duality or a literal mass to energy interchange.

In Book 1 on Light, I go into great detail on all the different combinations of results and how they are produced.

There is no real-world observer in the experiment at all like how cartoons and textbooks depict. There is no human looking at the experiment and flipping the patterns from observation.

They either send a spherical wavefront through the slits to produce 2 bands of light.

Or they send a plane wavefront through the slits to produce an interference pattern. 

But that interference pattern only shows up with they have the 2 slits within the diameter of the laser beam, so the beam of the laser shines through both slits simultaneously. And that causes secondary re-emissions of light with overlap the initial light. Primary light from the laser shines on the slits. But the edges of the slits themselves will re-emit new light which then overlaps to make the pattern.

The slits are about 2μ to 5μ apart.

Then you have the particle patterns.

They use a tungsten filament like a light bulb. The filament glows red hot at 4000˚F. That is inside of a black box that sits on a table top.

The tungsten filament gets so hot that it starts shooting off electrons wildly. The filament becomes a "thermionic heat source". It shoots off particles wildly like how a nuclear material shoots off particles. Just not as dangerous. But the particles that are shot off of the filament... they fly through the 2 tiny slits inside that closed box. It's like marbles shooting out of a cannon at a constant. And that produces 2 bands of particles on the detector screen inside the closed box.




Then you have the particle interference pattern.

That is made from focusing those wildly shooting particles from the 4000˚ filament using a magnetic lens. It's an electromagnet that focuses the charged particles into a beam just like the laser. But this is a particle beam. And again... the 2 slits need to fit within the diameter of that beam which is about 100 nm apart.

The electrons from the collimated beam shoot through both slits at the same time... but those primary electrons hit the edges of the slits. And the slits are made of atoms. So it induces secondary electron emissions from the edges of the slits themselves. And those secondary electron emissions overlap the primaries and they create the particle interference pattern on the detector screen.

But then they have a sensor inside the closed box. And all they do is remotely block 1 of the slits with the detector which then prevents the secondary electron emissions from making it to the screen.... and THAT is what they say is the "observer"..... All they do is block the damn slit and it changes the pattern distribution over time as the particles accumulate.

NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with some mythical particle-wave duality. There is no observer!! 

All they do is fabricate and lie in What the Bleep Do We Know, Flatland and Down The Rabbit Hole.

They claim the observer is just an "oversimplification."

But there is no observer! They just block the slit itself with a detector and sensor. That's it.

And then they claim the patterns of light shift back and forth with particles.

It's FOUR different experiments!! And then you can do the experiments in combinations if you have a sophisticated enough set up (which has never been done!) 

But there are a total of 16 possible combinations of particle pattern and light pattern distributions. 

Actually 15 combinations, but the 16th is not performing the experiment at all.


At what point does an "oversimplification" just become a flat out lie and fraud? 

People are allowed to continue to believe a mythical flipping of particles and waves, or that mass is bundles of energy beyond the Planck scale... or that observation manifests reality.

It's junk "Psyence" all based from relativity insisting the speed of light is the same to everyone no matter what. 

So they invented the concept of the 4th dimension, space-time, particle wave dualities, that mass literally increases with acceleration or velocity...a literal interchange of mass to energy/ vice versa ... and QED was born from those fallacies.

The same observations and results can be explained using ONLY classical physics, Hamiltonian and Newtonian Mechanics... but under "a new light"... literally.



The Fundamental & Elementary Flaws With The Reasoning Behind Gravitational Lensing In Cosmology



I think it is only fitting to point out that when gazing into the heavens through a telescope lens, it is the refraction of light that makes everything seem so much larger and clearer. Refraction occurs anytime light passes from a medium to another another medium of differing density. Space is filled with ionised plasma filaments, galaxies and other assortments of dust, matter and charged particles contained in defined shapes by magnetic fields. IE space is more than just space, it's an environment with potential to refract light when the conditions are right. 

Do not let the irony escape you, it is a lesson waiting to be learned.

Note too that the various rings, crosses and supposed mirrored deep field galaxies are prone to prisming of light at times, and there is no given reason put forward by proponents of gravitational Lensing to account for any part of the spectrum to be affected differently to the rest of the spectrum. All frequencies should be equally affected.

Bear in mind that there are now too many examples to count with my fingers of instances where we are told that supermassive black holes interact with each other, neutron stars, their own jets, wandering gas clouds etc where no lensing whatsoever is observed. Sagittarius A is a notable example of this. All I will say on that is "black swans are quite trendy pets to own these days.

But let's take a deeper dive. Thanks to Taking Fukatsu for pointing out the problems that are to follow. You can find more of his important articles at his blog xxx in both English and Japanese.


By Takaaki Fukatu

In correct optical lens theory, all gravitational lenses are concave lenses.

The mistake made by Einstein and Lord Eddington was that they misunderstood gravitational lenses to be convex lenses in the first place.

My conclusion is the following:

"Gravitational lenses are biconcave lenses that gradually increases in curvature toward the center, and Einstein rings do not form. And gravitational lenses only form blurred images.

In this case, an electromagnetic lens is more likely, since the electromagnetic force is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. A gravitational field that is 39 orders of magnitude weaker has almost no ability to bend light rays.

This means that Lord Eddington's prediction that light rays would bend due to a gravitational field is invalid, since light rays would be scattered in a gravitational field and would not form an image.

However, such a phenomenon is actually hypothetical, and as Dr. Dowdye pointed out and as observed by the Japanese artificial satellite Akatsuki, light rays are observed to be refracted by the atmospheric medium or diffraction by the edge of the atmosphere layers, or the edge of a rocky surface.

The reason is that light rays hardly ever slow down, whether by gravitational lensing or electromagnetic lensing."



These conclusions obviously have stunning implications for Cosmology and even for the broader field of physics in general.


Takaaki cites the following as most noteworthy in particular:

The motion of the stars that Arthur Eddington observed during a solar eclipse☆ could not have been observed with gravitational lensing. A faint ring-shaped virtual image of a halo would be observed. If a shift in the position of the stars were observed, it would be due to another optical cause. All that would be expected from gravitational lensing from the star behind during a solar eclipse is a slight increase in brightness around the Sun. If gravitational lensing exists, the star should "disappear before and after" being hidden by the Sun. Electromagnetic lensing is much stronger than gravitational lensing, and the effect of gravitational lensing would be almost invisible. 

The prediction of the entire scientific community at the time about gravitational lensing, "a shift in the position of the stars," is itself incorrect.

A resources post. SI Units And Constants In Physics.


 

Regarding standardised physics: The effort to make precise and unambiguous the task of quantifying nature (matter, numbers and material properties) and establishing the inherent relationships (+-√÷×% etc) we need SI Units.

SI units, or the International System of Units, are the modern metric system and the global standard for measurement, consisting of seven base units: the meter (length), kilogram (mass), second (time), ampere (electric current), kelvin (thermodynamic temperature), mole (amount of substance), and candela (luminous intensity).

The NIST reference on constants, units and uncertainty is HERE

The Wrong Cosmology in detail. Unpacking the Lambda CDM Standard Model


I am hosting an article published: October 31, 2024 3.05pm SAST by Prof. Konstantinos Dimopoulos of Lancaster University. This article represents the Standard Model or Lambda CDM Model of cosmology.  However, I put forward that this standard model is garbage. It is not only fundamentally flawed, but wrong on basically every account. 

It follows logically than when your base assumptions are wrong then all the reasoning that follows which is based on those assumptions is also likely to be wrong. Each assumption has its own post on my blog (search "assumptions in science").

Here is their wrong story:

 How did everything begin? It’s a question that humans have pondered for thousands of years. Over the last century or so, science has homed in on an answer: the Big Bang.

This describes how the Universe was born in a cataclysmic explosion almost 14 billion years ago. In a tiny fraction of a second, the observable universe grew by the equivalent of a bacterium expanding to the size of the Milky Way. The early universe was extraordinarily hot and extremely dense. But how do we know this happened?

Let’s look first at the evidence. In 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that distant galaxies are moving away from each other, leading to the realisation that the universe is expanding. If we were to wind the clock back to the birth of the cosmos, the expansion would reverse and the galaxies would fall on top of each other 14 billion years ago. This age agrees nicely with the ages of the oldest astronomical objects we observe.

The idea was initially met with skepticism – and it was actually a sceptic, the English astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the name. Hoyle sarcastically dismissed the hypothesis as a “Big Bang” during an interview with BBC radio on March 28 1949.

This is article is part of our series Cosmology in crisis? which uncovers the greatest problems facing cosmologists today – and discusses the implications of solving them.

Then, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected a particular type of radiation that fills all of space. This became known as the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. It is a kind of afterglow of the Big Bang explosion, released when the cosmos was a mere 380,000 years old.

History of the universe

NASA

The CMB provides a window into the hot, dense conditions at the beginning of the universe. Penzias and Wilson were awarded the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery.

More recently, experiments at particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have shed light on conditions even closer to the time of the Big Bang. Our understanding of physics at these high energies suggests that, in the very first moments after the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces of physics that exist today were initially combined in a single force.

The present day four forces are gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. As the universe expanded and cooled down, a series of dramatic changes, called phase transitions (like the boiling or freezing of water), separated these forces.

Experiments at particle accelerators suggest that a few billionths of a second after the Big Bang, the latest of these phase transitions took place. This was the breakdown of electroweak unification, when electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force ceased to be combined. This is when all the matter in the Universe assumed its mass.

Barred spiral galaxy NGC 1672

Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies were moving away from one another. NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration

Moving on further in time, the universe is filled with a strange substance called quark-gluon plasma. As the name suggests, this “primordial soup” was made up of quarks and gluons. These are sub-atomic particles that are responsible for the strong nuclear force. Quark-gluon plasma was artificially generated in 2010 at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and in 2015 at the LHC.


Quarks and gluons have a strong attraction for one other and today are bound together as protons and neutrons, which in turn are the building blocks of atoms. However, in the hot and dense conditions of the early universe, they existed independently.


The quark-gluon plasma didn’t last long. Just a few millionths of a second after the Big Bang, as the universe expanded and cooled, quarks and gluons clumped together as protons and neutrons, the situation that persists today. This event is called quark confinement.


The Sun

The early universe was extremely hot and dense, much like the centre of the Sun. NASA/SDO

As the universe expanded and cooled still further, there were fewer high energy photons (particles of light) in the universe than there had previously been. This is a trigger for the process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). This is when the first atomic nuclei – the dense lumps of matter made of protons and neutrons and found at the centres of atoms – formed through nuclear fusion reactions, like those that power the Sun.


Back when there were more high energy photons in the universe, any atomic nuclei that formed would have been quickly destroyed by them (a process called photodisintegration). BBN ceased just a few minutes after the Big Bang, but its consequences are observable today.


Observations by astronomers have provided us with evidence for the primordial abundances of elements produced in these fusion reactions. The results closely agree with the theory of BBN. If we continued on, over nearly 14 billion years of time, we would reach the situation that exists today. But how close can we get to understanding what was happening near the moment of the Big Bang itself?


Alice experiment

The Large Hadron Collider’s Alice experiment can generate quark-gluon plasma. Maximilien Brice / Cern, Author provided (no reuse)

Scientists have no direct evidence for what came before the breakdown of electroweak unification (when electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force ceased to be combined). At such high energies and early times, we can only stare at the mystery of the Big Bang. So what does theory suggest?


When we go backwards in time through the history of the cosmos, the distances and volumes shrink, while the average energy density grows. At the Big Bang, distances and volumes drop to zero, all parts of the universe fall on top of each other and the energy density of the universe becomes infinite. Our mathematical equations, which describe the evolution of space and the expansion of the cosmos, become infested by zeros and infinities and stop making sense.


We call this a singularity. Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity describes how spacetime is shaped. Spacetime is a way of describing the three-dimensional geometry of the universe, blended with time. A curvature in spacetime gives rise to gravity.


But mathematics suggests there are places in the universe where the curvature of spacetime becomes unlimited. These locations are known as singularities. One such example can be found at the centre of a black hole. At these places, the theory of general relativity breaks down.


Panchromatic view of galaxy cluster MACS0416

The universe cooled as it continued to expand. NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, J. Diego (Instituto de Física de Cantabria, Spain), J. D’Silva (U. Western Australia), A. Koekemoer (STScI), J. Summers & R. Windhorst (ASU), and H. Yan (U. Missouri).

From 1965 to 1966, the British theoretical physicists Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose presented a number of mathematical theorems demonstrating that the spacetime of an expanding universe must end at a singularity in the past: the Big Bang singularity.


Penrose received the Nobel Prize in 2020. Hawking passed away in 2018 and Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously. Space and time appear at the Big Bang singularity, so questions of what happens “before” the Big Bang are not well defined. As far as science can tell, there is no before; the Big Bang is the onset of time.


However, nature is not accurately described by general relativity alone, even though the latter has been around for more than 100 years and has not been disproven. General relativity cannot describe atoms, nuclear fusion or radioactivity. These phenomena are instead addressed by quantum theory.


Theories from “classical” physics, such as relativity, are deterministic. This means that certain initial conditions have a definite outcome and are therefore absolutely predictive. Quantum theory, on the other hand, is probabilistic. This means that certain initial conditions in the universe can have multiple outcomes.


Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), as observed by the Planck mission.

Tiny differences in the CMB tell us about the age, expansion and contents of the universe. ESA and the Planck Collaboration

Quantum theory is somewhat predictive, but in a probabilistic way. Outcomes are assigned a probability of existing. If the mathematical distribution of probabilities is sharply peaked at a certain outcome, then the situation is well described by a “classical” theory such as general relativity. But not all systems are like this. In some systems, for example atoms, the probability distribution is spread out and a classical description does not apply.


What about gravity? In the vast majority of cases, gravity is well described by classical physics. Classical spacetime is smooth. However, when curvature becomes extreme, near a singularity, then the quantum nature of gravity cannot be ignored. Here, spacetime is no longer smooth, but gnarly, similar to a carpet which looks smooth from afar but up-close is full of fibres and threads.


Thus, near the Big Bang singularity, the structure of spacetime ceases to be smooth. Mathematical theorems suggest that spacetime becomes overwhelmed by “gnarly” features: hooks, loops and bubbles. This rapidly fluctuating situation is called spacetime foam.


Black hole

At singularities, such as at the centres of black holes, the classical theory of relativity breaks down. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Jeremy Schnittman

In spacetime foam, causality does not apply, because there are closed loops in spacetime where the future of an event is also its past (so its outcome can also be its cause). The probabilistic nature of quantum theory suggests that, when the probability distribution is evenly spread out, all outcomes are equally possible and the comfortable notion of causality we associate with a classical understanding of physics is lost.


Therefore, if we go back in time, just before we encounter the Big Bang singularity, we find ourselves entering an epoch where the quantum effects of gravity are dominant and causality does not apply. This is called the Planck epoch.


Time ceases to be linear, going from the past to the future, and instead becomes wrapped, chaotic and random. This means the question “why did the Big Bang occur?” has no meaning, because outside causality, events do not need a cause to take place.


In order to understand how physics works at a singularity like the Big Bang, we need a theory for how gravity behaves according to quantum theory. Unfortunately, we do not have one. There are a number of efforts on this front like loop quantum gravity and string theory, with its various incarnations.


Spacetime foam

Near the Big Bang singularity, spacetime takes on a structure similar to foam. NASA/CXC/M.Weiss

However, these efforts are at best incomplete, because the problem is notoriously difficult. This means that spacetime foam has a totemic, powerful mystique, much like the ancient Chaos of Hesiod which the Greeks believed existed in the beginning.


So how did our expanding and largely classical universe ever escape from spacetime foam? This brings us to cosmic inflation. The latter is defined as a period of accelerated expansion in the early universe. It was first introduced by the Russian theoretical physicist Alexei Starobinsky in 1980 and in parallel, that same year, by the American physicist Alan Guth, who coined the name.


Inflation makes the universe large and uniform, according to observations. It also forces the universe to be spatially flat, which is an otherwise unstable situation, but which has also been confirmed by observations. Moreover, inflation provides a natural mechanism to generate the primordial irregularities in the density of the universe that are essential for structures such as galaxies and galaxy clusters to form.


Theory vindicated

Precision observations of the cosmic microwave background in recent decades have spectacularly confirmed the predictions of inflation. We also know that the universe can indeed undergo accelerated expansion, because in the last few billion years it started doing it again.


What does this have to do with spacetime foam? Well, it turns out that, if the conditions for inflation arise (by chance) in a patch of fluctuating spacetime, as can occur with spacetime foam, then this region inflates and starts conforming to classical physics.


Alan Guth

Professor Alan Guth, from MIT, describes inflation as a theory of the ‘bang’ of the Big Bang. JUAN CARLOS CARDENAS / EPA IMAGES

According to an idea first proposed by the Russian-American physicist Andrei Linde, inflation is a natural – and perhaps inevitable – consequence of chaotic initial conditions in the early universe.


The point is that our classical universe could have emerged from chaotic conditions, like those in spacetime foam, by experiencing an initial boost of inflation. This would have set off the expansion of the universe. In fact, the observations by astronomers of the CMB suggest that the initial boost is explosive, since the expansion is exponential during inflation.


In March 20 of 2014, Alan Guth explained it succinctly: “I usually describe inflation as a theory of the ‘bang’ of the Big Bang: It describes the propulsion mechanism that we call the Big Bang.”


So, there you have it. The 14 billion year story of our universe begins with a cataclysmic explosion everywhere in space, which we call the Big Bang. That much is beyond reasonable doubt. This explosion is really a period of explosive expansion, which we call cosmic inflation. What happens before inflation, though? Is it a spacetime singularity, is it spacetime foam? The answer is largely unknown.


In fact, it might even be unknowable, because there is a mathematical theorem which forbids us from accessing information about the onset of inflation, much like the one that prevents us from knowing about the interiors of black holes. So, from our point of view, cosmic inflation is the Big Bang, the explosion that started it all.

9/11: Footage From The Pentagon Parking Lot Released



____________________________________________________________________


Footage from the Pentagon Parking lot from September 11, 2001, finally released. Frames have without doubt been removed; this is clear despite the poor quality of the recording. Despite all of this chicanery, it still seems clear that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a commercial airliner.

It always amazes me that in some of the most fiercely controlled airspace in the world, nobody seemed to notice a commercial passenger plummeting towards world changing disaster.o
Once

The Real Reason The West Hates Putin Will Surprise Most People


During the 20th Century the Soviet Union produced many significant social and technological achievements and many innovations. Soviet military technology in some areas, particularly defense systems like the Soviet S300 (which STILL outperform the latest U.S. Patriot ground to air system by some margin) were coveted worldwide.  It also had the world's second-largest economy, By 1970, the Soviet economy had reached its zenith and was estimated at 60 percent of the size of the United States in terms of the estimated commodities (like steel and coal). Its oil and gas reserves were, and still are, vast, with certain sectors unmatched globally.


The Soviet Armed Forces comprised the largest standing military in the world. An NPT designated state, it possessed the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, a statistical title that Russia still holds today. 

The period from the 1970's onwards marked a consistent decline for the U.S.S.R. The reasons for it are mired in an unsatisfactory narrative which prevents any real understanding of affairs, and that same propagandistic narrative persists to this day, even the "red scare" component despite the fact that todays Russian Federation has abandon communism.  With that in mind, I would make the case that it has actually gotten worse despite manifesting once more in a flavour that reminds me of the Cold War despite a few small cosmetic changes. That narrative is stuck. It's the "Capitalism VS Communism" distraction. A polar one-or-the-other fantasy method of summing up a situation typically has about as much nuance as a "Good VS Evil" children's cartoon, the type that insists on finishing every episode with a moral lesson for kids delivered by the hero.  

Cast your mind back to any Cold War era TV montage, with clips of President Reagan yelling "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!".  This was not so much an organic pop culture dynamic as our sense of nostalgia will try to persuade us.  It was a repeated meme, early memetic engineering in the days where social engineering was used sparingly. It is, nonetheless? A form of "Divide and Rule". 
Here is my detailed history of the evolution of this fascinating tactic, and trust me, it's a lot more interesting than you think. 

In the 1990's things reached rock bottom in the former Soviet Union. Gangsterism and suicide were on the rise as Western Capital Finance vultures descended onto (and into) the newly available carcass. By that I mean the reduced remains of the former U.S.S.R. The new "Free Market Economy" simply did not have the maturity to evolve any internal oversight structures able to function as defense mechanisms from the external economic hitmen.  
More problems were found to emerge internally since the new open economy only benefitted a handful of oligarchs. Well, a few oligarchs along with the Russian mob who rose to international notoriety pushing out more settled international outfits with previously unseen levels of violence. The results on the economy any society were severely traumatic and to this day Russians are motivated by political participation shaped by the single and overpowering need to never again have their fate at the disposal of special interests whom they do not understand or trust.

NA.T.O. was at this point defunct.  The fall of the Soviet Union should have seen it retired, since the official reason for its existence was no more.  The real (unofficial) purpose of the Trans-Atlantic arms manufacturers club was to expand the MIC grift from the U.S. tax base to the entire Western tax base. It follows logically. The more people, the more taxation available to be plundered.  You still need an enemy to justify a threat response, but that need was only apparent to me in the shorter term since they were cooking up the "War on Terror" for that and it was decided to rather feed on the Soviet corpse and make sure it did not re-emerge as a legitimate threat. After all, perceived threats could be more safely sold to the public. N.A.T.O. saw its chance in the 1990's for acting on its secret expansionist agenda, all the while refusing the new Russian Federation even so much as an option to join, which not many people even know about. For the largest arms dealers in the West, selling maximum arms requires maximum enemies, and terror threat being cooked up from the Middle East wasn't quite ready. 

So the situation in the new Russian Federation was not looking good.  Whichever way you slice it there were serious problems, and greedy, calculating forces had put into action a series of events that were supposed to balkanize the territory, leaving its economy plundered.  It was to become a Western vassal in every possible sense. Without being overly dramatic, the once great nation stood on the precipice of doom.

Enter Putin.


For the sake of brevity let's look at the highlights reel only. Russian annual household income increased from an average of $800.00 p/a to over $30 000.00 during the course of Putin's leadership. During the same period, the West (while asleep at the wheel) found itself suddenly and depressingly involved in corporate state capture and economic plunder, with random woke agendas shoved down their throats for good measure.

By the time the 2008 economic crises was being resolved by Obama blatantly robbing taxpayers to bail out the banks, Russians were instead witnessing state crackdowns on corrupt oligarchs, multinational corporations who were known to disregard public health were ejected from the country.  Globalist financial interests and foreign meddling were no longer just causing financial disaster, they had collaborated with intel agencies and were involved with actual psyops.  Case in point is whereby sewing discontent in Georgia they had been funding a separatist movement that at one point was a major threat.  Well, this type of thing needed to be nipped in the bud, and it was. It was ruthlessly crushed by the new Russian leader who it appeared did not get the script.

This upstart had gotten it into his head that his policies would be shaped in the national interest. 
Under Putin jobs, law and order, culture, identity and pride were slowly restored. Efforts to destabilize the territories bordering the Russian Federation from within and externally were managed, less notorious but still corrupt oligarchs and the mob were brought to heel. Syria was basically rescued from Western and Saudi supported terrorists by Russia, forming a bond and affinity between the two nations.  The Russian President has obtained a cult like status in some sectors for resuscitation of the nation's economy under the most hostile conditions unimaginable.

This is no small feat. I picked up long before there was any traction for it in alternative media discourse that any plan for Russia to succeed would involve neutralizing threats that were actively seeking to cause it harm.  It was not Russia that was naive and too trusting of the West by this point, it was the Western leaders who were surely thinking that this one was in the bag naively believing the naivety of Putin, of this I am certain even though Putin to this day will not admit it for reasons of political expediency.  If you don't believe me then take a look at my reasoning at the time and consider how it played out.  There is only one scenario that makes sense, and it makes a lot of sense.  I have elaborated in quite a bit of detail exactly what the plan was and also regularly reported on its success as well as regularly pointed out the failure of the Western leaders to come to terms with strategy that appeared, at least to me, to understand that success would not be possible unless key strategic Western hegemonies were disarmed of the financial and military weapons it possessed, so long as there was intent to do harm to Russia. Select the "Russia "or "Putin" labels below this post or follow the links I have embedded in this post, the important recent ones being here, here and here.

To this day the plan is still not grasped, even by the alternative media, judging by what I am hearing about "War of Attrition" as if it were only a battle tactic in the recent Ukraine vs Russia conflict which is really a proxy war Russia is waging against N.A.T.O.  Reasons for the slow Russian advance are analyzed in depth, they discuss how hard the ground is and the winter freeze, waiting for Ukraine's counter-offensives to run out of steam, the fact that they are focused on the Donbass for humanitarian reasons or the belief that Putin is secretly holding out for a peace deal.

All he is doing is demilitarizing NATO!

Let's be serious for a second here, Putin couldn't care a flying stuff about any peace agreement with any of these snakes in the grass, even if he ultimately enters into one, it will be against a background where Russia controls the variables that decide whether Ukraine ever become a threat again.  Trust, viewed as unrealistic by Putin, would not be required, so why would that be important?  Part of the reason for the invasion was to eliminate the need for trust and rather be in control of outcomes viewed by Russia as an existential threat. It's noteworthy that Putin does take seriously any pressure exerted by its allies, particularly BRICS nations, that is something to be mindful of, especially since the architecture of the new global payments system is something Putin spends far more time on than the war. Russia has the BRICS presidency this year and at the end of October in Kazan a summit is being held where vital technical discussions around global payments and security are to be ironed out.

Regarding the lead up to war, Putin observed the outsourcing of Western manufacturing to China and elsewhere, and he modernized the Russian MIC to ensure they were prepared to win in output of artillery in a race for escalatory dominance knowing Western stocks run on a "just in time" logistics and stockholding policy since their MIC is purely bottom line in structure.   He also has a very clear grasp of the political appetite for expensive wars on the voting public and know in Russia the population does not see defense at  war profiteering and support would only grow when engaging on military spending if it is to fortify Russia against her enemies.  His calculus of political damage, expense, threat posed by advanced N.A.T.O. weapons systems and the logistics/industry of war being able to produce and sustain

This was happening the whole time that Russia was trying work with his "partners" in the West, and it upset Russians he was using such terms for those trying to destroy him.  In the background do you not think the move to establish BRICS, stockpile gold, dump US Treasuries, corner the oil and gas markets by planning output with OPEC Nations like the Saudis, destroy the Petrodollar, provide support to Iran/ Africa/Syria/The Houti's etc. Make no mistake about it, survival meant disarming the aggressor.

Because once more the West is being played, it is the West that is STGILL BEING NEUTRALISED, disarmed of its weapons, artillery, its public appetite for war by Russia.  Putin knows the west has outsourced its manufacturing  

The perception among those paying attention is that with Putin at the helm the Russian Federation had done an about turn from the naive victim it was after the Cold War collapse. The Russians learned the hard way. Now they have outplayed the West in every arena. They outplayed the criminal plunder puppets who extort as much from their people as possible, eroding the manufacturing and industrial heart of the West with vulture capitalism fostered by the globalization of war, agriculture, syndicated media and finance. Putin has protected his economy from such vultures, invigorated its manufacturing base, tied its currency to energy and gold while ditching debt-based holdings of an increasingly suspect promise to pay, the USD treasury bonds. 

Russia has been a guiding light in the formation of BRICS providing the global South with a demonstration that resistance IS NOT futile and that we are stronger together. Militarily Russia is patient and has learned from the past. In the Ukraine proxy war, the entire NATO arsenal lies as a smoked ruin on the Ukraine countryside as the West turns its focus to aiding a genocide currently being committed by its ally Israel.  

Putin has not only defeated the West against all odds, but he has also done it while they tried to destroy him, somehow succeeding during that chaos to create the kind of trajectory the Western tax bandit globalist neoliberal cabal could only dream of.

They live in fear of being defeated despite holding all the cards only to have the man they demonized succeed at every aspect of their failure. There can be no defeat more comprehensive and no justice more in line with karmic sentiment than that.

And that backstory should allow the case to make itself.   The real reason the West hates Putin has nothing to do with freedom, democracy or prosperity because that is precisely what they have taken from the West, and no amount of projection will convince Russians otherwise, they believe their lying eyes and in a cultural quirk do not distinguish between projection and confession. All the data is transparent and clearly reflects my analysis as does everyday reality for every Russian I have spoken with. The demonizing of Putin is so far removed from reality, and it requires such overt and shameless lying that there was never any risk of it being taken seriously in Russia, and citizens were beginning to keep a keen eye the foreign affairs escapades of the US alphabet agencies and its department of state.
It was duly noted that the spy era rigor and excellence had vanished from the US intelligence community and armed forces.  The objectives of all discretionary spending on national budget issues was motivated by greed and corruption.  Without a peer competitor or threat, the vast resources dedicated to prevailing in the US/USSR contest of influence, all of those assets had to reassess their focus.  None were prepared to forfeit their funding and each would instead find new arenas to ply their covert strategy of classified operations.

What followed was an endless series of expensive, bloody insurgent or proxy wars or direct invasions.  They mainstream media at this point was also fully captured and persisted with its reporting of these wars as failures, ill thought out and executed with no apparent regard for any objectives, means to achieve them or exit strategies.  This is nonsense of course.  These wars were by far the most successful wars in history when seen through the lens of a criminal who has just removed all oversight, accountability and due process from the US Apparatus of state.  No short term victories, long and expensive, provide cover to covert black ops, enrich the MIC contractors, crush all free markets with sanctions, all democracy with globalization, all prosperity with austerity, all sovereign states with open border nightmares, all energy policies with IPCC pseudoscience, all health policies with mandates to make refusing state medication illegal and reclassifying your blood as the for-profit plaything of big pharma.  Russia by contrast has moved in the opposite direction.  Even Russian press have noticed this.

Despite the fact that there is no such thing as government money, only taxpayer money, civil servants in the US had transformed into a freshly emerged civil overclass.  Its former boss, the US taxpayer, was now but a minion and his money through a sense of megalomaniacal entitlement, would no longer be spent maintaining his roads or being invested in the future of national health or education.  Public spending policies would now be up for auction and each bill passed in Washington would be available to the highest bidder.  The polite term for such a system is a "lobby system" and in true Orwellian fashion conventional wisdom will explain how it is a system designed to give voice to the voiceless.  To make sure the little guy is heard.  In reality of course the opposite is true.

In short, despite the thirty years of reasoning I have given, in essence there is one major reason the West hates Putin: It is under his leadership that Russia has been on the opposite course of the West. That is what it comes down to. That is an almost scientifically rigorous way of cutting to the point.

Labels

Search This Blog

Your Feedback

Name

Email *

Message *