Wednesday 22nd of September 2021

military games...



















Sea Breeze 2021 manoeuvres will take place involving:

  • about 4,000 military personnel,
  • 40 warships,
  • 30 planes and helicopters,
  • more than 100 automotive and armoured military vehicles.

The arrival of warships in the area of the exercises did not go without an incident, suffice it to recall the recent scandal with British destroyer HMS Defender.

Simultaneously with naval exercises, NATO is conducting another large-scale operation, including in the immediate vicinity of the Russian borders.

It goes about Defender Europe 2021 exercises, in which about 28,000 military personnel of the alliance and allies are taking part so far, with as many as 40,000 military personnel and hundreds of pieces of hardware to be attracted for the war games.

Clearly, Russia reacts negatively to such a development.

Special representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Major General Igor Konashenkov, noted that even though Sea Breeze 2021 were announced as purely sea-based drills, they go far beyond water boundaries and include landing operations of amphibious assault forces, as well as actions of NATO special and ground forces on the territory Ukraine


We can see all this unfolding in parallel with accusations of Russia's military buildup and potential military aggression. What is worse, those accusations come from the countries that send their troops and military hardware to the Russian borders.

There is also the Ukrainian factor.

In Ukraine, there are political forces that would love a war with Russia by proxy, with the help of NATO and the United States in the first place. It goes without saying that Ukraine does not want either the Donbas or the Crimea — Ukraine would like the NATO army to go inside Russia, as deep as possible.

The story with military activities in the Black Sea may result in something very unpleasant, including combat clashes.

  • US military aircraft regularly fly over the Spratly Islands, which China claims to be its own.
  • The Chinese regularly fly over the Sea of ​​Japan.
  • Japanese fishing vessels may often fly into the waters near the Kuril ridge.
  • Turkey constantly flies over Greece and especially the Greek part of Cyprus.

The above activities have not triggered World War Three yet, but one can not exclude a possibility of a tragic accident here either. Warning shots may accidentally hit the target, NATO would respond and Russia would sink them.

It is worthy of note that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg often speaks of the need for dialogue with Russia that should be held within the framework of a dual approach.

In a nutshell, NATO must constantly demonstrate containment mechanisms when talking to Russia. It appears that NATO has big problems with those containment mechanisms.

The Kremlin sees the above-mentioned war games in the Black Sea as an action that is extremely reminiscent of a provocation, rather than a containment factor.

Strangely enough, the war games in the Black Sea coincided with attempts to enter the Russian territorial waters. Russia defends and will defend along their entire length, and Crimea is no exception.

Читайте больше на



understanding with shatner...

 WASHINGTON, JUNE 29, 2021— RT America is proud to announce the premiere of “I Don’t Understand,” hosted by world-famous actor and author William Shatner.  

'I Don’t Understand' will see Shatner seeking to answer fascinating and timely questions that pique the natural interest of everyone, but that the establishment media all too often hesitates to tackle.

From “should I worry about space debris falling from the sky?” to “are we alone in the universe?” to “what is dark matter?” to “what was before the Big Bang?” each episode will bring the Emmy and Golden Globe-winning actor face to face with some of today’s most perplexing conundrums.


Read more:



rust bucket provocateurs...

President Vladimir Putin has slammed the violation of Russian territorial waters by British warship HMS Defender as a “provocation.” He also claimed that London’s American allies had a hand in last week’s incident near Crimea.

However, apparently casting doubt on NATO’s ‘Article V’ collective defense pact, the Russian leader claimed that, even if Moscow had sunk the vessel, it wouldn’t have led to World War III, because the “provocateurs” know they wouldn’t be able to win.

Last week, the British naval ship HMS Defender entered the country’s territorial waters and traveled three kilometers (almost two miles) inside the frontier, near Cape Fiolent, in Crimea. According to Russia’s Ministry of Defense, the coastguard targeted warning shots at the boat. This has been disputed by the British, but video evidence suggests the Russian version of events is more accurate.


According to London, the destroyer was making a peaceful passage through the territorial waters of Ukraine in accordance with international law. The UK does not recognize Crimea as part of Russia.

Speaking at his annual ‘Direct Line’ call-in show, Putin revealed that a US strategic airplane took off from an airfield on the island of Crete and flew towards Russia on the morning before HMS Defender entered Russian waters.

However, despite the provocation, the two NATO members do not want a conflict, and it is not true to say that the world is now standing on the brink of a world war, he said.

“Even if we had sunk that ship, it would still be hard to imagine that the world would be on the brink of World War III,” the president said. “Because those who are doing this know that they can’t get out of this war victorious. That’s a very important thing.”


The president also pondered the exact reasons for the British provocation, noting that matters discussed at his recent summit with his American counterpart, Joe Biden, in Geneva might offer an explanation.

“Why was it necessary to make such a provocation? For what?” he asked. “To show that they have no respect for the choice of the Crimeans to join Russia?”

Putin also slammed the West for its hypocrisy, noting that Moscow had ordered its troops to move away from Ukraine’s border earlier this year, after Russia had received complaints.

“We did it. But instead of reacting to it positively and saying: ‘OK, we understand your reaction to our indignation,’ instead, what did they do? They have come to our borders,” Putin said.


Read more:


Read from top.


FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW ıııııııııııı˜˜ÂÂÂÂÂ≤≤≤≤≥≥≥≥≥≥˘˘˘÷÷÷÷÷÷÷!!!!!

the lying poms...


Global media outlets have been busy reporting about an incident involving British servicemen who, in a provocative move, intentionally entered Russian territorial waters and failed to comply with a request from the Russian military until members of the latter were forced to fire warning shots.

On June 23, 2021, HMS Defender, a British warship, sailed near Cape Fiolent in Crimea thereby coming into Russian territorial waters. In response, Russia’s military and border patrol sent several warning shots towards the path the UK vessel was following and, as a result, it was forced to ingloriously leave the area. Russian officials stated that the crew of the British warship grossly violated the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

However, from the very beginning, the incident was described in a completely different and falsified manner by the British military, which is not atypical considering the UK conduct over recent years. The UK government denied that the Royal Navy’s warship had entered Russia’s territorial waters and that any shots had been fired. Afterwards, officials from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense of the Russian Federation accused British counterparts of intentionally lying.

While commenting on the actions of British warship HMS Defender and the reports of warning shots being fired by Russia’s coast guards towards its path through territorial waters of the Russian Federation, Britain’s Secretary of State for Defense Ben Wallace played down any notion of hostilities by stating on June 23 that Russian vessels had “shadowed the ship’s passage” as a routine. UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab lent credence to this misleading story by saying that the Russian version of events was “predictably inaccurate” and that no shots had been “fired at HMS Defender”, which had been conducting an “innocent passage through Ukrainian territorial waters.”

While addressing the incident and accusations that UK officials were lying about it made by Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that the deployment of HMS Defender had been “wholly appropriate.”

Mouthpieces, such as The Times, soon joined the UK propaganda campaign. An article published by this newspaper on June 24, 2021 said that, according to Boris Johnson, it had been “wholly appropriate to use international waters” and the UK government did not recognize the statement that bombs had been drop in the vessel’s path. The BBC’s defense correspondent, Jonathan Beale, reported that he had been able to hear “some firing in the distance” and that the crew had put on protective clothing as the ship had continued on its intentionally provocative course along the Russian coast.

However if HMS Defender had indeed been making a “routine transit” without any intention to provoke, why was the BBC journalist on board the warship?

Subsequently, a video filmed on HMS Defender, posted by the BBC, showed the vessel sailing through Russian territorial waters thus confirming the provocation and its prior approval by the UK government. In it, BBC’s correspondent Jonathan Beale said that as HMS Defender intentionally had come within 12 miles of Crimea, a Russian coast guard patrol ship had approached the British warship and tried to force it to change its course. In addition, he reported that numerous warnings had been issued over the radio by the Russian side.

In fact, according to the Daily Mail, the Captain of the British destroyer, Vincent Owen, said shots had been fired from one of Russia’s coast guard vessels during the incident in the Black Sea near Crimea. He also “strongly criticized Russian forces for threatening him and the men and women under his command” and declared that Russian ships had come within 100-200 yards of his vessel.

At a press briefing on June 24, 2021 Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby stated that there had been “no shots fired as warning to HMS Defender” and that any reports to the contrary had simply been “Russian disinformation.” His words clearly suggested that the UK and US governments had previously agreed on how to address the provocative scheme. The event in question occurred “just days ahead of multinational naval maneuvers led by Ukraine and the United States in the Black Sea, known as Sea Breeze”. And its timing definitely points to a collusion between British and US officials.

An article published in The Daily Telegraph on June 24, 2021 said the decision on whether or not to let the Royal Navy warship provocatively sail through waters around Crimea had been escalated to Downing Street and the Prime Minister had made the final call.

There were a number of reports from Western media outlets about the Russian “harsh response” to the incident involving the UK warship. In an article published on June 23 by The National Interest magazine, Mark Episkopos noted that British analysts had been “caught off-guard by the severity of Russia’s reaction.” According to the author, the Kremlin’s response to the Defender’s incursion showed that Moscow would “brook no challenge, whether military or diplomatic, to the status of Crimea.” He also said that Russia’s reaction aligned “with a series of recent tonal shifts signaled by the Putin administration” in, for instance, “an op-ed for German publication Die Zeit” that stated the President of the Russian Federation had called “NATO a relic of the Cold War”, which had “degraded European security.”

Several widely-circulated Spanish newspapers, such as El Mundo, El País, La Vanguardia and El Periódico, published a number of articles about the incident involving the British warship off the coast of the Russian Crimea and their readers vividly commented about these reports. They warned the United Kingdom against provoking Russia and said that such actions were uncalled for. “Britain be careful! Do not mess with Russia,” wrote Verdadiv. “The British always try to enter other nations’ territorial waters until someone puts a stop to such violations,” noted Noticiero. “The Royal Navy should not complain about Russia’s reaction considering that on May 29, 2019, a British ship had fired live rounds near a Spanish navy vessel in Gibraltar waters that Spain claims as its own while the UK views as international,” pointed out WolIstonecraft, referring to the double standards applied by Great Britain’s government.

Even UK officials have criticized the actions taken by the Royal Navy. According to the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, Chief of Defense Staff General Sir Nick Carter warned that a “miscalculation in Russian cat and mouse game could lead to a full blown war” after the incident in the Black Sea.

In an article published by The Independent at the end of June, Patrick Cockburn, a columnist specializing in analysis of Iraq, Syria and wars in the Middle East, openly stated that “the confused confrontation off Crimea” had showed up “the dangerous frivolity at the heart of British policy.” The author said the incident had given “an alarming insight into the behavior patterns” of the UK government at home and abroad, with “the gap between pretensions and reality” getting deeper in both cases. “In the last five years Britain has become a weaker state while pretending to be a more powerful one. This tension will remain at the heart of British policies from Belfast to Sevastopol and the South China Sea despite all efforts to pretend the opposite,” wrote Patrick Cockburn.

The readers of a June 23 report in The Daily Mail did not support the decision to enter the Russian territorial waters off the coast of Crimea. One commented that it was easier to believe the journalist on board the warship than the UK government. Other reactions to the article included “Keep poking the bear and find out just how small that island you occupy is” and “[This fat barbarian] Boris thinks he’s Churchill”.

A report by London-based Rai Al Youm posed the following question “Will the Russian-British escalation in the waters off the Crimea develop into an all-out war in the Black Sea?” in its headline. Its author also concluded that Boris Johnson appeared not to realize that Britain was “no longer a superpower” and that the sun had “disappeared from its empire since the Suez War.” After all, the United Kingdom was no longer a part of the EU and would not “become American”, and above all, the nation could disintegrate.

BBC article published on June 28, 2021 about classified Ministry of Defense documents found at a bus stop in Kent dealt another blow to the UK government’s narrative. They showed that the mission in the Black Sea “was the subject of high-level discussions”, “with officials speculating about Russia’s reaction if HMS Defender sailed close to Crimea.”

It has become clearer what role the UK government has played in various propaganda campaigns recently. The author is referring to the so called Skripal case; fake accusations of chemical weapon use in Syria levelled against the Bashar al-Assad government made by the White Helmets (Syrian Civil Defense), and the incident involving HMS Defender near Crimea on June 23.

Now that such provocative moves failed to achieve the desired goals and evoked general criticism, who within the UK government will shoulder the blame? Will Boris Johnson have the guts to leave his post as Prime Minister in response to such failures? Or will he wait until the public decide his fate?


Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.


Read more:


Read from top.


Read also: 

try me !...




if, if and if...


The Danger that NATO Poses to Americans






Imagine a massive nuclear exchange between the United States and China. That obviously would not be a pretty sight for the people of either nation. As the mushroom clouds arose over both nations, imagine thinking to yourself: “All this because of a socialist road.”

According to an article in the London Daily Mail, the governments of China and Montenegro entered into an agreement in which China agreed to build a road for Montenegro that would extend to the Serbian capital of Belgrade. The road is only partially built and is now being called the “road to nowhere.”

China financed the road with a $1 billion loan to Montenegro. The first installment on the loan is due this month. But there is a good chance that Montenegro, “whose debt has soared to more than double its GDP,” will have to default.

The loan agreement entitles China to seize land within Montenegro, so long as it isn’t owned by the military or used for diplomatic purposes.

What does all this have to do with a nuclear war between the United States and China? 

If Montenegro defaults and, for whatever reason, refuses to permit China to seize its collateral, China might well invade the country to enforce its loan agreement. 

What does that have to do with the United States?

In 2017, Montenegro became a member of NATO. Under NATO’s membership rules, NATO members, including the United States, are bound to come to the defense of other NATO members in the event that a non-NATO nation attacks them. 

I can’t help but wonder how many Americans realize that they have had their lives and fortunes pledged to the defense of Montenegro. For that matter, the same holds true with respect to all the other members of NATO, which are as follows: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, and United Kingdom.

What’s amazing is how this process works. No one came to Congress and asked whether the American people were willing to sign a treaty with Montenegro that committed American lives and fortunes to the defense of Montenegro in some future war. My hunch is that if that had happened, enough Americans would have risen up to successfully oppose such a treaty.

Instead, all that had to be done was to have NATO bureaucrats approve Montenegro as a new NATO member. No approval of the American people was needed at all. The lives and fortunes of the American people are determined by bureaucrats in Brussels, Belgium, where NATO headquarters are located.

This is nuts! As recently as 2020, NATO bureaucrats agreed to admit North Macedonia into the organization. North Macedonia? Where the heck is North Macedonia?

Why do the American people continue to go along with this junk? Do they have such low regard for their own lives and fortunes that they are willing to subject themselves, their families, and their money to the whims of faraway foreign bureaucrats? Or do they just feel too helpless to stand up and say no? Or is their passivity just part of the overall deference-to-authority mindset that is inculcated into Americans in public (i.e., government) schools?

Let’s assume that there was no NATO and that China then attacked Montenegro to enforce its road loan agreement. How many Americans would travel to Montenegro to give their lives in the defense of Montenegro? 

Answer: None! Not one single American, including the most ardent interventionists and anti-communists and including every member of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, would go to Montenegro to defend the country, 

Why should the United States be part of an organization in which foreign bureaucrats are deciding when and under what conditions the American people are going to war? Why shouldn’t Americans be free to decide which wars to enter on an individual war-by-war basis?

Our nation’s Founding Fathers, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, warned against these types of “entangling alliances.” Today’s Americans would be wise to heed their words and withdraw the United States from NATO, that old Cold War dinosaur, before it’s too late.


Read more:


Read from top.