First let me reiterate: A Luciferian Hegelian game is being played on us: Western thesis – Russia Antithesis. Both sides are the puppets of the London City and its master and his master (who is an evil spirit). Both sides are equally evil – although they play their roles as the scoundrel and the world´s saviour. In fact, Putin has bein stated to have been initiated as the Illuminati´s Antichrist.
The owner of “Return of Kings” and speaker in the video above is Roosh V. He is an American author. His real name is Persian Daryush Valizdeh.
The Return of Kings 9 Oct. 2016: There are more sinister forces at work. There is a war. It’s up to you to find your role.
These are only 4 rules you need to understand:
1. There is a group of very rich men who control the levers of power.
2. Those men own the media.
3. Those men sponsor political candidates on all sides to do their bidding.
4. Those men have a simple agenda of increasing their wealth and power, to be gods among men.
The UNZ Review – The Saker 6 Oct. 2016 ( a Russian journalist living in the USA): The tensions between Russia and the USA have reached an unprecedented level. I fully agree with the participants of this Cross Talk show – the situation is even worse and more dangerous than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both sides are now going to the so-called “Plan B” which, simply put, stand for, at best, no negotiations and, at worst, a war between Russia and the USA.
The main good news is that the Russian strategy is working. Not only is the Nazi-occupied Ukraine quite literally falling apart, but the US has basically run out of options in Syria.
The only remaining logical steps left for the US in Syria is to accept Russia’s terms or leave. The problem is that I am not at all convinced that the Neocons, who run the White House, Congress and the US corporate media, are “rational” at all
The key thing to understand in the Russian stance in this, and other, recent conflicts with the USA is that Russia is still much weaker than the USA and that she therefore does not want war. That does not, however, mean that she is not actively preparing for war. In fact, she very much and actively does. All this means is that should a conflict occur, Russia you try, as best can be, to keep it as limited as possible.
In theory, these are, very roughly, the possible levels of confrontation:
1) A military standoff à la Berlin in 1961. One could argue that this is what is already taking place right now, albeit in a more long-distance and less visible way.
2) A single military incident, such as what happened recently when Turkey shot down a Russian SU-24 and Russia chose not to retaliate.
3) A series of localized clashes similar to what is currently happening between India and Pakistan.
4) A conflict limited to the Syrian theater of war (say like the war between the UK and Argentina over the Malvinas Islands)
5) A regional or global military confrontation between the USA and Russia
6) A full scale thermonuclear war between the USA and Russia
What is possible is the so-called “horizontal escalation” or “asymmetrical escalation” in which one side choses not to up the ante or directly escalate, but instead choses a different target for retaliation, not necessarily a more valuable one, just a different one on the same level of conceptual importance.
The main reason why we can expect the Kremlin to try to find asymmetrical options to respond to a US attack is that in the Syrian context Russia is hopelessly outgunned by the US/NATO, at least in quantitative terms. The logical solutions for the Russians is to use their qualitative advantage or to seek “horizontal targets” as possible retaliatory options
So the Russian threat is simple: you attack us and we will attack US forces in Syria. Of course, Russia will vehemently deny targeting US servicemen and insist that the strike was only against terrorists, but both sides understand what is happening here: 30 Israeli, Foreign Intelligence Officers Killed in Russia’s Caliber Missile Attack in Aleppo.
The fact remains that US forces in Syria could become an obvious target for Russian retaliation.
We can thus summarize the Russian approach as such
1) Delay a confrontation as long as possible (buy time)
2) Try to keep any confrontation at the lowest possible escalatory level
3) If possible, reply with asymmetrical/horizontal escalations
4) Rather then “prevail” against the US/NATO – make the costs of an attack too high
5) Try to put pressure on US “allies” in order to create tensions inside the Empire
6) Try to paralyze the US on a political level by making the political costs of an attack too high
7) Try to gradually create the conditions on the ground (Aleppo) to make a US attack futile
Are the Americans crazy enough to risk WWIII over Aleppo
in order to risk WWIII to maintain their status as the “world’s indispensable nation”, the “leader of the free world”, the “city on the hill” and all the rest of this imperialistic nonsense? Here I would submit that yes, they potentially are.
After all, the Neocons are correct when they sense that if Russia gets away with openly defying and defeating the USA in Syria, nobody will take the AngloZionists very seriously any more.
The biggest danger here is that the Neocons might try to rally the nation around the flag, either by staging yet another false flag or by triggering a real international crisis.
If Trump wins, then Russia’s strategy will be basically justified. Once Trump is on the White House, there is at least the possibility of a comprehensive redefinition of US-Russian relations which would, of course, begin with a de-escalation in Syria.
Veterans Today 9 Oct. 2016: Moscow “doesn’t see any facts that the US is seriously battling al-Nusra [Al Qaeda – now known as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham],” the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.
Russian Foreign Minister said some policymakers in Washington had been heard to advocate such a scenario of targeting Syrian airfields.
“This is a very dangerous game given that Russia has got air defense systems there to protect its assets.
Lavrov, however, said he was convinced that outgoing US President Barack Obama would not adopt such a scenario.