Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

conflict

Intelligence experts warn Europe is leading the US ‘to the cusp of nuclear annihilation’

Published

12 minute read

Podcast interview: Judge Andrew Napolitano talks to former US Marine Corps Intelligence Officer Scott Ritter

From LifeSiteNews

By Patrick Delaney

Ritter, a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, emphasized the relevant French troops “have been put on notice for deployment. So, this is real. This isn’t hypothetical.

A group of former American intelligence officers issued a statement last week warning that a planned deployment of French and Baltic state soldiers into Ukraine could initiate a chain of events quickly leading to the “nuclear annihilation” of the United States, Europe and Russia.

The March 24 public memo from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) addressed to the president of the United States is signed by 19 well-known experts such as Colonel Douglas MacgregorScott RitterMatthew HohRay McGovern and Col. Lawrence Wilkerson.

It warns that the planned deployment of 2,000 French troops, being joined by some from the Baltic states, would be “purely symbolic” since they “would have zero survivability” in the “modern high-intensity conflict” happening in Ukraine today.

These troops from NATO countries would furthermore be “‘lawful targets’ under the Law of War” and it is “highly likely that Russia would attack” any such “contingent in Ukraine and quickly destroy/degrade its combat viability.”

President Emmanuel Macron of France may then believe he could invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter requiring NATO members, including the United States, to intervene, the experts explained. Such a response would likely involve aircraft operating from NATO countries against tactical targets inside Russia.

“Doctrinally, and by legal right, Russia’s response would be to launch retaliatory strikes also against targets in NATO countries,” the letter continues. “If NATO then attacks strategic targets inside Russia, at that point Russia’s nuclear doctrine takes over, and NATO decision-making centers would be hit with nuclear weapons.”

“Europe needs to understand that France is leading it down a path of inevitable self-destruction,” the experts wrote. And the “American people need to understand that Europe is leading them to the cusp of nuclear annihilation.”

In describing the imminent dangers involved with this scenario, Ritter, a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, emphasized the relevant French troops “have been put on notice for deployment. So, this is real. This isn’t hypothetical. This isn’t fake. This is real.”

“Ladies and gentlemen, that is an act of war. Russia has said it’s an act of war. Russia will destroy these 60,000,” Ritter assured.

And “if you think for a second that NATO’s going to allow 2,000 French soldiers or 60,000 NATO soldiers to be killed by the Russians without doing anything, you’re wrong,” he said, explaining they will “strike the bases where the Russian aircraft came that destroyed this NATO force.”

Since some of those bases are “duel-hatted,” meaning they have both conventional bombers and nuclear deterrence bombers, a “strategic force waiting reserve in case there’s a nuclear war.”

“Russian nuclear doctrine says that if a conventional power attacks Russia in a way that diminishes its strategic nuclear deterrence, that is a red line that can lead to a Russian nuclear retaliation,” Ritter explained. “We are talking about nuclear war here. And it’s on full automatic, meaning that once this begins, it doesn’t stop until the world is ended.”

According to the former intelligence officer, Macron has spoken to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, along with the British, Polish and Czechs who have signaled they don’t want to lead on this deployment but are willing to follow with their own troop assignments soon after.

And while many believe “Russia has been crying wolf about its nuclear doctrine,” Ritter says, “let me just make it clear, I’ve had a lot of experience with the Russians. They don’t bluff. They literally don’t bluff.”

He believes Russia sent a signal recently in their destroying an airfield and a rail line on the Polish border. In effect, they are saying, “we know how you get here. We know how this is done. If you cross over, we will kill you all.” And, indeed “they have straight-up said, ‘a Frenchman steps foot in Ukraine, that’s a dead Frenchman. We will kill them.’”

‘No doubt,’ the U.S. president directed the CIA to ‘carry out acts of violence inside Russia’

Ritter also discussed why he believes the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was behind the March 22 terrorist attack at a concert hall just outside of Moscow that claimed the lives of at least 139 people.

According to his research, the intelligence service of Ukraine, the GUR, “is a total construct of the CIA and MI6, the British intelligence (agency),” and is thus “not an independent organ. It works on behalf of the United States.”

“The CIA has worked with the GUR to use Russian nationalist groups to invade Russia,” he emphasized. Perhaps similar to the Black Lives Matter riots in 2020, this was done in early March with a purpose of disrupting the election of Russian President Vladimir Putin and involved approximately 5,000 fighters trained, equipped, and directed by the United States “under the umbrella of Ukrainian intelligence.”

While these fighters were defeated, Ritter said this invasion was an act of war that also demonstrates “the CIA is capable of carrying out acts of violence on Russian soil.”

With regards to the Moscow terrorist bombing, he explained why the media narrative that the terrorists were ISIS-K jihadists was questionable as the assailants released pictures of themselves attempting to display a pious Islamic gesture but did it erroneously, betraying their unfamiliarity with the religion.

Secondly, while jihadists give their lives as “martyrs” in such attacks, these men escaped and sought their safe refuge in Ukraine, indicating they are mercenaries returning to those who recruited and trained, and paid them: “the GUR, which is the same thing as the CIA and MI6. America is behind this 100%.”

‘We have become the terrorists.’

Ritter further highlighted how the president of the United States is required by law to sign a “finding” authorizing such a covert action by the CIA Special Activity Center, at least in its general objectives even if the details of implementation are left to the discretion of the agency. Additionally, “the Gang of Eight” in Congress must be notified of such a “finding” as well.

Therefore, the former Marine concludes, the United States through the CIA has been in Ukraine “training the Ukrainians on ‘irregular warfare,’ ‘unconventional warfare.’ This means terrorism.”

“The CIA has a mission given to it by the president of the United States to train the Ukrainian intelligence services in acts of terrorism,” he said. “This operation is part of that process.”

“Let there be no doubt, the president of the United States has directed the Central Intelligence Agency to carry out acts of violence inside Russia, designed to undermine the authority of Vladimir Putin and to disrupt the elections that took place earlier this month,” Ritter said.

“We have become the terrorists. I hope people understand that. We have become the terrorists. We are responsible for setting in motion events that culminated in this horrific attack in Moscow,” he said. “We’re a terrorist nation.”

Noting the further irony, Ritter emphasized the “presidential directive to disrupt the elections in Russia” amid the western narrative over the last several years claiming “the Russians are interfering with American elections.”

If Americans understood the danger, ‘they would be in the streets’ by the millions

Returning to the topic of the French deployment of troops into Ukraine, “I’d like to believe that once the American people realize that we are on this automatic course towards nuclear annihilation, that if we don’t do anything to stop this, a possible or probable outcome is that they won’t survive the summer.”

“All you guys planning a summer vacation right now, it’s going to end with a blinding flash if we don’t stop this, if we don’t stop this insanity,” he implored.

If the American people understood the danger they were in, “they would be in the streets. Millions of people would be surrounding the White House. Central Park in New York City would be packed. San Francisco would be shut down,” Ritter exclaimed. “The American people should come out, stand up, and say not just ‘no,’ but ‘hell no, not in our name!’”

“But they’re not. They’re all getting up today, getting ready, going to work, living their lives as if nothing’s happening,” he lamented.

conflict

Obama Dropped Over 26K Bombs Without Congressional Approval

Published on

Armstrong Economics

By Martin Armstrong

@miss_stacey_

Biden, Clinton, Obama & Harris on Iran #biden #clinton #obama #harris #trump #iran #nuclear

♬ original sound – Stacey

Iran has been the target for decades. Biden, Harris, and Clinton—all the Democrats have said that they would attack Iran if given the opportunity. It appears that Donald Trump is attempting to mitigate a potentially irresolvable situation. As he bluntly told reporters: We basically — we have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f‑‑‑ they’re doing.”

A portion of the nation believes Trump acted like a dictator by attacking Iran without Congressional approval. I explained how former President Barack Obama decimated the War Powers Resolution Act when he decided Libya was overdue for a regime change. The War Powers Act, or War Powers Resolution of 1973, grants the POTUS the ability to send American troops into battle if Congress receives a 48-hour notice. The stipulation here is that troops cannot remain in battle for over 60 days unless Congress authorizes a declaration of war. Congress could also remove US forces at any time by passing a resolution.

Libya is one of seven nations that Obama bombed without Congressional approval, yet no one remembers him as a wartime president, as the United States was not technically at war. Over 26,000 bombs were deployed across 7 nations under his command in 2016 alone. Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Pakistan were attacked without a single vote. Donald Trump’s recent orders saw 36 bombs deployed in Iran.

The majority of those bombings happened in Syria, Libya, and Iraq under the premise of targeting extremist groups like ISIS. Drone strikes were carried out across Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan as the Obama Administration accused those nations of hosting al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Coincidentally, USAID was also providing funding to those groups.

Trump Obama Neocon War Bombs

The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was initially implemented to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Obama broadened his interpretation of the AUMF and incorporated newly formed militant groups that were allegedly expanding across the entire Middle East. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism believes there were up to 1,100 civilian casualties in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Thousands of civilians died in Syria and Iraq but the death toll was never calculated. At least 100 innocent people died in the 2016 attacks in Afghanistan alone.

The government will always augment the law for their personal agenda. The War Powers Resolution was ignored and the AUMF was altered. Congress was, however, successful in preventing Obama from putting US troops on the ground and fighting a full-scale war. In 2013, Obama sought congressional approval for military action in Syria but was denied. Obama again attempted to deploy troops in 2015 but was denied. Congress has to redraft the AUMF to specifically prevent Obama from deploying troops in the Middle East. “The authorization… does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.” Obama attempted to redraft the AUMF on his own by insisting he would prohibit  “enduring offensive ground combat operations” or long-term deployment of troops. He was met with bipartisan disapproval as both sides believed he was attempting to drag the United States into another unnecessary war.

The United States should not be involved in any of these battles, but here we are. Those living in fear that Donald Trump is a dictator fail to recognize that past leadership had every intention of sending American men and women into battle unilaterally without a single vote cast.

Continue Reading

conflict

The Oil Price Spike That Didn’t Happen

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

What if they gave an oil price spike and nobody came? That is admittedly kind of a lame play on an old saying about parties, but it’s exactly what has happened over the two weeks since June 12, when Israel launched its initial assault on Iran.

At that day’s close of trading, the domestic U.S. WTI price sat at $68.04 per barrel. As of this writing on June 24, the price stands at $64.50. That’s not just the absence of a price spike, it is the opposite of one, a drop of 5% in just two weeks.

So, what happened? Why didn’t crude prices spike significantly? For such a seemingly complex trading market that is impacted daily by a broad variety of factors, the answer here is surprisingly simple, boiling down to just two key factors.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers. 

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

  • Neither Israel nor the United States made an effort to target Iran’s refining or export infrastructures.
  • Despite some tepid, sporadic saber rattling by Iranian officials, they mounted no real effort to block the flow of crude tankers through the region’s critical choke point, the Strait of Hormuz.

Hitting Iran’s infrastructure could have taken its substantial crude exports – which the International Energy Agency estimates to be 1.7 million barrels per day – off the global market, a big hit. Shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of global crude supplies flow every day, would have been a much bigger hit, one that would have set prices on an upward spiral.

But the oil kept flowing, muting the few comparatively small increases in prices which did come about.

Respected analyst David Ramsden-Wood, writing at his “HotTakeOfTheDay” Substack newsletter, summed it up quite well. “Oil is still structurally bearish. U.S. producers are in PR mode—talking up ‘Drill, baby, drill’ while actually slowing down. Capex is flat to declining. Rig counts are down. Shareholders want returns, not growth. So we’re left with this: Tension in the Middle East, no supply impact, and U.S. production that’s quietly rolling over. Oil shrugged.”

There was a time, as recently as 10 years ago, when crude prices would have no doubt rocketed skywards at the news of both the commencement of Israel’s initial June 12 assault on Iran’s military and political targets and of last Saturday’s U.S. bombing operation. In those days, we could have expected crude prices to go as high as $100 per barrel or even higher. Markets used to really react to the “tension in the Middle East” to which Ramsden-Wood refers, in large part, because they had no real way to parse through all the uncertainties such events might create.

Now it’s different. Things have changed. The rise of machine learning, AI and other technological and communications advancements has played a major role.

In the past, a lack of real-time information during any rise in Middle East tensions left traders in the dark for some period of time – often extended periods – about potential impacts on production in the world’s biggest oil producing region. But that is no longer the case. Traders can now gauge potential impacts almost immediately.

That was especially true throughout this most recent upset, due to President Donald Trump’s transparency about everything that was taking place. You were able to know exactly what the U.S. was planning to do or had done just by regularly pressing the “refresh” button at Trump’s Truth Social feed.

Tim Stewart, President of the D.C.-based U.S. Oil and Gas Association, has a term for this. “The Markets are becoming much better at building the ‘47 Variable’ into their short-term models,” he said in an email. “This is not a Republican Administration – it is a Disrupter Administration and disruption happens both ways, so the old playbooks just don’t apply anymore.  Traders are taking into account a President who means what he says, and it is best to plan for it.”

Add to all that the reality that a high percentage of crude trading is now conducted via automated, AI-controlled programs, and few trades are any longer made in the dark.

Thus, the world saw a price spike which, despite being widely predicted by many smart people, didn’t happen, and the reasons why are pretty simple.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

(Featured Image Media Credit: Screen Capture/PBS NewsHour)

Continue Reading

Trending

X