World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyQqWLmjU8M&t=2528s

Nuclear war very close now, but the media still ignores it and the NFL and classified documents dominate the news here. Titanic has hit iceberg, and taking on water fast, while the band is still playing, and the rich are dancing, eating, drinking and merrying. Its over folks! Only Yah and Christ's second coming wil save the world from total destruction now. America as we knew it is over.

Many years ago l was told that a nuclear device can only be detonated during a certain season in a certain country or area on the earth.
It rings true to me,l've sussed out the times of tear when the so called tests have taken place.Some of the supposed tests have been set off at night times, (in my opinion)that is so that nobody can see the radium falling back down to earth.
The powers that be want us all to believe a nuclear exchange can take place.
I dont believe it,one side (e.g. the US)could fire at Russia and the Russians would not be able to fire back.What will be-will be,these so called leaders are only the front people/stooges who read from the script.
Lets wait to see what happens.

.
well the west continue in his quest to topple Russia, as if the situation is not hot enough,
then come this...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11690793/Pentagon-brass-want-send-F-16-FIGHTER-JETS-Ukraine-bid-crush-Putin.html

We're approaching the last few seconds left.
.

These people that can't wait for Putin
To go bye-bye,
know nothing of Medvedev.
They haven't read Medvedev.
They haven't listened to Medvedev.
In comparison, Putin is a like soft pillow.
Medvedev is like a hard nail.
Putin is a leisurely cruise in the Bahamas.
Medvedev is treacherous white water rafting.
Looks are deceiving.
Medvedev looks like a French puff-pastry
baker, or like an ernest English 15 th
century poet, like gentle Cowper.
But Medvedev is a cut-throut.
Medvedev is a black handed killer.
Medvedev hates the West.
Be careful what you wish for.

The United States and Nato pushing for all our Nuclear war with Russia. The main problem is when is all of this going down. Are we looking at 2 years down the road. unless their a change in their doctrine and plans might come sooner .We already know that NATO & the U.S will do something again inside of Russia. B-52's are parked in Poland. We are now moving faster and faster towards the Brink . We got wars breaking out now in the middle east thanks to isreal bombing Iran . Anthony Blinken will be in isreal tomorrow morning. Ashes to Ashes Dust to Dust. Are we are is Dust in the Wind .

I'm assuming most of Hal's audience is aware of Project Veritas's latest undercover video on a Pfizer director. But for those who are not aware of these video releases, here are two links...

Pfizer Director Assaults James O'Keefe & Veritas Staff; Destroys iPad Showing Undercover Recordings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5n7RRKgDog&t=539s

Charlie Kirk & James O'Keefe Discuss Groundbreaking "Directed Evolution" Investigation Into Pfizer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCFU-JLNgJI

Target NYC, DC, and all of Commifornia, thank. You!

From RT
29 Jan, 2023 15:52
HomeWorld News
As the Pentagon's favorite think tank calls for a swift end to the Ukraine conflict, is the mood shifting in Washington?
The RAND Corporation believes the fighting must end sooner rather than later
As the Pentagon's favorite think tank calls for a swift end to the Ukraine conflict, is the mood shifting in Washington?


The RAND Corporation, a highly influential elite national security think tank funded directly by the Pentagon, has published a landmark report stating that prolonging the proxy war is actively harming the US and its allies and warning Washington that it should avoid “a protracted conflict” in Ukraine.
What are the US' interests in Ukraine
‘If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning’: How a landmark speech paved the way for the US to unleash death and destruction
Read more
‘If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning’: How a landmark speech paved the way for the US to unleash death and destruction

The report has an unequivocal title, “Avoiding a long war: US policy and the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine conflict,” which provides a strong indication as to its contents.

It starts by stating that the fighting represents “the most significant interstate conflict in decades, and its evolution will have major consequences” for Washington, which includes US “interests” being actively harmed. The report makes it very clear that while Ukrainians have been doing the fighting, and their cities have been “flattened” and “economy decimated,” these “interests” are “not synonymous” with Kiev’s.

The US ending its financial, humanitarian and particularly military support promptly would cause Ukraine to completely collapse, and RAND cites several reasons why doing so would be sensible, not least because a Ukrainian victory is regarded as both “improbable” and “unlikely,” due to Russian “resolve,” and its military mobilization having “rectified the manpower deficit that enabled Ukraine’s success in the Kharkiv counteroffensive.”

From the perspective of US “interests,” RAND warns that while the Kremlin has not threatened to use nuclear weapons, there are “several issues that make Russian use of nuclear weapons both a plausible contingency Washington needs to account for and a hugely important factor in determining the future trajectory of the conflict.”


The think tank believes the Biden administration “has ample reason to make the prevention of Russian use of nuclear weapons a paramount priority." In particular, it should seek to avoid a “direct nuclear exchange” with Moscow, a “direct conflict with Russia”, or wider “NATO-Russia war.”

On the latter point, RAND worries that US general Mark Milley’s demand that the conflict stay “inside the geographical boundaries of Ukraine” is on the verge of being disrespected, as “the extent of NATO allies’ indirect involvement in the war is breathtaking in scope,” including “tens of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and other aid” and “tactical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support,” along with “billions of dollars monthly in direct budgetary support to Kiev.”
NATO's best tanks are going to Ukraine, what will it mean on the battlefield?
Read more
NATO's best tanks are going to Ukraine, what will it mean on the battlefield?

Such largesse could, RAND forecasts, prompt Moscow to “punish NATO members…with the objective of ending allied support for Ukraine; strike NATO preemptively if Russia perceives that NATO intervention in Ukraine is imminent; interdict the transfer of arms to Ukraine; retaliate against NATO for perceived support for internal unrest in Russia,” if the Kremlin concludes the country’s national security is “severely imperiled.”

These outcomes are “by no means inevitable,” but still represent an “elevated” risk, particularly in light of incidents such as a Ukrainian air defense missile striking Polish territory in November 2022 – a situation exacerbated by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky falsely claiming it was a deliberate Russian strike. While this event “did not spiral out of control, it did demonstrate that fighting can unintentionally spill over to the territory of neighboring US allies.”

Another incident like that could mean “the US military would immediately be involved in a hot war with a country that has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.” This, as well as a conventional conflict between NATO and Russia, is a prospect Washington should avoid at all costs, RAND argues.

A clear implication is the US could lose such a conflict, one key reason being, as pointed out by RAND, “the intensity of the military assistance” being given to Ukraine by its Western backers is already approaching an “unsustainable” level, with US and European weapons stocks “running low.” This consequently means a longer war equals more Ukrainian territory reunified with Russia.


On the subject of territorial losses, RAND is unmoved by arguments Ukraine should attempt to recapture all that it has lost since 2014, as “greater territorial control is not directly correlated with greater economic prosperity” or “greater security.” Land having been retaken by Kiev since September means “Russia has imposed far greater economic costs on the country as a whole.”

RAND also considers the worth of arguments that “greater Ukrainian territorial control” should be assured “to reinforce international norms, and to foster Ukraine’s future economic growth” to be “debatable,” as even in the “unlikely” event Kiev pushes “beyond the pre-February 2022 line of control and manages to retake areas that Russia has occupied since 2014,” the risks of escalation from Moscow, including “nuclear use or an attack on NATO” will “spike.”

The Kremlin would likely treat the potential loss of Crimea as a much more significant threat both to national security and regime stability,” the report warns.

All these factors make “avoiding a long war…the highest priority after minimizing escalation risks,” so RAND recommends the US “take steps that make an end to the conflict over the medium term more likely,” including “issuing assurances regarding the country’s neutrality,” something that Moscow had requested before the conflict began, to deaf ears, as well as “sanctions relief for Russia.”


However, the report warns against a “dramatic, overnight shift in US policy,” as this would be “politically impossible – both domestically and with allies,” instead recommending the development of “instruments” to bring the war to a “negotiated end,” and “socializing them with Ukraine and with US allies” in advance to lessen the blow. This process should be started quickly though, as “the alternative is a long war that poses major challenges for the US, Ukraine, and the rest of the world.”

***

What this proposal ignores is that Western leaders have consistently proven they cannot be trusted to respect or adhere to treaties they have signed and brokered with Russia, such as the Minsk Accords, which former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has admitted were never intended to be implemented, but rather to buy time for Kiev.

It may be the case then that Moscow won’t be interested in RAND’s solution at all, and choose instead to finish the war on its own terms.

By Felix Livshitz

Dmitri Medvedev is Deputy Chairman of the Security Council - which is part of the Executive - not the legislative and it is comprised of heads of select departments of the Government. He is not Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council. There is no such position as Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council - which is the legislative.



The Russian Federation Council (Senate) Speaker is Valentina Matvienko.

.
Remember, don't look at the flash.

Okay, not really. It won't matter.
.

What would cause Russia and/or China to nuke America.

I know Dmitru Duduman, Henry Gruver and others were given dreams or visions of this happening.

I believed them but had a hard time imagining things getting to that point.

I no longer struggle to see it.

oh yeah? is that what he said.
those words mean NOTHING until we are assured of the offensive ......

Western-made tanks and fighter Jet’s are much more complex to train on than Soviet-era tanks and fighter Jet’s. Not to mention maintenance and a steady supply of munitions and spare parts. Once these weapon systems arrive in Ukraine the only ones already trained to use and maintain them would be our own people and that will be direct involvement in the war. They need to reverse course on it but I know they won’t.

it will be ny, wash, norfolk