Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

conflict

The West’s Green Energy Delusions Empowered Putin

Published

2 years ago

15 minute read

This article submitted by Michael Shellenberger

While we banned plastic straws, Russia drilled and doubled nuclear energy production.

How has Vladimir Putin—a man ruling a country with an economy smaller than that of Texas, with an average life expectancy 10 years lower than that of France—managed to launch an unprovoked full-scale assault on Ukraine?

There is a deep psychological, political and almost civilizational answer to that question: He wants Ukraine to be part of Russia more than the West wants it to be free. He is willing to risk tremendous loss of life and treasure to get it. There are serious limits to how much the U.S. and Europe are willing to do militarily. And Putin knows it.

Missing from that explanation, though, is a story about material reality and basic economics—two things that Putin seems to understand far better than his counterparts in the free world and especially in Europe.

Putin knows that Europe produces 3.6 million barrels of oil a day but uses 15 million barrels of oil a day. Putin knows that Europe produces 230 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year but uses 560 billion cubic meters. He knows that Europe uses 950 million tons of coal a year but produces half that.

The former KGB agent knows Russia produces 11 million barrels of oil per day but only uses 3.4 million. He knows Russia now produces over 700 billion cubic meters of gas a year but only uses around 400 billion. Russia mines 800 million tons of coal each year but uses 300.

That’s how Russia ends up supplying about 20 percent of Europe’s oil, 40 percent of its gas, and 20 percent of its coal.

The math is simple. A child could do it.

The reason Europe didn’t have a muscular deterrent threat to prevent Russian aggression—and in fact prevented the U.S. from getting allies to do more—is that it needs Putin’s oil and gas.

The question is why.

How is it possible that European countries, Germany especially, allowed themselves to become so dependent on an authoritarian country over the 30 years since the end of the Cold War?

Here’s how: These countries are in the grips of a delusional ideology that makes them incapable of understanding the hard realities of energy production. Green ideology insists we don’t need nuclear and that we don’t need fracking. It insists that it’s just a matter of will and money to switch to all-renewables—and fast. It insists that we need“degrowth” of the economy, and that we face looming human “extinction.” (I would know. I myself was once a true believer.)

John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy, perfectly captured the myopia of this view when he said, in the days before the war, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine “could have a profound negative impact on the climate, obviously. You have a war, and obviously you’re going to have massive emissions consequences to the war. But equally importantly, you’re going to lose people’s focus.”

But it was the West’s focus on healing the planet with “soft energy” renewables, and moving away from natural gas and nuclear, that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply.

As the West fell into a hypnotic trance about healing its relationship with nature, averting climate apocalypse and worshiping a teenager named Greta, Vladimir Putin made his moves.

While he expanded nuclear energy at home so Russia could export its precious oil and gas to Europe, Western governments spent their time and energy obsessing over “carbon footprints,” a term created by an advertising firm working for British Petroleum. They banned plastic straws because of a 9-year-old Canadian child’s science homework. They paid for hours of “climate anxiety” therapy.

While Putin expanded Russia’s oil production, expanded natural gas production, and then doubled nuclear energy production to allow more exports of its precious gas, Europe, led by Germany, shut down its nuclear power plants, closed gas fields, and refused to develop more through advanced methods like fracking.

The numbers tell the story best. In 2016, 30 percent of the natural gas consumed by the European Union came from Russia. In 2018, that figure jumped to 40 percent. By 2020, it was nearly 44 percent, and by early 2021, it was nearly 47 percent.

For all his fawning over Putin, Donald Trump, back in 2018, defied diplomatic protocol to call out Germany publicly for its dependence on Moscow. “Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia,” Trump said. This prompted Germany’s then-chancellor, Angela Merkel, who had been widely praised in polite circles for being the last serious leader in the West, to say that her country “can make our own policies and make our own decisions.”

The result has been the worst global energy crisis since 1973, driving prices for electricity and gasoline higher around the world. It is a crisis, fundamentally, of inadequate supply. But the scarcity is entirely manufactured.

Europeans—led by figures like Greta Thunberg and European Green Party leaders, and supported by Americans like John Kerry—believed that a healthy relationship with the Earth requires making energy scarce. By turning to renewables, they would show the world how to live without harming the planet. But this was a pipe dream. You can’t power a whole grid with solar and wind, because the sun and the wind are inconstant, and currently existing batteries aren’t even cheap enough to store large quantities of electricity overnight, much less across whole seasons.

In service to green ideology, they made the perfect the enemy of the good—and of Ukraine.

Share

Take Germany.

Green campaigns have succeeded in destroying German energy independence—they call it Energiewende, or “energy turnaround”—by successfully selling policymakers on a peculiar version of environmentalism. It calls climate change a near-term apocalyptic threat to human survival while turning up its nose at the technologies that can help address climate change most and soonest: nuclear and natural gas.

At the turn of the millennium, Germany’s electricity was around 30 percent nuclear-powered. But Germany has been sacking its reliable, inexpensive nuclear plants. (Thunberg called nuclear power “extremely dangerous, expensive, and time-consuming” despite the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change deeming it necessary and every major scientific review deeming nuclear the safest way to make reliable power.)

By 2020, Germany had reduced its nuclear share from 30 percent to 11 percent. Then, on the last day of 2021, Germany shut down half of its remaining six nuclear reactors. The other three are slated for shutdown at the end of this year. (Compare this to nextdoor France, which fulfills 70 percent of its electricity needs with carbon-free nuclear plants.)

Germany has also spent lavishly on weather-dependent renewables—to the tune of $36 billion a year—mainly solar panels and industrial wind turbines. But those have their problems. Solar panels have to go somewhere, and a solar plant in Europe needs 400 to 800 times more land than natural gas or nuclear plants to make the same amount of power. Farmland has to be cut apart to host solar. And solar energy is getting cheaper these days mainly because Europe’s supply of solar panels is produced by slave labor in concentration camps as part of China’s genocide against Uighur Muslims.

The upshot here is that you can’t spend enough on climate initiatives to fix things if you ignore nuclear and gas. Between 2015 and 2025, Germany’s efforts to green its energy production will have cost $580 billion. Yet despite this enormous investment, German electricity still costs 50 percent more than nuclear-friendly France’s, and generating it produces eight times more carbon emissions per unit. Plus, Germany is getting over a third of its energy from Russia.

Germany has trapped itself. It could burn more coal and undermine its commitment to reducing carbon emissions. Or it could use more natural gas, which generates half the carbon emissions of coal, but at the cost of dependence on imported Russian gas. Berlin was faced with a choice between unleashing the wrath of Putin on neighboring countries or inviting the wrath of Greta Thunberg. They chose Putin.

Because of these policy choices, Vladimir Putin could turn off the gas flows to Germany, and quickly threaten Germans’ ability to cook or stay warm. He or his successor will hold this power for every foreseeable winter barring big changes. It’s as if you knew that hackers had stolen your banking details, but you won’t change your password.

This is why Germany successfully begged the incoming Biden administration not to oppose a contentious new gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2. This cut against the priorities of green-minded governance: On day one of Biden’s presidency, one of the new administration’’s first acts was to shut down the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. in service to climate ideology. But Russia’s pipeline was too important to get the same treatment given how dependent Germany is on Russian imports. (Once Russia invaded, Germany was finally dragged into nixing Nord Stream 2, for now.)

Naturally, when American sanctions on Russia’s biggest banks were finally announced in concert with European allies last week, they specificallyexempted energy products so Russia and Europe can keep doing that dirty business. A few voices called for what would really hit Russia where it hurts: cutting off energy imports. But what actually happened was that European energy utilities jumped to buy more contracts for the Russian oil and gas that flows through Ukraine. That’s because they have no other good options right now, after green activism’s attacks on nuclear and importing fracked gas from America. There’s no current plan for powering Europe that doesn’t involve buying from Putin.

We should take Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a wake-up call. Standing up for Western civilization this time requires cheap, abundant, and reliable energy supplies produced at home or in allied nations. National security, economic growth, and sustainability requires greater reliance on nuclear and natural gas, and less on solar panels and wind turbines, which make electricity too expensive.

The first and most obvious thing that should be done is for President Biden to call on German Chancellor Scholz to restart the three nuclear reactors that Germany closed in December. A key step in the right direction came on Sunday when Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck, the economy and climate minister, announced that Germany would at least consider stopping its phaseout of nuclear. If Germany turns these three on and cancels plans to turn off the three others, those six should produce enough electricity to replace 11 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year—an eighth of Germany’s current needs…

Subscribe to Michael Shellenberger to read the rest.

Become a paying subscriber of Michael Shellenberger to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.

Related Topics:

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

More from this author
COVID-19 / 4 days ago

Japanese study shows disturbing increase in cancer related deaths during the Covid pandemic

COVID-19 / 2 months ago

ArriveCAN bill at least $60 million. Opposition calling for investigation

Brownstone Institute / 2 months ago

Assange, Elon, and the News Not Fit to Print

conflict

Western leadership’s detachment from reality is causing terror and death across the globe

Published on April 10, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

The international crises caused by Western interference in Ukraine and Israel ‘foreshadows the end of NATO and of the EU,’ retired Colonel Douglas MacGregor said.

With defeat looming in Ukraine, and the reckless provocations of Israel threatening a war which could involve Russia and the U.S., the question of the role played by terror in the policies of the “rules-based order” of the West has never been more urgent.

The Russians, with a presence on Israel’s borders, have been drawn into a de facto alliance with both China and Iran, following the failed attempt to destroy its economy by sanctioning it into isolation from the Western system.

Israel’s bombing of the Iranian embassy complex in Syria on April 1, considered to be a grave violation of international law, has been the latest attempt by Israel to provoke Iran into sparking a regional war. Reliable Western commentators such as retired U.S. Colonel Douglas MacGregor, British diplomat Alistair Crooke, former U.S. diplomat Chas Freeman, and many others, have indicated that this is designed to trigger direct U.S. military intervention in a war that Israel cannot possibly win on its own. They warn this would likely lead the United States into a war not only with Iran, but also with Russia. The danger of a nuclear war is clear and present.

What is worse, the nuclear doctrine of Israel, known as the Samson Option, states that in the event of an “existential threat” to Israel, it will launch nuclear weapons at regional – and even European – population centers, taking the world down with it in a deliberate attempt to start nuclear Armageddon. This is the closest ally of the United States, a regime of nuclear blackmail engaged in genocide.

READ: Blinken again vows to have Ukraine join NATO as globalist narrative unravels

A further desperate escalation was seen in the terrorist attack on the Crocus theatre in Moscow on March 22. Four gunmen, captured alive, shot and killed over 140 people before setting fire to the venue. Within one hour, Western sources disclaimed any Ukrainian involvement, saying that “ISIS-K,” an Islamic militant group, had said it was responsible.

U.S. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby confidently proclaimed that “[t]here is no indication at this time that Ukraine, or Ukrainians, were involved in the shooting,” despite hearing of the attack in Moscow only minutes before he gave his briefing at the White House on March 22. “I would disabuse you at this early hour of any connection to Ukraine,” he said. 

Now the Russians are building a case which traces the planning of the attack through Ukraine to Western-backed proxies. This case has been derided in Western media, yet it is one whose central claim has a long pedigree. According to a 2019 report by the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, ISIS commanders and fighters have for years enjoyed a safe haven in Ukraine, with the collusion of its government and security forces.

On November 21, 2019, Oliver Carroll wrote from Kiev. His piece for the Independent was titled “How Ukraine became the unlikely home for ISIS leaders escaping the Caliphate.” In it, he details how “hundreds” of ISIS fighters had made a new home in Ukraine, with the Ukrainian authorities seemingly unconcerned about their presence.

In 2013, Akhmad Chatayev was detained in Ukraine whilst in transit to Georgia. Chatayev, an ISIS commander, had “bomb instructions” and “photographs of dead bodies” on his phone. An alleged bribe saw him released against the advice of the Moscow office of Interpol, says Carroll, in a process overseen by then-Ukrainian Minister of the Interior, Yuriy Lutsenko.

Three years later, Chatayev would be suspected of coordinating the 2016 suicide bombing of Istanbul airport in Turkey.

Carroll’s article also treats the case of Cesar Tokhosashvili, known also as Al Bara Shishani. “Shishani” is the Arabic rendition of “Chechen” – the ethnic and Muslim group native to regions of Georgia and the Russian Federation.

This man was presumed killed in a 2016 air strike in Syria which killed his namesake and erstwhile leader, fellow Georgian Omar al-Shishani. In fact, he escaped to Ukraine and lived there for two years, despite being responsible for “public beheadings” and “directing terror operations abroad.”

“According to the SBU [Ukrainian intelligence], Ukraine’s admittedly unreliable security agency, Al Bara Shishani even continued to coordinate ISIS terror operations from Kiev,” Carroll wrote.

In a recent interview with Judge Antony Napolitano, retired U.S. Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor was asked whether “MI6, the CIA, Mossad” could be behind the terrorist attack in Moscow.

“Yes, we had a hand in it,” said MacGregor, adding that while there was no “concrete evidence” to support that claim, it was “unlikely the SBU did this without U.S./U.K. knowledge.”

MacGregor’s charge about the toleration and even use of ISIS operatives in Ukraine is far from groundless, and extends beyond a couple of documented cases.

In his Independent piece, Carrol cites Vera Mironova, a visiting Fellow at Harvard and a specialist in studying jihadi movements:

Mironova estimates ‘hundreds’ of former ISIS fighters have decamped to Ukraine.

This is not a mere question of quantity – but also of quality. The quality here being danger. ‘But it is not the numbers that should be of primary concern,’ she said. The cluster of terrorists in Ukraine were by their nature a ‘self-selecting’ elite.

Mironova continued,

This isn’t a random selection. The slower guys stop as soon as they get to Turkey. After all, it is a multiple-step operation to get to Ukraine. The ones who get there are the dangerous ones.

Carroll also quotes a Ukrainian investigative journalist, Katerina Sergatskova, who covered the story of Al Bara Shishani’s unexplained release by Ukrainian authorities.

“Sergatskova, who has almost single-handedly covered the subject in Ukrainian press over the past year, says authorities remain strangely relaxed about the issue.”

She said she was accused making the story up by the Ukrainian authorities: “Whenever I wrote on the subject, government officials have accused me of inventing the problem.”

Yet she appeared to be vindicated with the Chechen ISIS commander’s capture – in the “safehouse” of Ukraine’s capital.

But the arrest of one of Islamic State’s top commanders here in Kiev, right under our noses, would surely suggest many of the world’s most dangerous men do think of Ukraine as a safehouse. Corruption in all state bodies – the police, courts, prosecutors – opens doors to abuse.

Carroll notes that the Ukrainian intelligence service met his report with similar denials.

“When contacted by The Independent, the SBU rejected claims that Ukraine was in any way hospitable to international terrorism.”

Russia’s claim that there is a Ukrainian connection to the terror attacks at its Crocus theatre in Moscow is not without “proof,” as many Western media sources assert.

Most of them now rely on the SBU for their “intelligence” reports about the situation in Ukraine, which accounts for the disconnection from reality seen in Western reportage. In this picture, Putin has been dying for two years, and Russia is losing the war. A Ukrainian “victory” is inevitable. Why is this the case?

Because for our “globalist elites,” as Colonel MacGregor styles them, a Russian victory is as unthinkable as it is obvious. Defeat in Ukraine for the political class that has staked everything on winning means they are finished.

“These are the actions of a dying regime” said MacGregor to Napolitano in his April 3 interview.

MacGregor says the recent tactics of the U.S.-, U.K.-, and EU-backed Ukrainian regime, including the strike on a Russian oil refinery, betray a mounting desperation over a lost cause.

“I think the globalist elites running Europe are unwilling to admit the truth” he says.

“They’ve had it.”

He says the rulers of Britain and the EU have “committed suicide by rejecting cheap Russian energy” and face political wipeout in forthcoming elections.

“They’re going to persist in this fantasy [of a Russian defeat] because they have nowhere else to go.”

MacGregor’s assessment of the dire situation of U.S. and Western elites is compounded by the atrocities in Israel – as well as mounting troubles at home. It is a crisis so severe, he says, that it “foreshadows the end of NATO and of the EU.”

Speaking of the so-called “war” in Gaza, he notes that in a war, “Normally we don’t annihilate the entire population on the ground” as Israel has been doing.

Even if you are indifferent to this fact, MacGregor says Netanyahu’s strategy of “eliminating Hamas” does not make sense.

“You can’t kill an idea,” he returns, before saying this strategy has been counterproductive. “What this campaign has done is elevate Hamas.”

Just as the project to destroy Russia on the battlefield and collapse it with sanctions has seen its military strength vastly magnified, and its economic prosperity secured by exclusion from the Western system, the strategy of the Israelis has empowered their enemies and perhaps fatally undermined their own security.

Now, says MacGregor, “The only solution is the final solution.” Speaking of the Israeli move to destroy Gaza and starve its population of over 2 million, he said, “Hatred has taken over.”

There are no limits to Israeli offensive operations, be they conducted against civilians, or the Iranians. Since Israel bombed Iran’s embassy complex in Syria on April 1, frantic measures have been reportedly underway to prevent a large-scale military retaliation against Israel.

As former British diplomat Alastair Crooke pointed out, “Even Nazi Germany respected embassies.” In another interview with Napolitano, he stressed the need to “deradicalize” the Israelis, saying that it was “Western [intelligence] services” which had “created ISIS” in the first place.

To bomb an embassy is to attack the sovereign territory of another nation. This is an act of terror for which Israel has, as yet, faced no consequences. With the U.S. continuing to arm Israel, it is noteworthy that the Israeli army has now almost completely withdrawn from Gaza.

This may be due to rumors of an Iranian demand made to the U.S. for an immediate ceasefire and to cancel the planned ground assault on Rafah by Israel. Talks are underway in the Egyptian capital of Cairo to agree a halt to Israel’s assaults.

Yet the Israelis maintain they are simply withdrawing to mount another attack on the Palestinians. Zionist extremist and Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has vowed that, “If Netanyahu ends the war without the Rafah operation, he will lose his mandate.” The implication is that either the killing stops, or the leadership goes.

The regime, MacGregor points out, has become “a pariah” like Israel. He warns that “no one wants to serve in our military anymore,” and gravely mentions the likelihood of the U.S. resorting to the recruitment of illegal migrants to swell the ranks of an army whose wars are destroying the U.S. and the West.

The big picture is alarming. When you zoom in to the shady pixels, the devil emerges from the detail. As MacGregor says, we are ruled by an elite insulated from reality, and whose only interest lies in serving their own insane agenda, whatever the cost in human life.

“The globalists denounce isolationism – but they are the cause of our isolation,” he says.

The world has united in horror at the lengths to which this elite will go to preserve itself. MacGregor’s warning of the dangers at home are the domestic dimension of a campaign of death, degradation, and plunder which makes our current leadership the enemy of humanity and of life, wherever it is found.

To MacGregor, it is a case of us or them.

Continue Reading

conflict

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

Published on April 4, 2024

By

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 Macgregor, Scott Ritter, Matthew Hoh, Ray 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.

Continue Reading

Trending

X