Putin Recognizes Donbass Republics, Sends Russian Military to 'Denazify' Ukraine

In the case of Russia I think the one world government may be influencing it primarily through the oligarchs (quite a lot of them have ties to Israel) and the central bankers (Russian central bank is still a part of the IMF system), as well as corrupt government officials.
 
axj said:
In the case of Russia I think the one world government may be influencing it primarily through the oligarchs (quite a lot of them have ties to Israel) and the central bankers (Russian central bank is still a part of the IMF system), as well as corrupt government officials.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Putin has done quite the balancing act between the various site of power in Russia - the oligarchs, the general staff, public opinion, foreign investors, domestic producers, etc.

I read this recently, and it has a section on Russia, and Ukraine. Some oligarchs are in the war profiteering business, but some want peace in Ukraine for a better 'investment environment' AKA a nice peaceful time to loot, pillage, and roll out a test run of various technocratic control mechanisms on the population. Although I'm not sure about it, seems reasonable that this is one reason Musk wants peace in Ukraine.

Large US corporations, such as Microsoft and Amazon, began the process of digitising the Ukrainian government on February 24th 2022, the day Russia is said to have “invaded” Ukraine. This process has since seen Ukraine become a world leader in “digital democracy.” Ukrainian citizens are being coerced towards accepting digital ID, digital payments and into total reliance on digital infrastructure for many of their everyday needs. This has been met with great enthusiasm from globalist think tanks, such as The Centre for International Governance Innovation.

As Ukrainian energy and technological infrastructure became more reliant on US corporations, global investors — through the asset management giant BlackRock — agreed to deals with the Ukrainian government to “structure the nation’s reconstruction funds.”

In November 2022 BlackRock announced:

BlackRock FMA [Financial Markets Advisory] will advise the MoE [Ukraine Ministry of Economy] on establishing a roadmap for the investment framework’s implementation, including identifying design choices for the envisioned setup, structure, mandate and governance. The MoU [Memorandum of Understanding] formalizes the discussions the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and the Chairman and CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink, held in September on the possibilities of driving public and private investments into Ukraine.
The WEF arranged further meetings between Zelensky’s administration and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon alongside a consortium of investors represented by executives from BlackRock, Bridgewater Associates, Carlyle Group, Blackstone, Dell, ArcelorMittal, and others. With the financial architecture in place, and US and other multinational corporations set to capitalise, the emphasis shifted in early 2024 towards reducing the investment risk.

zelenskyfink.jpg
Larry Fink (on screen) attends a meeting with Ukraine’s Zelensky in December 2022 to discuss “rebuilding investements” in the war-torn country – Source

War is the preferred business model for private military contractors (PMCs – mercenaries), or International Defense Companies (IDCs) as they are called in Ukraine. With Ukrainian government legislation in the pipeline to legalise IDCs operating in post-war Ukraine — coinciding with the Pentagon’s decision to ease restrictions supposedly placed on US PMCs (IDCs) working in Ukraine — US PMCs are just one corner of the US military industrial complex set to exploit the thirty-five-fold increase in the Ukrainian defence market created by Russia’s “invasion.” This is yet another tantalising Ukraine war opportunity for multinational financiers, such as BlackRock’s investors for example.

Obviously, a “post-war” Ukraine is needed to turn these investment opportunities into solid ventures. With the US public-private stakeholder invasion of Ukraine complete, and the Russian public-private stakeholders ready to do business, Ukraine finds itself in a precarious position. It is almost completely in the hands of US corporations.

For example, Ukraine is now heavily reliant on Musk’s Starlink for its internet connectivity and other communication systems. Indeed Ukraine’s “digital democracy” is now largely controlled by oligarchs like Musk.

The Ukrainian Diia app is the product of a joint project between the CIA front organisation USAID and the Ukrainian Ministry of Digital Transformation which named Diia the literal Digital State. Diia is an “everything app.” It ties Ukrainian citizens to a centralised digital control system (Diia) through which they access government services. Their digital IDs and digital passports, driving licenses, fine levies and payments, their tax returns, tax accounts, their mRNA vaccine certificates and more can all be overseen by the Digital State.

Of course, the overwhelming priority is to end the war. From a humanitarian perspective, at this point, nothing could be more important. Trump will almost certainly be credited if his apparent diplomacy succeeds and this will surely be perceived as more evidence of his great leadership by his supporters.

We are supposed to believe that the Ukraine government’s stalling over Trump’s deal for US corporations’ access to Ukrainian rare earth deposits is the reason why the US has reportedly threatened to cut off Ukraine’s Starlink connectivity. The privatisation of a state like Ukraine couldn’t be more dangerous for its people. Musk was quick to point out that he could personally end Ukraine’s war effort, claiming the Ukrainian military’s “entire front line would collapse if I turned it off.” He later added this is something he would not do. Though obviously, given the Dogecoin debacle, Musk’s team fully comprehend the impact his comments have.

In truth, there is a vast network of international investors looking at a post-war Ukraine with avarice. The rare earth deal is a sideshow to keep the public bemused. The whole nation state of Ukraine is ripe for the picking and the transition to a US satellite gov-corp Technate is already well underway.
Click to expand...
 
Medvedev said:
UK updates Trump: Russia should accept the proposal for a ceasefire in Ukraine without any conditions, says the British Foreign Secretary. Britain and its minister can shove their idea back up the sh*thole it came from, diplomatically speaking.
Click to expand...

Russian Diplomacy! :lol:

 
iamthatis said :
" In truth, there is a vast network of international investors looking at a post war Ukraine with avarice ."

Yes that is very clear . But there is also a fundamental shift currently taking place and all these critters are involved whether they like it or not .
Stupifying ignorance rules and very few are prepared for these end of times. Just like last time.
A grim harvest is more likely.
 
Vulcan59 said:
Russian Diplomacy! :lol:
Click to expand...
In addition to that, the US envoy was supposedly made to wait eight hours (according to MSM, to be verified) while the Russian and Belorussian groups where having work and fun etc.
What's to be noted is that Putin's response to the US idiotic ceasefire demands (Minsk 3) was delivered in the presence of the Belorussian president who came from Minsk.
 
mkrnhr said:
What's to be noted is that Putin's response to the US idiotic ceasefire demands (Minsk 3) was delivered in the presence of the Belorussian president who came from Minsk.
Click to expand...

Yes, Alex Christoforou (Duran) is convinced that was to send a deliberate message. I'm inclined to agree, they said it explicitly enough times but now is the time to play a restrained diplomatic game.


Contrast this approach with the copy/paste (with minor amendments) 'The ball is now in Russia's court' messaging from the pathocrats. Even when their grasp of English, or intelligence, is not enough to even understand the metaphor:

The ball, as always, is in Russia's court
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's not how the game works, moron.

Here's your ball

 
Also, when Trump pleaded with Putin to spare the Ukrainian troops in Kursk, The Russian response was "yeah yeah sure, they'll be treated humanly if the Ukrainian authorities command them to surrender" (Those who surrender are taken as POW anyway).
The Ukrainian response is "I did not have sex.." sorry... "There are no Ukrainian troops in Kursk, they all left" de facto abandoning them for PR. They don't want to admit defeat to the fourth Rei.. European Union.
 
Meg said:
I loved this interview. Lavrov is a true diplomat and statesman. Worth a listen.
Click to expand...
Summary of the Lavrov interview:

Summary of Sergey Lavrov’s Interview (March 12, 2025)​


This interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov covers a broad range of topics, including U.S.-Russia relations, NATO expansion, the conflict in Ukraine, and the state of the European Union. Below is a detailed summary of the key points from the discussion.

1. The United States and Its Political Shift​

  • Lavrov describes a deepening political division in the U.S., contrasting the past bipartisan debates (e.g., taxes, abortion) with today’s ideological battle over neoliberal vs. conservative values.
  • He views the rise of Donald Trump as a "return to normalcy," where foreign policy is dictated by national interests rather than ideology.
  • Lavrov is critical of the Democratic Party’s promotion of liberal social policies (e.g., LGBTQ rights, gender-neutral facilities), suggesting this has alienated many Americans.
  • He recalls a meeting with U.S. politicians Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz, and Steve Whitkoff, where they expressed a desire for "normal" U.S.-Russia relations based on national interests rather than ideological confrontation.

2. U.S.-Russia Relations Under Trump​

  • Lavrov suggests Trump’s approach aligns with Russia’s foreign policy, emphasizing:
    • Respect for each country’s national interests (rather than ideological interference).
    • Avoiding military confrontation when interests diverge.
    • Seeking economic and infrastructure cooperation where interests align.
  • He draws parallels to China’s pragmatic approach to U.S. relations, noting that despite verbal tensions over Taiwan, Beijing maintains dialogue.
  • Lavrov believes Trump’s administration understands that global powers like Russia and the U.S. will never fully align, but they can coexist without confrontation.

3. NATO Expansion and Its Impact on Russia​

  • Lavrov presents a historical critique of NATO’s eastward expansion, arguing:
    • The U.S. and its allies broke promises made to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward after Germany’s reunification.
    • NATO disregarded agreements, such as the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, which emphasized security cooperation.
    • NATO’s expansion to include former Soviet states (e.g., Baltic countries) and Ukraine was viewed as an encroachment on Russia’s security.
  • He sees NATO’s current actions as a direct threat to Russian sovereignty, particularly its involvement in Ukraine.

4. The Ukraine Conflict and NATO’s Role​

  • Lavrov argues that:
    • The 2014 Maidan protests were a Western-backed coup, leading to an illegitimate government hostile to Russian speakers.
    • The first act of the new Ukrainian government was to ban the Russian language, triggering conflict in Donbas and Crimea.
    • NATO played a role in militarizing Ukraine, ignoring the Minsk Agreements, which Lavrov claims Ukraine, Germany, and France never intended to implement.
  • Lavrov references admissions by Poroshenko, Merkel, and Hollande that the Minsk Agreements were a delaying tactic to arm Ukraine.

5. The Future of NATO and the U.S.​

  • Lavrov doubts the U.S. will leave NATO but notes Trump’s skepticism about funding European security.
  • He suggests Trump prefers a transactional approach, demanding NATO members contribute more to their own defense.
  • He criticizes European nations for prioritizing NATO’s interests over their own economies, citing:
    • Germany’s abandonment of Russian gas, which increased energy costs and triggered deindustrialization.
    • The European Union’s shift towards militarization, driven by leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, who Lavrov describes as blindly following U.S. directives.

6. The European Union’s Decline​

  • Lavrov argues that:
    • The EU has lost its independence, turning into a U.S. puppet.
    • Europe’s economic priorities have been sacrificed for ideological goals, especially arming Ukraine at the expense of its own industries.
    • The Nord Stream sabotage and refusal to restore Russian gas supplies highlight Germany’s self-destructive policies.
    • EU funds have been misused, with billions spent on COVID relief and Ukraine without proper auditing.

7. The Broader Geopolitical Outlook​

  • Lavrov claims Russia is not "turning away" from China, India, and Africa, dismissing suggestions that its focus on the West has changed.
  • He reaffirms Russia’s pragmatic approach to diplomacy, rejecting euphoric or emotional responses.
  • He emphasizes Russia’s commitment to balancing national interests rather than ideological alliances.

Conclusion​

Lavrov frames Russia as a rational actor defending its sovereignty against Western expansionism. He portrays the West—particularly NATO and the EU—as aggressive, ideologically driven entities that have compromised their own security and economic stability. He sees Trump’s potential return as an opportunity for "normal" relations, based on mutual respect rather than confrontation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom