There is a very real likelihood that the US is now attempting to set the stage for a nuclear false flag attack on Europe. 🧵
The current propaganda campaign to depict Putin as a rabid animal backed into a corner is designed to imply that Russia has few options left other than to senselessly resort to use of nuclear weapons.
But this is completely at odds with reality!
By the metrics announced at the start of the conflict, Russia has already achieved a significant portion of what they set out to accomplish, namely: the security of the people in Crimea and the formerly eastern regions of Ukraine.
And while the current Ukrainian military is now sustained entirely through NATO support, the public basis for that support is waning rapidly, particularly as winter approaches and public anger escales over leaders’ mismanagement of European energy security.
The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines and recent comments by former CIA director and army general Petraeus indicate that US strategy may now be shifting in response to the new phase the conflict is entering.
Time and time again, we’ve seen that the west does not wait around for the perfect casus belli to materialize on its own when they can manufacture one instead, as the recent failed attempt to cause a nuclear disaster at the Zaporizhzhia NPP demonstrates.
The origin of a nuclear attack won’t be immediately apparent. But the recent sabotage of Nord Stream is a perfect demonstration of how there’s no theory western media can push, no matter how nonsensical, that large portions of the western audience won’t unquestioningly believe.
In spite of the media storm that will ensue, only one country has ever demonstrated their willingness to preemptively use nuclear weapons against another. Their continuing refusal to adopt a no first-use policy is strong indication that this willingness hasn’t changed.
Since the dismantling of the USSR, the concept of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) has continued as the popular framework for the nuclear weapons theory, in which MAD remains a reliable deterrent against nuclear first-use.
In reality, MAD has only ever applied to direct confrontation between nuclear superpowers and is very likely outdated within the context of a single small yield tactical nuclear weapon (<1 kt) used in a proxy war, especially if deployed as part of an atrocity propaganda campaign.
It is hard to conceive of a single action that could generate a more unified global condemnation than the use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict for the first time in over 70 years. Before the dust has even settled, countries will be called on to pick a side.
Therefore, we must understand that the impetus for escalating conflict with Russia is more fundamental than simply the current US admin not wanting to be seen as “losing”: a loss will signal to the world that western imperial hegemony can be resisted and resoundingly defeated.
This signal will only accelerate the bifurcation of the world into countries which remain aligned with the west, increasingly to their detriment, and countries struggling free of western domination. And this bifurcation is being led by, and largely facilitated by, China.
Because of this, the US’s ultimate goal is to stifle China by isolating them from as many markets as possible. But the US has no hope of isolating China’s rise if it doesn’t have a completely compliant Europe that is willing to acquiesce to US unilateral demands.
Thus the Nord Stream sabotage and the threat of a nuclear false flag should be considered within the following context:
What will it take to bring the EU to its knees and permanently cleave it off from not just Russia but China as well?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The rise of Trump and Trumpism cannot be fully explained without first recognizing how, over the last two decades, American politics has been shaped by the rise of China. 🧵
Despite both parties preferring to deemphasize foreign policy in their campaigns, US foreign policy is the engine driving domestic policy. This is because modern US domestic politics is fundamentally a game of dividing up the plunder that foreign policy secures.
This plunder arrives in the form of persistent federal govt budget deficits which are maintained via the exorbitant privilege of the US dollar’s position as global reserve currency, an arrangement forced upon the rest of the globe in the ashes of the world wars of last century.
US-backed attempts at foreign destabilization always try to leverage *real* grievances, not to bring any resolution to the aggrieved. Quite the opposite, they attempt to intensify.
The only correct position for the western left to take is to oppose *ALL* forms of intervention.
Yellen is once again traveling to Beijing, this time to try to get China to curb “overproduction”.
What's the real goal? 🧵
The goal of this pressure campaign is to somehow convince China to self-sabotage the foundation of their budding prosperity—their means of production—thereby eliminating the competition.
Why don't the capitalist countries try to out-compete China on commodity prices instead?
They've tried!
But due to decades of offshoring productive capacity and hoovering up their best and brightest minds into the financial and "tech" sectors, regaining a competitive edge will require a lot more effort than simply throwing money at the problem.
On Monday, Israeli fighter jets bombed the Iranian consulate in Damascus killing over a dozen people in an outrageous act of provocation against both Iran and Syria.
It is clear that Israel is intent on instigating a direct confrontation with Iran.
What’s the goal? 🧵
While this attack represents a blatant provocation, it is not without precedent by western powers. Those old enough might recall a similarly atrocious act by the US in the 1999 bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
Iran's increasingly close alignment with Russia and China over the past few years is something Israeli and American foreign policy experts have feared since Brzezinski's warning in 1997.
In America, a "FICO Credit Score™ " is a blacklist administered by an unelected private oligopoly.
Americans are inducted into this capitalist credit initiative from birth, which controls everything from where they can live and which employer they are allowed to work for.
In order to be allowed to live in a house when they're older, Americans must begin taking out loans starting from an early age—even if they don't need a loan.
Americans call this ritual to appease private banks and landlords "building credit".
Before being hired, many employers require Americans to divulge their FICO credit history to assess their trustworthiness.
If deemed insufficiently trustworthy, an applicant will not be hired.