Al Jazeera is currently reporting the following deaths in Gaza and the West Bank resulting from "Israeli attacks" since October 7, 2023:
Gaza Total Deaths: 14,400
- 5,600 children
- 3,550 women
West Bank Total Deaths: 219
- 50 children
Total Deaths: 14,619
- 5,650 children
The figures are repeated not only by Hamas/Terrorist apologists, but also some in the Western media, Hollywood bloviators, and pro-Palestinian supporters on University campuses and elsewhere.
Personally, when I look at the above numbers, I have many, many questions and I didn't graduate from an Ivy League school, either. So let's break the down a bit.
First, 39% of the reported deaths are children. How reasonable is that number compared to Palestinian demographics in Gaza and elsewhere? Well, according to the US Census Bureau, about 40% of Palestinians are children 14-years-old or younger. Therefore, at face value, these numbers would seem reasonable, right?
However, in order to believe these numbers, one would also have to make several assumptions:
1) IDF weapons target only civilians and then only when children are present at the exact demographic proportions; 2) Women, men and children evacuated to the south at the exact demographic proportions; and, 3) Israel is purposely targeting civilians and not terrorists/civilian combatants.
Second, 8,969 deaths are adults or 61% of the total reported deaths. Of those, at least 3,550 are reported to be woman or 40% of adult deaths. That leaves 5,419 adult men or 60% of the adult deaths. The demographic percentages for Palestinian men and women is actually 50/50 so the numbers are off a bit.
If we assume that the number of men killed is higher because the IDF is actually targeting fighters, based on demographic proportions, the number of reported deaths can be divided as follows:
Total Deaths = 14,619 (100%)
- Civilian Adult Women = 3,550 (24%)
- Civilian Adult Men = 3,550 (24%)
- Children = 5,650 (40%)
- Combatants = 1,869 (12%)
However, if we review un-staged raw images from the site of an attack we do not see evidence that 40% of the casualties resulting from an IDF strike are children. Because of this, except for images set up or produced by Hamas, the only evidence that exists to support claims that 40% of all Palestinian deaths are children are the Hamas's claims themselves.
If this were Ukraine, people would be screaming BS from the MSM to the college campuses. However, in the case of Israel, there are too many among us who have been conditioned to believe or assume the worst when it comes to Jews. Remember, Jews drink the blood of Palestinian children, right? So the IDF targeting children with bombs is not that far fetched of a concept.
Do you get my point?
The exaggerated casualty figures are easily explained when one understands that Hamas' only defense right now is to sway public opinion in the hope of generating enough diplomatic and political pressure to force Israel to end hostilities. In the case of others who spread these lies, like students protesting at universities in the United States, there really is not excuse for it. Instead, it is the direct result of years them being force-fed antisemitic propaganda from social media and the MSM.
Let's be clear about this. The death of any innocent child, especially one's own, is a tragedy that I could never fathom. However, by spreading these lies and by failing to recognize that there is a real threat of genocide against the Jews, those who claim to support Palestinians are actually doing them more harm than good. Israel will not stop defending itself until this real threat is eliminated. And the radical Islamists will not stop killing Jews as long as they continue to feel empowered which in their minds translates to justified.
Mark Rutte did not give a political speech NATO allies in Berlin today (2025.12.11). He issued a strategic warning to the West. It was the clearest, most explicit statement from a NATO Secretary General in decades that the United States can no longer be treated as a stable or predictable guarantor of European security. He did not say this outright, but every line of the address carries that structural implication.
The broader meaning is simple. Europe is being forced into its first true rearmament cycle, to reestablish itself (the EU + UK) as a first-order power, since the Cold War, and the timeline is now measured in years, not decades.
Here is what Rutte signaled.
1. NATO intelligence and European defense ministries now assess a high probability of a Russian attack on NATO soil within a five-year window
This is not exaggeration. This is now a widely circulated classified estimate inside several European ministries of defense. Rutte chose to say it publicly because public opinion in Europe is not yet psychologically aligned with the threat.
He warned that Russia has rebuilt a wartime economy. It is fielding thousands of drones monthly, expanding missile output, and operating in full mobilization mode. Russia is losing an average of 1,200 soldiers per day and still escalating production and recruitment. Rutte’s point is clear. A state willing to burn a million lives can burn through borders.
2. China is the lifeline that keeps Russia in the field
Rutte openly named China as the critical supplier of components, electronics, machine tools, propellants, and industrial support that make Russia’s war possible. Eighty percent of the critical parts in Russian missiles and drones are Chinese in origin. This is the first time a NATO leader at his level has described the Russia-China system as a unified war-sustaining network.
It signals a major shift. NATO sees the Russia-China axis not as an economic partnership but as a joint strategic threat.
3. Europe understands that it must rearm without assuming U.S. reliability
Rutte never said “America cannot be relied upon,” but he came as close as diplomatic speech allows. He listed the Ukrainian air defense systems that depend on U.S. PURL shipments. He urged every European parliament to accept higher defense spending and permanent mobilization conditions.
This is the quiet part spoken aloud. Europe is preparing for the possibility that the United States may be politically paralyzed or strategically absent at the moment of decision.
4. The scale of war he describes is not rhetorical
“Mass mobilization.”
“Millions of displaced people.”
“Extraordinary losses.”
“Destruction that will reach every home.”
These are not political lines. These are civil defense outcomes. Population-scale outcomes. NATO leadership only uses this language when preparing domestic audiences for structural change: conscription, industrial conversion, compulsory service in defense industries, or wartime taxation.
Rutte is describing a Europe that must relearn the behavior of a continent at war.
5. The warning is not about Ukraine alone
The central thesis is that Ukraine’s defeat would trigger the most dangerous period in Europe since 1939. A Russian victory would bring a hardened military state directly to NATO borders. Rutte is telling Europe that the price of supporting Ukraine today is small compared to the price of defending Poland or the Baltic states tomorrow.
6. The emotional payload is deliberate
“Listen to the sirens.”
“Bodies pulled from rubble.”
“People who will not wake up tomorrow.”
This is not pathos. It is political engineering. European publics are comfortable. They feel insulated. Rutte is trying to collapse the psychological distance between Kharkiv and Berlin. He is forcing the audience to imagine the cost of inaction before reality does it for them.
𝟕. A glaring strategic disconnect has opened between US policy and the NATO actuality
Rutte’s speech exposes a widening gap inside the Western alliance. NATO now frames Russia and China as a fused strategic system that is prosecuting a long war against the European order. The United States has not yet internalized this shift. Washington continues to treat Russia as a regional revisionist actor and China as a global competitor to be managed rather than an active co-belligerent in the largest land war in Europe since 1945.
This creates a dangerous strategic disconnect. Europe sees a joint adversary fueling a single war machine. The US political system remains divided and often distracted, with one faction fixated on cutting support for Ukraine and another drifting toward a posture that tries to compartmentalize Beijing and Moscow. The result is an alliance that no longer shares a common picture of the threat. Rutte’s warning implies that Europe cannot afford to wait for the United States to resolve its internal confusion because the Russia-China system is already operating as a unified engine of aggression.
𝐁𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦 𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐞
This is not the language of routine NATO messaging. It is the language of pre-mobilization leadership.
The last time a senior transatlantic figure described the future of Europe in these terms was during the Korean War in 1950. The threat picture is now explicit.
War is at Europe’s doorstep. The United States cannot be assumed. China is underwriting Russia’s survival. Ukraine is the buffer that keeps the front line out of NATO territory. And the window to prevent a wider conflict is closing.
𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲: 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵 (NATO official transcript; Reuters; ABC News; Anadolu Ajansi; Stars and Stripes; The Guardian)
#OSINT #NATO #EU #Russia #Trump
1/3 Apparently my Rutte speech breakdown got ratioed into orbit because I connected three things the algorithm really doesn’t like in one thread:
• Russia preparing for NATO in ~5 years
• China keeping Russia’s war machine alive
• Europe no longer assuming automatic U.S. cover Funny how that combination triggers the great deboost of 2025.
2/3 It’s not a secret anymore. Multiple 2025 studies and leaks show the current X algorithm:
• Heavily amplifies pro-Trump / “America First” content
• Actively suppresses posts critical of Russia or China when bundled with U.S. policy critique
• Lets unlabeled state-affiliated accounts (and their bot armies) run wild Sources below if you still think it’s just “people disagreeing.”
Ukraine denies any role in the “attack” on the Russian-flagged MIDVOLGA-2 tanker. The claim does not add up. A ship traveling from Russian ports to Georgia would not route along the northern coast of Turkey. That track alone raises questions about what this vessel was really doing.
#OSINT
1/6
The MIDVOLGA-2 is listed as an oil and chemical tanker and has a history of calling at petroleum transfer terminals. That is not a platform used for food-grade sunflower oil. The cargo narrative does not match the ship’s commercial profile or its port history.
2/6
The AIS history, the route and the vessel class contradict the “sunflower oil” story. This looks like a Russian false flag designed to portray a Ukrainian strike on a supposed humanitarian ship so Moscow can justify sinking ag-based export vessels departing Ukraine.
3/6
AI audio analysis of two separate missile recordings from the Ternopil strike shows the same terminal aeroacoustic structure. Spectrograms of both clips reveal identical broadband energy bands and the same descending Doppler slope as the missile approaches impact.
#OSINT 1/4
Both recordings share a dominant low–mid frequency band (0–3 kHz) and a persistent mid-band component around 4–8 kHz. These are consistent with a Russian cruise missile’s turbofan or turbojet operating in terminal dive. The harmonic texture matches known profiles from prior strikes.
#OSINT
2/4
There are no tonal markers that would indicate different weapon types. No discrete harmonic peaks, no alternate propulsion signatures, and no frequency rolloff characteristic of a surface-to-air interceptor. Environmental differences account for the noise variation, not the weapon system.
3/4
Claim: Social media chatter alleges that the United Kingdom has voiced its willingness to enter the war in Ukraine, implying that London may deploy combat troops or otherwise participate directly in military operations against Russia.
#OSINT #Russia #UK #Ukraine #NATO
1/7
Sources: The narrative originated on Russian and pro-Russian Telegram channels and was amplified by automated and sympathetic social media accounts across X and VKontakte. Initial posts appeared on Russian-language channels known for prior coordinated Kremlin disinformation.
2/7
No official statements, press releases, or policy documents from the UK government or NATO support this claim. It has not been reported by any credible outlet or verified by independent observers.
3/7
RIA Novosti claims “the West” is preparing a nuclear provocation at the Zaporizhzhia NPP to blame Russia. It is another textbook example of the Kremlin using a Mirror Accusation Operation, a tactic often seen when narrative control begins to slip.
#OSINT
1/5
A Mirror Accusation Operation invents the crime in advance, blames the enemy, and hides real intent behind the fabrication. The story becomes a shield before the attack occurs.
RIA writers claim “the West will melt down reactor cores” and “EU citizens will suffer.”
2/5
Fear mixed with technical language makes a lie sound factual. It is emotional engineering, not analysis.
Fighting continues in Pokrovsk, but Russian claims of “occupation” remain premature. Verified footage shows small recon groups, not an occupying force, operating inside the city, which remains contested and under Ukrainian control.
Map: @Majakovsk73
#OSINT
1/9
Ukrainian drone footage confirms that most Russian activity inside the city consists of diversionary reconnaissance groups (DRG). They probe defenses, adjust fire, and withdraw before counterstrikes. These are not occupation units but transient formations exploiting gaps in surveillance.
#OSINT
2/9
Those areas remain "grey" (contested).
Pokrovsk sits on vital road and rail junctions feeding the northern Donetsk contact lines in the Slovyansk, Kramatorsk, and Kostiantynivka sector. Ukraine continues to maintain control of these critical ground lines of communication (GLOCs) ...