NATO has decided to increase the NATO Rapid Reaction Force from 40,000 to 300,000 men, 7.5 times, and station it on the Russian border.
In doing so, they have once again violated their own signature, that of the Charter for Security in Europe, by directly threatening Russia.
Russia has no possibility to defend its huge borders and can only ensure its security by ensuring that no foreign force sets up a military base on its borders (scorched earth strategy).
Already, the Pentagon is circulating prospective maps of the dismantling of Russia that it hopes to implement.
The former Russian ambassador to NATO and current director of Roscosmos, Dmitry Rogozin, has responded by publishing on his Telegram account the coordinates of the NATO decision-making centers, including the Madrid summit room.
Russia has hypersonic launchers, for the moment impossible to intercept, which can carry a nuclear warhead in a few minutes to the NATO headquarters in Brussels and the Pentagon in Washington.
To avoid any misunderstanding, Sergei Lavrov specified, alluding to the Straussians, that the martial decisions of the West were not taken by the military, but by the US State Department. It would be the first target.
So the question is: will the West play for all it’s worth? Will they take the risk of a Third World War, even though it has already been lost, just to avoid dying alone?
Geopolitics.co
UK THREAT LEVEL RAISED
UK security services have increased 24 Hour surveillance & live data analysis on UK Pensioners including foreign tracking.
Pensioners are alleged to be planning their next holidays abroad sleeping on Spanish beaches & watching Netflix.
Installation of new UK databank cities to handle the increased data as 1000 surveillance corps go into overdrive as UK Pensioners are classified as Domestic Terrorists & security services develop Pensioner Derangement Syndrome, PDS & paranoid psychosis.#mossad
THE WEST'S FATAL MISCALCULATION.
Ukraine, Russia, and the West’s fatal miscalculation
Fyodor Lukyanov
It’s always easy to feel prescient in hindsight. I recall conversations from 15 or 20 years ago with Western interlocutors – who are now from unfriendly nations – on NATO expansion. The discussions always began in a relatively solemn manner. From our side, we politely asked, why are you doing this? The bloc was creeping ever closer to Russia’s borders, despite assurances that it was not an anti-Russian project. Their response was equally polite: What are you talking about? This is not directed against Russia. You should welcome having stable, democratic neighbors under NATO’s watchful eye.
After an hour, especially in informal settings, the real opinions began to surface. We warned, if you keep pushing, you’ll eventually reach Ukraine – and that is impossible. That is the red line.
The response? Come on! You objected to Poland and Hungary, and then you accepted it. You were angry about the Baltics, and nothing ...