Russian offensive actions in the east have greatly accelerated and now in the south the vital city of Vuhledar is set to fall within a couple days (if it hasn’t already).  Their attrition based strategy and artillery superiority have created a shield for small fast moving units to strike Ukraine’s trenches and fixed defenses, and their drone game has dramatically improved.  This has led them to capture multiple towns and cities in the past three months, with their forces closing in on the key eastern operational base of Pokrovsk.  If Pokrovsk falls, the entire east of Ukraine could easily fall.

Beyond the shift to attrition tactics, Russia is gaining territory quickly because Ukraine is low on manpower.  No amount of NATO technology or weaponry is going to help this fundamental weakness.  This is the reality in Ukraine; they are losing the war.

The western media is unable to gloss over the situation any longer, which means something dramatic will have to happen to change the course of the war in Ukraine’s favor.  Their government is scrambling to initiate an October surprise in preparation for the US elections in November.  The US runs NATO, and Ukraine is entirely dependent on US aid. 

The notion of a Ukrainian “Victory Plan” is by itself questionable given the circumstances, but what is reportedly contained in Vladimir Zelensky’s strategy seems to be a over-optimistic wish list relying heavily on escalation between NATO and Russia.  In other words, the only way Ukraine can “win” is for NATO to engage in open warfare with the East.

While the full plan hasn’t been divulged, senior U.S. officials who are familiar with its contents don’t see anything original or innovative in it. As one told The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 25, “I’m unimpressed, there’s not much new there.” From what we can grasp, the “victory plan” is less a “plan” and more a continuation of Zelensky’s lobbying campaign to keep U.S. arms flowing in perpetuity.

Zelensky is dead-set on getting permission to use US and European long range missile systems against targets deep within Russia.  The problem, as Vladimir Putin rightly noted, is that these systems cannot hit such targets accurately without NATO satellite intel and acquisition.  Meaning, the missiles must be guided by US and European military technicians and assets.

It is likely that the majority of Ukrainian long range drone strikes within Russia are already being aided by NATO intel, but the use of ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles far from Ukraine’s front line is another matter entirely.  There’s no plausible deniability for NATO involvement.  The use of these weapons within Russia would be akin to a declaration of war and would trigger escalation outside of Ukraine.

What would the consequences be?  Not necessarily the use of nuclear weapons (though Putin did just change his bottom line on a nuclear response to include long range attacks using NATO weapons), but the spread of more advanced Russian armaments to countries like China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and even the Houthis in Yemen is a good bet.  Meaning a more significant threat to NATO interests in Asia and the Middle East.  The war would spread.

So far the Biden Administration has refrained from supporting the long range option, but has offered another $8 billion in support.  Under a Trump presidency, the money train is likely to stop abruptly.

Zelensky has offered no practical measures for negotiations, arguing that concessions are off the table.  Furthermore, he claims that peace is only possible once Ukraine has taken back all territory seized by Russia, including Crimea which was annexed in 2014.  He then demanded that Russia pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction and that Putin and a multitude of other Russian officials be handed over to be tried for war crimes.  This is never going to happen.

The core of Ukraine’s victory plan relies on long range strikes using NATO guided missiles and acceptance into NATO.  Both factors at this stage would cause WWIII.

Ukraine’s chest beating is the national equivalent of “short man’s syndrome.”  That said, Zelensky would not be making these kinds of demands if he was not being encouraged by someone behind the scenes.  Many officials within the US and Europe have given Zelensky delusions of grandeur about his chances, perhaps because they want the war to grind on forever.  These same officials have hinted consistently that they will not accept a Ukrainian loss.

Regardless of what side people think should win, the fact is that Russia is the inevitable victor according to all the evidence on hand.  While the extent of Putin’s goals in the region are unknown, it’s unlikely that he intends to march beyond Ukraine.  He may simply stop at the edge of the Donbas and annex the region like he did Crimea.

This may actually be the best case scenario for all parties involved.  The longer the war goes on the greater the chances of a powerkeg moment and a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.  Ukraine should not be talking about “victory”, that time has come and gone. They should be talking about peace.

He said in an ABC News interview published Tuesday, “I think that we are closer to peace than we think.” But he caveated this by saying this will only be assured if Ukraine comes from a “strong position” with the help of Western backers.

He described his so-called victory plan as not being focused on seeking to negotiate with Russia, but rather it is “a bridge to a diplomatic way out, to stop the war.”

“We just have to be very strong, very strong,” Zelensky said, and this is largely dependent on the “quick decisions”. He has also of late said that “bold” decisions must be made by Washington, in reference to the request for NATO to greenlight long-range missiles strikes on Russia.

“Everybody’s looking up to [Biden], and we need this to defend ourselves,” he told ABC, in an obvious effort to increase pressure on a somewhat hesitant White House. Ukraine also wants a firm path to NATO membership.

He further said his plan is about “the strengthening of Ukraine, Ukrainian army and Ukrainian people. Only in the strong position we can push [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to stop the war – diplomatic way.” He emphasized: “That is why we are asking our friend.”

Despite this optimism about Ukraine’s battlefield chances from Zelensky, Reuters on Tuesday has more bad news for Kiev, centering on rapid gains in Donetsk as another key town is about to fall.

Zelensky is pulling out all the stops in a final push to wring U.S. taxpayers for more money.

He knows the policies of unlimited funding and escalation supported by the Harris-Biden Admin have an expiration date. https://t.co/GeeUC6lMEA

— Rep. Eli Crane (@RepEliCrane) September 24, 2024

“Russian forces have begun storming the eastern Ukrainian town of Vuhledar, a stronghold that has resisted Russian attack since the beginning of the 2022 war, according to Russian war bloggers and state media,” Reuters writes.

“Russian forces in eastern Ukraine advanced at their fastest rate in two years in August, according to multiple open source maps, even though a Ukrainian incursion into Russia’s Kursk region sought to force Moscow to divert troops.”

One well-known regional journalist and war observer, Leonid Ragozin—formerly of the BBC—agrees that things are looking bad for Ukraine forces in Vuhledar…

As confirmed by both Russian and Ukrainian sources, the Russians have entered Vuhledar – a key Ukrainian stronghold at the junction of eastern and southern fronts. The potential effect of its capture is hard to overestimate.

They are also closing the lid on the near-encircled…

— Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) September 24, 2024

“The situation on the frontline couldn’t be worse for Zelensky-Biden summit,” Ragoniz writes.

So it seems Zelensky is busy in Washington ramping up the hawkish talking points even as his forces are against the ropes in the Donbass. “Russia can only be forced into peace, and that is exactly what’s needed — forcing Russia into peace,” Zelensky had told ABC further. But so far, it seems the opposition situation is unfolding.

Zelenskyy made the remarks at a press conference in Kyiv on Friday during a visit by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and additionally in a briefing to the Observer, per The Guardian.

As The Epoch Times’ Tom Ozimek reports, the Ukrainian president said at the presser alongside von der Leyen that he plans to meet with President Joe Biden in Washington on Sept. 26 and lay out his “victory plan,” details of which remain scant.

“All the details [of the plan] I will discuss first of all with the president of the United States,“ Zelenskyy said.

”Most of the decisions from the plan depend specifically on him. On other allies too, but there are certain points which depend on the goodwill and support of the United States. I hope he supports this plan.”

Zelenskyy added that success of the plan is “predicated upon quick decisions from our partners,” adding that key decisions on which the plan rests should be taken between October and December.

“We really want to see this, and we would then consider that the plan has worked,” he said.

In a separate briefing with the Observer in Kyiv on Friday, Zelenskyy said that the plan involved carrying out deep strikes inside Russia with the use of Western-supplied missiles, which the United States and the United Kingdom have so far refused to allow.

By allowing the use of U.S.-supplied missiles to carry out long-range strikes inside Russia, Biden would “earn a place in history,” Zelenskyy said.

“Biden can strengthen Ukraine and make important decisions for Ukraine to become stronger and to protect its independence while he is U.S. president,” he said.

“I think it is a historical mission.”

In a statement on social media on Friday, the Ukrainian president said that he and his team are preparing for negotiations in the United States, where he intends to also meet with former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

“We are ready to present a concrete plan—not just for Ukraine to endure, not just to maintain our resistance at the current level, but to strengthen ourselves right now. To strengthen in such a way that brings a just peace closer, that brings victory closer,” Zelenskyy said.

The Ukrainian president said on Sept. 16 that the plan was nearly complete and that it rests on four pillars: military, political, diplomatic, and economic.

Zelenskyy elaborated somewhat on the four parts of the plan in an interview with CNN several days ago.

“It’s about security. It’s about geopolitical place for Ukraine. It’s about very strong military support available to us, and that we have to be free in how to use one or another item. It’s about economical support, decisions, which I think will be interesting,” he said.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Russia has warned that allowing strikes deep inside its territory with the use of Western-supplied missiles would amount to a declaration of war.

Several days ago, Vyacheslav Volodin, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, warned Western governments that a nuclear war would break out if they gave Ukraine permission to use long-range Western weapons to strike targets inside Russia.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Friday that the West should stop supplying weapons to Ukraine and sponsoring “terrorist activity” if it wanted to send a signal that it is serious about putting an end to the war.

“As soon as they stop supplying arms to the Kyiv regime and sponsoring the terrorist activities of Bankova, then it can be perceived as a signal for political and diplomatic settlement,” she said.

“Everything else is either strengthening of anti-Russian ties with the West, or an attempt to attract other members of the international community to their reckless schemes, or elements of the current White House’s electoral program, so to speak, or manoeuvring,” she said. “In fact, this has nothing to do with peace.”

Michael Carpenter, senior director for Europe at the National Security Council, told Voice of America (VOA) on Friday that discussions between Zelenskyy’s team and members of the Biden administration could include Ukraine’s need for long-range capabilities, with “very active discussions” on this topic already underway.

“We will be having the broad conversation on all the range of capabilities that we think are most important for Ukraine right now, to put it in a position of strength,” he said.

Biden considers Ukraine’s sovereignty and success a key part of his legacy, Carpenter said.

He warned this will be the case “if Zelensky, who has done everything contrary to the interests of Ukraine, remains in power bypassing the elections. Surely no one will tolerate this.”

But already, the government had canceled elections which were supposed to be held last spring, citing martial law and the necessity of no disruption in government due to the Russian invasion. This is a situation which looks to persist longer, angering many Ukrainians who are dissatisfied with Zelensky’s handling of the war.

President Putin had called Zelensky ‘illegitimate’ as a result, but NATO allies including the United States had accepted the cancelation of elections. Putin had said that his term “expired together with its legitimacy, which cannot be restored by any tricks.”

Dubinsky, the opposition lawmaker now highlighting the issue, has actually been under investigation for treason stemming from a years-long alleged criminal conspiracy involving corruption.

Kiev has long maintained that indefinitely postponing elections was in accord with the nation’s constitution:

Ukrainian legal experts consulted by DW said they expected Zelenskyy would remain in power until a new president is elected. “The Ukrainian constitution states this clearly,” said Andriy Mahera, of the Center of Policy and Legal Reform in Kyiv. “The president does not automatically lose his powers five years after inauguration. These powers are only removed when the newly elected president takes office, i.e., after elections.”

Presidential and parliamentary elections are currently out of the question. Ukraine’s constitution places a temporary restriction on the former, whereas martial law bans both — in part , officials have said, to protect voters from harm.

So long as Zelensky has the support of the West, it’s expected he will continue to rule without problems.

Lawmaker Alexander Dubinsky is a deeply controversial figure in Ukraine…

One potential coup scenario, however, might involve far-right elements connected to Ukraine’s military – such as Azov Brigade – stirring strong dissent in the scenario of Zelensky being willing to go quickly to the negotiating table with Moscow. While much of the Ukrainian populace is surely tired of the war, and might be willing to let go of some pro-Russian far eastern territories for the sake of peace, groups like Azov and Right Sector would be out for blood.

To be clear, I don’t favor Russia any more than I favor Ukraine. The Kremlin has long had its own ties to the globalists, as I have outlined in numerous articles. How deep those ties go is up for debate – Maybe the honeymoon is over and Russia is truly done trying to get a seat at the globalist table. What I do know is that western elites want a world war and they have done everything in their power to start one.

Look at it this way: What if you were to make a list of all the covert and overt NATO operations in Ukraine and then flipped script? What if Russia was pursuing all the same agendas of destabilization, control and arms proliferation in Mexico (as the Soviets did in Cuba in the 1960s)?  If the US invaded Mexico preemptively it would be completely understandable.

Whether or not Putin is acting in the best interests of Russia doesn’t really matter. The war was inevitable anyway because NATO made sure it was impossible to avoid. But what purpose does such a proxy war serve? Well, it doesn’t serve much purpose at all…unless the goal is to instigate a wider world war between the East and the West. In that scenario the globalists benefit greatly.

They get a scapegoat for the economic collapse they’ve already set in motion. They multiply the global fear factor and make the public desperate for the political elites to step in and solve all their problems. And, they can get rid of their domestic enemies (conservatives and patriots) by accusing them of “working with Russia” to undermine the war effort if they dare to rebel against unconstitutional mandates.

Beyond that, they also get an opportunity to send young men (who might rebel) off to the meat grinder in Ukraine so that there’s no new generation of freedom fighters to deal with. World War III is a win-win-win for the Davos crowd, as long as it doesn’t go full-on nuclear holocaust and wipe out their carefully crafted surveillance states.

But how do they turn the proxy war into a world war without looking like the bad guys? That’s the trick, isn’t it?

The proxy (in this case, Ukraine) would have to take actions that provoke Russia into an explosive outburst. Russia would have to utilize tactics or weaponry that puts a vast number of civilians at risk, requiring greater NATO involvement and perhaps even UN intervention. They need Russia to level a major city containing hundreds of thousands of civilians. They need Russia to drop MOABs or nukes. They need a dramatic war crime; otherwise, the western public is not going to support boots on the ground or agree to a military draft.

Popular support for monetary and military aid in Ukraine is waning quickly and Ukraine knows they are about to lose. The Kursk offensive looks like an act of desperation triggered by this reality.

The Kursk region has almost no modern strategic value. It’s a rural agricultural area with a limited industrial base. It does have natural gas pipelines that send energy to Europe, but that doesn’t help Ukraine. They’re already in trouble with Germany for blowing up the Nordstream pipeline. There is also a nuclear power plant in the area but it’s too far away for Ukraine’s troops to seize it (They could try to destroy it with drones and cause a nuclear incident, but this would have to be done covertly without Ukraine taking direct credit).

Mainstream strategists argue that the Kursk operation was designed to force Russia to move crack troops away from the Donbas front where they are making impressive gains. This would allegedly slow down Russia’s attrition based offensive and change the direction of the war. But if that was the plan, it failed miserably.

Ukraine’s troops in Kursk have reportedly been contained. Using NATO-style maneuver tactics to invade Kursk has also done nothing to slow Russia’s advance as they are now primed to take the key city of Toretsk. They are also approaching Pokrovsk (the main staging ground for Ukraine’s forces in the east). These areas are heavily defended with long term entrenchments, but Russia is rolling right through them. The lines beyond these cities are thin or non-existent. Ukraine would immediately be forced to negotiate a cease fire.

Russia also launched the largest missile and drone strikes of the war in fifteen Ukrainian oblasts, causing even greater disruptions to utilities. This proves two things: The Russian military has NOT been diminished or crippled and they still have ample long range ordnance, despite what NATO officials originally claimed

There’s a reason why Kursk was so lightly defended by Russia – It’s not worth anything to Ukraine in terms of winning the war. That said, I would like to offer an alternative theory on why Ukraine made such a move…

The moment Ukraine crossed onto Russian soil the media and political narrative changed. The word today is that the Kremlin’s “red lines” are meaningless and that Ukraine has proven that Putin is “all talk” when it comes to nuclear weapons and metropolitan strikes. The discussion has turned to the use of US and European long range missiles deep into Russian territory. The Ukrainian government (with NATO behind it) is demanding that US and European officials allow them access to the big-boy toys.

Again, the Biden Administration has to at least appear resistant to this idea. They know if they openly give the green light to offensive ATACM strikes on Russian soil beyond the front that they will be seen as stepping over the line of logistical “support” into the realm of direct warfare with the Russians. Yes, I’m well aware that NATO intel and “advisers” have been on the ground in Ukraine since before the war began. The point is, it’s not official policy because the public would not accept it.

Long range strikes into Russia, I believe, will set in motion more Russian strikes on major cities in the west of Ukraine where the majority of the population lives. These areas have gone largely untouched during the duration of the war. Putin, despite what the media claims, has been careful to limit the targeting of larger civilian centers. That will end if NATO missiles hit Russian cities.

Kursk may have been an attempt to embarrass Russia into wild strikes on civilian targets, thereby giving NATO a reason to intervene. That’s one theory. Another theory is that the Kursk operation is designed to convince western policy makers and the public that there will be no nuclear repercussions; that Putin is all bluster and Ukraine should be given more advanced tools to bomb Moscow.

This narrative is largely promoted by the Atlantic Council, a globalist think-tank with ties to the World Economic Forum and the “Three Seas Initiative.” The Atlantic Council directly advises the Ukrainian government on all aspect of the war, including strategy through their Eurasian Center.  They also advise NATO through their Scowcroft Center. As their website notes:

“The Eurasia Center has worked tirelessly to respond to the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, using our well-respected and high-visibility platform and leveraging relationships in government, civil society, and the media to have great impact. The Eurasia Center offers recommendations directly to the U.S. administration and Congress, senior Ukrainian officials, European leadership, international media, and civil society. The Center tracks the military and political situation within Ukraine and advocates for stronger, faster measures to stall and mitigate the damage of the Kremlin’s war on Ukraine.”

I would argue that the Atlantic Council is the primary globalist “influencer” in the Ukraine war – The source for the majority of strategic decisions and propaganda. Their support of the ‘Three Seas Initiative” since 2014 has been the driving force in the effort to bring Ukraine into the EU and NATO (the primary reason why the war started in the first place).

Lindsay Graham, a Neo-Con and rabid proponent of using Ukraine as a proxy to ignite a war with Russia, has been participating in Atlantic Council projects since at least 2010.

It’s the Atlantic Council and their media contacts, in my opinion, that are pushing for large scale missile strikes into Russia. They are also the source for the claim that Putin’s red lines are a fake out. They state on their website:

“Ukraine’s offensive is now posing serious questions about the credibility of Russia’s saber-rattling and the rationality behind the West’s abundance of caution. After all, the Ukrainian army’s current invasion of Russia is surely the reddest of all red lines. If Russia was at all serious about a possible nuclear escalation, this would be the moment to make good on its many threats. In fact, Putin has responded by seeking to downplay the invasion while pretending that everything is still going according to plan.”

This is the same propaganda that has been spreading into most establishment media platforms in recent weeks. (As a side note, the Atlantic Council was also heavily involved in the funding of covid mandate and vaccine propaganda during the pandemic scare).

The idea that ballistic volleys into Russia using NATO supplied missiles won’t result in Putin using MOABs or nukes is truly insane. Keep in mind, long range strikes into Russia will do nothing to change the conditions on the ground in the Donbas.

Even if the globalists can’t convince western populations to give the thumbs up for ballistic attacks on Russia using weapons paid for with our tax dollars, the powers-that-be have a contingency plan. Ukraine has recently announced that they have developed their OWN long range ballistic missile, and those weapons supposedly don’t fall under the supervision of the US and Europe.

Eventually these kinds of strikes will lead to a Russian response that will appear brutal; and western warhawks will squeeze that event for all it’s worth. They’ll run with it straight to the Pentagon and demand a plan for US military conscription. If this is the agenda then they’ll need to make it happen BEFORE the elections in November.

Donald Trump is looking increasingly likely to be the winner of the presidential race. I have long held that the globalists will wrap up an economic collapse or a world war and throw it in Trump’s lap. They already tried to do the same thing with the covid pandemic and the inflationary crisis.

The timing of the Kursk offensive and the call for missile strikes on Russia is not a coincidence. Trump claims that his intention is to end the Ukraine war as quickly as possible once he enters office. This will likely mean a leveraged peace settlement that will involve Ukraine giving up the Donbas region to Russia. If Trump is sincere, then there are many elites in the Atlantic Council, the WEF and NATO that will not be happy.

They need to escalate the war into something bigger, something that can’t be undone. Right now, the war can be ended – All it takes is some diplomacy and forcing Ukraine to understand that they’re not going to get the Donbas or Crimea back no matter how many lives they sacrifice. But if there are massive civilian casualties on either side, the situation becomes irreversible. I suspect this is what the globalists want.

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Looks like relations between Germany and Ukraine are about to turn ugly: Zelensky was behind the Nordstream sabotage (even if he allegedly got cold feet at the end, but was unable to halt it). The question: why this story coming out now. pic.twitter.com/Zo4GBGECaF

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 15, 2024

We didn’t have long to wait to get the answer: as German media reports, this U-turn in the narrative (which according to some meant that NATO should now unleash its full military power against…. Ukraine, which had single-handedly attacked German assets by blowing up the Nordstream) was meant to soften the blow from Germany’s decision to finally cut off Ukraine’s – and Zelensky’s – unprecedented grift.

According to a Saturday report in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), the German government will stop new military aid to Ukraine as part of the ruling coalition’s plan to reduce spending. The report, which cited non-public documents and emails as well as discussions with unnamed sources, goes on to note that the moratorium on new assistance – which is already in effect – will affect new requests for funding, not previously approved aid,

In a letter sent to the German defense ministry on Aug. 5, Finance Minister Christian Lindner said that future funding would no longer come from Germany’s federal budget but from proceeds from frozen Russian assets, according to the German newspaper. And since we already know that recent attempts to liquidate Russian assets crashed and burned over fears of escalating Russian retaliation, this effectively means no more aid for Ukraine.

Berlin, which is Europe’s main supplier of military aid to Kyiv, had previously signaled a change in course on Ukraine last month, when the governing coalition of the Social Democrats, the Greens and the Liberals adopted a preliminary deal on a draft budget for 2025. The compromise detailed plans to slash future assistance to Ukraine by half to €4 billion to fulfill other spending priorities. And, it now appears, that even this token amount is about to be cut to zero.

As we reported in June, the G7’s decision to extend a USD 50 billion loan to Ukraine, backed by immobilized Russian assets, was this summit’s most significant step forward. This loan structure reflects a typical compromise between the US and Europe. While the straightforward solution would involve seizing all of Russia’s frozen assets (estimated at USD 280 billion) to directly fund Ukraine’s war efforts, European countries – particularly France, Germany, and Belgium – aggressively shied away from this, viewing it as too aggressive and fearing Russian reciprocation. Instead, they opted for using the interest on matured assets, which amounts to only a few billion dollars per year. The first option would be a game changer, we said, “whereas the second option falls embarrassingly short.”

The G7 pic.twitter.com/IBaSo7UR4f

— Ryan Gerritsen (@ryangerritsen) June 13, 2024

And now Ukraine will have to be satisfied with receiving whatever meager interest seized Russian funds generate.

Meanwhile, the primary source of funding for Ukraine – the Biden family and various deep state operatives – is about to dry out, after Biden finally leaves the White House and quit politics forever in three months.

Speaking after the Cabinet approved the draft budget in mid-July, Germany FinMin Lindner said Ukraine would have to rely more on funds from “European sources” as well as the frozen Russian assets. But it’s still unclear if, and when, that money will flow.

According to Politico, contentions over Ukraine aid reportedly deepened the rifts in the ruling coalition in Berlin, already tattered by weeks of internal fights over a series of issues from the budget to welfare. Green leader and Economy Minister Robert Habeck said this week he plans to run for chancellor as the Greens’ candidate in the 2025 federal election, casting doubt on the survival of the governing alliance of which he is a member.

“It’s quite obvious that this coalition has major problems finding common ground,” Habeck said regarding the recent disputes.

“The ideas are falling apart.”

Which is also why Zelensky will have no choice but to resort to ever-more-desperate and shocking provocations and diversions to keep the money flowing, as the alternative is complete devastation for Ukraine and its Western backers.

On his last day in the country he made some wide-ranging remarks to the press, and among the most interesting was a statement on the future of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Putin predicted at a moment things are going very badly for Ukrainian forces, and at a rare time Western media seems to be turning on Zelensky, that the Ukrainian leader will soon be replaced over his poor and unpopular decision-making. Putin suggested Washington is essentially going to make him a scapegoat.

“In the West, they simply do not want to replace him [Zelenskyy], the time is not right. I think it’s obvious to anyone. They will blame all unpopular decisions on him, including lowering the [military] draft age, and that’s it,” Putin asserted, according to Russian media translation.

That’s when he followed with: “And then they’ll replace him. I think it will happen sometime in the first half of next year.”

Putin could be at least in part seizing on the obvious increased negative coverage of the Zelensky government in major Western media outlets, from the BBC to NY Times to Wall Street Journal. Indeed Zelensky’s ‘celebrity power’ on display throughout the first part of the war, where it seemed he could simply do no wrong in the media’s eyes, is waning fast.

More importantly, there are signs of large-scale dissent among the Ukrainian population as recruitment officers violently grab men from off the streets.

Despite Kiev forces clearly being against the ropes of late, Zelensky has still refused to even contemplate negotiating. He has stood by his earlier commitment to not enter dialogue toward ceasefire until Putin is out of power. Putin commented on this while in Vietnam:

Talks on Ukraine could take place as early as tomorrow, but Russia will use the current situation as a starting point, the president added.

“We have been conducting these behind-the-scenes talks, and what we hoped for has failed,” Putin told reporters.

Zelensky's advisor, Alexey Arestovich, argued in 2019:
– Attempting to join NATO will pressure Russia to invade
– "Our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia"
– Predicting the war would start between 2020-22, with remarkable detailshttps://t.co/8iEn5wSUd9 pic.twitter.com/9fmw5X1DYl

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) April 9, 2024

Interestingly, Putin had back in May declared Zelensky “illegitimate” after Ukraine failed to hold previously scheduled elections. Zelensky’s term was set to end May 20, but the government declared no elections until the war is over, citing martial law.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto agreed with this assessment. He has condemned the latest remarks from Macron about the option of sending troops to Ukraine and has warned such a move could ultimately spark an all-out nuclear war.

While speaking to French broadcaster LCI as reported by RT on Thursday, Szijjarto was asked for his take on Macron’s renewed threat to deploy his country’s troops to back up Kiev against Russia. The diplomat strongly condemned the idea, saying that the French leader’s comments themselves have contributed to escalating the situation.

“If a NATO member commits ground troops, it will be a direct NATO-Russia confrontation and it will then be World War Three,” Szijjarto told the broadcaster.

Russia has repeatedly warned the West of further interference, and the West continues to interfere. So far, Russia has exercised restraint while focusing on destroying the equipment and weapons sent to Ukraine.

Macron made newer remarks regarding boots on the ground in an interview with The Economist that was published on Thursday. He doubled down on previous statements about the prospect of deploying French troops to Ukraine. The president said his original remarks, made earlier this year, were a “strategic wake-up call for my counterparts.” He suggested that Paris could deploy troops “if the Russians were to break through the front lines” and a request for help came from Kiev.

“In peacetime, it would be different, but in wartime such statements can be misinterpreted and have serious consequences,” Szijjarto stated, warning that, should the situation escalate into a global nuclear war, “it will be over for everyone.”

The permanent ruling class in Europe has also become extremely desperate to win the war.

The power elite on both sides of the Atlantic can see Russian troops advancing all along the front, and they know that the Ukrainians don’t have the strength to stop them.

So now there is apparently talk of sending NATO troops into Ukraine. Seriously.

According to Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, “a number of Nato and EU member states are considering that they will send their troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis”…

The prime minister of Slovakia has claimed that Nato and EU member states are preparing to deploy troops to Ukraine.

Robert Fico, a pro-Russia populist, offered no details of how Western soldiers could be sent to assist Ukraine, and commentators said he was probably just trying to stir up trouble.

He was speaking ahead of a hastily-arranged meeting of European leaders in Paris because of what his advisers say is an escalation in Russian aggression over the past few weeks.

The meeting implies that “a number of Nato and EU member states are considering that they will send their troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis”, Mr Fico told a televised briefing following a meeting of Slovakia’s security council.

I was hoping that this was a misunderstanding somehow, but then French President Emmanuel Macron seemed to confirm that ground troops are being considered.

He told the press that there is currently no consensus on deploying ground troops, but that “nothing should be excluded”…

French President Emmanuel Macron announced Monday that a new coalition would be created to supply Ukraine with longer-range missiles and munitions, adding that not even the sending of Western ground troops to fight the Russian invasion should be ruled out.

“There is no consensus today to send ground troops… but nothing should be excluded. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war,” Macron said after a meeting of European leaders in Paris.

Whatever it takes?

Does that include bringing us right to the brink of nuclear war?

The second bombshell that I have to share with you today has to do with a shocking report that was published in the New York Times on Sunday.

According to that report, the CIA has had a network of 12 secret spy bases inside Ukraine for many years…

On Sunday The New York Times published an explosive and very belated full admission that US intelligence has not only been instrumental in Ukraine wartime decision-making, but has established and financed high tech command-and-control spy centers, and was doing so long prior to the Feb. 24 Russian invasion of two years ago.

Among the biggest revelations is that the program was established a decade ago and spans three different American presidents. The Times says the CIA program to modernize Ukraine’s intelligence services has “transformed” the former Soviet state and its capabilities into “Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today.”

This has included the agency having secretly trained and equipped Ukrainian intelligence officers spanning back to just after the 2014 Maidan coup events, as well constructing a network of 12 secret bases along the Russian border—work which began eight years ago. These intelligence bases, from which Russian commanders’ communications can be swept up and Russian spy satellites monitored, are being used launch and track cross-border drone and missile attacks on Russian territory.

How can we possibly claim that we are not responsible for missile attacks on Russian territory when we are the ones supplying the weapons and we are the ones telling them where to shoot?

This is so maddening.

They are literally gambling with all of our lives.

If they miscalculate and a nuclear war starts, it will be the end of society as we know it today.

Both sides should be looking for a way out while that is still possible, but instead both sides just continue to escalate matters. And both sides will try to use anything that happens to get people even more riled up.

For example, here in the western world we were told that Vladimir Putin murdered Alexei Navalny for political reasons, but now even the Ukrainians are telling us that it is “more or less confirmed” that he died of a blood clot…

In a very unexpected plot twist, Ukraine appears to be in agreement with the Kremlin on Alexei Navalny’s death inside a far northern Russian prison which occurred on Feb. 16 and was listed by Russian authorities as officially due to “natural causes”. The dominant Western narrative has thus far been that Putin had him “murdered”.

Yet now Kiev sources are saying that the anti-Putin activist supported by the West died of a blood clot. Surprisingly, this explanation is being advanced among Ukraine media sources after none other than Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, chief of the Main Directorate of Intelligence (HUR), bluntly stated it to a group of journalists on Sunday. “I may disappoint you, but as far as we know, he indeed died as a result of a blood clot. And this has been more or less confirmed,” Budanov stated.

Personally, I don’t have access to any of the evidence, and so I have no idea how Navalny died.

But what really disturbed me was that his death was being used as justification for pumping more money into a war that could get millions of Americans killed. And now we are finding out that he may have died due to a blood clot.

The madness needs to stop. Hundreds of thousands have already died in Ukraine.  Why can’t both sides just sit down and talk?

Unfortunately, it appears that leaders on both sides do not intend to be reasonable at this point. I have one more bombshell to share with you before I end this article.

I cannot vouch for the veracity of this information.  But since tons of people on social media are talking about it right now, I figured that I would present it to you and allow you to come to your own conclusions.

It is being claimed that the Russians have captured a man that had been paid $4,000 to put an explosive device on Tucker Carlson’s vehicle when he was in Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin…

Russian counter-terrorist forces have foiled a terrorist attack in Moscow, which had been planned, directed and financed by the Main Directorate of Intelligence of Ukraine. The terrorist cell was operated by “Ukrainian handlers” in order to carry out an attack on American journalist Tucker Carlson during his visit to Moscow. The terrorist confessed to the plot and gave details on it. He was provided with IED (improvised explosive device) for the attack. The plan was to target Tucker Carlson’s vehicle in the Four Seasons hotel underground parking lot.

In his interrogation Vasiliev recounted receiving instructions and the location of IED, but said that he was arrested before committing the attack. He also mentioned that his Ukrainian handlers promised him $4000 for a successful execution of the attack.

A video of this assassin supposedly confessing what he did has been posted on YouTube.

According to a transcript of his confession, he was not told who the target was in advance, but now he understands that the vehicle that he was supposed to put the explosive device on belonged to “journalist Tucker Carlson”…

“In November 2023, I was recruited by the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.

“I was trained in working with special communications, collecting, and detonating explosive devices.”

“On January 31, I received a task from the curator to pick up an explosive device from a hiding place and use it to blow up a car.”

What was promised to you?

“Four thousand dollars.”

Where was the explosive device supposed to be used?

“In the underground parking of the Four Seasons hotel in Moscow. I was supposed to pick up the explosive device from a hiding place and place it under the car.”

Who was it targeting?

“I wasn’t told.”

Do you know who the target was now?

“Yes. American journalist Tucker Carlson.”

What went wrong?

“I was detained at the preparation stage.”

If you have not seen it yet, you can watch the video of his supposed confession right here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRE6mpk6Dy0

Hopefully this is not true. Hopefully the Ukrainians were not really trying to kill Tucker Carlson. But tons of people on social media are buzzing about this today, and so I thought I would discuss it.

Like I said, I am seriously hoping that this is not accurate. Because if it is true, the implications are staggering. Everyone that writes about the war in Ukraine has an agenda.

I have an agenda too. I want peace.

Long before Russia invaded Ukraine, I warned my readers that we were on a path that would lead to a final showdown with Russia.

If we end up in a shooting war with Russia, both sides will be strongly tempted to be the first to push the button. Because whoever strikes first has the best chance of surviving a nuclear war.

I don’t want a nuclear war. I want peace.

Sadly, the people running our foreign policy don’t want peace, and so the threat of nuclear conflict looms larger than ever.

Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here.

In an interview with German news website Der Speigel published on Friday, Klitschko criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s approach, stating that the country might eventually resemble Russia, where power is concentrated in one person’s hands.

According to the Kyiv Independent, Klitschko accused Zelenskyy’s office of viewing mayors as obstacles preventing the centralization of power. Serving as the mayor of Kyiv since June 2014, Klitschko commended Ukraine’s mayors for their strong leadership in protecting citizens. He highlighted the chaotic and leaderless situation in Ukraine during the early months of the war.

Klitschko revealed that he and Zelenskyy have not communicated since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, underscoring the apparent rift between them. The strained relationship became public in November 2022 when Klitschko criticized Zelenskyy over the conditions of emergency shelters intended to assist residents amid Russian bombings.

Following a tragic incident in June, where three people were locked outside an air raid shelter and killed during a Russian attack, Zelenskyy ordered an audit. The audit revealed that only 15% of Kyiv’s 4,655 bomb shelters were suitable, and only 44% were freely accessible, as reported by Reuters at the time.

Klitschko accepted some responsibility for the incident but asserted that Zelenskyy’s appointees were also accountable. He accused political opponents of working to discredit him and secure his removal from office.

Article generated from corporate media reports.