War Plans Were Leaked On Purpose By Russia 4 Months Ago — and that is why Dems kept predicting war
4 months ago, Oct 2021, a war was predicted for February 2022 by none other than the king of the cancelled himself, Alex Jones. He had been out to dinner with a person who was very wealthy and very politically connected — who told him to expect war in February 2022 because his political contacts told him so! How did that person know? German newspaper BILD reported on the leaked plan 6 weeks later on Dec 3, as did The Washington Post:
According to BILD research, Russia’s “maximum plans” for a war against Ukraine have been known since mid-October. The US foreign intelligence service CIA intercepted them from Russian military communications and first informed their own government, which informed NATO in November.
Obviously the Russians had the war planned out and then leaked it hoping it would inspire the Biden team to put a stop to Ukraine bombing the breakaway provinces of the Donbas. They also wanted to prevent NATO from expanding into Ukraine. Obviously they leaked their plans on purpose as a threat of what was to come if they didn’t get what they wanted.
That is why for the last few months we saw a daily discussion in the US media about Putin demanding change to the situation in Ukraine, while Biden kept insisting over and over for weeks that Russia was definitely going to invade any day. Putin demanded that US elites and NATO make a deal to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO or there would be serious “military-technical” repercussions. Putin started with those demands just a few days before Christmas 2021.
Clearly the Russians let it be known so their plan for war would reach the political and media elite of the west. People on social media were laughing at the Biden people for repeatedly warning of an invasion in a week, or a few days, or tomorrow. They knew Putin had already devised a plan to invade Ukraine in case the US elites and NATO didn’t agree to his terms.
Why didn’t US elites give in to Putin’s request?
Ever since the coup in Ukraine 8 years ago led the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk to declare themselves independent from the new Ukraine regime, there has been a low-level war of bombing and shooting at them. They claim 14,000 of their people have been killed in 8 years and the rest live in constant fear of being bombed.
Ukraine’s leaders knew beforehand an invasion was coming and they could have stopped it easily if they wanted to by agreeing to not become a staging ground for foreign troops and weapons, and to stop the war against Donetsk and Luhansk. Why was it so important to their leaders to not give that security to Russia? Why is it that they would literally rather be invaded and probably destroyed by a far superior military power? Were the Ukrainian elites being paid off to sell out the people of Ukraine? That does seem sane compared to the other insane option of Ukraine being in danger of being completely destroyed just so that American weapons could be aimed at Russia from their borders.
Currently the US power elite are following the political plan laid out by Zbigniew Brzezinski in the later 1990s. He was the foreign policy expert and first president of The Trilateral Commission which he created along with David Rockefeller. He was also the National Security Advisor for Jimmy Carter, and a foreign policy advisor for JFK, LBJ, and Obama. His book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997) was written to make clear to the world that a new US led world order had arrived after the fall of the USSR. The idea was to send a message to the world that they needed to get onboard with the plans of the US elites as described in the book because the world’s elites all knew Zbigniew Brzezinski was a spokesman on foreign policy for the leading US elites. He wrote that America was going to take total control of the world and wanted everyone to go along with the plan of US domination “for the good of the world.” The book explains the hows and whys of that plan. It was similar to how now the Davos based World Economic Forum (WEF) promotes their plans for The Great Reset “for your own good whether you like it or not.”
One thing Brzezinski explained in his book is that certain nations are very important “pivotal states” that need to be free from Russian and Chinese control if American elites are going to be able to implement their new world order, and Ukraine is the main pivotal nation:
But it is on the globe’s most important playing field — Eurasia — that a potential rival to America might at some point arise. Thus, focusing on the key players and properly assessing the terrain has to be the point of departure for the formulation of American geostrategy for the long-term management of America’s Eurasian geopolitical interests.
Two basic steps are thus required:
• first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them; and to pinpoint the geopolitically critical Eurasian states whose location and/or existence have catalytic effects either on the more active geostrategic players or on regional conditions;
• second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above, so as to preserve and promote vital U.S. interests, and to conceptualize a more comprehensive geostrategy that establishes on a global scale the interconnection between the more specific U.S. policies
He went on:
Geopolitical pivots are the states whose importance is derived not from their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location and from the consequences of their potentially vulnerable condition for the behavior of geostrategic players.
Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey, and Iran play the role of critically important geopolitical pivots (later on he includes Uzbekistan to a lesser degree).
Most important, however, is Ukraine. As the EU and NATO expand, Ukraine will eventually be in the position to choose whether it wishes to be part of either organization. It is likely that, in order to reinforce its separate status, Ukraine will wish to join both, once they border upon it and once its own internal transformation begins to qualify it for membership. Although that will take time, it is not too early for the West — while further enhancing its economic and security ties with Kiev — to begin pointing to the decade 2005- 2015 as a reasonable time frame for the initiation of Ukraine’s progressive inclusion, thereby reducing the risk that the Ukrainians may fear that Europe’s expansion will halt on the Polish-Ukrainian border.
Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south. China would also be likely to oppose any restoration of Russian domination over Central Asia, given its increasing interest in the newly independent states there. However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia. Ukraine’s loss of independence would have immediate consequences for Central Europe, transforming Poland into the geopolitical pivot on the eastern frontier of a united Europe.
The appearance of an independent Ukrainian state not only challenged all Russians to rethink the nature of their own political and ethnic identity, but it represented a vital geopolitical setback for the Russian state. The repudiation of more than three hundred years of Russian imperial history meant the loss of a potentially rich industrial and agricultural economy and of 52 million people ethnically and religiously sufficiently close to the Russians to make Russia into a truly large and confident imperial state. Ukraine’s independence also deprived Russia of its dominant position on the Black Sea, where Odessa had served as Russia’s vital gateway to trade with the Mediterranean and the world beyond. The loss of Ukraine was geopolitically pivotal, for it drastically limited Russia’s geostrategic options. Even without the Baltic states and Poland, a Russia that retained control over Ukraine could still seek to be the leader of an assertive Eurasian empire, in which Moscow could dominate the non-Slavs in the South and Southeast of the former Soviet Union. But without Ukraine and its 52 million fellow Slavs, any attempt by Moscow to rebuild the Eurasian empire was likely to leave Russia entangled alone in protracted conflicts with the nationally and religiously aroused non-Slavs, the war with Chechnya perhaps simply being the first example. Moreover, given Russia’s declining birthrate and the explosive birthrate among the Central Asians, any new Eurasian entity based purely on Russian power, without Ukraine, would inevitably become less European and more Asiatic with each passing year.
Zbigniew Brzezinski also talked about the imperative to expand NATO if Europe is to remain part of the “Euro-Atlantic space” (US led), i.e., if NATO doesn’t grow then those states may join up with Russia. He also said that Russia needs to be given assurances by keeping NATO troops and nukes out of any new NATO states.
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote all that back in the late 1990s and things have changed a lot since then. Why didn’t it all work out like planned? One thing is that the foreign policy outlook of many American elites changed after 9/11. The Rockefeller clique which includes The Trilateral Commission, The Council on Foreign Relations, and similar interconnected elite groups, were strongly influenced by the new neocon ideology which could be summed up with George W. Bush saying: “You are either with us or against us.” Brzezinski feared that the neocons arrogant imperial demeanor could only lead to resentment and hate towards America.
We can see neocon influence by the way American elites have treated Russia. Zbigniew Brzezinski in a talk in 2014 at a conference called Mutual Security on Hold? Russia, the West, and European Security Architecture, posted as an article titled Confronting Russian Chauvinism, talked about the new mentality of Russian elites and Putin towards Ukraine as possibly leading to a military invasion of Ukraine. His new view was that the US should make sure that NATO is not expanded into Ukraine at all as the only way to keep the Russians from invading.
Brzezinski is disliked by many of those associated with the neocon flavored Clintonworld. President Obama was rebuked by them for using Brzezinski as an advisor for a few reasons — he had a critical attitude towards The Iraq War — of which Clintonworld supported, and was very critical of neocon ideology in general, stating that their ideology caused anti-Americanism to grow strong in the Muslim world and the global south.
He came from the school of foreign policy which hoped to inspire faith in America as a trusted global hegemon working for the world’s benefit. He considered himself a “realist” aka basing foreign policy planning through a pragmatic or practical viewpoint rather than an ideological or emotional one. The neocons plan for the invasion of Iraq downplayed or ignored how their imperial attitude would affect the attitude towards America because their ideology convinced them of their right as the unipolar sovereign to screw over others — aka droit du seigneur.
Brzezinski opposed them and wanted Saddam Hussein to be removed from power during the 1st Iraq War by convincing and aiding the Iraqi military to overthrow their government. He was strongly against the 2nd Iraq War which he saw as a disaster that led to anti-Americanism becoming deeply ingrained around the world. His view of American hegemony as a force for good had been widely promoted by American movies and TV to a global audience since the 1940s — and much of the world believed it. He saw neocon ideology destroying that view of America by openly promoting an arrogant imperialistic vision of America as out for itself at the expense of weaker nations, i.e., it became commonly held that America invaded Iraq for economic reasons, for profit, rather than for “Human Rights and Democracy.”
A few years later in 2016 in another Brzezinski article, Toward a Global Realignment, he talks about the need for a new arrangement with Russia and China by working with them instead of against them, especially in the Middle East. Compared to his article from 2005, The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign, his 2016 article seems disheartened, whereas in 2005 he only comes across as worried at the growing anti-America attitude around the world.
American elite foreign policy discourse has obviously changed in its external form lately. America is leading the way with displaying a supposed great concern for “social justice” while also promoting gender and queer based identity politics as the forefront of their foreign policy propaganda. As to how the US elites treat other nations, it appears that their self-promotion as super-concerned about social justice and human rights doesn’t apply when it comes to anything other than identity politics. You can fly flags for 30 genders or BLM and throw them lots of money, but if your foreign policy is still arrogant and demanding and obviously serving the desires of the rich and powerful over anything else, then a lot of people are not going to be fooled for long by your trying to cover up tyranny by pandering to identity politics.
Look at how mandates and internal passports are creating a worldwide movement of very angry people from all political persuasions united against a perceived specifically “elite” worldview. They see a global elite class promoting an ideological commitment to controlling everyone, in all they do or say. The arrogant, overreaching, illogical, and unsympathetic demeanor of politicians whose demands are riling up unseen levels of opposition are uniting everyone — against the elites and their political lackeys. A common perception now is instead of America or NATO being seen as the problem, now becoming commonly perceived is that a unified global elite and their political flunkies are intent on systematically taking apart and trying to remake the world in their ignorant and tyrannical images.
What will that now commonly held view lead to? Many people believe that an uncaring, violent, vicious, and stupid global elite is controlling most of the important politicians the world over through bribery and or blackmail. The .1% with their goon squads and useful idiots vs the 99.9% of the rest of the world — that is the new ideological battle being seen by most people whose brains haven’t been pickled by listening to mindless identity politicking day in and day out. Putin is taking advantage of that new antipathy towards political leaders, betting that most people are too angry at their own political leaders to support them in a fight over Ukraine.
For years the US elites have been warned by countless foreign policy experts about Russia and Ukraine, that their intransigence for not even considering what to speak of giving in to Russia’s reasonable request, would lead to war. Their greed for power has led them into seeing the inevitable war as an opportunity to make even more money, to control even more power — because only the little people have to face the pain and sorrow of war.
Who is worse? The people dropping bombs, or the people who could have easily stopped them but didn’t want to?