The Anglo-globalist hidden hierarchy (perhaps sitting in its Square Mile offices, teleconferencing its membership in the Washington equivalent) must be spitting feathers today. There they were, having  French and German heads of state, one more often than the other, shuttling off to Moscow, with other “world leaders” having audiences by telephone (except Boris Johnson, who would have trouble obtaining one), with missions to worry Putin, and have that cacophonous Western news media drums of war stuff count for something by bringing awareness to him of his responsibility for it. The goal was (according to the hypothesis developed in these pages) to have him embroiled in a variation of a revived Minsk agreement negotiation that would, ultimately, safeguard Ukrainian military adventurism in the Donbas (and perhaps even Crimea). There they were – these top gangsters in the financier junta ultimately out of London, giving orders (indirectly, of course) to their Ukrainian puppets to make more sounds with artillery than usual so as to produce a impression of imminent war-proper. Hysteria-inducing corporate-media and its alternative ancillary would aid enormously in this respect (and still do), and if the Novorossiyans took sensible precautions by evacuating people from certain vulnerable areas, all the better, for this could be taken advantage of and blended into the picture of a region in the throes of plunging into a tumultuous martial chaos.

However, there was no being brow beaten into feeling responsible in Moscow, and instead of backing down, Putin gave a guarantee that an invasion of the Novorossiyan separatist states could only provoke Russian intervention; not only did Russia recognise the Luhansk and Donetsk republics as entities independent of Ukraine, but Putin also signed an order whereby, on the request of the governments of the newly recognised countries, Russian forces could be deployed to their territories as peace keepers in a temporary security arrangement until such time as CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) membership can be established. In what must have been infuriating for the Anglo-globalists, the presidential decree making all this happen more or less cited “responsibility to protect”, which up until now has been something solely of their domain, used to fashion pretexts for wars of US/UK aggression.

And in doing all of this, Putin can be said to have modified the Minsk protocols on Russia’s own terms by making Donetsk and Luhansk into parties on an equal footing with Ukraine, with powerful leverage (Russia’s guarantees) to have the latter comply with their requirements. Gone are the barbs by which to catch Russia, and this is why the situation constitutes a terrible loss to UK Government (according to the author’s main area of focus), with Mi7 reduced to making even higher pitched squealing as it tells of silly, shrill comments by government ministers regarding a phased Russian invasion of Ukraine, to be combated with sanctions (the prospect of which the Russians obviously weighed and decided could be accommodated) talked about in terms of firing a “barrage”. The public, you see reader, has to think that the UK is having the fight that, in reality, it was beaten at even before it could be got started, when Russia and Belarus held a military exercise in the rear of Ukrainian government forces lined up to attack the Donbas.

Indeed, it has to be a matter of fact that Russia’s certainty that Ukraine could not launch that offensive, as ordered (and surely led) by the US/UK, is why ultimately things have developed the way they have. Likewise, because of this knowledge on both sides that there was no hope in waging war when Russia would step in to kill it dead, this is the matter of fact whereby Russia will inevitably extend its safeguard over the full territory that was claimed by the Novorossiyan republics at the time of their secession, but which were, and still are occupied by the Ukrainians.  And surely, this is why UK Government, through Mi7, is talking in terms of a phased invasion – but still with nothing that it can do about it, even if the idiotically bumptious Boris Johnson showboats at Prime Minister’s Questions with pledges of more military assistance to the forlorn Ukrainians.

Now, in the previous FBEL article on this subject, to blow one’s own trumpet (because nobody else does), it was said that there would be no prospect of that war which the US/UK propaganda was certain was going to happen, and again this was understood as being such based on the knowledge that the US/UK/Ukrainian side knew that it’s aggression would fail the moment that Russian armed forces opposed it. Let it now be further said that this scheme of things must apply to future events all the while Russia maintains the clear advantage that it owns. Which means, no war in Ukraine.*

Indeed, the Russian advantage is evidently so powerful, and more so than the author could imagine in the abovementioned piece, that Putin could be so bold as to pre-empt, rather than react to US/UK/Ukrainian aggression. In acting with the supreme confidence he has, Putin has given confirmation of Russian superiority in this particular local situation.

And while there is much premature talk of Russia having overthrown US/UK unipolarity,  the real significance of what would have come as a shock to the people who thought they had Putin under a cosh, is the clear delineation behind which Russia is safe to develop so that the Anglo-globalists know that their international rules based order is not secure (tellingly, as the author writes, Russia is being accused by NATO of rewriting the “entire global security architecture”).

Moreover, while the stock for being a stumbling block against the Anglo-globalists that people are putting in Russia’s “strategic partnership” with China is something perhaps verging on being too optimistic due to a cause of stress that, even if it were the only issue that caused incongruence, it is such a major one as to be really quite divisive, Russia is powerful enough alone to order its sphere of influence against US/UK incursion – and this is a double-edged sword. Faced with a new reality in which people on the rival side of Russian borders – especially Russian-speaking ones – question the value of being “western”, and would like to secede from governments that set themselves up (by anti-Russian alliances), in fact, as their adversaries, how will the Russian-Chinese relationship fare in the matter of the principle of national territorial integrity? Besides which, if Russia is only a fledging re-emergent, semi world power, China is not one at all, and vulnerably sits on, and therefore is possibly somewhat constrained by a population that might not be as happy in their situation as an outsider would be asked to believe. Moreover, China has been a component of the Anglo-globalist’s order just the way they all like it – note how there has been no assistance to Syria in the same confident-to-be-in opposition Russian style. For all the swagger, China won’t even invade Taiwan.  So, it is very important to keep things in proportion.

But since we were speaking of Syria, it is hugely significant that that country was first to signal that it supported Russian recognition of the Novorossiyan republics, because it tells of the situation in the world like nothing else can.

It is true to say that large portions of alternative media audiences like to think that what is happening in Ukraine is a controlled distraction – perhaps from developments in Canada, which do have a distinctly Hegelian shape about them (in pursuit of something that the City of London wants). Indeed, when the author looked into the Canadian truckers’ protest, he hadn’t supposed it was a pickup truckers’ one, and assumed that Canada’s supply and distribution capability was entirely elsewhere doing its job as normal.

Even so, it’s not been lost on the author how proponents of an organic Canadian situation dismiss the Ukrainian one as a problem-reaction-solution scenario all for the benefit of some people (the World Economic Forum tends to get the blame) who run both Russia and the US/UK, but this rather ignores how each party in the confrontation clearly has a separate will to shape an outcome that conflicts directly with that of other. The US/UK – the Anglo-globalists – want Ukraine all the way down to Crimea. Russia was and is diametrically opposed to that, and has shaped a very different outcome – the denial of territory desired by the other side. It doesn’t look like it will stop there.

Consider how, at the moment, there’s a £1.7 billion Ukrainian-UK deal to build or enhance naval facilities in Odessa (a subject that will fully feature in a future dedicated FBEL article). Now, if Putin wants to bring to justice those people who he said,  in his now famous television address made at the time of recognising the separatist states, burned peaceful protestors (against Ukrainian government persecution) alive in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa, and given that Odessa resides in the fullest extent of the territory that a Novorossiyan confederacy could claim, then clearly there is a potential and essentially irreconcilable confliction in respect of each side’s interest in this place.

Now, consider three maps of Syria.

The first shows the situation of a war, reckoned by the US/UK to be a civil one, though in fact it was organised and motivated by that entity, as it stood in the year 2013. The second image shows the situation in 2016, and the third in 2021.

To keep things very simple, any territory that isn’t shaded red (or orange) and not therefore possessed or controlled by Syrian Government, is the US/UK’s doing, ultimately. The 2016 map reflects how very bad things had got at one point for the Syrian Government, even though Russia had already intervened at this time to bring about a reversal of fortunes. The 2021 map shows how the Russians and the Syrians imposed a will that sought a vastly different outcome for the nation of Syria than the one desired by US/UK. The Syrian Government still has a terrible problem with the invaders in certain parts of the country, but this speaks of Russia having limits to its superpower – notwithstanding the fact that Russia appears, in both actions and words, to be happy with a slow-burn approach to get the desired results in the end (and this is how the author suggests that Ukraine will be evicted from Novorossiya).

Now consider the following from SANA, the Syrian state news agency. It’s’ a good deal of material reproduced here from the original article, although it is still abridged (follow the link to read it all), because it is important, and best to have it all undiluted from the horse’s mouth:

Moscow, SANA- Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Dr. Fayssal Mikdad, has affirmed that Russia’s recognition of the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics is a step towards defending world peace, international law, the Charter of the United Nations and the proper international relations.

In a speech today during the Valdai Discussion Club in Moscow, Minister Mikdad noted that the speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday was a watershed for responding to Western countries and the threats that these countries have been talking about for a long time.

Mikdad added that these countries have invaded the world and supported terrorism and used force and methods of deception and pressure, and they consider that those who follow its approach as democratic and free, while those who refuse to submit to its approach are hostile to democracy and freedom…

“We have been cooperating with the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk for a long time, and we believe that these current conditions will help increase this cooperation,” said Minister Mikdad.

He added “For more than eleven years, Syria has been subjected to an unprecedented terrorist war, and of course everyone knows that we have achieved an important field victory over terrorism thanks to our armed forces and the support of allies and friends, led by Russia, represented by its political leadership and its courageous forces that stood with us with all determination, but the real fruit of this victory was first represented in blowing up the narrative of the governments and hostile forces that were desperate to falsify the facts and practiced propaganda to show what happened in Syria as a civil war.”

“The second important fruit of that victory appeared at the national level in Syria, when the Syrians finally demonstrated their popular will by defeating terrorism in its various forms and nationalities, rejecting American and Western hegemony over our independence and national decision, and through the will for life, stability and prosperity for all Syrians, regardless of the security and economic challenges,” Mikdad said…

Mikdad said “During the years of the terrorist war, our people and our state paid a heavy price in the lives of innocent citizens, the destruction of infrastructure and public and private property, the theft of oil, gas, wheat, natural resources, and the cultural and human heritage of the Syrian people. Today, the Syrian government’s efforts in the field of reconstruction and ensuring the safe return of the displaced Syrians to their homes and normal lives are facing unusual challenges with the continued illegitimate military presence of the US occupation forces and their control, with its separatist militias, over oil and gas wells and vital agricultural lands in northwestern Syria….

The Foreign and Expatriates Minister said “Syria is facing challenges along with allies and friends who continue to advocate the values ​​of the United Nations Charter and the principles of international law in the field of reconstruction and the return of Syria to the path of sustainable development. This challenge is represented in the unilateral coercive measures imposed by the US and the European Union on the Syrian people, which have inhumanely increased which have unprecedentedly increased in recent years, and many know that the United States and the European Union are imposing a wide range of unilateral coercive economic measures on Syria, and successive US administrations have imposed such illegal measures under flimsy pretexts related to combating terrorism, while they were and still are an integral part of the US traditional policy of putting pressure on governments that are not subject to their hegemony and who disagree politically with them.”

He indicated that the direct and indirect negative economic and social repercussions of coercive measures imposed by the United States and the European Union on many peoples of the world affect about two billion people worldwide.

Dr. Fayssal Mikdad is clearly talking about two sides, one that thinks it has a good idea about what it is to abide by international law for the maintenance of peace (one notion of world order), and another that has another idea (the New World Order) according to the will that it wants to impose, which compels it to wage war and inflict wide spread suffering in civilian populations as a tool of war. Lately the tide has turned in the conflict, and the latter side is being confounded. The order by peace is not the order out of chaos that the London-masonic US/UK financier junta wants, and is beginning to fail, ironically in the very century of its destiny, to bring about.

* Update 24th February: There’s plenty of noise this morning as Russia inserts troops into Donetsk and Luhansk, and otherwise acts in support of that (all in all, a “special military operation in Donbas”, as the Kremlin has precisely dubbed it), but is it war? (meaning two parties clashing in a considerable fight, and all that that entails, not one discouraging the other to refrain from interfering in what it needs to do to peace-keep) [see below for Vasily Nebenzya’s take on it]. It’ll be in the Anglo-globalist’s best interest to have media make big (but plucky) victims out of the Ukrainians by making the Russian operation look indiscriminately destructive and disproportionate. On the other hand, this is from TASS: