Operation Disclosure | By David Lifschultz, Contributing Writer
Submitted on April 13, 2021
WAR CLOUDS GATHER OVER UKRAINE
Compliments of the Lifschultz Organization founded in 1899
The Chief Policy Advisor of Helmut Kohl told me when they set Poland up in NATO that it was only because German industry demanded it before they under the Schacht plan incorporated Poland and Eastern Europe into their industry for their cheap labor. Germany never had any intention to defend Poland. The German army is nearly worthless and NATO cannot defend Poland if it wanted to. Germany is pursuing Nord Stream Two as a strategic interest as Europe has next to no oil or natural gas and otherwise Germany will be completely dependent on the Straits of Hormuz that Iran could shut at any time as an ally of China and Russia. This is also why the US is secretly frantic about reestablishing the JCPOA. Germany will never fight for Poland and the NATO treaty is as meaningless as in 1939 when the French and British armies stood by watching the Germans overrun Poland despite their Treaty instead of attacking the weakened German line in the west as most of German troops were conquering Poland in the east. It was a total betrayal. The British and French wanted a war between Germany and Russia again as in World War One and Poland was in the way.
The deep state rid themselves of Trump because he was interfering with their plans in Europe. They have to revive the military budget and increase it as Biden just asked Congress and Trump was in the way as he would not create a crisis with Russia. That is why they stole the election for Biden. The easiest way to revive the military budget is create a crisis over Taiwan and the Ukraine. Trump did not want this. Then, China can be seen as a mortal enemy and so Russia. The deep state is in deep distress on how far behind they are to Russia in military technology and it is falling behind the Chinese technologically. The Chinese are behind in some areas as advanced chips but they will soon catch up. The Apple CEO says that all deep research in technology has to start in China as the US has no depth in engineering. The US must in the deep state eyes make frantic efforts to catch up technologically in military weaponry and they must create massive crises to get the bills through Congress. The very concept of US world supremacy is at stake.
The Anglo-Saxons at the time of World War One had a fear that the Tsar might move on India his land army and it would be impossible for England to defend India supplied by the British Navy whose forces in India were minimal and whose Navy could not project sufficient force in India to hold out against the Tsar. England then also feared the German buildup of its navy. Therefore, England’s goal was to destroy both Germany and Russia at the same time by setting them against each other though Russia was supposed to be an ally. England cooperated with Baron Eduard de Rothschild who wanted the Tsar overthrown who triggered World War One by his arranging the assassination of the Archduke.
That was the same situation preceding World War Two. England’s goal was that Germany and Russia should fight each other and Churchill proclaimed on the radio how wonderful it was that Russia moved into Poland to protect eastern Poland from the Germans whereas in fact he wanted them to border each other so that Germany would invade Russia. The Baron had created Churchill as his servant who without Baron Eduard would have gone bankrupt and been evicted from this Chartwell estate. The Baron manoeuvred him into power.
There were secret talks between English and German intelligence on an invasion of Russia and the Hess flight is said to have something to do with this. The move by Russia completely outflanked the Polish Army and led to its complete dissolution. It was hardly friendly to Poland but Churchill said what he was told however idiotic was his speech as he knew who was buttering his bread. In fact, Hitler offered the Crown Jewel of India to Russia as related by Molotov in “Molotov Remembers” on page 15 if Russia left Europe to Germany.
“What’s happening? An England, some miserable island, owns half the world and they want to grab it all – this cannot be tolerated! It is unjust!
Molotov: “It surely was intolerable and unjust and I sympathize with you.”
“Russia has to have a warm-water port. Iran, India, that’s your future”
“Why that is an interesting idea, how do you see it?
While Hitler then expanded on his desire to see England liquidated (which the US carried out after World War Two), and Russia should thrust its way into Iran and India, Molotov comments how naive Stalin thought Hitler to be that Russia should have trapped itself in the south leaving its west open to German aggression against Russia. Russia then would be confronted with war on two fronts as Germany eventually found itself. Stalin understood that Germany needed oil and that the British were blockading his oil. And Stalin understood that Germany could well invade Russia for the oil as it did.
Russia’s strategic interest is in Belarus and the Ukraine and Poland is not such an interest. It is Putin’s goal by the Minsk Treaty to see the Donbas and Luhansk as part of the Ukraine again as a semi-autonomous union. The Donbas and Luhansk would not have any Ukrainian troops in their country as now and their ethnic Russians would participate in future Ukrainian elections where the Putin goal is to return the Ukraine by free elections into a Russian ally reversing Euromaidan. It is more than likely today that the a Russian friendly government should win such an election. That the Russians in the Ukraine should have any rights at all violates US policy to integrate the Ukraine into NATO.
There are between 11 and 12 million ethnic Russians in Ukraine, including approximately 1.5 million who live in the Crimean peninsula. The Crimea is the only area of Ukraine in which Russians constitute the majority, about two thirds of the population. These minorities have been subjected to forced ukrainianization and ethnocide as part of the US plan to integrate the Ukraine into NATO. There is such disenchantment in the Ukraine against the US sponsored oligarchs who have stolen the assets of the entire country that the US cannot afford to let the ethnic Russians in the Ukraine have any vote.
The goal of the deep state to see the Ukraine as an ally of NATO as part of their primary goal to see Russia completely dismembered as was started under the CIA agent Yeltsin. The US deep state which set up the Kosovo fake massacre to destroy Serbia as an ally of Russia did not realize that Russia would wake up to what the US was all about when they bombed Belgrade for 78 days even though I warned my deep state colleagues of this at that meeting where the decision to bomb was made. And it happened as I predicted when Putin was brought in to reestablish the military and intelligence services after the 78 day bombing.
It is an irony of history that Germany has managed to build the Continental System of Napoleon in western and eastern Europe without firing a shot. It is a second irony that Britain is in a stage of self-destruction and final dissolution. Britannia has left the European Union having no colonies to fall back on and the “kingdom” is about to lose Scotland and probably Wales. In fact, the country that will be left called England will face civil war as Enoch Powell’s prophecies come true. London has become a lawless jungle. Powell should have said the same about the US where hundreds of cities have gone up in flames last summer and the major American cities have become lawless jungles. As Ray Dalio says, the US faces Civil War based on an elementary economic analysis.
Ukraine’s NATO fantasy is a suicide pill in disguise; military action by the alliance against pro-Russian forces would be crushed
8 Apr, 2021 13:26 / Updated 4 days ago
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, served in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991 to 1998 served as a chief weapons inspector with the UN in Iraq. Mr Ritter currently writes on issues pertaining to international security, military affairs, Russia, and the Middle East, as well as arms control and nonproliferation. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter
Ukraine’s President Zelensky hopes that NATO will assist Kiev in forcefully expelling Russia from Crimea and re-taking control of the breakaway Donbass. This dangerous fiction could lead to the destruction of his troubled country.
The following are the words and actions that the historians who may one day come to write how mankind blundered its way into a major conflict in 2021 will need to know, to understand its origins and the parts played by the shortcomings and strategic missteps of ill-suited leaders.
On March 24, 2021, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed into law Decree 117/2021, “On the Strategy of de-occupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.” While the stated primary goal of this decree is the “restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized state border, ensuring the state sovereignty of Ukraine,” the reality is that the issue of restoring Ukrainian “territorial integrity” is merely a vehicle toward “gaining full membership of Ukraine in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.”
According to Zelensky, there is only one pathway for resolving the ongoing dispute between his nation and Russia over the status of the Crimea and the ongoing fighting in the pro-Russian eastern Ukrainian region of the Donbass. “NATO is the only way to end the war in Donbass,” Zelensky declared in a recent phone call with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Zelensky called for the immediate implementation of a ‘Membership Action Plan’ delineating Ukraine’s entry path into the NATO alliance. Such a move, Zelensky noted, “will be a real signal for Russia.”
Zelensky’s militant directive and blatant appeal for NATO membership did not go unnoticed by Russia. Nor did the deployment by the Ukrainian military of hundreds of armored vehicles and thousands of troops into the region, a fact that has been “under-reported” in the west.
A military exercise conducted some 30 miles from its border with Ukraine, involving 4,000 troops, was originally scheduled to end on March 23. A decision by Moscow to keep its forces in the field prompted the US military’s European Command to raise its watch level from possible crisis to potential imminent crisis – the highest level.
Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu had called the Russian exercises “routine control checks of the armed forces’ combat readiness.” This prompted the US Defense Department to call on Russia to “make their intentions more clear as to what they’re doing with this array of forces along the border.”
The tension between Russia and Ukraine has resulted in a series of conversations between Ukrainian officials and their counterparts in the West which have sought to portray the country as the victim of Russian threats of aggression, and to publicly underscore the West’s support for Ukraine. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin kicked this off, calling his Ukrainian counterpart on April 1 to express “unwavering U.S. support for Ukraine’s sovereignty” while condemning “Russian aggression” in the country.
This was followed the next day by one between Joe Biden and Zelensky, where the US president “affirmed the United States’ unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression in the Donbass and Crimea.”
Two days later, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs and security, Josep Borrell, called Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba to express “support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” That was followed by a call between UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Zelensky, in which Johnson “reaffirmed his unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” while expressing “significant concerns” about Russian activity in Crimea and on the Ukrainian border.
The similarity of phrases was the trademark of the concerted diplomatic offensive. Words, however, have meaning, and no matter how one views “unwavering support” for Ukrainian “territorial integrity,” the harsh reality is that NATO’s capacity to provide support for any action intended to “recover” either Donbass, Crimea, or both, is limited. It knows that doing so would raise the likelihood of a military clash with Russia – and dare it risk that?
President Zelensky likes to promote the idea of a Ukraine-NATO alliance by advocating for an increase in military training between the two. Russia has sought to throw cold water on any such move, noting that it would be forced to respond if NATO troops were deployed to Ukraine, with Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stating that Russia would be compelled to take “additional measures” to ensure its security, without specifying what such measures would entail.
The reality is that NATO is not in any position to intervene militarily on behalf of Ukraine, even if it were so inclined. Its ground combat capability has deteriorated significantly since the end of the Cold War in 1991.
The significant overall increase in spending has not translated into adequate ability to train and maintain forces on the ground, and multiple pro-NATO analysts have complained about European members of the alliance being unable to field enough troops quickly enough. Units that were once ready to take the field at a moment’s notice to respond to an attack by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact members have either been disbanded, mothballed, or locked away in garrisons, unable to effectively train.
Almost all of NATO’s actually deployable combat power has been assembled in Poland and the Baltic Republics as part of a scheme to deploy four battalion-sized ‘battle groups’ designed to deter Russian military aggression in northern Europe. The ability on the part of NATO to generate in short order a similar combat-ready force capable of deploying into Ukraine is currently non-existent.
NATO does maintain what it calls a “Very High Readiness Joint Task Force” of around 6,400 troops. This force is built around a brigade-sized unit from one of NATO’s member states, rotating on an annual basis. Last year, Poland had responsibility. This year, the burden has fallen on 4,200 troops of Turkey’s 66th Mechanized Infantry Brigade, supported by smaller units from Albania, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, the UK, and the United States. Even under non-combat conditions, it would take days for this task force to assemble and deploy to Ukraine. In a time of war, it would be expected that the task force would be under constant attack from the moment it crossed into Ukraine, making the likelihood of a combat-capable force reaching the frontline highly unlikely, if not impossible.
NATO’s best option would be to deploy its air forces in support of Ukraine. But the viability of such an option is close to zero. NATO has not trained to fight against the kind of integrated air defense system that Russia has deployed around Ukraine. Its ability to project any meaningful air combat capability over Ukraine, let alone seize and maintain the kind of superiority necessary to support any forces engaged in combat operations, is virtually nil.
Perhaps NATO’s best bet comes in the form of the US Air Force’s newest 5th generation fighters – the F-22 and F-35. According to the US military, their pilots have been undergoing significant training in preparation for any conflict against the Russian military. For example, in a large-scale exercise known as ‘Red Flag’ last year, the F-35 and F-22 were able to achieve a 20:1 kill ratio against a notional Russian force flying SU-30-type aircraft.
But a similar exercise in Australia in 2008 involving a computer simulation of an attack by Russian SU-30 aircraft against F-35s and F-22s had the Russians coming out ahead. The F-35 in particular was described as “double inferior” to the SU-30, with experts noting that the advanced US fighter “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run” its Russian opponent.
The F-35 has since then been uploaded with new software designed to fix identified problems. But as recently as 2017, the Air Force found more than 873 software flaws in the F-35 which impact its combat capability, perhaps most critical of which is its inability to effectively employ its main air-to-air weapon, the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile. This means that the F-35 will likely be compelled to fight the kind of close-in dogfights it is supposed to avoid. But even here it is at a disadvantage – its 25mm gun, which would be used in this situation, is plagued by poor accuracy.
Making matters even worse for the US Air Force is the fact that, since 2019, Russia has been gaining invaluable first-hand intelligence on the performance and operation of both the F-22 and F-35. The US operates both aircraft from bases in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, where they have been involved in combat operations in Syria and Iraq. Russia has deployed its advanced S-400 air defense system in Syria, and its radars have become quite adept at detecting and tracking the supposedly ‘stealth’ aircraft. Moreover, Israel has flown its own F-35 aircraft over Syria and Lebanon, providing the Russians with more opportunities to prepare the S-400 for potential combat operations against the advanced fighters.
For the past two decades, the US has been largely flying combat operations in extremely permissive environments, operating unopposed over the skies of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Any combat mission over Ukraine against Russia would be very different, and have the US facing off against the world’s most sophisticated integrated air defense network, systems that have been fine-tuned to detect and destroy the best aircraft in the US inventory. The likelihood of the US Air Force being annihilated in the skies over Ukraine in the event of a force-on-force engagement with Russia is high, and the US military planners know this.
Zelensky can huff and puff all he wants about joining NATO and the leverage such membership would give him to “liberate” Crimea and Donbass. But “unwavering support” for Ukrainian “territorial integrity,” no matter how many times in unison it is uttered by the leaders of NATO, does not equate to a suicide pact, which is what any direct military conflict between NATO and Russia in Ukraine would be.
The danger is that this realpolitik is not being effectively transmitted to Zelensky, thereby creating the real risk of the kind of miscalculation that occurred in August 2008, when Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili ordered his military into South Ossetia, believing he had the full support of the US. The result was a disaster for Georgia. A similar fate awaits Zelensky and Ukraine should a similar military misadventure be launched against pro-Russian forces in Donbass.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
How Polish wargame where it loses to Russia could become a self-fulfilling prophecy
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter
23 Feb, 2021 17:55
By losing a simulated war of its own invention with Russia, the Polish military seeks to convince NATO of its vulnerability. This could lead to a build-up of military forces that triggers the very conflict the Poles just lost.
Late last month the Polish military reportedly conducted a war game simulating a general war between Poland and Russia. Dubbed ‘Winter-20’, the simulation involved several thousand Polish officers who oversaw the virtual war between the two nations, according to Polish website Interia. The war game incorporated all of the Polish military’s newest weapons, including the F-35 fighter. When the simulation ended, after five days of “conflict,” the Polish Army had been totally defeated, its combat units suffering between 60 and 80 percent losses, and the Russian Army stood on the banks of the Vistula River, ready to occupy Warsaw.
According to an article in the National Interest, the simulated conflict “serves as a reminder that NATO’s Eastern flank is weak and vulnerable to Russian aggression.”
There would be no repeat of the August 1920 ‘Miracle on the Vistula’, where the beleaguered Polish troops commanded by Jozef Pilsudski rallied to decisively defeat the advancing Red Army commanded by Mikhail Tukachevsky. Nor would a modern-day Russian attack on Poland replicate the events of September 1939, when Semyon Timoshenko’s Red Army troops occupied eastern Poland while the Polish Army was busy trying to defend against a Nazi German invasion, or January-August 1944, when Georgy Zhukov’s Soviet forces advanced to the outskirts of Poland. While the last two represented Russian victories, they — like the Battle for Warsaw in 1920 — are a matter of historical record, representing events based on reality. ‘Winter-20’, on the other hand, is derived from delusional fantasy, a bit of self-defeatist theater designed to reinforce the dual perception of Polish-NATO weakness and Russian strength.
This is not to say that any large-scale conflict between NATO and Russia east of the Vistula would not end with a decisive NATO defeat and Russian forces ensconced opposite Warsaw within a period of less than a week. NATO’s military weakness is well documented, and the atrophied reality of its ground forces a known fact.
The US can barely afford to maintain one heavy armored brigade in theater and is hard pressed to generate a second brigade capable of reinforcing the region by falling in on prepositioned stocks of equipment. Germany is incapable of generating a single armored brigade for service in the field, having had to cannibalize its garrison forces to make ready the single battalion-sized battlegroup it has deployed to the Baltics. The British Army is in a similar sad state, significantly reduced in size and, like Germany, unable to mobilize an armored brigade for deployment to Poland or the Baltics in a timely fashion. The same holds true for the French Army.
As for the Polish Army, it lags in almost every category of combat power generation, despite expending billions of dollars in support of force modernization and enlargement. The Global Firepower (GFP) annual defense review for 2021 evaluates the military forces of 139 countries around the world, based on a multitude of factors as they relate to a prolonged offensive or defensive military campaign. Poland is ranked 23rd in the world, with a power index rating of 0.4187 (0.0000 is considered a perfect score.)
By way of comparison, France is ranked 7th, with an index of 0.1691, the British 8th, with an index of 0.1997, and the Germans 15th, with an index rating of 0.2519. Russia is ranked 2nd, with an index rating of 0.0791. Only the United States, with an index rating of 0.0718, has a higher power index. But the bulk of the US military is based out of the continental United States, and would take months to deploy to Europe. Russia, on the other hand, is operating from interior lines of communication using forces that are trained and equipped to fight and sustain a large-scale ground conflict with minimal mobilization requirements.
The question here is not about capability, but rather intent. The reconfiguration of the Russian Army away from brigade-sized formations designed to fight smaller conflicts, to the rebirth of Soviet-era formations such as the 1st Guards Tank Army and the 20th Combined Arms Army occurred not because Russia seeks the domination of Europe by military means, but rather necessitated by the eastward expansion of NATO to incorporate nations such as Poland and the Baltic States with hard-wired animosity toward Russia.
The Russophobic postures of these new NATO members has resulted in the transformation of the trans-Atlantic alliance from a defensive posture to one where the armed forces of several European nations, along with the US, are deployed along the Russian border, with the sole mission of confronting the Russian military.
This focus was captured in a recent tweet by Major General Patrick Donahue, the Commanding General of the US Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia, where he asked the question how the US Army should “reframe” away from the counterinsurgency warfare of the past two decades to large-scale combat operations (LCSO). “One way,” General Donahue noted, “may be to change our map sheets” with a focus on “east of the Vistula.”
In many ways, the US Army has already done this, having created the “Suwalki Gap” vulnerability out of thin air. The “gap,” consisting of a span of territory connecting Poland with Lithuania, has been identified by NATO strategists as a likely avenue of attack by Russian forces seeking to isolate the Baltics from the rest of NATO. The northern limit of the Suwalki Gap is defined by the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, while its southern border abuts Belarus.
Although NATO may define its mission in this region as defensive in nature, the military maneuvers required to rush reinforcements to the Suwalki Gap are identical to those that would be carried out in the event NATO were to undertake offensive operations against either Kaliningrad or Belarus. For Russia, there is no differentiating between the two.
Complicating matters further is NATO’s dangerous posture regarding tactical nuclear weapons, and more precisely, a new low-yield nuclear warhead mounted on forward deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles. These weapons were not only designed to be used in combat operations (i.e., they are not meant as a deterrent), but their use has actually been exercised in war games hypothesizing a NATO conflict with Russian forces in Poland and the Baltics.
This reality is omitted in the National Interest article, whose author postulates as fact the notion that Russia has vowed “to use nuclear weapons to defend territory it conquers and controls.” Russian nuclear doctrine makes no such assertion, and public statements by Russian President Vladimir Putin reaffirm Russia’s official nuclear posture — massive retaliation in the event nuclear weapons are ever used against Russian territory.
The ‘Winter-20’ war game represents the kind of self-fulfilling prophecy that history often records after the fact, when it is too late for nations to change events on the ground. By portraying the Russian Army as little more than a modern-day version of Hitler’s Wehrmacht, ready to ravage a Poland helpless to stop it, the Poles are setting an artificial standard that serves to drive a NATO response.
For its part, NATO has taken the bait, pouring troops and material into the Polish-Baltic region in numbers that eventually will constitute a viable offensive military capability. When this evolving military situation is juxtaposed with NATO’s aggressive posture regarding the internal domestic affairs of Belarus, and the possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member, the result is a military threat Russia cannot ignore.
Russia has carried out massive military maneuvers in its western military district in the past years. All are predicated on a response to NATO aggression, either against Kaliningrad or Belarus. All involve the delivery of a massive counterstrike designed to drive the NATO invaders out of Russian territory, or the territory of its allies. These counterstrikes involve deep attacks — the kind that will envelope enemy formations and seize large swaths of territory.
The fact is, as things stand, the results of the ‘Winter-20’ exercise represent the true situation — in the case of a large ground war in the Polish-Baltic region, Russia would completely destroy forward deployed NATO units, and reach the Vistula River within five days. The only way NATO would be able to halt the Russians would be through the employment of nuclear weapons, such as the low-yield warhead carried by the US submarine-launched ballistic missiles. If NATO were to do this, Russia would most likely respond with a massive nuclear attack against the US and NATO. This sobering outcome should be pondered by those in the Polish General Staff who are helping shape events that, if left unchecked, could very well result in the end of man’s tenure on earth.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
LIFSCHULTZ ORGANIZATION, Founded 1899
Tel: (212) 688-8868
If you wish to write and/or publish an article on Operation Disclosure all you need to do is send your entry to UniversalOm432Hz@gmail.com applying these following rules.
The subject of your email entry should be: “Entry Post | (Title of your post) | Operation Disclosure”
– Must be in text format
– Proper Grammar
– No foul language
– Your signature/name/username at the top
If you wish to receive the daily Operation Disclosure Newsletter, you can subscribe via the PayPal “Subscribe” button located on the site.
Our mission at Operation Disclosure is to bring you important news events and raw intel from various sources focused on exposing the Deep State/Cabal and their downfall. We are also focused on disclosing our lost ancient origins and extraterrestrial contact.
Disclaimer: All articles, videos, and images posted on Operation Disclosure were submitted by readers and/or handpicked by the site itself for informational and/or entertainment purposes. All statements, claims, views and opinions that appear on this site are always presented as unverified and should be discerned by the reader. We do not endorse any opinions expressed on this website and we do not support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content posted on this website.
Copyright © 2021 Operation Disclosure