World developments

We live in the information society where, thanks to the internet and media globalization, news from all over the world is readily available almost immediately. The disadvantage of that information is its amount. The result is that we often concentrate on all kinds of details, but not on essence that is the most important. What is this essence? Here it is used to mean understanding the cause of the individual significant events that have influenced, are influencing and will continue to influence the further developments in the world.

Censorship of information is not a thing of the past. Censorship is very much alive today also in developed countries – not even the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and others are spared (a good illustration is provided by the articles titled Media Manipulation: Are Conflict Photos Staged? and Faking It: How the Media Manipulates the World into War). The decisive factor is the ownership of the respective media corporation. The main news media are often owned by large supranational corporations, and unless they are controlled by these, they usually back the policies of the government in power in individual countries. They, of course, do not refer to the information they present as censored, but as a selection of topics of public interest. Even socially “unsuitable” information, if it must be released, can be conveniently adapted to be at least neutral.

The more information we have, the more glutted we become with it. Let us give a short example. We know, for instance, how many leaves there are on a certain tree, what the weight of that tree is, what its volume is, how old it is, what it is called in Latin, how tall it is, what the color of its wood and bark is, when it flowers, what kind of frost it can survive, how much humidity it needs, how much oxygen it produces per day, etc. And we could thus go on from one tree to another. But when somebody asks us how big the forest in which we find ourselves is, we answer that we do not possess that information. But we do know all the details, though. So we can’t see the forest for the trees. And the same applies to common information. We know the details of all possible and impossible things; and as for the global context – here we usually do not have a satisfactory answer.

The following text deals with only some of the significant factors that have had an impact on the developments in the world and should be the subject of our reflection. The references to various sources only illustrate the main point which is often expanded in thousands of other sources. Anybody who is interested could easily look up the details. More information is in the section titled Global news and in the article What lies ahead in 2011 and 2012.




Most of us would find it hard to imagine our society functioning without this raw material. Although oil supplies are not inexhaustible, the major media befittingly omit to inform about the peak in oil drilling following which global production of oil will be in continuous decline. Experts differ on when this peak is going to occur. Some think it might be within a couple of years, others do not exclude the possibility that we are already reaching it or had reached it some time ago. According to information in the article EU energy chief: Worldwide oil availability has peaked, from the end of 2010, it seems that our civilization may have already passed the point in time when oil production had peaked. It should be noted that the largest known oil reserves are in the Middle East.

We often hear about oil substitutes from which liquid hydrocarbons can be made. That would be possible, but their production and extraction is more expensive than oil. So, higher prices of energy would certainly not be conducive to economic “growth”.

A finding that has been very important for understanding some of the links was brought by Dick Cheney in 1990, when he stated: “Whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a “stranglehold” not only on our economy but also on that of most of the other nations of the world as well.” This statement can be found for example in the article The Coming War With Iraq: Deciphering the Bush Administration's Motives.

To better understand the oil crisis we recommend to read at least the following two articles Peak oil and Petroleum.

The dollar

The Bretton Woods Agreement, which secured the status of the US dollar as an international reserve currency, came into effect in the wake of World War II. The United States pledged to exchange the dollar for gold, but large withdrawals of gold from American banks resulted in the invalidation of the agreement in 1971. During the following two years negotiations took place with countries associated in OPEC, resulting in an agreement on trading of oil exclusively in dollars. This was the origin of the petrodollars concept. The dollar monopoly was scrapped at the end of 2000 when Iraq started selling its oil for euros (U.N. to let Iraq sell oil for euros, not dollars). Of course, following the occupation of Iraq in 2003, the trading of oil in dollars was reintroduced (Petrodollar or Petroeuro? A new source of global conflict).

With regard to the continuously increasing U.S. debt, certain analysts have been speaking for several years now about the impending collapse of the dollar. Since the world is a very dynamic environment, it is difficult to predict when that collapse might occur. Our personal view is that the collapse of the dollar, and thus of the U.S. economy, will probably happen some time around mid-2012. We expect these problems to lead to a third world war within a relatively short time. Worth noting is the view of former Goldman-Sachs analyst Charles Nenner reflected in the title of the article Ex-Goldman Sachs Analyst: “Major War” Coming End of 2012.

September 11, 2001

Every one of us must remember that day very well. We recollect the image of the collapsing Twins and the damaged Pentagon. Not much is known however about the interesting facts relating to the collapse of Building 7. As early as the first days after the attack, information appeared in the media showing the terrorists to be real amateurs in some respects. The first flaws in logic started emerging from the presented evidence. This led to several years of research by certain scientists, analysts, and also ordinary civilians when all kinds of photographs, testimony of witnesses and other materials were gathered, enabling a deeper analysis of these events. As of approximately 2005, various studies and books questioning the credibility of the official version started being published. Several films expanding the unofficial version became available to the public by way of DVD's and the internet. The more studies and films there were, the faster the expansion of research. Prominent experts who have been consistently opposing the official version for years now include physics professor Steven Jones, Professor Ray Griffin, and the architect Richard Gage.

An adequate basic summary is provided in our summary of the unofficial version containing a number of references to literature and videos.

Almost unknown is research done by Dr Neal Krawetz (, whose specialization is digital analysis of images, forensic analysis of digital data, drafting profiles of individuals based on the analysis of their texts and IT security. On his websites, amongst other things, also analyzes in detail the manipulation involved in the creation of some of the videos and photographs of several members of al-Qaeda in a presentation titled A Picture's Worth: Digital Image Analysis and Forensics (35 MB).

The official version was delivered a very hard blow by a research team of nine scientists who had been working for 18 months on an expert study on unreacted nano-thermite found in the dust of the collapsed buildings of the World Trade Centre. Nano-thermite can be used either as an explosive or as an incendiary material. Their expert study titled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 911 WTC Catastrophe (10 MB) was published in April 2009. Worth mentioning is a Danish TV interview with Professor Niels Harrit, one of the authors of the study. This 10-minute video has English subtitles. Another very helpful source is the more detailed lecture by Professor Harrit, which is in English and is 102 minutes long. It is interesting that the advocates of the official version of the events of September 11, 2001 have not yet submitted any examiner's study striving to question the credibility of the above-mentioned analysis. Instead of taking a scientific approach, they are observing an obstinate silence about nano-thermite, not to speak of starting a police investigation that one would expect to be ready to take up the evidence and set in motion the search for the true culprits.

Research into the events of 9/11 is moving ahead quickly. We would at least like to refer to a 15-minute video titled Architects & Engineers: Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 released in August 2011 by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The video summarizes the findings made by a number of experts on the causes of the collapse of Building 7.

The advocates of the unofficial version are demanding a reopening of the 9/11 investigation. They are demanding an independent investigation, preferably with international participation.

The media interpretation of these events is probably known to everybody, but for the sake of completeness we present also a brief summary of the official version.

The war in Afghanistan

The attack against Afghanistan started less than a month after September 11, 2001. The declared objective was to punish the culprits (Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda) allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001. What is interesting is that the attack on Afghanistan had been planned months before September 11, 2001. Details of this fact were brought by, for example, the BBC in an article dated September 18, 2001 – US 'planned attack on Taleban'.

Looking at the Most Wanted Terrorists list on the FBI websites we see next to Osama bin Laden's name no explicit information on his link to 9/11; actually, he never admitted having one. So, prior to the attack on Afghanistan there had been evidence compromising him, but none later. However, his reported death in early May 2011 gives rise to more questions than answers. We believe that Osama bin Laden has been dead for a number of years now and that his alleged killing was just staged for the public, although, for example, Barrack Hussein Obama, Nobel “Peace” Prize laureate, has claimed, and continues to claim otherwise.

We can see the sequence of the individual events of the war in Afghanistan, for example, in the article War in Afghanistan (2001–present).

So, the official reason for the attack on Afghanistan was supposed to be 9/11. However, a glance into history will reveal an interesting connection between this war and the reserves of oil and gas in the Caspian Sea region. More details can be found, for example, in the article Afghanistan, the CIA, bin Laden, and the Taliban. Nevertheless, there is yet another matter of interest – the large reserves of raw materials. Official reports from June 2010 inform that a team of American geologists succeeded in discovering earlier unknown mineral deposits estimated as being worth several trillion dollars (Afghans say US team found huge potential mineral wealth and Afghan mineral deposits worth $3tn, says mining official). The question is why the official media have not told us that the existence of such deposits has been known over 30 years. For more see, among others, “The War is Worth Waging”: Afghanistan's Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas : the War on Afghanistan is a Profit driven “Resource War”. Taking into account that 95 % of the world supply of rare earth minerals is covered by China (China Is Said to Resume Shipping Rare Earth Minerals), the raw material reserves in Afghanistan appear to be of great importance for the U.S.

The war in Iraq

After Afghanistan, it was Iraq’s turn. The pretext was the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction on its territory. The British did not lag far behind the Americans in accusing Iraq of holding weapons of mass destruction. In September 2002 they published a document titled Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction which, besides other things, referred to the threat posed by Iraq being capable of deploying certain chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to use them. Finally, the massacre of Iraq titled Iraqi Freedom started on March 20, 2003. Not only was there no U.N. mandate, but there was also no evidence of presence of weapons of mass destruction - in other words, the war was illegitimate. For more details see the article Válka a mír v době boje proti globálnímu terorismu.

The number of Iraqi civilians killed since the start of the war has probably exceeded 600,000. Some data point to more than 1,000,000 dead. For more see the article Civilian deaths may top 1 million, poll data indicate. Most Iraqis would undoubtedly prefer to exchange American democracy for Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime. Their relatives would still be alive and they would not have to fear for their lives each and every day.

Proven Iraqi oil reserves account for approximately 10 % of the global supplies. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, it got a total of 20 % of world oil reserves under its control. That, of course, was unacceptable, and so in 1991 “help” for Kuwait arrived swiftly. For more on these events and the proclamations of some U.S. politicians on Middle East oil, see the article Blood and Oil. This article also quotes Jimmy Carter, who said in 1980: “… An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America. And such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

We have already mentioned the switch to selling Iraqi oil for euros in 2000–2003. This only added oil to the fire.

July 7, 2005

In the summer of 2005, Britain, the model ally of the United States, became the target of a terrorist attack targeted at London during the morning rush hour. As in the case of September 11, 2001, there is both an official and unofficial version of the events of July 7, 2005. It can be pointed out that just a couple of days after the operation some military-political analysts started perceiving it as an inside job. More details are provided by, for example, the film London 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction. We also recommend viewing the short report When the Criminals Control the Cameras.

The financial crisis

(Article in Czech updated on February 17, 2014; english translation updated on February 27, 2014.)

Approximately since 2000 it was clear that it is a matter of a few years before the world finds itself in unmanageable financial and economic difficulties. The growing number of mergers of large corporations was an unmistakable sign of something going wrong. If everything were fine and there was no problem with sales, there would be no big reason to take such steps. The significance of growing market saturation started becoming more obvious. Year 2008 proved to be groundbreaking. The shady aspects of living on borrowed money were coming to light. The governments of individual countries started releasing large amounts of cash to cushion the impact of this crisis. This provision however only helped to somewhat defer the problem a little, not resolve it.

When we consider how very saturated the markets are, we quickly realize that the prices of many products and services are continuing to drop. This is a good thing for consumers only. However, smaller sales mean that producers have a steadily shrinking amount of resources for innovation, on top of which they have to face enormous competition, often on an international scale due to globalization. Also the parameters of many products are now such that there is no need to exchange them so often as in the years past. Another reason is the unwillingness to cut down consumption in any way, which leads to the further accumulation of debt by not only individuals and businesses, but also by states. More detail information is in the chapter Debts and financial derivatives.

Nowadays most states live above their income; their public revenues are lower than their public expenditures. Supporting the economy by further borrowing was reasonable only at a time when the markets were less saturated and the economy was growing.

Following a “warm-up” first round of financial and economic crises, which began in 2008 and lasted approximately to the end of 2012, the second round was set in motion very quickly. We hold the opinion that the second round of financial and economic crise will end with a global financial and economic collapse. Compared to the big economic crisis which the world experienced in 1929, it can be expected that the consequences of the current second round of crise will be totally and uncomparably worse (more information is in the section Economic development from 1929 until the present).

It appears that at the end of January 2014 a financial avalanche started to fall and rapidly began to gain speed and power. Within several days practically the whole world felt its impacts (Are We On The Verge Of A Massive Emerging Markets Currency Collapse? and Markets Are Falling, Which Means It's Time For The US To Bomb A Sovereign Nation). We are of the opinion that the biggest speculative bubble of all time starts to burst. For interest we recommend reading through the following article for example, or to at least take a look at the included graph (Scary 1929 market chart gains traction : Opinion: If market follows the same script, trouble lies directly ahead).

With respect to the information available to us, we are bold enough to predict that there is a high probability that within the immediate weeks or months the financial markets, along with the global economy, will shake to their foundations. Our civilization most likely stands in front of an imminent global monetary and economic collapse. This collapse (or to be precise its final phase) even though it cannot occur over the period of a single day, with regards to the situation in the world it can certainly occur within several months.

Financial derivatives, whose value cannot be established accurately but can only be roughly estimated, primarily represent a problem. Generally it is presumed that the value of financial derivatives may lie around 600–1,500 trillion dollars, i.e. 600,000,000,000,000 – 1,500,000,000,000,000 dollars (FINANCIAL IMPLOSION: Global Derivatives Market at $1,200 Trillion Dollars … 20 Times the World Economy and The Coming Derivatives Panic That Will Destroy Global Financial Markets). Their value then represents approximately 8–20 times the world gross domestic product (GDP) or very roughly 60–150 times the value of all coins and banknotes in the world. It is then entirely feasible to propose that there are not enough financial resources, not even in the form of electronic money, to prevent the collapse of the biggest speculative bubble in the history of mankind (more information is in the section The origin of money).

It is absolutely justified to anticipate that the central banks and individual governments will rapidly take desperate steps in order to try and prevent a global monetary and economic collapse. In our opinion, such attempts cannot end in any other way other than in total failure. The world was not able to solve the first round of the financial and economic crisis during which, besides other things, it became considerably exhausted financially, and now it faces a much bigger problem. Our opinion is that, thanks to considerably unpleasant intervention made by individual governments and central banks, the life of the system may be prolonged by several months, but that will be all. A certain realistic workable solution could theoretically exist but it would primarily mean that western society would have to restrict itself very quickly and severely for a fair succession of years, which for The West is practically inconceivable. It is worth noticing that the world economic crisis which began in 1929 was not successfully resolved in 1930s even with the help of high state orders, but only thanks to World War II. In comparison with the present day, the situation at that time was totally different. The markets were not maximized, it was necessary to construct dams, roadways etc., individual companies had their suppliers predominantly from the surrounding areas and not from the other side of the world, there was not any problem with financial derivatives and enormous debts etc. If someone came up with a suggestion regarding how to resolve this problem in a peaceful way, he would undoubtedly be a suitable candidate for the Nobel Prize for economics.

On the basis of the information available at this moment, we expect the following developments. A big slump in the stock market will create panic on the financial markets. It is possible that this downturn will take place within the period between February and April 2014. If it is too fast, then the trading of stocks and shares on the stock exchange will be suspended for a specific time which will heighten nervousness not only on the financial markets. Besides other things, many currencies will start to quickly lose their value, which will have an immediate impact (not only in the affected countries) upon consumerism. Banks will find themselves on the edge of an abyss. Far-sighted people will start to hastily withdraw their savings from their bank accounts (some already have) which will lead to a run on the banks. As the banks have enough money only to satisfy several percent of their clients, it is clearly evident that soon they will have to stop the paying out of cash (we wrote about this problem in the article The origin of money). No bank would cope due to the massive withdrawal of cash, even the biggest banks would be in danger. From 2008 many of these big banks grew even larger and a fall even in one of them could push the country in which the bank is situated to the abyss, as quite simply there are and will not be any financial resources available for its rescue. The governments of many countries will have to proceed to confiscate part of the deposits in bank accounts (in all probability payments abroad will be restricted) to at least gain some time (Europe Considers Wholesale Savings Confiscation, Enforced Redistribution). Under a communist government such a step was called nationalization, today’s politicians may call it economic reforms, we call it theft. Social unrest will erupt with full force. People will limit their spending which will lead to a decline in turnover mainly within companies providing the less essential goods and services for living. Unemployment will start to grow rapidly and that will reflect in a further decline of consumer spending. This spiral will start to spin rapidly and from it there will be no escape. A huge loss of state revenue will come to pass due to the enormous reduction in the collection of various taxes. Under the pressure of the circumstances central banks will be forced to print money. Printing money cannot resolve the problem, but only briefly postpone it and make it worse. The printing of money will raise inflation, and therefore reduce the buying power of the money. Inflation will lead to a swift increase in prices and can rapidly develop into hyperinflation, i.e., an increase in prices by 1,000 % or more, which is therefore at least a 10 fold increase in prices. Hyperinflation within individual countries will escalate into state bankruptcy.

To those who have a larger amount of money in a single bank account we recommend within the immediate future to set up accounts in more banks and split the money evenly amongst them. It is not even possible to rely on the deposits being insured to a certain sum. Politicians will not probably worry about it too much. For this reason it would be appropriate to always have a sufficient amount of ready cash at hand, so that it would at least be possible to buy with it enough long lasting food if needed.

It is necessary to realise that the economy, politics and the armed forces in particular are connected bodies, and a change in either of them will, sooner or later, influence the other.

The war in Libya

In 1969 the Libyan government was overthrown and Muammar Gaddafi became Head of State. During his 42 year reign, from a poor African country this man managed to build an “African Switzerland”. He is especially credited for a significant rise in literacy, achieving a high average age of inhabitants, which is higher than that in the majority of western countries, and also for very low public debt. Of such low debt, almost all countries of the world could only dream. Women were awarded many rights during his reign. They could travel, drive a car, apply for divorce, set up various associations etc. (How Gaddafi improved the situation of the Libyan women). Women in other muslim states could only quietly envy them. Though the dictator Gaddafi was not any holyman, during his reign the majority of people still had a relatively good existance, which definately cannot be said about today's Libya. However, under his leadership, Libya was blamed for several terrorist attacks against the West.

It is appropriate to point out that during recent times, Muammar Gaddafi had mulled over the thought of introducing a golden dinar. The golden dinar had good prospects to become the new currency in North Africa and perhaps even in some Middle Eastern countries. In addition, Colonel Gaddafi had a plan to use this golden dinar for the oil trade (more information is in the article, Analyst Adrian Salbuchi explains what he reckon is going on in Libya, for example). Assuming that he could implement this plan to a conclusion, he would be able to significantly harm the American dollar and the Euro in particular.

With respect to Libyan oil reserves, on a global scale they occupy ninth place. This oil contains a small amount of sulphur so processing costs are low in comparison to oil with a high sulphur content. Due to this, it is in demand at the refineries as they can process it more easily. The entire majority of Libyan oil flows to Europe. According to the volume of raw material imported, if we line up in descending order the biggest European importers of Libyan oil, we have the following list: Italy, France, Germany, Spain and Great Britain (Facts on Libya: oil and gas (IEA 21 February 2011)).

When the anti-government demonstrations began in Tunisia in December 2010, a growing prospect for the West was that perhaps, by some chance, these riots would spread to Libya also, which, unlike the majority of muslim countries, had a mind of its own, i.e. it was not under influence of the West. The Tunisian government fell in the middle of January 2011 and similar protests against other ruling regimes began to flare up in many North African and Middle Eastern countries. These events came to be labelled The Arab Spring. Unlike riots in Tunisia or Egypt, the situation in Libya differed quite fundamentally. From the very beginning the adversaries of the regime didn't try to topple the state by peaceful protests but with the help of weapons (Insurrection and Military Intervention: The US-NATO Attempted Coup d'Etat in Libya?).

Similarly, as in the case of Yugoslavia and Iraq, an extensive propaganda campaign also began against the Libyan regime, the purpose of which was to justify military intervention (Libya in the Cross-Hairs of a “Humanitarian War”: A “No-Fly Zone” is Equivalent to an Act of War). Ultimately the West managed to enforce a so-called “No-Fly Zone”, which in practice meant the indiscriminate bombing of military and also quite often civilian targets (Make No Mistake: NATO committed War Crimes in Libya, Libya: NATO Continues to Bomb Civilian Targets : Global Research reports from Tripoli and The Truth Behind the US/NATO War on Libya). Apart from the noble “No-Fly Zone” label, other expressions such as “Humanitarian Intervention”, “Humanitarian Bombardment” and “The Protection of Civilians” were also often used for the massive bombardment.

Perhaps no one will be surprised that from the beginning of the uprising, and maybe even before, some Western countries supported the Libyan opposition by supplying it with weapons. The opposition fighters were often described by western politicians and the western media primarily as “freedom fighters”. But when we look in detail at one branch of rebels, we find the name of The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (otherwise known as Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya). This group is listed as a terrorist organization (Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations) and in February 2011 it was renamed to The Islamic Movement For Change. More detailed information can be found in the articles The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – from al-Qaida to the Arab spring, “Our Man in Tripoli”: US-NATO Sponsored Islamic Terrorists Integrate Libya's Pro-Democracy Opposition and The “Liberation” of Libya: NATO Special Forces and Al Qaeda Join Hands : “Former Terrorists” Join the “Pro-democracy” Bandwagon for example. It is obvious from the above mentioned information that the war against so-called terrorism fails to make sense when sometimes there are fights against terrorists and at other times an active cooperation - together with a supplying of arms - is established with them. Whether those Western states who cooperated or cooperate with the terrorists belong amongst the democratic or the terroristic, everyone can judge that for themselves.

It was not difficult to guess how Gaddafi would meet his end. On 20th October 2011 his column leaving the town of Sirte was attacked by an American pilotless drone and a French aeroplane (The Assassination of Gaddafi and Putin dubs McCain 'nuts', says US drones, commandos killed Gaddafi). An injured Colonel Gaddafi was subsequently brutally assassinated without any proper judicial proceedings (Killing a POW? Gaddafi's last moments (VIDEO)).

It is certainly worth mentioning that Libya had around 100 billion dollars in western countries (Destroying a Country's Standard of Living: What Libya Had Achieved, What has been Destroyed). Of course, this property was “seized” by the West and supposedly should be used gradually, primarily for the post-war restoration of a destroyed Libya. It can be assumed that, as in Iraq, mainly American and some Western European companies, especially British and French, will receive the contracts for this post-war restoration. In the article What lies ahead in 2011 and 2012 we were acquainted with the principle of making money. If then, for instance, only half of the money, i.e. 50 billion dollars, was used to pay the mentioned Western companies for supplying their goods and services, then the money supply in the countries where they are based could increase by a value equivalent to several hundreds of billions of dollars. In this time of world financial and economic crises, this is not an insignificant amount.

What was achieved by taking control of Libya? The West gained control over the Libyan oil, gas, and further development of this country; Russia lost a significant consumer of its weapons and at the same time lost part of its influence in the Mediterranean; China in particularly lost one oil supplier and an ally; and the Libyan people finally gained democracy (a similar democracy to which, for example, the Iraqi people from 2003 are yet to recover).

It appears that the West spreads its own interpretation of democracy only to those countries which possess, for example, oil, gas, mineral deposits and such like. At the same time, particularly in some very poor African states, genuine civilian massacres occur very frequently, however the West is obviously not bothered much by this.


(Updated on August 27, 2013.)

There is a strong military aliance between Syria and Iran. If one of these states was attacked then the other would go to help it. Also, a thorn in the side of the West and Israel is the Syrian port of Tartus, where the Russians have a military naval base, which provides them instant access to the Mediterranean sea. If a pro-western government was established in Syria, then Russia probably would quickly lose not only this strategic base, but also a considerable part of its influence in the Middle East, and simultaneously, NATO would tighten further its grip around the Russian Federation. As the United States and Israel in particular have been preparing for an attack on Iran for many years, the fall of the Syrian regime now would be very beneficial for them, namely, if possible, prior to an attack on Iran. An isolated Iran would be an easier target and Israel would not risk heavy losses in a war with Syria or alternatively also with Lebanon.

According to information from the main news media, in March 2011, a broader wave of the pro-democratic protest movement known as the Arab Spring had spread to Syria. People were said to have taken part in mass rallies against the Syrian government and Syrian armed forces supposedly bloodily suppressed the demonstrators. However, if we look at the situation from a different angle, we find significant inaccuracies within the presented information. Rallies against the ruling government took place, however it can not be said that it were some big mass events. Many more people actually met in support of Bashar al-Assad. During one such event in support of President Assad, up to one million people had gather in Damascus, the capitol city of Syria (1 million Syrians support Assad in Damascus). Unfortunately, it often occured that armed militants mixed with the peaceful demonstrators, shooting primarily at soldiers and the police (SYRIA: Who is Behind The Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO “Humanitarian Intervention”). The result was not only a large number of dead and injured civilians but also members of the armed forces.

Information about the number of dead civilians comes mainly from the Syrian opposition and so it is a problem to verify this amount (China's stance on Syria – 'a matter of principle'). Official figures show that during the present fighting in Syria around 80,000–100,000 people could die, from which an estimated 40 % constitutes soldiers, members of pro-government militias and police, 30–40 % mercenaries from the ranks of the Syrian opposition, with the remainder being civilians (Casualties of the Syrian civil war, Assad backers reportedly make up 43 percent of dead in Syria).

Form the high numbers of dead Syrian policemen and soldiers, we can immediately recognize that the state armed forces did not meet with peaceful demonstrators. These policemen and soldiers were killed by highly organized and equipped armed groups connected with the Syrian opposition (Lavrov: Syria is Confronting Armed Gangs, al-Qaeda Members that Commited Horrible Crimes, The Al Qaeda Insurgency in Syria: Recruiting Jihadists to Wage NATO's “Humanitarian Wars” : PART III and The “Free Syria Army”: Placard-Waving Protesters are actually Machine Gun-Wielding Terrorists). For example, only the very picture in the article US and allies 'considering plans' for military aid to Syrian rebels enables us to get a fairly decent idea regarding the people forming the main part of the Syrian opposition. In this article, we can also read about the immediate support of the Syrian rebels by several states. Concerning, for example, support in the supplying of satellite telephones, anti-tank missiles and night vision devices. Furthermore, we can learn more about the financing and arming of the Syrian opposition in the articles US Funding Syrian Opposition, US secretly funded Syrian opposition, Syria: Clinton Admits US On Same Side As Al Qaeda To Destabilise Assad Government, US, Israel involved in illegal arms supplies to Syria, Foreign Powers Behind Syria Unrest and “Financing of Terrorism” in Syria Must Stop. From this information, it is obvious that many western states, Israel and some arab countries are interfering in the inner matters of a sovereign state, and are trying to create favourable conditions for a state revolution or for military intervention, while at the same time, are not hesitant in their support of terrorists as well. International public law obviously does not mean much to these “democratic” countries.

For the Syrian army, the re-capture of the city of Homs was rather problematic. Most importantly, from this city came information about the alleged massacre of civilian inhabitants at the hands of the Syrian army. However, contrary information also exists claiming that the opposition was behind the murdering of many civilians, including women and children, in order to implicate the Syrian regime (SYRIA:Terrorist Groups Committed Atrocious Massacre in Homs to Elicit International Support against Syrian Government). It is fair to realize that with its own actions, the Syrian army does not have and has never had any interest in presenting The West and its allies with any pretext to launch an attack on Syria. In fact, the army has enough on its plate dealing with domestic terrorists. For that reason, it is thus probable that standing behind the majority of massacres involving civilian inhabitants, are terrorists from the ranks of the Syrian opposition, supported by the West, Israel and some Arab States.

At re-captured sites, the Syrian army secured various types of weapons and equipment. Including, for example, anti-tank missiles, night vision devices, sniper rifles, mines, grenades, communication devices, sub-machine guns… Frequently they were weapons of American, European, and Israeli manufacture. Details are in the articles Syrian army seizes multiple arms depots from rebels and Report: Mossad, CIA And Blackwater Operate In Syria. Many of these high-class arms and equipment the Syrian army itself does not even have.

The West, via the UN, attempted to use a similar procedure against Syria like that against Lybia. These resolutions were however, immediately rejected by Russia and China (Russia, China Veto UN Resolution on Syria). Russia and China also warned against an attack on Syria. More detailed information can be found in the articles, Russia, China warn against foreign intervention in Syria and Putin Condemns Syria Violence but Warns against Interference, for example.

In August 2012 a possible threat from Syrian chemical weapons began to circulate, weapons which could be used against the opposition or could fall into unauthorized hands. According to official propaganda, in such a case the West would consider launching an attack on Syria, of course without any UN mandate (Syria chemical weapons threat as pretext for invasion and Obama threatens to attack Syria). At the beginning of December 2012, this alleged threat once again became the central focus of the main media (Syria loads chemical weapons into bombs; military awaits Assad's order). It is interesting that this blackening of the Syrian regime occured roughly during the same time period in which the true face of the Syrian opposition had begun to be revealed in its full light (Video shows another insurgent execution in Syria, Syrian insurgents open fire on protestors, 29 Syrian students, a teacher killed in militant attack on school, Human Rights Watch accuses Syrian rebels of using children for fighting and video Russian Documentary: The Human Cost of the Syrian Crisis which definitely should not see the children). While the Americans claim that they have evidence that the Syrian army is preparing to use chemical weapons against the opposition, the Russians have no information regarding any such alleged Syrian plan (Russia has no proof of Syria's chemical weapons plans – envoy). Questionable American war propaganda against Syria is clearly documented in the article WMD Hype: Syrian Government will not Use Chemical Weapons against its Own Citizens.

Assisted by the main news media, via a massive propaganda campaign, The West and its allies try hard to present themselves as “peacemakers”, and do this not only in solving the problems in Syria. First and foremost, steps chiefly concerning Syria taken by The West and Israel forced the Russians to adopt additional measures. In May, after some 21 years, the Russians restored their flotilla in the Mediterranean (Russian Pacific Fleet Warships to Enter Mediterranean and Two Warships Join Russia's Mediterranean Task Force). This flotilla is probably one of the last Russian warnings towards The West and Israel, that they should take their hands off Syria and Iran and start to respect Public International Law. In addition, the Russians are planning to supply Syria with a first-grade Russian air defense system known as the S-300 (Delivery of S-300 hampers Syrian opposition's victory, S-300 a purely defensive weapon – Pushkov), about which Israel is not at all happy as it will not be able to bomb targets in Syria at will anymore as it has already done several times (the last such attack taking place in early May – Unprovoked Israeli Acts of Aggression against Syria, Prelude to a Broader War?, The Israeli Attack on Syria and the History of War: Profile of Lawless Aggression).

From around about May, the Syrian opposition, working closely with terrorists, started to have huge problems as it rapidly began to lose its positions thanks mainly to the military success of the Syrian army (Syrian Forces Inflict Heavy Losses on US Sponsored Terrorists, Syrian rebels faced with all-out army offensive). Probably by only mere coincidence, roughly at the same time information was presented by The West concerning the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army (US says it will give military aid to Syria rebels). Similar such “reliable” evidence from secret services already existed in the case of Iraq, following whose invasion and occupation no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. It is no surprise therefore that regarding any alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army, the Russians are left lacking in any kind of such evidence. (No genuine data that Syrian authorities use chemical weapons – Patrushev, US Chemical Weapons Report in Syria ‘Fabricated’ – Russian MP and Russia questions US evidence on Syria's use of chemical weapons). But even more interesting is the fact that sarin (the chemical nerve agent) was found amongst the terrorists from the ranks of the Syrian opposition (Russia Wants More Info From Turkey on Sarin Reports, Syrian army captures party of sarin from rebels in Hama and The Forbidden Truth: The U.S. is Channeling Chemical Weapons to Al Qaeda in Syria, Obama is a Liar and a Terrorist : Who has Crossed the “Red Line”? Barack Obama and John Kerry are Supporting a Terrorist Organization on the State Department List), the exact such chemical warfare agent which the Syrian army reportedly had used. The question then is, who in Syria used, and potentially plans to use again, sarin in order to provide a reason for military intervention on the side of The West? The Syrian army does not have any such necessity, and has never had (Assad has no need to use chemical arms – Russia).

From June, the European Union officially cancelled the ban prohibiting the supplying of weapons to the Syrian oposition (Lifting the Fake EU Arms Embargo: Weapons for Al Qaeda in Syria). The supplying of weapons to a non-governmental organization is in violation of Public International Law (EU decision not to extend embargo on arms supplies to Syrian opposition is illegitimate – Lavrov). It is important to stress that Syria is represented by the Syrian government and not, above all, The West and Israel supported a Syrian opposition closely co-operating with terrorists. With regards to this and other facts, someone could even entertain such a thought that, according to available information, it appears the The West and Israel support terrorism and break Public International Law whenever they feel like it. This thought could, for example, lead someone to such a conclusion that within the boundaries of war against so-called terrorism, it is often difficult to distinguish the terrorists from those who pursue them. Similarly, someone could arrive at the conclusion that if Public International Law was abolished, not so much would actually happen.

In the middle of June the Americans again began to push the idea of a so called “no-fly” zone, however this time only related to above southern Syria, close to the Jordanian border (US military plan for arming Syrian rebels, calls for limited no-fly zone). Of course in such a case international law would be violated (No-Fly Zone in Syria Would Break International Law – Lavrov). The ostentatious title “no-fly” zone means a no-fly zone for the Syrian planes and a fly zone for the planes from The United States Of America, Israel, Great Britain, France and the like, and does not really mean anything else other than war.

So that Syria could not completely defend a hostile attack from the North Atlantic Alliance and Israel, in February along the Syrian border in Turkey, American air defense systems known as Patriot were deployed (All NATO Patriot batteries in Turkey operational, REAL PURPOSE OF PATRIOT MISSILES IN TURKEY). In the middle of June further Patriot systems were delivered to Jordan, where they will remain indefinately, placed close to the Syrian border ('U.S. to keep missiles, jets in Jordan amid Syria crisis' – Pentagon).

On August 21, 2013 in one Damascus suburb, which at the time was under the full control of the Syrian opposition, a chemical attack occurred, during which perhaps over one thousand civilians died (Syria opposition claims 1,193 killed in chemical attack by gov't forces and Syria chemical attack another 'false flag'). While The West and Israel, without producing any kind of evidence, immediately began to accuse the Syrian army of the attack, the Russians were of a different opinion (see for example the articles Alleged Syrian chemical attack was 'a pre-planned action' – Russia, Russia says West has no proof for Syria weapons claims and Hysteria around chemical attack suits those who want military intervention in Syria – Lavrov). Based on very rough preliminary information regarding this attack, we can, at the present time, approximately guess that if sarin was used in this attack then its amount might be in the range of several tens to several hundreds of kilograms. Incidentally, in the above stated text, reference is made regarding terrorists from the ranks of the Syrian opposition supposedly already holding a concealed sarin in their possession.

It is also worth mentioning the information that the attack occured during the time when the Syrian opposition was losing one position after another and several days after a U.N. investigation team arrived in Damascus in order to investigate previous chemical attacks. The Syrian army would not be acting at all strategically if several kilometres from the hotel where the U.N. investigation team were staying, it carried out a chemical attack and so played an ace straight into the hands of The West. If the Syrian army had wanted to kill civilians then it would have been enough just to shoot the inhabitants of those areas which it has under its control. There are no reports regarding such conduct of the Syrian army, which certainly cannot be said about the areas which the Syrian opposition controls or has controlled.

It is also worth pointing out that during the war between Iraq and Iran (1980–1988), The United States Of America actively assisted Iraq which in those days was led by Saddam Hussein. Even though the Americans were informed about the Iraq chemical attacks, by no means did they try to prevent them. According to declassified information they even handed over information to the Iraqi army regarding the positions of Iranian units inspite of the fact that they knew that this information would be used in a chemical attacks against Iranian soldiers (Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran and How The Times Have Changed: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam Use Chemical Weapons). The United States Of America therefore actively assisted in war crimes. And suddenley, in the case of Syria, the Americans now play some unbelieveable theatre performance in front of the world, how the use of chemical weapons “bothers” them. At the same time, behind the chemical attacks in Syria stand in all cases, most likely, the Syrian opposition closely co-operating with terrorists, the Americans, Israelis and the like…

Let us now look at the situation in Syria from an alternative angle. Let's imagine that several tens of thousands of well-armed people would occupy several big cities in the USA, such as New York, Washington, Chicago, Dallas etc. for example. Their aim being to force the government to resign. At the same time, in achieving someone's objective, these fighters for freedom, democracy and human rights would mow down or otherwise kill around 40,000 members of the services ensuring the protection of people and state, and perhaps also about 15,000–25,000 civilians including women and children. During their “work”, many members of this opposition would use sniper rifles, night vision devices, mortars, sub-machine guns, grenades, portable surface-to-air missiles, mines etc. sent from abroad. They would also have foreign mercenaries amongst their ranks and often take civilian inhabitants hostage. If we were civilians, under these circumstances, would we be favouring these terrorists? Would we like their behaviour? The majority of us probably not. And what would the state do? Surely it would send the army to the streets in order to bring these terrorists before the courts, because of their attempted state takeover and an array of other criminal acts. In such a case what would other states, like France and Germany for example, do? In these countries there would also be bloodshed.


(Updated on June 23, 2013.)

For some time now, Iran is being presented as yet another world threat. This is on a similar level as the allegations prior to the war in Iraq when trumped-up “proofs” of the presence of weapons of mass destruction on its territory were produced. It was all lies then, and on the basis of these lies maybe more than a million people have been killed. And now the same or similar “experts” and intelligence services are speaking about “proofs” that Iran is trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. Incidentally, even if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, or indeed had scores of them, we wouldn't see any problem in it. Not even in error does Iranian foreign policy actually compare with the aggressive foreign policies of The United States of America and Israel – details, for example, in the section titled Global news.

What is sad is that “democratic” countries are using a double yardstick. Nobody is exerting pressure on Israel to give up its 250–300 nuclear weapons. Israel is purposefully nipping any resistance in the bud and, like several other countries, has not been hesitant to attack, without a UN mandate, sovereign states; this constitutes an unequivocal breach of international law, not to mention attacks against civilian targets and the use of white phosphorus against civilians (to provide a very rough overview we refer to the attack on Iraq in 1981 – Operation Opera, the attack against civilian targets in Lebanon (2006) – Amnesty report accuses Israel of war crimes, the attack on Syria (2007) – Why did Israel attack Syria? and the use of white phosphorus against Palestinians (2009) – Israel accused of war crimes over phosphorus use). Probably no sanctions will ever be imposed against Israel for its crimes. Its nuclear weapons represent a threat to the whole Middle East, and thus to the whole world. If we want a nuclear-free Middle East, we should start with Israel.

Iran controls approximately 10 % of the world's oil reserves (List of countries by proven oil reserves) and the second largest natural gas reserves in the world – around 16 % (List of countries by natural gas proven reserves). A threat facing the United States is the Iranian Oil Bourse, which opened after overcoming some stumbling blocks in 2008 (Iranian oil bourse), and Iran's focus on China and India (Iran’s major oil customers, energy partners). Why does the oil bourse present such a threat to the dollar? The bourse is denominated in non dollar currencies, thus undermining the stability of the dollar.

The claimed reason for developing the American anti-missile defense system is supposed to be, mainly, Iran's ballistic missiles. However, not even ten years hence will the current or newly developed Iranian ballistic missiles present a threat to the Unites States of America. If Iran really wanted to attack the U.S., it could very easily circumvent the whole costly American anti-ballistic missile defense system. It would suffice to use, for example, the new Russian “gadget” – a 12 m long transport container concealing guided cruise missiles including launch equipment – Russian company unveils 'bomb in a box' cruise missile system. It would not be difficult to use this concealed modern missile system to attack any U.S. port from a cargo vessel carrying the transport containers on its deck from a distance of as short as 270 km (168 mi.) from the U.S. coast. So the U.S. anti-ballistic missile defense system worth hundreds of billions of dollars can be effectively bypassed at a cost of several tens of millions of dollars. The question then stands against whom this American system is aimed. It certainly is not Iran.

It is convenient to look at a map of the world and find the Caspian Sea, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, and the countries of the Shanghai Pact (Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan). That tells us a lot more than mere words. We will easily find out why Iran is so important. Occupation of Iran would lead not only to seizing control of extensive oil and natural gas reserves, but also to the direct connection of Iraq and Afghanistan. In this way, NATO would gain an influence across nearly the whole southern border of the Russian Federation.

Before we start to consider preparation for an attack on Iran, it is good to realize that it is not any small state. On a global scale, covering such an area, Iran lies in 18th place. As an illustration we can say that its size approximately equates to the combined area of Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia and Italy (or Alaska or the combined area of California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Oregon and Washington or Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia). It is also approximately 3.8 times larger than Iraq and 2.5 times larger than Afghanistan (The World Factbook and List of U.S. states and territories by area).

Preparations for an attak on Iran are in full-flow (U.S.-NATO-Gulf Cooperation Council Military Buildup Against Iran and US to reinforce naval presence in Persian Gulf). The official reason being its alleged efforts to manufacture a nuclear weapon. Still, up until this point, no one has produced any evidence regarding this alleged activity (VIDEO – Middle-East Tensions: 300 Nukes in Israel yet “Iran is the threat” and The Mysterious “Laptop Documents”. Using Fake Intelligence to Justify a Pre-emptive Nuclear War on Iran). Certainly worth of attention is an article entitled Iran Trumpets Nuclear Ability at a Second Location, from the prestigious The New York Times newspaper, which concludes with the former American State Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, also a former head of the CIA, commenting negatively to the question of whether Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. The article 'US, Israel agree Iran abandoned nuclear bomb' carries a similar statement. The Russians justifiably claim that the West does not have any evidence that Iran attempts to develop a nuclear weapon (No proof of nuclear bomb development by Iran – Patrushev).

A strong probability exists that an attack on Iran will open a “Pandora's box” which could unleash such a hell on earth, the likes of which the majority of people have never dreamed, not even in their worst dreams (War on Iran Would Mean World War III, The Dangers of Nuclear War and Threats Against Iran, The Next World War: The “Great Game” and the Threat of Nuclear War : Part III, War and the Financial Crisis. The Threat to Humanity of a Nuclear War against Iran). Iran is not Yugoslavia. Iran is not Iraq. Iran is not Lybia. Iran will not allow itself to be bombarded without appropriate retaliation. It is expected that immediately within the first minutes of the conflict, Iran will launch a huge retaliatory rocket strike on Israel and the surrounding states (for example Georgia, Turkey – a member of NATO, Saudi Arabia, …) which, with the provision of bases or air space for such an assault, will enable particularly an American or Israeli attack to be led against Iran (“War on Iran Will Trigger World War III”, UPDATE 2-Iran says will hit any country used to strike its soil and In case of attack on Iran, it will strike against Turkey). At the same time, it is expected that the Syrian army will immediately support Iran following the attack.

With respect to the land expanse of Iran and the possible speed of attacking fighter planes and rockets, Iran should have enough time to launch several tens of thousands of rockets towards surrounding strategic targets. It is obvious that many missiles will hit their given targets, as no air defense system in the world has 100 % efficiency and an ability to fend off a large scale rocket strike. Obviously, already within the course of several tens of minutes from the beginning of an attack on Iran, the fighting will spread to a significant part of the Middle East. It is possible that in this region, already within the first hours or days of war, nuclear, chemical and perhaps biological weapons also will be used. The spread of the conflict to other areas will most likely be only a question of time. We assume that the British, Canadians, and the French will maybe actively take part in the first attack. Realistically, implications perhaps suggest, that from the very begining of the conflict, already five member states of NATO, i.e. the USA, Turkey, Great Britain, Canada and France could immediately be involved in the war. Potentially, when other member states will become involved, only time will tell. We are of the opinion that it will most likely be a matter of days or weeks.

The spread of the conflict outside of the Middle East region will mainly depend upon the attitude of Russia and China. As it is almost certain that these countries will not agree to any UN resolution which would sanction an attack on Iran or Syria, it can be expected that they will strongly oppose any attack on Iran. Iran is too important to them and they can not afford to allow it to fall into the hands of the North Atlantic Alliance. Detailed information can be found, for example, in the article CONFRONTATION BETWEEN MILITARY BLOCS: The Eurasian “Triple Alliance.” The Strategic Importance of Iran for Russia and China. The opinion of Leonid Ivashov, a retired Russian General, gives us enough hints as well. General Ivashov claims that an attack on Iran or Syria would mean an indirect attack on Russia and its strategic interests – Video: Former General Says Russia Will Not Allow Israel-U.S. Attack On Iran and Syria. A statement from Major General Zhang Zhaozhong, professor at the Chinese University of Defense, is a good representation of the attitude of China. His opinion is that China will not hesitate to protect Iran, even if it would lead to a third world war. Details are in the article China must protect Iran even with WWIII.

Any resolution endorsing an attack on Iran or Syria will not pass through the UN, so we have a choice of two possibilities. Either Iran will be attacked without a UN mandate and without the support of a sizeable part of the global community (theoretically, an initial attack on Syria with the subsequent joining of Iran into the war is a possibility) or some convenient excuse will be found – a so-called second September 11th (more is in the article What lies ahead in 2011 and 2012), which for the United States of America wouldn't have to be any fundamental problem (How to Start a War: The American Use of War Pretext Incidents). This excuse may be the detonation of a small nuclear weapon on some ship in some American port. Such an attack would create great emotion across the whole world and there would not be any effort to conduct any lengthy investigation, as people would call for as quick a punishment as possible for the offenders. We suppose that within several days to weeks, al-Qaeda would be accused of the attack, along with the claim that it was connected with Iran. An attack on Iran and the immediate spreading of attacks even to Syria and Lebanon would follow. The spread of the conflict to almost the whole world could occur with a matter of days to weeks. Of course, within the scheme of things, there is always the possibility of the initial war conflict in Syria escalating, due to the almost immediate involvement of Iran and Lebanon into the fight, on the Syrian side. No matter what excuse may be found to attack, the result in all cases will most probably be the same. Sometime around September or October perhaps we will become participants in a third world war, unless the conflict is successfully delayed, by some miracle.

Quite certainly it is worth of attention that while a number of people from the general public support an attack on Iran, many analysts only uncomprehendingly shake their heads over such action. As an illustration we will mention, for example, the comments of Meir Dagan, former director of the Israeli Intelligence Service Mossad. Dagan warns against catastrophic consequences associated with an attack on Iran both for Israel and Iran, and also for many other states – Former Mossad chief: Pre-emptive attack on Iran would be stupid.

The forthcoming events could still be a little delayed, but most likely can not be stopped. As, according to us, it is already too late. The fun ends, even though on the surface it may not look like it. Since, from readily available information, it is impossible to easily predict the mentioned problems. We are now experiencing the period of calm before the storm. The worst then will be the consequences, given as the majority of people will not even manage to start any preparations in time, let alone finish them. We should appreciate every day whilst all is still relatively calm, because what we take for granted today, by tomorrow may be quite different. Nothing lasts forever…

Attack at the Boston marathon

(Czech article added on April 23, 2013; English translation added on April 27, 2013.)

On April 15 two explosions occurred at the finishing straight of the Boston marathon, killing 3 people and injuring almost 200 (More than 180 people injured in Boston Marathon bombings expected to live, doctors say). The perpetrators were soon indentified as two brothers (26 year old Tamerlan Tsarnaev and 19 year old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) who, along with their parents, in 2002 moved to The United States from Chechnya, i.e. not from The Czech Republic as was stated by some American experts (Twitterers mistake Czech Republic for Chechnya in Boston bombings).

On April 23 while updating Global news, a transcript of the court hearing from April 22 with the injured 19 year old Dzhokhar came to our attention (it is possible to download it, for example, from CNN – Transcript of Boston terror suspect's first hearing or from our own pages – Tsarnaev hearing transcript). Since the full transcription of the court hearing was in a *.pdf document we downloaded it out of curiosity so that we could have a closer look. A big surprise was waiting for us. According to the displayed properties of the document, at first glance it appears that this file was created on June 2, 2006 in the programme pdfFactory version 3.52 on a PC with Windows XP Home. Except that version 3.52 was not released until December 12, 2009 (pdfFactory Release Notes). For your own research it is enough to download the document, open it in the programme Adobe Reader, Nuance PDF Reader, or similar, and to display the properties of the document. Or it should be enough to press the Ctrl key along with the letter D (Ctrl + D).

Following the end of the court hearing on April 22, 2013, so that the Official Court Reporter, Mr. James P. Gibbons, could create a document with a date of June 2, 2006, the set date on his PC would have to be almost 7 years out of date, or he or someone else would have had to “play” with the file creation date, changing it to 2006, – which is extremely irregular. If he used a Microsoft Word programme from a 2007 version (on sale from the end of 2006) or OpenOffice Writer from version 1.1 (released at the end of 2003) he should not have had any problem saving a document to *.pdf format without requiring another programme like pdfFactory or similar. Important also is the fact that the document contains only the date of creation and not any date of change. This indicates that if no special data modification programme was used in this *.pdf file, then in all probability the document was created without being the modification of an older *.pdf file. Even among IT experts, changing the creation date of a file in practice is done, let's say, very rarely. In summary, we have in effect three possibilities:

  1. the time on the PC was moved back by almost 7 years,
  2. the modification date of the document was deleted by means of a special programme and maybe the creation date of the file was amended,
  3. this document itself was actually created on June 2, 2006 (later with a special programme added information about the creation in the programme pdfFactory 3.52) and is only now being distributed to the media.

The motive for these above mentioned possibilities let everyone find for themselves.

If, during the creation of the document, only the time on the PC was moved backwards by around 7 years, then it is appropriate to raise the question, what type of PC was it, whether a home PC or a company PC? On a home PC the operating system Windows XP Home is commonplace, however not so much on a company PC. On company PCs today the operating systems Windows Vista or Windows 7 in version Professional are quite widespread. As Windows, when linked to the internet, endeavours to synchronize its own time with an atomic clock every 7 days, it is then highly improbable that a time shift of almost 7 years would last longer than several weeks. A PC permanently disconnected from the internet would constitute an exception, or a PC which would have the automatic time updates blocked, which is not at all common. All the same, it would be fitting to subject to careful examination the PC on which this document was supposedly created in order to find out the exact date of the making of this file.

It can be possible to justifiably suppose that if a court hearing took place on April 22, 2013, the resultant interview transcriptions should then be saved by a matter of course with the date of April 22, 2013 and not June 2, 2006. The file creation date is also important for the archival of documents and any subsequent retrieval of information. If we then wanted to search through all the documents related to this court hearing and as a search criterion we chose for example the time entry figure from the April 15, 2013, then a document with an older creation date would neither be retrieved nor searched.

At this moment it is too soon to make any conclusions regarding any official or unofficial version. Currently there are more questions than answers. However certainly the following document at least is worth reading (Conspiracy theories swirl around Boston Marathon terrorist attack). For further details we recommend to keep an eye on Global news.

Also worth mentioning is the alleged attempted attack from April 16 using letters laced with ricin, as sent to Barack Hussein Obama and one American senator (Follow Up Attack? Ricin Sent To Senator Who Ended Gun Control Filibuster; Second Letter Sent To Obama and US Senator targeted by ricin letter attacks).

From now on we will continue to collect and evaluate further information about this terrorist attack and will release it continuously.

Boston bombing update

(Article added on June 23, 2013.)

On the April 22, 2013 a transcription of a court hearing with 19 years old Dzhokhar was released. This document was then published, for example, on the pages of CNN and The Wall Street Journal.

On the April 23 we picked up this document and made some analysis, based on which we wrote the above shown article in Czech language, which we then published on our web pages on the very same day. At the same time we sent our article to be translated into English (the article in English language we did not put on the internet until April 27). Several hours after publishing the article in Czech, we detected a visit to our pages (specifically to this article) from someone in The United States of America using an unknown operating system and an unknown web browser. Within several hours, on the pages of The Wall Street Journal the original document was altered in such a way that a date of amendment of April 22, 2013 was added whilst the creation date of June 2, 2006 still remained. Other information was left unchanged. This alteration did not occur on CNN.

Following the publication of our article concerning the Boston attack, we thoroughly analysed further the possibilities regarding the creation of this *.pdf file containing the alleged transcript of the court hearing with Dzhokhar. On several computers with the operating systems Windows XP and 7, we carried out tests with English trial versions of the pdfFactory programme.

Based on in-depth analysis of the official document, and the behaviour of the English trial versions of the pdfFactory programme, it was shown that the document in question could not have been created in the pdfFactory version 3.52 programme despite of the fact that this version is indicated in the properties of the document (see picture below).

Document Properties.

Version 3.52 in fact contains a fault in the underscore of the link in the lower section (foot) of every page of the document, which was, during utilization, transfered to the *.pdf. All higher versions no longer contain this fault, i.e. the manufacturer noticed and repaired it, which certainly cannot be said for the person who, for some reason, strove to adjust the document so that it appears it was created in a trial version of the pdfFactory version 3.52 programme. For changing the properties of the document some special programme was used, – with its utilization the notification concerning the creation of the document in a trial version of the pdfFactory 3.52 programme was forged. Such a special programme is not ordinarily accessible and the profound majority of computer experts (almost 100 %) have never come into contact with it. Details are in the picture shown below.

Evidence of fraud with version 3.52.

For your own research you can download some of the following versions of the pdfFactory programme directly from the pages of the manufacturer: version 3.50, 3.51, 3.52, 3.53, 4.50, 4.60, 4.70 and 4.81.

We will not go into any speculation regarding the motives concerning any deliberate amendment to the properties of the document, made by utilizing some special programme, but rather concern ourselves with the unmistakeable facts, which are in this instance unambiguous. While the motives can be speculated about for hours, it is enough to speak about the facts for just a couple of minutes. The motive, let everyone look for themselves.

If this court case with the Tsarnaev brothers was fabricated, in no way would it surprise us, as from the point of view of The United States of America it would not be, even in error, the first of such cases (How to Start a War: The American Use of War Pretext Incidents. and probably even September 11, 2001). Similar actions on their own conscience had, for example, Israel (Ex-Mossad agent: Israel uses ‘false flag’ in most operations to avoid suspicion in Arab states. : Mossad 'Regularly' Faked Australian Passports, False Flag, Israel honors Jewish terrorists who attacked America – Israeli President calls them “heroes”, The Lavon Affair: When Israel Firebombed U.S. Installations), SS units from Nazi Germany (Gleiwitz incident), probably even Great Britain in the case of July 7, 2005 and such like. However we do not have information about similar incidents on the conscience of, for example, non-democratic states such as North Korea, Iran, Syria and the like.

Since it is far too early to undertake any possible summarization of the official and unofficial version of events surrounding the Boston attack, similarly as in the case of September 11, 2001 and July 7, 2005, we can at least in the meantime recommend thorough reading of the article Are the Boston Marathon Bombings Tied to a New American Campaign into the Caucasus?.

The war in Ukraine

(Czech article added on March 24, 2014; english translation added on April 27, 2014.)

At the end of November 2013 the Ukrainian government declined to sign an affiliation agreement with the European Union and instead took up a Russian offer which, for Ukraine, was much more favorable.[Putin Pledges Billions, Cheaper Gas To Yanukovych] However this did not appeal to many inhabitants, in particularly those from the western part of Ukraine, the pro-western Ukrainian opposition, and many western politicians. Subsequently demonstrations began in the streets, against the Ukrainian government.

The demonstrations on the streets of Kiev quickly grew into violent unrest. They escalated into the damaging and burning of cars, the setting fire of some state buildings, and into attacks upon the police services. Everyone should certainly watch the following videos in order to obtain a better understanding regarding the course of the majority of demonstrations (Hell in Ukraine: Berkut officer says 18-year-old soldier crucified by protesters, Cops on fire as Molotov cocktails flare, flash and bang over Kiev.).

From our point of view, the Ukrainian police showed an admirable measure of tolerance towards the very aggressive behavior of the demonstrators. We would not be so tolerant, not even in error. How they would handle such demonstrators in the USA was aptly described by American military analyst Richard Rozoff. According to him these demonstrators “would be sweeping their brains off the street for the next day” (Ukraine: sick fascist filth and gangland violence as political opposition – Rick Rozoff), i.e. in “democratic” and “free” America they would very quickly be shot. During the demonstrations, in total around 100 people on both sides were killed and approximately 1,500 people were injured.[Death Toll From Unrest in Ukraine Rises to 103] Several demonstrators as well as policemen died due to gunshot wounds. From the bugging of a telephone conversation between Catherine Ashton (High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission) and Urmas Paet (Estonian Minister of Foreign Affairs) it emerges that snipers in co-operation with the Ukrainian opposition shot not only policemen but also demonstrators.["Behind The Kiev Snipers It Was Somebody From The New Coalition" - A Stunning New Leak Released and Leaked Telephone Conversation: Ukraine Sniper Killings of “Opposition Protesters” Ordered by “Opposition Leaders”, Blamed on Yanukovych : The leaders of EuroMaidan ordered the shooting of their own supporters] Already at the end of January, meaning approximately one month prior to the rampaging opposition snipers, or the snipers assisting the Ukrainian opposition (Unknown Snipers and Western backed “Regime Change” : A Historical Review and Analysis), there were already indications that these fighters for “justice”, “freedom”, “democracy” and “human rights” could be a danger for the demonstrators.[Ukrainian MP says NATO sniper could kill Kiev protester] As the general public did not have any inkling regarding the “work” of the snipers, it was easy to accuse the Ukrainian police of these horrific actions. It is impossible to claim that the Ukrainian police forces would not be responsible for some, however most likely it is the opposition themselves that were behind the greater amount of fatal and other gun injuries.[Protesters in Kiev were shot at from Maidan's commandant's office – Russia's UN envoy, Snipers shot people from buildings, controlled by Maidan protestors – Ukraine's ex-security chief, Latest reports about Kiev 'snipers' affair' cannot be 'swept under carpet' – Lavrov, A Distorted Lens Justifying An Illegitimate Ukrainian Government : Why does Western media ignore critical information about the snipers that killed Euromaidan protesters in Ukraine?, Ukraine Sniper Attacks Were a “False Flag” Operation. Who is the Culprit? : Who Stood to Gain from a False Flag Operation?, Snipers who shot at demonstrators in Kiev identified as Ukrainian citizens]

From the information available to us, we deduce that, with help from the West, a well-organized and violent coup took place in Ukraine (refer to articles for examples USAID got Maidan coup up and running – media, The Road to Moscow Goes Through Kiev: A Coup d’Etat That Threatens Russia and Ukraine revolt ‘an anti-constitutional coup and armed seizure of power’ – Putin). To the version of a western organized coup also contributed the declaration of Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs) regarding American investment in Ukraine to the value of $5 000 000 000 (Victoria Nuland Admits: US Has Invested $5 Billion In The Development of Ukrainian, "Democratic Institutions") and almost certainly her interview with Geoffrey Pyatt, American Ambassador in Ukraine (Washington’s Response to Leaked Victoria Nuland Call Confirms US-EU Regime-Change Plot in Ukraine). It is then fully reasonable to pose the question, why would a country which is swamped in debts, support a coup in another country with such a sum of money if it had nothing to gain from it? With respect to the above mentioned facts, it is possible that published emails (concerning the organizing of a state coup in Ukraine) between Vitali Klitschko, a member of the Ukrainian opposition, and an advisor to the President of Lithuania could be authentic.[Anonymous Ukraine Klitschko e-mails and Nuland/Pyatt dialogue prove US-backed coup] After all, American involvement in the Ukrainian coup would definitely not be anything surprising. The United States has well documented experiences with state coups in countries which did not have or do not have a noticeable pro-American way of thinking.[CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup : Declassified documents describe in detail how US – with British help – engineered coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq, A Timeline of CIA Atrocities, Covert United States foreign regime change actions, US-Backed Coup Hijacks Egypt’s RevolutionHow to Start a War: The American Use of War Pretext Incidents]

Right away the West had several reasons for the state coup. If Ukraine fell under western influence, NATO could quickly establish military bases there and in particularly could situate ballistic missile defense systems, planes and a war fleet next to the Russian border. The reason of an American ballistic missile defense in Europe, quite obviously, is not protection against the practically non-existent Iranian or North Korean threat, but protection against Russian rockets (explained in our article called US Air Defense). The West, among others, would also welcome full control over the Ukrainian economy (The Looting Of Ukraine Has Begun) and its raw material resources (2011 Minerals Yearbook : The Mineral Industry of Ukraine). It is certainly worth mentioning that in Ukraine the value of the main verified deposits of 97 types of minerals exceeds $7.5 trillion, i.e. $7 500 000 000 000, and as far as the earth’s precious minerals are concerned then the resources in Ukraine are the largest in Europe.[National Atlas of Ukraine : Mineral Resources] Amongst others, from our article called The war in Afghanistan it arises that the estimated value of discovered mineral deposits in Afghanistan is approximately 2.5 times smaller than in Ukraine. It is also good to stress the fact that the industry is concentrated mainly in the eastern half of Ukraine, as well as the majority of mineral deposits.[Map of Industrial Production in Ukraine ]

Ukrainians could express their disapproval with the government (which signed an agreement with Russia including much more advantageous conditions than those offered by the European Union) in the subsequent parliamentary elections, or by some other legal method as is the custom in democratic countries amongst which Ukraine certainly belonged prior to the coup. Instead a section of dissatisfied citizens decided in favor of a violent solution. If foreign countries perform or back such an activity, it is an interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, which is a blatant breach of Public International Law and, in addition, such behavior has nothing in common with the principles of democracy. The more radical demonstrators were very well prepared for the protest campaign. During the demonstration they often came armed and frequently used Molotov Cocktails (incendiary bottles). It must have been quite obvious to the more radical demonstrators who threw incendiary bottles at practically unarmed policemen that by doing so they could cause serious injuries or even the death of the policemen and we can presume that they were aware of the consequences of their actions. The behavior of these demonstrators could immediately satisfy several categorized features of criminal acts according to Czech criminal law, primarily, for example, attacking public officials, injury to health, criminal conspiracy, property damage, threatening behavior, disorderly conduct etc. The behavior of many of them could even be enough to be classed as terrorism. It is then a question whether we want to endorse or support such behavior?

The unrest in Ukraine finished practically at the same moment as when, following the fall of the government, President Yanukovych was forced to leave Ukraine. At that time a new Ukrainian government gradually began to form, of which some of its members have both a poor reputation as well as some interesting collaborators who think of themselves as being the law.[Ukraine: “Thugs R Us”. Western-Backed Extremists’ Intimidation Techniques, If the Ukraine was the USA what would happen? and Moscow court arrests in absentia Ukrainian Right Sector leader Yarosh] With an armed state coup, as a rule, dictatorial or nationalist regimes get to power and therefore a new Ukrainian government, of which some members achieved power on the back of violating several laws, will obviously not be completely ideal for the Ukrainian people. The members of the newly formed Ukrainian government will evidently be interested only in their own power and not in the welfare of the people. In the case of Ukraine, it can be clearly illustrated that legitimate elections are in fact unimportant. Instead of spending a large amount of money on an election campaign, it is completely sufficient to arrange (with foreign assistance) a state coup and consequently people with very dubious past histories can easily get to power.[BBC Now Admits: Armed Nazis Led “Revolution” in Kiev, Ukraine, New Kiev authorities violate human rights - European observers, The Fascist Danger in Ukraine. Resurgence of Neo-Nazism Denied by Western Media, The Neoliberal Neo-Nazi Coup in Ukraine. The World is at a Dangerous Crossroads : GRTV Feature Interview with Michel Chossudovsky, The Neo-Nazi Question in Ukraine. Washington Is Bolstering “Shadowy Forces”, Dozens Killed in Ukraine, EU and Washington Supporting Ultra-Right Groups to Overturn Elected Yanukovych Government, Is the US backing Neo-Nazis in Ukraine? : John McCain and other state department members have troubling ties to the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party, Report: Ukraine’s Right Sector Leader Urges Terror Attacks on Russia : Tells Chechen Militant Crimea Is a 'Unique Chance' to Strike] Western support of such a formed government can have an unfortunate influence upon Public International Law.[West Plunges International Law Into Crisis: Leading Russian MP] However a much greater problem is that in no way did the West denounce the actions of the extremists whose behavior could even be described as terrorist. From this it can be logically concluded that the West already openly supports and approves of terrorism, if it is in their own interest. As long as the given countries do not have any strategic or other fundamental advantages for the West and its allies, then there is no significant intervention into them (Rwanda for example). Many people could then point out that the Axis of Evil in the world is obviously formed by the USA, Israel, Great Britain, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, … but not by Russia, China, Iran, Syria, … We perceive aggressive foreign policy on the side of the USA, Israel, Great Britain, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc. as the biggest threat to world peace. It is interesting that American foreign policy regarding Ukraine is criticized not only by more and more famous Americans (for examples see articles Ron Paul defends Putin over Crimea referendum, Escalating Crisis in Ukraine: Obama Comes Out Against Self-Determination for Crimea), but also for example by American non-governmental organizations (US non-governmental organization start campaign against humanitarian aid for Kiev).

While a new Ukrainian government was elected in Kiev on February 27, 2014 (Yatsenyuk Government), in the Crimean town of Simferopol a local parliament building was occupied by around 120 people (Pro-Russian Gunmen Seize Ukraine Crimean Parliament; Russia Puts Jets On High Alert; Hryvnia In Record Plunge), who we think were Russian soldiers. Over the course of the following days, Russian soldiers from a naval base in Sevastopol were deployed into the Crimean peninsula and began taking up strategic positions within Crimea. The distribution of Russian soldiers over the Crimean peninsula caused an almost copybook example of a hysterical reaction amongst many western politicians. It must have been a strongly traumatizing event, so they lost their nerve and immediately began to threaten Russia with various sanctions, the impact of which they evidently did not consider. The Russians hardly took the Western threats into consideration and proceeded in the deployment of soldiers into Crimea. In the middle of March a referendum in Crimea took place in which it was decided that Crimea would be connected to the Russian Federation. Voting proceeded completely in the correct manner and without any presence of Russian soldiers in the polling stations. Consequently the people decided completely freely. When the official results were announced on March 17, 2014 some interesting information came to light. Not only had the local Russians voted towards joining Russia but also a significant section of the Ukrainians and Tartars.[What the Western Media Won’t Tell You: Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians Also Voted to Join Russia : "On the 16th of March We Choose" neo-Nazi Ukraine "Or" Russia, With 100 % ballots counted, 96.77% of Crimeans vote to re-unite with Russia - Crimean election chief] Over the following days after announcing the result of the referendum, Ukrainian military units based on the Crimean peninsula gradually began to align to Russian command (Putin orders to recognize military ranks of Ukrainian officers transferring to serve in Russia) and on March 22, 2014 the last military bases under Ukrainian control in Crimea was lost (2,000 out of 18,000 Ukrainian Troops to Leave Crimea).

From the fall of the Soviet Union in late 1991 (Soviet Union), NATO began to spread like the plague. Countries from Middle and Eastern Europe (which were under Russian influence during the Cold War) were the first to fall under its dominance. The process of enlarging NATO was accelerated following the alleged Al-Qaeda attacks against the USA on September 11, 2001 (more information is for example in our articles September 11, 2001 and September 11, 2001 – the unofficial Version). In short, NATO has begun to tighten a noose around Russia over the past 20 years.[US Control over Ukraine and the Encirclement of Russia: A Longstanding Strategic Objective : Obama’s Former Foreign Policy Adviser Said – In 1997 – that the U.S. Had to Gain Control of Ukraine, The Backstory to the Russia-Ukraine Confrontation: The US-NATO Encirclement of Russia, Ukraine and NATO’s Eastern Expansion: The “Containment” of Post Soviet Russia] The process of extending NATO is illustrated quite well by the picture called RUSSIA WANTS WAR. While in foreign countries Russia has only a few military bases (out of which the overall majority lie in former Soviet republics) (List of Russian military bases abroad), the USA have maybe over 1,000 of them across the world (The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases : The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel, Military mystery: How many bases does the US have, anyway?), which is roughly 70–100 times more. In order to succeed in tightening the noose around Russia, it is still necessary to occupy Syria, Iran, and of course, Ukraine.

In Crimean Sevastopol, over a long-term period the Russians had hired a naval base from Ukraine which formed and still forms the main base location of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. It is certainly not necessary in any way to stress how important this base is for Russian national security. We assume that the Russian aim was not so much about the protection of its fellow countrymen on the Crimean peninsula, rather than preventing a NATO led army from entering this strategically important area. Following its election, our opinion is that a new pro-western Ukrainian government could practically invite NATO forces into Ukraine immediately and according to us, precisely this circumstance proved to be the trigger mechanism for Russian forces entering the Crimea. As there is sufficient evidence to claim that an American ballistic missile defense in Europe would be constructed exclusively to be against Russia, it is clear that if it happened to be also located in Ukraine, especially with the flight of predominantly American planes, it would represent a very serious threat to the Russian Federation. If American participation in Ukraine was also supported by American ships primarily in Sevastopol, i.e. American warships would be there practically in the close vicinity of the Russian ships, then it would mean a direct danger for Russia. According to us, it would be completely unacceptable for the Russians to undertake such a risk and they practically did not have any other choice other than to enter the Crimea (about the West pushing Russia into a corner we wrote in the article The world on the precipice). Under no circumstances will Russia allow Ukraine to enter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – NATO (West is actually responsible for the crisis in Ukraine - political analyst, Russia says Ukraine's NATO membership impossible) and neither will they allow the West to place its soldiers and military resources in Ukraine.

According to information contained in the article Crimean leaders blame Kiev for selling Ukraine off for IMF loans from March 9, 2014, it appears that Russian concerns regarding the locating of components (not only of an American ballistic missile defense), in Ukraine were justified. In this article, amongst others, it mentions that Kiev promised the Americans an area close to Kharkiv for the positioning of an American ballistic missile defense system and for American planes in order to protect said system (note: it is quite usual that something is already promised on the basis of some previous request, and therefore it is possible to suppose that the Americans asked the new Ukrainian government about this area because of strategical reasons). Of course the Americans would not only protect this system with the help of planes but they would have to position there also components of an air defense, and in addition to this, at least one radar. It can be assumed that the Americans could also place there other military resources. It is correct to note that Kharkiv is roughly situated in the northeast of Ukraine, close to the Russian border. We envisage a Russian military exercise lasting until the end of March, close to the northeastern and eastern Ukrainian border as a warning towards Ukraine to think over any further steps very carefully.[After Annexing Crimea, Russian Troops Are Piling Up By The East Ukraine Border and Russian Armed Forces intensify battle drills in areas bordering Ukraine - Defense Ministry] Russia has evidently decided, prompted by the protection of its national security, to prevent NATO forces from entering Ukraine by any possible means. It is possible that NATO will try to acquire the promised base around Kharkiv in this way, by sending several combat planes in order to determine whether the Russians will stay behind the border with Ukraine, or whether they will attack such a base. If the Russians do not react to such provocation, NATO could set this base up within a relatively short period and by doing so, further contribute to the surrounding of the Russian Federation. According to us, the Russians will not allow such a threat and they would either attack this base or they would surround it and force it, sooner or later, to capitulate. In all probability NATO would not go to war with Russia because of this step. The Russians then, under such circumstances, would likely occupy the whole of Ukraine and by doing so they would thwart practically all the plans, with respect to Ukraine, held by the West. We are of the opinion that even gaining total control over Ukraine from the side of Russia would probably not lead to the start of a third world war. Its start we expect following the outbreak of war in the Middle East, meaning in July or August 2014. Of course it is possible that the situation in Ukraine could escalate also differently, however the main direction of world developments we expect to be the same as we described it at the beginning of December 2013, i.e. during May–June we anticipate a rapid increase in world tensions, in July the beginning of war in the Middle East, in July–August the spreading of the conflict to Central Asia and the Far East, in August–September the spreading of war to essentially the majority of the world, and in October or November the end of the war. If some unexpected change in world events fails to occur then a deviation in our anticipated scenario could be in the region of roughly plus or minus one month.

People often think that the American army is the best in the world. We definitely don’t think so and we form the opinion that if, at this current time, a war took place between only the USA and Russia, using all available weapons, then Russia with a probability of approximately 70–80 % would win it. If a war took place, again with the use of all available weapons, between only the NATO organization and the Russian Federation, even then, in such as case, Russia would stand a decent chance, let’s say around 50–60 %, of winning. It is necessary though to realize that in a world war there would not be only Russia and NATO against each other but also their allies. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, Australia, … would be on the side of NATO, whilst on the Russian side would be countries such as China, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, … It is good to realize that for a long time the Russian army has not been what it used to be in the 90s of the 20th century. Since then it has undertaken significant modernization which they prefer not to mention, so that people are held in the illusion that NATO is unbeatable. With respect to the development of Russian military hardware, we recommend watching a Russian documentary series called Ударная сила (Strike Force). This documentary film provides information mainly about current Russian military hardware. It is certainly worth mentioning that a significant amount of published information remained top secret prior to the release of this documentary series. Those who do not understand the Russian language can at least read some of the following articles in English, in order to get a basic outline of some first-class Russian weapons (Voennoe Delo: S-300V vs Patriot! (English Subtitles), S-300 system-to-air missile system: NATO’s worst nightmare, S-400 Vs Patriot Missile System, S-400 (SA-20) Triumf, Russia's Shkval Rocket Torpedo is 3 to 4 Times Faster than Anything Else..., Torpedo technology).

We believe that the West should refrain from criticizing Russia over the violation of Public International Law, until the West itself becomes an ideal role model. For example, the United States of America break Public International Law every single day, similarly Israel do likewise, in what the western world terms democratic behavior. We call it undemocratic or criminal behavior. Incidentally, when mentioning this western “democracy”, it is good to highlight a press conference about Ukraine held in the White House on March 12, 2014, to which access was denied for Russian journalists (US banned Russian journalists from Obama-Yatsenyuk meeting for fear of asking 'undesirable' questions – Moscow) or the order from Barack Hussein Obama (R.I.P. Freedom of Speech? Obama Bans Critics of Ukraine Coup From Entering U.S. : Executive order suspends entry rights of anyone who “undermines” Ukrainian “democracy”, Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine) affecting those who fail to hold the same opinion about the events in Ukraine as do “free” and “democratic” America (incidentally, a nice compilation of the breaking of fundamental rights by “democratic” America is in the article The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2013 : Full Text of the People's Republic of China Report). There is so much evidence of the almost daily Western and Israeli crimes that is it impossible to mention them here, however it is enough for example to keep an eye on the updated (by us) global news about world events. Where ever the Western military has entered, chaos and destruction followed. In devastated conquered territories pro-western “puppet” governments have always been established and occupied countries have experienced the Western concept of democracy. If the West gained control over Russia undoubtedly it would be divided into small parts which would be easy to manipulate and could never threaten the West and in these small parts their extensive mineral wealth would be gradually plundered. Russia is perhaps the only country in the world which as for raw materials is fully self-sufficient. For Russian national security Ukraine is therefore absolutely crucial and basically the Russians, did not have any other choice. The majority of people would perhaps act in a similar manner being in an identical position as the Russians, if they had the same information as the Russians have. Even the Americans would behave at least in a similar manner (but probably a lot more emphatically) if, for example, the Russians overthrew the Canadian government, installed there a government connected amongst others with neo-Nazis, would then begin to negotiate with it regarding the question of establishing a Russian military base there including missiles, planes, radar, air defense systems and such and all this only a few tens of kilometers (miles) away from the border with the USA.

Within the foreseeable future the West will provide Ukraine with interest bearing loans. The USA offers 1 billion dollars (House Passes $1 Billion in Loan Guarantees to Aid Ukraine) and the European Union 1.4 billion dollars (EU adds $1.4 billion to Ukrainian aid after political deal signed). However it is possible that this financial sum will be used to settle Ukrainian obligations towards Russia and even other relevant countries such as China for example (China Takes Sides: Sues Ukraine For $3bn Loan Repayment).

Initially, the imposition of economic sanctions against Russia to many western politicians appeared to be very simple, however gradually over the course of time, it started to become clear how much they were mistaken. Massive economic sanctions against Russia could mean taking a suicide step for the West. As a retaliatory measure, if Russia imposed the maximum possible economic sanctions against the West, then the West would have a huge problem. If China sided with Russia, which can be supposed, then the West would not have a huge problem, but an existential problem. It is possible that other countries belonging to the BRICS organization, i.e. India, Brazil, and the Republic of South Africa, could join too. At this moment India takes a neutral stance (India not to support Western sanction against Russia) likewise some former Soviet states, Venezuela etc.

Russia has several ways how to respond to western sanctions. For example, just closing the Russian market to western companies would be felt considerably by the West because it would suffer from a greater loss than would Russia.[Western businesses would suffer the most if US imposes sanctions on Russia – economists, EU sanctions against Russia will hit Latvia most — Latvian minister] If Russia halted oil and gas deliveries to the West, then the Eastern European countries in particular within several weeks would find themselves in a situation very difficult to solve given as they are fully dependent upon Russian oil and gas deliveries.[Europe fears its dependency on Russian natural gas as U.S, EU sanctions near, Natural Gas in Europe − The Importance of Russia, Russia in the European energy sector] Even though these countries have emergency stockpiles of oil and gas for around 2–3 months, still, perhaps after several days or after a few weeks at the most they would already start to restrict supplies of these raw materials to the general public in order to ensure primarily the function of the police, fire service, rescue service, army, post office and transport companies as a priority. Such restrictions would quickly lead to an increase in the majority of prices. People in these countries would quickly reduce the demand for the more luxurious goods and services. The import of foreign goods would be very restricted which would have a belated effect upon the income of the countries from which the specific goods would be imported under normal circumstances. Under these circumstances more and more companies would become bankrupt, leading to a spiral effect amongst the economy, consequently more people would be without work, they would do less shopping and because of this more companies would go bankrupt. If Russia did not turn off the taps, they might request payment for oil and gas in roubles, in gold, and such like, which would considerably depreciate the value of the dollar (Forget Russia Dumping U.S. Treasuries … Here’s the REAL Economic Threat) and euro and would have serious impacts primarily upon the western economy. If Russia resorted only to selling the American bonds (Putin Advisor Threatens With Dumping US Treasurys, Abandoning Dollar If US Proceeds With Sanctions), which they own, for example, by doing that they could initiate a chain reaction consisting in particularly of countries possessing a similar view who would proceed to get rid of American bonds too. China presumably would quickly and gladly join in and this collective action could rapidly cause the collapse of the American dollar (Russia And China Stand In Agreement On Ukraine – And That Is Very Bad News For The United States, Russia Threatens To Abandon The U.S. Dollar And Start Dumping U.S. Debt), and with it in fact the collapse of the whole western economy. This step would also create a fall in the Japanese economy given as Japan hold large investments in American bonds.[MAJOR FOREIGN HOLDERS OF TREASURY SECURITIES, This surprising chart shows which countries own the most U.S. debt] Such a massive sale of American bonds the majority of extremely debt-ridden pro-western orientated countries would not be able to face, given as for buying these bonds they would not have the financial means. The dollar would experience a head-long fall.

Theoretically, sanctions against Russia may accelerate Chinese plans regarding the introduction of a gold backed Chinese currency, the yuan, out of which a world reserve currency could be created (Does China plan to use gold to internationalize the yuan?, China Looks Set To Introduce Gold-Backed New World Reserve Currency, The Golden China Yuan Currency Is Coming – Here's How to Play It), replacing the dollar, which, with respect to being gold backed, it is pointless to speak. Serious doubts exist regarding whether the USA have any gold at all in the central bank.[Federal Reserve: “They Do Not Have Any More Gold”. Paul Craig Roberts, Is Germany's Gold Housed in New York, Paris and London All Gone?, “Monkey Business” Surrounding the Repatriation of Germany’s Gold Stored at the NY Federal Reserve Bank., U.S. Dollar Collapse: Where is Germany’s Gold?, Germany Has Recovered A Paltry 5 Tons Of Gold From The NY Fed After One Year] Countries which undermined the dollar, were bombed during the so-called fight against terrorism, by which they were forced to correct their “bad decision”. Detailed information is contained in our articles The war in Iraq and The war in Libya. China, however, can afford this step, as it has a strong ally backing it up.

It is good to stress that China has under its control approximately 95 % of the world’s mineral business, meaning also the majority of trade in rare earth minerals.[China Is Said to Resume Shipping Rare Earth Minerals] If China suspends the sale mainly of rare earth minerals to the West and Japan, this practically would lead to the halt of almost the entire Western and Japanese production industries, and that would probably occur as early as within several weeks to a few months.

Evidently Russia and China could, economically, quite easily and quickly place the USA in line with poorer under-developed countries. The problem is that the USA would never become reconciled with the thought that they would become a poorer under-developed country whilst their arch-enemies would avoid such a fate. We suppose they would rather initiate a world war and plan on taking over the world under any pretext (quite possibly even under a fabricated one) than to surrender their powerful position. Relating to economic measures, the Americans would have to start to wind down their foreign bases, which they have been building up since the Second World War. Such an image for them would be unacceptable. If by chance NATO won a third world war, the Americans would become masters of the world and would then not only take control of the entire raw material wealth on the planet…

The inhabitants of Crimea will now probably markedly improve their standing compared to the inhabitants of Ukraine, who now face hard times given as their new self-proclaimed government sold them out to the West (Regime Change in Ukraine and the IMF’s Bitter “Economic Medicine”). We congratulate Crimea on its separation from Ukraine.

We believe that Russia has already made a decision – he who understands what we mean, the better for him…


We have briefly described at least some of the world events. We could similarly deal with the war in Yugoslavia (1999), the war in Georgia (2008), the American missile defense in Europe, Operation Ajax, Operation Mongoose, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the following entry of the United States of America into the Vietnam War, etc. As for the war in Yugoslavia, we recommend to watch the “undesirable” documentary titled Stolen Kosovo. There were, and still are difficulties with having it broadcast. This film says more than any text would be able to…

We have shown that there is a large discrepancy between official and unofficial information. Unofficial sources are not subject to censorship. If we take at least ten minutes to think about and understand the information provided above, the better for us. We can spare ourselves many problems. If we do not get to understand this information now, we will certainly understand it later. It is suitable to point out that mere understanding of the above-described facts is but half success. If we are unable to practically apply the information, then it is just “dead” information for us.

Let us not look for complexity where there is none. Let us rely on our common sense more often and put events into context. Going after insignificant information will not get us anywhere. It is a mere waste of time and energy. Better to spend five minutes every three days following and evaluating essential information than spending an hour every day dealing with garbage. Irrelevant information will help neither ourselves nor the people dear to us.