Tehran under Israeli attack, June 13, 2025

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced the commencement of Operation “Lion’s Courage”, the goal of which is to eliminate Iran’s nuclear enrichment and weaponization infrastructure. Netanyahu and his senior military commanders have indicated that this operation will take weeks to complete.

A key part of the strike appeared to be aimed at decapitating senior Iranian leadership in both the military and military industry who were linked to Iran’s nuclear program. Israel claimed that it had in its possession new intelligence which indicated Iran was preparing to bring to fruition a nuclear weapons capability. This intelligence, Israel claims, was behind the decision to strike now, even as the United States was engaged in ongoing negotiations with Iran about how to reduce concerns about the nuclear weapons potential of Iran while enabling uranium enrichment operations to continue.

More details about what exactly Israel struck in this initial wave of attacks will undoubtedly be forthcoming. Initial reports suggest that, in addition to the decapitation strikes, Israel struck air defense and communications facilities, nuclear enrichment facilities at Natanz and Firdos, ballistic missile production facilities at Parchin, a ballistic missile operations base at Piranshahr, and other facilities of a similar nature.

Iran is its own worst enemy

For the past few months, Iran has been posturing itself as a nuclear threshold state. While Iran has every right, as a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), to possess the ability to enrich uranium as part of a peaceful nuclear program monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it does not have any legal right to pursue a nuclear weapons capability so long as it remains a signatory to the NPT. Iran’s accumulation of uranium enriched to 60%, for which there was no legitimate purpose linked to Iran’s declared nuclear activities, was a deliberate act by Iran to position itself to be within one enrichment cycle of possessing uranium enriched to around 92%, which would be usable in a fission weapon.

Iranian IR-6 centrifuges

Iran likewise has been installing advanced IR-6 centrifuge cascades, which are orders of magnitude more efficient when it comes to the enrichment of uranium, at its underground enrichment facility at Firdos. These cascades would be able to convert Iran’s 60% enriched uranium to weapons grade uranium within a matter of days, providing Iran with fissile material sufficient for 3-5 nuclear weapons.

Iranian military industry has, over the course of the past decade, mastered all the technologies necessary to produce a warhead possessing advanced electronics and other heat-sensitive properties that can withstand the heat of hypersonic re-entry. These warhead design characteristics are an essential part of any viable nuclear weapons delivery capability—simply producing a fission device is not enough; one must be able to deliver it to the intended target.

The one thing which held Iran back was the official decision taken by the Iranian leadership that nuclear weapons were forbidden under existing Islamic jurisprudence, namely a fatwa, or edict, issued by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, which deemed nuclear weapons incompatible with the principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

But Iran has made this principled stance meaningless in recent months as statements from senior Iraqi officials, advisors, and politicians have made it clear that this fatwa prohibiting nuclear weapons could be reversed if the Islamic Republic were to be faced with an existential threat from a nuclear-armed Israel.

In short, Iran has positioned itself to be a nuclear weapons threshold state.

And this would never be allowed to stand, a reality Israel’s ongoing strikes have emphatically punctuated.

What next?

The escalation genie, unfortunately, is out of the bottle.

Iran is now in a “use it or lose it” reality, where the nuclear weapons threshold capacity it has acquired will either need to be rapidly converted into a viable nuclear weapons capability, or else it will be diminished and/or eliminated through the ongoing attrition of Israeli strikes.

Having promised that it would withdraw from the NPT if its nuclear facilities were attacked, Iran has no choice but to now follow through on this threat.

Failure to do so would be seen as an act of surrender by the Iranian regime, something which could serve as the predicate for regime change.

The question then is whether Israel’s attacks have achieved the requisite level of destruction necessary to prevent Iran from rapidly acquiring nuclear weapons. The key for Israel at this juncture is to provoke Iran into withdrawing from the NPT and beginning the process of acquiring weapons capability. This act by Iran will trigger the United States, which has distanced itself from Israel’s initial airstrikes, and Europe, whose major nations (Great Britain, France, and Germany) have articulated that Iran will never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, to become involved in the military strikes against Iran.

To do this, Israel must delay the Iranian move toward building a bomb. This is done not by destroying the deeply buried enrichment facilities—a task beyond the conventional capabilities of both Israel and the United States—but rather by killing senior leadership and management in Iran’s military and military industry upper ranks, and destroying critical infrastructure used by Iran to manufacture the various components essential to the manufacture of a nuclear weapon and its ballistic missile delivery systems.

The Natanz enrichment facility

The combination of such attacks would logically be designed to sow chaos and uncertainty in an Iranian nuclear weapons program that had, because of the political atmosphere that existed prior to the Israeli attacks, not yet come together as a viable, formal entity. Had Israel waited another week, the Iranians would likely have been able to pull the disparate parts of their threshold nuclear weapons program together into a formal structure possessing resilience, redundance, and reliability.

It seems that Israel has targeted and killed many of the senior Iranian officials who would have been at the center of the coalescing effort needed to bring a nuclear weapons program to manifestation. Iran will need to regroup from a technical standpoint, even as its leadership creates the political foundation for the existence of a nuclear weapons program to be formally instituted.

If Israel achieved the desired results from its strike on Iran, this regrouping will take time, and time is not on Iran’s side.

Iran has promised a massive retaliation against Israel and any nation which supported an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Iranian missile launches, True Promise 2, October 2, 2024

If Iran fails to launch such an attack, for whatever reason (lack of capacity, lack of political will, or both), then it creates a window of opportunity for diplomacy to rear its ugly head and impose a ceasefire which locks in Israeli gains while opening Iran up to international inspections of both its nuclear enrichment and ballistic missile production infrastructure—in short, a huge Israeli victory and devastating Iranian defeat.

If Iran does seek to finalize a nuclear weapons program, then it invites participation by both the United States and Europe.

And this may have been the Israeli objective all along.

Moreover, while President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have tried to distance themselves from this act of Israeli military aggression, there are elements within the Trump administration and the US Congress (Senator Lyndsey Graham for one) that are openly supportive of the Israeli actions against Iran.

The fact of the matter is that the United States has provided Israel with tacit permission to strike Iran, both in terms of helping shape the geopolitical reality necessary to deem the Israeli action reasonable (uniting the Gulf Arab nations in the face of perceived Iranian aggression, and getting the IAEA Board of Governors to pass a resolution accusing Iran of violating its safeguard obligations under the NPT), and buying Israel time to perfect its target deck by engaging Iran in nuclear negotiations. These negotiations were presented as legitimate, but were little more than a effort on the part of the United States to provoke Iranian behavior that would be monitored by US and EU/NATO intelligence assets to generate targets to be struck by Israel.

Regime change, not disarmament

Current reporting suggests Iran may declare war on Israel.

Such a declaration would transform this conflict into an existential struggle between a nation, Israel, which has been sold to the American public as a staunch ally of the United States, and another, Iran, which has from the very inception of the Islamic Republic been viewed as a mortal enemy.

There is no doubt as to which side the US will take.

This means that eventually—sooner rather than later—the United States will throw its military might in with Israel to achieve the strategic defeat of Iran.

“Strategic defeat” is a euphemism for regime change.

Iran had one opportunity to prevent this inevitable, and predictable, outcome—to negotiate a new nuclear deal with the United States that verifiably eliminated Iran’s status as a nuclear weapons threshold state.

Rather than locking the US into a deal, however, Iran allowed the process to be dragged out, thereby allowing itself to be trapped by a process that was never intended to produce a finalized deal, but always to buy time for Israel to be able to deliver its knockout blow.

Today Iran has only one chance at survival.

It must be understood that Iran will never be permitted to possess a nuclear weapon.

Should it now seek to do so, Iran will be physically destroyed.

The solution to Iran’s nuclear program, however, cannot be allowed to be provided through military intervention by Israel and/or the United States.

Instead, Iran must deliver extremely harsh blows against the state of Israel, strikes so utterly devastating that Israel has no choice but to plead for the United States to step in a broker a peace deal.

Iranian missiles inbound to Israel, October 2, 2024

And the foundation of this peace deal must be the normalization of Iran’s nuclear program within the framework of the NPT.

Is such an outcome possible?

Yes.

But it will require the near destruction of Israel by Iran.

True Promise 3, the long awaited Iranian ballistic missile assault against Israel, has been threatened by Iran for many months now.

Iran must now execute this operation with perfection and decisiveness if it wants to survive.

Anything less will spell the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Subscribe now

Donate

Trump Watch is a new weekly “report card” on all things Trump hosted by Scott Ritter for paid subscribers only. Scott interviews one guest on one topic in each episode. In Episode Six, former CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson talks about the latest developments in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the history of the CIA, and how the agency operates today. This week’s episode is offered free of charge to everyone.

Share

Subscribe now

Give a gift subscription

Donate now

This week we have a special guest sit down with me in The Russia House—Pavel Balobanov, a Russian entrepreneur and my co-host for the upcoming US-Russia Citizen’s Summit.

Pavel and I discuss his background, what led him to organize this event, and the importance of dialogue in building good relations between Russians and Americans.

Given the importance of this issue, and my desire to publicize the US-Russia Citizen’s Summit as widely as possible, this edition of The Russia House will be published outside of the subscription paywall.

It will also be the debut video published on my new YouTube channel.

Subscribe to The Russia House with Scott Ritter here

Subscribe now

Donate now

We live in dangerous times. Now is the time for the people of the United States and Russia to set the example of how civil discourse and dialogue can pave the way for peace between our two nations.

On June 18, 2025, Americans and Russians from all walks of life will come together to engage in an act of “people’s diplomacy.” Whether seated in a theater in beautiful Saint Petersburg, or in the historic Mohican Hotel in downtown Kingston, New York, the participants will be doing what we collectively can only hope our respective leadership will do—engage their citizen counterparts in constructive dialogue which seeks to better relations between their two nations.

The 2025 Space Bridge/Citizen’s Summit takes place on the 40^th anniversary of the historic, groundbreaking 1985 "Leningrad-Seattle" Citizen’s Summit organized by two legendary journalists, Phil Donahue of the United States and Vladimir Pozner of the Soviet Union. The 1985 Space Bridge became the gold standard for citizen-to-citizen diplomacy, setting in motion numerous follow-on Citizen’s Summits that helped both nations navigate the troubled waters of the Cold War toward a path that led toward peaceful coexistence.

Like its 1985 predecessor, the 2025 Citizen’s Summit seeks to strengthen the dialogue between the civil society of our two countries and promote the idea of "people's diplomacy" – open dialogue, exchange of experience and establishment of cultural ties.

The Space Bridge aims to serve as a bridge between cultures, generations, and nations. The program will combine live discussions, cultural exchanges, historical reflection, and a forward-looking perspective. The main goal is to demonstrate that, despite differences, people can find common ground and understand each other.

The goals of the 2025 US-Russia Citizen’s Summit for Peace are as follows:

• Strengthen mutual understanding between Russian and American citizens.

• Demonstrate that, despite disagreements, people can find common language.

• Create a positive news story amid tense international relations.

By creating a space for an open dialogue where participants can discuss any topical and pressing issues, including those related to social, economic and cultural interaction, we can deepen understanding between Americans and Russians.

The Citizen’s Summit provides participants with the opportunity to share successful practices in democracy, civic participation and the protection of human rights, while assisting in the dissemination of cultural and educational initiatives that contribute to the strengthening of friendship between peoples.

The summit will also assist in the dissemination of cultural and educational initiatives that contribute to the strengthening of friendship between peoples, and in the process, help identify possible follow-on joint initiatives and projects involving the participants that can have a positive impact on the lives of citizens of both countries. The Citizen’s Summit will be more than just a dialogue between Americans and Russians—it will be a shared experience, one that hopefully expands beyond the respective forums in Saint Petersburg and Kingston, and resonates to every corner of both the United States and Russia, empowering all who witness it to join in on this joint venture to prove to ourselves and our leaders that, if given the chance, our two peoples can choose peace over war, prosperity over sanctions, and cooperation over confrontation.

The Hosts of the 2025 Spacebridge/Russia-USA Citizens Summit

My civic mission is to show the world the real Russia—not the version portrayed by Western media, but a nation defined by innovation and hospitality.

I am proud to be a Russian citizen, to drive innovation within our country by developing and bringing to market Russian products and services sought after both domestically and internationally, and of course, to lead this project.

I hope for a sincere dialogue between Russian and American citizens—essential for true progress—that unfolds not through the lens of media, but face to face. Like my fellow Russians, I have many questions for U.S. citizens, and I’m deeply curious to hear their responses.

In 1985, when the first Space Bridge took place, I was serving in the US Marines, preparing for a possible war with the Soviet Union. I viewed the dialogue between Americans and Russians with some interest, since it humanized people I had only previously viewed as my enemy.

Three years later I was able to participate in my own personal Space Bridge. I had been assigned to the Russian city of Votkinsk, where I served as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty. Over the course of two years, I had many conversations with the citizens of Votkinsk, after which I vowed never again to view the Russian people as my enemy.

I have traveled to Russia twice in the past two years, continuing the conversations I began more than 37 years ago. I watch as my country once again seeks to view Russia and its people as enemies of America and Americans. I am struck by the importance of simple dialogue among people as the key to building friendship between nations. I am proud to be able to help facilitate such dialogue today, as part of this project.

The Venue

The Mohican was originally a market and bakery located in Uptown Kingston’s historic Stockade District. Established in 1880, the Mohican moved to its current address in 1930. For decades it was a popular place for the citizens of Kingston to do their shopping.

The Mohican is surrounded by American history—across the street is the courthouse where John Jay, the first Supreme Court Justice of the United States, wrote the Constitution of New York State—a document which went on to comprise some 70% of the US Constitution. The New York Constitution was written in the summer of 1777, when the Uptown Stockade District served as the first capital of New York State. British troops occupied Kingston on October 3, 1777, and burned the city to the ground as punishment for providing succor and haven for the revolutionaries.

As Kingston fell into hard times in the 1980’s, businesses in the Uptown Stockade District shuttered their windows. The Mohican was not immune to these economic difficulties and was abandoned like many other old establishments. In 2002 the Mohican property was purchased by Gerald Celente, the Founder/Director of the Trends Research Institute and Publisher of the Trends Journal. Today the Mohican serves as the headquarters of the Trends Research Institute, and the home of Gerald’s annual “Occupy Peace and Freedom” rally.

The Mohican serves as the perfect venue for introducing a Russian audience to the real America—the country that exists in the vast space that separates Los Angeles, California and New York City. For the purposes of the 2025 Citizen’s Summit, the Mohican will be transformed into an idyllic slice of Americana, a café where the participants can enjoy some food and drinks while being entertained with live music in the lead-up to the event.

The Event

The 2025 Citizen’s Summit will be streamed live in both Russia and the United States. For the American audience, the event will be broadcast using Gerald Celente’s YouTube channel (@gcelente). We are planning to link in audiences from the so-called “Family of Podcasts” that have collaborated in the past on events such as this; more information about how one can watch the 2025 Citizen’s Summit will be published in the days leading up to the event.

The number of people who will be in the live audience is, because of the intimate nature of the Mohican venue, capped at 50 participants. We are looking for a diverse mix of participants who would be interested in asking questions to their Russian counterparts about life in Russia and answering questions from their Russian counterparts about life in the United States.

If you live in the vicinity of Kingston, and would like to attend, please send an email to Scott Ritter.

Include your name, age, gender, background/experience, and a brief paragraph on what you hope to accomplish by participating in the Citizen’s Summit. If you are selected, you will be sent a ticket to the email address from which you submitted your request.

You will need this ticket to get into the venue.

The doors will open at 12 noon, and there will be a buffet for food and a bar for refreshments. A band will be playing in the background. Take the opportunity to mingle and get to know your fellow attendees—you’ll be making history together!

Everyone should be seated and ready to go at 2 pm sharp, when the event begins. The Citizen’s Summit will last three hours and will include several cultural interludes where Russian and American musicians and singers will perform.

And for the next three hours your hosts will guide you through an interactive experience that hasn’t been seen in 40 years—a genuine Citizen’s Summit where Americans and Russians can get to know each other through dialogue and conversation.

The event is free of charge, including the buffet and non-alcoholic drinks.

However, nothing in this life is free, and donations are welcome to help offset the costs associated with pulling off an event of this scope and scale (a donation button is located at the bottom of this page.)

To those of you who will watch the 2025 Citizen’s Summit via the live stream, know you will be joining a community of millions who will be sharing this experience.

And for those of you who will be participating as audience members in this interactive adventure, soak in every minute, because you will be making history.

In any event, I look forward to seeing you all in Kingston, either in person or online, on June 18 for this historic event—the 2025 US-Russian Citizen’s Summit!

Share

Subscribe now

Donate now

Trump Watch is a new weekly “report card” on all things Trump hosted by Scott Ritter for paid subscribers only. Scott interviews one guest on one topic in each episode. In Episode Five, Dr. Ted Postol explains the dangers of nuclear war and critiques President Trump’s concept of a “Golden Dome.”

Give a gift subscription

Donate now

Read more

Subscribe now

A mother Killdeer tends to her eggs

I spend hours every day pouring through news reports and analysis of events transpiring around the world. Often, the information that comes across my desk represents the worst that humans can do to one another—war, famine, death, and destruction dominate the headlines. At times the negativity and sorrow these stories generate can become overwhelming. This is why I look forward to my morning walks with my dogs—it provides a much-needed opportunity to recharge my life batteries with the “good stuff”.

Every morning before the work day begins, my wife, Marina, and I load our four dogs—two Pomeranians (Maverick and Iceman), a Chihuahua (Machismo) and a mixed breed Shephard named Teegan—into our car and head to a local park where we can enjoy a stroll outdoors, surrounded by nature, while the dogs can roam and explore free of the constraints of a leash.

The Ritter dogs at the park: (left to right) Machismo, Iceman, Maverick and Teegan

The park is blessed with an extravaganza of flora and fauna native to upstate New York—we have crossed paths with deer, fox, skunks, rabbits, snakes, squirrels and chipmunks. It is also a favorite place for local Ornithologists to sharpen their birdwatching skills, as the park is home to numerous birds native to the region: American Bald Eagles, Red-Tailed Hawks, Ospreys and Great Horned Owls fly overhead, looking for prey, while Mallard, Wood Ducks, Green-Winged Teals, and Canadian Geese make their home along the banks and in the waters of the Normans Kill Creek. And all around us one can see Robins, Starlings, Sparrows, Cardinals, Red-Wing Blackbirds, Woodcocks, Crows and numerous other species of birds—including the Killdeer.

The Killdeer is a large Plover which makes its nest in short vegetation where the female can lay her clutch, usually comprised of four to six beige eggs with dark markings. Albany is known for its cold weather, meaning that the Killdeer tend to delay laying their eggs until well into May, once the temperatures start to warm up.

I always know when it is nesting time for the Killdeer because of the loud and active interaction the birds have with my dogs, who invariably come close to the eggs of a nesting pair, prompting a display of the various techniques the Killdeer use to distract potential predators and lure them away from the nest and its eggs.

Because of the cold temperatures this year, I didn’t experience the Killdeer’s repertoire of distractions and noise until last week when, for the first time this year, my four dogs encountered the shrill cry of a male Killdeer and he simulated a broken-wing, dragging one appendage on the ground while crying out in simulated pain.

It worked like a champ—all four dogs took off after the “injured bird”, only to discover that he was miraculously healed at the last moment, taking to the air to lead my four miscreants even further from the territory where his mate was tending to her eggs. I scanned the field to my left, looking for the mother bird, only to be startled myself as I approached her nest, which was situated just off the edge of the gravel path which constituted the park’s perimeter. The mother bird immediately spread her wings, exposing the orange feathers underneath, catching my attention before shrieking and running off. I looked down at me feet and saw what she was desperately trying to protect—her four perfectly formed eggs, sitting exposed in the short grass.

The four Killdeer eggs

I immediately walked away, only to notice that the father bird, having led my dogs away from the nest, had returned, summoned by the shrill cry of his mate, and began rushing at me to catch my attention. I carefully moved away from the eggs, and headed up the path, calling for my dogs to join me. I looked back to see the mother had returned to her nest, where she nestled herself over the eggs, continuing the incubation of her charges.

Later, as I made my way down the hill, I did my best to distract my dogs away from the nest, situated as it was so close to the trail. But I needed not to have fretted—the mother and father Killdeer worked their distraction magic, ensuring that all four dogs were lured away from the nest.

The next day Marina and I once again transported the dogs to the park, and once again we were confronted by the Killdeer nesting pair, who entertained us with their antics as we walked past their exposed and vulnerable nesting site. We weren’t the only dog owners to frequent the park—at any moment, there could be a half dozen owners and their dogs taking the scenic walk around the premises. This meant the Killdeer pair were working overtime to protect their eggs.

The Killdeer mother on her eggs, next to the gravel path

I made a point of mentioning the nest to the other dog owners I came across, to alert them to the precarious location of the nest. To my surprise and joy I found that most of them were aware of the nest and took similar precautions to avoid any tragic encounters between their pets and the eggs.

This past Saturday the weather took a turn for the worse, with the temperature falling into the low 40’s and the sky opening, unleashing a torrential rain. Normally my wife and I would stay home, not wanting either we or the dogs to become soaking wet and miserable. But I was drawn to the park out of concern for the Killdeer pair and their eggs. The morning proved to be as miserable as we had thought it would be—even the dogs were not enthusiastic about getting out of the dry car and venturing out into the pouring rain. But I was on a mission, and I threw the hood of my rain jacket over my head and made my way up the gravel path, only to be rewarded by the shrill cry of the father as he tried to get my attention, and the plaintive look of the mother, soaking wet, as she sat on her clutch shielding them from the elements.

The mother Killdeer, in the rain, protecting her eggs

Marina and I had a busy day ahead of us, trying to take care of all the little things associated with owning a home that are shunted to the side during the hustle and bustle of the work week. But as busy as we were, I just couldn’t get the mother killdeer out of my mind. The nest was so exposed, and I worried about her precious eggs, knowing that she and her mate would need to watch over them for nearly three more weeks before they would hatch. I watched the rain form into rivulets of rushing water around my neighborhood and had visions of the Killdeer nest being swept away by the water.

Come Sunday morning I awoke with more energy than usual, anxious to get to the park and check on “my” Killdeer and “our” eggs. I let the dogs out of the car and awaited the frantic cries of the father Killdeer as he engaged them to distract them away from the nest.

All I heard was silence.

My heart was in my throat as I approached the nesting area, scanning the ground for some sign of life.

And there she was, the mother bird, still nestled on her eggs.

She looked at me, and let out a little peep, letting me know I was getting too close.

It was the most beautiful sound in the world.

The mother Killdeer chirps out a warning

Marina and I discussed the Killdeer nest and brainstormed about what we could do to protect it. One idea was to place plow marker flags around the periphery of the nest to draw attention to the fact that there was a nest located next to the path. I figured that would cause someone to pause and buy time for the Killdeer pair to make their presence known. I decided that I would pace off the site and determine how many markers I would need before heading off to the local hardware store to buy them.

Monday morning came in sunny and warm, a much-needed break from the cold, wet weather that had plagued us for the past two weeks. I drove up to the spot where we normally parked our car, well below the stretch of field where the Killdeer nest was situated and let the dogs out.

Immediately I sensed something was wrong.

The dogs had made their way up the hill, toward the nest, and there was no sound at all from the Killdeer pair. And as my eyes tracked the movement of my dogs, I suddenly realized that I wouldn’t have to worry about buying marker flags for the nest anymore.

Parked in the field, just off the edge of the gravel path, was a large yellow earthmover. Across the path was a natural gas pipeline maintenance facility. Back in April the City of Albany had granted the operator of this facility an easement on property adjacent to the park for the purpose of replacing a section of pipeline. The earthmover was part of the equipment being brought in to accomplish this work.

The earthmover and the destroyed nesting ground

As I traced the route it took to cross the gravel path to where it was now parked, I saw that it had driven directly over the Killdeer nest.

All I could think about was the loyal mother Killdeer, who had remained on her clutch of eggs during the torrential rainstorm.

Who had stared me down the next day, refusing to leave her eggs unattended.

I made my way to where they nest used to be, digging through the mud thrown up by the large rubber wheels of the earthmover, looking for any evidence of the mother bird or her eggs.

There was nothing.

I was struck by a deep, profound sense of sadness and anger. At a time when the headlines proclaimed more death and destruction in Russia, Ukraine, and Gaza, the Killdeer pair and their eggs had become a beacon of light in an otherwise dark and dreary world.

I wanted those eggs to hatch and bring forth life, proving again the miracle of God’s vision when he created this world that we humans were trying so hard to destroy.

I needed those eggs to hatch.

And now they were gone.

I called to my dogs, and headed back to my car, my day no longer brimming with the joy that the Killdeer had injected into my life.

My two Pomeranians, Maverick and Iceman, were in their typical fashion, lagging. I turned my attention to them, calling out their names, when I realized they were chasing something.

It was the father Killdeer.

I walked toward where my two dogs were chasing after the father when I heard a peep to my right. I looked, and it was the mother. She had flown in to join the father in moving my dogs away from a stretch of field, further removed from the path, they had apparently marked out as their territory.

As relieved as I was to see that both were alive, my spirit was crushed at the thought of them going through the motions of protecting a nest that no longer existed.

Filled with a sense of profound sadness, I took it upon myself to read up about Killdeer, so that I might better understand why they had put the nest where they did. The circle of life is something that I am very familiar with, and I fully comprehend that life is fragile, and can be extinguished in a blink of an eye, especially for those animals and birds who live in the wild.

I wanted to know why they remained near the site of their destroyed nest.

Could birds mourn the loss of their eggs? I knew it was foolish to project human emotions on the Killdeer pair, but I was searching for some meaning in what had happened in the field this very morning.

The mother Killdeer protecting her former nesting area

My research led me to a passage which explained that while a Killdeer breeding pair would normally only produce one clutch of eggs per breeding season, if their first clutch were to be eaten or otherwise destroyed early in the breeding season, then the Killdeer would often lay a second clutch of eggs.

This explained the behavior of the Killdeer pair—they weren’t defending a ghost nest but rather staking their claim to a new nesting site. If things went well, in a week or so I should expect to be confronted with a father Killdeer perfectly executing the broken-wing technique to draw my dogs away from the area of the field where the mother Killdeer sat watch on her eggs, incubating them until the moment the miracle of life brought forth the next generation of chirping, fleeting, flying beauties.

Life, given its finite nature, is about the inevitability of heartbreak—ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

But even as death waits on the horizon for us all, it is the miracle of life that gives us both hope for the future and a reason to go on, regardless of the obstacles placed in our way.

We march forward, each day leading to an inescapable destiny, driven not by the despair of our impending doom, but rather the joy of the gift of life we have been given.

Life isn’t fair.

And it often results in tragedy.

But the act of living, of going through the motions of life, is what brings joy into this world.

Keep striving.

Never give up.

No matter what life throws at you..

This is the lesson of the Killdeer.

And it is one I will take forward for the rest of my days.

In 2012, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that “The nuclear weapons remain the most important guarantee of Russia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and play a key role in maintaining the regional balance and stability.”

In the intervening years, western analysts and observers have accused Russia and its leadership of irresponsibly invoking the threat of nuclear weapons as a means of “saber rattling”—a strategic bluff to hide operational and tactical shortfalls in Russian military capabilities.

In 2020 Russia published, for the first time, an unclassified version of its nuclear doctrine. The document, called “Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence,” noted that Russia “reserves the right to use nuclear weapons” when Moscow is acting “in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.” The document also stated that Russia reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in case of an “attack by [an] adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions.”

In 2024 Vladimir Putin ordered Russia’s nuclear doctrine to be updated to consider the complicated geopolitical realities that had emerged from the ongoing Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine, where the conflict had morphed into a proxy war between the collective west (NATO and the US) and Russia.

The new doctrine declared that nuclear weapons would be authorized for use in case of an “aggression against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies by any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state is considered as their joint attack.”

Russia’s nuclear arsenal would also come into play in the event of “actions by an adversary affecting elements of critically important state or military infrastructure of the Russian Federation, the disablement of which would disrupt response actions by nuclear forces.”

The threats did not have to come in the form of nuclear weapons. Indeed, the new 2024 doctrine specifically stated that Russia could respond with nuclear weapons to any aggression against Russia involving “the employment of conventional weapons, which creates a critical threat to their sovereignty and (or) territorial integrity.”

Operation Spiderweb, the largescale assault on critical Russian military infrastructure directly related to Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrence by unmanned drones, has demonstrably crossed Russia’s red lines when it comes to triggering a nuclear retaliation and/or pre-emptive nuclear strike to preclude follow-on attacks. The Ukrainian SBU, under the personal direction of its chief, Vasyl Malyuk, has taken responsibility for the attack.

Operation Spiderweb is a covert direct-action assault on critical Russian military infrastructure and capabilities directly related to Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent capabilities. At least three airfields were attacked using FPV drones operating out of the backs of civilian Kamaz trucks repurposed as drone launch pads. Dyagilevo airfield in Ryazan, Belaya airfield in Irkutsk, and Olenya airfield in Murmansk, home to Tu-95 and Tu-22 strategic bombers and A-50 early warning aircraft, were struck, resulting in numerous aircraft being destroyed and/or heavily damaged.

This would be the equivalent of a hostile actor launching drone strikes against US Air Force B-52H bombers stationed at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, and B-2 bombers stationed at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.

The timing of Operation Spiderweb is clearly designed to disrupt peace talks scheduled to take place in Istanbul on June 2.

First and foremost, one must understand that it is impossible for Ukraine to seriously prepare for substantive peace talks while planning and executing an operation such as Operation Spiderweb; while the SBU may have executed this attack, it could not have happened without the knowledge and consent of the Ukrainian President or the Minister of Defense.

Moreover, this attack could not have occurred without the consent of Ukraine’s European partners, in particular Great Britain, France and Germany, all of whom were engaged in direct consultations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the days and weeks leading up to the execution of Operation Spiderweb.

The Ukrainians have been encouraged by Europe to be seen as actively supporting the Istanbul peace process, with an eye to the notion that if the talks failed, the blame would be placed on Russia, not Ukraine, thereby making it easier for Europe to continue providing military and financial support to Ukraine.

There appears to be a major role being played by US actors as well—Senator’s Lyndsay Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, and Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, made a joint visit to Ukraine in the past week where they coordinated closely with the Ukrainian government about a new package of economic sanctions linked to Russia’s willingness to accept peace terms predicated on a 30-day ceasefire—one of Ukraine’s core demands.

Operation Spiderweb appears to be a concerted effort to drive Russia away from the Istanbul talks, either by provoking a Russian retaliation which would provide cover for Ukraine to stay home (and an excuse for Graham and Blumenthal to go forward with their sanctions legislation), or provoking Russia to pull out of the talks as it considers its options going forward, an act that would likewise trigger the Graham-Blumenthal sanctions action.

Unknown is the extent to which President Trump, who has been pushing for successful peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, was knowledgeable of the Ukrainian actions, including whether he approved of the action in advance (Trump appeared to be ignorant of the fact that Ukraine had targeted Russian President Putin using drones during a recent trip to Kursk.)

How Russia responds to this latest Ukrainian action is yet unknown; the drone attacks on Russian military bases came on the heels of at least two Ukrainian attacks on Russian rail lines that resulted in significant damage done to locomotives and passenger cars and killed and wounded scores of civilians.

But this much is clear: Ukraine could not have carried out Operation Spiderweb without the political approval and operational assistance of its western allies. The American and British intelligence services have both trained Ukrainian special operation forces in guerilla and unconventional warfare actions, and it is believed that previous Ukrainian attacks against critical Russian infrastructure (the Crimea bridge and Engels Air Base) were done with the assistance of US and British intelligence in the planning and execution phases. Indeed, both the Crimea bridge and Engels airbase attacks were seen as triggers for the issuing of Russia’s 2024 nuclear doctrine modifications.

Russia has in the past responded to provocations by Ukraine and its western allies with a mixture of patience and resolve.

Many have interpreted this stance as a sign of weakness, something which may have factored in the decision by Ukraine and its western facilitators to carry out such a provocative operation on the eve of critical peace discussions.

The extent to which Russia can continue to show the same level of restraint as in the past is tested by the very nature of the attack—a massive use of conventional weapons which struck Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrence force, causing damage.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to see this tactic being used in the future as a means of decapitating Russian strategic nuclear assets (aircraft and missiles) and leadership (the attack against Putin in Kursk underscores this threat.)

If Ukraine can position Kamaz trucks near Russian strategic air bases, it could do so against Russian bases housing Russia’s mobile missile forces.

That Ukraine would carry out such attack likewise shows the extent to which western intelligence services are testing the waters for any future conflict with Russia—one that NATO and EU members say they are actively preparing for.

We have reached an existential crossroads in the SMO.

For Russia, the very red lines it deemed necessary to define regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons have been blatantly violated by not only Ukraine, but its western allies.

President Trump, who has been claiming to support a peace process between Russia and Ukraine, must now decide as to where the United States stands considering these developments.

His Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has acknowledged that under the previous administration of Joe Biden the United States was engaged in a proxy war with Russia. Trump’s Special Envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, recently acknowledged the same about NATO.

In short, by continuing to support Ukraine, both the US and NATO have become active participants in a conflict which has now crossed the threshold regarding the employment of nuclear weapons.

The United States and the world stand on the precipice of a nuclear Armageddon of our own making.

Either we separate ourselves from the policies that have brought us to this point, or we accept the consequences of our actions, and pay the price.

We cannot live in a world where are future is dictated by the patience and restraint of a Russian leader in the face of provocations we are ourselves responsible for.

Ukraine, not Russia, represents an existential threat to humanity.

NATO, not Russia, is responsible for encouraging Ukraine to behave in such a reckless manner.

So, too, is the United States. The contradictory statements made by US policy makers regarding Russia provide political cover for Ukraine and its NATO enablers to plan and execute operations like Operation Spiderweb.

Senators Graham and Blumenthal should be called out for sedition if their intervention in Ukraine was done to deliberately sabotage a peace process President Trump has said is central to his vision of American national security going forward.

But it is Trump himself who must decide the fate of the world.

In the coming hours we will undoubtedly hear from the Russian President about how Russia will respond to this existential provocation.

Trump, too, must respond.

By telling Graham and Blumenthal and their supporters to stand down regarding Russian sanctions.

By ordering NATO and the EU to cease and desist from continuing to provide military and financial support to Ukraine.

And by taking sides in the SMO.

Choose Ukraine and trigger a nuclear war.

Choose Russia and save the world.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine intelligence officer with extensive experience in arms control and disarmament, and an expert on US-Russian relations. His work can be found at ScottRitter.com. He is the author of several books, including his latest, Highway to Hell: The Armageddon Chronicles, 2014-2025, published by Clarity Press.

Subscribe now

Adam Smith once sang the praises of the “invisible hand”, the notion that when an individual pursues his self-interest under conditions of justice, he unintentionally promotes the good of society. Smith derived this theory based upon his belief that there existed inherent principles within man which interested him in the fortune of others which made rendering their happiness a priority for achieving happiness himself, even though he gained no other benefit from doing so.

In this way, Smith viewed capitalism as a force of good for society.

Karl Marx took the opposite approach when it came to assessing capitalism, viewing it as a revolutionary economic system that, while unleashing unprecedented productivity and innovation, carried within it the seeds of its own destruction.

Capitalism, Marx believed, lured society in with false promises of prosperity before consuming everything in its path.

Read in full on The Russia House with Scott Ritter

Full 3 hour video here

Trump Watch is a new weekly “report card” on all things Trump hosted by Scott Ritter for paid subscribers only. Scott interviews one guest on one topic in each episode. In Episode Four, Dr. Nomi Prins offers an extensive analysis of President Trump’s tariff policies and related economic issues.

Give a gift subscription

Donate now

Read more

Trump Watch is a new weekly “report card” on all things Trump hosted by Scott Ritter for paid subscribers only. Scott interviews one guest on one topic in each episode. In Episode Three, Scott discusses the phone call between President Trump and President Putin, the prospects of peace between Russia and Ukraine, and the possibility of improving US-Russi…

Read more

Russia has informed Ukraine of its baseline condition for conflict termination—the withdrawal of all Ukrainian troops from the territory of lands which, from the perspective of the Russian Constitution, constitute part of Mother Russia. These include Kherson, Zaporozhia, Donetsk and Lugansk. Russia has also made it clear that if Ukraine does not accept these terms, the next time Russia is willing to sit down and negotiate with Ukraine their demands will include four additional Ukrainian oblasts, or administrative regions—presumably Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnepropetrovsk, and Kharkov. We have reached the Odessa Moment.

Back in January 2023, while appearing on “The Gaggle” with George Szamuely and Peter Lavelle, I postulated that Russia was approaching what I called “the Odessa Moment,” that confluence of military and political circumstances which, once reached, would trigger a strategic decision by Russia to expand the Special Military Operation (SMO) beyond the geography defined by the territories absorbed by Russia following a controversial referenda held in September 2022 on the territory of Kherson, Zaporozhia, Donetsk and Lugansk, in which the question of self-determination was answered by a vote on whether these territories should be incorporated into the Russian Federation or not.

As originally conceived, the SMO was not about territorial acquisition but rather defending the rights of the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine. In negotiations which began less than a week after the SMO began—first in Gomel, Belarus, and later in Turkey—Russia simply sought to achieve that which had been promised as part of the Minsk Accords entered into with Ukraine, Germany and France in 2014-2015, in which Ukraine promised to make the appropriate changes to its Constitution guaranteeing that the rights and status of Russian-speaking Ukrainians would be protected.

Ukraine, backed by both Germany and France (and the United States as well) opted to treat the Minsk Accords as an opportunity to build up military power sufficient to reclaim parts of the Donbas region (comprised of the oblasts of Donetsk and Lugansk) as well as Crimea which were lost in the aftermath of the CIA-backed Maidan coup of February 2014 which saw the Russian-speaking lawfully elected President, Victor Yanukovych, ousted and replaced by US-backed Ukrainian nationalists. Between 2015 and 2022, the US and its NATO allies trained and equipped hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers for the sole purpose of reclaiming by force the territories of Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea.

In April 2019 Volodymyr Zelensky, the former comedian-turned politician, won the election for the office of President of Ukraine, ousting the incumbent, Petro Poroshenko. Zelensky ran on a platform of peace, winning over the Russian-speaking population on the promise that he would “crawl on his knees” if necessary to work out a peace plan with Russia. Instead, within months Zelensky was convening a war council where he promised to use the Ukrainian military to reclaim the parts of Donetsk and Lugansk that had freed themselves from Ukrainian rule.

This was Zelensky’s first mistake.

The path he chose led to Russia, in the days before the initiation of the SMO and after Ukraine began mobilizing its forces to attack the Donbas, recognizing the independence of both Donetsk and Lugansk and entering into a collective security agreement, actions which guaranteed that the Donbas would never again be part of Ukraine.

This was Zelensky’s Donbas moment.

Zelensky’s second mistake came in April 2022, when he walked away from the negotiations that Russia had initiated immediately after the start of the SMO which culminated in a finalized signature-ready peace agreement which has become known as the Istanbul communique. This agreement would have recognized the independence of the Donbas republics, but returned all other Ukrainian territory that had been occupied by Russian troops during the SMO.

Zelensky, pressured by his US and NATO supporters, rejected this agreement, and instead took tens of billions of dollars in military aid from the US and NATO which he used to rebuild his depleted military force, which he then used to launch a counterattack against Russian forces which had already began their withdrawal from Ukraine as a good faith measure in keeping with the terms of the Istanbul communique.

Russia responded by organizing referenda in both the Donbas and the two oblasts, Kherson and Zaporozhia, that constituted the land bridge connecting Crimea with Russia proper. These referenda were on the question of these territories becoming part of the Russian Federation; all four voted yes, and after the appropriate legal action was taken by the Russian parliament, President Putin signed a decree which made all four oblasts part of the Russian Federation.

This was Zelensky’s Little Russia moment.

And now Zelensky finds himself at a new crossroads.

His Odessa Moment.

He has a chance to end the SMO on the most favorable terms possible, terms which reflect the harsh reality the Ukrainian President and the nation he leads faces due to Zelensky’s prior poor decision-making regarding Russia.

The Donbas is gone. So, too, is Little Russia. These losses are irreversible, politically and militarily.

Ukraine has a chance to end the conflict now. But to do so it must respect the reality of the moment.

Unfortunately, the same “friends” and “allies” which encouraged Ukraine to walk away from the Minsk Accords and the Istanbul communique are now urging Ukraine to do the same when it comes to Istanbul 2.

But the promise of European support is illusory—the armories have long since been stripped bare, and the potential for meaningful military intervention never existed, either militarily or politically.

Moreover, any European action would, by necessity, require backing from the United States. While this may have been a possibility during the presidency of Joe Biden, it is a non-starter under the new administration of Donald Trump—even as the Istanbul 2 meetings were underway, the US announced that it was going to be withdrawing its forces from Europe.

Russia is to be taken seriously. While the challenges that Russia will face in occupying the four new territories it has put its sights on if Ukraine balks yet again regarding a peace agreement are many and not to be minimized, this is a military question which is best answered by the political resolve of the Russian leadership and nation, which at this juncture is unassailable.

Last year Vladimir Putin won a mandate to governing as a wartime President.

As the recently concluded May 9 celebration clearly demonstrated, the determination of the Russian people to defeat Ukraine is rock solid.

As the lead Russian negotiator in Istanbul made clear to his Ukrainian counterparts, Russia is prepared to fight for however long it takes, even alluding to the 21 years it took Peter the Great to defeat Sweden.

Ukraine will be lucky to survive the summer.

Zelensky faces one of the greatest tests of leadership he will ever face.

Nationalist forces in his government are willing to commit national suicide in pursuit of the failed Banderist cause.

Ukraine’s erstwhile allies, whose objectives continue to center around Cold War fantasies of strategically defeating Russia, are pushing Zelensky to reject the Russian conditions for peace, all too willing to sacrifice Ukraine as a proxy in pursuit of their unattainable goal.

If Zelensky truly cared about his nation and his people, he would swallow his pride and make the only decision capable of saving them—surrender.

But Zelensky is not a leader who cares about his nation or its people—he has already sacrificed Ukraine’s national integrity and more than a million of its citizens in pursuit of his EU and NATO driven fantasies of relevance and fortune.

This is Zelensky’s Odessa Moment.

And he will fail.

Again.

Share

Subscribe now

Donate now

Trump Watch is a new weekly “report card” on all things Trump hosted by Scott Ritter for paid subscribers only. Scott interviews one guest on one topic in each episode. In Episode Two, Scott discusses the selection and performance of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin …

Read more

On May 9, Russia celebrates the 80^th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany. The United States played a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, one the American people should never forget and never stop honoring. But the margin of our victory over the Nazi scourge was razor slim, measured in the lives of millions of our Soviet allies without whom our collective victory would never have happened. We should never forget their sacrifice.

The Battle of Waterloo, in June 1815, Napoleon’s dream of French glory, was crushed by the combined armies of Great Britain and Prussia. According to field marshal Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington and commander of the British forces, “the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life.” If one or two more battalions of French Imperial Guardsmen had been available during the third and final infantry assault on the British center, the British positions would have collapsed, allowing Napoleon to pivot his army and meet the Prussian forces under the command of Field Marshal Blücher head on, pinning them in place until French reserves closed in from behind, an action which would have led to the destruction of the Prussians. But the French had reached the end of their resources, and when the tired soldiers of the British 52^nd Regiment of Foot made a last desperate charge, the French Old Guard broke, sending the entire French army into retreat, ending the battle.

The margin of victory was literally a few hundred men in a battle that involved hundreds of thousands on either side.

In July 1863, during the Battle of Gettysburg, the 20^th Maine, a regiment which normally mustered some 1,621 men but which, because of the effects of war and heavy campaigning, had been whittled down to 266, was tasked with holding the left flank of the Union line, a small hill known as Little Round Top. Prior to the battle commencing, the 20^th Maines was reinforced by 120 deserters from the 2^nd Maine, who were given the option of joining the 20^th or being shot. This brought the 20^th Maine up to 386 men.

Facing the 20^th Maine were two Alabama regiments, the 15^th and the 47^th. The approach march to the position held by the 20^th Maine took several hours, in the hot sun, with no water. Between them, the 15^th and 47^th Alabama mustered just under 1,000 men. By the time the men from Alabama reached the base of Little Round Top, they had deployed some 180 men as skirmishers to protect their advance from Union sharpshooters. Another 15 men from the 15^th Alabama were sent out to look for water.

The men from Alabama charged up Little Round Top four times but were repulsed. The fifth charge brought them to within 15 yards of the 20^th Maine’s positions. Here they nearly broke through. The men from Maine had seen 130 of their number fall dead or wounded. They were running out of ammunition. But the men from Alabama were similarly exhausted, with 150 of their number fallen on the hill. When Colonel Chamberlain, the 20^th Maine commander, ordered a last desperate bayonet charge, the men from Alabama broke.

If it weren’t for the 120 men from the 2^nd Maine regiment who reinforced the 20^th Maine at the last moment, Little Round Top would have fallen.

If the Alabamans had retained the nearly 200 men they had left behind as skirmishers or water bearers, Little Round Top would have fallen.

If Little Round Top had fallen, the Battle of Gettysburg would have ended in a Union defeat, and the US Civil War may very well have had a different outcome.

Once again, the margin of victory came down to a few hundred men at the right time and place to change history.

Throughout the course of history, the margin of victory in battles that shaped world events often could be measured in terms of hundreds, if not thousands, of men whose presence at the right place and time tipped the scale of fate in their favor.

“We won two World Wars—but we never took credit for it!,” Donald Trump, the 47^th President of the United States, recently posted on his Truth Social account. “Everyone else does! All over the World, the Allies are celebrating the Victory we had in World War II. The only Country that doesn’t celebrate,” Trump wrote, “is the United States of America, and the Victory was only accomplished because of us. Without the United States,” Trump continued, “the War would have been won by other Countries, and what a different World it would be.”

Donald Trump went on to proclaim May 8 to be World War II Victory Day (he also redesignated November 11 as World War I Victory Day).

The impetus for such a historically flawed statement is not stated by those who issued it but is apparent to all: Trump is jealous of the attention being given to Russia’s May 9 Victory Day celebration and is looking to create a competing event which would thrust the United States into the limelight.

One of the problems Trump will face in generating enthusiasm for his new May 8 holiday is that the American people have long forgotten about “The Greatest Generation” and the sacrifices they made for the United States and the world in defeating the dual threats of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. More than 16 million Americans served in the military during World War II, of whom just under 300,000 were killed in combat, with another 670,000 wounded.

I will never denigrate the service of anyone who served their nation honorably in the time of war.

Every American who wore the uniform during World War II deserves praise, as do the millions of Americans who helped turn the American industrial base into the arsenal of democracy.

Americans fought the Germans and the Japanese simultaneously, requiring a division of resources and national focus that meant we could not bring the total weight of our national power down on our enemies.

This required a balanced approach to both theaters of conflict where specific timings were linked to manpower and resource availability.

The margin of victory was often tighter than would otherwise have been desired. Take, for instance, the D-Day landings in France on June 6, 1944. The United States had been carefully martialing resources for this event, even as we engaged the Nazis in North Africa, Sicily and Italy.

But there was no guarantee of victory, as General Dwight Eisenhower’s statement he prepared in case of defeat demonstrated: “Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

We prevailed on D-Day.

But the margin of victory was slim.

One of the factors that played a major role in successfully managing this margin of victory was the “other war,” the one most Americans know very little about—the war on the Eastern Front between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Those familiar with the history of the Normandy operation may be familiar with “Operation Bagration,” the Soviet offensive against Nazi Germany’s Army Group Center which unfolded from June 22 through August 19, 1944. This offensive was ostensibly timed to prevent the Germans from transferring troops from the east front to Normandy. The Soviets employed a combined force of approximately 1,670,300 combat and support personnel against a German force of some 849,000 soldiers.

By comparison, Operation Overlord, by mid-July 1944, saw the US and British deploy some 1,452,000 troops in France, facing off against a force of approximately 640,000 Germans. By the time Overlord concluded, on August 30, 1944, the allies had suffered some 226,386 combat casualties, with the Germans losing some 323,000 combat casualties, including around 233,000 prisoners.

During Operation Bagration, which ended on August 30, 1944, the Soviets suffered some 670,000 combat casualties, while inflicting losses of 539,480 killed, missing or captured Germans. In short, in just five weeks, the Soviets had destroyed 22 German divisions. To stabilize the front, Germany had to transfer 46 divisions to the eastern front, including several divisions that were supposed to be arrayed against the US and British forces in France.

But the real story of the critical role played by the Soviets in helping guarantee a US-British victory over the Germans at Normandy was the Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive which took place between December 1943 and May 1944. Here, the Soviets lost some 270,000 killed, and another 840,000 wounded—greater losses than the entire US military suffered fighting against both the Germans and Japanese—while inflicting 380,000 casualties on the Germans.

But this isn’t the full story.

Because of the Dnieper-Carpathian offensive, on the eve of the Normandy invasion Germany withdrew from France some 46,000 troops and nearly 400 tanks and assault guns organized into some of the most elite combat formations in the Germany military, to reinforce German positions arrayed against the Soviets.

These were troops that otherwise would have been deployed to counter the D-Day landings at Normandy, making the possibility of Eisenhower having to read his draft defeat statement more possible.

The margin of victory was slim.

But the Soviet contribution to allied victory in Normandy doesn’t stop here. The German mobile reserves which were supposed to respond to any allied invasion consisted of six divisions and several separate brigade-sized units which were transferred out of Russia to France in order to refit, ensuring that when Germany did respond to the US-British Normandy invasion, it would be using divisions that had been recently torn to pieces by the Soviets on the eastern front.

The margin of victory for the US and British forces in Normandy was slim and would have been even slimmer had the Soviets not carried out the twin offenses of Dnieper-Carpathian and Bagration. These two campaigns resulted in the Soviets losing more than twice the total number of casualties suffered by the United States for the entirety of World War II in both theater of operations.

Americans would do well to recall the words of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who noted in a letter to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin that “It was the Russian army that gutted the German military machine.”

And this came at an unimaginable cost.

Some 34 million Soviet men served in the Red Army during World War II. While the official death toll for the Red Army in World War II stands at some 8,600,000, the Central Military Archives in Moscow contains the names of more than 14 million Red Army soldiers who died or went missing during the fighting with Nazi Germany. Millions more were wounded in battle.

But this is only part of the story.

The fight against Nazi Germany took place on the soil of the Soviet Union—the dark earth of Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, the Caucasus. Between 15.9–17.4 million civilians were killed on Soviet territory by Germany and its allies during the war.

These are unthinkable numbers.

And they are numbers no western nation, including the United States, could have sustained under similar conditions and prevailed.

Americans and Russians both speak about the importance of US military assistance—“Lend Lease”—on helping sustain the Red Army during the critical years of 1942-43.

But “Lend Lease” did not win the war.

The blood and sacrifice of the Red Army did.

As US President Franklin Roosevelt noted in 1942, “Russian troops have destroyed—and continue to destroy—more manpower, planes, tanks and cannons of our common enemy than all the other United Nations combined.”

It was the “skillful leadership, solid organization, appropriate training and, above all, determination to defeat the enemy, regardless of its own sacrifices” of the Red Army which, Roosevelt noted in a 1943 letter to Joseph Stalin, “certainly forced Hitler’s armed forces to follow the path to final defeat and won the admiration of the people of the United States for a long time.”

A long time.

But not forever.

Today a sitting American president denigrates the unimaginable sacrifice of the Red Army and the Soviet people—the Russian people—in defeating the scourge of Nazi Germany.

America should—indeed must—honor the sacrifices and accomplishments of its own soldiers and citizens in contributing to the great allied victory of Nazi Germany.

But not at the expense of the truth.

The Red Army engaged and destroyed between 76-80% of Nazi Germany’s military machine.

I’ve read and re-read Rick Atkinson’s amazing trilogy on the history of the US Army during World War II.

And I am amazed at just how slim the margin of victory was in many of the battles fought between American forces and their Nazi enemy.

One more German battalion here, a few hundred German tanks there, and a battle may have gone the other way.

But the Germans did not have the resources, because nearly 9 million of their soldiers fought and died on the eastern front—9 million soldiers who otherwise would have been available to tip the scales of fate in favor of the Nazi armies fighting in the west.

The margin of American victory was slim.

And without the sacrifices of the Red Army and the Soviet citizens, there would have been no margin of victory.

For the people of Russia, May 9—Victory Day—is a solemn, spiritual occasion, where the eyes of the 27 million or more ancestors who perished in the horrible struggle against Nazi Germany stare down on the citizens of today, reminding them of the sacrifices they made, and challenging them to never disgrace their memory.

The military parade is a moment of supreme national pride.

It is not, as some in the West posture, a statement of modern Russian military chauvinism.

Instead, the Russian people see before them the progeny of the Russian troops who paraded down Red Square in December 1941, marching straight from the ceremony to the front lines only a few miles away, where they shed their blood to stop the German army that was knocking at the door of the Soviet capital.

They see in the soldiers of today the pride of the Red Army when it again paraded at the end of the war against Nazi Germany, flinging down the banners of their defeated enemy.

They look at the young men who proudly march today and see in them the same indomitable spirit of their forefathers who gave everything so that the Russian people of today might live in peace on the soil of Mother Russia.

Victory Day is not a national gimmick, or a narcissistic pleasure for a Russian leader.

It is an expression of the very soul of a nation and its people.

A reminder that the margin of victory in World War II is measured in the sacrifice of the Red Army and the Soviet nation.

Donald Trump seems to have forgotten this truth.

It is incumbent upon the citizens of the United States, Britain, Canada, France and the other nations that comprised, together with the Soviet Union, the great alliance that defeated Nazi Germany.

The Russian people have never forgotten or forsaken these allies. Indeed, the Russian Army marches in their honor as well.

We must never forget the heroism and sacrifice made by American soldiers in defeating Nazi Germany.

But the margin of our victory was slim.

And only came because of the sacrifice of untold millions of Soviet soldiers and civilians.

It is our duty to honor them as we honor our own.

Subscribe to "The Russia House"

Share

Subscribe now

Donate

Trump Watch is a new weekly “report card” on all things Trump hosted by Scott Ritter for paid subscribers only. Scott will interview one guest in each 60-minute episode. In the first episode, Scott discusses immigration issues with Prof. Alan Dershowitz.

Give a gift subscription

Donate now

Read more

Scott Ritter kicks off a new podcast that will subject the policies of the Trump administration to unbiased, non-partisan critical analysis, calling out the good, the bad, and everything in between, with the goal of holding President Trump and his administration accountable for their policies—exactly what a good citizen should be doing if he or she wants to make America great again!

In this day and age of overly polarized partisan politics, the notion of unbiased reviews of policy goals and implementation has largely been set aside. As mainstream media increasingly competes with alternative media for viewership, and the economics of reporting what passes for “the news” changes from advertisement-based to viewership interaction algorithms, there is an increasing trend to package information in the most controversial manner possible, putting engagement over sound analysis, and in the process sacrificing objectiveness with entertainment. With Trump Watch with Scott Ritter, the internet engagement model is tossed to the side, with the viewer instead being treated to a structured interview-based format which assesses the policies of the Trump administration with a critical, unbiased lens.

I’ve been doing video content for alternative media since about the time the Russian Special Military Operation against Ukraine kicked off, back in February 2022. Over the course of the past three-plus years, I have participated in just about every format of internet-based video engagement imaginable. I’ve done in-studio interviews, one- on-one interviews, panel interviews, and solo monologues. I’ve been the host, co-host, moderator, and panelist. I’ve interviewed diplomats, soldiers, politicians, scientists, academics, experts, and media personalities, and I have been subjected to every form of video interrogation imaginable, from all corners of the earth.

I’ve come to view every online video engagement I’ve participated in as a crap shoot—you don’t know what you are going to get until you roll the dice. I can say that this holds equally true whether you are the interviewer or interviewee. One of the reasons for this is that most interviews operate in free-form mode, where the host and guest engage in unscripted dialogue about the pressing issues of our time, which usually manifested in the way of breaking news stories. Often the ensuing discussion is based upon incomplete information drawn from unverified “facts.” Sometimes the “breaking news” comes from an area of the world which is less familiar to those who have been called upon to discuss it and its ramifications, live and in public.

One of the main downsides of the free-form interview format is that, given the reality of the engagement algorithms that drive the popularity and—perhaps most importantly, the monetization factors associated with podcasting, a host may not shy away from entering a discussion on a “breaking news” topic he or she is unfamiliar with, and the “expert” who is being interviewed rarely has the integrity to pass on offering an opinion if he or she is not familiar with the events being discussed. “I don’t know” might be an honest answer, but it doesn’t drive engagements and/or subscriptions.

Monetization is an ever-present reality in the alternative media world. Very few of us are independently wealthy, and as such, unless we pursue podcasting as a hobby or labor of love (in which case we would need full time jobs in order to survive), the digital product we produce must be capable of generating income sufficient to pay the bills, either partially or in their entirety, depending on the level of commitment one has made to the alternative digital news business. This can be done through sponsorships, donations, subscriptions, and monetization triggered by engagements.

While alternative media has successfully challenged the mainstream media in terms of viewer percentage, the lack of predictability and issues of viable economic sustainability make for a volatile employment opportunity. This in turn impacts the quality of the production values that go into producing a show. There is a direct correlation between production value and income generation, a visually pleasing, well-structured show doesn’t pay for itself. But given the risks associated with launching any new online digital product, rare is the podcast which, on its own volition, can invest the time and resources into getting it right from the start.

The Trump Watch with Scott Ritter team has been very fortunate to be able to build upon the foundation of success that we have garnered through the Ask the Inspector (ATI) podcasts and Scott Ritter’s Substack. Jeff Norman (the producer) and I (the host) have the luxury to draw upon our combined income streams generated by the ATI podcasts to underwrite the costs associated with starting a new podcast. This provides us with the possibility of generating unique and entertaining graphics and animation, line up talented technical support, and—perhaps most important—to think through the goals and objectives of the podcast, and what format is most conducive to achieving them.

Back in the leadup to the November 2024 presidential election, I spoke about the importance of citizen engagement on the issues of the day, noting that the citizens who exercised their duty to so engage should do so from a foundation of fact-based analysis. American democracy isn’t solely defined by what happens at the election booth, but rather what happens after the vote is cast and counted. Void of constituent accountability, elections become a fruitless exercise in the empowerment of a self-anointed political elite. If the American citizenry, however, can sustain their political engagement into the post-election arena, then politicians would a) be more careful about the policies they promoted on the campaign trail, and b) spend sufficient time to implement the promises made in a manner readily discernible to the American voter.

In planning Trump Watch with Scott Ritter, I thought carefully about what format would best empower a citizen viewer with the knowledge and information necessary to hold their elected representatives, including the President of the United States, to account for what is being done in their name. I came up with four basis categories around which an inquiry into a specific policy topic could be made.

· First, regarding an identified policy, what promises were made by candidate Trump, and how were these promises acted upon by President Trump?

· Second, what has the effectiveness been of the implementation efforts undertaken by the Trump administration in support of a given policy?

· Third, what are the underlying legal questions associated with the policy in question and its implementation, especially as it relates to the Constitution of the United States?

· Four, is the policy as implemented making America “great again?”

To establish a framework of evaluation, the Trump administration will be graded on a scale of A to F on each of the four questions, with the fourth question representing a combined score drawn from the first three grades.

The format of the program has the host leading off with a monologue that introduced the policy in question and provides some historical context to the issues at hand. Following this monologue, the guest will be introduced and engaged in a discussion drawn from specific issues generated by the three leading paths of inquiry. The guests will have been chosen specifically for their experience and expertise regarding the issues being discussed. There will be no “gotcha” questions, but rather a dialogue, discussion, and even debate about the issues at hand.

As the host, my job is to direct the questioning and engage in follow-on questions designed to probe more deeply the issues at hand. I am not trying to force an outcome but rather take the interaction between myself and my guest to whatever logical conclusion is reached by the facts that present themselves through our interaction. If a guest has a certain bias, my job will be to probe that bias respectfully to develop fully the data which will be conducive toward framing the most accurate picture of where we stand on the issues of the day.

The podcast will end with a closing monologue where I draw upon the totality of the discussion to form a final, overarching conclusion which is biased only by the facts presented and the principles and values attached to being an American by the Constitution and the historical legacy of the United States as it has evolved over the course of nearly two and a half centuries of existence.

The podcast will be available to those who have a paid subscription to the Scott Ritter Extra Substack ($7 month/$70 annual) or U.S. Tour of Duty Locals channel ($7 month/$70 annual). We have also submitted the podcast to X as a subscription service. Once approved, Trump Watch will be available to X users for a subscription of $4 month (which works out to $1 per episode.) The X subscription would be for the Trump Watch podcast only; the Substack subscription provides access to the articles and special products published there in addition to Trump Watch.

By placing Trump Watch behind a paywall, we open ourselves to criticism that we are doing this for money, and/or denying those who cannot or will not allocate the resources necessary to pay for a subscription access to vital information.

We are doing this for money—as independent journalists operating in the alternative media universe, our ability to sustain our work and our lives is derived from the product we produce. I have historically kept my Substack available to non-paying subscribers, of which there are some 55,576. My income, Jeff’s income, and the money used to underwrite many of the projects we engage in is derived from the 2,136 paid subscribers we have attracted. I am deeply grateful to every subscriber and follower for showing interest in my work. But the fact is 4% of my followers are shouldering the burden for the remaining 96%. The costs associated with Trump Watch should not have to be born by those 4% alone, and by making Trump Watch available to paid Substack subscribers only, I am hopeful that the overall number of paid subscriptions will increase.

And so here we are, the launch of a new podcast.

One that I hope resonates strongly with an audience rightfully concerned about the state of America, the direction we are headed in, and the policies being implemented by an administration and president who have pledged to “Make America Great Again.”

Trump Watch with Scott Ritter serves as a report card on the work of the Trump administration, and through the analysis that will be brought to light by this podcast, the American people will be empowered to determine whether Donald Trump gets a passing grade or not.

Trump Watch with Scott Ritter will stream on Tuesdays starting May 6.

I look forward to your participation in the grand experiment of digital democracy.

Share

Subscribe now

Donate now

There comes a time when the continuation of a struggle based upon the purity of purpose ceases to make sense, and compromise becomes the name of the game, especially when the stakes are measured in human life. There comes a time when engaging in dialogue becomes more important than winning a debate.

The world is beset with a myriad of conflicts that have polarized the participants to the point that their respective worlds have gravitated into extremes of right and wrong, black and white, good versus evil. This is normal in conflict—the tendency to dehumanize your opponent to the point that their lives hold no value, and their opinions are rejected out of hand. If, at the end of the day, one side is eventually able to prevail over the other, then to the victor go the spoils. The winner writes the history, and their position will be exalted while the loser will be condemned for decades, if not centuries, to come.

But what happens when a conflict reaches the point where there can be no clear winner, and the black-and-white, good versus evil struggle simply becomes a human meatgrinder delivering nothing but death and destruction? When an off-ramp from the horrors of sustained mortal combat must be constructed by those who refuse to beat their swords into plowshares?

Here there is a distinct need for dialogue, whether done directly between the parties involved or, more commonly, with the assistance of a mediator.

I recently was invited by Mario Nawfal’s new project, 69 X Minutes, to participate in a “debate” with Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz on the topic of Palestine and Israel, and which side had the stronger argument regarding legitimacy of their respective cause. I did my due diligence, researching Mr. Dershowitz’s position on the issue (he is unabashedly pro-Israel), and critically examining his previous engagements of this sort with persons taking a pro-Palestinian position.

Almost invariably, what was intended to be a constructive discussion turned into a recital of extreme positions by both sides, peppered with personal attacks that did nothing to further the debate. I had originally planned to avoid personal attacks but instead try to engage in what I openly acknowledged was “click bait”—trying to “one- up” Mr. Dershowitz by playing to the pro-Palestinian crowd, mirror-imaging their own oft-stated positions and repeating their time-tested retorts to Mr. Dershowitz’s familiar case on behalf of Israel.

At that moment I was struck by an epiphany of sorts: did Mario Nawfal invite me on his new project to simply provide a cut-and-paste restatement of those who had gone before? Yes, I could make the same time-tested arguments as had those previously put in opposition to Mr. Dershowitz. Who knows? I might garner more supporters on X and Telegram, and more subscribers (paid and unpaid) to my Substack.

But then I scanned the headlines. Palestinian civilians were still being slaughtered in Gaza and the West Bank, and Israel’s genocidal policies in opposition to Hamas and other resistance groups continued unabated.

Nothing I would say in a click-bait generating “debate” with Mr. Dershowitz would change any of this harsh reality.

It was time, I decided, to break the paradigm of black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, and instead try to engage with Mr. Dershowitz in a manner that was designed more to foster the act of dialogue over the theater of debate.

I knew from the start this would be a very unpopular move; my X follower count would drop by thousands, as would my Telegram followers. I would lose Substack subscribers by the dozens, which meant a significant drop in personal income.

But I could not ignore the hypocrisy attendant to any activity on my part that did not seek to bring an end to the killing in Gaza, especially if I continued to raise the murder of Hind Rajab and her family, and tens of thousands like them, as justification for my hardline stance in opposition to Israel’s genocidal policies.

So, I decided that instead of confronting Mr. Dershowitz, I would have a conversation—a dialogue—where I would respectfully listen to his point of view, and then, void of any hostility or confrontation, articulate my own position, even if it was in violent opposition to that being presented by my debating opponent.

The result speaks for itself.

Yes, I have been vilified by the pro-Palestinian crowd as being “too soft” on Mr. Dershowitz. Many of those in the digital mob who claim to be pro-Palestinian have stepped forward proclaiming how they could have done a better job of attacking Israel and Mr. Dershowitz.

Perhaps.

But the innocent civilians of Gaza and the West Bank would still be dying, and the cause of a Palestinian state would not have been advanced one iota.

Instead, Mr. Dershowitz and I finished our dialogue agreeing that we disagreed—vehemently in some instances—on many of the issues that defined the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But then Mr. Dershowitz did an amazing thing.

He said that our dialogue was unique in his experience in that both sides treated the other with respect.

That we sought to find common positions amongst our many points of disagreement.

And then he said he would like to continue this conversation.

And therein lies the key to victory.

Not a victory defined by defeating or discrediting the other side—that methodology has been proven to be a distinct failure, fanning the passions that promote conflict instead of cooling tempers so that reason might prevail.

No, the key to victory in a conflict whose only output is dead bodies is the termination of that conflict on terms that will not satisfy the hardliners on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. This can only be done by finding common ground and developing a since of mutual empathy as fellow human beings.

I don’t know if Alan Dershowitz and I will continue our dialogue. I sincerely hope we do.

What I do know is that the only path that will lead to the end of this conflict is one that foregoes traditional definitions of victory, and embraces a common understanding of peace.

And this can only happen through dialogue.

Share

Subscribe now

The tiny jewel wasp injects a neurotoxic venom into the ganglia of cockroaches, transforming the larger insect into a zombie which willingly allows itself to be transformed into a living host for the next generation of jewel wasps to feed on before emerging into the world, ready to prey on other unsuspecting cockroaches. Israel is the modern-day equivalent of the jewel wasp, a predator which infects its host with mind-altering poison so that it willingly sustains the parasitic intrusion into its being that will eventually take its life. The host, in this case, is the United States. By allowing Israel to turn our nation into a zombified version of what our founding father’s envisioned, we simply facilitate our own collective demise.

The jewel wasp (Ampulex compressa) is what is known as a parasitoid, an organism that, unlike more conventional parasites, ultimately kills its host, the American cockroach (Periplaneta americana).

The attack of the jewel wasp is multi-phased, starting by first stinging the cockroach directly in a part of the central nervous system called the first thoracic ganglion. The wasp's venom contains gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), an inhibitory neurotransmitter that shuts down the motor neurons, temporarily paralyzing the legs of the cockroach and, in doing so, leaves the host-in-waiting defenseless as the tiny green parasitoid positions itself for the coup de main, plunging its stinger through the soft membranes of the roach’s throat and into its brain, turning the potentially violent host into a compliant zombie.

Some scientists speculate that the injection of GABA into the brain of the cockroach triggers a dopamine-like effect, where the cockroach submits to its fate because of the pleasure it feels from the injection of the venom that will ultimately cost it its life.

Zionism is a Jewish nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century which aimed to establish a homeland for the Jewish people by seizing control of Palestine. Today the vision of Zionism has expanded from an Israel defined by the borders established by United Nations mandate in 1948 to something known as “Greater Israel,” a territory which corresponds to Biblical Israel. While Zionism is generally associated with the government of Israel and its policies, the fact is the greatest expression of Zionism is found in the United States, where American Zionist organizations have sought to hijack the American government and, by extension, the American people, to facilitate the creation of Greater Israel.

In many ways, the attack of the jewel wasp on the American cockroach resembles the approach taken by American Zionists in transforming the American nation and its people into a zombie-like host for the sustainment of that movement’s odious objectives. In place of a dopamine-inducing venom, the Zionists have weaponized the Holocaust, the genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany on the Jews of Europe. Norman Finklestein, the son of a Holocaust survivor, writes about this phenomenon in his book, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. Finkelstein argues convincingly that the American Jewish establishment—an extension of Zionism—has exploited the Nazi Holocaust for political and financial gain and to further the interests of Israeli Zionists.

In this way, the Holocaust becomes the equivalent of GABA, infecting the brains of the American host and, by distracting it with the fiction that Israel is the logical and legitimate legacy of the Holocaust, paralyzes the American people from rejecting this false association, and positioning it for what follows.

The American people are possessively protective of what they label their sovereign rights, especially those that pertain to the freedoms contained in the first ten amendments of the US Constitution (the Bill of Rights). The Holocaust-GABA injected into the brain of the American people by the Zionists, however, alters the functioning of the collective brains of the American people, dulling their response to stimuli that otherwise would trigger a visceral defensive reaction. In short, the Holocaust-GABA injection carried out by the Zionist parasitoid mutes the neurons of the American host, so they are less active and responsive, leading to the willing forgoing of sovereignty in favor of being eaten alive.

The injection of the GABA-Holocaust venom into the American brain by the Zionist wasp results in several behaviors that should readily be recognized by anyone not so injected as self-destructive in nature. First and foremost is the attack on free speech. By equating the Holocaust to the legitimacy of the Zionist mission, the GABA-Holocaust venom enables the suppression of free speech, that most fundamental American right. Criticism of Zionism becomes criticism of the Holocaust, which then is categorized as inherently antisemitic, leading to the conclusion that criticism of Zionism is in and of itself an antisemitic act.

The Zionist parasitoid then seeks to criminalize this newly defined antisemitism, making any support of those opposed to Zionism a criminal act punishable by arrest and, if one isn’t blessed with American citizenship, deportation. The Zionist parasitoid had dulled the sensibilities of Americans who normally would rally around causes that define the very essence of American civil liberty, such as free speech and due process, to the point where we cheer masked jack-booted thugs disguised as Federal agents snatching people from their homes and off the streets, trying them in kangaroo courts, and shipping them out of the country in total disregard for the rule of law.

This is the death of America.

And the Zionist parasitoid made this possible.

The GABA-Holocaust venom only dulls the response mechanisms of the host, however. It does not diminish them completely. Given enough appropriate stimuli, the American host can still act in its own best interests. This was recently manifested when the Zionist parasitoid sought to have the US join Israel in a military strike against Iran. Despite considerable pressure being placed on the administration of President Trump by the Zionist parasitoid, negotiations with Iran were chosen as the preferred path.

Peace over war.

But the American host is not yet out of danger. The Zionist parasitoid has planted an egg in the body of the American host known as the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. Left to its own devices, AIPAC will seek to take full control of the functioning of its American host, devouring it from the inside out while the American people relish the dopamine effect of the GABA-Holocaust venom the Zionist parasitoid injected into its brain.

The American host was conscious enough to recognize the danger of being led into a war with Iran at the best of the Zionist parasitoid known as Israel.

We must now recognize AIPAC as the lethal embodiment/embedding of the Zionist parasitoid.

Before laying its egg in its cockroach host, the jewel wasp delivers three stings: one to paralyze the host, and the second to seize control of the host’s motor neurons. But there is a third sting, one that is critical to the egg-laying process, which is delivered to a specific portion of the host’s body, injecting a substance known as acetylcholine which activates specific motor neurons which cause the cockroach host to extend the middle leg on the side the jewel wasp had chosen to lay its egg. When the cockroach folds up its middle leg, the wasp cannot explore the surface with its sensory hairs to find the sweet spot for its egg. By taking control of the neural circuit that causes middle leg extension, the jewel wasp overcomes the last defense the host has to become a zombie. Without the leg extension, the egg would not set, and the roach would avoid becoming a living host to that which would eventually kill it.

Some cockroaches act passively when confronted by a jewel wasp, enabling the three stings to occur without issue, ensuring the extension of the middle leg, and the laying of the egg. Others, however, opt to confront the jewel wasp, and in doing so facilitate their survival, even if the first two stings are made. Some roaches retain enough ability to react to dangerous stimuli so that they not only keep their middle leg folded up, but also kick back against the jewel wasp, eventually causing the wasp to leave in search of a more compliant target.

The American people have been stung twice by the Zionist parasitoid. But we have, so far, avoided the third, fatal sting. This was proven when the Trump administration withstood the pressure from Zionist Israel to attack Iran.

We now must start kicking back against the Zionist parasitoid, flinging it from our body, preventing that third, fatal sting, and denying it the ability to have the AIPAC egg take control of our American body.

I recently posted on my X account that “AIPAC is an unregistered foreign agent whose continued existence poses an existential threat to the survival of America.”

This is as true a statement, and vivid an articulation of the threat as one can make.

“American,” I concluded, “needs to wake up and take action before it’s too late.”

The Zionist parasitoid has already delivered two deadly stings that have infected our nation with the GABA-Holocaust venom and which has us destroying the very defenses of free speech and due process we rely upon to survive as a free and sovereign democracy.

The AIPAC egg is waiting in the wings to be inserted and then to consume any notion of a free and independent people who aspire to the promise and vision of our founding fathers.

We need to start kicking back.

AIPAC is fatal to America.

And the Zionist parasitoid is an enemy of the American people.

And by Zionist parasitoid, I mean the state of Israel.

This is not an antisemitic trope.

This is a call to action for American patriots everywhere to save our great nation.

Don’t become Zionist zombies.

Fight back.

Make America great again.

Before it is too late.

Share

Subscribe now

Donate now

If the US government had its way, my latest book, Highway to Hell: The Armageddon Chronicles, 2015-2024, would never have been written, let alone published. The government wants to control the narrative around the threat of nuclear conflict. Highway to Hell destroys the government narrative, exposing the reality of the dangers of a nuclear conflict, and how the government is making such a conflict more than a possibility, but rather a distinct probability, for the American people and the rest of the world.

When Highway to Hell was first conceived, I was in the midst of a campaign—Operation DAWN—designed to make preventing nuclear war and promoting arms control a central issue for the 2024 Presidential election. Highway to Hell was intended to be a primer for the education of Americans on the imminent danger of nuclear war, and the absolute necessity for disarmament and arms control as the ideal mechanisms to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle.

The Biden administration’s Department of Justice and FBI, however, took umbrage with this campaign and, as part of a larger effort to counter so-called Russian interference in the American electoral process.

On August 7 of 2024, the FBI raided my home. They seized my personal electronics, including my main laptop where I kept my files and drafts of work in progress. On that laptop there were several lengthy articles and two draft books. The FBI also seized archival material that was being used in both the articles and the draft books.

But the FBI did more: by carrying out such a high-profile raid, the FBI highlighted their allegations that I was an agent of the Russian Federation. They brought into question my credibility as a journalist and analyst, and by linking their allegations to my status as a contributor to both RT and Sputnik, sought to paint me as a Russian propogandist, and my work, by extension, Russian propaganda.

In short, the FBI raid was an elaborate act of theater designed to destroy a critical voice at the very moment this voice needed to be heard the most: on the eve of a national election where the issue of nuclear war and arms control was one of the most important being considered by the American people.

While I was, and still am, unable to access the draft articles and books, along with the archival research documents, I was not about to let the FBI and, by extension, the US government, silence me.

When the work the government labeled as propaganda (i.e., my articles published in RT and Sputnik) is combined with work I have done over the course of the past decade, the government’s efforts fail miserably.

This is especially true when addressing the issue of the threat posed by nuclear weapons and the critical importance of arms control in containing and eliminating this threat.

The government claims that in articles I published with RT and Sputnik I am simply parroting Russian talking points.

This is the furthest thing from the truth: when these articles are read side by side with dozens of other articles written over the years for outlets such as The Huffington Post, TruthDig, The American Conservative, The Washington Spectator, Consortium News and Energy Intelligence, the consistency of argument and the heavy reliance on fact-based analysis underscores the reality that my work is my work alone, influenced by no outside parties, including the Russian government.

The articles were, however, intended to influence the target audience, namely the American people.

And this is exactly what the FBI and the Biden administration were trying to prevent by raiding my home.

In preparing the original draft of Highway to Hell, I had gone back and reviewed the totality of my writing about nuclear weapons and arms control since 2015. I had written a couple chapters prior to the FBI raid, which were lost when the FBI seized my computer. Anyone who writes knows how hard it is to pour yourself into a project, and how hard it is to try and recreate that product in case it is lost, erased, or—as in this case—stolen by the US government.

I was having a hard time getting motivated to re-write the chapters in question, and was re-reading the earlier articles to get myself motivated, when I was struck by an epiphany: why re-invent the wheel?

The book I was trying to write was, for all intents and purposes, already written.

Moreover, by assembling the various articles I had written over the years into a single volume, organized chronologically by topic, I would be able to demonstrate to anyone who read the book the reality that what I wrote for RT and Sputnik was exactly what I wrote for my American publishers. And finally, by writing a book that incorporated the RT and Sputnik articles I wrote on nuclear weapons and arms control, I would be standing up to the forces that were trying to silence me, not only by continuing to speak and write on topics they found disconcerting, but also by publishing the very material they were trying to delete from the public eye.

Highway to Hell was now more than simply a clarion call about the dangers of nuclear weapons and the need to rid the world of that danger, but it was also the physical manifestation of the absolute need for free speech (my voice) and a free press (Clarity Press, which had the courage to publish this book in the face of US government pressure not to.)

The threat of nuclear war is as great today as it has ever been in the history of the nuclear era, even more so than the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. Someday the history of what happened between September and December 2024 regarding the Biden administrations insane rush toward the nuclear apocalypse will be become public. What we know now, however, should be enough to send a chill down the spine of any American—the Biden administration gave Ukraine permission to use long-range US-made ATACMS missiles against targets inside Russia despite a Pentagon assessment which said such actions had a better than 50% chance of triggering a Russian nuclear response.

More than 50%.

And the Biden administration went ahead regardless.

Some people may think that the Biden administration believed the Russians were bluffing.

But a senior Democratic member of Congress, when briefed by the CIA about the new Russian nuclear doctrine that the Biden administration would be testing by greenlighting the use of ATACMS by Ukraine, made it clear that the CIA had concluded that the Russians were not bluffing.

The scariest part of the briefing, this representative told me, was not the CIA conclusion, but rather the fact that the senior Biden administration officials present were not concerned by the potential for a nuclear “exchange” with Russia.

This fact was backed by a presentation made in November 2024 by the Strategic Command officer responsible for America’s nuclear war plans. Rear Admiral Thomas Buchanan, the J-5 (Plans and Policy) for Strategic Command, told an audience at a panel hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the US was prepared to fight and win a nuclear war. While he did not cite Russia as the enemy in such an exchange, this conversation took place at the precise timeframe where the Biden administration was playing nuclear roulette with ATACMS missiles.

It is incumbent for the American public to empower themselves with knowledge and information about the dangers of nuclear war, and the need for arms control.

Highway to Hell is an ideal resource for this empowerment.

And the fact that the US government did its level best to keep this book from being published should be even more reason for this book to be read by every American.

Because free speech isn’t free if the American people are denied access to information by the US government.

Buy the book

Share

Subscribe now

Donate now

As America moves to bring an end to a conflict in Ukraine we helped precipitate, it needs to guard against opponents of this new policy trajectory who will seek to disrupt its new role as peacemaker and/or extract vengeance on the United States for betraying their cause. Perhaps the greatest threat to the United States in this regard is the enemy within—the Ukrainian-American diaspora whose loyalty to the odious ideology of Stepan Bandera transcends everything—including the land which they currently call home.

In May 1940, 805 delegates from 168 different Ukrainian-American communities met in Washington, DC to form the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, or UKKA. Three of these organizations—the Ukrainian National Association, the Providence Association of Ukrainian Catholics in America, and the Ukrainian National Aid Association in America—had previously come together in 1922 to form the United Ukrainian Organizations in America (Obiednannia Ukrainskykh Orhanizatsii v Amerytsi, or OUO). Over the years, the OUO had been very active, raising around $250,000 dollars to help Ukrainian organizations in Western Europe and in Western Ukraine, and to protest the Polish “Pacification in Eastern Galicia" that took place from September-November 1932, and the famine in Soviet Ukraine which occurred in1932–3.

The OUO represented the initial wave of Ukrainian-Americans who had come to this country in the 19^th century. At the end of the First World War, however, a second wave of Ukrainian immigrants began to arrive, survivors of Ukraine’s violent efforts at independence. This second wave of immigrants included many who were loyal to the Ukrainian Military Organization (UVO), a resistance organization formed from veterans of Ukraine’s abortive bid for nationhood. Later, in 1929, the UVO was reorganized as the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, or OUN, co-founded by Andriy Melnyk, Yevhen Konovalets, and Stepan Bandera. The OUN was the largest Ukrainian nationalist organization, known for its extreme far-right ideology.

The UKKA advocated on behalf of Ukrainian nationalist interests during the difficult war years, a task complicated by the fact that the OUN was investigated by the FBI in the late 1930’s because of its affiliation with Nazi Germany. But the German invasion and occupation of Ukraine allowed the UKKA to alter the narrative regarding Ukrainians from collaborator to victim, and in 1944 the UKK established the United Ukrainian American Relief Committee (ZUADK) to aid Ukrainians displaced by the war. Between 1947 and 1957, ZUADK facilitated the resettlement of some 60,000 Ukrainian refugees into the United States.

Most of these refugees came from the displaced persons (DP) camps established by the western allies in occupied Germany. At the end of the Second World War, there were some two million Ukrainian refuges on German soil. By the end of 1945, approximately 1.8 million of these refugees had been returned to their homeland. Some left willingly, others were compelled to go against their will. By early 1946, some 200,000 Ukrainians remained, around 40% of whom represented Ukrainians who had fled their country along with the retreating German Army, and the others former slave laborers brought to work in German factories. While these refugees identified as Ukrainians, the western allies were loath to grant them citizenship to a nation the Soviet Union, a wartime ally, said did not exist. As such, these refugees were labeled as “stateless persons” or, more popular, “displaced persons,” or DP’s.

While the ideological composition of the more than 1,000 DP camps that had been established by the western powers was as diverse as Ukraine itself, the populations quickly fell under the control of the OUN, and more specifically, that part of the OUN loyal to Stepan Bandera (OUN-B.) Using the typical tools of coercion, including extreme violence that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of noncompliant DPs, the OUN-B began shaping how the DP population defined Ukrainian nationalism. By the time the decision was made to disband the camps and resettle the DP’s abroad, the OUN-B had brought around 70% of the DP population into its ideological fold.

The infusion of 40,000 hard core Banderists into the overall population of Ukrainian-Americans had a telling impact on the political orientation of organizations such as the UKKA; gradually, just as had occurred in the DP camps of western-occupied Germany, the discipline and organizational skill of the OUN-B resulted in their seizing political control over most of the organizations that comprised the UKKA. Soon the Banderist faction set their sights on the next generation of Ukrainian-American nationalists, forming the Ukrainian Youth Association (SUM), established in 1949. In 1962, at their flagship location in Ellenville, New York, SUM erected a monument to those they called the “heroes” of Ukraine—Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych, Symon Petliura and Yevhen Konovalets. Every summer since, SUM runs a series of summer camps for kids of all ages, thoroughly indoctrinating them into the Banderist ideology, centered as it is around the notion of Ukrainian exceptionalism and unquestioned loyalty to the movement.

During the 1960’s and 70’s, the OUN-B faction solidified its control over the various organizations that made up the UKKA under the banner of what they called the “Liberation Front.” The “Liberation Front” was the American arm of what was known as the “World Ukrainian Liberation Front” (SUVF), a coalition of Ukrainian diaspora organizations loyal to the OUN-B. The SUVF first assembled in 1973, and by the end of the 1970’s had positioned itself to take control of the UKKA. During the 1980 UKKA convention, the “Liberty Front” arrived with sufficient delegates to claim total control of the UKKA leadership. Many Ukrainian-American organizations withdrew from the UKKA in protest.

The UKKA describes itself as “a bipartisan American organization that advocates for a strategic partnership between the United States and Ukraine. Our mission is to encourage and persuade the US government to enact specific policies that create ever stronger, more enduring, and mutually beneficial ties with the Ukrainian nation.”

According to their website, the UKKA fundraises “for various different causes in support of Ukraine, and UKKA works closely with other organizations like USAID and the Embassy of Ukraine in the United States to coordinate aid. UKKA further seeks to rally Ukrainian and international communities behind global campaigns to support Ukraine’s resistance.”

The close collaboration between the UKKA and the US Government over the years cannot be overstated. Throughout the 1990’s, Ukrainian “influencers” (radio and television hosts, journalists, and aspiring politicians) were recruited under programs fully funded by USAID that brought these individuals to the United States for “orientation” (i.e., guided visits to the White House, Congress, the State Department, and the Pentagon) where they met and coordinated with US policymakers on issues pertaining to Ukraine. In every instance, those who participated in such visits were assigned an “official” US government representative, and a “Banderist” from the UKKA.

The bottom line is that every aspect of US policy toward Ukraine in the lead-up to President Trump’s second term has been closely coordinated with the most extreme virulent form of Ukrainian nationalism imaginable—that espoused by Stepan Bandera and embraced without question by his loyal followers.

In the aftermath of Trump’s public humiliation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the White House, Ukrainian nationalists throughout Ukraine began burning Trump in effigy. Others affiliated with the Ukrainian military called upon the Ukrainian diaspora to be prepared to undertake acts of violence to hold those accountable who have betrayed the cause of Bandera.

As I listen to these threats and reflect on the fact that the United States today provides a haven for the literal allies of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany, I take note of the fact that Ellenville, New York is but 60 miles south of where I live. Here successive generations of Ukrainian-American Banderists have been trained as paramilitary operatives ready to participate in armed resistance against those forces opposed to the odious ideology of their master, Stepan Bandera, and its modern-day manifestation as part of Zelensky’s Ukraine.

It is this legion of ideologically-aligned Ukrainian-American youth—successive generations of them—that the Ukrainian nationalists in Ukraine are appealing to.

And as the US works with Russia to bring the conflict in Ukraine to a close in a manner which will be seen as a betrayal by these expatriate Banderists, America needs to be on guard. Because the indoctrination of the Banderists, as carried out in camps such as the ones conducted in Ellenville, place loyalty to the Banderist organization and the cause of Ukrainian nationalism above all else.

Including the United States in which they live and have called home all these years.

Share

Subscribe now

Donate now