WORLD AT WAR: 12.11.21 - RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA

Is third sabotage the charm at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility? – Yonah Jeremy Bob - https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/sabotage-at-irans-natanz-nuclear-facility-30-analysis-687849 Was Iran's Natanz nuclear facility just attacked for the third time in two years? Did the Mossad or someone just try to sabotage Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz for the third time since July 2020? Reports are still hazy, but as of Saturday night, the narratives varied from: Iran undertook a preplanned air defense drill unrelated to sabotage, but shot down an attackdrone thwarting a sabotage attempt. Electricity and the Internet were down for some unspecified part of Natanz, which could mean a sabotage attempt succeeded, but the Islamic Republic is still trying to cover it up. Natanz was hit by physical explosive sabotage in July 2020 and again in April. The July 2020 attack was more successful, and destroyed the vast majority of an above-ground nuclear site. An April attack destroyed centrifuges and a variety of utilities of a newer underground site, but only fully delayed Iran’s advanced centrifuge progress for about four months,while causing some longer-term slowdowns. Curiously, the April attack took place near the start of Vienna nuclear negotiations. If this event was an attack, it would have taken place at the end of the first week of renewed nuclear negotiations. Both in July 2020 and in April, Iran initially tried to deny there was an attack or deny its success until The Jerusalem Post reported that the attacks were successful andhad caused severe damage. Following the Post’s and other media reports, Tehran was forced to acknowledge that its nuclear sites had been hit, and badly. It later accused the Mossad of both hits, so Tehran’s initial denials should be taken with a grain of salt. Another nuclear site, Karaj, was hit this past June, days after Ebrahim Raisi was elected Iran’s new president. This could be a second message to Raisi that his attempt to push the envelope with increasing nuclear violations as well as taking maximalist positions in Vienna could leavehim vulnerable, even if much of the West is intimidated by him. Or maybe this time Iran’s air defenses improved and thwarted an attack. Then again, for the first time in four such similar events, maybe it was just a pre-planned air-defense drill. Satellite footage made it impossible for Tehran to cover up the damage in both Natanz attacks, but strangely, satellite footage was slower in coming with Karaj, when Raisihad taken power and the Biden administration was seeking a return to talks. It will be interesting to see what satellite footage shows this time. ----------------------------- What Russia Wants in Ukraine � Soren Kern - https://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=5106 A massive build-up of Russian troops along the Ukrainian border is fueling speculation of an imminent invasion. Western leaders have warned Russian President Vladimir Putinagainst military action, but, especially after the catastrophic American withdrawal from Afghanistan, they appear divided and weak and may be unable to stop him. A Russian invasion of Ukraine, if successful, would expand Moscow's sphere of influence along its western border and pave the way for Eastern Europe and the Baltics to comeunder Russian domination once again. On December 3, the Washington Post reported that it had obtained an American intelligence document which assessed that Russia is planning a multi-front offensive involvingnearly 200,000 troops within the next few months. The unclassified document, which includes satellite photos, shows Russian forces massing in four locations near Ukraine. The document states that Russia already has roughly half the units -- 50 battlefield strike groups consisting of a total of 70,000 troops -- it needs for an invasion deployednear the border. Most of those units have arrived since September. A Biden administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said: "The Russian plans call for a military offensive against Ukraine as soon as early 2022 with a scale of forces twice what we saw this past spring during Russia's snap exercisenear Ukraine's borders. The plans involve extensive movement of 100 battalion tactical groups with an estimated 175,000 personnel, along with armor, artillery and equipment." The American intelligence assessment -- leaked on the same day that Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov said that Russia has amassed nearly 100,000 troops near theborder and will be ready to invade in late January 2022 -- comes after U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken discussed the Ukraine situation with his European counterparts. On December 1, after a NATO summit in Latvia, Blinken said: "We don't know whether President Putin has made the decision to invade. We do know that he is putting in place the capacity to do so on short order should he so decide.We must prepare for all contingencies. "We've made it clear to the Kremlin that we will respond resolutely, including with a range of high impact economic measures that we've refrained from using in the past." On December 2, Blinken met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the sidelines of a ministerial meeting of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe(OSCE) in Stockholm. Blinken demanded that Russia withdraw troops from the Ukrainian border. Lavrov deflected by warning that his country regarded the eastward expansion of the NATO military alliance as a "fundamental" security threat. "No one should strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others," Lavrov said. "NATO's further eastward expansion will obviously affect our fundamentalsecurity interests." Putin, speaking at an investment forum in Moscow, warned that Russia would act if its "red lines" on Ukraine were crossed by NATO. NATO has not agreed to grant Ukraine membership, nor has the alliance deployed troops or weapons to Ukraine. NATO views Ukraine as a "partner" and has provided trainingand other forms of military support. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg indicated that the alliance would not defend Ukraine if it was attacked by Russia: "It is important to distinguish between NATO allies and partner Ukraine. NATO allies, there we provide [Article 5] guarantees, collective defense guarantees, and we willdefend and protect all allies. "Ukraine is a partner, a highly-valued partner. There's a difference between a partner Ukraine and an ally like, for instance, Latvia. We need to understand the differencebetween a NATO ally, Latvia, other Baltic countries, Poland, Romania, and a close and highly valued partner, Ukraine. We provide support for Ukraine ... for the NATO allies we have the security guarantees, Article 5." NATO did not defend Ukraine after Russia's first invasion in 2014, when Moscow occupied and then annexed the Crimean Peninsula, nor did it defend Georgia, another NATO "partner,"after Russia's invasion in 2008. Stoltenberg hinted that the Western response to any Russian invasion would be limited to economic sanctions: "There will be a high price to pay for Russia if they once again use force against the independent, sovereign nation Ukraine. We have demonstrated our ability to imposecosts, economic, political actions." Stoltenberg also said that Russia has no right to extend its "sphere of influence" over Ukraine: "It is only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. Russia has no veto. Russia has no say. And Russia has no right to establish a sphereof influence, trying to control their neighbors.... "They try to re-establish some kind of acceptance that Russia has the right to control what neighbors do, or not do.... "I, myself, I'm coming from a small country bordering Russia. And I'm very glad that our NATO allies have never respected that Russia has the kind of right to establisha sphere of influence in the North, trying to decide what Norway, as a small, independent country can do or not do. "And that's exactly the same for Ukraine. Ukraine is an independent, sovereign nation with internationally recognized borders, guaranteed by Russia and all the other powers.And those borders, those internationally recognized borders should be respected. And that includes, of course, Crimea as part of Ukraine, and Donbas as part of Ukraine. So, this idea that NATO's support to a sovereign nation is the provocation, is just wrong.It's to respect the sovereignty of, the will of, the Ukrainian people. "So I think that tells more about Russia than about NATO." On December 3, U.S. President Joe Biden said that his administration was "putting together...the most comprehensive and meaningful set of initiatives to make it very, verydifficult for Mr. Putin to go ahead and do what people are worried he's going to do." A spokesperson for the White House's National Security Council said that Washington was "deeply concerned by evidence that Russia is stepping up its planning for significantmilitary action against Ukraine." He concluded: "The Biden administration has been consistent in our message to Russia: the United States does not seek conflict, and the best way to avert a crisis and a negative spiralin the broader relationship is through diplomacy and de-escalation." The London-based Financial Times reported that some European officials were "surprised" about the strength of the U.S. intelligence assessment and that authorities on bothsides of the Atlantic have spent weeks comparing and contrasting their evaluations. The newspaper added that the Biden administration is seeking to announce the consequences to Russia of a Ukraine invasion as part of a diplomatic push to deter Putin fromdeciding to act. An American defense official told the Financial Times that the Biden administration was considering providing weaponry to Ukraine, but that inter-agency discussions werecontinuing and no decisions had yet been made. On December 3, a Biden administration official said: "Since the beginning of this administration we have demonstrated that the United States and our allies are willing to use a number of tools to address harmful Russian actions,and we will not hesitate from making use of those and other tools in the future." On December 6, in an interview with the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail, Reznikov, the Ukrainian defense minister, urged military support from Britain, Canada andthe United States, even if it is outside NATO. He said that the "Anglo-Saxon allies" were more likely to challenge Putin's aggressive behavior than countries like France and Germany, which are more concerned about maintaining their economic relationships withRussia. What Does Russia Want? Analysts are divided on what is motivating Putin. Some believe that he is using the Ukraine issue to deflect from runaway inflation and a divisive push for Covid vaccinepassports. Others say that Putin is fixated on restoring Russian control over Ukraine and other former members of the former Soviet Union. Max Seddon, Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times, wrote: "Analysts say Putin's desire to rid Ukraine of western influence is underpinned by a conviction that it is an inalienable part of the 'Russian world,' a Moscow-centric sphereof influence rooted in the Soviet Union and the Tsarist empire. "Putin has described the collapse of the USSR, which separated millions of intermarried families on either side of the Ukrainian border, as 'the greatest geopolitical catastropheof the 20th century' and has questioned the grounds on which Ukraine broke off from Russia. "Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, Putin likened the Ukrainian peninsula, where Vladimir the Great -- the first Christian ruler of Rus, a medieval state ruledfrom Kyiv -- was baptized in 988AD, as 'Russia's Temple Mount' -- a notion that has no theological basis but cast Putin as the protector of Russians everywhere." In July, Putin published a 5,000-word article -- "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" -- in which he wrote that he was convinced that the "true sovereigntyof Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia." He vowed Moscow would never allow the country to become "anti-Russia." Putin was apparently referring to laws introduced by the Ukrainian government in July 2019 that aim to promote the primacy of the Ukrainian language. Those laws limit theuse of the Russian language in public settings and exclude Russians from a list of Ukraine's "indigenous peoples." In an interview with the Financial Times, political analyst Tatiana Stanovaya said: "In Putin's understanding, the people of Ukraine are basically one with Russians, so they should support integration with Russia. But since the country is under the thumbof the West the people are being tricked -- they're hostage to geopolitical games. If the Americans left, it'd be a unified state and everything would be great. Or so Putin thinks." Pavlo Klimkin, Ukraine's former foreign minister, added: "Putin has a sense of mission on reinstalling a new kind of empire. It's sitting very deep in his mind. Not just Ukraine's success, but also any separate path of Ukrainewould be highly damaging to the Russian mythology. "The narrative in Russia is that there is no Ukrainian identity as such, including history, language, mentality and statehood. Putin's stance on Ukraine is highly irrational.Ukrainians and Russians have two different sets of values." Ukrainian MP Oleksiy Goncharenko said: "Putin's article claims to be about history, but in reality it is about the future and not the past. Ukraine holds the key to Putin's dreams of restoring Russia's greatpower status. He is painfully aware that without Ukraine, this will be impossible. "Putin's essay does not actually contain anything new. Indeed, we have already heard these same arguments many times before. However, his article does help clarify thatthe current conflict is not about control over Crimea or eastern Ukraine's Donbas region; it is a war for the whole of Ukraine. Putin makes it perfectly clear that his goal is to keep Ukraine firmly within the Russian sphere of influence and to prevent Ukraine'sEuro-Atlantic integration." Swedish scholar Anders �slund warned: "Make no mistake: by denying Ukraine's right to independence, Putin is setting the stage for war. The West must quickly decide what it is willing to do to prevent it." Western Weakness, Energy Dependence Putin appears to have become emboldened by perceptions that the West will most likely make public protests but do nothing to stop him. In Europe, policies promoted for decades by Germany have allowed the European Union to become overly dependent on Russia for its energy supplies. If, in retaliation fora Russian invasion of Ukraine, the EU or the United States were to impose economic sanctions that threatened the survival of the Putin regime, Moscow could stop deliveries of oil and natural gas. Such a move would quickly bring the European Union to its kneesand force the bloc to lift its sanctions. Putin also appears to view the Biden administration as feeble and feckless. In July, for instance, the White House abruptly reversed long-standing bi-partisan policy consensusand reached an agreement with German Chancellor Angela Merkel that allows for the completion of a controversial natural gas pipeline between Russia and Germany. The deal to complete the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would double shipments of Russian natural gas to Germany by transporting the gas under the Baltic Sea, angered theleaders of many countries in Eastern and Western Europe; they argued that it will effectively give Moscow a stranglehold over European gas supplies and open the continent to Russian blackmail. Both the Obama and Trump administrations opposed the pipeline on the grounds that, once completed, it would strengthen Putin's energy stranglehold over Europe. The Trump administration was especially critical of the pipeline because it will funnel billions of dollars to Russia at a time when Germany is free-riding on the U.S. defenseumbrella that protects Germany from that same Russia. Just one day before the Biden-Merkel deal was announced, State Department Spokesman Ned Price criticized the pipeline as a "Kremlin geopolitical project that is intendedto expand Russia's influence over Europe's energy resources and to circumvent Ukraine." White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki had also previously asserted that the Biden administration "continues to believe that Nord Stream 2 is a bad deal for Europe." The Biden administration has not explained why or how completion of the pipeline would promote American or European strategic interests. The White House reportedly urgedUkraine to withhold public criticism of the deal with Germany and also asked Ukrainian officials not to discuss the agreement with members of the U.S. Congress. The Biden administration warned Ukraine that going public with opposition to Nord Stream 2 could"damage the Washington-Kyiv bilateral relationship." In November 2021, a classified German government document leaked to Axios, an American news website, showed that Germany urged the U.S. Congress not to impose sanctionson the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The document stated that opposition to the pipeline would "weaken the credibility of the U.S. government" and "seriously weaken transatlantic unity on Russia." It also claimed that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline poses "no threat"to Ukraine. Geopolitical analysts on both sides of the Atlantic say that the pipeline deal will: 1) weaken American and strengthen Russian influence in Europe; 2) heighten divisionsbetween the Eastern and Western European members of the European Union; 3) push some of the EU's eastern periphery closer to China; 4) deprive Ukraine of the transit fees it now collects on gas pumped through an existing pipeline and thereby undermine Kiev'sstruggle against Russian aggression; and 5) allow Putin to strong-arm Germany and the European Union by turning off deliveries of natural gas whenever he wants. Failed Peace Talks Russia and Ukraine have been engaged in an armed conflict since February 2014, when Russia occupied and annexed the Crimean Peninsula. Russia subsequently occupied muchof the industrial Donbas region in eastern Ukraine. Russia is accused of arming and financing a separatist uprising in Ukraine. The conflict has cost over 14,000 lives and left millions displaced. In September 2014, Russia and Ukraine signed a peace plan -- the Minsk Protocol -- for eastern Ukraine. The Minsk-1 agreement was drafted by the Trilateral Contact Groupon Ukraine, which consisted of representatives from Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE. It failed to stop fighting in Donbas. The Minsk-2 agreement, signed in February 2015, was mediated by the leaders of France and Germany in the so-called Normandy Format. Thenew agreement contained 13 provisions, hardly any of which have been implemented. Russia and Ukraine have each accused each other of failing to honor the agreement. In 2021, Russia built-up troops on Ukraine's borders on two separate occasions. In May, Moscow deployed around 100,000 troops near the border and in Crimea. In September,Russia deployed nearly 200,000 troops to Belarus, which shares a long border with Ukraine. Some military analysts described the deployments as rehearsals for a full-scale Russian offensive. On December 2, during their meeting in Stockholm, Blinken, sitting alongside Lavrov, called for Russia to resume negotiations with Ukraine over the Minsk-2 agreement withinthe "Normandy Format," sponsored by France and Germany. Lavrov demanded that the United States create an alternate channel of dialogue directly with the Kremlin. Some analysts believe the latest Russian troop build-up on the border is designed, at least in part, to force direct negotiations between Moscow and Washington, accordingto David Herszenhorn, chief Brussels correspondent for Politico. A separate channel of dialogue could undermine the Normandy Format and further divide the West by prying apart Europe and the United States. In a recent column, David Ignatius, foreign affairs commentator for the Washington Post, revealed that such a separate channel may already be in operation. The Biden administration,he wrote, "had signaled support for an eventual diplomatic deal on Ukraine that would give Putin much of what he wanted." Select Commentary In an essay published by the Center for European Policy Analysis, analysts Edward Lucas, Ben Hodges and Carsten Schmiedl wrote: "The Russian regime's foremost interest is its own hold on power. All policy, internal and external, stems from this overriding goal. The Kremlin sees the West, the EuropeanUnion (EU), and NATO as threats to this stability, and as potential instigators of 'color revolutions' that will exploit Russia's ethnic, religious, political, and other fissures. "The long-term goal is, therefore, a polycentric or multipolar world in which multilateral, rules-based organizations are unable to dictate terms to Russia. Instead, theKremlin aims to be the dominant power in Eurasia, using Russia's size to exert strong influence over its neighbors and over small countries, and to bargain with big countries on an equal basis.... "The ongoing war in Ukraine gives Russia a semi-permanent seat in European security discussions, and exploits underlying differences between France and Germany on one side,and the United States and other European countries on the other." Writing for the Poland-based Center for Eastern Studies, Russia expert Marek Menkiszak noted: "Recent weeks have brought further displays of Russia's escalating aggressive rhetoric and actions towards Ukraine, including troop movements near its border, as well asuse of energy as leverage. This raises questions about Moscow's intentions. Both the statements of Russian leaders and the policy of the Russian Federation in recent years indicate that it has not abandoned attempts to achieve one of its main policy objectives:restoring control over Ukraine. This is despite the fact that its actions to date -- both limited military aggression and political, economic, and propaganda pressure -- have only moved it further awayfrom this goal. In the current conditions, with the stalemate in the Donbas conflict continuing, the Russian Federation is faced with a choice of its future strategy towards Ukraine. It has two main options: to escalate the armed conflict in the Donbas inorder to achieve a rapid breakthrough, or to intensify long-term pressure, i.e. to play for Kyiv's gradual exhaustion. The choice of strategy depends on the Russian perception of the situation, the attitude of Ukraine itself, and the behavior of key Westernactors.... "There are several arguments in favor of the escalation scenario. Firstly, Moscow is apparently impatient with the lack of results from its previous policy of pressure onKyiv. Secondly, the longer Ukraine remains outside Moscow's strategic control, the further it distances itself from Moscow in all respects, and the stronger its independent existence becomes. Third, the Kremlin may see the current international situation asconducive to the implementation of such a plan. "The first important factor here is Moscow's likely perception of the relative weakness of the US -- a key actor that could prevent it from pursuing aggressive action againstUkraine. The Kremlin's initial fear of 'retribution' from the new Joe Biden administration for its interference in the 2016 presidential election seems to have given way to the belief that Washington is focused on domestic problems and the challenge from China,so it is seeking to improve relations with the Russian Federation. This may be evidenced by, among other things, decisions to drop further restrictions targeting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a rather mild response to dangerous Russian cyberattacks on the UnitedStates (including on elements of its critical infrastructure), and an intensification of political and security (including arms control) dialogue with Moscow." In an essay published by the US-based Jamestown Foundation, Ukrainian diplomat Olexander Scherba wrote: "It is now November 2021, and Ukraine's warnings about Nord Stream Two were not heard. The pipeline, whose main purpose is to make Europe more dependent on Russia, was built -- on Europe's dime but under Russian Gazprom's ownership and control. Nord Stream Two has yet to be certified, but it is already causing substantial problems. "Because of the pipeline, the European Union is divided and Russia is all the more convinced that the EU is weak and corruptible. Moscow lobbyists around the world pontificatethat, with energy demand as well as prices soaring, the West's 'green delusion' is finally over, and the world is back to an era of rule by nations that have what really counts: oil, gas and coal. "For quite a while, Moscow has pursued a three-fold strategy: fool Europe, corrupt Europe, seduce Europe. The Nord Stream Two saga included all three elements. It fooledEurope by promising an unnecessary pipeline that was rooted in geopolitical expediency. It corrupted Europe, by hiring its former leaders to lucrative advisory contracts and allowing Europe to finance what it promised would eventually be a cash cow. With thepipeline certification under consideration, Russia is now in the seduction phase, promising that once Nord Stream Two is certified, gas supply problems, will go away. Of course, that is like saying that one more bottle of vodka will make alcoholism go away.... "Do not make the mistake of handing an essential part of Europe's future to a country that is demonstratively not the EU's friend. Time will not be kind to such decisionor to those who made it." In an essay published by the European Council on Foreign Relations, analyst Gustav Gressel concluded: "Russia has a clear aim: to weaken Ukraine so much that it will be relatively easy to control the country's politics. Moscow can achieve this by forcing Kyiv to implementthe Minsk agreement on its terms -- which would establish a de facto Russian veto on Ukrainian domestic affairs -- and by starting and exploiting anti-government revolts. Alternatively, Moscow could pressure Washington to 'deliver' Ukraine by signing security guarantees that favored Russia. These guarantees would prohibit Ukraine from notonly joining NATO but also engaging in any form of cooperation with the West that would strengthen its resilience. This would eventually force Ukraine back into Moscow's sphere of influence. "Given these considerations, Kyiv may believe that it can either fight for independence now or be forced to do so later -- probably in more challenging circumstances. Therefore,Kyiv may believe that it is worth standing up against a militarily superior enemy.... "If Russia's coercive strategy works well, there is no guarantee that it will stop with Ukraine. Russia's current alteration of the force structure in its Western MilitaryDistrict is partly directed against NATO. With Chinese-Russian military cooperation increasing, today's imponderables may become tomorrow's possibilities. American generals have long warned Europeans that, in the coming decades, the US may not be in a positionto simultaneously protect its Asian and European allies against the threat of both China and Russia.... "Many European leaders do not seem to grasp the seriousness of the situation. One can see this in the defense of Nord Stream 2 in recently leaked German cables to membersof the US Congress: Ukraine has a gun to its head, but the German government only seems worried about the survival of its pipeline. Berlin and Paris are resistant to a stronger NATO reaction -- citing fears that Russia may feel threatened by a military capableUkrainian state that has the support of the alliance. This is just the kind of poor judgement that enables Russian military aggression. "For now, many eastern and central European nations may feel secure in the assumption that Washington will protect them by placing Moscow under diplomatic and military pressure.But they should not be complacent: while certain groups of think-tankers have been arguing for concessions to Russia since 2014, their ideas have gained a new resonance this time. A Washington preoccupied with countering Beijing may soon be willing to turnthese arguments into policy -- not for their brilliance, but for their convenience." ----------------------- Now There Is Talk In Washington That A Nuclear First StrikeAgainst Russia Should Be �On The Table� - by Michael Snyder - http://endoftheamericandream.com/now-there-is-talk-in-washington-that-a-nuclear-first-strike-against-russia-should-be-on-the-table/ 59 years after the Cuban missile crisis, a new source of tension threatens to bring the United States and Russia to the brink of war. But instead of John F. Kennedy, wehave Joe Biden and his hapless minions in the White House. I wouldn�t trust Biden and his national security team to navigate us through a pancake crisis at the local Waffle House, and so I am definitely not optimistic that they will be able to handle the crisisin Ukraine. Unfortunately, at this point there isn�t much wisdom in the halls of Congress either. For example, on Tuesday U.S. Senator Roger Wicker went on television and told Fox News viewers that a nuclear first strike against the Russians should be an �option� that the Biden administration should keep open� Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) told Neil Cavuto on Tuesday that the United States should keep all options available when dealing with potential Russian aggression against Ukraine.That even includes a first-use nuclear strike against. That will definitely calm nerves in Moscow. I can�t believe that any member of Congress would be so reckless. Relations with Russia are now the most tense that they have been since the height of the Cuban missilecrisis, and Wicker is talking about sending our military vessels into the Black Sea and raining �destruction on Russian military capability�� Well, military action could mean that we standoff with our ships in the Black Sea and we rain destruction on Russian military capability,� the senator said. �It could meanthat. It could mean that we participate � and I would not rule that out. I would not rule out American troops on the ground.� Is he insane? Because any rational U.S. Senator would not speak like that. But what was even worse was when Wicker starting talking about �first-use nuclear action�� He added that as a matter of policy, in the U.S. �we don�t rule out first-use nuclear action. We don�t think it will happen. But there�s certain things in negotiations � if you�re going to be tough � that you don�t take off the table. And so I think the president should say that everything is on the table.� This is the kind of talk that can start a war. And when the time comes, I guarantee you that Russia will not hesitate to pull the trigger on a first strike if they believe that we are about to launch one. So we should be doing all that we can to bring emotions down. Wicker�s appearance on television came just hours after a very tense video call between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin. When the video call began, Putin was ready to roll, but Biden forgot to turn his microphone on� �I welcome you, Mr. President!� Putin said at the start of the call, according to a brief video of the opening moments. Biden experienced some technical difficulties on the call, apparently forgetting to switch his microphone on. During the call, Putin specifically asked for two things� And, in its readout of the two leaders� call, the Kremlin said that Putin asked Biden for guarantees that NATO would neither expand in an Eastern direction nor deploy �offensivestrike weapons systems in the states adjacent to Russia.� Putin keeps making these points over and over again. Just like we didn�t want Russian missiles in Cuba in 1962, he doesn�t want western missiles in Ukraine. Also, Putin is absolutely determined to keep Ukraine out of NATO. If Biden and other western leaders would agree to those two things, the crisis would be over. Unfortunately, Biden has no intention of ever giving Putin anything that he wants. Biden wants to show U.S. voters that he can be �tough� with the guy that Democrats havebeen demonizing for years, and so there will be no compromises. When he was asked about Putin�s red lines, Biden responded by saying �I don�t accept anybody�s red lines�. But Putin isn�t bluffing, and concern that his red lines will be crossed has motivated him to send large numbers of Russian troops to the border with Ukraine. In turn, this has raised fears in the western world that a potential invasion of Ukraine could be imminent. During his call with Putin, Biden warned that any attack wouldresult in more military resources being sent into Ukraine� In a high-stakes video teleconference, Biden emphasized that he preferred a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Ukraine. But he warned that the U.S. would send additionaldefense resources to Ukraine above what it is already providing and would be looking to deploy additional forces to fortify its NATO allies in the area in response to a Russian incursion in Ukraine. In addition, the Biden administration is threatening that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline could be shut off� Sullivan would not confirm reports that the U.S. has an agreement with Germany�s incoming government to cut off the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a much-disputed underseas gaspipeline planned to run from Russia to Germany, if Russia escalates its conflict with Ukraine. But, �if Vladimir Putin wants to see gas flow through that pipeline, he may not want to take the risk of invading Ukraine,� he said. Both sides keep raising the stakes. So what happens if one side decides to push all of their chips into the middle of the table? Following the call with Biden, the Kremlin placed the blame for the escalating crisis squarely on Biden and NATO� The Kremlin, in its summary of the call, described the conversation between Biden and Putin as �candid and businesslike.� �Putin emphasized that it�s wrong to put the responsibility on Russia, since it is NATO that has been making dangerous attempts to expand its presence on the Ukrainian territoryand has been expanding its military potential near Russian borders,� the Kremlin said. Let us hope that cooler heads prevail. Because one false move could send us tumbling into World War III. At this moment, it is being reported that the Russians have approximately 175,000 troops massed on the Ukrainian border� �What we continue to see, and what we continue to see is added capability that President Putin continues to add, added military capability in the western part of his countryand around Ukraine,� Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told CNN. US intelligence forces detected that Russia is massing around 175,000 troops on the border in preparation for a �massive offensive� as soon as early next year. Unlike many in the mainstream media, I do not believe that a Russian invasion is imminent. But if Biden and other western leaders decide to try to show how tough they are by crossing one of Putin�s red lines, that could change things really quickly. Ever since the 2016 presidential election, politicians in Washington have been relentlessly demonizing Russia, and now our relations with the Russians are at an all-timelow. At some point there will be war, but let us hope that it can be put off for as long as possible. Unfortunately, Biden is surrounded by the worst national security team that any U.S. president has ever had, and every time they try to �solve� a problem they always seemto make it even worse. --------------------------- VISIT: PROPHECY WATCHER WEEKLY NEWS: HTTP://PROPHECY-WATCHER-WEEKLY-NEWS.BLOGSPOT.COM