Very interesting admission by a senior US diplomat: Russia "betrayed" the NWO

I was just watching Alain Soral's latest video when I heard him offer a very interesting explanation for why the AngloZionist Empire hates Putin so much.  The article Soral quotes is entitled "The End of the New World Order" and it has been written by Christopher R. Hill, "former US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, was US Ambassador to Iraq, South Korea, Macedonia, and Poland, a US special envoy for Kosovo, a negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords, and the chief US negotiator with North Korea from 2005-2009", i.e. a big shot in the US imperial nomenklatura.  Here is what Hill writes:

Russia’s annexation of Crimea and ongoing intimidation of Ukraine appears to mean the end of a 25-year period whose hallmark was an effort to bring Russia into greater alignment with Euro-Atlantic goals and traditions. Now the question is: What comes next? (...) [the] new world order held for almost 25 years. Except for Russia’s brief war with Georgia in August 2008 (a conflict generally seen as instigated by reckless Georgian leadership), Russia’s acquiescence and commitment to the “new world order,” however problematic, was one of the great accomplishments of the post-Cold War era. Even Russia’s reluctance to support concerted Western action, such as in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990’s, was based on arguments that could be heard in other European countries. Russian democracy certainly had its share of flaws, but that hardly made it unique among post-communist countries. (...) Americans do need to understand the challenge they are facing from a Russia that no longer seems interested in what the West has been offering for the last 25 years: special status with NATO, a privileged relationship with the European Union, and partnership in international diplomatic endeavor.

Bingo!  For all the wrong reasons (the usual crap about a resurgent and revanchist Russian Empire), Hill is absolutely right: Russia has absolutely zero interest in the "Western project".  Yup!  From 1991 (and really even before that) to 1999 Russia was an imperial colony run by a collection of mostly Jewish oligarchs who hated Russia and who literally stole everything they could.  From 1999 to 2012 Putin and his "Eurasian Sovereignists" had to share power with Medvedev's "Atlantic Integrationists" (for the meaning of these terms see here and here) but since 2012 the former have pretty much seized full control of the Russian state.  Hence the apparent change in course since 2012 and the West's hysterical reaction of outrage, impotent furstration and barely contained hatred for the men whom they see as the number one enemy of the NWO on the planet and in that assessment they are actually absolutely correct, if late.

Yes, today Russia has fundamentally turned away from the NWO and purged most, if not all, of the pro-NWO elite in Moscow.  The future of Russia is in Asia and in the great Russian North and there is nothing the AngloZionist Empire can do about that.

The Saker

Anti-Shia plans finalized by NWO elites?

The leaders of the New World Order are clearly engaged in major and intense consultations of how to deal with the "Shia problem".  Check out this agenda:

• May 18th – May 19th: G8 Summit in Camp David, MD.
• May 20th - May 21st: NATO summit in Chicago, Il.
• May 31st - June 1st: Bilderberg Conference in Chantilly, VA.

On the agenda?  Syria and Iran, of course, at least according to Russian sources.  Practically, here are the options which must be decided upon:

1. Military strike on Iran and its inevitable consequences

2. Military intervention in Syria

3. Annexation of Bahrain by Saudi Arabia

The G8 summit will be an excellent opportunity to check out what the Russian position on this three topics will be, in particular since the election of Vladimir Putin.  Then, at the NATO summit, NWO leaders will have the opportunity to see who is on-board with these plans and who is not (most will), and finally the Bilderberg Conference will be the perfect setting for the Bilderberg Steering Committee and the interests behind it to take a final decision on these topics.  It is also likely that the upcoming Presidential elections in the USA will be discussed and that a post-Obama candidate will be selected to replace Obama.

I suspect that there will be a lot of horse-trading with Russia as the West can easily hand Putin a terrific PR "victory" by giving in on the anti-missile shield in Europe (either by shelving the entire idea - unlikely - or by getting the Russian involved - possible, but still unlikely - or by giving written guarantees to the Russian - which is probably what they will choose).  However, to give this to Putin the West will demand his compliance on Syria and even possibly Iran, and I personally very much doubt that this will happen.  So my personal guess is that the Russians and the West will put a positive spin on it all, but that they will not agree on anything meaningful.

I also don't see anybody in Europe agreeing to a NATO military intervention in Syria (except the Brits, of course - "poodles" - or the Central European, but they are irrelevant anyway).  Not because of any Russian efforts to rescue Assad, but basically because this is a militarily and politically risky operation with no clear exit strategy.  So for Syria, "more of the same, only worse" is probably the "best" choice for the West.

As for Iran, paradoxically, it is far more likely that the US will strike at it.  Yes, Iran is far bigger and far more powerful than Syria, but the objectives of a strike on Iran will be far more limited.  Indeed, I don't believe that anybody seriously has any more hopes for regime change in Iran, so the next best fallback option is to cripple Iran economically and humiliate it politically by doing to it what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006 and to Gaza in 2008.  Kill a maximum number of people while crippling the infrastructure.  The Israelis, who know full well that there is no Iranian military nuclear program, might even settle for less: a short 24 hour bombing campaign destined at humiliating Iran and at making the Israelis feel good about themselves.  Yes, this is naive and dangerous, but then the Israelis are stupid and arrogant.

As for the annexation of Bahrain, the Saudis can probably do it, in particular if the USA fully supports such an operation.

And make no mistake - the the US/Israeli Empire speaks of a "total war on Islam" they mean *Shia* Islam, not Islam in general, simply because the non-Shia Islamic world has been very effectively co-opted and neutered a long time ago and is a de-facto ally of Zionist interests.

There is no war on Islam, there is only a global war on Shia Islam.

What is your take on that?  Any ideas?

The Saker

Into The Fire - Full Film (very interesting movie!)