Per My Predictions! Russia actually benefited from Trump’s Syria attack and anti-Russia sanctions! And it’s high time to fix Ukraine!
I made these predictions on many occasions between 2014 and 2017. This is a video in which the confirmations of my various predictions are discussed by Russian analysts.
My predictions include these: 1. Russia will actually benefit from Western anti-Russia sanctions, especially long-term; 2. Whatever actions against Russia the West takes now, they will always lose and Russia will win in the end. The most comprehensive overview of these predictions is in ESW2, ESW4 and ESW6.
See more on Russia & Ukraine breaking intel here: US, UK and France are bombing Syria! How Will Russia Respond? Lada Ray Analysis
Video – eng
Good interview – ALSO CONFIRMS MY PREDICTIONS SPECTACULARLY!! Listen to the end! US acting as ‘ISIS air force’ in Syria, spreads ‘conscious, transparent lie’ – former US diplomat
SEE my other today’s posts!
- BREAKING! Western Lies on Skripal Poisoning & Syria Chemical Attacks Come to Light!
- FREE TO ALL! Spiritual Spa + VERY Special Quantum Calibrations: Beautiful Zen Meditation Music (with important preview of things to come!)
Posted on April 15, 2018, in 2) Great Balancer Weekly, 3) Focus Novorossia & Ukraine, 5) Behind Dark State, EARTH SHIFT, Empire Collapse, Geopolitical Trends, Middle East, Predictions 2014 & Long-Term, Russia, Ukraine, USA/EU/West and tagged collapse, Putin, Russia, sanctions, Syria, Trump, Ukraine. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.
Futurist Trendcast 
Reblogged this on 1EarthUnited and commented:
Totally agree that Russia should seize this opportunity to reintegrate Donbass, Donetsk, Luhansk.
Here’s an interesting commentary from UK MSM The Guardian, the sheeple are finally awakening! Western aggression is so blatantly obvious that the most brain-dead can’t ignore any longer, lol!
• I am writing in despair that the prime minister and President Macron (whom we previously so admired) should have joined this shabby coalition to bomb Syria and escalate the danger of war, as well as causing more suffering and grief to that beleaguered nation. Those of us who believe in peace, dialogue and diplomacy – not to mention international law and the lessons of the past 100 years – were full of admiration for President Chirac for refusing to join the US-UK illegal invasion of Iraq. We hoped Macron would stand firm as well, but he has profoundly disappointed us. So has our prime minister, who did not wait for the results of the ongoing investigation in Damascus, nor for a vote in parliament, to rush to join this misguided, pointless and risky venture.
Brigid Keenan
Batcombe, Somerset
• Well done, Mrs May. With a faltering government, no majority and Brexit in a shambles she decided to follow her mentor Mrs T and ferment a bit of a war a long way from the UK. Enter the red tops with the “our brave troops” rhetoric (even though they did not risk entering Syrian airspace). Follow this piece of post-imperial jingoism with a royal wedding and a royal birth and she’s cemented the Tories’ position. Parliament? Don’t bother. Independent investigation results? Don’t wait. Don’t give it the time of day. Back to brave little Britain circa 1940 and to hell in a handcart for people like me who question it all.
Jane Ghosh
Bristol
• Thank you, Simon Jenkins, for such a wise and rational article (Opinion, 13 April). Have we not learned from countless conflicts that reprisals and “punishments” lead only to escalation and not deterrence? All war is catastrophic, only to be engaged in at direst need, when attacked. Britain is not attacked. All our efforts should be concentrated on getting the combatants round a table to discuss a peaceful settlement, without the ridiculous condition that Assad must step down. Whatever his record (and he is by no means alone in that) he is the only leader with any kind of legitimacy, and the only one who has the power to bring some kind of order to that ravaged land.
Hazel Davies
Newton-Le-Willows, Merseyside
LikeLike
Engdahl’s recent piece on the West’s relentless attack on Rus seems to resonate with the “great balancer” theory in a number of ways…
Engdahl describes “in detail rarely discussed background to how severely and ruthlessly both the Bush and Clinton Administrations during the 1990’s used their CIA-controlled asset, Boris Yeltsin, to open up the fabulously resource rich but money poor Russian Federation after 1989. By the end of that fateful decade, in 1999 internal opposition to the Yeltsin looting of the country was so great that the CIA-backed Russian oligarchs around Yeltsin—Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Potanin, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and others—decided to bring in an unknown new face, one they were convinced would allow them to continue their plunder. He was then 47-year old former Deputy Major of St Petersburg named Vladimir Putin. Within months as Putin won the 2000 Presidential vote on a promise to restore Russia to a stable nation, the oligarchs and their friends in Washington realized they were dealing with a far different character from the pliable Yeltsin. There began NATO’s 18-year campaign to bring down Putin’s Russia.”
LikeLike
I have a suspicion that a large part of the reason for the NATO attack on Syria was to test Russian air defences (somehow I doubt that the military commanders at NATO are so stupid as to think that a few hundred missiles would entice a coup in Syria). And the fact that Russia did not engage with the newest defences, allowing the over 30-year old Soviet era hardware to dispatch the majority of the incoming missiles, must have been a bitter disappointment for NATO.
LikeLike
One of the NATO targets in Syria was a medical research centre in a middle of a heavily-populated area. The centre specialised in anti-cancer drugs (sanctions on Syria prohibit import of such drugs from the West, thus killing Syrians and forcing them to be dependent on own manufacture of such medicines). NATO managed to destroy this lifeline of the Syrian people.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/424186-us-allies-syria-lie/
“Regarding the actual nature of the buildings bombed, Syrian media, SANA, describes the Pharmaceutical and Chemical Industries Research Institute as “centered on preparing the chemical compositions for cancer drugs.” The destruction of this institute is particularly bitter, as, under the criminal western sanctions, cancer medicines sales to Syria are prohibited.
Interviews with one of its employees, Said Said, corroborate SANA’s description of the facility making cancer treatment and other medicinal components. One article includes Said’s logical point: “If there were chemical weapons, we would not be able to stand here. I’ve been here since 5:30 am in full health – I’m not coughing.”
Of the facility, the same SANA article noted that its labs had been visited by the OPCW, which issued two reports negating claims of any chemical weapons activities. This is a point Syria’s Ambassador al-Ja’afari raised in the April 14 UN Security Council meeting, noting that the OPCW “handed to Syria an official document which confirmed that the Barzeh centre was not used for any type of chemical activity” that would be in contravention to Syria’s obligations regarding the OPCW.”
LikeLike