Tell Congress to stop the Biden administration from funding wars in Ukraine and Israel

(LifeSiteNews) — On September 2, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg issued a landmark statement approving the use of NATO weapons, intelligence, and troops to invade Russia. The escalation toward full scale war with Russia saw an apocalyptic danger carefully phrased.

“Ukraine has not previously agreed on its planning for the Kursk offensive with NATO. In this respect, NATO played no role” said Stoltenberg in a report by the German outlet Die Welt, as news continues to emerge of thousands of British, French, and other NATO troops having been “sheep dipped” into Ukrainian uniforms to participate in the offensive in Russia’s Kursk region.

“There are ample reports of the presence of soldiers from various NATO countries” taking part in the Kursk offensive, said former U.S. diplomat and Ambassador Chas Freeman on August 22.

The previous day, retired Col. Douglas Macgregor had warned that the presence of “two thousand” troops from NATO nations in the offensive meant that “from the Russian point of view, this is a NATO invasion of Russia.”

With NATO disclaiming involvement in the operation it now approves, who was responsible for arming, guiding, and inspiring the invasion of Russia using Western equipment and even soldiers from NATO nations?

Escalation made in Britain

The operation was spearheaded by British tanks, boosted by a media campaign led by the British prime minister – and according to one investigation, the invasion of Russia was made in Britain. Why? To escalate the war to the point that the U.S. cannot “draw down” from Ukraine, and from NATO itself.

Independent journalist Kit Klarenberg reported on how “Britain’s Kursk Invasion Backfires” on August 21. In his report he furnishes details which support the astonishing conclusion that the survival of the British liberal-global state – and those of its European partners in France and in Germany – is staked on the fortunes of the Ukraine war.

“In other words,” he says, “London is taking the lead in marking itself out as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries – particularly the U.S. – will follow suit.”

Klarenberg quotes The Times, a U.K. establishment newspaper, saying that it “strongly hints that Kursk is to all intents and purposes a British invasion.” The Times report records:

Unseen by the world, British equipment, including drones, have played a central role in Ukraine’s new offensive and British personnel have been closely advising the Ukrainian military … on a scale matched by no other country.

Yet the Kursk offensive is not the only dangerous provocation mounted against Russia by the U.K.

On August 27, the Daily Telegraph reported that “The U.K. Backs Ukraine to Strike Russia with Storm Shadow Missiles” supplied by the U.K. –noting that the U.K. government is “believed to support [the] weapons’ use – but will not say so publicly amid disagreements with U.S.”

These disagreements date back to the tenure of former U.K. Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, who urged and oversaw the supply of British Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine. The supply of the cruise missiles to Ukraine was confirmed on May 11, 2023.

Wallace’s strategy of escalation reportedly led to the rejection of his bid to become the new NATO chief, says the Telegraph:

The situation was said to be behind the U.S.’s refusal to back former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace’s attempt to become NATO secretary-general.

The report continues: “The United States has privately bemoaned Britain’s front-foot approach to giving military equipment to Ukraine.”

US feared escalation to all-out war

Why would the U.S. oppose using nuclear-capable cruise missiles to strike deep into Russia – including hitting Moscow?

A senior military source told the Telegraph, “The U.S. fears escalation more than we do because they have to deal with it. We don’t.”

The source added: “They, after all, would have to pick up the pieces. Little Britain cannot fight Russia.”

A second report from the Telegraph on August 22 reveals how a weakened British military is now totally incapable of warfighting at scale, meaning the British attempts to provoke escalation are designed to result in a conflict it cannot fight without the U.S.

Gambling with our lives

Why would the British state gamble with the lives of its own population – and that of Europe – in dangerous escalation toward full scale war with Russia?

If the United States “draws down” to a “dormant NATO” – as Trump has promised to do, the liberal-globalist regimes in Britain and in Europe will be isolated and powerless. The U.S. security umbrella in Europe provides for the replacement of diplomacy with threats of war and sanctions.

READ: Western globalists hate Donald Trump and Nigel Farage because they oppose World War III

Should the U.S. withdraw, the British will be powerless – as will the bellicose liberal-globalist governments of Germany, France, Finland, Estonia, and Poland. The political future of these regimes is staked on provoking a Russian response so severe that the United States will be compelled to respond directly – cancelling any proposed revision of its payment and policing of European security guarantees.

With diplomacy having been replaced with death threats and demands, the British and European political leaderships, who are drastically out of sync with their citizens, are gambling the lives of their people for that of their own regimes.

The fixed British policy of escalation

British policy on Ukraine is accordingly “fixed,” as David Cameron – the former U.K. foreign minister – said in June.

Cameron, speaking to a man he believed was former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, said that Britain would lead escalatory attacks on Russia “over the summer,” in order to impress upon the U.S.– and a likely future President Trump – the urgent need to remain committed to the proxy war in Ukraine.

READ: UK’s David Cameron tricked by Russian pranksters into admitting he pressures Trump, GOP on Ukraine

The escalation Cameron promised included Ukrainian drone and missile strikes – using NATO supplied ATACMS launchers – on Russian nuclear defence radar installations.

This followed a charge on May 3 from the Russians that Cameron’s permission for the use of British missiles to attack Russia was a “dangerous escalation of tensions.” The Telegraph reported, “Moscow has accused David Cameron of a ‘direct escalation’ after the foreign secretary said Ukraine can use British weapons to strike targets inside Russia.”

Attacks on Russian nuclear warning systems

The attacks on Russian nuclear radar systems were condemned by sources at the Pentagon, as the Washington Post reported on May 30, 2024.

“The United States is concerned about Ukraine’s recent strikes against Russian ballistic missile early-warning sites,” said a U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

The “over the horizon” radar sites have no role in the Ukraine war, and their only function is to warn Russia of a first-strike nuclear missile attack by the United States or NATO. The Post’s source at the Pentagon explained: “These sites have not been involved in supporting Russia’s war against Ukraine. But they are sensitive locations because Russia could perceive that its strategic deterrent capabilities are being targeted, which could undermine Russia’s ability to maintain nuclear deterrence against the United States.”

Unbalancing nuclear detente with the world’s most heavily armed nuclear power has brought the world closer to nuclear Armageddon than at any time since 1962, claimed former U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter on July 30.

‘Setting off WWIII’

Former assistant U.S. Secretary of Defence Chas Freeman amplified this grim warning in an interview on August 30, stating that the world “has been put at the brink of a nuclear war. It seems that the mastermind of this offensive … was London”

Freeman continued, “This was an effort by the British authorities to force the United States to join in a wider campaign against Russia.”

Yet as Freeman pointed out, though “the United States has been somewhat cautious” about the British-backed policy of striking deep into Russia, this is “entirely irrelevant to the outcome of the war in Ukraine.”

Echoing the warning given by the Russian Foreign Ministry in May, Freeman said “that any strike into Russia will be answered by Russia with a strike at least into Ukraine and possibly into NATO.”

“This is potentially setting off World War III.”

Moscow warns of ‘strikes on British targets’

The Russian foreign ministry warned on May 23, following U.K.-backed strikes on its nuclear early warning systems, that “Moscow will retaliate with strikes on British targets if British weapons are used by Ukraine to strike Russian territory.”

Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov issued a dire statement:

The West does not want to avoid escalation. The West … is asking for it. And it seems to me that this is already obvious to everyone.

Lavrov, the Russian’s chief diplomat, warned in remarks reported by Newsweek on August 27 that the West is “like children playing with matches.”

“We are now confirming once again that playing with fire – and they are like small children playing with matches – is a very dangerous thing for grown-up uncles and aunts who are entrusted with nuclear weapons in one or another Western country.”

British media initially trumpeted the Kursk offensive, claiming it had “turned the tables” on Russia, and would “force Putin to negotiate.”

Yet the news has turned sour. Klarenberg, following reports in the U.K. Times, noted that with four “crack regiments” transferred to Kursk from the defense of eastern Ukraine, the defensive line in Donbass is collapsing.

So far, the operation has not provoked a Russian response sufficient to trigger U.S. intervention, and the Pentagon has been careful to distance itself from the action throughout. It has been a military disaster, weakening Ukraine’s defenses, bolstering Russian public opinion behind Putin, and – as Klarenberg observes – the offensive is “already dead in the water. As The Times notes, the imbroglio is primarily ‘designed to boost morale at home and shore up Zelensky’s position.’”

The media campaign to sell the war to the British and Western public has faltered. The military campaign is delivering defeat on the home front – and what is more, the British campaign to use this escalation to trigger U.S. intervention in a war with a low nuclear threshold appears to have failed.

As Klarenberg concludes:

The determination of Washington’s self-appointed ‘junior partner’ to escalate the proxy conflict into all-out hot war between Russia and the West has only intensified under Starmer’s new Labour government.

Yet, the Empire gives every appearance of refusing to take the bait, while seeking to curb London’s belligerent fantasies.

Klarenberg gives hope that this war, fought to brinkmanship with military means to serve political ends, may soon be over:

This may be an encouraging sign that the proxy war is at last reaching its end. But we must remain vigilant. British intelligence is unlikely to allow the U.S. to withdraw without a fight.

Tell Congress to stop the Biden administration from funding wars in Ukraine and Israel