Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

World News
See other World News Articles

Title: NATO, UK prepare for WAR on Russia in the Arctic
Source: Via Strategic Culture
URL Source: http://theduran.com/nato-uk-prepare ... r-war-on-russia-in-the-arctic/
Published: Oct 9, 2018
Author: Brian Cloughley
Post Date: 2018-10-09 08:11:47 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 638
Comments: 4

The NATO military alliance is preparing for war in the Arctic, and deliberately confronting Russia by conducting manoeuvres ever-closer to its borders.

On September 30 the UK’s foreign minister, Jeremy Hunt, delivered an astonishing tirade, saying “The EU was set up to protect freedom. It was the Soviet Union that stopped people leaving. The lesson from history is clear: if you turn the EU club into a prison, the desire to get out won’t diminish, it will grow — and we won’t be the only prisoner that will want to escape.”

His comparison of the EU to gulags of former years played well with many people in Britain, but was understandably regarded as totally inappropriate by the EU, whose spokesman’s polite observation was “I would say respectfully that we would all benefit – and in particular foreign affairs ministers – from opening a history book from time to time.”

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >> The lunacy didn’t stop there. Not content with insulting the EU’s 27 countries, the government in London decided to whip up even more patriotic fervour by again trying to portray Russia as a threat to the United Kingdom.

In June 2018 the UK’s Sun newspaper carried the headline “Britain will send RAF Typhoon fighter jets to Iceland in bid to tackle Russian aggression” and since then Mr Williamson hasn’t altered his contention that “the Kremlin continues to challenge us in every domain.” (Williamson is the man who declared in March 2018 that “Frankly Russia should go away — it should shut up,” which was one of the most juvenile public utterances of recent years.)

It was reported on September 29 that Williamson was concerned about “growing Russian aggression ‘in our backyard’,” and that the Government was drawing up a “defence Arctic strategy” with 800 commandos being deployed to a new base in Norway. In an interview “Mr Williamson highlighted Russia’s re- opening of Soviet-era bases and ‘increased tempo’ of submarine activity as evidence that Britain needed to ‘demonstrate we’re there’ and ‘protect our interests’.”

Mr Williamson has not indicated what “interests” the United Kingdom could have in the Arctic region, where it has no territory.

The eight countries with territory north of the Arctic Circle are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States. They have legitimate interests in the region which is twice the area of the US and Canada combined. But Britain has not one single claim to the Arctic. Not even a tenuous one like Iceland’s, which is based on the fact that although its mainland is not within the Arctic Circle, the Circle does pass through Grimsey Island, about 25 kilometres north of Iceland’s north coast. Britain’s Shetland Islands, its northernmost land, are 713 kilometres (443 miles) south of the Arctic Circle.

So why does the UK declare that it has “interests” in the Arctic and that the region is “in our backyard”? How can it possibly feel threatened?

The Arctic Institute observed in February 2018 that Russia’s “newer Arctic strategy papers focus on preventing smuggling, terrorism, and illegal immigration instead of balancing military power with NATO. These priorities suggest that Russia’s security aims in the Arctic have to do with safeguarding the Arctic as a strategic resource base… In general, the government-approved documents seem to have moved from an assertive tone that highlights Russia’s rivalry with NATO to a less abrasive tone based on securing economic development.”

And economic development is what it’s all about. On September 28 “it was reported that “a Danish-flagged cargo ship successfully passed through the Russian Arctic in a trial voyage showing that melting sea ice could potentially open a new trade route from Europe to east Asia.” It is obviously in the best economic interests of the European Union and Russia that the route be developed for commercial transit. To do this requires avoidance of conflict in the region.

So what’s your problem, Defence Minister Williamson?

In August Britain’s Parliamentary Defence Committee published On Thin Ice: UK Defence in the Arctic which concluded that “There is little doubt that the Arctic and the High North are seeing an increasing level of military activity. There is much greater divergence in the evidence we have taken on what the reasons behind this are, particularly in relation to Russia. One view is that there is no offensive intent behind Russia’s military build-up and that it is simply trying to regenerate military capacity in order to reassert sovereignty. The opposite view is that this is just one more part of Russia’s aggressive reassertion of great power competition.”

The Danish Government told the Committee that “Presently, Denmark sees no need for an increased military engagement or enhanced operative role for NATO in the Arctic”, and the Swedish Ambassador said “The Swedish Arctic is a limited part of Swedish territory. We are more a Baltic Sea nation than an Arctic nation…

Obviously, the whole area around the Arctic, in particular the Kola Peninsula, is of strategic importance to Russia and they have a serious military presence there. We see all of that. Is that reason to call it militarisation of the Arctic?”

In January Reuters reported that China had notified its Arctic strategy, “pledging to work more closely with Moscow in particular to create an Arctic maritime counterpart — a ‘Polar Silk Road’ — to its ‘one belt, one road’ overland trade route to Europe. Both the Kremlin and Beijing have repeatedly stated that their ambitions are primarily commercial and environmental, not military.”

It couldn’t be plainer that Russia and China want the Arctic to be a profitable mercantile trade route, while Russia wants to continue exploration for oil, gas and mineral deposits, which are important for its economy.

To develop the Arctic requires peace and stability. It would be impossible to reap the benefits of the new sea-route and potentially enormous energy and mineral riches if there were to be conflict in the North. It is obviously in the best interests of Russia and China that there be tranquillity rather than military confrontation.

But Britain’s Defence Minister insists there must be a military build-up by the UK in the Arctic “If we want to be protecting our interests in what is effectively our own backyard.” He is backed by the Parliament’s Defence Committee which states that “NATO’s renewed focus on the North Atlantic is welcome and the Government should be congratulated on the leadership the UK has shown on this issue.”

NATO is always on the lookout for excuses to indulge in military action (such as its nine–month blitz that destroyed Libya), and has announced it will conduct Arctic-focussed Exercise Trident Juncture in November, which Naval Today noted will be “one of the largest ever with 40,000 personnel, around 120 aircraft and as many as 70 ships converging in Norway.”

The NATO military alliance is preparing for war in the Arctic, and deliberately confronting Russia by conducting manoeuvres ever-closer to its borders. It had better be very careful.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Ada (#0) (Edited)

Mr Williamson has not indicated what “interests” the United Kingdom could have in the Arctic region, where it has no territory.

The eight countries with territory north of the Arctic Circle are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States. They have legitimate interests in the region which is twice the area of the US and Canada combined. But Britain has not one single claim to the Arctic. Not even a tenuous one like Iceland’s, which is based on the fact that although its mainland is not within the Arctic Circle, the Circle does pass through Grimsey Island, about 25 kilometres north of Iceland’s north coast. Britain’s Shetland Islands, its northernmost land, are 713 kilometres (443 miles) south of the Arctic Circle.

So why does the UK declare that it has “interests” in the Arctic and that the region is “in our backyard”? How can it possibly feel threatened?

Religion. The British Monarchy is Jewish and their religion has been called "British Israelism" (among other things).

Perhaps Henry Makow put it succinctly in a comment he made on a recent article:

"...it became obvious that the wars and revolutions which plague the world today are part and parcel of the Luciferian conspiracy, and that ALL aspects of the World Revolutionary Movement are part of that conspiracy. ---- (From Feb 27, 2013)

Makow comment - Carr may still be confused as to whom is behind one world government, when he says:

"While I was on the staff in Ottawa I was carefully sounded out to determine if my loyalty to the British Crown was so pronounced that I wouldn't be likely to accept the "idea' of a One World Government .." The British Crown, i.e. the Masonic Jewish shareholders of the Bank of England are behind one world government, as it is simply a makeover of "British" imperialism. The US is the current instrument of this agenda...."

https://www.henrymakow.com/2018/09/Guy-Carr-Globalists-are-Satanists%20.html

Remember what Cornwallis told George Washington:

"...Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, LEGIONS OF SATAN , in 1781, THAT Cornwallis revealed to Washington that a

"holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will supposedly be the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be the loyal subjects of the Crown."

Cornwallis went on to explain that what would seem to be a seem to be a contradiction:

"Your churches will be used to teach the Jews' religion and in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of the Grand Architect of Freemasonry."

And indeed George Washington himself was a Mason, and he gave back through false religion what he had won with his army.

This divine world government that Cornwallis spoke of, was the religion of the New World Order. The religions of America deceive their followers into believing that there will be a one world government and it will be the fulfillment of bible prophecy...."

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/hoax/greatesthoax.htm

It's a culmination of the battle against Christ, that began in Genesis 3:15.

It's a religious battle above all else, a battle of Judaism versus Christianity. I wish more people understood that. If one doesn't understand that they would do well to read that whole article and go to the Links at the bottom on the SCOFIELD BIBLE, and Untermeyer et al, and their influence on Christianity. The whole world is deceived Rev. 20:7-10. The ultimate target is where Christ set His cross in fulfillment of many prophecies: America. [See The Enduring Legacy of the First Landing at worldnetdaily.]

Another one behind Scofield:

"Arno the Gentile

The Man Behind Scofield

Henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. Eph 4:14

Arno was a German immigrant, however he spoke better Yiddish than Orthodox Jews.

In fact, he had trouble convincing Jew's that he wasn't a "goy". [13] We have seen that on his trip to Eastern Europe that his black beard and attire immediately classified him as a Jew. His son said he was welcomed into synagogues wherever he went as one of their own.

Frank relates another story that even as late as WWI, Jews on the street in New York confused him with an orthodox Jewish rabbi. [14] So for 24 years, from 1894 until 1918, he dressed like an orthodox Jewish rabbi.

Thomas Ice includes this quote in his Short History of Dispensationalism:

"Timothy Weber noted of his abilities that Gaebelein acquired such an expertise in the Talmud and other rabbinic literature and spoke such flawless Yiddish that he often had difficulty convincing many of his audiences that he was not a Jew trying to 'pass' as a Gentile." (Living in the Shadow page 144)

His magazine Our Hope had the subtitle "We preach to the Gentile church in behalf of the Jew". [15] So his ministry from 1894 until his death was as a representative of the Jews to the Christians. His ministry was supported by Zionists who paid for his expensive tour of Europe. One would assume that some of these Zionist supporters were Jews.

All agree that Arno was an expert on Bible prophecy. His unique viewpoint was shaped at first by the Plymouth Brethren and then by the Orthodox Jewish rabbis with whom he worked in New York. His reference bible would embed this novel prophetic viewpoint into the hearts and minds of millions.

So we have a man who looked like a Jew, spoke like a Jew, worked for the Jews, was supported by Jews and lived in the center of world Jewry. He wrote a reference bible designed to deceive Christian's into adopting a partially Jewish interpretive point of view. He was very knowledgeable about the Hebrew and Semitic languages and he was an expert on the filthy Talmud!

And yet Arno and son maintained that he was not a Jew. As proof, Frank revealed that they spoke German at home, not Yiddish. That is a convincing argument if you believe that Judaism is a race and not a sect.

Was the author of the Scofield Reference Bible a Jew? We may never know. But one thing is for certain. Arno would have had more success selling hotdogs at a bar mitzvah than selling reference bibles with his picture on the cover (especially if he wore his black hat)!"

It's important to understand what's behind their "new world order" which is really a rehash of the Old WORLD Order Christ came to PUT DOWN, to have any hope of beating it. THAT's what Jesus meant when He said, "My kingdom is not of this WORLD". "I come to make all things NEW".

=========================

edit.

“My kingdom is not of this world.” What did Jesus mean?

http://www.hisholychurch.org/news/articles/world.php

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2018-10-09   9:59:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#1)

What a great post !!!!!!! 🙏🏽


"Define yourself as one beloved by God. This is the true self. Every other identity is illusion."—Brennan Manning

Rotara  posted on  2018-10-09   13:29:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#1)

So why does the UK declare that it has “interests” in the Arctic and that the region is “in our backyard”?

You think maybe it could be the Brits are upset at losing their Empire after WW II? That might have something to do with it. ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2018-10-09   17:52:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Ada (#0) (Edited)

One thing not many people realize is that the U.S. has nuclear armed B-52s flying near the north pole as a warning to the Russians.

These planes have cruise missiles on board and they are in a revolver-type of machine that can launch them in consecutive order at different targets. ;)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke

BTP Holdings  posted on  2018-10-09   20:12:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest