As we reported long ago, the powers that be abandoned the original EU plans. I suspected then that their next move will be the Intermarium scenario, but I had no solid confirmation.
Until just now, when insider sources confirmed the plan is ongoing as we speak and it’s fully backed by the forces behind the US of A. Deadlone: 2032 the latest.

UPDATE APRIL 30, 2023:

Ten another guest outed him to be in the know of thins for over 10 years, since he was a prime-minister, and never whispering a word about it. It was simply spectacular!

now back to the original program:

While accusing Russia of revamping its imperialist ambitions, Poland backed by US, was doing just that, pursuing an old inter-generational plan known as Intermarium: A Central and Eastern-European Commonwealth, separated from EU.

Why the US is breaking up EU to build Intermarium, the Polish imperial dream – G. Friedman:

Why the plan for a Polish empire is reemerging now with US support – Center for Intermarium Studies:

INTERMARIUM: The Most Dangerous Geopolitical Chess Game On Planet Earth

Posted on June 7, 2016 by State of the Nation

A Nobel Peace Prize winner is used to wage war against Russia

Who is really behind all the relentless warmongering?


SOTN Editor’s Note:
Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama has continued his war-making ways.  Not only was he used by his masters to restart the Cold War with Russia, he has disrespectfully turned down every Russian gesture toward vital dialogue.

The truth of the matter is that Russia is the country that is being systematically encircled by the USA and NATO.  President Putin has every right to reject this encirclement of military buildup on it’s very borders.  The Kremlin’s response to the Western warmongering initiatives has been extraordinarily muted and subdued in light of the implicit aggression.

Obama Administration Won’t Stop Antagonizing Russia

However, the real question is: Who is really behind all the relentless warmongering against Russia?  The answer can be found at the following two extremely important articles.  Only by correctly understanding the relevant history will the present be comprehensible.  Only by understanding the present can the future be accurately deciphered.

STRATFOR Chief Reveals Zio-Anglo-American Plot For World Domination

Zio-Anglo-American Plot to subjugate Russia via World War III focused on the Intermarium

As the article posted below clearly indicates, Putin’s Russia is now under grave threat by American missiles and NATO military buildup.  Putin’s team in the Kremlin, it seems, has yet to get the message that JFK received by a similar missile positioning scheme which occurred in Cuba in the early 1960s (aka the Cuban Missile Crisis).  Kennedy acted decisively and the threat was removed expeditiously.  Putin must now act decisively … before it’s too late.  Putin et al. must also understand that:


STRATFOR Chief Reveals Zio-Anglo-American Plot For World Domination

Posted on September 11, 2015 by State of the Nation

Why the Anglo-American Axis is so determined to wage war against Russia

Global Geopolitical Chessboard:
Psychopathic Players and Cynical Moves
Guarantee a Future of Perpetual War


Explosive presentation hosted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs
reveals what no government official, no political representative, no NGO
executive and no think tank director has ever said before in public.


State of the Nation

“From the Black Sea to the Baltic”

Screen Shot 2015-09-10 at 8.36.17 PM

STRATFOR Founder George Friedman Expresses the Profound Flaws and Extreme Hubris of American Exceptionalism and U.S. Foreign Policy

The preceding map of Eastern Europe and Western Asia represents the most active part of the current global geopolitical chessboard.  The few colored lines illustrate the very essence of the Anglo-American geopolitical strategy to maintain world domination and global economic control. This map was shown as a slide at a critical speech given by STRATFOR founder George Friedman.  It was taken as a screenshot in case the exceedingly volatile and incriminating video is removed from the internet.

George Friedman presented his speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on February 4th, 2015, which was then followed by a quite telling Q&A period.  There is perhaps no other public presentation ever recorded that has so clearly delineated the militaristic geopolitical agenda of the British-American Empire. Friedman explains with extraordinary candor and unusual detail the manner in which the Western powers have set up the global chessboard to their (Anglo-American Axis) seemingly never-ending advantage.  Of course, it is the Russian Federation that is, once again, on the losing side of this Great Game … in the words of George Friedman.

According to the neocon narrative, Germany sits squarely, once again, in the middle of the two superpowers — the USA and Russia.  German destiny has put the nation in the position to literally determine the future fate of the world.  The last century saw two very graphic examples of the same dramatic geopolitical dynamic.  Both World Wars I and II put the same three power-players on full display.

Now, fast forward to 2015 and the civil war in the Ukraine and bankruptcy of Greece.  Both have occurred alongside the greatest immigration crisis in European history as the European chessboard is being fastidiously set up.  What is especially crucial at this very moment is Germany’s rapidly evolving position and movement on the board. The whole world watches and waits to witness the next moves that Chancellor Angela Merkel will make.  The current status of this highly consequential geopolitical chess match is further depicted by the map below.

Screen Shot 2015-09-11 at 9.22.36 PM


For those who are uninitiated in the history and arcana of the Great Game, it is not from New York City or Washington D.C. that the moves are made today on this centuries-old geopolitical chessboard, it is Chicago.  Both Leo Strauss and Milton Friedman made the University of Chicago their academic home.  Leo Strauss, the Father of Neoconservatism, was the political philosopher who spawned an underground movement that has aggressively used the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex to create a de facto American Empire, sometimes promoted as Pax Americana.  Milton Friedman provided the foundational blueprint for the necessary political economy which would support such a perpetual war economy.  Chicago is where the real action is, especially because of the immigration hub that it has always been for highly educated eastern and central European immigrants, as well as disaffected Russian intellectuals and oligarch wannabes.  The prime objective of this ‘Great Game’ has always been to strip Russia of its wealth and exploit every natural resource from Saint Petersburg to the Kamchatka Peninsula.

Chicago: U.S. Headquarters of the NWO Zionist Neocon cabal

Herein lies the real problem.  There has long been a network of Eastern Europeans who have harbored an inveterate hatred toward all things Russian.  This hatred is at once irrational, intense and without any substantive basis.  These lifelong Russophobes have been plotting against the Russian Motherland for decades; their ancestors had likewise conspired over the centuries.  Toward that end they have enlisted a whole host of nations which comprise an unspoken alliance known as the Anglo-American Axis (see glossary) which has been and is now arrayed against Russia and her allies.  In the USA many of these Russophobes hail from Chicago as the University of Chicago has been used as their academic headquarters for decades.

That President Barack Obama (who hails from Chicago) is surrounded by the same jaded characters is quite problematic.  It fully explains why a Nobel Peace Prize winner would go out of his way to antagonize Russia and restart the Cold War.  George Soros (originally from Hungary) funded both of Obama’s presidential campaigns while Zbigniew Brzezinski (originally from Poland) functioned as his primary foreign policy advisor. He has also appointed a whole slew of neocon operatives and Chicago politicos to key positions throughout both of his Administrations.

For example, feisty Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emmanuel of Jewish Romanian ancestry was Obama’s first Chief of Staff.  Penny Pritzker, whose Jewish family founded Hyatt Hotels and originally emigrated from Kiev, Ukraine, was national finance chair of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.  Chicago attorney and Obama political consultant David Axelrod’s father was a Jewish immigrant who escaped the pogroms in Eastern Europe.  Even Obama’s community organizing past was heavily influenced by the deceased Saul Alinsky, a community organizer from Chicago whose Jewish family immigrated from Russia.

Then there is the current First Family of Neoconservatism, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan.  Victoria’s father, Shepsel Ber Nudelman, was born to immigrant Russian Jewish parents Meyer and Vitsche Nudelman. Needless to say, Victoria “F**K the EU” does not present the necessary diplomacy to function as the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.  She will also be forever remembered for singlehandedly restarting the Cold War by hand-delivering cookies and cupcakes to virulent anti-Russian Ukrainians executing a CIA-coordinated coup in Kiev’s Maidan Square which led to the ongoing civil war. Victoria Nuland’s family ties: The Permanent Government in action

The two key figures behind the unrivaled campaign chests amassed by Obama prior to both of his presidential elections were George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Only by understanding the true forces behind these two characters will the current war against Russia be properly understood. Suffice to say, that both individuals harbor an intense and irrational hatred toward Russia, as do all of their Cold Warrior co-conspirators who have colluded to collapse the Russian state.
(Source: Anglo-American Axis Wages Financial/Economic War Against Russia)

Those central and eastern European émigrés who came to America were mostly liberal, urban intelligentsia who once lived within the Russian orbit.  Because of their shared Russophobic sentiments, they naturally bonded together in common cause to bring down Russia, which they did once by way of their carefully planned Bolshevik Revolution.  The ‘Russian Revolution’ actually had very little to do with indigenous Russians, and a lot to do with this rogue group of European Russophobes.  The Bolshevik Revolution was in fact conceived and manufactured, financed and promoted in both New York City and the City of London.  Without American war financing and British military intelligence, the Soviet Union would never have been established.


*Russophobia in this particular context was quite purposefully manufactured (as in Made in the USA) over generations as a ruse to justify the exploitation of the Russian Motherland.  By fabricating fear toward the “Russian Bear”, it is easy to marshal worldwide opinion against her.  Friedman refers to how ‘scary’ a strong Russia would be, especially when closely allied with Germany. 

The original group of hardened Russophobes was primarily Jewish.  They were bankers and businessmen, scientists and academics, lawyers and doctors; and always transplants from Central or Eastern Europe.  Around this nucleus of rabidly anti-Russian activists (e.g. George Soros) came other sympathizers.  Subsequently, educated conservative Catholics (e.g. Zbigniew Brzezinski) from the same eastern European countries joined the cause.  George Friedman’s history fits into this pattern as per the bio that follows:

“Friedman’s childhood was shaped directly by international conflict. He was born in Budapest, Hungary to Jewish parents who survived the Holocaust. His family fled Hungary when he was a child to escape the Communist regime, settling first in a camp for displaced persons in Austria and then immigrating to the United States, where he attended public schools in New York City, and was an early designer of computerized war games.[1]

With this essential background the following video of George Friedman’s speech is provided on 4 different channels for the reader’s serious consideration.  Two of these have German subtitles; the last one has a Czech translation.  There are 3 different YouTube videos shown below; the first being the short version.  The second one captures his entire presentation with the relevant material beginning at the 52:30 mark.  At the very least, it is well worth watching the first 11-minute video clip.  Only by viewing this presentation can one apprehend the true depth and breadth of this multi-century conspiracy.  In short, this video captures the very essence of American exceptionalism gone awry and U.S. hegemonic ambition at its very worst.

For those who are unable to watch or listen to this video, please note the following transcription of the most important statements made by Mr. Friedman.  These are presented in chronological order and have been rendered exactly as he stated them. Because his command of the English language is rather uncertain at times, some of his utterances require the reader’s own translation.

*** Video Transcription begins below the line ***


Friedman: No place is really pacific [at peace and without war] for very long neither the United States … We have constant wars, okay.  Europe will I suspect, not return to the 31 years but will return to humanity.  They will have their wars.  They will have their peace. They will live their lives.  There will not be 100 million dead but the idea of the European exceptionalism I think, is the one suffering the first death.  There will be conflict.  There was conflict in Yugoslavia and there certainly now is conflict in the Ukraine.

As to the relationship to the United States we no longer have a relationship with Europe.  We have a relationship with Romania.  We have a relationship with France.  There is no Europe to have a relationship with.

Question: Is Islamic extremism really the major threat to the United States, and will it die on its own, or will it keep growing?

Friedman: It is a problem to the United States it is not an existential threat.  It has to be dealt with, but it has to be dealt with proportionately.  We have other foreign policy interests.  So, the primordial interest of the United States over which for a century we have fought war, the first, second, and Cold War has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united they’re the only force that could threaten us, and to make sure that doesn’t happen.  If you’re a Ukrainian is essentially reach out to the only country that will help you which is the United States.

Last week, ten days ago, General Hodges, Commander US Army Europe visited the Ukraine.  He announced that US trainers would now officially be becoming, not just unofficially coming.  He actually pinned medals on Ukrainian fighters, which by protocol of the military; foreigners don’t get to pin on medals, but ‘he did’ showing that this was ‘his’ army.  He then left and in the Baltics announced that the United States would be pre-positioning armor, artillery, and other equipment in the Baltics, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, which is a very interesting point.  So the United States, yesterday the United States announced it that it would be sending weapons, tonight of course they denied it, but they are, the weapons will go.


In all of this, the United States has acted outside the context of NATO because NATO has to have a 100 percent vote, any one country can veto anything, and the Turks will veto just for giggles.  The point is that the United States is prepared to create a cordon sanitaire around Russia.  Russia knows it. Russia believes that the United States intends to break the Russian Federation.  I think that as Peter Lawrie put it, “We don’t want kill you, we just want to hurt you a little bit.”  Either way, we are back at the old game.  And if you go ask a Pole, or a Hungarian, or a Romanian, they live in a totally different universe from a German, and they live in a totally different universe from a Spaniard. So, there’s no commonality in Europe, but if I were a Ukrainian I would do exactly what they doing — try to draw the Americans in.

Question: Inaudible

Friedman:  The United States has a fundamental interest.  It controls all the oceans of the world.  No power has ever done that. Because of that we get to invade people and they don’t get to invade us; it’s a very nice thing. Maintaining control of the sea and control of space is the foundation of our power.  The best way to defeat an enemy fleet is to not let it be built.

The way the British managed to make certain that no European power could build a fleet was to make sure the Europeans were at each other’s throats.  The policy that I would recommend is the one that Ronald Reagan adopted toward Iran and Iraq.  He funded both sides so they would fight each other, and not fight us.  This was cynical, it was certainly not moral, it worked, and this is the point.  The United States cannot occupy Eurasia.

The moment the first boots hits the ground the demographic differential is that we are totally outnumbered.  We can defeat an army; we cannot occupy Iraq.  The idea that of 130,000 men would occupy a country of 25 million well, the ratio in New York of cops to citizens was greater than we had deployed in Iraq.  So, we don’t have the ability to go across but we do have the ability to first, support various contending powers so they are concentrated [supported] themselves with political support, some economic support, military support, advisors, and in extremists, do what we did in Japan, in Vietnam, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan … spoiling attacks.  The spoiling attack is not intended to defeat the enemy it is intended to throw them off-balance.  What we did in each of these wars, in Afghanistan, for example, is we threw Al Qaeda off-balance.  The problem we have, since we’re young and stupid, is that having thrown them off-balance instead of saying okay job well done let’s go home, we said, well that was easy.  Why don’t we build a democracy here?  This was the moment dementia that came in.

The answer, therefore, is that the United States cannot constantly be intervening throughout Eurasia, it must be selectively intervening and very rarely.  That is the extreme moment.  We cannot as the first step send American troops, and when we send American troops we have to truly understand what the mission is, limit it to that, and not develop all sorts of psychotic fantasies.  So hopefully we’ve learned that this time, it takes a while for kids to learn lessons, but I think you’re absolutely right, we cannot as an Empire do that, Britain didn’t occupy India, it took various Indian states and turned them against each other, and provided some British officers for an Indian Army.

The Romans did not send vast armies out there, it placed Kings like … um … you know various kings it created under the Emperor and those kings were responsible for maintaining the peace.  Pontius Pilate was an example.  So, Empires that are directly governed by the Empire liked the Nazi Empire failed.  No one has that much power.  You have to have a level of cleverness; however, our problem is not yet that, it is actually admitting that we have an Empire, so we haven’t even got to that point where we don’t think we can kinda go home and it’ll be over and done.  And so we’re not even ready for chapter three of the book.

Question: So I infer from your comments that the Euro as the currency will not survive.

Friedman: The question on the table for the Russians is will they retain a buffer zone that at least neutral, or will the West penetrate so far in the Ukraine that they’re 70 miles away from Stalingrad, and 300 miles away from Moscow.  For Russia the status of Ukraine is an existential threat, and the Russians cannot let go.  For the United States, in the event that Russia holds onto the Ukraine, where will it stop?   Therefore it’s not an accident that General Hodges, whose been appointed to be blamed for all of this, is talking about pre-positioning troops in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Baltics.  This is the Intermarium from the Black Sea to the Baltic that Piłsudski dreamt of.

See the slide below depicting the Intermarium which was taken from the same video presentation by George Friedman:

Screen Shot 2015-09-10 at 10.23.47 PM


Międzymorze (Polish pronunciation: [mjɛnd͡zɨˈmɔʐɛ]), known in English as Intermarium, was a plan, pursued after World War I by Polish leader Józef Piłsudski, for a federation, under Poland‘s aegis,[1][2][3][4][5] of Central and Eastern European countries. Invited to join the proposed federation were the Baltic states(LithuaniaLatviaEstonia),[6] FinlandBelarusUkraineHungaryRomaniaYugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.[7][8]

The Polish name Międzymorze, which means “Intersea” or “Between-seas,” was rendered into Latin as “Intermarium.” [9]

The proposed federation was meant to emulate the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, that, from the end of the 16th century to the end of the 18th, had united the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Intermarium complemented Piłsudski’s other geopolitical vision—Prometheism, whose goal was the dismemberment of the Russian Empire and that Empire’s divestment of its territorial conquests.[10][11][12][13]

Intermarium was, however, perceived by some Lithuanians as a threat to their newly established independence, and by some Ukrainians as a threat to their aspirations for independence,[14][15][16] and was opposed by Russia and by most Western powers, except France.[17][18]

Within two decades of the failure of Piłsudski’s grand scheme, all the countries that he had viewed as candidates for membership in the Intermarium federation had fallen to the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, except for Finland (which nonetheless suffered some territorial losses in the Winter War).[2]

Friedman: This is the solution for the United States.  The issue, to which we don’t have the answers, what will Germany do?  So, the real wild card in Europe is that as the United States builds its cordon sanitaire, not in Ukraine, but to the west, and the Russians try to figure out how to leverage the Ukrainians out; we don’t know the German position. Germany is in a very peculiar position.  Its former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is on the board of Gazprom.  They have a very complex relationship to the Russians.  The Germans themselves don’t know what to do.  They must export, the Russians can’t take up the export.  On the other hand, if they lose the free trade zone, they need to build something different.

For the United States the primordial fear is Russian capital, Russian technology … I mean, German technology and German capital, Russian natural resources, Russian manpower, as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States.  So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table.  It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea.

For the Russians, their cards have always been on table.  They must have at least a neutral Ukraine, not a pro-Western Ukraine. Belarus is another question.  Now, whoever can tell me what the Germans are gonna do, is gonna tell me about the next 20 years of history, but unfortunately the Germans haven’t made up their mind, and this is the problem of Germany always.  Enormously economically powerful, geopolitically very fragile, and never quite knowing how to reconcile the two.  Ever since 1871 this has been the German question, the question of Europe.  Think about the German question, because now it’s coming up again.  That’s the next question that we have to address and we don’t know how to address it, we don’t know what they are going to do.

*** End of Transcription ***


Vital Qualification of George Friedman’s Answers: What was NOT said

Obviously, Friedman did not give away critical pieces of their (neocons’) historical war strategies.  Nor did he reveal the key elements of their future warmongering plans.  The point is that the neocon war plans have always included controlling both sides of the battlefields.  Not only do they earn enormous profits from war financing, they also generate massive revenue streams from the subsequent disaster capitalism.

The much more important point is what Friedman conveniently left out of his responses regarding the likes of Al Qaeda.  In all intelligence circles — WORLDWIDE — it is well known that Al Qaeda is really Al CIAda.  The neocons have created all the bad guys out there in the world.  ISIS, ISIL and the Islamic State are perfect examples of their most recent bogeyman creations.  So are the original Mujahideen in Afghanistan which was specifically formed and funded by the CIA to fight the Russians during the Soviet-Afghan War. (Under President Jimmy Carter it was National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s pet project to arm the Afghan Mujahideen against the USSR.)

What is also very important to note is that the neocon cabal is extremely proficient in utilizing the darks art of Divide and Conquer and its many odious tactics.  There is absolutely nothing that they will not do in the interest of advancing their war-making schemes.  Therefore, government-sponsored terrorism has become their primary MO and preferred trick of the trade.  No other strategy and/or tactic produces quicker results than the fear generated by their incessant terrorizing of nations and societies everywhere.

It is crucial to bear in mind that this misguided agenda, dedicated to maintaining the American Empire, is quite in vogue throughout all of the urban centers of this nation. New York City and Washington D.C., Chicago and Los Angeles each play their integral roles in the advancement of this imperial plan.  The entire U.S. political class and banking industry together with the Military-Industrial Complex and key transnational corporations are all in sync.

The Military-Industrial Complex, quite unfortunately, is only prosperous when there is war … LOTs of war.  What is there to do for them during peace-time?  How can they justify the humongous budget appropriations year after year when there’s no bogeyman out there to attack and subjugate?  The hallmark of empire is this inevitable tendency toward perpetual war.


Because a neoconservative political agenda has been so seamlessly wedded to a neoliberal economic scheme, there is now a dangerous juggernaut that steamrolls across the planetary landscape with virtual impunity.  Given its current form and formidability, there is no countervailing force that can meaningfully oppose it on any battlefield.  It has only been contained by the nuclear weapon deterrents possessed by Russia, the financial leveraging via Treasuries executed by China and the collective economic prowess of all the BRICS-aligned countries.

Essential Takeaways from Friedman’s Speech; U.S. Foreign Policy Laid Bare

The following 10 points represent the most chilling revelations from George Friedman’s talk.  Ergo, if the reader remembers nothing else from this exposé, these are the most important. Keeping them in mind will greatly inform the correct understanding of weighty current events, especially those which are occurring anywhere on the largest landmass in the world — Eurasia.

(1) Russia must be contained and controlled in any way possible so as not to even pose a potential threat to the USA’s sole superpower status.

(2) Germany must be prevented from entering into an economic union with Russia; fabricating false pretexts by the USA in order to levy economic sanctions against Russia drives a wedge between both nations.

(3) A German-Russian alliance would challenge U.S. world domination as no other combined force on Earth.  The marriage of German capital and technology with Russian human and natural resources would be invincible.

(4) The best way to preclude a close collaboration between Russia and Germany is to bring war to their borders, especially through the employment of “spoiling attacks” (read: terrorist attacks).  Russia has experienced this with Chechnya, Georgia, South Ossetia, and the Ukraine.

(5) By inciting wars among Russian neighbors and conflicts between the concerned Eurasian powers, USA world supremacy is assured (e.g. the Ukraine conflict was started after Russian peacemaking initiatives in Syria).

(6) Just as the British Empire controlled its many colonies through divide and rule, the U.S. must use the same MO and military tactics.  Rome used the same divide and conquer strategy appointing local kings to maintain the peace.

(7) Pilsudski’s Intermarium delineates the ideal way of containing Russia at the European border, which could then be used as a springboard to conquer the Motherland.  Pushing Russia’s Western front close to Moscow poses an existential threat.

(8) Channeling the hatred of the defunct USSR, found within the Baltic states and ex-Soviet satellites, toward the 25-year old Russian Federation will help secure the Intermarium.

(9) Maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia will neutralize its military force, limit its alliances and minimize its economic influence throughout the world.  Forever keeps Russia on the defensive.

(10) Russia and Germany must be kept apart even if it means starting World War III. The first two world wars served the very same purpose; the Ukraine Civil War can be expanded at any time in order to preoccupy the concerned nations as it was chosen for its volatility.



The statements and responses made by George Friedman are both reckless and reprehensible to the extreme.  As a highly paid advisor to the U.S. Federal Government and various NGOs, his services ought to be discontinued post-haste.  His casual references to upsetting world peace and committing naked acts of aggression toward foreign nations in the interest of rapacious neocon conquest are completely unacceptable.

The lawless coterie of government officials, military officers, think-tank executives, NGO presidents, corporate CEOs, university chancellors and media moguls needs to be exposed for implementing such a malevolent and destructive agenda.  Truly, an overwhelmingly nefarious neocon/neoliberal conspiracy has been exposed on video by Stratfor’s George Friedman.  Whether this was done by design or by accident can only be guessed at; nonetheless, its exposure will be critical to bringing about its final termination.  After all, when the last century’s “Cold Warriors” are removed from the chess game, there cannot be a 21st century version of the Cold War.

The indisputable proof regarding those Russophobes who instigated the Cold War is now available for all to hear.  A dyed-in-the-wool neocon divulges ‘classified’ dark secrets which rarely, if ever, see the light of day.  The evidence is so strong here that criminal prosecutions (as in The Hague’s International Criminal Court) can now proceed on the basis of those many illegal wars, which were provoked and prosecuted by the U.S. Federal Government, in the advancement of this patently neocon agenda.  There are also those numerous military conflicts, carried out by foreign proxies and treasonous surrogates, which occurred as an outworking of the same game plan.

It’s of vital importance to understand that geopolitical ‘experts’ like George Friedman walk through virtually any door they want to in Washington, D.C.  The influence they assert within the U.S. Government and Corporate America is far too extensive given the moral bankruptcy of their profoundly defective political philosophy and fundamentally flawed foreign policy.  These are the same “chickenhawks” who started the Iraq War, as well as the Afghanistan War before that.  Hence, it is imperative that they be removed immediately from public life as they have proven themselves to be a terrible menace to society.

Likewise, all the various parties associated with this murderous and larcenous enterprise ought to be apprehended expeditiously before they can inflict any more damage.  The USA and Russia, Europe and the Middle East have all seen enough of their handiwork.  Each co-conspirator in the neocon cabal ought to be identified by name and organizational affiliation, and then posted on a dedicated internet site under the heading:


Intermarium – an idea whose time is coming again

Euromaidan Press, 2016/07/05 – 21:57

Intermarium - an alliance of countries between the Baltic and Black Seas to protect themselves from the Russian imperialism and militarism (Image:

Intermarium – an alliance of countries between the Baltic and Black Seas to protect themselves from the Russian imperialism and militarism (Image: 

The EU is now in a deep crisis, one that is the product not only of Britain’s vote to leave it but also of the organization’s “inability to stand up to the global economic crisis, Russian military-political and information expansion, international terrorism and uncontrolled mass migration,” according to Aleksandr Voronin.

As a result, many in EU countries and their neighbors are considering alternatives, the Ukrainian commentator says. One of the most intriguing is a new push for the establishment of a Baltic-Black Sea Union or “Intermarium— not as a replacement for the EU and NATO but as a supplement and assistant to them.

“Intermarium: The Heart of Europe Beats in the East” scientific-practical conference took place in Kyiv on July 2, 2016 (Image:

Last weekend, representatives of various groups, civic, military, and political, of the so-called “countries in between” met in Kyiv to talk about the possibilities for the emergence of such a union and what steps they should take to promote its emergence and development at the present time.

Nikolay Kravchenko, one of the organizers of the meeting, said that the grouping could begin small, much as the EU did with the European Coal and Steel Community, and then grow both in size and in the spheres of activity that its members would approve. He suggested that “the forefathers of the Intermarium are GUAM, the Eastern Partnership, the Black Sea Cooperation Council and the Vyshegrad Four.

Other participants in the Kyiv meeting agreed, Voronin reports, and stressed that any such structure should not aspire to replace the EU or “even more Euro-Atlantic solidarity in the framework of NATO” but rather focus on tasks like security, energy independence, and information technology that can be handled at the level of that region.

The idea of an Intermarium has deep roots in the 19th and early 20th centuries and especially in Marshal Pilsudski’s Promethean League.

For a careful survey of these roots, see the magisterial study by Marek Chodakiewicz, Intermarium: The Land between the Black and Baltic Seas (Transaction Publishers, 2012).

Since the end of the USSR, it has gained a following in Belarus and Ukraine. In the early 1990s, Zianon Pazniak, the first president of the Belarusian Popular Front, urged its consideration. And more recently, another Belarusian, Konstantin Volokh, called on Ukrainians to do likewise.

Even before Russia invaded Ukraine, he wrote that “it is obvious that the integration of post-socialist countries is chiefly directed at the creation of a system for the containment of eastern expansion and in the first instance by the forces and resources of those countries and peoples which experienced on their own skin the state of being hostages of the military competition between major geopolitical players and then the victims of the unification of one of the centers of socialist planning.”

This year, Voronin points out, is the 90th anniversary of the Promethean League which was founded by Polish efforts in Paris and which included representatives “not only of Crimea and Ukraine but also Azerbaijan, the Don Cossacks, Georgia, Idel-Ural, Ingria, Karelia, Komi, Kuban, the North Caucasus and Turkestan.

The Promethean League had a long and complex history. For a recent discussion, see Etienne Copeaux, “Le movement prométhéen.” Cahiers d’études sur la Méditerranée orientale et le monde turco-iranien, 16 (1993): pp. 9–45.

Many in Ukraine are now talking about a new Intermarium. Among them are Andrey Biletski, the founder of the Azov Regiment, Andrey Paruby, the speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, and most recently Vladimir Gorbulin, the head of Kyiv’s National Institute for Strategic Research.

Despite all this, the Intermarium idea has attracted relatively little attention among analysts in the West; but one indication of its rise is that Russian authors are now discussing it ever more frequently.

In a concluding section of his article entitled “Today It’s a Phantom; Tomorrow, a Strategy; and the Day after Tomorrow a Reality?” Voronin says that it is obviously too early to say that this idea has mass support. But given the crisis in the EU, “it is not excluded that soon the idea of the Intermarium will become a commonplace not only of party programs but of international memoranda.”

That is clearly what the participants in last weekend’s conference in the Ukrainian capital think. After all, they met under a banner reading “The Heart of Europe Beats in the East.”

“Intermarium in the 21st Century. A New Path for Europe?” by Nick Cohen


States included in the Intermarium.

In the most recent issue of New Eastern Europe, MA student Nick Cohen advocates for a new version of the Intermarium suited to the 21st century. The Intermarium was an interwar Polish idea for a political and economic union among eastern European states from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, meant to counteract growing German and Russian adventurism in the region. Cohen argues that similar structural features are present today, and suggests that the political climate may be more favorable for constructing an eastern European alliance.

Click here to read the full article.

Nick Cohen is an MA Student in the European History, Politics, and Society program at the European Institute, Columbia University.

Intermarium in the 21st Century

Wed, December 23, 2020

This paper was written by Agnes Tycner for IWP 634: Geography and Strategy. Agnes is currently pursuing a graduate degree in Statecraft and International Affairs with a specialization in Eastern Europe and Russia. Her goal is to practice law one day and to gain experience in government, diplomacy, and policymaking until then. 

The Intermarium Project, a geopolitical project developed by Józef Piłsudski in the 1920s, has once again resurfaced and become a topic of debate in foreign policy. Western Institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU) have not proved to be sufficient in securing “non-integrated in-between states” such as Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan against Russian aggression.[1]  Neighboring countries in Eastern Europe also share this security threat and know from history what could possibly happen again if Russian power was to remerge. Recreating Intermarium in the 21st century to correspond to the security needs of today would unite Central and Eastern European countries to compete against the Russian balance of power as well as help each other politically and economically. However, Intermarium will not have a chance to be successful until all the post-Soviet countries work together and have a common global threat that will unite them. Furthermore, Intermarium as a united front would still need help from the U.S. military to face Moscow. If Intermarium in the 21st century was to succeed, it would create the strongest union in Eastern Europe since the 1989 national uprising dedicated to overthrowing communism.[2]

It was hoped that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Soviet Eastern bloc would lead towards a more unified Europe. However, neither the EU nor the enlargement of NATO decided to include Russia in their plans. As a result, a “geopolitical gray zone emerged between the Western organizations on one side and the Russian-dominated space on the other.”[3] The security of these gray zone states such as Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan all became dependent on whichever side would choose to cooperate with them. This model of switching between east and west proved to be greatly unstable, as “it did not help to solve the Transnistria problem in eastern Moldova or the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in south-western Azerbaijan, and was shaken by the Russian-Georgian war of 2008.”[4] Finally, in 2014 the annexation of Crimea proved to be the “final straw,” and countries in the region knew they could not continue to live in this uncertainty.

Around this time period was when the countries of Eastern Europe, both inside and out of NATO and the EU, began seriously discussing reviving the 20th-century project known as Intermarium. The goal of this project would be collectively to increase the region’s security and, most importantly, “improve the balance of power against Russia.”[5] If all the nations in the region cooperated under this common objective, they would not need to expand NATO further East nor add members to the European Union. Intermarium in the 21st century would function as an independent project and, with time, prove itself to be a leader on the international stage.

There have been several attempts by NATO and the EU in the past to prevent Europe from dividing itself; however, none of their initiatives have proved themselves successful. The reality is that these institutions will not be able to provide the post-Soviet Eastern Europe zone with the security it needs. It has been proven that “both organizations have, in the past, amply demonstrated their inadequacy as strategically thinking and geopolitically resolute actors.”[6] As a result, Intermarium has been discussed as a promising alternative to Western organizations.

However, in order to recreate Intermarium in the 21st century, its historical roots must be understood first as well as the reason why it failed.  After WWI, there was a set of newly-independent nations to the East which faced a common threat of “German expansionism to the west and Russian imperialism to the east.”[7] A Polish “chief of state and First Marshal of the Second Polish Republic” known as Józef Piłsudski (1867–1935) came up with the plan known as Intermarium today to combat these rising powers.[8] Piłsudski’s Intermarium project is originally known in Polish as Miedzymorze and later earned its Latin cognate known today as Intermarium. Both definitions translate to mean “between the seas.” This is because the alliance was to stretch from the Baltic Sea all the way down to the Adriatic and Black Seas. The original Intermarium group was to include Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine and “thereby partially re-creating the medieval Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.”[9] An example of the proposed map for the original Intermarium project is shown below:

Map of the initial plan of the Intermarium
Image 1: GalaxMaps, Map of the initial plan of the Intermarium, July 6, 2020, Wikimedia Commons accessed October 15, 2020

Piłsudski believed that if these nations were connected economically, politically, and militarily, they could push back power coming in from the eastern and western fronts.[10] It should be noted that Piłsudkski also incorporated parts of his Promethean plan into his Intermarium project and used both of these developments to combat the Soviet threat while simultaneously strengthening the Polish eastern border.[11]

However, the plan was met with a large resistance due to Poland’s history of “political and cultural domination during the period of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.”[12] First, there was Belarus which was strategically located and could have “formed the most significant barrier to Soviet expansionism.”[13] However, it generally had a weak national movement during this period and did not seem to do much to counteract Soviet influence at the time. Next, Lithuania was also hesitant to join because it did not want to risk its independence. Ukraine had similar thoughts and had fought a border war in 1918-19 over the Lviv/Galicia area. Eventually, the Treaty of Warsaw was signed to enforce a military and economic alliance between Ukraine and Poland. However, they were so busy fighting between themselves that they failed to realize their common threat of Russia. Eventually, Ukraine and Belarus fell under the rule of the Bolsheviks, and the Intermarium project was foiled.

Józef Piłsudski then came up with a new version of the project that did not include communist-ruled Ukraine or Belarus but rather encompassed other nations of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Scandinavian countries and Italy and Greece, as shown below.[14]

Piłsudski's revised plan for the Intermarium
Image 2: GalaxMaps, Map of the revised plan of the Intermarium, July 6, 2020, Wikimedia Commons accessed October 15, 2020

The reason for including a wide range of countries was to strengthen their union against “the face of the Russian empire re-appearing as the Soviet Union in the east, and the post-imperial, yet increasingly irredentist, new German nation-state and soon-to-be fascist Reich in the west.”[15] In the end, the wide geographical scale of the project, the large diversity of countries involved, their differences in interests and foreign policy, and the distrust regarding Polish ambition stopped Intermarium from ever happening.[16]

Unfortunately, after Piłsudski’s plans were foiled, his fears became a reality. In September of 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland from both sides. After the war ended, the states that were planned to be a part of Piłsudski’s Intermarium were instead part of Moscow’s empires. Lastly, the result of the February 1945 Yalta deal caused the Eastern and Central European nations to suffer a fate that Piłsudski was trying to prevent with Intermarium. For the next 44-46 years, these nations collectively suffered Soviet and communist rule. Having Intermarium in the 21st century would unite countries with these shared experiences to ensure that an occupation like this would not happen again.

Intermarium in the 21st century would not face the same challenges as were present during Piłsudski’s time. Today, borders are established, and these nations have been officially independent for about 30 years. In addition, the relations between Poland and Ukraine are much stronger than they were during the Polish-Ukrainian War in 1918-19. In fact, the two are each other’s greatest international supporters today. Taking this into consideration, the likelihood of a successful Intermarium is much more probable under current circumstances.

If an Intermarium were to be created today, Ukraine would be prioritized as it does not have any protection from NATO or other security measures outside its own country. Next, Poland, the original creator of this Slavic union, would be on the list. Poland faces the threat of Kaliningrad in the north and also would not want Russia on its southern border in the case of Ukraine being taken over.[17]  In addition, the Baltic states, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Czechia, and Hungary would also likely follow suit as they “are likely to have populations that recognize the threat in the longer term.”[18] It is possible to consider the Nordic states such as Sweden and Finland joining, as they are not NATO members and also share a security concern with regard to Russia. It is not guaranteed which nations would end up joining, but it would be well advised to leave the welcome open to “Slavonic states in the Western Balkans” as well as “Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.”[19]

The only real ambiguity in the region would concern Belarus. It is in the interest of Belarus’s neighbors to help liberate this country from Russia peacefully; however, Belarus is still greatly influenced by and intertwined with Russia politically, economically, and culturally. Still, one cannot forget how, “Belarussians have died in Maidan and in the war in Donbass fighting for Ukrainian liberty – and in the end for the liberty of Europe;”[20] therefore, this country cannot be left on its own.

A 21st-century Intermarium would be committed to protecting every nation threatened by Russia. Still, the most important factor to consider under a 21st-century Intermarium would be to not repeat the mistakes of the first project. This means not letting internal matters dominate and hopefully uniting under a shared, common global threat.  Intermarium cannot be successful until, “the entire post-Soviet sphere in Europe, learns how to work in solidarity together.”[21] It should also be noted that “no successor state can stand up to Moscow successfully on its own.”[22] Therefore, only when these nations have put their differences aside would a proposed Intermarium in the 21st century have a chance for working out.

There is a question of whether Intermarium in the 21st century would even be relevant or needed today. In fact, the project had been largely forgotten in the political mainstream until 2014 when Crimea was attacked by Russia and Ukraine was left to its own defense, or in other words, left to fight alone. The driving force for this project to resurface today would be for uniting against possible Russian aggression and increasing overall security in the Eastern/Central European region.  Ukraine felt abandoned by its Western Allies, which prompted it to look for new alternatives to strengthen its military and security.

This is why it would be important to establish Intermarium in the 21st century, a group that would be separate from the NATO alliance and would dedicate more attention to the concerns of the Intermarium member nations.[23] This is not to put the blame on NATO’s western allies; this is just to highlight the fact that the Central/Eastern European nations share a concern that is not prioritized by other NATO members. Another factor to consider is the “those closest to Russia are more concerned than those further away.”[24] Of course, this is expected; however, the Central European nations have all been “subjected to Russian domination” and are therefore cautious about Russia’s movements. For the Eastern countries of “Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, Moldova (and almost certainly Belarus too) Russia is a primary and existential threat.”[25] A proposed map of what Intermarium could look like in the 21st century is shown:

21st Century Intermarium Map

There are, so far, four possible strategies that Russia could use to attack its western neighbors. The first and best-case scenario is that Russia does not attack and stays content with its influence over Belarus, the Donbass region, and Crimea. It will still hold economic and political ties with Ukraine and Belarus but not show any desire to expand them more than they currently are. Next, the Russians could engage in hybrid warfare with Eastern European countries through propaganda, computer hacking, aggressive activities, and, even in some cases, physical harm. A third possible scenario is that Russia and Germany will once again form an alliance.  Based on the historical idea of continuity, it is reasonable to assume that old alliances or pacts between Russia and Germany could resurface. The only solid proof currently available is Nord Stream 2, which is a gas pipe that combines the two superpowers and skips over the Baltics and Poland.

Lastly, the worst-case scenario is that Russia decides to attack Ukraine or another country in the Intermarium alliance. This attack would essentially provoke a response, “from Poland, Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria etc and for Russia to win that war would involve them attacking NATO nations thus drawing in Germany, France, UK, USA, Canada etc etc…”[26] The outcome of this scenario is highly debatable. Perhaps another Cold War would occur, or maybe there would be attempts to fight through conventional ways. The world has reason to believe something could happen based on Russia’s past actions and recent red flags which include: the Minsk II agreement after a failed first one, a growing partnership with China which is heavily politically and militarily intertwined, Russia testing limits and crossing NATO occupied zones with aircraft, the 2007 Estonia cyber-attack, Nord Stream 2, and many other incidents. One cannot predict the future or how Russia will act, but the hope is that Intermarium would have prepared strategies to respond to any of these situations.

Still, one must consider the possible consequences of implementing a 21st-century Intermarium. Russia wants to continue to keep Ukraine in its sphere of influence and will block any attempts to ensure that it does not link further with the West. It is already rather unlikely that Western NATO members will ever approve Ukraine of joining the alliance. They do not want to anger Putin nor lose their business deals, but they especially do not want to be involved in a war with Russia. Therefore, it is possible the allies and partners of Central/Eastern Europe would not support a 21st-century Intermarium. The Eastern Europe unified military power would unfortunately not be enough to support a real threat from Moscow, and it would need the help of the United States. However, having an Intermarium in place would provide greater security and perhaps a greater fighting chance.

One question of the past continues to arise among historians, “How different would the world be if Intermarium succeeded? Could have it prevented the German Reich?” Perhaps the same question will be given to late 21st century historians if Intermarium does not form this century.

Regardless, as the Russian state continues to break international law, it is no surprise that Intermarium is a topic that is resurfacing today. Ukraine would probably benefit the most from this project today; however, the security threat of Russia is shared throughout the region. As it is evident in history time and time again, the nations of central Europe have often been the battleground for war and therefore can only survive as a united pact. They all shared similar fates during WWI/WWII and, as a result, today, share historical reasons to join this kind of alliance. Perhaps one cannot guarantee how Intermarium would work out or who the exact members would be. Regardless, Intermarium in the 21st century is vastly different compared to the conditions Józef Piłsudski dealt with and has a greater chance of succeeding.

Intermarium is a geopolitical project from the 20th century that is gaining more momentum each year. The exact workings and politics of how Intermarium in the 21st century would work are still undergoing discussion by “post-Soviet politicians, diplomats, and intellectuals.”[27] Still, the important thing to note is that it is a project worth considering again and updating to the current needs of the 21st century. Today, it is mainly being advocated as a result of Central/Eastern European security concerns. If Intermarium in the 21st century is going to succeed, it needs total cooperation from each member state as well as U.S. military help. Intermarium has the potential to completely transform the international stage and overall create a stronger Europe for the future.

Russian-hating dream of Brzezinski Clan nears fulfillment as Poland agrees to host permanent U.S. base and turn Baltic Sea into NATO Lake

CovertAction Magazine  on July 16, 2022

Imperialism, State Repression, Strategy, WarAmericas, Europe, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, United StatesNewswire

In late June, President Joe Biden announced before a NATO summit that the United States would establish a permanent military base in Poland, the first time the U.S. would have one on NATO’s eastern flank.

The base will provide a permanent headquarters in Poland for the U.S. Army’s V Corps.

At the moment there are already approximately 10,000 U.S. soldiers in Poland, which has provided a hub for U.S. and other Western countries’ arms shipments to Ukraine.

| Polish and US troops participate in a joint military training in Nowa Deba | MR Online
Members of the Polish 18<sup>th<sup> Mechanized Division and the US 82<sup>nd<sup> Airborne Division participate in a joint military training in Nowa Deba Poland on April 8 2022 Source <a href=httpswwwreuterscomworldeuropewarsaw hails planned us military base poland clear signal russia 2022 06 29>reuterscom<a>

In April, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III agreed to accelerate delivery of U.S.-made Patriot air defense systems, HIMARS rocket launchers, F-35 combat aircraft and Abrams tanks to Poland and to help its military become “one of the most capable in Europe.”

Poland’s Defense Minister, Mariusz Błaszczak, said that the U.S. had agreed to sell Poland additional supplies of attack helicopters, drones and multi-role aircraft, which was made possible by passage of a new Homeland Defense Act in Poland boosting Poland’s defense spending to 3% of GDP, one of the highest levels in NATO.

| Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin right stands with Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak left as the National Anthem is played during an arrival ceremony at the Pentagon in Washington Apr 20 2022 | MR Online
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin right stands with Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak left as the National Anthem is played during an arrival ceremony at the Pentagon on April 20 2022 Source <a href=httpswwwvoanewscomaus visit highlights poland s rising military capabilities 6538941html>voanewscom<a>

Poland Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki gushed about the results of the NATO summit in Madrid at the end of June, along with the recent invitation by NATO to Finland and Sweden to join NATO, which he said was a “historic decision as the Baltic Sea will, in fact, become a NATO internal sea.”

| Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki | MR Online
Mateusz Morawiecki Source <a href=httpswwwreuterscomworldeuropeprepared worst polish pm braces ukrainian refugees 2022 02 16>reuterscom<a>


The Biden administration has accelerated its predecessor’s efforts to move the core of NATO from Paris and Bonn—what Donald Rumsfeld famously termed “old Europe”—to the East, as part of an aggressive drive to control former parts of the Soviet Union and Central Asia.

This policy has been part of the resurrection of the Intermarium—a geopolitical concept originating in the post-World War I era that envisages an alliance of countries reaching from the Baltic Sea over the Black Sea to the Aegean Sea that would serve as an alternative power bloc between Germany and Russia.

| | MR Online
The Intermarium security belt is now being massively upgraded by the US to separate Germany and Russia Source <a href=httpswwwriotimesonlinecombrazil newsmodern day censorshipwar in ukraine the real wild card is germany says geopolitical forecaster george friedman>riotimesonlinecom<a>

In March 2018, Poland signed a $4.75 billion deal to purchase U.S. Patriot missile defense systems from Raytheon, the largest arms procurement deal in Polish history.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov told Sputnik News that the Patriot deployments were “part of a U.S. plot to surround Russia with missile defense systems under the pretext of mythical threats to security.”

| First Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov | MR Online's interview with, July 23, 2020 | Botschaft der Russischen Föderation
Vladimir Titov Source <a href=httpsrussische botschaftrude20200724first deputy foreign minister vladimir titovs interview with news ru july 23 2020>russische botschaftru<a>

Now this plot has become ever more menacing to Russia, with the U.S. surrounding Russia not only with missile defense systems but also action-ready combat troops.

Reactionary Government

The Polish government under President Andrzej Duda is a reactionary regime which has banned the Communist Party of Polandprohibited the promotion of communist ideas and introduced LGBT “free zones.”

Duda is a leader of the right-wing Law and Justice Party, which legalized government control over the media and has promoted the repression of critical intellectuals.

| Polish president Duda vetoes media law after US anger | Financial Times | MR Online
Andrzej Duda Source <a href=httpswwwftcomcontentf62a5389 e5a8 42d2 a269 16e99caa263f>ftcom<a>

Duda has also promoted a right-wing revisionism surrounding World War II. In 2018, Duda signed a law that banned people from accusing Poland of Holocaust atrocities committed by the Nazis and from referring to concentration camps as “Polish death camps.”

The Duda regime has made a point of emphasizing Polish resistance to the Nazis, but has underplayed Polish crimes like the Jedwabne pogrom in July 1941, where Poles rounded up and killed their Jewish neighbors.

Meet the Brzezinskis

The current U.S. ambassador to Poland, Mark Brzezinski, is the son of Zbigniew Brzezinski, a key mastermind of U.S. foreign policy for decades, who supported Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan in the late 1970s and 1980s in an attempt to give the Russians their Vietnam.

A life-long Democrat who was close to Joe Biden when he was vice president, Zbigniew came from a Polish aristocratic family who hated the Russians.

His father, Tadeusz, fought for Poland in the Battle of Lvov in the Soviet-Polish War of 1920—the only defeat in the history of the Red Army, which Tadeusz said helped save Western civilization[1]—and was a Polish diplomat posted to the Soviet Union in the 1930s during Stalin’s Great Purge.

After fleeing to Canada following the Communist takeover in Poland after World War II, Tadeusz moved to Montreal and became president of the far-right Canadian Polish Congress (1952-62).

A chip off the old block, Brzezinski grew up hearing stories from his father about mass disappearances in Soviet Russia, which he said “had an enormous impression on me at a young age.”[2] A star student, Zbig received a B.A. and M.A. from McGill University in 1949 and 1950 and a Ph.D. from Harvard in 1953 with a dissertation on the relationship between the October Revolution, Vladimir Lenin’s state and the actions of Joseph Stalin.

Around this time, he came into contact with Jan Nowak-Jezioranski, head of the Polish desk of the CIA’s propaganda organ, Radio Free Europe.

Brzezinski subsequently collaborated with his Harvard colleague Carl J. Friedrich to develop the concept of totalitarianism in their 1956 book Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy as a way to more powerfully characterize and criticize the Soviets.

| archival photo of Zbigniew Brzezinski sitting in front of a world map | MR Online
Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1960 Source <a href=httpsnewscolumbiaedunewsask almas owl americas grand strategist>newscolumbiaedu<a>

The concept was rebuked by historians because it rejected the possibilty of change within the Soviet system, which occurred under glasnost and perestroika, and created a false binary between the “democratic” West and Communist bloc states.

After teaching at Harvard and Columbia, Brzezinski was appointed Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser. In that position, he advocated for “an arc of Islam” across the Middle East to counter Soviet influence. Brzezinski also lobbied successfully for ending Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger’s détente policy and for using China as a tool against the Soviet Union.

| | MR Online
Brzezinski with Jimmy Carter on his right and Cyrus Vance on his left at Camp David in 1977 Source <a href=httpsportsideorg2021 08 22revelations carters former advisor yes cia entered afghanistan russians 1998>portsideorg<a>

An early supporter of the Vietnam War who characterized the New Left as “an infantile disorder,” Brzezinski was a founder of the Trilateral Commission, which sought to revitalize U.S. power after Vietnam while strengthening the U.S. alliance with Western Europe and Japan.[3]

In his 1997 magnum opus, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997), Brzezinski drew on the theories of British imperial strategist Halford Mackinder to advocate for U.S. dominance of Central Asia, which he regarded as the key to world domination.

| Map Description automatically generated with medium confidence | MR Online

Brzezinski was despised in Russia, where he was viewed as anti-Soviet and a Russophobe. Before his death in 2017, he warned that Putin was intent on re-establishing the former czarist empire.

He supported sanctions against Russia, NATO expansion and the 2014 coup in Ukraine and U.S. arming of Ukraine with anti-tank weapons so it could carry out urban warfare against the Russians.

Brzezinski said that the U.S. should help those wanting to break up the Russian Federation, irrespective of who they are.

Brzezinski airs anti Russian views before NATO backed Atlantic Council think tank Source <a href=httpswwwpoliticoeuarticlecarter adviser zbigniew brzezinski dies at 89>politicoeu<a>

Another Chip Off the Old Block

Zbig’s son Mark—a corporate lawyer with a Ph.D. in political science from Oxford who served from 1999 to 2001 as director of Russian/Eurasian and Southeast European affairs at the National Security Council—has a similar worldview to both his father and grandfather.

member of the Council on Foreign Relations, an elite think tank advocating for imperialist foreign policies, and the Trilateral Commission like his dad, the younger Brzezinski helped lead U.S. policy implementation in relation to NATO enlargement in the late 1990s.

He also helped oversee a color revolution in Serbia that resulted in the ouster of Socialist Slobodan Milošević, who had tried to keep the Yugoslav Federation together and resisted U.S. regional designs.

| | MR Online
Mark Brzezinski in 2012 in Stockholm when he was the Obama administrations ambassador to Sweden Source <a href=httpswwweuractivcomsectionglobal europenewsbiden picks mark son of zbig brzezinski to manage key nato relationship>euractivcom<a>

In a recent interview, Mark Brzezinski called Lech Wałęsa, the “Solidarity” leader who received CIA funding to overthrow Poland’s communist government in the 1980s, a “freedom fighter.”

| A picture containing person person Description automatically generated | MR Online
Lech Wałęsa during the strike at the Lenin Shipyard 1980 Source <a href=httpspolishhistorypla covert action reagan the cia and the cold war struggle in poland>polishhistorypl<a>

With regard to the Ukraine War, Mark Brzezinski claimed that, “for Poland, this is 1939. This is the invasion of a Slavic country, with the people trying to fight back, and the Poles want to help. This is what the Ukraine crisis is for Poland. And it’s an amazing story because, unlike 1939, you now have people getting into their cars, driving to the border, picking up Ukrainian families, and taking them to put them into people’s homes and apartments.”

In short, the Russians are playing the role of the Nazis and Poles the saviors of the victims of their invasion.

Long Held Dream Being Fulfilled

Being on the front lines of the Ukraine War, Poland has supplied Ukraine with howitzers as part of a $650 million military weapons contract—the biggest in the last three decades—while taking in millions of Ukrainian refugees and serving as a main conduit of Western weapons and aid under Mark Brzezinski’s careful watch.

At the end of June, the Russians claimed to have killed “up to 80 Polish fighters” in eastern Ukraine while at least two battalions of Polish army military personnel equipped with anti-tank guns and American armored cars were transferred to the Dnieper region in Ukraine.

| Poland Stands With Ukraine Polish Ukraine Flag Vintage T Shirt B09VBG2HL7 Trend T Shirt Store Online | MR Online
Source <a href=httpsshopsteescomproductpoland stands with ukraine polish ukraine flag vintage t shirt b09vbg2hl7>shopsteescom<a>

Somewhere both Tadeusz and Zbigniew Brzezinski are smiling from their graves.

Their long-held dream of using Poland as a lever to strike a blow against the Russians is finally being fulfilled—at the potential cost of igniting a world war.


At the request of President Woodrow Wilson, the United States granted Poland a war loan of $176 million, enabling the purchase of, among other things, approximately 200 tanks, 300 planes, war materials and food for the Polish Army. An American fighter pilot squadron defended access to Lviv during the Battle of Zadwórze on August 17, 1920, and other Americans fought against the Red Army in Semyon Budyonny’s 1st Cavalry Army.

Anna Kasten Nelson, ed., The Policy Makers: Shaping American Foreign Policy from 1947 to the Present (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009), 111.

Brzezinski was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (“Wall Street’s think tank”) and the Bilderberg Group.

Intermarium Support Group was founded in the Estonian Parliament

 by Intermarium Support Group  22.09.2022

Estonian MPs in Kyiv call to declare russia a state sponsor of terrorism

According to the press release of the Estonian Riigikogu from Sep. 14, 2022, a parliamentary group named Intermarium Support Group was created in the Estonian Parliament. Its purpose is to promote cooperation between Eastern European countries as a counterweight to Russia’s imperial ambitions.

The chairman of the Intermarium Support Group, MP Anti Poolamets (EKRE), noted that the group was launched on the example of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. September 30, 2020, MP Sviatoslav Yurash (Sluga Narodu) established the biggest in the Ukrainian Parliament Intermarium Caucus. This parliamentary group, in turn, summarized the efforts of NGO Intermarium Support Group, which was founded by National Corps and is coordinated by Olena Semenyaka, assistant of MP Sviatoslav Yurash.

Earlier this August, Anti Poolamets and another MP from EKRE, Ruuben Kaalep, an ardent promoter of Intermarium initiatives in the region and a regular participant of the Ukrainian Intermarium Support Group’s events, visited Ukraine to show solidarity with Azov soldiers, those undergoing rehabilitation and held in the russian captivity in particular, as well as donated a drone: Estonian MPs in Kyiv call to declare russia a state sponsor of terrorism

“Ukraine needs a wider and faster inclusion in international cooperation formats. The Intermarium, or the union of countries between the seas, has a deep, centuries-long background of cooperation in the territories of Lithuania, Ukraine, Poland and Belarus. It is a powerful regional group of countries that share a common historical experience of long-term loss or limitation of sovereignty under communist regimes. That is why the Intermarium countries can value freedom highly. The population, economic weight and military power of these countries would make it possible to create a strong counterweight to russia’s imperial ambitions in cooperation,” the chairman explained.

Also, Anti Poolamets stressed that it was crucial to modernize transport corridors, above all, gas connections, so that these countries could avoid russian blackmail in the future. “Looking into the future, Intermarium cooperation model should also include Belarus, which assumes the country’s independence from Russian control and the restoration of democracy,” he added.

The chairman of the Intermarium Support Group is Anti Poolamets, and the caucus includes Jaak Valge, Urmas Reitelmann, Tarmo Kruusimäe, Ruuben Kaalep, Leo Kunnas and Paul Puustusmaa.

“Parliamentary groups formed in the Riigikogu help members of the Riigikogu communicate with the parliaments of other countries, implement foreign policy and introduce Estonia to the rest of the world. Through support groups, Riigikogu members and factions can draw attention to a specific topic and promote and protect the interests of a narrower area of ​​life. The XIV Riigikogu has formed a total of 67 parliamentary groups and 96 support groups,” press release states.

Poland’s role in the Intermarium idea

Blue Europe – Think Tank / Feb 8, 2023

Poland’s role in the Intermarium idea

“Who rules East Europe commands the heartland, who rules the heartland commands the World-island, who rules the World-island commands the World”. These are the exact words used by renowned British geopolitician Halford Mackinder to convey the significance of the region situated in the eastern portion of the North European plain, the region bounded by the Baltic and Black seas. After regaining their independence at the beginning of the 20th century, Polish legislators tried to reimagine their region as the Intermarium, a powerful land force united to protect central Eastern Europe’s honour amid the revival of Germany and Russia.

Pożegnanie Europy by Aleksander Sochaczewski
“Pożegnanie Europy” by Aleksander Sochaczewski (1894), shows exiled Poles arriving at the border of Europe.

Czartoryski was given the death penalty by Tsar Nicholas the First of Russia because he presided over the provisional government during the November revolt in the early 19th century. Czartoryski vigorously promoted the Polish cause while in exile in the Western countries, primarily France and England, as well as the Ottoman empire. His goal was to revive the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which would have joined forces with other Central European countries like as the Czechs and Slovaks, the Hungarians, the Romanians, the Serbs, and others in a confederation or alliance.
In order to balance the Germanic States in the West and the Russian Empire in the East, it was intended to construct a block of states, primarily Slavic. The lack of acceptance in the West would ultimately cause the concept to fail. The prospects of the coalition succeeding, even if Poland were to reappear, were limited because of territorial conflicts with Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and the Czech Republic.
Many countries in Central Europe regained their independence as a result of the end of World War I, including Poland, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, and Estonia. The hope of building a force in the region that could resist both the empires from the East and the West arose as a result of the weariness of war in European powers and the new geopolitical configuration.

Józef Pilsudski and his legacy over the Intermarium idea

The founding leader of the second Polish Republic, Józef Pilsudski, shared the goals of the Polish head of state and later served as field marshall, leading the Polish army in the successful conflict with Bolshevik Russia. The plan he envisioned was in nature identical to the concept of Czartoryski, and it eventually came to be known under the name Intermarium, which is Latin for between the seas. In 1920, it was sealed by victory in the Battle of Warsaw, also known as the Miracle of Vistula.
After the war with Russia, Pilsudski realised that building a bloc of nations that could counterbalance Germany and Russia was the only way to defeat the threat posed by their expansionism. In its current form, the motion called for the creation of a federation that would include Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine. Poland would continue to be the de facto senior partner in that relationship even if it were to give part of its territory to Ukraine.
The Pilsudski idea was opposed by everyone. The Soviet Union attempted to obstruct the Intermarium agenda because their zone of influence was in danger. The Allied Powers believed that Bolshevism was only a transient threat and did not want to see Russia, an essential historic partner from a balance of power standpoint, diminished. They disapproved of Pilsudski’s rejection of his White allies, held him in low regard, rejected his ambitious intentions, and pushed Poland to limit its territory to Polish-majority areas. The Ukrainians, who were also seeking independence but were concerned that Poland might once again subjugate them, and the Belarusians, who lacked a strong sense of national identity, were not interested in either independence or Pilsudski’s proposals for union. The Lithuanians, who had restored their independence in 1918, were also unwilling to join.
A string of post-World War I wars and border disputes — the Polish-Soviet War, the Polish-Lithuanian War, the Polish-Ukrainian War, and border clashes between Poland and Czechoslovakia — between Poland and its neighbours in disputed territory did little to help Pilsudski’s plan.
In order to weaken Russia, Pilsudski wanted to divide the Soviet Union along national lines. The idea was the Great Eastern Empire, which included the countries of Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, and Belarus, rather than the nation of Poland. Germans and Russians were divided by this “kingdom,” which stretched from the Baltic to the Black sea and had historical roots. Pilsudski was aware that four distinct nationalities with individual state aspirations were born in the formerly Commonwealth-occupied territories.
While some academics take Pilsudski’s claims of democratic ideals for his federative plan at face value, others view them with scepticism and point to a coup d’état in 1926 in which Pilsudski seized practically totalitarian powers. Oleksandr Derhachov argues that the federation would have created a bigger Poland in which the interests of non-Poles, especially Ukrainians, would have gotten little consideration. Most Ukrainian historians, in particular, have negative opinions of his concept.
However, none of them have a possibility of long-term independence unless they have a sufficiently strong geopolitical potential. Pilsudski, who revived the Commonwealthan ideology, also observed its unfavourable consequences, namely the dominance of the Polish nation over the others. He thought that pluralistic democracy and true federalism were the best remedies for averting this kind of crisis, but this strategy failed for two reasons. The first was the mistrust of Lithuanian and Ukrainian political figures regarding the intentions of the Polish government.
They feared that the system’s control by the Polish nation would jeopardise their recently attained freedom. The second was an internal Polish factor. In opposition to the Polish socialist party, which Pilsudski came from, the national democrats and Polish nationalist ideology political movement coalesced around Roman Dmowski. As they saw no hope of building an effective government with Lithuanians or Ukrainians, they decided to create a monoethnic state.
The idea was finally dropped after the Treaty of Riga was signed in 1921 by Poland, Soviet Ukraine, and Soviet Russia, delineating the Polish-Russian border. The states of the Baltic-Black Sea block were going to benefit from the greatest strategy in twenty years because to this lack of geopolitical power consolidation.
A federation of states stretching from Finland in the north to Greece in the south was the concept that sparked interest in the political sector. When he was Poland’s minister of foreign affairs at the time, Józef advocated a Third Europe alliance of Central European nations to counterbalance the geopolitical influence of the USSR, authoritarian nations like Germany and Italy, and the Western powers England and France.
The alliance would be led by Poland, Hungary, and Romania, with Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and potentially Italy joining later. However, there was no foundation for this idea to manifest itself as a true force. Italy remained on the German side, the Transylvania conflict between Romania and Hungary persisted, and no one was willing to accept Poland’s leadership. Soon after, World War II started, shattering any significant plans to reestablish a dominant power in this part of Europe.
The Polish elites abandoned the Intermarium’s will in conformity with Moscow’s will throughout the course of the following 44 years whereas the elites in exile did not. In the Paris-based publication Kultura, Jerzy Giedroyc and Juliusz Mieroszewski, who were both living in France at the time, established the idea of a sovereign Polish state in which they firmly believed. Giedroyc once remarked, “Without free Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine, there cannot be a free Poland.

Three issues of

Three issues of “Kultura” Photo: Literary Institute
Rebuilding positive ties with the nations of Central and Eastern Europe was the cornerstone of the Giedroyc-Mieroszewski ideology. According to this plan, Poland would have to give up any imperial aspirations and contentious territorial claims in addition to accepting the post-war state structure and, consequently, the loss of Vilnius and Lviv, two crucial cities for Poles.
In essence, the theory was not hostile to Russia and backed the independence of Belarus and Ukraine. Giedroyc and Mieroszewski urged Poland and Russia to give up their plans to dominate the Eastern lands, primarily Ukraine, Lithuania, and Belarus. As a result, the ideology is also known as the ULB philosophy, which is derived from the initials of these nations.
In Wadysaw Sikorski’s Polish Government in Exile, the idea of a “Central European Union” — a triangle geopolitical bloc rooted in the Baltic, Black, and Adriatic or Aegean Seas — was revived during World War II. Discussions in 1942 between the exiled governments of Greece, Yugoslavia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia over potential Greek-Yugoslav and Polish-Czechoslovak federations ultimately failed because to Soviet opposition, which caused Czech reluctance and Allied ambivalence or hostility. The construction of a federal union for Central and Eastern Europe that was not dominated by any one state was advocated in a statement made at the time by the Polish Underground State.
It represented a paradigm shift from the widespread viewpoint of Polish immigrants from the 1950s and 1960s who were determined to establish Polish dominance in the eastern regions of the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and did not want to give up their quest for that goal. In contrast to Mieroszewski, who passed away in 1976, Giedroyc lived to see Poland gain its independence in 1989, and their philosophy was the one that came the closest to the tactics used by the Polish government in the East following 1989.
Among other things, Poland supported libertarian inclinations in Ukraine, Russia, and other nations. However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the newly established Belarusian government proposed an economic and customs union with Minsk. Poland at the time looked almost primarily to the West for economic power, therefore Warsaw rejected. As a result of this perspective, we joined the NATO, the European Union, the German-controlled West European supply chain, and the American military’s safety net.
The Polish state had been without stability for about 250 years before these decisions were made. The abandoning of geopolitical philosophy, of which Intermarium was a crucial notion, was brought about by prosperity and geopolitical stagnation brought about by American hegemony. Poles in the East prioritised the interests of the West over their own and those of the EU, US, and other countries.

Modern Intermarium initiatives

The ULB doctrine’s relationship with Belarus, the second-most significant nation after Ukraine, became almost entirely muddled. Poland, along with other countries in Central and Eastern Europe, must reevaluate its place in the region as global system tensions rise. Under a variety of titles, most recently the free-seas initiative, the notion of a similar alliance to the Commonwealth slowly started to resurface on the agenda.
The limited potential of Poland in comparison to Germany’s and Russia’s economic and military might makes the idea of Intermarium exceedingly challenging to carry out without an external patreon, according to the grassroots geopolitical thought in Poland. The USA is the sole contender for this title.
American agenda in the European theatre presupposes that a bloc of Central and Eastern European nations is aligned with US objectives in order to counterbalance the potential consolidation of Germany and Russia. The ambition to deliver energy to Ukraine and Belarus through terminals in Poland and Lithuania was the initial symptom.
The Visegrád Group nations of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary announced the formation of a Visegrád Battlegroup on May 12, 2011, under the leadership of Poland. By 2016, the battlegroup had been established as a separate entity from the NATO command. The four nations were also supposed to start conducting combined military drills under the supervision of the NATO Response Force starting in 2013. This was viewed by some academics as the first step toward close regional collaboration in Central Europe.

Visegrad Battlegroup

In his inauguration address on August 6, 2015, Polish President Andrzej Duda announced ambitions to create a regional alliance of Central European nations based on the Intermarium idea. The Three Seas Initiative had its inaugural summit in Dubrovnik, Croatia, in 2016. Along a north-south axis from the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic Sea and the Black Sea, the Twelve Seas Initiative has 12 member states: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, and Bulgaria.
Every nation threatened by Russia would be covered by a 21st-century Intermarium. To avoid making the same mistakes as the original project, however, would be the most crucial aspect to take into account in an Intermarium for the twenty-first century. This entails putting aside personal issues and, ideally, coming together in the face of a shared, collective global peril. Until “the entire post-Soviet realm in Europe learns how to work in solidarity together,” Intermarium will not be successful. It should be remembered that no successor state can successfully confront Moscow by itself. Therefore, a projected Intermarium in the twenty-first century would only have a chance of succeeding when these nations have set their differences aside.
It is hardly surprising that Intermarium is a topic that is reviving today given that the Russian state continues to violate international law. Today, Ukraine would undoubtedly gain the most from this initiative, but the entire area is concerned about Russia’s security threat. The nations of central Europe have frequently been the scene of war, as history has demonstrated time and time again, thus they can only exist as a single alliance.


Due to their shared experiences during World Wars I and II, they all have historical motivations to form this kind of partnership today. Perhaps it is impossible to predict how Intermarium will function or who the actual members will be. In any case, Intermarium in the twenty-first century is very different from the circumstances that Józef Pilsudski faced and has a better chance of success.
A geopolitical initiative from the 20th century called Intermarium is gaining ground every year. Post-Soviet politicians, diplomats, and intellectuals are still debating the precise operations and politics of Intermarium in the twenty-first century.

precursor: Bucharest Nine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bucharest NineBucharest Format
Members of the Bucharest Nine
Membership Bulgaria Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Romania Slovakia
Establishment4 November 2015

The Bucharest Nine or the Bucharest Format (B9 or B-9PolishBukaresztańska DziewiątkaRomanianFormatul București) is an organization founded on 4 November 2015 in BucharestRomania, at the initiative of the President of Romania Klaus Iohannis and the President of Poland Andrzej Duda during a bilateral meeting between them.[1] Its members are Bulgaria, the Czech RepublicEstoniaHungaryLatviaLithuaniaPoland, Romania and Slovakia. Its appearance was mainly a result of a perceived aggressive attitude from Russia following the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and its posterior intervention in eastern Ukraine both in 2014. All members of the B9 were either part of the former Soviet Union (USSR) or members of the defunct Soviet-led Warsaw Pact.

NATO Secretary General takes part in B9 Summit

NATO, June 10 2022

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg attended the Bucharest Nine (B9) Summit by video teleconference on Friday (10 June 2022), to prepare for the NATO Summit in Madrid at the end of this month. The B9 format, established at the initiative of Polish President Duda and Romanian President Iohannis in the aftermath of Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014, includes NATO Allies Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia, and its summit is currently taking place in Bucharest.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg virtually participates at the B9 Summit

The NATO Secretary General thanked the B9 group for their strong support of transatlantic unity, their significant contributions to Euro-Atlantic security, as well as their consistent support for Ukraine’s sovereignty. He stressed that today’s meeting is particularly timely in view of President Putin’s second invasion of Ukraine, leading to the worst security situation in Europe since World War Two. NATO has responded quickly, Mr. Stoltenberg said, including by doubling the number of multinational battlegroups from the Baltic to the Black Sea, with new battlegroups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. 

At the NATO Summit in Madrid, all 30 Alliance leaders will take the next steps to continue to adapt the Alliance to a more dangerous and competitive world. The Secretary General outlined the importance of further strengthening deterrence and defence, including on the eastern flank, with more combat-ready forces, together with more enablers and pre-positioning, to leave no doubt that NATO will protect every inch of Allied territory. 

Mr. Stoltenberg also stressed the importance of continued investment in defence and resourcing the Alliance at this critical time, commending the B9 members for the fact that many of them meet or exceed the 2% target of GDP on defence spending. The Secretary General outlined the need to deepen partnerships at the Madrid Summit, including with Ukraine, Georgia, Finland and Sweden, the European Union, and Asia-Pacific partners.

Intermarium Winter School

Jan 17, 2023

Intermarium Winter School

We are noticing that the world is undergoing rapid transformation, and the geopolitical situation is changing very dynamically. The change in the balance of power in connection with the war in Ukraine, the internal tensions and transformations within the European Union, the attempt of the EU institutions to exert pressure on the EU Member States from Central and Eastern Europe in the shaping of their internal policies – all this makes cooperation within the framework of the Inter-Mediterranean Region a civilizational necessity in the near and distant future.

The Intermarium Winter School (“IWS”) is:   

  • getting to know each other, and become more familiar with our common history and culture;   
  • the discussions about the future of our countries and the region as a whole;  
  • an opportunity to meet famous polish scientists, politicians and publicists; 
  • a meeting of a young people, who actively engage in the social life of their countries;   
  • an establishment of relationships that will result in cooperation in the fields of culture, education, politics, energy.

IWS will consist of workshops and lectures conducted by prominent figures of Polish social and academic life, as well as politicians. The list of invited guests includes: 

  • prof. Andrzej Zybertowicz, advisor to the President of the Republic of Poland   
  • prof. Przemysław Czarnek, the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Poland  
  • Att. Jerzy Kwaśniewski, the President of the Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture   
  • dr Patryk Jaki, Member of the European Parliament   
  • Marek Jurek, former Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of Poland   
  • Grzegorz Górny, the leader of the Three Seas Foundation  
  • Istvan Kovacs, strategic director of the Center for Fundamental Rights
  • Artur Zawisza, former Member of Parliament, specialist in energy renewables
  • dr Filip Ludwin, Associate Professor, Vice-Rector for Education
  • Arkadiusz Robaczewski, philosopher, lecturer

Lectures are conducted in English.


So Nazis from either side of the Polish-Ukrainian border push for this too.

“From Maidan to Intermarium”
Need I add anything more?



PS: I have a strong hunch Russia is a partner here and there’s a certain collaboration in this plan. For later reference.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Warn a friend to warn a friend!

I’ve recently asked chatGPT for info on myself, knowing that there are only two people with my name in the whole world, and the other one is about 10 years old now, not much bio there.
First, it said it doesn’t have any info, which was very satisfactory to me, but it followed by asking me if I want it to research more, which I found curious. Of course, I said yes.
It then came up with a totally fictitious character, so I asked for links and resources I could personally check.
It gave me two links, none of them working.
I gave up, test concluded, it was now time to find out how does OpenAI cover for these frauds, seeing how little is this basic application understood by the masses and how it’s already intoxicating our body of knowledge.
Luckily, it didn’t take long until I found Steve Lehto.

Steve Lehto has been practicing Lemon Law and Consumer Protection for 30 years. He has handled cases for thousands of consumers. He wrote the Lemon Law Bible and taught at the University of Detroit-Mercy School of Law for ten years. He is a frequent lecturer on Consumer Law and has been quoted by or appeared on countless media outlets such as the New York Times, the BBC, CNN, Good Morning America, WDIV, WJBK, and WXYZ. He also has written several award winning history books on topics as diverse as the Italian Hall disaster, the wrongful conviction of Timothy Masters, and the Chrysler Turbine Car.


The short course:

The longer course

from the openai terms of use:

7. Indemnification; Disclaimer of Warranties; Limitations on Liability

(a) Indemnity. You will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless us, our affiliates, and our personnel, from and against any claims, losses, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) arising from or relating to your use of the Services, including your Content, products or services you develop or offer in connection with the Services, and your breach of these Terms or violation of applicable law.



8. Dispute Resolution


(a) MANDATORY ARBITRATION. You and OpenAI agree to resolve any past or present claims relating to these Terms or our Services through final and binding arbitration, except that you have the right to opt out of these arbitration terms, and future changes to these arbitration terms, by filling out this form within 30 days of agreeing to these arbitration terms or the relevant changes.

(b) Informal Dispute Resolution. We would like to understand and try to address your concerns prior to formal legal action. Before filing a claim against OpenAI, you agree to try to resolve the dispute informally by sending us notice at of your name, a description of the dispute, and the relief you seek. If we are unable to resolve a dispute within 60 days, you may bring a formal proceeding. Any statute of limitations will be tolled during the 60-day resolution process. If you reside in the EU, the European Commission provides for an online dispute resolution platform, which you can access at

(c) Arbitration Forum. Either party may commence binding arbitration through ADR Services, an alternative dispute resolution provider. The parties will pay equal shares of the arbitration fees. If the arbitrator finds that you cannot afford to pay the arbitration fees and cannot obtain a waiver, OpenAI will pay them for you. OpenAI will not seek its attorneys’ fees and costs in arbitration unless the arbitrator determines that your claim is frivolous.

(d) Arbitration Procedures. The arbitration will be conducted by telephone, based on written submissions, video conference, or in person in San Francisco, California or at another mutually agreed location. The arbitration will be conducted by a sole arbitrator by ADR Services under its then-prevailing rules. All issues are for the arbitrator to decide, except a California court has the authority to determine (i) the scope, enforceability, and arbitrability of this Section 8, including the mass filing procedures below, and (ii) whether you have complied with the pre-arbitration requirements in this section. The amount of any settlement offer will not be disclosed to the arbitrator by either party until after the arbitrator determines the final award, if any.

(e). Exceptions. This arbitration section does not require arbitration of the following claims: (i) individual claims brought in small claims court; and (ii) injunctive or other equitable relief to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or intellectual property infringement.

(f) NO CLASS ACTIONS. Disputes must be brought on an individual basis only, and may not be brought as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class, consolidated, or representative proceeding. Class arbitrations, class actions, private attorney general actions, and consolidation with other arbitrations are not allowed. If for any reason a dispute proceeds in court rather than through arbitration, each party knowingly and irrevocably waives any right to trial by jury in any action, proceeding, or counterclaim. This does not prevent either party from participating in a class-wide settlement of claims.

(g) Mass Filings. If, at any time, 30 or more similar demands for arbitration are asserted against OpenAI or related parties by the same or coordinated counsel or entities (“Mass Filing”), ADR Services will randomly assign sequential numbers to each of the Mass Filings. Claims numbered 1-10 will be the “Initial Test Cases” and will proceed to arbitration first. The arbitrators will render a final award for the Initial Test Cases within 120 days of the initial pre-hearing conference, unless the claims are resolved in advance or the parties agree to extend the deadline. The parties will then have 90 days (the “Mediation Period”) to resolve the remaining cases in mediation based on the awards from the Initial Test Cases. If the parties are unable to resolve the outstanding claims during this time, the parties may choose to opt out of the arbitration process and proceed in court by providing written notice to the other party within 60 days after the Mediation Period. Otherwise, the remaining cases will be arbitrated in their assigned order. Any statute of limitations will be tolled from the time the Initial Test Cases are chosen until your case is chosen as described above.

(h) Severability. If any part of this Section 8 is found to be illegal or unenforceable, the remainder will remain in effect, except that if a finding of partial illegality or unenforceability would allow Mass Filing or class or representative arbitration, this Section 8 will be unenforceable in its entirety. Nothing in this section will be deemed to waive or otherwise limit the right to seek public injunctive relief or any other non-waivable right, pending a ruling on the substance of such claim from the arbitrator.


It doesn’t mean this all that’s wrong with those terms of use or privacy policy, it’s just all I’ve found so far.
So keep close, I will continue to follow this topic!

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them


I’m as struck by this recent finding as you are…

It’s not that they are close, we’ve talked a lot about it, it’s how Chinese frame it and celebrate it… It’s like seeing your world through the eyes of an alien civilization.

China’s fascination with the Rothschild family

CGN, 2018-02-28

The seventh generation of the Rothschild banking dynasty will take over the centuries-old bank this summer, according to the Financial Times.

Controversy and conspiracy theories over the family’s supposed control of wealth have long existed in the West, but in recent decades more and more Chinese economists and budding entrepreneurs have closely studied the Rothschilds.

At the same time, members of the Rothschild family have looked to a rising China for new business opportunities.

The next generation

According to the Financial Times, Alexandre de Rothschild will take over as chairman of Rothschild Bank from his father David de Rothschild this summer, with the 37-year-old expected to lead the way in diversifying the group beyond “its core French and British advisory business.”

Outgoing Chairman David de Rothschild. /VCG Photo

Alexandre de Rothschild joined the family business a decade ago, overseeing a period when the bank has looked to push beyond Europe in terms of investment strategy.

In fact, the Rothschild family came to China as long ago as the 1830s, when it set up a small gold and silver trading business in Shanghai. In 1953, four years after the founding of New China, Rothschild was one of the first major Western banks to establish relations with the country.

A history of investments in China

In 2008 La Compagnie Financiere Edmond de Rothschild (LCFR), the bank’s French branch, was on the verge of securing 2.3 billion yuan (336 million US dollars) worth of investment from the Bank of China. That deal however fell through after failing to get approval from the Chinese government.

In 2011, UK-based Rothschild subsidiary RIT Partners set up one of the first private equity funds in China to raise renminbi in the country and invest it overseas, with a target of amassing 750 million US dollars within its first year.

Alexandre de Rothschild (L) with CEFC China Energy Chairman Ye Jianming in Shanghai, May 2017. /China Daily Photo

Last year, Alexandre de Rothschild met with Ye Jianming, chairman of CEFC China Energy, with both sides agreeing to strengthen cooperation in sectors including energy, financial services, aviation, infrastructure construction, food and high-end property management.

China’s fascination with the Rothschilds

Beyond its growing financial presence in the country, the past decade has seen growing cultural awareness in China of the Rothschild family.

Several bestselling but controversial books have seen a wave of interest in Jewish business practices, particularly among wealthy entrepreneurs and investors looking to establish their own family legacies.

Published in 2007, Song Hongbing’s Currency Wars was an instant success in China, with publisher CITIC claiming there were some 600,000 copies in circulation within months of it being released.

In the book, Song, who studied and lived in the US from 1994 and worked as an IT consultant, claims the Rothschild family control five trillion US dollars’ worth of global wealth.

Song’s work was widely criticized in the West as an “economic novel,” and lambasted for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

The Financial Times reported that Currency Wars was widely read by Chinese company heads and government officials, with Song himself saying “I never imagined it could be so hot and that top leaders would be reading it.” He insisted that the book was not anti-Semitic.

Jon Benjamin, then the chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, told the Financial Times he was concerned by the book, and was worried that the Rothschild conspiracy theory was gaining traction “in the world’s most important emerging economy,” despite China having “little or no concurrent culture of anti-Semitism.”

Song Hongbing, who currently has almost two million followers on Sina Weibo, has gone on to publish five books in his Currency Wars series, and since 2007 more and more books on the Rothschilds and more generally on so-called Jewish business practices have been published.

Chinese books on Jewish business practices, f‍rom top left, clockwise: How do Jewish People win?; Jewish Business Bible; Jewish Businessmen’s Wisdom; Jewish Business Teachings. /Images from China Daily, Douban

Titles such as “The Legend of Jewish Wealth,” “Jewish Family Education” and “The Illustrated Jewish Wisdom Book” can all be found in the business sections of bookstores across China.

Han Bing, who wrote business self-help guide “Crack the Talmud,” told Newsweek in 2010 that Jews and Chinese shared historic and cultural similarities. When pressed on whether his book was promoting stereotypes, Han admitted that he had never met a Jewish person in his life.

Falling for fake wine and frauds

The Rothschild name is also synonymous with Chateau Lafite in China, one of the most popular wine labels for the country’s wealthiest people.

Selling for as much as 10,000 US dollars per bottle, Xinhua reported in 2011 that the majority of Lafite sold in China could be fake, as sales figures reported in just Zhejiang Province were exceeding official global production figures.

Beyond fake bottles of Rothschild wine, a man named Oliver Rothschild who pretended to be part of the banking dynasty infamously fooled Tsinghua University in 2016.

The British man was given the red carpet treatment by the university, with Dean Qiu Yong calling him “one of the successors of the Rothschild family,” and claiming he was a former head of UNICEF.

The real Rothschild family released a statement saying Oliver Rothschild was not connected to the family in any way, after reports that he had traveled around China for several years giving speeches under the guise of being part of the banking family.

The “fake Rothschild” Oliver Rothschild in 2014. /VCG Photo

After Tsinghua admitted it had fallen for the fraud, The Global Times said the story showed China’s “longing for international endorsement, especially from the developed world, as an indicator of being something.”

Also watch:

The Rothschilds: Top investors in Asian coal, Chinese pollution and subversive climate policies



To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them


Trilateral Commission calls 2023 ‘Year One’ of new world order

Nikkei Asia, March 14, 2023

Meghan O’Sullivan, the North American chair of the Trilateral Commission, speaks in New Delhi on March 12. O’Sullivan was deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan under President George W. Bush. (Photo by Patrick Ishiyama)  

NEW DELHI — As retired foreign ministers, ambassadors, CEOs, bankers and academics gathered at the secretive Trilateral Commission’s first global plenary meeting in India, perhaps the most influential individual sat quietly off to the side, listening.

James Baker, director of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, was not even on the list of participants at the Taj Palace Hotel in New Delhi. But his takeaways from the meeting could find their way into policies that shape the world.

Baker is the successor to legendary defense strategist Andrew Marshall, who headed the office for 42 years. He is responsible for providing the Secretary of Defense with an assessment of U.S. military capabilities relative to other actors 20 to 30 years down the road.

One particular speech may have caught Baker’s attention, for it captured the essence of the three-day discussion, held from Friday through Sunday. “The Biden administration is trying to convince the world that there is this titanic struggle between autocracies and democracies. I am skeptical about that,” a speaker said. Instead, the world is fragmented, with countries — including the U.S. — looking out for their self-interests, the speaker added.

The Trilateral Commission is a nongovernmental organization that seeks to deepen understanding between the U.S., Europe and Asia.

Trilateral Commission members listen to Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar in New Delhi on March 12. (Photo by Patrick Ishiyama)

The speaker, who cannot be identified according to commission rules, went on: “Three decades of globalization — defined as integrated, free-market based and deflationary — has been replaced by what will be a multidecade period of globalization defined as fragmented, not-free-market-based but industrial-policy based and structurally inflationary. This year, 2023, is Year One of this new global order.”

At the core of this shift is the U.S. Instead of committing to a neoliberal, free-market economy, the U.S. government is driving the economy and key industries toward a set of objectives, such as domestic equity at home and competition with China, the speaker said.

In such a world, middle powers like India, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will carve their own paths, weighing the economic, strategic and defense interests, the speaker said.

Ironically, as the Trilateral Commission convened, Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed to normalize relations, shattering Israel’s hopes for isolating Tehran. The deal was brokered by China, with the U.S. having no role in the handshake.

Wang Yi, China’s most senior diplomat, center, presides over a closed meeting between Iran, led by Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, at right, and Saudi Arabia, led by Saudi national security adviser Musaad bin Mohammed al-Aiban, at left, in Beijing on March 11.(Xinhua via AP)

Created by philanthropist David Rockefeller in 1973, the commission sought to bring the rising economy of Japan firmly into the West. Today, the commission has expanded to include members from South Korea, India and Southeast Asia.

Fresh from overtaking China as the world’s most populous country and with a new “appetite for the world,” in the words of one participant, India was a major focus of discussions. Representatives from the country engaged in a lively debate with their Chinese counterparts.

When a former Chinese diplomat suggested that the two nations “meet halfway” over their Himalayan border problem and find a way to settle differences, an Indian government official categorically rejected how the Chinese were framing the issue.

“The Chinese side must understand, you cannot undermine peace and tranquility and then say ‘let the rest of the relationship be normal,'” the Indian official said. “You can’t have violence on the boundary and business in the hinterland. It doesn’t work.”

Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang, left, speaks with his Indian counterpart Subrahmanyam Jaishankar during their meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 foreign ministers’ meeting in New Delhi, India on March 2. (India’s Ministry of External Affairs handout via Reuters)

But commission members expressed hope that China would play a part in ending the Ukraine war. “Whether Russia will stop the war depends on the role of China. If China decides to help Russia [evade] sanctions, if China decides to provide Russia with arms, this war can go on for very long,” one European analyst said.

Members also worried about how the war has disrupted efforts to reach net-zero emissions. “The new conflict that is perceived in many constituencies is between energy security on one hand and energy transformation on the other, following Ukraine,” a member said. “At least for the short term, some of these priorities seemed to have shifted. We need to now reorder these priorities in a way that energy transformation happens and becomes the main driver of where investments need to go.”

Another hot topic was artificial intelligence. “A poll last year found that 49% of AI researchers have said that AI poses an existential threat to humanity, almost to the level of a nuclear type of disaster in the scale of humanity,” said a member. Many in the room called for a global regulatory scheme to govern AI.

Still, participants were generally positive about the wildly popular ChatGPT and later jokingly asked the bot to write a poem about the Trilateral Commission.

Following is one example:

“In secret meetings, you plan and conspire,

To create a new order, of which you aspire.

Your goals are unclear, but some see the end,

As a world government, with you as its friend.”

Inside the Trilateral Commission: Power elites grapple with China’s rise

Trilateral appointees in US include:

* Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner

* Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice

* National Security Advisor, Gen. James L. Jones

* Deputy National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon

* Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee, Paul Volker

* Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair

* Assistant Secretary of State, Asia & Pacific, Kurt M. Campbell

* Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg

* State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Haass

* State Department, Special Envoy, Dennis Ross

* State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Holbrooke

What mystery organisation do Sir Keir Starmer, Henry Kissinger and Jeffrey Epstein… have in common?

By  Dorset Eye, 22nd February 2020

What organisation of approximately 400 members, as of January 2020, which either includes or has included, Sir Keir Starmer, Henry Kissinger and Jeffrey Epstein (up until 2008), is a prominent force in the strategy for globalism? An organisation that many have never heard of but exercises influence across the planet?

In 1973 a group was formed that included members from Europe, North America and Japan. Over time the Japanese membership was extended to become the Pacific Asian Group, including in 2009 both Chinese and Indian members, whilst the North American group now includes Mexican membership.

‘It was launched under the nominal head of David Rockefeller III (president of Chase Manhattan Bank) and a coterie of international financiers and imperialistically-minded ideologues who believed religiously in the utopian doctrine of global governance under a master-slave ethic.’ (How the Trilateral Commission Drove a Bankers’ Coup Across America)

A huge advocate of the creation of a new global order was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who later became Jimmy Carter’s (the 39th President of the USA) Security Advisor. In his Between Two Ages, Brzezinski made it very clear: “The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multi-national corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state”.

Their public face was to be:

‘a policy-oriented forum that brings together leaders in their individual capacity from the worlds of business, government, academia, press and media, as well as civil society.’

However, in private something far less altruistic and sinister was taking shape. One that was entirely materialist and rejected any notion of the spiritual within humanity. One that adopted a globalist language of specific terms that sought to render all analysis of the planet in a bland binary paradigm in which they were the good and any threat to their order was bad.

Who then is this mysterious organisation with globalist ideals?


Forty five years is though a long time in the modern (or post modern) world we live in. Where once upon a time little may have happened now the end of the cold war and the battle for dominance has seen nation states in conflict with increasingly enlarged corporations. The entities set up to spread neo liberal economic values are now in full blown competition with neo conservatives’ and their desire to hold on to nation states with their history and traditions.

An organisation that was created to spread neo liberal free market values across the globe, therefore now finds itself having to re create its form and mission to manage the spread of nationalism, populism and protectionism all of which they vehemently oppose.

In 2019 the Commission published a report with the express aim of becoming more en vogue. The rise of Trump and other right wing neo conservative governments and parties has meant that the free market has come under attack. Neo liberalism and neo conservatism was always a contradiction (as Thatcherism and Reaganism found out) and the lurch to the political right has had a negative effect upon the ideals of the economic right. 

The Trilateral Commission has sought to reinvent its doctrine in the face of increasing suspicion, certainly of globalisation and its impacts upon nation states but also in cases in which some people have become increasingly aware of the deep state in which the Tripartite Commission, Davos, Bilderberg, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are significant parts.

To add to their problems there are those whose behaviour could somewhat tarnish their already suspect reputations including amongst the most prominent, Jeffrey Epstein.

Birds of a feather, flock together.’ It is almost certain that some current and former members of the elitist Trilateral Commission who participated in Epstein’s follies are likely very nervous that he would ‘flip’ and expose their debauchery, if not their sexual felonies.’ This of course has now been ‘avoided’ as Jeffrey Epstein ‘officially’ took his own life in August 2019.

How does all this then reflect on Sir Keir Starmer?

Keir Starmer seems to be doing a good job at pitching himself as being on the left. Himself and his supporters claim he will “unite the party” and are clear to emphasise his so called “left wing credentials”.

You may hear that in his twenties he edited a Trotskyist magazine. Or that he was the defence barrister for the miners out on strike in 1984/5. That he stood alongside McDonalds’ workers on picket lines.

But there is one association Sir Kier Starmer and his supporters are not talking about….

The Trilateral Commission, of which Starmer is a member. Other members, as was alluded to above, include top executives of a multinational conglomerates such as AT&T and ITT. Oil companies such as Mobil and Exxon, but also the top C.E.Os of the Chase Manhattan Bank, First Chicago Corp, General Electric, TRW, Archer Daniels Midland, Pepsi, RJR Nabisco, Nissan, Toshiba, Fuji Bank and Goldman Sachs.

Trilateral membership January 2020

These perhaps aren’t the sort of people Sir Kier would see as an ideal photo opportunity, to be used in his campaign highlighting his “lefty credentials”.

What we have is Sir Keir Starmer, as part of an organisation that Holly Sklar, who edited a book on the organisation entitled “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management”, identifies as the commission that “represents the interests of multinational corporations and banks”. This means it is contrary to the interests of so called ‘non developed’ countries and workers the world over. It wants wages kept low. It wants voters kept apathetic and polarised.

Sklar states that the Trilateral Commission is not a “conspiracy” and is not “omnipotent… “But that doesn’t mean it’s not influential.” And the Commission set out to economically “co-opt” OPEC to persuade the Saudis to put their petrodollars into Western banks and to purchase Western arms, rather than investing in the ‘developing’ world.

We could be forgiven for thinking that the Trilateral Commission clearly isn’t on our side.
Back in the 1970s they commissioned a report “The Crisis of Democracy”. The report noted that in the 40s and 50s President Harry S. Truman was able to run America with the compliance of just a few Wall Street lawyers and executives. Back then democracy was easily managed and it wasn’t seen as a problem. Does Sir Keir really want to be part of this legacy? The management of democracy by a corporate elite? Isn’t this called something other than democracy in political parlance?

In the 1960s something had happened: a section of the masses, went from being passive to being politically active (a ‘special interest’), which was causing too much pressure on the state. Typically in the report corporate power wasn’t mentioned, therefore it wasn’t seen as a problem. But the answer to the threat of this new ‘special interest’ was to indoctrinate the young and return them to being passive and obedient. Then just like that, democracy would be fine again.

Therefore the questions must be: Why is Sir Keir Starmer, as a member of a neo liberal international commission attempting to become the leader of a political party that historically was founded to help the labour force in their conflict with the neo liberal corporations…? Why is he expressing ‘left wing’ credentials that are antonymous to the aims of the Trilateral Commission. And why having just witnessed a Labour leader achieve more votes, in the last two elections, than Tony Blair in 2005, Gordon Brown in 2010 and Ed Miliband in 2015 would it be sensible to vote for what is effectively a Tory when we next go to the polls.

As well as all of this he is a member of the same club that accepted both Henry Kissinger and Jeffrey Epstein (deceased).

This is not a skeleton he is rushing to inform the public of and it is easy to see why.


WASHINGTON POST, April 25, 1992

Behind closed doors (of course), they are meeting this weekend in Lisbon. Some call them “the shadow government,” “the Establishment,” the “global elite” that runs the world.

They call themselves simply … the Trilateral Commission. (Chills run up spine.)

Depending on which conspiracy theory you subscribe to — and the Trilateral Commission has found its way into many — this 19-year-old organization is anti-American, anti-democratic, anti-Christian or anti-worker, and is scheming ultimately to abolish the sovereignty of nations and establish one world government!

According to Lyndon LaRouche, fringe political candidate and convicted tax cheat, the Trilateral Commission is behind the international drug trade. A writer affiliated with the far-right Liberty Lobby says the commission is forever plotting to raise taxes on Americans, siphoning the money overseas. Evangelist Pat Robertson believes it is somehow linked to Freemasonry and the occult, that it springs “from the depth of something that is evil.”

Preposterous, say members of the Trilateral Commission. It is merely a “discussion group” on world affairs, composed of high-level corporate and public-policy types from North America, Western Europe and Japan. The commission seeks only to promote international cooperation, for the betterment of everybody. Nothing sinister.

Its annual reports and task force papers are available for the public to read. Its membership list isn’t secret. Just ask and the commission will send you stuff. Anyone who can dial directory assistance can get its New York phone number.

Still, plenty of ordinary, educated people have no idea what the Trilateral Commission is or what it does, even though its former members include George Bush and Jimmy Carter. There is a shroud of mystery around it.

The press secretary for Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign didn’t even know that Clinton is on it! (Yes, Clinton is a Trilateralist too. Coincidence? Oh read on, my wide-eyed friend.)

Now the truth can be told about the 325 people on the Trilateral Commission, and the many previous members:

They do run the world!

The thing is, it has nothing to do with belonging to the Trilateral Commission. The TC is like a club for people who run the world anyway.

Like Paul Volcker, former head of the Federal Reserve System, who is the commission’s new North American chairman. And Akio Morita, chairman and chief executive officer of Sony, the Japanese chairman. And Count Otto Lambsdorff, leader of Germany’s Free Democratic Party, the European chairman.

Who else is on it? Well, as of last April, top executives of AT&T, ITT, Xerox, Mobil, Exxon, the Chase Manhattan Bank, First Chicago Corp., General Electric, TRW, Archer Daniels Midland, PepsiCo, RJR Nabisco and Goldman Sachs (not to mention Nissan, Toshiba and Fuji Bank). And such former foreign-policy ultracrats as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert S. McNamara and George Shultz. And five U.S. senators, including John D. Rockefeller IV (of course). And House Speaker Tom Foley. And some professors.

There is a handful of women, including Katharine Graham, chairman of The Washington Post Co. (Chills run up spine.) A few black people too. Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, for instance. But basically we’re talking about lots and lots of middle-aged white guys.

Who’s not on the Trilateral Commission? Not one professional athlete, playwright or pop star. Hey, who do you want running the world? Ted Danson?

From Right to Left Maybe because it meets behind closed doors, maybe because it’s packed with powerful international capitalists, maybe because one of its principal founders was banker David Rockefeller, whose surname reads like “666” to those who demonize the Eastern Establishment — whatever the reason, some folks just suspect the worst of the Trilateral Commission.

“These are not the types of people who get together for innocuous chitchat,” says Jim Tucker, who writes for the Spotlight, newspaper of the Washington-based Liberty Lobby.

Let us survey the thickets of anti-Trilateralism.

“With the takeover by the Trilateral Commission of the United States government, through Jimmy Carter, there was an explosion of the drug culture and related degeneracy throughout the country.”

That’s from “A Program for America,” published in 1985 by the “LaRouche Democratic Campaign.” “It is a largely unspoken reality,” the book continues, “that the bankers and the IMF {International Monetary Fund} encourage dope growing and traffic as ‘profitable free enterprise’ — for the bloodsucking bankers!”

Co-conspirators, according to LaRouche, include the British monarchy, the Soviet Union and the “Zionist Lobby.”

Three years ago, on the stage of a crowded rock-and-roll club in downtown Washington, a young black man in paramilitary garb asked a largely white audience: “Who runs this world?” After a pause, he said, “The Trilateral Commission.” That was Professor Griff, then a member of the rap group Public Enemy. In a subsequent newspaper interview, Professor Griff mentioned the commission while describing a “wicked” global Jewish conspiracy.

In his 1991 book “The New World Order,” Pat Robertson — founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network and a brief challenger for the 1988 Republican presidential nomination — writes portentously:

“A single thread runs from the White House to the State Department to the Council on Foreign Relations to the Trilateral Commission to secret societies to extreme New Agers. There must be a new world order. … There must be world government, a world police force, world courts, world banking and currency, and a world elite in charge of it all.

“I do not believe that normal men and women, if left to themselves, would spend a lifetime to form the world into a unified whole in order to control it. … No, impulses of that sort do not spring from the human heart, or for that matter from God’s heart.”

Tucker, like Robertson, challenges the Trilateralists’ “cover story” that they’re encouraging international cooperation for everyone’s betterment. “We can have trade with other nations, we can welcome their tourists, we can send food to starving children in Biafra,” he’ll tell you. “But not a U.N. flag flying over Old Glory.”

He calls himself a longtime observer of the Trilateral Commission as well as the Bilderberg Group, which since 1954 has sponsored annual off-the-record policy discussions among prominent Western Europeans and North Americans. (Unlike the TC, the Bilderberg group has no formal membership. It is run by a chairman, a steering committee and an international advisory group.) Tucker sees Trilateralists, Bilderbergers and the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations — established in 1921 and long led by David Rockefeller — as a single elite network of globalists.

Tucker has traversed the United States and Europe to be near their meeting places, he says. Once, he even crashed a Trilateral Commission meeting. “I didn’t understand it because the guy was speaking German. It was kind of dull. A few minutes later, though, I was tossed out.” With a friendly chuckle, he adds, “It’s a lot of fun being a right-winger, you know?”

Tucker also says he’s got a source inside the Bilderberg group “whose name I only know as Pipeline.” And it was Pipeline who provided Tucker with this stunning scoop in the April 20 edition of the Spotlight: Last June, Bill Clinton was “anointed” the Democratic presidential nominee by the Bilderberg group!

“I think the whole thing is rather ludicrous,” says Clinton campaign spokesman Jeff Eller. “Governor Clinton made the decision to run and wasn’t handpicked by anybody.”

Criticism of the Trilateral Commission comes from the far left as well. To Holly Sklar, who edited the 1980 anthology “Trilateralism,” the commission “represents the interests of multinational corporations and banks,” which means it’s contrary to the interests of Third World countries and workers all over. It wants wages kept low. It wants voters kept apathetic and polarized.

The Trilateral Commission is not a “conspiracy” and is not “omnipotent,” Sklar says. “But that doesn’t mean it’s not influential.” For example, she says the commission set out to economically “co-opt” OPEC, persuading countries like Saudi Arabia to put their petrodollars back into Western banks, and to buy weapons from the West, instead of investing in developing countries.

“I think that their vision of world order is not a world order that is good for most people,” she says. “{It has} led very much to a system where a few people are enriched at the expense of very many.”

Global Cooperation “I certainly don’t see our purpose as one of protecting the interests of multinational corporations,” says Charles B. Heck, North American director of the Trilateral Commission. “We’re trying to think about foreign policy issues in as broad a framework as we can. I see us serving a very broad public interest.”

Heck has heard all the attacks and critiques before. In fact, he used to do a lot of radio talk shows, particularly around 1979 and 1980. “That seemed to be when the mythology was most intense.”

People had taken note of the number of former Trilateralists in the Carter administration. There was Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser, the man considered the ideological godfather of Trilateralism. And also Walter Mondale, Cyrus Vance, Harold Brown, W. Michael Blumenthal, Andrew Young.

During the 1980 presidential campaign, Bush’s Trilateralist background is said to have disturbed Ronald Reagan’s supporters on the far right. On top of that, third-party candidate John B. Anderson was a Trilateralist too.

In Heck’s view, right-wing anti-Trilateralism has always been rooted in simple isolationism. “This country finds it difficult to be so interdependent with the rest of the world, given our history and our national traditions,” he says. “It’s a hard lesson for {Americans} to grasp.”

The idea behind creating the commission, he says, was that “the United States would never again be in such a singularly dominant position as in the immediate post-World-War-II era, and that leadership in the world would have to be shared.” Now, such matters as the ecology — a new focus of Trilateralist study — will require global cooperation, Heck says.

And that doesn’t mean one world government. Nor does it mean that the Trilateral Commission even speaks with one voice, he says. It isn’t a lobbying group.

“There are wildly overblown notions out there about what a group like this does and can do,” he says. “There aren’t lists of recommended actions {that attendees} leave with and commit themselves to implement.”

Heck, in fact, expects about half of the commission’s members to miss the Lisbon conference this weekend. We’re talking about people, he says, who tend to be busy. Among the topics to be discussed are regional trade agreements, migration and refugees issues and post-Cold-War international security.

Living Well A few working journalists are on the Trilateral Commission. And if a solid, straight-standing American journalist won’t give you the real lowdown on what’s happening behind closed doors, no one will.

“It does not run the world,” says Time magazine Editor-at-Large Strobe Talbott, who’s been a Trilateralist for at least six years. “Present company emphatically excluded, it’s made up of a number of highly influential people. The body itself does not presume some sort of unitary influence. In fact, quite the contrary. … There’s a lot of diversity.

“The proceedings I would describe as much more like a large and high-powered seminar than a parliament or a board of directors,” he says.

David Gergen, editor-at-large at U.S. News & World Report, agrees. “These things sound powerful until you go to them,” he says. “Then you find out that these are people who are genuinely interested in discussing things with each other. When private citizens can have those discussions in a frank and open way, that’s helpful.”

Invited by David Rockefeller to join the commission last year, Gergen will address the Lisbon conference, along with Talbott, on the American political scene.

Why don’t these annual Trilateral get-togethers generate much news coverage?

“Why should they?” Talbott says. “People are not coming there to make news.” (To ensure an uninhibited discussion, Trilateral Commission meetings are deemed to be “on background,” which means Gergen and Talbott can’t quote the participants.)

And how does the gathering measure up as a social event? Cocktail wieners aplenty, or what?

“I would not call the proceedings spartan,” Talbott says. After all, these are people “who know how to live well and like to live well.”

He adds, though, “these are people who don’t have to go halfway around the world for a good meal or a good bottle of wine. They come for something else, and that’s the content of the discussion.”

How the Trilateral Commission Drove a Bankers’ Coup Across America

Strategic Culture, August 12, 2019

Until recently I had believed like many that Jimmy Carter is not your typical politician. Standing out from the vast array of sellouts and establishment hacks, the ex-President has often appeared as the lone voice of reason in America’s establishment calling out the injustices of American military, the wrongs of the Zionist lobby and the self-destructive nature of the American oligarchy. Surely a man who speaks so candidly cannot be bad.

While I believe Carter probably has good intentions, I also believe that the man is likely just as clueless today as he was when he was used as a puppet by those forces now identified as the international Deep State which took over American foreign and internal policy during his 1977-1981 presidency.

Under Carter’s reign, an organization which grew out of the combined influence of the Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderberg Group took over America under the name of the Trilateral Commission which overturned the last remnants of anti-imperial impulses left over from the vision provided by Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, converting America into the self-destructive basket case we have come to know it as today.

Since those Trilateral reforms were so all-encompassing and touch on issues of economic policy, the creation of foreign debt slavery, terrorist financing and green energy, it is worth conducting a brief assessment of how this happened while also looking at some of the key players that made it happen.

The Trilateral Commission takes over

While James Carter became America’s 39th president in 1977, the Trilateral Commission was actually created in 1973 under the nominal head of David Rockefeller III (president of Chase Manhattan Bank) and a coterie of international financiers and imperialistically-minded ideologues who believed religiously in the utopian doctrine of global governance under a master-slave ethic. The idea of consolidating three global zones of power (North America, Western Europe and Japan) during the height of the Cold War under a unified command structure was the motive behind the creation of this think tank at that time.

A leading figure in the Trilateral Commission who later became Carter’s National Security Advisor was named Zbigniew Brzezinski who referred to this agenda as the “Technetronic era” which he described in 1970 as an age involving “the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.” Who would these specialists represent? In his Between Two Ages, Brzezinski made it very clear: “The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multi-national corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state”.

Senator Barry Goldwater called out this foreign beast transforming America in his 1979 autobiography With No Apologies by saying “The Trilateralist Commission is international…(and)…is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateralist Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.”

Another American political figure then combating this foreign virus was Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche who prophetically wrote The Trilateral Commission’s Rapid End to Democracy on August 4, 1981 stating: “The plan is to combine the collapse of the financial system of the United States and most of Western Europe with other countries to create a ‘global crisis management’ scenario on the largest and most catastrophic scales… the financial crisis is to be used to subject the United States, among other nations so treated to a dictatorship by decree of the IMF.”

Under Brzezinski’s leadership one third of the Trilateral Commission’s members were appointed to top cabinet posts under Carter. Notable members here worth mentioning include Walter Mondale (Vice President), Harold Brown (Defense Secretary), Cyrus Vance (Secretary of State), Michael Blumenthal (Treasury Secretary), James Schlesinger (Energy Czar), Paul Volcker (Fed Chairman). Just to get across the British pedigree of this group, Brzezinski and Blumenthal were not only Bilderberg members, but 2 of the 9 directors of the Council on Foreign Relations Project for the 1980s. The CFR is the Cecil Rhodes/Roundtable Group that set up in America in 1921 to advance Rhodes’ mandate to recapture America as the lost colony and re-establish a new British Empire.

The Crisis of Democracy                      

In 1975, Brzezinski’s assistant Samuel P. Huntington authored a book called Crisis of Democracy as part of the Council on Foreign Relations 1980s Project that published 33 books by 10 Task Forces in order to usher in the Technetronic era. Huntington said “we have come to recognize that there are potentially desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of democracy… a government which lacks authority will have little ability to impose on its people the sacrifices which will be necessary.”

Huntington and Brzezinski conducted a foreign affairs reform that began funding radical Islamic schools and political movements beginning with the USAID-led overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the installation of the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The US funding of Al Qaeda and the Mujahedeen was nominally done for the pragmatic reason of countering the Soviets in Afghanistan, however the real reason was to justify a “Clash of Civilizations” thesis that Huntington later published under the presumption that the major religions could have no peace unless a global Leviathan were created to impose order from above. This was a clear cut case of the Pygmalion effect to the extreme.

It is here noteworthy that the Shah, along with many leaders of the Non-Aligned movement were then engaged in a major struggle to break free of the neo-colonial debt-slavery structure under Anglo-American control by using their inalienable sovereign powers to cancel the unpayable debts while unleashing investments into scientific and technological progress using the post WWII “Japan-model”. Japan’s inspiring post-WWII leap from feudalism to an advanced scientific-industrial economy made its membership in the Trilateral Commission that much more important in the minds of the new Olympian gods who feared other developing nations would follow suite.

The Controlled Disintegration of the West

Two months after being appointed Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker gave a lecture in Warwick University London proclaiming “a controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate object for the 1980s”.

Volcker managed this controlled disintegration by raising interest rates to 20-21.5% beginning in 1979- leaving them there until 1982 while also raising reserve requirements for Commercial banks. The effect forever crippled America’s economy with agricultural production collapsing vastly, metal-cutting machine tools collapsed by 45.5%, automobile production collapsed by 44.3% and steel production collapsed by 49.4%. During this traumatic period, small and medium enterprises were intentionally bankrupted across all sectors of the North American and European economies leaving only multinational corporations in a position to afford such interest rates. Volcker’s program paved the way for the 1981 Kemp-Roth Tax Act that opened up real estate speculation and the 1982 Garn- St. Germaine Act which de-regulated U.S. Banks and advanced the creation of universal/too-big-to-fail banking.

In that same period, third world debtors having to pay 20% interest saw their debts skyrocket by 40-70%. Leaders who resisted this program such as Pakistan’s Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, India’s Indira Gandhi, Burkina Faso’s Thomas Sankara, and Mexico’s Lopez Portillo et al. were systematically killed or overthrown.

When it became evident that an incoming President Ronald Reagan was not favorable to the Trilateral Commission/CFR agenda- pushing for bilateral meetings with Gandhi and Mexico’s Portillo in 1981 in order to assist their industrial growth policies and threatening to fire Volcker, his elimination was quickly orchestrated. After CFR/Trilateral Commission member George Bush was placed as Reagan’s VP (ousting Reagan’s friend Sen. Paul Laxalt during a Rockefeller-run media scandal), John Hinckley- an MK Ultra psych job deeply tied into the Bush family, was deployed to carry out an assassination shooting Reagan in the chest on March 30, 1981.

Reagan never recovered from this attempt and the well-intentioned but highly malleable Hollywood star became increasingly moulded by CFR-Trilateral Commission agents in spite of his tendency to allow himself to be influenced by pro-nation state figures exemplified by his endorsement of the Joint US-Soviet plan for the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983 (later corrupted into a unilateral doctrine by Bush Sr.)

Green Depopulation

It should not be ignored that the transformation of the American economy from a pro-industrial growth open system model into a closed system Malthusian model was also an initiative of forces controlling the Trilateral Commission.

In 1974, David Rockefeller III keynoted the Club of Rome/UN World Population Conference in Bucharest stating “There is a need to revise the concept of economic growth. Particularly in recent years, the limits of growth have come into our consciousness. The depletion of resources, pollution, and the energy crisis have made all that very clear. The character and purpose of growth must be changed.”

The agenda for a “post-industrial society” driven by a green infrastructure revolution was laid out in the July 24, 1980 Global 2000 Report that called for energy conservation, population control and environmentalism as the foundation for the new economy. Later that year, the World Wildlife Fund’s Global Conservation Strategy is published paralleling the Global 2000 thesis. The WWF was headed by Prince Philip and Prince Bernhardt during this time and its vice presidents during Carter’s administration included Louis Mortimer Bloomfield whose Permindex Bureau was caught coordinating JFK’s assassination and Trilateral Commission member Maurice Strong who called for a destruction of industrial civilization in a 1990 interview.

This was not just a history lesson

What you have just read may appear on the surface to be a history report but it is much more than that. It is a future report.

It is a future report since your future is being shaped by historical forces that you need to understand if you are going to be able to choose to influence your reality in accord with those historical trajectories that are actually in harmony with the real self-interests of mankind.

The forces of progress and anti-colonialism that the Trilateral Commission sought to snuff out 40 years ago have been revived under the renewed leadership of Russia, China and a growing array of nations who want to have a future. Increasingly, nationalist forces (as confused as they may be) have arisen as an anti-technocratic movement across North America and Europe which offers nations once believed lost to the New World Order, a chance to revive their lost renaissance heritage.

The only thing standing in the way from western nations joining the Belt and Road Initiative, re-organizing the bankrupt financial system and unleashing productive credit to revive the real economy is 1) a lack of understanding of history and 2) a confused sense of the true nature of humanity, as a species above other beasts of the ecosystem- capable of constant perfectibility and creative discovery.

Anything that denies this concept humanity and natural law such as the Green New Deal should be treated as the noxious wet dream of the Volckers, Rockefellers, Brzezinskis and other Trilateral Commission zombies who had a long way to go before qualifying themselves as human.


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them


You will never find another report or article about this big event, must have been really fruitful from a scientific standpoint (and their main point, allegedly).

Jeffrey Epstein, Science Philanthropist, Organizes a Global Doomsday Conference.

New York, NY, April 05, 2012 –(– In the wake of the March 2011 Tohuku earthquake and tsunami, which created more than 300,000 refugees and radioactive contamination across the entire region, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists pushed the symbolic Doomsday Clock one minute closer to midnight last January, to reflect the world’s lack of progress with battling climate change and nuclear weapons.

To address this concern, the Jeffrey Epstein Foundation, which funds science research and education, is organizing a second world conference called, Coping with Future Catastrophes to be held most likely in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

The first conference took place last December in the US Virgin Islands and brought together a prestigious panel of scientists to identify the greatest threats to the Earth. The threats include acts of bioterrorism, nuclear calamities and/or nuclear warfare, overpopulation, asteroid and meteor threats, super volcanoes, mass tectonic earthquakes, rogue self-replicating nano-machines, super intelligent computers and high-energy chain-reactions that could disrupt the fabric of space itself.

The conference was organized by cognitive scientist, Marvin Minsky, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT and co-founder of MIT’s AL (Artificial Intelligence) Laboratory. Other scientists included, Martin Nowak, Professor of Biology and Mathematics and Director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University, Lawrence Krauss, Professor of Physics, Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration, and Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University and Gregory Benford, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of California in Irvine.

Lawrence Krauss, who also serves as co-chairman of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ board of sponsors, stated that, “Faced with clear and present dangers of nuclear proliferation and climate change, and the need to find sustainable and safe sources of energy, world leads are failing to change business as usual. …The major challenge at the heart of humanity’s survival in the 21st century is how to meet energy needs for economic growth in developing and industrial countries without further damaging the climate … and without risking further spread of nuclear weapons — and in fact setting the stage for global reductions.”

“We need to identify the greatest threats to our Earth,” Minsky summarized, “but we also need to prioritize them.”

Indeed, the list of prioritized threats that was assembled at the first conference will be debated and refined at the second conference, and will host a larger panel of scientists from around the world. “We’re still in the process of selecting scientists to panel this international conference,” Jeffrey Epstein remarked. “We intend to cast a much wider global net and to have scientists from a wider range of fields including bio and genetic engineering.”

The goal of this second conference however is not just to establish a refined list of the Earth’s greatest threats, but to begin the process of setting up an NGO, a non-governmental agency to monitor the priority list, adjust it accordingly and work on preventative measures.

“So far, there are hundreds of governmental and non-governmental organizations, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Center for Disease Control or the World Health Organization, that monitor potential global catastrophes but they tend to focus on one field of study,” Minsky affirmed. “There’s a great need for an international organization to oversee and collect data from all of these groups, to prioritize looming disasters and to establish preventative measures.”

The second conference, if held in Dubai, will most likely coincide with the 2nd International Conference on Environmental, Biomedical and Biotechnology, set for early August. “Dubai is a neutral meeting ground for the international community and is geared to host large conferences and international media,” Epstein explained.

Established in 1947, the Doomsday Clock now sits at 11:55pm, five minutes before midnight, or Armageddon for the Earth. The closest it ever came to midnight was in 1953, when the clock was pushed to 11:58pm, when United States and the Soviet Union tested thermonuclear devices within nine months of each other. Five minutes to midnight though is hardly a reprieve from that time and we should all be in a state of alert.

Contact Information:

The Jeffrey Epstein Foundation

Christina Galbraith

(917) 573-7604

this would make klaus schwab salivate:

This is a follow-up to:




To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them


Let’s play a game: I give you all the dots, but this time you do the joining.
I’ll help a bit, but I can see it from space .


What also is unknown is that Zelensky has been buying the fuel from Russia, the country with which it, and Washington, are at war…

Seymour Hersh – Trading with the Enemy

So, if Ukraine is buying fuel from its enemy, Russia, then also Russia is selling fuel to its enemy, Ukraine. And together, they manage to keep the meatgrinder rolling.
I wish some of my former friends were more like these enemies.





In this attention economy, everyone is broke, I often say.
I hope you have a little bit of real attention capital to invest in these and if you do it properly, the return is better than peak Bitcoin.
Unless you’re among the very few who saw it already. Chapeau to you!

Wish you best of focus!

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them


Former presidential advisor Arestovych confirms that Zelenskyy failed to fight corruption in entourage

The Munich Eye / undated article, presumably April 2023

Former advisor to the Office of the President of Ukraine Oleksiy Arestovych said that Volodymyr Zelenskiy failed to overcome corruption in Ukraine. He said this in a new interview on Yulia Latynina’s YouTube channel. According to him, there should be a person in power who wouldn’t engage in corruption and wouldn’t let his subordinates do it. In his opinion, there is no such person in power today and “unfortunately, so far we have not been lucky. “He (Zelensky, – ed.) has not completely beaten corruption, examples abound. It is clear that you can say that there was a war, that there were two waves of covid. But from my point of view, the war is just a good occasion to apply extraordinary measures and to deal with corruption. But as we can see, unfortunately, not to the end yet,” said Arestovich.

Arestovych also cited the story of the former head of the Zaporizhzhya Regional Military Administration Oleksandr Starukh, who together with the leadership of the region was caught “stealing humanitarian aid by wagons,” a position “to which the president personally appoints a person.” “As we can see, the personnel selection is lame, badly. And then, he didn’t do it for a day, not two days – he did it for months,” Arestovych noted.

Let us remind you that people from Zelensky’s close entourage have been marked in dozens of major corruption scandals lately.

People’s deputy of Ukraine Geo Leros, who was expelled from the pro-government faction “Servant of the People” for his criticism of the Office of the President, accused the management of OPU of embezzlement of 500 million hryvnias. Leros analyzed the testimony of the deputy head of the State Property Fund of Ukraine, which directly described the schemes used to siphon huge sums from two state enterprises – the Odessa Port Plant and the United Mining and Chemical Company. According to Leros, Zelensky’s inner circle took part in the schemes: Dmitry Sennichenko, former head of the State Property Fund; Timur Mindich, co-owner of Kvartal-95 studio (owner of the apartment where Zelensky lived during the election and where the president celebrated his birthday at the height of the coronavirus pandemic); Zelensky’s assistant and business partner Sergiy Shefir (OPU’s chief communicator with oligarchs); and current “overseer” of the tax administration Andriy Gmyrin. “Sennichenko siphoned off UAH 500 million from the budget with the help of the Office of the President, this is a loss to the state, this is money that has settled in the accounts of representatives of the Office of the President of Ukraine” – said Leros. Details of the schemes and dozens of other involved persons are also confirmed by journalists of the media outlet, which received copies of the testimony of the former deputy head of the SPF Sergiy Ignatovsky. According to these documents, Shefir and Mindich directly told former SPF head Sennichenko, who is now wanted, how to set up schemes to withdraw funds.

“The Odessa Port Plant has always been a corrupt feeding trough for the authorities in Ukraine, which is why the tenders for its privatization have always been disrupted. Instead of profits for the budget, the “controlled” directors were appointed there, who left the enterprise unprofitable, and then concluded unprofitable for the state tolling agreements with specially selected private firms, ostensibly to save the plant. In reality, the planned unprofitability allowed the profits to be transferred to private enterprises, while the losses were left to the state-owned enterprise. This was exactly the scheme set up by President Vladimir Zelensky’s entourage. The NABU records show a discussion about the appointment of the right person, the private business in whose interests the appointment is made, and the money to be received by those involved in the deal,” the well-known Ukrainian journalist Yuriy Butusov adds.

Another person from Zelenskyy’s inner circle – the head of the “Servants of the People” faction, David Arahamiya, has been accused of corrupt collusion with a raider who is trying to bankrupt a member of the “grain corridor” – a large grain terminal in Odessa port. This is stated in an investigation by the Business Censor website. According to the journalists, Arahamiya is lobbying the interests of the American foundation Argentem Creek Partners (ACP) in a conflict with the Ukrainian holding company GNT Group. GNT Group is a Ukrainian stevedore and agricultural exporter that took a $75 million loan from ACP in 2019. Because of the war with Russia and covid restrictions, repayment of the loan was difficult, but with the start of the grain corridor, the company had the ability to settle the loans. But after Arahamia met with lender representatives in Vienna, the lenders curtailed restructuring talks and began enforcing debt collection in the height of the grain corridor. At the same time Arahamia was caught in a lie, as he covered his meetings in Vienna with the status of the head of the supervisory board of the government office on attraction and support of investments UkraineInvest. After that the office was forced to deny this information and justify that they knew nothing about Arahamia’s meetings. The asset that ACP wants to take over from the GNT Group is worth about $200 million, although the loans with interest is about $120 million. $80 million difference is a weighty argument for the corrupt officials in the Ukrainian government, the media write.


Ukraine War: Zelensky adviser resigns over Dnipro remarks

Ukrainian presidential adviser, Oleksiy Arestovych gives news conference in Kyiv
Image caption,Mr Arestovych initially said Ukraine air defences appeared responsible for Saturday’s deadly strikes, before rowing back

Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych has offered his resignation after suggesting a Russian missile which hit a building in Dnipro, killing 44 people, was shot down by Kyiv.

Mr Arestovych apologised and said he had made a “fundamental error”.

The original remark caused widespread anger in the country, and was used by Russian officials to blame Ukraine.

The adviser is a well-known figure because of his daily updates on YouTube, watched by millions.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has not yet commented on Mr Arestovych’s decision to resign.

Hours after Saturday’s missile strike hit an apartment building in Dnipro, Mr Arestovych initially said it appeared that the Russian missile had fallen on the building after it was shot down by Ukrainian air defences.

Ukraine said the building was hit by a Russian Kh-22 missile, which it does not have the capability to shoot down and is reportedly extremely inaccurate.

Ukrainians reacted angrily to Mr Arestovych’s initial comments, with some accusing him of strengthening the position of Russian propagandists. Some Ukrainian parliamentarians signed a petition calling for Mr Arestovych to be dismissed as a government official.

He later posted a letter tendering his resignation and said he had made a “fundamental error”.

“I offer my sincere apologies to the victims and their relatives, the residents of Dnipro and everyone who was deeply hurt by my prematurely erroneous version of the reason for the Russian missile striking a residential building,” he wrote in a longer post on Telegram.

Mr Arestovych is one of the most public Ukrainian faces of the war, using his YouTube channel to hold daily discussions on issues related to the conflict. The channel has more than 1.6 million subscribers, and his videos often have more than 200,000 views. Unusually for Ukrainian officials, he speaks in Russian rather than Ukrainian.

Before his resignation offer, his comments had been used by Russian officials to blame Kyiv for the strike.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russian attacks “do not strike residential buildings” and suggested it was caused by Ukrainian air defences, a conclusion he said had also been reached by “some representatives of the Ukrainian side”.

Ukrainian officials have so far said that at least 44 people died in Saturday’s strikes with several others missing, and that there is “minimal” chance of finding others alive.

Kyiv, Kharkiv and Odesa were also hit on Saturday in attacks which Moscow said were targeted at Ukraine’s military and energy infrastructure.


If you can stand the dubbing, maybe you can extract something useful, I provide this for you rather to get acquainted with the character and body language, he’s very vocal since he left Kiev for Israel, and you’ll probably hear again from him


Great minds…



To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

I think society is finally ready to pay real attention to this:

I’m more sorry I exposed myself!

EdCamp Ukraine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ЕдКемп Україна
FormationDecember 29, 2015; 7 years ago[1]
FounderOleksandr Elkin[2]
Founded atKharkiv, Ukraine[3]
TypeNon-profit,[4] non-governmental[5] public organization[6]
PurposeEnhancement of the Ukrainian educational system
LocationKharkiv, Ukraine[3]
Membership (2020)34,000[7]
OwnerOleksanr Elkin[2]
PresidentOleksanr Elkin[8][9]
Vice-PresidentOlena Massalitina[10][9]
Vice-PresidentOleg Marushchenko[9]
Main organBoard[8]
Parent organizationEdCamp

EdCamp Ukraine (Ukrainian: ЕдКемп Україна) is a movement of educators in Ukraine. It is based on the principles of the worldwide EdCamp movement, which originated in the United States. Ukraine was the third country in Europe and the ninth in the world to join the original movement in 2014. As of 2020, EdCamp Ukraine is the second biggest EdCamp community in the world, and the biggest community of educators in Ukraine.

The EdCamp Ukraine movement is supported by a non-governmentalnon-profit public organization of the same name, which focuses on improving the Ukrainian education system. EdCamp Ukraine organizes career-enhancement training for teachers, lobbies the Ukrainian Ministry of Education and Science for educational reforms, and organizes various projects for educators and students.

EdCamp Ukraine’s 2018 initiative concerning the development of professional education succeeded in reforming the career-enhancement training process, in particular by de-monopolizing the government-sponsored professional education enterprises. As the initiative’s result, in 2019 the new regulations of the Ministry allowed educators to develop their professional skills through a wider range of educational and scientific institutions, as well as through private and legal business ventures. Their education is funded by government or local budgets according to the “money follows the teacher” principle.

The anti-discrimination expertise of EdCamp Ukraine became a part of the Ministry’s textbook-approval procedure. EdCamp Ukraine’s activity led to the establishment of the New Ukrainian School (Ukrainian: Нова Українська Школа) reform, and to a variety of anti-corruption and de-bureaucratization procedures. For example, in 2019, two independent sources estimated that the de-bureaucratization reforms EdCamp Ukraine lobbied for decreased teacher paperwork by 20 to 30%.

EdCamp Ukraine’s signature events are unconferences: free and independent events that focus on communication between educators, international experts, speakers, and government figures. Since 2015, EdCamp Ukraine has organized six national and 186 regional in-person and online unconferences. In 2020, more than 10,000 members attended the Sixth National unconference, which became the biggest online event in Ukraine (as recorded in the Ukraine Record Book).


The original movement

The original EdCamp movement was established in 2010, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US.[10][11][12] The movement was created as an alternative source of professional development for educators[13][14][15] and in response to American educators’ complaints about the inefficiencies of their educational system.[16][14] As of 2020, 44 countries have joined the movement.[10][14][15]

In 2019, 2020 and 2021, the EdCamp format was acknowledged by the HundrED organization in their worldwide review of innovative education organizations.[17][14][15]

In 2020, EdCamp US merged with the Digital Promise organization, which develops innovations for education especially through incorporating technology.[18]

EdCamp Ukraine

Based on the principals of the original EdCamp movement, EdCamp Ukraine is a movement of Ukrainian educators[12][19][20][2] based around a non-governmentalnon-profit public organization that focuses on the independent professional development of educators nationwide.[8][21][5][6][4] It also works on education system reformation and improvement.[14] Ukraine became the third country in Europe and the ninth in the world to join the original movement.[22][23][24] The members of the organization are called “white crows,” describing people who seize change in their community and are not afraid to try alternative techniques.[11][16][25]

The EdCamp Ukraine organization was founded by Oleksandr Elkin, and as of 2020 he still serves as its Head of Board.[8][26][27][2] Prior to the foundation of the organization, Elkin worked for an IT company and developed programs to improve the Ukrainian education system,[25][12] such as the school management system School Champion, a platform that connects Ukrainian education institutions.[11] The EdCamp Ukraine organization was inspired by the 2014 Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine.[10][12]

The EdCamp Ukraine movement began in 2014, in Kharkiv, Ukraine.[3][10] On December 29, 2015, the EdCamp Ukraine organization was officially registered as a non-profit public organization. In 2017, it launched a crowdfunding project to fund its first office,[4][25][1] which was opened in Kharkiv in 2018.[28] In 2019, the organization became the official owner of the EdCamp trade mark in Ukraine.[29]

As of 2020, EdCamp Ukraine is the second biggest EdCamp community in the world and the biggest community of educators in the country,[14][15][10] with a membership more than 40000. Of those, 21,802 work in Ukrainian schools, which is about 5% of all Ukrainian educators. According to research, the EdCamp movement is present in half of Ukrainian schools.[30][9]


One of the key signature events of EdCamp Ukraine are the free unconferences held yearly in Kharkiv, Ukraine.[15][8][11] Educators apply and participate in an oral interviewto be selected to attend.[25]

Unconferences are “edutainment” (education/entertainment).[31] Topics are shaped at the beginning of an event, and participants are the main authorities,[10][32][16] meaning that every member of the unconference can become a speaker.[33] This format makes it easier for educators to learn from each other, as its sessions are held a free discussion format.[32][11][31]

Several main methods and principles of unconferences are:

  • Free attendance[31]
  • Independence[31]
  • Freedom of initiative[31]
  • The “two legs” law, which implies that every member is free to build their own schedule within the event, attending any session or joining any discussion[11][16]
  • The “long tale effect,” which means that the most important steps are not made during the discussions or unconferences, but afterwards, when real action towards improvement is taken[11][16]
  • The “speed-geeking” practice (a three-minute tête-à-tête conversation between members and speakers) to spur communication and make as many acquaintances as possible between members and experts at unconferences[11]

Arenas of action

Professional development for educators

Participation in EdCamp unconferences.

National unconferences

EdCamp Ukraine’s National unconferences are considered the key event of the year for Ukrainian educators.[10] The first EdCamp Ukraine unconference was held in June 2015, and attended by more than 350 visitors.[11][34]

The Second National unconference

In April 2016, the second unconference was held in Kharkiv. The event was part of the 2016 Ukrainian Ministry of Education and Science and the Institute of Educational Modernization (Ukrainian: Інститут модернізації змісту освіти) events.[16][31] It was held in partnership with more than 40 Ukrainian organizations[31] and financed via crowdfunding at the Ukrainian platform Spilnokosht (Ukrainian: Спільнокошт).[34][16] Between 500 and 550 people visited the unconference, including around 80 Ukrainian and international experts from 12 countries. The event consisted of 145 sessions in 17 different locations.[31][16]

Main topics included new technology, an anti-discrimination approach in education, community integration, and English language as national priority.[31][16] The concept of the New Ukrainian School (Ukrainian: Нова Українська Школа), a reform in Ukrainian education,[35][36] was outlined and discussed.[16] International speakers at the event were: Oskar Brenife, author and philosophy Ph.D. from Paris, France; Eva Rambala, lecturer and trainer in non-violent communication, from Budapest, Hungary; and Esther Wojcicki, journalism teacher and media arts program founder from Palo Alto, California, USA.[31][16]

The Third National unconference

The third EdCamp Ukraine unconference was held in April 2017. Almost 700 educators participated, including people from 20 countries other than Ukraine. The Ukrainian Minister of Education and Science, Liliya Hrynevych, joined the event.[33][37][13][38] There were 20 sessions in 20 locations and 135 speakers from 20 different countries.[4][3] At this unconference, the Ukrainian version of the Global Teacher Prize was announced.[13]

Main topics at this event included the formation of the New Ukrainian School (Ukrainian: Нова Українська Школа) and future reforms in the Ukrainian school system.[33][13][38] British author, speaker, and international advisor on education Ken Robinson addressed the unconference in a 10-minute video message.[39] European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) researcher Giovanni Porchellana spoke at the unconference.[13]

The Fourth National unconference

The fourth EdCamp Ukraine unconference was held in Kharkiv in 2018.[40] Participants totaled 946 educators from 24 Ukrainian regions, and 143 experts from 11 countries presented.[24] One of the main topics of the unconference was anti-discrimination in education.[41]

Six hundred EdCampers gathered at the Constitution Square in Kharkiv for a flash mob that was later registered in the Ukrainian Record Book as the biggest gathering of educators ever.[42][43] Ukrainian and international public figures took part in the flash mob, including Liliya Hrynevych, the Minister of Education and Science; Hadley Ferguson, co-founder of the original EdCamp movement in the US; Caspar Peek, representative from United Nations Population Fund in Ukraine; and Yaacov Hecht, Israel educator and founder of democratic schools.[42][43][44] Speakers included Yaacov Hecht,[44] Liliya Hrynevych,[35][24] and Esa Sinivuori, a Finnish expert from Lumo Education.[44]

The Fifth National unconference

The fifth unconference was held in 2019 in Kharkiv. About 1,000 educators attended, including experts from 20 countries.[45][46][47]

Anti-discrimination policies in education were widely discussed during the event.[41][48] Another main focus introduced the concepts of Social Emotional Ethical Learning system (SEE Learning) to Ukrainian educators (SEE Learning is a system of the “soft skills” that include creative thinking, empathy, the ability to work in a team, and other skills previously introduced to EdCamp Ukraine team by the fourteenth Dalai Lama).[19][46][49])[46][47][45] Plans were discussed to incorporate SEE Learning into Ukrainian schools.[47]

The EdCamp Ukraine team invited the President of UkraineVolodymyr Zelenskyy, to join the unconference to discuss Ukrainian education and necessary reforms.[50] Due to a scheduling conflict, the President couldn’t attend, but addressed the EdCamp Ukraine team and members in a letter.[51] The members were also addressed by the Dalai Lama in his video message.[52]

During the unconference, another record was set: “The biggest number of locations to join an online educators’ flash mob” registered Ukraine Record Book.[20] Liliya Hrynevych, as well as several other Ukrainian public figures and international guests such as Giovanni Porchellana from the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), and Israel educator Yaacov Hecht, took part in the flash mob.[20]

The Sixth National unconference

Due to quarantine measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, EdCamp Ukraine’s 2020 unconference was held online. Its theme was “High Five for Education.” Oleksandr Elkin and EdCamp Ukraine 2020 were acknowledged in the “United States and Ukraine: Virtual EdCamps” issue of Education Continuity, published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.[53][54]

The main subject of the online marathon—education within the Coronavirus pandemic—was discussed by educators and parents from all over Ukraine.[55] It was the first time parents were invited to attend the unconference. More than 10,000 members and 65 speakers from 22 countries joined the online event. People entered virtual unconference sessions 80,689 times.[15][56] Lectures and sessions totaled 55 hours.[54]

The five main subjects discussed at the event were distance learning, education policies, physical and mental health, financial and legal challenges, and partnership in education.[57][54]

Due to new Ukrainian Ministry of Education and Science regulations, educators were able to receive a professional development certificate for attending.[55] Many Ukrainian speakers from government and the entertainment industry attended the event and led their own sessions.[55]

International speakers included Hadley Ferguson, co-founder of the original EdCamp movement in the US; Esther Wojcicki, journalism teacher and media arts program founder; Christa Tinari, senior SEE Learning program developer from Emory University; and others.[55] The First Lady of UkraineOlena Zelenska, addressed educators and members via video.[58] Ukrainian television hosts Maria Efrosinina and Slava Frolova attended the event.[15] Experts included the Dalai Lama, a Nobel Prize winner; Yuval Noah Harari, historian, teacher, and bestselling author; Anthony Salcito, Microsoft vice-president in regard to education; Andreas Schleicher, developer of the Programme for International Student AssessmentYaacov Hecht, Israel educator and founder of democratic schools; and others.

EdCamp Joy

In December 2021, was organized the seventh (non) conference – “National EdCamp for joy! -)” (alternative name EdCamp Joy).[59] The (non) conference in the online format lasted 10 days, from December 7 to 18. The event was attended by 1,161 people – teachers of all levels of education, other adults who work with children and parents. The offline part was held in the format of a meeting of international delegations of the EdCamp movement from 18 to 22 December. Memoranda of cooperation were signed between the national movements of EdCamp in six countries (Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Romania, Armenia),[60] EdCamp Ukraine with the Small Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,[61] and H.S. Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University.[62] The event was attended by 30 world-renowned scientists, educators, psychologists, thought leaders, whose research and practice relate to the phenomenon of joy. This is the world educational expert and developer of international PISA testing Andreas Schleicher (Germany), education specialist, documentary film producer, venture investor and writer Ted Dintersmith, psychologist, writer, founder of the teaching program at Williams College Susan Engel (USA) teacher Shalva Amonashvili (Georgia).[63] There were also closed screenings of three films: “Most Likely to Succeed” (2015, USA), “Mission: Joy – Finding Happiness in Troubled Times” (2021, USA) and “Why am I alive” (Чому я живий, 2021, Ukraine).[64]

Regional unconferences

After attending EdCamp Ukraine’s unconferences, educators volunteer to hold regional unconferences, or mini-EdCamps, for their communities.[11] These regional unconferences are held monthly in different Ukrainian education institutions. Between 2015 and 2020, there were 186 regional unconferences.[65][66] In 2017, EdCamp Ukraine held around 40 regional unconferences in different Ukrainian cities, supported by the US Embassy and different Ukrainian companies.[4][25]

In 2016, the EdCamp Ukraine team held a competition for educators to hold official mini-EdCamps in their cities, and received 25 applicants.[11] From 2017 on, EdCamp Ukraine has provided support and financing to teachers who win the contest through their EdCamp in a Box program.[4][3] Between 2015 and 2021, there were 234 regional unconferences. In 2021, EdCamp Ukraine held around 45 regional unconferences in different Ukrainian cities.[67]

EdCamp Ukraine began developing EdCamp in a Box in 2016.[16] In 2017, the organization established the project EdCamp in a Box 3.0. The project provides competition winners with necessary documentation, support, and funds to hold a regional unconference in different Ukrainian cities.[4][3][23]

Other projects for educators

In 2018, the I National summit-challenge “EdCamp-Angels in Action” was held in Odessa, Ukraine, and was visited by 100 mini-EdCamps coordinators from across the country.[41][12] During the summit, nine organizations joined the union to support New Ukrainian School (Ukrainian: Нова Українська Школа) reform.[68]

In 2018, EdCamp Ukraine published a book, Improving with EdCamp: How to hold educational unconferences for your community, which illustrates EdCamp Ukraine’s main principles and education methods as well as step-by-step advice for offering a mini-EdCamp in any city.[69] The same year, the organization introduced their own online course, How to Organize EdCamp for Your Community.[23][70]

Also in 2018, three training sessions organized by EdCamp Ukraine, the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, the United Nations Population Fund, and other Ukrainian organizations were held to certify experts for their anti-discrimination project. Forty-seven members attended to increase their knowledge and skills.[41]

In October 2021, the EdCamp Ukraine team presented a course titled Educators’ Professional Development: New Regulations And Possibilities, on the Ukrainian online course platform Prometheus.[71] EdCamp Ukraine also has its own educational podcast on YouTube and Mixcloud online platforms.[72][73]

In March 2020, EdCamp partnered with the Ministry of Education and Science in Ukraine and other organizations to hold a national online professional development training session for 4,000 educators.[15] That same year, an online meeting was held to discuss the reopening of educational institutions after the COVID-19 quarantine, as well as innovations in education with Ukrainian specialists and public figures such as Lilia Hrynevych.[74][75]

Next, EdCamp Ukraine, with Ukrainian and Swedish partners, set up a contest among young educators from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine; 30 educators took part.[76]

From November to December 2020, EdCamp Ukraine ran an EdCamp online marathon for educators to discuss, learn, and incorporate new teaching methods and practices during the worldwide epidemic of COVID-19 and the period of distance education.[77]

Activities during full-scale Russian invasion in 2022

Since February 24, 2022, EdCamp Ukraine has been implementing a number of anti-crisis initiatives to support educators, parents, children and youth during the war.[78]

Open Space of Sustainability – open online meetings for all with specialists from the Institute of Trauma and Emory University.[79]

EdCamp-academy for students, teachers and parents – a system of regular activities to support adults and children.[80]

Thematic expert materials on sensitive topics – videos, infographics, cartoons with tips, explanations, lists on topics related to evacuation from hotspots, travel abroad, adaptation to new places, volunteering, etc.[81]

Appeals of famous people to Ukrainians – supporting video or text appeals, “messages of hope”, made by famous people, like Richard BransonEsther WojcickiAndreas SchleicherEdith Eger to Ukrainians.[82]

Research and reforms in education

De-bureaucratization in schools

In 2016, EdCamp Ukraine and the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine took an anonymous poll of almost 8,000 educators in regard to paperwork. They used the research to introduce an initiative supporting de-bureaucratization in schools.[83][84] In 2017, they published “Children and Paperwork: reaching balance in school” to report the results of the research, illustrating the issue from different angles and providing ideas for reforming school paperwork systems.[85][25] Later in 2017, due to the anti-bureaucracy initiative, teachers were relieved of conducting the student census.[86][25]

In 2018, the Ministry of Education and Science passed new regulations in regard to school documentation,[87][12] decreasing the amount of paperwork in schools by 20%[84] to 30%.[12]

New Ukrainian School Reform

In 2016, the concept of the New Ukrainian School (Ukrainian: Нова Українська Школа) was outlined and discussed at the second EdCamp Ukraine unconference.[16] This reform initiative became the main subject of discussions between Ukrainian educators and government through EdCamp Ukraine unconference 2017.[3][4][33][13][38] That year, the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine released a document publishing the main concepts, aims, and reform stages for the New Ukrainian School.[88][3] Oleksandr Elkin, the founder and head of EdCamp Ukraine with vice-president Olena Massalitina co-authored the New Ukrainian School Reform concept.[8][4][2][89][10] The New Ukrainian School was the first Ukrainian educational reform movement to include soft skills (creativity, openness for communication and partnership, and conflict resolution) into school curriculum.[12] Soon after, Ukrainian teachers started to integrate some of the concepts of the New Ukrainian School into the school system.[4]

In 2018, the reform was officially introduced into schools.[35][36] That year, during the summit challenge for regional coordinators of mini-EdCamps around Ukraine, nine Ukrainian organizations joined the union to support and lobby for further development of the New Ukrainian School.[68]

In 2017, EdCamp Ukraine established the #книгоНУШ project, aimed at creating book clubs and compiling vital educational books as the foundation for the New Ukrainian School system. Ukrainian poet, novelist, essayist, and translator Serhiy Zhadan was one of the first activists to support and promote the initiative.[90][3][91]

Anti-discrimination expertise

From 2016 on, EdCamp Ukraine partnered with the United Nations Population Fund and the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Ukraine to research discrimination in education and create anti-discrimination projects.[41][16]

In 2017, EdCamp Ukraine, the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, and the Institute of Education Content Modernization (Ukrainian: Інститут модернізації змісту освіти) established an anti-discrimination review of Ukrainian textbooks. Later that year, according to the initiative, textbooks for 1 and 10 grades were reviewed by the anti-discrimination expert commission for the first time in history.[25][41][3]

From 2016 through 2020, EdCamp Ukraine holds anti-discrimination trainings for textbook authors and publishers.[92] Starting in 2018, the organization also holds trainings and a summit to teach educators how to review textbooks according to anti-discrimination principles.[93][41][94]

While at the beginning of the project, no textbooks fully met the anti-discrimination educational standards, by 2018, 22% of books met the new anti-discrimination regulations.[93] In 2019, that rose to 42%.[41]

As of 2020, anti-discrimination review officially became part of the textbook-approval procedure.[95]

Professional education

In 2018, EdCamp Ukraine, with the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), and other Ukrainian organizations, did a research project called “To teach and to learn: how Ukrainian education can grow” in regard to educators’ professional development.[96][12][97] The project involved 8,427 educators,[24] and 87% of them expressed the desire to develop professionally and learn the English language. At the time, 11% could speak English.[98] EdCamp Ukraine and the Ministry of Education and Science started to work on an initiative to enable educators to officially develop their professional skills, not only through government-sponsored education but also through non-governmental organizations, business ventures, and with the help of other sponsors.[12][9]

In 2019, the Ministry of Education and Science passed new regulations in regard to teacher’s professional development. According to the new regulations, Ukrainian educators are to spend a minimum of 150 hours every five years developing their professional skills. The whole process is funded by government or local budgets, which is the essential rule of another newly established principle, “money follows the teacher.”[99] Educators can fulfill those hours through educational and scientific institutions or private and legal business ventures, and are free to choose among the institutions that provide such services.[100][101][99]

The Ministry of Education and Science created a group to work on professional development topics which included EdCamp Ukraine founder and president Oleksandr Elkin and vice-president Olena Massalitina.[102][9]

Anti-corruption initiative

Since 2018, EdCamp Ukraine has partnered with the USAID project “Support to Anti-Corruption Champion Institutions” (SACCI). Together with other Ukrainian ventures and organizations, they work to decrease corruption in Ukrainian schools. One result of the partnership was an anti-corruption educational toolkit for teachers to use in, teaching children how to fight corruptive practices. The toolkit contains games, quests, and ideas for training sessions. As of 2020, session on anti-corruption techniques became part of all annual EdCamp Ukraine unconferences.[103][104]


In 2021, the organization launched EdWay – the National platform for professional development opportunities for teachers, where educators are free to choose the subject, form, type and content of professional development.[105]

Lessons of kindness

In 2021, EdCamp Ukraine together with #GenerousTuesdayChildren (#ЩедрийВівторокДіти) and a specially selected team of authors developed a manual for the formation of a culture of charity in the educational process: “Lessons of kindness: ideas and tips for the school year”.[106]

International projects and partnerships

Over the years, Ukrainian EdCampers have promoted their organization and its ideas in Armenia, Georgia, Belarus, and Moldova.[10][107] They served as advisors for African and Italian EdCamps.[107] The EdCamp Ukraine team has close relationships with educators in the US, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Israel, and Singapore.[12]

Early events

From 2015 through 2020, EdCamp Ukraine supports and celebrates Global Dignity Day, and gives classes in regard to it in Ukraine. During the sixth annual Global Dignity Day celebration in 2020, the organization attracted Ukrainian schools to participate by holding lessons and discussions in online and offline formats.[25][108] In September 2020, the president of EdCamp Ukraine, Oleksand Elkin, was appointed Global Dignity Country Chair for Ukraine.[109][8] Since 2015, 2,789 educational institutions and 379,843 participants have joined the celebration of the Day of Dignity.

In 2017, the Ukrainian version of the Global Teacher Prize was announced and officially begun at the national unconference.[13][4] Oleksandr Elkin served as a judge for the annual prize from 2017 to 2019.[110][111][112]

In 2017, EdCamp Ukraine introduced a new branch of activity: international trips aimed at researching education in different countries, called EdTrips.[4][25] Its first destinations were Finland[113][25] and Estonia.[114] Later, EdTrips visited Sweden.[115]

In 2018, EdCamp, in partnership with Lumo Education, established another international project, Seven Days of Change. In this program, the EdCamp Ukraine team invited Finnish educators to visit a Ukrainian school and share Finnish educational concepts with Ukrainian staff. Out of 675 applicants, a school in Poltava Oblast won the chance to host Finnish colleagues.[114]

SEE Learning and partnership with Dalai Lama XIV

EdCamp Ukraine team meeting with Dalai Lama XIV (2019)

An EdTrip in 2019 visited Dharmsala, India. There, 16 participants were invited to meet with the Dalai Lama. He introduced the concept of Social Emotional Ethical Learning (SEE Learning), created by the Emory University in the US.[19][46][49] The program is aimed at learning basic human skills such as resilience, empathy, and concentration.[116] That same year, the EdCamp Ukraine team was invited to an official SEE Learning presentation in New Delhi.[49]

The concept of SEE Learning was widely discussed during the fifth unconference.[46][47][45] The concept was supported by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and incorporated in 26 Ukrainian schools from 23 regions of the country for a trial period as part of the New Ukrainian School (Ukrainian: Нова Українська Школа) reform.[116][117][49][21] After the success of the SEE Learning trials, the program was officially introduced in 26 Ukrainian schools.[5]

By 2020, EdCamp Ukraine became Emory University’s official SEE Learning partner in Ukraine[5] and launched introductory online sessions on SEE Learning to around 20,000 educators.[21] Teachers in schools that incorporated the program took part in training sessions with program developers from Emory University (US) and Ukrainian experts working on the project.[116]

In 2020, for the first time in the history of Ukraine, an online conversation between Dalai Lama XIV and the Ukrainian people was held. The meeting was hosted by Oleksandr Elkin; Liliya Hrynevych, former Minister of Education and Science of Ukraine; Taras Topolya, UNICEF Youth Ambassador to Ukraine and well-known Ukrainian singer; and Nataliya Moseychuk, a TV host recognized nationwide.[21][46][118][21][6][119][49] Topics were education for peace, peace in the world, and the pandemic’s influence on the world.[120][49] The Dalai Lama also answered questions from Ukrainian citizens.[120][6]

Awards and recognition


In 2017, EdCamp Ukraine won first prize at the 5th National Competition of Public Non-Government Organizations (Ukrainian: V Національний Конкурс Публічних Звітів Організацій Громадянського Суспільства).[121]

Personal achievements

In 2017, Focus magazine listed Oleksandr Elkin among the 100 most influential Ukrainians.[8][26]

In 2018, Oleksandr Elkin was among five Ukrainian men nominated for the 2019 Father of the Year award in the Father-Educator category.[122]

In 2020, the vice-president of EdCamp Ukraine Olena Massalitina was awarded Woman of the Year in the Secondary Education category within the “Ukrainian Women” contest.[89] The same year, she became one of the 100 Most Influential Ukrainian Women as chosen by Focus magazine.[123]

In 2021, Oleksandr Elkin entered the ranking of the 100 most influential people in Ukraine according to the rating of FOCUS magazine and took 85th place.[124]

In 2022, NV named Oleksandr Elkin a “Ukrainian Prometheus”.[125]

In May 2022, Olexander Elkin became a member of the Supervisory Board of VN Karazin Kharkiv National University.[126]


As part of the fourth national unconference in 2018, 600 EdCampers gathered at Constitution Square in Kharkiv for a flash mob. This gathering was later registered in the Ukrainian Record Book as the biggest educators’ gathering.[42][43]

In 2019, Ukrainian and international educators set another record during the 2019 unconference: 650 educators gathered at Constitution Square in Kharkiv and educators from 25 Ukrainian regions joined the flash mob online.[127] “The biggest number of locations to join an online educators’ flash mob” was registered in the Ukraine Record Book.[20]

In 2020, more than 10,000 people attended the EdCamp Ukraine online unconference, the largest attendance of an online educational conference in Ukraine to date. This record was registered in Ukrainian National Record Register.[

Is Dalai Lama the Asian response to Mother Theresa’s activities in India?

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Additional info is very hard to come by, I give you all I have for now, developing…


BlackRock voted to replace Tesla’s Musk with independent chairman


Funds run by BlackRock Inc voted in favor of a recent shareholder proposal that would have required Tesla Inc to replace Elon Musk with an independent chairman.

BlackRock-managed funds voted for a measure requiring the chairman be an independent director, according to BlackRock’s filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday. The proposal, which was defeated, would not have affected Musk’s standing as Tesla’s chief executive officer.

More than 86 million shares voted against the proposal at a shareholder meeting in June, while fewer than 17 million voted in favor, Tesla said.

Some corporate governance activists call for the chairman and CEO roles to be split between two people to improve oversight, and the new filing revealed at least one major investor backed such changes at Tesla. BlackRock’s role in backing the proposal was not previously reported.

Musk has been under pressure over the company’s spending and after tweeting on Aug. 7 that he planned to take the company private, only to abandon the idea by Aug. 24.

Tesla’s board had said that the company’s success “would not have been possible” without Musk’s “day-to-day exposure to the company’s business.”

Yet top proxy adviser Institutional Shareholder Services Inc supported the proposal, citing concerns about Musk’s pay and board independence.

“BlackRock’s approach to investment stewardship is driven by our fiduciary duties to our clients, the asset owners,” a BlackRock spokeswoman said in an emailed statement. “Our approach to engaging with companies and proxy voting activities is consistent with our commitment to drive long term shareholder value for our clients.”

BlackRock funds are a top-10 Tesla stockholder, controlling nearly 6.5 million of Tesla’s 170 million shares, according to Thomson Reuters data based on public filings.

Vanguard Group Inc-run funds voted against the independent-chair proposal, a recent filing showed. Funds run by Fidelity Investments sided with Tesla on director votes and other controversial items this spring, its filings showed.

BlackRock’s report also showed it voted this year in favor of shareholder proposals at Facebook Inc and Google parent Alphabet Inc to give each shareholder an equal vote on governance matters.

Some companies are structured in a way that gives some shareholders more power than others, regardless of how many shares they hold.

BlackRock withheld votes or voted against nearly all management recommendations at Netflix Inc, including an advisory vote on executive pay.


But if you think of him as a face for the Pentagon pillar of the Military BioTech Complex, it all makes much more sense.

Here is what you can find in Elon Musk Stock Portfolio, according to :


Zip2 is among Elon Musk’s oldest yet most notable investments. This site came at a time when the internet needed directories, i.e., before Google and Yahoo. After dropping out of Stanford in 1995, the now-Tesla CEO launched Zip2, joined by his brother Kimbal, and using their father’s $28,000 lent to them. Zip2 was sold to Compaq for $307 million in 1999, earning Musk $22 million.

Musk then invested $10 million from his Zip2 profits into establishing, one of the earliest attempts at online banking.

Bitcoin Investments

Elon Musk Bitcoin 2023

Many people are curious about what motivated Tesla CEO Elon Musk to invest in Bitcoin. Is he worried that the world will become a digital country ruled by virtual bankers? Or is it because he believes that powerful forces can manipulate the financial system to benefit the few and shut out the many? You can likely understand why the virtual currency, Bitcoin, is important to him.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Elon Musk invested in Bitcoin late last year. His long-term investment was worth about $1.5 billion for the electric car company. As he continues to work on his various ventures, he promotes all forms of cryptography and virtual currencies.

Regarding the recent boom in the value of Bitcoins, many people are wondering if this will cause governments to lose control of their money. As mentioned, Musk is an entrepreneur, so he has every right to invest in any venture that he believes to be profitable and safe.

If he were to mention during an interview that he was involved in investing in virtual currency, would the media ask him why? Would they stop and ask why he thought it was a good idea? Surely not. They would probably ask him what digital currency he thinks is the best to use at this moment.


Elon Musk PayPal 2023

PayPal is on the way to becoming one of the most important players in the e-commerce scene. Already famous for its PayPal mobile payment system, the company has made big moves into the mobile payments arena.

They recently announced that they would release an iPhone application that allows you to make offline purchases at millions of locations. They also have an application for the Android operating system that allows you to make purchases at about a quarter of a million locations.

The interesting part about this story is that there was hardly any talk of either of these companies being boring companies before this partnership. As you might expect, given that Paypal is a well-respected company with a history of investing in high-profile businesses, it was only natural for them to want to invest in Paypal as their chief executive officer.


Elon Musk Sika 2023

Sika Company, also known as Sika International, is a Swiss international chemical company that provides services to the construction and motor vehicle industry worldwide.

The company creates products and systems for sealing, waterproofing, strengthening, dampening, and reinforcing. Their product lines offer a variety of sealants, varnishes, roof coatings, paints, epoxies, and adhesives.

When Sika began producing products, they focused on manufacturing synthetic rubber and plastics called Thermoset Polyimide. As the company expanded and products became more mainstream, the name was changed to Sika International.

In the late nineteen seventies, shortly after World War II began, the United States became interested in its products and began working with them on strategic goals. A contract was signed in 1954.

Since then, the United States and Switzerland have worked together to provide the best products to their competing industries.

Tesla Motors

Elon Musk Tesla 2023

When we last checked in with the story of the potential sale of Musk’s Tesla, the now-bankrupt Space Age Company stakeholders had a meeting to approve a plan for selling the company.

The stakeholders approved a deal that will allow them to purchase many shares of stock from Musk’s venture while also receiving millions of dollars in cash.

It is unclear how much money will be raised through such a transaction since it will depend on the deal the Musk brothers come up with. It is also unclear if the funds raised will be kept by the company or given to Musk.

There are several reasons why the shareholders approved this sale. It was reported that the Space Age Company needed more money for research and development, especially considering it was developing a new rocket engine.

Additionally, the board of directors felt that it was better to raise money than to lose existing investors, and the brand would be worth more than most of the investments made by private equity firms in the past.

The sale will free up millions of dollars previously used for marketing and product development. Many people are worried that once these millions of dollars are gone, the brand’s future will be in jeopardy.

Modine Manufacturing

Elon Musk Modine 2023

The company’s technology allows them to produce high-quality and durable off-road original equipment manufacturer parts in the process of producing many of the highest temperatures on Earth and at great pressures.

This extreme capability and ability to utilise space and time to produce superior products make them ideal for high-volume, low-volume production processes.

Modine’s technology in vehicle cooling products and high-pressure heat transfer components enables them to offer a broad range of products and services to a diverse customer base.

They can develop thermal and lubrication systems capable of handling extreme environments and rugged work locations.

Additionally, Modine has developed various high-volume sheet metal products optimised for specific vehicle applications, such as bodybuilding, sheet metal fabrication, and sheet metal brazing.

Modine’s ability to handle these wide ranges of vehicle applications allows them to serve many customers, many of whom are in the automotive industry.


Elon Musk Dogecoin 2023

By now, anyone with even an ounce of interest in investing is aware of Musk’s investments. Dogecoin is among those whenever the subject of Elon Musk stock portfolio comes up.

Dogecoin is a cryptocurrency that began as a gag but has since gained mainstream recognition. Most people also know that Elon Musk is a huge proponent of Dogecoin, frequently touting it as profitable on his social media accounts.

Musk himself has confirmed that Dogecoin holds a significant portion of his investments. Even his investment advice features Dogecoin.

In his recent tweets, Musk suggested the concept of launching Dogecoin payments on Twitter as well. In January, Elon Musk revealed that Tesla merchandise was purchasable via Dogecoin as well.

Owing to the efforts of the Tesla and SpaceX CEO, Dogecoin’s value rose concurrently with Musk’s tweets about it in the past months. In July last year, Musk had shared his opinions about the problems linked with Bitcoin and Ethereum.

He also assumed that a Dogecoin update was meant to resolve such issues, e.g., lowering transaction costs and times, giving the currency an advantage over other digital coins.

The Boring Company

Elon Musk The Boring Company 2023

The Boring Company is a company that provides solutions to traffic problems by building underground tunnels. With headquarters in Pflugerville, the company revealed that it raised over $675 in a Series C funding round, bringing the company’s value to more than $5.5 billion.

Musk tweeted about the event in April, revealing that the company was to hire competent people and increase boring machine manufacture. He further revealed that he wished to build thousands of miles of underground tunnels.

Founded by Musk, the Boring Company announced that it had managed to win approval for constructing a 29-mile underground runner network linking fifty-one stations under Las Vegas.

The network will transport 57k passengers per hour and has been deemed the company’s largest project. The Boring Company plans to transport passengers as fast as 150 miles per hour. The company has only been able to reach 50 miles per hour thus far.

Besides PayPal, Tesla, and Twitter, the Boring Company is among the companies closely monitoring investment funds as a growth investment.

The Boring Company completed a tunnel for Teslas that started from the Las Vegas Convention Center and stopped at Resorts World Hotel.

DeepMind Technologies

DeepMind Technologies is an AI company developed in late 2010. Musk was among the company’s most distinguished angel investors. Google acquired the company later in January 2014 for an unknown amount.

As it is known, the Tesla co-founder is notoriously worried about artificial intelligence one day taking over; hence, DeepMind made it into one of Musk’s investments. It has been made clear that he did not do it to make money. Instead, he did it to stay ahead of how quickly AI technology develops.

DeepMind has directed most of its research on reinforcement learning, an AI technique that incorporates deep learning (for recognising patterns) with reinforcement learning.

DeepMind created this type of learning contingent on reward signals, e.g., a game score, and named the technique in a 2013 white paper.


Musk purchased solar energy company SolarCity in 2016. He convinced the Tesla Motors board that the investment was part of a greater plan to introduce vertical integration within Tesla as that would help with power generation and consumption.

The deal has been under scrutiny in the past recent years and Musk and Tesla stockholders are involved in a court battle that could lead to settlements worth $13 billion. When the deal was finalised, Musk held around 22% of Tesla stock and 21% of SolarCity.

The Chief Executive Officer has denied any misconduct regarding the SolarCity deal. At the same time, Tesla stockholders state that Musk and his family and business partners took unfair advantage of the deal.

Since the deal, Tesla stocks have skyrocketed, claiming above $1000 per share, up 1500% in the past half-decade. SolarCity was established by Peter and Lyndon Rive, Musk’s cousins. Musk acted as a board member (chairman, to be exact) when the company was acquired.


OpenAI is a research lab focused on AI. The firm is based in San Francisco and is seen as a competitor to Alphabet’s DeepMind. Musk was among the earlier funders of the firm, pledging $1 billion when it was established in 2015. Later in 2019, the company received a $1 billion grant from Microsoft. Musk, who served as a board member since the firm was founded, quit in 2018 but still plays an advisory role at the company.

While resigning, Musk cited possible complications since OpenAI and Tesla were both active in AI projects. OpenAI had been a non-profit until 2019. After it received its Microsoft grand, the firm changed its business model to become a for-profit company. Furthermore, it also revealed the commercial licensing of its technologies. Musk has criticised the company’s deal with Microsoft.


Elon Musk Twitter 2023

Elon Musk surprised everyone with his bid to buy Twitter in 2022. It was reported in major news outlets that Elon Musk would buy Twitter for $44 billion. Musk’s main objective was to make the social media platform’s algorithm open source to encourage free speech. However, according to a new Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Musk later terminated his deal to buy Twitter.


Neuralink is a neurotechnology company that Elon Musk co-founded. It has been developing an implantable brain-machine interface since its establishment in 2016. Neuralink’s co-founders include Google Inc., Google Ventures, among others. The company aims to link a brain to computers via high-speed brain implants. Though the concept of this technology may seem truncated, there is a focus on helping quadriplegics communicate via mobile gadgets in the future.

The company has demonstrated its progress in its findings by showing a Macaque monkey control a cursor in a game of Pong. However, it has not reached human trials yet.


Musk is very keen on technology and studying the mind, and NeuroVigil is yet another one of his investments in the field. The company is famous for developing brain monitors and employs algorithms to find indications of pathology in individuals who do not display other symptoms, e.g., brain cancer patients or neurodegeneration.

Musk was one of the major investors taking part in the company’s second funding round in 2015.

Stocks Musk Doesn’t Invest In

While little is known about Musk’s investment portfolio, one thing for sure is that the bulk of his holdings happen to be in both private and public companies he has control over. He does not own any prominent stock positions in other businesses than his own.

Musk is not a hedge fund manager; therefore, he is not obligated to reveal smaller investments. With that being said, he may have small investments in publicly traded stocks.

Musk’s Private Equity

Musk established and controls numerous companies, with SpaceX being the largest. He holds nearly 44% of the company, valued roughly at $127 billion in a funding round in May 2022. With a total value of nearly $300 billion, Elon Musk’s Space and Tesla make up a majority of his net worth.

Besides SpaceX, Musk has majority ownership of many other start-up businesses he was involved in or founded.


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them