People Are Able to Handle the Truth!

Introduction

In 1959, Ingeborg Bachmann concluded that the truth is something people can be expected to handle, since they are quite capable of enduring it, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. Literature, she argued, should neither conceal nor gloss over the truth.

This is all the more true of the media, which for years have failed to fulfill their duty as the fourth estate. The world is heading toward a new world war, and the majority of humanity is unable to assess the risks and opportunities when the media distort the facts through their propaganda in such a way that the truth vanishes into an ever-thickening fog. The dumbing down has reached such a level that even politicians in the West believe the propaganda of their own media and act accordingly. The falsehoods that politicians spread are no longer perceived by them as lies; for the most part, their intellect is simply not sufficient for that. It must be stated that politicians have first and foremost become “ambassadors” of an ever-declining level of education—and continue to do so—and, as a result, have become victims of their own propaganda.

This article attempts to show that it is still possible to separate the wheat from the chaff, because the truth is hidden amid all the garbage in the news coverage.

Don't Forget About Evil

In the article “Will Evil Prevail?,” I pondered who actually determines geopolitical events around the world. I discussed the “City of London” and the “Rothschilds” as examples of forces that steer the world from behind the scenes. They are thus also responsible for wars, coups, and other upheavals in our world. Even the small portion of the Epstein Files that has come to light provided an first impression of the entanglements among the powerful. See “Epstein – ‘Concierge of Evil’ – Dangerous Questions.” For example, the Rothschild family was dragged back into the public eye; the very family that has gone to great lengths to convince the world that it has exerted no influence since World War II and merely operates a few private banks, museums, and vineyards. It should come as no surprise that discussion of the contents of the Epstein Files—or their further releases—has completely vanished from the media; one might well wonder who controls the media.

Incidentally, the ‘deep state’ is not a concept peddled by a few crackpots. As early as 2017, President Putin spoke about it in no uncertain terms:

“Presidents change… Then well-dressed men arrive, in dark suits, with their suitcases. They start explaining how things really work… and everything changes instantly.”

President Putin, 2017

Media

Control is exercised either directly by shareholders or indirectly through political or economic influence—for example, by controlling advertising revenue, blacklisting, or manipulating view counts on YouTube channels. Control over the media in the Collective West is, de facto, complete—not a bad achievement.

Consider this: freedom of speech is championed very vocally by politicians and the media at every opportunity, whether appropriate or not. Practically “in tandem,” it is restricted in the very same breath by first denouncing the spread of “fake news” and “hate speech”—that is, the expression of genuine freedom of speech—just as loudly, and then defining and enforcing it as a criminal offense for one’s own political gain.

Ultimately, then, it is the state that defines what “fake news” and “hate speech” mean. As a result, a right that is no longer absolute but has been relativized collapses under this restriction. In Germany, the desired political direction of judicial decisions is ensured through the political appointment of judges to the Federal Constitutional Court. The process for selecting judges to the European Court of Justice follows a similar procedure.

The consequences of this restriction are deliberate and obvious. Analysts who express even the most well-founded opinions that do not suit the tastes of those in power are stripped of their rights, dispossessed, and portrayed as criminals without due process. The method of choice is, for example, EU sanctions, which were originally enacted to target terrorists but are now—with the support of the general public—imposed on the most objective experts, such as the Swiss citizen (and thus non-EU citizen) Jacques Baud; see our coverage on this. The result of this targeted political influence is reporting in the traditional media that no longer has anything to do with the truth, but often turns it on its head.

All Geopolitical Crises Stem from a Single Source

All military conflicts around the world must be understood as a single package, a comprehensive strategy. The same people who are fueling the war against Iran and the violent creation of “Greater Israel” are also responsible for the conflict in Ukraine and the war between Europe and Russia that will likely unfold soon—and many other conflicts, such as those in Africa, which we have neglected in our blog, are likewise part of this strategy. Everything is interconnected, and it shows a lack of geopolitical understanding when journalists defend the war—waged with genocidal methods—against Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza, while simultaneously supporting Russia’s actions in Ukraine. The forces triggering and fueling these conflicts are identical. Understanding this is very helpful in grasping the overall geopolitical situation.

The overall picture is not hard to understand: After hundreds of years of colonial rule over the rest of the world, the Collective West has already lost the economic race against the Global South; more on this below. While wars over the past 500 years have been about who in the West would wield the scepter of hegemony over the colonial empire, today’s conflicts are about whether the Collective West can maintain its colonial empire. The odds are against it, as we have already outlined in our series “The War Between Two Worlds Has Begun.” At that time, we anticipated many individual conflicts spanning decades, but without a world war. This relatively optimistic thesis now seems to be faltering, as aggression between the world powers is escalating daily, the Collective West refuses to abandon the arrogance of the colonial master, and completely overestimates itself with spurious arguments.

The Defence Budget as a Measure of Military Strength Is a Fallacious Argument

For decades, the Americans have led the world to believe that they have the strongest armed forces in the world. This claim is backed up by an astronomical figure: the U.S. military budget of no less than 1.5 trillion U.S. dollars. That is 10 times more than the Russian military budget, or even 190 times more than Iran’s military budget, which amounted to 7.89 billion U.S. dollars in 2024. NATO, excluding the US, spent 608 million U.S. dollars.

Nevertheless, the US—along with Israel—suffered defeats in both the 12-Day War and the ongoing war, which has spiraled out of control. NATO, alongside the US, is suffering defeat in Ukraine. The massive budgets in the West are a clear indication that the military there is not designed to defend freedom, but rather to rake in as much money as possible. As a result, a weapons system in the West is considered successful if it can be sold—for as much money as possible—to its own armed forces or those of third countries. In 2024, we compared two combat helicopters that experts deemed equivalent: the Russian Kamov KA-52 and the American AH-64 Apache. The Apache costs 155 million U.S. dollars; the Kamov costs 16 million. On top of that, Western weapons systems are produced in virtually homeopathic doses, and it is impossible to increase production to a level capable of sustainably supporting a protracted conflict—it is too expensive, too complex, and combined with an industrial capacity that simply no longer exists.

In the medium term, the US will not be able to produce high-quality military equipment in sufficient quantities at reasonable costs, as it currently faces a multi-faceted problem: First, there is a lack of will, since profit is the primary goal of the military-industrial complex. Second, due to 30 years of deindustrialization, the US no longer has the industrial base necessary to produce weapons in quantities sufficient for wartime.

Rather, the focus is on making a profit. Objective observers should realize that such a strategy is bound to lead to disaster in a crisis—as has been demonstrated in the Middle East and Ukraine. According to various experts, the West has fallen at least a decade behind its competitors in both missile technology and drones in those regions.

Iran, for example, whose defense spending is about 200 times less than that of the US, possesses hypersonic missiles that are extremely difficult to intercept. In contrast, the Collective West still has no operational hypersonic weapons. Critics attribute this to a combination of profit-seeking, arrogance, and corruption within the military-industrial complex.

If the West wants to operate on an equal footing militarily in the future, it would have to fundamentally reform the military-industrial complex—a task that seems nearly impossible given the existing economic and political balance of power; this industry is controlled by the groups discussed above.

A Lack of Will to Fight in the West

How does the Collective West react to the wars it has lost? — It increases its military budgets without addressing the necessary structural issues. In the West, there is a mistaken belief that everything can be solved with money. In Russia, the defense industry is essentially state-owned, and therefore there is a strong interest in producing high-quality but affordable weapons.

Thus, there will only be a change in the US if the American pursuit of profit in weapons production were seriously called into question—and if society were able to attract the best minds to the defense industry in the interest of American society as a whole, which is not the case today. American missile physicists earn more as analysts at investment banks, and they have no motivation to serve their country, given the poor state of the will to defend the West. In Germany, for example, one figure dashes any hope for greater willingness to serve: out of 300,000 young Germans, 530 are willing to perform military service—that’s 0.17%! (Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung). This figure stands in stark contrast to statements made by Boris Pistorius, the German Minister of Defense, who announced as early as 2024:

“We must be combat-ready by 2029,” the minister said. “We must provide a deterrent to prevent things from escalating to the extreme.”

Boris Pistorius, 5 June 2024 

The outlook for the Collective West to prepare its armed forces for war is thus bleak. Nevertheless, the Europeans and Americans seem to be charging headlong into a world war with outdated yet overpriced weapons systems and without the necessary will to defend themselves among the population. This not only seems insane—it is insane. The facts speak for themselves. Who would do such a thing? Corrupt politicians, like the ones we described at the beginning.

The Economy as an Indicator of Losing

If we look at the economic data, it is easy to see that the Collective West has already lost the economic race. History teaches us that, in such a situation, war is the only option left.

For years, I have been drawing attention to the devastating national debt and the grotesque valuations in the financial markets. On top of that, the Collective West also cheats when calculating economic power. All of this is done to maintain a narrative that allows the US to continue to be portrayed as number one. If you calculate GDP on a purchasing power parity basis—that is, taking into account the local purchasing power of individual countries—the US has already lost.

According to this calculation, China ranks ahead of the US, Russia ahead of Japan, and Germany.

Furthermore, the Collective West, as the aggressor, finds itself in a domestic political and economic situation that does not allow for a military showdown with Russia, Iran, and China: US debt stands at over 121%—the last time this was the case was at the end of World War II, following an industrial war that brought the US global dominance. After 35 years, and under economic and political conditions that remained favorable to the US, this debt was reduced to below 40%.

In 1945, the Americans reached the height of their power. Together with the Soviet Union, they dominated the course of the war, held 22,000 metric tons of gold, and American industry produced 70% of the world’s manufactured goods. This is what true “full spectrum dominance” looks like: military dominance, industrial dominance, gold—because whoever has the gold sets the rules. Now the US is once again facing a world war, and the situation looks much like it did after the last war, with one major difference: China is at least the US’s economic equal, with far more favorable economic conditions.

These are not the conditions necessary for a military conflict on a global scale—neither financially, nor economically, nor, consequently, politically.

Middle East

It is clear from the text of the MOU that Iran has defeated both Israel and the US militarily; otherwise, the Americans would never have signed such a document. Israel cannot, without risking the collapse of its own delusions of great-power status, comply with the spirit of the document and end the war in Lebanon and Gaza. Therefore, there will be no peace.

Our comments on this topic: “Iran Defeats the US – Thoughts.” In Iran, voices are growing louder claiming that the president and foreign minister are not negotiating hard enough—public pressure in Iran is calling for a tougher stance toward the US and Israel. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has approved the memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the US to end the regional war under certain conditions. However, in a public statement, he said that he fundamentally held a “different view,” but had agreed to the agreement after receiving guarantees from President Masoud Pezeshkian that Iran’s national rights and the “Resistance Front” would be safeguarded. This is a clear indication that the Iranians are ultimately unwilling to make compromises at the expense of Lebanon and Gaza.

It is to be expected that the conflict in the Middle East will continue: Neither the US nor Israel is willing to accept defeat in the war and deal with its consequences. This stance maintains a state of limbo that could tip in one direction or the other at any moment. However, this strategy is countered by the fact that time is running out for the West because of Hormuz. The dwindling oil reserves were the main reason the US signed this MOU in its current form in the first place. The Americans are thus seeking a state of limbo that allows them to prepare their next military steps in peace; however, this state can only be maintained if the Strait of Hormuz remains open in the meantime. While approximately 130 ships passed through the Strait of Hormuz daily until February 28, 2026, these numbers dropped to practically zero, then stabilized at 5%–10% of pre-war levels, before surging to 70 ships on June 25, 2026. These figures should be treated with caution: It is said that the majority of these 70 ships were exporting oil from Iran after the US lifted the oil sanctions upon signing the agreement. If the Israelis do not withdraw from Lebanon and the Iranians remain steadfast—which is to be expected—then the Strait of Hormuz will remain a congested bottleneck: the time bomb for the West’s supply of raw materials continues to tick.

The Iranians can wait—the Americans cannot. When assessing the situation, one should simply disregard Donald Trump’s statements, because Trump speaks of peace one moment and war the next, changing his mind sometimes several times a day. He seems to believe that he can achieve something with the Iranians through this “New York-style deal-making” terror, but that is not the case, since he achieves only one thing: Americans are increasingly proving themselves to be agreement incapable, thereby threatening world peace.

War in Europe

The armed conflict in Ukraine, instigated by the West, began in 2014. Only those who do not classify Ukraine’s years-long artillery shelling of the Donbass as an act of war claim that the Russians started the war in February 2022. This is just one fact that is so obvious that one can only wonder at the West’s arguments that Russia is the aggressor.

Another fact is that this war has completely transformed the technology and tactics of warfare—the parties had to adapt to a new kind of war dominated by drones and missiles. Tank columns and troop concentrations are attacked by inexpensive drones as soon as they are detected—and they are detected very quickly. The warring parties had to undergo migration and learn this new art of warfare. The Russians, in particular, have done this successfully and now dominate the battlefield in a new way: through slow, efficient advances, because massed attacks produce only one thing—heavy casualties. Similar waves of technological advancement have occurred time and again. The machine gun, which was already in use before World War I but whose significance was underestimated at the time, brought an end to maneuver warfare as early as the first year of the war, when large columns of soldiers advanced toward the enemy and were wiped out. Toward the end of World War I, the tank brought some movement back to the front lines. However, comparing the frontline situation in Ukraine to that of World War I is a flawed analogy: Slow movements in small groups seem, so far, to be the only way to survive the drone barrage and maintain mobility.

Recently, Western media have been reporting that the Ukrainians have the upper hand in the war. However, this is fake news that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground. One must distinguish between the fighting on the front lines and NATO’s drone attacks in Russia. On the Donbass front, only a few fortified cities still stand in the Russians’ way; once those are taken, the Donbass will be liberated. Beyond that, there are no longer any fortifications worth taking seriously. Rather than going into details, I refer you to one of the best channels, Military Summary, which has been providing a twice-daily update on the situation at the front since the war began.

The West has not yet recognized the signs of the times. Its experts believe they will be successful in a war against Russia. However, they have not even defined their war aims in any way. Thus, they have no strategic plan against Russia other than to weaken it.

First and foremost, the Germans set the start of the war against Russia for 2030. However, it is now 2026, and the Germans apparently assume that, with Ukraine acting as their proxy, they can send drones and cruise missiles into Russia with impunity until 2030. Europe’s approach is, of course, coordinated with the US. The use of these weapons systems is not possible without American input. President Putin made this very clear a few days ago.

Many observers and experts both inside and outside Russia believe that President Putin will soon decide to launch a strike against targets in Europe—including those outside Ukraine.

There is a wide range of opinions on this topic. We have already published several articles on this subject: In “Will 1914 Repeat Itself? Will War Between Europe and Russia Finally Break Out?,” we also examined the Karaganov Doctrine, which advocates the use of nuclear weapons, and concluded that an attack is necessary, but not with nuclear weapons. Scott Ritter subsequently addressed the “Karaganov fallacy” and also spoke out clearly against the use of nuclear weapons.

Conclusion

In the Middle East, I see no realistic chance of ending the war, because that would mean, on the one hand, the withdrawal of American forces, and Israel would then be left alone as a small, genocidal aggressor. The Israelis are under pressure and are continuing their genocide in Gaza and Lebanon, paying no heed whatsoever to agreements between the US and Iran, because for Netanyahu personally, maintaining the war is the only way to survive politically.

In Russia, pressure is mounting on President Putin to adopt a more aggressive stance toward Europe, which is no longer even attempting to conceal its direct involvement in the war against Russia. Russia is intensifying its attacks on Ukraine, in part by destroying every gas station in eastern Ukraine to paralyze transportation logistics. Ground forces are making visible progress, and once the last fortified cities in the Donbas are liberated—which is likely to happen within the next few weeks—the path to the Dnieper will be clear.

President Putin is thus banking on a military solution in Ukraine and waiting for an energy crisis to unfold in Europe, where many flights are already being canceled under flimsy pretexts.

The concerted media coverage in the West claiming that the tide has turned in Ukraine finds not the slightest confirmation in the reality on the ground in Ukraine. The fuel shortage in Russia is also being exaggerated. In some regions, fuel is being rationed at gas stations. However, this is in no way sufficient to change Russia’s course of action.

Very occasionally, I have the opportunity to speak with someone who lives in Kyiv. According to this person, the situation is catastrophic, and over 90% of the population is against Zelensky. When I asked why the people weren’t rising up, the source replied that people were so intimidated by the terror of the security and intelligence services that the communication necessary for an uprising was impossible. Ukraine, which is portrayed by the West as a shining example of democracy, seems to be a time bomb whose ticking goes unheard out of fear.

My concerns that a war between Europe and Russia might break out—even though Europe has virtually no military power—have never been greater. President Putin will not be the one to take the first step toward a Third World War. Only he knows how much longer he will tolerate the West’s systematic provocations and how he will respond to them.