A ‘Sunni Crescent’ Composed of Syria and Turkey Threatens Israel

A ‘Sunni Crescent’ Composed of Syria and Turkey Threatens Israel

 HUGH FITZGERALD

The Syrian jihadist government has been consolidating its power by systematically attacking the minorities — Alawites, Druze, and the Kurds — in the country. It has just taken over the Kurdish-majority city of Qashmili, and has forced the dismantlement of the Kurdish autonomous region in northeast Syria, with the Kurdish militia of the Syrian Democratic Forces now being integrated into the Syrian National Army. 

And Turkey is delighted that the Syrian Kurds will no longer be a threat to Turkish interests. More on the Damascus-Ankara “Sunni Axis” can be found here: “Why the fall of Kurdish autonomy is Israel’s strategic nightmare – opinion,” by Amine Ayoub, Jerusalem Post, February 10, 2026:

The headlines from Syria this week are being celebrated as a triumph of “territorial unification.” The new Syrian Sunni Islamist regime, led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa, has successfully consolidated power in the strategic city of Qamishli.

Under the guise of a “phased integration” deal, the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria has effectively been dismantled.

The post-Assad honeymoon – a period of hope that a new Damascus would usher in a pluralistic, decentralized democracy – is officially over.

There is no pluralism in al-Sharaa’s Syria. The minorities — non-Arab Kurds, Shia Arabs, and non-Muslim Druze — have had to submit to a Sunni Arab regime. Power is now centralized in Damascus, where Sunni Arabs are the undisputed rulers.

For Israel, the reality is even more sobering. The demise of the Kurdish buffer in the northeast does not signal a new era of stability; it heralds the birth of a militarized, Islamist “Sunni Crescent” that targets Israeli security with a fervor that the “predictable” Bashar al-Assad never possessed.

For nearly a decade, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) served as a vital, if unofficial, partner in the regional fight against radicalism. Its de facto autonomy provided a geographic and ideological break between the Mediterranean and the Iranian border and, more importantly, a bulwark against Turkish expansionism….

The Kurdish-led SDF had been the Americans’ most effective ally in the war against ISIS. The Kurdish autonomous region has also been a buffer, standing in the way of Turkish expansionism; Erdogan regards the Syrian Kurds as dangerous, because he sees them as potentially linking up with Kurdish separatists in Turkey, and has wanted to crush them.

 Now he need no longer do so; the Syrian government has pressured the SDF so relentlessly that the Kurds have agreed for their SDF units to be dismantled and integrated into the Syrian National Army. Yet the Syrian state is not neutral; it is run by Sunni Arabs who are jihadists. The minorities are now merely tolerated; the ruling Sunnis do not treat them as equals.

Turkey has long sought to crush the Kurdish autonomous region in northeast Syria. And now, instead of having to fight the Kurds inside Syria, Ankara has watched as the Syrian army has forced the Kurds to dismantle their SDF forces and to give up their autonomy. Damascus has not objected to the military outposts that Turkey has set up just inside Syria. It sees Ankara as its ally against Kurdish separatists.

Al-Sharaa is not prepared for peace with Israel, despite his claim that he is prepared to make peace “with all of Syria’s neighbors.” He wants back all of the land the IDF seized just north of the Golan Heights, including Mount Hermon. His close ally, Erdogan, more than a year ago called for all the Muslim states to contribute to a pan-Islamic army capable fo defeating Israel, and he left no doubt as to whom he thought was most fitting to lead such an army — himself.

The honeymoon is over, and the era of the “Sunni Crescent” has begun.

Orban: Europe Decided to Go to War With Russia by 2030, Already Preparing

Europe Decided to Go to War With Russia by 2030, Already Preparing - Orban

Sputnik

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Saturday that Europe has decided to go to war with Russia by 2030 and that preparations are already underway in certain European countries. 

"Europe has decided that it will go to war [with Russia] by 2030. Not that it wants to, might, or plans to - it has decided. It has made the decision," Orban said. 

Preparations for war are being carried out across Europe, except in Hungary and Slovakia, he added.

"Nine [European] countries already have compulsory military service. In some places, it also applies to women. The population is being sent instructions on what to do in the event of war. Military spending has risen sharply. Agreements have been signed to send troops to Ukraine," he said. 

In recent years, Russia has noted unprecedented NATO activity near its western borders. The alliance has expanded its initiatives, describing them as measures to deter alleged Russian aggression. Russian authorities have repeatedly expressed concern over the buildup of NATO forces in Europe. The Russian Foreign Ministry has said that Russia remains open to dialogue with NATO on an equal footing, provided that the West abandons its course toward militarizing the continent.

Nukes by the numbers: A problem we can’t wish away

Nukes by the numbers: A problem we can’t wish away

Peter R. Huessy

Last year, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that Russia and China increasingly lean on nuclear weapons to pursue their national interests. Together, they could surpass the U.S. strategic nuclear force in numbers, creating a multiple-challenger problem and raising the risk of coordination between adversaries.

Put plainly: The nuclear balance is moving against the United States.

Start with Russia. The DIA projects a force of 400 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. Fifty would be Sarmats, each reportedly capable of carrying up to 20 high-yield warheads — about 1,000 warheads. The remaining 350 would be Yars missiles, with roughly four medium-yield warheads each — about 1,400 more. That puts Russia at roughly 2,400 warheads on land-based ICBMs alone.

Russia’s sea-based force adds more. The Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile reportedly carries six warheads. Under the DIA’s forecast, that comes to about 1,152 additional warheads, pushing the combined ICBM/SLBM total to roughly 3,552. Russian strategic bombers can carry still more — around 1,000 warheads on air-launched systems.

That implies a Russian long-range strategic force as high as 4,552 warheads — far above the 2010 New START ceiling.

China’s trajectory looks even more unsettling. The DIA now projects 700 Chinese ICBMs by 2035, a striking revision given the agency’s history of underestimating Beijing’s growth. China reportedly produces 50 to 75 ICBMs per year. With roughly 400 already fielded, an additional 300 by 2035 are well within reach even at a slower production rate.

Warhead potential varies by missile type. The DF-31A can carry three re-entry vehicles. The DF-41 can reportedly carry up to 10 warheads. Depending on the mix, China could field anywhere from roughly 2,100 to 7,000 ICBM warheads.

The DIA also forecasts 132 Chinese SLBMs by 2035: 72 JL-3 missiles and 60 additional missiles for three new Type 096 ballistic-missile submarines. If the JL-3 carries three warheads, that yields 216 SLBM warheads. If the new SLBM carries at least six, that adds 360 more. In that scenario, China fields about 576 SLBM warheads — bringing the total for Chinese ICBMs and SLBMs to roughly 2,616 to 7,616 warheads.

More

The decades-long “climate change” plan

The decades-long “climate change” plan to strip away personal freedom, wealth and property

Rhoda Wilson

The Rockefeller family and the Trilateral Commission have been orchestrating a sinister plan under the guise of “climate change.” This scheme raises serious threats to individual freedom, personal wealth and property rights. What’s really at stake in this agenda and how might it impact our way of life? Jesse Smith dives into the implications and uncovers the truth behind the headlines.

In Part 3, Smith describes how the Rockefeller family and the Trilateral Commission have been instrumental in advancing a new international economic order and global governance, aiming to establish a technocratic dictatorship.

They co-opted the environmental movement, using fear and misinformation to shift the blame for ecological damage from corporations to individuals, and promoting the concept of Sustainable Development as a means to control resources and populations.

The Rockefeller family has created and funded various organisations, including The World Bank, the United Nations and the Club of Rome, to promote the theory of anthropogenic global warming and push for a sustainable future.

The United Nations’ Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 are key plans to implement a technocratic system, to inventory and control all aspects of human life and nature, ultimately leading to the annihilation of individual rights and national sovereignty.

The ultimate goal of the “green economy” is not environmental protection, but a wealth redistribution scheme that benefits multinational corporations and private banks, while stripping away individual freedom, wealth and property.

As detailed in Part 2 of “Technocracy Ascending,” David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the Trilateral Commission achieved a great deal in moving the world toward a new international economic order and global governance (i.e., a new world order). Brzezinski understood the decline of nation states was a necessity for advancing a global order where the private banking cabal and transnational corporations assumed political dominance. In his book ‘Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era’, Brzezinski stated that:

Technocracy Inc. was one of the early movements campaigning for centralised control at the expense of democracy. Though their initial aim was to transform the North American continent into a scientific dictatorship, the Rockefeller clan pushed these ideas globally. Working through their vast, interwoven network of corporate, academic, political and philanthropic institutions, they advanced the globalist mindset with the United Nations (“UN”), often energising the ideas and formulating the strategies. More on the UN’s role will be discussed later.

More..

Russia Warns NATO Military Preparations in Scandinavia Threaten National Security

Russia Warns NATO Military Preparations in Scandinavia Threaten National Security

Sputnik

Military preparations by Norway, Sweden and other NATO countries pose a direct threat to Russia's national security and compel Moscow to take military and technical measures in response, Russian Ambassador to Oslo Nikolai Korchunov said in an interview with Sputnik. 

"Oslo, Stockholm, and Helsinki are working together to increase military mobility through the development of west-to-east transport and logistics corridors, as well as the cross-border use of bases and other military infrastructure," Korchunov said. 

He said these and other military preparations by NATO countries on the northern flank, openly aimed against Russia, increase tensions and pose a direct threat to Russia's national security, compelling Moscow to adopt military and technical countermeasures. 

In recent years, Russia has been flagging up NATO's unprecedented activity and buildup of troops near its western borders. The Kremlin has stated that Russia does not threaten anyone, but would not ignore actions that are potentially dangerous to its interests.

NATO countries are making plans for a partial or complete naval blockade of Russia, Russian Ambassador to Norway Nikolai Korchunov said.

Korchunov said NATO members, including Norway, by operations Baltic Sentry, Eastern Sentry and Arctic Sentry actually transfer the Baltic and Arctic region to "barracks routine," and restrict freedom of navigation in violation of international law.

In recent years, Russia has been flagging up NATO's unprecedented activity and buildup of troops near its western borders. The Kremlin has stated that Russia does not threaten anyone, but would not ignore actions that are potentially dangerous to its interests.