Lavrov: NATO preparing for war against Russia

NATO preparing for war against Russia – Lavrov

RT

Recent statements by top European officials, including NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, suggest that the West is preparing for a direct military conflict with Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday.

Speaking at a press conference on the results of Russian diplomatic activities in 2025, Lavrov pointed to remarks by the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, and other politicians such as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the leaders of Germany, France, and the UK. “They are seriously preparing for war against the Russian Federation, and, in fact, are not even hiding it.”

The foreign minister added that while Russia is determined to “eliminate the root causes” of the Ukraine conflict, it is the West that has been “deliberately creating”these issues for many years in an effort to turn Ukraine into a “threat to Russia’s security.”

He noted that although the goal of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Moscow is not expressed by Western leaders as often these days, their actions suggest that the idea is still alive in their “minds and plans,” pointing to the continued support of the “openly Nazi regime” in Kiev and its course for the “legislative and physical extermination of everything Russian.”

Russia has rejected Western claims that it poses a threat to any foreign countries, dismissing it as “nonsense” and fearmongering meant to justify inflated military budgets across Europe.

Nevertheless, Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have continued to push the claims and recently withdrew from international treaties banning anti-personnel landmines, and have announced plans to produce and deploy them along their borders with Russia.

AI-driven war game analysis projects catastrophic US losses in a high-intensity conflict with China

Administration sought redactions on key China war game report warning of US military readiness gaps

Morgan Phillips

The Trump administration asked for redactions to a sweeping new Heritage Foundation report modeling a potential U.S.–China war over Taiwan, even though the analysis relied entirely on publicly available, unclassified data, according to the report’s authors.

The redacted report, TIDALWAVE, warns that the United States could reach a breaking point within weeks of a high‑intensity conflict with China — conclusions that the authors say prompted senior national security officials to seek redactions over concerns adversaries could exploit the findings or use them to identify U.S. and allied military vulnerabilities.

Those conclusions include warnings that U.S. forces would culminate far sooner than China, suffer catastrophic losses to aircraft and sustainment infrastructure in the Pacific, and still fail to prevent a global economic shock estimated at roughly $10 trillion, nearly a tenth of global GDP.

According to the report's authors, the AI‑enabled model drew exclusively on open‑source government, academic, industry and commercial information. An unredacted version of the report was provided to authorized U.S. government recipients for internal use.

Unlike traditional tabletop war games, TIDALWAVE employs an AI‑enabled model that runs thousands of iterations, tracking how losses in platforms, munitions, and fuel compound over time and drive cascading operational failure early in the conflict.

According to a Heritage spokesperson, the report had been shown to "high-level national security officials" who requested some of the specifics be crossed out in black ink before its release to the public. The report still details how quickly U.S. forces could reach a breaking point and why the conflict would carry global consequences.

"Redactions were made at the request of the U.S. government to prevent disclosure of information that could reasonably enable an adversary to (1) re mediate or ‘close’ critical vulnerabilities that the United States and its allies could otherwise exploit, or (2) identify or exploit U.S. and allied vulnerabilities in ways that could degrade operational endurance, resilience, or deterrence," the report said. 

A Department of War spokesperson declined to comment on discussions surrounding TIDALWAVE's publication, but added: "The Department of War does not endorse, validate, or adjudicate third-party analyses, nor do we engage publicly on hypothetical conflict modeling. As a general matter, we take seriously the protection of information that, if aggregated or contextualized, could have implications for operational security."

The White House could not be reached for comment. 

According to the report’s redacted findings, the U.S. would culminate in less than half the time required for the People's Republic of China in a high-intensity conflict. Culmination is defined as the point at which a force becomes incapable of continuing operations due to the loss of platforms, ammunition and/or fuel.

The report is explicit that the first 30 days to 60 days of a U.S.-China war determine its long-term shape and outcome, as early losses in aircraft, ships, fuel throughput and munitions rapidly compound and cannot be recovered on operationally relevant timelines.

The report concludes that the U.S. is not equipped nor arrayed to protect and sustain the Joint Force in a conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific. Rapid platform attrition, brittle logistics, concentrated basing and insufficient industrial surge capacity combine to force an early operational breaking point for American forces.

More...

Understanding Daniel’s 70 “Weeks” Prophecy (Part 1)

Understanding Daniel’s 70 “Weeks” Prophecy (Part 1)

TylerR

This is the first of three articles about the great prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. This prophecy is very complicated and very important. One writer called it “the key to prophetic revelation.”1 Many good Christians disagree about how to interpret it. This bible study will not exhaustively defend its interpretation at every point against all comers. Instead, it makes a positive case for its own position and seeks to be straightforward and understandable to ordinary people.

This bible study takes a literal, futurist view2—meaning (a) we should interpret the passage according to the natural, ordinary manner of language in proper context (e.g., poetry is poetry, narrative is narrative, figurative language is figurative, etc.), and (b)its fulfillment lies in the future—not the past.

Prayer answered (Daniel 9:1-23)

This prophecy happens because Daniel prays to God for help. This is a beautiful prayer. Christians should study it. But it isn’t our focus here, so we won’t stay here for long.

The Babylonians conquered the southern kingdom of Judah in 586 B.C., after a lengthy period of national and spiritual decline. The Babylonians took many Jewish people far away to the east (2 Kgs 25:11). Daniel was one of them. But that was a long time ago. He’s now an old man. He’s spent his best years as a civil servant in the Babylonian and Persian bureaucracies, trapped in an exile he doesn’t want. Daniel knows God swore that he would punish Israel for 70 years before he brings his people back to the promised land (Jer 25:11-12; 29:10). These 70 years have just about come and gone.

… I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. So I gave my attention to the Lord God, to seek Him by prayer and pleading, with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes. (Daniel 9:2-3)

The angel Gabriel arrives on the scene with God’s reply: “so pay attention to the message and gain understanding of the vision” (Dan 9:23). This bit is especially important—Gabriel is answering Daniel’s question about when God will bring Israel back to the promised land. Daniel wants to know when God will make good on his “70 years promise.” He begs God: “for Your sake, Lord, let Your face shine on Your desolate sanctuary …” (Dan 9:17).

Well, Gabriel has come with God’s answer. This brings us to the famous prophecy. It summarizes the entire scope of living history—the sum of God’s plan to set everything right that’s wrong in this world.

The sum of the whole thing (Daniel 9:24)

Gabriel says:

Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the wrongdoing, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place (Daniel 9:24).

The most obvious question is about these seventy “weeks.” What does this mean?

More...

Greenland Warns Of Possible Invasion As Trump Revives Takeover Threats

Greenland Warns Of Possible Invasion As Trump Revives Takeover Threats

Stefan J. Bos

Greenland’s prime minister has warned residents and authorities to prepare for possible disruptions and security risks as U.S. President Donald J. Trump continues to threaten to takeover the Arctic island, despite mounting concern within the United States Congress.

“It’s not likely there will be a military conflict, but it can’t be ruled out,” Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said at a press conference Tuesday in the capital, Nuuk.

Nielsen said Greenland’s government will establish a task force made up of representatives from all relevant local authorities to help people prepare for potential disruptions to daily life.

As part of those preparations, the government is distributing new public guidelines, including a recommendation that households keep enough food and essential supplies to last at least five days.

Trump has repeatedly claimed the United States needs to own Greenland for security reasons and earlier Tuesday posted an artificial intelligence-generated image on social media showing himself planting a U.S. flag on the island.

Greenland, home to about 57,000 people, is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, but enjoys broad autonomy, governing most domestic affairs while Copenhagen retains control over defense and foreign policy.

Denmark has in recent days deployed additional troops to Greenland to strengthen military readiness, Danish officials said, amid heightened tensions sparked by Trump’s remarks.

Copenhagen has repeatedly stressed that Greenland is not for sale and that any discussion about its future must respect international law and the wishes of the Greenlandic people.

Legal experts note that Trump’s statements face major constitutional hurdles in the United States.

Any formal acquisition of foreign territory by the United States—including Greenland—whether through purchase, annexation, or transfer of sovereignty, requires approval by the U.S. Congress, making unilateral executive action by a president legally impossible.

Analysts also point to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, enacted to limit a president’s authority to initiate or expand military action abroad without congressional consent, reinforcing the Constitution’s system of checks and balances.

The law requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations of imminent conflict and bars those forces from remaining for more than 60 days without explicit congressional authorization.

Under the U.S. Constitution, war powers are divided: Congress alone has the authority to declare war and approve military funding, while the president serves as commander in chief of the armed forces.

Several members of Congress have warned that any unilateral move against Greenland would violate constitutional limits on presidential power, undermine NATO unity, and risk a serious rupture with Denmark, a longtime U.S. ally.

Supporters of Trump’s stance argue that Greenland’s strategic location is vital to U.S. and allied security in the Arctic amid rising Russian and Chinese activity. However, no formal plan has been presented to Congress.

Trump himself continues to insist that U.S. control of Greenland would be necessary for security reasons, though legal experts stress that any such move would still require explicit congressional approval.

Trump Seeks “Decisive” Options on Iran as U.S. Military Buildup Accelerates

Trump Seeks “Decisive” Options on Iran as U.S. Military Buildup Accelerates

Emmitt Barry

• Trump is pressing advisers for “decisive” military options against Iran despite holding off on strikes last week.
• The U.S. is accelerating a military buildup in the Middle East, including the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, F-15E fighter jets, and additional Patriot and THAAD missile defenses
• U.S. officials believe Iran’s crackdown on protesters has killed far more than previously reported, with estimates reaching as high as 18,000 deaths
• Pentagon planners are weighing options ranging from limited strikes on IRGC targets to broader actions that could seek to remove Iran’s leadership.

President Donald Trump is continuing to press senior advisers for what he calls “decisive” military options against Iran, even after pulling back from strikes last week, as Tehran intensifies a violent crackdown on protesters that has killed thousands, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal.

The newspaper reported that the discussions are taking place as the United States rapidly reinforces its military posture in the Middle East, including the deployment of an aircraft carrier strike group, fighter jets, and additional missile-defense systems. U.S. officials told the Journal the buildup could provide Trump with expanded options should he decide to authorize military action.

According to the report, Trump has repeatedly emphasized that any U.S. move must have a “decisive” effect on Iran, prompting Pentagon and White House planners to refine a spectrum of scenarios. These range from limited strikes on facilities linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to more expansive options that could seek to push the Islamic Republic’s leadership from power.

Trump has not ordered strikes, and officials cautioned that his final decision remains uncertain. Still, the Journal noted that the ongoing planning reflects the president’s reluctance to rule out military punishment for Tehran’s actions as Iran’s economy collapses and protests spread.

Death toll estimates from Iran’s unrest continue to rise. While early figures suggested 2,000 to 3,000 fatalities, U.S. officials cited by the Journal believe the number is far higher. Mike Waltz recently referenced assessments indicating Iranian authorities may have killed up to 18,000 people.

When asked this week whether strikes remain possible, Trump pointed to what he described as the regime’s response to U.S. warnings, saying Iran canceled plans to execute hundreds of prisoners. “We’re just going to have to see what happens with Iran,” he said, according to the Journal.

Military experts interviewed by the paper warned that air power alone may not be sufficient to topple a regime. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula told the Journal that while airstrikes can deter some behavior, meaningful regime change would likely require extensive air and ground operations over a prolonged period.

As deliberations continue, U.S. forces have surged assets into the region. F-15E Strike Eagle fighters have landed in Jordan, while the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its strike group — including destroyers, F-35 fighters, and electronic-warfare aircraft — are moving toward the Persian Gulf. Additional Patriot and THAAD missile-defense systems are also expected to deploy, according to U.S. officials cited by the Journal.

National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Marco Rubio has discussed Iran with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, highlighting the importance of regional cooperation in any sustained campaign.

The Journal reported that some administration officials have raised concerns about the political objectives of strikes at this stage, noting the absence of a clear plan for governing Iran should the regime fall. Analyst Ramzy Mardini warned that a leadership “decapitation” could leave a dangerous power vacuum without forces in place to stabilize the country.

More.....