NATO's Dangerous Game!!!

Hello everyone and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, and my name is David Oualaalou. Why do you think NATO, the US, and EU want a war with Russia? In today's video, I am going to provide you a brief analysis as to why both in Brussels and Washington they converge over the same narrative, which is the escalation of war. But before I proceed, please don't forget to subscribe and hit the like and notification buttons so you will be notified every time I upload a new video. Now let me get into my analysis here because there's a lot to cover. Of course, I'm gonna keep it brief and concise and to the point I don't want to bore you with so much here because there's so much to cover on this. But here's the thing. Do you recall when President Biden on March 2022 reassured us, the American people and the world for that matter, that the United States and its NATO allies were not at war with Russia? And Biden said, and I remember this and I found the quote, He said, and I quote here, let me get it quickly here to make sure I get the right one here. And I quote, "We will not fight a war with Russia in Ukraine." End of quote. But because here's the thing, direct conflict between NATO and Russia in my assessment is basically World War III and something we must, all of us, prevent at any cost. A peaceful world will be to the benefit of everybody. It is widely acknowledged that the US and NATO officers are now fully involved in Ukraine operational war planning, aided by a broad, uh, by broad range of US intelligence gathering and analysis. And why is this? The purpose of it is to exploit Russia's military vulnerabilities, while at the same time Ukraine forces are armed with US and NATO weapons. I am sure you've been hearing how many weapons been sent to Ukraine, and those forces also are trained up to the standard of other NATO countries. Now, this last assessment, it's an exaggerated assessment in my opinion. There is no way they can be trained, they, Ukrainian soldiers, to the standard of NATO in about 5 months. No way. It takes years to develop that. That's like an intelligence officer, you know, Are you going to train somebody to become an intelligence officer overnight, over a month, 2, 3? No. So what NATO's saying, it's just a hype, no more, no less. And yet that is what the intensifying Western role in Ukraine now explicitly aimed to achieve, pushing for the narrative of the war. Of course, this leaves the US and NATO policies. Which said that they don't want to engage Russia directly, then what are you doing behind the scenes? Because that's a problem for all of us. Our existence hangs on a thin or by a thin thread, basically. Because if we are to think that Russians are bluffing, we're mistaken. And the hope that Russia is bluffing despite explicit warning that he is not. You got CIA Director William Burns, you get DNI Director, the Defense Intelligence— the Director of National Intelligence, uh, Avril Haines, and you have the Director of the DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Scott Berrier. All of them have warned that we should not take this danger lightly. In other words, you should not assume that Russian president is bluffing. It's because in the doctrine of the Russian military use of the nuclear weapons, and I disclosed this in my book and I detailed it and researched it and it was approved by the United States government that I could disclose information. The Russian doctrine regarding the nuclear use is that if they feel threatened, they will deploy their nuclear, use their nuclear weapons. That's why you're hearing the Russian president Vladimir Putin mentioning the word nuclear. I don't think so he's bluffing. So here is my own assessment. How I see things moving forward based also on what I wrote in, in this book here, because I, when I wrote it back then, which was only about 2 years ago or so, I kind of put in mind what could lies ahead down the road. And this is exactly what I find myself talking about today to you. So, so the danger, the danger of relentless escalation Towards, and we'll use the term Armageddon, is what both sides faced, Russian and US NATO. But also is what both sides have faced before during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. And which is why after the wake-up call of the Cuban Missile Crisis, If you remember history, in 1962, he has a sort of a dangerous brinksmanship, gave away to a framework of nuclear arms control agreement. And the purpose for it was safeguard mechanisms to be put in place to prevent proxy wars and military alliances spiraling into a world-ending nuclear war, which is exactly where we are finding ourselves and why NATO and the US are pushing this narrative of the war against Russia. I am reminded, and again, I'm a student of history, I am reminded of what the former Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, made the mistake of sending troops into the rebellion province of South Ossetia. I don't know if you remember this incident or not. It's public knowledge and so forth. So Russia defended South Ossetia by deploying troops, and within 5 days, yeah, let that sink in, within 5 days, Russia defeated the Georgian army. So why I highlight this? I highlight this incident because Saakashvili's statements that came after that was this, and I quote, because I disclosed it in my book, the quote is this, "Russia's most likely target in the near future is either Sweden or Finland," end of quote, which to me raises serious concern about Mikhail Saakashvili's judgment. I disagreed back then, I still disagree today. With Saakashvili because Russia will not want to risk inviting NATO troops to its northern borders. So targeting Sweden or Finland at this time make no geopolitical sense from Russia's perspective. And basically, the Saakashvili statement back then an argument, in my opinion, reflects his A, resentment, B, anger, and 3, bruised ego, as he had to swallow a fast defeat he did not expect. This is exactly what he said, what he said. And the bottom line to it is he miscalculated thinking the West was going to come to his rescue as soon as the first shot was fired. His analysis was flawed because it lacked a deep understanding. This analysis, his analysis rather, lacked a deep understanding of Russia's strategic thinking. I did not back then, and I still do not, rule out the idea that Russia will react militarily to Finland and Sweden if either allow, and underline this one, allow the deployment of the US offensive or defensive missile systems on its territory. So why am I saying all this? It's because it's the same mistake Zelensky is making now. Because he was thinking that just because he's going to mention NATO, they're going to welcome him with open arms. He was mistaken. NATO gave him lip service. It's almost like saying to him, "What, are you out of your mind? You want us to risk a nuclear war so we can admit you into the club?" It is pivotal. Very, very, very, very, very pivotal. For us to understand in this discussion that I'm having with you how Russia perceives the US support for Ukraine, because you can put it within the context of why you're hearing a lot the narrative about pushing the war forward. Moscow interpreted the intervention of the United States in Ukraine even back then in 2014 and even today, as a prelude to Ukraine's eventual accession to NATO. That's how Russia thought about it back then. And this outcome prompted Vladimir Putin to sort of go ahead with annexation of Crimea. Why? By drawing a line in the sand similar, and get this guys, similar to the war that divided Berlin at the height of the Cold War. And many historians, including geopolitical analysts as well, and academia, believe that the US-Russia struggle over Ukraine, which Russia won, by the way, has become the first round of a new great power clash. The first since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. So this is why you have to put this within the context. Here's my conclusion for you, and I know this is a lot to cover. I'm gonna keep this brief, to the point for you guys, and of course I can always do more on this video if you like this, just let me know. No, here's my conclusion. Let's start by the by stating the obvious. And you know what the obvious is? Is that the Cold War never ended. The West needs to reconsider its claim that it won the Cold War because evidence is to the contrary. The annexation of Crimea proved that the Cold War is back and the West should not pretend Otherwise, as geopolitical analyst, I strongly believe that Russia's annexation of Crimea represents the new Iron Curtain, and I put this in quote. This time around, that line is drawn in Eastern Europe rather than at its center. And by the way, from a military perspective, as a former military myself, this line is where the political discourse and conversation with the West ends and a military confrontation begins. And this is why I see the danger of why the West and NATO, or US and NATO for that matter, because NATO is the US, let's just say that straightforward, pushing this narrative of war. Do really we want a war, a nuclear war with Russia? You know, you're hearing now former NATO commanders like Sir Richard from England saying, "No, we can defeat the Russians." You're hearing Borrell, the chief security of the EU saying, "No, we will defeat the Russians." Are these individuals delusional? Do they have an idea of the type of nuclear weapons Russia has? And I'm not saying we should be scared. That is not what I'm saying. We ought to be pragmatic in assessing. They're putting us at risk. They're putting us in danger. And that's why I wanted to share this video with you here. So here is my question for today: will nuclear war break out between Russia and the United States? Let me repeat this: will nuclear war break out between Russia and the United States? Let me know what you think and leave me some comments. And as always, remember Geopolitics impacts your daily life more ways than one. Till next time, guys. Bye-bye.