1984, Black Rock, Democracy, Elections, Freedom, Satan Laughing Spreads His Wings, Socialist Globalism, Tyranny, UN 666, War, WEF, World Economic Forum

The War in Ukraine: Australia’s Albanese and New Zealand’s Luxon are both Puppets of the Globalist WEF War Pigs.

10 Comments

How easily The world can be ensnared in War!
Neither Luxon or Albanese have mandates from their people to commit our respective nations to supporting the ongoing war in Ukraine against Russia.
So why do they do it?
Both New Zealand and Australia have The Chinese Dragon lurking about our Waters.

Read: Chinese warships in Tasman Sea inch closer to Australia

New Zealand in particular would be absolutely incapable of defending ourselves should China decide to invade our country (esp since Ardern took away Private citizens AR rifles). Successions of governments have weakened our military ties such as the ANZUS alliance. The only Defense strategy we have left is to belong to Global organizations like the UN in the hope that If we participate in supplying aid to other countries who are invaded by hostile forces… that should the same evil befall us… in theory we should expect assistance in return. Obviously though any support we give must take into consideration not only a clear understanding of the causes of such conficts… and who is primarily in the wrong, but also be looking for swift resolution to bring armed conflict to a end… thus minimising the destruction and the loss of life.

These things being understood we can see there is more than this going on with Luxon and Albanese with regard to the war in Ukraine.
They show no tempering of their support for Ukraine in the light of how things develop… how Zelensky behaves… what his intentions are, etc. What hope of winning this war does Ukraine have? What would it require of the world to intervene to cause Russia to capitulate?
World War 3!
Why would The Puppet masters of the world encourage World war 3?

What we need to understand about both Luxon and Albanese is they are both puppets of the Globalist WEF War Pigs who want to destroy Russia’s independence and resistance to their New World Order.
Albanese and Luxon are fully on board with the Great Reset and the objectives of the WEF.

On the other hand President Trump is not party to those objectives.
He’s simply seeking to bring an end to this horrible and disasterous conflict, yet Zelensky seeks to use his alliance with the US as means to carry on the conflict.
Trump wants nothing to do with ongoing war. He wants a quick and lasting settlement. He made this crystal clear in their Public Meeting in the oval office.
This is in the best interests of the people of Ukraine and the world.
Zelensky was arrogant and rude.
Instead of peace, Zelensky seeks to embroil the whole world in this war with Russia!
That was clear from what he was saying in the Oval office.
He’s a Mad man!
By giving this Lunatic their unwavering support despite his unwillingness to make concessions for the sake of Peace… in a war he has no hope of winning, demonstrates the idiocy of many world leaders who dangle on the strings of Claus Schwab.
We should expect both Luxon’s and Albanese’s ongoing slide to continue unabated in the polls of their respective countries as they parrot the will of the WEF rather than the will of their own nations.
Most people in the world stand aghast at the destruction and carnage of this war and want it to end.
Starmer in Britain is experiencing the same disconnect with Britons.
Likewise with Cañada and Trudeau.
Satan Laughing spreads his wings.
All these Prime ministers are under the sway of Schwab and the WEF.

Because of his contemptuous behavior and stubborn refusal to make accommodations for the sake of peace, Trump literally threw Zelensky out of the Oval office and told him to go home… but that he is welcome to return when he’s ready for peace.
Watch video below (The heat turns on about 40 minutes in)


For commentary on this exchange go here.


^Twitter seems to have censored the horrifying video attached to Liz’s post so it cant be shared off twitter… go here to watch it. Ukrainian Men being beaten and kidnapped by Zelensky’s Military to become Cannon Fodder at the Front! Grist for the Mill of War!
Zelensky has cancelled elections. Jailed critics. and is a Dictator… Yet Luxon pretends otherwise.
The more the world witness such truths going on under the Zelensky regime… the less support there is *from the people of the world* for continuing the conflict.
Our leaders however don’t seem to care about what Zelensky does.

Puppets of the WEF like Albanese and Luxon not only have Trump derangement syndrome.
They actuall act and pretend Ukraine can win the war!
Neither acknowledge the true causes of the war (Nato provocation) or what the Globalist End game is for the entire planet.
The only people who profit from an extended conflict are the Globalist warpigs who want to humble Russia… and instigate an end to Putin’s rule… because he represents a major obstacle in the attainment of their primary goal of Global Domination.

Biden was a WEF Puppet. The war began under his watch and continued unabated. Biden and the Dems were enthusiastic supporters of the conflict. They even bombed the Nord Stream Gas Pipeline, and it’s not hard to imagine that of Kamala Harris had won the election that the world would be edging ever closer to full blown war with Russia.
Thank God for Donald Trump!
Trump is not a puppet of the WEF War Pigs!
Trump’s first term in office, he was the only US President in the past 80 years not to have started any new wars!
God bless Donald Trump!
Trump understands the Globalist threat to the Freedom and independence of Nations.
Trump also understands what motivated Putin to strike in Ukraine… the encirclement of Russia by Nato.
Trump respects Putin’s determination to Retain Russia’s own Sovereign independence from the Globalist take over.
Trump seeks to establish and maintain peace in the world via good relations with other strong independent countries like Russian to mutual benefit.

We need to understand the big picture and why having a strong independent Russia, and a strong independent US is essential for Freedom and democracy in the world.
Putin is no saint, Democracy in Russia is no better than in the ‘Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea’ yet for all his evils he is at least defending Russia from the Tentacles of the Globalist leviathan. While the whole of Europe is now over-run with Aliens from Africa and the East Russia is still strong and comparatively safe from the Violence, Rapes, and murders the hordes of illegal aliens are now visiting upon their foolish host nations all thanks to the WEF Globalist agenda.
Having powerful independent nations like the US and Russia refusing to surrender their autonomy to a globalist scheme means The Globalist plan for their one world order *is dead in the water*

The Globalists wanted this war with Russia in the hope that it would end Putin’s control and that they could install a Russian Leader who would sell out that Nation to the Globalist agenda. It is the same reason the Globalists tried every trick in the book to prevent Trump Regaining Office… including trying to have him whacked.
Trump represents a Strong Independent United States that will not fall into lockstep with The WEF Agendas.
We need more World leaders like these Patriots of their own Nations… defending their Independence, Sovereignty, and Self-determination.
The formula for Global co-existence under that model is peace and trade, and mutual good will that does not require surrendering their Sovereignty or Democratic foundations… whereby the peoples of every nation choose the laws and terms of their own societies… not some all powerful unaccountable international committee of Bankers, technocrats, and Political shysters.

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian.

10 thoughts on “The War in Ukraine: Australia’s Albanese and New Zealand’s Luxon are both Puppets of the Globalist WEF War Pigs.”

  1. Reply

  2. The Budapest Memorandum: The Fake Narrative Supporting a Long War in Ukraine

    https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/1895956609685434621

    Narratives have been constructed to support a long war in Ukraine. For example, the narrative of an “unprovoked invasion” was important to criminalise diplomacy as the premise suggests negotiations would reward Russian military adventurism and embolden further Russian aggression. Meanwhile, NATO escalating the war creates costs that outweigh the benefits to Russia.
    Russia’s violation of the Budapest Memorandum is a key narrative that supports a long war. It is constantly referenced as a reason why Russia cannot be trusted to abide by a peace agreement, and why the war must keep going. The argument is that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees for its territorial integrity. Russia’s breach of this agreement suggests it cannot be trusted and that the only reliable security guarantees must come from NATO membership. Furthermore, the West must continue to send weapons to Ukraine to honour the security guarantees of the Budapest Memorandum.
    In February 2022, a few days before the Russian invasion, Zelensky referred to the Budapest Memorandum: “Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world’s third nuclear capability. We don’t have that weapon. We also have no security.” The Budapest Memorandum was again used by Zelensky in October 2024 to support the argument that Ukraine must either have NATO or nukes: “Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, and then it will be a defence for us, or Ukraine will be in NATO”.
    This article presents facts and arguments that challenge the false narrative of the Budapest Memorandum, which aims to delegitimise diplomacy. Criticising the narrative of the Budapest Memorandum does not entail “legitimising” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which is a common tactic to smear and censor criticism against the narratives supporting a long war.
    No Security Guarantees and No Ukrainian Nuclear Weapons
    In December 1994, the US, UK, and Russia met in the Hungarian capital and offered security commitments in three separate agreements with Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. These three countries agreed to relinquish the nuclear weapons that had been left on their territory after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in return, the US, UK and Russia offered commitments to not undermine their security.
    The Budapest Memorandum does not offer any security “guarantees”, rather it provides “assurances”. Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer, who was part of the US negotiation team in 1994, argues the US was explicit that “guarantees” should not be confused with “assurances”. Pifer also confirms this was understood by both the Ukrainians and the Russians:
    “American officials decided the assurances would have to be packaged in a document that was not legally-binding. Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations wanted a legal treaty that would have to be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. State Department lawyers thus took careful interest in the actual language, in order to keep the commitments of a political nature. U.S. officials also continually used the term “assurances” instead of “guarantees,” as the latter implied a deeper, even legally-binding commitment of the kind that the United States extended to its NATO allies”.[1]
    Ukraine also did not have any nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons in question were former Soviet nuclear weapons that were stationed in Ukraine, but under the control of Moscow. Kiev did not and could not operate or maintain these weapons, which is usually left out of the narrative. Furthermore, in the Minsk agreement of 1991, Ukraine had already committed itself to the “destruction of nuclear weapons” on its territory.[2]
    The Not-So-Sacred Memorandum
    The Budapest Memorandum outlined key principles such as “to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind”, and to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. In a display of cherry-picking, NATO countries constantly ignore the first commitment but constantly refer to the second commitment.
    The US claims its use of economic coercion and violation of Ukrainian sovereignty was in support of democracy and human rights as opposed to advancing its own interests. Thus, the US freed itself from its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum. Under the so-called rules-based international order, the US and its allies claim the prerogative to exempt themselves from international law, norms and agreements under the guise of supporting humanitarian law and liberal democratic norms.[3]
    When the US imposed sanctions on Belarus in 2013, Washington explicitly stated that the Budapest Memorandum was not legally binding and that US actions were exempted as the US was allegedly promoting human rights:
    “Although the Memorandum is not legally binding, we take these political commitments seriously and do not believe any U.S. sanctions, whether imposed because of human rights or non-proliferation concerns, are inconsistent with our commitments to Belarus under the Memorandum or undermine them. Rather, sanctions are aimed at securing the human rights of Belarusians and combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other illicit activities, not at gaining any advantage for the United States”.[4]
    The Western-backed coup in 2014 had been an even more blatant violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The West interfered in the domestic affairs of Ukraine, imposed economic sanctions, and finally toppled the Ukrainian president to pull the country into NATO’s orbit. The commitments under the Budapest Memorandum were cast aside as the West claimed to support a “democratic revolution”, despite being an unconstitutional coup that did not even enjoy majority support from the Ukrainians and only a small minority of Ukrainians supported NATO membership.
    International law imposes rules and mutual constraints that limit foreign policy flexibility, but in return deliver reciprocity and thus predictability. Once the West freed itself from mutual constraints in the Budapest Memorandum, Russia also abandoned it. US Ambassador Jack Matlock who participated in negotiating an end to the Cold War, questions the validity of the Budapest Memorandum after the coup in 2014. According to Matlock, the principle in international law of rebus sic stantibus means that agreements should be upheld “provided things remain the same”. Matlock argues that Russia “strictly observed its obligations in the Budapest Memorandum for 13 years” even as NATO expanded towards its borders, although the coup of 2014 created “a radically different international situation”. Matlock thus concludes that Russia was “entitled to ignore the earlier agreement”.[5]
    Learning the right lessons
    An honest assessment of why the Budapest Memorandum collapsed is important to assess how new agreements can be improved. NATO’s demand for hegemony in Europe and rejection of a common European security architecture inevitably led to the collapse of common agreements as the West would no longer accept the principle of mutual constraints and obligations. Liberal hegemony entailed that the West could exempt itself from international law and agreements, while Russia would still abide by them. The narrative of Ukrainian nuclear weapons, security guarantees, and ignoring the US and UK violation of the Budapest Memorandum serves the purpose of sowing distrust in any future security agreements with Russia. A mutually beneficial peace is possible if we first return to the truth.
    [1] S. Pifer, 2011. The Trilater Proce The United States, Ukraine, Russia and Nuclear Weapons, Foreign Policy at Brookings, Arms Control Series, Paper 6, May 2011, p.17. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/05_trilateral_process_pifer.pdf
    [2] Agreement on Strategic Forces Concluded between the 11 members of the Commonwealth of Independent States on December 30, 1991. https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/START/documents/strategicforces91.htm
    [3] G. Diesen, ‘The Case for Dismantling the Rules-Based International Order, Substack, 23 December 2024.
    [4] US Embassy in Belarus, ‘Belarus: Budapest Memorandum’, U.S. Embassy in Minsk, 12 April 2013.
    [5] J. Matlock, ‘Ambassador Jack Matlock on Ukraine, Russia, and the West’s Mistakes’, Nuova Rivista Storica

    Reply

  5. Mike’s Minute: Donald Trump has common sense on his side

    https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/mike-hosking-breakfast/audio/mikes-minute-donald-trump-has-common-sense-on-his-side/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=twitter

    You can argue until you are blue in the face as to whether what happened at the White House on Saturday was bullying, or unfair, but what the U.S President has on his side is common sense and military power.

    As Zelenskyy slunk off to Downing Street for a hug with Keir Starmer and today’s meeting with King Charles, what few in Europe seem to understand is that saying you back Ukraine doesn’t win a war, or come close to it.

    Without America, this thing is over, and fast. Mark Rutte gets that, hence his plea to Zelenskyy to repair the damage.

    Norway promised more resource, or at least said they would ask their Parliament.

    The UK announced another 2.5 billion pound loan. But for what?

    This thing is three years old and is going nowhere, at best with America fully on board it is a stalemate.

    It is, as so many have put it now, a meat grinder and Russia has more meat to grind.

    What was on display in Washington was a simple reality of the Trump administration – they are not interested in war, they are interested in deals.

    A mineral agreement sees the Americans on the ground in Ukraine. No one is rolling over American interests militarily in Ukraine.

    Trump is also right in saying a ceasefire is pretty much instant and it’s at that point you start working on the “what next“.

    All the photo opportunities and love-ins that Zelenskyy appears to revel in doesn’t get you an inch of your country back and it doesn’t give you any advantage over the Russians.

    NATO are incapable of beating Russia without American buy-in.

    That buy-in is over.

    Trump keeps it simple – Zelensky has no cards and, to a lesser degree, Europe only has limited cards.

    It is why America is America. Without them we are done.

    Where I think Trump is most right is he appears the only one interested in actually getting this thing sorted. The Europeans talk about peace, but peace as a result of victory.

    There will be no victory. Three years of the war shows us this.

    The only victory is Russia’s if America bails.

    Mike Hoskings
    News Talk ZB

    Reply

  8. Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *