April 19, 2024 / Joseph P. Farrell

You may have noticed I've been following the messaging coming out of Russia for some time, and today's article submitted by so many of you is no exception. Except, today, I'm going to dive off the end of the twig of speculation and tie something else into it as a speculation.

Firstly, Russia is now being crystal clear as to whom its regards as being under suspicion for involvement in the Crocus terrorist attacks in Moscow:

Russia launches terrorism probe into US and NATO officials

There are a number of things to note about this article, not the least is the specific and explicit mention of who is under investigation in Russia for involvement in the Crocus terrorist attack:

Investigators are currently looking at the potential involvement of “specific individuals from among government officials, people with civic and commercial organizations of Western countries,” said committee spokeswoman Svetlana Petrenko.

It has already been established that funding for terrorist attacks inside Russia has been funneled through Ukrainian companies, including the notorious Burisma Holdings – former employers of US President Joe Biden’s son Hunter – Petrenko added.

The Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia has also said it would follow the evidence leading to “persons and structures located in the US, Germany, France and Cyprus.”

In addition to last month’s Crocus City Hall attack, the investigation is looking at other terrorist acts, including the assassinations of prominent public figures and the bombing of the Nord Stream gas pipelines in international waters.

What is of interest to me today is not the explicit mention of Burisma nor its connections to the Bai Den Dzhao mafiosi in the USSA.

Rather, I am more concerned about that cryptic statement that the subjects of investigations are "persons and structures located in the US, Germany, France, and Cyprus."

Persons and structures covers a lot of ground. For example: in addition to NATO (a structure), one could have various governments and their agencies (The USA, Germany, France, Cyprus!?!? and presumably all their financial and intelligence agencies), but also "structures" like corporations and private security and intelligence services, or even "structures' like the World Health Organization (are they involved in the Ukrainian biolabs?), and the World Economic Forum.

In other words, Russia is painting with a very broad brush. That contains some implications that we'll come back to.

But there's another message contained in this article, and that message is in the form of the picture which heads it:

Russia launches terrorism probe into US and NATO officials

If one scrutinizes this picture closely, there is an image displayed on the shield that any Russian Orthodox (or for that matter, Greek or Serbian or Arab or Romanian or Bulgarian Orthodox, and many many Roman Catholics) will recognize, and that is the horse-riding figure of St. George wielding a spear and slaying the dragon, or serpent. This on a shield which is boldly emblazoned on the old Romanov double-headed imperial eagle. The choice of such a backdrop to accompany the text of the article is nothing less than deliberate, and a very clear warning that, as Mr. Medvedev recently put it, the old immunities will not protect the perpetrators nor their financiers and organizers. The dragon - which in this case I suspect is meant to represent Mr Globalooney and all his miserific institutions and agendas - will be slain.

The key to my interpretation here is terrorism, and its deliberate mention by these figures in the Russian government, not only prior to the Crocus attacks, but with increasing frequency since then. The use of that term in connection with Russian warnings - like the iconic picture - is also deliberate, and here's why: recall that in the wake of the 9/11 attacks the USA and its allies (but principally the USA), claimed the right to try, convict, surveille and even to execute foreign leaders if they were involved in acts of terrorism. Simply recall the alleged capture and execution of Osama Bin Laden, or the many drone attacks on various individuals accused of terrorism, or (equally important and probably more so for our purposes of analysis here) involved in planning or supporting terrorist acts. To put a finer and simpler point on it, Russia is claiming the same right and precedent the USA claims and utilized in its "war on terror," and Russia is saying that the West, by being involved in the planning, financing, support, and execution of such acts, is itself subject to its own "rules based order" and that Russia will therefore respond similarly respond, whether that response comes in the form of drones, Spetznaz teams or other elite military teams sent in to kidnap or literally execute a suspect, and so on.

In short, Russia is announcing that it intends to play by America's rules.

With that high octane speculative interpretation of the article in mind, consider, briefly, the following story submitted by K.M., which some say is a rumor. But let's assume just for the sake of argument for a moment that it's true:

The Patriot Voice @TPV_John Did you hear the heartbreaking news??? Allegedly, Dear Leader Herr Klaus Schwab has been admitted to the Hospital last night in critical condition, and is seriously ill. https://twitter.com/TPV_John/status/1779558942135160878

If one assumes this is true, then I for one hope der Hochklaus Freiherr von Blohschwab und Bloviation does, indeed, have a change of heart from the path he has been on, and changes course. But let's be realistic too: such massive and sincere repentances, while they do occur, are for that very reason rare. I can hope, because every individual that "changes sides" is important, but in the case of someone like this, would be a serious blow to the other side. I retain the hope, therefore, but I also retain reality, and therefore, skepticism.

But hope or skepticism aside, in the context of all that is going on in the world, and especially in the context of the statements in this article and the timing of both the article and the tweet on "X", I have to wonder if such events, when reported, might represent something else perhaps, and that "sudden hospitalizations" and the "subsequent denials" might have hidden aspects, and if, in fact, we might be looking at a very public example of "horizontal escalation" with correspondent attempts at narrative control. Time will tell, of course.