24/ THE CURRENT GLOBAL SITUATION: A CRITICAL MOMENT

11/03/2022 17:00

Unfortunately, events in the world continue to escalate in a spiral of tension between competing governance groups. My optimism from last year's predictions does not align with current global events. Thus, I am compelled to assert that we are facing the worst societal crisis in human history. Why?

MILITARY CONFLICT

The human elite has ultimately been forced into direct governance—a final form of power application—through direct confrontation near their own borders, attempting to maneuver out of an unfavorable position. Every governance maneuver executed through direct control is highly prone to failure because hot conflicts trigger numerous dynamic processes and variables that cannot be reliably managed. Essentially, this creates chaos, followed by an attempt to control that chaos.

The situation is further complicated by the unpredictable governance scale among numerous nation-states, with decisions impacting the entire world.

WHAT LED TO THIS INTENSE CONFLICT?

First and foremost, we must understand that the current conflict (ongoing war) between the main governance elites has deep historical roots. Until recently, I assumed the conflict began about 400 years ago during the onset of globalization. However, a recent statement by Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, suggests that Russians perceive this conflict as spanning over 800 years:

*"The European Union will lead a total economic and financial war against Russia," said the French Minister of Finance.

We’ve figured it out—long before the EU existed. 800 years ago.*" — M. Zakharova
(Source: Maria Zakharova's Facebook, status from 1.3.22)

Thus, all previous conflicts (e.g., Turks, Napoleon, World War I, World War II) must be understood as parts of a single, long-term struggle between different governance elites—between the human and corporate elites (collectivists and individualists, human and animal psyches, good and evil—simplified).

We must not attempt to understand these conflicts in isolation; they are all phases of one overarching battle. The war is continuous, with sharp conflicts punctuated by historical (arbitration) pauses filled with governance maneuvers to avoid mutual annihilation.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE UKRAINIAN CONFLICT

The Ukrainian conflict was initiated by European politicians between 2013 and 2014 when former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union. Translated into simple terms, he rejected stripping Ukraine of its neutral status and initiating the process of EU integration.

Within 24 hours, Yanukovych faced "peaceful" protesters in the streets, brought in by NGOs from across Europe to Kyiv's main square. Thus began the EuroMaidan.

Foreign politicians not only passively participated but actively contributed, delivering speeches from constructed stages and distributing bread to protesters like candy. This, of course, was "not" foreign interference in the sovereign decisions of an independent country.

ESCALATION OF THE UKRAINIAN CONFLICT

The demonstrations quickly escalated into bloodshed. Yanukovych, with his indecisive approach toward aggressive protesters, was forced to flee Ukraine. Surprisingly, Russian intelligence services and special forces assisted him, despite his failure in governance. Yanukovych remains in the Russian Federation to this day.

The situation in Ukraine was already highly complex before the demonstrations, making it challenging to evaluate Yanukovych’s decisions from afar. After his departure, brutal purges began. Anyone who opposed the declaration of new elections or viewed the Maidan as a coup was beaten, harassed, imprisoned, or outright executed. This applied to politicians, prosecutors, and judges alike.

There are videos online showing judges being assaulted in their offices and thrown into trash bins. Within days, a new government was appointed, and one of its first acts was to ban the use of the Russian language across Ukraine. This decision caused significant unrest in southern and eastern Ukraine, regions predominantly populated by ethnic Russians (85% in some areas).

VIOLENCE IN ODESA

Attempts to organize anti-Maidan demonstrations in Kyiv were thwarted when nationalist groups intercepted and shot up a bus full of protesters en route to the capital.

In the port city of Odesa, demonstrators were driven into the Trade Unions House by armed nationalists, surrounded, and the building set ablaze. Over 90 people perished—some burned, others jumped from windows to their deaths, and those who survived the fall were shot on the streets.

According to official investigations, 48 people burned, and another 48 remain missing. No one has been held accountable for these atrocities.
(Source: Odesa May 2, 2014: A Memorial to Fascism)

MILITARY ESCALATION IN THE EAST

In response to these events, Ukraine’s new government deployed the military to the southern and eastern regions. The greatest resistance arose in Luhansk and Donetsk, where local militias began to form. Igor Strelkov, a military commander, became a central figure, successfully holding off the Ukrainian army near Sloviansk for several weeks.

This bought time for Donetsk and Luhansk to recruit more defenders and establish defensive lines. Eventually, Strelkov withdrew to Donetsk and was later evacuated to Russia.

The Ukrainian government launched an offensive against its own citizens simply because they spoke a different language than what the post-coup regime in Kyiv desired.

HUMANITARIAN IMPACT

The conflict caused massive civilian casualties, with estimates of up to 20,000 civilian deaths, including women, children, and the elderly. The lack of military equipment on the defenders' side meant the front lines stretched close to major cities like Donetsk and Luhansk.

The Ukrainian army was permitted to fire on any target, employing heavy artillery and rocket systems (caliber over 122mm) on residential areas—a practice considered a war crime under international law. These attacks aimed to demoralize and break the defenders' will.

ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA

Meanwhile, the repression by Ukraine's new government was closely watched not only by Ukrainians but also by Russians beyond Ukraine's borders. For the first time, Russia drew a "red line" near its territory, organizing the annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation.

Crimea, home to a Russian naval base crucial for operations in the Black Sea, was of strategic importance. Losing the base would have meant losing Russian influence in the region.

Russian forces swiftly secured all military installations in Crimea without firing a single shot. Soldiers who refused to surrender were transported to Ukraine, and a referendum followed, with over 90% of Crimean citizens voting to join Russia.

THE 2014 OFFENSIVE AND MINIMAL INTERVENTION

In April 2014, Ukraine launched a large-scale offensive aimed at reclaiming the disputed Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The main attack advanced from Mariupol in the south and Debaltseve in the north, intending to cut off Donbas and Luhansk from the Russian border and drive a wedge between the two regions.

Initially, Ukrainian forces gained substantial territory on both fronts. Although Russia never officially intervened, it provided support in the form of "vacationers"—volunteers from Russian armed forces.

In the eleventh hour, Russian artillery from across the border and reinforcements from volunteers halted Ukraine’s advance, completely neutralizing the southern Ukrainian offensive.

THE MALAYSIAN AIRLINES FLIGHT MH17 TRAGEDY

In July 2014, Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over Donetsk, killing all 298 passengers on board. Investigations into the incident are ongoing, with accusations and denials from all sides.

The plane crash site lay directly in the area where the two Ukrainian offensive fronts were supposed to converge. Hostilities in the area paused temporarily to allow UN observers access to the crash site. However, Ukrainian artillery shelled the area, delaying the recovery of wreckage and destroying critical evidence.

THE DEBALTSEVE ENCIRCLEMENT

After the summer of 2014, Donbas militias managed to encircle and destroy a significant portion of Ukrainian forces in what became known as the Debaltseve Cauldron. Ukraine’s main army was decimated, forcing them to sign the Minsk Agreements.

These agreements granted Donbas and Luhansk special status and allowed them a role in Ukraine’s decision-making processes. However, the fragile peace was short-lived. Ukraine resumed shelling residential areas, and sabotage operations targeted prominent militia leaders, including Zakharchenko and Motorola, who were assassinated on their home turf.

THE SECOND MINSK AGREEMENTS

In early 2015, under international pressure, Ukraine signed a second set of Minsk Agreements, this time with guarantees from France, Germany, and Russia, alongside representatives from Donbas. Ukraine pledged to implement the agreements without delay.

However, these promises were never fulfilled. Instead, Ukraine rebuilt its military with foreign instructors and weapons, while one-sided propaganda dominated the information space. Sporadic but systematic shelling of residential areas in Donbas resumed by late 2021.

ESCALATION IN 2022

By early 2022, Ukraine boasted a 100,000-strong army equipped with the latest Western technology. Negotiations with Donbas were entirely rejected, and the Minsk Agreements stalled. Even Western guarantors offered no guarantees.

In February 2022, the crisis reached its peak with rapid developments:

Ukrainian forces intensified their attacks on Donbas.
Mass evacuations of civilians to Russia began.
Russia formally recognized the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics.

THE RUSSIAN MILITARY OPERATION

On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a military operation in Ukraine to preempt further escalation and avoid uncontrollable global tension.

THE RUSSIAN MILITARY OPERATION

The Russian intervention on February 24, 2022, came "at the eleventh hour," aimed at preventing an uncontrollable escalation of global tensions. Over time, this operation revealed numerous global and internal challenges for the Russian Federation.

The first two days were marked by significant losses on both sides. Russian forces encountered resistance from local populations indoctrinated by decades of anti-Russian propaganda. Unlike the Crimean operation, where peaceful dialogue was established quickly, this effort faced a different reality, costing many lives.

NATIONALIST RESISTANCE

Ukrainian nationalist and paramilitary groups had strategically positioned themselves across Russian-speaking regions. These units used civilians as human shields, holding populations hostage and preventing them from leaving cities via humanitarian corridors. Such tactics severely slowed the Russian advance.

LOGISTICAL AND STRATEGIC ISSUES

The conflict also exposed betrayal within Russian ranks. There were documented cases of Russian commanders deliberately choosing longer, unsecured supply routes through hostile areas, leading to losses in equipment and personnel. Such sabotage echoes historical examples of treachery, even during World War II.

The scale and style of the operation also raised questions. Russia invaded Ukraine with approximately 35,000 troops, despite having around 200,000 soldiers amassed at the border. This seemingly inadequate force allocation suggested that Russia's primary focus was not Ukraine but the potential reaction from NATO countries.

Reserves were kept ready to respond to any NATO intervention. The military's "intelligence" resources were concentrated on monitoring NATO's actions along Ukraine's western border, diverting attention from logistical needs within Ukraine.

GLOBAL DIMENSIONS

This conflict is not confined to Ukraine. Simultaneous tensions exist in Syria, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Libya, Mali, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and other regions. The competing global elites' resources are stretched thin, contributing to the critical instability we see worldwide.

THE SYMBOLISM OF "Z"

Much speculation surrounds the use of the letter "Z" on Russian military equipment. While official explanations suggest regional deployment markers, I see another logic.

In 2018, I named my initiative "Project: Z," reflecting my belief that humanity is in the final phase of its development. The letter "Z," the last in the alphabet, symbolizes the end of an era—the awakening of humanity and the shedding of the ego's chains.

Similarly, I interpret the use of "Z" in this conflict as Russia signaling the final global struggle between humanity's governance elites. This is the conclusion of a centuries-long war, where the victor gains everything, and the loser loses it all.

HUMANITY'S OUTLOOK

Today's situation is extraordinarily critical, underscored by President Putin’s decision on the second day of the operation to place 95% of Russia’s nuclear arsenal on high alert. Putin has publicly stated that a world without Russia is a world that loses its purpose.

FUTURE SCENARIOS FOR HUMANITY

Despite the ongoing conflict and the looming threat of self-destruction, I believe the chance for a positive resolution outweighs the risk of humanity’s total annihilation. While this article focuses on the critical challenges we face, I will hint at a positive outcome: a "golden age" could emerge through the creation of a Eurasian economic space, integrating Europe into Asia and fostering global cooperation. Until then, we face difficult times filled with challenges.

NEGATIVE SCENARIOS FOR OUR FUTURE

If we fail to steer events positively, several adverse scenarios could unfold:

NATO Directly Enters the Conflict
NATO is already indirectly involved by supplying weapons and sending mercenaries to Ukraine. However, a critical escalation would occur if NATO opened a northern front by attacking Russia directly from the Baltic states, Finland, or Sweden.

Such an action could lead to total war, with a high likelihood of nuclear weapons being used. The risk of pressing the self-destruction button would rise, potentially leading to the end of life on Earth.
NATO Avoids Direct Involvement
Current indications suggest NATO is attempting to replicate the Afghanistan strategy—draining Russia’s resources in a prolonged conflict to destabilize it politically.

In response, Russia has banned platforms like Facebook and Twitter, which corporations use to organize internal dissent. A prolonged conflict could destabilize not only Russia but also the European Union, causing an economic downturn and a decline in living standards across Europe.
Plan B: The "Scorched Earth" Strategy
If Plan A (defeating Russia) fails, corporations may pursue Plan B—destroying Europe to prevent its integration into a Eurasian trading zone. Corporations view Europe as expendable, fearing the emergence of a strong, unified Euro-Asian entity with global influence.

This strategy involves undermining Europe’s energy, food, and industrial stability, causing widespread societal collapse. Rising wheat prices foreshadow potential famine in Europe and North Africa. If mass migrations from Africa occur, Europe’s security and social cohesion could disintegrate.

Russia would be unable to integrate a destabilized Europe, as rebuilding it would exhaust resources needed for defense against remaining adversaries (e.g., China, Britain, and the USA). This could prolong the conflict and plunge Europe into a medieval state.
The Defeat of Russia
If Russia is defeated without triggering the "reset" button, humanity would face enslavement and rapid depopulation. A rationing system, social credit, and continued "pandemic" crises would follow, including new deadly viruses targeting populations.

Within one generation, the global population could shrink to 500 million to 1 billion. No force would remain to stop corporations from gradually destroying humanity.

CONCLUSION

The resolution of this centuries-long war will be relatively swift. By the beginning of the coming winter, the success or failure of efforts to stabilize today’s critical situation will be evident.

Humanity faces its greatest and final challenge. If morality does not triumph over immorality, truth over falsehood, and humanity over base instincts, we face either rapid destruction (nuclear war) or slow demise (enslavement, depopulation, and decadence).

We have reached the end—the last letter of the alphabet. "Z" could signify the end of life on Earth or the end of the old, animalistic, individualistic psyche, heralding the golden age of humanity.

The outcome depends on us—on whether we allow individualists to lead us to destruction. They will preach austerity and blame opponents for declining living standards, but it is they who create these catastrophic conditions.

Do not trust the individualists, fools, and deceivers—they are blind to the consequences of their actions on society, the future, and life itself.

The best reaction to the actions of fools is no reaction. Let us influence society positively, no matter the threats. Better to choose nonexistence than to live as slaves.

Juraj Tušš