Does the Termination of Russian YouTube Channels Mean Impending War?

Recently, I had to change embedded video links in several posts to due to the termination of Southfront’s YouTube channel. Southfront, which features regular “Syrian War Reports” and videos that discuss the Russian and American military and hardware, but not from a necessarily pro-Russian government perspective, wrote about their theory why the channel was terminated in this post, that carried. They theorized that:

The article was likely used by the Euvsdisinfo authors either out of a lack of humor, ignorance, or sheer stupidity. This article is a critical review of the political and administrative situation in Russia amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the first part of April 2020. The article provides a critical look at the actions of the Russian government (in particular the Moscow authorities) and points out that, while the COVID-19 pandemic presents a significant public health challenge, the threat of the pandemic may be estimated inaccurately, resulting in the government making poor decisions in dealing with it. The developments in Russia in the second half of 2020 confirmed this analysis. Meanwhile, the article itself regularly refers to scientific and state sources of data and criticizes political and administrative actions of the Russian government. It also looks critically at actions of Moscow mayor Sergey Sobaynin, which at the time went contrary to the Russian legislative system.”[Emphasis added.]

While spreading the party line on COVID-19, which as Gary D. Barnett noted in this article on, “This Coronavirus Fraud Is Planned Panic and Murder for the Purpose of Advancing Agendas of Control” is surely part of the decision, there might be other factors in play. War with Russia?: From... Cohen, Stephen F. Best Price: $8.99 Buy New $8.50 (as of 02:15 EST - Details)

Recently, The Saker posted the “Russian Foreign Ministry Press release on YouTube removing the accounts of Krym 24 TV Channel and Anna News and News-Front news agencies” in which they state:

“These are just some examples of US online censorship of Russian news portals.

“We consider YouTube’s actions as another act of discrimination against Russian-language media resources from US-controlled online platforms that systematically resort to arbitrary censorship of content in the Russian language.

“This policy by US authorities represents a gross violation of US international obligations to ensure free and unfettered access to information, freedom of the media and freedom of expression.”

Again, this is part of the reason but not the whole reason; Washington is evidently at war, although not yet using military hardware, against Russia and this is an informational war.

Southfront recently posted these videos, which might be of benefit to CIA Analysts as well as ordinary Americans.

This one concludes Elon Musk and SpaceX are in effect “a beard” for the Department of Defense.

SpaceX: Camel’s Nose under the Tent of Space Militarization

This video highlights the possibility that the Poseidon is not designed to deploy a 150 Megaton warhead to destroy the American coast land, but is a sophisticated drone that integrates with advanced Russian submarines.

Poseidon Multi-Purpose Oceanic System And Russian Undersea Warfare

And this:

How Precise Are Iranian Missiles? Analysis Of Missile Strikes On U.S. Military Base In Iraq

Hard Times For U.S. Forces In Northeast Syria. Army Prepares For Idlib Escalation

And this:

Russia Tests T-14 Armata Battle Tanks In Syria

And this:


Russia is actively working to rearm its air forces with Kinzhal hypersonic missiles.

Is it just me, or do you think perhaps these topics are driving the Neocons over the edge?

Regarding this recent Yahoo News post, “The US Navy sent surface ships deep into the Arctic, and close to Russia, for the first time in over 30 years,” Military Analyst and Historian Andrei Martyanov wrote on his blog:

“This action has no military meaning since any surface force sent to actually fight – from launching TLAMs to conducting ASW operations – to Barents Sea in case of actual war has the staying power approaching zero and time counted in minutes it takes to receive targeting and launch, and Russia has in Arctic more than enough to launch to ensure that no hostile surface force in any combination survives. Just recall basic (of course it is slightly more complex that that but still, [it] gives a good impression) [the] factors which I wrote in my last book about:

“This is what makes, as an example, Northern Sea Route so attractive to China and its commercial traffic, granted China can sustain pressure and possible expropriation of assets of its pro-American elite, the one which until very recently was viewing China as an extension and, eventually, substitution for the United States economically. There are many of these guys, and their children, in the US and they own a lot. Once the United States decides (not out of realm of possibilities) to cut Indian Ocean SLOCs [Sea Lanes] for China, the whole thing will become really interesting. The United State, by the looks of it, is getting ready to coerce China and squeeze it for everything she has got. Rumor has it, Xi must face still powerful radically pro-American (some call it a Chinese ‘Komsomol’ elite, I can see the relation) economic block which cares only about its pockets.”

Regarding Scott Ritter’s recent article about Washington provocations, Martyanov wrote here: The Black Death, A Cra... Aku1e63apu0101da Buy New $5.94 (as of 02:38 EDT - Details)

“Here is where Russia’s integrated air defense and strike capabilities come in play along all the Northern Sea Route. Geopolitics is really easy when viewed in statics, so [are] tactics and operations (well, not really, but for the sake of argument). I stated not for once, that all this apparatus consists primarily of few [of the] simplest geometric figures such as straight lines, angles, circles and sectors. Seems simple enough. It is when those figures begin to move and interact (relate) to each-other, this is where it all becomes extremely complex and cannot be described in motion to a layman. Yet, statics will do for a moment – once the circles with the radii of modern Russian anti-ship missiles, ranging from P-800 Onyx and 3M22 Zircon, begin to be ‘moved’ around, one can easily see that no matter where the US Navy positions its ships with SM-3 (granted they did not develop a capability to plow through thick arctic ice, which is still there), up to the even projected retreat of arctic ice edge in the nearest 10+ years, there is simply nowhere to hide for US Navy’s surface force, no matter its composition.”

Whether Russia will use these weapons against the US Navy, I cannot say for certain but if Washington’s actions force a response, expect not to hear the truth of the devastating destruction through legacy media.

However, I think Washington has its sites on “easier” targets, like the bully it is. On May 21st, 2020, The Saker published on the following piece, “Will Trump Really Start Two Wars Instead of ‘Just’ One?” in which he writes:

…Then there is the problem of defining victory. In the US political “culture” winning is usually defined as pressing a few buttons to fire off some standoff weapons, kill lots of civilians, and then declare that the “indispensable nation” has “kicked the other guy’s ass”. The problem with that is the following one: if they other guy is very visibly weaker and has no chance for a military victory of his own, then the best option for him is to declare that “surviving is winning” – meaning that if Maduro stays in power, then Venezuela as won. How would the US cope with that kind of narrative? Keep in mind that Caracas is a city of over two million people which even in peacetime is rather dangerous (courtesy of both regular crime and potential guerilla activities). Yet, for Maduro to “win” all he has to show is that he controls Caracas.

In other words, if Maduro remains in power in Caracas then, in political terms, Venezuela wins even though it would lose in purely military terms.

This phenomenon is hardly something new, as shown by the following famous quote by Ho Chi Minh: “You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and I will win.”

By the way, this is exactly the same problem the Empire faces with Iran: as long as the Islamic Republic remains an Islamic Republic it “wins” in any exchange of strikes with the US and/or Israel.

Still, it is pretty obvious that the US can turn much of Venezuela into a smoking heap of ruins. That is true (just like what the US did to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Serbia and Israel what did to Lebanon in 2006). But that would hardly constitute a “victory” in any imaginable sense of the word. Again, in theory, the US might be able to secure a number of landing locations and then send in an intervention force which could try to take key locations in Caracas. But what would happen after that? Not only would the hardcore Chavistas trigger a guerilla insurrection which would be impossible to crush (when is the last time the US prevailed in a counter-insurgency war?), but many Venezuelans would expect the US to pay for reconstruction (and they would be right, according to the rules of international law, “once you take it, you own it” meaning that the US would become responsible for the socio-economic situation of the country). Finally, there is always the option of an anti-leadership “decapitating” strike of some kind. I believe that in purely military terms, the US has the know-how and resources to accomplish this. I do not believe that this option would secure anything for the US, instead – it would further destabilize the situation and would trigger some kind of reaction by the Venezuelan military both outside and inside Venezuela. If anything, the repeated failures of the various coup attempts against Chavez and Maduro prove that the the bulk of the military remains firmly behind the Chavistas (and the failed coup only served to unmask the traitors and replace them anyway!).

The bottom line is this: if Uncle [Sam] decides to seize/attack the Iranian tankers, there is not only a quasi certitude of a war between the US and Iran (or, at the very least, an exchange of strikes), but there is also a non-trivial possibility that Maduro and his government might actually decide to provoke the US into a war they really can’t win.

Is Trump capable of starting a process which will result in not one, but two wars?

Let me answer the question, understanding this is my opinion and I have no inside information: Trump is a reality TV show star. The decision is above his pay grade; look to his biggest donors. And yes, now with the American lockdown, so many dependent on government to survive and so many Russia YouTube channels (not to mention Iran’s PressTV) terminated, expect that Washington will bomb, no matter the consequences, to the point of using nuclear weapons and not giving a damn. For Washington, mass death and destruction is victory—for so far, there have been no consequences to the oligarchy. So I think the answer is yes, a two-front war will start very soon.

In addition, a bombing campaign (because Washington doesn’t truly do true war) against Iran and Venezuela would raise the price of oil by devastating Saudi Arabia and closing the Strait of Hormuz, and of course blaming Iran; so perhaps the oligarchy thinks “war” is great way to kill two birds—or three—with one stone: Iran, Venezuela, and save the American fracking industry.

Perhaps the only problem, however, is will Americans be able to buy their Chinese made U.S. flags to wave as the bombs drop?

And I’m sure this video below is how the CIA and Washington see Russians. Watch because YouTube will probably next ban this channel too:

Political Theatre

LRC Blog

LRC Podcasts