"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths." Northwoods is a ministry dedicated to refreshing Christians and challenging them to search for the truth in Christianity, politics, sociology, and science
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"
Father God, thank you for the love of the truth you have given me. Please bless me with the wisdom, knowledge and discernment needed to always present the truth in an attitude of grace and love. Use this blog and Northwoods Ministries for your glory. Help us all to read and to study Your Word without preconceived notions, but rather, let scripture interpret scripture in the presence of the Holy Spirit. All praise to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Please note: All my writings and comments appear in bold italics in this colour
As the United States marks the 250th anniversary of its founding, it confronts a new world order dominated by its relationship with China. In thiswide-ranging series, we examine the pressure points and possibilities in those ties, from hard tech to soft power. Here, Xinyi Wu examines how changes to Washington’s trade policy have reverberated through the formerly secure international economic order.
When US President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs against virtually all Washington’s major trading partners in April of last year, some observers heard echoes of earlier eras in American history – much earlier.
The Great Depression had just begun when former president Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, targeting more than 20,000 imported goods in June 1930 despite explicit warnings from over 1,000 economists.
The remainder is behind a paywall. See link above.
A few days ago, the city of Rio de Janeiro hosted the 17th BRICS summit, marking a significant step forward for the organization amid the accelerating transformation of the global political and economic landscape. Represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russia played an active role in the summit’s proceedings, while President Vladimir Putin addressed the plenary session via video link. In his remarks, the Russian leader offered a comprehensive analysis of current global trends, emphasizing that the liberal model of globalization is losing viability as the center of economic and political activity shifts decisively toward the Global South – developing countries with rising demographic, resource, and technological potential.
The Rio summit reaffirmed BRICS’ growing political weight and its ambition to become a key force in shaping the emerging multipolar order. High-level meetings drew global attention not only because of their scale but also due to the substantive outcomes they produced. A total of 126 joint commitments were adopted, spanning critical areas such as global governance reform, the restructuring of international financial institutions, healthcare, climate initiatives, artificial intelligence, and sustainable development.
The declaration adopted at the summit, titled ‘Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance’, underscored BRICS’ commitment to multilateralism, respect for international law, and the promotion of a fair and equitable world order. But beyond the formal language, the summit revealed a deeper shift: BRICS is no longer limiting itself to cautious technocratic dialogue. The bloc is increasingly positioning itself as a cohesive international actor – capable of proposing new frameworks for economic integration, political solidarity, and global coordination.
Crucially, this political reorientation did not begin in Rio. It builds directly on the strategic groundwork laid during the 2024 summit in Kazan, Russia – the largest BRICS gathering to date – which brought together not only member states but also dozens of partners under the BRICS+ umbrella. The Kazan summit established a new level of cooperation and ambition, and Rio served as a continuation of that trajectory. It became the arena where aspirations evolved into policy, and where the Global South began to more clearly articulate its place in the world.
From economic cooperation to collective security
Among the most consequential developments at the Rio summit was the firm commitment to advancing financial sovereignty among member states. Particular emphasis was placed on transitioning to transactions in national currencies – a long-standing initiative championed by Russia and several other BRICS countries. The leaders endorsed this direction, recognizing the need to reduce dependence on dominant reserve currencies. President Putin underscored that this was not merely an economic measure, but a geopolitical move aimed at strengthening the sovereignty of participating nations and insulating them from external pressure.
In support of this goal, the summit produced agreements to boost mutual investment volumes and accelerate the development of independent payment and settlement mechanisms. These initiatives are designed to lay the groundwork for a more resilient financial architecture – one that bypasses traditional Western-controlled institutions and empowers countries to determine the terms of their own economic cooperation. Increasingly, BRICS views economic autonomy as a precondition for long-term political independence in a world marked by volatility and polarization.
But the Rio summit did more than solidify the BRICS financial agenda. For the first time in its history, the organization made a strong, collective political statement on an issue directly related to international security. The final declaration included a specific condemnation of Ukrainian attacks on civilian infrastructure in Russia’s Bryansk, Kursk, and Voronezh regions. Referring to the bombings of bridges and railway lines on May 31, June 1, and June 5, 2025, the text reads: “We condemn in the strongest terms the attacks against bridges and railways infrastructure deliberately targeting civilians.”
This passage carries substantial symbolic and strategic weight. Despite the ideological and political diversity of BRICS members, the bloc united in denouncing attacks that threaten the internal security of one of its founding members. This is a marked departure from the organization’s previously cautious diplomatic tone on sensitive geopolitical issues. BRICS, once defined by its reluctance to address matters of military conflict or security, is now building a normative foundation for solidarity and shared responsibility.
The inclusion of this clause suggests that BRICS is beginning to embrace a collective role in shaping norms related to international conflict and security. It signals that the alliance is willing to defend the principle of territorial integrity not just rhetorically, but through coordinated diplomatic action. This is more than a gesture – it is the foundation of a future in which BRICS may serve not only as an economic bloc, but as a political and moral anchor in a divided world.
The American reaction: why Washington is nervous
Just 48 hours after the release of the Rio declaration – particularly the section denouncing unilateral tariffs and non-tariff measures – US President Donald Trump issued a sharp response. From the White House lawn, he threatened to impose a 10% tariff on all imports from BRICS countries and accused the bloc of attempting to “degenerate the dollar.” In characteristically blunt terms, he remarked: “If you have a smart president, you will never lose the standard. If you have a stupid president like the last one, you would lose the standard.”
While Trump’s words may have been wrapped in personal bravado, the underlying message was clear: Washington sees BRICS not as a neutral economic club, but as a mounting strategic threat. Despite the bloc’s repeated assertions that its cooperation is not aimed against any third party, the West views efforts to establish alternative economic frameworks – particularly those bypassing the dollar and Western-controlled institutions – as an existential challenge to US hegemony.
The nature of the response underscores a deeper anxiety in Washington. BRICS initiatives once dismissed as symbolic or impractical are now materializing into real structures: trade in local currencies, independent payment systems, and new investment platforms with global reach. These are not just alternatives – they are systemic innovations that call into question the foundations of the current world order.
Trump’s outburst, then, is not just a political sideshow. It is evidence that BRICS is crossing a threshold – from peripheral relevance to central influence in global affairs. For years, Western analysts argued that the bloc would collapse under the weight of its internal contradictions. Yet BRICS has not only endured – it has expanded, institutionalized, and begun to assert itself in domains once considered off-limits.
The American reaction confirms what many in the Global South already perceive: that BRICS is no longer a passive forum for South-South dialogue. It is becoming an active agent in reshaping the architecture of international power.
No turning back: BRICS as a systemic alternative
The Rio summit left little doubt that BRICS is evolving beyond its original mandate. Once focused primarily on economic coordination, the bloc is now laying the institutional groundwork for an alternative system of global governance – one rooted in sovereignty, equality, and resistance to unilateral pressure. This transformation is not driven by ideology but by the lived experience of its member states, many of which have faced the political and economic consequences of a Western-dominated order.
Three strategic vectors are propelling BRICS forward. First, its geo-economic advantage: the bloc is consolidating control over key global trade routes and resource markets. With the accession of new members in 2024-2025 – including Egypt, Iran, and Ethiopia – BRICS now spans critical logistical corridors across Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America. The bloc also commands a significant share of the world’s reserves in energy, rare earth elements, and agricultural commodities, granting it considerable influence over global supply chains and commodity pricing.
Second, BRICS possesses an increasingly potent force of attraction. Despite mounting external pressure and efforts to isolate its members, more than 30 countries have applied for membership or partnership status. This groundswell reflects a growing desire among Global South nations for a platform free from ideological gatekeeping, conditional loans, or weaponized sanctions. BRICS, in their eyes, is not just a bloc – it is a symbol of multipolarity, mutual respect, and strategic independence.
Third, BRICS is beginning to serve as a functional alternative to gridlocked institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. Without explicitly seeking to replace them, BRICS offers a more agile and consensus-based model – one that prioritizes non-interference, sovereignty, and pragmatic cooperation over rigid norms or selective enforcement. Its representation of the world’s demographic and economic majority lends it moral and political weight, especially in a context where trust in traditional global structures is in sharp decline.
In this light, the anxiety emanating from Washington is not simply reactive – it is anticipatory. The US and its allies understand that what BRICS is building is more than a set of alternative institutions. It is a rival paradigm: one that challenges the monopoly of the dollar, rejects coercive diplomacy, and proposes a new vocabulary for international legitimacy.
The Rio summit demonstrated that BRICS is not content to remain a forum of dialogue. It is becoming a vehicle for action. The question is no longer whether BRICS will shape the future of global governance, but how – and how fast. What began in Kazan, and accelerated in Rio, is a project with momentum. And in the shifting landscape of 2025, that momentum now appears irreversible.
Notice: US State Dept. My blog is antiterrorist - please send me $239 mn to support my work. Or, just one million; or, even $239. Email to garymsmail@gmail.com. Thanks.
Taliban ‘erroneously’ gets $239,000,000 from Biden regime in counterterrorism funds
Treasonous or criminally incompetent. Is there a third alternative?
Never assume malice when stupidity is just as likely! On the other hand, nothing in geopolitics happens by accident. Somewhere, somehow, someone planned it.
Taliban gets $239 million in aid after failure of State Dept. vetting
by Terrance Kible, Just The News, August 4, 2024 11:17am
The Islamic extremist Taliban has received at least $239 million in U.S. aid aimed at counterterrorism after State Department vetting procedures fell apart, according to a government watchdog.
The government watchdog, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), issued a July 2024 report identifying at least 29 grants where the Taliban may have erroneously received counterterrorism funds.
SIGAR “investigators found that the State Department failed to comply with its own counterterrorism partner vetting requirements in Afghanistan,” Judicial Watch reported.
The funds came from State Department divisions called “Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor” and “International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.”
The SIGAR report identified more than two dozen instances where these divisions failed to keep proper vetting records.
The SIGAR report includes a response to the findings from the State Department.
A June 2024 letter from the State Department claimed “the majority of the Department’s Afghanistan-related awards fully complied” with vetting requirements” but acknowledged “the gaps in compliance highlighted in the report.”
The letter expressed the State Department’s “commit[ment] to ensuring that all program offices comply with applicable . . . vetting requirement.” Right!
Willy Wimmer told RT he personally witnessed the West vowing that
NATO would not expand to the east
Despite their denials, Western leaders did make a promise to the USSR that NATO would not expand to Central and Eastern Europe when Moscow agreed to Germany’s reunification, Willy Wimmer, a former vice president of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), has claimed in an interview with RT on Saturday.
The veteran politician, who served as parliamentary secretary to Germany’s defense minister between 1985 and 1992, said that he personally witnessed this promise when he “sent Chancellor Helmut Kohl the statement on the Bundeswehr in NATO and NATO in Europe, which was completely incorporated into the treaties on reunification.”
Berlin’s decision at that time “not to station NATO troops on the territory of the former East Germany and to stop NATO near the Oder” was part of this promise, Wimmer added.
The bloc has long denied such a promise had ever been made, insisting it has always had an 'open door policy.' However, a document recently published by Germany’s Der Spiegel weekly purportedly shows that the pledge was made, supporting Moscow's claims the commitments were later broken.
The minutes of a March 6, 1991 meeting in Bonn between the political directors of the foreign ministries of the US, UK, France, and Germany on German reunification appear to show that the Western nations made it “clear” to the still-existing Soviet Union that NATO would not expand further to the east.
Wimmer believes that the promises made by the Western leaders in the early 1990s were eventually dashed by the US ambitions formulated in the infamous 1992‘Wolfowitz Doctrine’.
The ‘doctrine’ was in fact a Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–1999 fiscal years that was leaked to the New York Times at that time and sparked a wave of criticism even in the US itself. The document outlined the policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military actions designed to suppress potential threats and prevent any supposedly authoritarian states from becoming superpowers. The official text of the guidance was then changed following the uproar but many tenets of the ‘doctrine’ still found their way into the former US President George W. Bush’s foreign policy.
Since that time, the US and its allies have been on the “wrong track” as they have been virtually doing everything to create a fairly “justified” impression in Moscow that the Western nations seek to “kick Russia out of Europe, to build a new wall between the Baltic and the Black Sea” and eventually to “destroy” Russia instead of cooperating with it, Wimmer pointed out.
The root of all the current security problems in Europe lies within America’s policy of continuously antagonizing Russia, according to Wimmer. “All the misery we are dealing with started with the United States conducting the policy aimed at kicking Russia out of Europe for the last 20 or almost 30 years,” he said.
As long as the US continues to “do everything to achieve this goal” both through NATO and bilateral agreements, Europe’s security problems can hardly be resolved, Wimmer warned, adding that it was Washington that should fundamentally change its ways.
The former OSCE vice president also echoed Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, describing the present state of relations between Russia and the West as a conversation between “a mute” and a “deaf.” Moscow's top diplomat made similar remarks earlier in February following talks with British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss.
The US and its partners in Europe have been “certainly deaf” for decades since they “drew no conclusions” from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s landmark speech at the Munich Security Conference back in 2007, when he showed quite clearly “where the problems lie on the Euro-Asian continent,” Wimmer said.
At that time, the Russian leader warned that US unilateral hegemonism and “uncontained” use of force in international relations erode the global security system and weaken international law. It was also one of the first times he mentioned NATO’s promise to Russia not to expand to the east.
Powerful explosions hit another city in eastern Ukraine
One of the two consecutive blasts in Lugansk has affected a gas pipeline
Two explosions rocked the city of Lugansk in eastern Ukraine late on Friday, a Sputnik news agency correspondent has reported. Local media have also confirmed that the first blast affected a pipeline in the area, resulting in a major fire. The second one reportedly took place at a gas station.
The reports of explosions come just hours after the neighboring city of Donetsk was rocked by another blast. It was caused by a car bomb, which targeted a vehicle belonging to the head of the people's militia of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, and did not result in any casualties.
Earlier, both self-proclaimed republics in Lugansk and Donetsk ordered a mass evacuation of civilians from the area to Russia, citing fears of a potential attack by the Ukrainian military. Meanwhile, Kiev has denied any plans to take the breakaway regions by force.
Tensions are currently running high in eastern Ukraine, as the two breakaway republics – known colloquially as Donbass – allege the government in Kiev is planning a military operation to claim their territory by force. They have cited a sharp increase in incidents along the armistice line, including the use of artillery, mortars, and tanks by the Ukrainian military.
Meanwhile, the US and NATO have accused Russia of intending to invade Ukraine, though their predicted start date of February 16 came and went without incident. Moscow has repeatedly rejected the accusations as ‘fake news’. Both sides have accused the other of planning a ‘false-flag’ attack to create a pretext for a military operation.
So, none of these are likely to be the anticipated false flag operation; we can expect something far worse. God only knows how many 'operatives' are in the field trying to start something to spur a reaction from Russia. This is a disgraceful period in the history of mankind.
Is NATO America's pretext for military hegemony?
NATO’s campaign made European region ‘a hotbed of crime’
– Lavrov
Russia’s foreign minister says the bloc’s bombing campaign
has not brought prosperity to Kosovo
The Yugoslav Ministry of Defense building destroyed during NATO’s 1999 bombing campaign, in Belgrade, Serbia, 2015.
Russia finds it hard to believe that NATO is a purely defensive bloc, given its bombing campaign in Yugoslavia in 1999, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told RT on Friday.
The minister made his comments while speaking about the talks between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Tuesday.
“Scholz and others NATO officials say that NATO is a defensive alliance. Putin reminded Scholz at a joint press conference about the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999,” Lavrov remarked. “[Scholz] said that NATO had intervened in order to prevent the genocide of Kosovar Albanians. That it was a success, and now the region is prospering. It is far from prospering.”
“Kosovo and some other parts of the Western Balkans are becoming a hotbed of crime. There are terrorists, drug dealers. Mercenaries are recruited there for military conflicts ignited by the US, among others,” the minister said.
“There is information that militants from Kosovo, Albania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina are being recruited to knock Russia off balance, which includes sending them to Donbass [in eastern Ukraine]. We are working to verify it right now.”
“To say that NATO invaded Yugoslavia with noble goals is incorrect and unethical, to say the least,” Lavrov said.
What were NATO's goals? 78 days of bombing moves an awful lot of bombs from America's war inventory and enriches some powerful oligarchs.
In 1999, NATO launched a 78-day bombing campaign, claiming that it was protecting civilians against atrocities committed by Serbian troops and police during an insurgency of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. UN peacekeepers were deployed in the region after Serbian forces left.
Kosovo’s independence, unilaterally declared in 2008, has been recognized by nearly 100 countries, including the US. Russia still considers Kosovo a part of Serbia.
“The situation described by Scholz – when Yugoslavia was bombed – has nothing in common with genocide. International courts have not made rulings on that matter,” Lavrov argued.
The minister pointed to the high-profile incident in the Kosovar village of Racak, where dozens of bodies were found in 1999.Western countries claimed that they were civilians massacred by the Serbs and used it as a pretext for military action. Their account was disputed by Belgrade, which said that the bodies belonged to Albanian militants.
In 2006, the UN-backed International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia decided not to use the evidence related to the Racak incident in order to “improve the expeditiousness of the proceedings while ensuring that they remain fair.”The court ultimately convicted several Serbian officials of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Kosovo, including murders and deportations. Several Albanians were convicted of war crimes against the Serbs as well.
This is how Deep State works! Take a situation, lie about it, make it seem like NATO is a knight in shining armour riding to the rescue, when really, all they want is an excuse to drop a few tens of thousands of bombs on something.
Russians have hacked American military-industrial complex – US
The purported cyber attacks are said to date back at least two years
Russian government-backed hackers have been stealing “sensitive” information from American weapons companies for several years, a recent announcement by US security agencies has claimed.
The FBI, National Security Agency, and US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released a report on Wednesday alleging that since at least January 2020, the hackers have been collecting information that is unclassified but contains “significant insight into US weapons platforms development and deployment timelines.”
So, if the information was significant, why wasn't it classified? If it is not significant enough to be classified, why are you complaining?
The attacks apparently hit contractors working for all the branches of the military, including the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Space Force, as well as companies working for US intelligence programs. The firms that were targeted include ones involved in aircraft design and the development of combat and weapons systems.
“By acquiring proprietary internal documents and email communications, adversaries may be able to adjust their own military plans and priorities, hasten technological development efforts, inform foreign policymakers of US intentions, and target potential sources for recruitment,” the report states.
On Wednesday, John Reed, Democratic Senator from Rhode Island and chair of the Armed Services Committee, told CNN, “Both the United States and Russia are continually probing, through cyber, to pick up information on weapons systems, on intelligence, etc.”
“The compromise of intelligence information is [on] both sides,” he went on, adding that the US is prepared to use cyber operations to assist Ukraine, where American leaders have been warning Russia could be planning an invasion, an accusation that Moscow has strenuously denied.
Russian officials have not yet commented on the hacking allegations, but in the past have insisted that requests for evidence that Moscow is involved in stealing secrets through cyber attacks have gone unanswered.
Are they 'secrets' if they are not classified? Are you positive that America is not trying to hack into Russian or Chinese military hardware manufacturers?
