[YouTube] Britain's strictest headmistress, Katharine Birbalsingh, argues that the West's moral crisis began with the values we taught our children. She explores how schools, culture, and social media have shaped a generation to see the world through the lens of oppressor and oppressed—and why restoring duty, responsibility, and moral character is essential to the future of Western civilization.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Kirill Semenov
[REGNUM] On July 19, 1956, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles bluntly told the Egyptian ambassador in Washington: The United States was withdrawing its offer to loan Egypt a loan for the construction of the first phase of the Aswan Dam. The Americans had rescinded the agreement concluded just six months earlier. Britain followed suit. This triggered Egypt's "turn" toward Moscow and became one of the key episodes in the history of the West and the USSR's struggle for Africa.
From 1914 to 1952, Great Britain was the ruler of Egypt. At the beginning of World War I, the British seized the Ottoman Empire's holdings on the Nile. Until 1922, the world's oldest country was officially a protectorate of the British Empire. Then, London declared its possession de jure "independence," but in essence, the Kingdom of Egypt remained a British colony. A British military contingent was stationed at the Suez Canal, which was jointly controlled by Great Britain and France.
The first low-head dams on the Nile (including the 53-meter-high Aswan Dam) were built by the British in the early 20th century to boost Egyptian agriculture profits for London firms. By 1952, Alexander Gibb & Partners had developed a design for a new Aswan High Dam, several dozen meters higher. But in July of that same year, 1952, the Young Officers' Movement overthrew King Farouk. General Mohammed Naguib was considered the leader of the conspirators (he officially headed the new regime), but the driving force behind the coup was 34-year-old Lieutenant Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser.
The monarchy was abolished, making Egypt the first internationally recognized republic in the Arab world and a model for young officers in neighboring countries. The republican regime "nullified" British control and initially pursued a multi-vector policy, building relationships with both Washington and Moscow.
Part of US President Dwight Eisenhower's team believed that Egypt could be firmly anchored within the US sphere of influence, given that the first head of the Revolutionary Command Council, Naguib, had persecuted the local Communist Party. Neighboring Israel, which emerged in 1948 under the joint auspices of the USSR and the US, was more oriented toward the Americans in 1950.
But in 1954, General Naguib was ousted from power by the less predictable Nasser. Secretary of State Dulles viewed him with suspicion, considering him a "reckless and dangerous nationalist." In reality, Nasser acted pragmatically. As declassified documents and memoirs, including the work of Nasser's advisor Mohammed Heikal, attest, Cairo sought American arms and economic aid.
CAIRO MAKES A CHOICE
But in February 1955, Britain, seeking to punish Egypt for its out-of-control behavior, canceled the arms contract. Just a month later, a Czechoslovak trade delegation arrived in Cairo. Czechoslovakia served as a hub for Soviet arms shipments to Third World countries. In September 1955, Egypt and Czechoslovakia signed a contract worth $400 million at the time ($5 billion today), under which the Arab Republic received 230 modernized T-34s, 200 BTR-152s, and 150 MiG-15s and MiG-17s. Under the same deal, Poland sold Egypt six submarines and two destroyers. The Warsaw Pact countries were clearly guided by Moscow.
Two months after the "Czechoslovak deal," in December 1955, Dulles, on behalf of the White House, announced that the United States, together with Britain, would provide Egypt with nearly $70 million in aid (equivalent to $875 million in today's money) for the construction of the Aswan Dam. This was sealed with an agreement in February 1956.
But in July, Washington abruptly backtracked. Dulles attributed the demarche to "difficulties in agreeing on financial details." In reality, it was an attempt to "bring Nasser to his senses," who by that time had recognized China and established diplomatic relations with Beijing.
The plan, apparently, was for a new coup. But Nasser had already firmly established his grip on power. And then, in July 1956, he nationalized the Suez Canal—a blow to the interests of the British (and, by extension, the French), who still controlled this critically important artery.
In the fall, Britain, France, and Israel, who had joined them, attacked Egypt. This was a rare instance in which the United States did not support its partners. The United States and the USSR essentially found themselves on the same side of the barricades with Cairo.
Eisenhower was dissatisfied with the actions of British Prime Minister Anthony Eden and French Premier Guy Mollet, who carried out the military operation without consulting the White House, especially during the US election campaign. The White House also distanced itself from Israel, which at that time was not yet considered a strategic partner in the region by Washington. But Soviet political and military assistance at a critical moment proved a more profitable investment than American "carrot and stick."
Nikita Khrushchev decided to finance and build the Aswan Dam—the project began in 1960 with the participation of Soviet loans, equipment, and specialists. Ultimately, this undermined the US position and rendered American blackmail untenable. As researcher Raymond Garthoff noted, Washington's abandonment of the project was a significant geopolitical miscalculation.
The USSR, rushing into this breach, did not give the Americans a chance to win back on more favorable terms. Egypt found itself within the Soviet sphere of influence for the next 20 years. This success became the basis for expanding the Soviet presence in Africa.
ALGERIA, GUINEA, AND EVERYWHERE ELSE
Europeans built only the infrastructure that supported the export of raw materials from the colonies. Railways and highways ran exclusively from mines or plantations to ports, severing the internal connectivity of the territories. Energy production served only Western concessions. The West deliberately maintained backwardness, failing to develop processing industries or domestic infrastructure. The former metropolitan powers maintained this policy even after the colonies declared independence.
Moscow offered another option: development assistance in exchange for loyalty (which also included the possibility of a military presence).
The USSR played a significant role in Algeria, where the war for independence against France was raging. The National Liberation Front (FLN) initially focused on supporting Western leftist forces. However, in March 1956, the French Communist Party voted in parliament to grant "special powers" to Guy Mollet's government for action in Algeria. This move significantly limited the FLN's ability to gain support in Europe and opened the door to cooperation with Moscow.
The Soviet Union deployed diplomatic and material support to the FLN. At the UN, Moscow blocked France's attempts to classify the Algerian conflict as an internal matter, seeking recognition of the Algerians' right to self-determination. The USSR became one of the first countries to de facto recognize the FLN and open an office in Moscow.
Supplies of weapons and equipment went through Tunisia, Morocco and other countries, often with the assistance of other socialist states.
After Algeria gained independence, Soviet involvement was not limited to political support. A gigantic steel mill was built in Annaba, with the direct participation of Soviet specialists. For Paris, this was the final blow to the colonial model. The former colony gained the opportunity to produce its own steel, breaking the long-standing monopoly of European industrial concerns.
Guinea is another example. In 1958, in a referendum proposed by Charles de Gaulle, the country was the only one to vote against association with France and achieved immediate independence. Paris imposed a massive blockade: all equipment, down to telephone exchanges and light bulbs, was removed from the country, financial accounts were frozen, and technical assistance was cut off.
The USSR promptly recognized Guinea and sent humanitarian aid, including grain. Soviet specialists participated in restoring communications, building roads, creating energy capacity, and exploring bauxite deposits. Unlike the French, who exported the raw material, the USSR helped Guinea establish a base for its primary processing.
The airport in Guinea's capital, Conakry, has become an important hub capable of handling military transport aircraft. Since 1971, ships from the Baltic and Black Sea fleets have been stationed off the republic's coast—ostensibly to protect vessels from our fishing fleet.
The Republic of Guinea became a rear base for leftist guerrillas from neighboring Portuguese Guinea (now Guinea-Bissau). Conakry served as a transit point for arms, ammunition, and food supplies for rebels in another Portuguese colony, Angola, for the Moscow-aligned MPLA movement.
When the 1974 revolution in Portugal itself brought down the world's oldest colonial empire, Angola and Mozambique gained independence.
In both countries, a proxy war unfolded between the Soviet and Western blocs: Moscow supported the leftist regimes of the MPLA and FRELIMO parties, while the United States and South Africa stood behind the rebel groups (UNITA in Angola, RENAMO in Mozambique).
The USSR provided its allies not only with military protection, including the deployment of Cuban troops, but also with extensive civilian aid. Soviet specialists restored hospitals destroyed by the war, built schools, and assisted with agricultural mechanization and the integration of power grids.
In Ethiopia at the same time, in the mid-1970s, the Egyptian scenario was reproduced.
The country was one of the key American footholds in the region: the US supplied weapons, trained the officer corps, and conducted intelligence. In 1974, the Derg military regime came to power under Mengistu Haile Mariam, who himself had studied in the US and had ties to the Americans. The new government, by inertia, oriented itself toward Washington and attempted to retain military aid from there.
But the Jimmy Carter administration began blackmailing the new leadership with unacceptable conditions. It was the same reflex Dulles had in 1956: refuse aid and wait for the new regime, out of desperation, to accept American demands.
The culmination came with the Ogaden War of 1977–1978, when Somali leader Siad Barre, previously a Soviet ally, attacked Ethiopia, which was also increasingly turning toward the USSR and was potentially a more valuable military-strategic ally than Somalia. Moscow made a sharp turn: it severed relations with Mogadishu and launched a large-scale operation to rescue the regime in Addis Ababa. Thousands of Cuban troops, Soviet weapons, and military advisers were deployed to the country.
Ethiopia retained its territorial integrity and became Moscow's main ally in East Africa for the next 15 years. Soviet engineers built dams (including Genale Dawa), roads, industrial plants, and agricultural facilities, integrating disparate regions into a unified economic space.
In parallel with infrastructure projects, the USSR implemented a major program for training national elites—from engineering to political and military personnel.
The events of 1956 became the "matrix" for Africa's further pivot toward the USSR. The former colonial powers were unwilling to offer the African Continent an attractive development model. The Americans were let down by their "Atlantic solidarity." An orientation toward Moscow proved more advantageous (indeed, mutually beneficial)—even if it meant swearing allegiance to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism.
Modern Russia, in building ties with African countries, is building on the foundations laid during that period. Infrastructure, economic, and educational ties established between the 1950s and 1970s continue to influence the configuration of relations. The proven idea of a joint fight against neocolonialism is being complemented by a new concept of a multipolar world.
The lesson of 1956 is that countries in the Global South respond to offers of infrastructure development, technological cooperation, and respect for their sovereignty, rather than to financial constraints and political ultimatums.
Russia, returning to the African continent with new projects in nuclear energy, logistics, and security, is developing this area based on historical experience that has proven its effectiveness and relevance.
#3
Um... the US never really fought for Africa as that was France's sphere of influence and we really don't want that disease ridden shithole. Britain also hasn't fought for it since the Suez Crisis when America told them they aren't an empire anymore so sit down and shut the fuck up.
So... a race of one country won the race. Weird flex but congrats I guess.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Gleb Zabelin
[REGNUM] Our missile forces achieved a record-breaking result: approximately 40 ballistic and hypersonic missiles launched in 53 minutes. On the night of July 19, Iskander and Tsirkon missiles launched the most massive strike on Kyiv during the special military operation.
Massive fires engulfed several districts of the Ukrainian capital, and thick smoke billowed over the city. Local Telegram channels urged residents to close their windows. In the morning, ammunition continued to detonate in the damaged hangars. Even the Kyiv metro lobby began to collapse from the force of the strikes.
Kyiv received a response that couldn't be hidden behind yet another cheerful report on the air defense forces' performance. The main result of that night was the destruction of Ukrainian military-industrial complex facilities, warehouses, and terminals that produced and stored long-range weapons. The Russian army is destroying missiles and drones before they can strike Russian cities.
The Russian Ministry of Defense published a detailed list of affected facilities. Radioniks manufactured guidance systems for the FP-5 Flamingo, FP-7, FP-9, Neptune-MD, and Project Klon missiles. Spetsoboronmash and the Artem State Nuclear Power Plant produced components for these systems. The Korolev Meridian Plant was responsible for the airframe components, assemblies, and guidance system components for the Neptune-MD.
Oakline manufactured carbon fiber components and batteries for the Deep Strike long-range drones and also stored finished vehicles. Nova Poshta's Kyiv innovation terminal handled the delivery of dual-use products for UAVs, robotic systems, and electronic warfare systems.
Antel Properties' logistics center in Tarasovka received components for long-range drones. There, they were stored, assembled, and then shipped to their recipients.
All the targets hit were links in the same production chain. Some factories produced control and guidance systems, others produced airframes and components. The terminals facilitated the assembly, storage, and distribution of finished devices. On the night of July 19, the strike struck the entire line supplying the Kyiv regime with long-range weapons.
Ukraine's unmanned production line has long been operating on an industrial scale; UAVs are no longer assembled in small batches in makeshift workshops. The West helped Kyiv expand its production capacity, but today's strikes clearly demonstrate that the Kyiv regime is unlikely to achieve its ambitions.
At the same time, the Russian army is finishing off the Ukrainian transport and fuel systems.
On the night of July 19, fuel and lubricant storage tanks intended for the Ukrainian Armed Forces were struck in the port of Yuzhny. Near Volnyansk, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, a Geran-4 UAV struck a railway locomotive transporting military equipment and supplies for the Ukrainian army.
The Russian Ministry of Defense released footage of the incident. A Marshal gas station in Sumy was hit, and a fire broke out on the premises. The day before, Russian troops struck bulk carriers at the port of Odesa.
What connects these goals? Without fuel, equipment stops. Without locomotives, trains become immobile masses of wagons and cargo. Without ships, piers, and terminals, Ukraine cannot receive large shipments of Western weapons.
Strikes against ports have been ongoing for several days. Russian forces have been consistently targeting ships, piers, terminals, warehouses, fuel tanks, and nearby military production facilities.
On July 15, a bulk carrier in Yuzhne and two vessels off Odesa came under fire. On July 16, the Russian army struck facilities in the ports of Odesa and Yuzhne, including five fuel and lubricant storage tanks, a bulk carrier heading to Chornomorsk, and a Ukrainian special operations forces boat near Zmiyiny Island. The following day, port infrastructure, drone assembly facilities, and new fuel reserves were hit.
The port system is being dismantled piece by piece. While attempts can be made to restore a damaged facility, restoring the entire chain to its previous throughput capacity is much more difficult. New vessels must be found, warehouses rebuilt, fuel delivered, rail traction established, and insurers assured that the next voyage won't end in a pier fire.
The results are evident in the statistics. The throughput capacity of Ukraine's Black Sea ports has fallen by approximately a third, from six to four million tons per month. Four of the 13 major grain terminals have ceased purchasing. Kernel has suspended operations at its Chornomorsk terminal. The number of grain railcars bound for Odessa ports has fallen by 11%, and exports by 17%.
The ports are still operational, but the former freedom of navigation is gone. Shipowners are canceling voyages, traders are suspending purchases, and insurers are scaling back their war-risk coverage. One strike can destroy a storage tank or warehouse. A series of strikes makes the entire route too expensive and dangerous.
Russia is cutting off the Ukrainian army's supply lines for fuel, equipment, and Western supplies. Without supplies, war can't last long. Even purchased and assembled weapons still need to be delivered to the front.
"WE WILL GET THERE WHERE WE NEED TO GO."
The difference between Russian and Ukrainian strikes has become clear in recent weeks. The Ukrainian Armed Forces are conducting "strikes against outposts." For Kyiv, the military outcome is secondary. What they need is alarm, footage of air defense systems in operation, and a sense of the vulnerability of Russian cities.
The Kyiv regime is effectively waging war on every single Russian citizen. It's counting on the odd explosion, smoke over the city, or social media video to make people feel helpless. The weaker the results on the front, the more the media machine needs the image of a false victory.
Russia is responding to the material resources of the war: factories, warehouses, fuel, and supply routes. Military-industrial complex facilities, finished weapons, logistics centers, ports, ships, storage tanks, and rail transport are all under attack. Russian strikes are destroying production, burning up reserves, and disrupting supply lines. Their intensity and power significantly exceed the capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces—this is what constitutes meaningful work.
The Kyiv regime pays for every "victory" video on social media with destruction on its own territory. After an attempt to scare Russians, a far more extensive firefight follows, targeting targets in Kyiv, Odesa, and other cities. It's time for Ukrainians to learn: there's no smoke in Russia without fire in Ukraine.
After the strike, the Russian Ministry of Defense stated: "Today is definitely not the end. We're charged and continuing."
The ministry left no ambiguity: the strikes will continue. The war is tough, but Russia is pressing the enemy, shows no signs of slowing down, and will continue to destroy Kyiv and other centers of the Ukrainian military-industrial complex. The July 19 strike was the most powerful. And the Ministry of Defense warned: it will not be the last.
The Russian president, not Western capitals, decides how the conflict will end. Ukrainian leaders can travel around Europe, beg for money, sign new agreements, and threaten Russia. This leaves Vladimir Putin unimpressed and doesn't change Russia's plan.
Putin described the daily pressure on the enemy bluntly: "Well, the guys there are hammering away every day. Every single day, they keep coming. And we'll get where we need to go."
The president's words are confirmed by the list of targets hit: Kyiv, Odesa, Yuzhny, Sumy, and Volnyansk. The Russian army is destroying military factories, destroying drone stockpiles, burning up fuel, and stopping trains. Each new strike deprives the Ukrainian regime of some of its military capabilities.
Our missile forces intend to finish off Ukrainian logistics, burn the remains of the enemy's military-industrial complex, and destroy the infrastructure used by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The loud outcry in the Ukrainian media and the panic on social media convincingly prove that Vladimir Putin's objectives are being fulfilled.
[Hot Air] It's easy to forget, but from 2022 through 2024, Democrats engaged in some of the most reckless, republic-destabilizing actions since their partisan forebears fired on Fort Sumter in 1861. In colluding to prosecute then-former (and future) President Donald Trump on sham legal grounds across four different jurisdictions and three separate prosecutors, Democrat-Lawfare Complex thugs acted in a manner more befitting tribal warlords of a third-world hellhole than elected officials in the greatest country on earth. They crossed a line that never should have been crossed, effectuating the old Stalinist creed, attributed to Soviet secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria: "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
Many have conveniently forgotten or moved on, but we are still learning more about the Democrats' depths of lawfare depravity.
Over the past couple of weeks, we have learned more about so-called special counsel Jack Smith, the one-man wrecking ball who brought the twin federal probes against Trump in Washington, D.C. (the 2020 election case), and Florida (the classified documents case). Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) revealed that Smith's own henchmen may, ironically, have committed the same classified documents offenses for which Smith prosecuted Trump. Grassley also revealed Smith obtained text messages from 44 Republican members of Congress -- despite the fact Smith has explicitly denied doing exactly that.
That looks an awful lot like perjury. And perjury is actually just the tip of the iceberg. There are myriad other crimes that Smith and his primary colluders -- namely, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis -- likely committed. For instance, federal law criminalizes conspiring to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States." That is an awfully good match for the lawfare cabal's coordinated assault on Trump and the rule of law.
[YouTube] At the Family Leadership Summit, Speaker Mike Johnson had the audience laughing after delivering a spot-on impression of President Donald Trump while recalling a recent Oval Office conversation.
[FOX] The Islamic State is quietly rebuilding as the United States prepares to complete its withdrawal from Iraq, raising fears the terror group could exploit a security vacuum, a regional security expert warned Sunday.
With U.S. forces leaving by Sept. 30 and as Baghdad tries to rein in Iran-backed militias, Iraq could also be entering its most dangerous period since ISIS seized Mosul in 2014, according to counterterrorism expert Dr. Omar Mohammed.
"ISIS is waiting actively in the gaps, as it historically always has," Mohammed, author and researcher with the George Washington University Program on Extremism, told Fox News Digital.
Posted by: Skidmark ||
07/20/2026 04:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[189 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic State
#1
On the good side, that may provide some scant few opportunities for indoctrinated American liberal women to get pregnant and raise traditional families.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/20/2026 7:09 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
