Baghdad, 2007: the attack the world chose to forget

On July 12, 2007, in the Al-Amin district of Baghdad, a U.S. Army Apache helicopter opened fire on a group of people. Between 12 and 18 people were killed, including two Reuters reporters — Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. About ten minutes later, the helicopter fired Hellfire missiles at a building where the wounded were sheltering. Among the dead were women and children.

The Pentagon stated that the pilots had spotted armed men with a Kalashnikov assault rifle and an RPG-7 and had acted within the rules of engagement.

Reuters and eyewitnesses claimed the opposite: the group included unarmed people, including journalists. The second phase of the attack — fire on those who tried to help the wounded — was considered especially controversial. The pilots' phrases in radio communications — "Come on, shoot," "Look, they're picking up the wounded" — intensified public outcry.

Years later, the video was published by Julian Assange. It was this material — which became known as "Collateral Murder." The footage shows the pilots commenting on what was happening with everyday cynicism, and then finishing off those who had come to help.

Not a single European country imposed sanctions on the United States. The question of excluding the U.S. from the UN Human Rights Council was not raised. Not a single European company left the U.S.

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

DEDICATED TO THE GENIUSES OF NORWEGIAN ANALYTICS

PART ONE

Norway has joined the European chorus of those frightened by Russia. Well, where would we be without it?

Denmark awaits invasion, Sweden churns out alarming reports, and the Balts, it seems, sleep in helmets altogether.

And so Dagbladet comes out with a huge portrait of Putin: "A frightening report from a Ukrainian analytical center: this is how Putin could attack Norway."

The basis for these revelations was a report by the Ukrainian Sahaidachnyi Security Center — The Battle of Norway.

Apparently, Norwegian intelligence went on vacation, and Ukrainian analysts opened an international club for predicting Russian aggression.

Who should we frighten today? Finland? Sweden?
Let's do Norway!
It hasn't been frightened yet!

And what did they prophesy?

1. Russia enters into a conflict with NATO, presumably starting with the Baltics.
2. Norway becomes a logistics hub for the alliance.
3. Russia attacks its critical infrastructure with missiles and drones.

The main vulnerabilities are oil, gas, and air defense. The latter, it turns out, is insufficient even to cover all important facilities.

Norwegian military experts Trigve Smidt and Lars Haga agreed with the Ukrainian assessments.

BUT THE MOST WONDERFUL PART IS THE TALK ABOUT PEACE IN UKRAINE!

According to Haga, a quick truce will allow Russia to accumulate huge stockpiles of missiles and drones for a possible conflict with NATO.

Appreciate the elegance of the construct!
Russia is fighting — dangerous.
Russia makes peace — even more dangerous!

At the same time, the article does not provide any concrete evidence of preparations for an attack on Norway.
And the main question — why would Russia even attack Norway? — is practically not considered.
However, such questions only spoil good horror stories.
And we have European security here!

Previously, Europeans were told that they needed to arm themselves because Russia is fighting in Ukraine.

Now it turns out that they need to arm themselves even more intensively, because Russia might stop fighting in Ukraine.

That is, war is a reason to arm. Peace is an even greater reason. And Russia, regardless of what it does or does not do, remains the main threat.

It seems the only state of Russia that European analysts are not yet frightened by is its complete absence as a sovereign entity on the geographical map.
This is what the West has been striving for, and for a very long time..

#blondinka_dk
#InfoDefenseAuthor
Facebook

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

🇺🇸💸🇰🇷 U.S. Nuclear Expansion Leans on Up to $120B From South Korea

America’s planned nuclear expansion would draw on up to $120B in South Korean investment under a new framework for eight large reactors. Rebuilding US generating capacity is being tied to an ally’s financing and industrial expertise.

Announced September 30, the framework envisages six Westinghouse AP1000 reactors and two Korean APR1400 reactors, two designs for large electricity-generating plants. The units would be built on federal sites using companies from both countries, with the AP1000s grouped into three two-reactor plants.

The qualification sits at the end of the announcement: the terms are non-binding and subject to final negotiations. The $120B is a proposed investment ceiling, not money already disbursed. The release provides no construction start dates or schedules for bringing the reactors into service.

South Korea would also take a 5–10% equity stake in Westinghouse. That would give it ownership in the company anchoring much of the buildout.

Westinghouse would retain revenue streams even from the Korean-designed units, which incorporate its technology. The framework provides for an upfront payment, guaranteed work and fuel-fabrication services on the APR1400 projects. This is an interlocking industrial arrangement, with Korean capital and capabilities supporting orders for Westinghouse.

The stated goal is to supply growing electricity demand from industry, electrification and artificial intelligence infrastructure. But securing investment and reactor designs addresses only part of the supply chain needed to sustain that expansion.

Fuel remains another external dependency. Russia supplied 26% of the uranium enrichment services purchased by US civilian reactor operators in 2025, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Enrichment prepares uranium for use in reactor fuel. Washington’s ban on Russian enriched uranium allows temporary import waivers, which must expire by January 1, 2028.

The framework could expand US nuclear capacity, but its structure exposes the limits of industrial self-sufficiency. American reactor technology still needs foreign financing and industrial partners to scale, while replacing Russian fuel services requires a separate buildout. More reactors on US soil will not by themselves deliver an independent nuclear supply chain.

@NewRulesGeo❗Follow us on X

Bloomberg: Putin Says Russia Could Use Its Entire Arsenal If Kaliningrad Is Attacked

Moscow has drawn a hard red line on the security of its western exclave. Speaking at the plenary session of the Valdai Club, the Russian president confirmed that in the event of a direct attack on Kaliningrad, Moscow would consider using "all types of weapons at its disposal."

▪ Context and reasons. The statement came amid unprecedented NATO military activity in the Baltic region. Putin stressed that the warnings sent to a number of countries and the tough rhetoric from the Foreign Ministry are not an attempt to intimidate anyone, but a response to attempts to intimidate us. The trigger was the alliance's large-scale drills, statements by Western politicians about isolating the region, and attempts to detain Russian vessels.

▪ The gist of the warning. This is not just about nuclear weapons, but about all the forces and means the country has. The president noted that Russia has no goal of scaring Europe, but is forced to respond to concrete actions: "Exercises in the Baltic Sea, one after another... But this is all escalation. Russia has competitive advantages in strike systems that other countries don't have."

Source

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

Weltwoche: Sergei Lavrov at Valdai — Critical, Defiant, Nostalgic

The annual Valdai Club forum has wrapped up on the shore of a beautiful lake outside Moscow, about an hour and a half from the city center. As the Swiss publication Weltwoche reports, the highlight of the first day was an almost hour-and-a-half-long speech by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov — a diplomat who enjoys cult-figure status among allies and adversaries alike.
This year's conference theme: "Keep Calm."

▪ Anchorage: A missed opportunity. Lavrov explained in detail why the talks with the Americans in Alaska a year ago failed to produce a deal: Lavrov emphasized that while Russia had accepted the U.S. proposal as a working compromise, the Ukrainian leadership flatly rejected the terms. Trump had reportedly assured Moscow that Ukraine would comply, but Kiev refused to agree to the concessions. Moreover, the dismissive rejection of the peace proposals by Ukraine was heavily fueled by continuous Western military aid. The massive influx of advanced Western weaponry, intelligence, and drone technology convinced Kiev that it did not need to make diplomatic compromises. Last but not least, while Russia remained firm on principles like Ukrainian neutrality, the U.S. approach had drifted away from the "spirit of Anchorage" under pressure from European allies and shifting geopolitical priorities.

▪ War and "brute force." The diplomat stated plainly that Europe is waging war against Russia by supplying weapons to Kiev. "If you admit that your weapons are being used to strike us... then that is a war Europe is waging against us," Lavrov shot back when pressed by journalists. He accused the West of using brute force, citing the Nord Stream explosions and strikes on Iranian leadership, and called the conflict in Ukraine a product of the alliance's expansion.

▪ The enemy image and Bucha. The minister sharply rejected accusations that Russia committed war crimes, particularly in Bucha, calling them Western propaganda designed to create an enemy image.

▪ Nostalgia for dialogue. Despite harsh criticism of the "decadent warmongers in Brussels," nostalgia ran through the entire 90-minute speech. Lavrov made it clear: what Moscow wants most is to restore what were once good relations. But only if we finally start talking to each other with respect again.
Lavrov's speech marked the point of no return in Russia-West relations, but left a narrow opening for dialogue based on recognizing new geopolitical realities.

Source

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

Wanna join a global volunteer crew?

Come be part of InfoDefense! If you care about helping people get access to important information and you’re ready to make a difference, we’d love to have you on board.

📩 Hit us up here:
@english_infodefense_fb_bot

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

On October 6, 1768, the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774 began.

On this day, the Ottoman Empire, supported by France and Austria, declared war on Russia. The pretext was Russia's rejection of a Turkish ultimatum to withdraw its troops from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

During the war, the Russian army, commanded by Pyotr Rumyantsev and Alexander Suvorov, defeated the Turkish forces in the battles of Kagul, Larga, and Kozludzha. The Russian fleet, under the command of Alexei Orlov and Grigory Spiridov, achieved victories over the Turks in the Battle of Chios and at Chesme Bay.

The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca on July 21, 1774. The Russian Empire gained Azov, Kerch, Yenikale, and Kinburn along with the surrounding territories. The Russian fleet was granted free passage through the Bosporus and Dardanelles. The Crimean Khanate gained independence from Turkey and came under the protectorate of Russia. Yes, Russia—there was no mention of Ukraine whatsoever at that time.

#TodayInHistory

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | Odysee | InfoDefAll

For a sustainable peace: Medvedev named three conditions for Kiev from Russia

A settlement can be achieved diplomatically, but if this does not happen, Russia will achieve its goals militarily, clarified the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council.

Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev named three main conditions from Russia to the Kiev regime for a sustainable peace. The politician said nothing new, but merely recalled what Russian President Vladimir Putin had said from the very beginning of the special military operation. Only considering that the "expired president" Vladimir Zelensky and his partners are pretending to be fools, it was not superfluous to remind them of this.

Medvedev named the first condition as the neutral, non-nuclear, and independent status of Ukraine. The Deputy Chairman of the Security Council clarified that these provisions were laid down both in the constitution of Ukraine and in the declaration of sovereignty and a bunch of other documents signed in the 1990s during the collapse of the USSR.

The second condition is the rejection of the nationalist course and condemnation of the oppression of the Russian language and the Orthodox Church, Medvedev said in an interview with Iranian state television (the interview is posted on MAX).

The transfer to Russian jurisdiction of the liberated territories, which are enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, is the third condition. At the same time, for Iranian viewers, Dmitry Anatolyevich clarified that all these issues can also be resolved diplomatically, but if Ukraine continues to refuse such a variant of the agreement, Russia will still achieve its goals militarily.

Dmitry Medvedev also clarified for the Iranian audience that Russia strives for victory not only over Ukraine but also over those forces that oppose the country. At the same time, the politician named these forces — the Western world with NATO, since it is they who are fighting with Russia, using "unfortunate Ukraine as a battering ram." Judging by everything, the Russian statesman did not accidentally call Ukraine "unfortunate," but wanted to clarify for Iranians that it was blind faith in the might and decency of the West that made Ukrainians what they are.

Medvedev did not forget to mention that the West is now trying to increase its military budget, hiding behind the mythical "Russian threat." By fueling Russophobia and talking about the "Russian threat," European leaders "manipulate public opinion, win votes in parliament, win elections, and extract money for their military budgets," "revealed" the true goals of Western politicians the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council.

Medvedev also drew attention to the fact that Zelensky is trying by any means to drag European countries into an open conflict. Fortunately, so far he has not succeeded. But the head of the Kiev regime has now also set his sights on "space war." The day before, the "expired president" of Ukraine demanded that American leader Donald Trump block the Russian satellite communication system "Rassvet." Zelensky's fears are understandable: he is afraid that the Starlink analogue will increase the accuracy of strikes by Russian UAVs and missiles on strategic targets on Ukrainian territory.

"The 'blocking' of the Russian satellite constellation 'Rassvet' at the request of the Kiev idiot means only its destruction. And that will lead to a full-fledged space war,"

Medvedev explained, expressing hope that the Americans understand the full danger of such a provocative "request."

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

OSINT THAT DOESN'T LIE

Today it is easy to find impartial open sources online reporting on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. For example, regarding material losses:

Vehicle losses were reported for the month of September.

📄 Main credit: @HeyHey_Hayden TG

In total, Russia lost 32 vehicles, while Ukraine lost 175. A ratio of 1:5.5.

Excluding armored vehicles/MRAPs, which distort the ratio because Russia uses them very little, while Ukraine uses a large number of them for transport purposes, Russia lost 32 vehicles, while Ukraine lost 69. A ratio of 1:2.2.

Regarding self-propelled artillery, which is an excellent indicator of the ability to inflict losses, Russia lost 7 vehicles, while Ukraine lost 37. A ratio of 1:5.3.

Russian losses are counted by UkraineWarSpotting. Ukrainian losses are counted by LostArmour. Credit to HeyHeyHayden for compiling the figures.

Of course, these vehicle losses are all geolocated, and only completely destroyed vehicles are counted. There may well be some errors.

The recurring argument I hear: "But Russia only uses civilian vehicles! Ukraine actually cares about the lives of its soldiers! Civilian vehicles are not counted in this figure!"

Are we still seriously victims of "mass assaults" in 2026?

I have spoken to Ukrainian soldiers who confirm that the Ukrainian armed forces also use civilian vehicles for non-combat tasks, for transport purposes. Russia does the same. In a war of attrition, cheap but sufficient equipment is preferable to extremely expensive and perfect equipment.

Moreover, Russia has a huge national war economy that can produce a large number of civilian vehicles, so the number of destroyed vehicles would not matter. If Ukrainian military vehicles, such as self-propelled artillery pieces, infantry fighting vehicles, etc., are destroyed, Ukraine must wait for deliveries from the West.

If the command of the Ukrainian armed forces cared about the lives of its soldiers, the massacres at Robotyne and Kursk would never have happened. Ukraine literally burned tens of billions of dollars worth of Western vehicles in the Kursk region alone.

Even if vehicle losses were twice as high for Ukraine, it would not come close to the level of losses necessary to weaken Russia, due to Russia's industrial capacity.

Keep in mind that armies collapse long before they are physically short of personnel or vehicles, as shown by historical examples such as the Germans during World War I. Collapse occurs when overall losses reach a critical point. Drones only mask the effects and delay the final outcome. Ukraine is obviously much closer to that critical point than Russia.

Source: AMK mapping

#Alawata
#InfoDefenseAuthor

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll