We now explain the conflict between the Rothschilds and Russia in Africa, Central Asia and Israel.
The Conflict in Africa
Germany became a single unified nation in 1870, after defeating France that same year. The German economy, blessed with 4 billion franc war reparation, began to industrialise and boom. In search for raw materials and markets, Germany began looking at Africa and Asia. Looking at the map of Africa (in 1900), one sees that Britain, France, Portugal, Italy Germany and Belgium are countries within the Rothschild orbit.
The map below that shows a partial list of Africa’s natural resources.
The European race for colonialism made Germany start launching expeditions of its own, which frightened the Rothschilds. Hoping to quickly soothe the brewing conflict, Rothschild asset, Belgian King Leopold II convinced France and Germany that common trade in Africa was in the best interests of all three countries. Under support from the Rothschilds, Germany called on representatives of 13 nations in Europe as well as the United States to take part in the Berlin Conference in 1884 to work out a joint policy on the African continent. The conference was opened on 15 November 1884, and continued until it closed on 26 February 1885. The Rothschild’s control over European finance and governments assured the family that the division of Africa would be in their favor. We see from a map of Africa, that the family divided up the continent between the 2 branches- French and British. The French took the western half of Africa, plus the Sahel region. The British took the eastern and southern parts of Africa. This division is even reflected in the Mediterranean states. Egypt went to Britain, while Tunis, Algeria went to France. The family gave Germany Namibia, Tanzania and Congo. When World War 1 broke out, the family grabbed the African colonies of Germany. The conference provided an opportunity to channel latent European hostilities towards one another outward; provide new areas for helping the European powers expand in the face of rising American, Russian and Japanese interests; and form constructive dialogue to limit future hostilities. In Africa, colonialism was introduced across nearly all the continent. When African independence was regained after World War II, it was in the form of fragmented states.
The Scramble for Africa sped up after the Conference since even within areas designated as their sphere of influence; the European powers had to take effective possession by force. In central Africa in particular, expeditions were dispatched to coerce traditional rulers into signing treaties, using force if necessary. Bedouin- and Berber-ruled states in the Sahara and the Sahel were overrun by the French in several wars by the beginning of World War I. The British moved up from South Africa and down from Egypt and conquered states and, having already defeated the Zulu Kingdom in South Africa in 1879, moved on to subdue and dismantle the independent Boer republics of Transvaal and the Orange Free State. Within a few years, Africa was at least nominally divided up south of the Sahara. By 1895, the only independent states were Morocco, Liberia and Ethiopia.
Africa has long been a vitally important domain of French foreign policy. The continent has arguably counted as the most important region for France, after Europe, since the invasion of Algeria in 1830 and the subsequent establishment of the second French colonial empire. France would continue to consolidate its control over vast swaths of the continent for more than a century, until a process of decolonization that occurred after the end of the Second World War.
Although painful processes of detachment occurred with most of North Africa, decolonization in sub-Saharan Africa was more gradual, and many ties with Paris remain. While French remains a lingua franca and de facto administrative language in the Maghreb, French stands as the official language of 21 sub-Saharan African nations, a fact that recent French administrations have been keen to take advantage of. The currencies of former French colonies in West and Central Africa are also integrated into French monetary policies, as the nations continue to use the CFA franc, a currency bound to the value of the euro, and are obliged to deposit half of their foreign exchange reserves with the French Treasury.
About a week ago, these 3 African countries have agreed to dump the Franc and replace it with their own currency. France had no choice but to agree to end this policy with West Africa and it comes long after Paris has benefited from trade and economic benefits from this arrangement. In addition to lasting linguistic and economic ties, France has also been engaged in military operations in Africa for decades, most recently in the Sahel region as Operation Barkhane from 2014 to the present day. The French flag was lowered for thelast time in the Bila Zagré military camp in Burkina Faso in late March 2023, marking the end of 13 years of a presence by French armed forces in the West African country.
In January, the French were given one month to leave the country — a decision that followed a period of growing instability in the country, including two coups d’état in 2022.The withdrawal from Burkina Faso is the third setback for France. In recent months, France has also had to leave Mali and Central African Republic, raising fears of a domino effect across the continent And now in Chad and Niger, people want to see a new type of partnership with France. There are still about 6,000 French boots on the ground on the African continent, including 1,000 in Niger and 900 in the Ivory Coast,
The reasons for France’s waning influence in the Sahel region are multi-faceted, rooted in its colonial history and accelerated by local politics, but its troubles are also a consequence of Russia’s ambitions to expand its foothold on the continent, especially since the start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As French troops are systematically ushered out, they are in some cases being replaced by mercenaries from Russia’s paramilitary organization Wagner Group — which is led by Vladimir Putin ally Yevgeny Prigozhin. Backing up the Wagner boots on the ground, Russia is also waging sophisticated and coordinated information warfare against France, which has so far struggled to effectively strike back, and showing Moscow as a liberating, anti-colonial force against Western imperialism. France, in contrast, is presented as collaborating with Islamist jihadists, stealing natural resources and is portrayed in videos as snakes, zombies and rats. The speed with which French forces were expelled from Mali, Burkina Faso and CAR has left many observers wondering which country will turn its back on France next. “The anti-French sentiment is everywhere. Wagner is only present in a couple of countries, but the Russian storytelling is everywhere,” warned the French government official.
The prospective French exit from Burkina Faso and the corresponding Russian entry into the country are part of a decade-long clandestine ‘proxy war’ between France, the traditional hegemonic power in Francophone Africa, and Russia, a rising power in the region. Surprisingly, the Franco-Russian geopolitical ‘tug of war’ in the resource-rich but impoverished region has so far avoided significant attention from the major mainstream media outlets. The tactics that have been utilized by Paris and Moscow in this silent war include information warfare, psychological warfare, assassinations, coups and counter-coups, the use of proxies (locally-based official military forces, militias, insurgent groups and PMCs) against each other, military interventions on behalf of allies, and even clandestine attacks on each other.
From a historical perspective, the French intruded into the region far earlier than the Russians. France colonized large parts of Africa in the 19th century, but most of the French colonies achieved independence by the late 20th century. However, in addition to retaining a few colonies (such as Reunion and Mayotte), France has so far managed to exert various degrees of control over a number of its ex-colonies in Africa through the employment of a number of realpolitik tools, including the maintenance of a ‘patron-client’ relationship, the elevation of pro-French politicians, the political and physical elimination of anti-French elements, the orchestration of coups, counter-coups, rebellions and assassinations, the incitement of inter-state conflicts, the direct deployment of French troops, the fostering of underdevelopment, the introduction of a French-backed common currency and the aggressive promotion of French language and culture.
On the other hand, Moscow entered the region in the late 1950s as a part of its Cold War strategy. Paris and Moscow were in opposite camps at that time, so they found themselves on opposite sides in a number of conflicts in Francophone Africa, exemplified by the Algerian War, the Western Sahara War, the Shaba War and the Chadian-Libyan War. Following the dissolution of the USSR, Moscow retreated from the region, leaving the French predominant. However, France’s heavy-handed and somewhat culturally insensitive policies towards the region, coupled with growing consciousness and sense of nationalism among the local populace, have created deep dissatisfaction among a significant part of the region’s population, leading to the sharp rise in anti-French sentiments and popular protests calling for the termination of French involvement in a number of Francophone African states.
Russia, on the other hand, is free of the colonial baggage of the past, and Moscow’s strong support for the independence of the African states in the previous century has added a positive and emotive dimension to the relations between Moscow and the African capitals. Furthermore, the semi-authoritarian and authoritarian governments in the Francophone Africa have keenly observed the successful Russian intervention in the Syrian War (2015–present), in which the Russians, through a measured use of military force and diplomacy, protected the Syrian government from Western-backed insurgent groups and helped the Syrians recapture large swathes of lost territories. So, several governments in Africa have concluded that building up an alliance with Russia would strengthen their internal political position and assist them in recovering lost territories. Disillusioned with France, they have thus turned to Russia. This scenario has played out in the Central African Republic (CAR), Mali and Burkina Faso, all of them ex-French colonies. The CAR has been plagued by a complex civil war since 2012. France militarily intervened in the war in 2013, but the French intervention accelerated the conflict and French Intelligence helped the insurgent groups, and it was discontinued after 2016. The Central African government then turned to Russia in 2017, and a limited contingent of Russian troops and Wagner contractors was deployed to the country. The Russian intervention has so far protected the Central African government from the French-controlled insurgent groups and helped the Central Africans regain large swathes of lost territories.
Similarly, Mali has been embroiled in a multi-dimensional civil war since 2012. France militarily intervened in the war in 2013, but the French intervention failed to stop the war or eliminate the insurgent groups. Following the installation of a new government through a coup d’état in May 2021, Mali turned to Russia, and a small contingent of Russian troops and Wagner contractors was deployed to the country. In February 2022, the Malian government urged France to withdraw its troops from Malian territory, and French troops were withdrawn by August 2022. Wagner contractors immediately rushed to occupy the vacated French bases across Mali, and currently the Malian Armed Forces, spearheaded by Wagner contractors, are engaged in offensive operations against insurgent groups to retake lost territories.
The scenario has been replicated in Burkina Faso, the southern neighbor of Mali. Burkina Faso has been preoccupied with an insurgency since 2015, and nearly 40% of Burkinabe territory is currently controlled by insurgent groups. France militarily intervened in the war in 2013, but the French intervention has neither helped the Burkinabes in recovering lost territories nor improved the law and order situation in the country. The reality showed that the French were aiding the rebel groups against the government, (just like it did with the other African countries) and the country witnessed large-scale anti-French protests. In September 2022, a new government assumed power in the country through a coup d’état and in December.
Images and videos claiming to prove that the French army was involved in the smuggling of gold from Mali were published in several languages. This was proof of how France and the Rothschilds are stealing the wealth from its colonies. If you want to watch the video, please click this link: https://youtu.be/jHaYOh7RiD4
A number of pictures and videos have been published on the websites , who claim to prove that the French army was involved in the smuggling of gold from Mali, “France has the fifth largest gold reserves in the world, although there are no gold mines on its territory,” says one Arabic-language publication. “The French-occupied country of Mali has no gold reserves, even though it has hundreds of gold mines.” The picture shows how France came with all this gold.” The leaflet is accompanied by a set of photographs, one of which shows soldiers at the bottom of a crater, from which crates suggest it contains gold extracted from the ground. Mali is so rich in gold deposits that it is the only country in the world that is called “MONEY”- In the African language money is called “MALI”.
The French military interventions in the CAR, Mali and Burkina Faso have foundered owing to a number of factors, including France’s failure to understand and fulfil local aspirations, its employment of a faulty strategy involving targeted killings and minor ground operations, its failure to adapt to the realities of the battlefields, its disregard for civilian casualties, its growing disagreements with the host states, and last but not the least, its open pursuit of a looting and plundering agenda in the region. Accordingly, Russia has gradually moved in to fill the vacuum. Moreover, Russia’s stance towards France has considerably hardened due to strong French support to Ukraine (in the form of provision of money and high-end military equipment, deployment of military instructors and intelligence operatives, and participation in anti-Russian sanctions) in the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian War, and Russia has responded by further expanding its activities in Francophone Africa. However, the conflicts in the region are fuelled primarily by underdevelopment, growing economic disparities and the unequal distribution of resources.
The Balfour Declaration
The US entered World War 1 in April 1917. By early 1917, all indications were that Russia was on the verge of dropping out of the war. This was due to deteriorating internal conditions within Russia, and poor management of the war front. The Rothschilds became worried for the following reasons. Their agent in Wall Street, JP Morgan, had raised $4 billion to fund military supplies to Britain and France. Had Germany won the war, then Britain would lose this $4 billion. But, since the loan was taken on by the key Rothschild countries – Britain and France, drastic measures were needed.
So, Walter Rothschild went to the British government, promising them that the US will enter the war on its side, (and save the British government from financial collapse and a possible defeat) PROVIDED that the British government issues a promise in writing to the Rothschilds that they would give Palestine to the Jews. After American entry into the war, and the Russian withdrawal from the war, the British government released the infamous Balfour Declaration, in November 1917.The family manipulated events to achieve its aims. The war managed to grant the family one of their ultimate aim-to have land in Palestine. Legitimizing and holding onto it is another matter altogether.
The Conflict in the Middle East
As explained before, Putin has foresight and vision in terms of geopolitics. Plus, he knows the plans of the2 families in respect to the Middle East. After the return of Crimea, and the entry of ISIS into Syria and Iraq, Syria’s Assad appealed for help to Putin. The Russian entry into Syria happened in September 2015.
This move checkmated the 2 families’ aims for the region. Iran supplies Hezbollah with arms and money. Iran helps Syria fighting the terrorists in Syria. So, since 2011, Israel has been helping the terrorists fight Syria, and in, addition, targeting and destroying Iran’s’ arms supplies to Hezbollah and its Iranian paramilitary units helping Assad. These continuous attacks have brought Russian –supplied air defense into the equation. Many times, Russian planes, soldiers and citizens have been victims of Israeli aggression. Recent Russian statements have prompted speculation about Moscow’s response to Israeli strikes in Syria. If there’s a shift, it could pose problems for the US, as the situation between Israel and Russia is fragile and complicated. Recent statements by a Russian admiral and an anonymous Russian source have prompted speculation about whether Russia is changing its approach regarding Israeli strikes on Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Syria. Whenever Israel launches an attack on Hezbollah and Iranian-affiliated targets in Syria, Russian missile-defense systems intercepts most of the missiles launched An anonymous Russian source said that, in the wake of US President Joe Biden’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Moscow had gotten the message that Washington was not pleased with Israel’s escalated activity in Syria. But there has been no indication that the United States is concerned about Israel’s military activities in Syria, nor that such a spectacular success against Israeli missiles was accomplished. The US and Russia brokered a deal. It allowed Iranian-backed militias, including Hezbollah, to continue to operate in a safe zone created in southern Syria. The accompanying ceasefire in that zone was meant to facilitate both US and Russian efforts to combat ISIS in the region.
Israeli complaints fell on deaf ears, but Washington made it clear that Israel was free to pursue its objectives. A line of communication was opened between Israel and Russia, which Israel used to notify Moscow of impending attacks, in the hope of avoiding Russian casualties and upsetting the delicate balance. Although there have been several incidents over the years that threatened to alter the status quo, diplomacy between Israel and Russia managed to defuse tensions when they arose.
Russia has never been happy about Israel’s frequent attacks in Syria, as its foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, affirmed in January. “If Israel is really forced to respond to threats to Israeli security coming from the Syrian territory,” he said, “we have told our Israeli colleagues many times: if you see such threats, please give us the information.” Israel has made it clear over the years that this is unacceptable to them.
With Lebanon mired in economic collapse and political chaos, Hezbollah’s position there has become more volatile and controversial, even while its military capabilities have grown and have remained a source of agitation for Israel. As the situation in Lebanon worsens, the possibility of clashes with Israel increase, particularly as Hezbollah has faced increased scrutiny and negative attention domestically.
In early April, 2023, Russia, Iran, and Turkey reaffirmed their stated desire to see a unified and independent Syria reformed.
In March this year, China brokered a peace deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
In April, moves started to bring Syria back in the Arab League.
All these diplomatic moves have been to the detriment of Israel and the US. But, Israel is in a more vulnerable position. Russia/Chinese/Iranian/Saudi influence is growing in the region, leaving Israel very little room to maneuver. It is another reason for the Rothschilds to hate Russia even more.
This is where Russia is hoping to flex its diplomatic muscles on the international stage.
With these shifting circumstances, Russia may be looking for a way forward. By rebuking Israel, Moscow has reaffirmed its support for and value to the tattered Assad regime. But the regional concerns are what make the question of whether Russia is really intending to take a stronger stance against Israeli actions in Syria so important.
The Biden administration will have to think carefully about how to move forward if Russia decides to defend Syrian airspace more forcefully. It would need to find a way to convince Israel to respect Syrian airspace while ensuring that Israel remains secure from attack, something the United States would need to cooperate with Moscow to achieve.
Washington has so far remained quiet. If the recent statements were mere posturing by Russia, it can comfortably continue to do so. If not, it will have to get involved in brokering a deal, lest Israeli tensions with Russia escalate and create a new powder keg in a region that already has too many.
Do note that in 1916, the Rothschilds, through the Sykes-Picord Accord, divided the Middle East between the 2 branches- Palestine and Jordan went to the British. Syria and Lebanon went to the French. Syria and Lebanon have been in the cross-hairs of Israel for decades. And, now, they have lost any chance of bringing these 2 nations under their control. This, in turn, means that the chance to block Iran’s oil exports through the Hormuz Straits and the Syrian/Lebanese gateway to the Mediterranean is over. In short, Israel has been cornered! This has made the Rothschilds even more furious at Putin.
The Conflict in Central Asia
Although, unlike the last war of 1812 with France, Russia and Britain were never openly at war with each other (with the exception of the Crimean War in 1856), the scale of the geopolitical confrontation between these two European states and Moscow has long existed and is constantly growing; especially against the background of the current leaders of these two countries’ servile submission to the anti-Russia policies of the Rothschild family. And one of the hottest points of clash of interests has been Africa and Central Asia.
Having established itself in Central Asia before Russia, Britain quickly enough began to extract rich dividends from its Asian colonies, covering, in particular, the deficit resulting from export-import operations with American and European companies through trade with India and China.
Initiated by London, the Russo-Persian War of 1826-1828 was an attempt to slow down Russia’s advance to the south, but the defeat of Persia only helped consolidate Russia in the Middle East, undermining Britain’s position there.
The first Afghan war ended in a humiliating defeat for the British crown, in which it lost more than 5 thousand soldiers and about 25 million pounds, as well as the Russian conquest of Central Asia, accelerated since the 1850s, allowed Moscow through successful campaigns to subdue the Kokand, Bukhara and Khiva khanates to the great indignation of London.
The beginning of the twentieth century once again pitted British and Russian interests against each other. Britain, however, having ceded its status as the world’s leading power to the United States, and after becoming the latter’s chief viceroy in Europe, continued its confrontation with Russia. Although today it is not the same country it was 200 years ago, and it now has neither India nor an official reason to get involved in Asia, still, London’s Asian aspirations haven’t faded. Today it’s no secret that Britain’s intelligence has a serious influence on Turkey and is trying to oust Russia from Asia, which was proved by the visit of Richard Moore, head of MI6, to Ankara right after the end of the second Karabakh war. Keep in mind that London provoked Turkey against Russia and openly
supported it by entering the Crimean War in 1853 -1856, and then in the war of 1877 -1878 by giving it money, weapons and instructors.
It is clear that Britain is unlikely to engage Russia openly today, since the current British army is not what it was when Britain “ruled the waves” and could afford to “fight Russia.” Nevertheless, London’s unsuccessful desire since the 19th century to “tame,” especially through the hands of others, has not stopped. Russia, whose actions in Central Asia seem to threaten the countries of the “British imperial dominion” in the Middle East, has long literally become an obsession in Britain. At every opportunity, official London tries to demonstrate its anti-Russian demarches, foments hostile hysteria and propaganda clamor in the media, and meanwhile, under their cover, carries out interventions in Central Asia. In particular, it is trying to prevent the spread of not only Russian but also Chinese influence in the region, to cut off access of their goods to traditional markets, and to take control of transit trade of Moscow and Beijing with countries of Middle East through the Caspian and Aral Sea region.
For Britain, Central Asia has long been an area of strategic interest, not only because of the region’s significant mineral reserves, but also because of its geostrategic position as a bridge between Europe and Southeast Asia. Besides, it is necessary to remember that in autumn of 2005 the CIA and MI6 gathered the forces of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) in the province of Kunduz with the purpose of staging an attack on the southern regions of Kyrgyzstan but the action never took place.
Since Richard Moore became the chief of British intelligence, there has already been a notable activation of British intelligence services in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, along with a strengthening of pan -Turkic organizations and controlled Islamist groups to conduct subversive operations. Moreover, London actively seeks to use Turkey as a battering ram in this campaign in the region in order to cut a path for British interests and squeeze Russia out of Central Asia. London began to coordinate its anti-Russian activities in Central Asia with the United States and the CIA. There is an explanation for this, as at the moment both Britain and the US benefit from the geopolitical instability in Central Asia, which allows them to keep Russia and China on their toes.
But in addition to this “strategic alliance” between Britain and the United States in Central Asia, London’s desire to involve France “in these actions” has recently become increasingly clear. At the beginning of February, a round table was held in Paris under the aegis of the French parliament to discuss and call for an increased role not only of the “Collective West” but also of France in Central Asia in order to weaken Russia’s influence in the region. “Dancing” around the leaders of Central Asian republics actively took place in Paris, for example, in November of last year around two leaders of this region – Shavkat Mirziyoyev and Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, who were invited to Paris for an official visit. They engaged in active negotiations with members of French political and business circles (all serving the Rothschilds), who promised billions of dollars of investment in these Central Asian countries, and numerous “memoranda of intent” were concluded.
One of the participants of Paris negotiations was the largest French nuclear company Orano, which concluded a strategic partnership agreement with Uzbek uranium producer Navoiyuran that envisaged joint prospecting and development of deposits. This is in preparation of France’s expulsion from Niger, in the near future.
Even though the French hate Russia, they cannot do without Russian enriched uranium! Statistics showed that last year the French energy corporation EDF purchased 153 tons of uranium enriched in Russia, the same level as in 2021. Russia accounts for 15% of enrichment activities for EDF. France generates roughly 70% of its electricity from 56 nuclear reactors. The country has long been Europe’s leading electricity producer due to its massive fleet of atomic reactors, the world’s second largest after the US. Under the 2018 deal, regenerated uranium from France is delivered to Russia, where it is enriched and then sent back. The recycled uranium is used to run France’s nuclear power plants.
The “specific interest” of Paris in Central Asia is largely due to uranium deposits required for nuclear power plants, and, after all France is the European leader in nuclear power generation. On the other hand – Kazakhstan is the world leader in manufacture of natural uranium, having 26 % of all of the world’s explored uranium resources in a low price category (about $80 for 1 kg) and provides more than 40 % of all world deliveries. The French-Kazakhstan Joint Venture KATCO already processes 15% of uranium mined in the country, but France obviously wants more, and in pursuing the West’s anti-Russian policy Paris has lately more and more actively joined any action harming Russia in one way or another. Therefore the desire to push Russia away from Central Asia, and Kazakhstan in particular, is now great in Paris, for which it plans to double joint uranium production with this country by 2030, pushing Moscow out. France is in a race against time, as in the near future, Niger is most likely to expel France. Niger is, currently, France’s main supplier of uranium. The problem is that Niger is being paid far less for its uranium than the world market price. They are even being robbed on the quantity of uranium being processed. This is so typical of this family. David de Rothschild’s plans are to replace Kazakhstan with Niger. Good Luck with that!
In Paris’s attempts to strengthen its presence in Central Asia, a traditional zone of Russian influence, one can clearly see more than just the desire to squeeze Rosatom, France’s eternal competitor, in the region and to get its hands on the local uranium. No, there is also an important geopolitical component: Macron obviously wants to get back at Russia for his own failures in Africa, where Russia has been driving France out, taking its place in the process. However, as for France and Britain’s aspirations regarding Central Asia, and their attempts to oust Russia from this region, they can only be advised not to waste time and money, but to deal with their numerous domestic problems, as mass protests against the ongoing social policy, including at the expense of incredible financial and military aid to support the criminal regime in Kyiv, continue to grow.
From all the information that you have read, to date, we see that the family, after its rise to power, began dealing with many countries outside Europe, and Russia was one of them.
It was only until 1920 that the family, in conjunction with American financiers, mainly the Rockefeller family, took political control of Russia. This continued till the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1991, from that date till 2000, when Putin became the head of state. The fall out with Putin began when he adopted a nationalist stance and cut down to size all the oligarchs belonging to the 2 families. Since then, Russia, under Putin, has become independent of Wall Street and the City of London.
A key point to note is that the Rothschild family spread over Europe, with each brother settled in a major European city. These were London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna and Italy. Of these 5 branches, the Italian, German and Austrian houses eventually closed down. This was because these branches ran out of male heirs to run the business. These 3 houses had daughters only. Rothschild tradition (and especially the Rothschild family’s founder who stated in his will that the daughters won’t have any share in the business, only the male heirs are allowed to run the business). These Rothschild girls came with immense dowries, which added to the wealth and power of the French branch. The wealth comprised of their colonies and the countless industrial, business and financial investments in Europe.
From this, over time, the majority of the girls from the 3 houses married into the Paris branch. Because of the massive infusion of wealth from the 3 houses, the Paris branch became wealthier than the London branch. Most of Europe’s major bank and companies fell into the orbit of the French branch.
France also had its African colonies from which it would plunder resources to support France Inc.
The British branch focused on its overseas colonies and its “special relationship” with the US. In addition, Britain also controlled the English-speaking Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Taking all of the above info, we can see that the Rothschild family and Russia had many conflicts, starting from 1882 to 1918; then, again, from March 2000 till now.
Since the start of the Ukraine war, we find that the 2 Rothschild countries-Britain and France – are the main cheerleaders for Ukraine. Their media and politicians make the most anti-Russian noise, and most of it is lies and half-truths. These 2 countries are also funding, arming and initiating terrorist attacks against Russia. The recent terrorist attacks on Russian infrastructure, military assets, citizens, and more, via drones and mercenary forces- all directed by MI6. Britain has honed its specialty in conducting terror attacks-globally-over the past 2 centuries. Finally, we find that French intelligence services and senior military officers are found all throughout the command structures within Ukraine. Recent attacks on “decision centers” and “command-and-control” centers in the Western parts of Ukraine have resulted in the deaths of many NATO senior personnel.
In March 2022, when the war was barely 2 weeks old, Putin announced that the sale of its oil and gas will be sold for rubles, and not for dollars. The second, made a few days later, was that the ruble will now be backed by gold. These 2 announcements signaled the end of the petro-dollar system. This sent the 2 families into a frenzied panic. It was at this point that a decision was made that Putin must not be allowed to live, that Russia must be destroyed and broken-up. For, if this policy were to take root, it would mean the eventual end of the petro-dollar system. With that, it would mean that the aim of the 2 families to eventually establish a global government would go “up in smoke”. This, was “not on”. It would mean that Ukraine must not be allowed to lose this war. At the first peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, held in Istanbul, the Rothschilds sent in their puppet, Boris Johnson, Kiev, wherein he told Zelensky that “do not go ahead with these talks, and, that Britain, France and America will provide money, arms and political support to fight Russia”. With that, Zelensky broke off the peace talks, and continued with war.
The Rothschild Empire has already suffered, since March 2022, huge financial losses- both in its banks and companies. There is a panic within the family that, if Ukraine loses and Putin wins, then it would mean the end of their global empire which lasted from 1810. And their answer to this is as follows “We will blow up the world rather than losing our empire!”
Besides the financial, economic and military angle, there is one more issue that the family is at cross-purposes with Putin. This is the issue of LBGT, trans-gender and gays, etc. Russia is an Orthodox Christian nation. Putin has refused this “western” push to ram this down the throats of other nations. This policy emanates from the Rothschilds, who, in turn, get it from the devil and the satanic ideology. We can see the social turmoil that this policy has caused in the world over the past 2 years since Rothschild man Biden got into the White House.
Our next article is titled “France & the Rockefellers”.