JEWISH KING JESUS IS COMING AT THE RAPTURE FOR US IN THE CLOUDS-DON'T MISS IT FOR THE WORLD.THE BIBLE TAKEN LITERALLY- WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE MAKES GOOD SENSE-SEEK NO OTHER SENSE-LEST YOU END UP IN NONSENSE.GET SAVED NOW- CALL ON JESUS TODAY.THE ONLY SAVIOR OF THE WHOLE EARTH - NO OTHER. 1 COR 15:23-JESUS THE FIRST FRUITS-CHRISTIANS RAPTURED TO JESUS-FIRST FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT-23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.ROMANS 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.(THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE)
AMERICA (POLITICAL BABYLON)(NUKED BY SNEAK ATTACK FROM RUSSIA)
IN
REVELATION 17 & 18 IS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE RELIGIOUS AND
POLITICAL BABYLONS.IF YOU CAN NOT DECERN BETWEEN THE 2 BABYLONS IN REV
17 & 18.YOU WILL JUST THINK THEIR BOTH THE SAME.BUT NO-THERES A
RELIGIOUS BABYLON (THE VATICAN IN REV 17)(AND THE POLITICAL BABYLON IN
REV 18 (AMERICA OR NEW YORK TO BE EXACT)
ISAIAH 34:10
10 It
(AMERICA-POLITICAL BABYLON) shall not be quenched night nor day; the
smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it
shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.
JEREMIAH 51:29-32 (CYBER ATTACK 1ST)
29
And the land shall tremble and sorrow: for every purpose of the LORD
shall be performed against Babylon,(AMERICA-NEW YORK) to make the land
of Babylon (AMERICA) a desolation without an inhabitant.
30 The
mighty men of Babylon (AMERICA) have forborn to fight, they have
remained in their holds: their might hath failed; they became as women:
they have burned her dwellingplaces; her bars are broken.
031 One
post shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to
shew the king of Babylon (NEW YORK) that his city is taken at one end,
32
And that the passages are stopped,(THE WAR COMPUTERS HACKED OR EMP'D)
and the reeds they have burned with fire, and the men of war are
affrighted.(DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO)
COMPLETE SILENCE AFTER AN EMP GOES OFF
REVELATION 8:1
1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.
JEREMIAH 50:3,24
3
For out of the north (RUSSIA) there cometh up a nation against her,
which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they
shall remove, they shall depart, both man and beast.
24 I have laid a
snare for thee, and thou art also taken, O Babylon,(AMERICA) and thou
wast not aware: thou art found, and also caught, because thou hast
striven against the LORD. (RUSSIA A SNEAK CYBER,EMP ATTACK,THEN NUKE
ATTACK ON AM
Order from Chaos-Russia’s draft agreements with NATO
and the United States: Intended for rejection? Steven Pifer Tuesday,
December 21, 2021
Russia maintains the world’s largest nuclear
arsenal and the most powerful conventional military forces in Europe.
Russian military units currently are deployed — uninvited and unwanted —
in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova. As Russia’s massing of military power
near Ukraine prompted a crisis, President Vladimir Putin has demanded
legally-binding security guarantees for… Russia.
On December 17,
the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs took the unusual step of
publishing draft U.S.-Russia and NATO-Russia agreements that encapsulate
Moscow’s desired guarantees. The substance of the drafts and the way
the Russians publicized them do not suggest a serious negotiating bid.If
the Kremlin is serious about negotiating and deescalates the situation
near Ukraine, the West could engage on some elements of the drafts.
Many, however, will go nowhere — as Moscow surely knew.Draft NATO-Russia
agreement-Russia’s draft “Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security
of the Russian Federation and Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization” would require that NATO members commit to no further
enlargement of the alliance, including in particular to Ukraine. There
is little enthusiasm within NATO now for putting Ukraine on a membership
track, as Putin and other Russian officials undoubtedly understand.
However, the alliance will not reverse its long-standing “open door”
policy. That would require consensus, and few allies, let alone all 30,
would agree that Russia can dictate NATO policy in this way.This
suggests that a middle ground of “not now but not never” might offer a
way to kick this thorny can down the road. That is, if Moscow wishes to
defuse the situation.Another article in the Russian draft would require
that NATO deploy no forces or weapons in countries that joined the
alliance after May 1997. That month,NATO committed not to permanently
station substantial combat forces in new members and said it had “no
intention, no plan, and no reason” to deploy nuclear weapons on their
territory. From 1997 to 2014, NATO deployed virtually no troops or
equipment in new member states.That changed following Russia’s seizure
of Crimea. NATO now deploys, on a rotating basis, relatively small
multinational battlegroups in the Baltic states and Poland. It is
difficult to see NATO agreeing to withdraw them absent a significant
change in Russia’s military posture. However, the draft treaty would
impose no requirements for redeployment of Russian forces.Such
provisions will prove non-starters with the alliance. Others might get a
more positive reception. These include language on consultative
mechanisms, such as the NATO-Russia Council, and the establishment of a
hotline between NATO and Russia. Indeed, NATO has proposed NATO-Russia
Council meetings, though Moscow-Suspended diplomatic relations with NATO
in October.The draft treaty also would bar deployment of
intermediate-range missiles in areas where they could reach the other
side’s territory. Of course, the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty banned all U.S. and Russian intermediate-range missiles. However,
Russia’s deployment of the intermediate-range 9M729 cruise missile in
violation of the treaty led to its collapse.This idea sounds like
Putin’s 2019 proposal for a moratorium on deploying intermediate-range
missiles in Europe. While NATO turned that aside, it might be worth a
second look, provided that Russia affirmed that it would apply to the
9M729 and had appropriate verification measures.The draft treaty’s
proposed bar on any NATO military activity in Ukraine, eastern Europe,
the Caucasus, or Central Asia is an overreach, but some measures to
limit military exercises and activities on a reciprocal basis might be
possible. There is a history of such provisions, for example, the Vienna
Document’s confidence- and security-building measures.-Draft
U.S.-Russia treaty-The draft “Treaty between the United States of
America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees” also contains
unacceptable provisions. Washington likely will not agree to a
requirement that the two countries “not implement security measures …
that could undermine core security interests of the other Party.” Moscow
has shown it has a very broad definition of what it thinks could
undermine its security. Likewise, it is unrealistic to ask the United
States to prevent further NATO enlargement; Washington will not agree to
close the “open door,” and even if it were to do so, it could not
persuade all 29 other allies to agree to change the policy.While
interest could develop in the draft NATO-Russia agreement’s provision on
intermediate-range missiles, there will be no interest in the draft
U.S.-Russia treaty provision which would effectively ban U.S.
intermediate-range missiles from Europe while leaving Russia free to
deploy such missiles against NATO countries. The provision limiting the
ability of heavy bombers and surface warships to operate in and over
international waters will find no fans in Washington or, for that
matter, in the Russian military.Discussion on other provisions regarding
military activities might be possible. It is unreasonable for Moscow to
seek a veto over Kyiv’s foreign policy direction. However, the concern
expressed by Putin earlier in December and then repeated about U.S.
offensive
missiles in Ukraine able to strike Moscow in a matter of minutes poses a
different question. That concern could prove easy to address, as there
is no indication that Washington has ever considered it. Other such
Russian concerns might also be addressed, along with U.S. (and NATO)
concerns about certain Russian military activities.The draft provision
requiring that all nuclear weapons be deployed on national territory
should go into another forum. Biden administration officials-hope to
begin a negotiation with Russia that would cover all U.S. and Russian
nuclear arms. That is the proper place for this issue. Whether a
requirement that all nuclear weapons be based on national territory
would prove acceptable to Washington would depend on the overall
agreement and consultations with allies.Proposals intended to fail? The
unacceptable provisions in the two draft agreements, their quick
publication by the Russian government, and the peremptory terms used by
Russian officials to describe Moscow’s demands raise concern that the
Kremlin may want rejection. With large forces near Ukraine, Moscow could
then cite that as another pretext for military action against its
neighbor.If, on the other hand, these draft agreements represent an
opening bid, and the Russians seek a serious exchange that also
addresses the security concerns of the other parties, some draft
provisions could offer a basis for discussion and negotiation. The North
Atlantic Council stated last week that NATO is “ready for meaningful
dialogue with Russia.” U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan
reiterated that point: “We’ve had dialogue with Russia on European
security issues for the last 20 years… That has sometimes produced
progress, sometimes produced deadlock. But we are fundamentally prepared
for dialogue.”A deescalation of the situation near Ukraine would help
greatly. U.S. and NATO officials will not want to engage as long as
Russia hangs a military threat over Kyiv. Another question is the
format. Washington and Moscow can have bilateral discussions, but
negotiations have to include all affected parties, including Ukraine.
The United States and Russia cannot cut a deal over the heads of the
Europeans and Ukrainians. As Sullivan said, “nothing about you without
you.”The sides should come to the table prepared to address the other’s
legitimate security concerns. Agreeing on the meaning of “legitimate”
will consume long hours. For example, it is unlikely that the United
States (or NATO) will compromise on the principle — to which Moscow has
agreed as a signatory to the-1975 Helsinki Final Act — that states
have a right to choose their own foreign policy course. The question of
military activities in the NATO-Russia region is a different issue, and
NATO has already shown its readiness to undertake commitments in that
regard.These discussions and any negotiation will be long, complex, and
arduous. That is the kind of work that diplomats do. Getting started
down that path, however, will require very different signals than those
the West and Ukraine have seen from Moscow the past several weeks.
17 December 2021 13:26
Agreement
on measures to ensure the security of The Russian Federation and member
States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.The Russian Federation
and the member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),
hereinafter referred to as the Parties, reaffirming their aspiration to
improve relations and deepen mutual understanding, acknowledging that
an effective response to contemporary challenges and threats to security
in our interdependent world requires joint efforts of all the
Parties,determined to prevent dangerous military activity and therefore
reduce the possibility of incidents between their armed forces,noting
that the security interests of each Party require better multilateral
cooperation, more political and military stability, predictability, and
transparency, reaffirming their commitment to the purposes and
principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1975 Helsinki Final
Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the 1997
Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the
Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the 1994
Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, the 1999
Charter for European Security, and the Rome Declaration "Russia-NATO
Relations: a New Quality" signed by the Heads of State and Government of
the Russian Federation and NATO member States in 2002, have agreed as
follows:
Article 1
The Parties shall guide in their
relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible
security. They shall not strengthen their security individually, within
international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the
expense of the security of other Parties.The Parties shall settle all
international disputes in their mutual relations by peaceful means and
refrain from the use or threat of force in any manner inconsistent with
the purposes of the United Nations.The Parties shall not create
conditions or situations that pose or could be perceived as a threat to
the national security of other Parties.The Parties shall exercise
restraint in military planning and conducting exercises to reduce risks
of eventual dangerous situations in accordance with their obligations
under international law, including those set out in intergovernmental
agreements on the prevention of incidents at sea outside territorial
waters and in the airspace above, as well as in intergovernmental
agreements on the prevention of dangerous military activities.
Article 2
In
order to address issues and settle problems, the Parties shall use the
mechanisms of urgent bilateral or multilateral consultations, including
the NATO-Russia Council.The Parties shall regularly and voluntarily
exchange assessments of contemporary threats and security challenges,
inform each other about military exercises and maneuvers, and main
provisions of their military doctrines. All existing mechanisms and
tools for confidence-building measures shall be used in order to ensure
transparency and predictability of military activities.Telephone
hotlines shall be established to maintain emergency contacts between the
Parties.
Article 3
The Parties reaffirm that they do not
consider each other as adversaries.The Parties shall maintain dialogue
and interaction on improving mechanisms to prevent incidents on and over
the high seas (primarily in the Baltics and the Black Sea region).
Article 4
The
Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively,
shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of
the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that
territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such
deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to
security of one or more Parties.
Article 5
The Parties
shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in
areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.
Article 6
All
member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit
themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including
the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.
Article 7
The
Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of
Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South
Caucasus and in Central Asia.In order to exclude incidents the Russian
Federation and the Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization shall not conduct military exercises or other
military activities above the brigade level in a zone of agreed width
and configuration on each side of the border line of the Russian
Federation and the states in a military alliance with it, as well as
Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
Article 8
This Agreement shall not affect
and shall not be interpreted as affecting the primary responsibility of
the Security Council of the United Nations for maintaining international
peace and security, nor the rights and obligations
of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 9
This
Agreement shall enter into force from the date of deposit of the
instruments of ratification, expressing consent to be bound by it, with
the Depositary by more than a half of the signatory States. With respect
to a State that deposited its instrument of ratification at a later
date, this Agreement shall enter into force from the date of its
deposit.Each Party to this Agreement may withdraw from it by giving
appropriate notice to the Depositary. This Agreement shall terminate for
such Party [30] days after receipt of such notice by the
Depositary.This Agreement has been drawn up in Russian, English and
French, all texts being equally authentic, and shall be deposited in the
archive of the Depositary, which is the Government of ...Done in [the
city of …] this [XX] day of [XX] two thousand and [XX].
