ДИРЕКТОР ЦРУ В МОСКВЕ —ТЯЖЕЛЫЙ УЛЬТИМАТУМ: ответ Путина и последствия для России. Прогноз сентябрь

Summary of Main Points (News Commentary + Forecasts)

• SVO/Special Military Operation described as escalation into a “real war”: The speakers argue the conflict has moved into a higher-intensity stage. They claim a large share of weapons used by Ukraine comes from the US, framing this as evidence of deeper Western involvement rather than solely Ukrainian capacity.

• Economic/financial crisis risk tied to September (and late October): Using an astrology-based framework (e.g., Jupiter/Pluto and eclipse effects), they suggest a financial “tension window” could disrupt global markets. They point to potential delays, emergency financial interventions (such as massive liquidity injections), and the likelihood of another bubble/burst cycle.

• Iran/Middle East focus as a parallel theater: A major portion centers on predictions that events in Iran and the wider Middle East will intensify and shape US decisions. They argue US policy in the region could reduce attention on Ukraine or redirect resources—while still keeping Ukraine reliant on Western support.

• US politics and Trump’s position: The presenters interpret multiple developments as aligning with a forecast for Trump and related US internal dynamics. They claim Americans may experience consumer pain (rising prices and reduced consumption) and that the US may eventually need to “leave” conflicts without major face-loss.

• Ukraine’s internal instability and leadership conflicts (as framed by the speakers): They argue Ukraine is experiencing power struggles involving Zelensky, senior military figures, and political-media actors—describing the situation as “spider-in-a-jar” chaos. They also claim Western-backed “anti-corruption” mechanisms support outcomes unfavorable to Zelensky.

• Autumn/September as a “transition” toward détente—yet without peace guarantees: While they discuss possible cooling (more diplomacy and less open escalation), they also forecast continued battlefield pressure. They explicitly suggest that détente-like changes would not eliminate the risk of aggression—rather, they would affect how conflicts are managed and negotiated.

• Military operational prediction: pressure to winter + focus on key areas:

  • They forecast intensified fighting culminating by winter.
  • They emphasize an advance toward Slavyansk–Kramatorsk and the creation of a “buffer zone,” extending toward the Kyiv direction in their framing.
  • They claim Ukraine’s air defense depletion limits its defensive capacity, implying continued drone strikes and infrastructure degradation.

• Maritime/logistics warfare narrative: The speakers describe Russia’s attempts to restrict Ukraine’s sea access and attack Danube and port logistics. They argue this reduces Ukraine’s export capacity (grain/metal) and undermines resupply.

• NATO-wide danger warning: They argue NATO could be pulled into broader risks, including potential terrorist/“explosion” scenarios and escalating tensions in regions such as the South Caucasus and the Baltics. They also mention concerns related to escalation tied to nuclear posture rhetoric.

• Radcliffe/Burns visit interpreted as ultimatum and chess move: They claim a recent US official visit functioned as an ultimatum or pressure mechanism intended to prevent Russia from changing strategic realities—especially concerning Ukraine’s external borders. Though framed through a “peacekeeping” lens, they argue US objectives remain coercive.

• Forecast for September dates (astrology-derived): They highlight specific “window” days including:

  • Early September: tactically dangerous (described as Mars–Saturn type aggravations)
  • Around September 17: a more favorable operational/diplomatic point
  • September 22–23: another stabilizing period (trine-based)

• Soft power and “mental/cognitive warfare” thesis: In the discussion of Russia’s “soft power,” the speakers describe a long Western history of reflexive control and indirect influence (including references to CIA-style techniques and the Soviet collapse as allegedly “software” undermining). They argue Russia fell behind after repositioning ideologically toward the West and claim information/cognitive war remains central to the current conflict.

Q&A Themes

• Dollar de-risking: They argue the world may move away from the existing dollar-based system, but that the transition will likely cause pain for ordinary savers, especially in Europe and the US.

• Possibility of world peace: They deny a true “end of violence,” suggesting that while interstate violence might be minimized regionally, strategic confrontation would likely shift forms over decades.

Presenters / Contributors

• Igor Mgiladz
• Pavel Andreev (founder of the Higher School of Astrology)
• Alexander Tamonov (international military expert)