Winston Churchill, the great orator, politician, historian of England, might have been many things at once but a war planner he most certainly was not. In his formulation of a plan to invade Russia on the Pontus Exinus, like the ones Charles the XII, Napoleon or Bock had failed to execute properly, Churchill’s deficiency in war planning is not merely a matter of miscalculations but a fundamentally insufficient understanding of the Ostflanke.
In a report delivered on May 22nd, 1945 on the chances of ‘Operation Unthinkable’ – a surprise attack on the USSR, Churchill outlined his war plan for invading Russia. With the date for the execution of Operation Unthinkable approaching its 80th anniversary, the July 1st, 2025, the intended date before which His Britannic Majesty’s Government sought to rally its allies against Russia, begs for comparison with Hitler’s own Directive 21. In many respects, Operation Unthinkable parallels Directive 21. Both are war planning documents, whose initial preparations intended to be concluded in May. Operation Unthinkable for instance has a May 22nd, 1945 due date for preparations, while Directive 21 has a May 15th, 1943 due date. In both of these war planning documents, the date for the campaign’s launch is a summer month; in Operation Unthinkable, the date is July 1st, 1945. In Hitler’s Directive 21, the date of execution is June 21st, 1943. The date merely but a week apart. Moreover, both of these war planning documents focus on Poland as a central point about which to pivot its forces in a lurch towards Russia. While worded with slight differences in both documents, Churchill’s Operation Unthinkable outlines task similar to that of Hitler’s Directive 21 for the overall objective of the campaign both in terms of the destruction of the Russian military in a decisive battle and the desire to disable Russia’s ability to withdraw. While Churchill’s Operation Unthinkable describes this objective as “the occupation of such areas of metropolitan Russia that the war making capacity of the country would be reduced to a point at which further resistance became impossible”, Hitler describe it thus: “The ultimate objective of the operation is to establish a cover against Asiatic Russia from the general line Volga-Archangel” where Russia’s war making capacity exists. Both cautioned against “evacuations” (Churchill’s Operation Unthinkable) or “the retreat of units capable of combat into the vastness of Russian territory” (Hitler’s Directive 21). In both documents, the war planners idealized the outcome of the attack in a swift attack. Churchill’s Operation Unthinkable mentions “a quick success.” Hitler’s Directive 21 seeks “to crush Soviet Russia in a quick campaign.” For all intents and purposes and perhaps without any doubt, Churchill’s Operation Unthinkable report is but a spitting image of Hitler’s Directive 21.[1]
One of the things neither report mentions is a classic element of warfare on the Eastern Front. While both do hint at Russia’s strategic depth with Churchill’s document far more detailed than Hitler’s, Russian exploitation of strategic depth is not merely withdrawal but withdrawal, maneuver and fortification. This most glaring deficiency marks both of these war planning documents. It is of paramount importance.
Turkey, Russia, NATO, BRICS
The area within which Russia has fought more than 12 wars with the Turks, endless wars with the Europeans, the steppes stretching from the Caspian to the Azov seas is a war zone with a history as decisive for the inhabitants as for the conquerers, one of which is Russia. In the span of more than five centuries, the Russians fought no fewer than 12 wars with the Turks. The one with the most significance for Russia is the Russo-Turkish War of 1806 to 1812. Towards the end of that war, Mikhail Kutuzov fought a decisive battle against the Turks.
Mikhail Kutuzov’s famous victory against the Turks in the last of the 12 Russo-Turkish wars is one that exemplifies “withdrawal, maneuver and fortification.”
Signed by the Russian commander Mikhail Kutuzov, ratified by Alexander I of Russia 13 days before Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, prevented the French, who adamantly sought to sabotage Russian efforts to persuade the Sublime Porte of the collapsing Ottoman Empire to concede territory to the Russians with the hope that Turkey would join forces with Napoleon against Russia, from opening up a war with the Russians on two fronts in 1812.
Zamir’s Ridge (רכס זמיר): Israel, the Druze, and Syria
Israeli Defense Force’s Chief of Staff, Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, conducted a situational assessment with IDF soldiers in Syria on April 20, 2025. During the visit, Lt.-Gen. Zamir met with IDF soldiers operating there in the field and approved plans, not only for ongoing defensive but also new offensive operations.
The territory seized by the IDF in Syria, which extends Israel’s control over the Syrian Golan Heights, following the collapse of the Assad regime, is “vital for Israeli security,” IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir said Sunday, April 17th, 2025, during a field tour and security assessment in the area.
“The space is a vital space,” said Zamir, who was accompanied by Northern Command head Maj.-Gen. Ori Gordin, Division 210 head Brig.-Gen. Yair Falai, and other senior officials. “We entered here because Syria fell apart, and therefore we hold key points and are on the front lines to best protect ourselves.”
Standing with troops stationed on a ridge, Zamir emphasized the strategic significance of the area: “From this place we see everyone on this ridge – this is a strategic point. We don’t know how things will develop here, but our hold here has an extremely important security significance.”
“IDF soldiers will continue to operate in the security space and protect the residents from any threat,” he concluded.
The image of Zamir on the unnamed ridge is already a viral image on social media; Arab media outlets have replayed the image multiple times; it is certainly to be among the most important images in the history of Israel and its wars throughout the Middle East. There are a number of reasons for this important milestone, some of which Zamir himself mentioned, albeit without detail.
Northern Command head Maj.-Gen. Ori Gordin, who accompanied Zamir in his inspection of an unnamed ridge in an Israeli occupied area on or beyond the Golan Heights in Syria, would later be seen in a photograph with the leader of Syria’s Druze community, whose authority is recognized throughout the Druze held territory in southern Israel.
Jaramana, the Druze, and the Syrian ‘Revolution’
وزير الثقافة السوري الأسبق رياض نعسان آغا: القيامة قامت في #جرمانا وربما تطال التوترات مناطق أخرى..وهناك محاولات لإجهاض ثورة #سوريا بعد أن وصلت إلى سدة الحكم
The Beginning of Syria’s Disintegration
The fall of Syria’s Assad regime ushered inevitably into reality the prospect that within the next few days, months, or years, Syria’s territory, which is already disintegrating, will be fully disintegrated into competing ethnic, religious, or cultural statelets in the areas where certain ethnicities, religions, or cultures dominate. Suppressed for years by the Assad regime’s iron hand, the fight has broken out, manifesting itself in various forms already.
Syria, the Great Power Struggle, and the Final Redivision of the Collapsed Ottoman Empire
Conclusion
The U.S. led-NATO’s war machines are foaming at the mouth for a renewal of World War II. In the years of tears, the Member States of the alliance, have successfully exploited the Ukraine, Ukrainians, and the country’s vast swatch of raw materials not only for a grand, social, George Soros experimentation but a testing ground for the ‘first battle’ concept so celebrated in American military circles. The grand, social, George Soros experimentation has witnessed “the combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO” with the expressed purpose “to reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries, which is the main constraint on their willingness to act.” Ukrainian body bags, full of naive, ignorant, fooled Ukrainians killed fighting for Ukraine to become a Member State of the exploitative alliance, have piled up on the battlefields, in the morgues, or on Ukrainian cemeteries, whose expanse has widened immensely after Russia launched its full-scale invasion on February 24th, 2022. Alongside these deaths, the technical capabilities of NATO cover the implementation of Artificial Intelligence with software from the Department of Defense such as the Delta program or that of companies like Palantir.[] The second element of NATO’s plan, which has been to observe, analyze, or summarize, has unfolded against the backdrop of Soros’ bloody machinations in much the same way a stock broker discusses his portfolio. Best explained in an article published directly from the horse’s mouth, the idea that Ukraine, its people or its raw materials are quantifiable. Entitled, “The Ukraine Dividend: Return on Investment of US Security Assistance,” the article details how the exploitation of Soros’ bloody machinations have provided “insights the US military can gain to prepare for the next conflict in Europe, the Indo-Pacific, or the homeland.”[]
Footnotes
[1] – It is perhaps not worth mentioning in detail how flawed Churchill’s understanding of the cooperation between American and British troops was and how this cooperation effected nearly every aspect of the war effort in major battles, such as the Battle of the Bulge. In that battle, one of the reporters from the War Department, Robert E Merriam, a reporter attached to the Ninth Army, who spent “a lot of time “Ninth Army, and in the course of my duties, I spent “much of [his] time with the 7th Armored Division.”[vii] Merriam explains how critics have capitalized on General Courtney Hicks Hodges and Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery on account of the combined armies in ability to lead nationally distinct divisions together on campaign. Merriam, for instance, writes: “Again, the only divisions immediately prepared to attack were the British, and Hodges was reluctant to use them in his attack scheme: first, because of the co-ordination problem involved in feeding individual British divisions into an American command setup, and, second, because he thought it was an American duty to finish up the job. Since national armies have quite different methods of operating and communicating, it is no simple matter to slip a division of another nationality into an American command organization.” How Churchill thought he might have overcome the challenges of combining armies for an invasion against Russian such as the different types of command setups, methods of operating, or communicating, is not readily apparent from the text in Operation Unthinkable.
It should be noted that the problem persists. In an article published by the Wall Street Journal on an exercise by U.S.-led NATO with Member States from the alliance, all three of these issues encumbered combining armies for offensive action.
Bibliography
[] – [ https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CAB120-691.jpg ]
[] – [ https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English57_new.pdf ]
[] – [“Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO,” Open Society Foundations, November 1, 1993 ~ https://www.georgesoros.com/1993/11/01/toward-a-new-world-order-the-future-of-nato/]
[] – [“The Ukraine Dividend: Return on Investment of US Security Assistance,” 04/17/2025 ~ https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-ukraine-dividend-return-on-investment-of-us-security-assistance/ ]
Excerpt from The Manchester Guardian, Monday, November 26, 1917. This was the first English-language reference to what became known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement.