Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Stacey Plaskett: allowing RFK Jr. to speak will make the Biden administration “hesitant” about stopping “misinformation”

She then complains that people are accusing her of censorship

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | July 24, 2023

Some politicians seem either unwilling or unable to pick a lane: are they pro, or against censorship?

In other words, they’re dedicated to trying to eat their cake and have it, too. Take Democrat Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, who on one hand wants to silence people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK), and on the other, complains when faced with criticism of advancing censorship.

The way Plaskett rationalizes the first of her efforts is that allowing people like RFK to speak freely is not only “insidious” in nature, and not only equals “desensitizing Americans” (to what?) but brings about a host of serious, and it seems, powerful problems, that would afflict such institutions like the US administration, and (major) social platforms.

Free speech, according to Plaskett – who was commenting on RFK’s testimony in Congress, i.e., giving him an opportunity to speak there – would make the White House and social media “hesitant” to combat misinformation. You would think the First Amendment would be what gives the administration the most pause.

But then Plaskett doesn’t want to be seen as a champion of censorship. And this behavior might, or might not, prompt her supporters to stop and think what, then, it is that she is championing (other than the Biden administration). And, it becomes increasingly clear that all these roads lead to the 2024 presidential election.

The concern about Republicans “elevating” RFK – pejoratively dubbed an “anti-vaxxer” by outlets like MSNBC – is “far more insidious” than simply criticizing Biden, suggests Plaskett. That’s because of the fear the current administration might get stripped of the tools of censorship, stubbornly yet less and less convincingly promoted as noble and just fight against “untruths and misinformation.”

And if anybody was wondering if Democrats would drop the tactic of claiming that any election that doesn’t go their way must be the work of ingenious foreign masterminds – they will not.

Judging by Plaskett, the current apparently “steely will” to stop disinformation (and the Twitter Files tell us how it’s done) might turn into “hesitancy.”

And, of all times – “during the height of the 2024 presidential elections.”

And just like that, seamlessly Plaskett and MSNBC managed to link the issue of giving the likes of RFK a voice in Congress, with “Russian, Iranian, and Chinese” trolls that the congresswoman is certain will swarm the internet, as they “try to suppress the American voters.”

 

July 24, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

Are we Slipping Toward Dictatorship?

By John S Leake | The Kennedy Beacon | July 24, 2023

History teaches us that dictatorial power is rarely if ever achieved all at once. The aspiring dictator invariably begins with censorship. By controlling the flow of information to the public, he shapes public perceptions in his favor, and against his critics.

Facts, worldviews, and opinions that challenge his own are expunged from the marketplace of ideas. Individuals who communicate to the public about these facts and opinions are silenced, segregated, and ostracized.

Through this process of elimination, the aspiring dictator hones his craft and eventually becomes a complete dictator.

Enter the current Biden Administration. In a recent interview with Aaron Kheriaty, MD—a psychiatrist and medical ethics expert who is a plaintiff in Missouri v. Biden—Kheriaty told me about the censorship program that the White House and an array of federal agencies have erected in recent years. He and his co-plaintiffs knew that some such program was operational, but they were still shocked by the discovery of its size and scope. As Kheriaty described it, the program is a Leviathan—a vast and systematic apparatus for exerting pressure on social media companies to censor any opinion or content that displeases the government. There’s a name for such an apparatus—namely, DICTATORSHIP.

In other words, a program of widespread censorship is the creation and work of a dictator. By way of censorship, the fledgling dictator not only silences his critics, but also prevents his dictatorial powers, privileges, and activities from being detected and reported. Thus, censorship is the means by which an aspiring dictator becomes a complete dictator.

Missouri v. Biden shows us that the Biden Administration, its lackeys in Congress, and its electoral organ, the DNC, have not yet erected a full dictatorship. Nevertheless, their conduct reveals that they aspire to do so and have already done much to achieve their ambition. They therefore treat with withering contempt anyone who threatens their ambition.

We saw a shocking expression of this at the House Judiciary Committee (Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government) hearing that was held on Thursday, July 20, 2023. While the Committee’s chair, Jim Jordan of Ohio, and his fellow Republican members welcomed the testimony of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the Committee’s minority (Democrat) members did everything in their power to censor the hearing.

The mind reels in trying to comprehend this strange and paradoxical reality, so I will restate it. Last week, a hearing was held to “examine the federal government’s role in censoring Americans, the Missouri v. Biden case, and Big Tech’s collusion with out-of-control government agencies to silence speech.” Instead of listening to the witness and considering his testimony, the Committee’s minority members tried to censor him.

Ranking Member of the minority, Stacey Plassket—a non-voting delegate to the House from the United States Virgin Islands’ (USVI)—began by asserting that presidential candidate RFK, Jr.’s speech is not protected by the First Amendment:

Many of my Republican colleagues across the dais will rush to cover that they have Mr. Kennedy here because they want to protect his free speech. This is not the kind of free speech that I know of.

Free speech is not an absolute. The Supreme Court has stated that. And others’ free speech that is allowed—hateful, abusive rhetoric—does not need to be promoted in the halls of the people’s house.

These folks have a plan. They want to give expression to the most vile sorts of speech here in this committee room because it prepares the ground for their own conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.

And they apparently don’t care how many people are hurt or die as a consequence of their actions.… Because nothing, nothing is more important to them than power.

Plaskett’s assertions are an expression of the same strategy deployed by every dictator in history—namely, to dehumanize a dissident by characterizing his opinions as vile and dangerous. By the dictator’s logic, the dissident is not free to express his opinions because they pose a threat to the body politic. While such assertions are couched in the benevolent sounding language of protecting the citizenry, the true threat the dissident poses is not to the citizenry, but to the dictator’s power.

Assuming the role of Grand Inquisitor at the hearing was Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). She began by motioning the Committee to move into executive session, thereby closing the hearing to the public. She made this motion on the grounds that RFK, Jr.’s remarks about COVID-19 at a recent press event are harmful to the public.

Readers who are interested in the reality of these remarks—as distinct from the mainstream media’s blitz of mendacious propaganda about them—may consider reading my Substack post about it. In a nutshell, RFK, Jr. mentioned the vast medical literature about genetic variations in the ACE-2 receptor that cause some ethnic groups, especially Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews, to be less susceptible to severe COVID-19 illness than other ethnic groups.

Following the Committee’s rejection of Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s motion, she characterized RFK, Jr.’s recent remarks as perpetuating a longstanding anti-Semitic trope that Jews are responsible for infectious disease outbreaks. She then claimed (with perfect humbug) that she wanted to give the witness “a chance to correct his statements and repair some of the harm that he’s helped cause” to the Jewish people.

Her idea of “giving the witness a chance” was making grossly distorted representations of what he has purportedly said in the past, and then interrupting him every time he tried to set the record straight. Such methods of interrogation have been employed by every dictator’s kangaroo court in history.

Readers of this Substack may recall that Schultz is the former chair of the Democratic National Committee. On July 28, 2016, leaked emails showed that she and other DNC staff had taken actions to favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries. The leaked e-mails indicate that she did this in exchange for funds for paying off the DNC’s remaining debt from the 2012 presidential campaign. After eliminating Sanders from the 2016 race, Schultz is now (in her capacity as member of the House) hard at work to eliminate Kennedy from the 2024 race.

Schultz’s conduct is another expression of the dictator’s spirit—that is, the conviction that the ends justify means. It doesn’t matter that she once resigned her chair at an institution governing the electoral process after her corrupt, duplicitous, and unfair conduct was exposed. Her party and its supporters are still giving her license to abuse and censor RFK, Jr., and to mislead the public about statements he has made about public policy.

To learn more about Missouri v. Biden, please see my interview with plaintiff Aaron Kheriaty, MD.

John Leake with Aaron Kheriaty on Censorship

John Leake with Aaron Kheriaty on the origin of the citizenry needs to be protected from itself.

John Leake with Aaron Kheriaty on the way to correct false ideas.

Full Interview

The Kennedy Beacon Podcast EP1: John Leake with Aaron Kheriaty, MD

July 24, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video | , , | 2 Comments

Australia to Buy 20 C-130J Aircraft From US for Almost $10Bln

Sputnik – 24.07.2023

Australia will buy 20 new C-130J Hercules aircraft from the United States for $9.8 billion, with first deliveries expected in late 2027, the Australian Defense Ministry said on Monday.

The first aircraft is expected to be delivered beginning in late 2027, according to the statement.

“The Albanese Government will purchase 20 new C-130J Hercules aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force for $9.8 billion. This will provide the Air Force with state of the art C-130 Hercules to meet the air transport needs of the future,” the ministry said in a statement.

The new acquisitions will replace and expand the 12 Hercules aircraft currently in service, the ministry added. The aircraft are used by the Australian military to transport personnel, equipment and humanitarian supplies, as well as for search and rescue operation, disaster relief and medical evacuation missions, the statement said.

The C-130J Hercules are designed by US aerospace giant Lockheed Martin.

July 24, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Hungary may leave EU – former banking chief

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban attends the NATO summit in Lithuania © Beata Zawrzel / NurPhoto via Getty Images
RT | July 24, 2023

Leaving the European Union may soon become “a real alternative” for Hungary, the former governor of the Hungarian National Bank claimed in a television interview on Sunday.

Speaking on Hungary’s ATV network, Andras Simor said that while a Brexit-style departure from the bloc is an unlikely scenario, “it is a possible one.”

“It’s probability,” he explained. “If it was 10% last year, by now it has risen to 20%, to 30%.”

Citing the country’s rising inflation rate and the EU’s withholding of $30 billion in funding to Budapest, Simor stated that he is “afraid that Hungary’s government will maneuver the country into a situation where an exit from the European Union becomes a real alternative.”

Although Hungary is a net beneficiary of EU aid, much of this assistance has remained frozen for several years, with officials in Brussels citing Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s hardline anti-immigration policies and alleged crackdown on judicial independence and media freedoms as reasons for the holdup. 

While Orban’s government successfully gained access to some of this money by lifting a veto on EU economic aid for Ukraine last year, the Hungarian PM has continued his criticism of the bloc’s support for Kiev. Orban has repeatedly called for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, and accused “pro-war Brussels bureaucrats” of stoking conflict with Russia “at the expense of European interests.”

Orban’s disagreements with the EU go beyond the realm of geopolitics. Speaking at a youth event in Romania on Saturday, he declared that the bloc “rejects Christian heritage, carries out the replacement of its population via migration… and conducts an LGBTQ offensive” against conservative societies.

Despite his regular broadsides against Brussels, Orban has repeatedly dismissed the idea of leaving the EU. Polls taken since the 2016 Brexit referendum have consistently found high public support for staying in the bloc, although a recent Eurobarometer survey recorded a 12-point drop in those with a “positive image” of the EU, with only 39% now viewing the union favorably.

July 24, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

German Business Fears Best Days Behind It as Economy Crushed by Loss of Russian Energy

By Ilya Tsukanov | Sputnik | July 24, 2023

European industrial behemoth Germany has found itself among the nations hit hardest by the West’s attempt to “punish” Russia for its military operation in Ukraine, with industrial output slumping and the country sinking into a recession earlier this year after losing access to the cheap and reliable supply of Russian hydrocarbons.

German business, administrative, and government leaders have expressed widespread dissatisfaction with the government’s energy and economic policy, and expressed fears that the Central European industrial powerhouse’s economy may have “passed its zenith,” with its best days behind it.

A survey of 484 company board members, managing directors, government ministers, and other senior decision-makers by the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research for German media has found that only 24 percent of the country’s managerial class is satisfied with Economic and Climate Minister Robert Habeck’s job performance, down from 91 percent just a year ago.

Fewer than a quarter of those surveyed expect things to improve over the next six months, with two thirds saying there’s “little chance” the country can restore its lost international competitiveness, and 76 percent saying they don’t believe Habeck or the Ministry of Economic Affairs has the interests of German business in mind to a sufficient degree.

Among the top five problems cited by managers which hamper Germany’s competitiveness are high energy costs (77 percent), a shortage of skilled workers (70 percent), excessive government regulation (68 percent), a backlog in digitization programs (65 percent), and dilapidated infrastructure (61 percent).

58 percent of those polled said Germany appears to have “passed its zenith” economically, with just 22 percent expecting the economy to pick up again.

About three quarters of respondents expressed criticism of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Traffic Light coalition (which includes Scholz’s Social Democratic Party, the Greens – represented by Habeck and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, and the Free Democratic Party). Satisfaction with the coalition government has dropped from 62 percent in 2022 to 21 percent now, with 65 percent of those polled suggesting the coalition’s policies are “weakening the country.”

The Allensbach Institute conducted its survey between June 13 and July 7, with the 484 businessmen and officials polled including 89 board members of large companies, 18 ministers, and 28 heads of firms.

The German economy officially sunk into a recession in May after economic growth shrunk by 0.3 percent in the first three months of 2023.

In the aftermath of the escalation of the Donbass crisis into a full-blown Russia-NATO proxy war in Ukraine in February 2022, Germany has faced all the problems other Western countries have related to the decision to decouple themselves economically from Russia, like high inflation and spiking energy prices. However, as Europe’s main industrial economy, Germany’s crisis has been even more painful for local businesses, which have expressed concerns about the loss of competitiveness to other global behemoths like the US and China due to the energy-intensive nature of their products.

Washington added insult to Germany’s injuries last year after announcing federal subsidies to certain “green” industries, effectively trying to entice European industry to relocate to the United States for tax breaks and cheaper energy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned in May 2022 that decoupling the European economy from Russian energy resources would threaten the entire region with widespread deindustrialization and loss of competitiveness.

Last month, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner announced that cuts in the budget had forced Berlin to halt additional contributions to the European Union’s budget.

“Germany is both an important supplier for other European countries and an important buyer. A lasting recession in the German economy will certainly have significant effects on France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands,” Paris-based economist Jacques Sapir told Sputnik earlier this month.

“If this recession lasts until next spring, the economies of the countries mentioned will also go into depression, which in turn will affect the German economy even more,” Sapir predicted, characterizing Berlin and Europe’s anti-Russian sanctions policy as “a form of suicide.”

July 24, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | 1 Comment

Ukraine and the pitfalls of foreign aid

By Paul Robinson | Canadian Dimension | July 24, 2023

Few people came out of America’s 20-year war in Afghanistan looking good. A rare exception was John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). Sopko was the Cassandra of the American war effort, repeatedly revealing unwelcome truths only to be equally repeatedly ignored. In charge of auditing the vast sums of money that the US government spent on economic aid and reconstruction in Afghanistan, SIGAR’s office issued regular reports detailing waste, incompetence, and corruption on a scale that boggles the mind. Among other things, SIGAR published stories of how the US spent $6 million airlifting nine Italian goats to Afghanistan; spent $486 million buying aircraft for the Afghan airforce which were so dangerous to fly that they were never used and were turned into $32,000 of scrap metal; and spent $150 million building luxury villas to lodge staff of its economic development office. All this was just the tip of a very large iceberg.

The basic lesson of SIGAR’s many reports was that throwing vast sums of money into poor countries doesn’t promote economic development. Instead, it encourages corruption and inefficient economic practices. Formal institutions (laws, governments) depend upon informal ones, such as local customs and social structures, that foreigners do not understand, leading to misguided policies and misdirection of funds. Efforts to impose Western formal institutions on top of these very different informal ones, and then flooding the country with Western advisors and money, ends up being counterproductive. None of this, of course, is particularly revelatory. Critics of foreign aid programs have been saying much the same for years. Still, it is an important message.

Although the United States has left Afghanistan, Sopko is continuing his work. Last week, he published a letter written in response to a request from various US Senators. In this, he discussed how lessons from rebuilding Afghanistan could be applied to Ukraine. All wars come to an end. When that in Ukraine does so, there will no doubt be huge pressure on Western governments to flood that country with development assistance. SIGAR’s letter provides a dose of caution that is well worth listening to.

SIGAR notes that “many of the challenges US agencies faced in Afghanistan—coordinating efforts, dealing with corruption, and effectively monitoring and evaluating projects and programs—will be the same as the ones they will face in Ukraine.” He identifies seven particular lessons. These are:

  1. “The US government struggled to develop a coherent strategy for what it hoped to achieve in Afghanistan and imposed unrealistic timelines that led to wasteful and counterproductive programs.”
  2. “Lack of effective coordination—both within the US government and across the international coalition—was a major obstacle to success in Afghanistan and resulted in a disjointed patchwork of ineffective efforts, rather than a united and coherent approach.”
  3. “Though viewed as our greatest strength, the level of financial assistance in Afghanistan was often our greatest weakness.”
  4. “Corruption was an existential threat to the reconstruction mission in Afghanistan.”
  5. “Building and reforming the Afghan security forces was hindered by their corruption, predation, and chronic dependency on the United States.”
  6. “Tracking equipment provided to Afghan security forces proved challenging well before the government collapsed.” And:
  7. “Monitoring and evaluation efforts in Afghanistan were weak and often measured simple inputs and outputs rather than actual program effectiveness.”

Sopko makes a number of important points under these headings. One that is, “In Afghanistan, the US government spent too much money, too quickly, in a country that was unable to absorb it.” Yet estimates of how much money will be required to rebuild Ukraine far surpass what was spent in Afghanistan. The US (and by implication other Western states also) must take care not to provide more than Ukraine is able to effectively absorb or more than the donor states are able to effectively monitor. More is not necessarily better.

SIGAR also notes that “Under pressure to produce results quickly, agencies bypassed Afghan institutions and government channels when they encountered corruption, rather than slog through efforts at reform. When aid did flow through Afghan budgets and institutions, the United States prioritized the survival and short-term stability of the Afghan government over following through on anti-corruption efforts.” This is a problem that is likely to be repeated in Ukraine, where corruption is “likely to be a significant obstacle to the country’s recovery” given the country’s status as “the most corrupt country in Europe.”

Strangely, SIGAR misses a key fact, which is that this point and the previous one are connected—corruption feeds off excessive foreign aid. So does poor governance more generally. It is no coincidence that so-called “rentier” states (states that derive their income not from taxes on citizens but from what economists call “rents,” such as revenues from natural resource production or from foreign aid) tend to be corrupt, undemocratic, and generally unresponsive to citizens’ needs. When your revenues come from your citizens, you have to pay attention to what they want. When they don’t, you can afford to ignore them. A post-war Ukrainian government that is dependent on foreign assistance, maintains a huge military and security apparatus that is beyond its means, and has few sources of finance of its own, will have few incentives to listen to its own people or to act in an honest way.

A final point made by SIGAR is that in Afghanistan US agencies “often failed to measure programs and projects against the ultimate outcomes and impacts they sought to achieve. Instead, how much money was spent, and how quickly, became the measure of success, regardless of the actual result. This poured money into a fragile environment with no concept of whether projects achieved their intended goal, or even necessarily where all the money was going.” This is a perpetual problem in aid and development projects. Post-war, Western governments will no doubt feel a strong need to be seen to be “doing something” to help Ukraine. They will therefore be likely to throw money at the problem, publicizing their “success” in terms of funds expended and projects begun, but ignoring the actual outcomes.

SIGAR sees part of the solution as lying in better monitoring and evaluation. The problem with this is that there are generally few incentives to carry out such monitoring, because if one does there is a high possibility that one will come to the conclusion that one’s aid is failing, a conclusion that one cannot politically admit. In addition, the recipient of the aid is very possibly aware of this, and thus lacks incentives to use the aid appropriately. Confident that the donor is politically committed to supporting him come what may, he is free to act as irresponsibly as he wishes.

Simply put, giving money away in large quantities tends to produce perverse incentives that cause people to behave in ways that engender negative results. This isn’t a problem that can be fixed by better monitoring, anti-corruption efforts, and the like. It’s inherent in aid itself. If there is a weakness in Sopko’s reporting, it is that, as an auditor, it’s not his job to say whether aid should be given, just to point out whether it is being used effectively. Consequently, his reports end up consisting of lists of how things could be done better without ever challenging whether they should be done in the first place.

Still, they are vital reading for anybody who wants to think about how to reconstruct war-torn societies. What is clear is that if Western states want to produce better results in Ukraine than they did in Afghanistan, they will have to think a lot more intelligently about what sorts of aid they give and how they deliver it. But it’s not as if they weren’t previously aware of the problems mentioned above. SIGAR warned them repeatedly. Nobody listened. One must wonder if they are listening now.

Paul Robinson is a professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy. He is the author of numerous works on Russian and Soviet history, including Russian Conservatism, published by Northern Illinois University Press in 2019.

July 24, 2023 Posted by | Corruption | , , | Leave a comment

Austrian conservatives oppose EU’s ‘scandalous’ planned expansion of Ukraine funding

Austrian People’s Party (FPÖ) politician Petra Steger. (Wikimedia Commons)
MAGYAR NEMZET | July 24, 2023

The European Union’s desire to increase budget contributions from member states to continue funding Ukraine’s drawn-out conflict with Russia is scandalous, the conservative Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) has claimed.

Prominent FPÖ politicians sharply criticized the Austrian government for supporting the pro-war efforts in Brussels. Petra Steger, the party’s spokesperson on European affairs, insisted the European Union should not be fueling the conflict by providing an endless supply of military and financial support to Ukraine, and should instead be promoting peace talks in the region.

Steger slammed the plans proposed by the EU’s top diplomat Josep Borrell for the European Union to provide, in addition to existing measures, up to €5 billion per year for Ukraine’s defense needs and to guarantee a substantial contribution to the military training program of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

She said the plan represents a “bottomless pit,” and her party therefore reiterated its calls for the Austrian federal government to suspend its additional contributions to the European Union budget.

“The scandalous increase in the EU budget hasn’t even been implemented yet, and here they come with their next crazy demand. In the meantime, more than enough billions have been transferred to Ukraine, which has brought nothing but bloodshed and a boom for the U.S. arms industry,” Steger said.

“All this at a time when the European Union is constantly giving billions in gifts to third countries, openly supporting a warring party while the EU itself is degenerating into a debt union. Moreover, the European Central Bank is constantly overstepping its mandate. The hard-earned money of the Austrians is no longer in good hands in the institutions of the European Union,” she added.

Instead, Brussels should be hell-bent on promoting a ceasefire between Kyiv and Moscow to help bring peace back to the region.

“Until then, the EU’s behavior can only be described as a brazen Brussels rip-off that has turned into the ultimate disaster for the European financial budget,” she claimed.

More than €60 billion has flowed into Ukraine since the beginning of the war, and the European Union wants to approve even more funding through the European Peace Facility. This, however, comes at an additional cost for member states, and net contributors to the EU budget, like Austria, aren’t impressed.

“Our hard-earned prosperity over decades is incessantly sent to Ukraine by the EU,” Steger said, adding that the federal government supported Brussels in its plans and gave the European Commission its nod.

Her party colleague Axel Kassegger also criticized the European Union and the Austrian government for not being firmly opposed to the deployment of cluster bombs in Ukraine by the United States.

July 24, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 1 Comment

The New York Times Finally Told The Truth About The Failure Of Kiev’s Counteroffensive

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | JULY 24, 2023

The failure of Kiev’s NATObacked counteroffensive is undeniable six weeks after Westerners wrongly expected that Russia would swiftly be expelled from Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders. The New York Times (NYT) finally told the truth about this in their report on Sunday about “Weary Soldiers, Unreliable Munitions: Ukraine’s Many Challenges”. None of the facts contained within it are surprising since they’re all connected to the poor state of affairs that the Washington Post (WaPo) candidly described in March.

The observations shared by that Beltway outlet one-third of a year ago were dismissed by Kiev’s supporters as either being “Russian propaganda” despite WaPo’s leading role in pushing the Russiagate conspiracy theory or a “psy-op” that was designed to deceive Russia about the counteroffensive. It’s now known from the NYT’s latest report that this was a factual representation of the situation, the conclusion of which was extended credence by two other narrative developments over the weekend.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on Saturday that the West knew that Kiev wasn’t ready to launch its counteroffensive but still allowed it to go ahead anyhow. Zelensky then told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria the day after in an interview that “we had not enough munitions and armaments and not enough brigades properly trained in these weapons” for the counteroffensive to swiftly succeed. This backdrop set the stage for the NYT’s report, the highlights of which are as follows:

* The conflict has reached a “violent stalemate”;

* Ukrainian forces “are struggling… because of dense minefields” along the Zaporozhye front;

* They also “described a determined foe” whose morale remains high despite prior setbacks;

* “The Ukrainian military (is) facing a litany of new and enduring challenges”;

* Coordination problems between its troops persist;

* Ukraine has experienced “tens of thousands of casualties”;

* Its experienced and younger fighters have been replaced with “lesser-trained and older troops”;

* Russian forces have “become more adept” at dislodging Kiev from whatever ground it gains;

* “Ammunition is in short supply, and there is a mixture of munitions sent from different countries”;

* Old foreign-supplied munitions are “damaging [Ukraine’s] equipment and injuring soldiers”;

* Ukraine’s near-total dependence on Starlink has led to communication delays during assaults;

* “Training for more specialized skills, such as for snipers, has been sidelined in favor of trench attacks”;

* Ukraine’s lower-quality recruits, however, struggle to successfully carry out these assaults;

* Russia’s Lancet drones have been highly effective in destroying Ukrainian artillery and tanks;

* And it’s “impossible” to jam them, “at least for now”, and they’re also “hard to shoot down”.

The fifteen facts shared above leave no doubt that Kiev’s NATO-backed counteroffensive has failed exactly as President Putin once again claimed on Sunday, which in turn makes it all the more likely that peace talks will resume by year’s end as was earlier explained here and here. The NATO-Russian “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” that Stoltenberg finally acknowledged in mid-February, which is the most important variable shaping this proxy war’s trajectory, is indisputably trending in Moscow’s favor.

Kiev’s supporters can no longer tell themselves that all reports about disadvantageous developments are either “Russian propaganda” or “psy-ops” designed to deceive their opponent after the NYT’s latest report confirmed that Zelensky’s damning admission about his side’s unpreparedness is indeed true. The situation is likely much worse than both of them described it as being considering their self-interested motivation in not wanting to demoralize everyone.

Nevertheless, their disclosures on Sunday still shattered the delusions that Kiev’s most diehard supporters had clung to since none of them would dare to defy their cult’s dogma by suggesting that Zelensky hadn’t spoken the truth. The coincidental release of the NYT’s report on the same day as his damning admission made it impossible to deny the veracity of what he said due to the detailed information contained therein, which runs the chance of catalyzing a crisis of confidence in their ranks.

July 24, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

‘Not One Inch’: A Brief Look at the Written Record

By Michael Chapman | The Libertarian Institute | July 24, 2023

Although the Joe Biden administration and much of the major media contend that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO expansion, U.S. Army Col. Douglas Macgregor (ret.) told Valuetainment Founder Patrick Bet-David that Vladimir Putin has opposed “the movement of NATO to his borders” for “at least 15 years” because he sees such expansion “as a threat.”

Macgregor’s view is shared by the University of Chicago’s Distinguished Service Professor John Mearsheimer, considered one the world’s leading scholars on “realist” foreign policy. He argues that Russia considers NATO expansion into Ukraine as an “existential threat,” a position it has publicly held since at least 2008.

Yet U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says the conflict “was never about NATO enlargement” or “about some threat to Russia’s security.” Blinken also claims that Russia’s assertion that it was promised NATO would not spread eastward after the collapse of the USSR is false.

So who is telling the truth? Let’s look at the record.

On Bet-David’s June 28 PBD Podcast, Macgregor explained that Putin has “been talking at least for 15 years about his opposition to the movement of NATO to his borders. He’s made it very clear that he regarded it as a threat. One of the reasons he moved into Crimea was that he saw that becoming a NATO naval base principally for the U.S. Navy, obviously in the Black Sea. So, he moved on that first and then said, look, this has got to stop.”

Declassified documents in the National Security Archive at George Washington University show that former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, starting in 1990, was given many assurances by U.S. and European leaders that they would not expand NATO eastward to Russia. “Not one inch eastward,” said then-Secretary of State James Baker.

Ukraine, the cradle of Kievan Rus (Russia), is on Russia’s western border, and western Ukraine borders Poland, Hungary, and Romania.

The archives document that one of the earliest assurances to Gorbachev came from a speech by the German foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, in January 1990. In a cable to Washington, DC, the U.S. Embassy stated that Genscher made clear that NATO should rule out an “expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e., moving it closer to Soviet borders.”

In a February 10, 1990 meeting between German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Gorbachev, the archive reports that the “West German leader achieved Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east.”

The archive further states, “Not once, but three times, [U.S. Secretary] Baker tried out the ‘not one inch eastward’ formula with Gorbachev…He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that ‘NATO expansion is unacceptable.’”

Baker also assured Gorbachev that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” [Emphasis added]

After being briefed by Baker, Chancellor Kohl told Gorbachev, “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.”

On May 31, 1990, President George H.W. Bush said to Gorbachev, “[W]e have no intention, even in our thoughts, to harm the Soviet Union in any fashion. That is why we are speaking in favor of German unification in NATO…Such a model, in our view, corresponds to the Soviet interests as well.”

In 1991, British Prime Minister John Major assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” As for NATO inclusion of East European countries, Major said, “Nothing of the sort will happen.”

After a meeting in July 1991 with NATO Secretary General Manfred Woerner, a Russian memo reads, “Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).”

The archive article concluded, “Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO.”

After Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin became the first president of the Russian Federation, serving from 1991 to 1999. Vladimir Putin became president in May 2000, serving until 2008. He then returned to the presidency in 2012.

According to Professor Mearsheimer, author of “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin,” “Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion.”

“For Putin, the illegal overthrow [in 2014] of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president—which he rightly labeled a ‘coup—was the final straw,” said Mearsheimer. “He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.”

“The United States pushed forward policies towards Ukraine that Putin and his colleagues see as an existential threat to their country, a point they have made repeatedly for many years,” Mearsheimer said in a June 2022 speech at the European Union Institute. “Specifically, I am talking about America’s obsession with bringing Ukraine into NATO and making it a Western bulwark on Russia’s border.”

“The United States is not seriously interested in finding a diplomatic solution to the war, which means the war is likely to drag on for months, if not years,” added Mearsheimer. “The United States and its allies are helping lead Ukraine down the primrose path.”

Mearsheimer made those remarks one year ago. Today, the Ukraine-Russia war is still ongoing and the U.S. has made no serious effort to broker a peace deal.

President Biden, Secretary Blinken, and their cheerleaders in the major media relentlessly deny that potential NATO expansion into Ukraine had anything to do with Russia’s invasion in 2022. Such an assertion, they claim, is Putin propaganda. However, the historical record does not support their story, “not one inch” of it.

Michael W. Chapman, a longtime writer on Russian-American relations, is the former managing editor of CNSNews.com

July 24, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

The coming Russian – Polish war

By Gilbert Doctorow | July 23, 2023 

This evening’s News of the Week program on Russian state television opened with a 30 minute documentary survey of Polish-Russian relations from the end of WWI and during the period of the Russian Civil War, when the government under Marshall Pilsudski wrested substantial territory from Russian control. It also dealt extensively with Poland’s well documented role as aggressor and occupier of Czechoslovak, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Belarus lands from before the start of WWII and until Hitler overran Poland.

This reportage was all built around Vladimir Putin’s speech to the RF Security Council on Friday which was partly broadcast then. Excerpts from that speech were used to introduce segments of the overall documentary.

Let us recall that on Friday, Putin explained how and why we may expect the formal entry into the war of a Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian joint military force that will officially be presented as defending Ukrainian statehood by occupying the Western Ukraine. However, Putin described this as an occupying force which once installed in Lvov and Western Ukraine would never leave. This would in effect be a repeat of the sell-out of Ukrainian interests to Poles and cession of territory to Poland such as had been perpetrated by their leader Semyon Petlyura in April 1920 and has now been repeated in the secret agreements between presidents Zelensky of Ukraine and Duda of Poland.

However, that was not the only pending Polish aggression announced by Vladimir Putin on Friday. He said that Poland also had designs on Belarus land. The documentary this evening fleshed out that remark and reminded us of what Belarus territory Poland had grabbed by force in the 20th century when it had the opportunity. It also pointed a finger at those Belarus fighters abroad who will be used by Poland to spearhead their move against Minsk from Polish territory, and what armaments they are receiving from the United States and NATO member countries.

With respect to Polish designs on Ukraine, Putin did not tip his hand on what Russia’s response may be. But as regards Belarus, he stated directly on Friday that any act of aggression against Belarus will be considered an attack on Russia and Russia will respond with all the military force at its disposal. He warned Warsaw to consider the consequences of their actions.

Putin’s speech on Friday appeared to be directed at Warsaw. The program this evening was clearly directed at the broad Russian public, to prepare them for the onset of a possible Russian-Polish war in the immediate future.

This point was highlighted by the ongoing visit of Belarus president Lukashenko to Petersburg. There has been pomp and ceremony in this visit. Both presidents today visited Kronstadt, touring its principal church, which is the spiritual home of the Russian Navy. They also visited the about to be opened new museum of the Russian Navy, and its featured exhibit, which is Russia’s first nuclear submarine, the country’s answer to the American Nautilus at the time. And they held talks on the military and political threats their countries face. These talks unexpectedly will continue in the Konstantinovsky Palace outside Petersburg tomorrow. The reason for extensive consultations was clear from remarks that Lukashenko made to the press during his meeting with Putin: namely that Belarus military intelligence has been following very closely the massive build-up of Polish forces including tanks, helicopters and other heavy military equipment close to the Belarus border at several locations.

Tonight’s News of the Week program explained to the Russian public that the Poles’ new aggressive plans are proceeding only because of their confidence that Uncle Sam supports them. And they named the person embodying this link as former Foreign Minister of Poland Radoslaw Sikorsky (2014-15), who is today a Member of the European Parliament and delegate responsible for relations with the United States. A photo of Sikorski’s latest meetings with Pentagon officials and with Joe Biden and his advisers was put on the screen. For those who may wonder about Sikorsky’s political views, it pays to remember that he is the husband of neo-con, Russia-hating journalist Anne Applebaum, who is very well known to American audiences for her regular columns in The Washington Post.

From Russian talk shows of the past several days, it is easy to understand the Kremlin’s reading of the present proxy war in and around Ukraine: Washington sees that the Ukrainian counter-offensive is a complete failure that has cost tens of thousands of lives among the Ukrainian armed forces and has seen the destruction of a large part of the Western equipment delivered to Ukraine over the past months. Instead of suing for peace, Washington seeks to open a ‘second front,’ using Poland for this purpose.

One possible Russian response to any move against Belarus has also been discussed on air: to seize the Suwalki corridor that connects Kaliningrad to Belarus across Polish territory. Taking control of that corridor would have the effect of isolating the Baltic States from Poland and thereby put their security at peril.

The inescapable conclusion from the latest news is that Washington’s incendiary policies and continuing escalation of the conflict cannot secure Russia’s defeat. On the contrary, they may well lead to the total collapse of the NATO alliance once its military value is disproven in a way that cannot be talked away or papered over by the most creative propagandists in DC.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023

July 24, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s Surgical Strike On The Moldovan-Romanian-Ukrainian Tri-Border Sent Several Messages

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | JULY 24, 2023

Russia carried out a surgical strike early Monday morning against targets in the town of Reni on the Ukrainian side of the Danube River near the tri-border with Moldova and Romania. This video alleges to show one of the explosions at its port while this image purports to be of a grain warehouse that was supposedly destroyed in the aftermath. It can’t be ruled out that military and/or terrorist assets were hidden there, however, since Russia insists that it doesn’t strike purely civilian infrastructure.

In any case, Monday morning’s surgical strike was very important since it sent several messages that Russia’s opponents would do well to heed. For starters, Reni is located on the other side of the Danube from NATO-member Romania, which demonstrated that Russia will hit targets anywhere in Ukraine and can do so with maximum precision. Those military and/or terrorist assets based on the literal border of that bloc but just outside of Article 5’s jurisdiction can no longer take their security for granted.

The second message is that Russia is serious about cracking down on those threats to its security that were previously untouchable due to Kiev exploiting the grain deal to protect some of its aforesaid assets. Russia remained committed to that agreement in spite of that since it sincerely expected that the West would eventually remove those sanctions that impeded its agricultural exports. Since that didn’t happen and Russia therefore declined to extend the deal, Kiev’s selfsame assets are now fair game.

Third, carrying out a surgical strike on Reni proved that Russia had actionable intelligence regarding the Danube’s role in Kiev’s military logistical network, which many observers have suspected for a while. Related targets were previously untouchable for the abovementioned reason, but that’s no longer the case now that the grain deal expired. Accordingly, it can be expected that this won’t be the last surgical strike on the Danube, though it of course can’t be known when the next ones will occur.

The fourth message is that Russia now knows that NATO won’t extend its air defense umbrella over any part of Ukraine after no effort was made to stop its surgical strike in Reni on the Romanian border. The bloc either didn’t see the missiles approaching their air defense zone or detected them but declined to attempt an interception in order for Russia not to think they’re ready to get directly involved in this proxy war. Either way, NATO looks weak and Russia thus feels emboldened to continue striking near its borders.

And finally, this successful strike signifies that no part of Kiev’s military logistical network is safe, which could lead to Moscow’s edge in the NATO-Russian “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” growing even larger if it keeps up the tempo of these attacks against its opponent’s previously untouchable assets. In that event, peace talks might resume earlier than many expect if this accelerates the erosion of Ukraine’s military capabilities and thus forces its patrons to move up their timeline for freezing the conflict.

With these five messages in mind, there’s no doubt that Russia’s surgical strike against military and/or terrorist assets on the Moldovan-Romanian-Ukrainian tri-border is much more important than it might appear at first glance. Not only did Russia hit closer to NATO than ever, but that bloc didn’t even try to stop it, thus suggesting that they’re reluctant to get dragged even deeper into this proxy war. If Poland doesn’t unilaterally intervene by summer’s end, then peace talks might recommence shortly after.

July 24, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Kiev regime kills Russian journalist with illegal US-supplied weapons

By Lucas Leiroz | July 24, 2023

Cluster munitions have already begun to generate civilian casualties in the Ukrainian conflict. Russian journalists were attacked with illegal US-supplied weapons, resulting in the injury of three people and the death of RIA Novosti’s war correspondent Rostislav Zhuravlev. Once again, the Kiev regime shows its terrorist nature, also having NATO’s co-participation in the crimes, as the alliance is responsible for supplying the weapons used in the murder of Russian civilians.

The attack took place in the Zaporozhye region. A civilian vehicle with journalists inside was hit by cluster bombs, injuring all the reporters, and killing Zhuravlev. According to information given by spokespersons for the “Rossiya Segodnya” group, the media crew was near the village of Pyatikhatki when it came under fire from Ukrainian forces. It is believed that they were in that area precisely to report the use of cluster munitions in some nearby residential zones.

Considering that it was not a military convoy, but just a civilian vehicle with journalists, the attack was illegal, contrary to basic rules of international humanitarian law. For this reason, Russian authorities have already commented on the case, classifying it as terrorism. It is well known that Ukrainian soldiers deliberately target and kill Russian media professionals, both on the ground war correspondents and commentators outside the combat zone – as previously seen in the cases of Daria Dugina and Vladlen Tatarsky. In this sense, Zhuravlev’s murder represents a continuation of the Ukrainian regime’s terrorist and anti-humanitarian practice of attacking the Russian press.

On social media, pro-Ukrainian militants reacted to the case by supporting the attack and “justifying” it with the allegation that Zhuravlev was a “military” or even a “war criminal”. To support this narrative, Ukrainian neo-Nazi activists spread photos of the journalist holding weapons and wearing military uniforms in the conflict zone. However, they omitted the fact that these photos are not recent.

Before becoming a war correspondent, Zhuravlev actually fought on the battlefield, having joined the Donbass militias in 2014, in the early months of the conflict. After completing his voluntary military service, Zhuravlev became an ordinary civilian journalist. He worked on the battlefield as a mere employee of Russian media agencies, not as a soldier, which makes the Ukrainian attack absolutely illegal.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that the attack was against a civilian car, with other media professionals inside. These other reporters, unlike Zhuravlev, did not have any military background. So, the tale spread by propagandists is not only false but also baseless, being easily refuted with a simple analysis of the case.

However, the most important point of this topic is the use of cluster munitions. As predicted by several experts, journalists and Russian officials, Kiev’s forces are actually using these weapons to kill civilians, deliberately targeting people that have no military involvement. There was a strong pressure for the US not to approve the delivery of these bombs to Kiev as their use could affect civilians as a side effect. However, what is happening now is even more serious. These weapons are not accidentally killing civilians, but are being purposefully used by the regime’s forces to target non-military Russian citizens.

Furthermore, Russia sees the US as co-responsible for the crime. Since the US is the supplier of the weapons with which Kiev murders Russian civilians, then Washington is to blame for the attacks as well as the neo-Nazi regime. The Russian understanding on the subject should be shared by the entire international society, especially by organizations that defend international law and human rights. But unfortunately, biased opinions in favor of the West continue to be imposed on states and organizations, making it impossible to sanction countries that sponsor the war.

So, in the absence of diplomatic and legal alternatives to prevent the West from continuing to supply weapons that are used to kill civilians, Russia can only try to resolve the situation through military means. In this sense, severe responses from Moscow are expected in the near future, possibly intensifying attacks on Ukrainian command centers and weapons depots where cluster munitions are being stored.

Although Russian forces have repeatedly withheld retaliation to avoid escalating the conflict, the latest moves show that Moscow is no longer willing to tolerate violations of redlines. The cruise missile attacks on the ports of Odessa in response to the killing of civilians in Crimea made it clear that Moscow is ready to retaliate for crimes committed against its citizens.

Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

July 24, 2023 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment