Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Americans Are Being Led By a Lying Media and Corrupt Political Class

BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW  • SEPTEMBER 19, 2023

Each morning I do a quick scan of the headlines coming over the wire services, clear my emails and Facebook entries, and then take a closer look at The New York Times online, paying particular attention to the opinion pages. I usually am not disappointed in my belief that the President Joe Biden Administration as well as ex-President Donald Trump, have been and continue to be collectively destroying what was once an admirable nation, something like flushing us repeatedly down the toilets of their ambition and greed.

In that light, last Friday was particularly bad and I had what I have come to call a Gadarene Swine moment. For those unfamiliar with the New Testament tale, which comes from the Gospel of Mark , it tells how Jesus encountered a madman during his Galilean ministry who was infested with demons. The man sought help to be cured of his infestation and Jesus obliged him, commanding “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!”, before confronting the unleashed demon and asking “’What is your name?’ He answered, ‘My name is Legion. For we are many.’ And he begged Him repeatedly not to send them away out of the country. Now there was a great herd of swine feeding near the mountains. All the demons pleaded with Him, asking, ‘Send us to the swine, so that we may enter them.’ At once, Jesus gave them leave. Then the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine. And the herd, numbering about two thousand, ran wildly down a steep hill into the sea and were drowned in the sea.”

My first thought was inevitably deep sympathy over what was done to the poor pigs, but that was quickly replaced by bottomless depression induced by the articles that I had just read in the Times that morning. Yes, we Americans have become the Gadarene Swine and are plummeting to our deaths as a people, driven by demons released by the folks that we have unfortunately come to accept as “our leaders.” The three pieces in question were two “opinions,” one by the inevitable Tom Friedman entitled “A Trip to Ukraine Clarified the Stakes. And They’re Huge” and the other a featured piece written by the newspaper editorial board entitled “How to Support Ukraine Beyond the Next Election.” The third article was a news report entitled “As President, Biden Sees Broader War Powers Than He Did as Senator: The president says he can direct limited military operations without lawmakers’ approval.”

The three pieces together suggest that the United States has become dominated by the airing of specious and often not very credible threats as an excuse to go onto a war footing forever, or at least until the country collapses due to its misplaced priorities. I will not, however, try to recreate in any detail the nonsense spewed by the country’s “paper of record,” if only to reject the basic arguments being made for “going the course” in wars that have no reasonable raison d’etre for having been started at all. None of the pieces even seek to answer the most basic question, which is also avoided by our warmongering governing class, and that is “What was or is the US national interest in getting involved in these wars in the first place?”

And surely the most frightening of the three articles is the one that airs the claim made by a muddle-headed Chief Executive Joe Biden that he can start a new war any time he wants, a bold challenge to the US Constitution’s essentially anti-war balance of government powers and also the existing War Powers Act. The article includes material like “If he is elected to a second term, President Biden pledged that he will go to Congress to start any major war but said he believed he was empowered ‘to direct limited U.S. military operations abroad’ without such approval when such strikes served critical American interests… In 2019, Mr. Biden had already shifted to embracing the view, adopted by the executive branch under administrations of both parties, that presidents have broader constitutional authority to carry out limited attacks on other countries without congressional authorization, so long as it falls short of full-scale war. As president, both Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden used force unilaterally, citing their claimed constitutional authority to use military force without congressional permission. In April 2017 and again in April 2018 , Mr. Trump directed airstrikes against Syrian government forces, and Mr. Biden in June 2021 and in August 2022 directed airstrikes on Iranian-backed militia groups in Syria.”

Should I ask how Biden will determine a “critical American interest?” Or exactly how either Syria or Iran has been “imminently threatening” the United States, which is in fact itself illegally occupying Syrian territory? And what about the current proxy war against Russia in Ukraine? Was Ukraine a threat to the US justifying bringing America to the brink of a nuclear war? Friedman is just back from a three-day trip to Ukraine and opines “What Putin is doing in Ukraine is not just reckless, not just a war of choice, not just an invasion in a class of its own for overreach, mendacity, immorality and incompetence, all wrapped in a farrago of lies. What he is doing is evil… This is as obvious a case of right versus wrong, good versus evil, as you find in international relations since World War II.”

Perhaps Tom might make an attempt to look more deeply into the seeds of the Ukraine war and might even consider Googling “Minsk accords,” “Boris Johnson visit to Kiev,” and “NATO Expansion,” but he certainly exhibits the type of judgmentalism that he has displayed for so many years at the Times while covering the Middle East, where he has finally been able to recognize “apartheid” after a journey of nearly fifty years during which time numerous crimes against humanity committed by his Israeli friends have been staring him in the face.

The Times editorial group piece also is unwavering in separating good from evil: “While this board has questioned some specific decisions by Mr. Biden, such as supplying the Ukrainian Army with cluster munitions, we agree with him that it would be ‘wrong and contrary to well-settled principles’ to pressure another country to negotiate over its sovereign territory. Ukraine deserves full support against Russia’s unprovoked invasion, and it is in America’s national interest to lead its NATO allies in demonstrating that they will not tolerate Mr. Putin’s revanchist ambitions. It is a demonstration of America’s commitment to democracy and leadership that other would-be aggressors are watching.”

It is the well-worn “we have to be firm” assertion to set the example and warn other potential aggressors of consequences. But at the same time, to describe Russia’s attack as “unprovoked” is complete nonsense. And the real irony, not to mention hypocrisy, is the “negotiate over…sovereign territory” line when the US is occupying Syrian national territory and looking the other way and smiling as Israel steals the West Bank and Golan Heights. Some who have been closely following the developing situation in Syria are now reporting that it appears that the US is preparing to mount a new series of attacks to remove the legitimate government of Bashar al-Assad. Three Republican congressmen recently traveled to occupied Syria to meet with groups that the United States government itself has labeled as terrorists. That is referred to as materially supporting terrorism which is a crime and one must ask the dwarflike Attorney General Merrick Garland where was the FBI to interrogate and possibly charge and indict the three when they returned? A major war in Syria would inevitably involve Lebanon and Iran. It would be a disaster for the entire region particularly when Israel takes advantage of the situation and Washington steps in to “have Israel’s back” even if the Jewish state starts the fighting. But the US rarely cares about how heavily its boot comes down on the local population or bothers to count the cost either in dollars or lives.

And, of course, the real danger is that if you buy into this type of nonsense, as both of the major political parties have, there is more to come to us long suffering Gadarene Swine, who will continue to endure an endless series of interventions based on nothing beyond the principal that one can get away with nearly anything when backed by a trillion dollar “defense” budget. And, oh by the way, Ukrainian “leader” Volodymyr Zelensky will be in Washington this week to meet with Biden and all his friends in Congress even as they “debate” giving him another $24 billion. He will want to make sure that the message is delivered to his hosts that he is the man who is in charge. Let’s see how the New York Times covers it!

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

September 19, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Net-zero: the annals of absurdity

By Richard North | Turbulent Times | September 17, 2023

Most readers will recall the excited chatter of some commentators, speculating on the result of the summer’s Uxbridge by-election – which was attributed to a backlash over Khan’s ULEZ plans.

After vague noises from No.10 about being “pragmatic”, there was a widespread feeling that Sunak might capitalise on what some took to be an “anti-green” rebellion, and row back on the implementation of net-zero.

Whatever hopes there might have been, though, it must now be crystal clear that, short of any trivial, cosmetic concessions, Sunak has absolutely no intention of slowing down to destroy the British economy in the name of the Great God climate change.

If any further evidence was needed, it comes in an article in The Times yesterday, which tells us that the prime minister has rejected any idea of a reprieve for petrol and diesel cars. The 2030 electric vehicle targets, we are told, will stay.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, we are also warned to expect punitive measures aimed at incentivising the few remaining car manufacturers in the UK to increase their sales of EVs.

The plan is that next year, 22 percent of new cars sold will have to be electric, rising to more than 50 percent in 2028. It is left to the Independent, though, to tell us that manufacturers who fail to meet the targets will face fines of up to £15,000 per car.

A similar stratagem is being used to push the sales of heat pumps, with gas and oil-fired boiler manufacturers being required in the financial year 2024-2025 to ensure that heat pumps make up 4 percent of their sales.

An alternative is to buy “credits” from manufacturers who are over-quota, failing which the manufacturers will have to pay an eye-watering fine of £5,000 for every heat pump short of the quota. As with EVs, the quota will increase each year.

This has led some manufacturers to warn that they will have to increase the unit prices of boilers by £300 – a sum which also might have to increase each year as sales quotas increase.

This way of doing things is particularly devious as it distances the government from the consumer and puts the responsibility on manufacturers to implement net-zero policy, which must then take the blame for the increased prices when people turn their backs on “green” products.

As such, one might expect that manufacturers would be up in arms at this cynical attempt to make them take the fall, except in the case of car-makers, the sales quota system favours those which have committed only to produce EVs – apparently an intended consequence of the plan.

This has emerged after talks between the government an BMW, when it was announced that the car-maker would receive a subsidy of £600 million for its Cowley plant in Oxford – a bribe to dissuade the company from moving its whole operation to China.

But part of the package, it seems, was an “understanding” that the net-zero timescale would not be relaxed, giving the company “certainty” about the rules, and thereby protecting their investment in EVs. In order to protect the developing market, car-makers are said to be keen to see the 2030 ICE new car sales ban go ahead.

This also applies to the emerging charging industry. Ian Johnston, chairman of the industry body ChargeUK, is quoted as saying: “To go further our sector needs certainty in the form of a firm commitment to a strong zero emissions vehicle mandate”. He is said to have cautioned that scaling it down would mean “billions of pounds of investment” being put at risk.

We thus have an interesting, if not disturbing situation where the market in cars is to be heavily distorted, so that consumer preferences will no longer be the primary driver of production plans. A nexus of government, investors and car manufacturers is conspiring to create a producer-led industry.

As for the minor detail of a lack of charging points – which is one of the factors inhibiting sales – officials argue that tough annual targets will give confidence to investors to start building thousands of charge points.

That alone, however, is unlikely to be sufficient to incentivise private buyers, who have proved extremely reluctant to convert to electric. Although the government “fines” may narrow the price differential, EVs will still be substantially more expensive than their ICE counterparts and the lack of chargers continues to put off buyers.

Even then, car-makers are not yet out of the woods as there is the vexed question of battery production to resolve. Faced with subsidies pouring out of the coffers of EU and US governments, Alan Hollis, chief executive of AMTE Power – head of one of Britain’s few surviving homegrown battery manufacturers – is holding out the begging bowl, threatening to build its planned new factory overseas unless the UK closes the subsidy gap. So far, though, the UK’s experiences with building battery plants have not been happy.

Nevertheless, last May, the government offered the owners of Jaguar Land Rover £500 million in subsidies in an effort to persuade the carmaker to build a new electric battery plant in the UK.

The Indian conglomerate Tata, the parent company of JLR, was in the process of deciding whether to build the new electric battery production facility in the UK or Spain and, in July, announced that it was to build a 40GW battery cell gigafactory in the UK – although this may have Chinese backing as well.

BMW has not yet decided on the manufacturing location for its Mini batteries – with mainland Europe or the UK remaining options – but it is germane to note that the company is also producing the Mini marque in China, with exports from that country due to start in 2024.

Therein lies another tale, as Chinese EV and battery production has been heavily subsidised since the inception of the industry. State subsidies for electric and hybrid vehicles were reported at $57 billion from 2016-2022, helping China become the world’s biggest EV producer and to pass Japan as the largest auto exporter in the first quarter of this year.

However, China is not only delivering the volume, but its cars are also typically 20 percent below the prices of European-built models. This has moved the Commission to consider imposing punitive tariffs under anti-dumping laws. It is possible that the UK will follow suit although to do so would present the government with something of a conundrum.

As it stands, the import of cheaper Chinese vehicles is the only sure-fire way of eroding the price differential between ICE and electric cars, and thus the best way of achieving the government’s net-zero targets – notwithstanding that Chinese industry is largely powered by fossil fuels.

Thus, despite its Faustian deal with its own car manufacturers, the government’s best option is to open the doors to Chinese imports, at the risk of wiping out British car manufacturing.

When the BMW deal was done, Sunak was full of himself, declaring that the “investment” was “another shining example” of how the UK was the best place to build cars of the future, claiming that his government was “securing thousands of jobs and growing our economy right across the country”.

But, from current moves, it appears that Sunak is far more interested in the deindustrialisation of Britain through net-zero, in which case he should be looking to ditching the car industry as soon as possible – which is no doubt already in his mind.

After all, except for a few small-scale specialists, most of the industry is already in foreign hands, so handing it over to the coal-fired Chinese shouldn’t make too much difference. In the pursuit of net-zero targets, nothing is too much or too absurd for our government to countenance.

September 19, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

VAXXED II: THE PEOPLE’S TRUTH

Video link

From an IMDB review:

I was pleased to see it’s not just a movie of “sad stories” I walked away knowing what vaccines to stay away from, what side effects to look for, what doctors know and don’t know and why we’re not being told this information in the media or at the doctors office. As exemptions are being taken away and mandates are being implemented, this is a movie everyone (not just parents!) needs to see.

Mirrored with thanks to Observation Deck https://www.bitchute.com/channel/observation_deck/

September 19, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

Hawaii Governor is Hit With First Amendment Lawsuit After Media Reporting On Wildfires is Suppressed

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 18, 2023

A legal challenge has been launched this week by the O’Keefe Media Group (OMG) against Josh Green, the Democratic Governor of Hawaii, as well as the County of Maui. Triggering the lawsuit were restrictions which prohibited OMG from capturing images or footage on public lands as they sought to investigate the aftermath of devastating wildfires that have ravaged the area.

The suit alleges that these restrictions, demanded under the governor’s statewide emergency decree, went far enough to threaten the arrest of James O’Keefe, founder of OMG, should he persist with his recording activities and reporting on the wildfires and their origin.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

In a concealed camera footage captured during their investigative excursion, officers of law enforcement relayed this mandate to the journalists.

In a bold statement captured in the video, O’Keefe disclosed his motivation for filing the lawsuit as an effort to “… invalidate the criminalization of protected First Amendment activity and to also strip Maui County of any ability to criminally charge anyone who exercises their First Amendment rights.”

This legal action seeks to block attempts from the governor to criminalize the fundamental rights of free speech and press freedom protected by both the US and Hawaii constitution.

OMG’s legal pursuit, lodged in the United States District Court of Hawaii, also encompasses the case of John Doe, another plaintiff. During the investigative visit to the wildfire-struck Lahaina on September 1, 2023, somehow John Doe found himself facing criminal charges for his journalistic activities in the stricken region by Maui County through its Sheriff’s Department (MCSD), despite his legally recognized First Amendment rights.

In the suit, it has been noted that Doe was notified by the MCSD that his journalistic work was not criminalized by a law but through “Emergency Proclamations” issued by Governor Green in response to the Maui wildfires. As a result of this pronouncement, OMG sought clarification on this seemingly perplexing overreach on the rights of Doe and all Hawaiian citizens who demand answers to their growing concerns about the handling of the response to the wildfire and its implications on their lives on the island.

The MCSD then cited HRS § 127A-29(a), which concerns emergency period transgressions, misdemeanors and petty crimes in reference to violations committed by the plaintiff. The lawsuit brought forward by OMG argues that Governor Green lacks the authority to issue his own rules.

In essence, OMG’s lawsuit alleges that the enforcement of the governor’s order, which seemingly curtails constitutional privileges and liberties, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The experts from OMG allege that the photography ban is not about restricting one form of expression, but a larger undermining of press freedom and the loss of the ability to keep our ruling class in check.

“The First Amendment is a built in ‘check’ on the Government because citizens can openly report government wrongdoing,” the complaint reads. “The freedom of the press acts as a bright beacon of light. It is an essential mechanism through which Americans can hold the government directly accountable. Democracy dies in the darkness.”

September 18, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Republicans Move To Prevent Bodies Like a Disinformation Governance Board From Ever Being Created

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | September 18, 2023

Legislation that seeks to tie the hands of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from setting up another Disinformation Governance Board is being launched by House Republicans. Brought about by Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ronny Jackson, and August Pfluger, this move is viewed as the Party’s effort to block limitations on what it deems to be free speech by federal agencies.

The DHS had originally set up a Disinformation Governance Board with a view to counteract, as it claimed, misinformation, malformation and disinformation. Yet, the initiative was met with criticism from conservative groups, leading to the body’s disbandment in 2022. Concerns centered around allegations of stifled free speech and political bias, rather than a focus on national security issues.

Representative Pfluger, who is part of the Homeland Security Committee along with Greene, expressed his skepticism about the previous governance board to The Washington Examiner.

According to him, it was less about maintaining factual discourse and more about controlling public discourse. He described the administration’s attempt to oversee American’s speech as discouraging, adding that the DHS’ energy should rather be directed to improving national security.

“Partisan government officials running a ‘disinformation board’ sounds ridiculous to most people, but yet the Biden administration tried to control the speech of American citizens… DHS should be focused on securing the border and preventing terrorist attacks, not fact-checking social media and censoring Americans.”

Republicans are progressively striking back against attempts by the current administration to regulate alleged disinformation. They are backing funding bills that effectively cut the government’s opportunities to bankroll these programs. This resistance to censorship extends beyond domestic boundaries, with the GOP-led House Foreign Affairs Committee considering refusing authorization to the Global Engagement Center, a State Department-associated body.

It was revealed that this body had funneled $100,000 towards the British-based Global Disinformation Index which allegedly stealthily blacklisted conservative channels. Moreover, this isn’t the GOP’s debut attempt to disable the DHS from governing a disinformation board.

September 18, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

A Picture is worth a Thousand Words

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | September 18, 2023

Nothing screams ‘cult’ more than a building being lit up in corporate colours to celebrate a product launch.

Further evidence of the big pharma brainwashing can be seen with the Empire State Building turning Pfizer blue in celebration of the CDC recommending that everyone, from 6 months of age and older, can get this season’s updated Covid shot.

They then sponsored news articles to tell everyone that Covid is here again but that Pfizer is here to save us.

Seems like COVID’s everywhere again. But here’s good news from Pfizer!

This season’s updated COVID-19 shots are now available for ages 6 months and up, and they’re designed to help protect against recent variants.

That is why today, at 8pm, the Empire State Building turned its iconic building blue to announce that the CDC recommends everyone 6 months of age and older get this season’s updated COVID-19 shot. The blue light symbolizes our gratitude and appreciation for the updated vaccines and all those who made it possible.

COVID-19 isn’t gone, and vaccination remains one of our best tools to help protect against the virus that causes the disease. Ask your doctor or pharmacist about this season’s updated COVID-19 shots. Learn more and schedule at the CDC’s website, vaccines.gov.

Sponsored by Pfizer.

In almost religious like devotion, Pfizer wants your gratitude and appreciation for the updated vaccines. Because billions of dollars just isn’t enough anymore, they also want your adoration and eventually your soul.

We have got to the point now where everyone knows Covid is mild for most and that the vaccines don’t do anything. But there is a significant percentage of the population who are still in denial and convince themselves that the jabs work, save lives and make them morally superior.

Bobs Cartoons summed it up nicely with this image.

September 18, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Baerbock’s Xi Jinping comment only gives away Germany’s subservience to US

By Drago Bosnic | September 18, 2023

Conducting any sort of diplomacy requires a certain level of intelligence and at the very least basic decency. However, top diplomats of the political West must’ve missed the classes on either of those, probably busy listening to people like Josep Borrell and his rants about the “garden” and the “jungle”. This is particularly embarrassing when dealing with millennia-old civilizations, such as China and India, countries with magnificent cultural heritage, both of which have recently been characterized as societies with “low intellectual potential”. As we all know now, during an interview with local media, high-ranking Kiev regime official Mikhail Podoliak arrogantly stated that China and India are supposedly “incapable of thinking about long-term strategies” because of this “low intellectual potential”.

We can imagine what sort of “intellectual potential” is present in a person who thinks that countries such as China and India are “incapable of devising long-term strategies” when both have quite literally existed for thousands of years, continually, we should stress. If Beijing and Delhi don’t have such strategies, the question is – who does? And yet, it seems that Podoliak is hardly the only Western politician (or Western-aligned, in this case) with such “highly intellectual” opinions. Namely, the German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock also decided to demonstrate similar “high intellectual capacity” during a recent interview with Fox News. On September 15, she directly called Chinese President Xi Jinping a “dictator”. Worse yet, she did so while giving a statement about the Ukrainian crisis, a matter that isn’t directly related to China.

“We will support Ukraine as long as it takes,” Baerbock stated during the interview, adding: “If Putin were to win this war, what sign would that be for other dictators in the world, like Xi, like the Chinese president? Therefore, Ukraine has to win this war.”

Once again, she demonstrated how to conduct diplomacy if one really wants to get on the bad side of not one, but two global superpowers, both of which are of essential importance to Germany itself. It seems Berlin learned nothing from the disastrous decoupling with Moscow, a move that has effectively destroyed German industrial might. Russian commodities such as oil and natural gas, the vital importance of which cannot possibly be overstated, have never been less accessible to Germany, and yet, Berlin continues its hostile policies towards Moscow. Still, this is obviously not enough, so it’s now also showing enmity towards Beijing. It should be noted that, according to the German Federal Statistical Office, trade exchange with China amounts to almost €300 billion.

This makes Beijing its largest trading partner and for the eighth year in a row, at that. German exports to China are immensely important for saving what’s left of its industry. Such enmity towards Beijing may very well destroy it completely. This also comes on the heels of what can only be described as a crawling trade war between China and the European Union, as the troubled bloc has announced it would “launch an investigation into Chinese electric vehicle subsidies“. And to say nothing of the mindless decision Brussels made earlier this year when it announced that EU navies will “support Taiwan”, although Europe itself is faced with a massive surge in illegal immigration, a problem which the aforementioned EU navies can’t deal with in the Mediterranean, their own primary zone of responsibility.

China has already expressed indignation over the label, deeming it “absurd” and an “open political provocation”. Mao Ning, the spokesperson of Beijing’s Foreign Ministry, said that Baerbock’s remarks “infringed on China’s political dignity”. As of this writing, no concrete moves have been announced in response to Germany’s rhetoric, but it’s virtually guaranteed that Beijing will not tolerate such insolence. It’s also not the first time that Baerbock has engaged in Sinophobia. Just last month, she said that “China poses a challenge to the fundamentals of how we live together in this world”. Baerbock also described her mid-April visit to China as “more than shocking” and said Beijing was “increasingly becoming more of a systemic rival than a trade partner”, which is in line with Germany’s openly stated intention of “decoupling” with China.

Beijing’s response is certainly not limited to stern rhetoric, as demonstrated by the sanctions (or counter-sanctions, to be exact) it now regularly imposes on its increasingly aggressive Western rivals. Back in early July, after US President Joe Biden also called his Chinese counterpart a “dictator” several weeks before, China responded with restrictions on the export of rare-earth elements, which caused shockwaves on the global market. Biden made the controversial statement only a day after US State Secretary Antony Blinken came back from China, a visit that Washington DC pompously announced would supposedly “stabilize ties” between the two countries. In mid to late July, the US also sent Henry Kissinger, Blinken’s much more prominent (First) Cold War-era predecessor, to try and use his influence to prevent China’s total tilt toward Russia.

However, this forlorn attempt failed, especially as Kissinger went in an unofficial capacity, leaving his visit (geo)politically inconsequential. Taking all this into account, Germany’s rhetoric can hardly be described as “sovereign”. Berlin has zero reasons to get into any sort of confrontation with China, but it still does so. However, this is certainly in the interest of the US, as Washington DC is desperate to portray Beijing as supposedly “isolated”. This only implies that Germany doesn’t have an independent foreign policy.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

September 18, 2023 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

China summons German envoy over Baerbock’s ‘dictator’ remark

RT | September 18, 2023

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has summoned German ambassador Patricia Flor after Berlin’s top diplomat, Annalena Baerbock, referred to Chinese President Xi Jinping as a “dictator.”

The ambassador “was summoned to the Chinese Foreign Ministry [on Sunday],” a spokesman from the German Foreign Ministry told AFP on Monday.

Baerbock made her remark while on a visit to New York on Thursday. Speaking to Fox News, she claimed that if the West allowed Ukraine to lose its conflict with Russia, this would embolden “other dictators in the world… Like Xi, the Chinese president.”

Beijing was “extremely dissatisfied” with Baerbock’s words, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning told reporters earlier on Monday. Mao said that Baerbock’s “absurd” comments “violate China’s political dignity” and are tantamount to an “open political provocation.”

Relations between Berlin and Beijing have deteriorated as of late, with Germany calling for reduced economic reliance on China in its first-ever China strategy, which was published in July. Despite China being Germany’s largest trading partner, the document branded Beijing a “systemic rival.”

In labeling Xi a “dictator,” Baerbock followed in the footsteps of US President Joe Biden, who applied the same descriptor to the Chinese leader in June. Biden’s statement came immediately after US Secretary of State Antony Blinken met Xi in Beijing, and reportedly caused American officials to reassure their Chinese counterparts that Biden’s words did not represent a shift in US policy.

September 18, 2023 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

News relating to missiles used or about to be used in Ukraine and about “Russian” ICBMs in North Korea

By Gilbert Doctorow | September 17, 2023

It is widely expected that in the coming week American president Joe Biden will announce the decision to ship American medium range missiles ATACMS to Ukraine. Discussions of this subject have been widespread in both US and European media. The focus has been on the range of missiles and whether their delivery will enable Ukraine to attack across the border into the Russian Federation itself for the purpose of destroying supplies and command centers there.  Of course, the issue is complicated by what is meant by RF territory. In the language of the West, all of the Ukrainian territory which has been captured by Russia since 2014 is considered to be fair game for military attack.  From the perspective of Russia, any attacks on Crimea, in particular, may be justification for major escalation of the war into a direct fight with the NATO country or countries supplying the given missiles. That said, there is reason to believe that Storm Shadows were used to hit Sevastopol on 13 September, without any sign yet of Russia’s intention to escalate.

The advocates of shipping ATACMSs to Ukraine point out that its range, 190 miles or 300 km, is no greater than that of the Storm Shadow missiles which Britain and France have sent to Ukraine without prompting escalatory actions by Russia. However, that is to overlook the other side of the issue, namely the method of launch.  Storm Shadow is an air to ground missile.  It is launched from Soviet-era Ukrainian jet fighters which have been especially modified for this purpose.  Since the Storm Shadow is devilishly difficult for any air defense system to destroy in flight, the Russians have focused attention on destroying Ukrainian planes that are part of the launch operation. Just this past week, on 11 September a Russian missile attack on the Dolgintsevo air base near Krivoy Rog in the Dnepropetrovsk region of Ukraine destroyed 5 Ukrainian fighters, two MiG-29s and three SU-25s.  The MiGs are said to either carry the Storm Shadow or to provide cover for SU-24s which carry them.

The logic of supplying ATCSMs is precisely in the launch mode, not the attack radius of these missiles. They are ground to ground missiles which are launched from mobile platforms similar in principle to the multiple rocket launchers HIMARS.  In that sense, they are more difficult to find and destroy than a jet fighter.

In the meantime, in Europe, German Chancellor Scholz has made it plain that he will not approve sending Germany’s long range missiles, the TAURUS, to Kiev until the United States makes a first move by shipping its own missiles.  The TAURUS falls into the same launch category as the Storm Shadow; it is sent on its way to target by a jet fighter. Its distinction is only one of distance, at 500 km range.  If Ukraine has a fast diminishing or fully destroyed air force, the TAURUS will not be of much use.

*****

Otherwise, over this past week, the interest of major Western media in missiles has focused on what North Korea owns and how it got them.  The interest came about as journalists followed the course of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s tour of the Russian Far East.

It has occurred to our journalists that North Korea presently possesses ICBMs capable of reaching the North American heartland, and as they pored over the technical characteristics of these missiles they noted that one seems to be very close in design to Soviet era missiles that were once the mainstay of the Russian strategic arsenal. I am speaking of the Korean rebranded Topol-M.

It is not surprising, therefore, that some folks in the States are wondering how is it that the Russians were able to get away with supplying the designs of the Topol-M to Pongyang without the United States raising a hullaballoo.

The answer, my friends, is in the inconvenient fact that those responsible for providing North Korea with  production plans and technology for manufacturing the Topol-M were not Russians; they were Ukrainians. This story is discussed in an article on a Russian news portal a couple of days ago. According to the authors, the Ukrainians sold to the North Koreans part of the technology but not all. For example, they held back the secrets of the solid fuel used in this missile, which the Koreans had to develop on their own. Moreover, for the guidance system, the Koreans were assisted or copied a system developed by the Chinese. What this tells us is that if the Koreans should agree with the Kremlin on the purchase of one or another missile-related technology, its integration into their own production will be done by the Koreans themselves. The same may be said of technologies for construction and operation of nuclear powered submarines which the North Koreans are said to be looking for abroad.

*****

Before closing, I use this opportunity to sum up the Russian visit of Comrade Kim after he spent that first day in talks with Vladimir Putin at the Vostochny Cosmodrome about which I wrote earlier in the week.  His next stop was Komsomolsk on Amur, where he was shown the Yuri Gagarin factory complex producing Russian military and civilian aircraft, including the “Alligator” multifunctional attack helicopters that have been so effective in the  Ukraine war against tanks, armored personnel carriers and other military hardware. The top Russian official with Kim for the day was Minister of Trade and Industry Denis Manturov.

From Komsomolsk, Kim went next to the Knevichi air base in the Amur region, where he was shown the massive turboprop Tupolev Tu-95  and the sleek Tu-160 “White Swan,” both mainstays of the nuclear triad as bombers and missile platforms. Considerable attention was given to an assortment of the most modern fighter jets in the Su family, as well as to MiGs equipped with the hypersonic Kinzhal missile. The Russian hosts were headed by Minister of Defense Shoigu.

Kim’s tour ended in Vladivostok where he was taken aboard the frigate Marshal Shaposhnikov of the Pacific fleet, which is typical of the latest Russian vessels in having an important complement of hypersonic missiles with 1500 km range as well as weaponry for anti-submarine warfare.

When in Vladivostik, Kim visited the Far Eastern Federal University on Russky Island in the Vladivostok harbor, where the Eastern Economic Forum had been held at the start of the week.  Kim met with university students. Lastly, there was a typically Russian cultural note to round out Kim’s program:  a performance of Swan Lake by the Vladivostok affiliate of the Mariinsky Theater (St Petersburg). I mention parenthetically, that the Russian Federation from coast to coast is looked after culturally by its musical and museum powerhouses: Moscow’s Bolshoi theater maintains a similar performance and training outpost in Kaliningrad.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023

September 18, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hyping Ukraine Counteroffensive, US Press Chose Propaganda Over Journalism

By Bryce Greene | FAIR | September 15, 2023

It has been clear for some time that US corporate news media have explicitly taken a side on the Ukraine War. This role includes suppressing relevant history of the lead-up to the war (FAIR.org, 3/4/22), attacking people who bring up that history as “conspiracy theorists” (FAIR.org, 5/18/22), accepting official government pronouncements at face value (FAIR.org, 12/2/22) and promoting an overly rosy picture of the conflict in order to boost morale.

For most of the war, most of the US coverage has been as pro-Ukrainian as Ukraine’s own media, now consolidated under the Zelenskyy government (FAIR.org, 5/9/23).

Dire predictions sporadically appeared, but were drowned out by drumbeat coverage portraying a Ukrainian army on the cusp of victory, and the Russian army as incompetent and on the verge of collapse.

Triumphalist rhetoric soared in early 2023, as optimistic talk of a game-changing “spring offensive” dominated Ukraine coverage. Apparently delayed, the Ukrainian counteroffensive launched in June. While even US officials did not believe that it would amount to much, US media papered over these doubts in the runup to the campaign.

Over the last three months, it has become clear that the Ukrainian military operation will not be the game-changer it was sold as; namely, it will not significantly roll back the Russian occupation and obviate the need for a negotiated settlement. Only after this became undeniable did media report on the true costs of war to the Ukrainian people.

Overwhelming optimism

In the runup to the counteroffensive, US media were full of excited conversation about how it would reshape the nature of the conflict. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told Radio Free Europe (4/21/23) he was “confident Ukraine will be successful.” Sen. Lindsey Graham assured Politico (5/30/23), “In the coming days, you’re going to see a pretty impressive display of power by the Ukrainians.” Asked for his predictions about Ukraine’s plans, retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges told NPR (5/12/23), “I actually expect… they will be quite successful.”

Former CIA Director David Patraeus, author of the overhyped “surge” strategy in Iraq, told CNN (5/23/23):

I personally think that this is going to be really quite successful…. And [the Russians] are going to have to withdraw under pressure of this Ukrainian offensive, the most difficult possible tactical maneuver, and I don’t think they’re going to do well at that.

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius (4/15/23) acknowledged that “hope is not a strategy,” but still insisted that “Ukraine’s will to win—its determination to expel Russian invaders from its territory at whatever cost—might be the X-factor in the decisive season of conflict ahead.”

The New York Times (6/2/23) ran a story praising recruits who signed up for the Ukrainian pushback, even though it “promises to be deadly.” Times columnist Paul Krugman (6/5/23) declared we were witnessing “the moral equivalent of D-Day.” CNN (5/30/23) reported that Ukrainians were “unfazed” as they “gear up for a counteroffensive.”

Cable news was replete with buzz about how the counteroffensive, couched with modifiers like “long-awaited” or “highly anticipated,” could turn the tide in the war. Nightly news shows (e.g., NBC, 6/15/23, 6/16/23) presented audiences with optimistic statements from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other figures talking about the imminent success.

Downplaying reality

The Washington Post (4/10/23) noted that pessimistic leaked assessments were “a marked departure from the Biden administration’s public statements about the vitality of Ukraine’s military.”

Despite the soaring rhetoric presented to audiences, Western officials understood that the counteroffensive was all but doomed to fail. This had been known long before the above comments were reported, but media failed to include that fact as prominently as the predictions for success.

On April 10, as part of the Discord leaks story, the Washington Post (4/10/23) reported that top secret documents showed that Ukraine’s drive would fall “well short” of its objectives, due to equipment, ammunition and conscription problems. The document predicted “sustainment shortfalls” and only “modest territorial gains.”

The Post additionally cited anonymous officials who claimed that the documents’ conclusions were corroborated by a classified National Intelligence Council assessment, shown only to a select few in Congress. The Post spoke to a Ukrainian official who “did not dispute the revelations,” and acknowledged that it was “partially true.”

While the Post has yet to publish the documents in full, the leaks and the other sources clearly painted a picture of a potentially disastrous counteroffensive. Fear was so palpable that the Biden administration privately worried about how he could keep up support for the war when the widely hyped offensive sputtered. In the midst of this, Blinken continued to dismiss the idea of a ceasefire, opting instead to pursue further escalating the conflict.

Despite the importance of these facts, they were hardly reported on by the rest of corporate media, and dropped from subsequent war coverage. When the Post (6/14/23) published a long article citing Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s cautious optimism about the campaign, it neglected to mention its earlier reporting about the government’s privately gloomier assessments. The documents only started appearing again in the press after thousands were dead, and the campaign’s failure undeniable.

In an honest press, excited comments from politicians and commentators would be published alongside reports about how even our highest-level officials did not believe that the counteroffensive would amount to much. Instead, anticipation was allowed to build while doubts were set to the side.

Too ‘casualty-averse’?

By July, Ukrainian casualties were mounting, and it became clearer and clearer that the counteroffensive would fail to recapture significant amounts of Ukrainian territory. Reporting grew more realistic, and we were given insights into conditions on the ground in Ukraine, as well as what was in the minds of US officials.

According to the Washington Post (8/17/23), US and Ukrainian militaries had conducted war games and had anticipated that an advance would be accompanied by heavy losses. But when the real-world fatalities mounted, the Post reported, “Ukraine chose to stem the losses on the battlefield.”

This caused a rift between the Ukrainians and their Western backers, who were frustrated at Ukrainians’ desire to keep their people alive. A mid-July New York Times article (7/14/23) reported that US officials were privately frustrated that Ukraine had become too afraid of dying to fight effectively. The officials worried that Ukrainian commanders “fear[ed] casualties among their ranks,” and had “reverted to old habits” rather than “pressing harder.”

After noting estimates that 70,000 Ukrainian soldiers had died and as many as 120,000 wounded, the New York Times (8/18/23) reported that “American officials say they fear that Ukraine has become casualty averse.”

Acknowledging failure

After it became undeniable that Ukraine’s military action was going nowhere, a Wall Street Journal report (7/23/23) raised some of the doubts that had been invisible in the press on the offensive’s eve. The report’s opening lines say it all:

When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces.

The Journal acknowledged that Western officials simply “hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.”

One Post column (7/26/23) asked, “Was Gen. Mark Milley Right Last Year About the War in Ukraine?” Columnist Jason Willick acknowledged that “Milley’s skepticism about Ukraine’s ability to achieve total victory appears to have been widespread within the Biden administration before the counteroffensive began.”

And when one official told Politico (8/18/23), “Milley had a point,” acknowledging the former military head’s November suggestion for negotiations.  The quote was so telling that Politico made it the headline of the article.

Even Rep. Andy Harris (D-Md.), co-chair of the congressional Ukraine Caucus, publicly questioned whether or not the war was “winnable” (Politico, 8/17/23). Speaking on the counteroffensive’s status, he said, “I’ll be blunt, it’s failed.”

Newsweek (8/16/23) reported on a Ukrainian leadership divided over how to handle the “underwhelming” counteroffensive. The Washington Post (8/17/23) reported that the US intelligence community assessed that the offensive would fail to fulfill its key objective of severing the land bridge between Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

As the triumphalism ebbed, outlets began reporting on scenes that were almost certainly common before the spring push but had gone unpublished. One piece from the Post (8/10/23) outlined a “darken[ed] mood in Ukraine,” in which the nation was “worn out.” The piece acknowledged that “Ukrainian officials and their Western partners hyped up a coming counteroffensive,” but there was “little visible progress.”

The Wall Street Journal (8/1/23) published a devastating piece about the massive number of amputees returning home from the mine-laden battlefield. They reported that between 20,000 and 50,000 Ukrainians had lost one or more limbs as a result of the war—numbers that are comparable to those seen during World War I.

Rather than dwelling on the stalled campaign, the New York Times and other outlets focused on the drone war against Russia, even while acknowledging that the remote strikes were largely an exercise in public relations. The Times (8/25/23) declared that the strikes had “little significant damage to Russia’s overall military might” and were primarily “a message for [Ukraine’s] own people,” citing US officials who noted that they “intended to demonstrate to the Ukrainian public that Kyiv can still strike back.” Looking at the quantity of Times coverage (8/30/23, 8/30/23,  8/23/23, 8/22/23, 8/22/23, 8/21/23, 8/18/23), the drone strikes were apparently aimed at an increasingly war-weary US public as well.

War as desirable outcome

The Army War College’s John Deni (Wall Street Journal, 12/22/21) urged the US to take “a hard-line stance in diplomatic discussions,” because “if Mr. Putin’s forces invade, Russia is likely to suffer long-term, serious and even debilitating strategic costs.”

The fact that US officials pushed for a Ukrainian counteroffensive that all but expected would fail raises an important question: Why would they do this? Sending thousands of young people to be maimed and killed does nothing to advance Ukrainian territorial integrity, and actively hinders the war effort.

The answer has been clear since before the war. Despite the high-minded rhetoric about support for democracy, this has never been the goal of pushing for war in Ukraine. Though it often goes unacknowledged in the US press, policymakers saw a war in Ukraine as a desirable outcome. One 2019 study from the RAND Corporation—a think tank with close ties to the Pentagon—suggested that an effective way to overextend and unbalance Russia would be to increase military support for Ukraine, arguing that this could lead to a Russian invasion.

In December 2021, as Russian President Vladimir Putin began to mass troops at Ukraine’s border while demanding negotiations, John Deni of the Atlantic Council published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (12/22/21) headlined “The Strategic Case for Risking War in Ukraine,” which laid out the US logic explicitly: Provoking a war would allow the US to impose sanctions and fight a proxy war that would grind Russia down. Additionally, the anti-Russian sentiment that resulted from a war would strengthen NATO’s resolve.

All of this came to pass as Washington’s stance of non-negotiation successfully provoked a Russian invasion. Even as Ukraine and Russia sat at the negotiation table early in the war, the US made it clear that it wanted the war to continue and escalate. The US’s objective was, in the words of Raytheon boardmember–turned–Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, “to see Russia weakened.” Despite stated commitments to Ukrainian democracy, US policies have instead severely damaged it.

NATO’s ‘strategic windfall’

In the wake of the stalled counteroffensive, the US interest in sacrificing Ukraine to bleed Russia was put on display again. In July, the Post‘s Ignatius declared that the West shouldn’t be so “gloomy” about Ukraine, since the war had been a “strategic windfall” for NATO and its allies. Echoing two of Deni’s objectives, Ignatius asserted that “the West’s most reckless antagonist has been rocked,” and “NATO has grown much stronger with the additions of Sweden and Finland.”

In the starkest demonstration of the lack of concern for Ukraine or its people, he also wrote that these strategic successes came “at relatively low cost,” adding, in a parenthetical aside, “(other than for the Ukrainians).”

Ignatius is far from alone. Hawkish Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah) explained why US funding for the proxy war was “about the best national defense spending I think we’ve ever done”: “We’re losing no lives in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians, they’re fighting heroically against Russia.”

The consensus among policymakers in Washington is to push for endless conflict, no matter how many Ukrainians die in the process. As long as Russia loses men and material, the effect on Ukraine is irrelevant. Ukrainian victory was never the goal.

‘Fears of peace talks’

Polls show that support for increased US involvement in Ukraine is rapidly declining. The recent Republican presidential debate demonstrated clear fractures within the right wing of the US power structure. Politico (8/18/23) reported that some US officials are regretting potential lost opportunities for negotiations. Unfortunately, this minority dissent has yet to affect the dominant consensus.

The failure of the counteroffensive has not caused Washington to rethink its strategy of attempting to bleed Russia. The flow of US military hardware to Ukraine is likely to continue so long as this remains the goal. The Hill (9/5/23) gave the game away about NATO’s commitment to escalation with a piece titled “Fears of Peace Talks With Putin Rise Amid US Squabbling.”

But even within the Biden administration, the Pentagon appears to be at odds with the State Department and National Security Council over the Ukraine conflict.  Contrary to what may be expected, the civilian officials like Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland and Antony Blinken are taking a harder line on perpetuating this conflict than the professional soldiers in the Pentagon. The media’s sharp change of tone may both signify and fuel the doubts gaining traction within the US political class.

September 18, 2023 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

House Republicans Fed Up With Biden’s Ukraine Aid Requests

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 18.09.2023

As the US government’s September 30 funding deadline nears, the Biden administration is seeking to ram a $24 billion Ukraine package through the US Congress. Not so fast, say House Republicans.

House Republicans and Democrats have locked horns again over federal budget spending. At midnight on September 30, the US government may shut down unless Congress passes spending legislation.

Each party appears to be trying to capitalize on the urgency of the moment. The White House and Democratic Party want to swiftly pass $44 billion in emergency funding, which includes a $24 billion package for the Kiev regime, requested by President Joe Biden in early August. A lesser amount, $16 billion, has been requested by the White House to replenish FEMA’s depleted Disaster Relief Fund and to cope with the consequences of the wildfires on Maui and in Louisiana, flooding in Vermont, and a major hurricane in Florida.

House Republicans believe that it’s not fair to wrap up domestic aid and aid to Ukraine in one bill and insist that they should be separated.

“This needs to get done. It needs to get done separately. It needs to get done in a bipartisan manner,” GOP Senator Rick Scott told the press.

For his part, Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who has repeatedly made it clear that he does not want to throw US taxpayer dollars into the black hole of the Ukraine conflict, has proposed a compromise solution: pass a stopgap measure first to give them more time to negotiate on further government funding.

“We’re going to get this done, nobody wins in a government shutdown,” McCarthy told reporters last week.

“I think it does reflect a certain part of American society,” James George Jatras, retired US diplomat and adviser to the US Senate Republican leadership, told Sputnik. “The question is how much of the American establishment does it reflect? And that is very unclear. All the indications I’ve gotten from people with informants inside the government indicate that they still want to win this war and still believe that they are able to do so, but that it’s necessary to freeze the war or to arrange some kind of a phony Minsk-3 kind of ceasefire.”

McCarthy is backed by members of the Republican Main Street Caucus and House Freedom Caucus. The proposed bill would extend the government funding through October 31, impose an almost 8% spending cut on most of the federal agencies (excluding the Pentagon), and, importantly, it would not include additional aid to Ukraine.

The US press reports that supporting Ukraine is becoming “more controversial” among US lawmakers. “I’m a no on any spending for Ukraine, that’s one of my red lines,” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia told the media earlier this month. The House Freedom Caucus shares a similar stance. So does a majority of the US public, who tell pollsters that the United States has already provided Kiev with enough funding.

Ukraine’s botched counteroffensive has added to doubts, along with soaring prices and borrowing costs, economic slowdown, and inflation. An August survey found that 55% of Americans thought lawmakers should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine.

“There is a growing rift perhaps among the public, who realizes how corrupt the Ukrainian regime is, how much all of this is a waste, how, even to some extent, it’s a danger of a broader war if it continues,” Jatras said.

Still, some Senate Republicans seem to be fine with more military assistance to Kiev. Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas shared a letter in a post on X (formerly known as Twitter) insisting that not sending weapons to the Kiev regime would “prolong the war and cost lives.” Senators Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) share Cotton’s stance.

Having realized that Ukraine’s much-anticipated counteroffensive has failed, the bipartisan establishment is drumming up support for more weapons to Kiev no matter what.

“There is, you might say, a rift in terms of strategy, about how to accomplish the goal of defeating Russia in Ukraine, but there is no rift on that question,” Jatras said. “The establishment is still virtually 100% anti-Russian. They want to blame any failure so far on the Ukrainians, especially this idea that the Ukrainians are casualty-averse and they’re not willing to throw enough men into the meat grinder, and that they need to listen to people from Washington about how to run the war. But nonetheless, the fundamental question of how to proceed in Ukraine, there is no rift.”

“The signals I read are that they realize that this so-called counteroffensive is not going to succeed on its own terms, and they have to switch to a different strategy. And that different strategy is to force Moscow into a disadvantage, a frozen conflict. And they think they can succeed in that and that they’re preparing for a longer-term conflict,” he continued.

Even though the public discontent in the US is growing against funding Kiev, the White House and the “war party” in Congress don’t give “a damn,” according to the expert. The question is to what extent the US elites could push ahead with the unpopular measure as domestic problems continue to mount.

September 18, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

American biological male spokesperson for Kiev threatens journalists, and now, election observers also

By Lucas Leiroz | September 18, 2023

Sarah Ashton Cirillo – also known as “Michael John”, an American biological male transgender citizen who works as spokesperson for Kiev, has made public threats on social media, promising to attack Russian and foreign civilian citizens who work as journalists and international observers. The case clearly shows the neo-Nazi and anti-humanitarian mentality of the Ukrainian regime, which openly states its intention to kill civilian and strategically irrelevant people.

In recent days, Sarah has threatened civilians several times. The first public statement of this kind was made on September 13, when the spokesperson promised to “hunt down” all Russian “propagandists” and punish them for the “war crimes” allegedly committed by Moscow. On that occasion, Sarah mentioned that in the “next week” – in this case the current one – “justice” would be “served” in Ukraine, suggesting that attacks against pro-Russian journalists could be close to happening.

“Next week, the teeth of the Russian devils will gnash ever harder, and their rabid mouths will foam in uncontrollable frenzy as the world will see a favorite Kremlin propagandist pay for their crimes (…) Russia’s war criminal propagandists will all be hunted down, and justice will be served as we in Ukraine are led on this mission by faith in God, liberty and complete liberation,” Sarah said at the time.

The case generated outrage among the Russians, who correctly interpreted Sarah’s threat as a risk to their lives. Officials reported the American-Ukrainian spokesperson’s words to international organizations and NGOs, in addition to calling on Russian security authorities to keep an eye on the case and avoid attacks on civilians.

However, as if threatening journalists were not enough, Sarah published on her social networks a few days later a list with the names of several foreign citizens who participated as observers in the recent elections in the four new Russian regions. According to Sarah, the list is made up of “of vultures feeding off the suffering of Ukrainians in temporarily occupied Ukraine.”

Considering the previously made threat to “hunt” journalists, it is possible to interpret the list of names as a true “hit-list”. Sarah appears to be creating her own “Myrotvorets”, exposing names and details of civilians so that Ukrainian intelligence and allied terrorists can find and kill them. This might seem “shocking” in other countries, but it already seems to be commonplace in Ukraine, as the neo-Nazi regime openly maintains a strategy of killing civilians.

Moscow reported the situation to the UN, with the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation in New York trying to draw the attention of diplomats from other countries to the serious threats made by the American citizen on behalf of the Ukrainian state. It is not yet known how the other diplomatic delegations will react to the case, but, considering that on previous occasions Russian reports had little effect, it is expected that the situation will not be resolved through diplomatic means.

Commenting on the case, Dutch journalist Sonja van den Ende, who also worked as an observer in the elections, stated that Sarah is practicing terrorism by putting the names of civilians on death lists. As a European-born citizen exiled in Russia, Sonja says Western Europeans do not care about what happens to Russian civilians. According to her, if something similar had happened in Europe, those responsible would certainly be punished appropriately.

“It’s a threat to us all, to Western journalists, and all who are already on the Peacekeeper list (Myrotvorets), which is actually a kill list (…) [If something like this were happening in Europe] it would be terrorism. They would say ‘this is a crazy guy, or a woman.’ She’d be jailed or at least tried”, Sonja told journalists during an interview.

In fact, considering Ukraine’s terrorist past and the murders of Daria Dugina, Maxim Fomin (“Vladlen Tatarsky”) and Rostilav Zhuravlev, as well as several failed attempts to kill other civilians, it is very likely that Kiev’s intelligence services are planning something against Russian journalists and international observers in the near future. In addition to Sarah’s words, this is also in line with the promise made by Ukrainian military intelligence chief General Kirill Budanov, who stated in May:

“We’ve been killing Russians and we will keep killing Russians anywhere on the face of this world until the complete victory of Ukraine (…) We have already gotten many, including public and media personalities.”

Clearly, for Kiev there are no ethical or humanitarian limits. All Russian citizens – or simply foreigners who dialogue with the Russian side – are “legitimate” targets for the regime. The terrorist and neo-Nazi mentality of the Kiev Junta allows it to target people without military involvement, which drives the Russian forces to seek more incisive means to protect their citizens.

Given the West’s connivance with these crimes and the omission on the part of the international organizations, the Russian side will have to defend its people through military means.

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

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Update:

September 18, 2023 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »