Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

China’s Global Civilization Initiative & Restoring the Westphalian World Order

By Professor Glenn Diesen | November 28, 2024

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 laid the foundation for the modern world order, which is based on a balance of power between sovereign equals to obstruct hegemonic ambitions. The Westphalian balance of power could reduce zero-sum rivalries by championing the principle of indivisible security, as enhancing the security of adversaries would also improve one’s own security.

Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been promoting a revisionist world order based on US hegemony and sovereign inequality, which is legitimized under the banner of universal liberal values. The hegemonic world order aimed to transcend international anarchy, yet it was inevitably temporary and unstable as its durability depended on obstructing the rise of potential rivals and promoting a system of sovereign inequality. The era of hegemony is already over as the world transitioned to a multipolar balance of power, and there is subsequently a need to rediscover the principle of indivisible security.

China’s Global Civilisational Initiative can contribute to restoring and improving a stable Westphalian world order based on a balance of power among sovereign equals. China’s Global Civilizational Initiative, organized around the principle of “the diversity of civilizations”, can be interpreted as a rejection of universalism and thus support for sovereign equality. By rejecting the right to represent the values of other people, the Global Civilizational Initiative reassures the world that an intrusive US hegemony will not be replaced by an intrusive Chinese hegemony. The Global Civilization Initiative complements China’s economic and security initiatives around the world, which are also organized around the principle that stability requires a multipolar world order.

World order: Hegemony or balance of power?

World order refers to the arrangement of power and authority that provides the foundation for the rules of the game in terms of how world politics should be conducted. The modern world order is primarily based on the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, in which a hegemonic order was replaced with a balance of power between sovereign equals. While the Peace of Westphalia was a European order, it laid the foundation for the modern world order due to 500 years of Western dominance.

The European order had previously been organized under the hegemony of the Holy Roman Empire. However, power began to fragment and the Reformation undermined the universalism of the Catholic Church as a legitimacy for its rule. The collapse of the hegemonic order led to the brutal Thirty Years War (1618-48) in which none of the conflicting sides were able to claim a decisive victory and reassert hegemonic control, while the universal legitimacy of the Catholic Church had collapsed. While the Thirty Years’ War initially began as a religious dispute between the Catholics and the Protestants, the primacy of power politics became evident as even Catholic France aligned itself with Protestant Sweden to balance the excessive power of the Catholic Hapsburg Empire. The Europeans were killing each other at a horrific rate, yet none would be able to restore a European order based on one centre of power.

The war ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which laid the foundation for the modern world order. The Westphalian peace outlined a new European order based on a balance of power among sovereign equals. The Peace of Westphalia eliminated the overlapping authorities by asserting the sovereignty of princes, which in time led to the concept of national sovereignty. In a system of sovereign states, peace was ensured by a balance of power as a nation or group of nations defended itself by matching the power of the other side.

In the absence of a hegemon, Europe had to address the subsequent international anarchy as the state became the highest sovereign. International anarchy refers to a state of international relations where there is no centralized authority or governing body to regulate the interactions and behaviour of nation-states. In other words, it is a situation where each country is sovereign and independent, with no superior authority to enforce rules or resolve disputes. Conflicts thus derive from security competition, as the efforts by one state to increase its security may undermine the security of others.

A key principle of the Peace of Westphalia was thus the principle of indivisible security as ensuring the security of opponents was a critical step toward achieving lasting peace and stability in Europe. To ensure stability, it is required to guarantee the security of all states participating in the order. This principle was a departure from the traditional approach to international security in which the victors in a conflict could punish and subjugate the defeated side. Thus, the order aimed to replace conquest and domination with constraints and cooperation. This principle was largely embraced with the establishment of the Concert of Europe in 1815 as France was included as an equal participant, despite being defeated in the Napoleonic War.

However, Westphalia was a European order and sovereign equality was limited to the Europeans as the representatives of advanced and “civilized states”. However, the gradual diffusion of power and weakening of European dominance resulted in the incremental dismantlement of colonial empires, which entailed extending sovereign equality to all states. The Westphalian world order subsequently laid the foundation for international law in accordance with the UN Charter and the concept of colonial trusteeship was gradually eliminated. Yet, the bloc politics of the Cold War and the security dependencies recreated limited sovereignty.

At the end of the Cold War, there was an opportunity to establish a truly reformed Peace of Westphalia based on the principle of indivisible security within a global balance of power between sovereign equals. Yet, the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in an immense concentration of power in the West, under the leadership of the US. Furthermore, the ideological victory of the Cold War fuelled hubris and the conviction that liberal democratic values were universal and should lay the foundation for sovereign inequality. Subsequently, an international balance of power was rejected in favour of what was envisioned to be hegemonic stability.

The Rise and Fall of Pax-Americana

For the first time in history, there was a prospect of establishing a truly global hegemon under US rule. The desire to establish a new world order based on US hegemony was legitimized by claims of representing universal values – liberal democracy.

The benign theory was that hegemony and liberal democratic values would ensure a more durable peace than a balance of power. The peaceful coexistence in the West during the Cold War was to be extended to the entire world in the post-Cold War era. One month after the Soviet Union ceased to exist, President Bush triumphantly declared at the State of the Union address in January 1992: “We are the United States of America, the leader of the West that has become the leader of the world”.

The concept of Pax-Americana derives from “Pax-Romana”, a period of peace and stability that existed under the hegemonic rule of the Roman Empire during the first and second centuries AD. The 200-year-long period ensured relative peace and exceptional levels of economic prosperity and cultural development. While Pax-Romana was characterized by relative peace and stability, it was also marked by the suppression of dissent and the imposition of Roman culture and values on conquered peoples. The US ambition of advancing its global primacy to spread liberal values had many benign intentions, yet hegemony requires suppressing rising powers and denying sovereign equality. President John F. Kennedy had cautioned against a hegemonic peace in 1963 when he stated: “What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave”.

Hegemonic peace can only be sustained by preventing the rise of rival powers. Less than two months after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Wolfowitz doctrine of global dominance was revealed in a leaked draft of the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) of February 1992. The document asserted that the “first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival”, which included the rise of allies such as Germany and Japan. Furthermore, under the rule of a hegemon, the principle of sovereign equality is abandoned as the hegemon claims the right to represent and defend other peoples. Thus, international law per the UN was undermined and replaced with what Washington refers to as the “international rules-based order”, which is a hegemonic system based on sovereign inequality. To some extent, this replicates the same authority the Catholic Church previously had in Europe to claim universal sovereignty over all peoples.

Under a balance of power international law is designed to promote mutual constraints, when there is a hegemon the new rules of the game will remove constraints on the hegemon. Under the collective hegemony of the West during the unipolar era, the world was subsequently artificially redivided into liberal democracies with full sovereignty versus authoritarian states with limited sovereignty. Irrespective of benign intentions, the common denominator of democracy promotion, humanitarian intervention, and the global war on terror was full sovereignty for Western liberal democracies and limited sovereignty for the rest. Liberal democracy thus became a new indicator of civilized states worthy of full sovereignty, and the West could again reassert its virtue in a new civilizing mission – recreating the ideas of the garden versus the jungle.

In 1999, NATO invaded Yugoslavia in a breach of international law in accordance with the UN Charter. However, it was argued that the war was illegal but legitimate. This was an extraordinary framing as legitimacy was decoupled from legality. Liberal democracy and human rights were argued to be the alternative source of legitimacy. Implicitly, the reference to liberal values as a non-legal source of legitimacy was the sole prerogative of the West and its allies. Liberal values thus become a clause of exceptionalism in international law for the US and its allies. Following the illegal invasion of Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair dismissed the relevance of Westphalia in the era of liberal hegemony:

“I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely that a country’s internal affairs are for it and you don’t interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance. I did not consider Iraq fitted into this philosophy, though I could see the horrible injustice done to its people by Saddam”.

There was a desire to institutionalize the clause of exceptionalism to legitimize liberal hegemony. Discussions began to advocate for an “alliance of democracies” as an alternative source of legitimacy to the UN, as the West should not be constrained by authoritarian states. This idea was reformed as the proposal for a “Concert of Democracies”, which “could become an alternative forum for the approval of the use of force in cases where the use of the veto at the Security Council prevented free nations from keeping faith with the aims of the U.N. Charter”. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, likewise promised to establish a “League of Democracies” if he won the presidency to reduce the constraints on Western democracies under US leadership.

Decoupling legitimacy from legality eventually resulted in the so-called “rules-based international order” based on sovereign inequality, which replaces international law with its foundation in sovereign equality. The rules-based international order allegedly builds on international law by supplementing democratic values and humanitarian law, although in reality, it is instrumental in legitimizing hegemony. When conflicting principles such as territorial integrity or self-determination emerge, the “rules” are always power interests. In the case of Kosovo and increasingly Taiwan, the US leans towards self-determination. In Crimea, the US insists on the principle of territorial integrity. The West’s deliberate dismantlement of international law thus resulted in what was interpreted by much of the world as a hypocritical condemnation of Russia.

Liberal hegemony predictably came to an end as the US exhausted its resources and legitimacy to dominate the world, while other centres of power such as China, India and Russia began to collectively balance the excesses of the US and create alternatives. The international system subsequently gravitates towards equilibrium, which is the “natural state” of the international system.

China’s Multipolar Balance of Power

China has been the leading state among the “rise of the rest”, which develops a multipolar balance of power based on sovereign equality. To ensure that a new balance of power is benign, China is seemingly reviving the principle of indivisible security by arguing that no state can have proper security unless the other states in the international system also have security. China’s support for a multipolar distribution of power, legitimized by civilizational diversity, signifies powerful efforts to restore the Westphalian world order – although as a world order rather than a European order.

China has to some extent replicated the three-pillared American System of the early 19th century, in which the US developed a manufacturing base, physical transportation infrastructure, and a national bank to counter British economic hegemony and subsequent intrusive political influence. China has similarly decentralized the international economic infrastructure by developing leading technological ecosystems, launched the impressive Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, and developed new financial instruments of power.

A natural “balance of dependence” has emerged, which replicated the geopolitical balance of power logic. All economic interdependent partnerships are defined by asymmetries, as one side will always be more dependent than the other. In an asymmetrical interdependent partnership, the more powerful and less reliant side in a dyad can convert economic dependence into political power. The more dependent side, therefore, has systemic incentives to restore a balance of dependence by enhancing strategic autonomy and diversifying economic partnerships to reduce reliance on the more powerful actor. The international system thus moves toward a natural equilibrium in which no states can extract unwarranted political influence over other states.

China has not displayed hegemonic intentions in which it would seek to prevent diversification and multipolarity, rather it has signalled to be content with merely being the leading economy as the “first among equals”. Case in point, Russian efforts to diversify its economic connectivity in Greater Eurasia have not been opposed by Beijing, which has made Moscow more positive to China’s economic leadership in the region. This represents a very different approach from the hegemonic model of Washington, in which the US attempts to decouple Russia from Germany, China, India, Turkey, Iran, Central Asia, and other economic partners.

China has avoided imposing dilemmas on other countries to choose between “us” and “them” and has even been reluctant to join formal military alliances that advance a zero-sum approach to international security. The development of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as economic institutions are similarly pursuing the seeking of security with member states rather than security against non-members, which is evident as membership in these institutions is extended to rivals such as India. The Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Initiative are attempts to create new platforms for global economic and security cooperation.

The Global Civilisational Initiative

More recently, China built further on the initiatives for a multipolar distribution of power by launching the Global Civilizational Initiative. Xi Jinping’s call for a diversity of civilizations is very significant as it translates into support for sovereign equality, and rejecting universalist ideals that can legitimize interference in domestic affairs. The anti-hegemonic rhetoric was made apparent by China’s President Xi Jinping in his argument for civilizational distinctiveness:

“A single flower does not make spring, while one hundred flowers in full blossom bring spring to the garden… We advocate the respect for the diversity of civilizations. Countries need to uphold the principles of equality, mutual learning, dialogue and inclusiveness among civilizations, and let cultural exchanges transcend estrangement, mutual learning transcend clashes, and coexistence transcend feelings of superiority”.

Xi Jinping’s vision of constructing a benign Westphalian peace was also indicated by reiterating the need to replace zero-sum calculations with the recognition that security is inherently indivisible:

“Humanity lives in a community with a shared future where we rise and fall together. For any country to achieve modernization, it should pursue common development through solidarity and cooperation and follow the principles of joint contribution, shared benefits and win-win outcome”.

The ideas of Xi Jinping reflect those of the 18th-century German philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder, who argued that preserving national distinctiveness builds international diversity and strength when it does not disparage other nations or claim cultural superiority. Translated to the current era, preserving civilization distinctiveness requires avoidance of concepts such as a “clash of civilizations” and “superiority of civilizations”.

The proposal for Xi Jinping enjoys support from Russia, as President Putin previously argued that each nation must have the freedom to develop on its own path and that “primitive simplification and prohibition can be replaced with the flourishing complexity of culture and tradition”. These words are based on the ideas of Nikolai Danilevsky who argued in the 19th century that pursuing a single path of modernization prevented nations from contributing to universal civilization:

“The danger consists not of the political domination of a single state, but of the cultural domination of one cultural-historical type… The issue is not whether there will be a universal state, either a republic or a monarchy, but whether one civilization, one culture, will dominate, since this would deprive humanity of one of the necessary conditions for success and perfection – the element of diversity”.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky similarly argued in 1873 that Russia would not be able to be independent or contribute much to the world if it merely emulated the West:

“Embarrassed and afraid that we have fallen so far behind Europe in our intellectual and scientific development, we have forgotten that we ourselves, in the depth and tasks of the Russian soul, contain in ourselves as Russians the capacity perhaps to bring new light to the world, on the condition that our development is independent”.

Civilizational diversity is imperative as it, much like biodiversity, makes the world more capable of absorbing shocks and handling crises: “Universalism, if realized, would result in a sharp decline of the complexity of the global society as a whole and the international system in particular. Reducing complexity, in turn, would dramatically increase the level of systemic risks and challenges”.

The objection to intrusive claims of universalism is also fundamental to Western civilization. In ancient Greece, the cradle of Western civilization, it was recognized that universalism and uniformity weakened the vigour and resilience that defined the Hellenic idea. The benign cooperation and competition between various Greek city-states created a diversity of ideas and a vitality that elevated Greek civilization. Integration into one political system would entail losing the diversity of philosophy, wisdom, and leadership that incentivized experimentation and advancement.

The first world order that truly encompasses the entire world

It can be concluded that restoring a Westphalian world order does not only require a multipolar distribution of economic power, it also demands respect for civilizational diversity to ensure that the principle of indivisible security is preserved. The international order should counteract nefarious claims of civilizational superiority clothed in the benign rhetoric of universal values and development models. Through this prism, the US efforts to divide the world into democracy versus authoritarianism can be considered a strategy to restore hegemony and a system of sovereign inequality by defeating adversaries, rather than building an international system based on harmony and human progress. Xi Jinping has thus repudiated the US hegemonic model, and instead advanced the Westphalian argument that states must “refrain from imposing their own values or models on others”.

The new Westphalia can for the first time truly be a world order by including non-Western nations as sovereign equals. One should therefore not be surprised by the positive response from the majority of the world to the proposal of replacing conflict and dominance with cooperation based on equality and mutual respect.

November 29, 2024 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

German opposition to demand EU exit – media

RT | November 29, 2024

Alternative for Germany (AfD) – the third largest opposition party in the national parliament – intends to take the country out of the EU if it wins the upcoming election, several media outlets reported on Friday, citing the party’s newly drafted election manifesto.

AfD has confirmed that the document is “ready” but has not released it to the public. The party also wants Germany to ditch the euro, and return to a “stable national currency,” media outlets including Die Zeit and Der Spiegel have claimed.

“We believe that Germany’s exit from the European Union and the establishment of a new European community are necessary,” the 85-page-long manifesto reportedly says.

The EU in its current form should be replaced by the “Economic and Interest Community” following a certain transition period that should be “negotiated… with both the old EU partner states and new interested parties,” media have cited the document as saying, adding that the AfD believes the EU is trying to become a “superstate.”

On its website, the party lists Germany’s exit from the EU as part of its political agenda and advocates a “Europe of nations” concept, adding that “irrevocable renunciation of sovereignty in favor of an ‘ever closer’ European Union is incompatible” with this vision.

The party is also seeking to restore trade ties with Russia, which were disrupted by EU sanctions imposed after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. The AfD text highlights Russia’s importance as a supplier of cheap natural gas for German industry, according to national media.

The document also calls for sanctions on Russia to be lifted and the Nord Stream gas pipelines to be repaired, according to Die Zeit. Nord Stream 1 delivered Russian gas to Germany before it was blown up in September 2022, along with Nord Stream 2.

The party also apparently wants Germany to exit the Paris Climate Agreement and introduce abortion restrictions.

AfD has neither confirmed nor denied the reports about its election program, but said that the document was sent to delegates of the federal party conference, scheduled for mid-January.

The document’s lead author, Professor Ingo Hahn, has described it as a “convincing work that not only names the pressing problems of our country, but also shows clear solutions that will lead Germany out of the current misery.”

Germany could hold an early parliamentary vote as soon as February 23 following the collapse of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-party government coalition earlier this month. If Scholz’s now-minority cabinet loses a confidence vote in mid-December, the country will head into a snap election.

AfD became the fifth largest faction in the Bundestag following the 2021 parliamentary election, in which it gained more than 10% of the vote.

November 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Seoul: Lawmakers decry defense cost sharing with Washington

Press TV – November 28, 2024

South Korean lawmakers and activists are opposing the Special Measures Agreement on defense cost sharing with the US, criticizing it as secretive and detrimental to South Korean sovereignty.

The agreement, which includes an 8.3% increase in South Korea’s payment to the US, is seen as setting a precedent for unequal relations.

Lawmakers, joined by activists on the steps of South Korea’s National Assembly, blasted the agreement on cost sharing for US troops deployed in South Korea.

With incoming US President Donald Trump saying he wants even more money from Seoul, Progressive Party members want the deal nullified.

“If Trump calls us a money machine, let’s say this Special Measures Agreement on defense cost sharing is a robbery.

Let’s scrap the agreement and renegotiate it from the beginning.

This is what we should do as we approach the Trump era.”

Jung Hye-Kyung, South Korean Lawmaker

Those opposed to the deal argue that negotiations were secret, that it increases the public’s financial burden, undermines South Korean sovereignty, and, sets the tone for further unequal relations with the United States of America.

This 12th defense cost sharing Special Measures Agreement stipulates an 8.3% increase in South Korea’s payment to the US for the deployment of American forces at bases across the country.

During his presidential campaign, US President Elect Donald Trump called South Korea a wealthy nation that should pay more for US forces stationed in South Korea.

American forces have been deployed in South Korea since the end of the 1950 to 53 Korean War.

But the mission of the 28,500 US troops here has shifted with US strategic interests to contain China.

“The nature of the United States Forces Korea is changing a lot on the Korean peninsula; the USFK is playing a role in keeping China in check.

If that is the case, the US also needs to pay for the use of the bases on the Korean peninsula or pay for the cost of stationing troops here.”

Kang Hye-Jin, Peace Activist

Each round of the closed door talks faced intense opposition.

This week, South Korean lawmakers shall debate the US troop cost sharing deal in committees, likely to include dissenting opinions, before potentially ratifying the agreement.

November 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

Is the US Fueling a New Nuclear Arms Race?

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 29.11.2024

The pace of US nuclear weapons modernization is accelerating, meaning Washington has de facto launched an arms race against Russia and China, the Roscongress Foundation warned in its recent report obtained by Sputnik.

The report outlined key developments:

  • The US is planning to spend about $138 billion on the modernization of nuclear warheads until FY 2049.
  • Another $500 billion will be spent on stockpile management, including dismantling and disposal of components of warheads removed from armaments, as well as research, development, testing and evaluation, other weapons activities and, finally, infrastructure operations.
  • Over 67,000 employees have been involved in the implementation of the US nuclear weapons modernization program. Their number has increased by more than 70% over the past ten years.
  • The US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has fast-tracked plutonium pit production, with a 2018 plan to produce 80 pits annually for nuclear warheads.
  • In addition, the US is modernizing most of the nuclear weapons storage bases in Europe. Presently, the US stores its tactical nuclear weapons at six bases in five NATO member countries, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkiye.
  • In 2023, the Pentagon received over 200 updated nuclear munitions, which was the largest annual delivery since the end of the Cold War.

According to Federation of American Scientists, the total inventory of US nuclear warheads amounts to 5,044 including 1,770 deployed warheads, 1,938 reserved for operational forces, and 1,336 retired warheads.

The State Department estimates that the US had roughly 1,420 warheads deployed on 662 missiles and bombers as of March 1, 2023, including:

  • Minuteman III ICBM 396 warheads
  • Trident (D-5) SLBM 981 warheads
  • B-52 bombers 33 warheads
  • B-2 bombers 10 warheads

According to US Congressional Budget Office 2023 estimates, US programs to operate and modernize nuclear forces would cost $756 billion over the next 10 years.

November 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | | Leave a comment

Washington’s War in Ukraine: Narrowing Options, Growing Consequences

By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – November 29, 2024

Russia’s use of its Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile in eastern Ukraine represents an unprecedented escalation in what began as a US proxy war against Russia in 2014.

The missile’s capabilities represent a serious non-nuclear means of striking targets anywhere in Europe without the collective West’s ability to sufficiently defend against it.
The possibility of the West now facing direct consequences for what has so far been a proxy war, may reintroduce rational thought across the West otherwise not required when spending the lives of others. It may, however, cause Western policymakers to double down, confident in the belief that they remain decoupled from any possible consequences despite unprecedented escalation.

The missile’s use is only the latest demonstration of Russia’s military and escalatory dominance amid the ongoing proxy war. It alone would be unable to significantly impact the fighting, but because the Russian Federation over the last two decades has invested deeply in the fundamentals of national defense, it compliments a range of other capabilities serving as a deterrence against continued Western encroachment.

Before the deployment of the Oreshnik, the progress of Russian forces along the line of contact in Ukraine had been accelerating, triggering panic across the capitals of Western nations. This was not achieved through any single “wonder weapon,” but through Russia’s post-Cold War strategy of preparing its military forces and its military industrial capacity to wage a large-scale, prolonged, and intense conflict against Western-backed forces building up along Russia’s borders.

This included the development and large-scale production of both simple and advanced weapons ranging from main battle tanks and other armored vehicles, to drones, cruise missiles, air defense systems, and electronic warfare capabilities.

Because Russia’s arms industry operates under state-owned enterprises prioritizing state needs over generating profit, the systems required in terms of both quality and quantity were made available. This was possible because surplus production capacity had been maintained across a large number of Russian arms production facilities. Excess labor and equipment that would have been slashed by private enterprise across the West to maximize profits was maintained if and when needed. Come February 2022, this excess capacity was utilized and has since been the central factor contributing to Russia’s growing success against NATO-backed forces in Ukraine.

The West, on the other hand, is suffering a growing military industrial crisis. Excess production capacity needs to be built from scratch, taking years or longer. Across the collective West, skilled labor shortages prevent assembly lines from being expanded significantly, even if the will and resources exist to do so. In all areas of production, from air defense missiles to artillery shells, the collective West is struggling to meet even the most meager production targets.

Washington, determined to prevail in Ukraine either outright or through severely overextending Russia amid this proxy war, has steadily escalated the conflict from 2014 when the US overthrew the elected government of Ukraine, to 2019 when the US began arming Ukrainian forces already being trained by NATO, to full-spectrum sanctions on Russia from 2022 onward, to the transfer of artillery, tanks, aircraft, and long-range missiles the US has now finally authorized strikes into Russia itself with.

Each escalation represents an attempt by Washington and its European proxies to inflict prohibitive costs on Russia. As each escalation falls far short of doing so, additional escalations are devised.

Recently, France and the UK have discussed the possibility of sending their own troops into Ukraine as yet another serious escalation of a war the collective West is already all but fighting against Russia directly.

It should be remembered that the US is also engineering crises elsewhere along Russia’s periphery, including Georgia as well as Syria, to similarly overextend Russia. Recent military operations carried out by US-backed extremists in Syria were likely prepared months in advance and launched as a substitute for the Westn’s own inability to overpower Russia in Ukraine.

Narrowing Options, Growing Consequences

Even without the Oreshnik’s appearance amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, it is clear that the West’s attempts to escalate versus Russia have fallen far short of extending Russia in the manner many Western analysts, politicians, and military leaders have hoped.

The wider geopolitical effect appears to be bolstering rather than undermining the shift from US-led unipolarism toward multipolarism.

Options for escalating are narrowing for the West. The deployment of Western forces in Ukraine would lead to the same problems Ukrainian troops themselves face – a lack of artillery shells, armored vehicles, and air defense systems to protect their forces from the 4,000+ missiles Russia has fired on Ukraine each year.

The Oreshnik itself represents a non-nuclear means of striking at any target either in Ukraine or across the rest of Europe. It would be a means by which to inflict serious damage on European and American military targets in the region, further reducing the West’s already dwindling military power. The missile, like many others in Russia’s growing arsenal, would be able to overcome Western air and missile defenses both because of fundamental flaws in their performance and because Western stockpiles of interceptors have been exhausted with no means of readily replenishing them.

Because the collective West’s military industrial capacity is so limited versus its overreaching pursuit of global primacy, the use of its military aviation, cruise missiles, and other existing capabilities can only be committed in one of at least three primary regions of focus – Europe, the Middle East, or the Asia-Pacific.

Were the US and Europe to commit significant forces to a direct conflict with Russia in Ukraine, even if it fell short of nuclear war, it would exhaust military power the West sought to preserve for potential war with either Iran and/or China. While there would be no guarantee that these capabilities would tilt the conflict in Ukraine back in their favor, it would guarantee that US-European ambitions in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific would be forfeited indefinitely.

It could be that the US seeks to extend its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine across the rest of Europe, with the US itself preserving its military capabilities for its continued involvement in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific. But the conflict in Ukraine has exposed fundamental flaws in the collective West’s system overall. A system incapable of collectively overpowering Russia, having exhausted itself in the process of trying, will have less fortune still overpowering a much larger and more capable China.

While the US may believe it improves its chances by shifting the burden of intervention in Ukraine to its European proxies, the US still suffers from a fundamental inability itself to produce the number of arms and ammunition required to fight a similar conflict in the Asia-Pacific.

The introduction of the Oreshnik, a capability China will also almost certainly be capable of producing if it does not already possess it – represents a further means of deterring the US and its proxies – a promise of non-nuclear consequences in a missile exchange the US and Europe would enter at a disadvantage. This, on top of a large and growing disparity in terms of military industrial capacity, confines US and European options to resorting to nuclear weapons or reformulating a more realistic and constructive foreign policy in the first place.

Because Russia and China possess their own large and growing stockpiles of nuclear weapons – the West’s use of such weapons really isn’t an option. But because the current circles of power in the West lack the military strength, intelligence, and moral fortitude to reformulate their foreign policy, from their point of view, they may believe in the possibility of a limited nuclear war they could emerge from with an advantage, believing this may be their only option. Thus, the notion of mutually assured destruction must be fully impressed upon the West now as it was during the Cold War, reintroducing the fear of personal consequences for policymakers so rational thought unnecessary when spending the lives of others can be reintroduced into the equation.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.

November 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Terrorist Offensive in Aleppo Reeks of US and Israeli Involvement – Marandi

Sputnik – 29.11.2024

The sudden escalation in Syria where anti-government groups launched a sudden offensive towards Aleppo betrays the involvement of several foreign powers, including Israel and the United States, says Seyed Mohammad Marandi, political analyst and professor at Tehran University.

“We see thousands of foreign fighters affiliated to al-Qaeda from across Central Asia,” Marandi tells Sputnik. “They’ve been mobilized and well trained to carry out this assault.”

The offensive, he points out, takes place “literally a day after Netanyahu said he needs the ceasefire in order to deal with the so-called Iranian threat,” and it appears that the goal of this offensive is “to cut off Syria from the Axis of Resistance in order to isolate Lebanon.”

“Obviously, this is being done in coordination with the United States. The whole dirty war in Syria since 2011 was led by the United States,” Marandi adds. “We know that Jake Sullivan back then, who is now the national security adviser of Biden, said in an email to Hillary Clinton on February 12th, 2012, that in Syria, al Qaeda is on our side.”

Given the long history of the US’ association with terrorist groups in the region and previous efforts by Washington to “create a Salafist entity between Syria and Iraq to isolate Syria,” there is no doubt that the United States and its allies “are a part of this conspiracy against Syria,” the analyst concludes.

That said, Marandi identifies the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the “number one beneficiary” of the current crisis in Aleppo.

“Netanyahu needs war, and he only accepted a ceasefire under a great deal of pressure. So no one has faith in the Israelis. The Israelis have always violated commitments,” Marandi says. “After all, it is carrying out a holocaust in Gaza, a regime that carries out the Holocaust and continues to do so in front of the eyes of the world after 14 months is not a regime that can be trusted for anything.”

Syrian military expert Mahmoud Abdel Salyam offers a similar take on the subject, blaming Israel for the current crisis and claiming that Tel Aviv’s plans threaten the security situation in the region.

“Israel essentially wants to solidify its position in the region after the ceasefire in Lebanon,” he says. “So Tel Aviv has no intention of stopping – it wants to sow discord among the other players in the region and to force them to react to such challenges.”

Salyam does note, however, that other global players who are interested in “changing the power balance in the Middle East” will undoubtedly capitalize on this situation.

“Some countries, for example, may use the weakening of the Arab republic to bolster their influence by supporting radical and extremist groups that Israel tries to use in Syria,” he says. “But such dangerous actions will lead to unpredictable consequences, for these countries and for their allies.”

November 29, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Haavara to Hague: Germany’s stance on ICC arrest warrants unmasks deep Zionist ties

By Musa Iqbal | Press TV | November 29, 2024

International Criminal Court’s (ICC) landmark decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli regime leaders Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gollant has sparked outrage from Western leaders, who have for decades used the Hague-based tribunal for political agendas.

Though the arrest warrants are riddled with glaring contradictions, such as describing Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif as a “war criminal” and equating Hamas resistance leaders with war criminals in Tel Aviv, the warrants are still significant because even the institutions founded by the Western world are unable to dismiss the criminality of the Zionist regime.

But now comes the true test: are the states that are signatories to the Rome Statute, which recognizes the authority of the Hague-based international tribunal, willing to follow through with their pledge?

Many countries have reluctantly expressed their willingness to accept the decision – such as Canada, Italy, and the Netherlands, just to name a few. However, some have been more reluctant, retreating to “analyze” the verdict issued by the ICC.

Perhaps the case that deserves the most attention is that of Germany, a Rome Statute signatory and one of the biggest allies of the child-murdering Tel Aviv regime that has been deeply complicit in the Gaza genocide.

A German government spokesperson, Steffen Hebestreit, said he “finds it hard to imagine” that they would make arrests “on this basis,” questioning the authority and decision of the Court entirely.

Naturally, these statements have caused a stir, and have journalists pressing German officials on what their stance actually will be on ICC arrest warrant, which took more than six months to make headway.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, when pressed on the enforcement of the warrants, retreated.

“As I said, we abide by the law and legislation nationally, at the European level and internationally, and that is why we are now examining exactly what that means for us for implementation in Germany,” he said.

She made no comments regarding whether Germany would follow through with the arrest warrants, despite being obligated as a signatory of the Rome Statute – something Hebestreit mentioned himself.

Germany has been one of the most staunch European supporters of the Zionist entity, particularly amid the ongoing genocidal war on Gaza, refusing persistent calls to halt arms sales to the Tel Aviv regime.

Time and time again – throughout the decades – Germany has attributed its ironclad and unconditional support for the Israeli occupation to its own Nazi-era crimes against Jewish people in the 1930s and 40s.

Germany claims it is motivated to support the Zionist regime because of its own guilt.

But this is a complete distortion of the truth. The fact of the matter is, the German Nazi regime was a direct collaborator with the Zionist movement from the early days of Nazi party rule in Germany.

In fact, while most Jewish organizations were banned, the lone organization permitted to legally exist was the German Zionist movement, under different initiatives.

To the uninitiated, an alliance between the Zionist movement and the Nazi regime seems completely contradictory. But when looking at the material desires of both the Zionist movement and that of Nazi Germany, the motivations become quite clear and obvious, and manifested in the infamous Haavara Agreement, signed by the Zionistische Vereinigung für Deutschland (Zionist Federation of Germany) and the German Reich Ministry of Economics in August 1933.

The agreement is quite simple: in exchange for Jewish immigrants (particularly, those loyal to the Zionist doctrine, and some of the most wealthiest – indicating it was never about moralism but rather preserving class interests within Zionism) to safely leave Germany, the Nazi regime would help transfer the Jewish population themselves to Palestinian territories, accelerating the removal of indigenous Palestinians from a territory where they were already persecuted by a growing Zionist population and British colonialism.

The Nazi regime received tremendous material benefits for this. Jewish organizations were enacting worldwide boycotts of the German regime at the time, on the grounds of the Nazi laws persecuting the Jewish population in Germany.

The Nazi regime saw this as a major threat, as it created grounds for economic isolation in a post-World War I world. The open collaboration with the Zionist movement allowed the Nazi regime to dodge the accusations of antisemitism, and further dangerously conflated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, a defense the Zionist regime would use to the modern day.

Furthermore, the German government was able to enact further economic deals under Haavara, which resulted in a new German market in the British-occupied Palestinian land.

The agreement materially improved a heavily boycotted Nazi regime while laying further groundwork for the Zionist colonization of Palestine. The transfer of wealth was often cited and met with glee in Zionist-controlled media in occupied Palestine.

Fast forward 91 years. The German government, which has enacted laws that criticism of the Israeli regime is “anti-semitic” in nature, is yet again making a callback to its Nazi roots.

Hebestreit, quoted in The Telegraph, states that “it is a consequence of German history that we share unique relations and great responsibility with Israel.”

This is completely true, but not in the context in which they are using to deceive the public. Germany is not defying the ICC arrest warrants because of any shame to its Nazi crimes. Rather, functionally speaking, it is the same dedication to the Zionist movement Germany declared in 1933, in order to not only evade allegations of anti-Semitism, but continue making billions of dollars from exports to the Zionist occupation.

Refusing to enforce the ICC warrants means that Germany can continue its arms shipments to the Zionist occupation. Just last month, Germany approved a sale of over $100,000,000 worth of arms to the Israeli regime. Some researchers suggest that Germany exports nearly 30 percent of the arms sent to the occupation regime.

Germany is in a particularly debased state of affairs, due to its close allegiance to the United States. The American insistence to cut off energy imports from Russia as well as the US involvement in bombing the Nord Stream II pipeline has drastically impacted the German economy.

The economic peril due to this commitment the led the German government to collapse earlier this month. However, the US encourages its allies (rather, proxies) to continue arming the Israeli occupation.

The road ahead indeed goes both ways. German purchases of Israeli surveillance and military equipment, recently and most notably the Arrow 3 ballistic defense systems raised eyebrows to Palestinian solidarity organizations. There is also documentation that German police have purchased Israel’s infamous Pegasus software to be used for spying on its own citizens.

Acknowledging the ICC arrest warrants means that the imports and exports of arms come to a grinding halt.

Indeed, the reluctance to enforce the ICC arrest warrants on behalf of the German government is not rooted in any sense of “moralism.” This is a talking point to earn the sympathy of Western liberals who still do not see the massive fingerprint of their own governments in the ongoing Gaza genocide.

The root of the decision, as it usually is within the context of imperialism, is money. Germany is solely motivated by its role as a junior agent in American imperialism, hoping to make a quick buck while its US masters erode its own energy infrastructure.

A refusal to enforce an already toothless warrant, which attacks two Israeli regime leaders and not the issue of Zionism itself, is simply the German government conducting business as usual as it has for over 90 years.

The infamous Haavara agreement lives on today, not in its original context, but not far from it either. Germany’s stance on the ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant reveals deep ties to Zionism rooted in the Haavara agreement.

Musa Iqbal is a Boston-based researcher and writer with a focus on US domestic and foreign policy.

November 29, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 1 Comment

Whatever Happened to the Ozone Hole? – Questions For Corbett

Corbett | November 28, 2024

WATCH ON: ARCHIVE / BITCHUTE / ODYSEE / ROKFIN / RUMBLE / SUBSTACK or DOWNLOAD THE MP4

SHOW NOTES:

The Ozone Hole Was Super Scary, So What Happened To It?

Same Facts, Opposite Conclusions – #PropagandaWatch

The Ozone Scare Was A Dry Run For The Global Warming Scare

Tim Ball on The Corbett Report

Scientists Haven’t ‘Saved’ the Ozone Layer

November 29, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

US mercenary firms compete for ‘huge contracts’ to control security in north Gaza: Report

The Cradle | November 28, 2024

Israel is examining the launch of a “pilot program” that could see US private security firms replace the army in northern Gaza to “accompany food and medicine convoys” for Palestinians who remain in the devastated region, according to a report by Israeli daily Globes.

Among the top competitors for the multi-million dollar contract are Constellis, the direct successor to infamous mercenary company Blackwater, and Orbis, a little-known South Carolina company run by former generals that has worked with the Pentagon for 20 years.

Officials say the pilot program for north Gaza aims to “prevent Hamas or other gangs from taking over the aid trucks and free the IDF soldiers from the dangerous mission.”

In recent weeks, Gaza’s interior ministry established a new police force to deal with groups of bandits and gangs that have been raiding humanitarian aid shipments and blackmailing international organizations in the southern Gaza Strip.

The UN has said these gangs are likely “benefiting from a passive if not active benevolence” or “protection” from the Israeli army.

In October, a third US security firm – Global Delivery Company (GDC) – which describes itself as “Uber for warzones” – claimed to be working with another firm to create and manage “humanitarian bubbles” in Gaza.

GDC is run by Mordechai Kahane, an Israeli businessman who worked with Israeli intelligence during the war on Syria to arm extremist groups seeking to topple the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Although no official figure exists about the size of the contracts being offered by Tel Aviv for these mercenary firms, Globes cites Lt. Col. Yochanan Zoraf, a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and former advisor on Arab affairs in the Israeli army, as saying the figure will likely reach “billions of shekels per year.”

“These are not companies that will manage the daily lives of the residents,” Zoraf claims, adding that “peripheral responsibility for the defense of [north Gaza] as well as the civil responsibility itself” falls at Israel’s feet.

The former army officer also says Tel Aviv will likely “ask that the US – or an outside party – finance the program.”

On Tuesday, Israel Hayom reported that the pilot program has yet to receive approval from the security cabinet “due to legal difficulties in defining the occupation” based on international law.

“In order to circumvent the legal obstacles, the security services are examining bringing in external funding from humanitarian aid organizations or foreign countries for the [mercenary firms], which costs tens of millions of dollars to operate,” the report adds.

Since the start of the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, the Israeli government has turned to mercenaries to overcome an enlistment crisis. This includes cooperation with German intelligence to recruit asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria.

“Over the past seven months, the Values Initiative Association and the German–Israeli Association (DIG) have worked to enlist these refugees from war-torn Muslim-majority countries as mercenaries for Israel. Offered monthly salaries ranging between €4,000 to €5,000 and fast-tracked German citizenship, many have joined the fight. Reports suggest that around 4,000 immigrants were naturalized between September and October alone,” writes The Cradle columnist Mohamed Nader al-Omari.

November 28, 2024 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | 1 Comment

A ‘position of strength’ for the West and Ukraine doesn’t exist anymore

As long as Kiev’s backers keep deluding themselves that Russia can be defeated or forced to accept unfavorable terms, the war will not end

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | November 28, 2024

“To negotiate from a position of strength” is a favorite cliché of the West. And understandably so, as that short phrase is quite handy: It serves to cover up the opposite of a genuine negotiation, namely vulgar blackmail and crude imposition of fait-accompli terms, backed up by force and threats of force.

The expansion of NATO after the end of the Cold War, for instance, was handled in that manner: “Oh, but we are willing to talk,” the West kept saying to Russia, “and, meanwhile, we will do exactly as we please, and your objections, interests, and security be damned.”

This approach seemed to “work” – very much for want of a better term – as long as Russia was weakened by the unusually deep political, economic, social, military, and, indeed, spiritual crisis that accompanied the end of the Soviet Union and outlasted it for roughly a decade.

When, finally, Moscow tried to put the West on notice that Russia had recovered sufficiently to demand a healthier style of interaction, Western media informed their publics only in a biased and superficial manner. And Western elites reacted with irritation, while also failing to at least take seriously what irritated them. That is what happened, for instance, after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s now famous speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007. Yes, that long ago already.

In other words, Western elites obstinately kept insisting on believing in their own rhetoric, even while it was quickly losing whatever tenuous link to reality it had, for a short moment that was historically anomalous. While Russia’s (and not only Russia’s) “strength” was clearly increasing and that of the West decreasing, non-”negotiating” by force and fait accompli remained a Western addiction. That, obviously, is a large part of the very sad story of how Ukraine was turned into rubble.

Which brings us to the present. At this point, it takes clinical-grade delusion not to notice that “strength” is on Moscow’s side in the war in and over Ukraine. Russian troops are “advancing at the fastest rate” since early 2022, the gung-ho, pro-NATO British Telegraph admits. Ukraine’s forces remain over-aged, over-matched, over-burdened, and stretched thin. Units designed to hold a 5-kilometer line are frequently assigned to 10 or 15 kilometers. Russia has clear, even crushing superiority in artillery and sheer manpower as well: ordinary soldiers, NCOs, and officers – all are scarce on the Ukrainian side. Ukraine’s predictably wasteful August incursion into the Kursk Region of Russia, meanwhile, faces an intense Russian counterattack that, as the Wall Street Journal admits coyly, “appears to be working.” Russia’s pressure in an air war waged with various missiles and drones is relentless.

Unsurprisingly, the mood of Ukraine’s population is reflecting these difficulties. The Economist – only slightly more refined than the Telegraph in its stoutly Russophobic bellicosity – reports Gallup polls showing that a majority of Ukrainians want negotiations to end the war. Within a year, their share has risen from 27% to 52%, while those claiming that they would prefer to go on to the bitter end (misnaming that option as “victory” ) has declined from 63% to 38%. If those false “friends of Ukraine,” who apparently believe friendship consists in burning up your buddies in a proxy war, were serious about their once so fashionable rhetoric about Ukrainians’ “agency,” they would now be helping the Ukrainians to make peace by concessions.

All the more as Ukrainian pollsters confirm the Gallup data, according to Ukrainian semi-dissident news site Strana.ua. They found that almost two thirds of Ukrainians (64%) are ready for “freezing” the war along the current front lines, that is by giving up on all territories under de facto Russian control. Well over half (56%) think that “victory” should not be defined as retaking all territories within Ukraine’s 1991 borders. Meaning they, too, explicitly disagree with the long-held, if now perhaps quietly eroding, official position of the Zelensky regime and are prepared to concede territory for peace. And while reading such poll figures, always keep in mind that Ukraine is now a de facto authoritarian, media-streamlined, and oppressive country where voicing doubt takes special courage – or despair.

And then, there is Trump. Despite his campaign promises to rapidly shut down the proxy war, it remains impossible to predict what exactly president-elect Donald Trump will do once he is inaugurated in January. It would be imprudent to simply assume that he will force the Zelensky regime into a peace Moscow can agree to. Trump has chosen retired General Keith Kellogg as his special envoy for Ukraine. Kellogg, at this stage, represents the ambiguity of the Trumpist approach: He is the co-author of a think-tank paper published before the elections under the title “America First, Russia, & Ukraine.” While its policy proposals provide more reasons to worry for Kiev than Moscow, the paper also displays unrealistic assumptions, such as that Russia can still be coerced by threats of further escalation or will settle for a mere postponing – instead of complete elimination – of Ukraine’s NATO perspective.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, for one, has just articulated a certain skepticism, declaring that a settlement is still far off, in essence, because the West is not yet ready to face reality. This, again, is all the more likely as Moscow insists not only on territorial changes but also real neutrality for Ukraine, taking NATO membership – whether official or by stealth – off the table forever.

And yet, there can be no doubt that from Kiev’s perspective, Trump and at least part of his team look and very well could be dangerous. Not, really, for Ukraine and ordinary Ukrainians, who need this initially avoidable war to end, but for the Zelensky regime and the often corrupt, war-profiteering elites tied to it. In addition, reports are emerging that Trump’s team is also considering opening direct contact with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un. That as well could be a sign that Trump’s inauguration may really be followed by a political turn against continuing the proxy war, insofar as claims that North Korean combat troops have entered the war on Russia’s side have served to justify the Western escalation of helping Ukraine fire Western missiles into Russia.

In short, the West and Ukraine’s Zelensky regime are on the back foot, militarily, geopolitically, and in terms of popular support inside Ukraine as well. And what is their reaction? This is where there’s another perverse twist as only Western elites can come up with: With its proxy war project of using Ukraine to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia in tatters, instead of signaling a willingness to change course, the West – whether sincerely or as a bluff – is outdoing itself in militant rhetoric and some serious escalatory action, too.

In Washington, the outgoing Biden administration’s decision not simply to permit but to assist in the launching of Western missiles into Russia is only the tip of the iceberg. Crushingly defeated in the elections and clearly without a real mandate, the Democrats are doing everything they can to heap up more combustible material between the West and Russia: Moscow is facing yet more sanctions affecting its banking and energy sector, the delivery of US land mines to Ukraine, and Washington’s official lifting of restrictions on US mercenaries getting active in Ukraine (not that that makes much of a real-life difference; they are, of course, already there). US secretary of state Antony Blinken has been explicit that the aim is to release a maximum amount of aid before Trump comes into office with the intention – unrealistic yet destructive – of making Ukraine fit to fight next year.

In Europe, the UK has already rapidly followed the US lead – as is its wont – and also helped Ukraine fire missiles into Russia. With France, things seem a little murkier in that regard, but that may only be due to Paris preferring to do things a little more quietly. In any case, London and Paris have come together, if in a haphazard way, in once again publicly toying with the harebrained notion of bringing Western ground forces – including officially, not black-ops/mercenary style as of now – into the war. The ideas reported are vague and contradictory, it is true: the spectrum of potential deployment seems to reach from sending NATO-Europeans – for instance, French, British, or Polish troops – to die on the frontlines in a direct clash with a battle-hardened, well-equipped, and highly motivated Russian army to much more modest schemes, involving stationing them in what will be left of Ukraine after the fighting ends.

It is also unclear whether the reports of such plans – if that is the word – first surfacing in the French newspaper Le Monde are to be taken seriously at all. We may be looking at another hapless attempt to produce “strategic ambiguity,” i.e. to try to impress Moscow with things Moscow knows the West cannot really do. If so, the West can’t even keep up a poker face: British Foreign Secretary David Lammy has already come out to reassure the British public that his country will not send ground troops. Even tiny Estonia felt a need to chime in: Its defense minister Hanno Pevkur has publicly argued against sending ground troops, too. Instead, he suggested, the West should ramp up its financial and military-industrial support for Ukraine.

And that, it seems, may be where things are really going. Or, at least, where the West’s most stubborn bellicists want to take them. In the case of the UK and France as well, not all discussions have focused on troops. Instead, the military enterprises DCI (in France) and Babcock (in Britain) are a key part of the debates. In addition, there are, of course, ongoing training efforts. The UK has by now pre-processed over 40,000 Ukrainian troops for the proxy war meat grinder. France is setting up a whole brigade.

It is a wide-open question if European NATO members, economically squeezed and soon to be at least semi-abandoned by the US, will be able to afford such a strategy. Most likely, not. And yet, what matters for now are elite illusions that it could. Trying alone will be extremely destructive, for the people of Europe as well as of Ukraine.

If I were Ukrainian, I would look at all of this with dread, because if that is the NATO-European approach to keeping the war going – boosting equipment and training – then it, of course, means that even more Ukrainians will have to be mobilized and sacrificed. Indeed, the Biden desperados have just put fresh pressure on Kiev to lower the conscription age to 18 and sacrifice even more Ukrainians in a lost war. Their prospects are grim, and by now, they are openly told so, by no one less than Ukraine’s former commander-in-chief. Speaking to Ukrainian troops training in Britain, Valery Zaluzhny has just stressed that dying is their most likely fate. The West and its Ukrainian servants have reached the “Banzai!” charge stage of the war. But then, Zaluzhny also believes that World War Three has already started. So, nothing to lose, it seems.

Yet here is the final irony of this bleak picture: In the US, Joe Biden is the lamest of ducks, discredited in every way conceivable, including his de facto participation in Israel’s Gaza genocide. Emmanuel Macron in France must be the least popular president since the Fifth Republic started in the late 1950s, kept in office by constitutional mis-design and manipulation; Britain’s Keir Starmer has alienated his people to such an extent that an unprecedented de facto plebiscite is on its way to get rid of him. It won’t be able to actually push him out, but it certainly signals the depth of the public’s contempt. And Valery Zaluzhny, from Ukraine, but currently a misfit of an ambassador in London? He may actually have quite a future in Ukrainian politics, which is precisely why he was exiled to Britain. But for now, he, too, is a marginalized, sometimes slightly comical figure.

Acting “from a position of strength”? It is striking: Not only is the West in general no longer in that position. The most belligerent figures in the West now often are the ones with the weakest popular mandates at home. Compensatory behavior? A desperate attempt to distract from or to overcome that weakness? Sheer arrogance reaching delusional loss-of-reality level? Who knows? What is certain is that as long as the West is under this kind of management, Lavrov will be right and peace will remain remote.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

November 28, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Oreshnik Missile: Putin Unveils New Details of Its Destructive Power

Sputnik – 28.11.2024

Serial production of the Oreshnik system has begun, the Russian president announced.

Last week, the Russian leader revealed the successful testing of the new Oreshnik hypersonic missile system. Today, at the request of colleagues, he shared further details.

“Serial production of the Oreshnik has started, but ultimately, we will choose the means of destruction depending on the nature of the selected targets and the threats posed to the Russian Federation,” Putin said at a session of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Security Council.

He also revealed new specs from the missile:

  • The missile’s warhead reaches a temperature of 4,000 degrees Celsius, making it highly destructive.
  • Anything in the blast zone is broken down into elementary particles, essentially turning it into dust.
  • The Oreshnik can target even well-protected, deeply buried structures, making it effective against fortified sites.
  • While not a weapon of mass destruction, its power is still capable of causing massive destruction without a nuclear charge.
  • The missile is designed for extremely precise strikes, ensuring high-value targets are hit with deadly accuracy.

Putin explained to CSTO members that Russia was forced to conduct tests of the Oreshnik missile in response to long-range missile strikes on the Bryansk and Kursk regions.

“Of course, in response to the ongoing long-range missile strikes on Russian territory, as has already been stated, we will respond, including by possibly continuing the Oreshnik tests in combat conditions,” Putin said at the session of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Security Council.

He added that Russia now has several ready-to-use Oreshnik missiles.

In the case of a mass launch of Oreshnik missiles in a single strike, their power would be comparable to that of nuclear weapons, he added.

“According to military and technical specialists, in the case of a mass group launch of these missiles, that is, several Oreshniks launched in a cluster in one strike, the power of that strike would be comparable to the use of nuclear weapons,” Putin said, adding: “Everything in the epicenter of the explosion is broken down into fractions, elementary particles, and essentially turns into dust.”

However, Putin clarified that the Oreshnik is not a weapon of mass destruction, but a highly precise weapon that does not carry a nuclear payload.

November 28, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

The Russian General Staff Prepares Retaliation Friday Night-Saturday Morning

Gorilla Radio Reviews the Coming Russian Message for the Trump Warfighters

By John Helmer | Dances With Bears | November 27, 2024

On Tuesday afternoon, November 26, the Russian Defense Ministry issued an unusual bulletin revealing that since the Oreshnik strike on November 21, the US had launched two ATACMS  attacks across the Ukrainian border on Russian military targets in the Kursk region. The first of these on an S-400 air defence unit on November 23 had not been disclosed before. Both the November 23 and November 25 ATACMS strikes, totalling 13 missiles in all, had been partially intercepted. Russian casualties were suffered, including several fatalities.

The Defense Ministry also telegraphed its punch. “Retaliatory actions are being prepared,” the bulletin concluded.

Earlier that same morning, November 26, the airspace around the Oreshnik launch site at Kapustin Yar — east of Volgograd in the north of Astrakhan region — was identified for closure to civilian flights by an international notice to airmen (NOTAM). The notice said the no-flight zone would start at 04:00 on Thursday, November 27, and continue until 20:00 on Saturday, November 30. Kapustin Yar was the launch pad for the first Oreshnik strike on the Yuzhmash plant at Dniepropetrovsk on November 21.

The flight distance for that Russian missile from launch to target was 800 kilometers. If a second Oreshnik strike is being prepared at Kapustin Yar, the range to US and Ukrainian military bunkers at Kiev is within 1,100 kms; to the comparable military targets in Lvov, 1,600 kms; to the US-Ukrainian base at Rzeszów, on the Polish side of the border, 1,750 kms. The Oreshnik can strike targets at up to 5,000 kms, making it an “intermediate range”, not an “intercontinental range” missile.

On the afternoon of Wednesday, November 27, President Vladimir Putin arrived in Astana, Kazakhastan, for two days of talks.  He is due to return from Kazakhstan on the evening of Thursday, November 28.

Once the president is in Moscow, he will be in position to order, direct, and follow a retaliation strike by the General Staff against US and Ukrainian targets. If the strike flies at Oreshnik speed of Mach 10 to Mach 12, the operation will run from 5 to 9 minutes. If a 30-minute advance warning is sent to the US, and if a civilian evacuation warning is also issued, as Putin has foreshadowed, then one hour on Friday or Saturday will be what Putin has called the “danger zone”.

“In case of an escalation of aggressive actions,” Putin has said, “we will respond decisively and in mirror-like manner… It goes without saying that when choosing, if necessary and as a retaliatory measure, targets to be hit by systems such as Oreshnik on Ukrainian territory, we will in advance suggest that civilians and citizens of friendly countries residing in those areas leave danger zones. We will do so for humanitarian reasons, openly and publicly, without fear of counter-moves coming from the enemy, who will also be receiving this information.”

The Defense Ministry has now confirmed the escalation by the US on November 23 and 25. Putin will decide his retaliation before Saturday evening.

***

Led by Chris Cook on Gorilla Radio, listen to the discussion of what is about to happen, and of the Trump officials to whom the Kremlin and the General Staff are sending their message.

Click to play: https://gradio.substack.com/
The discussion begins at Minute 32.

The warning issued by Russia’s Deputy UN Representative Dmitry Polyansky, quoted partially in the broadcast, was this: “We believe it is our right to use our weapons against military facilities in those countries which allow their weapons to be used against our facilities. We’ve warned you about this, but you’ve made your choice.” Note that Polyansky’s warning identifies the target of retaliatory action to be “military facilities”.

November 28, 2024 Posted by | Audio program, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »