What’s all the fuss about? Is nuclear war really that dangerous?
By Drago Bosnic | November 26, 2024
We’re in the Second Cold War. Those thinking otherwise have probably been living under a rock. Unfortunately, that rock won’t save anyone and we know it by the change in rhetoric. Namely, in previous decades, nuclear war was a mere hypothesis in the minds of most people, an extremely unlikely prospect that we could casually discuss, theorize on, contemplate as to how it would play out, etc. It truly is meticulous work, involving an enormous amount of moving parts and it could even be argued it’s fun, as evidenced by numerous mass media that use it as their main trope. Whether it’s a post-apocalyptic scenario, a modern war that got out of control or something along those lines, it’s quite prominent in movies, TV shows, video games, etc. Now, imagine fan favorites such as the Mad Max franchise, Fallout or Metro series, certain Call of Duty titles, etc. suddenly becoming a reality. It’s certainly a scary thought.
Well, thanks to the warmongering oligarchies in Washington DC and Brussels, this is exactly the scenario we’re facing. And if you think it’s too far-fetched or even impossible, think again. Leaders and top-ranking officials of the most powerful NATO countries openly support long-range strikes on Russia using Western-sourced missiles, operated by American, British and other NATO personnel. This comes despite President Vladimir Putin’s crystal clear warning that Russia would consider the world’s most vile racketeering cartel a party to the conflict and that it would respond accordingly. Worse yet, even after Moscow used a conventionally armed ICBM/IRBM in response to these NATO attacks, the political West only keeps escalating. The purpose of this text is to understand what’s at stake and that if the warmongers, war criminals, plutocrats and kleptocrats have their way, the world will pay the ultimate price.
Let’s imagine that Russia decides it’s sick and tired of over three decades of NATO’s lies, deceit, crawling invasion and now nearly three years of direct attacks and total war. The Neo-Nazi junta keeps launching these Western-sourced missiles and the Kremlin knows who’s behind it. Do you think Russia would use thermonuclear weapons in Ukraine, a land that has belonged to it for over 1,200 years, against the people it considers ethnic Russians (even though they reject this notion)? Even if we ignore these basic facts, the answer is no, as it would be suicidal to fire a nuclear weapon at an area so close to home. The fallout could easily reach any Russian and/or Belorussian territory. Thus, it can be expected to see Moscow use more “Oreshniks” and similar missiles. However, Russia’s updated strategic doctrine also allows the use of such weapons against targets beyond NATO-occupied Ukraine.
Namely, Moscow knows exactly which NATO command centers are used to coordinate attacks on Russia’s undisputed territory and may decide to neutralize them. Missiles such as the “Oreshnik” give it unprecedented non-nuclear strategic strike capabilities, meaning that Russia’s first retaliatory attack should not trigger NATO’s nuclear response. However, the world’s most vile racketeering cartel doesn’t have comparable weapons and could only use nuclear-tipped missiles or bombs. In response to this, the Kremlin deploys its unrivaled strategic arsenal in full force. How long do you think this would last? I’ve recently argued it would be largely over in 15 minutes. Now I’ll explain in detail how. First, the early warning systems (composed of a plethora of land, sea, air and space-based assets) would sound an alarm and the Russian strategic nuclear-armed triad would react immediately.
Composed of Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN), Aerospace Forces (VKS) and Navy (VMF), the Russian triad could deploy at least 5,500 thermonuclear warheads, each of which is orders of magnitude more destructive than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, combined. As of October, the RVSN has 772 warheads on over 200 RS-24 “Yars”, 340 on 46 R-36M2 “Voevoda” and 78 single-warhead RT-2PM2 “Topol-M” ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles). The number of strategic HGVs (hypersonic glide vehicles), specifically the “Avangard” is unknown, but is usually thought to be in the dozens. The VKS operates 580 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles (the Kh-102 and several advanced iterations of the Kh-55), deployed on 55 Tu-95MS and 17 Tu-160 strategic bombers, better known as missile carriers in Russian military nomenclature. And last, but certainly not least, the Navy, the most survivable element of any triad.
The VMF operates 15 SSBNs (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines) carrying 240 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) armed with at least 896 warheads. The grand total is 2,657 thermonuclear warheads ready to go at this very moment. Note that this doesn’t include well over 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons deployed on SSGNs (nuclear-powered guided missile submarines), hypersonic weapons such as the 9M723 used by the “Iskander-M”, the 9-S-7760 “Kinzhal” and numerous other missile types. Altogether, Russia has well over 4,500 warheads ready for both strategic and battlefield use. However, it also has upwards of 1,500 thermonuclear warheads awaiting dismantlement, but which could be returned to service due to NATO aggression and be installed on land-based ICBMs, IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles), SLBMs, ALCMs (air-launched cruise missiles), etc.
Once again, this is without even considering newer Russian weapons that we know exist (RS-28 “Sarmat” ICBMs, “Avangard” HGVs, “Oreshnik” hybrid/modular IRBM/ICBM/HGVs, the “Poseidon” nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed underwater drones/torpedoes, etc) and those that we don’t know anything about (except that they exist), including experimental, as President Putin himself spoke of “weapons based on new physical principles” on many occasions. However, just to illustrate the destructive power of the new “Sarmat”, consider that it can carry a range of heavy and light MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles). This includes 10-15 heavy warheads or 20+ light ones. The destructive power of heavy warheads is stated to be 750 kilotons (kt) to 1 megaton (Mt) each. Light warheads have a yield ranging from 150 kt to 450 kt, with one kiloton being equal to 1,000 tons of TNT.
Thus, 150 kt is equivalent to 150,000 tons of TNT exploding at once. To put this destructive power into perspective, we can use the “Little Boy” atomic bomb which the US dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945. Namely, it had a yield of 15 kt and it virtually instantly killed around 100,000 people, with at least another 50,000 dying in the aftermath of the explosion. This would mean that the combined yield carried by a single RS-28 missile is up to 750 times greater than that of the Hiroshima bomb. It should be noted that at least 50 of these are being built, as they are slated to replace the aforementioned R-36M2 “Voevoda”. That’s the equivalent of the destructive power of 37,500 Hiroshima bombs. And that’s just 50 missiles, out of well over 300 land-based ICBMs in the Russian military. However, thanks to US/NATO aggression against the world, Moscow might decide to make 100 of these, doubling that destructive power to 75,000 by 2030.
Unfortunately, some completely delusional lunatics at the Pentagon think they can launch a “decapitation strike” on Russia and “ensure” there’s no retaliation. There’s just one “tiny” problem with this – the Russian Navy. Namely, even if the world’s largest country suddenly vanished, its Navy alone could destroy much, if not most of the world. Even just half of its SSBNs, namely the now legendary eight Borei-class subs, carry 16 R-30 “Bulava” SLBMs (each missile armed with up to ten 150 kt thermonuclear MIRVs). I’ll let you do the math on that one. To top it all, the Kremlin’s nuclear triad can also be used even if the entire Russian leadership is neutralized. The system enabling this is called the “Perimeter” (known as the “Dead Hand” in NATO) and is activated automatically in case of an all-out attack on Russia. Perhaps the most dumbfounding fact is that the US military is perfectly aware of all this, but it’s still pushing for escalation.
Some of the world’s most prominent leaders, intellectuals and experts have been warning about the dangers of nuclear warfare. Perhaps the best example of this is the message conveyed by the late Fidel Castro in an interview with the globally renowned Professor Michel Chossudovsky. Namely, President Castro said that “in a nuclear war the ‘collateral damage’ would be the life of all humanity”. It doesn’t get much simpler than this and yet it’s 100% on point. What’s more, the mainstream propaganda machine is also perfectly aware of this, as evidenced by the BBC’s latest piece on Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Obviously, because it’s the BBC, it cannot do even this without ludicrous lies, as they’re claiming the information came from an “anonymous Russian deserter” who supposedly revealed “war secrets”, even though this information is publicly available (if one is bothered to look for it, that is).
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Poles recall RFK Jr. battled US corporate farming giant
Over two decades ago, Robert Kennedy Jr. took on Smithfield Foods in Poland over its actions to eliminate its competition, small family farms
By Liz Heflin | Remix News | November 25, 2024
RFK Jr. says the second in command at Smithfield Foods in Poland offered a $1 million bribe to a state official to pass legislation to essentially shut down local hog production.
The reveal was made during a podcast with farming expert Joel Salatin. The official turned Smithfield in over the bribe attempt, but others were quick to take the bribe and pass the desired legislation.
None of this is new news. However, RFK Jr.’s alliance with Trump, not to mention being nominated to serve as secretary of health and human services in his administration, has given him a new platform to draw attention to the issues surrounding commercial farming and the food we eat.
And when I say not new, I mean, this topic has been around for a couple decades, actually more.
A 2003 article from Ecologist highlighted the issues with the way Smithfield and “fellow industrial pork producers” delivered bacon, chops and other pork products to American consumers. The article stated these entities had “driven tens of thousands of family farmers off the land, shattered rural communities, poisoned thousands of miles of US waterways, killed billions of fish, put thousands of fishermen out of work, sickened rural residents and treated hundreds of millions of farm animals with unspeakable and unnecessary cruelty.”
Pretty harsh. And then, Smithfield turned its eyes to greener pastures. Where? All the way over in Poland, fresh out of its decades-long stint under the iron fist of communist rule. What may not be known by many was the rather strong presence, i.e., high number, of family farms that survived under communism. Kennedy refers to this himself in the podcast around minute 25, “small farms that were self-sufficient farms” and that had no money for chemicals.
However, despite surviving well under communism, these family farms could never have expected the “free market” might of “private” concerns that would come knocking at their doors, or more like come to knock their doors down.
“In 1999, Smithfield began buying slaughterhouses and state farms in Poland. On July 22 this year (2003), the firm’s vice president promised Poland’s Senate agricultural committee that Smithfield will ‘modernise’ Polish agriculture and bring prosperity and jobs to rural communities,” reads the Ecologist article.
Now 25 years later, RFK Jr., is bringing to light again exactly what happened in the name of American capitalism all those years ago.
Smithfield, he tells Salatin on the podcast, had come in and bought the old Soviet slaughterhouses and was modernizing these massive facilities. The legislation that Smithfield initiated stated that you could not operate a slaughterhouse if it did not have laser-automated faucets in the bathrooms, technology that small slaughterhouses servicing local family farms would not be able to afford. In this way, as Kennedy says, “in one fell swoop,” all of Smithfield’s competitors in Poland were put out of business. Kennedy did not clarify what year this happened.
There is pretty hefty coverage of the lawsuits between environmental groups, including RFK Jr.’s Waterkeeper Alliance, and Smithfield in the U.S., alleging, for example, that the giant put small farms out of business and polluted soil. One class action suit against Smithfield that Kennedy was a part of was thrown out in 2002.
What’s crazy is that this battle reached all the way to Poland. In a letter to the Polish prime minister, dated February 2004, MP Anna Sobecka presented a brief history of Smithfield’s practices back in the U.S., including that “one of the slaughterhouse’s managers was sentenced to prison for falsifying records in the case.”
“Smithfield Foods, the owner of the Animex Wielkopolska company it bought out, is constantly breaking the law by placing large piles of manure in nearby fields near the village of Więckowice without permits. Another such pile was recently built in Sierosław, near Więckowice. This is an expression of complete disregard for the recommendations of Polish officials,” the letter reads. The MP goes on to say that for unknown reasons, the company was still awarded the “Crystal Globe of Export Leaders” by the minister of economy, labor and social policy.
The primary concern of the letter was related to “several large piles of pigsty waste without the required permits and without the slightest safeguards” near Niepruszewickie Lake. It was then alleged that hazardous chemicals seeped into the lake and ended up causing illnesses, particularly in children, in the nearby town of Więckowice.
She adds that “Robert F. Kennedy Jr., representing American farmers, has visited Poland several times to warn against Smithfield Foods’ destructive activities. Kennedy warned that further expansion of the company could threaten to destroy Polish family farms. Kennedy’s speeches provoked a panic among Smithfield Foods management, which filed a defamation suit against the American politician in the district court in Poznań,” adding that “the documents and evidence available to the American politician clearly confirm the allegations he made against Smithfield Foods.”
This letter came after Smithfield’s subsidiary in Poland had sued Kennedy in Poznan for his remarks about the company’s practices during a debate in the Sejm, the Polish parliament, where he reportedly called it a “mafia organization” that violates environmental regulations and accused parties involved of selling out Polish small farmers and consumers for profits. The outcome of that suit is unclear. However, another suit filed against Smithfield by a group including Kennedy was dismissed by the judge, with all parties ordered to pay Smithfield’s legal fees.
What is also very clear is that the world today is an even smaller place than back then, and Smithfood’s primary challenger has now been nominated to serve in the cabinet of the U.S. president.
Today, Smithfield is a Chinese-owned company, RFK Jr. says in the abovementioned podcast, adding that China owns some 30 percent to 40 percent of the hog production in the U.S.
“We’re in a colonial model. USDA now works for China by keeping little farmers out of business and strip-mining and commoditizing our natural resources, our farmland, and everything else.”
As to why RFK Jr. brought up Poland after all these years and if he plans to do something about their operations there is unknown.
He is on a mission for consumers everywhere to know their food is safe, wholesome, and healthy. As he also told Joel Salatin, “only the worst food is reaching the American public… and it’s high cost.”
He’s even teamed up with Trump’s wife, Melania, in an apparent attempt to get President-elect Trump off fast food. Good luck with that.
I highly recommend watching the full podcast with Joel Salatin, especially his explanation of “uberization” of the food system around minute 23.
Ukraine massacred civilians to blame Russia – witnesses
RT | November 25, 2024
Mercenaries in Ukrainian service, including Polish nationals, executed a number of civilians in the city of Selidovo before fleeing advancing Russian forces, local residents have said. Moscow believes that Kiev wanted to use the massacre for a “false flag” claim of atrocities.
Selidovo sits about 15km south of Pokrovsk, in the territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic controlled by Kiev since 2014. In 2022 it had a population of around 21,000. Russian soldiers secured it completely on October 29.
The retreating Ukrainians executed local residents with the intent of accusing Russia of a “massacre,” Rodion Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry official charged with collecting evidence of Ukrainian war crimes, said on Monday.
“When the West started talking about peace negotiations, [Vladimir] Zelensky started preparing ‘Bucha 2’, but in Selidovo,” Miroshnik told RIA Novosti. He said that residents evacuated from the frontline city have reported dozens of civilians being executed in the streets.
“They said that the Nazis staged a bloodbath two or three days before the city was taken by Russian troops,” Miroshnik said, adding that the witnesses provided details such as names and addresses of the people killed, as well as descriptions of the perpetrators. Some of the witnesses, he said, described people in Ukrainian uniforms who spoke Polish.
One of the testimonies Miroshnik shared with the media was of Vladimir Romanenko, who described how Ukrainian soldiers murdered five of his family members and burned their bodies.
“I went out into the street and heard shouting. A short man was shouting, ‘Everyone out of the house, face the wall!’ And he began to shoot,” Romanenko said. He was spotted by the uniformed men and ran away, somehow managing to escape. He later identified the dead as his wife Olga Romanenko and sister Lidiya Zavarzina, both 69, son Roman (46), grandson Vladislav Nikolaychuk (33), and niece Olga Zavarzina (50).
According to Miroshnik, Ukrainian troops and foreign mercenaries wanted to blame Russia for the deaths of civilians they killed, but ran out of time to stage their “false flag” operation.
In early April 2022, Ukrainian media outlets published photos and videos of bodies on the streets of Bucha, a suburb of Kiev, claiming they had been massacred by withdrawing Russian troops. The Defense Ministry in Moscow insisted that not a single resident of Bucha had been harmed by Russian soldiers, who had left the town by March 30, and pointed to militants loyal to Kiev bragging about “cleansing collaborators.”
Israeli Minister: ‘Voluntary Emigration’ of Palestinians Is an Opportunity During Trump Presidency
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | November 25, 2024
Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared his intention to exploit the Donald Trump presidency to conduct an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. He believes he can cut the population of Gaza in half in two year’s time.
“It is possible to create a situation where Gaza’s population in two years will be less than half its current size. Encouraging voluntary emigration is an opportunity that arises with the new administration,” Smotrich, who heads the Religious Zionist Party, said.
The Finance Minister, who himself is a settler in the West Bank and has promoted building Jewish settlements in Gaza, made the remarks while speaking at the Yesha Council, the umbrella organization for settlement authorities in the West Bank
“It is possible and necessary to take civilian responsibility for Gaza.” Smotrich continues, “The IDF will need to be there to maintain security, prevent Gaza from rearming and becoming a threat to Israeli citizens again, and in the process, oversee civilian [affairs].”
Following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, Tel Aviv unleashed a devastating military campaign in Gaza that American doctors estimate killed well over 100,000 people in its first year.
Much of the infrastructure in Gaza is being leveled with bombs, with Haaretz reporting earlier this week that the Jabalia Refugee Camp has been nearly eliminated. Israel civilians have begun entering Gaza to scout locations for potential future settlements.
Israel Strikes Four Bridges in Homs Province, Central Syria – Reports
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 25.11.2024
The Israeli military has dramatically ramped up its aggression against Syria in recent months, targeting the country repeatedly amid its ongoing regional war against Hamas, Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthi militia. In April, an Israeli strike targeted an Iranian Embassy building in Damascus, provoking a major Iranian retaliation.
Israeli fighter jets struck a number of bridges in the province of Homs, central Syria, SANA reported on Monday.
Four bridges were damaged in the city of Al Qusayr, southwest of Homs, as the result of the strike, a correspondent told the Syrian news agency.
Syrian Foreign Minister Bassam Sabbagh told a meeting of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations that firm and immediate measures must be taken by the international community to stop Israeli aggression across the region.
“The Israeli occupation forces are intending to expand the scope of their aggression on countries of our region, by targeting brotherly Lebanon. This coincided with its launch of almost daily attacks on Syrian territory, targeting buildings and residential neighborhoods that include headquarters, diplomatic missions and offices of the United Nations, economic facilities and vital infrastructure, not to mention the occupying entity’s deliberate targeting of border crossings, roads and bridges connecting Syria and Lebanon, which are used by hundreds of thousands of people coming from Lebanon to escape the Israeli killing machine,” the Syrian top diplomat said.
“Syria renews its firm stance in support of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, returning to their homeland, establishing their independent state, and ending the Israeli occupation of all Arab lands occupied since June 1967, including the occupied Syrian Golan,” Sabbagh emphasized.
Israel used American weapons in ‘deliberate’ strike on journalists in Lebanon: Report
Press TV – November 25, 2024
An Israeli airstrike using American weapons that killed three journalists in southern Lebanon in October is likely to have been deliberate, amounting to a potential war crime, an investigation has shown.
The Guardian reported on Monday that experts in international humanitarian law have encouraged further investigation.
“All the indications show that this would have been a deliberate targeting of journalists: a war crime,” said Nadim Houry, a human rights lawyer and executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative.
“This was clearly delineated as a place where journalists were staying.”
During the early hours of October 25, an Israeli warplane dropped two bombs on a chalet hosting journalists.
The victims included cameraman Ghassan Najjar and technician Mohammad Reda from Lebanon-based al-Mayadeen network as well as cameraman Wissam Qassem from the al-Manar channel. They were killed in their sleep.
There was no fighting in the area before or at the time of the strike.
The Guardian found no evidence of the presence of Hezbollah military infrastructure at the site.
After the strike, the Israeli military claimed it had struck a “Hezbollah military structure.”
A few hours later, the regime said the incident was “under review” following reports that journalists were hit.
A day after Israel began its ground aggression inside Lebanon, a group of about 18 journalists arrived at a guest house resort in the southern village resort of Hasbaya.
The journalists drove cars marked with “Press” and wore flak jackets and helmets emblazoned with press symbols.
They said the presence of Israeli reconnaissance drones was “constant” over both the live location and the guest house during their 23-day stay.
“On the night of the attack, we were sitting in front of the chalets and the drone was flying super low on top of us,” said Fatima Ftouni, a journalist at al-Mayadeen who was staying a few chalets down from her colleagues when they were struck.
The resort is owned by Lebanese-American Anoir Ghaida, who said he searched the chalet and car of the targeted journalists after the strike “like you would search for a needle in a haystack” but found “nothing suspicious” about the journalists.
Based on interviews with survivors and available evidence, Israel used “an air-dropped bomb equipped with a United States-produced” Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) guidance kit.
The JDAM is piece of equipment that turns unguided bombs into precision-guided munitions.
Sana Najjar, Ghassan Najjar’s wife, said in an interview with the Guardian that Ghassan left behind a three-and-a-half-year-old son.
“Ghassan was not a member of Hezbollah, he was a member of the press. He never had a gun, not even for hunting. His weapon was his camera.”
Regardless of their political affiliation, killing journalists is illegal under international humanitarian law unless they are actively participating in military activities.
Janina Dill, co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, said, “It is a dangerous trend already witnessed in Gaza that journalists are linked to military operations in virtue of their assumed affiliation or political leanings, then seemingly become targets of attack. This is not compatible with international law.”
China Creates Coating Making Warplanes Invisible to Anti-Stealth Radars
Sputnik -25.11.2024
BEIJING – Chinese military scientists have developed a stealth material for aircraft and other defense equipment that minimizes their visibility for anti-stealth radars, Chinese media reported on Monday.
The South China Morning Post newspaper reported that the new material, unveiled by the National University of Defense Technology, can convert electromagnetic waves with wavelengths from 2.3 feet to 0.6 feet into heat, which effectively covers the operating bandwidths of most current anti-stealth radars, specifically the P-band and L-band.
The new material is lightweight, flexible and easy to produce in large quantities, making it suitable for covering aircraft or other weapon platforms requiring stealth capabilities, the newspaper said.
Scientists have said that the new material was cost-effective and could be used in various types of military equipment. They believe that this technology could become “the key for China to win future wars.”
China currently holds the majority of the world’s patents in metamaterials.
Right-Wing Candidate Georgescu Leads in Romania Presidential Election: Why is the West Trembling?
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 25.11.2024
Right-wing independent candidate Calin Georgescu has pulled off a shock victory in the first round of Romania’s presidential election.
Little-known candidate Calin Georgescu, who was shown running at around 5% in pre-election polls, upended all predictions and is now set to face off against center-right contender Elena Lasconi in the second round on December 8.
What Are His Views?
On NATO:
A professed champion of national sovereignty, Georgescu has often criticized what he called his country’s “subservience” to the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In interviews and public appearances he, has questioned the benefits of Romania’s membership in NATO, arguing that the alliance will not protect any of its members should they be attacked.
He criticized the presence of an American missile defense facility at a NATO-controlled base in the village of Deveselu, calling Romania’s agreement to host it a “diplomatic shame.” He has also called NATO’s ballistic missile defense shield in Romania a confrontational measure.
On Ukraine:
Georgescu has questioned military aid being pumped by Romania to Ukraine. The social media-savvy candidate recently launched a viral TikTok campaign calling for an end to supporting the Kiev regime that appeared to have struck a chord with voters. “Tonight, the Romanian people cried out for peace. And they shouted very loudly, extremely loudly”, Georgescu said after his win.
On Russia:
Georgescu has described Russian President Vladimir Putin as a genuinely great leader who loves his country in a 2020 interview. Romania’s best chance lay with “Russian wisdom,” media reports cite him as saying in another interview.
On Moldova:
Georgescu started out as a member of the right-wing Alliance for the Unity of Romanians (AUR) party, which advocates for the integration of Moldova into Romania, but eventually broke with it to campaign as an independent.
Georgescu’s success feeds into the barometer of right-wing political successes across Europe amid dissatisfaction with Brussels’ policy and eroding public support for Ukraine.
Similar sentiments fueled Ukraine critic Peter Pellegrini’s win in the presidential election in Slovakia this summer, and the success of the right-wing Freedom Party (FPO) in Austria’s parliamentary elections.
NATO admiral urges Western businesses to prepare for ‘wartime scenario’
RT | November 25, 2024
Businesses in NATO countries should prepare themselves for a “wartime scenario” and adjust their production lines and supply chains to be less vulnerable to blackmail by nations such as Russia and China, the outgoing chief of the US-led bloc’s military committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, said on Monday.
Speaking at a European Policy Center think-tank event in Brussels, he urged Western industries and businesses to implement deterrence measures.
“If we can make sure that all crucial services and goods can be delivered no matter what, then that is a key part of our deterrence,” Bauer argued.
“Businesses need to be prepared for a wartime scenario and adjust their production and distribution lines accordingly. Because while it may be the military who wins battles, it’s the economies that win wars,” the NATO official said. He mentioned China and Russia in the context of how he believes wars are waged in the economic sphere.
“We thought we had a deal with Gazprom, but we actually had a deal with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” he stated, apparently referring to the drop in Russian gas supplies to the EU, which took place after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.
At the time, the EU declared that ending its reliance on Russian energy was a key priority, and many members voluntarily halted their imports, while supplies also plunged due to the sabotage of Russia’s Nord Stream pipelines.
American Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh blamed the sabotage on the CIA, alleging that the agency had carried out the attack under the direct orders of the White House – an allegation it has denied.
Bauer then extended his warning to China, claiming that Beijing could use its exports to NATO states and the infrastructure that it owns in Europe as leverage in the event of a conflict.
“We are naive if we think the [Chinese] Communist Party will never use that power. Business leaders in Europe and America need to realize that the commercial decisions they make have strategic consequences for the security of their nation,” the official claimed.
It is unclear what “wartime” Bauer is predicting in his statements.
NATO has long declared Russia to be a direct threat, and Western officials have repeatedly claimed that if Moscow is allowed to win the conflict in Ukraine, it could then attack other European countries. Russia has dismissed these claims as nonsense. Restrictions that Moscow introduced in trade with the West have largely come in response to unprecedented economic sanctions placed on the country in connection with the Ukraine conflict.
Beijing has also faced its share of trade barriers and restrictions introduced by Western states, and introduced similar measures in response. According to most experts, including many in the West, the sanctions policy has backfired on Western economies, leading to supply shortages and inflation.
Will Armageddon Be Joe Biden’s Final Legacy?
By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | November 25, 2024
When the Soviet Union dissolved in late 1991, the world seemed poised for a new, more peaceful era no longer haunted by the fear of a nuclear Armageddon. The principal successor state from the wreckage of the USSR was a noncommunist Russia that was intent on becoming part of the democratic, capitalist West. President George H. W. Bush and his top advisers exercised considerable diplomatic skill in managing the twilight years and ultimate demise of the Soviet Union. Their core achievement was to gain Moscow’s assent to Germany’s reunification and membership in NATO. The implicit tradeoff (unfortunately, never put in writing) was that NATO would not expand beyond the eastern border of a newly united Germany.
The contrast between the benign end to the original Cold War and the current status of relations between the West (especially the United States) and Russia could not be greater or more alarming. NATO’s meddling in the armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia has reached the point of being an outright proxy war for the alliance. As NATO’s leader, the United States has pushed a series of extremely dangerous escalatory steps. The latest provocation is the decision by President Joe Biden’s administration authorizing Ukraine to use long-range U.S. Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) that are capable of striking at least 190 miles inside Russia. Moscow has responded by adopting a new nuclear doctrine warning that the use of such missiles by NATO’s Ukrainian proxy would mean that Moscow is officially at war with the U.S.-led alliance. Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin is bluffing, but the risk of a nuclear collision between NATO and Moscow now appears to be at unprecedented levels.
It is bitterly ironic that the decision to let Ukraine use American missiles that might trigger World War III has been made by the lamest of lame duck U.S. presidents. At the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour, the leaders of the Democratic Party pressured Joe Biden to withdraw from the presidential race. They did so because the evidence of his cognitive decline had become undeniable. However, his hand-picked successor, Kamala Harris, then proceeded to lose the presidential election to Republican nominee Donald Trump.
To say that the Biden administration has no mandate to make such a crucial decision involving war and peace would be a monumental understatement. In fairness, though, the current foreign policy crew is not solely responsible for fouling-up relations with Russia and provoking a new cold war with nuclear implications. That “achievement” has been a bipartisan effort taking place over a span of more than three decades.
Toward the end of George H. W. Bush’s administration, public opinion polls in Russia showed that nearly 80% of Russians held positive views of the United States. In the late stages of the Bill Clinton administration, nearly the same percentage held negative opinions.
It was hardly a surprising development. During his years in office, Clinton and his Russian-hating advisers (especially UN ambassador and later Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) antagonized Moscow on multiple occasions. Washington went out of its way to attack Russia’s long-standing religious and political clients, the Serbs, as the Yugoslav federation disintegrated. However, the Clinton administration’s decision to expand NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary struck the biggest blow to East-West relations.
Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush, continued and intensified the policy of provoking and antagonizing Russia. Subsequent rounds of NATO expansion brought U.S. military power to Russia’s immediate neighborhood by adding such new members as the three Baltic republics, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. Most provocative of all, Bush pushed to add Ukraine to the alliance. Although Germany and France temporarily blocked immediate moves to make Ukraine a member, Washington’s ultimate goal was quite clear.
A rising number and volume of warnings against making Ukraine a NATO asset also came from Putin and other officials. Washington and its key European allies ignored those warnings but it became clear in 2014 that the Kremlin was not bluffing. When President Barack Obama and key European leaders helped overthrow Ukraine’s generally pro-Russia president and install a regime subservient to NATO, Moscow struck back emphatically, seizing Ukraine’s strategic, but majority Russian populated, Crimean peninsula.
Relations between the West and Russia continued to deteriorate thereafter. In the autumn of 2021, the Kremlin proposed a new relationship with the West that amounted to Russia’s minimum demands. Those demands included a guaranteed neutral status for Ukraine—thus foreclosing the prospect of Kiev’s eventual membership in NATO. The Kremlin also sought the withdrawal of advanced U.S. weaponry from the easternmost members of NATO. It amounted to an ultimatum, and when the Biden administration treated Moscow’s demands with contempt, the Kremlin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. That offensive, combined with the decision by the United States and its allies to impose severe economic sanctions against Russia, ignited an ever-escalating military crisis.
It is uncertain whether President-elect Donald Trump intends to end the dangerous impasse with Moscow. Contrary to the partisan myth that Trump has been Putin’s puppet, his actual policies during his first term were consistently hardline. One can hope, though, that he has fully absorbed the lesson of what a disaster Washington’s love affair with Ukraine has become for both countries. Restoring cooperative bilateral relations with Russia is essential for global peace.
There is an alarming possibility, however, that Trump won’t get the opportunity, even if he wishes to back away from the beckoning abyss. The lame-duck Biden administration still holds power for nearly another two months, and that is more than enough time to plunge the country into nuclear war, if administration leaders are so inclined. The departing president’s conduct in recent weeks, especially authorizing Ukraine to attack Russia with U.S.-supplied, long-range missiles, is beyond reckless. Biden’s legacy is already bad, but it could become even worse.
Britain’s Kursk Invasion Backfires
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | November 24, 2024
British Challenger 2 tanks reached Ukraine with enormous fanfare, ahead of Kiev’s long-delayed, ultimately catastrophic 2023 “counteroffensive”. On top of encouraging other proxy war sponsors to provide Ukraine with armoured fighting vehicles, Western audiences were widely told the tank – hitherto marketed to international buyers as “indestructible” – made Kiev’s ultimate victory a fait accompli. As it was, Challenger 2 tanks deployed to Robotnye in September were almost instantly incinerated by Russian fire, then very quietly withdrawn from combat altogether.
Hence, many online commentators were surprised when footage of the Challenger 2 in action in Kursk began to circulate widely on August 13th. Furthermore, numerous mainstream outlets dramatically drew attention to the tank’s deployment. Several were explicitly briefed by British military sources that it marked the first time in history London’s tanks “have been used in combat on Russian territory.” Disquietingly, The Times now reveals this was a deliberate propaganda and lobbying strategy, spearheaded by Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Prior to the Challenger 2’s presence in Kursk breaking, Starmer and Defence Secretary John Healey had reportedly “been in talks about how far to go to confirm growing British involvement in the incursion towards Kursk.” Ultimately, they decided “to be more open about Britain’s role in a bid to persuade key allies to do more to help – and convince the public that Britain’s security and economic prosperity is affected by events on the fields of Ukraine.” A “senior Whitehall source” added:
“There won’t be shying away from the idea of British weapons being used in Russia as part of Ukraine’s defence. We don’t want any uncertainty or nervousness over Britain’s support at this critical moment and a half-hearted or uncertain response might have indicated that.”

In other words, London is taking the lead in marking itself out as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries – particularly the US – will follow suit. What’s more, The Times strongly hints that Kursk is to all intents and purposes a British invasion. The outlet records:
“Unseen by the world, British equipment, including drones, have played a central role in Ukraine’s new offensive and British personnel have been closely advising the Ukrainian military… on a scale matched by no other country.”
Britain’s grand plans don’t stop there. Healey and Foreign Secretary David Lammy “have set up a joint Ukraine unit,” divided between the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence. The pair “held a joint briefing, with officials, for a cross-party group of 60 MPs on Ukraine,” while “Starmer has also asked the National Security Council to draw up plans to provide Ukraine with a broader range of support.” On top of military assistance, “industrial, economic, and diplomatic support” are also being explored.
The Times adds that in coming weeks, “Healey will attend a new meeting of the Ukraine Defence Coordination Group,” an international alliance of 57 countries overseeing the Western weaponry flooding into Kiev. There, “Britain will press European allies to send more equipment and give Kyiv more leeway to use them in Russia.” The British Defence Ministry also reportedly “spoke last week to Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, and has been wooing Boris Pistorius, his German opposite number.”
Evidently, the new Labour government has an ambitious vision for the proxy war’s continuation. Yet, if the “counterinvasion” is anything to go by, it’s already dead in the water. As The Times notes, the imbroglio is primarily “designed to boost morale at home and shore up Zelensky’s position,” while relieving pressure on the collapsing Donbass frontline by forcing Russia to redirect forces to Kursk. Instead, Moscow “has capitalised on the absence of four crack Ukrainian regiments to press their attacks around Pokrovsk and Chasiv Yar.”
Similarly, commenting on Starmer’s wideranging efforts to compel overt Western action against Russia, a “defence expert” told The Times: “if it looks as if the Brits [are] too far ahead of their NATO allies, it might be counterproductive.” This analysis is prescient, for there are ample indications London’s latest attempt to ratchet tensions and drag the US and Europe ever-deeper into the proxy war quagmire has already been highly “counterproductive”, and boomeranged quite spectacularly. Indeed, it appears Washington has finally had enough of London’s escalatory connivances.
In repeated press conferences and media briefings since August 6th, US officials have firmly distanced themselves from the Kursk incursion, denying any involvement in its planning or execution, or even being forewarned by Kiev. Empire house journal Foreign Policy has reported that Ukraine’s swoop caught the Pentagon, State Department, and White House off-guard. The Biden administration is purportedly not only enormously unhappy “to have been kept out of the loop,” but “skeptical of the military logic” behind the “counterinvasion”.
On top being a clear suicide mission, the eagerly advertised presence of Western weapons and vehicles on Russian soil “has put the Biden administration in an extremely awkward position.” Washington has since the proxy war erupted been wary of provoking retaliations against Western countries and their overseas assets, and the conflict spilling outside Ukraine’s borders. Adding to US irritations, the British-directed Kursk misadventure also torpedoed ongoing efforts to secure an agreement to halt “strikes on energy and power infrastructure on both sides.”
This comes as Kiev prepares for a harrowing winter without heat or light, due to devastating Russian attacks on its national energy grid. Putin has moreover made clear that Ukrainian actions in Kursk mean there is no longer scope for a wider negotiated settlement at all. Which is to say Moscow will now only accept unconditional surrender. The US has also seemingly changed course as a result of the “counterinvasion”.
On August 16th, it was reported that Washington had prohibited Ukraine’s use of British-made, long-range Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory. Given securing wider Western acquiescence to such strikes is, per The Times, a core objective for Starmer, this can only be considered a harsh rebuke, before the Labour government’s escalatory lobbying efforts have even properly taken off. The Biden administration had in May granted permission for Kiev to conduct limited strikes in Russia, using guided munitions up to a 40-mile range.
Even that mild authorisation may be rescinded in due course. Berlin, which like Britain had initially proudly promoted the presence of its tanks in Kursk, is now decisively shifting away from the proxy war. On August 17th, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner announced a halt to any and all new military aid to Ukraine as part of a wider bid to slash federal government spending. The Wall Street Journal reporting three days earlier that Kiev was responsible for Nord Stream II’s destruction may be no coincidence.

Germany’s Bild newspaper: “In Russia, Ukraine advances with German tanks!”
The narrative of the Russo-German pipeline’s bombing detailed by the outlet was absurd in the extreme. Conveniently too, the WSJ acknowledged that admissions of “Ukrainian officials who participated in or are familiar with the plot” aside, “all arrangements” to strike Nord Stream “were made verbally, leaving no paper trail.” As such, the paper’s sources “believe it would be impossible to put any of the commanding officers on trial, because no evidence exists beyond conversations among top officials.”
Such an evidentiary deficit provides Berlin with an ideal pretext to step away from the proxy war, while insulating Kiev from any legal repercussions. The narrative of Ukraine’s unilateral culpability for the Nord Stream bombings also helpfully distracts from the attack’s most likely perpetrators. This journalist has exposed how a shadowy cabal of British intelligence operatives were the masterminds, and potential executors, of the October 2022 Kerch Bridge bombing.

Kerch Bridge in flames following its British-planned bombing
That escalatory incident, like Nord Stream’s destruction, was known about in advance, and apparently opposed, by the CIA. Chris Donnelly, the British military intelligence veteran who orchestrated the Kerch Bridge attack, has privately condemned Washington’s reluctance to embroil itself further in the proxy war, declaring “this US position must be challenged, firmly and at once.” In December that year, the BBC confirmed that British officials were worried about the Biden administration’s “innate caution”, and had “stiffened the US resolve at all levels”, via “pressure.”
The determination of Washington’s self-appointed “junior partner” to escalate the proxy conflict into all-out hot war between Russia and the West has only intensified under Starmer’s new Labour government. Yet, the Empire gives every appearance of refusing to take the bait, while seeking to curb London’s belligerent fantasies. This may be an encouraging sign that the proxy war is at last reaching its end. But we must remain vigilant. British intelligence is unlikely to allow the US to withdraw without a fight.
Russia: Comprehensive deal with Iran will include defense, security ties

Press TV – November 24, 2024
Russia’s deputy foreign minister says the treaty on a comprehensive strategic partnership between his country and Iran will include cooperation in the defense and security sectors.
Speaking to Russia’s TASS news agency on Sunday, Andrei Rudenko said he would not disclose the details of the agreement that is expected to be signed in the near future.
“I would only note [that] it will meet challenges and requirements of our time and cover almost all current and promising spheres of Russian-Iranian cooperation, including defense and security,” he added.
In 2001, Tehran and Moscow signed a long-term cooperation deal, officially known as the Treaty of the Foundation of Mutual Relations and the Principles of Cooperation. It was initially set for 10 years but was extended up until 2026.
Now, the two capitals are making final arrangements for the comprehensive partnership pact, which may determine their bilateral ties in all fields for the next 20 years.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has announced that his country will sign a strategic partnership agreement with Iran “in the near future.”
Rudenko emphasized that the nature of Iran-Russia interactions has notably changed over the past two decades.
“We are closely coordinating approaches with our Iranian friends and take necessary measures to strengthen peace and security” in the region, he added.
Last month, Iran’s Ambassador to Russia Kazem Jalali said the strategic partnership treaty would be signed during Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s visit to Moscow. The date of this visit has yet to be decided.
Iran and Russia are both subject to illegal Western sanctions. They have over the past years deepened their relations in various fields, including military and defense, and become close allies.
