Dissent Channel, Afghanistan and Confidentiality
By Peter Van Buren | We Meant Well | August 7, 2023
Something quite significant in U.S. diplomatic history is going to take place — a State Department Dissent Channel message, concerning the evacuation and withdrawal from Afghanistan, is going to be shared with Members of Congress.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul announced his panel investigating the final days of American presence in Afghanistan will view the Dissent Channel cable. McCaul threatened to hold Secretary of State Antony Blinken in contempt if he did not provide him access to the diplomatic cable, which came from a confidential “dissent channel” that allowed State Department officials to discuss views which may be different from administration policy.
It is believed the July 2021 cable discussed concerns from the rank-and-file diplomatic staff not fully shared by senior embassy executives and management about the upcoming American pullout from the country, warning the U.S.-backed Afghan government could fall. The cable specifically advised an earlier withdrawal date than that ultimately chosen by the Biden Administration, and may have addressed the decision to conduct the entire evacuation from a single civilian airport in Kabul.
So what is the Dissent Channel and why is this particular cable so important?
The Dissent Channel was set up in 1971 during the Vietnam War era as a way for foreign service officers and civil servants at State (as well as United States Agency for International Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the former United States Information Agency) to raise concerns with senior management about the direction of U.S. foreign policy, without fear of retribution. The cables (formal, official State internal communications are still referred to as “cables” harking back to early diplomatic days when telegrams were used to communicate between Washington and embassies abroad) are sent to the State Department’s policy planning director, who distributes them to the secretary of state and other top officials, who must respond within 30 to 60 days. There are typically about five to ten each year. “Discouragement of, or penalties for use of, the Dissent Channel are impermissible,” according to the State Department internal regulations.
Use of the Channel covers the scope of diplomatic mission. Historical messages include a dissent over the executive branch’s decision to “initiate no steps to discipline a military unit that took action at My Lai” in Vietnam and the “systematic use of electrical torture, beatings, and in some cases, murder, of men, women, and children by military units in Vietnam.” These actions by U.S. soldiers were “atrocities too similar to those of Nazis.” Another dissent was over the “hypocritical” U.S. support of the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, bemoaning that the U.S. missed a “unique opportunity to intervene for once on the right repeat right side” of history. One older atypical dissent cable complained about having to arrange female companionship in Honduras for a visiting U.S. congressman. In the words of one now-declassified cable, “The Dissent Channel can be a mechanism for unclogging the Department’s constipated paper flow” related to employee dissent against current foreign policy actions.
What the Channel does is one thing; who gets to see it is another. Until now, dissent messages have generally been regarded as something sacrosanct not to be shown to outsiders and not to be leaked. “Release and public circulation of Dissent Channel messages,” State wrote to one inquirer,” would inhibit the willingness of Department personnel to avail themselves of the Dissent Channel to express their views freely.” The messages were first withheld from the rest of government (and the public) by State under the rules which created the system, and later under the Freedom of Information Act’s (FOIA) “predecisional” Exemption 5, until the 2016 FOIA Improvement Act amendments made it illegal for agencies to use this exemption after 25 years. So sharing the Afghan dissent cable with Members of Congress, especially so soon after the administration’s evacuation policy failed in Afghanistan, is a very big deal at the State Department.
One publicized exception to how closely held dissent messages are took place in 2017 when nearly a thousand State Department Foreign Service Officers signed a five page dissent message opposing President Donald Trump’s executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” which prohibited seven additional Muslim nationalities from entering the U.S., aka “The Muslim Ban.” As a result of an anti-Trump contingent inside generally liberal and mostly Democratic-leaning State, the message was leaked in its entirety. Even more against precedent, Trump’s spokesman Sean Spicer issued an extraordinary public rebuke to the diplomats: “These career bureaucrats have a problem with it? They should either get with the program or they can go.”
An almost-leak (a State Department official provided a draft, though the final version was not published, to The New York Times) took place in 2016 during the Trump-Clinton presidential election, after 51 Foreign Service Officers criticized the Obama administration via the Dissent Channel for failing to do enough to protect civilians in Syria in what was widely seen as an endorsement of Candidate Hillary’s pseudo-promise to put U.S. boots on the ground in Syria. Other Trump-era dissent cables not shared outside the Department called for consultations on Trump’s removal from office, and rebuked the secretary of state for not forcefully condemning the president over January 6.
To fully understand what the Dissent Channel is requires a better understanding of the State Department culture, academic in nature but frighteningly risk adverse. The academic side reflects the Department’s modern origins as being made up of those who were “male, pale, and Yale” where the tradition of loyal opposition holds sway. But it is the risk adverse side of State that tells how important and internally revealing the Afghan cable is. Dissent messages are signed, no anonymous ones allowed, and while Secretary Blinken has promised to not show the names of those who signed the Afghan cable to Congress, State senior management will know exactly who wrote what.
In addition, Dissent Channel messages must still be cleared for transmission to the secretary of state in Washington at post, though there is no requirement everyone agree with the contents per se (authorization does not imply concurrence.) So one’s colleagues know who wrote what, potential dynamite in an organization where dissent is otherwise not encouraged and corridor reputation plays a deciding role in promotions and future assignments. It is a significant step to write or sign a dissent cable and despite the regulations’ admonishment that use of the Dissent Channel not be discouraged by supervisors, it is discouraged.
Nobody in Embassy Kabul who signed that dissent message, basically telling their boss the ambassador and the Biden Administration they were wrong, expected to have their opinions shown to Congress; quite the opposite. Blinken, by sharing the cable with Congress, is breaking faith with his institution and with his front line workers in a uncollegial way only imagined by them during the Trump administration. Once upon a time something like that would have called for dissent.
ECOWAS’ Sanctions Starve Average Nigeriens But The US Only Cares About Bazoum’s Health
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 14, 2023
Spokesman of the military-led interim Nigerien Government Colonel Major Amadou Abdramane said on Sunday that his compatriots “have been hard hit by the illegal, inhumane and humiliating sanctions imposed by ECOWAS”, adding that “people are being deprived of medicines, food and electricity.” Amidst Niger’s humanitarian crisis, Secretary of State Antony Blinken “expressed grave concern” at what he described as the “deteriorating conditions of President Bazoum and his family.”
The US’ top diplomat didn’t spare a single word for the approximately 25 million Nigerien people who are tremendously suffering right now, instead focusing solely on the health of America’s detained ally. The Mainstream Media has followed suit by obsessing over recent reports that Bazoum has been “forced to eat dry rice and pasta” while ignoring the plight of the people in whose name he previously served. This approach is arguably driven by ulterior motives that’ll be explained throughout this analysis.
The collective punishment that the West ordered its ECOWAS proxies to inflict on average Nigeriens is intended to provoke them into rebelling against their new military-led interim government out of desperation for sanctions relief in order to stave off impending starvation. Simply put, 25 million people are being held hostage for purely political purposes, but this wouldn’t have happened had regional heavyweight Nigeria not gone along with it.
“None Of Nigeria’s Objective National Interests Are Served By Invading Niger”, nor are any served by sanctioning it either. In fact, Nigeria has recklessly endangered its own objective national interests by cutting off trade and financial ties with its northern neighbor. In one fell swoop, it destroyed decades’ worth of goodwill, which risks turning this country’s friendly people into an enemy. Regardless of however this crisis is resolved, bilateral relations will likely never be the same again.
Furthermore, these sanctions could also breed resentment within Nigeria among those northern border communities that have family and friends in Niger who are now suffering. Just like the sanctions are meant to provoke Nigeriens into rebelling out of desperation, so too might they backfire by provoking Nigerians into violating them by smuggling medicine and food to their loved ones. If the military resorts to forcible and possibly even lethal means to stop them, then it could provoke unrest or worse.
Nigeria has been broadly divided between the majority-Muslim North and majority-Christian South since the merging of two hitherto separate British colonies in the decades before independence. These differences resulted in the forging of very distinct regional identities that have occasionally posed threats to the country’s unity. In the present context, the actual or perceived oppression of northern cross-border communities by the military during anti-smuggling operations could rekindle these tensions.
Likewise, if the humanitarian situation continues deteriorating in Niger, the resultant influx of refugees into Northern Nigeria could also lead to similar problems if these people aren’t allowed to cross into that country or if the federal government doesn’t properly provide for those who do. The first sub-scenario could provoke unrest among those Nigerians who want to host their family and friends from Niger, while the second could provoke unrest if some desperate refugees resort to crime and/or take locals’ jobs.
Nigeria is already struggling to ensure security in the Northeast against Boko Haram and in the Southeast against Southern separatists like the “Indigenous People of Biafra” (IPOB) that Abuja considers to be terrorists. If the Nigerien borderland slips into crisis per any of the scenarios that were described, then it could further divide the armed forces and prove disastrous for national unity. It’s therefore in Nigeria’s objective national interests for the situation in Niger to stabilize as soon as possible.
Awareness of this imperative accounts for why the Northern Senators Caucus was so strongly against Nigeria leading a NATO-backed and possibly French-supported ECOWAS invasion of Niger when they were asked to vote on this earlier in the month. Their spokesman Senator Suleiman Kawu warned that “We also take exception to use of military force until other avenues as mentioned above are exhausted as the consequences will be casualties among the innocent citizens who go about their daily business.”
He added that “about seven northern states who shared border with Niger Republic namely Sokoto, Kebbi, Katsina, Zamfara, Jigawa, Yobe and Borno will be negatively affected.” Building upon this second observation, it’s just as relevant in the event that the sanctions persist as it is if Nigeria invades Niger. If they remain in place and the humanitarian situation in Niger continues deteriorating, then it’s inevitable that Northern Nigeria “will be negatively affected” exactly as the Caucus’ spokesman predicted.
With this in mind, one naturally wonders whether the US has ulterior motives in encouraging Nigeria to stay the course in keeping its sanctions against Niger, not to mention potentially invading it. Neither serves the interests of Africa’s most populous country and both actually go against them as was explained in this analysis. For these reasons, it can’t be ruled out that the US is manipulating Nigeria into sowing the seeds of another domestic security crisis in order to more effectively divide-and-rule it.
Blinken’s sole focus on Bazoum’s health as opposed to the health of his 25 million compatriots, whose interests the US could otherwise have been expected to at least pay superficial attention to for soft power’s sake, suggests that these suspicions are sound. Niger was already the world’s third poorest country before the sanctions, which could quickly plunge it all the way to bottom, thus leading to a large-scale outflow into Northern Nigeria that risks catalyzing the security crises that were warned about.
America never misses a chance to exploit the optics of a humanitarian crisis, yet this time it’s conspicuously silent about the latest one that it just created, as is the Mainstream Media. They’re both obsessing over reports about Bazoum’s deteriorating conditions while not saying anything about the much worse ones that his countrymen are facing due to ECOWAS’ sanctions. This approach is inconsistent with precedent, thus extending credence to speculation that they have ulterior motives.
Unscrupulous attacks on China make US nastier and nastier
Global Times | August 12, 2023
At a political fundraising event in Park City, Utah on Thursday, US President Joe Biden said China was “in trouble” because of economic and population issues and slammed China’s economic situation as “a ticking time bomb” in many cases. He also said, “When bad folks have problems, they do bad things.” The remarks have been splashed across the American media. Bloomberg described the comments as “some of his most direct criticisms yet about the US’s top geopolitical and economic rival.”
As well-known American writer Mark Twain revealed in his book Running for Governor, American elections are full of shameless tricks such as lies, fraud, smears and slander. As some activities related to the US general election are kicking off, multiple candidates are not offering good strategies in terms of national governance, but focusing a lot on attacking each other and attacking China.
As the atmosphere in American society toward China has been severely poisoned by Washington, speaking harshly about China has become one of the cheapest ways for politicians to quickly attract attention, and Biden is no exception. We need to view Biden’s shocking remarks in this context, which are of the same nature as the more intense remarks on China by Republican candidates such as Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley. Based on past experience, as the election campaign progresses, Washington’s bottom line will sink lower and lower, and more sensational claims are likely to come out. The unscrupulous smearing and attacking of China has made the US nastier and nastier.
But it must be said that Biden is not only a candidate, but also the incumbent president of the US and the head of state of a superpower. It is highly inappropriate for him to make inflammatory statements that go against basic facts and do not match his identity. It is not difficult for us to understand that Biden’s purpose in saying these words is nothing more than to score points for his campaign, to show his tough stance toward China, and to boast about his ability to deal with “threats and challenges” from China.
From Donald Trump to the current President Biden, the US presidents, like many politicians in Washington, keep talking tough about China. But what is interesting is that Trump and Biden, who are at odds with each other on many issues, have similar tones and arguments when it comes to China, and they talk more about what China is doing better than the US and in what aspects China is about to surpass the US, so as to stimulate the sense of crisis and urgency in the US to support the White House’s strategic competition against China.
As a result, the sum of Biden’s remarks on China contain obvious contradictions. Washington just issued an “unprecedented” administrative order to curb and suppress the development momentum of China’s high-tech, then it turned around and insisted that “China is in trouble.” A stronger China is a threat in the eyes of the Americans, while a “weaker” China has become a “ticking time bomb.” What then should China do so the US can have a healthy mentality toward China? The reality is that China not only has to be blamed for the frustration of US’ development, but also bear the belittling when Washington boasts of its achievements, and finally has to be responsible for the mental disorder of the US.
Unlike the US, China never threatens other countries with force, does not form military alliances, does not export ideology, does not go to other countries’ doorsteps to provoke troubles, does not infringe on other countries’ territories, does not initiate trade wars, and does not suppress the companies of other countries for no reason. China insists on putting the development of the country and the nation on the basis of its own strength. In the face of a turbulent and changing world, China has always stood in the right direction of historical progress and has always been a positive force for world peace and development. If there are “ticking time bombs,” they are planted by the US around the world.
Some people summed up the seven laws of American diplomacy, one of which is, “If the US suspects that you have done something bad, the US must have done it itself.” This can explain the strange logic of the US that no matter if China is strong or weak, it is a threat. When the US became strong, it launched the Iraq War and the Afghan War; when it declined relatively, it began to engage in unilateralism and camp confrontation. The inner world of Washington’s politicians may be dirty, but they should not think that everyone else is like them.
Pakistan Risks Losing Much More Than Affordable Gas If It Abandons Its Iranian Pipeline Plans
Another Consequence Of The Post-Modern Coup
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 12, 2023
Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper reported early last week that Petroleum Minister Musadik Malik told the National Assembly that their country plans to suspend its obligation to purchase Iranian gas due to fear of US sanctions and that international arbitration will likely determine the penalty that they’ll pay. After the news broke, he then tried explaining away this scandal by insisting that his side is actively exploring “creative solutions” to avoid scrapping this decade-old pipeline, but the damage was already done.
No serious observer thought that Pakistan had the political will to defy the US on this issue after the post-modern coup that took place in April 2022. Former Prime Minister Imran Khan (IK) was ousted via superficially “democratic” means that were supported by the US as punishment for his multipolar policies. In particular, top regional diplomat Donald Lu expressed concern to the former Pakistani Ambassador the month prior about his country’s economic ties with Russia.
The First Post-Coup Attack Against Pakistan’s Energy Security
This was confirmed by the cable that the Ambassador sent to Islamabad after their meeting, which was just leaked last week by The Intercept and analyzed here. Its relevance to the lede is that this document removes any doubt that the US is opposed to Pakistan obtaining energy security. Lu was reported by the Ambassador to have complained about the former premier’s trip to Moscow precisely because it “was for bilateral economic reasons” driven by IK’s desire to clinch a major energy deal with President Putin.
Seeing as how Pakistan’s pursuit of energy security via the aforementioned major deal with Russia that IK wanted to clinch in Moscow was one of the reasons why the US prioritized the post-modern coup against him, it therefore follows that it wouldn’t support Pakistan pursuing the same via Iran either. While it’s true that Pakistan recently imported Russian oil for the first time, this was with US approval out of desperation to see whether its proxy’s collapsing economy could be saved through these means.
Rethinking The Reasons Behind The Regime’s Import Of Russian Oil
There are several reasons, however, why it’s unlikely that IK’s envisaged energy deal will come to pass. First, Pakistan requires US approval to continue buying Russian resources, which can’t be taken for granted. Second, reliable Pakistani media recently reported about technical obstacles to these plans. Third, the latest release of IMF funds might have come with the unofficial condition of buying oil from elsewhere. And fourth, the initial purchase could have been political to deflect from IK’s accusations.
To elaborate, his replacements ran with the narrative shortly after receiving their first-ever import of Russian oil to claim that it allegedly puts to rest any speculation about them coming to power with US support as part of the latter’s plot to sabotage relations with Moscow. Their subsequent delay in setting up a “Special Purpose Vehicle” for taking their plans to the next level reinforces suspicion that this purchase was largely for domestic political purposes, ergo another reason why the US approved it.
Rethinking The Reasons Behind Pakistan’s Pipeline Deal With Iran
Political motivations could also have been at play when Pakistan agreed to build a gas pipeline with Iran in 2013, which came amidst deteriorating ties with the US brought about by the Abbottabad raid in 2012 and NATO’s cross-border attack from Afghanistan the year prior in 2011. In this case, the purpose would have been to signal its displeasure with the US in the hopes of prompting it to initiate a meaningful rapprochement, not advancing a partisan agenda at home like its import of Russian oil did.
Nevertheless, the point is that the recent problems in finalizing an oil deal with Russia are eye-opening enough to inspire a rethinking of Pakistan’s calculations in agreeing to its gas pipeline deal with Iran a decade ago now that the latter is also on the rocks. The failure of either plan, let alone both, will harm the country’s energy security by depriving it of the opportunity to reliably receive low-cost oil and gas respectively.
Qatar’s Place In The US’ Post-Coup Strategy Towards Pakistan
Comparatively more expensive resources from the Gulf would then be the only realistic solution for meeting Pakistan’s needs, which seems to be exactly the outcome that the US wants since it prefers for Pakistan to receive them from those countries than from Russia and Iran. The best-case scenario from the US’ perspective is for Pakistan to become dependent on Qatari LNG since Washington nowadays regards Doha as more geostrategically reliable in the New Cold War than Saudi Arabia or the UAE.
Towards A US-Led Qatari-Pakistani-Ukrainian Quadrilateral
Despite their sharp differences during the Trump Administration, they’ve since patched up their problems so well under the Biden one that the US Ambassador to Qatar bragged earlier in the month that “Our diplomatic ties are stronger than they have ever been.” This followed the Qatari Prime Minister’s visit to Kiev in late July that came shortly after the Ukrainian Foreign Minister’s first-ever one to Islamabad just a week before, where he was suspected to have clinched another secret arms deal.
India’s Economic Times then reported last week that “Pakistan seeks Gulf state help for shipping weapons to Ukraine”. Although no country was named, the abovementioned sequence of events strongly suggests the formation of a US-led quadrilateral involving Qatar, Pakistan, and Ukraine, the first two of whom are already close energy partners. Bearing all this in mind, there’s reason to believe that Qatar might be the unnamed Gulf state in that Indian media report.
Accelerating The Erosion Of Pakistani Sovereignty
Oman cultivated a reputation for neutrality over the decades, which Saudi Arabia and the UAE are now emulating towards the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine through their refusal to arm Kiev or sanction Russia. Bahrain and Kuwait, meanwhile, have always been comparatively smaller players in international affairs. By contrast, Qatar is known for the leading role that it played in the “Arab Spring”, and its attendant reputation for boldness and rapprochement with the US cast suspicion on it in this context.
All of this pertains to the lede since Pakistan would be forced to become more dependent on Qatari LNG if it officially scraps the gas pipeline deal with Iran, thus leading to higher financial costs and less sovereignty in the long run. The first consequence stands on its own but also segues into the second since it could lead to Pakistan needing endless IMF bailouts with all that entails for its sovereignty, not to mention the very high likelihood that Doha will exploit its energy role over Islamabad to other ends.
Concluding Thoughts
To wrap it all up, the post-modern coup that the US supported against IK in April 2022 was intended to deal a deathblow to Pakistan’s sovereignty, and it arguably succeeded. That country’s energy security will now no longer be ensured by diversifying its portfolio with low-cost Russian and Iranian oil and gas imports respectively. This will force it to pay higher costs from other suppliers, which will keep it in a perpetual cycle of financial dependence on the IMF with all the associated political strings.
Moreover, considering the trend of many countries replacing oil with gas, Pakistan’s capitulation to US sanctions pressure and resultant decision to pull out of its pipeline deal with Iran will make its energy security much more dependent on its already close Qatari industry partner. The emerging triangle between those two and the US could therefore lead to Pakistan entering into dual-vassalhood status vis-a-vis its “senior” partners, which would make it very difficult to ever regain its lost sovereignty.
Fresh missile attacks on Crimean Bridge foiled, local reports say
RT | August 12, 2023
Russian air defenses have shot down two incoming missiles in the vicinity of the Crimean Bridge, the region’s head, Sergey Aksenov, reported on his Telegram channel on Saturday. Photos and videos have been circulating on social media depicting what appears to be several columns of smoke coming from the transport infrastructure.
In his post, Aksenov wrote: “Air defenses have shot down two enemy rockets in the Kerch Strait area.” He added that the “Crimean Bridge has not been damaged,” and called on local residents to remain calm.
Meanwhile, Aksenov’s aide Oleg Kryuchkov, revealed on his Telegram channel that a “smoke screen has been set off by the special services.” He also wrote that the Crimean Bridge would be reopened to vehicles “very soon.”
Later in the day Aksenov issued another message, saying that one more missile had been downed over the Kerch Strait. The official also expressed gratitude to the Russian air defenses for their “professionalism.”
According to the Russian Defense Ministry, Ukraine “attempted to conduct a terrorist strike on the Crimean Bridge using a guided air-defense S-200 missile converted into a strike version” around 1pm Moscow time on August 12.
It said Russian air defenses had “detected the Ukrainian rocket in a timely manner and intercepted it in mid-air.”
The statement added that the foiled missile attack had not caused any casualties or destruction.
Commenting on the latest attempted missile strikes on the Crimean bridge as well as a separate thwarted drone attack on the peninsula early on Saturday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova strongly condemned these “terrorist attacks.”
She went on to stress that despite the bridge being a “purely civilian infrastructure,” it has been attacked repeatedly since last fall.
According to the Russian diplomat, Kiev is targeting the transport artery in retaliation for its faltering counteroffensive, which has so far failed to live up to high expectations.
Zakharova concluded that by engaging in such “barbaric actions,” Ukraine is showing its true face to the international community. The official also warned that Russia would retaliate.
On July 17, two seaborne explosive-laden drones rammed into the Crimean Bridge, causing one of its inner segments to collapse. The attack claimed the lives of two adults, leaving their teenage daughter seriously injured, and orphaned.
President Vladimir Putin described that incident as “yet another terrorist attack by the Kiev regime,” adding that the bridge was not being used for the transport of military supplies.
Late last month, the head of Ukraine’s intelligence service SBU, Vasiliy Malyuk, confirmed that it was behind the deadly truck bomb blast last October. The explosion killed several civilians and seriously damaged the bridge’s structure.
The bridge was built in 2018 to connect Crimea to the Russian mainland.
Ex-Pentagon Analyst: US Got Rude Awakening in Ukraine After Downplaying Russian Air Power
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 12.08.2023
August 12 is Russian Aerospace Forces Day. In light of the critical role played by Russian air power in the military operations in Ukraine, Sputnik decided to reach out to retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski for her take on the conflict, and what the Pentagon got dead wrong in its assessment of Russian capabilities.
Saturday marks the 111th anniversary of the August 12, 1912 order establishing the Imperial Russian Air Service as a separate branch of the armed forces. In the century-plus since, Russia’s air forces have faced multiple reorganizations, and been known by multiple names, from the Soviet Air Forces (1918-1991) to the Russian Air Force (1992) and finally the Russian Aerospace Forces (2015 on). But throughout, its mission remained the same – to defend the nation’s airspace and provide ground support for the Army.
From the very beginning of the escalation of the Donbass crisis into a full-blown Russia-NATO proxy war in Ukraine in February 2022, the Aerospace Forces have played a key role in Russian offensive and defensive operations.
Its role has become especially noticeable amid Ukraine’s two-month old counteroffensive attempt, which US and NATO officials and generals now openly agree seems “extremely unlikely” to succeed, as Ukrainian forces have failed to break through even a single major Russian defensive line while taking staggering losses in troops and equipment.
Russia’s overwhelming superiority in the air has played a decisive role in halting Ukraine’s offensive operations, striking whenever they attempt a major armored maneuver, and keeping an eye out for movements in coordination with satellite intelligence and reconnaissance drones. So intense has the devastation of Ukrainian forces been that panicky NATO and Ukrainian officials have begun to blame one another over “tactics” or the lack of equipment and ammo instead of asking questions about the reasonableness of pushing Ukrainian troops to attack entrenched Russian positions without air cover or artillery superiority.
Rude Awakening
The Russian Aerospace Forces’ performance in Ukraine “has probably surprised many in the West,” says retired US Air Force veteran, former Pentagon analyst, anti-war whistleblower and activist Karen Kwiatkowski, “in part because of Western assumptions.”
“I think that the level of advanced technology in… the current Russian Air Force, and the relative newness of many of these systems compared to what we have in the West, has been a surprise, in part because Western analysis of intelligence is geared to downplay Russia and Russian capability in all ways. The Russophobia, and also a certain contempt for Russia, in DC and inside the Pentagon is a factor,” Kwiatkowski told Sputnik.
“I suspect also that how the Russian Air Force uses these systems in battle is also a surprise for the West, and particularly the US. Obviously, the Ukraine battlefield has been a testing ground for high-tech and rapidly adapting drone warfare, even as in some ways it reminds of a slogging land war in Europe faced in World War I,” she said.
Characterizing the Russian Aerospace Forces as a true “national defense air force,” as opposed to the “offensive, forward-operating Air Force” which the US has, Kwiatkowski said that Russian air power seems geared toward supporting land and sea operations “in a tightly integrated way” with “focus and exceptional skill set for ground support.” This is as opposed to the US and NATO powers, “where air forces seek to ‘dominate the skies’ in a somewhat competitive way with the separate Army and Navy missions,” she said.
“For us in the West, it remains difficult to get accurate assessments of battlefield performance in Ukraine, and that deficiency of hard data impacts not just commentators and technicians, but our top Pentagon and national political leadership,” Kwiatkowski stressed, after being asked to assess the performance of Russian Aerospace Force assets in Ukraine. “That said, it seems to me that the US media is somewhat hysterical over Russian drones, attack helicopters like the modern and capable Ka-52, and the Su-27 fighters in their various battlefield and defensive roles,” indicating their effectiveness.
Kwiatkowski highlighted the Lancet drone in particular, which is used by the Ground Forces, as a major “game changer” in Ukraine, given its success in devastating even the latest NATO ground-to-air weapons and Leopard tanks.
“The Lancet represents the evolution of Russian drone technology and design. It can carry different munitions, and serve different purposes on and above the battlefield, and appears to be cost effective to produce. It really represents what rapid evolution and development in a weapon, using real world data and learning, can produce,” the former Pentagon analyst said.
Unconventional Times Call for Unconventional Tactics
Along with strategy and weapons, Kwiatkowski also pointed to the surprising and “non-traditional, almost experimental” aerial disruption tactics employed by Russian military pilots in recent months, including against US-operated reconnaissance drones over the Black Sea and in Syria, by making close approaches and dumping fuel on them, or conducting other unpredictable aerial maneuvers.
“This kind of creativity, that functionally serves both Russian political as well as practical interests of air defense and air superiority, is impressive. It speaks to training, and competence of Russian pilots, but also that they are well-led and well-supported by their military and political leadership. I cannot say if this is the case, but this is the conclusion I draw,” Kwiatkowski summed up.
China is run by ‘bad folks’ – Biden
US President Joe Biden greets people after speaking on Thursday at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. © Getty Images / George Frey
RT | August 11, 2023
US President Joe Biden has escalated his attacks on Chinese leaders, reportedly telling donors to his re-election campaign that China’s government is run by “bad folks” who may take dangerous actions as their economy teeters on the brink of collapse.
Biden claimed on Thursday at a fundraising event in Park City, Utah, that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s government was in “trouble” because Beijing’s economic problems were a “ticking time bomb,” according to multiple media reports. He backed up his assertions with several erroneous claims about China’s economy and demographics.
“They got some problems,” Biden told supporters. “That’s not good because when bad folks have problems, they do bad things.” He falsely stated that China had the “highest unemployment rate going” and more people of retirement age than of working age. He mocked Xi’s signature Belt and Road Initiative as the “debt and noose,” alluding to the loans China provides to developing nations.
The remarks were reminiscent of comments Biden made at a similar political event in June, when he referred to Xi as a “dictator.” Chinese officials lodged a formal complaint in Washington and called the insult a “political provocation.” Biden dismissed the controversy when asked at a press briefing about Beijing’s reaction, saying he didn’t think there would be “any real consequence.”
At Thursday’s fundraising event, the 80-year-old US president said he wants to have a “rational relationship” with China, adding, “I don’t want to hurt China, but I’m watching.” He didn’t specify which potential Chinese actions concern him, though US-China tensions over self-governing Taiwan have escalated in the past year.
Biden claimed that China’s economic growth has slowed to 2%. Chinese GDP rose at a 5.5% pace in this year’s first half, compared with the US rate of around 2.2%. As Western economies feel the effects of historically high inflation, China is dealing with deflation.
The country has more than three times as many people of working age as people 60 and older. China’s unemployment rate is around 5.2%, compared with 6.4% in the Eurozone. Spain and Greece both have double-digit jobless rates.
Biden has made incendiary comments about Xi’s government at a time when his administration is trying to improve strained relations between the world’s two largest economies. His “dictator” remark came just one day after US Secretary of State Antony Blinken concluded a long-awaited visit to China. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and US climate envoy John Kerry later made visits to Beijing.
The Utah fundraiser was held at the home of Mark Gilbert, a former US ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa. Donors reportedly had to pay at least $3,300 to attend. Hosts paid $100,000, and guests who contributed at least $50,000 were allowed to speak with Biden and have a picture taken with him. Those paying $10,000 to $25,000 could get a photo with the president.
The Polish President Said Kiev Isn’t Doing The West Any Favors & Its Counteroffensive Failed
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 11, 2023
Two of Kiev’s top propaganda narratives nowadays are that it’s selflessly sacrificing itself for the sake of the West by fighting Russia instead of surrendering and that its ongoing counteroffensive is succeeding in pushing that country’s forces out of Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders. The first largely remains above official criticism or skepticism since those who dare to doubt it risk being “canceled”, but the second has suddenly begun to be debunked by the Mainstream Media as proven by the following articles:
* NBC News: “Is Ukraine’s counteroffensive failing? Kyiv and its supporters worry about losing control of the narrative”
* CNN: “Why a stalled Ukrainian offensive could represent a huge political problem for Zelensky in the US”
* The Hill: “Alarm grows as Ukraine’s counteroffensive falters”
* Washington Post: “Slow counteroffensive darkens mood in Ukraine”
In the face of this rapidly shifting narrative that threatens to topple one of the pillars of Kiev’s Western-directed propaganda, Zelensky’s senior advisor Mikhail Podolyak lashed out at critics in a tweet thread here where he demanded that they “be patient and closely monitor” his side’s progress. Polish President Andrzej Duda has been doing precisely that since the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine began, however, and he’s concluded that Kiev isn’t doing the West any favors and its counteroffensive failed.
He dropped both bombshells, the first of which debunked the claim that Kiev is selflessly sacrificing itself for the sake of the West and which hitherto hadn’t ever been officially challenged by any Western leader before, in an interview with the Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen from 1 August that was published nine days later. The relevant excerpts will be republished below for the reader’s convenience before analyzing them in the context of this conflict and evolving Polish-Ukrainian ties in particular:
“Q: At the NATO summit when President [Volodymyr] Zelensky criticized the [leaders’ joint statement about Ukraine’s prospective membership], there was criticism of him that he was ungrateful for all the help [given to] Ukraine. That suggests that our help to Ukraine is charity. Is our help to Ukraine charity, or is Ukraine really doing us a favor by giving its children, its lives to defend us against the Russian threat?
A: I would say it this way: I don’t see it in these categories — neither that we are doing an act of charity for Ukraine, nor that Ukraine is doing charity for us… We are sending them arms. Why? Because we want to support them in defending their own territory. … We Poles have many reasons to supply Ukrainians with weapons. … But the whole democratic world also knows that any aggressor who violates the borders of a democratic state in the 21st century in Europe must be stopped.”
…
Q: Could Poland fight a combined arms operation without long-range weapons and without air power? Because that’s what we’re forcing the Ukrainians to do today. What does Ukraine need that it’s not getting today?
A: Ukraine has been supplied with long-range artillery, and it is being supplied with long-range artillery to this day. … One could go as far as to say that Ukraine now has much more modern military capabilities than Russia.
The question is: Does Ukraine have enough weapons to change the balance of the war and get the upper hand? And the answer is probably no. They probably do not have enough weapons. And we know this by the fact that they’re not currently able to carry out a very decisive counteroffensive against the Russian military. To make a long story short, they need more assistance.”
…
Casual observers might be shocked by the Polish leader’s candidness, while Kiev’s supporters might accuse him of “betraying” their regime after becoming the first Western leader to debunk its top two lies nowadays, but his words weren’t unprovoked nor said in a vacuum. The background is that political ties between these wartime allies have tremendously worsened since late July as was documented in the following analyses:
* “Poland & Ukraine Are Arguing Over Grain Once Again”
* “Ukraine’s Ungratefulness Is Finally Starting To Perturb Poland”
* “Kiev’s Prediction Of Post-Conflict Competition With Poland Bodes Ill For Bilateral Ties”
In brief, each side finally began prioritizing their national interests, which resulted in public tensions due to the absence of any pressure valve for dealing with sensitive disagreements such as those over agricultural cooperation and historical memory. Moreover, each side has self-interested political reasons in escalating rhetoric against the other: Ukraine wants to distract from its failing counteroffensive while the ruling Polish party wants to rally its nationalist base ahead of mid-October’s elections.
It was against this backdrop that Duda did the previously unthinkable by telling one of the US’ most influential Mainstream Media outlets that Kiev isn’t doing the West any favors by fighting Russia and that its counteroffensive failed. Granted, he conveyed these two points in a “polite” way that signaled his continued support for NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine, but it’s still an unforgivable offense from that regime’s perspective.
NBC News warned earlier this month that Kiev and its supporters are worried about losing control of the narrative, which has now come to pass after what Duda just said. He and his country are much more popular and less polarizing among average Westerners than Zelensky and Ukraine, plus nobody doubts their anti-Russian credentials due to widespread awareness of Poland’s difficult history with that country. These observations mean that his words will likely have an outsized impact on reshaping the narrative.
As for the future of Polish-Ukrainian relations, it’s looking dimmer by the day due to their spiraling disputes becoming self-sustaining at this stage. That’s not to suggest that Warsaw will cut Kiev off from arms and other forms of support, but just that the trust which used to characterize their relations since February was finally exposed as illusory. This could complicate their reported plans to form a joint military unit and could lead to Poland acting unilaterally in Western Ukraine in the worst-case scenario.
Why military intervention in Niger could be catastrophic for everyone
Coup supporters protest the decision of the ECOWAS countries to sanction Niger, in Niamey, Niger on August 3, 2023 [Balima Boureima/Anadolu Agency]
By Dr Mustafa Fetouri | MEMO | August 10, 2023
The Sino-Russo Naval Patrol Near Alaska’s Aleutian Islands Flipped The Tables On The US
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 10, 2023
Alaskan Senators were apoplectic after Russia and China just carried out a previously unreported joint naval patrol near their state’s Aleutian Islands last week. Those officials condemned what they claimed was an “incursion”, though the US Northern Command confirmed that the patrol “remained in international waters and was not considered a threat.” In any case, this was an interesting turn of events since it’s usually the US that conducts such exercises near those two’s borders.
The Sino-Russo Entente isn’t an alliance, but rather an unprecedentedly close strategic partnership focused on coordinating efforts to accelerate the global systemic transition to multipolarity. To that end and in the context of last week’s joint naval patrols, these Great Powers decided to signal to the world that they’ll reciprocally respond to similar such exercises by the US. Up until now, each reacted separately and largely restricted this to rhetoric, but now they’re reacting jointly in a tangible way.
Several of their interests were served in this way. First, the US now knows that the Sino-Russo Entente isn’t reluctant to sail flotillas as close to American shores as is legally possible. Second, they voluntarily complied with the terms laid out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) regarding where foreign warships are allowed to sail despite the US not recognizing that framework. Third, this example demonstrated the sharp contrast between them and the US on the issue of international maritime law.
The fourth interest that was advanced through their joint naval patrol near the Aleutian Islands is that it made locals in that state, and likely also Americans elsewhere, experience how it feels when their geopolitical rivals conduct such exercises near their borders. Those drills won’t influence the formulation of US policy, but they can help shape some voters’ opinions about the wisdom of their leaders’ policies towards Russia and China considering that those two are merely responding to the US’ own such moves.
And finally, these drills importantly remained below the threshold of triggering an escalation, thus proving that it’s indeed possible to reciprocally respond to American provocations after both Great Powers were hitherto reluctant to do so. About that last-mentioned observation, they previously reacted separately and largely restricted this to rhetoric except on those rare occasions that they were accused by the US of flying or sailing their respective units too close to the latter’s.
Even so, those incidents took place near their own borders and not the US’, but this time they jointly sailed their warships near the Aleutian Islands in order to give America a taste of its own medicine. These plans were likely agreed to long ago but weren’t implemented until now since they each wanted to give the US the opportunity to stop making them feel uncomfortable by operating so closely to their shores. Russia and China’s patience has clearly run out, however, hence why they’re now jointly reacting.
This wasn’t their first joint naval exercise, but it’s the largest one near American shores thus far, which makes it a milestone. The Mainstream Media will predictably try to spin it as so-called “unprovoked illegal aggression” despite those two strictly abiding by international law per UNCLOS and carrying out their drills in response to the US’ earlier countless ones near their borders. By finally turning the tables on the US, the Sino-Russo Entente wants to show the world that the era of military unipolarity is over.
‘Woke’ extremist ideology in US military – danger or blessing for the world?
By Drago Bosnic | August 9, 2023
For decades, when referring to the US military, the mainstream propaganda machine has been parroting about “the most powerful force in human history”. And while that assertion might’ve held in the late 1990s/2000s, at the time when Russia was still suffering the consequences of Soviet dismantlement while China was far from its zenith, the situation is vastly different nowadays. Namely, the US-led political West has been taken over by what many Americans themselves call the “woke mind virus”. And while such terminology may sound harsh or even offensive, it’s exceedingly difficult to disprove it, as demonstrated by the current disastrous state of Western/pro-Western societies.
The forced proliferation of this truly depraved ideology has become virtually omnipresent, despite the fact that it destroys virtually anything it comes into contact with. In terms of economics, it ravaged so many companies that the catchphrase “go woke, go broke” has become an axiom of sorts. And yet, for some inexplicable reason, the “woke mind virus” keeps expanding. Its influence is so far-reaching that it’s even become the dominant ideology in the US military, effectively rebranding the catchphrase to “go woke, go weak”. During the so-called “pride month”, the US Army shared a story about a “transgender Major who now identifies as a woman after previously being suicidally depressed”. If you’re dumbfounded by this word salad, wait until you hear the rest of this bizarre story.
The US Department of Defense (DoD) tweeted that “Major Rachel Jones embraced authenticity” and that “this should inspire us all” after “she” became the head of the US Army Sustainment Command’s Cyber Division. Proponents of such policies usually (over)use the phrase “stunning and brave” to show their support, so much so that those opposing “wokeism” now regularly use it as a sarcastic remark. And this is certainly not an “isolated incident”, as the case of Major Jones is neither a rarity nor is “she” the highest-ranking “transgender” officer. Namely, Rachel Levine (for some reason, the name Rachel seems to be very popular in such circles) holds the rank of admiral in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.
In addition, Levine is also the Assistant Secretary for Health and is infamous for claiming that “puberty blockers” and “transition surgeries” are supposedly “necessary” to curb suicide rates among children. Apart from Levine, the US government employs other “transgender” people, even ignoring their criminal activities in order to fill its “woke quotas”. Last year, the Department of Energy (DoE) hired Sam Brinton as a “nuclear waste guru”. After months of attempts to conceal his scandalous behavior which also includes a kleptomaniacal tendency to steal women’s purses, the administration was forced to fire him. In May this year, he was even arrested after repeatedly dodging police due to his former high-ranking position.
And while the DoE is officially not part of the military command structure, its cooperation with the DoD is of prime importance for the US military. Namely, DoE’s subdivisions dealing with nuclear technologies are partially responsible for maintaining America’s strategic arsenal and Brinton was employed precisely by one such office. Having deeply mentally unstable individuals in charge of anything (much less nuclear facilities) casts serious doubt on the very mental capacity of those who hire them. And yet, “woke” extremists are adamant that raising such concerns is supposedly “transphobic”. Back in July, during testimony before Congress, Air Force Academy Superintendent Lt. Gen. Richard Clark declared his full support for the ideology.
When Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) asked him about this, Clark admitted that not even he could define many of the gender ideology terms the Air Force Academy officially endorses. This includes something called “demi-gender”, as Clark “doesn’t know what on Earth that even is”. The program includes other terms such as “cisgender, non-binary, a-gender, bi-gender, two-spirit”, etc. Clark also insisted that “inclusivity” and “diversity” are a “war-fighting imperative”. Apparently, having more “two-spirit” lesbians in the military will make it bulletproof. Maybe the US should test that theory on the battlefield and see how it goes. However, in all seriousness, the results of this obsession have been disastrous for the Pentagon. The already low interest to join the US military has now dwindled to almost nothing.
And yet, the political leadership doesn’t want to deal with this. On the contrary, it’s seeking culprits in others, including those who fought in America’s endless wars around the globe. Namely, the Wall Street Journal is now blaming the veterans for abysmal recruitment numbers, as they’re actively discouraging their family members from joining the military precisely because of “woke” extremism. Thus, on one hand, this obsession is certainly dangerous when people with obvious mental illnesses are placed in high-ranking positions (particularly those involving nuclear tech). On the other hand, disincentivizing participation in US aggression against the world is actually a net positive for everyone, including Americans themselves.
Why would anyone want to die in yet another pointless war halfway around the world for the sake of people with highly questionable mental health, only to then have their families be forced to pay for the repatriation of the remains? Worse yet, after it somehow managed to lose a horribly one-sided 20-year war against outnumbered and outgunned AK-wielding insurgents in sandals while wasting trillions of dollars, the US chose a virtually direct confrontation with a military superpower armed with the world’s most powerful thermonuclear arsenal and whose highly motivated and superbly armed/trained soldiers have been able to easily overcome even the best NATO-backed troops, as evidenced by the recent case of a single T-90M neutralizing an entire armored column of Kiev regime forces.
However, it should be noted that, most unfortunately for the Russians, each T-90M crew member reportedly has only one mom, meaning that the Russian military is sorely lacking in “war-fighting imperatives”. It seems Moscow’s generals and strategists are busy with “trivialities” such as postulating new unbeatable military doctrines and modernizing their arsenal with unstoppable missiles. That probably explains why even goats and pickle jar-wielding old ladies are “defeating Russia”.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Niger rejects rules-based order
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | AUGUST 8, 2023
The coup in the West African state of Niger on July 26 and the Russia-Africa Summit the next day in St. Petersburg are playing out in the backdrop of multipolarity in the world order. Seemingly independent events, they capture nonetheless the zeitgeist of our transformative era.
First, the big picture — the Africa summit hosted by Russia on July 27-28 poses a big challenge to the West, which instinctively sought to downplay the event after having failed to lobby against sovereign African nations meeting the Russian leadership. 49 African countries sent their delegations to St. Petersburg, with seventeen heads of states traveling in person to Russia to discuss political, humanitarian and economic issues. For the host country, which is in the middle of a war, this was a remarkable diplomatic success.
The summit was quintessentially a political event. Its leitmotif was the juxtaposition of Russia’s long-standing support for Africans resisting imperialism and the predatory nature of western neo-colonialism. This works brilliantly for Russia today, which has no colonial history of exploitation and plunder of Africa.
While every now and then skeletons from the colonial era keep rolling out of the Western closet, dating back to the unlamented African slave trade, Russia taps into the Soviet legacy of being on the ‘right side of history’ — even resurrecting the full name of Patrice Lumumba Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia in Moscow.
Yet, it wasn’t all politics. The summit deliberations on Russia-Africa partnership helping the continent achieve ‘‘food sovereignty,’’ alternatives to the grain deal, new logistics corridors for Russian food and fertilisers; enhancement of trade, economic, cultural, educational, scientific, and security cooperation; Africa potentially joining the International North–South Transport Corridor; Russia’s participation in African infrastructure projects; Russia-Africa Partnership Forum Action Plan to 2026 — these testify to the quantifiable outcome.
Enter Niger. The most recent developments in Niger underscore the leitmotif of the Russia-Africa summit. Russia’s prognosis of the African crisis stands vindicated — the continuing ravages of Western imperialism. This is evident from the reports of Russian flags seen at demonstrations in Niamey, Niger’s capital.
The rebels who seized power lost no time to denounce Niger’s military-technical cooperation agreements with France, which has been followed up with the demand that France withdraw its troops within 30 days. On its part, France has spoken ‘‘firmly and resolutely’’ in favour of foreign military intervention ‘‘to suppress the coup attempt.’’ The French authorities made it clear that they have no plan to withdraw their armed contingent of 1,500 people who are in Niger “at the request of the legitimate authorities of the country on the basis of signed agreements.”
France’s stance comes as no surprise – Paris does not want to lose its position in Sahel region and the cheap source of resources, especially uranium. But France miscalculated that the coup didn’t enjoy the support of the Nigerien military or had a social base, and all that was needed to roll it back would be a limited demonstration of force that would compel the elite presidential guard to begin direct negotiations with France.
France and the US coordinate their actions with the Economic Community of West African States [ECOWAS]. The ECOWAS initially did some sabre-rattling but has piped down. Its deadline for intervention has passed. The ECOWAS simply does not have a mechanism for the rapid gathering of troops and the coordination of hostilities, and its powerhouse Nigeria has its hands full tackling internal security. The Nigerian public opinion feels wary about a blowback — Niger is a large country and has a 1500-kilometre long porous border with Nigeria. An unspoken truth is, Nigeria is hardly interested in increasing the French military presence in Niger or on being on the same side with France, which is extremely unpopular throughout the Sahel.
The mother of all surprises is that the military coup enjoys a groundswell of popular support. Under the circumstances, the strong likelihood is that the French troops may be forced to leave Niger, its former colony. Niger is a victim of neo-colonial exploitation. Under the guise of fighting terrorism, which is, ironically, a spillover from the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 spearheaded by none other than France into the Sahel region, France ruthlessly exploited Niger’s mineral resources.
A noted Nigerian poet and literary critic Prof. Osundare wrote last week, ‘‘Probe the cause, course, and symptoms of the present resurgence of military coups in West Africa. Find a cure for this pandemic. More important, find a cure for the plague of political and socio-economic injustices responsible for the inevitability of its recurrence. Remember the present brutish anarchy in Libya and the countless repercussions of the destabilisation of that once blooming country for the West African region.’’
The only regional state that can afford effective military intervention in Niger is Algeria. But Algeria has neither any experience in conducting such operations on a regional scale nor has any intention to depart from its consistent policy of non-interference in the internal politics of a sovereign country. Algeria has warned against any external military intervention in Niger. ‘‘Flaunting military intervention in Niger is a direct threat to Algeria, and we completely and categorically reject it… Problems should be solved peacefully,” said Algerian president Abdelmadjid Tebboune.
At its core, without doubt, the coup in Niger Republic narrows down to a struggle between Nigeriens and the colonial powers. To be sure, the growing trend of multipolarity in the world order emboldens African nations to shake off neo-colonialism. This is one thing. On the other hand, the big powers are being compelled to negotiate rather than dictate.
Interestingly, Washington has been relatively restrained. President Biden’s espousal of ‘’values’’ fell far short of the diktat on ‘‘rules-based order’’ — although America reportedly has 3 military bases in Niger. In the multipolar setting, African nations are gaining space to negotiate. Russia’s pro activism will spur this process. China also has economic stakes in in Niger.
Notably, the coup leader Abdurahman Tchiani is on record that “the French have no objective reasons to leave Niger,” signalling that a fair and equitable relationship is possible. Russia has been cautious that the key task at the moment is “to prevent further degradation of the situation in the country.” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said, ‘‘We consider it an urgent task to organise a national dialogue to restore civil peace, ensure law and order… we believe that the threat of the use of force against a sovereign state will not contribute to defusing tensions and resolving the situation in the country,” .
Clearly, Niamey will not succumb to pressure from outsiders. “Niger’s armed forces and all our defence and security forces, backed by the unfailing support of our people, are ready to defend the integrity of our territory,” a junta representative said in a statement. A delegation from Niamey went to Mali asking for Russian-affiliated Wagner fighters to join the fight in the event of a Western-backed intervention.
An early resolution of the crisis around Niger is not to be expected. Niger is a key state in the fight against the jihadi network and is linked strategically and structurally to neighbouring Mali. And the situation in the Sahel region is escalating. This has profound implications for the crisis of statehood in West Africa as a whole.
American exceptionalism is not a universal panacea for existing ills. The Pentagon helped train at least one of the coup leaders in Niger — and those in Mali and Burkina Faso, which have promised to come to Niger’s defence. Yet, speaking from Niamey on Monday, the visiting US acting deputy secretary of state Victoria Nuland lamented that the coup leaders refused to allow her to meet with the ousted president Mohamed Bazoum and were unreceptive to US calls to return the country to civilian rule.
Nuland’s mission aimed at dissuading the coup leaders from engaging with the Wagner group but she was unsure of success. Nuland was not granted a meeting with General Tchiani.
Featured Video
Col Doug Macgregor: US-Iran Deal, Israel’s Nightmare
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
HOW THE UK AND US MEDIA DEHUMANISE PALESTINIANS
BY CLAIRE LAUTERBACH AND NAMIR SHABIBI | DECLASSIFIED UK | NOVEMBER 22, 2023
Nazis. Beneath animals.
This is a small sample of what Palestinians have been called by commentators speaking to Western media outlets in the last month of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict – examples of the bestiary of zoological terms natural to a coloniser’s view of the colonised.
Political philosopher Frantz Fanon wrote during France’s colonial war in Algeria of “hordes of vital statistics”, “hysterical masses”, “faces bereft of all humanity”, and “children who seem to belong to nobody”.
These are all terms that could describe how western media covers the suffering of Palestinians — “a tide of humanity… a teeming mass of Gazans”, as the BBC put it (15 October). This is all sharply in focus since Hamas’ October offensive, and Israel’s genocidal razing of the Gaza strip.
We analysed the front page coverage of Israel’s war in Gaza by five major US and UK news media — the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Guardian, the Times, and the BBC (the news landing page at 7am daily) between 7-26 October.
Over these three weeks following Hamas’ offensive, the mechanics of the Western press’ dehumanisation of Palestinians in death and life are revealed as clinical and routine. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The True Story of Israel’s Creation: Debunking Israel’s Foundational Lies from Their Leaders’ Mouths
- Daily Mail lies: Oct 7 victim saved from rape by non-existent Muslim prohibition on violating scarred women
- The Ivanka Trump Assassination Plot Distraction
- Iran shoots down Israeli spy drone over Hormozgan province
- Col Doug Macgregor: US-Iran Deal, Israel’s Nightmare
- Oreshnik strike a retaliation for Kiev’s ‘terrorist attacks’ – Moscow
- Fars debunks NYT claims ‘Israel’ was exempted from US-Iran agreement
- Taking Iran’s lead, a global resistance front is needed against US-backed Israeli war machine
- Warmongers in meltdown as Trump heralds Iran deal
- Iran to US: Three unresolved issues must be settled before talks begin
- If Americans Knew
- Israel escalates attacks in Gaza, as it demands total disarmament – Daily Update
- Flotilla activists’ allegations of rape, sexual assault multiply – Daily Update
- Israel’s long record of using banned incendiary weapons on civilians
- How Jeffrey Goldberg weaponized Jewish trauma to pave the way for war with Iran
- ISRAELI MEDIA: They Were Children During the Nakba. This Is What They Remember 78 Years Later
- Pro-Israel commentator warns critics face ‘buzzsaw’ of ‘Jewish money’ after Massie defeat
- How Dumb Does Ted Cruz Think Americans Are?
- Amid global outrage at treatment of flotilla activists, Israeli Prison Service says abuse is standard procedure: Daily Update
- Autopsies of Gaza Medics Killed by Israeli Troops Show Some Were Shot in the Head
- U.S.: New Data Highlights AIPAC Ties to the U.S., Israeli Governments
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany’s AfD Party Calls Debunked Climate Scenarios “Greatest Fraud In Human History”
- Researchers Find Rapid Global Warming Phase At End Of Last Ice Age (Ca.18,000 Years Ago)
- Even The DNA Of Single-Celled Plankton Can Upend Alarmist Arctic Sea Ice Melt Claims
- Scandal: Although Climate Panic Is Canceled By IPCC, Europe’s Policymakers Continue With Their Crushing Policies
- How Once Hardcore Climate Alarmist Lucy Biggers Realized It Was All A Scam, Brainwashing
- German Expert: “No Climate Crisis” …”Warming Generally Better For Humanity”
- New Paleo Research: Modern ‘Climate Change’ Has Had No Apparent Impact On Precipitation Patterns
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
Aletho News 