Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Poland Suddenly Realized That It Can’t Indefinitely Fund Ukraine & Its Refugees

By Andrew Korbyko | One World Press | June 2, 2022

The nostalgic neo-imperial rush of reconstituting the long-lost Commonwealth through Poland’s recent merger with Ukraine into a de facto confederation proved to be short-lived after Warsaw suddenly realized that it can’t indefinitely fund Kiev and its refugees. Everything seemed picture-perfect at first after President Duda and his Ukrainian counterpart Zelensky lavished praise on one another’s countries in late May while speaking before the Rada. They wistfully spoke about returning to the halcyon days when there were no borders between them and pledged to create a customs union to that end, among other comprehensive connectivity initiatives. This de facto confederation sounded good on paper but Poland quickly realized that its budget simply can’t afford this ambitious geopolitical project.

The first signs of trouble came just a few days later after Prime Minister Morawiecki demanded that nearby Norway immediately give all of the extra profit it’s made from energy sales thus far this year to Warsaw and Kiev. Oslo of course refused, which was then followed by Poland complaining that Germany didn’t replace the 200 older tanks that Warsaw gave to Kiev with newer ones like it claimed its neighbor had promised. Berlin denied that any such deal was ever clinched, which ultimately left Poland in the doldrums after it finally dawned on its decision makers that they just got played by Germany into transferring half of their country’s tanks to that former Soviet Republic in exchange for literally nothing at all.

Upon panicking, Poland then demanded that the UN’s headquarters for Ukrainian reconstruction be based in its country instead of the one that the international community will purportedly try to rebuild, most likely through the scheme that Zelensky shared during the World Economic Summit in Davos whereby his partners can literally take control over “a particular region of Ukraine, city, community or industry.” Warsaw obviously wants to get the lion’s share of this or at the very least skim some of the funds off the top for supposedly facilitating this process, which can in turn help it make up for the untold billions of dollars that it’s already spent on Ukraine, ergo why it wants to host that headquarters.

That demand, like practically everything else that Poland has asked for thus far such as Duda’s earlier idea during his last visit to Kiev that the US-led West reinvest Russia’s stolen foreign assets into rebuilding Ukraine (which would serve to subsidize Poland’s de facto confederation with it), wasn’t enthusiastically embraced by its allies like Warsaw expected. It might still come to pass, even if only in part, but Poland now knows that it can’t continue indefinitely funding its geopolitical project with Ukraine to the same extent as it had expected. That’s why it’s suddenly slashing its generous aid to Ukrainian refugees, cutting off free fuel deliveries, and positioning itself as Kiev’s “economic hub”.

The ruling “Law & Justice” (PiS per its Polish abbreviation) party’s Ukrainization of Polish society was intended to weaponize these “new arrivals” as “agents of influence” in the other half of the de facto reconstituted Commonwealth. They expected this to be financed by Brussels via its promised refugee aid tranche of around €150 million, which hadn’t yet been disbursed as of last weekend. In any case, Poland is demanding billions more in aid, after which Politico reported in their latest article about the surging costs of that country’s refugee program that “Brussels also said Poland could tap €1.2 billion in unused funds from REACT EU… to support Ukrainian refugees.”

The EU also approved approximately €35 billion in grants and loans to Poland as part of a COVID recovery program yet is withholding this assistance until it complies with Brussels’ demands to reform its judiciary. In other words, Poland was played by everyone– especially Germany – into taking on the bloc’s leading role in comprehensively supporting Kiev and its millions of refugees, only to be left in the lurch without any substantial assistance until it unilaterally concedes on a significant issue of national interest connected to its strategic autonomy. The irony is that while Poland sought to colonize Ukraine, it was Poland itself that was just further colonized by the EU.

The lesson to be learned is that some countries’ leaderships can be easily manipulated by appealing to their imperial nostalgia just like PiS was by its so-called “allies”. By pushing them to take the lead in “temporarily” shouldering the costs of what’s portrayed as a “multilateral effort”, external forces can get them to go so far that they can’t reverse their policies without incurring some serious cost to themselves, even if only reputational or connected to electoral politics. The manipulated leadership is therefore pressured to stay the course no matter what with the expectation that “just a little bit more” is all that’s needed to finally unlock the promised funds that might never come.

In an ideal world, everything would have gone according to PiS’ plan. The US-led West would have given Warsaw its billions of dollars’ worth of seized Russian assets to rebuild Ukraine in accordance with its desires. Norway would have been guilted to chip in and Germany would have also already replenished the whopping one-half of Poland’s tank arsenal that PiS dispatched to Ukraine, while the UN would have unreservedly established its Ukrainian reconstruction headquarters in Warsaw. Brussels, meanwhile, wouldn’t have attached any political strings to its promised refugee aid to Poland. None of that has yet to happen, though, and instead Poland is now forced to slash funding to Kiev and its refugees.

The Neo-Commonwealth project therefore isn’t off to a good start, having already been hated by genuine Polish conservative-nationalists from the get-go and now even possibly triggering the wrath of those liberal-globalists in society who demand that everyone chip in to continue funding Kiev and its refugees to the same extent as before. Poland simply can’t afford that though which is why it’s had to walk back its initially ambitious plans, though only after having already committed to merging with Ukraine into a de facto confederation, a game-changing development that it’s already too invested in to reverse. All the while, the West is laughing at the “village idiot” that it easily got to do its bidding.

June 4, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Trump Said We Should “Get Along with Russia”. He’s Right

BY MIKE WHITNEY • UNZ REVIEW • JUNE 4, 2022

Look at this map of Ukraine.

Can you see what’s going on? The Russians are creating a buffer zone along their western perimeter.

Why are they doing that? What benefit do they derive from a buffer zone?

Well, a buffer zone creates a distance between Russia and Ukraine which Putin thinks is necessary since Ukraine is threatening to join NATO. So, he’s creating his own DMZ on his western flank.

But what does that prove?

It proves that we’ve been lied to from the very beginning. Putin was not planning to reconstruct the Soviet Empire like the media told us. He did not want to seize the Capitol, Kiev, and he did not want to conquer the entire Ukrainian landmass. That was all baloney.

What he wanted to do, is what he has done.

Don’t take my word for it, look at the map. You don’t need CNN or Rachel Maddow to tell you what you can see with your own two eyes. This is the reality ‘on the ground’.

This is a buffer zone. It creates a distance between Russia and Ukraine, it protects the ethnic Russians in the Donbass region, and it establishes a landbridge to Crimea where Russia’s vital deep-water port of Sevastopol is located. In other words, it achieves what Putin wanted to achieve from the very beginning, that is, enhanced security along his western border.

What we are seeing is the basic parameters of Russia’s “Special Military Operation”. Yes, many people will prefer to call it a “war”, but the term is not nearly as precise as “Special Military Operation”.

Why?

Because “Special Military Operation” indicates that the main objective is to save the lives of the ethnic Russians who had been under constant bombardment for the last 8 years and, also, to create a security zone that prevents a hostile NATO army and its missile system from being deployed to Russia’s border. These are the goals of the “Special Military Operation”; to “demiliterize” and “denazify” the area under Russia’s control. Get it?

Will the “Special Military Operation” go beyond the Donbass to Kiev and cities in the west?

Probably, not. Going beyond the Donbass would likely involve a complete mobilization of men and resources which has not yet taken place in Russia. By not mobilizing, Putin is signaling to the west that he will limit his operation to the area on the map. (With some slight expansion) Putin is indicating that his main concern is security, and since his concerns were casually brushed aside by Biden and Zelensky, he took matters into his own hands. In other words, he imposed his own settlement.

Okay, but if these are the parameters of the Special Military Operation, then what are the chances of a wider war?

That depends on Biden. If Washington continues on the path of escalation –by sending weapons systems that can strike targets in Russia– then Putin will respond. We should know that by now. Putin is not going to back down no matter what. If Washington wants to up-the-ante, then they should prepare for an equal response. That’s the way it’s going to work. For now, the “Special Military Operation” is just a “Special Military Operation”. But when it becomes a war, then all bets are off. Then we will see a full mobilisation, a complete rupture in US-Russo relations, and a halt to all hydrocarbon flows from east to west.

Do you think Europe and the United States are prepared for that? Do you think the EU can replace the 25% of the oil and 40% of all the natural gas it presently imports from Russia? Do you have a wind-powered car that will get you to work on time or a factory that will run on solar power? Do you have a plan for heating your house with hydrogen or perhaps a battery from an old Prius?

No, you don’t, and neither does Europe. Europe runs on fossil fuels. America runs on fossil fuels And the more fossil fuel that is consumed, the more the economy grows. The less fossil fuel is consumed, the more the economy shrinks. Are you prepared for life in a shrinking economy with high unemployment, skyrocketing inflation, unending recession, and deepening social malaise brought on by your government’s misguided desire to “stick it to Putin”?

That’s a bad choice, isn’t it? Especially when a face-saving deal can be made at anytime. In fact, Biden could stop the fighting tomorrow if he extended the hand of friendship to Putin and declared that, yes, Ukraine will accept neutrality til the end of time and NATO expansion will stop ASAP.

That’s all it would take. Just extend the olive branch and Putin will ‘call off the dogs’. Guaranteed.

That’s what this guy would have done. Remember him? Remember how bad things were when Trump was in office and gas was 2 bucks a gallon, and everyone had a job, and there was no inflation, and violent crime was under control?

Listen to what Trump had to say about Russia:

“Well, I hope we do have good relations with Russia. I say it loud and clear and I’ve been saying it for years. I think it’s a good thing if we have a great relations with Russia. That’s very important. And, I believe, some day that will happen. It’s a big country, it’s a nuclear country, it’s a country we should get along with, and I think we will eventually get along with Russia.”

He’s right, isn’t he? We need to get along with Russia and put an end to the fighting before these morons drag us into World War 3.

June 4, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

How the war will end…

By Gilbert Doctorow | June 3, 2022 

It has been my rule not to join the vast majority of my fellow political commentators at the scrimmage line in sterile debates of the one subject of the day, week, month that has attracted their full attention. Their debates are sterile because they ignore all but a few parameters of reality in Russia, in Ukraine. For them, ignorance is bliss. They do not stir from their armchairs nor do they switch channels to get information from the other side of the barricades, meaning from Russia.

I will violate this overriding rule and just this once join the debate over how Russia’s ‘special military operation’ will end. Nearly all of my peers in Western media and academia give you read-outs based on their shared certainty over Russia’s military and political ambition from the start of the ‘operation,’ how Russia failed by underestimating Ukrainian resilience and professionalism, how Putin must now save face by capturing and holding some part of Ukraine. The subject of disagreement is whether at the end of the campaign the borders will revert to the status quo before 24 February in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality or whether the Russians will have to entirely give up claims on Donbas and possibly even on Crimea.

As for commentators in the European Union, there is exaggerated outrage over alleged Russian aggression, over any possible revision of European borders as enshrined in the Helsinki Act of 1975 and subsequent recommitments by all parties to territorial inviolability of the signatory States. There is the stench of hypocrisy from this crowd as they overlook what they wrought in the deconstruction of Yugoslavia and, in particular, the hiving off of Kosovo from the state of Serbia.

I mention all of the foregoing as background to what I see now going on in Russian political life, namely open and lively discussion of whether the country should annex the territories of Ukraine newly ‘liberated’ by forces of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics with decisive assistance of the Russian military. By admission of President Zelensky yesterday, these territories now amount to 20% of the Ukrainian state as it was configured in 2014.

In the past several weeks, when Russia concentrated its men and materiel on the Donbas and began to score decisive victories, most notably following the taking of Mariupol and capitulation of the nationalist fighters in the Azovstal complex, leading public officials in the DPR, the LPR and the Kherson oblast have called for quick accession of their lands to the Russian Federation with or without referendums. In Moscow, politicians, including Duma members, have called for the same, claiming that a fait accompli could be achieved already in July.

However, as I see and hear on political talk shows and even in simple political reportage on mainstream Russian radio like Business FM, a counter argument has raised its head. Those on this side ask whether the populations of the potential new constituent parts of the RF are likely to be loyal to Russia. They ask if there is truly a pro-Russian majority in the population should a referendum be organized.

This is all very interesting. It surely is a continuation of the internal debate in Moscow back in 2014 when the decision was taken to grant Crimea immediate entry into the RF while denying the requests for similar treatment from the political leaders of the Donbas oblasts.

However, there surely are other considerations weighing in on the Kremlin that I have not seen aired so far. They may be likened to the considerations of France following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, when the possible reunification of Germany was the talk of the day. Sharp witted observers said at the time that President Mitterand liked Germany so much that he wanted to continue to see two of them. Today Vladimir Putin may like Ukraine and its brethren Slavs so much that he wants to see three or four of them.

To be specific, from the very beginning the number one issue for Moscow as it entered upon its military adventure in Ukraine was geopolitical: to ensure that Ukraine will never again be used as a platform to threaten Russian state security, that Ukraine will never become a NATO member. We may safely assume that internationally guaranteed and supervised neutrality of Ukraine will be part of any peace settlement. It would be nicely supported by a new reality on the ground: namely by carving out several Russia-friendly and Russia-dependent mini-states on the former territory of East and South Ukraine. At the same time this solution removes from the international political agenda many of the accusations that have been made against Russia which support the vicious sanctions now being applied to the RF at great cost to Europe and to the world at large: there will be no territorial acquisitions.

If Kiev is compelled to acknowledge the independence of these two, three or more former oblasts as demanded by their populations, that is a situation fully compatible with the United Nations Charter. In a word, a decision by the Kremlin not to annex parts of Ukraine beyond the Crimea, which has long been quietly accepted by many in Europe, would prepare the way for a gradual return of civilized relations within Europe and even, eventually, with the United States

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2022

June 3, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

Sri Lanka seizes Russian plane

Samizdat | June 3, 2022

The authorities in Sri Lanka have grounded a civilian aircraft belonging to Russian carrier Aeroflot, and arrested the plane, local newspaper News First reported on Friday.

The Colombo High Commercial Court reportedly issued the arrest warrant following a complaint filed by Irish company Celestial Aviation Trading Limited, which is affiliated with aircraft lessor GECAS.

After Western states placed sanctions on Russia, aircraft lessors demanded that Moscow return leased planes for fear of secondary sanctions, and as the restrictions barred them from pursuing financial relations with Russian air carriers.

Russia, however, kept the majority of the planes, stating that the demand to return them violated lease contracts. It also started registering the planes in the country so they could continue to operate. According to the Airfleets portal, the aircraft detained in Sri Lanka received Russian registration at the end of April, and was registered in Bermuda before that.

Aeroflot announced that a hearing on the release of the aircraft is scheduled for June 8.

Russian tour operator Intourist told the press that people who were waiting to fly home on the detained plane were accommodated in a nearby hotel.

EU sanctions introduced in February banned the supply of civil aircraft and spare parts to Russia, as well as their maintenance and insurance. In addition, the sanctions obligated lessors to terminate their existing contracts with Russian airlines.

In early March, the Federal Air Transport Agency notified airlines of cases of cancelation of airworthiness certificates for aircraft registered abroad, while in mid-March, the Bermuda Civil Aviation Authority (BCAA) suspended the airworthiness certificates of aircraft from Russian airlines registered in Bermuda. Russian attempts to re-register the planes in the country were met with criticism, as some countries questioned the safety of flights on planes not checked by internationally-recognized registers.

At the end of May, the Chinese aviation authorities closed their airspace to Boeing and Airbus planes operated by Russian airlines, as “dual registration” of these aircraft does not meet international requirements.

June 3, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Family worried as Iranian held incommunicado in Swedish detention

Hamid Nouri, a former Iranian official, has been jailed in Sweden since 2019
Press TV – June 1, 2022

A former Iranian official, wrongfully accused and jailed in Sweden, has been held incommunicado for almost a month, his relatives say.

The Iranian Judiciary’s Media Center cited Hamid Nouri’s family members as saying that he has not been able to contact them for 28 days now.

The Swedish judiciary has reportedly cut off communication with his family after relocating him to another detention center, leading to serious concerns among his family in Iran.

Nouri was arrested upon arrival in Sweden at Stockholm Airport in November 2019 and immediately imprisoned. He has been held in solitary confinement for over two years.

Swedish prosecutors have requested the maximum penalty of life imprisonment for Nouri, accusing the former Iranian judiciary official of prisoner abuse.

The charges against Nouri stem from accusations leveled against him by members of the anti-Iran terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO), who claim Nouri was involved in the execution and torture of MKO members in 1988. Nouri vehemently rejects the allegations.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian has denounced his detention as “illegal.”

Reports say Swedish judicial authorities have been preventing Nouri from contacting his family since moving him to a different detention center.

Upon arrest, he was forbidden for around eight months from making phone calls to his family members, and barred from meeting them in person for two years.

June 2, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Reports of OPEC+ death are greatly exaggerated

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | JUNE 2, 2022 

The fact that the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states held a joint ministerial meeting with their Russian counterpart Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Saudi capital of Riyadh at this point in time in global politics conveys a powerful message in itself. 

To drive home the message in no uncertain terms, the Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud said at a press conference following the ministerial on Wednesday that the GCC member-countries share a common stance with respect to the crisis in Ukraine. (The news conference was broadcast live by the Al-Arabiya TV channel.) 

“The countries of the Persian Gulf share a common stance regarding the Ukrainian crisis and its negative consequences, especially with regard to the food security of other countries,” Al Saud said. 

For his part, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the media that “the GCC countries understand the nature of the conflict between Russia and the West.” Earlier, during a bilateral with Lavrov who was on a 2-day visit, Al Saud said the “the kingdom’s position regarding the crisis in Ukraine is based on the principles of international law and support for efforts aimed at achieving a political solution to the crisis.”

After the meeting, Lavrov said the GCC countries will not join the West in imposing sanctions on Moscow over the conflict in Ukraine. In his words, “Aspects of the international situation, which are connected with the events unfolded by the West around Ukraine, are well understood by our partners from the Gulf Cooperation Council states.”

Lavrov added, “We appreciate and reaffirmed today once again the balanced position that they take towards this issue at international forums, and in practice, refusing to join the illegitimate, unilateral Western sanctions that were introduced against Russia.” 

Lavrov said Moscow and Gulf countries intended to further develop their partnership in sharp contrast with the growing tensions between Russia and the US and its European allies. After meeting with the top diplomats of the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman in Riyadh, Lavrov said, “We reaffirmed our focus on the comprehensive development of our partnership, including in the new conditions that are emerging in the world economy in the context of the policies of our Western colleagues.” 

Looking ahead, Lavrov expressed satisfaction that “We reaffirmed our focus on the comprehensive development of our partnership, including in the new conditions that are emerging in the world economy in the context of the policies of our Western colleagues.”  

The timing of the GCC-Russia ministerial and Lavrov’s visit to Riyadh is highly significant at a juncture when the Biden Administration is pulling out all the stops to repair the US’ fractured relationship with Saudi Arabia ever since Candidate Biden famously christened the Kingdom as a “Pariah state” and the Washington establishment launched a concerted campaign to defame the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally over the killing of the ex-CIA consultant Jamal Khashoggi. 

The latest reports in the US media have spoken of Biden’s interest to personally make amends with the Saudi Prince by visiting Riyadh and meeting with him. This is after Biden’s refusal to speak with the Prince so far or to have any dealings with the latter in any form!  

The volte-face in Biden’s approach to Saudi Arabia is to be attributed to the realisation in Washington that to isolate Russia and weaken that country permanently, there is an imperative need to gain control of the world oil market, which in turn necessitates the break-up of the Russian-Saudi concord regulating world oil output in the recent years.   

In a nutshell, Saudi Arabia has overnight become a “swing state” in the US’ strategic calculus whose stance on the Ukraine conflict is going to be of momentous consequence to the Biden administration’s agenda to weaken Russia. 

Indeed, Saudi Arabia’s potential as a “swing state” has been in the making ever since 2006 when late King Abdullah used his first trip outside the Middle East since becoming the Saudi ruler to visit China and India. It was the first visit by a Saudi king to China since the two countries established diplomatic relations in 1990, and the first such visit to India since 1955. Perceptive observers saw the Saudi monarch’s tour presaging an era of reduced influence for the United States in Riyadh and of Saudi friendship with a widening spectrum of nations in Asia. 

That shift, emanating from the desire to move away from a monocultural situation — having one big friend America, one big product (oil), and based on one big idea, the Islamic idea — was proceeding at glacial pace through the next decade until Prince Mohammed bin Salman was appointed as the Crown Prince in June 2017, making him heir presumptive to the throne. 

Under Prince Mohammed’s leadership, the KIngdom’s transformation began accelerating, and acquired an ideological mooring of Saudi nationalism. The strengthening of relations with Russia and the signing of an agreement in 2016 to cooperate with Russia in global oil markets in a matrix that subsequently came to be known as OPEC+ was an early manifestation of that shift. 

It coincided with launch of the Vision 2030 carrying the Crown Prince’s imprimatur, embodying the country’s strategic orientation for the next 15 years. From a historical perspective, Vision 2030 can be regarded as marking the abandonment of the Saudi reliance on a rentier economy. In the foreign policy sphere, its impact came to be felt in a steady assertion of the Kingdom’s strategic autonomy. 

Against such a tumultuous geopolitical backdrop, it comes as no surprise that the US’ confrontation with Russia finds Saudi Arabia in the eye of the storm. Lavrov’s trip to Saudi Arabia rang alarm bells in Washington. On the eve of Lavrov’s arrival in Riyadh, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had a call with Al Saud ostensibly to discuss Yemen and other regional issues. 

The state department readout said inter alia, “The Secretary (Blinken) underscored the importance of international support for Ukraine as it defends its sovereignty and territorial integrity and emphasised the need for a global response to the food security crisis resulting from President Putin’s brutal war.” 

Plainly put, Blinken canvassed for the support of the Gulf states to the US-led “global response” to the temporary food crisis, which aims to put the blame on Russia’s doorstep for creating the current shortage of wheat. Evidently, the Saudi leadership hasn’t fallen for the trap. At any rate, under UN auspices, Russia and Turkey have begun work on arranging humanitarian corridors through the waters of the Black Sea, which have been mined by Ukraine. The UN Secretary-General has appealed to the US to ease sanctions to allow Russian exports of food grain to the world market.

To deflect attention from Lavrov’s successful trip to Riyadh, the US-led “information war” has concocted the fake news that Saudi Arabia is “reportedly considering” Russia’s removal from the OPEC+. Lavrov’s talks in Riyadh underscore that on the contrary, Russia and Saudi Arabia are signalling that OPEC+ is indeed going strong. The message cannot be lost on Washington. 

June 2, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Mali has become another front in the Russia v NATO war in Ukraine

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | May 31, 2022

The distance between Ukraine and Mali is measured in thousands of kilometres, but the geopolitical distance is much closer. So close, in fact, that it appears as if the ongoing conflicts in both countries are the direct outcomes of the same geopolitical currents and transformation underway around the world.

After the Malian government accused French troops of carrying out a massacre in the West African country, on 23 April the Russian Foreign Ministry declared its support for Malian efforts, pushing for an international investigation into French abuses and massacres in the country. “We hope that those responsible will be identified and justly punished,” said the ministry.

In their coverage of the conflict in Mali, Western media have largely omitted the Malian and Russian claims about French massacres; instead, they gave credence to French accusations that the Malian forces, possibly with the help of “Russian mercenaries”, have carried out massacres and buried the dead in mass graves near the recently evacuated French army base in Gossi, in order to blame France.

Earlier in April, Human Rights Watch called for an “independent, credible” inquiry into the killings, though it negated both accounts. It suggested that a bloody campaign had indeed taken place, targeting mostly “armed Islamists” between 23 and 31 March.

Media whitewashing and official misinformation aside, Mali has indeed been a stage for much bloodletting in recent years, especially since 2012, when a militant insurgency in the north threatened the complete destabilisation of an already unstable and impoverished country. There were reasons for the insurgency, including the sudden access to smuggled weapon caches originating in Libya following the West’s war on Tripoli in 2011. Thousands of militants who were pushed out of Libya during the war and its aftermath found safe havens in the largely ungoverned Malian northern regions.

With that in mind, though, the militants’ success — they managed to seize nearly a third of the country in just two months — was not entirely linked to western arms. Large swathes of Mali have suffered from prolonged governmental neglect and extreme poverty. Moreover, the Malian army, often beholden to foreign interests, is much hated in these regions due to its violent campaigns and horrific human rights abuses. No wonder the northern rebellion found so much popular support in these parts.

Two months after the Tuareg rebellion in the north, a Malian officer and a contingency of purportedly disgruntled soldiers overthrew the elected government in Bamako, accusing it of corruption and of failure to rein-in the militants. This paved the way for France’s military intervention in its former colony in the guise of “fighting terrorism”.

The French war in Mali, starting in 2013, was disastrous from the Malians’ point of view. It neither stabilised the country nor provided a comprehensive scheme for pacifying the rebellious north. War, human rights violations by the French themselves, and more military coups followed, most notably in August 2020 and May 2021.

However, its intervention was fruitful from France’s viewpoint. As soon as French troops began pouring into Mali, France began to tighten its control over the Sahel countries, including Mali, leading to the signing of two defence agreements, in 2013 and 2020. That’s where the French West African “success story” ends.

Although Paris succeeded in digging itself in deeper, it gave no reason to the Malian people or government to support its actions. As the French became more involved in the life of Malians, ordinary people throughout the country, north and south, detested and rejected them. This shift was the perfect opportunity for Russia to offer itself as an alternative to France and the West. The arrival of Russia on this complex scene allowed Bamako to engineer a clean break from its total reliance on France and its Western, NATO allies.

Even before France formally ended its presence in the country, Russian arms and military technicians were landing in Bamako. Attack helicopters, mobile radar systems and other Russian military technology quickly replaced French arms. It is no wonder that Mali voted against the UN General Assembly resolution to suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council.

As a result of the Ukraine war and western sanctions starting in late February, Russia has accelerated its political and economic outreach, particularly in the Global South, with the hope of lessening the impact of the west-led international sanctions. In truth, though, Moscow’s geopolitical quest in West Africa began earlier than the Ukraine conflict, and Mali’s immediate support for Russia following the war was a testament to Moscow’s success in the region.

France officially began its withdrawal from Mali last February, but Paris and other European capitals have been increasingly aware of what they perceive to be a “Russian threat” in West Africa. How, though, can the West fight back against this threat, real or imagined, especially in light of the French withdrawal? The further destabilisation of Mali is one option. It was, perhaps, no coincidence that Bamako declared on 16 May that it had thwarted a military coup in the country, claiming that the coup leaders were soldiers “supported by a Western state”, presumably France. If the “coup” had succeeded, would this have meant that France — or another “western country” — was plotting a return to Mali on the back of yet another military intervention?

Russia, meanwhile, cannot afford to lose a precious friend like Mali at this critical time of western isolation and sanctions. In effect, this means that Mali will continue to be the stage for a geopolitical cold war that could last for years. The winner of this war could potentially claim the whole of West Africa, which remains hostage to global competition well beyond the national boundaries in the region.

June 1, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Biden tweaks Ukraine narrative

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | JUNE 1, 2022

The US President Joe Biden’s op-Ed in the New York Times on Tuesday on the Ukraine war starts with a bluff. He says President Vladimir Putin had thought Russia’s special operation would only last days. How Biden arrived at such an estimation is unclear. Like the US narrative on the war, it is largely presumptive. 

Russians are rooted — and well-founded — in their belief that Ukraine has become an American colony and the leaders in Kiev are mere puppets. How could Putin and his Kremlin advisors have estimated that the special operation would be a cakewalk? The core objectives of the special operation are such — a treaty affirming Ukraine’s neutral status and its recognition of Donbass republics as independent states and Crimea as integral part of Russia — that an operation that “would last days” wouldn’t secure them. 

Moscow knew that the US had absolutely no intentions to accommodate Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding NATO expansion into Ukraine that were formally projected in December in writing.  

That is the main reason why the Russians have no timeline for their special operation. They would love to round it off the soonest but knew that the integration of Ukraine’s southern regions — Zoporozhia, Kherson, Mykolaiv — that is vital for Crimea’s economy and security and Ukraine’s Black Sea Ports was not going to be child’s play and might be a long haul. 

In the fourth month of the special operation only, Putin could decree the streamlining of procedures for Russian citizenship from applicants in the Kherson, Zoporozhia regions of southern Ukraine.(here, here and here)

Zaporozhye Region in southern Ukraine has offered Russia a military airfield in Melitopol and a naval base in Berdyansk on the coast of the Sea of Azov. The Kherson region plans to integrate into Russia’s education system. Cars are using Russian number plates, Russian SIM cards operate internet and phones. Suffice to say, the shoe is on the other foot.

It was Biden who thought that Russia could be thrown away like a piece from a chessboard but only to realise belatedly that life is real. Biden threatened to render the Russian currency, the ruble, a mere rubble and destroy the Russian economy. Having been a hatchet man as a professional politician, Biden never really understood the resilience, fortitude and grit of the Russian people or their historical consciousness and psyche to rally behind Putin. 

In the Times op-Ed, Biden thinks that he makes a personal gesture toward Putin by promising that he “will not try to bring about his ouster in Moscow.” Yet, Putin’s rating in his country is around 80 percent, while Biden’s is less than half of that — 36%! 

Herein lies the predicament of the Biden Administration. The US is groping in the dark about the Russian intentions in Ukraine. It keeps improvising and updating its narrative to cope with emergent realities that keep coming as nasty surprises. 

This is not only about the military part but also about Russia’s political roadmap. The only constant in Washington is about providing Ukraine with “advanced” weaponry — but then, that is also either about regenerating lucrative business for the military-industrial complex by fuelling wars abroad, or, compensating for the NATO allies who transfer their Soviet-era redundant stockpiles to Ukraine.   

Nonetheless, Biden proclaims in his op-Ed that he will “stay the course” and the massive aid to Ukraine will continue “in the months to come.” That said, Biden makes a nuanced presentation in the op-ed, where, apart from the iteration of usual catechisms — about “a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine”; allied unity; unprovoked Russian aggression; “rules-based international order”, etc. — he does some messaging as well to Moscow as the war graduates to a new phase. 

For a start, he no longer makes any false promises to send the Russians packing to Siberia. Biden doesn’t predict winners and losers. On the contrary, he acknowledges that this war can only have a diplomatic solution. He signals modestly that such massive scale of US military aid may put Kiev “in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.” Carefully drafted words. 

Elsewhere, Biden estimates that the focus of the Russian operation is “to take control of as much of Ukraine as it can” before negotiations begin. Implicit here is the realisation that the Russians have turned the tide of the war and a reversal of fortunes is not to be expected. 

It is from such a rational perspective that Biden’s uncharacteristic avoidance of vituperative and belligerent rhetoric toward Russia (or Putin personally) needs to be understood. He reaffirms categorically: “So long as the United States or our allies are not attacked, we will not be directly engaged in this conflict, either by sending American troops to fight in Ukraine or by attacking Russian forces. We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders. We do not want to prolong the war just to inflict pain on Russia.” 

Of course, Washington will “continue cooperating” with allies regarding sanctions — “the toughest ever imposed on a major economy” — but Biden won’t evaluate its effectiveness. He promises to “work with our allies and partners to address the global food crisis that Russia’s aggression is worsening,” but won’t allege anymore that world food shortage is Russia’s creation. He will help European allies and others to “reduce their dependence on Russian fossil fuels” but also links it to “speed our transition to a clean energy future.” There is no acrimony. 

As regards the security issues, Biden reiterates the US policy to continue “reinforcing NATO’s eastern flank with forces and capabilities” and welcomes Finland’s and Sweden’s applications to join NATO — “a move that will strengthen overall U.S. and trans-Atlantic security by adding two democratic and highly capable military partners” — but refrains from directly linking either of these to Russian aggression. 

Most important, Biden retracts from the dramatic prognosis by CIA Director William Burns that under military pressure, Putin might order use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.  

The sombre tone of Biden’s words is in sharp contrast with his own intemperate and tendentious past remarks. This eschewal of the “big macho tough guy” image betrays that some degree of realism is appearing in the US official narrative. But on the other hand, Biden also discloses in his op-ed that the US will provide the Ukrainians with “more advanced rocket systems and munitions that will enable them to more precisely strike key targets on the battlefield in Ukraine.”

All this adds up to a calculated signal to Moscow, no doubt. But it isn’t easy to resurrect the Atlanticist inclinations in the Kremlin. The tortuous policy procrastinations on NATO expansion through the past quarter century have cost Russia dearly in lives and treasure. That folly or naïveté — depending on one’s viewpoint — shouldn’t repeat.

Again, stalling the momentum of the special operation at this point would carry immense risks. The operation almost lost momentum on the outskirts of Kiev in March due to the “stop-and-go” approach. 

Fundamentally, there has been a certain inevitability about the western sanctions, with or without the Ukraine crisis, aimed at weakening Russia permanently. The compass is now set. Therefore, no matter the deliberate sobriety of Biden’s op-Ed, the big picture cannot be wished away.

Indeed, the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces held drills in the Ivanovo region, northeast of Moscow today, the day after Biden’s op-ed appeared.

The Russian Defence Ministry said some 1,000 servicemen participated in the drills using over a hundred vehicles, including Yars intercontinental ballistic missile launchers, which have the capability to launch the MIRV-capable (Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles) thermonuclear RS-24 Yars inter-continental ballistic missile with range of 12,000 km that can carry up to 10 warheads and cruise at speeds of up to 24,500 kilometres per hour.

June 1, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia comments on Ukrainian grain exports

Samizdat | May 31, 2022

Russia is not preventing ships from transporting grain out of Ukraine, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday, and Western claims to the contrary are part of a smear campaign that will do nothing to solve the global food crisis.

The only party actually preventing ships from using Ukrainian ports and exporting grain by sea is Ukraine itself, he added, because it deployed sea mines that have made navigation unsafe.

“If the demining problem is solved, then in the open sea… the Russian Navy will ensure unrestricted movement of ships to the Mediterranean,” Lavrov said during a press conference.

“Russia had made all the guarantees it could make a long time ago,” he added.

The foreign minister suggested that Western politicians who have expressed concerns over surging food prices should do something to address the problem. After all, Western sanctions have disrupted the logistical and financial infrastructure that Russia uses to export its own grain, he said.

“They should have some thought and decide what is more important to them: Milking publicity from the issue of food security or solving this problem.”

Lavrov was responding to criticism from the US and its allies, who claim that a Russian naval blockade is preventing grain exports from Ukraine. The Russian military says a corridor in the Black Sea is available for civilian traffic every day.

May 31, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Disquiet at Davos and the Unsaid Fear of Failure – The First Shoots of a U.S. Ukraine Shift

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 30, 2022

Klaus Schwab, passionate for Ukraine, essentially configured the World Economic Forum (WEF) to showcase Zelensky and to leverage the argument that Russia should be kicked out of the civilised world. Schwab’s target was the assembled crème de la crème of the world’s business leaders assembled there. Zelensky pitched big: “We want more sanctions and more weapons”; “All trade with the aggressor should be stopped”; “All foreign business should leave Russia so that your brands are not associated with war crimes”, he said. Sanctions must be all encompassing; values must matter.

Disquiet ran through the Davos set: The WEF is high-octane globalist, right? Yet this Schwab line suggests a de-coupling ‘on stilts’. It precisely reverses interconnectedness. Plus, the western generals in charge are saying that this conflict may last not just years, but decades. What will this signify for their markets in parts of the world that refuse action against Russia, the moneymen were wondering?

It is unlikely that this whiff of disorientation is what Schwab had intended. Perhaps the latter was more aligned with Soros’ later intervention that a quick victory over Russia was needed to save the ‘Open Society’ and civilisation itself – and that this was intended as the WEF 2022 message.

The Davos ‘greater disquiet’ emerged however, from an unexpected quarter. Just before the WEF began, the NY Times had run a piece from the editorial team urging Zelensky to negotiate with Russia. It argued that such engagement implied making painful territorial sacrifices. The piece attracted indignant and angry push-back in Europe and the West, possibly because – albeit couched as advice to Kiev – its target was evidently Washington and London (the arch belligerents).

Eric Cantor, a former whip in the U.S. House of Representatives (a legislator well versed on Iran sanctions), also at Davos, questioned whether the West would be able to maintain a united front in pursuit of such maximalist aims as Zelensky and his Military Intelligence Chief have demanded. “We may not get the next vote”, Cantor opined (in wake of the $40 bn vote ostensibly earmarked for Ukraine).

Cantor said excluding Russia entirely would require secondary sanctions against other countries. This would place the West into a head on clash with China, India, and the almost 60 states which had refused to back a UN resolution denouncing Russia’s invasion. He warned that the U.S. may be in danger of overplaying its hand.

Then spoke the redoubtable Henry Kissinger, also at Davos. He warned the West to stop trying to inflict a crushing defeat on Russian forces in Ukraine, saying that such would have disastrous consequences for the long-term stability of Europe. He said it would be fatal for the West to get swept along in the mood of the moment and forget the proper place of Russia in the European balance of power.

Dr Kissinger said the war must not be allowed to drag on and came close to calling on the West to instruct Ukraine to accept terms that fall very far short of its current war aims: “Negotiations need to begin in the next two months, before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome”.

What is going on here? In a nutshell, we are seeing the first inklings of fractures appearing in the U.S. stance on Ukraine. The fissures in Europe are already very plain, both on sanctions and mission aims. But Cantor’s comment that “we may not get the next vote” needs further unpacking.

In an earlier piece, I argued that Senator JD Vance’s win in the Ohio primaries for a Senate seat could be telling. His candidature was backed by Trump, who later issued an ‘End the war’ call. Now the key tell-tale is Republican Senator Josh Hawley – ambitious and known to have leadership aspirations.

Early in the Ukraine war, Senator Hawley was calling Zelensky, lauding him highly and egging him on. But then he pivoted. Hawley subsequently blasted the $40 billion in proposed aid to Ukraine, after voting ‘no’ on the procedural vote to move forward with the aid package “as not being in America’s interests”.

At first, as some may recall, there were 6 House votes against the bill – then 60. And in the Senate, first there were zero then there were 11 votes. The Bill was rushed through as vote managers were concerned that the vote could crumble further.

What is going on? Well, the Republican ‘populist’ current, never enamoured at foreign aid, was shocked at the $ 40 billion for Ukraine when the U.S. lacked baby milk, (and itself had to rely on foreign baby milk aid). This political current is becoming more significant and having more impact as a result of a structural shift. Political candidates, and now even some U.S. think-tanks are turning to crowd-funding as a principal source of finance – moving away from the ‘established’ donors. Thus, the broad ‘anti-foreign entanglement’ sentiment is gaining heft.

Of course, the $40 billion is not all going to Ukraine. Not at all. According to the details of the Bill, the bulk will go to the Pentagon (for equipment already supplied by the U.S. and its allies). And a big chunk will go to the State Department, to fund all sorts of ‘helpful’ non-state actors and NGOs – i.e. it is a deep state budget with Ukraine packaging. The six billion allocated directly for new arms to Ukraine in fact comprises both training and weapons, so much of that will end in the pockets of states such as UK and Germany, giving ‘out of theatre’ training to Ukrainians in their own, or in neighbouring countries’ territory.

Eric Cantor, and other Americans at WEF may frame their disquiet over western objectives in ‘polite company’ as simply articulating their uncertainties over America’s grand strategy – whether the U.S. is trying to punish Russia for its aggression, or whether the goal is a subtler use of policy that gives the Kremlin a ‘route out of sanctions’, were it to changes course. But behind the narrative lies a darker fear. The unsaid fear of failure.

What does this mean? It means that the West’s ultimate war aims in Ukraine have so far been able to stay opaque and undefined, the details swept aside in the mood of the moment.

Paradoxically, this opacity has been preserved despite the public failure of the West’s first statement of aims – which was that the seizure of Russia’ offshore foreign reserves; the Russian bank expulsions from SWIFT; the sanctioning of the Central Bank; and the broadside of sanctions would, in and of itself alone, turn the rouble to rubble; cause a run on the domestic banking system; collapse the Russian economy; and provoke a political crisis that Putin might not survive.

In short, ‘victory’ would be quick – if not immediate. We know this, because U.S. officials and the French Finance Minister, Bruno Le Maire bragged about it publicly.

So confident in a quick financial-war success were these western officials that there seemed little need to invest deep strategic reflection on the aims or the course of the secondary Ukrainian military thrust. After all, a Russia already economically collapsed, with its currency ruined and its morale broken, would likely put up little or no fight as the Ukrainian army swept across Donbas and into Crimea.

Well, the sanctions have proved a bust and Russia’s currency and oil revenues are bountiful.

And now, western politicians are being warned in the media, and by their own military, that Russia is ‘close to a major victory’ in Donbas.

This is the unspoken fear disquieting Davos attendees – fear of another débacle, following that of Afghanistan. One made all the worse as the ‘war’ on Russia boomerangs into an economic collapse in Europe, and with NATO’s eight-year investment in building-up a successful proxy-army to NATO standards turning to dust.

This is what Kissinger’s comments – decoded – urge: ‘Don’t procrastinate’; get a quick deal (even an unfavourable one), but one that can be dressed up, and somehow spun as a ‘win’. But don’t wait, and let events lead the U.S. into yet another unmistakeable, undeniable débacle.

This is still ‘under the kitchen table talk’ in the U.S. for now, as the power of a narrative, invested with so much emotion, and bolstered by unprecedented info-war peer-pressure has masked such thoughts from public expression. Fractures nonetheless are beginning to be apparent. Something stirs – and Europe inevitably will follow wherever America leads. But for now, the hawks remain firmly in ‘the chair’ (in the U.S., in London, Poland, the EU Commission and in Kiev).

The big question, however, is why Moscow would take such a ‘way out’ (even if it was offered it). A compromise deal would be seen there as simply Kiev given the chance to regroup, and to try again.

May 30, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Iran seizes Greek tankers after US ‘piracy’

Samizdat | May 27, 2022

Iranian soldiers seized two oil tankers flying the Greek flag in the Persian Gulf on Friday, while Tehran protested the confiscation of one of its own vessels in Greek waters earlier this week, calling it US “piracy.” Washington reportedly plans to sell the ship’s oil cargo, which was confiscated under sanctions targeting Russia.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy troops used helicopters to board the tankers Delta Poseidon and Prudent Warrior on Friday, the industry monitor Lloyd’s List reported. The ships were “later escorted by naval vessels from international traffic lanes to Iranian waters a few miles off the coast,” according to the same source.

The Greek Foreign Ministry confirmed the seizure of the two vessels and demanded their release. Iranian media likewise confirmed the capture of the ships, making clear it was reprisal against the actions of the government in Athens. More than 25% of the world’s tankers fly the Greek flag.

“The Islamic Republic has decided to take punitive measures against Greece after it seized an Iranian tanker and let the US government confiscate its crude oil,” reported Nour News, an outlet affiliated with the IRGC.

Meanwhile, the Iranian Foreign Ministry had summoned the ambassador of Switzerland – which represents US interests in Tehran – to protest the seizure of the Iranian-flagged tanker Pegas in Greek waters on Wednesday.

“The Islamic Republic expressed its deep concern over the US government’s continued violation of international laws and international maritime conventions,” according to the state news agency IRNA.

Iran’s Ports and Maritime Organization said the tanker had sought shelter along the Greek coast from bad weather after experiencing technical problems, and called the seizure of its cargo “a clear example of piracy.”

While the US government did not officially comment, Reuters reported on Thursday that Washington was planning to take the oil to the US on board another vessel, quoting three sources familiar with the matter.

The US has sanctioned Iran’s oil exports and previously seized Iranian tankers bound for Venezuela, citing its sanctions against Caracas. The capture of Pegas, however, seems to be related to sanctions against Moscow.

Pegas was previously owned by the Russian company Transmorflot and was sanctioned by the US on February 22, two days before the hostilities in Ukraine began. Transmorflot itself was sanctioned on May 8, but Pegas – renamed Lana on March 1 – was already under Iranian ownership by then and has been flying Tehran’s flag since May 1.

May 27, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Indo-Pacific power dynamic in radical shift

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | MAY 27, 2022 

The joint air patrol over the waters of the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea on Monday by an air task force composed of Russian Tu-95MS capable of carrying nuclear weapons and Chinese H-6K strategic bombers couldn’t have been a knee-jerk reaction to US President Joe Biden’s Asia tour, leave alone his provocative remarks conjuring up an apocalyptic US-China war over Taiwan. 

The Chinese Defence Ministry spokesman Senior Colonel Wu Qian pointed out that this has been the fourth strategic patrol jointly conducted by Russia and China since 2019, with the purpose of testing and improving the level of coordination between the two air forces, and promoting the strategic mutual trust and practical cooperation between the two militaries. As he put it, “This operation does not target any third party, and has nothing to do with the current international and regional situation.” 

That said, perceptions do matter in strategic posturing and Japan’s defence minister Nobuo Kishi has enthusiastically rushed to endorse an interpretation that the timing of the Chinese-Russian operation had something to do with the QUAD summit taking place in Japan on that very same day. 

Conceivably, Kishi was on a cover-up, distracting attention away from the new geopolitical reality in the Far East. Indeed, the rebirth of militarism and revanchist sentiments in Japan, in a historic departure in the country’s post-World War 2 pacifist posture, with overt American encouragement and backing, provides the broader context for a Sino-Russian congruence. Ominously enough, Japan has lately switched to a diplomatic idiom to refer to the Kuril Islands as “occupied” territory, implying that Russia is an aggressor — although the historical truth may be vastly different. 

Again, Japan has been flexing muscles lately as a ‘front-line state’ in imposing sanctions against Russia (including against President Putin) although in all of its history or politics or geography, the land of the rising sun has had nothing to do with the Russian borderlands in Ukraine. Above all, Japan has been overzealous in drawing a fanciful comparison between the situation around the Taiwan Straits and Ukraine. 

Whichever way one were to look at it, Monday’s operation displayed a very high level of military cooperation between China and Russia at a juncture when the two countries are facing new provocations and added pressure from the US. Quite obviously, Beijing pooh-poohs the US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin’s declaration in late April that Washington wanted to see Russia weakened militarily “to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine” and will be unable to recover quickly. 

Given the close foreign-policy coordination between China and Russia, it is entirely conceivable that Beijing has an insightful knowledge of the actual state of play in Russia’s special operation in Ukraine.  

On the other hand, it is a reasonable surmise after Monday’s joint strategic air patrol by China and Russia on Monday that Beijing has pushed back the Western attempts to browbeat it on the Ukraine issue. Clearly, on Monday, Beijing was risking “a major reputational damage ,” in the western world — to borrow the threatening words of the EU’s executive president Ursula von der Leyen after “a very frank and open” videoconference with the Chinese leadership in early April. 

What emerges are three things. One, Beijing continues to adhere to the letter and spirit of the joint statement of February 4 with Russia on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development which was issued during President Vladimir Putin’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. Two, in the Chinese perspective, the three-month old Russian operation in Ukraine, which began on February 24, has not changed the current imperatives of the international situation characterised by rapid development and profound transformation where “Some actors representing but the minority on the international scale continue to advocate unilateral approaches to addressing international issues and resort to force; they interfere in the internal affairs of other states, infringing their legitimate rights and interests, and incite contradictions, differences and confrontation, thus hampering the development and progress of mankind, against the opposition from the international community.” (February 4, 2022) 

Third, Moscow and Beijing are circling the wagons, so to speak, in the Far East. Evidently, the Ukraine conflict is not preventing the US from pushing ahead with the NATO expansion and there is every reason to believe that the alliance’s next ‘line of defence’ will be moved to the South China Sea. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pointed out on Thursday that belligerent western politicians are stating publicly that the alliance should have global responsibility, and that NATO should be responsible for the security in the Pacific region. Moscow and Beijing cannot be faulted if they anticipate that major decisions in this regard are expected at the forthcoming NATO summit meeting in Madrid on June 28-30. 

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Thursday that “NATO has publicly stated on many occasions that it will remain a regional alliance, it does not seek a geopolitical breakthrough and it does not seek to expand to other regions. However, in recent years, NATO has entered the Asia-Pacific region repeatedly. Some NATO member states keep sending aircraft and warships to carry out military exercises in waters off China’s coast, creating tensions and disputes. NATO has been transgressing regions and fields and clamoring for a new Cold War of bloc confrontation. This gives ample reason for high vigilance and firm opposition from the international community.”

Russia and China have given up hopes of any moderation in the US’ adversarial mindset. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said today, “The West has declared total war against us, against the entire Russian world. Nobody even hides this fact now.” For the first time since 2006, Russia and China on Thursday vetoed a US-drafted United Nations Security Council resolution to strengthen sanctions on North Korea.

In and address on Tuesday at Georgetown University, titled The Administration’s Approach to the People’s Republic of China, designed to rally the international community to deter and counter China, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that the coalition that Washington mustered to counter Russia in Ukraine presents a model both agile and well-resourced in how to face future challenges from China. 

May 27, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »