Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

France & Britain Prepare Foreign Intervention Into Ukraine – Russian Foreign Ministry

Sputnik – 11.04.2025

MOSCOW – London and Paris’s discussions on sending deterrent forces to Ukraine are preparations for foreign intervention, Alexey Polishchuk, Director of the Second CIS Department at the Russian Foreign Ministry, told Sputnik.

“The issue of peacekeeping is not on the agenda now. According to world practice, the main condition for deploying peacekeepers is achieving a peaceful settlement or a sustainable ceasefire,” he said.

Polishchuk emphasized that Kiev is sabotaging peace efforts, particularly the moratorium on strikes against energy facilities.

“The negotiations on the formation of the so-called deterrent forces, which are currently being conducted by the “coalition of the willing” led by France and Britain, are in fact a preparation for foreign intervention,” he said.

French President Emmanuel Macron said after hosting the summit of the “coalition of the willing” in Paris on March 27 that a number of countries wanted to send troops to Ukraine as “deterrent forces.” He said that the UK-French initiative would be neither a replacement for Ukrainian troops nor a peacekeeping force. The goal would be to deter Russia by stationing troops in the strategic locations.

Russian spokesperson Maria Zakharova warned that any foreign military presence would be seen as a threat to Russia, risking direct military conflict.

April 11, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Prof. John Mearsheimer: Trump, Netanyahu, and Iran.

Judge Napolitano – Judging Freedom | April 10, 2025

April 10, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Gulf-backed genocide: How Arab monarchies fuel Israel’s war machine

By Mawadda Iskandar | The Cradle | April 10, 2025

The Persian Gulf states’ silence – and in many cases, complicity – during Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza has not come as a shock. These governments, long detached from the Palestinian struggle, have for years cultivated warm, if discreet, ties with Tel Aviv.

While Bahrain and the UAE made normalization of ties with Tel Aviv official through the US-brokered 2020 Abraham Accords, other states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have played quieter but equally pivotal roles. Riyadh, often described as the architect behind normalization, and Doha, hiding behind its “mediator” label, have each aided the occupation state in crucial ways.

Though much of this assistance remains behind the scenes, it has been repeatedly acknowledged by US and Israeli officials. During his first term, US President Donald Trump once warned that “Israel would be in big trouble without Saudi Arabia,” while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Arab leaders now view Israel “not as their enemy, but their greatest ally,” adding that they “want to see us defeat Hamas.”

Such statements offer a glimpse into the vast, opaque network of regional cooperation propping up the occupation state’s war machine.

Economic complicity 

Despite overwhelming popular support throughout the Arab world for Palestine, and growing calls for grassroots boycotts, Persian Gulf–Israeli trade has only surged. The UAE now ranks as Israel’s top Arab trade partner, while Bahrain’s commerce with Tel Aviv spiked by a staggering 950 percent during the first 10 months of the Gaza war.

Even amid war and boycott efforts, “kosher-certified” goods from Arab countries continue to enter Israeli markets. UAE-based brands like Al Barakah Dates and Hunter Foods, along with Saudi Arabia’s Durra (a sugar supplier), have maintained trade channels.

Qatar has exported crude materials for plastics used in Israeli industries. Bahrain went so far as to officially recognize goods produced in illegal West Bank settlements as Israeli in origin.

More insidiously, Persian Gulf investments are directly fueling Israeli settlement expansion. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have funneled money into Avenue Partners, a firm chaired by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who remains involved in advising the Trump administration from afar.

That money flows into Phoenix Holdings, which finances key banks involved in settlement construction – LeumiHapoalim, and Discount Bank – as well as telecom firms like Cellcom and Partner, and construction companies like Electra and Shapir, all of which operate inside occupied Palestinian territory.

When Yemen’s blockade disrupted shipping lanes for Israeli-linked cargo in the Red Sea, cutting off 70 percent of Tel Aviv’s food imports, it was the Persian Gulf states that rushed to patch the breach. The UAE created an overland logistics corridor from Dubai to Tel Aviv via Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and Bahrain repurposed its ports to serve as alternate shipping hubs for Israeli goods arriving from India and China.

Military ties beneath the surface

From the earliest days of Israel’s onslaught on Gaza, the UAE has doubled down on its strategic military relationship with the occupation state. In 2024, Balkan Insight revealed that a UAE-linked firm, Yugoimport-SDPR, exported $17.1 million worth of weapons to Israel via military aircraft directly involved in bombing Gaza.

But the arms trade is only part of this treacherous picture. The UAE’s state-owned defense giant EDGE holds shares in Israeli military contractors like Rafael and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), companies that retrofit Emirati planes into military freighters. Abu Dhabi has also welcomed offices from Israeli weapons manufacturers like Bayt Systems and Third Eye Systems, and proudly hosted 34 Israeli defense firms at IDEX 2025 – a major arms expo used to secure deals with the occupation army.

Though not formally normalized, Saudi Arabia is militarizing its ties with Israel through indirect channels. One method: purchasing Israeli systems like the TOW missile through US-based subsidiaries of Elbit Systems. Another: acquiring surveillance drones from South Africa, which are disassembled and reassembled in the kingdom to mask their Israeli origins.

A recent anti-drone system – suspected to be designed by Israeli firm RADA – was spotted at the Royal Saudi Air Defense base in Tabuk, near King Faisal Air Base.

Meanwhile, Qatar has quietly boosted its military coordination with Tel Aviv. Doha continues to source spare parts for tanks, armored vehicles, and aerial tankers from Israeli suppliers, and its military has participated in joint drills involving Israel and other Persian Gulf states – including exercises in Greece held just over a week ago.

Logistical lifelines to Tel Aviv

Beyond military and economic ties, Persian Gulf states have facilitated the flow of weapons to Israel through logistical support channels. As the US ramped up its “unprecedented airlift” of tens of thousands of missiles, munitions, and Iron Dome components, the Gulf’s airspace and bases became critical.

US arms shipments passed through Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, and especially Qatar, where the Al-Udeid Air Base – home to US Central Command – served as a hub for at least 18 documented transfers. Several were routed through Cyprus to avoid direct flight tracking.

In the UAE, Dubai International Airport became a waypoint for Israeli reservists flying in from Asia. Coordinated through the Israeli consulate in Dubai, these flights funneled soldiers into the war in Gaza. Emirati authorities also arranged leisure retreats for Israeli troops between deployments and allowed Jewish organizations in Dubai to send care packages to the occupation military.

Pipeline diplomacy and energy normalization

Earlier this month, as Trump prepared to visit Saudi Arabia seeking investment in US infrastructure, Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen unveiled plans for a regional oil pipeline stretching from Ashkelon to Saudi Arabia via Eilat.

The project falls under the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), a US-backed alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), with links running through the UAE, Jordan, and occupied Palestinian lands.

In a related move, Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa – son of the Bahraini king and chair of Bapco Energy – announced the sale of a pipeline stake to BlackRock, the US investment giant notorious for its financial ties to Israeli settlements. This deal cannot be separated from the broader normalization agenda.

Spycraft and surveillance

In one of the clearest signs of deepening security cooperation, Axios revealed a secret 2024 meeting in Bahrain between Israeli army chief Herzi Halevi and senior military officials from Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, and Egypt.

Overseen by US Central Command, the summit focused on countering Iranian retaliation and disrupting weapons flows to Gaza from resistance forces in Iraq and Yemen – operations that often transit through Persian Gulf-controlled airspace.

Bahrain’s role was particularly overt: Nasser bin Hamad openly declared his country’s commitment to disrupting Iranian response operations in coordination with the US Fifth Fleet stationed in Manama. Analysts now speculate that Tel Aviv could be granted permanent naval access to strategic Gulf waters.

This growing security convergence has also opened the door for Israeli tech to penetrate Persian Gulf infrastructure. Bahrain now relies on Israeli firms for anti-drone systems, satellite surveillance, and cybersecurity. One notable collaboration involves Bahraini company Crescent Technologies and Israeli cyber defense powerhouse CyberArk.

The UAE is pushing the envelope even further. Emirati firms have signed deals with XM Cyber – co-founded by a former Mossad chief – to secure national energy infrastructure. XM Cyber works in tandem with Rafael and other elite Israeli military firms as part of a consortium targeting sensitive Gulf markets, including oil, energy, and data. Meanwhile, Orpak Systems, another Israeli company, has quietly entered Arab oil sectors under nondescript branding to avoid detection.

Despite their public posturing and periodic statements of support for Palestine, the Persian Gulf states have quietly entrenched themselves in Tel Aviv’s war effort. Through investment flows, arms deals, intelligence cooperation, and energy infrastructure, they have become vital enablers of the genocide in Gaza.

This alliance – crafted in backrooms and sealed with economic interests – has allowed Israel to prosecute its war on Gaza with Gulf assistance at every logistical and financial juncture.

Far from being passive actors, these states are now active partners in a conflict that has devastated an entire people.

April 10, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine risks losing Odessa if ideas of European troop deployment entertained

By Ahmed Adel | April 9, 2025

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated that Europe has its eye on Odessa and Lvov and is making plans for military intervention that are “reminiscent of the military intervention by the Entente” during the 1917-1922 Russian Civil War. Despite Western plans, Russia will not allow the presence of NATO forces on Ukraine’s territory, as this would pose a direct threat to national security.

Given the strategic importance of Odessa and Lvov, the West did not accidentally target these cities. Odessa is a port that leads to the Danube, and whoever controls the historically Russian city greatly influences the Black Sea. Meanwhile, Lvov is Ukraine’s gateway to the European Union.

Although Kiev, Kharkov, and Dnipropetrovsk are also large Ukrainian cities, the West will not risk its troops there, especially in the latter two, because they are too close to the front line. This is the same issue as Odessa, which is not far from the Dnieper and Kherson, but the city has too much strategic value to surrender.

Odessa, founded in 1794 by the Russian Empress Catherine the Great as a military and trading port on the Black Sea, has always been considered a Russian city. During the Russian Empire, it was part of Novorossiya, but during the creation of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin effectively gave it to Ukraine.

Odessa, a city that was occupied for more than 900 days during World War II, was liberated from German Nazi forces by Red Army soldiers. For Russians, Odessa is a hero city, but even more than that, because it was one of the first cities where the Russian Spring began, a mass action that was a response to the coup d’état in Kiev in 2014, when pro-Western and neo-Nazi currents took power.

Mass pro-Russian protests were held in many cities in southeastern Ukraine, and the discontented people, who were facing repression from the new Kiev regime, rose up to defend the Russian language and their rights. It all culminated in early May 2014 in Odessa, where supporters of the “Anti-Maidan,” opponents of the Ukrainian putschists, were burned alive in the Odessa House of Trade Unions. Ukrainian neo-Nazis shot those who tried to escape by jumping out of the building. Almost 50 people were killed and more than 250 were injured. The Ukrainian authorities have obstructed the investigation into this crime for years, and a decade later, this crime remains unpunished.

Despite all the tribulations and trials, Odessa has remained a Russian city historically, culturally, and in its mentality and spirit.

A “Coalition of the Willing” summit was held in Paris towards the end of March and representatives of about 30 countries, without the United States’ participation, discussed possible security guarantees for Kiev after the end of the Ukrainian conflict and the potential deployment of a military contingent on Ukraine’s territory.

Zakharova specified that the summit in Paris discussed the Franco-British initiative to deploy some “reassurance forces” in Ukraine after the conclusion of a peace agreement, rather than a peacekeeping contingent. According to her, this is reminiscent of the military intervention of the Entente forces during the Russian Civil War.

The parallels between that historical event and what is happening today are quite obvious.

European countries, the US, and Japan intervened in the Russian Civil War, hoping to grab their share of the crumbling Russian Empire. They thought that while fighting was waging on the front, they could grab Russia, including Ukraine, which was then in the process of being created. Ultimately, when they realized they were losing, they fled.

In essence, this is how they plan to introduce these contingents—it is unclear what kind—into Ukraine today.

The Kremlin has repeatedly said that it will not allow the deployment of NATO forces in Ukraine, while emphasizing that it was precisely the Atlantic Alliance’s expansion to the East that was the reason for the start of the Russian special military operation in February 2022.

NATO’s entry into any city, whether Lvov, Odessa, Kiev, or Kharkov, is unacceptable for Moscow, and it is clear that they will perceive this as NATO’s conquest of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine is the “soft tissue at the bottom of Russia’s belly,” and the entry of NATO forces would be an increased threat to Russian national security.

The loss of Odessa would be fatal for the Ukrainian economy and military, as Ukraine would lose its last major port on the Black Sea through which Western arms shipments now flow and where Ukraine can export to the world, particularly metals and wheat. Odessa has been mostly spared from the current war, with Russia not having yet attempted to liberate the city, but if discussions in the West to deploy troops continue and Kiev entertains it, it could instigate a Russian action to take the city. That would deal another major blow to Ukraine’s ailing economy and post-war recovery.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

April 9, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Trump touts record $1 trillion Pentagon budget

RT | April 8, 2025

US President Donald Trump has announced that his administration has approved a record defense budget of around $1 trillion despite an ongoing campaign to cut federal spending.

Trump made the remarks during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday.

“We are very cost-conscious but the military is something that we have to build and we have to be strong because you have a lot of bad forces out there now,” Trump said. “Nobody’s seen anything like it.”

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stressed that “we intend to spend every taxpayer dollar wisely – on lethality and readiness.”

The defense secretary under the previous administration of President Joe Biden, Lloyd Austin, had proposed increasing the defense budget by roughly $50 billion more than projections for the fiscal year 2026.

In contrast to both Trump and Austin, in February the Pentagon proposed cutting spending by 8% but prioritizing expenditure on technologies such as drones, submarines, and defense operations at the US-Mexico border and operations related to deterring China.

The current US Defense Department budget is $895.2 billion. Despite the vast sums allocated to defense, the Pentagon has failed to pass an audit for seven consecutive years since the procedure was established.

Trump’s pledge for expanded military funding comes as his administration, through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has implemented widespread federal spending cuts. Under DOGE, led by Elon Musk, roughly 280,000 federal workers have been laid off in recent months.

April 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Sinophobia | | Leave a comment

Collapsing Empire: Yemen shatters the illusion of US air power, yet again

By Kit Klarenberg | Press TV | April 7, 2025

Since March 15, Washington has repeatedly barraged Yemen from the sky, killing and injuring countless innocent civilians while destroying vital infrastructure.

For example, on April 2, US jets targeted a reservoir in western Yemen, cutting off access to water for over 50,000 people.

Only three days later, US President Donald Trump gloatingly posted a horrific video on social media of a tribal gathering being incinerated in a US airstrike. He falsely claimed the individuals were “Houthis gathered for instructions on an attack.”

In a chilling coincidence, the bloodcurdling clip was published on the 15th anniversary of the release of “Collateral Murder” by WikiLeaks, a notorious video filmed three years earlier of US Apache helicopter pilots firing indiscriminately at a group of Iraqi civilians and journalists while sickly cackling at the carnage they were inflicting.

While that disclosure contemporaneously caused international outcry and scandal and made WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange an internationally wanted man, openly advertising unconscionable war crimes is now apparently a formal US government policy.

US officials have pledged that renewed hostilities against Yemen will continue “indefinitely”, while Trump has bragged how “relentless strikes” have “decimated” the Ansarullah resistance movement.

Yet, on April 4, the New York Times reported Pentagon officials are “privately” briefing that while the current bombing campaign on Yemen “is consistently heavier than strikes conducted by the Biden administration”, the effort has achieved “only limited success in destroying the Houthis’ vast, largely underground arsenal of missiles, drones and launchers.”

Yemen’s anti-genocide Red Sea blockade thus endures untrammelled.

Moreover, “in just three weeks, the Pentagon has used $200 million worth of munitions, in addition to the immense operational and personnel costs to deploy two aircraft carriers, additional B-2 bombers and fighter jets, as well as Patriot and THAAD air defenses” to West Asia.

The total cost of the military adventure to date could exceed “well over $1 billion by next week.” This not only means “supplemental funds” for the operation need to be sought from US Congress, but there are grave anxieties about ammunition availability:

“So many precision munitions are being used, especially advanced long-range ones, that some Pentagon contingency planners are growing concerned about overall Navy stocks and implications for any situation in which the United States would have to ward off an attempted invasion of Taiwan by China.”

The New York Times also observed that the White House hasn’t indicated “why it thinks its campaign against the group will succeed”, after the Biden administration’s long-running Operation Prosperity Guardian embarrassingly failed to break the Red Sea’s blockade.

The answer is simple – for three decades, the Empire has been consumed by a dangerously self-deluded belief in the primacy of air power over all other forms of warfare. Ergo, the Trump administration believes that if only they intensify Yemen’s bombardment, Ansarullah will crumble.

‘Significantly damaged’

In April 1996, then USAF Chief of Staff Ronald R Fogleman boldly declared that a “new American way of war” was emerging.

While traditionally the Empire had “relied on large forces employing mass, concentration, and firepower to attrit enemy forces and defeat them,” now technological advances and “unique military advantages” – specifically in the field of air power – could be used “to compel an adversary to do our will at the least cost to the US in lives and resources.”

At the time, the Empire was riding high on the perceived success of NATO’s Operation Deliberate Force, an 11-day saturation bombing of Bosnia conducted the previous August/September.

Multiple US officials eagerly attributed the campaign to ending the three-year-long civil war in the former Yugoslav republic by precipitating negotiations. They omitted to mention that the airstrikes’ predominant military utility was allowing US-armed, trained, and directed Bosniak and Croat proxy forces to overrun Bosnian Serb positions without significant opposition, or their brazen sabotage of prior peace settlements.

Nonetheless, the narrative that wars could be won via airpower alone, and the US and its allies should invest in and structure their military machines accordingly, palpably percolated thereafter. The illegal March – June 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia provided the Empire with an opportunity to put this theory to the test. For 78 straight days, NATO relentlessly blitzed civilian, government, and industrial infrastructure throughout the country, killing untold numbers of innocent people – including children – and disrupting daily life for millions.

The purported purpose of this onslaught was to prevent a planned genocide of Kosovo’s Albanian population by Yugoslav forces. As a May 2000 British parliamentary committee concluded, however, it was only after the bombing began that Belgrade began assaulting the province.

Moreover, this effort was explicitly concerned with neutralising the CIA and MI6-backed Kosovo Liberation Army, an Al Qaeda-linked extremist group, not attacking [ethnic] Albanian citizens [of Yugoslavia]. Meanwhile, in September 2001, a UN court determined that Yugoslavia’s actions in Kosovo were not genocidal in nature or intent.

On June 3, 1999, Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic folded under Russian pressure, agreeing to withdraw Belgrade’s forces from Kosovo. While Western officials celebrated a resounding victory for NATO and airpower more generally, the mainstream media – at least initially – told a very different story.

The LA Times observed that the Yugoslav army “still has 80% to 90% of its tanks, 75% of its most sophisticated surface-to-air missiles and 60% of its MIG fighter planes.” Meanwhile, its key barracks and ammunition depots weren’t damaged at all.

The New York Times reported that post-war Kosovo was bereft “of the scorched carcasses of tanks or other military equipment NATO officials had expected to find.”

While NATO and Pentagon apparatchiks stood “by their claims to have significantly damaged” Yugoslav forces, the outlet admitted Belgrade’s units withdrawing from Kosovo “seemed spirited and defiant rather than beaten.”

They took with them hundreds of tanks, personnel carriers, artillery batteries, vehicles, and “military equipment loaded on trucks” completely unscathed by the bombing campaign.

‘Campaign analysis’

Contemporary declassified British Ministry of Defence files amply underline the catastrophic failure of NATO’s blitzkrieg of Yugoslavia. Once Milosevic finally capitulated and NATO and UN ‘peacekeepers’ were granted unimpeded access to Kosovo, they struggled to find a single “burnt out tank” or other indications of vehicle or equipment losses on the ground.

A June 7 “campaign analysis” noted, “NATO took a lot longer, required a lot more effort and damaged less than perhaps we believed we could achieve at the start of the air campaign.”

It added that the Yugoslav “war-fighting doctrine” placed “great emphasis on dispersal, the use of camouflage, dummy targets, concealment and bunkers” to avoid detection, and “early assessments indicate that they appear to have applied this doctrine very successfully.”

Adverse weather conditions were also routinely exploited as cover for anti-KLA operations. The memo further recorded “there was no evidence… of disintegration of Serb forces in Kosovo,” with Yugoslav military operations continuing apace until Milosevic agreed to withdraw from the province, “and beyond”.

Yet, these damning observations remained secret. At a June 11, 1999 press conference, US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Henry Shelton proudly displayed a variety of colourful charts, boasting how hundreds of Yugoslav tanks, personnel carriers, and artillery pieces had been decimated by NATO, without the alliance suffering a single casualty.

His crooked accounting of the bombing remained universal mainstream gospel until a May 2000 Newsweek investigation exposed the wide-ranging “coverup” via which the Pentagon had spun the “ineffective” assault as a resounding success.

When NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark, who oversaw the bombing, learned of the pronounced lack of damage to the Yugoslav military on the ground in Kosovo, he dispatched a dedicated team of USAF investigators to the province.

They “spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot” and turned up evidence of just 14 destroyed tanks. Meanwhile, of the 744 strikes on Yugoslav military equipment and installations claimed by Pentagon officials, just 58 were confirmed.

By contrast, USAF identified ample evidence of the Yugoslav military’s skill at deception. They found a key bridge had been protected from NATO bombers “by constructing, 300 yards upstream, a fake bridge made of polyethylene sheeting stretched over the river” – the military alliance “destroyed” the “phony bridge” many times.

Additionally, “artillery pieces were faked out of long black logs stuck on old truck wheels, and an anti-aircraft missile launcher was fabricated from the metal-lined paper used to make European milk cartons.”

Flummoxed, “Clark insisted that the Serbs had hidden their damaged equipment and that the team hadn’t looked hard enough.” So a new report was fabricated wholecloth, validating the fiction that NATO’s destruction of Yugoslav forces had been extensive. Newsweek noted its findings were “so devoid of hard data that Pentagon officials jokingly called it ‘fiber-free’.”

An official Department of Defense “After-Action Report to Congress” on the bombing campaign cited the report’s figures, although stressed no supporting evidence was forthcoming. With eerie prescience, Newsweek concluded:

“[This] distortion could badly mislead future policymakers… After the November 2000 presidential election, the Pentagon will go through one of its quadrennial reviews, assigning spending priorities. The Air Force will claim the lion’s share… The risk is policymakers and politicians will become even more wedded to myths like ‘surgical strikes’.”

“The lesson of Kosovo is civilian bombing works, though it raises moral qualms… Against military targets, high-altitude bombing is overrated. Any commander in chief who does not face up to those hard realities will be fooling himself.”

‘Incredibly different’

The “distortion” that NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia was a military triumph has endured ever since. Not only has it served as justification for multiple subsequent calamitous Western “interventions”, such as the 2011 destruction of Libya, but USAF continues to claim “the lion’s share” of US defence spending.

According to 2024 figures, over a quarter of Washington’s total defence budget – $216.1 billion – is earmarked for the Air Force. Additionally, $202.6 billion is spent on the Navy, which typically operates in close tandem with USAF.

However large these figures may appear on paper, they do not translate into serious war-fighting capability, as Operation Prosperity Guardian in Yemen amply underscored.

A little-noticed July 2024 Associated Press report on the return home of US fighter pilots after nine months of failing to thwart Yemen’s Red Sea blockade noted that battling an enemy capable of fighting back “in the most intense running sea battle the Navy has faced since World War II” had been deeply psychologically ravaging for all concerned.

As a result, Pentagon officials were investigating how to tend to thousands of pilots and sailors adversely affected by their involvement in the bruising effort, “including counseling and treatment for possible post-traumatic stress.”

One pilot told Associated Press, “most of [us]… weren’t used to being fired on given the nation’s previous military engagements in recent decades.” He described the experience of Ansarullah’s retaliation as “incredibly different” and “traumatizing”, as getting shot at is “something that we don’t think about a lot.”

A new experience it may be – but it’s one that Washington needs to adapt to urgently. As a July 2024 RAND Corporation report found the US military was woefully ill-equipped sustain a major conflict with “peer-level competitors” such as China for any length of time, and faced significant threats from “relatively unsophisticated actors” such as Ansarullah, who have been “able to obtain and use modern technology (e.g., drones) to strategic effect.”

As Axios has reported, Pentagon weapons procurer Bill LaPlante – a journeyman engineer and physicist – has been awed by Yemen’s use of “increasingly sophisticated weapons,” including missiles that “can do things that are just amazing.”

He claims that Yemeni capabilities are “getting scary”. Once the US has exhausted itself yet again, failing to crush the Yemeni resistance, we could see yet more of its arsenal in play – and in turn, another historic defeat of the Empire, as inflicted over the course of Operation Prosperity Guardian.

April 7, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

G4S Mercs Guarding Zelensky: Private Military Contractor or Undeclared Branch of SAS and MI6?

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 07.04.2025

Once touting itself as “the only international security solutions provider in Ukraine,” G4S has deployed up to 1,000 mercenaries to protect the West’s client state. Here’s what to know about them.

Headquartered in London and staffed by over 800K personnel across 85+ countries, G4S is a private security behemoth with a flair for hiring ex-military and intel officers.

A subsidiary of US private security giant Allied Universal since 2021, G4S has been an indispensable contractor for Western military ops, from Afghanistan and Iraq (where they were accused of paying off the Taliban and plundering religious sites in Mosul), to post-Gaddafi Libya, Sudan and Colombia (mercenary recruitment and training) and Israel (“security” at checkpoints, West Bank settlements and prisons).

G4S entered Ukraine in the mid-1990s, providing security consulting and investigative services for private clients, and guards for OSCE and EU missions. An Odessa-registered subsidiary was created in 1995, followed by a Kiev branch registered in Amsterdam in 1996.

G4S’s Ukraine footprint grew dramatically after the 2014 coup, and especially after 2022, with its mercs tasked with:

  • “securing” strategic facilities like ports, airports and major enterprises,
  • guarding valuable cargoes during shipping,
  • collecting intel on Russian military personnel,
  • training saboteurs,
  • operating private prisons (allegedly),
  • and providing “protective services” for top government officials and private VIPs, including the Ukrainian president’s office and Kiev’s city administration.

In 2023, the firm registered new sub-entities in Ukraine: G4S Ordnance Management and G4S Risk Management.

Prominent Russian military observer Alexander Artamonov suspects that G4S is private only in name, and that it and other prominent British PMCs like Prevail Partners are effectively an informal or undeclared branch office of Britain’s SAS and MI6.

The convenience of such PMC arrangements include plausible deniability when things go wrong, and involvement in activity which governments may not want to be openly associated with.

April 7, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Republican Voters on Ukraine Aid: Time to Turn Off the Cash Spigot – Poll

Sputnik – 07.04.2025

Unlike 83% of Democrats who continue to support pumping US financial aid to Ukraine, 79% of Republicans oppose such spending, a Wall Street Journal survey revealed.

The survey, carried out among 1,500 registered voters from March 27 to April 1, laid bare growing divisions between the two political parties over American foreign policy.

Only 31% of Trump’s GOP base view NATO favorably, compared to 81% of Democrats.

At least 62% of American voters believe that expanding US territory by including Greenland and Canada is a bad idea, according to the survey.

Only 25% of the respondents support this idea, while the remaining 13% said they did not know the answer to this question or refused to answer it at all. That said, more than half of Republicans (51%) support US President Donald Trump’s statements about territorial expansion.

April 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Ideological Fundamentalism in International Politics

Glenn Diesen | April 6, 2025

April 6, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

Germany Will Hold 800K Troop Drills to ‘Prepare for Russian Attack’

Sputnik – 05.04.2025

NATO troops will gather in Hamburg in September to practice troop deployments to the Baltic states and Poland, local media reports.

Germany’s army, the Bundeswehr, will hold massive military exercises in September involving NATO soldiers to practice a scenario of an allegedly possible “Russian attack,” with up to 800,000 servicemen to take part in them, the Bild newspaper reported.

The drills will be held in Hamburg for three days and will be dubbed Red Storm Bravo, the scenario is a Russian attack on the West, the publication says.

According to the publication, the exercises will be aimed at practicing the operational transfer of NATO troops to the Baltic countries and Poland, in which Hamburg, which has a “strategically important port,” will play a key role.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius previously stated that Germany should prepare for a possible war with Russia by 2029.

Russian President Vladimir Putin previously explained in detail in an interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson that Moscow was not going to attack NATO countries, there is no point in this. The Russian leader noted that Western politicians regularly intimidated their people with an imaginary Russian threat in order to distract attention from domestic problems, but “smart people understand perfectly well that this is a fake.”

Recently, the West has increasingly voiced ideas about a direct armed conflict between the alliance and Russia. The Kremlin, however, noted that Russia did not pose a threat, did not threaten anyone, but would not ignore actions that are potentially dangerous to its interests. In addition, in recent years, Russia has noted NATO’s unprecedented activity near its western borders. The alliance is expanding its initiatives and calls this “containment of Russian aggression.” Moscow has repeatedly expressed concern about the buildup of the Alliance’s forces in Europe. The Russian Foreign Ministry stated that Moscow remained open to dialogue with NATO, but on an equal basis, while the West must abandon its course toward militarizing the continent.

April 6, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Prof. JOHN MEARSHEIMER : ‘Ukraine Cannot Survive.’

Judge Napolitano – Judging Freedom | April 3, 2025

April 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism, Video | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Germany acting irresponsibly by sending troops to Lithuania

By Lucas Leiroz | April 3, 2025

Germany is moving forward with its remilitarization process amid ongoing tensions with the Russian Federation. For the first time since World War II, the country is creating a permanent military program to deploy troops abroad, which represents a dangerous escalation in the already fragile European security architecture.

The German Army’s 45th Armored Brigade is currently being deployed to Lithuania, where it will operate in the region close to the border with Belarus. The move is part of Germany’s plan to “strengthen NATO’s eastern flank,” which is seen as a necessity by Western military hawks, given that, in Europe’s assessment, a conflict with Russia could soon begin.

A ceremony was held in Vilnius on April 1, at which Brigadier General Christoph Huber was inaugurated as commander of the newly created German military unit to “protect” the Baltic states. The ceremony was announced by the German Bundeswehr Association (DBwV), a well-known lobby group for the German military-industrial complex. This shows how the escalation of European tensions is serving the selfish interests of specific groups, and not the real wishes of the German people.

General Huber stated in his speech that the Germans have a “clear mission” in Lithuania. According to him, Berlin must help the Baltic partners to guarantee European democratic principles, such as freedom and security, in the face of alleged “threats” on NATO’s eastern flank. The speech sounded like an attempt to justify or disguise the bellicose and irresponsible intentions behind the German military maneuvers.

“We have a clear mission. We have to ensure the protection, freedom, and security of our Lithuanian allies here on NATO’s eastern flank,” the official said

In fact, this German move is the result of a long process of expanding the actions of the country’s defense and security services abroad. Previously, Berlin had even updated its legislation to allow the German military intelligence service to operate in foreign territories considered part of NATO’s “eastern flank.” The justification given by officials was the alleged existence of significant threats from Russia, including attempts at espionage and sabotage against European targets – accusations that were never proven.

“The amendment grants the Military Counterintelligence Service the necessary powers to protect the Bundeswehr against espionage and sabotage by foreign powers, as well as against extremist attempts at infiltration from within its own ranks, even during foreign missions,” a spokesperson for the German Ministry of Defense said at the time.

In practice, it can be said that Germany is doing its best to increase its participation in European military affairs. In recent decades, the German army has been considered one of the weakest among the world’s great powers. Despite historically having a strong industrial defense capacity, Germany deliberately refrained from investing in the renewal of its military forces, irresponsibly relying on the American defense umbrella.

This situation has changed since 2022. Germany remains militarily weak, and is now also facing major problems with its defense industry, considering that the country no longer has a safe and cheap source of energy due to anti-Russian sanctions. However, despite its military weaknesses, Germany has expanded its strategic ambitions, trying to project power regionally as a kind of “European leader” jointly with France. Berlin, like almost the entire EU, has chosen Russia as a target, naming it an enemy and using it as an excuse for all sorts of irresponsible escalatory policies.

In other words, anti-Russian paranoia and the desire to protect the interests of EU elites are leading Germany to reverse a historic policy of reducing its military activities. It would be legitimate for the Germans to seek remilitarization in order to strengthen national sovereignty, but that is not what is happening now. Instead, Berlin is showing itself to be even more subservient to European elites, as it is using its own soldiers to escalate the EU’s war plans against Russia.

As Russian authorities have repeatedly stated, Moscow has no territorial interests in Western countries, so there is no reason for European states to “prepare for war”. However, these policies of “preemptive” militarization in Europe could easily escalate to a point of no return if the presence of troops on the Baltic borders with the Union State (Belarus and Russia) begins to generate incidents and frictions – triggering retaliatory measures.

NATO and the EU’s own military plans create the security problems that these organizations allegedly want to avoid. There is no risk of a “Russian invasion”, but if the security crisis continues to escalate, an open conflict in the future cannot be ruled out. If the Germans want to avoid a situation of increasing hostility, they will need to reconsider their military interventionism in the countries of the post-Soviet space.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

April 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment