Democrats Must Remove President Biden Now
IF ONLY WE CAN GET TO JANUARY 20
By LTG USA (RET) Michael T. Flynn | November 19, 2024
Today, the world is likely closer to nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. In its closing days, the Biden Administration is stumbling our nation into a potential nuclear war with Russia. If you have not been paying attention for the past two days, you need to know the basic facts. Then, let me offer what I believe needs to happen, and quickly.
Just before midnight Sunday night, AP reported “Biden has authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied missiles to strike deeper inside Russia, easing limitations on the longer range weapons…” The long-range, supersonic, ballistic missiles being unleashed on Russia most likely are ATACMs, standing for Army Tactical Missile System. These weapons were developed for offensive — not defensive — purposes. The configuration of the specific ATACMs sent to Ukraine is unknown, but they could have a range of from 100 to 190 or more miles. They can carry different types of weapons, including cluster bombs which can cause a multitude of civilian casualties. Despite many demands from Zelensky and the Ukrainian government, such long-range missiles had not been provided until last month, and until now — two weeks after the November election — their use had not been authorized.
There is a degree of speculation in all of these reports, since the White House has not seen fit to simply provide an advisory of exactly how it has ratcheted up the possibility of a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia. However, it does appear that other NATO members — including UK and France — have followed Biden’s dangerous lead in making similar offerings to Zelensky from their arsenals.
How should we view this shocking news? Perhaps the most succinct analyses came from Donald Trump, Jr., Tweeting: “The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives. Gotta lock in those $Trillions. Life be damned!!! Imbeciles!” Truly, I could not have said it better.
President Putin made clear in September how he would view this development: “Aggression against Russia by any nonnuclear state, but with the support of a nuclear state, is proposed to be considered as their joint attack on Russia.” He added: “Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in case of aggression, including if the enemy using conventional weapons poses a critical threat.” Do not take these words lightly. If Russia had announced it had provided missiles to Mexico and authorized their use to attack Americans living in San Diego, Los Angeles, Tucson, Phoenix, El Paso, and Corpus Christi, what would you expect the U.S. Government would do?
While the neocons who populate the Deep State, and their toadies in the establishment media tell us that it is President Putin who is to blame for everything that happens, as things stand now, these stupid, provocative acts that are endangering our nation are coming from the Biden Administration and not the Kremlin.
That summarizes the problem. Here is what needs to be done, now.
First, Vice President Harris and the Biden Cabinet must invoke the 25th Amendment, and remove Biden as President. Biden is sleep-walking us into a hot war with Russia without a Congressional Declaration of War. If he lives past January 20, Biden will take the position he took with Special Counsel Hur who nine months ago declared Biden could not be held responsible for crimes, as he was on old man with a poor memory. It’s past time to put Kamala in the Oval Office — then we will know the name of the person in charge — someone who was actually elected to office. And she would be a person who could be held accountable for what disaster might befall the nation. Bearing that type of responsibility might force Harris to act responsibly. No longer would decisions be made by Unknown and Unidentified Deep State Operatives who would scatter like roaches should a crisis occur.
Second, at the same time as we hope the Democrats will act, the duty also falls on the current House of Representatives to impeach Biden now for endangering the nation by taking steps that constitute acts of war without a Declaration of War — a power the Constitution gives only to Congress. The indictment should then go immediately to the Senate for trial and removal. President Trump was impeached after he (supposedly) lost the 2020 election. What’s good for the goose.
Third, incoming officials in the Trump Administration need to make contact with President Putin and his staff to de-escalate the situation as best as can be done. This is exactly what I was trying to do in my conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in January 2017. The same Deep State which intercepted my call and leaked it to the Press will do so again, because the Deep State is on the ropes and are desperate. No man who fears going to prison has the moral authority to lead America at this perilous time.
Fourth, the Trump Administration and incoming Attorney General Matt Gaetz need to make it clear that the identities of those Deep State operatives exercising the powers of the Presidency, now urging Biden to act recklessly, will be held to account personally, not just politically, but legally. If these operatives knew they would be named and the subject to prosecution, they just might straighten up, real quick.
Fifth, we need to pray that we have time for the will of the voters to take effect on January 20. Just two weeks ago, on November 5, 2024, the voters spoke on the great issue of war with great clarity. President Trump received a clear mandate for his promise to end the killing in the Ukraine and seeking peace. America had not seen that type of leadership since President Kennedy’s commencement speech at American University, and they voted for it overwhelmingly.
Will any of these approaches work? Maybe not. But we need to ask the Democrats to do their duty, and the Republicans to do their duty, and we need to do our duty to pray as well. We know President Trump will do his duty. If only we can get to Janaury 20.
NATO member says Russia has right to self-defense
RT | November 19, 2024
The West should pay attention to Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine, which reflects Moscow’s right and ability to defend itself from threats, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said.
Moscow unveiled the proposed changes to its strategic deterrent in September, while Ukraine was still clamoring for permission to use Western weapons for long-range strikes into Russian territory. The new doctrine was officially adopted on Tuesday, hours after Ukraine’s US-supplied missiles were used to target Bryansk Region.
“I think that this statement by Russia is, above all, a measure taken in response to the stance taken against it, concerning the use of conventional weapons,” Erdogan said on Tuesday at a press conference following the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
“I think that this issue must be considered by NATO officials. Russia has the right and ability to protect itself and to take measures for its defense. And it was compelled to take these measures,” Erdogan added.
NATO countries have the same right to self-defense, the Turkish leader said, but need to keep in mind that “there are no upsides to a war involving nuclear weapons.”
Multiple US outlets reported over the weekend that US President Joe Biden had lifted the restrictions on Kiev’s use of US-supplied rockets. The White House has neither confirmed nor denied the reports, but Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky claimed on Tuesday that they were true.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned the West that Kiev’s use of long-range missiles would change the character of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and make NATO a direct participant in the hostilities.
The US and its allies have funneled almost $200 billion worth of aid to Ukraine since 2022, while insisting this did not make them a party to the conflict. Although a NATO member state, Türkiye has not implemented sanctions against Russia and has maintained relations with both Moscow and Kiev.
Both Russia and Ukraine are Türkiye’s neighbors, Erdogan told reporters in Brazil, noting that Ankara must protect its bilateral ties with both. The three countries all border the Black Sea.
“I hope that we will achieve a definitive ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia as soon as possible and secure the peace the planet has been eagerly waiting for,” he added.
Türkiye hosted the initial negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in March 2022. The promising process collapsed after the West signaled unconditional support for Kiev and an unwillingness to make peace with Moscow.
The US Approves Long-Range Missile Strikes on Russia
Crossing the Line Between Proxy War & Direct War
By Glenn Diesen | November 19, 2024
The discussions about authorising long-range missile strikes on Russia are profoundly dishonest and misleading. The political-media elites present deeply flawed arguments to support the conclusion that attacking Russia with long-range missiles does not cross the line between proxy war and direct war. NATO may be successful in deluding itself, yet for Russia there is no doubt that this is an act of war.
1) “Ukraine has the right to defend itself”
The argument that Ukraine has the right to defend itself as a justification for NATO to authorise long-range strikes into Russia is very manipulative. The public is pulled in with a very reasonable premise, based on the universal acceptance of the right to self-defence. Once the public has accepted the premise, then it is presented as a foregone conclusion that Ukraine should be supplied with long-range missiles to attack Russia. The extent of NATO’s involvement in the war, as the main issue, is subsequently eliminated entirely from the argument.
The point of departure in an honest discussion should start with the right question: When is the line between proxy war and direct war crossed? These are US long-range missiles, their use is entirely dependent on US intelligence and targeting, they will be operated by US soldiers and guided by US satellites. Launching them from Ukrainian territory does not make it any less of a direct US attack on Russia. The US did not use these weapons against Russia for three years as it would amount to a direct attack, yet now the media is attempting to sell the narrative of this merely being uncontroversial military aid to enable Ukraine to defend itself. The US and some of its NATO allies have decided to attack Russia directly, and they should be honest about this intention. Attempts to present this as merely giving military aid to Ukraine to defend itself is an irresponsible effort to shame any dissent and avoid a serious discussion about attacking the world’s largest nuclear power.
It is imperative to place oneself in the shoes of opponents and ask how we would interpret the situation and what we would do if the situation were reversed. The US and NATO have invaded many countries over the years, so we do not need to delve too deep into our imagination to set up a hypothetical scenario. How would we react if Russia sent long-range missiles, dependent on Russian intelligence and targeting, operated by Russian soldiers and guided by Russian satellites, to attack NATO countries under the guise of merely helping Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen of another country to defend itself. We are deluding ourselves if we pretend that this would not be interpreted as a direct attack, and despite the great risks involved, we would be compelled to retaliate to restore our deterrent.
President Putin warned in September 2024 that Russia would interpret this as a direct attack and the beginning of a NATO-Russia War, and Putin argued that Russia would respond accordingly. The clarity in his language makes it nearly impossible to walk back the commitment to strike back at NATO, which is a deliberate tactic in the game of chicken as Russia cannot swirl away.
Stories about thousands of North Korean soldiers fighting in Ukraine or Kursk are used to legitimise the attack on Russia. This is most likely NATO war propaganda as there would be some evidence if thousands of North Korean soldiers were fighting. The North Koreans training in Russia are likely intended as a deterrent in case NATO would go to war against Russia, which is now seemingly the case. However, even if North Koreans involve themselves in the fighting, it does not make NATO any less of a participant in the war by attacking Russia.
2) Russia does not dare to retaliate against NATO
The reluctance by Russia in the past to sufficiently retaliate against NATO’s incremental escalations has been presented as evidence for the false conclusion that Russia does not dare to respond. There is no doubt that Russia’s restraints have emboldened NATO. President Biden once argued that sending F-16s would result in a Third World War, such warnings now are denounced as “Russian propaganda”. Russia’s failure to respond when the US crossed that line meant that the US could argue it did not amount to a direct attack. The rules of proxy war subsequently changed.
Russia’s dilemma over the past three years has been to either respond at the risk of triggering a Third World War, or to gradually abandon its deterrent and embolden the US. With every NATO escalation, Russia is facing an ever-higher price for its restraints. Russia has been under pressure to set a final red line, and NATO becoming directly involved in striking Russia is when the proxy war becomes a direct war.
How will Russia respond? There are several more steps on the escalatory ladder before pushing the nuclear button. Russia can intensify strikes on Ukrainian political targets and infrastructure, introduce North Korean troops that were likely intended as a deterrent for a situation like this, strike NATO assets in the Black Sea and logistic centres in Poland or Romania, destroy satellites used for the attacks on Russia, or attack US/NATO military assets in other parts of the world under the guise of enabling other countries to defend themselves.
Russia’s response will also depend on how these missiles are used. The New York Times suggested that the use of these missiles would be limited and primarily used to assist Ukraine with the occupation of Kursk, which also makes the US an even more involved participant in the occupation of Russian territory. Yet, Russia must respond forcefully to any breach of its red lines to counter NATO’s incrementalism / salami tactics that aim to chop away at Russia’s deterrent. The purpose of such incrementalism is to avoid an excessive response from Russia. The US will predictably impose restrictions on how these weapons can be used as it engages in direct attacks on Russia, but gradually these restrictions will be removed.
The extent of Russia’s response will depend on the extent to which these weapons are effective. The war is evidently being won by Russia, which is why Moscow is cautious about any escalations as it only needs time. However, if these weapons would actually turn the tide of the war, then Russia would consider itself compelled to launch a powerful attack on NATO as Russia considers this to be a war for its survival. NATO should therefore hope that these weapons are not effective, which undermines the reasoning for using them at all.
The missiles can turn the tide of the war
The war has already been lost, and Washington previously admitted that these long-range missiles would not be a game changer. There are two reasons for escalating the war at this point, to further bleed Russia and to sabotage Trump’s objective to end the war.
There is overwhelming evidence that the overarching objective for sabotaging all paths to peace and fighting the proxy war in Ukraine has been to weaken Russia as a strategic rival. Even Zelensky recognised in March 2022 that some Western states wanted to use Ukraine as a proxy against Russia: “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives”.[1] Both the Israeli and the Turkish mediators confirmed that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement to fight Russia with Ukrainians, while interviews with top American and British diplomats revealed that the weakening of Russia and regime change in Moscow was the only acceptable outcome.[2]
The timing of Washington’s decision is also suspicious and appears to aim at sabotaging Trump’s plans to end the war. By comparison, Obama similarly threw a wrench into US-Russia relations in late 2016 as he was handing the White House over to Trump. The anti-Russian sanctions and expulsion of Russian diplomats were intended to sabotage Trump’s promise to get along with Russia. Biden appears to follow the same playbook by risking a Third World War to prevent peace from breaking out in Ukraine. Biden was too cognitively impaired to run for re-election, yet he is supposedly mentally fit to attack Russia as he prepares to leave the White House.
The world today is more dangerous than at any other time in history. The decision by the US to attack the world’s largest nuclear power is a desperate effort to restore global primacy. What makes this situation even more dangerous is the absurd self-deception across the West that results in us sleepwalking towards nuclear war. The public should be presented with more honest arguments when making the case for risking a third world war and nuclear annihilation.
[1] The Economist. ‘Volodymyr Zelensky on why Ukraine must defeat Putin’ The Economist, 27 March 2022.
[2] G. Diesen, ‘Sabotage of the Istanbul Peace Negotiations’, Substack, 13 October 2024, https://glenndiesen.substack.com/p/sabotage-of-the-istanbul-peace-agreement
Russia’s Amended Nuclear Doctrine Signals Willingness to Take On ‘Global Power Obligations’ – Expert
Sputnik – 19.11.2024
The latest changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine were likely made for two main reasons, Mikael Valtersson, former Swedish military officer and ex-chief of staff with the Sweden Democrats, tells Sputnik.
“One is to make it even clearer that even attacks from Ukraine with conventional weapons with the active support of Western powers will be seen as a combined attack on Russia,” he says. “This will give Russia the opportunity to claim Casus belli [an event that either provokes or is used to justify a war], and legitimate defensive military action according to international law and the UN Charter.”
This move, Valtersson argues, is essentially an attempt by Russia to “strengthen deterrence towards the West and reduce the risk of Western escalation in Ukraine.”
“The second and very interesting aspect is the inclusion of allies in the nuclear deterrence,” he continues. “This must be seen in the light of the recent ratification of the new defense cooperation agreement with the DPRK (North Korea) that includes a paragraph akin to the NATO article 5. This stipulates mutual military aid to defend each other in case of aggression from other countries.”
“With the changes of Russian nuclear strategy, Russia says that aggression towards it’s allies will be seen as aggression towards Russia and might include a nuclear response,” Valtersson notes. “The Russian nuclear doctrine now reflects the fact that Russia has formal allies again.”
As Russia’s actions resulted in NATO ceasing to be the only military bloc in the post-Cold War world whose members “have been included in a common nuclear umbrella,” Valtersson suggests that this development has both pros and cons for Moscow.
“This makes Russia a more attractive ally, but also puts Russia into a more precarious situation, since it now has stronger obligations to live up to. A failure to live up to these obligations would result in a huge loss of confidence in Russian willingness to support allies, and the Kremlin of course knows this,” he elaborates. “That means that this decision to change the nuclear doctrine must be seen as a real willingness of Russia to extend its nuclear deterrence to other allies.”
Valtersson also remarks that it would be interesting to see what new defense agreements Russia might sign with nations such as Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Algeria “and a multitude of Sub-Saharan states,” which could both “greatly increase the security of these states and Russian standing in the world” and, “increase the risk of Russian involvement in new conflicts.”
“To summarise, this is a clear signal that Russia now is willing to take on the obligations that are needed to be a real global power,” he adds.
Russia’s new nuclear doctrine (KEY POINTS)
RT | November 19, 2024
Russian President Vladimir Putin has officially signed a new national nuclear doctrine that outlines the scenarios in which Moscow would be authorized to deploy its nuclear arsenal. Here are the key points of the updated document, as stipulated on the Kremlin’s website.
- State policy on Nuclear Deterrence is defensive by nature, it is aimed at maintaining the nuclear forces potential at the level sufficient for nuclear deterrence, and guarantees protection of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, and deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies. In the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.
- The Russian Federation considers nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence, their use being an extreme and compelled measure, and takes all necessary efforts to reduce nuclear threat and prevent aggravation of interstate relations, that could trigger military conflicts, including nuclear ones.
- The Russian Federation ensures nuclear deterrence toward a potential adversary, which is understood to mean any individual states or military coalitions (blocs, alliances) which see the Russian Federation as a potential adversary and possess nuclear arms and/or other weapons of mass destruction or conventional forces with a significant combat capability. Nuclear deterrence is also ensured toward any states which provide the territory, airspace, and/or maritime space under their control as well as resources for preparing and conducting an aggression against the Russian Federation.
- An aggression of any single state from a military coalition (bloc, alliance) against the Russian Federation and/or its allies will be regarded as an aggression of the coalition (bloc, alliance) as a whole.
- An aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies of any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state will be regarded as their joint attack.
- The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear arms and/or other weapons of mass destruction against itself and/or its allies, as well as in the event of an aggression against the Russian Federation and/or the Republic of Belarus as constituents of the Union State using conventional arms, if such an aggression creates a critical threat for their sovereignty and/or territorial integrity.
- The decision to use nuclear weapons is taken by the President of the Russian Federation.
Why Putin should ignore Biden’s pathetic ATACMS provocation
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 18, 2024
As provocations go, the latest by President Joe Biden to permit the use of long-range missile strikes on Russia is certainly audacious. But, ultimately, in practice, it is a pathetic gesture by a lame-duck president that will have no impact on Russia’s anticipated military victory against the NATO-armed Kiev regime.
Biden’s reported decision is a desperate last-bid gamble to incite an escalation with Russia and to sabotage incoming plans by President-elect Trump to end the conflict in Ukraine. Biden’s move is reckless, reprehensible, and odious. But it should not be given any credibility as a serious threat.
Russia would be best to ignore it. Of course, Russia has to defend itself against any increased potential threat to its territory that such weapons may pose. Nevertheless, Moscow should continue exercising the strategic restraint that President Putin is renowned for, and not retaliate over the provocation.
Understandably, Russian politicians and media have reacted furiously to U.S. media reports that Biden gave the Ukrainian military the green light to deploy American-made ATACMS for striking deep into Russian territory. The ground-launched Mach-3 supersonic missiles have a range of up to 300 kilometers.
The audacity and arrogance of the American ruling class knows no bounds. It has sanctioned Russia to the hilt (to no avail mind you), it has weaponized a NeoNazi regime in Kiev, it has killed civilians in the Russian territory of Crimea already with ATACMS, and so on. Now Biden is ramping up the assault capability deep into Russia.
Two months ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that if the U.S. took such a move, then it would dramatically alter the very essence of the conflict in Ukraine, one where Moscow would see the United States and its NATO partners as “direct participants” in a war against Russia.
Putin’s reasoning was correct. The deployment of ATACMS and other sophisticated long-range missiles against Russia would inescapably mean that American and NATO personnel were manning these systems. The Ukrainian military – riven with desertion, in disarray, and suffering from poor morale – would not be capable of targeting and operating such munitions. The use of ATACMS, or air-launched JASSMs, and the British and French Storm Shadow and Scalp cruise missiles to hit Russia is tantamount to NATO’s direct involvement in a war against Russia.
The implication of what Putin said was grave and potentially catastrophic. If the Western states took that step, the result could mean an all-out war between nuclear powers.
When Putin issued his stark warning in September, Biden and other Western leaders, including Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer, appeared at the time to heed it and back down from considerations to permit the Ukrainian regime to use long-range missiles against Russia.
Now, however, Biden has flipped to finally give his approval, according to reports. The style of anonymous U.S. officials briefing the New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press has all the hallmarks of an orchestrated psychological operation.
What has changed?
Simple. Donald Trump won the U.S. presidential election on November 5 with a resounding victory in defiance of the political establishment that wanted Kamala Harris to win. The Republican president-elect takes over in two months when he is inaugurated on January 20. Trump has repeatedly said he will negotiate an end to the nearly three-year conflict in Ukraine, which has seen the U.S. and NATO allies bankroll a corrupt regime in Ukraine to the tune of $200 billion.
And yet after all that obscene wasting of Western public money to bloat the war machine, Russia is going to defeat the NATO proxy. The stakes for NATO’s future and the Western imperialist war machine could not be higher.
The impressive electoral mandate for Trump suggests that the American public wants the U.S. warmongering to stop and for their mounting economic and social needs to be taken care of as a priority.
Under Trump, the war racket could well be over. His nomination last week of Tulsi Gabbard – an outspoken critic of the NATO proxy war in Ukraine – as his Director of National Intelligence is a major sign of his bold intentions of negotiating a diplomatic settlement to the conflict. That means the end of the blood money flowing into the coffers of the Western military-industrial complex and Wall Street. Biden and the Democrat candidate Kamala Harris were the puppets of the war racket. To perform well, they mouthed endless Russophobia, making negotiations impossible with Moscow, and they swore to keep the conflict in Ukraine going “for as long as it takes.” European leaders like Starmer, Macron, and Scholz are equally contemptible.
As Biden packs his bags for his overdue retirement, he is rendering desperate last-minute services to the war racket that lies at the putrid heart of American capitalism. Last week, his Secretary of State Antony Blinken (another non-entity puppet) said the Biden administration would release a further $9 billion in military aid to Ukraine so that it could keep fighting the war well into next year.
Likewise, the reported green light from Biden on the use of long-range missiles is another ploy to keep the war racket going. Trump could reverse the decision when he enters the White House, but over the next two months, the Biden administration seems to be trying to sabotage Trump’s peace intentions by escalating the conflict to a dangerous point of no return.
Russia should not take the bait. For a start, the United States does not have a large supply of ATACMS to give to Ukraine. Any use of these missiles will be limited. The Kiev regime’s so-called president Vladimir Zelensky – he canceled elections months ago and rules by decree – has no chance of stopping the rapidly advancing victory of Russian forces, even with a few ATACMS.
No, this is not about defending Ukraine or enabling Zelensky’s ridiculous “victory plan”. It’s all about the American-led Western imperialist deep state wanting to provoke Russia into a dreadful escalation to keep the war profits churning.
Biden’s gesture is reckless, but it is something that should be treated with contempt. As he wanders off to the oblivion of his retirement dementia, people will soon forget about this failed politician. His 50-year career was one long shift of prostituting for U.S. imperialism.
Legally, Russia could respond to Biden’s provocation with reciprocal attacks on U.S. and NATO sites. But such an escalation is exactly what the imperialist deep state of the U.S. and its NATO lackeys are betting on.
The provocative gesture is more symbolic than a substantive threat. Russia should ignore it and focus on demolishing the NATO proxy regime in Kiev, and with that, thereby deal a fatal blow to U.S. and NATO credibility.
Le Figaro deletes SCALP missile claim
RT | November 18, 2024
The French daily Le Figaro has walked back its claim that France and the UK have allowed Ukraine to use long-range missiles they have supplied to strike targets deep inside Russian territory. The original claim appeared shortly after the New York Times reported on Sunday that outgoing US President Joe Biden had given Kiev the green light for such strikes.
The UK was the first to provide Ukraine with its long-range Storm Shadow missiles back in May 2023, with France following suit several months later, with its own version of the system, named SCALP. The US delivered its ATACMS rockets in the fall of that year.
Despite Kiev’s repeated requests to allow it to use the weapons to strike targets deep inside Russia, its Western backers had until recently publicly refused to acquiesce, citing concerns over potential uncontrollable escalation.
In its now-amended article on Sunday, Le Figaro originally claimed that the “French and the British had authorized Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory with their SCALP/Storm Shadow missiles.”
However, in an updated version of the piece, any mention of the supposed permission or SCALP/Storm Shadow rockets is gone. The initial wording is, however, still accessible in a cached snapshot of the report.
Speaking to reporters ahead of an EU ministerial meeting in Brussels on Monday, France’s top diplomat, Jean-Noel Barrot, clarified that there was “nothing new” with respect to Paris’ stance on long-range strikes on internationally recognized Russian territory, adding that such a scenario remained an option.
On Sunday, the New York Times, citing anonymous US officials, reported that the White House had given the green light for Ukrainian strikes on Russia’s Kursk Region, using US-supplied ATACMS missiles.
The NYT and several other media outlets have reported that Washington could extend its approval to allow Ukraine to strike other parts of Russia.
Neither the White House nor the Pentagon has commented on the matter.
In his video address on Sunday, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky cautiously welcomed the reported development, stressing that “strikes are not carried out with words. Such things are not announced.”
“Missiles will speak for themselves. They certainly will,” he added, without elaborating.
Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told media outlets on Monday that if confirmed, Biden’s reported decision would constitute a “qualitatively new round of tension.”
Back in September, President Vladimir Putin warned that since Ukrainian forces lack the necessary capabilities and knowledge to use Western-supplied long-range missiles, permission for strikes deep into Russia would mean that “NATO countries [have] become directly involved in the military conflict.”
Scholz desperately tries to prevent Germany from being seen as open enemy by Russia
By Lucas Leiroz | November 18, 2024
The recent phone call between Olaf Scholz and Vladimir Putin has caused a lot of controversy in Western politics. The German leader has been criticized for his relatively diplomatic stance, since most Western politicians believe Moscow should be treated as an “international pariah”. However, the moves made by the US, France and the UK shortly after Scholz’s call may be the main explanation for his contact with the Russian president.
Recently, the German Chancellor called the Russian President and held a conversation lasting about an hour on sensitive topics in bilateral relations. Commenting on the details of the conversation, Scholz explained that this was an opportunity to reaffirm the German and European stance and to make it clear to Putin that support for Kiev will not wane. He also said that he considers it important to maintain dialogue with Russia, despite his publicly pro-Ukrainian stance on the conflict, and emphasized the necessity of European leaders participating in the diplomatic process. In addition, Scholz surprisingly promised to call Putin again in the future.
“The conversation was very detailed but contributed to a recognition that little has changed in the Russian president’s views of the war – and that’s not good news (…) It was important to tell him [Putin] that he cannot count on support [for Kiev] from Germany, Europe, and many others in the world waning (…) There are those in Germany who consider the lack of negotiations with Putin a good idea, but I am not one of them (…) Soon I will talk to the president of Russia again (…) In my view, it would not be a good idea if there were talks between the American and Russian presidents and the leader of an important European country was not also doing so,” he said.
The reaction to Scholz’s initiative was extremely negative. Vladimir Zelensky said that the German leader had opened a “Pandora’s box” by starting a dialogue with Putin. Zelensky emphasized his unrealistic desires for victory, stating that there will be no “Minsk 3.0” and tacitly promising to take the war to its ultimate consequences.
“Chancellor Scholz told me that he was going to call Putin (…) Now there may be other conversations, other calls (…) We know how to act. And we want to warn: there will be no ‘Minsk-3’. We need real peace,” Zelensky said.
In fact, the conversation between Scholz and Putin seemed at first to be yet another move in the direction of Europe’s attempt to take a leading role in an alleged “peace process” that some EU diplomats have been trying to promote since Donald Trump’s victory. However, the recent announcement that the US has lifted restrictions on “deep” strikes against Russia may be an interesting key to understand the real purpose of the phone call.
On November 17, several Western media outlets announced that Joe Biden had lifted restrictions on the use of American long-range weapons against targets in Russia’s “deep” territory. In addition, shortly after the announcement, rumors emerged, which have not yet been officially denied, that France and the UK had followed the American example and also authorized such operations by Ukraine.
As Russian officials have repeatedly stated, this is an irreversible escalation of the conflict, as it substantially changes the nature of the war. Long-range weapons are not operated by Ukrainian military personnel, but by NATO specialists illegally sent to the battlefield. Until now, Moscow has been tolerant of the use of such weapons inside the New Regions, since the West considers them Ukrainian territories. However, long-range strikes inside the territory that the West recognizes as Russian would mean incursions by NATO itself into the Russian Federation, which would legitimize, in accordance with recent changes in Russian military doctrine, a nuclear response.
Joe Biden is apparently using his final days in the White House to destroy the entire global security architecture and then give to Donald Trump a world at open global war. US’ main military allies in Europe, the UK and France, are following this same path and co-participating in the Biden-led catastrophe. However, Scholz seems cautious. Germany has so far not supplied Ukraine with long-range missiles, with Scholz saying “Germany has made a clear decision about what we will do and what we will not do,” and that “this decision will not change.”
Of course, significant decisions are not made in a hurry. The authorization of the strikes was certainly planned for a long time and Biden chose precisely the current moment, during the G20 Summit in Brazil, to lift the restrictions without causing a major political and media impact, hoping that the world would be distracted by the event bringing together the main global leaders in Rio de Janeiro.
In this sense, it is possible that Scholz knew in advance of what was about to happen and decided to talk to Putin beforehand to make it clear that Germany would not send long-range weapons and, therefore, would not be participating in the escalation promoted by Biden. In this way, Scholz hopes to spare Berlin from the possible devastating consequences that an unrestricted war between Russia and NATO would cause.
There are two facts that advocate this assessment. Scholz recently blamed support for Ukraine for the crisis in his government. The coalition backing the German chancellor has collapsed and he now appears worried about the future of his position. This may be driving him to act desperately to avoid even more negative consequences for his government.
Furthermore, on the same day that the restrictions were lifted, German defense minister Boris Pistorius made a public statement emphasizing Germany’s position not to send long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine, stating that such a move would mean direct German involvement in the conflict.
“The Taurus would not be a game changer. Our mission is different. We now have to ensure that Ukraine continues to receive sustainable supplies (…) It would only be tenable to deliver [these weapons] if we determine and define the targets ourselves, and that is again not possible if you don’t want to be part of this conflict,” he said.
It is difficult to believe that all these moves are mere coincidence. Scholz has acted irresponsibly since the beginning of the conflict, but he seems completely incapable of dealing with an uncontrolled escalation. The chancellor is afraid of what the war could bring to Germany and to himself if the point of no return is crossed. His call to Putin was a desperate attempt to free Germany from the consequences of the war. It remains to be seen whether he will have enough political strength to resist the pressure from his own Western “partners” from now on.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
Against Rubio
By Connor Freeman | The Libertarian Institute | November 17, 2024
Marco Rubio’s foreign policy vision is the antithesis of America First as he advocates for wars and increased military spending in Ukraine, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific. During the 2015/2016 GOP presidential primaries, Rubio was a fervent supporter along with Hillary Clinton, of a no-fly-zone in Syria which could have sparked World War III. “The United States should work with our allies, both Arab and European, to impose a no-fly zone over parts of Syria,” Rubio said.
Rubio has been on the America Last side of every foreign policy issue since he took office, he was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton’s disastrous regime change war in Libya and he opposed Barack Obama’s modest troop withdrawal in Afghanistan after his surge accomplished nothing besides making the Taliban stronger and getting more American soldiers killed.
More recently, Rubio has insisted that Israel should attack Iran “disproportionately” which is a direct call for an all out war with Iran and risks the safety of US troops in the region.
Rubio co-authored an amendment to the 2024 NDAA with Senator Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s former running mate, that would prevent Donald Trump or any future president from exiting the free-riding, war-seeking NATO alliance without Senate approval or an Act of Congress.
Regarding Beijing, he has boasted, “We need a military focused on blowing up Chinese aircraft carriers.”
Moreover, Rubio supports keeping American troops in harm’s way in Iraq indefinitely and even opposed repealing the outdated 2002 AUMF which unconstitutionally authorized the catastrophic Iraq War. Likewise, he backs the open-ended illegal US occupation of roughly a third of Syria, launched by Obama, which Trump attempted to end and finally bring our troops home.
Biden Authorizes Ukrainian Long-Range Strikes Into Russia Using ATACMS Missiles – Reports
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 17.11.2024
The US and its allies spent months debating whether or not to give Ukraine the go-ahead to use its NATO-provided long-range strike systems to target Russia. In September, President Putin warned that allowing Kiev to use its Western long-range missiles on Russia would mean NATO’s direct participation in a war against the Russian Federation.
President Biden has signed off on the Ukrainian military’s use of US-made ATACMS missiles to try to help defend its faltering positions in Ukrainian-occupied areas of Russia’s Kursk region, the New York Times reported on Sunday, citing US officials apprized of the situation.
Officials told the newspaper that they “do not expect the shift” in policy “to fundamentally alter the course of the war” (NYT’s phrasing), and indicated that Biden could further authorize Kiev to use the weapons in directions besides Kursk in the future.
Washington reportedly expects the ATACMS to be used to strike troop concentrations, military equipment, logistics, ammunition depots and supply lines, all with the goal of “blunt[ing] the effectiveness” of the ongoing Russian military operation to clear Kursk of Ukrainian forces.
According to NYT’s information, some Pentagon officials opposed delivering the missile systems to Ukraine in the first place due to the US Army’s limited supply. Others reportedly expressed fears that their delivery and use could escalate the conflict and even prompt direct Russian retaliation against US and NATO forces – something President Putin has explicitly warned about.
The ATACMS go-ahead also appears to be connected to to the increasingly dire situation for Ukrainian forces across the front, with US officials said to have become “increasingly concerned” about the Ukrainian army being “stretched thin by simultaneous Russian assaults in the east, Kharkov and now Kursk.”
President-elect Trump’s statements about seeking to quickly end the conflict have also reportedly weighed in the outgoing administration’s decision, NYT said.
What Are ATACMS?
The Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) is a solid-fuel, surface-to-surface ballistic missile with an effective firing range of up to 300 km, and a maximum velocity during boost phase of up to Mach 3, or 1 km/second.
The weapon’s ordinance varies wildly depending on model and block number, and can include 500 pound (230 kg) penetrating high-explosive blast fragmentation warheads, or other explosives weighing between 160 and 560 kg, including anti-personnel and materiel cluster ‘bomblets’. ATACMS also vary in terms of the guidance systems they carry, which can include inertial guidance and/or built-in GPS.
An unspecified number of ATACMS were ‘quietly’ shipped to Ukraine in the spring of 2024, with the US restricting their use to the local battlespace, and the Russian military regularly reporting on the downing scores of the weapons in fighting over the summer.
President Putin’s September warning about the implications of NATO countries freeing Kiev’s hand to use long-range missiles to target areas deep inside Russia seemed to have influenced alliance plans to do so, with the bloc publicly backpeddling on its plans later that month.
Tulsi Gabbard, the new U.S. intel chief… a brave call to debunk NATO’s war propaganda in Ukraine
Strategic Culture Foundation | November 15, 2024
The nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as the United States intelligence supremo has sent shockwaves through the American and NATO establishments. The Western news media – always a dutiful echo chamber for deep-state policymakers – is reverberating with horror at her nomination by President-elect Donald Trump.
That reaction is a good sign that something significant has happened.
The potential appointment of Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) could be the most consequential decision yet by Trump in forming his cabinet.
If one move could signal the foreign policy direction under the 47th president, Gabbard’s nomination is the most salient and potentially the most constructive on the key issue of world peace.
Time magazine headlined with the U.S. intelligence community’s response to Gabbard’s selection. “We are reeling,” it was reported. Reuters reported that the Western “spy world is vexed.” Meanwhile, in The Atlantic, an establishment mouthpiece, Gabbard was denounced as a “threat to the security of the United States.”
That’s a staggering charge to levy on the person who is going to be head of national security.
It is almost hilarious to see the apoplectic reaction in the U.S. establishment and its servile mainstream media.
CNN’s news anchor Jim Sciutto was distraught in sharing his concerns with colleague Richard Quest, remarking that Gabbard’s views “contradict” almost everything about U.S. foreign policies.
If we may paraphrase that exchange, the sentiments were: Oh my God, how terrible! Whatever shall we say now about all the lies we have been spinning for years and getting fat salaries for?
After all, as far as the U.S. corporate media are concerned, especially those channels and newspapers associated with the Democrats, the establishment, and the deep state intelligence apparatus, Tulsi Gabbard has been smeared as a “Russian asset.”
It is indeed profoundly challenging – one might even say, earth-shattering – to the deep state if Gabbard becomes Director of National Intelligence.
As with Trump’s other cabinet picks, the nominations will have to be approved by Senate panels. So there is a while to go before her post is confirmed. A lot can change or be derailed.
Trump’s cabinet picks this week have been keenly watched by observers trying to discern the future foreign policies of the next presidency, which begins in January after his inauguration. Trump’s early call-ups this week of hawkish figures Pete Hegseth for defense and Marco Rubio for secretary of state caused dismay among some critics of U.S. foreign policy who wanted a fundamental break from warmongering and hostility toward Russia, China, and Iran, among others.
Then came Trump’s selection of Tulsi Gabbard. The former Congresswoman has gained wide popular American and international respect for her outspoken and independent criticism of U.S. militarism in the Middle East and Ukraine.
However, the U.S. political establishment and media have slandered her as a “traitor” and a “Russian asset” for her views criticizing Washington’s regime change wars in Syria and the Middle East. In 2017, Gabbard traveled to Syria and met with President Bashar al-Assad. She spoke out against Washington’s covert policy of sponsoring terrorist militia for regime change in Damascus. For telling the truth, she was vilified as an “apologist” for Assad.
More recently, the “apologist” slur was thrown at her again after Gabbard opposed the U.S. and NATO’s arming of the Kiev regime and the proxy war against Russia. She said that the conflict in Ukraine could have been avoided if Russia’s security concerns about NATO’s threatening expansion had been taken into consideration. How refreshing to hear that sanity and objectivity.
In a twisted way, the CNN clapping seals are correct. Her views on the conflict in Ukraine do indeed contradict the U.S. establishment and media’s propaganda about “Russian aggression.” Her views unequivocally debunk the wall-to-wall “news” propaganda as false and serve as a warning to the public that NATO’s lies are dragging the world into a nuclear war.
The role of Tulsi Gabbard in the second Trump administration – if she makes it through Senate vetting – cannot be overstated.
In her DNI capacity, she is the intel supremo who oversees the CIA and NSA. Through her daily briefings to the president, Gabbard will play a crucial role in President Trump’s foreign policymaking. Given Trump’s freewheeling style, it can be fairly assumed that Gabbard’s input into policymaking will have much greater influence than the secretaries of defense or state. She will call the shots, and Trump will designate Hegseth, Rubio, and others to follow suit on the policies.
Some critics of Gabbard have pointed out that she is unduly supportive of Israel. That is a valid concern.
Nevertheless, in relations with Russia, China, and Iran, Gabbard has been a trenchant and tenacious voice of reason. She has courageously advocated peaceful negotiations and diplomacy along with historical understanding as a way to avoid military conflicts. Her reasonable emphasis on diplomacy illustrates just how extremist the U.S. “mainstream” has become in its promotion of wars and more wars.
Gabbard is a veteran of the Iraq War and appears to have been deeply affected by the human cost of wars. She has repeatedly condemned endless wars that are endemic to U.S. imperialism. Her honesty in criticizing the failings and faults of American policy, calling it out often as criminal, is admirable.
She quit the Democrat party in 2022, condemning it for its relentless warmongering policies. She endorsed Trump for the White House because, she said, he would prevent World War Three by stopping the reckless proxy war in Ukraine.
President-elect Trump has said that he wants to end the conflict in Ukraine as one of his priorities.
Some commentators have expressed skepticism about the chances of Trump making a peace settlement in Ukraine. Even senior Russian figures have said they do not expect significant change in U.S. policy.
Still, Russia has clearly stated that it is open to dialogue and diplomacy. Moscow has said it will respond positively to Trump’s outreach. And Trump is reported to be ready to appoint an envoy of credible stature to explore a peaceful solution in Ukraine.
Now, there’s the rub. Russia is adamant that its conditions for peaceful settlement must involve its original objectives: no Ukraine membership of NATO, denazification of the Kiev regime, and acceptance of realities on the ground, meaning recognition of Russia’s regained historical territories. Russia will not accept a frozen conflict, and given the rapid military advances it is making against the NATO-backed regime, Moscow is in a position to fully demand its terms.
If Trump is serious about finding a peaceful resolution, he will have to accept Russia’s terms. That will require an understanding of how that conflict started and how to reverse it. No bluster, no bravado, and certainly no browbeating Russia.
Tulsi Gabbard can provide the necessary counsel to Trump upon which a lasting peace settlement can be made because she understands the history of that conflict and has debunked the false propaganda that the U.S. establishment, the Democrats, some Republicans, and the corporate media have peddled for far too long.
In the meantime, Russia must advance towards its righteous goals in Ukraine. And right now, the best contribution to peace is to defeat the corrupt Nazi regime in Kiev in short order.
Featured Video
It’s the Occupation, Stupid
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A superpower and “the world’s sickest warrior state”
By Paul J. Balles | March 8, 2010
Living through five or six major wars has hardened me to what I thought were the extremes of inhuman cruelty and brutality.
Two things made those extremes almost bearable: the brutality always revealed – at least according to the media coverage – the viciousness of the enemy. It was therefore quite understandable when our “brave men and women” pulverized the enemy.
Films of Japanese torturing captive Americans somehow justified holding Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II; and only a small percentage of Americans found the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unreasonably vengeful at best, at worst, depraved.
The media giants in America portrayed the North Koreans as barbaric beasts with their captives, quite unlike their southern counterpoints – our allies during the Korean War. No one ever felt the need to explain how the South Koreans were a civilized breed while the North Koreans were absolute savages, at least according to the official line.
In Vietnam, our warriors justifiably (or so the media made us believe) dropped napalm on the North Vietnamese who had the gall to hide in villages and tunnels to ravage our invaders. At least it was accepted practice until some rogue photojournalist filmed a young girl screaming down a Vietnamese road in flames. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- IRGC: Israeli, US universities in region legitimate targets after strikes on Iranian university
- Trump admits Iran hit USS Ford carrier: ‘We ran for our lives’
- Battle for Hungary: EU attacks on Orban are a sign of worse things to come
- Iraqi resistance conducts drone strike on US-run base in Syria
- Failing to Defeat Hezbollah, Israel & US Pressure Syria’s Ahmed al-Sharaa to Join War
- US-Israeli war on Iran drives global fertilizer prices up 40%
- Hezbollah’s Surprise Weapons Redefine Ground Battle with Israel
- Yemen joins fight against US, Israel by firing missiles at occupied territories
- Seizing the Kharg: Washington’s path to defeat in the Persian Gulf
- Iran reports 500 US casualties in strikes on covert US military sites
- If Americans Knew
- Over 300 US service members wounded, majority have brain injuries – Not a ceasefire Day 169
- Researchers at Human Rights Watch Resign Over Blocked Report on Palestinian Refugee Return
- Jewish Groups Are Backing a War Americans Don’t Want
- Eric Fingerhut Thinks He’s the President of the Jews
- Top Jewish Philanthropists, Rabbis Urge Israeli President to Take Action Against ‘Jewish Extremists’
- Don’t Be Fooled. Zionist Leaders Have Always Wanted to Control Southern Lebanon
- Israel’s widespread use of torture is a core element of its genocide against the Palestinian people
- In Israel’s War on Iran, Many Middle East US Bases Rendered “All But Uninhabitable”
- ‘Burn the lawn’: Israel pursues ‘Rafah model’ in southern Lebanon
- A genocide here, an amputation there
- No Tricks Zone
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
- New Study Documents A 20-Year Pause In Arctic Sea Ice Decline – Driven By Internal Variability
- Wake-up Call: Survey Shows Majority Of Germans Now Favor Postponing Climate Targets!
Aletho News 