Kiev supports terrorist organizations – former SBU officer
RT | November 12, 2024
Ukraine has been working with terrorist groups in the Middle East due to a shortage of trained soldiers in its fight against Russia, former Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) officer Vasily Prozorov has stated.
Speaking to RT on Tuesday, the ex-SBU officer claimed Kiev was deploying servicemen to Syria to train terrorists, with the aim of recruiting them.
“When we were working in Syria studying arms smuggling between Ukraine and Islamic terrorist organizations, we already received information that representatives of the Ukrainian special services were sending their people to Syria, to areas not controlled by the official government, to train terrorists,” Prozorov recalled.
He elaborated that “First of all, they are training [terrorist organizations] to fly drones … and secondly, they are recruiting personnel there because Kiev has very big problems with trained personnel on their territory.”
Prozorov went on to say that there are fewer people willing to fight in Ukraine, which is why Kiev is “looking for everyone they can reach, including among terrorist militants in the Middle East.”
The former SBU officer indicated that during a series of interviews he had managed to record with several captured Ukrainian soldiers, one of them – from the nationalist unit Kraken – admitted that servicemen from his battalion were on a mission in Sudan and participated in military operations against Sudanese authorities on the side of separatists.
“They went there on direct orders from Ukrainian intelligence,” Prozorov claimed. “If we add to this the information about how Ukrainian intelligence responded to the clash in Mali between fighters of the African corps and local terrorist groups, then a clear line can be traced that Kiev supports terrorist organizations,” Prozorov insisted.
A commando regiment operating under the Ukrainian military intelligence agency HUR, Kraken was established in 2022 by former members of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and other intelligence officers.
Spokesman for HUR Andrey Yusov has previously admitted his agency’s involvement in July’s deadly raid in Mali, when Tuareg insurgents ambushed and killed dozens of Malian forces and personnel from Russia’s Wagner Group. Yusov has said that HUR had provided the rebels with “necessary information, and not just information, which enabled a successful military operation.” According to Le Monde, Ukrainian spies shared their drone warfare techniques to help the rebels kill Russian security contractors.
Yusov’s remarks then sparked outrage in Mali and several neighboring West African countries, which have accused Ukraine of supporting aggression. The Malian military government and its ally in Niger responded by breaking off diplomatic relations with Kiev.
“I think that the more problems Ukraine has at the front, the more we will see Ukrainian mercenaries in all sorts of hotspots under the auspices of Western intelligence services …” Prozorov concluded.
Saudi crown prince demands Israel not attack Iran
MEMO | November 12, 2024
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman yesterday demanded Israel respect Iran’s sovereignty and refrain from attacking its territory, highlighting the friendly relations between Riyadh and Tehran.
Speaking at the Joint Arab-Islamic Extraordinary Summit in Riyadh, Bin Salman stressed that the international community must force Israel to “respect the sovereignty of the sisterly Islamic Republic of Iran and not attack its territory.”
Saudi Arabia and Iran have maintained high-level contact as part of efforts to contain Israel’s war on Gaza.
That diplomatic outreach led to the first phone call between Bin Salman and then-Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, just five days after the war broke out.
In October, Saudi Arabia announced it had conducted naval exercises with Iran and other countries in the Gulf of Oman.
Bin Salman and current Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian spoke on the phone on Sunday ahead of yesterday’s summit.
Threats to Provide Ukraine With German Cruise Missiles Are Merely ‘Paper Tiger’ Moves
Sputnik – 12.11.2024
CDU party leader Friedrich Merz, who seeks to become Germany’s new chancellor, has boasted that, if he gets the job, he would present Russia with an ultimatum: cease all combat operations in the Ukrainian conflict zone in 24 hours or Kiev gets German Taurus cruise missiles along with permission to use them to strike deep into Russian territory.
Merz’s bellicose rhetoric seems to be a product of the current political instability in Germany where the ruling coalition collapsed amid a “deep economic recession” and the loss of “residual hopes of good transatlantic relations” due to Donald Trump’s victory in the US election, says Paolo Raffone, a strategic analyst and director of the CIPI Foundation in Brussels.
“Merz understands that the heavyweights of Germany are the financial-industrial conglomerates who are openly against the war against Russia in Ukraine and the crazy sanctions against Russia and China. However, Merz must appease the war-minded Green [Party] who are also ideologically anti-Russian and anti-Chinese, to embark them in a possible government coalition,” he explains.
However, forming a new government might necessitate forming a coalition with the SPD, who, Raffone points out, “would not support Merz’s intent to lift restrictions on long-range armaments supplied to Ukraine and even less the idea of issuing an ultimatum to Russia.”
“Merz’s harsh rhetoric is a paper tiger – a desperate attempt to have a role in Ukraine after Trump’s win – that would probably also irritate the new US administration that has signaled the intention to de-escalate the confrontation,” the analyst remarks.
NATO support of Merz’s ultimatum initiative also seems unlikely as it would require unanimous approval of the military bloc’s members who would probably first wait for the United States, their “real ‘tutor’,” to weigh in on the matter.
“Trump (as also his predecessors and some EU leaders) is not a fan of NATO playing any direct concrete role in the war or post-war in Ukraine. Even Poland, that is genetically anti-Russian, would be very careful to support any Ukrainian capacity to strike inside Russia with West-provided missiles,” Raffone suggests.
He also warns that, with all the serious “domestic confusion” in Germany, “anything that any German leader says may just be reversed in the blink of an eye.”
“Moreover, the US, that is still occupying Germany with military bases and personnel and nuclear capacities, would not like to be dragged in any direct military confrontation with Russia,” Raffone adds. “None of the EU countries can be taken seriously without the consent of the US.”
EU Now Has Two Choices: New Arms Race or Mend Fences With Russia – Swedish Military Veteran
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 12.11.2024
The European Commission may redirect some €392 billion ($416 billion) from the 2021-2027 cohesion funds to support their defense industries and military mobility projects, The Financial Times reported on November 11.
The Ukraine conflict and Donald Trump’s return to the White House are likely to impose pressure on the EU to boost defense investments, according to the newspaper.
“After Trump’s victory, European leaders no longer can rely on a secure US backing and only have two choices, either rapprochement and resumption of good neighborly towards Russia or continued belligerence with its following an arms race and risk for escalation,” Mikael Valtersson, former Swedish military officer and ex-chief of staff with the Sweden Democrats, tells Sputnik. “Unfortunately most of the European leaders are supporting the second alternative.”
Many in the bloc would love to become more independent from the US in terms of defense, but it would require gargantuan military budgets which European countries are unable to afford, Valtersson argues.
“Without the US the EU has very limited power projection capabilities and even less nuclear deterrence capability,” he explains. “Building and keeping a strong nuclear capability will be extremely expensive for the limited European defense budgets.”
A possible way out is a shift from the expensive militarization and growing dependence on the US to resuming working relations with Russia, the pundit alleges. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly called for discussing common European security for all.
“A wise European policy in this environment would be to seek better relations with Russia,” Valtersson says. “Better relations with Russia is also a sentiment with growing support among the European population. It’s not improbable that several new governments will be elected in the next years that will share the will of a rapprochement with Russia.”
Trump’s war on “woke” ideology could trigger mass exit of Pentagon staff

By Ahmed Adel | November 12, 2024
If President-elect Donald Trump follows through on his campaign promises in his victory speech, the Pentagon could see personnel fired, especially “woke” generals who have embraced progressive movements associated with racial and social issues.
In his last term, Trump faced numerous forms of resistance, especially from the Pentagon, largely due to his position on security issues such as NATO or his willingness to put troops on the streets to suppress protests in the US. Former generals and defence secretaries have been some of the former president’s fiercest critics, labelling him a fascist and saying he was unfit to be president, a Reuters investigation found.
Having gained experience in his first term, Trump is expected to prioritise loyalty in key elements of his administration, which could lead to the removal of military officers and career civil servants he deems disloyal.
In June, when questioned by Fox News, Trump said he would fire generals described as “woke.”
“I would fire them. You can’t have (a) woke military,” Trump said.
According to the Reuters investigation, sources believe that the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr, a former fighter pilot and widely respected black military commander, is in Trump’s crosshairs after he spoke out on racial discrimination in the US following the May 2020 killing of George Floyd.
During the election campaign, Vice President-elect JD Vance expressed his opinion during an interview by stating that political leaders have to “get rid of them and replace” the people who are not aligned with the political vision that the head of state is trying to implement.
This speech corroborates the fear of some of the American elite who understand that this anti-woke movement by Trump could become broad.
Trump’s strongest anti-woke messaging during the election campaign aimed at transgender troops, and it is recalled that he had previously banned transgender service members, posting a campaign ad on X portraying them as weak, with the vow that “WE WILL NOT HAVE A WOKE MILITARY!”
Removing woke ideology from the US military is seen as imperative by Trump, especially after US News & World Report ranked Russia, and not the US, as having the world’s “strongest military.” Therefore, Trump will not only purge woke ideologues from the military but also those responsible for the war in Ukraine since, as it turns out, the war is responsible for strengthing Russia instead of weakening it.
US military figures facing repercussions for their fervent support for the war in Ukraine is something welcomed by Moscow, which has consistently called for peace negotiations, while the Kiev regime has consistently rejected them despite losing the war and experiencing catastrophic economic decay and demographic decline.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Trump’s statements in favour of peace in Ukraine differentiate him from other political figures in the US.
“At least [Trump] is talking about peace [in Ukraine]. He is not talking about confrontation, about the desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. This distinguishes him favourably from the current US administration. It is difficult to predict what will come next,” Peskov told Rossiya 1 television.
At the same time, Peskov noted that Trump is “less predictable” than current US President Joe Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris, the failed Democratic candidate and rival in the presidential race. According to the Kremlin spokesman, it is not possible to say now whether Trump will stick to the pacifist statements he made during his election campaign.
However, what is certainly predictable is that Trump’s war on “woke” ideology in the US military will not be limited to the purging of generals but also career civil servants at the Pentagon, who could be subjected to loyalty tests, according to current and former officials.
A senior US defence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters there was increasing concern within the Pentagon that Trump would purge career civilian employees from the department.
“I’m deeply concerned about their ranks,” the official said, adding that several colleagues had expressed concern about the future of their jobs.
“This will be 2016 on steroids and the fear is that he will hollow out the ranks and expertise in a way that will do irreparable damage to the Pentagon,” the official predicted.
In effect, it appears that great changes are coming to the Pentagon and US military once Trump enters the White House on January 20. How this reflects on policy remains to be seen, but it can be expected that the president-elect will focus more on challenging China and supporting Israel against Iran than the current administration’s priority of challenging Russia and supporting Ukraine.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Russia Will Not Tolerate Powers Alien to Black Sea to Establish Permanent Naval Presence There
Sputnik – 11.11.2024
Moscow is not going to allow powers alien to the Black Sea to maintain a permanent naval presence there, Russian presidential aide Nikolai Patrushev has said.
Russia has no intention of letting anyone weaken its positions in the region in question, Patrushev said during an interview with a Russian newspaper, adding that permanent naval presence of non-Black Sea countries in the waters “in violation of the Montreux Convention” will not be tolerated.
He further pointed out that the Russian Black Sea Fleet still retains its combat capabilities and is ready to repel all naval threats, despite the fact that Kiev’s “aggressive actions” in the region are being “coordinated by NATO specialists.”
In the meantime, Patrushev pointed out, the US and the UK have since lost much of their once-considerable naval power.
The British navy, for example, suffers from a severe deficit of sailors because naval service is simply no longer prestigious there, he said.
“The signs of naval power decline are seen in the US as well,” Patrushev added. “They have a massive fleet on paper, but in reality there is low morale among the seamen, chronic lack of personnel, the lack of repair capabilities and shipyard workers.”
Russia, on the other hand, maintains its status as one of the world’s leading naval powers and the Russian navy continues to perform all its duties, “including the most important one – nuclear deterrence.”
“Our opponents should know that Russia’s naval nuclear shield always stands guard over our country,” Patrushev stated.
He mentioned during the interview that while the US and its European allies pursue militarization of the Baltic Sea, Russia is taking additional measures to protect itself after Sweden and Finland joined NATO and against the backdrop of the Nord Stream blasts.
“Currently, ensuring security in the Baltic is the most important military and political task. Since the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO, as well as against the background of the Nord Stream blasts, Russia has been taking additional measures to protect its territorial integrity and economic sovereignty,” Patrushev told the newspaper.
Russia, India are early birds as Pax Americana is ending
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR – Indian Punchline – November 10, 2024
The working visit of Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov to Mumbai and Delhi on November 11-12 has been in the cards for sometime. It assumes added interest today as, in a delightful coincidence, it overlaps with the beginning of the end of Pax Americana in international politics.
Manturov, 55, is one of the brightest stars of the new generation of leaders in the Russian political firmament with a brilliant record as an economist and technocrat in the energy and military-industrial complex, two key sectors of the economy.
President Vladimir Putin has entrusted him with responsibilities that go far beyond the portfolio of Minister of Trade and Industry, a position he held for 12 years until May 2024 when he was elevated as First Deputy Prime Minister. Manturov is now a familiar face at the high table when Putin takes meetings on Ukraine war, which shows he wears many hats.
Manturov is the co-chairman of Russian-Indian joint commission, alongside External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar. To be sure, Jaishankar will have wide-ranging discussions with Manturov. Who else Manturov is meeting in Delhi will be an indication of the stirrings in the air in the Russian-Indian cooperation.
The timing of the visit is notable since the neoconservatives who dominated the Biden administration — Secretary of State Antony Blinken, CIA director William Burns, et al — are on their way out and a brave new world is taking shape in Washington, DC.
The influential CEO of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Ivo Daalder, who was the US ambassador to Nato, succinctly captured the imminent power shift in DC when he wrote in Politico in the weekend, “Trump won in a landslide. He helped Republicans take control of the Senate and may well help them keep the House (by the way, Republicans have flipped the House as well) — ensuring single-party control across all three branches of government. He can rightly claim a mandate to implement all the policies he touted… All the while, he’ll be shielded by a Supreme Court.”
Of course, Ambassador Daalder is an acolyte of the “rules-based order” and a firm believer in America’s manifest destiny to lead the world. He wrote in his column titled The end of Pax Americana: “I also worry about what this means for the rest of the world. In his first term, Trump made clear he doesn’t buy into Washington’s global leadership role as his predecessors have done. He doesn’t believe in leading — he believes in winning…
“Moscow and Beijing have long chafed at Washington’s leadership, and for the past decade, they’ve sought to counter and undermine it. They may now get their wish. Trump isn’t interested in sustaining the Pax Americana in the ways his 14 predecessors were… The end of the Pax Americana will have profound consequences…The Pax America will officially end on Jan. 20, 2025, when the US inaugurates Donald J. Trump as its 47th president. The country and world will be very different because of it.”
Suffice to say, we are getting a preview of this historic juncture. Although, taking place in the conditions under sanctions, Manturov’s agenda of discussions in Delhi will have a futuristic dimension. The point is, while the sanctions against Russia may take some time to be scrapped, their cutting edge — the fanaticism and the sound and fury with which Blinken and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen applied that intrusive diplomatic tool to dictate other countries’ economic and military relations with Russia — may now become blunt, what with all signs already pointing toward a Russian-American engagement.
The Indian side should be mindful of this transition to accelerate the economic and military-technical cooperation with Russia with a medium and long-term term perspective. This is one thing.
Second, we are edging toward a conversation between Trump and Putin. Do not be surprised if they decide to meet at an early date. Historically speaking, there is nothing like summitry to energise political systems with top-down culture as the US and Russia have.
Suffice to say, we are nearing a point when the International Criminal Court which has an arrest warrant against Putin won’t know where to hide itself. From our perspective, that opens the door leading to the rose garden for a state visit by Putin to India — perhaps, as the chief guest at the celebrations marking the 75th anniversary of the Indian Republic on January 26, 2025.
Putin is a great friend of India’s. Only two days ago, he described India as unparalleled in the global arena and went on to say Russia is strengthening its relationship with India on multiple fronts, with a high level of trust underpinning their bilateral ties. Putin paid fulsome praise to India’s rise saying, “India should undoubtedly be added to the list of superpowers, with its billion-and-a-half population, the fastest growth among all economies in the world, ancient culture, and very good prospects for further growth.”
To be sure, India finds itself in a truly privileged position in the international political arena with the consolidation of the Indian-Russian partnership, prospects opening for a spurt to take the US-Indian ties to new heights taking advantage of Trump’s goodwill, and, indeed, the nascent signs of a thaw in the troubled Sino-Indian relationship — and as the fastest growing major economy in the world.
India’s optimal aim should be to create synergy out of all three relationships running on parallel tracks — with Russia, US and China respectively. No matter the complexities of their mutual relationships, India should aspire for a confluence of the three streams for advancing its development.
There is a whiff of hope in the air for a warming of bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington under Trump, which have been in a free fall. But Russophobia is deeply entrenched in the American elites and Russia will remain a toxic issue. Yet, Trump has repeatedly stressed good relations with Putin, as well as mutual respect. And Putin is a very talented politician who understands Trump.
As for Russia-China relationship, Moscow and Beijing are at a high noon of partnership unparalleled in their history. That relationship is anchored in the great camaraderie between Putin and Chinese president Xi Jinping, is rock solid and will remain so despite the fluidity in the international environment.
Of course, there are misgivings about the trajectory of the US-China relationship going forward. But, here again, the crux of the matter is the US’ economic rivalry with China in the American mindset. Per se, China does not hold any threat to the US. And China, unlike Russia, does not challenge American power, influence and interests directly or by design.
A military confrontation between the US and China will not happen under Trump’s watch. Besides, the Indo-Pacific strategy is floundering, the latest sign being Indonesia, the largest country in southeast Asia, turning its back on US-led alliance systems. and seeking BRICS membership.
The presence of Tesla CEO Elon Musk as an influencer in Trump’s inner circle can be seen as a stabilising factor for US-China relations. Above all, only China can be a meaningful interlocutor to help Trump realise the ambitious MAGA project.
Indo-Pacific braces for Trump 2.0
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – November 10 2024
The victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential election is far from unexpected. Yet, the fact that he has won means that many countries across the world will brace for the impact this win will have on them.
This is especially true for countries in Asia – in particular, in the Asia Pacific region – where the Biden administration, despite its flawed plans, appeared willing to invest US resources, both economic and military, to offset China. Although Donald Trump is, in many ways, more anti-China than Joe Biden is, his anti-China geopolitics is confined primarily to one arena: the US-China trade (im)balance.
It means that the Trump administration will be far less interested in extending military and economic assistance to the regional countries than the Biden administration has been in the past four years. On the contrary, his administration is likely to slap heavy tariffs, which will negatively affect Washington’s bilateral trade with regional countries. In such a scenario, regional countries will have one key policy option: turn more towards China to resolve bilateral ties via diplomatic means and reduce their dependence on Washington.
The Aftermath of the Victory
If Trump’s previous four years in office are any guides to the future, Washington’s Indo-Pacific allies, such as Japan and South Korea, are deeply worried. As former officials of the Trump administration, such as the former National Security Adviser John Bolton, revealed later in their memoirs, Trump had plans to withdraw US military forces from South Korea, keep up with his planned rapprochement with North Korea, and demand massive payments from Japan to pay for the American defence role. During his campaign, Trump defended his foreign policy and repeatedly vowed to continue after assuming the presidency.
For Japan, defence payments are, however, only one of the major areas of concern. Trump will hit trade as well. A key Trump campaign pledge is slapping 10- to 20-percent tariffs on all imports to the United States. Trump has also vowed to “absolutely” block Nippon Steel Corp.’s proposed 2-trillion-yen ($13 million) acquisition of US Steel Corp. More importantly, the US-Japan trade gap has widened to the disadvantage of the US – a situation that Trump would like to reset. According to US official data,
“In 2022, both U.S. exports to Japan and imports from Japan continued to grow for a third year in a row. U.S. exports totaled $80.3 billion, an increase of 7.7% ($5.8 billion), and U.S. imports totaled $148.3 billion, an increase of 10.0% ($13.5 billion). The trade deficit was $68.0 billion, increasing 12.8% ($7.7 billion) from 2021”.
“Our allies have taken advantage of us more than our enemies,” Trump said in a media interview on October 15, referring to the US trade deficit and other issues. With Trump having repeatedly referred to cutting off US support for NATO, Japan’s idea of an ‘Asian NATO’, too, seems in deep trouble. The military pacts Joe Biden made with Japan, South Korea, and Australia are likely to face the same fate. According to Trump, one of the key reasons why the Biden administration entered into these pacts was the pressure the Ukraine conflict generated on these states.
Therefore, he believes, that if he can end the Ukraine conflict – which he promised to end quickly by cutting off US aid to Ukraine – this will allow for the US to divest its sources away from these countries. On the other hand, Trump would not only want South Korea and Japan to spend more on defence but also push them to join him in slapping tariffs on China, thus pushing them into a ‘trade war’ with Beijing. Given South Korea’s and Japan’s trade (im)balance with China, they are bound to suffer from such a policy step because China has the leverage to retaliate. Therefore, they are unlikely to initiate their ‘trade war’. Alternative routes, however, exist.
The Alternative Option
Official Think Tanks in India are already proposing that India should join the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Agreement. This policy shift probably speaks volumes about the direction that most regional countries might be willing to take. India is also one country that recently signed an agreement to jointly manage the disputed border. Now, this pact is crucial – not only because it signifies peaceful management of tensions, but also because the India-China border dispute is probably one major issue where China actually fought. This is unlike the South and East China Seas. Therefore, if China is able to diplomatically resolve its tense issues with India, there is little denying that other countries can do the same. There is, thus, a silver lining for countries like Japan, the Philippines, etc. to resolve their issues without relying on the US (or any other external power, such as the EU or NATO).
In some ways, an inward-looking approach, i.e., an approach that does not seek external mediation, would help push external powers permanently out of the region. Knowing that the Trump administration will itself be looking for disengagement, regional countries wouldn’t have to worry about annoying the US too.
For China, it presents an excellent opportunity to capitalise on US disengagement and deepen its ties with countries in the Indo-Pacific. Although China will probably be fighting a ‘trade war’ in the Atlantic, it can still find a major leeway in the Indo-Pacific. Its willingness and openness will only find regional countries ready to jump on the regional bandwagon of free trade for growth and diplomacy for dispute resolution.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
Trump must end wars – Dennis Kucinich
RT | November 9, 2024
US president-elect Donald Trump will have his hands full fixing the mess in foreign and domestic policy left by incumbent leader Joe Biden’s administration, according to Dennis Kucinich, two-time Democratic presidential candidate and retired eight-term US congressman.
In an interview with Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi broadcast on RT on Saturday, Kucinich said that the success of Trump’s presidency will depend on his ability to shift the focus of US politics from the “globalist aspirations of the State Department” to problems at home.
The veteran politician welcomed Trump’s victory over Democrat Kamala Harris in this week’s election, saying that it represents a “historic shift” in US politics towards “populism.”
“[The US] has come through a very dark period where the government put this country to the edge of World War III, and people don’t want that,” Kucinich stated, noting that ordinary Americans worry about simple things like paying bills and generally “making ends meet,” which he called “very practical aspirations they have in common with people around the world.” He said Trump’s presidency “will depend on not getting further involved in foreign entanglements.”
“This economy is shaking, the dollar is not in the same position it was in four years ago… the previous administration has not been successful in reviving the economy with all this money for Wall Street but not enough for main street,” he stated. Kucinich added that this happened “precisely” because the Biden administration poured billions into wars “that are not necessary.”
There’s a lot of work Trump will need to do, he is going to be faced with some serious decisions about scaling back the US position in Europe and the Middle East and to try to find a way that we can move past the events that the Biden administration embroiled America in.
Kucinich noted that he expects Trump to be able to extricate the US from global conflicts through his “deal-making finesse.”
“Trump is a deal-maker… a family man concerned about children and grandchildren. He’s not personally interested in seeing the US expand into war, he’s not a globalist in that way,” he stated.
Kucinich also suggested that Trump would be wise to lead the US towards cooperation with the “new world” that is “taking shape in response to disastrous sanctions and wars,” citing BRICS as one of the alignments that the US should consider working with.
You can watch the full interview here.
Biden allows deployment of US military ‘contractors’ to Ukraine – media
RT | November 9, 2024
The administration of outgoing President Joe Biden has lifted a de facto ban on deploying US defense contractors in Ukraine to repair American-made armaments, Reuters and CNN reported on Friday, citing anonymous Pentagon officials.
This reversal of previous US policy comes just as vocal Ukraine conflict skeptic Donald Trump won the popular vote and secured his second term in the White House. While it is unclear whether Trump would have continued the prior policy, he has repeatedly promised not to put American lives at risk and to rapidly conclude the conflict once in office again.
The potential American presence on the ground will be “small” and located “far” from the front lines, and they are not expected to engage in combat, Reuters wrote on Friday, citing an anonymous US official. As the US and its NATO partners have provided Kiev with increasingly sophisticated American-made armaments, such as F-16 fighter jets and Patriot air defense systems, restrictions have slowed repairs and proven increasingly challenging. Much of the equipment has been damaged beyond repair by Kiev’s own specialists.
The policy change aligns the Pentagon more closely with the US State Department and USAID, which already have contractors in Ukraine, according to another official.
“These contractors will help the Ukrainian Armed Forces rapidly repair and maintain US-provided equipment as needed so it can quickly return to the front lines,” CNN wrote on Friday, citing a defense official. Specifically, F-16 jets and Patriot batteries “require specific technical expertise to maintain,” they said.
Allowing US contractors to work in Ukraine will provide a faster alternative to the current method of transporting equipment to NATO countries like Poland and Romania for repairs, CNN noted.
Meanwhile the risks of being killed by Russian strikes will fall on the companies bidding for the Pentagon contracts.
“Each US contractor, organization, or company will be responsible for the safety and security of their employees and will be required to include risk mitigation plans as part of their bids,” CNN cited a defense official as saying.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously stated that Moscow is aware of the “direct involvement of NATO troops in this conflict.” He pointed out that several high-tech systems the US and its allies have provided to Kiev, such as ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles, require the involvement of Western officers to operate them.
The Russian Defense Ministry regularly reports airstrikes on repair facilities in Ukraine. This week alone, the Russian military carried out at least 38 strikes on Kiev’s military-industrial complex facilities, as well as supporting energy and military infrastructure, according to the latest report on Friday.
Israel über alles

By Ricardo Nuno Costa – New Eastern Outlook – November 8 2024
“Germany has only one place, and that’s on Israel’s side,” said German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in the Bundestag, justifying the delivery of arms to Tel Aviv.
One wonders if this partial stance is what is expected of a country that claims to be the leader of the European project, with geopolitical ambitions in an increasingly multipolar world. For the global majority, the answer is no, but in Germany, the subject is thorny and shrouded in taboos. To top it off, the Federal Republic has just passed a law to prevent it from being debated.
Berlin’s inability to call Tel Aviv to account on its international obligations only confirms Germany’s increasingly secondary role in the international arena. If the “engine of Europe” is constrained in its military role, it could at least be a diplomatic power, making use of its economic status. But its role is diminishing. Why is that?
In his latest book, “Krieg ohne Ende?” (War without end?), international political scientist Michael Lüders masterfully summarises the hypocrisy surrounding Germany’s involvement in the Zionist project from the beginning to the present day. The author suggests, in the form of a subtitle, “why we need to change our attitude towards Israel if we are to have peace in the Middle East.”
Germany is losing the credibility it has built up over decades in the eyes of the global majority. Today, the country is no longer seen with the same seriousness that we have become accustomed to in recent decades, but rather as a mere instrumental piece of the US in international relations. This is also the visible result of the “feminist foreign policy” that Annalena Baerbock has pursued as foreign minister over the last three years.
Defence of Israel is ‘Staatsräson’ of the Federal Republic
Germany has adopted the defence of Israel’s existence as ‘Staatsräson’ (raison d’État). It was during a visit by Chancellor Merkel to the Israeli Knesset in 2008 that this concept was first mentioned.
In the above-mentioned bestseller, it becomes clear that this principle is no accident, as it corresponds to the fact that Israel’s ‘raison d’État’ is the Holocaust, for which Germany is to blame. According to Mr. Lüders, the Jewish state used the Eichmann case to launch its ‘raison d’État’, while many other Nazi officials responsible for the persecution of the Jews had passed into the new Bonn nomenclature without being called to account. The most notorious case was that of Hans Globke, the eminence grise of the new regime, a key player in the USA’s fight against the USSR. He had previously drafted the Nuremberg race laws and was now Adenauer’s number two, protected by the new BND intelligence services and the CIA.
The SS officer Adolf Eichmann, kidnapped in Argentina by the Israelis, symbolically bore all the blame for Germany’s 1933-45 National Socialist’s period. After his hanging in 1962 for crimes against the Jewish people during the Holocaust, in the only judicial execution carried out in Israel to date, the FRG finally officially recognised Israel in 1965, after years of collaboration (since 1952). This marked the beginning of a complex relationship that remains opaque to this day.
An important part of this relationship has been the multi-billion dollar military industry within the Atlanticist framework. The most significant case, again unclear, was the corruption scandal over the sale of three nuclear-capable submarines and four corvettes sold during the Merkel governments to the Netanyahu government in 2016 for almost 4 billion euros, which ended up being paid for in part by German taxpayers.
In a current example, political scientist Kristin Helberg, who specialises in the Middle East, expressed her surprise on the public channel in October that Berlin was not helping Israel with defensive weapons against a hypothetical Iranian attack – which in her view would be legitimate – but by delivering ammunition to be used on civilian populations, contrary to the Geneva Convention.
Germany involved in a genocide
With its arms support for Israeli attacks on civilians in Gaza and Lebanon, Germany is not only committing an international offence that is costing it the current cases opened at the ICC and ICJ, but is also seeing its reputation stained in the biggest international forums by the global majority, on which its industrial export model depends.
On 14 October, German Foreign Ministry spokesman Sebastian Fischer said at a press conference in Berlin that the German government “sees no signs that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza” and that “Israel undoubtedly has the right to self-defence against Hamas”, and two days later Chancellor Scholz said loudly in the Bundestag that “there will be more arms deliveries – Israel can always count on that.”
Criticising Israel will be banned
In its increasingly radical philo-Zionist course, the German political class passed a new resolution “to protect, preserve and strengthen Jewish life in Germany”, to which only the parties of the governing coalition and the CDU/CSU were called, without consulting the AfD and BSW. The controversial and non-transparent resolution promises to pursue “increasingly open and violent anti-Semitism in right-wing and Islamist extremist circles, as well as a relativising approach and the rise of Israel-related and left-wing anti-imperialist anti-Semitism.”
The document mentions that “cases of anti-Semitism have increased” since the Hamas attack on Israel a year ago, but fails to mention that German law has since come to consider anti-Semitic the manifestation of various expressions in favour of the Palestinian cause such as the slogan “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free” among other slogans, chants, insignia or even posts published on the internet, which are now considered and counted as punishable anti-Semitic crimes.
“The German Bundestag reaffirms its decision to ensure that no organisation or project that spreads antisemitism, questions Israel’s right to exist, calls for a boycott of Israel or actively supports the BDS movement receives financial support,” the document goes on to say.
Recently, the rector of the Berlin Institute for Advanced Study, Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, complained that the freedom of study of the scientific community is under massive threat. “What distinguishes antisemitism from legitimate criticism of the Israeli government?” she asked. “And above all, who defines what antisemitism is? This is not at all clear. The definition is vague and leaves enormous room for legal uncertainty,” she asserted.
The divorce between the political class and public perception
It’s clear that the text of the new law aims to exclude the AfD from public debate, using the magic buzzword of the “far right”, but it also weighs heavily on the BSW, where the Palestinian cause and the multipolarist vision are obvious. A recent study by the Forsa research institute for Stern/RTL corroborates the clear rift between real and institutional Germany. Whilst the former doesn’t want the country to be involved in the Middle East war, the political class has guaranteed its indispensable support for Israel as a ‘national interest’. Voters from all German parties are therefore unequivocally opposed to further arms deliveries to Tel Aviv. The BSW electorate (85 per cent) is in the lead, followed by the AfD (75 per cent), but also 60 per cent of SPD voters, 56 per cent of CDU/CSU voters and 52 per cent of FDP voters. Interestingly, the Greens’ electorate showed a 50-50 tie. In the national total, this corresponds to 60 per cent of the citizenry, with the difference in the east being more significant (75 per cent against).
The case of the AfD is more curious because as a party that was born out of contestation with the system on the issues not only of immigration, but also of foreign policy and others, and its electoral base is clearly critical of Berlin’s pro-Western policy, its leadership also has a disproportionate presence of the philo-Zionist element, which is no different from the rest of the political class.
According to another poll also from October, by Infratest Dimap for public television ARD and WELT daily, only 19 per cent of AfD supporters consider Israel to be a reliable partner, a noticeably lower percentage than in the CDU/CSU (34 per cent) the SPD (36 per cent) and the Greens (38 per cent).
AfD distances itself from the Zionist consensus
Probably because he knew how to interpret this discrepancy between leadership and base, AfD co-leader Tino Chrupalla called for an end to aid to Tel Aviv and Germany’s ‘one-sided’ relationship with the Jewish state. “By supplying arms to Israel, you are accepting the dehumanisation of all civilian victims on both sides. They are not contributing to détente, but rather throwing fuel on the fire”, he said. It is “time to take a critical and objective look at the Israeli government”.
These statements come at a time of a clear move towards multipolarity within the party. Moreover, the principle of neutrality is the AfD’s official line. Its 2024 European electoral programme states that “the supply of arms to war zones does not serve peace in Europe”. At the risk of becoming just another political party, the AfD seems to want to meet the feelings of the majority of Germans and its social support base on foreign policy issues, which are now much debated by the general public.
It seems clear that after decades in the room, the elephant can no longer be hidden in the German political debate.
Ukraine aid program responsible for political crisis in Germany
By Lucas Leiroz | November 8, 2024
The political crisis in Germany does not seem to be coming to an end in the short term. The collapse of the government is worrying the country’s authorities, and there is also an unbalanced social scenario that puts the entire German stability at risk. In a recent speech, Olaf Scholz acknowledged that the situation in Ukraine is the main reason for this crisis, particularly due to the systematic support provided by Berlin to the Kiev regime.
The German Prime Minister stated that the main reason for the country’s political crisis is the lack of consensus among the authorities on military backing for Ukraine. He blamed former Finance Minister Christian Lindner for refusing to approve a budget plan to further boost funding for Kiev. According to Scholz, Lindner’s position created polarization among officials and broke up the coalition of the government.
Scholz recently dismissed Lindner from his post, creating strong friction between the different groups supporting the government. Lindner is also the leader of the Free Democratic Party, which is one of the three parties that make up the pro-Scholz coalition. His firing caused discontent not only among the party members, but also among the Social Democrats and the “Greens”, creating an atmosphere of distrust among Scholz’s team.
The rivalry between Scholz and Lindner started as a dispute over how to establish a policy of support for Ukraine consistent with Germany’s financial situation. The two officials had a bitter and possibly disrespectful discussion during a meeting in which Scholz tried to force Lindner to approve a new economic plan that would allow further military aid to Ukraine, thus ignoring some of Germany’s major social problems, such as economic decline and deindustrialization.
Scholz tries to disguise the nature of his economic plan by claiming that it includes efforts to promote the development of clean energy and investment in the automotive industry. However, the Ukrainian issue is the central factor in the proposal. Scholz says that it is necessary to expand aid policies for Kiev, considering that winter is coming, and Ukrainians will increasingly require international help to overcome the difficulties of the season. The chancellor also says that, with Donald Trump’s victory in the US, the main responsibility for supporting Ukraine will come to Germany and the Europeans, which is why he hopes that an economic plan establishing clear assistance for Kiev will be approved.
“The finance minister shows no willingness to implement this offer in the federal government for the benefit of our country. I do not want to subject our country to such behavior any longer,” Scholz said.
Scholz is currently in a critical political situation. His followers have become a minority in the government, as Lindner’s dismissal has also encouraged the resignation of other ministers and officials. It is possible that early elections will be called in March, and German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier has already spoken out in favor of this. Clearly, Germany is going through one of the most critical moments in its post-Cold War history, no longer being the stable, peaceful and developed country so praised by European social democrats in previous years.
Moreover, Scholz’s political opponents are pressuring the remaining officials in his government to establish a different agenda from that of the chancellor. For example, according to German media, Lindner has asked the Defense Ministry to impose new limits on military aid to Ukraine, justifying his request based on economic calculations that prove Germany’s inability to continue boosting assistance. Berlin has already halved its aid to Kiev, but Lindner and other realist politicians say that it needs to be cut further to overcome the country’s billion-dollar deficit.
In the end, it is clear how the conflict in Ukraine is responsible for the German political crisis. Olaf Scholz himself admits that the lack of consensus on the Ukrainian issue led to the collapse of his government, which seems to be reason enough for Berlin to rethink its policy towards Ukraine. Instead of firing ministers who think differently, Scholz should pay more attention to the calculations that expose the German reality, recognizing that it is not viable for the country to continue backing the Ukrainian regime in the long term.
If Scholz does not change his strategy on Ukraine, he will be defeated in new parliamentary elections. Furthermore, the political cost of his efforts will be in vain because German aid to Ukraine is not capable of changing anything in the conflict scenario. In the end, the Scholz government is likely to become yet another of the many European governments that have collapsed amid the crisis that has affected the continent since 2022.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
