Latest ‘Zircon’ test reaffirms Russian hypersonic dominance
By Drago Bosnic | December 6, 2024
On December 3, the Russian military demonstrated the true design of its 3M22 “Zircon” hypersonic missile for the first time. The footage shows the weapon being launched from the 3S14 UKSK vertical launch system (VLS). The launch platform was the Russian Navy’s “Admiral Gorshkov”, a frigate that regularly causes panic in NATO headquarters due to its long-range anti-ship and land-attack capabilities.
The first confirmed combat deployment of the “Zircon” occurred in January last year, although it’s very likely it was already used in 2022. In combination with high maneuverability, the missile’s maximum speed of Mach 9 (approximately 11,000 km/h) makes it effectively impossible to intercept, especially at very low altitudes, giving enemy forces mere seconds to react.
Information on the maximum range varies significantly, but informed military sources speculate it depends on the “Zircon’s” flight profile. According to Army Recognition, when flying low, it can reach up to 500 km, which is in line with basic physics, as the atmosphere is much denser at such altitudes. However, Russian tests have confirmed ranges of up to 1,500-2,000 km, as flying higher greatly extends the missile’s reach.
The “Zircon” is a two-stage weapon, with the first being a solid-fuel booster, while a scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) engine takes over after the missile has accelerated enough to enable its functioning (ramjets and scramjets can usually operate only after a certain velocity has been attained). It’s the world’s first and only operational weapon of this type.
The political West is particularly terrified of the “Zircon’s” multipurpose capabilities, as it can be launched by various platforms, be it submarines, surface combatants and/or land-based platforms. The missile is also nuclear-capable, meaning that it can be used on a strategic level, although its conventional capabilities are no less concerning to NATO, as its sheer speed and kinetic energy are unmatched by anything the world’s most vile racketeering cartel can deploy. As per usual, in order to somehow mask its inferiority (measured in decades at this point) in hypersonic technologies, the political West usually resorts to propaganda to denigrate the “Zircon”, primarily by pushing the laughable narrative that the Neo-Nazi junta shot down a third of all “Zircons” fired by the Russian military.
However, not a single remotely informed military source takes such claims seriously. On the contrary, even Western ones admit that “no known technology has been proven to consistently counter hypersonic threats, meaning adversaries could not intercept the Zircon in real-time, mainly when launched from long distances”, as the aforementioned Army Recognition report posits. The publication also admits that “for the United States and NATO, the Zircon represents a new generation of missile technology that could shift the balance of power, particularly in naval operations”, as its “extreme speed and the variety of launch platforms it can be deployed from increase its threat to naval assets such as aircraft carriers and destroyers” and that this “could severely limit Western operational reach”.
This is certainly true and confirms that NATO militaries are extremely worried about the possibility of such missiles proliferating to sovereigntist nations, a development that could severely limit the political West’s ability to conduct unprovoked aggression against the world. It should be noted that the United States, NATO and its other vassals and satellite states are mostly thalassocracies that focus on naval power projection, particularly on massive capital ships (such as aircraft carriers). These large and slow-moving targets are effectively sitting ducks for the Russian Navy which is focusing on deploying much smaller surface combatants such as frigates and corvettes that could carry the “Zircon”. Such vessels are far more affordable, while the missile itself gives them a strategic reach.
This asymmetric advantage is very difficult to match, particularly as the political West is decades behind in hypersonic propulsion technologies. Worse yet, any large-scale deployment of a land-based variant of the “Zircon” would also greatly diminish NATO’s land warfare capabilities, as the missile could easily target both high-value assets and large troop concentrations.
Its sophisticated guidance systems ensure pinpoint precision even at hypersonic speeds, making such strikes particularly deadly for high-tech opponents. The “Zircon” uses a combination of INS (inertial navigation system) and radar homing to achieve this. As the missile flies at 11,000 km/h, the air pressure in front of it forms a plasma cloud, absorbing radio waves and making it effectively invisible to radar.
This phenomenon, colloquially known as plasma stealth, and its sea-skimming capability, make intercepting an incoming “Zircon” effectively impossible. One downside of plasma stealth is that it greatly diminishes the ability to communicate with the missile, which is one of the many reasons why nobody in the political West has been able to develop a working hypersonic weapon. However, Russian scientists found a way to circumvent this, giving Moscow an unprecedented technological edge, as the “Zircon” is capable of information exchange during flight, allowing it to receive constant updates and adjustments in real-time. This doesn’t only ensure pinpoint precision, but it also enables timely retargeting, confirming the claim that the missile can engage moving targets.
The KRN, a Belgrade-based military think tank that gave several fascinating interviews to InfoBRICS, posited that the “Zircon” can be used by existing land-based platforms of the Russian military, specifically the K300P “Bastion-P” coastal defense system. I’m also a long-time member of this organization and we’ve suggested this was the case years ago. The genius of Russian military specialists becomes all the more apparent when one realizes that the “Zircon” was made to fit not just into the previously mentioned 3S14 VLS, but also the K300P. Back in 2023, along with my KRN colleagues, I had the chance to analyze the size of the P-800 “Oniks” supersonic cruise missile and determined that these missiles fit into identical launchers, both on naval vessels and land-based platforms.
This greatly enhances the “Zircon’s” already impressive versatility, making it a highly flexible weapon with a simultaneous tactical, operational and strategic impact. In addition to the aforementioned naval role, it can also be used in strikes on land-based critical military infrastructure such as command centers, airbases, SAM (surface-to-air missile) and ABM (anti-ballistic missile) systems, army bases and numerous other strategic targets.
It greatly complements Russia’s existing hypersonic weapons arsenal, including the “Iskander-M”, “Kinzhal” and the latest “Oreshnik” missile systems. It fits perfectly into Moscow’s non-nuclear (and nuclear) deterrence policies and has already been used in response to NATO-backed terrorist attacks, giving the perpetrators mere minutes (or seconds in some cases).
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Nuclear conflict risk, Ukraine and Syria escalation: Lavrov’s interview with Tucker Carlson
TNC | December 5, 2024
View at Bitchute
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has given an exclusive interview to conservative American journalist Tucker Carlson this week. The two talked about a wide range of topics of international concern, primarily the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the state of US-Russia relations. Here’s the full text of the conversation.
Carlson:
Minister Lavrov, thank you for doing this. Do you believe the United States and Russia are at war with each other right now?
Lavrov:
I wouldn’t say so. And in any case, this is not what we want. We would like to have normal relations with all our neighbors, of course, but generally with all countries, especially with a great country like the United States. And President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly expressed his respect for the American people, for American history, for American achievements in the world, and we don’t see any reason why Russia and the United States cannot cooperate for the sake of the universe.
Carlson:
But the United States is funding a conflict that you’re involved in, of course, and now is allowing attacks on Russia itself. So that doesn’t constitute war?
Lavrov:
Well, we officially are not at war. But what is going on in Ukraine is what some people call a hybrid war. I would call it a hybrid war as well, but it is obvious that the Ukrainians would not be able to do what they’re doing with long-range modern weapons without the direct participation of American servicemen. And this is dangerous, no doubt about this.
We don’t want to aggravate the situation, but since ATACMS and other long-range weapons are being used against mainland Russia as it were, we are sending signals. We hope that the last one, a couple of weeks ago, the signal with the new weapon system called Oreshnik, was taken seriously.
However, we also know that some officials in the Pentagon and in other places, including NATO, started saying in the last few days something like that NATO is a defensive alliance, but sometimes you can strike first because the attack is the best defense. Some others in STRATCOM, Thomas Buchanan is his name, representative of STRATCOM, said something which allows for an eventuality of exchange of limited nuclear strikes.
And these kinds of threats are really worrying. Because if they are following the logic which some Westerners have been pronouncing lately, that don’t believe that Russia has red lines, they announced their red lines, these red lines are being moved again and again. This is a very serious mistake. That’s what I would like to say in response to this question.
It is not us who started the war. Putin repeatedly said that we started the special military operation in order to end the war which the Kiev regime was conducting against its own people in parts of Donbass. And just in his latest statement, President Putin clearly indicated that we are ready for any eventuality. But we strongly prefer a peaceful solution through negotiations on the basis of respecting the legitimate security interest of Russia, and on the basis of respecting the people who live in Ukraine, who still live in Ukraine, being Russians. Their basic human rights, language rights, religious rights, have been exterminated by a series of legislation passed by the Ukrainian parliament. They started long before the special military operation. Since 2017, legislation was passed prohibiting Russian education in Russian, prohibiting Russian media operating in Ukraine, then prohibiting Ukrainian media working in the Russian language, and the latest, of course there were also steps to cancel any cultural events in Russian. Russian books were thrown out of libraries and exterminated. The latest was the law prohibiting the canonic Orthodox Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
You know, it’s very interesting when people in the West say we want this conflict to be resolved on the basis of the UN Charter and respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and Russia must withdraw. The Secretary General of the United Nations says similar things. Recently his representative repeated that the conflict must be resolved on the basis of international law, the UN Charter and General Assembly resolutions, while respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It’s a misnomer, because if you want to respect the United Nations Charter, you have to respect it in its entirety. The United Nations Charter, among other things, says that all countries must respect the equality of states and the right of people to self-determination. And they also mentioned the United Nations General Assembly resolutions, and this is clear that what they mean is the series of resolutions which they passed after the beginning of this special military operation which demand the condemnation of Russia, that Russia get out of Ukraine; territory in its 1991 borders. But there are other United Nations General Assembly resolutions which were not voted on, but which were consensual, and among them is a declaration on principles of relations between states on the basis of the Charter. And it clearly says, by consensus, everybody must respect the territorial integrity of states whose governments respect the right of people for self-determination, and because of that represent the entire population living on a given territory.
To argue that the people who came to power through military coup d’état in February 2014 represented Crimeans or the citizens of eastern and southern Ukraine is absolutely useless. It is obvious that Crimeans rejected the coup. They said, leave us alone, we don’t want to have anything with you. So we did: Donbass and Crimeans held referendums, and they rejoined Russia. Donbass was declared by the putschists who came to power a ‘terrorist group’. They were shelled, attacked by artillery. The war started, which was stopped in February 2015.
The Minsk agreements were signed. We were very sincerely interested in closing this drama by seeing the Minsk agreements implemented fully. It was sabotaged by the government which was established after the coup d’état in Ukraine. There was a demand that they enter into a direct dialogue with the people who did not accept the coup. There was a demand that they promote economic relations with that part of Ukraine. And so on and so forth. None of this was done.
The people in Kiev were saying we would never talk to them directly. And this is in spite of the fact that the demand to talk to them directly was endorsed by the [UN] Security Council. The putschists said they are terrorists, we would be fighting them, and they would be dying in cellars because we are stronger.
Had the coup in February 2014 not happened and the deal which was reached the day before between the then president and the opposition [been] implemented, Ukraine would have stayed in one piece by now, with Crimea in it. It’s absolutely clear. They did not deliver on the deal. Instead they staged the coup. The deal, by the way, provided for the creation of a government of national unity in February 2014, and holding early elections, which the then president would have lost. Everybody knew that. But they were impatient and took the government buildings the next morning. They went to this Maidan Square and announced that they had created the government of the winners. Compare the government of national unity to prepare for elections and the government of the winners.
How can the people whom they, in their view, defeated, how can they pretend that they respect the authorities in Kiev? You know, the right to self-determination is the international legal basis for the decolonization process which took place in Africa on the basis of this charter principle, the right to self-determination. The people in the colonies, they never treated their colonial powers, colonial masters, as somebody who represents them, as somebody whom they want to see in the structures which govern those lands. By the same token, the people in the east and south of Ukraine, people in Donbass and Novorossiya, they don’t consider the Zelensky regime as something which represents their interests. How can they do that when their culture, their language, their traditions, their religion, all this was prohibited?
The last point is that if we speak about the UN Charter, resolutions, international law, the very first article of the UN Charter, which the West never, never recalls in the Ukrainian context, says, “Respect human rights of everybody, irrespective of race, gender, language, or religion.”
Take any conflict. The United States, UK, Brussels, they would interfere, saying, “Oh, human rights have been grossly violated. We must restore the human rights in such and such territory.” On Ukraine, never, ever have they mumbled the words “human rights,” seeing these human rights for the Russian and Russian-speaking population being totally exterminated by law. So when people say, “Let’s resolve the conflict on the basis of the Charter,” – yes. But don’t forget that the Charter is not only about territorial integrity. And territorial integrity must be respected only if the governments are legitimate and if they respect the rights of their own people.
Carlson:
I want to go back to what you said a moment ago about the introduction or the unveiling of the hypersonic weapons system that you said was a signal to the West. What signal exactly? I think many Americans are not even aware that this happened. What message were you sending by showing it to the world?
Lavrov:
Well, the message is that you, I mean the United States, and the allies of the United States who also provide these long-range weapons to the Kiev regime, they must understand that we would be ready to use any means not to allow them to succeed in what they call the strategic defeat of Russia.
They fight for keeping the hegemony over the world on any country, any region, any continent. We fight for our legitimate security interests. They say, for example, 1991 borders. Lindsey Graham, who visited some time ago Vladimir Zelensky for another talk; he bluntly, in his presence, said that Ukraine is very rich with rare earth metals and they cannot leave this richness to the Russians. We must take it. We fight.
So they fight for a regime which is ready to sell or to give to the West all the natural and human resources. We fight for the people who have been living on these lands, whose ancestors were actually developing those lands, building cities, building factories for centuries and centuries. We care about people, not about natural resources which somebody in the United States would like to keep and to have Ukrainians just as servants sitting on these natural resources.
So, the message which we wanted to send by testing in real action this hypersonic system is that we will be ready to do anything to defend our legitimate interests.
We hate even to think about war with the United States, which will take nuclear character. Our military doctrine says that the most important thing is to avoid a nuclear war. And it was us, by the way, who initiated in January 2022 the message, the joint statement by the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council saying that we will do anything to avoid confrontation between us, acknowledging and respecting each other’s security interests and concerns. This was our initiative.
And the security interests of Russia were totally ignored when they rejected at about the same time the proposal to conclude a treaty on security guarantees for Russia, for Ukraine in the context of coexistence and in a context where Ukraine would not ever be a member of NATO or any other military bloc. These security interests of Russia were presented to the West, to NATO and to the United States in December 2021. We discussed them several times, including during my meeting with Antony Blinken in Geneva in January 2022. And this was rejected.
So we would certainly like to avoid any misunderstanding. And since the people, some people in Washington and some people in London, in Brussels, seemed to be not very capable of understanding, we will send additional messages if they don’t draw the necessary conclusions.
Carlson:
The fact that we’re having a conversation about a potential nuclear exchange and it’s real… thought I’d never see.
And it raises the question, how much back-channel dialogue is there between Russia and the United States? Has there been for the last two and a half years? Is there any conversation ongoing?
Lavrov:
There are several channels, but mostly on the exchange of people who serve [prison] terms in Russia and in the United States. There were several swaps.
There are also channels which are not advertised or publicized, but basically the Americans send through these channels the same message which they send publicly. You have to stop, you have to accept the way which will be based on the Ukrainian needs and position. They support this absolutely pointless ‘peace formula’ by Vladimir Zelensky, which was additioned recently by [his] ‘victory plan’. They held several series of meetings, Copenhagen format, Burgenstock. And they brag that [in the] first half of next year they will convene another conference and they will graciously invite Russia that time. And then Russia would be presented an ultimatum.
All this is seriously repeated through various confidential channels. Now we hear something different, including Vladimir Zelensky’s statements that we can stop now at the line of engagement, line of contact. The Ukrainian government will be admitted to NATO, but NATO guarantees at this stage would cover only the territory controlled by the government, and the rest would be subject to negotiations. But the end result of these negotiations must be the total withdrawal of Russia from Ukrainian soil. Leaving Russian people to the Nazi regime, which exterminated all the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking citizens of their own country.
Carlson:
If I could just go back to the question of nuclear exchange. So there is no mechanism by which the leaders of Russia and the United States can speak to each other to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that could kill hundreds of millions of people.
Lavrov:
No. We have this channel which is automatically engaged when a ballistic missile launch is taking place.
As regards this Oreshnik hypersonic mid-range ballistic missile. 30 minutes in advance, the system sent the message to the United States. They knew that this was the case and that they don’t mistake it for anything bigger and really dangerous.
Carlson:
I think the system sounds very dangerous.
Lavrov:
Well, it was a test launch, you know.
Carlson:
Yes. Oh, you’re speaking of the test, okay. But I just wonder how worried you are that, considering there doesn’t seem to be a lot of conversation between the two countries. Both sides are speaking about exterminating the other’s populations. That this could somehow get out of control in a very short period and no one could stop it. It seems incredibly reckless.
Lavrov:
No, we are not talking about exterminating anybody’s population. We did not start this war. We have been, for years and years and years, sending warnings that pushing NATO closer and closer to our borders is going to create a problem.
In 2007, Putin started to explain [this] to the people who seemed to be overtaken by the ‘end of history’ and being dominant, no challenge, and so on and so forth.
And of course, when the coup took place, the Americans did not hide that they were behind it. There is a conversation between Victoria Nuland and the then-American ambassador in Kiev when they discuss personalities to be included in the new government after the coup. The figure of $5 billion spent on Ukraine after independence was mentioned as the guarantee that everything would be like the Americans want.
So we don’t have any intention to exterminate Ukrainian people. They are brothers and sisters to the Russian people.
Carlson:
How many have died so far, do you think, on both sides?
Lavrov:
It is not disclosed by the Ukrainians. Vladimir Zelensky was saying that it is much less than 80,000 persons on the Ukrainian side.
But there is one very reliable figure. In Palestine during one year after the Israelis started their operation in response to this terrorist attack, which we condemned. And this operation, of course, acquired the proportion of collective punishment, which is against international humanitarian law as well. So during one year after the operation started in Palestine, the number of Palestinian civilians killed is estimated at 45,000. This is almost twice as many as the number of civilians on both sides of Ukrainian conflict who died during ten years after the coup. One year and ten years. So it is a tragedy in Ukraine. It’s a disaster in Palestine, but we never, ever had as our goal killing people.
And the Ukrainian regime did. The head of the office of Vladimir Zelensky once said that we will make sure that cities like Kharkov, Nikolaev will forget what Russian means at all. Another guy in his office stated that Ukrainians must exterminate Russians through law or, if necessary, physically. Ukrainian former ambassador to Kazakhstan Pyotr Vrublevsky became famous when giving an interview and looking into the camera (being recorded and broadcast) he said: “Our main task is to kill as many Russians as we can so that our children have less things to do”. And statements like this are all over the vocabulary of the regime.
Carlson:
How many Russians in Russia have been killed since February of 2022?
Lavrov:
It’s not for me to disclose this information. In the time of military operations special rules exist. Our ministry of defense follows these rules.
But there is a very interesting fact that when Vladimir Zelensky was playing not in international arena, but at his comedy club or whatever it is called, he was (there are videos from that period) bluntly defending the Russian language. He was saying: “What is wrong with Russian language? I speak Russian. Russians are our neighbors. Russian is one of our languages”. And get lost, he said, to those who wanted to attack the Russian language and Russian culture. When Vladimir Zelensky became president, he changed very fast.
Before the military operation, in September 2021, he was interviewed, and at that time he was conducting war against Donbass in violation of the Minsk agreements. And the interviewer asked him what he thought about the people on the other side of the line of contact. He answered very thoughtfully there are people and there are species. And if you, living in Ukraine, feel associated with the Russian culture, my advice to you, for the sake of your kids, for the sake of your grandkids, get out to Russia.
And if this guy wants to bring Russians and people of Russian culture back under his territorial integrity, I mean, it shows that he’s not adequate.
Carlson:
So, what are the terms under which Russia would cease hostilities? What are you asking for?
Lavrov:
Ten years ago, in February 2014, we were asking only for the deal between the president and the opposition to have government of national unity, to hold early elections, to be implemented. The deal was signed. And we were asking for the implementation of this deal. They were absolutely impatient and aggressive. And they were, of course, pushed, I have no slightest doubt, by the Americans, because if Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador agreed the composition of the government, why wait for five months to hold early elections?
The next time we were in favor of something was when the Minsk Agreements were signed. I was there. The negotiations lasted for 17 hours (well, Crimea was lost by that time because of referendum). And nobody, including my colleague John Kerry, meeting with us, nobody in the West was worried about the issue of Crimea. Everybody was concentrated on Donbass. And the Minsk Agreements provided for territorial integrity of Ukraine, minus Crimea (this was not even raised) and a special status for a very tiny part of Donbass, not for the entire Donbass, not for Novorossiya at all. Part of Donbass, under these Minsk Agreements, endorsed by the Security Council, should have the right to speak Russian language, to teach Russian language, to study in Russian, to have local law enforcement (like in the states of U.S.), to be consulted when judges and prosecutors are appointed by the central authority, and to have some facilitated economic connections with neighboring regions of Russia. That’s it. Something which President Macron promised to give to Corsica and still is considering how to do this.
And when these agreements were sabotaged all along by Pyotr Poroshenko and then by Vladimir Zelensky. Both of them, by the way, came to presidency, running on the promise of peace. And both of them lied. So when these Minsk Agreements were sabotaged to the extent that we saw the attempts to take this tiny part of Donbass by force, and we, as President Putin explained, at that time, we suggested these security arrangements to NATO and the United States, which was rejected. And when the Plan B was launched by Ukraine and its sponsors, trying to take this part of Donbass by force, it was then that we launched the special military operation.
Had they implemented the Minsk Agreements Ukraine would be one piece, minus Crimea. But even then, when Ukrainians, after we started the operation, suggested to negotiate, we agreed, there were several rounds in Belarus, and one later they moved to Istanbul. And in Istanbul, Ukrainian delegation put a paper on the table saying: “Those are the principles on which we are ready to agree.” And we accepted those principles.
Carlson:
The Minsk Principles?
Lavrov:
No. The Istanbul Principles. It was April 2022.
Carlson:
Right.
Lavrov:
Which was: no NATO, but security guarantees to Ukraine, collectively provided with the participation of Russia. And these security guarantees would not cover Crimea or the east of Ukraine. It was their proposal. And it was initialed. And the head of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, who is now the chair of the Vladimir Zelensky faction in the parliament, he recently (a few months ago) in an interview, confirmed that this was the case. And on the basis of these principles, we were ready to draft a treaty.
But then this gentleman who headed the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul said that Boris Johnson visited and told them to continue to fight. Then there was…
Carlson:
But Boris Johnson, on behalf of…
Lavrov:
He said no. But the guy who initialed the paper, he said it was Boris Johnson. Other people say it was President Putin who ruined the deal because of the massacre in Bucha. But they never mentioned any more massacre in Bucha. I do. And we do.
In a sense, they are on the defensive. Several times in the United Nations Security Council, sitting at the table with Antonio Guterres, I (last year and this year) at the General Assembly, I raised the issue of Bucha and said, guys, it is strange that you are silent about Bucha because you were very vocal when BBC team found itself on the street where the bodies were located. I inquired, can we get the names of the persons whose bodies were broadcast by BBC? Total silence. I addressed Antonio Guterres personally in the presence of the Security Council members. He did not respond. Then at my press conference in New York after the end of the General Assembly last September, I asked all the correspondents: guys, you are journalists. Maybe you’re not an investigative journalists but journalists normally are interested to get the truth. And Bucha thing, which was played all over the media outlets condemning Russia, is not of any interest to anyone – politicians, UN officials. And now even journalists. I asked when I talked to them in September, please, as professional people, try to get the names of those whose bodies were shown in Bucha. No answer.
Just like we don’t have any answer to the question, where is the results of medical analysis of Alexey Navalny, who died recently, but who was treated in Germany in the fall of 2020. When he felt bad on a plane over Russia, the plane landed. He was treated by the Russian doctors in Siberia. Then the Germans wanted to take him. We immediately allowed the plane to come. They took him. In less than 24 hours, he was in Germany. And then the Germans continued to say that we poisoned him. And now the analysis confirmed that he was poisoned. We asked for the test results to be given to us. They said, no, we give it to the organization on chemical weapons. We went to this organization, we are members, and we said, can you show to us, because this is our citizen, we are accused of having poisoned him. They said that the Germans told us not to give it to you. They found nothing in the civilian hospital, and the announcement that he was poisoned was made after he was treated in the military Bundeswehr hospital. So it seems that this secret is not going…
Carlson:
So how did Navalny die?
Lavrov:
Well, he died serving the term in Russia. As far as it was reported, every now and then he felt not well. Which was another reason why we continued to ask the Germans: can you show us the results which you found? Because we did not find what they found. And what they did to him, I don’t know.
Carlson:
What the Germans did to him?
Lavrov:
Yeah, because they don’t explain to anybody, including us. Or maybe they explain to the Americans. Maybe this is credible.
But they never told us how they treated him, what they found, and what methods they were using.
Carlson:
How do you think he died?
Lavrov:
I am not a doctor. But for anybody to guess, even for the doctors to try to guess, they need to have information. And if the person was taken to Germany to be treated after he had been poisoned, the results of the tests cannot be secret.
We still cannot get anything credible on the fate of Skripals – Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The information is not provided to us. He is our citizen, she is our citizen. We have all the rights and the conventions which the UK is party to, to get information.
Carlson:
Why do you think that Boris Johnson, former Prime Minister of the UK, would have stopped the peace process in Istanbul? On whose behalf was he doing that?
Lavrov:
Well, I met with him a couple of times, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he was motivated by some immediate desire or by some long-term strategy. He is not very predictable.
Carlson:
But do you think he was acting on behalf of the US government, on behalf of the Biden administration, or he was doing this independently.
Lavrov:
I don’t know. And I wouldn’t guess. The fact that the Americans and the Brits are leading in this “situation” is obvious.
Now it is becoming also clear that there is a fatigue in some capitals, and there are talks every now and then that the Americans would like to leave it with the Europeans and to concentrate on something more important. I wouldn’t guess.
We would be judging by specific steps. It’s obvious, though, that the Biden administration would like to leave a legacy to the Trump administration as bad as they can.
And similar to what Barack Obama did to Donald Trump during his first term. Then late December 2016, President Obama expelled Russian diplomats. Just very late December. 120 persons with family members. Did it on purpose. Demanded them leave on the day when there was no direct flight from Washington to Moscow. So they had to move to New York by buses with all their luggage, with children, and so on and so forth.
And at the same time, President Obama announced the arrest of pieces of diplomatic property of Russia. And we still never were able to come and see what is the state of this Russian property.
Carlson:
What was the property?
Lavrov:
Diplomatic. They never allowed us to come and see it though under all conventions. They just say that these pieces we don’t consider as being covered by diplomatic immunity, which is a unilateral decision, never substantiated by any international court.
Carlson:
So you believe the Biden administration is doing something similar again to the incoming Trump administration.
Lavrov:
Because that episode with the expulsion and the seizure of property certainly did not create the promising ground for beginning of our relations with the Trump administration. So I think they’re doing the same.
Carlson:
But this time President Trump was elected on the explicit promise to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. So I mean, he said that in appearance after appearance. So given that, there is hope for a resolution, it sounds like. What are the terms to which you’d agree?
Lavrov:
Well, the terms, I basically alluded to them. When President Putin spoke in this Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the 14th of June he once again reiterated that we were ready to negotiate on the basis of the principles which were agreed in Istanbul and rejected by Boris Johnson, according to the statement of the head of the Ukrainian delegation.
The key principle is non-bloc status of Ukraine. And we would be ready to be part of the group of countries who would provide collective security guarantees to Ukraine.
Carlson:
But no NATO?
Lavrov:
No NATO. Absolutely. No military bases, no military exercises on the Ukrainian soil with participation of foreign troops. And this is something which he reiterated. But of course, he said, it was April 2022, now some time has passed, and the realities on the ground would have to be taken into account and accepted.
The realities on the ground are not only the line of contact, but also the changes in the Russian Constitution after referendum was held in Donetsk, Lugansk republics and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. And they are now part of the Russian Federation, according to the Constitution. And this is a reality.
And of course, we cannot tolerate a deal which would keep the legislation which are prohibiting Russian language, Russian media, Russian culture, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, because it is a violation of the obligations of Ukraine under the UN Charter, and something must be done about it. And the fact that the West (since this russophobic legislative offensive started in 2017) was totally silent and it is silent until now, of course we would have to pay attention to this in a very special way.
Carlson:
Would sanctions against Russia be a condition?
Lavrov:
You know, I would say probably many people in Russia would like to make it a condition. But the more we live under sanctions, the more we understand that it is better to rely on yourself, and to develop mechanisms, platforms for cooperation with ‘normal’ countries who are not unfriendly to you, and don’t mix economic interests and policies and especially politics. And we learned a lot after the sanctions started.
The sanctions started under President Obama. They continued in a very big way under the first term of Donald Trump. And these sanctions under the Biden administration are absolutely unprecedented.
But what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, you know. They would never kill us, so they are making us stronger.
Carlson:
And driving Russia east. And so the vision that I think same policymakers in Washington had 20 years ago is why not to bring Russia into a Western bloc, sort of as a balance against the rising east. But it doesn’t seem like that. Do you think that’s still possible?
Lavrov:
I don’t think so. When recently President Putin was speaking at Valdai Club to politologists and experts, he said we would never be back at the situation of early 2022. That’s when he realized (for himself, apparently, not only he, but he spoke publicly about this) that all attempts to be on equal terms with the West have failed.
It started after the demise of the Soviet Union. There was euphoria, we are now part of the ‘liberal world’, democratic world, ‘end of history’. But very soon it became clear to most of the Russians that in the 1990s we were treated as – at best as junior partner, maybe not even as a partner, – but as a place where the West can organize things like it wants, striking deals with oligarchs, buying resources and assets. And then probably the Americans decided that Russia is in their pocket. Boris Yeltsin, Bill Clinton, buddies, laughing, joking.
But even at the end of Boris Yeltsin’s term, he started to contemplate that this was not something he wanted for Russia. And I think this was very obvious when he appointed Vladimir Putin prime minister, and then left earlier, and blessed Vladimir Putin as his successor for the elections which were coming and which Putin won.
But when Vladimir Putin became president, he was very much open to cooperation with the West. And he mentions about this quite regularly when he speaks with interviewers or at some international events.
I was present when he met with George Bush Jr., with Barack Obama. Well, after the meeting of NATO in Bucharest, which was followed by NATO-Russia summit meeting in 2008, when they announced that Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO. And then they tried to sell it to us. We asked: why? There was lunch and President Putin asked what was the reason for this? Good question. And they said this is something which is not obligatory. How come?
Well, to start the process of joining NATO, you need a formal invitation. And this is a slogan – Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO. But this slogan became obsession for some people in Tbilisi first, when Mikhail Saakashvili lost his senses and started the war against his own people under the protection of OSCE mission with the Russian peacekeepers on the ground. And the fact that he launched this was confirmed by the European Union investigation, which they launched and which concluded that he gave the order to start.
And for Ukrainians, it took a bit longer. They were cultivating this pro-Western mood. Well, pro-Western is not bad, basically. Pro-Eastern is also not bad. What is bad is that you tell people, either/or, either you go with me or you’re my enemy.
What happened before the coup in Ukraine? In 2013, the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych negotiated with the European Union some association agreement which would nullify tariffs on most of the Ukrainian goods to the European Union and the other way around. And at some point, when he was meeting with Russian counterparts, we told him, Ukraine was part of the free trade area of the Commonwealth of Independent States. No tariffs for everybody. And we, Russia, negotiated agreement with World Trade Organization for some 17 years, mostly because we bargained with European Union. And we achieved some protection for many of our sectors, agriculture and some others. We explained to the Ukrainians that if you go zero in your trade with European Union, we would have to protect our customs border with Ukraine. Otherwise the zero tariff European goods would flood and would be hurting our industries, which we tried to protect and agreed for some protection. And we suggested to the European Union: guys, Ukraine is our common neighbor. You want to have better trade with Ukraine. We want the same. Ukraine want to have markets both in Europe and in Russia. Why don’t we sit three of us and discuss it like grownups? The head of the European Commission was the Portuguese José Manuel Barroso. He responded it’s none of your business what we do with Ukraine.
And then the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych convened his experts. And they said, yes, it would be not very good if we have opened the border with European Union, but the customs border with Russia would be closed. And they would be checking, you know, what is coming. So that the Russian market is not affected.
So he announced in November 2013 that he cannot sign the deal immediately, and he asked the European Union to postpone it for until next year. That was the trigger for Maidan, which was immediately thrown up and ended by the coup.
So my point is that this either/or. Actually, the first coup took place in 2004, when after second round of elections, the same Viktor Yanukovych won presidency. The West raised hell and put pressure on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to rule that there must be a third round. The Constitution of Ukraine says there may be only two rounds. But the Constitutional Court, under the pressure of the West, violated the Constitution for the first time then. And pro-Western candidate was chosen. At that time, when all this was taking place and boiling, the European leaders were publicly saying Ukrainian people must decide: are they with us or with Russia?
Carlson:
But it is the way that big countries behave. I mean, there are certain orbits, and now it’s BRICS versus NATO, US versus China. And it sounds like you’re saying the Russian-Chinese alliance is permanent.
Lavrov:
Well, we are neighbors. And of course geography is very important.
Carlson:
But you’re also neighbors with Western Europe. And you’re part of it, in effect.
Lavrov:
Through Ukraine the Western Europe wants to come to our borders.
And there were plans that were discussed almost openly to put British naval bases on the Sea of Azov. Crimea was eyed. Dreaming about creating NATO base in Crimea and so on and so forth.
Look, we have been very friendly with Finland, for example. Overnight, the Finns came back to the early years of preparation for World War II when they were best allies of Hitler. And all this neutrality, all this friendship, going to sauna together, playing hockey together, all this disappeared overnight. So maybe this was deep in their hearts, and the neutrality was burdening them, and niceties were burdening for them. I don’t know.
Carlson:
They’re mad about the ‘winter war’. That’s totally possible.
Can you negotiate with Zelensky? You’ve pointed out that he has exceeded his term. He’s not democratically elected president of Ukraine anymore. So do you consider him a suitable partner for negotiations?
Lavrov:
President Putin addressed many times this issue as well. In September 2022, during the first year of the special military operation, Vladimir Zelensky, in his conviction that he would be dictating the terms of the situation also to the West, he signed a decree prohibiting any negotiations with Putin’s government.
During public events after that episode, President Vladimir Putin is asked why Russia is not ready for negotiations. He said, don’t turn it upside down. We are ready for negotiations, provided it will be based on the balance of interest, tomorrow. But Vladimir Zelensky signed this decree prohibiting negotiations. For starters, why don’t you tell him to cancel it publicly? This will be a signal that he wants negotiations. Instead, Vladimir Zelensky invented his ‘peace formula’. Lately, it was complemented by a ‘victory plan’. They keep saying, we know what they say when they meet with European Union ambassadors and in other formats, they say no deal unless the deal is on our terms.
I mentioned to you that they are planning now the second summit on the basis of this peace formula, and they don’t shy away from saying, we will invite Russia to put in front of it the deal which we agreed already with the West.
When our Western colleagues sometimes say nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine in effect, this implies that anything about Russia without Russia. Because they discuss what kind of conditions we must accept.
By the way, recently they already violated, tacitly, the concept nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. There are passes, there are messages. They know our position. We are not playing double game. What President Putin announced is the goal of our operation. It’s fair. It’s fully in line with the United Nations Charter. First of all, the rights: language rights, minority rights, national minority rights, religious rights, and it’s fully in line with OSCE principles.
There is an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe which is still alive. And well, several summits of this organization clearly stated that security must be indivisible, that nobody should expand his security at the expense of security of others, and that, most important, no organization in Euro-Atlantic space shall claim dominance. This was last time it was confirmed by OSCE in 2010.
NATO was doing exactly the opposite. So we have legitimacy in our position. No NATO on our doorsteps because OSCE agreed that this should not be the case if it hurts us. And please restore the rights of Russians.
Carlson:
Who do you think has been making foreign policy decisions in the United States? This is a question in the United States. Who is making these decisions?
Lavrov:
I wouldn’t guess. I haven’t seen Antony Blinken for years. When it was the last time? Two years ago, I think, at the G20 summit. Was it in Rome or somewhere? In the margins. I was representing President Putin there. His assistant came up to me during a meeting and said that Antony wants to talk just for ten minutes. I left the room. We shook hands, and he said something about the need to de-escalate and so on and so forth. I hope he’s not going to be angry with me since I am disclosing this. But we were meeting in front of many people present in the room, and I said, “We don’t want to escalate. You want to inflict strategic defeat upon Russia.” He said, “No. It is not strategic defeat globally. It is only in Ukraine.”
Carlson:
You’ve not spoken to him since?
Lavrov:
No.
Carlson:
Have you spoken to any officials in the Biden administration since then?
Lavrov:
I don’t want to ruin their career.
Carlson:
But have you had meaningful conversations?
Lavrov:
No. Not at all.
When I met in international events one or another person whom I know, an American, some of them say hello, some of them exchange a few words, but I never impose myself.
It’s becoming contagious when somebody sees an American talking to me or a European talking to me. Europeans are running away when they see me. During the last G20 meeting, it was ridiculous. Grown-up people, mature people. They behave like kids. So childish. Unbelievable.
Carlson:
So, you said that when in 2016, in December, the final moments of the Biden administration, Biden made the relationship between the United States and Russia more difficult.
Lavrov:
Obama. Biden was vice-president.
Carlson:
Exactly. I’m so sorry.
The Obama administration left a bunch of bombs, basically, for the incoming Trump administration.
In the last month since the election, you have all sorts of things going on politically in bordering states in this region. In Georgia, in Belarus, in Romania, and then, of course, most dramatically in Syria, you have turmoil.
Does this seem like part of an effort by the United States to make the resolution more difficult?
Lavrov:
There is nothing new, frankly. Because the US, historically, in foreign policy, was motivated by making some trouble and then to see if they can fish in the muddy water.
Iraqi aggression, Libyan adventure – ruining the state, basically. Fleeing from Afghanistan. Now trying to get back through the back door, using the United Nations to organize some ‘event’ where the US can be present, in spite of the fact that they left Afghanistan in very bad shape and arrested money and don’t want to give it back.
I think this is, if you analyze the American foreign policy steps, adventures, most of them are the right word – the pattern. They create some trouble, and then they see how to use it.
When the OSCE monitors elections, when it used to monitor elections in Russia, they would always be very negative, and in other countries as well, Belarus, Kazakhstan. This time, in Georgia, the monitoring mission of OSCE presented a positive report. And it is being ignored.
So when you need endorsement of the procedures, you do it when you like the results of the election. If you don’t like the results of elections, you ignore it.
It’s like when the United States and other Western countries recognized unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo, they said this is the self-determination being implemented. There was no referendum in Kosovo – unilateral declaration of independence. By the way, after that the Serbs approached International Court of Justice, which ruled that (well, normally they are not very specific in their judgment, but they ruled) that when part of a territory declares independence, it is not necessarily to be agreed with the central authorities.
And when a few years later, Crimeans were holding referendum with invitation of many international observers, not from international organizations, but from parliamentarians in Europe, in Asia, in post-Soviet space, they said, no, we cannot accept this because this is violation of territorial integrity.
You know, you pick and choose. The UN Charter is not a menu. You have to respect it in all its entirety.
Carlson:
So who’s paying the rebels who’ve taken parts of Aleppo? Is the Assad government in danger of falling? What is happening exactly, in your view, in Syria?
Lavrov:
Well, we had a deal when this crisis started. We organized the Astana process (Russia, Türkiye and Iran). We meet regularly. Another meeting is being planned before the end of the year or early next year, to discuss the situation on the ground.
The rules of the game are to help Syrians to come to terms with each other and to prevent separatist threats from getting strong. That’s what the Americans are doing in the east of Syria when they groom some Kurdish separatists using the profits from oil and grain sold, the resources which they occupy.
This Astana format is a useful combination of players, if you wish. We are very much concerned. And when this happened, with Aleppo and surroundings, I had a conversation with the Turkish minister of foreign affairs and with Iranian colleague. We agreed to try to meet this week. Hopefully in Doha at the margins of this international conference. We would like to discuss the need to come back to strict implementation of the deals on Idlib area, because Idlib de-escalation zone was the place from where the terrorists moved to take Aleppo. The arrangements reached in 2019 and 2020 provided for our Turkish friends to control the situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone and to separate the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (former Nusra) from the opposition, which is non-terrorist and which cooperates with Türkiye.
And another deal was the opening of M5 route from Damascus to Aleppo, which is also now taken completely by the terrorists. So we, as ministers of foreign affairs, would discuss the situation, hopefully, this coming Friday. And the military of all three countries and the security people are in contact with each other.
Carlson:
But the Islamist groups, the terrorists you just described, who is backing them?
Lavrov:
Well, we have some information. We would like to discuss with all our partners in this process the way to cut the channels of financing and arming them.
The information which is being floated and it’s in the public domain mentions among others the Americans, the Brits. Some people say that Israel is interested in making this situation aggravated. So that Gaza is not under very close scrutiny. It’s a complicated game. Many actors are involved. I hope that the context which we are planning for this week will help stabilize the situation.
Carlson:
What do you think of Donald Trump?
Lavrov:
I met him several times when he was having meetings with President Putin and when he received me twice in the Oval Office when I was visiting for bilateral talks.
Well, I think he’s a very strong person. A person who wants results. Who doesn’t like procrastination on anything. This is my impression. He’s very friendly in discussions. But this does not mean that he’s pro-Russian as some people try to present him. The amount of sanctions we received under the Trump administration was very big.
We respect any choice which is made by the people when they vote. We respect the choice of American people. As President Putin said, we are and we have been open all along to the contacts with the current administration. We hope that when Donald Trump is inaugurated, we will understand. The ball, as President Putin said, is on their side. We never severed our contacts, our ties in the economy, trade, security, anything.
Carlson:
My final question is: how sincerely worried are you about an escalation in conflict between Russia and the United States, knowing what you do?
Lavrov:
Well, we started with this question, more or less.
Carlson:
It seems the central question.
Lavrov:
Yes. The Europeans whisper to each other that it is not for Vladimir Zelensky to dictate the terms of the deal – it’s for the US and Russia.
I don’t think we should be presenting our relations as two guys decide for everybody. Not at all. It is not our style.
We prefer the manners which dominate in BRICS, in Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where the UN Charter principle of sovereign equality of states is really embodied.
The US is not used to respect sovereign equality of states. When the US says we cannot allow Russia to win on Ukraine because this would undermine our rules-based world order. And rules-based world order is American domination.
Now, by the way, NATO, at least under Biden administration, is eyeing the entire Eurasian continent, Indo-Pacific strategies, South China Sea, East China Sea, is already on NATO agenda. NATO is moving infrastructure there. AUKUS, building ‘quartet’ Indo-Pacific Four as they call it (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea). US, South Korea, and Japan are building military alliance with some nuclear components. And Jens Stoltenberg, the former Secretary General of NATO, last year after the summit he said that the Atlantic security is indivisible from Indo-Pacific security. When he was asked does it mean that you go beyond territorial defense, he answered – no, it doesn’t go beyond territorial defense, but to defend our territory, we need to be present there. This element of preemption is more and more present.
We don’t want war with anybody. And as I said, five nuclear states declared at the top level in January 2022 that we don’t want confrontation with each other and that we shall respect each other’s security interests and concerns. And it also stated nuclear war can never be won, and therefore nuclear war is not possible.
And the same was reiterated bilaterally between Russia and the United States, Putin-Biden, when they met in 2021 in Geneva in June. Basically, they reproduced the statement by Reagan-Gorbachev of 1987 ‘no nuclear war’. And this is absolutely in our vital interest, and we hope that this is also in vital interest of the United States.
I say so because some time ago John Kirby, who is the White House communications coordinator, was answering questions about escalation and about possibility of nuclear weapons being employed. And he said, “Oh, no, we don’t want escalation because then if there is some nuclear element, then our European allies would suffer.” So even mentally, he excludes that the United States can suffer. And this is something which makes the situation a bit risky. It might – if this mentality prevails, then some reckless steps would be taken, and this is bad.
Carlson:
What you’re saying is American policy makers imagine there could be a nuclear exchange that doesn’t directly affect the United States, and you’re saying that’s not true.
Lavrov:
That’s what I said, yes. But professionals in deterrence, nuclear deterrence policy, they know very well that it’s a very dangerous game. And to speak about limited exchange of nuclear strikes is an invitation to disaster, which we don’t want to have.
Germany is preparing for ‘possible outbreak of world war,’ says influential Hungarian professor
Remix News | December 5, 2024
The German army is preparing companies operating in the country for a possible outbreak of world war, said Tamás Kovács, head of the Department of Law Enforcement Theory and History at the National University of Public Service (NKE).
As a part of this effort, the government has begun to assess German industry, which could be a cautious and necessary step, but the timing suggests that the German government is preparing for the war to escalate and become even more brutal.
“The fact that these surveys have begun can be interpreted as a sign of war preparations on the part of Germany,” Kovács told Hungarian news outlet Hirado.hu. “The German army is preparing companies operating in the country for a possible outbreak of world war.”
Hirado notes that German media has reported that the country has begun a census of bunkers and fortified buildings that could serve as shelters in the event of a war, as well as investigating how industry would hold up in wartime. There were at one time 2,000 bunkers and shelters in Germany, but now only 500 exist.
“The German government wants to be aware of what the industry and the economy are capable of: what they can produce, how quickly they can produce it, and of course how much energy they need. There may therefore be a number of practical considerations behind the fact that they have started to assess German industry,” said Kovács.
“These surveys could be cautious, necessary steps, as it is not a problem in itself if a country is aware of its own resources and their limitations, not least the number of potential shelters and their condition. The fact that all this is happening at exactly this time unfortunately predicts, at least in my reading, that the German and Swedish governments are really preparing for this war to escalate.”
The Hungarian expert believes that claims the war will wind down under Trump may not unfold as predicted and that the war will actually expand.
“I will be even rougher. It is questionable what will happen if the relationship between the EU and Russia deteriorates further and becomes so frosty that there will be no communication between the two parties,” said the head of the NKE department.
The professor also deals with the question of how Germany’s massively growing immigrant population would respond to war conditions. When asked what the government would do in a war situation with the recent influx of migrants who are not very motivated in terms of everyday work or national defense, Tamás Kovács said: “It is inconceivable what would motivate these people in a war situation, and especially how. I’m almost certain that their first thought wouldn’t be, ‘Let’s join the German army and defend the Germany that actually took us in.’”
Regarding the upcoming German elections and a possible turnaround, he said: It is questionable whether the new German government will continue Scholz’s policies or return to historical roots and strive for some kind of consolidated relationship with Russia. Although it is also questionable whether the Russians would like to have close relations with Germany after the events of recent years, at least in the short term, he stressed.
“It is a fact that the Hungarian economy is very dependent on the German one; if there are problems in the German economy, the Hungarian economy will also feel it. Obviously, German capital investments and economic influence are generally strong in the region, so the entire region will feel it if the German economy is not doing well. However, if peace were to suddenly break out, or at least a ceasefire were to be signed by the two sides, that would greatly improve economic prospects,” said Kovács regarding the expected domestic and regional effects of the war crisis.
Russia Not Threatening Anyone With Nuclear Arms – Russian Foreign Ministry
Sputnik – 05.12.2024
MOSCOW – Russia is not threatening anyone with nuclear weapons, but in connection with the Ukraine conflict it is warning of the risks of a clash between nuclear powers that could have grave consequences, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.
“Russia is not threatening anyone with nuclear weapons, and any claims to the contrary are nothing more than deliberate anti-Russian lies. We treat the policy in the area of nuclear deterrence with the utmost seriousness and responsibility,” Zakharova said.
Russia is forced to warn about the risks of a direct military clash between nuclear powers and, accordingly, about its potentially grave consequences, as well as to send “specific sobering signals” in support of such warnings, the spokeswoman added.
Russia’s doctrinal guidelines remain strictly defensive in nature and continue to outline quite strictly the extreme circumstances under which the country reserves the right to defend itself with nuclear weapons, Zakharova said.
“Russia’s official statements on the aforementioned issues do not go beyond the scope of these guidelines and are fully consistent with our country’s international obligations. This is not the language of threats, but the classic logic of containment,” the spokeswoman added.
NATO discussing ceasefire move for Ukraine – Bloomberg
RT | December 5, 2024
Ukraine’s Western backers are shifting from attempting to push for a military victory against Russia towards trying to help Kiev achieve the best position to negotiate a ceasefire, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter.
The report comes as Russian forces advance in Donbass at a rate unseen since 2022, while recapturing ground from Ukrainian forces entrenched in Russia’s Kursk Region.
Russian President Vladimir Putin “has shown no willingness to discuss a ceasefire,” and with US President-elect Donald Trump less than two months away from taking office, Kiev’s NATO allies are attempting to steel themselves “as morale starts to fade,” Bloomberg wrote.
While Trump’s plan for Ukraine is unclear, he was elected on promises of curtailing American spending on the conflict and focusing on internal US issues.
Gathering in Brussels this week, foreign ministers from NATO nations discussed how to supply Kiev with more weapons, anonymous sources told Bloomberg, noting that any plans are still private and incomplete. They have also reportedly begun to look at different ways to end the conflict, including discussing which security guarantees could protect Ukraine without antagonizing Putin.
“Those discussions come amid recognition that the situation in Ukraine is unsustainable and negotiations should begin soon,” Bloomberg reported, citing a senior Western diplomat.
One idea floated was to create a demilitarized zone, with European troops responsible for its security, the outlet cited a senior NATO diplomat as saying.
Additionally, even if the US maintains course on future military aid, contrary to Trump’s reelection campaign rhetoric, mounting losses will force Ukraine into talks by next year, Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at Rand, told Bloomberg.
“Ukraine lacks the manpower to stop the Russian offensive, and the West has little left to give in terms of existing stocks of weapons,” he said.
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky previously insisted that Kiev is not interested in joining NATO if it excludes Russian territories that were part of Ukraine before 2014.
However, Zelensky told Kyodo News on Monday that Kiev could agree to a ceasefire with Moscow without these territories if NATO membership is guaranteed.
Ukraine’s aim of joining the US-led military bloc has been underscored by Putin as one of the core reasons for the conflict. Russia’s terms are that Ukraine adopt a neutral, non-bloc status, remain free of nuclear weapons, demilitarize and undergo denazification, the Russian leader has said.
Fatigued Ukrainian troops ordered to stay in Russia’s Kursk region until Trump’s inauguration
By Ahmed Adel | December 5, 2024
With no glimpse of victory in sight, Ukraine has ordered its forces to remain in Russia’s Kursk region until the inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump, the BBC reported on December 2, citing Ukrainian military personnel on the ground. The same report also quoted Ukrainian soldiers as having never seen North Koreans on the battlefield, contradicting Pentagon and Western media reports that 10,000 troops from the Asian country were being deployed to Kursk.
Ukrainian soldiers stationed in the Kursk region speak of terrible weather conditions and chronic lack of sleep caused by Russia’s constant bombardment with 3,000 kg glide bombs. For Ukrainian troops, staying in the region is becoming more difficult every day.
According to the BBC, Ukraine has already lost around 40% of the territories in the region it occupied in early August 2024, with Russian forces gradually retaking occupied territory.
“This trend will continue. It’s only a matter of time,” said one of the Ukrainian soldiers interviewed, who used the call name Pavlo.
He also spoke of the low rotation, with middle-aged soldiers who arrive in the region being redeployed from other parts of the front line without time to rest.
According to the article, the Ukrainian command hopes to keep troops in the Russian region until January 20, 2025, the date of Trump’s inauguration and the new administration’s arrival with its different ideas and plans to the outgoing Democrats.
“The main task facing us is to hold the maximum territory until Trump’s inauguration and the start of negotiations. In order to exchange it for something later. No-one knows what,” Pavlo said.
According to the BBC, even the use of long-range missiles recently authorized by US President Joe Biden is not helping Ukrainian troops turn the tide on the battlefield. In fact, the soldiers do not really care about the use of Western weapons against Russian territory far from the conflict zone.
“No-one sits in a cold trench and prays for missiles. We live and fight here and now. And missiles fly somewhere else,” Pavlo said.
Another soldier, using the call name Myroslav, said, “We don’t talk about missiles. In the bunkers we talk about family and rotation. About simple things.”
The Ukrainian soldiers stuck in Kursk say staying in the Russian region is wrong when territories in Donbass are being lost daily.
“Our place should have been there [in eastern Ukraine], not here in someone else’s land,” Pavlo said. “We don’t need these Kursk forests, in which we left so many comrades.”
Myroslav, a marine officer who served in Krynky and is now in Kursk, described the operation as having a “Media effect, but no military results.”
Ukrainian soldiers speaking to the BBC also revealed that they had never heard or seen any North Korean military personnel deployed in the Kursk region, which was widely reported in Western media, citing the Pentagon.
“I haven’t seen or heard anything about Koreans, alive or dead,” Vadym, another Ukrainian soldier stuck in Kursk, responded when asked about the reports of 10,000 North Korean troops being deployed to the region.
Ukrainian soldiers have been ordered to capture at least one North Korean prisoner, preferably with documents, on the promise of being provided drones or granted extra leave.
“It’s very difficult to find a Korean in the dark Kursk forest,” Pavlo noted sarcastically. “Especially if he’s not here.”
A day after the BBC report, CNN cited Oleksandr, a unit commander with the 225th assault battalion, as saying that he had not seen any sign of North Korean troops.
“When we catch them or see a body,” he said, “then I’ll know for sure that they’re here.”
Oleksandr said his unit had not slept for three days or left the frontline for eight months despite previously being involved in ferocious combat in the Ukrainian cities of Bakhmut, Avdiivka and Chasiv Yar.
Yet, he, just like the other soldiers cited by the BBC, is expected to remain in Kursk for many more months in the false belief that holding onto Russian territory will lead to more favourable terms when peace negotiations inevitably begin at some point next year.
Ukrainian officials have admitted that Russian forces have liberated 40% of the territory they took in August. With snow, rain, and freezing temperatures expected in Kursk in the coming weeks, the situation is becoming untenable for the besieged Ukrainian soldiers, which will lead to Russia liberating the remaining occupied territory at a rapid pace. Unfortunately for the Ukrainian soldiers in Kursk, remaining in the region until Trump’s inauguration will just lead to the same outcome – defeat.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
US House speaker rules out more Ukraine aid
RT | December 4, 2024
The US House of Representatives will not consider President Joe Biden’s request to include $24 billion in additional aid to Ukraine in a continuing government funding bill, Speaker Mike Johnson has said.
In the absence of a formal budget, the US government has been funded through “continuing resolutions” that Congress needs to approve periodically. The White House has requested the $24 billion as part of the last such piece of legislation the House would need to adopt before adjourning for Christmas holidays.
“I’m not planning to that,” Johnson said on Wednesday, at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “It is not the place of Joe Biden to make that decision now.”
The Louisiana Republican reminded reporters that he had predicted Donald Trump’s election would change the dynamics of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and make further US funding unnecessary, adding that this is precisely what’s been happening in recent weeks.
“We have a newly-elected president and we’re going to wait and take the new commander-in-chief’s direction on all of that,” Johnson said. “So I don’t expect any Ukraine funding to come up now.”
Since February 2022, the US Congress has approved more than $174 billion to prop up Ukraine in its ongoing military conflict with Russia. The latest batch of funding, amounting to $61 billion, was held up for several months amid a battle between Johnson and the White House.
The previous speaker, Kevin McCarthy, was ousted last October because a group of Republicans was outraged he had secretly negotiated with Democrats to get the Ukraine funding approved. The funding ended up stuck in Congress for almost six months, before it was approved in both the Senate and the House in April, with no concessions to the GOP.
War and peace, NATO troops, sanctions & more | Hungarian FM’s interview
Sanctioning RT is ‘double standards and hypocrisy’
RT | December 3, 2024
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto gave an exclusive interview to RT on Monday. Here’s the full text of the conversation:
Host Saskia Taylor:
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary – it is a great honor to be able to sit down with you. Thank you so much for your time. I know that you are a very, very busy man. The first thing, let’s jump right in. I mean, in a recent interview, Prime Minister Viktor Orban, he said that Russia’s deployment of the missile Oreshnik, should be quote, “something to make us all think.” What was Budapest thinking that night, and do you think it will indeed compel your European counterparts to reassess their strategies when it comes to the war in Ukraine?
Hungarian FM Peter Szijjarto:
There has been a feeling with us for more than 1000 days now. And this feeling of ours becomes stronger and stronger every day. Especially when we experience such kind of events like launching that missile or when we experience decisions from others, which decisions should be considered as irresponsible. So day by day, our feeling that peace must be made is getting stronger and stronger. We understand that with every other day spent in this war, there are more people dying, more destruction taking place and more serious threat of escalation comes forward. So all these events show to us that the peace mission of ours must be strengthened, must be more and more active, and we have to do our best in order to help peace to come as soon as possible. Most likely starting with a ceasefire, which would give the chance to those who are involved to sit around the negotiating table and discuss about an agreement leading towards sustainable peace in our region.
Host:
I mean, one other soon-to-be leader, again, who has campaigned for peace in the way that the Hungarian prime minister has, is of course incoming US President Donald Trump. He’s beginning to pick his team, and Keith Kellogg has been tapped to be special envoy for Ukraine and Russia.
Now, I wonder, do you think that his appointment and his mediation could help bring a resolution to the conflict closer? And do you think that there will be sensitivity under a Trump administration to Moscow’s position? I only ask that because Keith Kellogg specifically has said on a number of occasions we need to, quote, “help Ukraine win.”
Szijjarto:
First of all, I think that it has to be put into consideration that a democracy must be built on the will of the people. And what happened on the presidential elections in the United States? There were two candidates with totally differing positions on many issues. But if I have to name the issue where the opinion of the two have totally been different, then I would name, of course, migration, but then the issue of the war in Ukraine. Donald Trump had a totally different vision compared to this war than Kamala Harris, because Kamala Harris was speaking about the continuation of the strategy of the American administration, impacts of which we are quite aware of, unfortunately. But President Trump represented a different approach, because he was speaking about making peace. And at the end of the day, the American citizens have made a very clear decision. So, to make peace in Ukraine, is basically a will of the American people as well. So what we have seen so far since the elections in the form of decisions of the still incumbent American administration is basically neglecting the will of the people, going against the will of the people. So in order to give the respect to the American citizens who made a clear decision in order to ensure safety, stability, and security in the central or eastern part of Europe, the only way to move forward is making peace. In this regard, the fact that the incoming president nominates a person, an experienced one, a respected one, with the aim of resolving the conflict, the war – I think it’s a good news on its own.
On the other hand, I have had the honor to accompany my prime minister on a number of meetings with President Trump, even after the war has broken out. And what I experienced during these meetings is that President Trump really believes in the necessity of making peace. And knowing him, because politics is a job of experience, so knowing him from his first term, whatever he would like to do, he makes his best in order to deliver.
I think that since the presidential election of the United States has taken place, we have the best hope for this war to come to an end since it had broken up. I would say that now we are faced with the most serious risk of escalation ever since this war has broken out, because the decisions made by the incumbent American administration and some Western European administrations since the US elections are very dangerous. We are living in the neighborhood, I don’t have the luxury to speak on behalf of a country an ocean away. I’m speaking on behalf of a country which is next door, and those measures which are bringing the danger of escalation are putting danger on us as well. We don’t want others to put danger on us. Therefore, we have now been strengthening our efforts when it comes to the peace mission. That’s why I came to Moscow today and I hope that my visit, my discussions today will contribute to peace to come as soon as possible.
Host:
Very interesting. You mentioned, of course, I don’t want someone else to put me at risk. But of course, when you’re part of a bloc like the European Union, it is a bit all for one and one for all – at least that’s the view from Brussels.
And I do want to get your take on something because President Putin believes, and actually, you know, I hear this from a number of guests on our programs – and what I am struck by is that they’re mainly actually from Germany – is that they say that Europe has lost its independence and has ceased to be a politically sovereign entity when it comes to international affairs specifically. And I just wondered, do you think that’s a reasonable assessment? And kind of just on a personal level, not just as a minister, but as an EU citizen, how that makes you feel?
Szijjarto:
Since this war has broken out it is obvious that most of the European leaders have lost their own voice in this regard. On many occasions I hear European leaders including my colleagues, foreign ministers or the high representative, speaking about speaking in a way that we always compare our contribution to the American one. I think it’s a very, very bad and harmful approach from the European perspective. Why? Because the war does take place here in Europe. There are European people dying, there is destruction taking place in Europe, and the European economy is faced with the impacts and the consequences of this war. Therefore, following the US policies without any kind of criticism, that’s a big mistake. I do believe that the strategy the European Union has been following in the recent 1000 days is a failed one, because Europe weakened a lot in the last almost three years.
I do believe that instead of globalizing the conflict, the right strategy would have been to localize it and to do everything in order to resolve it, to make peace, instead of pouring oil on the fire, which has been the case.
We are the only country in Europe or European Union which has not delivered weapons to Ukraine. We are the only country in NATO, almost the only one, which speaks openly about the red lines which must be kept seriously. We are the ones who speak openly about our assessment that NATO is a defense alliance and not an attack alliance.
In the upcoming days, we will have many debates in Europe, because we have OSCE ministerial coming, we have NATO ministerial coming. There will be tough debates and we are praying really hard that until the 20th of January nothing happens which would make things irreversible.
Host:
Well, you obviously talked there about how Budapest has become almost a lone voice in Europe and amongst many Western nations. When it comes to the Ukraine issue, I mean, Viktor Orban, he’s vehemently opposed to pumping Kiev with weapons. He’s also very, very critical of any idea of sending foreign troops to the country either as, quote, peacekeepers or actual combat units.
But then, like you all said, on the other hand, we do have players – and you didn’t say that, but I’ll say it – Baltic states, for example, or the UK, which they’ve gone down a different path.
They seem to be beating the drums of war, and they’ve even advocated for sending NATO troops there. When you’re in these meetings, what do you make of their arguments? And as we speak now, how great do you think the danger is of Europe being dragged into a full war with Russia? And I say full quite specifically because obviously many would argue that Russia is already at war with the West. I mean, Boris Johnson admitted it himself just a few days ago.
Szijjarto:
You might remember when our prime minister has visited Moscow during the summer, I was honored to accompany him on his meeting with President Putin and you might remember that huge attack on him. Huge attack on him, on his government, on our country for visiting Moscow and completing or trying to complete a peace mission. You see that there are many pro-war politicians in Europe. When I sit on the meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council with other foreign ministers and listen to some, I’m so sad that such kind of extreme pro-war positions are present that’s why we paid a lot of attention on what would be happening in the United States, because if President Trump had not won, now we might be involved in something which we would never want to be involved in. But with President Trump entering office, I think we have a good hope that peace will come instead of Europe would be dragged into a full-scale war. I think that even speaking about sending troops is extremely dangerous, because we have seen in the recent days, weeks and months, that even a piece of miscommunication or misunderstanding can be extremely dangerous. Therefore, the words of politicians have a weight even under peaceful circumstances, but in case of a war, it’s not just to wait, but it’s a risk as well. Everybody should be aware of that, and sometimes I have the feeling that it is not everybody who is aware of that, or even worse, they are aware, but they say this deliberately. That’s why I think that now everybody who is in favor of peace must increase the volume.
Host:
I mean, Hungary has become a bit of a rogue actor in Brussels, if you don’t mind me saying that.
Szijjarto:
Black sheep!
Host:
Black sheep. No, well, we love black sheep here, so we’re very happy about that. But advocating for economic neutrality, like you’re coming here, business is business, but also against bloc confrontation, whether that’s against Russia, whether that’s against China, for example, as well.
How difficult has it been to resist the pressure? And just from an insider’s perspective, I understand you can’t give us all the secrets of what goes on, but just a sense of really how much people demand that one toes the line?
Szijjarto:
It’s a huge hypocrisy there, because those who are advocating against us with those who usually compete for those investments which are coming from China to Europe. Currently, 44% of all Chinese investments targeting Europe are now targeting Hungary, and that makes a lot of other countries very, very jealous. Why? Because these investments are very modern ones, these investments are investments into the future, these are state-of-the-art, creating thousands of new jobs, offering good salaries. Other countries want that as well, so while the German foreign minister speaks about decoupling, de-risking, of Western and Eastern economies. If you come to Hungary, you see the Chinese and the German factories being constructed next to each other. You see the Chinese companies supplying the Germans, making them successful, vice versa, this is how it works normally on the field of everyday life. For us, economy and energy must not be a matter of political ideology, this is physical and mathematical reality. We don’t let ourselves to be dragged into a debate on philosophical basis, because, for example, energy.
I mean whether you can heat your house or flat, whether you can run your economy with a press conference, with a philosophical debate, with a press statement? It’s impossible. With gas, with oil, with nuclear fuel? Well, that’s the way. Therefore, for us, economic neutrality is common sense. Don’t confuse things which have nothing to do with ideology and political approach.
Host:
And of course, it’s usually the average person who pays the price of ideology. Look at Germany’s industrial…
Szijjarto:
Look at the sanctions, look at the sanction regimes. The sanction regimes of the European Union ended up in extremely high inflation, extremely high energy prices, food prices, and these are all paid by the citizens, by the people.
Host:
…Volkswagen shuttering three factories, laying off potentially tens of thousands, Ford moving some of its production facilities outside of the EU…
Szijjarto:
While Mercedes is building its second factory in Hungary, while BMW is constructing its new factory in Hungary, while the biggest electric battery manufacturers are constructing their factories in Hungary. It might make sense to think about why.
Host:
I’m sold on Hungary – I’m moving to Hungary. Turning now to another big story that I think I really would like to touch upon. Quite a violent one too, the events that are unfolding in Georgia, in Tbilisi. Four nights, four or five nights of terrible protests. What’s the view from Budapest on all of that?
Szijjarto:
Very simple. If it had been the opposition to win that election, there would be no protests, there would be no external pressure, and everybody would praise the fantastic shape of the Georgian democracy. But it’s not Brussels, it’s not Washington, it’s not Berlin, it’s not Paris to decide, but the Georgian people. The Georgian people made a very clear decision. High turnout, more than 50% support to the ruling party, that should be respected.
My problem is, that this is very general in Europe. In the case it is not the liberals to win an election, the democratic nature of the whole country and the whole political system is being questioned immediately. If it is liberals to win, everything’s fine. If it’s patriots to win, if it is conservatives to win, if it is right-wing to win, the nature of democracy is immediately questioned, and this is totally unacceptable. Look at our case, we have been under attack for the last 15 years in the European Union, we have been under financial sanctions. Why? Because we are not ready to speak according to the liberal mainstream, to act according to the liberal mainstream. We are conservative, patriotic, for us national interest is number one. For us, family consists of a mother and the father and the children, where father is a man, mother is a woman.
Host:
And now you’re in EU court because of it.
Szijjarto:
We protect our children, we protect our country, we protect our border, and we are under financial sanctions. If the opposition had won in Georgia, everybody would be so happy with the fantastic shape of the Georgian democracy. That’s the case.
Host:
And of course, with your eastern neighbor, Romania, an interesting situation there is also developing. It’s kind of election season. Parliamentary elections seem to have gone to the pro-EU, pro-Atlantic direction party, but the presidential vote is already a bit scandalous, the first round, because an anti-war NATO critic won and immediately we heard calls, “foreign interference, he’s pro-Russia,” a vote recount was ordered and we’re expecting a decision from the top Romanian court about whether the vote should be annulled at all.
I mean, what does that say about the state of democracy, but also, of course, the mood amongst Romanians?
Szijjarto:
First of all, for us Hungarians, the parliamentary elections were more important in this regard, and the party of the Hungarians has achieved fantastic results, above 6% of the votes, making a very strong representation and a strong voice of the Hungarians in the Bucharest parliament. That’s very, very important. I think we should leave it to the Romanians to decide in the second round whom they want. I think that mutual respect should come back to international political life, and I usually refrain from making comments on domestic issues of other countries because, they are their citizens. They have to make decisions, as there are Hungarian citizens making decisions about the future of Hungary, which should not be questioned and challenged by anyone. For us, the great news is that the Hungarians made a good performance on the parliament elections and the Romanians will decide soon on the second round of the presidential election.
Host:
And closer to home for you, something that’s kind of developing at the moment. Hungarian media citing intelligence services, they’ve reported that they’re in touch with their Slovak counterparts discussing possible threats of attacks to energy infrastructure. Of course, we saw on Sunday that a part of the Druzhba pipeline – very important of course for Hungarian energy security – but a part in Poland was damaged. I mean, who… I mean I know, I understand you don’t want to hypothesize, but fine, then I’ll ask you, what could possibly be the goal behind actors who are concocting these kinds of plots?
EU country investigating ‘sabotage plot’ targeting Russian oil supplies – media
Read more EU country investigating ‘sabotage plot’ targeting Russian oil supplies – media
Szijjarto:
Since the Nord Stream was blown up, we have to take the issue of protection of critical energy infrastructure extremely seriously, and it’s really outrageous, that even until the very day it was not investigated seriously who has committed a terrorist attack against critical European infrastructure.
Since then, we have to be aware of the risk being put on the energy infrastructure in our neighborhood, we have to be attentive, we have to be aware, we have to take care of this. And yes, Druzhba pipeline is vital from our perspective, no question. And I do hope that all countries where this pipeline runs through, do their best in order to prevent any such attacks.
Host:
And finally, I’m sure many would consider you a very brave man, Mr. Szijjarto, because here you are in Russia, the most sanctioned country on Earth, not just in the winter, which is always a brave move, but also of course at a time of war. And you’re talking to me, you’re talking to RT, which apparently is the global media pariah, so much so that the British Ministry of Defence apparently has got a special unit dedicated to trying to silence us. We’ve been banned, we’ve been blocked, we’ve been smeared. What was your reaction when Europe took RT off of the airwaves? And how did it tally with, of course, the principles of free speech, which Brussels claims at least to champion?
Szijjarto:
Of course, this is double standards and hypocrisy because those Europeans who love to teach everyone. They love to refer certain values, among them freedom of speech and freedom of media. And they usually attack others based on those principles. But when they look at themselves, they cannot be too self-confident either.
So for us sanctioning church, sports, media, energy always raises serious question marks. And I do hope that soon we will get rid of all these sanction measures because they have caused more harm to the European Union than to Russia, I guess.
Iran says it’s ready to send troops to Syria
RT | December 3, 2024
Tehran would consider a full military deployment to aid Syria if the government in Damascus requests it, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said.
The comments came during an inteview that Araghchi gave to the Qatar-based outlet Al-Araby Al-Jadeed on his way back from Türkiye on Monday evening.
“If the Syrian government asks Iran to send troops to Syria, we will consider the request,” Araghchi was quoted as saying.
Tehran is preparing “a series of steps to calm the situation in Syria and find an opportunity to present an initiative for a permanent solution,” he added.
Militants of al-Qaeda affiliate Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham (HTS) and other Islamist groups launched a large-scale offensive from Idlib province towards Aleppo, Hama and Homs last week. Idlib has been under Turkish protection since a ceasefire negotiated with Russia in 2020.
The expansion of these terrorist groups “may harm Syria’s neighboring countries such as Iraq, Jordan, and Türkiye more than Iran,” Araghchi told the Qatari outlet.
Tehran is willing to “consult and dialogue” with Ankara to bridge their differences, Araghchi noted, but said that Iran demands a withdrawal of Turkish troops from Syria before any meeting between their presidents can take place. According to the Iranian foreign minister, this is a “reasonable” request.
Iran is “concerned about the collapse of the Astana process in Syria, because there is no easy alternative to it,” according to Araghchi. This was a reference to the deal signed in 2017 in the capital of Kazakhstan, in which the governments in Damascus, Ankara, Tehran, and Moscow pledged to work on resolving the Syrian conflict peacefully.
Araghchi also said he intended to visit Moscow to discuss the situation in Syria.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that Ankara supports “Syria’s territorial integrity and national unity” but that ending the conflict required a “consensus in line with the legitimate demands of the Syrian people.” His foreign minister, Hakan Fidan, said on Monday that the hostilities resumed because Damascus ignored the “legitimate demands of the opposition.”
Meanwhile, Russia has reiterated its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and the government in Damascus.
The Russian expeditionary force, deployed to Syria in 2015 to help Damascus fight against Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS) terrorists, has carried out a series of airstrikes against the attacking jihadists in support of the Syrian army.
Cringe Diplomacy? Germany’s FM Unleashes Tirade of Threats & Accusations During China Trip
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 03.12.2024
During her September 2023 US tour, the top diplomat reaffirmed Berlin’s intent to back the Kiev regime “as long as it takes,” as she stated. Moreover, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock stirred up some controversy when she called Chinese President Xi Jinping a “dictator” in an interview.
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock arrived in China for discussions with her counterpart, Wang Yi, on December 2-3, wielding anything but the tools of diplomacy.
Baerbock plunged into a tirade of accusations, claiming that Russia was “destroying our European peace order” and that “increasing Chinese support” for Russia “has an impact on our relations,” according to a readout by the German foreign ministry.
“China is going against our core European interests by providing economic and military aid to Russia,” said Baerbock, and “this is not in China’s interests,” she argued.
Germany’s top diplomat, who made no bones about declaring that European countries were waging a war against Russia in 2023, urging that more weapons be sent to Ukraine, now claimed she was in China to advocate “a just peace process.”
Upon finishing her rant regarding NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine, security sprang into action and escorted members of the German media out of the room, reported Handelsblatt. There was also no joint press statement with her counterpart this time.
Striking a completely different tone, Wang Yi countered by saying that China and Germany should “overcome interference, remove obstacles […] and abandon the old mindset of cold war and confrontation.”
Beijing has consistently condemned the Western sanctions against Russia, calling for an end to these illegal measures. It has emphasized that its trade with Russia is conducted transparently and is “consistent with WTO rules and market principles.”
President Vladimir Putin has described the trust-based relationship between Russia and China as one of the key factors contributing to international stability.
EU has weakened ‘a lot’ amid Ukraine conflict – Hungarian FM
RT | December 3, 2024
The EU approach to the Ukraine conflict has ultimately weakened the bloc “a lot,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said, branding the decision to blindly follow Washington’s polices a “big mistake.”
The top diplomat made the remarks while speaking exclusively to RT’s Saskia Taylor in an interview on Monday. Comparisons between EU and US aid to Ukraine by the bloc’s leaders are a “very bad and harmful approach from the European perspective,” Szijjarto said. While the US is hardly affected by the enduring hostility between Moscow and Kiev, the conflict has taken a heavy toll on the EU, according to the minister.
“There is destruction taking place in Europe, and the European economy is faced with the impacts and the consequences of this war. So therefore, following the US policies without any kind of criticism, that’s a big mistake and I do believe that the strategy the European Union has been following in the recent 1000 days is a failed one,” Szijjarto said.
The EU has “weakened a lot” during the conflict, and the approach taken by the bloc has proven to be a wrong one, the diplomat stated.
I do believe that instead of globalizing the conflict, the right strategy would have been to localize it and to do everything in order to resolve it, to make peace, instead of pouring oil on the fire, which has been the case.
“There are many extremely pro-war politicians in Europe. When I sit on the meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council with other foreign ministers and listen to some, I’m so sad, that such kind of extreme pro-war positions are present,” Szijjarto stated.
Hungary itself has taken a different approach, remaining “the only country in Europe or European Union which has not delivered weapons to Ukraine,” he noted. “We are the only country in NATO, almost the only one, which speaks openly about the red lines which must be kept seriously. And we are the ones who speak openly about our assessment that NATO is a defense alliance and not an attack,” Szijjarto added.
The foreign minister also touched upon the situation in Georgia, which has been gripped by unrest over the past few days after Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze announced that he would freeze accession talks with the EU until 2028. The protests have been openly backed by the EU, with the stance taken by the bloc’s leadership hardly surprising given that Hungary has been “under attack for the last 15 years,” Szijjarto suggested.
“My problem is that this is very [common] in Europe. In the case, if it is not the liberals to win an election, the democratic nature of the whole country and the whole political system is being questioned immediately. If it is liberals to win, everything’s fine. If it’s patriots to win, if it is conservatives to win, if it is right-wing to win, the nature of democracy is immediately questioned. And this is totally unacceptable,” he said.
Rheinmetall CEO Vows Increase of German Military Spending on Ukraine to $10.5Bln
Sputnik – 03.12.2024
BERLIN – Germany should spend 10 billion euros ($10.5 billion) from its state budget annually on military aid to Ukraine, otherwise there is a risk of suspension of the Rheinmetall ammunition plant, the company’s CEO, Armin Papperger, said in an interview.
In July, even before the government crisis, the German cabinet announced that the German government, as part of the draft budget for 2025, intended to halve aid to Ukraine to 4 billion euros from 8 billion euros.
According to Papperger, Germany should lay down a much larger budget for military support for Kiev, which will exceed 8 billion in annual expenditures.
“At least ten billion must be approved as further aid,” he said.
In this context, Papperger expressed concern that he would not be able to maintain the full capacity of the new enterprise in the community of Unterlues in Lower Saxony, where, among other things, ammunition for Ukraine is produced, without state funding — if Rheinmetall does not order raw materials in advance, the plant may shut down in a year or a year and a half, he noted.
The head of Rheinmetall also said that an additional 350-400 billion euros would be needed to modernize the Bundeswehr.
Earlier, the concern reported an increase in sales in the first half of the year, increasing to 3.8 billion euros, which is 33% higher than the same figure last year. This is due, among other things, to arms supplies to Ukraine, as stated in a Rheinmetall press release.
In August, German media reported that Berlin was forced to reduce military aid to Ukraine, since, according to the current budget planning of the German government, new funds were no longer allocated for these purposes. It was specified that already approved deliveries would still be carried out, but additional requests from the German Defense Ministry would no longer have to be approved, according to the order of the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who later assured that Germany would remain the largest donor of aid to Ukraine in Europe.
In November, Germany faced a serious government crisis after Finance Minister Christian Lindner was fired at the insistence of Scholz. Among the reasons for this decision, he named the latter’s reluctance to approve both an increase in spending on supporting Ukraine and investing in the future of Germany as part of the state budget planning.
Featured Video
Iran Blockade Complications
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Alarmist climate science as a textbook example of groupthink
By Paul MacRae | May 1, 2012
… Groupthink was extensively studied by Yale psychologist Irving L. Janis and described in his 1982 book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.
Janis was curious about how teams of highly intelligent and motivated people—the “best and the brightest” as David Halberstam called them in his 1972 book of the same name—could have come up with political policy disasters like the Vietnam War, Watergate, Pearl Harbor and the Bay of Pigs. Similarly, in 2008 and 2009, we saw the best and brightest in the world’s financial sphere crash thanks to some incredibly stupid decisions, such as allowing sub-prime mortgages to people on the verge of bankruptcy.
In other words, Janis studied why and how groups of highly intelligent professional bureaucrats and, yes, even scientists, screw up, sometimes disastrously and almost always unnecessarily. The reason, Janis believed, was “groupthink.” He quotes Nietzsche’s observation that “madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups,” and notes that groupthink occurs when “subtle constraints … prevent a [group] member from fully exercising his critical powers and from openly expressing doubts when most others in the group appear to have reached a consensus.”[2]
Janis found that even if the group leader expresses an openness to new ideas, group members value consensus more than critical thinking; groups are thus led astray by excessive “concurrence-seeking behavior.”[3] Therefore, Janis wrote, groupthink is “a model of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”[4]
The groupthink syndrome
The result is what Janis calls “the groupthink syndrome.” This consists of three main categories of symptoms:
1. Overestimate of the group’s power and morality, including “an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.” [emphasis added]
2. Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward alternative views.[5]
3. Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”[6]
It’s obvious that alarmist climate science—as explicitly and extensively revealed in the Climatic Research Unit’s “Climategate” emails—shares all of these defects of groupthink, including a huge emphasis on maintaining consensus, a sense that because they are saving the world, alarmist climate scientists are beyond the normal moral constraints of scientific honesty (“overestimation of the group’s power and morality”), and vilification of those (“deniers”) who don’t share the consensus. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Ceasefire no longer viable after 200 days of Israeli violations: Hamas
- Israeli strikes intensify across southern Lebanon, casualties reported
- Left in Disbelief: Israel in Panic over Hezbollah FPV Drone Nightmare
- Trump Taps Israel Lobbyist From Mossad Cutout FDD To Join Iran Negotiations
- Trump’s Blockade Snatches Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
- Geopolitics and Geoeconomics of the Strait of Hormuz
- Mali: a new front in the Western war on multipolarism
- CHD Scientist: CDC, FDA COVID Vaccine Safety Monitoring ‘Insulting, and Many People Are Injured’
- COVID Conniving Receives First Federal Indictment
- Iran Blockade Complications /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Nima Alkhorshid
- If Americans Knew
- Israel’s New Ambassador to the ‘Christian World’ Served as Envoy to Azerbaijan During the Ethnic Cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh
- US set to sell $1B “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System” to Israel – Daily Update
- Israeli Strikes Kill at Least 32 Across S Lebanon, Including Children – Amid “Ceasefire”
- Israel to pour $730m into propaganda arm amid reputational crisis
- Real Cost of Iran War Likely Double the $25 Billion Figure the Pentagon Gave to Congress
- Israel conducts farthest-ever strike in long history of attacks on Gaza humanitarian aid flotillas
- In Gaza, Israel commits 10+ ceasefire violations a day – Daily Update
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- Israel’s top Jewish religious body ‘refuses to condemn’ smashing of Jesus statue
- No Tricks Zone
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
Aletho News 