Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Long War to reaffirm Western and Israeli primacy undergoes a shape-shift

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 2, 2024

The long war to reaffirm western and Israeli primacy is undergoing a shape-shift. On one front, the calculus in respect to Russia and the Ukraine war has shifted. And in the Middle East, the locus and shape of the war is shifting in a distinct way.

Georges Kennan’s famed Soviet doctrine has long formed the baseline to U.S. policy, firstly directed toward the Soviet Union, and latterly, towards Russia. Kennan’s thesis from 1946 was that the United States needed to work patiently and resolutely to thwart the Soviet threat, and to enhance and aggravate the internal fissures in the Soviet system, until its contradictions triggered the collapse from within.

More recently, the Atlantic Council has drawn on the Kennan doctrine to suggest that his broad outline should serve as the basis of U.S. policy towards Iran. “The threat that Iran poses to the U.S. resembles the one faced from the Soviet Union after World War II. In this regard, the policy that George Kennan outlined for dealing with the Soviet Union has some applications for Iran”, the Atlantic report states.

Over the years, that doctrine has ossified into an entire network of security understandings, based on the archetypal conviction that America is strong, and that Russia was weak. Russia must ‘know that’, and thus, it was argued, there could be no logic for Russian strategists to imagine they had any other option but to submit to the overmatch represented by the combined military strength of NATO versus a ‘weak’ Russia. And should Russian strategists unwisely persevere with challenging the West, it was said, the inherent contrariety simply would cause Russia to fracture.

American neocons and western intelligence have not listened to any other view, because they were (and largely still are) convinced by Kennan’s formulation. The American foreign policy class simply could not accept the possibility that such a core thesis was wrong. The entire approach reflected more a deep-seated culture, rather than any rational analysis – even when visible facts on the ground pointed them to a different reality.

So, America has piled the pressure on Russia through the incremental delivery of additional weapons systems to Ukraine; through stationing intermediate range nuclear-capable missiles ever-closer to Russia’s borders; and most recently, by shooting ATACMS into ‘old Russia’.

The aim has been to pressure Russia into a situation where it would feel obliged to make concessions to Ukraine, such as to accept a freezing of the conflict, and to be obliged to negotiate against Ukrainian bargaining ‘cards’ devised to yield a solution acceptable to the U.S. Or, alternatively, for Russia to be cornered into the ‘nuclear corner’.

American strategy ultimately rests on the conviction that the U.S. could engage in a nuclear war with Russia – and prevail; that Russia understands that were it to go nuclear, it would ‘lose the world’. Or, pressured by NATO, the anger amongst Russians likely would sweep Putin from office were he to make significant concessions to Ukraine. It was a ‘win-win’ outcome – from the U.S. perspective.

Unexpectedly however, a new weapon appeared on the scene which precisely unshackles President Putin from the ‘all-or-nothing’ choice of having to concede a bargaining ‘hand’ to Ukraine, or resort to nuclear deterrence. Instead, the war can be settled by facts on the ground. Effectively, the George Kennan ‘trap’ imploded.

The Oreshnik missile (that was used to attack the Yuzhmash complex at Dnietropetrovsk) provides Russia with a weapon, such as never before witnessed: An intermediate range missile system that effectively checkmates the western nuclear threat.

Russia can now manage western escalation with a credible threat of retaliation that is both hugely destructive – yet conventional. It inverts the paradigm. It is now the West’s escalation that either has to go nuclear, or be limited to providing Ukraine with weapons such as ATACMS or Storm Shadow that will not alter the course of the war. Were NATO to escalate further, it risks an Oreshnik strike in retaliation, either in Ukraine or on some target in Europe, leaving the West with the dilemma of what to do next.

Putin has warned: ‘If you strike again in Russia, we will respond with an Oreshnik hit on a military facility in another nation. We will provide warning, so that civilians can evacuate. There is nothing that you can do to prevent this; you do not have an anti-missile system that can stop an attack coming in at Mach 10’.

The tables are turned.

Of course, there are other reasons beyond the permanent security cadre’s wish to Gulliverise Trump into continuing the war in Ukraine, in order to taint him with a war that he promised immediately to end.

Particularly the British, and others in Europe, want the war to continue, because they are on the financial hook from their holdings of some $20 billion Ukrainian bonds which are in a ‘default-like status’, or from their guarantees to the IMF for loans to Ukraine. Europe simply cannot afford the costs of a full default. Neither can Europe afford to pick up the burden, were the Trump Administration to walk away from supporting Ukraine financially. So they collude with the U.S. interagency structure to make the continuation of the war proofed against a Trump policy reversal: Europe for financial motives, and the Deep State because it wants to disrupt Trump, and his domestic agenda.

The other wing to the ‘global war’ reflects a mirror paradox: That is, ‘Israel is strong and Iran is weak’. The central point is not only its cultural underpinning, but that the entire Israeli and U.S. apparatus is party to the narrative that Iran is a weak and technically backward country.

The most significant aspect is the multi-year failure as regards factors such as the skill to understand strategies, and recognize changes in the other sides’ capabilities, views and understandings.

Russia seems to have solved some of the general physical problems of objects flying at hypersonic speed. The use of new composite materials has made it possible to enable the gliding cruise bloc to make a long-distance guided flight practically in conditions of plasma formation. It flies to its target like a meteorite; like a ball of fire. The temperature on its surface reaches 1,600–2,000 degrees Celsius but the cruise bloc is reliably guided.

And Iran seems to have solved the problems associated with an adversary enjoying air dominance. Iran has created a deterrence fashioned from the evolution of cheap swarms drones matched up with Ballistic missiles carrying precision hypersonic warheads. It puts $1,000 drones and cheap, precision missiles up and against hugely expensive piloted airframes – An inversion of warfare that has been twenty years in the making.

The Israeli war however, is metamorphosing in other ways. The war in Gaza and Lebanon has strained Israeli manpower; the IDF have sustained heavy losses; its troops are exhausted; and the reservists are losing commitment to Israel’s wars, and are failing to show up for duty.

Israel has reached the limits of its capacity to put boots on the ground (short of conscripting the Orthodox Haredi Yeshiva students – an act that could bring down the Coalition).

In short, the Israeli army’s troop levels have fallen below present command ordered military commitments. The economy is imploding and internal divisions are raw and bruising. This is especially so due to the inequity of secular Israelis dying, whilst others stay exempt from military service – a destiny reserved for some but not others.

This tension played a major part in Netanyahu’s decision to agree to a ceasefire in Lebanon. The growing animus about Orthodox Haredi exemption risked bringing down the Coalition.

There are – metaphorically speaking – now two Israels: The Kingdom of Judea versus the State of Israel. In view of such deep antagonisms, many Israelis now see war with Iran as the catharsis that will bind a fractured people together again, and – if victorious – end all of Israel’s wars.

Outside, the war widens and shape-shifts: Lebanon, for now, is put on a low flame burner, but Turkey has triggered a major military operation (reportedly some 15,000 strong) in an attack on Aleppo, using U.S. and Turkish trained jihadists and militia from Idlib. Turkish Intelligence no doubt has its own distinct objectives, but the U.S. and Israel have a particular interest to disrupt weapons supply routes to Hizbullah in Lebanon.

The Israeli wanton onslaught on non-combatants, women and children – and its explicit ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population – has left the region (and the Global South) seething and radicalised. Israel, through its actions, is disrupting the old ethos. The region is ‘conservative’ no more. Rather, a very different ‘Awakening’ is gestating.

December 2, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Biden’s Parting Shot at America

By Ron Paul | December 2, 2024

The interim between a US presidential election and the swearing in of a new Administration has for most of our history been a non-eventful period where the outgoing Administration winds down operations and the incoming Administration ramps up new personnel before the inauguration.

The 20th Amendment to our Constitution was enacted in 1933 to reduce the “lame duck” period between election and inauguration to January 20th instead of March 4th. Increasing ease in travel and communications made such a long interim unnecessary. However long the transition period, it has been understood that with the new election came a new mandate from the American people and the “lame duck” outgoing administration was meant to quietly quack out its last few days in office without incident.

Then came Biden. In the period since the American people rejected Biden’s neocon interventionists in favor of Donald Trump’s promises to end the wars, the “lame duck” has run roughshod over the will of the American people. Whoever is running Biden – and the answer is unclear – has decided to “Trump proof” foreign policy to bring us to the literal brink of WWIII with Russia. And to top it off, Biden’s people this past week have again unleashed al-Qaeda linked rebels to wreak havoc in Syria!

After solidly opposing the neocon demand that Ukraine be given permission to fire US weapons deep into Russia, President Biden in the waning days of his presidency suddenly reversed course and granted permission. From back in 2022, when Russia first went into Ukraine, Biden had argued against sending offensive weaponry and US troops to fight on Ukraine’s behalf. “Make no mistake,” he said in March of that year, “that’s called World War III.”

Something about losing the popular and electoral vote has led Biden’s people to disregard the threat of WWIII and give the green light for attacks with US missiles deep into Russian territory. Why is this so different than providing tanks or bullets? These missile systems are highly complex and classified and can only be operated by US or NATO personnel. That means that American military officers are shooting American missiles into Russia – something unimaginable even in the depths of the Cold War!

Then, just days ago, we saw the sudden re-emergence of the US former proxies in Syria – extremists whose ties go back to al-Qaeda – sweep halfway through the country in what appears to be a return of Obama’s disastrous “Assad must go” policy. For five years the conflict in Syria had been more or less “frozen,” but Biden’s people have turned it up to a boil.

Why has the Biden Administration suddenly given a green light to these terrorists and how deeply is the CIA involved in stirring up new trouble in Syria? Make no mistake: these US-backed “rebels” would never have made their move without the approval of the Biden Administration.

The American people did not vote for an expansion of war, either in eastern Europe or the Middle East. A recent CBE News/YouGov poll has shown that a majority of Americans favor an end to all US military aid to Ukraine.

Upending the card table just because you lose the game not only shows blatant disregard for the “democracy” his party constantly preached on the campaign trail, but by pouring gasoline on these two very dangerous conflicts as he heads for the door President Biden puts each and every one of us in grave danger.

December 2, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

Boris Johnson admits Ukraine conflict is “proxy war” against Russia

By Ahmed Adel | December 2, 2024

Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson admitted that the West organized a proxy war against Russia, an effort that has not only caused untold deaths and apocalyptic carnage in Ukraine but has raised fears of a nuclear conflict, especially after Moscow announced its intentions to review its nuclear policy following Kiev regime missile attacks on Russian territory.

It is recalled that as prime minister (July 2019-September 2022), Johnson encouraged the Europeans to send more weapons to Ukraine after he urged the Kiev regime to abandon negotiations with the Kremlin and continue a futile war effort. In effect, the former prime minister saw an opportunity to use Kiev as a proxy to continue London’s centuries-old foreign policy tradition of hostility with Moscow.

“We’re waging a proxy war, but we’re not giving our proxies the ability to do the job. For years now, we’ve been allowing them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs and it has been cruel,” Johnson told The Telegraph.

The former British prime minister also said that a multinational group of European peacekeeping forces should be responsible for protecting any possible future ceasefire line in Ukraine.

“I don’t think we should be sending in combat troops to take on the Russians. But I think as part of the solution, as part of the end state, you’re going to want to have multinational European peace-keeping forces monitoring the border [and] helping the Ukrainians,” he said. “I cannot see that such a European operation could possibly happen without the British.”

However, while Johnson said that British troops should not be deployed to fight the Russians, he did stress that London was “morally responsible” for Ukraine and supported the use of British Storm Shadow missile against Russia.

“[Britain took] far too long [to] break the taboo” on providing Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine and the accompanying policy permission to fire the weapons into Russia, he said, adding: “We could have forced the pace.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on November 28 at a press conference in Kazakhstan that major “decision-making centres” in Kiev would be devastated by the powerful Oreshnik missile in response to Ukrainian strikes on Russia and warned that all weapons could be used if the Kiev regime were to acquire nuclear arms.

“We do not rule out the use of Oreshnik against the military, military-industrial facilities or decision-making centres, including in Kiev,” Putin said, adding that although the weapon was “comparable in strength to a nuclear strike” if used several times on one location, they were not currently fitted with nuclear warheads.

“The kinetic impact is powerful, like a meteorite falling,” the Russian president explained. “We know in history what meteorites have fallen where and what the consequences were.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky hypocritically accused Putin of a “despicable escalation” even though it was Kiev that had long been requesting permission from the US, Britain and France to fire long-range missiles provided by them against military targets inside Russia. Following the granting of permission, the Kiev regime launched British Storm Shadow missiles and American ATACMS to strike targets inside Russia for the first time, prompting anger from the Kremlin.

Zelensky had the audacity to accuse Moscow of a “despicable escalation” by not ruling out the use of the Oreshnik—a typical example of the Ukrainian president’s tendency to gaslight. Rather, Zelensky should be thankful that Moscow continues to show restraint and patience in the face of constant provocations.

In an interview with international media on November 30, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow is not very inclined to use nuclear weapons but that, due to the circumstances, things are changing.

“The Russian Federation has a very responsible stance on this issue. It is convinced that nuclear weapons should never be used by anyone. That’s why we do everything possible to ensure they are never used,” the Russian spokesman said.

“But the situation is changing drastically. That’s why changes were made to our concept that states if a nuclear power assists another country in attacking our territory, this could justify the use of nuclear weapons,” he added.

It is recalled that David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine’s ruling party, confirmed in November 2023 that peace talks between Moscow and Kiev in the first months of the broke down because of direct Western influence.

According to him, Kiev’s assurance of its neutrality and ending its NATO ambitions would have been enough for Russia to agree to withdraw beyond the pre-war frontlines. However, Boris Johnson arrived unexpectedly in Kiev on April 9, 2022, when negotiations were underway in Istanbul, and told Zelensky that he “shouldn’t sign anything with them at all—and let’s just fight.”

Johnson’s influence on Zelensky to continue the war instead of ending it has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people dying, millions of refugees, and billions of dollars in damages. Britain’s former prime minister is responsible for an incredible amount of bloodshed and destruction, with perhaps the most shocking aspect being that Ukraine, the proxy, has suffered the most rather than Russia.

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

December 2, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

NATO begins major war drills near Russian border

RT | December 2, 2024

NATO countries are set to kick off major war games in northeast Estonia near the border with Russia on Monday, focusing on the rapid deployment of the bloc’s forces and increasing their interoperability.

Some 2,000 troops from Estonia, Latvia, the US, France, and the UK are set to take part in the two-week Pikne (‘Lightning’) exercise, which is part of NATO’s broader Brilliant Eagle program dedicated to increasing the bloc’s deployment and cooperation capabilities in the Baltic Sea region.

According to the commander of the Estonian Division, Major General Indrek Sirel, who is leading the exercises, the war games will focus on “rapid deployment of reinforcements and cooperation between French, British and Estonian forces.” Units of the French Armed Forces will carry out a rapid deployment operation to Estonia by air, followed by joint multinational maneuvers on land, air and sea, Sirel said in a press release.

The first week of the exercises will be dedicated to the movement of units and practicing cooperation in various regions of north and northeast Estonia as well as the Gulf of Finland, and will focus on conducting operations as a “multinational force to counter an emerging threat on land, in the air, and at the sea.” The second week will involve live-fire exercises with heavy combat equipment and military aircraft.

Estonian residents have been warned that low-altitude flights will be taking place over parts of the country as part of the exercises, and that loud noises will likely be heard due to the use of simulation ammunition.

The exercise comes as tensions between Russia and NATO have continued to escalate. Moscow has repeatedly stressed that the expansion of the US-led bloc towards its borders represents a threat to its security.

In October, Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko also claimed that NATO is no longer hiding the fact that it is gearing up for a potential military conflict with Russia by continuing to hold increasingly larger military exercises near its borders, such as the Steadfast Defender drills, which were the bloc’s largest maneuvers since the end of the Cold War.

“Regional defense plans have been approved, concrete tasks for all of the bloc’s military command structures have been formulated. Possible options for military action against Russia are being continuously worked out,” the diplomat said.

December 2, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Desperate Escalations in Middle East & Ukraine

Alastair Crooke, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | December 1, 2024

I had a conversation with Alastair Crooke about the escalating situation in the Middle East and Ukraine. Thousands of Turkish-backed jihadists invade Aleppo immediately after the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. Russia’s Oreshnik missiles change NATO’s calculations. The commitment to deeply flawed narratives in the Middle East and Ukraine results in miscalculations and failure to pursue course correction.

Watch at Odysee

December 2, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The first-round “surprise” in Romania’s elections: What does the Georgescu-Lasconi race mean?

By Erkin Oncan | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 30, 2024

Romania held its presidential elections last Sunday, with 13 candidates competing in a race where most polling predictions were proven wrong. Among these candidates, the most notable was Calin Georgescu, who ran as an independent.

Georgescu emerged victorious in the first round, where voter turnout was recorded at 52%. He secured over 22% of the vote, making him the frontrunner of the elections.

Elena Lasconi of the Save Romania Union Party (USR), representing liberal conservatives, came in second place. Meanwhile, current Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu narrowly fell to third place behind Lasconi.

One of the notable candidates, former NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoană, announced his retirement from politics after his defeat. Geoană expressed concerns in an interview with Romanian media, stating:

“The level of disappointment and anger is pushing society toward a more radical choice.”

A shocking win in Western Media

Georgescu’s victory was described in Western media with terms like “surprise,” “shock,” and “earthquake.” This sentiment stems from Georgescu’s reputation as a relatively unpopular politician known for his anti-NATO and anti-Ukraine statements.

As he highlighted in one of his interviews, Georgescu conducted his entire campaign on TikTok. This unconventional strategy led many Romanian analysts to dub him a “product of TikTok.”

Who is Calin Georgescu?

Calin Georgescu, a 62-year-old right-wing populist, holds degrees from the University of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences and the National Defense College in Bucharest.

Starting his career as a university lecturer, he later worked at the Ministry of Environment and served as Romania’s representative for the UN Environment Program.

This election is not Georgescu’s first political endeavor. In 2020 and 2021, the far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) nominated him for the position of Prime Minister. However, his candidacy was revoked following his praise for controversial historical figures, including pro-Nazi dictator Ion Antonescu and Zelea Codreanu, founder of the anti-Semitic Iron Guard. Georgescu even faced a criminal investigation for glorifying war criminals.

In a 2022 interview with Antena 3, Georgescu referred to these figures as “heroes” and claimed that “the Romanian nation lives through these heroes.”

“NATO base is a diplomatic disgrace”

Georgescu is also known for his anti-NATO rhetoric. He has labeled NATO’s ballistic missile defense system in Deveselu, Romania, as a “diplomatic disgrace” and argued that the alliance would not protect its members in the event of a Russian attack.

Speaking to Romanian journalist Mihai Tatulici, Georgescu advocated for Romania’s neutrality in the Ukraine war, saying:

“It is clear that the situation in Ukraine is being manipulated. The conflict is being orchestrated to serve the interests of the U.S. military-industrial complex. As a nation, our priority should be to remain neutral in any conflict. What happens there is not our concern.”

A vision for a sovereign Romania

Georgescu has openly criticized the European Union (EU), calling it a failed project that seeks to enslave Romania. He outlined his vision for the country as follows:

“The peace strategy must take precedence. This includes both external and internal peace. Everything begins here. Nobody has ever built anything through war. I can summarize my vision with three clear principles: First, our people’s genius lies in remaining 100% neutral in any conflict. Second, I want a sovereign state, one that is independent and uninvolved. Third, we must learn how to utilize our national resources independently.”

In another interview with Antena 3, Georgescu stated:

“We do not have a state. Without a state, people are nothing more than a herd, and the only entity capable of serving the nation is a state. Yet, this has nearly disappeared.”

Liberal-conservative candidate Lasconi

Elena Lasconi, Georgescu’s opponent in the second round, is a former journalist and mayor. She strongly supports Romania’s alliance with Ukraine. On the 1,000th day of the war in Ukraine, she posted on Facebook:

“1,000 days of courage, sacrifice, and the fight for freedom. Romania must continue to stand by Ukraine. I promise to ensure this steadfast support as President. This is not just Ukraine’s fight; it is a struggle for the stability and democracy of the entire region.”

Lasconi also expressed her strong support for NATO. In an interview with Radio Free Europe’s Romanian service, she emphasized the deterrent power of NATO troops:

“I believe it would be wonderful if we had more foreign troops in Romania because countries with well-trained NATO forces have never been attacked.”

A clash of ideologies

Georgescu’s arguments reflect a broader European trend among right-wing populists: emphasizing strong state authority, national revival, and economic self-sufficiency, alongside an anti-war stance. This approach has led many to label him as “Kremlin’s man.”

In contrast, Lasconi embodies a pro-European leader aligned with the current needs of NATO and the EU.

The political polarization in Romania mirrors that of other nations like Moldova, pre-war Ukraine, Serbia, and Georgia. On one side stands a Europe-skeptic right advocating for national sovereignty and strong state policies; on the other, a liberal-conservative faction deeply tied to Atlanticist structures.

While accusations of “Russian influence” often dominate these elections, it’s clear that the economic challenges, political instability, and heightened militarization driving voter concerns are far more tangible than alleged Kremlin meddling.

The roughly 350,000-vote difference between Georgescu and his closest competitor underscores the growing appeal of right-wing populist skepticism toward Europe, marking it as the West’s rising trend. However, Western analysts will need more than just “Kremlin narratives” to fully understand this shift.

December 1, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Houthis Have Trapped American Superpower in Dangerous ‘Stalemate’, US Media Say

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 30.11.2024

The US military is “locked in a dangerous stalemate” in its campaign against the Houthis, proving “unable to effectively stop the rebels from attacking ships,” and at the same time “unlikely” to be given a free hand for all-out war against the group, a top mainstream US business publication has suggested.

“The American military has led a Western naval coalition into battle against the Houthis to curb their relentless attacks, but a year of intense combat has brought the US no closer to ending the threat posed by the rebels – and, for now, a more aggressive approach doesn’t appear to be the desired course,” Business Insider suggested, citing the sentiments of US officials and experts, including the Biden administration’s top Yemen envoy.

“The restrained approach to the ongoing Houthi crisis leaves the US military engaged in combat operations without a clear path to victory,” BI said, pointing to the toll Houthi attacks have had on Red Sea shipping, which up until a year ago accounted for up to 15% of all maritime trade.

Then there’s the impact on the US military’s much vaunted reputation – the limits to which have been made clear over the past year amid its inability to degrade the potential of a group armed with $20,000 drones, homemade ballistic missiles and Soviet-era air defense systems.

“The threat still persists, and there doesn’t seem to be much abating that,” former US Central Command chief Gen. (ret.) Joseph Votel said. Instead, US operations “have been clearly focused on trying to defend ourselves and going after launch sites, production sites, storage sites, maybe some command and control sites – but none of that seems to be deterring the Houthis at all,” Votel complained.

“Allowing the Houthis to protract their gradual escalation campaign is a much more dangerous policy choice for the US in the long run than a more decisive military effort would have been,” Brian Carter, Middle East analyst at the DC-based American Enterprise Institute neocon think tank, argued, highlighting the impact Houthi persistence has had on the US’s perceived strength abroad.

Gen. Votel added that the more assets the US deploys against the Houthis, the less there will be for the Pentagon’s other global priorities, including challenging China in the Pacific.

A recent report by Brown University’s Costs of War Project estimated that the US has spent over $2.5 billion on the anti-Houthi campaign over the past year – which includes the cost of stationing multi-billion dollar carrier strike groups in the region, and the $4 million+ apiece missiles the US has fired to take down Houthi drones.

US Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Bill LaPlante told a defense forum earlier this month that as a missile expert, he was “shocked” by the Houthis’ increasingly advanced missile capabilities, saying the militia has proven able to churn out new arms that “can do things that are just amazing.”

Last month, an article in an issue of West Point military academy’s Combating Terrorism Center Sentinel journal revealed that Houthi projectiles nearly landed hits against a US supercarrier and a missile destroyer over the course of Red Sea operations earlier this year.

Israel too has seen the growing power of Houthi missile and drone capabilities, facing attacks by large, airplane-style UAVs and a new hypersonic ballistic missile the Houthis have called the ‘Palestine-2’.

The Houthis have linked the end of their Red Sea campaign to a halt in the year-plus long war in Gaza, and recently urged President-Elect Trump to “fulfill his commitment to Arab voters and supporters of Gaza” and pressure Israel to stop the fighting in the besieged enclave, and halt American aggression against Yemen itself, emphasizing that the US was “paying an economic and military price” for its role as Israel’s lackey.

“The question remains: will Trump continue with the same policy and will the American aggression against Yemen continue? If it continues, the American economy will suffer more losses,” a militia source told Newsweek earlier this month.

Despite being sanctioned and designated a terrorist organization by the Trump administration, the Houthis have been among the traditional international adversaries of the US to have expressed cautious optimism over the prospects of Trump’s return to the White House.

Last week, Ali Larijani, a senior advisor to the Iranian Supreme Leader, echoed the Houthis’ sentiments, suggesting “the question is whether the America of the Trump era sees its interests in continuing the behavior of the Democrats – who pulled America down in the region and destroyed its reputation… or do they want to make a turn in accordance with America’s national interests,” including by putting an end to “warmongering in the region.”

November 30, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

European elites are destroying Europe – again

Strategic Culture Foundation | November 29, 2024

One would think that having suffered two world wars only decades apart, European politicians might be more cautious about starting another one. Incredibly, however, the countries of Europe are being plunged into another conflagration.

Not much has changed over a century, it seems. War is still the result of imperialist intrigue and no accountability to the masses of citizens by arrogant politicians aided by relentless media propaganda lies.

European elitist rulers are a treasonous clique who are destroying Europe because of their abject servility to U.S.-led Western imperialism.

To put it crudely, Europe is being abused like a bondage plaything for the Washington and European elites. Shudder the thought of Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas in dominatrix garb or Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz as the gimps. But sometimes, the truth can be stranger than fiction.

Russian President Vladimir Putin nailed it this week when he slammed European political heads who are “dancing to the tune of the Americans.” In an address to the Collective Security Treaty Organization summit in Kazakhstan, Putin said the crisis over Ukraine showed that European so-called leaders have no independence or autonomy. They are non-entities as far as serving the democratic interests of their nations is concerned.

Instead of pushing for a diplomatic solution to the worst conflict on the European continent since World War Two, European political elites are slavishly going along with Washington’s criminal proxy war against Russia, which is in danger of spiraling into a nuclear Armageddon.

This week the buffoonish former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson openly admitted that the conflict in Ukraine was a proxy war against Russia. But that didn’t give Johnson pause for thought or shame. He urged the Europeans to send more weapons to Ukraine. Nor did his crass candidness elicit any outcry or condemnation. Johnson, the imbecile, was, in effect, confirming what Russia has been warning is the essence of the conflict in Ukraine – a U.S.-led war using Ukrainian cannon fodder.

Then, we had the chief of Britain’s intelligence agency MI6, “Sir” Richard Moore, holding forth to an audience in Paris that Russia’s Putin was causing “staggeringly reckless sabotage” across Europe. The British spymaster claimed that Russia was threatening the continent with nuclear weapons to weaken NATO support for Ukraine. He omitted the glaring fact that the U.S., Britain, and France have dramatically escalated the conflict by supplying a NeoNazi regime in Ukraine with long-range missiles to strike Russia.

Meanwhile, the governments in Germany and Nordic countries are issuing dire public warnings for people to “get ready for war” by building bomb shelters in their homes and stocking up on non-perishable foods.

You could hardly make this insanity up except in the dystopian novels of George Orwell. The continent is being led by the nose to disaster by politicians and corporate-controlled media who have lost their minds. They long ago lost any self-respect or independence and are simply acting as the most pathetic surrogates for U.S.-led imperialism.

Even without the ultimate catastrophe of war, Europe has been brought to ruination by elitist politicians who have unquestioningly followed the American agenda of trying to strategically defeat Russia through a proxy war.

Central to this U.S. strategic objective is vanquishing decades of mutually beneficial energy trade between Europe and Russia. The sanctions imposed on the Nord Stream gas pipelines by Trump during his first administration, followed by the blowing up of the pipes by the Biden administration in September 2022, are testimony to that bigger picture. None of the European governments or their news media properly investigated that huge crime of state-sponsored terrorism.

The proxy war and sanctions on Russian energy that the European leaders happily went along with have caused the European economies to implode. Critical commentators talk about the deindustrialization of Europe.

Even the Financial Times, in a recent in-depth report on Germany’s “broken economy”, sounded aghast at “the most pronounced downturn in Germany’s postwar history.” The report surveys auto, chemical and engineering sectors crucial to the German economy and cites “high energy costs” as the detrimental factor.

However, the Western media, even in supposed “in-depth reports” like the Financial Times, are careful not to spell out the obvious cause of Europe’s economic collapse: the U.S.-led proxy war in Ukraine and the consequent damage in Europe’s relations with Russia.

Media reports deplore a “jobs massacre” in Germany’s industrial giants like Volkswagen and Thyssenkrupp without explaining the cause as if the calamity is somehow random misfortune.

As if that is not bad enough, the incoming Trump administration is lining up heavy tariffs on exports from Europe as well as China, Canada, and Mexico. That will be a coup de grâce for the European economies delivered by its American ally.

Europe is in this appalling predicament – facing economic ruin amid a potential military conflagration – all because it has been misled by people like Ursula von der Leyen, Josep Borrell, France’s Macron, Germany’s Scholz (and Angela Merkel before him), and Netherlands former premier Mark Rutte, who is now the gung-ho head of NATO calling for more European weapons to Ukraine. Many others can be named from the Nordic countries, Poland, and the Baltic states. Rather fittingly, the European elitist political class has a long and vile history of Russophobia, going back to collaboration with Nazi Germany in its genocidal aggression against the Soviet Union.

The tragedy of Europe is not something mysterious or ill-fated. It is the direct result of elitist rulers who have assiduously conducted policies that harm European citizens. These charlatan leaders are shameless in their Russophobia and surrogacy for U.S.-led Western imperialism – even to the point of killing their own people through economic devastation or worse – world war.

The conflict in Ukraine is solvable through negotiations and dialogue that acknowledges the historical causes. From Russia’s point of view that pertains to NATO’s treacherous expansionism since the end of the Cold War.

But this is the deep dilemma facing Europe. Not one of the politicians (apart from a few honorable exceptions) is capable of thinking or acting independently because they are ideological slaves.

Rational diplomacy and respect for democracy and peace are beyond these political degenerates. Their complicity in a bankrupt system of Western imperialism makes them incapable of doing the right thing for humanity. That’s why the vile history of wars keeps repeating. They and their corrupt, warmongering system must be swept aside.

November 30, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Seoul: Lawmakers decry defense cost sharing with Washington

Press TV – November 28, 2024

South Korean lawmakers and activists are opposing the Special Measures Agreement on defense cost sharing with the US, criticizing it as secretive and detrimental to South Korean sovereignty.

The agreement, which includes an 8.3% increase in South Korea’s payment to the US, is seen as setting a precedent for unequal relations.

Lawmakers, joined by activists on the steps of South Korea’s National Assembly, blasted the agreement on cost sharing for US troops deployed in South Korea.

With incoming US President Donald Trump saying he wants even more money from Seoul, Progressive Party members want the deal nullified.

“If Trump calls us a money machine, let’s say this Special Measures Agreement on defense cost sharing is a robbery.

Let’s scrap the agreement and renegotiate it from the beginning.

This is what we should do as we approach the Trump era.”

Jung Hye-Kyung, South Korean Lawmaker

Those opposed to the deal argue that negotiations were secret, that it increases the public’s financial burden, undermines South Korean sovereignty, and, sets the tone for further unequal relations with the United States of America.

This 12th defense cost sharing Special Measures Agreement stipulates an 8.3% increase in South Korea’s payment to the US for the deployment of American forces at bases across the country.

During his presidential campaign, US President Elect Donald Trump called South Korea a wealthy nation that should pay more for US forces stationed in South Korea.

American forces have been deployed in South Korea since the end of the 1950 to 53 Korean War.

But the mission of the 28,500 US troops here has shifted with US strategic interests to contain China.

“The nature of the United States Forces Korea is changing a lot on the Korean peninsula; the USFK is playing a role in keeping China in check.

If that is the case, the US also needs to pay for the use of the bases on the Korean peninsula or pay for the cost of stationing troops here.”

Kang Hye-Jin, Peace Activist

Each round of the closed door talks faced intense opposition.

This week, South Korean lawmakers shall debate the US troop cost sharing deal in committees, likely to include dissenting opinions, before potentially ratifying the agreement.

November 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

Is the US Fueling a New Nuclear Arms Race?

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 29.11.2024

The pace of US nuclear weapons modernization is accelerating, meaning Washington has de facto launched an arms race against Russia and China, the Roscongress Foundation warned in its recent report obtained by Sputnik.

The report outlined key developments:

  • The US is planning to spend about $138 billion on the modernization of nuclear warheads until FY 2049.
  • Another $500 billion will be spent on stockpile management, including dismantling and disposal of components of warheads removed from armaments, as well as research, development, testing and evaluation, other weapons activities and, finally, infrastructure operations.
  • Over 67,000 employees have been involved in the implementation of the US nuclear weapons modernization program. Their number has increased by more than 70% over the past ten years.
  • The US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has fast-tracked plutonium pit production, with a 2018 plan to produce 80 pits annually for nuclear warheads.
  • In addition, the US is modernizing most of the nuclear weapons storage bases in Europe. Presently, the US stores its tactical nuclear weapons at six bases in five NATO member countries, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkiye.
  • In 2023, the Pentagon received over 200 updated nuclear munitions, which was the largest annual delivery since the end of the Cold War.

According to Federation of American Scientists, the total inventory of US nuclear warheads amounts to 5,044 including 1,770 deployed warheads, 1,938 reserved for operational forces, and 1,336 retired warheads.

The State Department estimates that the US had roughly 1,420 warheads deployed on 662 missiles and bombers as of March 1, 2023, including:

  • Minuteman III ICBM 396 warheads
  • Trident (D-5) SLBM 981 warheads
  • B-52 bombers 33 warheads
  • B-2 bombers 10 warheads

According to US Congressional Budget Office 2023 estimates, US programs to operate and modernize nuclear forces would cost $756 billion over the next 10 years.

November 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | | Leave a comment

Washington’s War in Ukraine: Narrowing Options, Growing Consequences

By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – November 29, 2024

Russia’s use of its Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile in eastern Ukraine represents an unprecedented escalation in what began as a US proxy war against Russia in 2014.

The missile’s capabilities represent a serious non-nuclear means of striking targets anywhere in Europe without the collective West’s ability to sufficiently defend against it.
The possibility of the West now facing direct consequences for what has so far been a proxy war, may reintroduce rational thought across the West otherwise not required when spending the lives of others. It may, however, cause Western policymakers to double down, confident in the belief that they remain decoupled from any possible consequences despite unprecedented escalation.

The missile’s use is only the latest demonstration of Russia’s military and escalatory dominance amid the ongoing proxy war. It alone would be unable to significantly impact the fighting, but because the Russian Federation over the last two decades has invested deeply in the fundamentals of national defense, it compliments a range of other capabilities serving as a deterrence against continued Western encroachment.

Before the deployment of the Oreshnik, the progress of Russian forces along the line of contact in Ukraine had been accelerating, triggering panic across the capitals of Western nations. This was not achieved through any single “wonder weapon,” but through Russia’s post-Cold War strategy of preparing its military forces and its military industrial capacity to wage a large-scale, prolonged, and intense conflict against Western-backed forces building up along Russia’s borders.

This included the development and large-scale production of both simple and advanced weapons ranging from main battle tanks and other armored vehicles, to drones, cruise missiles, air defense systems, and electronic warfare capabilities.

Because Russia’s arms industry operates under state-owned enterprises prioritizing state needs over generating profit, the systems required in terms of both quality and quantity were made available. This was possible because surplus production capacity had been maintained across a large number of Russian arms production facilities. Excess labor and equipment that would have been slashed by private enterprise across the West to maximize profits was maintained if and when needed. Come February 2022, this excess capacity was utilized and has since been the central factor contributing to Russia’s growing success against NATO-backed forces in Ukraine.

The West, on the other hand, is suffering a growing military industrial crisis. Excess production capacity needs to be built from scratch, taking years or longer. Across the collective West, skilled labor shortages prevent assembly lines from being expanded significantly, even if the will and resources exist to do so. In all areas of production, from air defense missiles to artillery shells, the collective West is struggling to meet even the most meager production targets.

Washington, determined to prevail in Ukraine either outright or through severely overextending Russia amid this proxy war, has steadily escalated the conflict from 2014 when the US overthrew the elected government of Ukraine, to 2019 when the US began arming Ukrainian forces already being trained by NATO, to full-spectrum sanctions on Russia from 2022 onward, to the transfer of artillery, tanks, aircraft, and long-range missiles the US has now finally authorized strikes into Russia itself with.

Each escalation represents an attempt by Washington and its European proxies to inflict prohibitive costs on Russia. As each escalation falls far short of doing so, additional escalations are devised.

Recently, France and the UK have discussed the possibility of sending their own troops into Ukraine as yet another serious escalation of a war the collective West is already all but fighting against Russia directly.

It should be remembered that the US is also engineering crises elsewhere along Russia’s periphery, including Georgia as well as Syria, to similarly overextend Russia. Recent military operations carried out by US-backed extremists in Syria were likely prepared months in advance and launched as a substitute for the Westn’s own inability to overpower Russia in Ukraine.

Narrowing Options, Growing Consequences

Even without the Oreshnik’s appearance amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, it is clear that the West’s attempts to escalate versus Russia have fallen far short of extending Russia in the manner many Western analysts, politicians, and military leaders have hoped.

The wider geopolitical effect appears to be bolstering rather than undermining the shift from US-led unipolarism toward multipolarism.

Options for escalating are narrowing for the West. The deployment of Western forces in Ukraine would lead to the same problems Ukrainian troops themselves face – a lack of artillery shells, armored vehicles, and air defense systems to protect their forces from the 4,000+ missiles Russia has fired on Ukraine each year.

The Oreshnik itself represents a non-nuclear means of striking at any target either in Ukraine or across the rest of Europe. It would be a means by which to inflict serious damage on European and American military targets in the region, further reducing the West’s already dwindling military power. The missile, like many others in Russia’s growing arsenal, would be able to overcome Western air and missile defenses both because of fundamental flaws in their performance and because Western stockpiles of interceptors have been exhausted with no means of readily replenishing them.

Because the collective West’s military industrial capacity is so limited versus its overreaching pursuit of global primacy, the use of its military aviation, cruise missiles, and other existing capabilities can only be committed in one of at least three primary regions of focus – Europe, the Middle East, or the Asia-Pacific.

Were the US and Europe to commit significant forces to a direct conflict with Russia in Ukraine, even if it fell short of nuclear war, it would exhaust military power the West sought to preserve for potential war with either Iran and/or China. While there would be no guarantee that these capabilities would tilt the conflict in Ukraine back in their favor, it would guarantee that US-European ambitions in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific would be forfeited indefinitely.

It could be that the US seeks to extend its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine across the rest of Europe, with the US itself preserving its military capabilities for its continued involvement in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific. But the conflict in Ukraine has exposed fundamental flaws in the collective West’s system overall. A system incapable of collectively overpowering Russia, having exhausted itself in the process of trying, will have less fortune still overpowering a much larger and more capable China.

While the US may believe it improves its chances by shifting the burden of intervention in Ukraine to its European proxies, the US still suffers from a fundamental inability itself to produce the number of arms and ammunition required to fight a similar conflict in the Asia-Pacific.

The introduction of the Oreshnik, a capability China will also almost certainly be capable of producing if it does not already possess it – represents a further means of deterring the US and its proxies – a promise of non-nuclear consequences in a missile exchange the US and Europe would enter at a disadvantage. This, on top of a large and growing disparity in terms of military industrial capacity, confines US and European options to resorting to nuclear weapons or reformulating a more realistic and constructive foreign policy in the first place.

Because Russia and China possess their own large and growing stockpiles of nuclear weapons – the West’s use of such weapons really isn’t an option. But because the current circles of power in the West lack the military strength, intelligence, and moral fortitude to reformulate their foreign policy, from their point of view, they may believe in the possibility of a limited nuclear war they could emerge from with an advantage, believing this may be their only option. Thus, the notion of mutually assured destruction must be fully impressed upon the West now as it was during the Cold War, reintroducing the fear of personal consequences for policymakers so rational thought unnecessary when spending the lives of others can be reintroduced into the equation.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.

November 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

A ‘position of strength’ for the West and Ukraine doesn’t exist anymore

As long as Kiev’s backers keep deluding themselves that Russia can be defeated or forced to accept unfavorable terms, the war will not end

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | November 28, 2024

“To negotiate from a position of strength” is a favorite cliché of the West. And understandably so, as that short phrase is quite handy: It serves to cover up the opposite of a genuine negotiation, namely vulgar blackmail and crude imposition of fait-accompli terms, backed up by force and threats of force.

The expansion of NATO after the end of the Cold War, for instance, was handled in that manner: “Oh, but we are willing to talk,” the West kept saying to Russia, “and, meanwhile, we will do exactly as we please, and your objections, interests, and security be damned.”

This approach seemed to “work” – very much for want of a better term – as long as Russia was weakened by the unusually deep political, economic, social, military, and, indeed, spiritual crisis that accompanied the end of the Soviet Union and outlasted it for roughly a decade.

When, finally, Moscow tried to put the West on notice that Russia had recovered sufficiently to demand a healthier style of interaction, Western media informed their publics only in a biased and superficial manner. And Western elites reacted with irritation, while also failing to at least take seriously what irritated them. That is what happened, for instance, after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s now famous speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007. Yes, that long ago already.

In other words, Western elites obstinately kept insisting on believing in their own rhetoric, even while it was quickly losing whatever tenuous link to reality it had, for a short moment that was historically anomalous. While Russia’s (and not only Russia’s) “strength” was clearly increasing and that of the West decreasing, non-”negotiating” by force and fait accompli remained a Western addiction. That, obviously, is a large part of the very sad story of how Ukraine was turned into rubble.

Which brings us to the present. At this point, it takes clinical-grade delusion not to notice that “strength” is on Moscow’s side in the war in and over Ukraine. Russian troops are “advancing at the fastest rate” since early 2022, the gung-ho, pro-NATO British Telegraph admits. Ukraine’s forces remain over-aged, over-matched, over-burdened, and stretched thin. Units designed to hold a 5-kilometer line are frequently assigned to 10 or 15 kilometers. Russia has clear, even crushing superiority in artillery and sheer manpower as well: ordinary soldiers, NCOs, and officers – all are scarce on the Ukrainian side. Ukraine’s predictably wasteful August incursion into the Kursk Region of Russia, meanwhile, faces an intense Russian counterattack that, as the Wall Street Journal admits coyly, “appears to be working.” Russia’s pressure in an air war waged with various missiles and drones is relentless.

Unsurprisingly, the mood of Ukraine’s population is reflecting these difficulties. The Economist – only slightly more refined than the Telegraph in its stoutly Russophobic bellicosity – reports Gallup polls showing that a majority of Ukrainians want negotiations to end the war. Within a year, their share has risen from 27% to 52%, while those claiming that they would prefer to go on to the bitter end (misnaming that option as “victory” ) has declined from 63% to 38%. If those false “friends of Ukraine,” who apparently believe friendship consists in burning up your buddies in a proxy war, were serious about their once so fashionable rhetoric about Ukrainians’ “agency,” they would now be helping the Ukrainians to make peace by concessions.

All the more as Ukrainian pollsters confirm the Gallup data, according to Ukrainian semi-dissident news site Strana.ua. They found that almost two thirds of Ukrainians (64%) are ready for “freezing” the war along the current front lines, that is by giving up on all territories under de facto Russian control. Well over half (56%) think that “victory” should not be defined as retaking all territories within Ukraine’s 1991 borders. Meaning they, too, explicitly disagree with the long-held, if now perhaps quietly eroding, official position of the Zelensky regime and are prepared to concede territory for peace. And while reading such poll figures, always keep in mind that Ukraine is now a de facto authoritarian, media-streamlined, and oppressive country where voicing doubt takes special courage – or despair.

And then, there is Trump. Despite his campaign promises to rapidly shut down the proxy war, it remains impossible to predict what exactly president-elect Donald Trump will do once he is inaugurated in January. It would be imprudent to simply assume that he will force the Zelensky regime into a peace Moscow can agree to. Trump has chosen retired General Keith Kellogg as his special envoy for Ukraine. Kellogg, at this stage, represents the ambiguity of the Trumpist approach: He is the co-author of a think-tank paper published before the elections under the title “America First, Russia, & Ukraine.” While its policy proposals provide more reasons to worry for Kiev than Moscow, the paper also displays unrealistic assumptions, such as that Russia can still be coerced by threats of further escalation or will settle for a mere postponing – instead of complete elimination – of Ukraine’s NATO perspective.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, for one, has just articulated a certain skepticism, declaring that a settlement is still far off, in essence, because the West is not yet ready to face reality. This, again, is all the more likely as Moscow insists not only on territorial changes but also real neutrality for Ukraine, taking NATO membership – whether official or by stealth – off the table forever.

And yet, there can be no doubt that from Kiev’s perspective, Trump and at least part of his team look and very well could be dangerous. Not, really, for Ukraine and ordinary Ukrainians, who need this initially avoidable war to end, but for the Zelensky regime and the often corrupt, war-profiteering elites tied to it. In addition, reports are emerging that Trump’s team is also considering opening direct contact with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un. That as well could be a sign that Trump’s inauguration may really be followed by a political turn against continuing the proxy war, insofar as claims that North Korean combat troops have entered the war on Russia’s side have served to justify the Western escalation of helping Ukraine fire Western missiles into Russia.

In short, the West and Ukraine’s Zelensky regime are on the back foot, militarily, geopolitically, and in terms of popular support inside Ukraine as well. And what is their reaction? This is where there’s another perverse twist as only Western elites can come up with: With its proxy war project of using Ukraine to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia in tatters, instead of signaling a willingness to change course, the West – whether sincerely or as a bluff – is outdoing itself in militant rhetoric and some serious escalatory action, too.

In Washington, the outgoing Biden administration’s decision not simply to permit but to assist in the launching of Western missiles into Russia is only the tip of the iceberg. Crushingly defeated in the elections and clearly without a real mandate, the Democrats are doing everything they can to heap up more combustible material between the West and Russia: Moscow is facing yet more sanctions affecting its banking and energy sector, the delivery of US land mines to Ukraine, and Washington’s official lifting of restrictions on US mercenaries getting active in Ukraine (not that that makes much of a real-life difference; they are, of course, already there). US secretary of state Antony Blinken has been explicit that the aim is to release a maximum amount of aid before Trump comes into office with the intention – unrealistic yet destructive – of making Ukraine fit to fight next year.

In Europe, the UK has already rapidly followed the US lead – as is its wont – and also helped Ukraine fire missiles into Russia. With France, things seem a little murkier in that regard, but that may only be due to Paris preferring to do things a little more quietly. In any case, London and Paris have come together, if in a haphazard way, in once again publicly toying with the harebrained notion of bringing Western ground forces – including officially, not black-ops/mercenary style as of now – into the war. The ideas reported are vague and contradictory, it is true: the spectrum of potential deployment seems to reach from sending NATO-Europeans – for instance, French, British, or Polish troops – to die on the frontlines in a direct clash with a battle-hardened, well-equipped, and highly motivated Russian army to much more modest schemes, involving stationing them in what will be left of Ukraine after the fighting ends.

It is also unclear whether the reports of such plans – if that is the word – first surfacing in the French newspaper Le Monde are to be taken seriously at all. We may be looking at another hapless attempt to produce “strategic ambiguity,” i.e. to try to impress Moscow with things Moscow knows the West cannot really do. If so, the West can’t even keep up a poker face: British Foreign Secretary David Lammy has already come out to reassure the British public that his country will not send ground troops. Even tiny Estonia felt a need to chime in: Its defense minister Hanno Pevkur has publicly argued against sending ground troops, too. Instead, he suggested, the West should ramp up its financial and military-industrial support for Ukraine.

And that, it seems, may be where things are really going. Or, at least, where the West’s most stubborn bellicists want to take them. In the case of the UK and France as well, not all discussions have focused on troops. Instead, the military enterprises DCI (in France) and Babcock (in Britain) are a key part of the debates. In addition, there are, of course, ongoing training efforts. The UK has by now pre-processed over 40,000 Ukrainian troops for the proxy war meat grinder. France is setting up a whole brigade.

It is a wide-open question if European NATO members, economically squeezed and soon to be at least semi-abandoned by the US, will be able to afford such a strategy. Most likely, not. And yet, what matters for now are elite illusions that it could. Trying alone will be extremely destructive, for the people of Europe as well as of Ukraine.

If I were Ukrainian, I would look at all of this with dread, because if that is the NATO-European approach to keeping the war going – boosting equipment and training – then it, of course, means that even more Ukrainians will have to be mobilized and sacrificed. Indeed, the Biden desperados have just put fresh pressure on Kiev to lower the conscription age to 18 and sacrifice even more Ukrainians in a lost war. Their prospects are grim, and by now, they are openly told so, by no one less than Ukraine’s former commander-in-chief. Speaking to Ukrainian troops training in Britain, Valery Zaluzhny has just stressed that dying is their most likely fate. The West and its Ukrainian servants have reached the “Banzai!” charge stage of the war. But then, Zaluzhny also believes that World War Three has already started. So, nothing to lose, it seems.

Yet here is the final irony of this bleak picture: In the US, Joe Biden is the lamest of ducks, discredited in every way conceivable, including his de facto participation in Israel’s Gaza genocide. Emmanuel Macron in France must be the least popular president since the Fifth Republic started in the late 1950s, kept in office by constitutional mis-design and manipulation; Britain’s Keir Starmer has alienated his people to such an extent that an unprecedented de facto plebiscite is on its way to get rid of him. It won’t be able to actually push him out, but it certainly signals the depth of the public’s contempt. And Valery Zaluzhny, from Ukraine, but currently a misfit of an ambassador in London? He may actually have quite a future in Ukrainian politics, which is precisely why he was exiled to Britain. But for now, he, too, is a marginalized, sometimes slightly comical figure.

Acting “from a position of strength”? It is striking: Not only is the West in general no longer in that position. The most belligerent figures in the West now often are the ones with the weakest popular mandates at home. Compensatory behavior? A desperate attempt to distract from or to overcome that weakness? Sheer arrogance reaching delusional loss-of-reality level? Who knows? What is certain is that as long as the West is under this kind of management, Lavrov will be right and peace will remain remote.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

November 28, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »