Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

To Be America’s Friend …

By Premysl Janyr | October 26, 2024

“It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”

Henry Kissinger’s much-quoted statement after the American friend, dictator Nguyễn Văn Thiệu, took power in Vietnam in 1963 and shot the previous American friend, dictator Ngô Ðình Diệm, was reported by William F. Buckley Jr. When the Americans fled Vietnam headlong a decade later, they left their friends in the care of the communist Việt Cộng.

Meanwhile, Kissinger’s statement could be confirmed by a respectable line of other American friends, haphazardly Reza Shah Pahlavi, expelled from Iran in 1979, Saddam Hussein, executed in 2006, Afghan Mujahideen, recruited in 1978 to fight the USSR and then as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda prominent US enemies, Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, incited to rise against Saddam in 1991 and left to his retaliation, Mikheil Saakashvili, in 2008 incited to attack Russian regions of Georgia, today in a Georgian prison, Afghan friends, after fleeing in 2020 left in the care of the Taliban. And of course: Russia after 1992 and China in the new century. And: Ukraine and Europe since 2014.

“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests,” Kissinger explained.

Ukrainian friend

Recently, I have come across a number of reflections from analysts and commentators expressing wonder at how unreasonable the US government is in encouraging Ukraine to further escalate a lost war. It is a natural curiosity, for a normal person who is repulsed by killing, tries to resolve disputes through negotiations, and sees war as the ultimate tragedy.

In September 2014 I wondered as well:

Any reasonable person would expect that if Ukraine has strong ties to both the EU and the Eurasian Union, it can play a useful role as a bridge between them. They would expect the conflict between the government and the protesters to end with a round table agreement. When it had already bloody escalated, they would have expected that the EU, Russia and the US would jointly enforce the agreement between Yanukovych and the opposition against armed fighters and that the shooting would be investigated by an international commission. When the coup government took power, they would expect pressure to be exerted on it not to provoke Russian-speaking Ukrainians with hostile actions. When the anti-coup federalists in the east refused to recognize the coup government, they would have expected the international community to push for the federalization of the country and the creation of a government with a share of both parts in order to preserve its integrity. As the Kiev government had already sent an army against the anti-coup federalists, they would have expected the international community to at least prevent massacres of the civilian population by artillery, rocket fire and aerial bombardment.

I also had a possible explanation:

However, if the task was to “force Russia to decide whether to intervene”, the entire Ukrainian development suddenly appears completely understandable and logical. Its strategy was outlined already in March by George Friedman: it will be fought on the battlefields of Ukraine and Moldova by an alliance of Visegrad battlegroups led by Poland, Romania and Azerbaijan.

The strategy wasn’t fulfilled in 2014. Russia decided not to intervene, the Visegrad battlegroups showed no interest, and the anti-coup federalists not only defended themselves, but inflicted a significant defeat on the Ukrainian army. America’s friend needed more thorough preparation.

The faked Minsk II agreement gave it eight years. During that time, anti-Russian hatred was whipped up, the country committed itself to its tradition of pro-Nazi war against Russia, and the army was trained for it and armed with the most modern technology. All that remained was to overcome Russian hesitancy to intervene.

Promises of admission to NATO, spectacular war preparations, plans to install medium-range missiles, the prospect of arming with nuclear weapons, terror against the Donbas population and the planned offensive to break its resistance finally convinced Russia of the necessity of at least a special military operation with the aim of ousting Zelensky’s government and replacing it with a more accommodating one in the manner of Prague 1968. However, the landing was already expected at the airport in Hostomel and the special military operation turned into an open war.

And again, one can wonder:

Why did the West stubbornly insist on expanding NATO to Ukraine when all the experts warned that it would inevitably lead to war? Against what Russian attack were they arming Ukraine when Russia refrained from intervening in 2014, when it would have had the best conditions for it? Why did they convince Ukraine not to respect the Minsk agreements, when they were the only guarantee of peace and – except for Crimea – its territorial integrity? Why did no one mention the protection of ethnic minorities when the Kyiv government ostracized the Russian-speaking population? Why didn’t anyone speak about the ongoing shelling of Donbas cities? Why did the West refuse to even consider the Russian proposal for a European security architecture? Why did they encourage Zelensky toward further and further provocations with strategic partnerships, ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons? Why did they prevent him from concluding the Istanbul peace agreement in March 2022, a month after the fighting began?

And again, a plausible explanation can be offered, which makes the entire Ukrainian development suddenly appear completely understandable and logical:

The brief was to “force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” The Russo-Ukrainian war is not an accident of the reckless policy of the West, but its carefully prepared goal.

A specific feature of American political culture is the public availability of information. There is no need to speculate, interpret and theorize.

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union,” reads the Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992. “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire,” writes Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997. “The West wants to finish the job begun with the fall of the Berlin Wall and continue Europe’s march to the east… The great prize is Ukraine,” Washington Post writes in 2004.

“Yats[eniuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience,” claimed Victoria Nuland while designing a new Ukrainian government on February 6, 2014.

“The [Donbas] settlements shall be liberated one by one, with armor going in first and wiping out the remaining pockets of resistance,” instructed the RAND Corporation in order to provoke Russian intervention and, after failing that, in April 2019 it developed a detailed scenario “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia.”

In June 2022, the American Helsinki Commission convened a conference on “Decolonizing (fragmentation) Russia.”

“Ukraine has trillions of dollars worth of critical minerals in their country. Vladimir Putin cannot be allowed to access that money,” Senator Lindsey Graham explained.

But first, friend Zelensky has to be convinced. The Russian army is equipped with outdated weapons and suffers from a lack of ammunition, low morale and poor command. Against the Ukrainian army, with modern arms and trained according to NATO guidelines, it has no chance, they lied to him. Ukraine is a bright beacon of Western democracy against Putin’s dark Eastern dictatorship, they flattered him. When Russia attacks, we will impose unprecedented economic sanctions against it, its economy will collapse, hunger will drive people into the streets, and Putin’s regime will be overthrown, they fantasized. And in particular, they promised military aid in a form that convinced him that NATO armies would rush to his aid.

Sobering up came immediately. Like Saakashvili before him, he quickly found out that “We are defending our state alone, the most powerful forces of the world are watching from afar,” that “NATO is afraid of a confrontation with Russia”. Too late. Requests for the establishment of a no-fly zone remained unheeded, requests for tanks, missiles and planes were half-heard with long reluctance only when the situation became critical, not even a desperate attempt to fire a missile at Poland and pass it off as a Russian attack on a NATO state was taken. Zelensky only receives promises of help for as long as it takes. “We have never spent money so well,” Lindsey Graham assures him, “Russians are dying”.

However, after the failed summer offensive of 2023, the money channel is also closing. America’s self-sacrificing friend Ukraine, with hundreds of thousands dead and tens of millions of refugees, faces financial, economic, military, geographic, demographic and political collapse. They won’t even allow part of Ukraine’s astronomical debts to be forgiven. Instead, Western corporations are buying up its remaining assets – agricultural, mineral and industrial – on the cheap.

Russian friend

In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz could have only one new rival in mind, posing a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union: the connection of Europe with Russia, especially German technology and capital with Russian natural resources, the Common European House from Lisbon to Vladivostok. And finally, Europe itself on the path to integration. China, America’s friend then, was not considered as a rival yet.

However, the way to prevent the emergence of a European-Russian rival is clear: divide et impera. To enrage them against each other, to weaken both and to induce a war between them. America has systematically devoted itself to this for thirty years. The nagging questions are answered.

The first decade was spent in the spirit of all-embracing friendship between the US, Russia and European countries, confirmed by the Malta Summit in 1989. American advisers rushed to help the Russian friend with neoliberal economic reforms, advantageously bought up Russian assets, liquidated its nuclear weapons, took away its experts and fissile material, established contacts with the new Russian oligarchs. Financial loans were rejected; the goal was to weaken Russia. Friend Russia sank to the brink of collapse.

Europe, economically consolidated and united by the values of peaceful coexistence, the rule of law, the social market and human rights, was a different issue. The path led in a detour, from the East, through New Europe, the post-communist states, with whose new elites the Americans had close relations since the days of dissent. It was no more difficult to introduce radical neoliberal reforms in countries disoriented by disintegration and profitably privatize their state assets than in Russia, but their role did not end there. In 1993, at the time of Russia’s deepest decline, Václav Havel and Lech Walęsa suddenly began to fear “Russian expansionism” and, “in order to preserve peace in Europe,” insisted on admission to NATO.

This is the key moment. For the first time, it was said that Russia is a threat to Europe and that NATO should expand to the East.

The first three countries are accepted in 1999 at the same time as the outbreak of the first international war in Europe since 1945 and the first combat engagement of NATO in its history, the bombing of Yugoslavia, Russia’s closest ally. Viktor Orbán prevented further escalation by rejecting the demand that Hungary invade Yugoslavia.

European friend

In the following years, the US achieved four key goals in Europe: to portray Russia as a dangerous enemy and isolate it from Europe, to expand NATO to its borders, to subjugate European political elites unconditionally, and finally to weaken Europe.

The last one was initiated by President Trump in 2017 with sanctions against the supply of cheap Russian gas, a symbol of European-Russian integration, with the aim of replacing it with expensive American gas. This is followed by measures against European trade surpluses and tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars. Significant are the references to Europe’s inability to defend itself against Russian aggression and its dependence on American intelligence and defense. They demand an increase in the military spending of NATO states to 2% of GDP, or more billions of European taxes for the US arms industry.

The 2020-2021 Covid operation was not targeted specifically against Europe, but it contributed to its weakening no less than other measures. In addition to the additional billions of dollars of European taxpayers transferred to pharmaceutical companies for absurdly high prices orders for ineffective vaccines, and in addition to the economic collapse due to lockdowns, it further deepened the decay of the already broken cohesion of European communities, increased the tension between establishments and citizens, and helped destroy democracy through censorship and repression.

With the rise of Joe Biden, Victoria Nuland and Antony Blinken, the architects of the Ukrainian-Russian war, the weakening of the European friend takes a turn. European politicians are pressured to agree to the termination of the Nord Stream and the introduction of “unprecedented sanctions” against Russia in the event of “aggression against Ukraine”, which even Zelensky himself does not believe in at the time. But Biden knows that he will eventually force Russia to intervene.

The Russian invasion unleashes a fanatical anti-Russian campaign. With outrageous rhetoric unheard since the 1950s, an orgy of unprecedented sanctions, the termination of the Nord Stream project sealed by its sabotage, the seizure of bank reserves and the disconnection of Russia from the banking system, and the boycott of Russian culture, sports, vodka and cats, the rift between Europe and Russia is complete.

Let’s not be fooled by the rhetoric. Nominally, the aim of the sanctions is to weaken Russia, but their – intended – parallel effect is to weaken Europe. Anti-Russian hysteria masks the demagogic arguments about “dependence on Russian gas” and the “financing of Russian aggression” as a pretext to replace cheap Russian resources, to which it owes its economic rise, with overpriced American ones. The sanctions affect more or less all European trade with Russia. Imports from Russia fell by 85% from early 2022 to May 2023, exports by 65%. Unlike Russia, which was able to compensate for the shortfall in Asia, Europe does not have a comparable replacement.

The pressure to disengage from trade with China, justified by alleged security risks and trade sanctions, pursues the same goal. However, unlike Russia, China is the EU’s largest trading partner with a 21% share of imports, larger than the US (12%) one, so the pressure rather encouraged latent reservations towards the US and resulted in only a vague formulation of prospective “risk reduction”.

The main drain on the European economy is, of course, Ukraine.

Arms deliveries have emptied European military warehouses, which will need to be replenished with state-of-the-art American technology. Not only to supplement, but also to increase thoroughly, because “after the victory in Ukraine, Russia plans to invade other European states”.

And let’s not overlook the differences. While European weapons for Ukraine are a taxpayer-funded gift, American ones are subject to a lend-lease agreement. Ukraine will pay them back for decades – by cheaply selling off land and raw materials to BlackRock and other American corporations.

The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, provides $783 billion in subsidies to US-based businesses. This, in addition to the significant difference in energy prices, is another effective incentive for European companies to relocate to the US.

An overlooked financial drain are the consequences of American aggression paid for by European taxes. Refugees from countries ravaged by American aggression at the beginning of the century already meant a considerable burden for Europe. Illegal trafficking structures, establishing with them, quickly compensated for the drop in demand in West Asia with inexhaustible resources in Africa, especially after the destruction of Libya, which until then had functioned as a filter. The Ukrainian war then drove out millions of others, to whom Europe provides above-standard conditions for political reasons. Even more serious than the economic costs themselves are the social, political and cultural consequences, the polarization and disintegration of the European value system.

Even in 2011, GDP per capita in the EU was slightly higher than in the US ($15,800/$14,700 USD). Twelve years later, it is a third lower ($18,350/$27,400). Europe is in a phase of deindustrialization, which the crisis of the automobile industry due to cheap Chinese competition will significantly accelerate. While the USA has greatly strengthened its economy through the war, its European friend is facing a long-term economic and political decline.

Israeli friend

The relationship between the US and Israel, as observers note, has no parallels in history. It appears as if little Israel is the despotic ruler of the superpower USA. It collects an annual tribute from them, sends their army against its rivals, uses their veto in the Security Council to ensure its own impunity, has them finance the genocide of the Palestinians, drains their weapons potential, forces them to violate their own laws prohibiting the supply of arms to states developing nuclear weapons and is obstructing American humanitarian aid. In order to stifle criticism, it will abolish their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and lead the US into international isolation.

At the same time, Israel has no mercy for its vassal. In 1967, it stole material for the development of the atomic bomb from the US, and there are indications of Israeli participation in the assassination of JF Kennedy, who wanted to prevent the nuclear armament of Israel. In the same year, Israel tried to sink the American ship Liberty and blame it on Egypt to get the US military to fight its war. Israel maintains an extensive espionage network in the US, steals their know-how without scruples and occasionally even sells it on. Very strong indications point to its involvement in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, with the intention of pushing the US into wars against its rivals. For years, it has been trying to provoke the US into war against the last of them, Iran, and after October 7, 2023, into a war against the Axis of Resistance. Israel infiltrated and paralyzed US intelligence services to make investigations of Israeli activities impossible, forged pretexts for war actions, and distorted information provided to the public and government administration.

It could be described as an example of a fatal friendship with Israel, but the reality is more complex. Some observers believe that it is the US, on the contrary, that is ruthlessly using Israel – down to the last Israeli – as a battering ram to control Arab oil resources. Its fate would thus follow the fate of Ukraine and other American friends.

However, it is more likely that both countries are controlled by the same globalist cartel, called in the US the Israel Lobby. Its members operate in the public only partially, but they own a significant part of the American media and allocate funds to the election campaigns of more or less all senators and members of the House of Representatives. Some of them have dual nationalities, but the preferred identity is Greater Israel (Eretz Israel). It is not only made up of Jewish Zionists, its larger part is made up of Christian Zionists with a broad background in evangelical communities. And to be consistent, it is not the only one, it seamlessly blends with other cartels, such as the military-industrial, banking, pharmaceutical ones. Thus, their members jointly created a new aristocratic social class of the type of Mussolini’s ”fascio”, which holds the US, Israel and other Western countries under tight control.

Since October, over half a million Jews who had somewhere to go have left Israel. This is almost as many as the number of Palestinians expelled during the Nakba of 1948. The outlook for others is all the more bleak because Israel has burned all the bridges behind it. There is nowhere left to go to.

Facit

One of the hallmarks of psychopathic individuals — and communities — is a headlong fixation on an immediate goal with no plans for what then and what if it doesn’t work out, with complete ignorance of background, context, side effects, and consequences.

Current conflicts illustrate the characteristic. “Mission accomplished,” cheered GW Bush after the defeat of Saddam Hussain. His uncompromising threats to North Korea led to the emergence of another nuclear power. The result of Israeli aggression was the creation of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Axis of Resistance. The consequence of mobbing Iran is that it has become the undisputed leading power in West Asia. Unprecedented sanctions catapulted Russia to the world’s fourth largest economy in purchasing power parity. The identification of Russia and China as the biggest threats has created the BRICS+ bloc the most economically and politically significant global actor. The confiscation of Russian assets and the cutting off of Russia from the international banking system led to the gradual decline of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and a prospective non-dollar banking system. The unscrupulous arming and support of Ukraine and Israel brought both countries to the brink of extinction. And the quest for totalitarian control of their own society brings even the US itself to the brink of collapse.

The domination of European countries by international power cartels under American domination threatens even Europe with the prospect of war and long-term decline. Logical starting points – gradually detaching from the sinking American Titanic, returning to a Europe of peaceful coexistence, the rule of law, the social market and human rights, and a reorientation towards multipolar politics and economics – run into internal and external obstacles.

Of the internal ones, it is primarily the infiltration of European politics by personalities dependent – pragmatically, career-wise, through corruption, compromise, threats – on power cartels. The role of the fifth column is played by the post-communists, especially the Baltic countries, over which they took control without resistance immediately after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. However, the attraction of global dominance is not alien to the European cultural tradition of exceptionalism, wars, colonialism and conquest. Finally, decades of ideological indoctrination have shaped the attitudes and, in particular, the fanatical aversion of a significant portion of the European population in favor of Western anti-Russian, anti-Islamic, and anti-Chinese narratives.

The external obstacles are mainly the expected reactions of powerful cartels to the threat of loss of influence. A small sample are the reactions of the European bureaucracy to the dissenting positions of Hungary, Slovakia, or Poland. A more massive movement away from the US is likely to be met – if they are still capable – with the full weight of US resources – from political pressure and economic sanctions to the mobilization of hidden structures to color revolutions and false flag actions.

The whole world, and Europe in particular, is currently in a stage that will decide the developments of the coming decades. Western dominance is being eroded faster and faster by desperate attempts to maintain it. At the same time, it must be admitted that European attitudes can only influence the speed, but not the direction. The only thing it can influence is its own future: Europe as an insignificant relic of bygone times or as an equal partner in a multipolar world.

The weeks and months after November 5th will tell us more.

October 26, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rewriting Resolution 1701: Hochstein’s diplomatic cover for Israeli expansion

By Anis Raiss | The Cradle | October 25, 2024

On 21 October, Amos Hochstein, born in Israel in 1973 and once an Israeli tank crewman, returned to Lebanon as a US envoy, not to protect peace but to redefine it on Tel Aviv’s terms.

The irony is undeniable: Israel, having lost 28 tanks in almost as many days during its latest invasion attempt, now sends one of its former tank crew members, not in battle, but in diplomacy – to achieve through words what military force could not secure: control over Lebanon through revisions to UN Resolution 1701.

Hochstein’s mission may appear to be an act of diplomacy, but is it really about fostering peace? Or is he aligning with Israeli policy to reframe control while eroding Lebanon’s sovereignty? The diplomatic veneer only thinly conceals the underlying agenda of control.

From Oslo to 1701: Reinterpreting peace for control

The Israeli playbook of manipulating peace processes is nothing new. In a 2001 leaked video, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted about his manipulation of the Oslo Accords, using vague phrases like “military facilities” to tighten Israeli control over contested areas.

Netanyahu openly stated, “America is something that you can easily maneuver,” hinting at the ease with which Israeli influence shapes US diplomacy – a dynamic that is evident today in Hochstein’s actions.

The Israeli army veteran’s push for amendments to Resolution 1701 is a clear continuation of this strategy: advancing the occupation state’s interests under the guise of diplomacy from Washington. Just as Netanyahu reinterpreted the Oslo Accords to solidify Israeli control, Hochstein’s proposed changes to 1701 seek to turn it into a tool for extending Tel Aviv’s influence. This is not diplomacy for peace; it is diplomacy for power.

1701: Israel’s unfinished battle

Resolution 1701, passed by the UN Security Council on 11 August 2006, marked a critical point for Israel, which found itself unable to defeat Hezbollah during the July War despite its advanced military capabilities.

Brokered by then-US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the ceasefire allowed Israel a face-saving exit under the guise of diplomacy rather than face a prolonged, unwinnable battle. But the resolution has since been a point of ongoing contention – one Israel has repeatedly violated.

One notable violation is Israel’s continued occupation of Shebaa Farms, which contravenes both Resolution 1701 and the earlier Resolution 425. Hezbollah’s decision to remain armed, often criticized internationally and in some quarters domestically, becomes a logical and legally justified response under international law, given Israel’s occupation of Lebanese land. The ongoing presence of Israeli forces undermines the very peace that Resolution 1701 aimed to establish.

Tel Aviv’s disregard for the resolution extends beyond territorial occupation. Since 2013, Israel has repeatedly violated Lebanese airspace to conduct strikes on Syria, treating Lebanon’s skies like an unguarded backdoor for foreign interventions.

This belligerent behavior is akin to a trespasser using a neighbor’s yard to attack another – an act that undermines Lebanon’s sovereignty entirely. In August 2019, a significant escalation occurred when Israel launched a drone strike in Beirut, which then-president Michel Aoun condemned as a “declaration of war.”

Moreover, Israel’s occupation of the northern part of Ghajar village further violates both the Blue Line and Resolution 1701. Despite UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces deploying south of the Litani River, Israel’s persistent refusal to withdraw ensures that peace remains elusive, leaving Lebanon under the constant threat of Israeli aggression.

Rewriting 1701

The amendments proposed by Hochstein to Resolution 1701 reveal Israel’s broader strategy of using international mechanisms to further its objectives. These changes would extend UNIFIL’s jurisdiction two kilometers north of the Litani River, allowing international forces to conduct searches, patrols, and inspections without requiring approval from Lebanese authorities. These inspections can include searching vehicles, private properties, and suspected weapons sites.

Effectively, this is a demand for Lebanon to cede control over its own territory – a clear infringement on its sovereignty. Under the guise of peacekeeping, this would grant Israel indirect control over Lebanon’s internal security dynamics, especially since intelligence for these operations may be influenced by, or even originate from, Israeli sources.

Eyes on the south

Hochstein’s proposal raises critical concerns about intelligence oversight: Who will guide these operations, and how might covert Israeli interests be served? The potential involvement of Israeli tech companies like Toka, co-founded by former prime minister Ehud Barak, is telling.

Toka specializes in advanced surveillance technologies that can hack into and manipulate live or recorded video feeds from public and private security cameras, including those in ports, airports, and border crossings.

If Toka’s technology is deployed in southern Lebanon, it could potentially compromise the very systems used by UNIFIL. This technology, which leaves no trace, could be exploited to monitor Hezbollah and Lebanese military movements, all under the guise of international peacekeeping operations. The consequences would be profound: a complete erosion of Lebanon’s security, replaced by a surveillance network manipulated by Israel to serve its own strategic interests.

Israel’s covert surveillance approach can be seen in how it handles Beirut’s southern suburbs. The infamous Dahiya Doctrine advocates for overwhelming destruction of civilian areas to target Hezbollah strongholds, yet Israel seems to avoid fully enacting this policy – possibly due to its desire to preserve infrastructure that supports covert operations.

Technologies like Toka’s suggest a more calculated plan, enabling 24/7 monitoring of Hezbollah-controlled areas south of the Litani River. Armed with precise intelligence, Israel could execute targeted strikes or assassinations akin to those witnessed during the 2006 war, turning southern Lebanon into a zone of perpetual surveillance and intermittent violence – all under the pretense of adhering to Resolution 1701.

Berri’s rejection

Nabih Berri, long-time leader of the Amal Movement and a staunch ally of Hezbollah, immediately opposed Hochstein’s proposed amendments. As Speaker of Parliament since 1992, Berri has been a key figure in resisting Israeli encroachments and defending Lebanese sovereignty.

His longstanding relationship with Hezbollah and the broader Shia political movement positions him as a critical figure in Lebanon’s struggle against foreign intervention. Upon receiving Hochstein’s proposals, Berri recognized them for what they were: an attempt to undermine Lebanese sovereignty under the guise of enhanced peacekeeping.

While Hochstein framed these amendments as necessary for stability, Berri’s response was clear: the real issue is not a lack of oversight but Israel’s continued violations of Lebanese airspace and territory. As Berri emphasized, any genuine pursuit of peace must begin with holding Israel accountable for its aggression and ensuring it abides by existing UN resolutions.

He also announced that “the consensus among the Lebanese on Resolution 1701 is a rare consensus, and we are committed to it,” adding, “We reject any amendments to Resolution 1701, whether by increase or decrease.”

In an interview with Al Arabiya TV, Berri also stated, “I have been mandated by Hezbollah since 2006, and it agrees to 1701.”

Resolution 1701, meant to establish peace, is being reshaped into a surveillance tool – a mechanism for Israel to achieve what it could not through military means. The use of sophisticated surveillance technology, the selective enforcement of ceasefire terms, and the involvement of international forces all serve to undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty, rendering “peace” a hollow word.

October 25, 2024 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia Changes Nuclear Doctrine & Prepares for War

Sergey Karaganov, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

By Glenn Diesen | October 23, 2024

I had a conversation with Professor Sergey Karaganov and Alexander Mercouris about Russia changing its nuclear doctrine. Karaganov was an advisor to Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin. He has been the main proponent of lowering Russia’s nuclear threshold. Putin had previously told Karaganov that Russia was not prepared to change the nuclear doctrine, however Putin has reversed his position and is now changing the nuclear doctrine according to Karaganov’s recommendations.

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent and can therefore be a source of stability and peace by making war between the great powers unacceptable. The irony of the nuclear deterrent is that the immensely destructive power of nuclear weapons, possibly ending human civilisation, can reduce the credibility that an opponent would use them. The nuclear peace therefore requires communicating a credible readiness to destroy the world.

NATO’s escalations in the Ukraine War have convinced the Kremlin that its nuclear deterrent has been severely weakened and must be restored. For example, Biden initially warned against sending F-16s as it would likely trigger World War 3, but then decided later to approve supplying F-16s to Ukraine while NATO countries dismissed Russia’s nuclear deterrence as unacceptable “nuclear blackmail”. On the third year of the war, Ukraine invaded Kursk with NATO weapons and likely US intelligence – which was met with Western support and exuberance.

The dilemma for how Russia can respond has been: 1) retaliate against NATO and risk uncontrolled escalation possibly resulting in nuclear war, or 2) do not to retaliate but then embolden NATO to escalate further and thus risk nuclear war. The plan by the US and UK to supply Ukraine with long-range precision missiles became the final straw for Moscow. This would be considered a direct attack on Russia since these missiles would need to be operated by American or British soldiers and guided by their satellites.

The changes primarily entail 1) allowing the use of nuclear weapons if attacked by a non-nuclear state supported by a nuclear state (to address war through proxy), 2) placing Belarus under the Russian nuclear umbrella to address the possibility of a NATO nuclear attack on Belarus as a step up the escalation ladder. Obama’s national-security team secretly staged a war game in 2016 in which it was recommended to respond to a Russian use of nuclear weapon with a NATO nuclear attack on Belarus – “a nation that had played no role whatsoever in the invasion of the NATO ally but had the misfortune of being a Russian ally”.

Changing the nuclear doctrine does not suggest Russia is planning a nuclear strike as there are still further steps on the escalation ladder:

  • Confront and destroy NATO reconnaissance drones over the Black Sea that provide targets to Ukraine
  • Use conventional weapons to attack NATO’s military targets that are used to put a blockade on Kaliningrad (if the decision is made)
  • Destroy NATO satellites used to guide missiles that attack Russian territory
  • Destroy NATO’s critical infrastructure such as underwater cables or through cyber attacks
  • Destroy Ukrainian warplanes stationed in Poland and Romania
  • Destroy military logistics centres on NATO territory for weapons being sent to Ukraine
  • Attacks on US military bases abroad, either through proxies or direct attacks

However, once any of these retaliatory actions are taken against NATO, both sides could lose control of the situation and rapidly head up the escalation ladder.

The Duran | October 21, 2024

October 25, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , | Leave a comment

The Specter of ‘Defense Secretary Cheney’

By Dan McKnight | The Libertarian Institute | October 24, 2024

I believe one of the biggest political stories of the year is the attempted resurrection of the Cheney legacy.

This is a family whose political prospects were dead and buried in 2022—in no small part from the contributing efforts of Bring Our Troops Home.

But Liz Cheney is out on the campaign trail again, now appearing with Kamala Harris and encouraging Americans to re-elect the Biden team.

From the national debates to local meet and greets, Vice President Harris and Tim Walz are thanking Dick Cheney for his support and praising his public service—including the illegal invasion of Iraq, torture, and the subversion of Americans’ dearest political liberties.

This merger signifies the War Party openly and brazenly shedding its misleading, partisan skin to reveal the true, DC consensus underneath: the neoconservatives and Biden-Harris alums who agree that the Deep State feeds on endless war… and needs more of it!

Consider; hasn’t every decision of the last four years been geared towards hyping our country into World War III? Whether against Russia or China or Iran, the Biden-Harris White House hasn’t flinched from deploying hundreds of billions of dollars and writing future checks they expect American servicemen to cash in blood.

Rumors are swirling around the Beltway, sick minds teeming with possibilities and mouths drooling over the prospects of trillion-dollar weapons packages.

Here’s the number one threat to the American heartland: If Kamala Harris is elected to her own term in the White House in two weeks, we could see her nominate Liz Cheney as Secretary of Defense.

Harris has already promised to include a “Republican” in her cabinet, and Liz, who agrees with the Democratic establishment on every core issue, would be a layup. And with lockstep Democratic support, combined with a significant number of Republican hawks, Liz Cheney would assuredly be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Of course the argument that her father held the same position under Bush Sr. would be used as a phony qualification.

We’d witness in real time our soldiers become cogs in a war machine active on every continent. No doubt we’d see a return to conscription, after Americans inevitably refuse to fight these nonsense wars. Or we’d see the impressment of illegal immigrants (bribed with the promise of citizenship, a plan already being discussed) and the outright foreign occupation of our soil. And the most influential advisor to the president would be 83-year old Dick Cheney, who unlike Joe Biden has managed to stay as sharp and mean as ever.

There is no institution the Cheney family would not disassemble, no law they would not violate, no life they would not sacrifice if it meant absolute power for themselves. They’re evil down to the bone.

October is a time for ghouls and goblins, maybe even the “living dead” like Dick Cheney. But even that scenario is too scary for me!

I pledge to you, as chairman of Bring Our Troops Home, that if the worst comes to worst my organization will be there to speak for the millions of veterans tired of these endless wars who are still loyal to the U.S. Constitution.

When I took my oath, it was for life, in and out of uniform. That’s why I advocate for the Defend the Guard Act full-time. And once the November results cool off, my team will be kicking it into high gear for legislative season. I’m receiving daily updates on new Defend the Guard bills being drafted, new legislators being recruited, and new battle plans being drawn up.

Visit our website to learn more. If Liz Cheney becomes the head of the Pentagon, you’ll be thanking your lucky stars that you enlisted early in the opposition to World War III.

October 24, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | | Leave a comment

NATO Shreds German Reunification Pact With Moscow With New Baltic Naval HQ

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 22.10.2024

The Western alliance spurned Russian aspirations for improved relations and the creation of a Europe-wide security architecture after the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, swallowing up all of Moscow’s former Warsaw Pact allies and seven former Soviet and Yugoslav republics, and sparking a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

German defense chief Boris Pistorius presided over the unveiling a new NATO naval HQ in Rostock, northeastern Germany on Monday, with the facility not only threatening to exacerbate tensions with Russia, but violating a key deal on the non-deployment of alliance forces in the territory of the former East Germany.

The Commander Task Force Baltic HQ “will play a crucial role in the preparation of military situation reports and in responding to regional challenges, including the protection of NATO member states’ interests against aggressive actions, particularly given the proximity of Russia,” Pistorius said.

“The Baltic Sea has always been at the crossroads of Europe’s history and it is much more than just a waterway. It is a vital corridor for trade, military mobility, and energy security. It is a strategic area of great geopolitical importance and a frontline in our collective defense against evolving threats,” Pistorius said, going on to accuse Russia of “challenging” regional security “on almost a daily basis.”

The HQ will be commanded by a German, with Polish and Swedish officers serving as deputies. Formal goals of the base, manned by 60 personnel (expandable to 240 in a pinch), include improving interoperability, planning joint drills and overseeing regional military deployments.

The facility also happens to be illegal. In 1990, during talks on German reunification, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev approved Bonn’s annexation of East Germany on the condition that NATO troops not be stationed in the Federal Republic’s new territories.

Article 5, Paragraph 3 of the pact, formally called the Two-Plus-Four Treaty, states that “Foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons or their carriers shall not be stationed in or transferred to this part of Germany.”

On Tuesday, Germany’s ambassador to Russia was summoned and slapped with a protest in connection with the Rostock HQ, with the Foreign Ministry emphasizing that the hostile move will not be left without a response.

“The ambassador was informed that this step by Germany’s ruling circles constituted a continuation of the creeping revision of the results of the Second World War, and the militarization of Germany. It was also a gross violation of the spirit and letter of the Two-Plus-Four Treaty… We demanded immediate and comprehensive explanations from Berlin,” the Ministry said in a statement.

“Washington, Brussels and Berlin must be aware that the expansion of NATO’s military infrastructure into the territory of the former GDR will have the most negative consequences, and will not remain without an appropriate response from the Russian side,” the Ministry added.

October 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

EU to tap frozen Russian assets

RT | October 22, 2024

The European Parliament has approved a €35 billion ($38 billion) loan to Ukraine to be repaid with revenues from frozen Russian assets, according to an official statement on Tuesday. The financing fulfils the EU’s share of a $50 billion aid package for Kiev agreed by G7 countries in June.

MEPs approved the move with 518 votes in favor, 56 against and 61 abstentions, the parliament announced. The funds will be transferred through the end of next year, it added.

Future revenues from frozen Russian Central Bank assets will be made available to Ukraine to service the EU loan and loans from other G7 partners. The statement added that Kiev may also allocate the funds “as it sees fit.”

The proposal was endorsed earlier this month by EU governments. The European Council now plans to adopt it as a regulation, and it will enter into force after its publication in the Official Journal of the EU, the statement notes.

The EU froze approximately €210 billion ($227 billion) in Russian Central Bank assets following the start of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Russia has denounced the move as “theft.” The immobilized assets had generated €3.4 billion ($3.7 billion) in interest as of mid-July, according to Brussels-based central securities depository Euroclear, which holds most of Russia’s funds. In July, a transfer of €1.5 billion ($1.6 billion) of that money was approved by the European Commission to support Ukraine’s “military capabilities.”

The US is reportedly planning to contribute up to $20 billion to the G7 package, also on condition that the funds are repaid using proceeds generated by the immobilized Russian assets.

The US previously expressed concern that the EU policy of reviewing Russia sanctions every six months makes repayment of the loan uncertain as it could result in a lapse in restrictions. In response, Brussels proposed extending the renewal timeframe to three years. Hungary opposed the idea and said it would delay a decision until after the US presidential election on November 5.

Kiev’s Western backers have been trying to accelerate negotiations over the loan due to mounting concern that Washington’s aid to the country could be cut off if Donald Trump returns to the White House, Financial Times reported last week. The former US president has repeatedly threatened to scale back assistance if he is elected.

Moscow maintains that any seizure of its funds is illegal under international law and would further undermine global trust in the Western financial system.

October 22, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

About 51,000 Ukrainians Have Deserted Armed Forces This Year

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | October 21, 2024

The Ukrainian prosecutor’s office has opened 51,000 cases of desertion through the first nine months of 2024. The number of soldiers abandoning their posts is likely to double last year’s total.

The Times of London reported data from the Ukrainian government showing that “51,000 criminal cases were initiated for desertion and abandonment of a military unit between January and September of this year.” El Pais previously noted that 45,000 Ukrainians were being prosecuted for desertion from the start of the year through August. Al-Jazeera says the number is at least 30,000 desertions.

At the start of the year, Kiev was estimated to have between 500,000 and 800,000 active-duty soldiers and an additional 300,000 reservists. The Ukrainians have also sustained casualties fighting to defend from Russian advances and amid Kiev’s Kursk invasion.

Kiev has struggled to fill its ranks with fresh soldiers, leading Ukraine to drop its conscription age from 27 to 25. As Kiev is still facing manpower shortages, American politicians are pushing Ukraine to drop draft age to 18. Ukraine has also resorted to allowing prisoners to leave jail if they join the military

One Ukrainian who deserted told the Times that prison was a better option than the military because “at least in prison, you know when you will be able to leave.”

The number of Ukrainians that Kiev is prosecuting for desertion has significantly increased throughout the war. In 2022, the number was 9,000, and it had more than doubled to 24,000 last year.

October 22, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Why Should We Fight Wars for Ukraine and Israel?

By Ron Paul | October 21, 2024

When you take on the role of the world’s policeman, don’t be surprised when countries who cannot fight their own wars call “911.” That is exactly what is happening to the United States on two fronts and it is bankrupting our country, depleting the military that should serve our own national interest, and threatening to drag the US into World War III.

Last week, Ukraine’s “president” Vladimir Zelensky publicly presented his “Victory Plan.” It was delusional: immediate NATO Membership for Ukraine, NATO strikes against incoming Russian missiles, and permission to use Western long-range missiles for strikes deep into Russia including Moscow and St. Petersburg.

The real intent was not hard to understand. Ukraine is on the verge of losing its war with Russia and is desperate to draw the United States military into the fight. There were numerous opportunities to avoid this bloody war but at every step the Ukrainian leadership listened to western neocons (like Boris Johnson) and decided to keep fighting Russia down to the last Ukrainian.

But now that they are nearly down to the last Ukrainian, they are calling on us to step in and fight the country with the most nuclear weapons on earth – Russia – in a battle that could not be more unrelated to our actual interests.

Washington’s answer should be simple but firm: “No more weapons, no more money. You’re on your own. Make peace.”

Would the US be mortally wounded if the people in Eastern Ukraine were allowed to secede from Kiev and join Russia? Would anyone except the Russia-obsessed neocons in DC think tanks even notice?

Likewise with Israel. Tel Aviv has, in response to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, launched a war to annihilate Palestinians from Gaza, invade and occupy southern Lebanon, degrade the military of Iraq and Syria, and take on Iran. But the Israeli military has nowhere near the capacity to fight so many wars on so many fronts, so it has increasingly demanded US involvement in the conflicts. Already the US has provided some $23 billion in additional military aid to Israel and has employed US military assets in the region to shoot down missiles and provide increased weapons and intelligence.

But it’s still not enough for Israel. To fight Iran, with its significant military capabilities, Israel appears desperate to drag the US military into the battle. The stationing of one or perhaps two THAAD air defense systems, each with 100 US troops to operate them, is part of that effort. These 100-200 US troops are illegally engaged in combat, but what’s worse is that they are being used as a tripwire. US and Israeli leaders understand that they will be considered legitimate targets for any additional Iranian missile attack, but as soon as American troops start getting killed in Israel there will be a massive push for further US involvement. Imagine the mainstream media war propaganda if such a terrible thing happens.

That is no way to use members of the US armed services. It is the opposite of supporting our troops.

Washington’s response to Israel trying to drag us into its war with Iran should be just like with Ukraine: “No more weapons, no more money. You’re on your own. Make peace.” That is what a pro-America foreign policy looks like. Our Founders understood it very well and wrote about it often. It’s called “non-intervention.”

October 21, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Will the US go ahead with nuclear subcritical experiments?

By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 19.10.2024

Washington in May conducted another subcritical experiment to allegedly provide essential data on the materials used in nuclear warheads.

The US’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has published a plan for the country’s nuclear-weapon production complex for the next 25 years.

The 40-page document singles out the Nuclear Security Enterprise’s (NSE) variety of tasks and missions due to be conducted between 2025 and 2050, including:

  • Reestablishment of plutonium pit manufacturing at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico (with annual production capacity of 30 pits) and Savannah River Site in South Carolina ( with a capacity of 50) to replace the capability after the closure of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in Colorado.
  • Modernization of uranium and lithium processing capabilities at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee.
  • Improvement of nuclear subcritical experiments-related diagnostics at the Nevada National Security Site “to better understand aging performance to certify the stockpile without nuclear explosive testing and collect data on nuclear materials and newly manufactured components.”
  • Establishment of insensitive high explosive synthesis and formulation capability at the Pantex Plant in Texas to meet capacity requirements and resilience goals.
  • Recapitalization of spent nuclear fuel handling and examination capabilities at the Naval Reactors Facility in Idaho.

The release of the NNSA blueprint comes amid tensions between the US and Russia over nuclear testing, with Moscow warning that it “will immediately respond in kind” if Washington moves towards resuming the tests. Russia de-ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty last year, while the US signed but never ratified the document.

October 19, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | | Leave a comment

US to pay $20 billion into loan for Ukraine – FT

RT | October 19, 2024

The US is set to provide up to $20 billion to Ukraine as part of a G7 loan, which will then be repaid using proceeds generated by the Russian assets immobilized by the West as part of Ukraine-related sanctions, Financial Times has reported, citing sources.

Kiev’s backers have been trying to accelerate negotiations over the loan in an effort to secure funding to Ukraine before the end of the year, due to mounting concern that Washington’s aid to the country could be cut off if Donald Trump wins the upcoming US election, FT noted, in an article posted on Friday. The former US president has repeatedly threatened to scale back assistance to Kiev if he were elected.

The US and its allies have frozen an estimated $300 billion in assets belonging to the Russian state after the Ukraine conflict broke out in 2022. The bulk of the money, nearly €197 billion ($214 billion) is being held by Brussels-based clearinghouse Euroclear. The immobilized funds have generated €3.4 billion ($3.7 billion) in interest as of mid-July, according to the depository.

Moscow has denounced the freeze as “theft” and said that any seizure of its funds would be against the law and would further undermine global trust in the Western financial system.

In June, G7 members agreed to grant Kiev a $50 billion loan to be financed by interest from the frozen Russian assets. The US and the EU were initially expected to provide $20 billion each as Canada, Japan and the UK were set to jointly lend the rest of the massive loan.

Later, to reassure allies that the bloc’s sanctions regime on the funds is not lifted, Brussels proposed a three-year extension of the EU’s mandate to freeze Russian assets. EU lawmakers have been renewing their sanctions every six months by unanimous decision, meaning that each vote may bring about a break in restrictions. Hungary opposed the proposal, and announced plans to postpone the decision until the US presidential elections on November 5.

Last week, the EU approved its own contribution of up to €35 billion to the G7 loan, but the bloc would need to contribute less if Washington provided the full $20 billion, Reuters reported last week. The funds, which will be managed by the World Bank, will be used for several purposes, including defense or humanitarian needs.

US senior officials, however, told FT that Washington would provide the full agreed $20 billion, even if the EU failed to convince Hungary’s premier Viktor Orban to drop his veto on extending EU sanctions, which had previously been voiced among the US demands. According to two sources cited by the paper, G7 finance ministers will make a statement on the distribution and structure of the loan on the sidelines of the IMF and World Bank meetings on October 25.

October 19, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Beware of War Hawks in “America First” Clothing

By Connor O’Keeffe • Mises Wire • October 16, 2024

For the past eight years, the two major political parties have been gripped by a messy and ongoing realignment. It began with the election of Donald Trump in 2016, which was a major repudiation of the neoconservative-establishment coalition that had dominated the Republican Party since the presidency of George W. Bush.

Trump’s condemnation of the war in Iraq—which he correctly said was sold on lies—and his skepticism of continuing to fund radical Islamists in a misguided attempt to overthrow the government in Syria drove some of the staunchest Bush-era neoconservatives to leave the Republican Party and do everything they could to keep Trump out of power. It didn’t work.

Trump’s four years in office only accelerated the realignment. By the time the 2020 election rolled around, the political establishment had awakened and thrown its entire weight behind Joe Biden. Of course, Donald Trump stuck around after leaving office and is now, for the third time, the Republican nominee for President.

This election cycle has seen the same establishment support for Trump’s opponents that we’ve seen previously, along with “defections” from former high-level Republicans like W. Bush’s own Vice President Dick Cheney. Whether we’re seeing a permanent change in the Republican Party or a temporary coalition against one candidate will rest on what happens on and after election day next month. But it’s clear that, at least for the time being, the neoconservative domination of the American Right has dissipated.

Given how damaging the neoconservatives were to the well-being and security of the American people, this is a very positive development. But critics of Washington’s hyper-aggressive foreign policy need to understand that the flight of many of the worst war hawks from the Republican Party does not mean the GOP has returned to its non-interventionist roots. In fact, as many interventionists have fled, others have remained. And those interventionist elements are working hard to bring back the same old neoconservative foreign policy under the guise of a new “America First” doctrine.

Over the summer, former national security advisor Robert O’Brien penned a lengthy feature in Foreign Affairs that aimed to do just that. O’Brien was a representative to the UN during the George W. Bush presidency, and he worked at the State Department under both Bush and Barack Obama before leaving to work as an advisor on Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign. He’s an establishment creature if there ever was one. Still, he was appointed as Trump’s National Security Advisor in 2019 and is now seen as a contender for a cabinet position if Trump wins again.

O’Brien presents his article as “making the case for Trump’s foreign policy.” But despite being dressed up in some new language, the agenda he presents is largely the same old establishment interventionism.

In O’Brien’s view, Iran, China, and Russia are the three great enemies that can only be dealt with through a more aggressive stance from Washington. American taxpayers need to be forced to pay more for sharp increases in military hardware, especially for the Navy, to put pressure on Iran and China. Heavy sanctions and crackdowns on trade are prescribed to isolate and denigrate the regimes in Tehran and Beijing. O’Brien also calls for the US to more aggressively support foreign dissident movements that threaten these rival governments.

Even the war in Ukraine, on which Trump has been relatively good, is framed as having only happened because the US was not intervening enough in Eastern Europe in recent years. O’Brien does quickly mention that Trump wants a negotiated end to the war, but quickly moves on to celebrate all the lethal aid that’ll be sent to Ukraine and all the American military units that will be moved closer to Russia.

And O’Brien isn’t alone. Many right-wing commentators and influencers have tried to capitalize on all the populist energy driving the Trump movement to bolster their careers while sneaking in a standard establishment foreign policy. That could be seen at the so-called National Conservatism conference back in July, where a number of these figures got together and framed Iran and China as the chief threats facing the American public.

For decades, the American people have been forced to pay an enormous amount of money and to divert a tremendous amount of resources to counter a superpower that collapsed because communism cannot work, build a country from the top down in Afghanistan, overthrow the government of Iraq, and to try to topple several other countries to correct for the destabilizing effects of overthrowing that government in Iraq, all while militarizing the countries around Iran, Russia, and China in a vain attempt to get those governments to calm down.

These ventures have made the political establishment very wealthy, but all at the expense of the economic well-being and general safety of the rest of us. In recent years, many Americans on the right have finally begun to wake up to all this. The same old establishment lies cannot be allowed to lull them back to sleep.

October 19, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Zelensky admits capitulation but calls for escalation

By Ahmed Adel | October 18, 2024

The “Victory Plan” presented by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is an acknowledgment of capitulation because it is obvious that, even in his estimation, without the massive involvement of NATO countries in the conflict, the Ukrainian army will not be able to hold back Russian forces in the foreseeable future.

Zelensky presented his Victory Plan to the Ukrainian parliament on October 16 and the European Council on October 17. The plan consists of five points and three secret amendments. In addition to admitting defeat, Zelensky’s Victory Plan also reveals a desire for maximum escalation of the conflict, where, of course, the main burden should be borne by NATO countries and not Ukrainian forces.

The Ukrainian president thinks that escalating what led to the suffering of his citizens and destroyed the economy will lead to Ukraine’s victory.

At the same time, his Victory Plan could be used to pressure Biden or his successor to make decisions about striking deep into the Russian Federation without, supposedly, provoking Moscow to react excessively. Nonetheless, the Kremlin has already said Russia will respond to any attacks.

The Victory Plan truly hinges on US support and not European. Therefore, bodies such as the Council of Europe only serve to give the Biden administration legitimacy when ​​he puts pressure on some parts of the American establishment that are clearly resisting further support for Ukraine.

The first point of Zelensky’s Victory Plan is geopolitical and concerns Ukraine’s immediate invitation to NATO. The other points concern the Ukrainian military and its allies destroying Russia’s aviation, deploying a non-nuclear strategic containment package on its territory, strengthening sanctions on Russia, and allowing Ukrainian soldiers to replace part of the American contingent in Europe in the post-war period.

According to the latest available data, 84% of Ukrainians want their country to be a member of NATO. Despite the widespread support for joining the alliance and although NATO has declared Ukraine’s membership path irreversible, it cannot be completed during the war, and the alliance declined to present a timeline. In effect, NATO has categorically ruled out membership until the war is over, which already makes Zelensky’s Victory Plan detached from reality since the very first point of the plan to defeat Russia is to join the bloc.

For this reason, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova condemned Zelensky’s Victory Plan as nothing more than a collection of “incoherent slogans.”

“This is, of course, no plan at all. It is a collection of incoherent slogans. It is blood foam at the mouth of a neo-Nazi murderer,” the spokeswoman stated during a briefing on October 16.

She also criticised Zelensky’s intention to damage the Russian air force with the assistance of his allies, saying, “He is pushing NATO to a direct conflict with our country and again insists on getting permission to use long-range weapons on Russian territory, knowing perfectly well, at least those who wrote him these speeches, realised what it would lead to because the corresponding statements by the Russian leadership were made just a week ago.”

“Taken as a sum, all these points and secret sub-clauses are not Zelensky’s plan of victory but a plan to bring misfortune upon Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. This aims to keep the money flowing and present his terrorist capabilities. I think that today Zelensky definitively proved to everyone that he hates Ukrainians to the extent that can be characterised as Ukrainophobia,” Zakharova added.

Since Zelensky evidently does not have any plans to begin serious negotiations, as seen by his Victory Plan, any negotiations conducted in the short term can be used by the West and the Kiev regime to freeze the conflict in Ukraine, replenish their capabilities and launch new attacks against Russia.

According to Western media, including The Washington Post, Zelensky has shown himself more open to holding talks with Russia amid Ukraine’s weakening positions. At the same time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that no adequate proposals had yet been received regarding the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, apart from the hype in the Western media.

Zelensky’s masters in the West are beginning to see that they are not able to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia and are beginning to ask for negotiations. For the moment, they are resorting to negotiation chatter, as mentioned, to try to freeze the conflict and build up forces. In this context, the only way to end the conflict is the complete defeat of Ukraine, peace on Moscow’s terms, and the strategic retreat of the West from Russia’s borders.

The Victory Plan has certainly dominated headlines and occupied the attention of many world leaders, but Kiev has no way of enforcing it, especially since, from the very first point, it ensures failure, considering NATO has been very clear on Ukraine’s membership path, which cannot progress until the war is already over.

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

October 18, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »