CIA Democrats and Other Party Hawks Win Races in 2024 Election
By Jeremy Kuzmarov | Covert Action Magazine | November 17, 2024
In March 2018, Patrick Martin of the World Socialist Web Site published a political pamphlet entitled “The CIA Democrats.”
In it, he wrote that “an extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department” were “seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections.”
This is a departure from the 1960s and 1970s when Democrats like George McGovern, Leo Ryan and Frank Church were against wars like Vietnam and sought to reign in the CIA.
Some of the Class of 2018 CIA Democrats, like Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, were recruited as part of a “red-to-blue” program targeting vulnerable Republican-held seats.
In the 2018 race, there were far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party than for the Republicans. Martin wrote that there were so many “spooks” that with a “nod to Mad Magazine,” one might call the primaries “spy vs. spy.”
CovertAction Magazine has kept tabs on the “spook-soldiers” who were elected as part of the Class of 2018 and followed their careers in Congress. (According to Martin, 30 spook-soldiers won primaries and 11 were elected to Congress.)
Below is a summary of how some of them fared in the 2024 election:
1. Elissa Slotkin:
Slotkin narrowly defeated Republican challenger Mike Rogers in Michigan on November 5 for a seat in the U.S. Senate.
Slotkin is the one-time assistant to Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. Prior to her election to Congress, Slotkin put her stamp on the U.S.’s disastrous Ukraine policy as Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense following the U.S.-backed Maidan coup in 2014.
Over the past six years as a Member of Congress, Slotkin has continued to fervently support the Ukraine war, telling an NPR reporter: “I think we’ve got to give them [Ukraine] what they need….This is a black and white issue. Our weapons have made a huge difference.”
In reality, the only difference those weapons made is in killing more people while prolonging Ukraine’s inevitable defeat.
Described as a “moderate” or “conservative” Democrat of the kind the CIA and the plutocratic elite that it serves like, Slotkin is one of only five Democratic House members who voted against an amendment to prohibit support to and participation in the Saudi-led coalition’s military operations against the Houthis in Yemen—a genocidal operation.
Endorsed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) because of her strong pro-Israel stance, Slotkin further voted against H.Con.Res. 21, which directed President Joe Biden to remove U.S. troops from Syria within 180 days.[1]
When asked by a reporter about her favorite CIA movie, Slotkin tellingly named Zero Dark Thirty, which glorified the use of torture in the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
In the same interview, Slotkin praised the CIA’s Hollywood liaison office, which she said helps Hollywood to “really understand what is going on”—comments that are in line with the CIA’s official cover story for their PR operations in Hollywood, and make it seem like the Agency is merely concerned with greater accuracy, not covering up its crimes or trying to rehabilitate its public image.
2. Andy Kim:
The seat of disgraced New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has now been filled by Class of 2018 CIA Democrat Andy Kim (D-NJ), an adviser to former CIA Director David Petraeus who served as director for Iraq on Barack Obama’s National Security Council (NSC).
A graduate with degrees in political science from the University of Chicago and Oxford University who was a member of the progressive congressional caucus, Kim has been a staunch supporter of massive U.S. weapons supplies to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.
The first person of South Korean descent elected to the U.S. Senate, Kim voted for a congressional bill declaring that the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is anti-Semitic, and referred to the death of Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny as a “murder”—absent any proof that this was the case.
Predictably, Kim adopts alarmist rhetoric regarding North Korea that could lead directly into a war. He claimed that “there’s a madman with his finger on the button that can send nuclear weapons to annihilate my family.” However, it is the U.S. that precipitated the development of North Korea’s nuclear program as a security blanket after it bombed North Korea nearly back to the Stone Age during the Korean War and has tried for decades to overthrow its government.
3. Jared Golden:
Class of 2018 CIA Democrat Jared Golden narrowly defeated Republican Austin Theriault to retain his seat in Maine’s 2nd congressional district on November 5.
Golden is a tattooed Iraq and Afghan war veteran who served as a policy adviser on the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
A conservative Blue Dog Democrat who was named Vice Chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, Golden has urged President Biden to give F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, and bragged about voting for more than $78 billion in border security funding during his time in Congress.[2]
Additionally, he has championed record military budgets that provided funding for the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, and for developing new naval destroyers and F-35 jets and CH-53K helicopters, which will benefit Pratt & Whitney’s factory in North Berwick, Maine, and the Hunting Dearborn factory in Fryeburg, Maine.
According to Opensecrets.com, Golden took in $375,091 from AIPAC in 2023-2024 and more than $439,999 in total from pro-Israel lobby groups in the same period.[3] Not surprisingly given these totals, Golden has supported every U.S. military aid package to Israel while opposing calls for a cease-fire.
Golden showed himself to be totally deluded from reality when he claimed that Israel was not committing war crimes in Gaza, when they have been widely documented on the pages of mainstream newspapers.
4. Jason Crow
Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan, handily defeated John Fabbricatore on November 5 to win a fourth term in Congress.
Holding a childish view of world affairs out of the 1950s McCarthy era, Crow promotes on his website his role in securing provisions within the National Defense Authorization Agreement (NDAA) to help finance Buckley Space Force base in Colorado as part of his goal of making Colorado a global aerospace leader.
Buckley Space Force Base is headquarters of the U.S. Space Command, which follows a Nazi blueprint of trying to dominate the world by militarizing and controlling outer space.[4]
Space expert Bruce Gagnon has warned that exhaust from escalating numbers of rocket launches by the U.S. Space Force is diminishing the ozone layer, and the growing space debris could even cause the Earth to go dark as collisions become more likely.
Since Ukraine has been a key theater for testing new space-based weapons, it is no surprise that Jason Crow is a staunch supporter of that war and has established close friendships with Ukrainian military and political leaders who have turned their country into a neo-colonial vassal.
Crow claims that “Taiwan will eventually fall if we’re not able to help Ukraine win.”
To avert this outcome, he has called for increased military training to Ukraine and sending more long-range weapons and missiles to hit inside Russia, which he wants to sanction even more than it already is.[5]
A hawk on Israel, Crow supported legislation with Mike Walz (R-Fl), Trump’s new National Security adviser, to strengthen U.S.-Israeli intelligence sharing in the Gaza war, stating that his years fighting terrorism taught him that “intelligence is the key to effective counter-terrorism.”
One of Crow’s biggest donors is Palantir Technologies, a data-analytics company founded with CIA seed money, which signed a major cooperative agreement with the Israeli Defense Ministry while providing artificial intelligence (AI) software used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) for bomb-targeting and for accumulating data on Palestinians in the occupied territory.
Palantir has also played a key role in the Ukraine War by tracking Russian military movements and helping Ukraine to coordinate battlefield maneuvers along with bomb-targeting and there is concern that the company’s AI software platform also is being weaponized against ordinary Americans.
5. Mikie Sherrill:
Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), a U.S. Navy helicopter pilot with an intelligence background and Class of 2018 CIA Democrat, defeated Republican Joe Belnome on November 5 to win a fourth term in the 11th congressional district of New Jersey.
The New Jersey Globe reported that Sherrill might not serve out her full term if her gubernatorial campaign takes off.
Sherrill has served on the House Armed Services Committee and Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, a relic of the Cold War which promotes Sinophobia and confrontation with China.
On her website, Sherrill states that, serving on the House Armed Services Committee, she has been able to “significantly increase funding for Picatinny Arsenal—a major military research and manufacturing institute in her district—which remains the Army’s leading research institution for armaments and ammunition.”
Sherrill continues: “Beyond supporting the critical research and development programs at Picatinny, I am also proud to support the many defense technology companies that call NJ-11 home and are on the cutting edge of modernizing our Armed Forces. Many of my provisions in the FY23 National Defense Authorization Act support funding for our local defense industrial base and businesses.”
Sherrill is an anti-Russia and anti-China national security hawk. On her website, she writes:
“Both Russia and China have continued to build their military might and promote their influence across the globe. Neither country shares our values and often they are undermining our interests across the world. We must ensure we modernize our military to meet this threat and provide critical funding for cybersecurity and election protection.
“Putin instigated an unprovoked attack against Ukraine—a sovereign, democratic nation. He has attempted to rewrite history and has unleashed propaganda and disinformation in pursuit of his clear desire to rebuild the Soviet Union’s so-called sphere of influence. [In 2022], I traveled twice to Ukraine, once in January before Putin’s invasion and again in July. I met with President Zelensky and other top Ukrainian officials about the support they need from us and imparted to them the fierce support in New Jersey—home to one of the largest Ukrainian American communities in the country—for their independence and democracy.
“We secured emergency funding through a bipartisan package to support the Ukrainian people in their fight for freedom. American weapons support has made a tangible difference in the Ukrainians’ ability to hold off Russian aggression, including the M-777 Howitzer, developed here at Picatinny Arsenal.”
The M-777 howitzer, it should be noted, has been used to strike at and kill civilian targets in the Donbass, though has not reversed the failings of Ukraine’s summer 2023 counteroffensive.
Sherrill favors continued military support to Israel and a growing police state at home. She boasts on her website about supporting the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022, which she claims would “better equip our law enforcement with information related to possible attacks and their relationship with hate crimes.”
In May 2022, Sherrill and then-Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI), Chairman of the Select Committee on Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, participated in a strategic-operational war game, “Dangerous Straits: Battle for Taiwan 2027,” with the Center for a New American Security and NBC’s Meet the Press.
The war game provided important insight into how a potential war with China over Taiwan could develop, and how the U.S. and its allies and partners could defeat an attack on Taiwan by China.
A Party That Years Ago Crossed Over to the Dark Side
The Class of 2018 CIA Democrats are emblematic of the Democratic Party’s support for the warfare and surveillance states, which have made it hated among broad sectors of the population.
Kamala Harris is estimated to have gotten around 9 million fewer votes than Joe Biden did in 2020 in good part because of her embrace of war-mongering policies.
A key turning point in the history of the Democratic Party was the 1980 election, where many of the progressives of the 1970s were defeated by a big-money offensive and CIA campaign to destroy its congressional enemies.
Bill Clinton (and possibly Hillary too) had a background as a CIA “asset,” as did Barack Obama, who worked for a CIA-linked company that produced economic intelligence reports following his graduation from Columbia University.[6]
During their presidencies, Clinton and Obama helped re-empower the CIA while working to rehabilitate its reputation.
The Class of 2018 CIA Democrats did not come out of nowhere. They fit a historical trajectory by which the Democratic Party has completely crossed over to the dark side.
- Slotkin additionally voted to spy on U.S. citizens without warrant, for unconstitutional vaccine mandates and favored deployment of yet more draconian military surveillance technologies at the U.S.-Mexican border. ↑
- Opposing policing reform, Golden voted against Medicare for all. He got his start in politics working for Republican Senator Susan Collins. ↑
- According to Maine Wire, Golden has also received thousands of dollars in campaign funding from George Soros. Golden disputed the figures presented in Open Secrets. ↑
- See Annie Jacobson, Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program That Brought Nazi Scientists to America (Boston: Little & Brown, 2014). ↑
- Crow developed a four-step plan for victory in Ukraine, which is delusional, as Ukraine has lost control over much of eastern Ukraine and has zero chance of victory. ↑
- See Jeremy Kuzmarov, Obama’s Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2019); Jeremy Kuzmarov, Warmonger: How Clinton’s Malign Foreign Policy Set the Groundwork for Bush II to Biden (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2024). Obama’s grandfather and mother also appear to have worked for the CIA, with his mother and stepfather supporting the CIA-backed Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia that massacred more than a million suspected communists. ↑
The Democratic Party Faces Its Day of Reckoning
By Leonard C. Goodman | Scheer Post | November 19, 2024
Following its crushing defeat in the 2024 election, the Democratic Party might finally face its day of reckoning. The party markets itself as the champion of the working class and a bulwark against the party of the plutocrats. But this has been a lie for at least three decades.
The Democratic Party has partnered with Wall Street donors since at least the 1990s. Under President Bill Clinton, the party overturned Glass Steagall and other New Deal programs that had effectively restrained Wall Street greed for 60 years. It also sold out American workers with so-called trade deals that freed their bosses to ship American jobs overseas. It ended welfare “as we know it” and passed draconian crime bills that destroyed mostly black and brown communities, sending mothers and fathers to prison for decades in the name of a cruel and senseless war on drugs.
Into the 21st century, the Democrats continued pushing the lie that they were fighting for working people. After September 11, 2001, the party put up a token resistance to the Bush/Cheney regime of illegal regime-change wars, black sites, indefinite detention and torture. All the while, it continued soliciting campaign contributions from the arms dealers profiting from Bush’s wars.
In 2008, the party found a Black face to carry on its Wall Street-friendly agenda. Gullible Americans, myself included, were taken in by Barack Obama’s promises to end “dumb wars” and to institute a single payer healthcare system. We ignored the red flags, like the fact that Obama’s campaign broke records in pocketing Wall Street donations. It was later revealed by Wikileaks that nearly every member of Obama’s cabinet had been selected by the giant Wall Street bank Citigroup.
It didn’t take long for President Obama to crush our hopes that he was a different kind of Democrat. One of his first acts as president was to funnel trillions of dollars to the big banks that, newly freed by Clinton from FDR-era regulations, had embarked on an orgy of unbridled greed, swindling millions of Americans out of their homes and retirement savings with a scheme to sell worthless mortgage-backed securities.
Adding insult to injury, Obama saw to it that the bailed-out bank executives faced no criminal prosecutions and received their year-end bonuses. In their place, the Obama Justice Department brought federal mortgage fraud charges against thousands of poor people — I represented a half dozen of these folks — who had signed their names to the phony mortgage loans that the Wall Street bankers encouraged, packaged and sold to pension funds and other unwitting investors.
The pipe dream that Obama would be an anti-war president was also quickly dispatched. During his two terms, Obama ushered in a new era of continuous war, envisioned by George Orwell and favored by Wall Street. Obama expanded Bush’s bombing campaigns into Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria and Somalia. Today’s Democratic Party is indistinguishable from the Republicans in its ties to war profiteers and trillion-dollar Pentagon budgets.
Obama also effectively ended the Democrats’ promise to fight for a true national health care system in which all Americans would be able to go to the doctor when sick without fear of bankrupting their families. In its place, Obama pushed through a health care plan developed in right-wing think tanks, that guaranteed profits (and taxpayer subsidies) for the private insurance industry and did little to contain costs.
By 2012, Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report was describing the Democratic Party as the “more effective evil” for using its reputation as protector of the working class to neutralize effective opposition and push through right-wing policies that the Republicans could not get passed.
In 2016, the Democrats received a wake-up call when their chosen successor to Obama lost the White House to a crude-talking New York City real estate developer and game show host with no prior political experience. But with the help of its partners in corporate media, the party managed to limp along for another eight years, first by telling the American people that President Trump was an agent of Russia, and then by claiming that Trump was Hitler who was planning concentration camps and firing squads for his political enemies.
Now after the November 2024 elections in which Trump won every swing state and the popular vote, the Democratic party is finally being forced to face some uncomfortable truths. The party’s partners in the corporate media initially tried blaming the election result on the voters for being too misogynist, too racist, or too dumb to vote correctly. But there is little trust that remains in corporate media.
The party’s corporate consultants have put the blame on the party’s excessive focus on identity politics. But the issues for the Democrats run much deeper than bad messaging. The real problem is that the party takes direction from plutocrats whose interests are antagonistic to the needs of the working people it pretends to represent. Both Democrats and Republicans are financed by the same corporate interests. Thus, there is general agreement and support for policies that guarantee high rates of return on investment capital, policies like continuous war, for-profit health care, and outsourcing jobs. This leaves few issues for the parties to fight about other than abortion and identity politics.
Fifty years ago, American capitalists still relied on American workers to build everything from cars and televisions to sneakers and light bulbs. These titans of industry had to care about things such as functioning schools, decent wages, cities and public transportation. But the times have changed. Today’s plutocrats support outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries and have little concern for the condition of American workers. And while ordinary Americans want the country’s resources to be spent at home, plutocrats are heavily invested in foreign wars, and they shun diplomacy.
These contradictions could only be covered up for so long. Even with reliable partners in the corporate press, the internet has given Americans alternative sources for their news. During the last few years, in a desperate effort to keep its scheme afloat, the Democrats embraced censorship and a regime of corporate “fact checkers” to police social media and remove or punish unsanctioned speech. In so doing, the party abandoned the last of its core principles: standing up for free speech and the right to dissent.
Many Democrats argue that they had to go after Wall Street money to compete with the Republicans. In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer explained the strategy: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” But for this plan to work, the party still needed an actual message to take to the voters.
Forbes Magazine reports that during the 2024 presidential race, Kamala Harris’s campaign raised a billion dollars while Trump’s campaign raised $388 million. Harris’s substantial edge in fundraising allowed her to flood the airwaves with commercials. But she had nothing of substance to say to voters.
The Atlantic Magazine reports that early in her campaign, Harris gained ground by attacking Trump as a stooge of corporate interests—and touted herself as a relentless scourge of Big Business. But then, suddenly, Harris abandoned her attacks on big business at the urging of her brother-in-law, Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer.
Many Democrats, especially in swing states, opposed the Biden Administration’s unfailing support for Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza, which has killed more than 43,000 Palestinians and displaced nearly all of its 2.3 million residents. Harris could have gained the support of many of these voters by promising to stop arming Israel during the genocide. But her Party’s donors wouldn’t allow her to even hint at such a change in policy. Two days before the election, while campaigning in the swing state of Michigan, Harris stated, “I will do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza.” But as Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada pointed out on election night, this promise carried no weight because Harris had also promised that she would never do the one thing within her power to stop the slaughter: cut off the flow of bombs to Israel.
After decades of malfeasance and deception, it has become evident that the corporate Democratic Party cannot serve as the lone opposition party to the corporate Republicans. The American people need a viable political party that represents the interests of ordinary working people.
A true workers party will not raise as much money as the corporate Democrats. But it will have an honest message with the potential to appeal to large numbers of Americans. Further, a political party that actually represents workers will press for reforms that begin to even the playing field between the haves and the have nots.
For example, one the most effective ways plutocrats game the political system is by flooding campaign contributions to the lawmakers who sit on the key committees that oversee their businesses. Members of Congress covet these committee chairs because they guarantee high fundraising numbers. Lawmakers who sit on the House Financial Services Committee have jurisdiction over banks and insurance companies and are targeted by those firms with campaign contributions. Lawmakers who sit on the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees provide funding for lucrative government contracts and are flooded with war industry cash.
These practices are corrupt and deprive American citizens of their right to be governed by representatives free from conflicts of interest. A judge who has received political contributions from a litigant must be removed from the case. Similarly, the most important functions of government, such as determining tax and how our tax revenue will be spent, should be performed by lawmakers who have not been bribed.
In 2017, the Center for American Progress, a think tank aligned with the Democratic Party, proposed a “Committee Contribution Ban” for Congress. It asserted: “Congress should enact a law to make it unlawful for members of Congress to accept campaign contributions from entities that fall within the jurisdiction of their committees.” Unsurprisingly, this proposal never reached the floor of Congress, that I could find.
Some states have enacted similar conflict of interest rules. And Congress could certainly pass such a law, if it chose. Of course, this will never happen as long as we are ruled by two corporate parties that benefit from the corruption. But if we had a political party that represented ordinary people, countless opportunities for positive change would soon emerge.
Leonard C. Goodman is a Chicago criminal defense lawyer and has been an Adjunct Professor of Law at DePaul University.
Ukraine’s 1,000 Days of War
By Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute | November 20, 2024
Tuesday, November 19 marked 1,000 days since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, though Ukraine’s civil war has been ongoing for over ten years. President-elect Donald Trump has a clear mandate to try and end the war, but with staffing picks like Marco Rubio as secretary of State, it is not clear that he wants to. Meanwhile, the outgoing Joe Biden administration has agreed to let Ukraine strike into Russia with U.S.-supplied long-range missiles, something which almost everyone seems to agree is a deliberate attempt to sabotage future peace talks. The Biden administration is also trying to run through all the aid for Ukraine before Trump takes power (not feeling confident of his Ukraine policy), while a European political class which deluded themselves into believing Trump had no chance of winning is rapidly adapting to reality. The current Ukraine policy is probably close to dead, but we are left to watch what further destruction will be wreaked on its way out the door.
It doesn’t seem like all that long ago that Joe Biden made his infamous “minor incursion” comment during the 2022 State of the Union Address. Then, the Biden administration went around saying that an invasion was imminent. Many commentators didn’t believe them, given the government and media’s long history of lying about all matters, especially Russia. Those commentators were proven wrong, though in my view Biden did a lot to cause the invasion. Once the U.S. government claims you’re going to do a false flag attack as a pretense for an invasion, it is more or less an acknowledgment that they intend to do a terrorist attack against you and say you did it to yourself. The media and government kept calling it “an unprovoked invasion” because that is the opposite of the truth, as the Libertarian Institute’s Executive Director Scott Horton has laid out at great length in his newly published book, Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine.
At the start of this conflict it was hard to believe it would last very long, which was partially due to propaganda. From the beginning we saw new information management techniques where the media obfuscated with a constant blare of nonsense instead of reporting anything useful, which indicated the real news wasn’t good for Ukraine. Further, while “Kiev could fall in three days” was just something then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley made up to make any resistance look impressive, at the same time, immediately after the invasion Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was going around telling the public to make their own Molotov cocktails, which gave the impression of imminent collapse. Western governments instantly set up a sanctions regime which seems to have accomplished little but removed their vestigial power over world financial systems. Similarly, NATO countries dumped equipment into Ukraine they persistently showed the shortcomings of their own manufacturing capacities. The debacle over German Leopard tanks, which then had no impact on the battlefield, is just one example. The media continued to paint a rosy picture of brave Ukrainians and their noble fight for freedom, but at the same time, the media has been preparing the public for Ukraine to lose since the late spring of 2022.
What no one can deny is the devastating human cost of this war. Numbers of casualties on either side are unreliable and largely used for propaganda, but people are certainly dying at huge rates, most of all Ukrainian conscripts. Ukraine already had devastating population loss and was the poorest country in Europe, and now much of it is destroyed. Some claim that many Ukrainian refugees will enthusiastically return to rebuild the country when the war is over, but it seems more likely that men will join their wives and children abroad if they are able to. However, Ukrainian refugees are becoming increasingly unpopular in Europe for a variety of reasons, including that the public is being asked to sacrifice much while Ukrainians seek safety instead of fighting for their country. Europe was in many ways in decline before the great increases in energy prices from attempting to refuse Russian gas, and it seems that alone may cause Europe to give up on this conflict.
As it stands, we cannot be sure if the Biden administration has given Ukraine permission to expand strikes in a meaningful sense; there are contradictory reports, but it doesn’t sound good. Once upon a time it was the case that after an election in the United States the president gave a great deal of reverence to the incoming administration’s agenda and didn’t try to make any big changes. But now the norm seems to be to sabotage them. We can’t rely on Trump to be consistent in any efforts to end this war given his support of an enormous financial aid package in the spring, but it is unpopular among his supporters and Trump will want to be seen as the one to bring it to a close.
Since this started, Ukraine has been said to be on the edge of collapse and has held on so far, but Russian advances are picking up speed. It is being reported that the Western powers are coming closer to accepting reality and acknowledging some of Russia’s territorial gains in exchange for peace, but it seems like until then they will continue to climb the escalation ladder and ask men to be among the last to die for a mistake. Still, The New York Times just ran an op-ed titled “Trump Can Speed Up the Inevitable in Ukraine,” which is wholly an argument to accept reality. Regardless, when this grim affair ends, it is likely Ukraine takes a worse deal than it could have gotten in March 2022, and more than 1,000 days of death will have served no purpose but enriching military contractors.
German army warning companies of war with Russia – media
RT | November 20, 2024
The German military has begun instructing local enterprises on how to prepare and what to do in the event of a conflict between NATO and Russia, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) newspaper has reported.
The Bundeswehr is providing training to the companies based on a 1,000-page document entitled ‘Operational Plan Germany’, which was recently approved by lawmakers, the outlet stated in an article on Monday.
The contents of the plan are classified, but FAZ claimed that it includes lists of buildings and infrastructure facilities that should be protected as a priority in case of an escalation with Moscow. The plan also reportedly details what private businesses should do to help with defense operations.
If the fighting breaks out on NATO’s eastern flank, Germany could become a hub for hundreds of thousands of soldiers, who would have to be transported to the east, as well as for military equipment, food and medical supplies, the article read.
Among other things, the German military urges businesses to draw up specific plans for employees and try to ensure self-sufficiency through diesel generators or wind turbines, FAZ said.
The paper also cited concrete advice given by Lieutenant Colonel Jorn Plischke to companies during a recent meeting at the Hamburg Chamber of Commerce. “For every hundred employees, train at least five additional lorry drivers that you don’t need. [Because] 70 percent of all lorries on Germany’s roads are driven by Eastern Europeans. If there is a war there, where will these people be?” he said.
Similar meetings are taking place across Germany, with the Bundeswehr ordering all state commands to organize them, according to FAZ.
The first joint exercises between civilian forces and the German military, called ‘Red Storm Alpha’, were recently held in Hamburg. They were aimed at protecting the local port from espionage and sabotage attempts, the report read. ‘Red Storm Bravo’ drills are already in preparation, it added.
Plischke told FAZ that, based on Berlin’s intelligence assessments, Russia “will be willing and able” to attack NATO within four or five years.
A few months ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected allegations of Moscow planning aggression against NATO as “nonsense” and “bulls**t.” According to the Russian leader, such claims are made by Western politicians to deceive the public in their countries and justify increased spending on defense and aid to Kiev amid the conflict with Moscow. “In Ukraine, we are just protecting ourselves,” Putin insisted.
Has Biden authorised long-range missiles to save Ukraine or sabotage Trump?
Professor Glenn Diesen on The Spectator | November 18, 2024
I discussed Biden’s decision to strike Russia with long-range missiles with Svitlana Morenets at The Spectator.
My position in this debate was that these missiles are not intended to turn the tide of the war, rather the purpose seems to be to sabotage Trump’s efforts to end the war. Obama similarly escalated tensions with Russia with sanctions, closure of a Russian consulate and expulsion of Russian diplomats before he left office to make it more difficult for Trump to “get along with Russia”. Biden’s actions are much more dangerous as this marks the start of a NATO-Russia War.
Arguing that Ukraine has the right to defend itself is very manipulative, as the main issue is that NATO crosses the line from proxy war to direct war. These are American long-range missiles, their use is entirely dependent on US intelligence and targeting, and American soldiers will operate these weapons and they will be guided by American satellites. This is an American attack on Russia, the world’s largest nuclear power. Putin has warned it will be interpreted as the start of a NATO-Russia War, and he has committed Russia to retaliate.
Democrats Must Remove President Biden Now
IF ONLY WE CAN GET TO JANUARY 20
By LTG USA (RET) Michael T. Flynn | November 19, 2024
Today, the world is likely closer to nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. In its closing days, the Biden Administration is stumbling our nation into a potential nuclear war with Russia. If you have not been paying attention for the past two days, you need to know the basic facts. Then, let me offer what I believe needs to happen, and quickly.
Just before midnight Sunday night, AP reported “Biden has authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied missiles to strike deeper inside Russia, easing limitations on the longer range weapons…” The long-range, supersonic, ballistic missiles being unleashed on Russia most likely are ATACMs, standing for Army Tactical Missile System. These weapons were developed for offensive — not defensive — purposes. The configuration of the specific ATACMs sent to Ukraine is unknown, but they could have a range of from 100 to 190 or more miles. They can carry different types of weapons, including cluster bombs which can cause a multitude of civilian casualties. Despite many demands from Zelensky and the Ukrainian government, such long-range missiles had not been provided until last month, and until now — two weeks after the November election — their use had not been authorized.
There is a degree of speculation in all of these reports, since the White House has not seen fit to simply provide an advisory of exactly how it has ratcheted up the possibility of a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia. However, it does appear that other NATO members — including UK and France — have followed Biden’s dangerous lead in making similar offerings to Zelensky from their arsenals.
How should we view this shocking news? Perhaps the most succinct analyses came from Donald Trump, Jr., Tweeting: “The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives. Gotta lock in those $Trillions. Life be damned!!! Imbeciles!” Truly, I could not have said it better.
President Putin made clear in September how he would view this development: “Aggression against Russia by any nonnuclear state, but with the support of a nuclear state, is proposed to be considered as their joint attack on Russia.” He added: “Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in case of aggression, including if the enemy using conventional weapons poses a critical threat.” Do not take these words lightly. If Russia had announced it had provided missiles to Mexico and authorized their use to attack Americans living in San Diego, Los Angeles, Tucson, Phoenix, El Paso, and Corpus Christi, what would you expect the U.S. Government would do?
While the neocons who populate the Deep State, and their toadies in the establishment media tell us that it is President Putin who is to blame for everything that happens, as things stand now, these stupid, provocative acts that are endangering our nation are coming from the Biden Administration and not the Kremlin.
That summarizes the problem. Here is what needs to be done, now.
First, Vice President Harris and the Biden Cabinet must invoke the 25th Amendment, and remove Biden as President. Biden is sleep-walking us into a hot war with Russia without a Congressional Declaration of War. If he lives past January 20, Biden will take the position he took with Special Counsel Hur who nine months ago declared Biden could not be held responsible for crimes, as he was on old man with a poor memory. It’s past time to put Kamala in the Oval Office — then we will know the name of the person in charge — someone who was actually elected to office. And she would be a person who could be held accountable for what disaster might befall the nation. Bearing that type of responsibility might force Harris to act responsibly. No longer would decisions be made by Unknown and Unidentified Deep State Operatives who would scatter like roaches should a crisis occur.
Second, at the same time as we hope the Democrats will act, the duty also falls on the current House of Representatives to impeach Biden now for endangering the nation by taking steps that constitute acts of war without a Declaration of War — a power the Constitution gives only to Congress. The indictment should then go immediately to the Senate for trial and removal. President Trump was impeached after he (supposedly) lost the 2020 election. What’s good for the goose.
Third, incoming officials in the Trump Administration need to make contact with President Putin and his staff to de-escalate the situation as best as can be done. This is exactly what I was trying to do in my conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in January 2017. The same Deep State which intercepted my call and leaked it to the Press will do so again, because the Deep State is on the ropes and are desperate. No man who fears going to prison has the moral authority to lead America at this perilous time.
Fourth, the Trump Administration and incoming Attorney General Matt Gaetz need to make it clear that the identities of those Deep State operatives exercising the powers of the Presidency, now urging Biden to act recklessly, will be held to account personally, not just politically, but legally. If these operatives knew they would be named and the subject to prosecution, they just might straighten up, real quick.
Fifth, we need to pray that we have time for the will of the voters to take effect on January 20. Just two weeks ago, on November 5, 2024, the voters spoke on the great issue of war with great clarity. President Trump received a clear mandate for his promise to end the killing in the Ukraine and seeking peace. America had not seen that type of leadership since President Kennedy’s commencement speech at American University, and they voted for it overwhelmingly.
Will any of these approaches work? Maybe not. But we need to ask the Democrats to do their duty, and the Republicans to do their duty, and we need to do our duty to pray as well. We know President Trump will do his duty. If only we can get to Janaury 20.
NATO member says Russia has right to self-defense
RT | November 19, 2024
The West should pay attention to Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine, which reflects Moscow’s right and ability to defend itself from threats, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said.
Moscow unveiled the proposed changes to its strategic deterrent in September, while Ukraine was still clamoring for permission to use Western weapons for long-range strikes into Russian territory. The new doctrine was officially adopted on Tuesday, hours after Ukraine’s US-supplied missiles were used to target Bryansk Region.
“I think that this statement by Russia is, above all, a measure taken in response to the stance taken against it, concerning the use of conventional weapons,” Erdogan said on Tuesday at a press conference following the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
“I think that this issue must be considered by NATO officials. Russia has the right and ability to protect itself and to take measures for its defense. And it was compelled to take these measures,” Erdogan added.
NATO countries have the same right to self-defense, the Turkish leader said, but need to keep in mind that “there are no upsides to a war involving nuclear weapons.”
Multiple US outlets reported over the weekend that US President Joe Biden had lifted the restrictions on Kiev’s use of US-supplied rockets. The White House has neither confirmed nor denied the reports, but Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky claimed on Tuesday that they were true.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned the West that Kiev’s use of long-range missiles would change the character of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and make NATO a direct participant in the hostilities.
The US and its allies have funneled almost $200 billion worth of aid to Ukraine since 2022, while insisting this did not make them a party to the conflict. Although a NATO member state, Türkiye has not implemented sanctions against Russia and has maintained relations with both Moscow and Kiev.
Both Russia and Ukraine are Türkiye’s neighbors, Erdogan told reporters in Brazil, noting that Ankara must protect its bilateral ties with both. The three countries all border the Black Sea.
“I hope that we will achieve a definitive ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia as soon as possible and secure the peace the planet has been eagerly waiting for,” he added.
Türkiye hosted the initial negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in March 2022. The promising process collapsed after the West signaled unconditional support for Kiev and an unwillingness to make peace with Moscow.
The US Approves Long-Range Missile Strikes on Russia
Crossing the Line Between Proxy War & Direct War
By Glenn Diesen | November 19, 2024
The discussions about authorising long-range missile strikes on Russia are profoundly dishonest and misleading. The political-media elites present deeply flawed arguments to support the conclusion that attacking Russia with long-range missiles does not cross the line between proxy war and direct war. NATO may be successful in deluding itself, yet for Russia there is no doubt that this is an act of war.
1) “Ukraine has the right to defend itself”
The argument that Ukraine has the right to defend itself as a justification for NATO to authorise long-range strikes into Russia is very manipulative. The public is pulled in with a very reasonable premise, based on the universal acceptance of the right to self-defence. Once the public has accepted the premise, then it is presented as a foregone conclusion that Ukraine should be supplied with long-range missiles to attack Russia. The extent of NATO’s involvement in the war, as the main issue, is subsequently eliminated entirely from the argument.
The point of departure in an honest discussion should start with the right question: When is the line between proxy war and direct war crossed? These are US long-range missiles, their use is entirely dependent on US intelligence and targeting, they will be operated by US soldiers and guided by US satellites. Launching them from Ukrainian territory does not make it any less of a direct US attack on Russia. The US did not use these weapons against Russia for three years as it would amount to a direct attack, yet now the media is attempting to sell the narrative of this merely being uncontroversial military aid to enable Ukraine to defend itself. The US and some of its NATO allies have decided to attack Russia directly, and they should be honest about this intention. Attempts to present this as merely giving military aid to Ukraine to defend itself is an irresponsible effort to shame any dissent and avoid a serious discussion about attacking the world’s largest nuclear power.
It is imperative to place oneself in the shoes of opponents and ask how we would interpret the situation and what we would do if the situation were reversed. The US and NATO have invaded many countries over the years, so we do not need to delve too deep into our imagination to set up a hypothetical scenario. How would we react if Russia sent long-range missiles, dependent on Russian intelligence and targeting, operated by Russian soldiers and guided by Russian satellites, to attack NATO countries under the guise of merely helping Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen of another country to defend itself. We are deluding ourselves if we pretend that this would not be interpreted as a direct attack, and despite the great risks involved, we would be compelled to retaliate to restore our deterrent.
President Putin warned in September 2024 that Russia would interpret this as a direct attack and the beginning of a NATO-Russia War, and Putin argued that Russia would respond accordingly. The clarity in his language makes it nearly impossible to walk back the commitment to strike back at NATO, which is a deliberate tactic in the game of chicken as Russia cannot swirl away.
Stories about thousands of North Korean soldiers fighting in Ukraine or Kursk are used to legitimise the attack on Russia. This is most likely NATO war propaganda as there would be some evidence if thousands of North Korean soldiers were fighting. The North Koreans training in Russia are likely intended as a deterrent in case NATO would go to war against Russia, which is now seemingly the case. However, even if North Koreans involve themselves in the fighting, it does not make NATO any less of a participant in the war by attacking Russia.
2) Russia does not dare to retaliate against NATO
The reluctance by Russia in the past to sufficiently retaliate against NATO’s incremental escalations has been presented as evidence for the false conclusion that Russia does not dare to respond. There is no doubt that Russia’s restraints have emboldened NATO. President Biden once argued that sending F-16s would result in a Third World War, such warnings now are denounced as “Russian propaganda”. Russia’s failure to respond when the US crossed that line meant that the US could argue it did not amount to a direct attack. The rules of proxy war subsequently changed.
Russia’s dilemma over the past three years has been to either respond at the risk of triggering a Third World War, or to gradually abandon its deterrent and embolden the US. With every NATO escalation, Russia is facing an ever-higher price for its restraints. Russia has been under pressure to set a final red line, and NATO becoming directly involved in striking Russia is when the proxy war becomes a direct war.
How will Russia respond? There are several more steps on the escalatory ladder before pushing the nuclear button. Russia can intensify strikes on Ukrainian political targets and infrastructure, introduce North Korean troops that were likely intended as a deterrent for a situation like this, strike NATO assets in the Black Sea and logistic centres in Poland or Romania, destroy satellites used for the attacks on Russia, or attack US/NATO military assets in other parts of the world under the guise of enabling other countries to defend themselves.
Russia’s response will also depend on how these missiles are used. The New York Times suggested that the use of these missiles would be limited and primarily used to assist Ukraine with the occupation of Kursk, which also makes the US an even more involved participant in the occupation of Russian territory. Yet, Russia must respond forcefully to any breach of its red lines to counter NATO’s incrementalism / salami tactics that aim to chop away at Russia’s deterrent. The purpose of such incrementalism is to avoid an excessive response from Russia. The US will predictably impose restrictions on how these weapons can be used as it engages in direct attacks on Russia, but gradually these restrictions will be removed.
The extent of Russia’s response will depend on the extent to which these weapons are effective. The war is evidently being won by Russia, which is why Moscow is cautious about any escalations as it only needs time. However, if these weapons would actually turn the tide of the war, then Russia would consider itself compelled to launch a powerful attack on NATO as Russia considers this to be a war for its survival. NATO should therefore hope that these weapons are not effective, which undermines the reasoning for using them at all.
The missiles can turn the tide of the war
The war has already been lost, and Washington previously admitted that these long-range missiles would not be a game changer. There are two reasons for escalating the war at this point, to further bleed Russia and to sabotage Trump’s objective to end the war.
There is overwhelming evidence that the overarching objective for sabotaging all paths to peace and fighting the proxy war in Ukraine has been to weaken Russia as a strategic rival. Even Zelensky recognised in March 2022 that some Western states wanted to use Ukraine as a proxy against Russia: “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives”.[1] Both the Israeli and the Turkish mediators confirmed that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement to fight Russia with Ukrainians, while interviews with top American and British diplomats revealed that the weakening of Russia and regime change in Moscow was the only acceptable outcome.[2]
The timing of Washington’s decision is also suspicious and appears to aim at sabotaging Trump’s plans to end the war. By comparison, Obama similarly threw a wrench into US-Russia relations in late 2016 as he was handing the White House over to Trump. The anti-Russian sanctions and expulsion of Russian diplomats were intended to sabotage Trump’s promise to get along with Russia. Biden appears to follow the same playbook by risking a Third World War to prevent peace from breaking out in Ukraine. Biden was too cognitively impaired to run for re-election, yet he is supposedly mentally fit to attack Russia as he prepares to leave the White House.
The world today is more dangerous than at any other time in history. The decision by the US to attack the world’s largest nuclear power is a desperate effort to restore global primacy. What makes this situation even more dangerous is the absurd self-deception across the West that results in us sleepwalking towards nuclear war. The public should be presented with more honest arguments when making the case for risking a third world war and nuclear annihilation.
[1] The Economist. ‘Volodymyr Zelensky on why Ukraine must defeat Putin’ The Economist, 27 March 2022.
[2] G. Diesen, ‘Sabotage of the Istanbul Peace Negotiations’, Substack, 13 October 2024, https://glenndiesen.substack.com/p/sabotage-of-the-istanbul-peace-agreement
Russia’s Amended Nuclear Doctrine Signals Willingness to Take On ‘Global Power Obligations’ – Expert
Sputnik – 19.11.2024
The latest changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine were likely made for two main reasons, Mikael Valtersson, former Swedish military officer and ex-chief of staff with the Sweden Democrats, tells Sputnik.
“One is to make it even clearer that even attacks from Ukraine with conventional weapons with the active support of Western powers will be seen as a combined attack on Russia,” he says. “This will give Russia the opportunity to claim Casus belli [an event that either provokes or is used to justify a war], and legitimate defensive military action according to international law and the UN Charter.”
This move, Valtersson argues, is essentially an attempt by Russia to “strengthen deterrence towards the West and reduce the risk of Western escalation in Ukraine.”
“The second and very interesting aspect is the inclusion of allies in the nuclear deterrence,” he continues. “This must be seen in the light of the recent ratification of the new defense cooperation agreement with the DPRK (North Korea) that includes a paragraph akin to the NATO article 5. This stipulates mutual military aid to defend each other in case of aggression from other countries.”
“With the changes of Russian nuclear strategy, Russia says that aggression towards it’s allies will be seen as aggression towards Russia and might include a nuclear response,” Valtersson notes. “The Russian nuclear doctrine now reflects the fact that Russia has formal allies again.”
As Russia’s actions resulted in NATO ceasing to be the only military bloc in the post-Cold War world whose members “have been included in a common nuclear umbrella,” Valtersson suggests that this development has both pros and cons for Moscow.
“This makes Russia a more attractive ally, but also puts Russia into a more precarious situation, since it now has stronger obligations to live up to. A failure to live up to these obligations would result in a huge loss of confidence in Russian willingness to support allies, and the Kremlin of course knows this,” he elaborates. “That means that this decision to change the nuclear doctrine must be seen as a real willingness of Russia to extend its nuclear deterrence to other allies.”
Valtersson also remarks that it would be interesting to see what new defense agreements Russia might sign with nations such as Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Algeria “and a multitude of Sub-Saharan states,” which could both “greatly increase the security of these states and Russian standing in the world” and, “increase the risk of Russian involvement in new conflicts.”
“To summarise, this is a clear signal that Russia now is willing to take on the obligations that are needed to be a real global power,” he adds.
Russia’s new nuclear doctrine (KEY POINTS)
RT | November 19, 2024
Russian President Vladimir Putin has officially signed a new national nuclear doctrine that outlines the scenarios in which Moscow would be authorized to deploy its nuclear arsenal. Here are the key points of the updated document, as stipulated on the Kremlin’s website.
- State policy on Nuclear Deterrence is defensive by nature, it is aimed at maintaining the nuclear forces potential at the level sufficient for nuclear deterrence, and guarantees protection of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, and deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies. In the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.
- The Russian Federation considers nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence, their use being an extreme and compelled measure, and takes all necessary efforts to reduce nuclear threat and prevent aggravation of interstate relations, that could trigger military conflicts, including nuclear ones.
- The Russian Federation ensures nuclear deterrence toward a potential adversary, which is understood to mean any individual states or military coalitions (blocs, alliances) which see the Russian Federation as a potential adversary and possess nuclear arms and/or other weapons of mass destruction or conventional forces with a significant combat capability. Nuclear deterrence is also ensured toward any states which provide the territory, airspace, and/or maritime space under their control as well as resources for preparing and conducting an aggression against the Russian Federation.
- An aggression of any single state from a military coalition (bloc, alliance) against the Russian Federation and/or its allies will be regarded as an aggression of the coalition (bloc, alliance) as a whole.
- An aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies of any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state will be regarded as their joint attack.
- The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear arms and/or other weapons of mass destruction against itself and/or its allies, as well as in the event of an aggression against the Russian Federation and/or the Republic of Belarus as constituents of the Union State using conventional arms, if such an aggression creates a critical threat for their sovereignty and/or territorial integrity.
- The decision to use nuclear weapons is taken by the President of the Russian Federation.
Why Putin should ignore Biden’s pathetic ATACMS provocation
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 18, 2024
As provocations go, the latest by President Joe Biden to permit the use of long-range missile strikes on Russia is certainly audacious. But, ultimately, in practice, it is a pathetic gesture by a lame-duck president that will have no impact on Russia’s anticipated military victory against the NATO-armed Kiev regime.
Biden’s reported decision is a desperate last-bid gamble to incite an escalation with Russia and to sabotage incoming plans by President-elect Trump to end the conflict in Ukraine. Biden’s move is reckless, reprehensible, and odious. But it should not be given any credibility as a serious threat.
Russia would be best to ignore it. Of course, Russia has to defend itself against any increased potential threat to its territory that such weapons may pose. Nevertheless, Moscow should continue exercising the strategic restraint that President Putin is renowned for, and not retaliate over the provocation.
Understandably, Russian politicians and media have reacted furiously to U.S. media reports that Biden gave the Ukrainian military the green light to deploy American-made ATACMS for striking deep into Russian territory. The ground-launched Mach-3 supersonic missiles have a range of up to 300 kilometers.
The audacity and arrogance of the American ruling class knows no bounds. It has sanctioned Russia to the hilt (to no avail mind you), it has weaponized a NeoNazi regime in Kiev, it has killed civilians in the Russian territory of Crimea already with ATACMS, and so on. Now Biden is ramping up the assault capability deep into Russia.
Two months ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that if the U.S. took such a move, then it would dramatically alter the very essence of the conflict in Ukraine, one where Moscow would see the United States and its NATO partners as “direct participants” in a war against Russia.
Putin’s reasoning was correct. The deployment of ATACMS and other sophisticated long-range missiles against Russia would inescapably mean that American and NATO personnel were manning these systems. The Ukrainian military – riven with desertion, in disarray, and suffering from poor morale – would not be capable of targeting and operating such munitions. The use of ATACMS, or air-launched JASSMs, and the British and French Storm Shadow and Scalp cruise missiles to hit Russia is tantamount to NATO’s direct involvement in a war against Russia.
The implication of what Putin said was grave and potentially catastrophic. If the Western states took that step, the result could mean an all-out war between nuclear powers.
When Putin issued his stark warning in September, Biden and other Western leaders, including Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer, appeared at the time to heed it and back down from considerations to permit the Ukrainian regime to use long-range missiles against Russia.
Now, however, Biden has flipped to finally give his approval, according to reports. The style of anonymous U.S. officials briefing the New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press has all the hallmarks of an orchestrated psychological operation.
What has changed?
Simple. Donald Trump won the U.S. presidential election on November 5 with a resounding victory in defiance of the political establishment that wanted Kamala Harris to win. The Republican president-elect takes over in two months when he is inaugurated on January 20. Trump has repeatedly said he will negotiate an end to the nearly three-year conflict in Ukraine, which has seen the U.S. and NATO allies bankroll a corrupt regime in Ukraine to the tune of $200 billion.
And yet after all that obscene wasting of Western public money to bloat the war machine, Russia is going to defeat the NATO proxy. The stakes for NATO’s future and the Western imperialist war machine could not be higher.
The impressive electoral mandate for Trump suggests that the American public wants the U.S. warmongering to stop and for their mounting economic and social needs to be taken care of as a priority.
Under Trump, the war racket could well be over. His nomination last week of Tulsi Gabbard – an outspoken critic of the NATO proxy war in Ukraine – as his Director of National Intelligence is a major sign of his bold intentions of negotiating a diplomatic settlement to the conflict. That means the end of the blood money flowing into the coffers of the Western military-industrial complex and Wall Street. Biden and the Democrat candidate Kamala Harris were the puppets of the war racket. To perform well, they mouthed endless Russophobia, making negotiations impossible with Moscow, and they swore to keep the conflict in Ukraine going “for as long as it takes.” European leaders like Starmer, Macron, and Scholz are equally contemptible.
As Biden packs his bags for his overdue retirement, he is rendering desperate last-minute services to the war racket that lies at the putrid heart of American capitalism. Last week, his Secretary of State Antony Blinken (another non-entity puppet) said the Biden administration would release a further $9 billion in military aid to Ukraine so that it could keep fighting the war well into next year.
Likewise, the reported green light from Biden on the use of long-range missiles is another ploy to keep the war racket going. Trump could reverse the decision when he enters the White House, but over the next two months, the Biden administration seems to be trying to sabotage Trump’s peace intentions by escalating the conflict to a dangerous point of no return.
Russia should not take the bait. For a start, the United States does not have a large supply of ATACMS to give to Ukraine. Any use of these missiles will be limited. The Kiev regime’s so-called president Vladimir Zelensky – he canceled elections months ago and rules by decree – has no chance of stopping the rapidly advancing victory of Russian forces, even with a few ATACMS.
No, this is not about defending Ukraine or enabling Zelensky’s ridiculous “victory plan”. It’s all about the American-led Western imperialist deep state wanting to provoke Russia into a dreadful escalation to keep the war profits churning.
Biden’s gesture is reckless, but it is something that should be treated with contempt. As he wanders off to the oblivion of his retirement dementia, people will soon forget about this failed politician. His 50-year career was one long shift of prostituting for U.S. imperialism.
Legally, Russia could respond to Biden’s provocation with reciprocal attacks on U.S. and NATO sites. But such an escalation is exactly what the imperialist deep state of the U.S. and its NATO lackeys are betting on.
The provocative gesture is more symbolic than a substantive threat. Russia should ignore it and focus on demolishing the NATO proxy regime in Kiev, and with that, thereby deal a fatal blow to U.S. and NATO credibility.
Featured Video
House Resolution Calls for Tech Companies to Censor Speech
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Alarmist climate science as a textbook example of groupthink
By Paul MacRae | May 1, 2012
… Groupthink was extensively studied by Yale psychologist Irving L. Janis and described in his 1982 book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.
Janis was curious about how teams of highly intelligent and motivated people—the “best and the brightest” as David Halberstam called them in his 1972 book of the same name—could have come up with political policy disasters like the Vietnam War, Watergate, Pearl Harbor and the Bay of Pigs. Similarly, in 2008 and 2009, we saw the best and brightest in the world’s financial sphere crash thanks to some incredibly stupid decisions, such as allowing sub-prime mortgages to people on the verge of bankruptcy.
In other words, Janis studied why and how groups of highly intelligent professional bureaucrats and, yes, even scientists, screw up, sometimes disastrously and almost always unnecessarily. The reason, Janis believed, was “groupthink.” He quotes Nietzsche’s observation that “madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups,” and notes that groupthink occurs when “subtle constraints … prevent a [group] member from fully exercising his critical powers and from openly expressing doubts when most others in the group appear to have reached a consensus.”[2]
Janis found that even if the group leader expresses an openness to new ideas, group members value consensus more than critical thinking; groups are thus led astray by excessive “concurrence-seeking behavior.”[3] Therefore, Janis wrote, groupthink is “a model of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”[4]
The groupthink syndrome
The result is what Janis calls “the groupthink syndrome.” This consists of three main categories of symptoms:
1. Overestimate of the group’s power and morality, including “an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.” [emphasis added]
2. Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward alternative views.[5]
3. Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”[6]
It’s obvious that alarmist climate science—as explicitly and extensively revealed in the Climatic Research Unit’s “Climategate” emails—shares all of these defects of groupthink, including a huge emphasis on maintaining consensus, a sense that because they are saving the world, alarmist climate scientists are beyond the normal moral constraints of scientific honesty (“overestimation of the group’s power and morality”), and vilification of those (“deniers”) who don’t share the consensus. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran unveils new control measures over Strait of Hormuz transit
- House Resolution Calls for Tech Companies to Censor Speech
- Ceasefire no longer viable after 200 days of Israeli violations: Hamas
- Israeli strikes intensify across southern Lebanon, casualties reported
- Left in Disbelief: Israel in Panic over Hezbollah FPV Drone Nightmare
- Trump Taps Israel Lobbyist From Mossad Cutout FDD To Join Iran Negotiations
- Trump’s Blockade Snatches Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
- Geopolitics and Geoeconomics of the Strait of Hormuz
- Mali: a new front in the Western war on multipolarism
- CHD Scientist: CDC, FDA COVID Vaccine Safety Monitoring ‘Insulting, and Many People Are Injured’
- If Americans Knew
- Israel’s New Ambassador to the ‘Christian World’ Served as Envoy to Azerbaijan During the Ethnic Cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh
- US set to sell $1B “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System” to Israel – Daily Update
- Israeli Strikes Kill at Least 32 Across S Lebanon, Including Children – Amid “Ceasefire”
- Israel to pour $730m into propaganda arm amid reputational crisis
- Real Cost of Iran War Likely Double the $25 Billion Figure the Pentagon Gave to Congress
- Israel conducts farthest-ever strike in long history of attacks on Gaza humanitarian aid flotillas
- In Gaza, Israel commits 10+ ceasefire violations a day – Daily Update
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- Israel’s top Jewish religious body ‘refuses to condemn’ smashing of Jesus statue
- No Tricks Zone
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
Aletho News 