Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

“An Intricate Fabric of Bad Actors Working Hand-in-Hand” – So is war Inevitable?

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 12, 2024

Walter Kirn, an American novelist and cultural critic, in his 2009 memoir, Lost in the Meritocracy, described how, after a sojourn at Oxford, he came to be a member of ‘the class that runs things’ – the one that “writes the headlines, and the stories under them”. It was the account of a middle-class kid from Minnesota trying desperately to fit into the élite world, and then to his surprise, realising that he didn’t want to fit in at all.

Now 61, Kirn has a newsletter on Substack and co-hosts a lively podcast devoted in large part to critiquing ‘establishment liberalism’. His contrarian drift has made him more vocal about his distrust of élite institutions – as he wrote in 2022:

“For years now, the answer, in every situation—‘Russiagate,’ COVID, Ukraine—has been more censorship, more silencing, more division, more scapegoating. It’s almost as if these are goals in themselves – and the cascade of emergencies mere excuses for them. Hate is always the way,”

Kirn’s politics, a friend of his suggested, was “old-school liberal,” underscoring that it was the other ‘so-called liberals’ who had changed: “I’ve been told repeatedly in the last year that free speech is a right-wing issue; I wouldn’t call [Kirn] Conservative. I would just say he’s a free-thinker, nonconformist, iconoclastic”, the friend said.

To understand Kirn’s contrarian turn – and to make sense of today’s form of American politics – it is necessary to understand one key term. It is not found in standard textbooks, but is central to the new playbook of power: the “whole of society”.

“The term was popularised roughly a decade ago by the Obama administration, which liked that its bland, technocratic appearance could be used as cover to erect a mechanism for a governance ‘whole-of-society’ approach” – one that asserts that as actors – media, NGOs,corporations and philanthropist institutions – interact with public officials to play a critical role not just in setting the public agenda, but in enforcing public decisions.

Jacob Siegel has explained the historical development of the ‘whole of society’ approach during the Obama administration’s attempt to pivot in the ‘war on terror’ to what it called ‘CVE’ – countering violent extremism. The idea was to surveil the American people’s online behaviour in order to identify those who may, at some unspecified time in the future, ‘commit a crime’.

Inherent to the concept of the potential ‘violent extremist’ who has, as yet, committed no crime, is a weaponised vagueness: “A cloud of suspicion that hangs over anyone who challenges the prevailing ideological narratives”.

“What the various iterations of this whole-of-society approach have in common is their disregard for democratic process and the right to free association – their embrace of social media surveillance, and their repeated failure to deliver results …”.

Aaron Kheriaty writes:

“More recently, the whole of society political machinery facilitated the overnight flip from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris, with news media and party supporters turning on a dime when instructed to do so—democratic primary voters ‘be damned’. This happened not because of the personalities of the candidates involved, but on the orders of party leadership. The actual nominees are fungible, and entirely replaceable, functionaries, serving the interests of the ruling party … The party was delivered to her because she was selected by its leaders to act as its figurehead. That real achievement belongs not to Harris, but to the party-state”.

What has this to do with Geo-politics – and whether there will be war between Iran and Israel?

Well, quite a lot. It is not just western domestic politics that has been shaped by the Obama CVE totalising mechanics. The “party-state” machinery (Kheriaty’s term) for geo-politics has also been co-opted:

“To avoid the appearance of totalitarian overreach in such efforts”, Kheriaty argues,“the party requires an endless supply of causes … that party officers use as pretexts to demand ideological alignment across public and private sector institutions. These causes come in roughly two forms: the urgent existential crisis (examples include COVID and the much-hyped threat of Russian disinformation) – and victim groups supposedly in need of the party’s protection”.

“It’s almost as if these are goals in themselves – and the cascade of emergencies mere excuses for them. Hate is always the way”, Kirn underlines.

Just to be clear, the implication is that all geo-strategic critics of the party-state’s ideological alignment must be jointly and collectively treated as potentially dangerous extremists. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea therefore are bound together as presenting a single obnoxious extremism that stands in opposition to ‘Our Democracy’; versus ‘Our Free Speech’ and versus ‘Our Expert Consensus’.

So, if the move to war against one extremist (i.e. versus Iran) is ‘acclaimed’ by 58 standing ovations in the joint session of Congress last month, then further debate is unnecessary – any more than Kamala Harris’ nomination as Presidential candidate needs to be endorsed through primary voting:

Candidate Harris told hecklers on Wednesday, chanting about genocide in Gaza, ‘to pipe down’ – unless they “want Trump to win”. Tribal norms must not be challenged (even for genocide).

Sandra Parker, Chairwoman of the political advocacy arm for the three thousand members of Christians United for Israel (CUFI) was advising on correct talking points, the Times of Israel reports:

“The rise of Republican far right-wingers who spurn decades of (bi-partisan) pro-Israel orthodoxies, favouring isolationism and resurrecting anti-Jewish tropes is alarming pro-Israel evangelicals and their Jewish allies… The break with decades of assertive foreign policy was evident last year when Sen. Josh Hawley derided the “liberal empire” that he dismissively characterised as bipartisan “Neoconservatives on the right, and liberal globalists on the left: Together they make up what you might call the uniparty, the DC establishment that transcends all changing administrations””.

At the CUFI talking points conference, the fear of increased isolation on the Right was the issue:

“You’re going to see that adversaries will see the U.S. as in retreat” – should isolationists get the upper hand: Activists were advised to push back: Should lawmakers claim that NATO expansion is what triggered Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: “Should anybody begin to make the argument that the reason the Russians have moved in on Ukraine – is because of NATO enlargement – can I just say that this is the age-old ‘blame America trope,’” the Chair advised the assembled delegates.

“They have the strain of isolationism that’s – ‘Let’s just do China and forget about Iran, forget about Russia, let’s just do one thing’ – but it doesn’t work that way,” said Boris Zilberman, director of policy and strategy for the CUFI Action Fund. Instead, he described “an intricate fabric of bad actors working hand in hand”.

So, to get to the bottom of this western mind-management in which appearance and reality are cut from the same cloth of hostile extremism: Iran, Russia and China are ‘cut from it’ likewise.

Plainly put, the import of this “behavioural-engineering enterprise (it no longer having much to do with the truth, no longer having much to do with your right to desire what you wish – or not desire what you don’t wish)” – is, as Kirn says: “everyone is in on the game”. “The corporate and state interests don’t believe you are wanting the right things—you might want Donald Trump— or, that you aren’t wanting the things you should want more” (such as seeing Putin removed).

If this ‘whole of society’ machinery is understood correctly in the wider world, then the likes of Iran or Hizbullah are forced to take note that war in the Middle East inevitably may bleed across into wider war against Russia – and have adverse ramifications for China, too.

That is not because it makes sense. It doesn’t. But it is because the ideological needs of ‘whole of society’ foreign-policy hinge on simplistic ‘moral’ narratives: Ones that express emotional attitudes, rather than argued propositions.

Netanyahu went to Washington to lay out the case for all-out war on Iran – a moral war of civilisation versus the Barbarians, he said. He was applauded for his stance. He returned to Israel and immediately provoked Hizbullah, Iran and Hamas in a way that dishonoured and humiliated both – knowing well that it would draw a riposte that would most likely lead to wider war.

Clearly Netanyahu, backed by a plurality of Israelis, wants an Armageddon (with full U.S. support, of course). He has the U.S., he thinks, exactly where he wants it. Netanyahu has only to escalate in one way or another – and Washington, he calculates (rightly or wrongly), will be compelled to follow.

Is this why Iran is taking its time? The calculus on an initial riposte to Israel is ‘one thing’, but how then might Netanyahu retaliate in Iran and Lebanon? That can be altogether an ‘other thing’. There have been hints of nuclear weapons being deployed (in both instances). There is however nothing solid, to this latter rumour.

Further, how might Israel respond towards Russia in Syria, or might the U.S. react through escalation in Ukraine? After all, Moscow has assisted Iran with its air defences (just as the West is assisting Ukraine against Russia).

Many imponderables. Yet, one thing is clear (as former Russian President Medvedev noted recently): “the knot is tightening” in the Middle East. Escalation is across all the fronts. War, Medvedev suggested, may be ‘the only way this knot will be cut’.

Iran must think that appeasing western pleas in the wake of the Israeli assassination of Iranian officials at their Damascus Consulate was a mistake. Netanyahu did not appreciate Iran’s moderation. He doubled-down on war, making it inevitable, sooner or later.

August 12, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US Missiles in Germany Would Place Target on Berlin’s Back – German Politician

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 11.08.2024

The United States formally announced plans to deploy Tomahawk cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles and SM-6 long-range SAM systems against the backdrop of the NATO Summit in Washington in July. This prompted Russia to warn that it would take measures it finds necessary to respond to the threat in due course.

Deployment of US missiles on German territory raises the risk of Berlin becoming a target for Russian nuclear missiles, German politician Sahra Wagenknecht warned.

“These weapons do not close a defense gap, but are offensive weapons that would make Germany a primary target for Russian nuclear missiles. There are reasons why no other European country stations such missiles on its territory,” Wagenknecht told RND.

She yet again linked this security policy issue with the state election campaigns in East Germany, saying that opposition to the missile deployment was a precondition for any coalition formed by the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) party.

Wagenknecht stressed that BSW supporters had taken note of the fact that Saxon Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer recently described the stationing of US medium-range missiles in Germany as ‘absolutely right’.

Several days earlier, Wagenknecht made coalition negotiations dependent on the position on the conflict in Ukraine, saying that a state government should adopt a “clear position in federal politics for diplomacy and against war preparations.”

In late July, the co-chairwoman of BSW, Amira Mohamed Ali, said that Berlin’s approval of stationing US missiles in Germany is a step towards military escalation, and urged the government to change its “dangerous” course. The politician added that the move significantly raises military risk for Germany, adding that “obviously, [Chancellor Olaf] Scholz should not have bypassed the parliament to take such a far-reaching decision.”

However, other German politicians appear intent on pursuing the dangerous course of green lighting such weapons’ stationing on their soil.

Christian Lindner, leader of the Free Democratic Party (FDP), claimed that long-range US weapons would serve to “strike a balance of deterrence against Russia.” Germany “has been within the scope of nuclear-covering rockets of Russia for years,” stated Lindner.

In a bout of fearmongering, Michael Giss, Commander of the Hamburg State Command, speculated in a recent interview that Germany must be ready for war in order to prevent Russia from attacking NATO territory.

He referred to his “internal clock as a soldier” which was ticking and telling him that “in five years’ time we must be resilient as a society to withstand an external military threat.”

However, in stark contrast to the warmongering German politicians, every second German citizen believes that a planned deployment of US long-range weapons may lead to a possible escalation with Russia, a recent survey conducted by the Civey polling institute showed.

In early July, the White House announced that the US Army’s Multi-Domain Task Force in Germany is planning to deploy long-range offensive Tomahawk, SM-6 and hypersonic missiles in Germany in 2026. The move would “demonstrate the United States’ commitment to NATO and its contributions to European integrated deterrence,” the release stated.

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov warned that Russia would take measures it finds necessary to respond to the threat in due course. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that if the US arms were stationed in Germany, Russia would deem itself free from a moratorium on deployment of shorter- and medium-range strike weapons.

August 11, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Sheikh Hasina speaks up on US plot

Bangladeshi Hindus fleeing to India for safety gather at the international border, Sitalkuchi, Cooch Behar, August 9, 2024
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | August 11, 2024

The exclusive report in today’s Economic Times carrying Sheikh Hasina’s first remarks after her ouster from power will come as a slap on the face of the nincompoops in our country who are waxing eloquently about developments in that country as a stand-alone democracy moment in regional politics.

Hasina told ET, “I resigned, so that I did not have to see the procession of dead bodies. They wanted to come to power over the dead bodies of students, but I did not allow it, I resigned from premiership. I could have remained in power if I had surrendered the sovereignty of Saint Martin Island and allowed America to hold sway over the Bay of Bengal. I beseech to the people of my land, ‘Please do not allow to be manipulated by radicals.’” 

The ET report citing Awami League sources implied that the hatchet man of the colour revolution in Bangladesh is none other than Donald Lu, the incumbent Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian affairs who visited Dhaka in May. 

This is credible enough. A background check on Lu’s string of postings gives away the story. This Chinese -American ‘diplomat’ served as political officer in Peshawar (1992 to 1994); special assistant to Ambassador Frank Wisner (whose family lineage as operatives of the Deep State is far too well-known to be explained) in Delhi (1996-1997); subsequently, as the Deputy Chief of Mission in Delhi from 1997-2000 (during which his portfolio included Kashmir and India-Pakistan relations), inheriting the job, curiously enough, from Robin Raphel, whose reputation as India’s bête noire is still living memory — CIA analyst, lobbyist, and ‘expert’ on Pakistan affairs. 

Indeed, Lu visited Bangladesh in mid-May and met with senior government officials and civil society leaders. And shortly after his visit, the US announced sanctions against then Bangladesh army chief General Aziz Ahmed for what Washington termed his involvement in “significant corruption.”  

After his Dhaka visit, Lu told Voice of America openly, “Promoting democracy and human rights in Bangladesh remains a priority for us. We will continue to support the important work of civil society and journalists and to advocate for democratic processes and institutions in Bangladesh, as we do in countries around the world…

“We [US] were outspoken in our condemnation of the violence that marred the election cycle [in January] and we have urged the government of Bangladesh to credibly investigate incidents of violence and hold perpetrators accountable. We will continue to engage on these issues…”

Lu played a similar proactive role during his past assignment in Kyrgyzstan (2003-2006) which culminated a colour revolution. Lu specialised in fuelling and masterminding colour revolutions, which led to regime changes in Albania, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Pakistan (ouster of Imran Khan). 

Sheikh Hasina’s disclosure could not have come as surprise to the Indian intelligence. In the run-up to the elections in Bangladesh in January, Russian Foreign Ministry had openly alleged that the US diplomacy was changing tack and planning a series of events to destabilise the situation in Bangladesh in the post-election scenario. 

The Foreign Ministry spokesperson said in a statement in Moscow,  

“On December 12-13, in a number of areas of Bangladesh, opponents of the current government blocked road traffic, burned buses, and clashed with the police. We see a direct connection between these events and the inflammatory activity of Western diplomatic missions in Dhaka. In particular, US Ambassador P Haas, which we already discussed at the briefing on November 22.

“There are serious reasons to fear that in the coming weeks an even wider arsenal of pressure, including sanctions, may be used against the government of Bangladesh, which is undesirable to the West. Key industries may come under attack, as well as a number of officials who will be accused without evidence of obstructing the democratic will of citizens in the upcoming parliamentary elections on January 7, 2024.

“Unfortunately, there is little chance that Washington will come to its senses and refrain from yet another gross interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. We are confident, however, that despite all the machinations of external forces, the issue of power in Bangladesh will ultimately be decided by the friendly people of this country, and no one else.” 

Moscow and Beijing have nonetheless taken a scrupulously correct stance of non-interference. True to Russian pragmatism, Moscow’s Ambassador to Bangladesh Alexander Mantytsky noted that his country “will cooperate with any leader and government elected by the people of Bangladesh who is ready for equal and mutually respectful dialogue with Russia.”

That said, both Russia and China must be worried about the US intentions. Also, they cannot but be sceptical about the shape of things to come, given the abysmal record of the US’ client regimes catapulted to power through colour revolutions. 

Unlike Russia, which has economic interests in Bangladesh and is a stakeholder in the creation of a multipolar world order, the security interests of China and India are going to be directly affected if the new regime in Dhaka fails to deliver and the country descends into economic crisis and lawlessness as a failed state. 

It is a moot point,  therefore, whether this regime change in Dhaka masterminded by Washington is ‘India-centric’ or not. The heart of the matter is that today, India is flanked on the west and the east by two unfriendly regimes that are under US influence. And this is happening at a juncture when signs are plentiful that the government’s independent foreign policies and stubborn adherence to strategic autonomy has upset the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy.

The paradox is, the colour revolution in Bangladesh was set in motion within a week of the ministerial level Quad meeting in Tokyo, which was, by the way, a hastily-arranged US initiative too. Possibly, the Indian establishment was lulled into a sense of complacency?  

British Foreign Secretary David Lammy reached out to External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar with a phone call on August 8 coinciding with the appointment of the interim government in Dhaka, which the UK has welcomed while also urging for “a peaceful pathway to an inclusive democratic future” for Bangladesh — much as the people of that country deserve “accountability.” [Emphasis added.]

India is keeping mum. The only way Bangladesh can figure a way out of the foxhole is through an inclusive democratic process going forward. But the appointment, ostensibly at the students’ recommendation, of a US-educated lawyer as the new chief justice of the Supreme Court in Dhaka is yet another ominous sign of Washington tightening its grip. 

Against this geopolitical backdrop, a commentary in the Chinese daily Global Times on Thursday titled China-India relations easing, navigating new realities gives some food for thought. 

It spoke of the imperative for India and China “to create a new kind of relationship that reflects their status as major powers… Both countries should welcome and support each other’s presence in their respective neighbouring regions.” Or else, the commentary underscored, “the surrounding diplomatic environment for both countries will be difficult to improve.” 

The regime change in Bangladesh bears testimony to this new reality. The bottom line is that while on the one hand, Indians bought into the US narrative that they are a ‘counterweight to China’, in reality, the US has begun exploiting India-China tensions to keep them apart with a view to advance its own geopolitical agenda of regional hegemony. 

Delhi should take a strategic overview of where its interests would lie in this paradigm shift, as the usual way of thinking about or doing something in our neighbourhood is brusquely replaced by a new and different experience that Washington has unilaterally imposed. What we may have failed to comprehend is that the seeds of the new paradigm were already present within the existing one. 

August 11, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US Military Exports Skyrocketing as Washington Continues to Fuel Global Conflicts

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 09.08.2024

The US’ arms exports have risen dramatically since 2022 and may top $100 billion by the year’s end, according to the Pentagon.

In fiscal year (FY) 2022, sales through the US government’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system jumped to $49.7 billion from $34.8 billion in FY2021; in FY2023, this number rose again to around $66.2 billion.

So far, FMS sales are already above $80 billion for FY2024, as per the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

Still, the total value of transferred weapons, services and security cooperation activities conducted under the Foreign Military Sales system in FY2023 was $80.9 billion, representing a 55.9% increase from a total of $51.9 billion in FY2022.

In 2024, the US State Department unveiled government-to-government FMS sales for FY2023, which required congressional notification:
Poland:

  • AH-64E Apache Helicopters – $12 billion;
  • High mobility artillery rocket systems (HIMARS) – $10 billion;
  • Integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) battle command systems (IBCS) – $4 billion;
  • M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks – $3.75 billion.

Germany:

  • CH-47F Chinook helicopters – $8.5 billion;
  • AIM-120C-8 advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM) – $2.9 billion.

Norway:

  • Defense articles and services related to the MH-60R multi-mission helicopters – $1 billion.

Czech Republic:

  • F-35 aircraft and munitions – $5.62 billion.

Bulgaria:

  • Stryker vehicles – $1.5 billion.

Australia:

  • C-130J-30 aircraft – $6.35 billion.

Canada:

  • P-8A aircraft – $5.9 billion.

South Korea:

  • F-35 aircraft – $5.06 billion;
  • CH-47F Chinook helicopters – $1.5 billion.

Japan:

  • E-2D advanced Hawkeye (AHE) airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft – $1.381 billion.

Kuwait:

  • National advanced surface-to-air missile system (NASAMS) medium range air defense systems (MRADS) – $3 billion;
  • Follow-up technical support – $1.8 billion.

Qatar:

  • Fixed site-low, slow, small unmanned aircraft system integrated defeat system (FS-LIDS) – $1 billion.

In addition to that, direct commercial sales (DCS) between foreign nations and US defense contractors jumped from $153.6 billion in FY2022 to $157.5 billion for FY2023. These sales included unspecified military hardware, services and technical data.

The US State Department provided a glimpse on what major DCS Congressional Notifications included in FY2023:

  • Italy – For the manufacturing of F-35 wing assemblies and sub-assemblies – $2.8 billion;
  • India – For the manufacturing of GE F414-INS6 engine hardware – $1.8 billion;
  • Singapore – F100 propulsion system and spare parts – $1.2 billion;
  • South Korea – F100 propulsion system and spare parts – $1.2 billion;
  • Norway, Ukraine – National advanced surface to air missile systems (NASAMS) – $1.2 billion;
  • Saudi Arabia – Patriot guided missile – $1 billion.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) highlights that arms exports by the US rose by 17% between 2014–18 and 2019–23. The US share of total global arms exports increased from 34% to 42%. Between 2019 and 2023, the US delivered major arms to 107 states, which was more than the next two biggest exporters combined, as per SIPRI.

The largest share of US arms went to the Middle East (38%), mostly to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Israel.

US arms exports to states in Asia and Oceania increased by 14% between 2014–18 and 2019–23; 31% of all US arms exports in 2019–23 went to the region with Japan, South Korea and Australia being the largest buyers.

Europe purchased a total of 28% of US arms exports in 2019–23. US arms exports to the region increased by over 200% between the 2014–18 and 2019–23 periods. Ukraine accounted for 4.7% of all US arms exports and 17% of those to Europe.

The institute projects that the US will continue to ramp up military sales in 2024 and beyond, with the focus on combat aircraft, tanks and other armored vehicles, artillery, SAM systems and warships.

August 9, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US weaponizing Australia for geopolitical interests requires Canberra’s vigilance

Global Times | August 7, 2024

In geopolitics, it appears that countries that frequently mention “coercion” are often the ones most skilled at using it. This has been proven again during the recent Australia-US Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN).

The US and Australia convened for AUSMIN on Tuesday. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin highlighted that the bilateral discussions covered several contentious topics, including China’s “coercive behavior.” Additionally, he announced the US’ plan to enhance “the presence of rotational US Forces in Australia” and increase “more frequent rotational bomber deployments” to the country.

These moves, under the banner of “security cooperation,” are aimed at positioning Canberra at the forefront of Washington’s geopolitical strategy and constitute a provocation in the Asia-Pacific region.

The term “concern” appeared approximately 14 times in the joint statement after the US-Australia meeting, intending to portray a tense and volatile atmosphere in the region. While the US blatantly alleged China’s “coercive behavior,” this narrative serves to advance its ultimate goal of the Indo-Pacific Strategy. By portraying China as a threat, the US aims to justify its provocative actions in the region. Such tactics, reminiscent of the crying wolf, are characteristic of hegemonic nation manipulating its allied states.

Using the label of China’s “coercive behavior” to prompt Australia into the forefront of the US overseas military deployments is a typical illustration of US Indo-Pacific strategy. In addition to the hype of the “China threat” during the AUSMIN, it was reported by Reuters that the Cocos Islands of Australia, a remote island close to an Indian Ocean chokepoint for Chinese oil shipments, is on a list of possible locations for US military construction aimed at deterring China.

“The US’ military deployment in the Cocos Islands serves two primary purposes,” Chen Hong, director of the Australian Studies Center at East China Normal University, told the Global Times. “It aims to monitor the Chinese navy, particularly submarines, and intends to present a deterrence against China,” the expert said. The role of these islands already illustrates the US’ hidden agenda in militarizing Australia, positioning it as a frontline against China, whether for surveillance or in preparation for potential conflicts.

The US military build-up in Australia is undeniable evidence of its use of the country as a geopolitical pawn. These deployments are not motivated by concern for Australia’s security needs but by US’ pursuit of global strategic interests. This approach places Canberra in a precarious position of competing blindly for Washington’s interests, potentially compromising its neutrality and independence in international affairs.

“Following increased US military deployment in Australia, its role has shifted from being a ‘southern anchor’ to a ‘southern spear,'” said Chen. The first pillar of AUKUS, the construction of nuclear-powered submarines for Australia, aims to enhance the country’s military capability for long-range strikes, which means US bases in Australia are no longer confined to defensive purposes.

The US harbors sinister intentions in militarizing Australia, luring allies like Australia to spearhead its hegemonic interests, which poses grave financial and security risks for the country, Chen added.

US instigation will only heighten Australia’s security risks, fostering excessive reliance on external military power. By leveraging supposed “regional threats” to coerce Australia into accepting military deployments, the US’ true objective is to manipulate Australia as a tool against China. This deserves Australia’s vigilance.

Australia’s natural geographic advantages could enable it to contribute constructively to regional peace and stability through an independent foreign policy. With significant geographical distance from China and no historical or territorial disputes, Australia faces no inherent threat from China.

Notably, Austin’s direct accusation of “Chinese coercion” did not feature prominently in the US-Australia joint statement. This suggests Australia acknowledges the importance of not fully aligning with US’ confrontational approach toward China at the expense of cooperation and friendship with China.

The recent thaw in China-Australia relations is a positive development. The Australian government should maintain rationality and composure, resisting the pressure to forsake its independent strategy and diplomacy.

Only by doing so can Australia effectively protect its national interests and sovereignty, preventing it from becoming a pawn in US geopolitical strategies and ensuring that its relationship with China is not sacrificed to US hegemonic ambitions.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian advance into Russia’s Kursk Region halted – Moscow

RT | August 7, 2024

Ukraine’s attempted incursion into Russia’s Kursk Region has been halted, the chief of the Russian General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, said on Wednesday. Kiev’s forces have suffered 300 casualties in the attack, he added.

Reporting to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Gerasimov stated that border security services had stopped the Ukrainian advance with the help of reinforcement units, air strikes, missile forces, and artillery fire.

Kiev’s forces suffered 315 casualties during the attempted incursion, with at least 100 troops killed and 215 wounded, Gerasimov estimated. Ukraine also lost 54 armored vehicles, including seven tanks, he added.

Ukraine initially launched the attack at 5:30am on Tuesday with a force numbering up to a thousand, with the goal of taking over the Sudzhinsky district of Kursk Region, Gerasimov said.

He insisted that Russia’s counter-operation will end with the enemy forces being destroyed or driven back beyond the border.

Previously commenting on Tuesday’s attack, Putin stated that the incursion was yet another large-scale provocation undertaken by the Kiev regime, which he said has again resorted to indiscriminately targeting civilians.

Ukrainian forces “are conducting indiscriminate fire from various types of weapons, including rocket weapons, at civilian buildings, homes and ambulances,” Putin said at a government meeting on Wednesday.

More than 2,000 people have fled the border areas, some with the assistance of rescuers, since the fighting broke out on Tuesday morning, regional governor Aleksey Smirnov has reported. Authorities have provided emergency shelters for those who need them, while neighboring regions are also offering their help to the refugees.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Toward a Second Cuban Missile Crisis?

Theodore Postol, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Glenn Diesen | August 6, 2024

I had a very interesting discussion with Alexander Mercouris and Theodore Postol – a nuclear engineer and missile technology expert professor from MIT and former advisor to the Pentagon.

Professor Postol spoke about the new missiles that the US will deploy to Germany, which will be able to reach Moscow within 2-3 minutes and thus dramatically elevate the potential for a successful nuclear first-strike. Russia will have very little time to respond to a possible strike, which increases the risk of an accidental nuclear war or a NATO nuclear first-strike. Russia will have to respond by decentralising decision-making and granting more people the authority to launch a counter-strike against the US to reduce the threat of a decapitating strike against Russia’s decision-making headquarters, and Russia will be under pressure to launch a pre-emptive strike on the US/NATO if it suspects a first-strike in coming. This has happened before when NATO’s Able Archer exercise in 1983 almost triggered a Soviet nuclear attack as Moscow thought the NATO military exercise was a cover for a first-strike.

As the world was almost consumed by a nuclear holocaust, both Washington and Moscow recognised the need to extend the warning period for a possible nuclear first-strike. The result was the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987 to remove an entire class of missiles from Europe (500-5,500km range). In 2019, the US unilaterally withdrew from the INF Treaty, and new missiles will now be deployed to Germany which will give the US the possibility to strike Moscow with almost no warning. The US and Germany are thus setting the stage for something comparable to another Cuban Missile Crisis. The decision has no clear purpose in terms of improving security, it does not respond to any changes in the Russian nuclear posture, and the obedient media has offered no critical reporting.

August 7, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

US Planning to Spend Some $15Bln on B-52 Bombers Upgrade – Reports

Sputnik – 06.08.2024

The United States Air Force is planning to upgrade its 1960s B-53 Stratofortress bombers at a cost of at least $15 billion, the Defense One news portal reported on Tuesday, citing service officials.

The air force is seeking to equip the bombers with new engines and radars to keep them operational for another three decades, as the B-1 and B-2 bombers are set to be retired in the early 2030s, the media outlet reported, adding that the current plan to replace the engines with ones made by Rolls-Royce and radars made by Raytheon faces obstacles due to the high price tag.

The previously estimated upgrade price jumped by $2.5 billion to $15 billion, the news portal quoted Brian Knight, deputy senior material leader for the B-52 program, as saying. He added that the air force was still refining its estimates and expects new proposals from Boeing.

To replace the engines, the bombers themselves would have to be reworked, Knight said. Meanwhile, radar replacement costs reportedly increased by $1 billion to $3.3 billion.

August 6, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | | Leave a comment

EU pressured Georgia to send mercenaries to Ukraine – MP

RT | August 6, 2024

Western officials, together with representatives of Georgia’s main opposition party, the National Movement, tried to pressure Tbilisi into adopting sanctions on Russia and sending mercenaries to fight for Kiev, Georgian parliamentary speaker Shalva Papuashvili has said.

The South Caucasus country has maintained a neutral stance on the Ukraine conflict since its outbreak in 2022 and refused to impose sanctions on Moscow, arguing that such a move would harm its national interests. At the same time, Georgia has said it will not allow itself to be used to circumvent Western restrictions placed on Russia.

Speaking to journalists on Tuesday, Papuashvili claimed the National Movement had repeatedly urged the ruling Georgian Dream party to sign up to sanctions on Russia. However, the government refused “because it would have been tantamount to being drawn into a war.”

“Together with the National Movement, foreigners also told us that we should have introduced sanctions, sent mercenaries [to Ukraine], and so on. The Europeans also told us the same,” Papuashvili said.

Back in May, the speaker made similar comments, stating that “certain friends and foes,” as well as non-governmental organizations, had been pestering Tbilisi with demands to “send fighters to Ukraine,” which he said would have risked a direct war with Russia.

While Georgia has officially only provided political and humanitarian support to Ukraine, a large number of Georgian mercenaries have been spotted fighting on Kiev’s side. The Russian Defense Ministry estimated back in March that some 1,042 Georgian fighters had taken part in the conflict, compared to 1,113 fighters from the US and 2,960 from Poland. At least 561 Georgian nationals serving within the Ukrainian military have been killed over the course of the conflict, according to Moscow.

Relations between Tbilisi and the West have deteriorated over the past year, particularly since Georgia passed a controversial ‘foreign agents law’ in May. The rule requires NGOs, media outlets and individuals that receive more than 20% of their funding from abroad to register as entities “promoting the interests of foreign powers.”

Washington has labeled the law an attack on democracy and threatened Georgia with sanctions, while suspending more than $92 million in aid. The EU has suspended talks on Tbilisi’s accession to the bloc, and froze $32.5 million in payments to the Georgian Defense Ministry.

August 6, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

The European Union wants to break Hungary’s will

By Dénes Albert | Remix News | August 5, 2024

Let us not delude ourselves for a moment, because the European Commission’s failure to stand by our country in blocking the transit of Russian oil through Ukraine is just one of the “pieces” of a plan to overthrow the legitimately elected Hungarian government.

The other retaliatory measures taken by Brussels against our country have the same purpose. This is not a new EU idea, supported by Washington.

Charles Gati, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, and not least a member of the advisory board of Action for Democracy, has spoken about this before. It was this organization that was suspected of attempting to interfere in the 2022 Hungarian elections, which Hungarian intelligence services deemed a national security risk. More than a decade ago, Gati said that “there are ways to move the government, democratically if possible, and otherwise if not.” Add to this that Gati is a confidant of the Soros empire.

Gati, in another statement to the Hungarian press, has already fleshed out the idea in five points, including that “in the absence of IMF and EU loans, the economy will continue to deteriorate while hundreds of thousands of people protest in the streets.” Then comes a discussion of the options, which reach the conclusion of civil war.

The plan has not worked. It could be said that those who masterminded the overthrow of the government have completely failed, since a dozen years were not enough to remove the right-wing conservative government in Hungary. However, they are doggedly sticking to the original idea.

The retaliatory measures that Brussels is taking against our country are out of all proportion. Most recently, for example, it imposed a fine of €200 million on us for not letting in illegal migrants.

Despite our country’s arguments that the EU sanctions on Russia do not apply to oil entering the bloc by pipeline, we have finally reached the point where the EC has abandoned the possibility of negotiation. It did not stand by Hungary and Slovakia, both of which protested Ukraine’s decision to unilaterally turn off the tap.

So, the oil transit issue is a tool for the EU, and of course for Ukraine, to use blackmail to force Hungary to change its policy towards the war.

The Eurocrats in Brussels “elegantly” overlooked the fact that it had already been made clear it was technically impossible to build an alternative oil supply for Hungary and Slovakia. “I don’t think the commission would be keen to help Hungary,” said a diplomat, who of course requested anonymity.

August 6, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

West too fearful of escalation with Russia – Zelensky

RT | August 5, 2024

Ukraine is pushing NATO nations to create a coalition that would attempt to intercept Russian missiles, Vladimir Zelensky has said. The US-led military bloc has previously declined to do so.

Kiev has long been pressuring its Western backers to become more involved in the conflict with Moscow and start shooting down Russian drones and missiles over Ukrainian territory. However, its efforts have been rebuffed by foreign powers reluctant to engage in a direct military confrontation with Russia.

“[Western nations] are always concerned about possible escalation. We are fighting against that. We will work on it,” Zelensky told journalists on Sunday. The government in Kiev is considering “technical possibilities for neighboring nations to use military aircraft against missiles that strike Ukraine” after flying in the general direction of NATO countries, he added.

Zelensky has been calling for the establishment of a no-fly zone over Ukraine since the outbreak of hostilities with Russia in February 2022. Military experts pointed out that any realistic enforcement of Kiev’s wish would require NATO members to attack Russian planes in the air and at airfields inside Russia.

The idea of a less ambitious shield over Western Ukraine was floated last month, as Kiev signed a bilateral security deal with Warsaw and ramped up its lobbying efforts ahead of a NATO leaders’ summit in the US.

The Polish government indicated it was willing to answer the Ukrainian call, provided that NATO approved, although other nations, including the US, objected. Washington said it believed that supplying more air defense systems to Ukraine to operate on its own was the best way to counter Russian barrages.

Zelensky spoke to the press after confirming that sponsors had delivered US-designed F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine. Media reports have suggested that the new Ukrainian capability is too small-scale to become a gamechanger on the front line. It would likely be used to intercept cruise missiles delivering long-range strikes instead, defense experts have suggested.

Moscow has been targeting Ukrainian military assets as well as some key infrastructure sites, such as power stations, which it considers crucial for Kiev’s war effort. According to Russian officials, the conflict is a US-led proxy war in which Ukrainian troops serve as “cannon fodder” for Western geostrategic interests.

On Saturday, Zelensky said Kiev wants to attack targets deep inside Russia, a type of operation for which Ukraine is not allowed to use donated Western weapons and relies on domestically produced kamikaze drones instead.

August 5, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Thousands join peace and freedom rally in Berlin

RT | August 4, 2024

Thousands took to the streets of Berlin on Saturday for a “peace and freedom” rally to protest against what was called Germany’s “belligerent” foreign policy and the country’s continued arms supplies to Ukraine.

The event was organized by so-called Querdenker (‘lateral thinking’) groups, a movement initially formed during the Covid-19 pandemic in order to protest against the German government’s lockdown policies and the overall pandemic response. It has since absorbed other government critics. Some German media outlets have referred to the movement as rife with conspiracy theorists or having links to far-right groups.

Some 5,000 people registered for the march, according to the city police. Several local media outlets put the number of participants at 9,000, citing law enforcement estimates. Many people carried blue flags with a white dove of peace, while others had banners and placards that read: “No US missiles on our soil!” “No missiles against Russia!” “No arms shipments to Ukraine and Israel!” or “Peace talks!”

Some demonstrators also carried banners bearing the slogan “Create peace without weapons!” This phrase comes from the 1982 Berlin Appeal, an outspoken petition crafted by two East German dissidents that called for disarmament.

Having started at Ernst Reuter Square in central Berlin, the demonstrators eventually made their way to Tiergarten Park for a rally attended by some 12,000 people, according to police estimates. Protesters called for “regionality, direct democracy and limiting the power” of the government, which, many claimed was filled with “absolute idiots.”

Some of the demonstrators still wanted the government to “bear responsibility” for what they believed were unjust lockdown policies during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Participants also demanded that Germany be “capable of peace instead of being ready for war” in an apparent reference to a statement in June by Defense Minister Boris Pistorius that the nation “must be ready for war by 2029” while advocating military reform and a “new form of military service.” The minister had previously made similar statements, citing the alleged threat posed by Russia in particular.

Some speakers at the rally urged Germany to leave NATO. “We want a government that represents our interests and not that of the USA and big business,” one said, according to local media reports. Thousands of protesters reportedly stayed at the rally site for many hours. Some 7,000 people were still demonstrating in the early evening, according to law enforcement estimates.

The event was largely peaceful, with just a handful of detentions, the police said, adding that most of those detained had violated the rules on banned symbols, such as the logo of the German Compact Magazine, which has been deemed extremist by the country’s domestic security service (BfV).

Some smaller counter protests organized by various left-wing groups were also held in the city on Saturday.

August 4, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Russophobia, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »