Ukraine receiving nukes would be ‘insane’ – US lawmaker
RT | November 26, 2024
Any move by outgoing US President Joe Biden to help Ukraine obtain nuclear weapons would be “insane” and would amount to treason, Republican lawmaker Marjorie Taylor Greene has claimed.
The House representative from Georgia was reacting to a post on Tuesday by entrepreneur Mario Nawfal, who weighed in on a New York Times article, bylined by four of its journalists, claiming that US and EU officials are “discussing deterrence as a security guarantee” for Ukraine, including giving Kiev nuclear weapons.
Nawfal described the purported talks as a “desperate” move “to tip the scales against Russia” before President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January, which would mark an “unprecedented escalation” in the conflict.
Responding to the post, Greene wondered whether Biden administration is “trying to start a nuclear war and use it as the reason to stop the transfer of power to Trump.”
“This is insane and completely unconstitutional, possibly an act of treason,” she wrote on X.
The White House is resorting to more aggressive measures in aiding Kiev ahead of Trump’s return. The Republican has repeatedly vowed to end the Ukraine conflict swiftly, and is expected to try to push Moscow and Kiev toward peace talks.
With two months left in office, Biden last week reportedly gave in to one of Ukraine’s long-standing demands and authorized the use of American-supplied ATACMS missiles on targets deep within Russian territory. The missiles had already been used in strikes on Russia’s Crimea, Donetsk, and Lugansk regions, which Washington considers Ukrainian.
Last week, the New York Times reported that certain US officials have suggested that Biden might provide Kiev with nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Russia. “That would be an instant and enormous deterrent,” the paper argued, noting however that such a step would be “complicated and have serious implications.”
Russia recently updated its nuclear doctrine, allowing for a nuclear response to a conventional attack by a non-nuclear state that is supported by a nuclear power, such as a missile strike on Russian territory. Moscow also used a new medium-range hypersonic missile against Ukraine in response to Kiev’s use of foreign-made long-range weapons for strikes deep into Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the attacks have moved the Ukraine conflict to a global level. He has repeatedly warned that Moscow will consider an attack by Western long-range weapons on Russian soil as directly involving the countries that donated the arms.
‘Problematic Reality’: Biden Regime Seeks $5.7 billion in Emergency Funding for Virginia-Class Submarines
By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 26.11.2024
The US president’s Office of Management and Budget has issued a request to Congress for about $5.7 billion in emergency funding to tackle extra costs regarding the Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, American media cited a senior navy official as saying.
Approximately $3.5 would go towards addressing the cost overruns, while the remainder will be split between submarine prime contractors General Dynamics Corp. and Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. for increased wages and “other productivity enhancements,” the official said.
The official made it clear that the navy also projects delivery delays of 24 to 36 months for the aforementioned vessels.
“Our Virginia-class fast attack submarine program is not where it needs to be right now. The program and the shipyards are not producing submarines at the rate that our national security strategy and the national defense strategy require,” the source stressed.
This comes after House Defense Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert said that a shortfall in funding for Virginia-class attack submarines is projected to grow to $17 billion over the next six years, adding that the US Navy suffered from persistent delays and cost overruns in the service’s shipbuilding program.
The Defense News earlier reported that the situation with the Virginia-class submarines remains “a problematic reality” for the navy, which currently has 49 such vessels, despite a formal requirement for 66.
US Vice Admiral Rob Gaucher earlier insisted that crewing and maintenance will dog the Navy’s submarine fleet in the coming years.
The National Interest magazine, for its part, noted that the navy’s submarine fleet is “under congressional scrutiny for repeated delays and rising costs”– problems that “won’t be easy to fix.”
What’s all the fuss about? Is nuclear war really that dangerous?
By Drago Bosnic | November 26, 2024
We’re in the Second Cold War. Those thinking otherwise have probably been living under a rock. Unfortunately, that rock won’t save anyone and we know it by the change in rhetoric. Namely, in previous decades, nuclear war was a mere hypothesis in the minds of most people, an extremely unlikely prospect that we could casually discuss, theorize on, contemplate as to how it would play out, etc. It truly is meticulous work, involving an enormous amount of moving parts and it could even be argued it’s fun, as evidenced by numerous mass media that use it as their main trope. Whether it’s a post-apocalyptic scenario, a modern war that got out of control or something along those lines, it’s quite prominent in movies, TV shows, video games, etc. Now, imagine fan favorites such as the Mad Max franchise, Fallout or Metro series, certain Call of Duty titles, etc. suddenly becoming a reality. It’s certainly a scary thought.
Well, thanks to the warmongering oligarchies in Washington DC and Brussels, this is exactly the scenario we’re facing. And if you think it’s too far-fetched or even impossible, think again. Leaders and top-ranking officials of the most powerful NATO countries openly support long-range strikes on Russia using Western-sourced missiles, operated by American, British and other NATO personnel. This comes despite President Vladimir Putin’s crystal clear warning that Russia would consider the world’s most vile racketeering cartel a party to the conflict and that it would respond accordingly. Worse yet, even after Moscow used a conventionally armed ICBM/IRBM in response to these NATO attacks, the political West only keeps escalating. The purpose of this text is to understand what’s at stake and that if the warmongers, war criminals, plutocrats and kleptocrats have their way, the world will pay the ultimate price.
Let’s imagine that Russia decides it’s sick and tired of over three decades of NATO’s lies, deceit, crawling invasion and now nearly three years of direct attacks and total war. The Neo-Nazi junta keeps launching these Western-sourced missiles and the Kremlin knows who’s behind it. Do you think Russia would use thermonuclear weapons in Ukraine, a land that has belonged to it for over 1,200 years, against the people it considers ethnic Russians (even though they reject this notion)? Even if we ignore these basic facts, the answer is no, as it would be suicidal to fire a nuclear weapon at an area so close to home. The fallout could easily reach any Russian and/or Belorussian territory. Thus, it can be expected to see Moscow use more “Oreshniks” and similar missiles. However, Russia’s updated strategic doctrine also allows the use of such weapons against targets beyond NATO-occupied Ukraine.
Namely, Moscow knows exactly which NATO command centers are used to coordinate attacks on Russia’s undisputed territory and may decide to neutralize them. Missiles such as the “Oreshnik” give it unprecedented non-nuclear strategic strike capabilities, meaning that Russia’s first retaliatory attack should not trigger NATO’s nuclear response. However, the world’s most vile racketeering cartel doesn’t have comparable weapons and could only use nuclear-tipped missiles or bombs. In response to this, the Kremlin deploys its unrivaled strategic arsenal in full force. How long do you think this would last? I’ve recently argued it would be largely over in 15 minutes. Now I’ll explain in detail how. First, the early warning systems (composed of a plethora of land, sea, air and space-based assets) would sound an alarm and the Russian strategic nuclear-armed triad would react immediately.
Composed of Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN), Aerospace Forces (VKS) and Navy (VMF), the Russian triad could deploy at least 5,500 thermonuclear warheads, each of which is orders of magnitude more destructive than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, combined. As of October, the RVSN has 772 warheads on over 200 RS-24 “Yars”, 340 on 46 R-36M2 “Voevoda” and 78 single-warhead RT-2PM2 “Topol-M” ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles). The number of strategic HGVs (hypersonic glide vehicles), specifically the “Avangard” is unknown, but is usually thought to be in the dozens. The VKS operates 580 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles (the Kh-102 and several advanced iterations of the Kh-55), deployed on 55 Tu-95MS and 17 Tu-160 strategic bombers, better known as missile carriers in Russian military nomenclature. And last, but certainly not least, the Navy, the most survivable element of any triad.
The VMF operates 15 SSBNs (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines) carrying 240 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) armed with at least 896 warheads. The grand total is 2,657 thermonuclear warheads ready to go at this very moment. Note that this doesn’t include well over 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons deployed on SSGNs (nuclear-powered guided missile submarines), hypersonic weapons such as the 9M723 used by the “Iskander-M”, the 9-S-7760 “Kinzhal” and numerous other missile types. Altogether, Russia has well over 4,500 warheads ready for both strategic and battlefield use. However, it also has upwards of 1,500 thermonuclear warheads awaiting dismantlement, but which could be returned to service due to NATO aggression and be installed on land-based ICBMs, IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles), SLBMs, ALCMs (air-launched cruise missiles), etc.
Once again, this is without even considering newer Russian weapons that we know exist (RS-28 “Sarmat” ICBMs, “Avangard” HGVs, “Oreshnik” hybrid/modular IRBM/ICBM/HGVs, the “Poseidon” nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed underwater drones/torpedoes, etc) and those that we don’t know anything about (except that they exist), including experimental, as President Putin himself spoke of “weapons based on new physical principles” on many occasions. However, just to illustrate the destructive power of the new “Sarmat”, consider that it can carry a range of heavy and light MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles). This includes 10-15 heavy warheads or 20+ light ones. The destructive power of heavy warheads is stated to be 750 kilotons (kt) to 1 megaton (Mt) each. Light warheads have a yield ranging from 150 kt to 450 kt, with one kiloton being equal to 1,000 tons of TNT.
Thus, 150 kt is equivalent to 150,000 tons of TNT exploding at once. To put this destructive power into perspective, we can use the “Little Boy” atomic bomb which the US dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945. Namely, it had a yield of 15 kt and it virtually instantly killed around 100,000 people, with at least another 50,000 dying in the aftermath of the explosion. This would mean that the combined yield carried by a single RS-28 missile is up to 750 times greater than that of the Hiroshima bomb. It should be noted that at least 50 of these are being built, as they are slated to replace the aforementioned R-36M2 “Voevoda”. That’s the equivalent of the destructive power of 37,500 Hiroshima bombs. And that’s just 50 missiles, out of well over 300 land-based ICBMs in the Russian military. However, thanks to US/NATO aggression against the world, Moscow might decide to make 100 of these, doubling that destructive power to 75,000 by 2030.
Unfortunately, some completely delusional lunatics at the Pentagon think they can launch a “decapitation strike” on Russia and “ensure” there’s no retaliation. There’s just one “tiny” problem with this – the Russian Navy. Namely, even if the world’s largest country suddenly vanished, its Navy alone could destroy much, if not most of the world. Even just half of its SSBNs, namely the now legendary eight Borei-class subs, carry 16 R-30 “Bulava” SLBMs (each missile armed with up to ten 150 kt thermonuclear MIRVs). I’ll let you do the math on that one. To top it all, the Kremlin’s nuclear triad can also be used even if the entire Russian leadership is neutralized. The system enabling this is called the “Perimeter” (known as the “Dead Hand” in NATO) and is activated automatically in case of an all-out attack on Russia. Perhaps the most dumbfounding fact is that the US military is perfectly aware of all this, but it’s still pushing for escalation.
Some of the world’s most prominent leaders, intellectuals and experts have been warning about the dangers of nuclear warfare. Perhaps the best example of this is the message conveyed by the late Fidel Castro in an interview with the globally renowned Professor Michel Chossudovsky. Namely, President Castro said that “in a nuclear war the ‘collateral damage’ would be the life of all humanity”. It doesn’t get much simpler than this and yet it’s 100% on point. What’s more, the mainstream propaganda machine is also perfectly aware of this, as evidenced by the BBC’s latest piece on Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Obviously, because it’s the BBC, it cannot do even this without ludicrous lies, as they’re claiming the information came from an “anonymous Russian deserter” who supposedly revealed “war secrets”, even though this information is publicly available (if one is bothered to look for it, that is).
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Israel Strikes Four Bridges in Homs Province, Central Syria – Reports
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 25.11.2024
The Israeli military has dramatically ramped up its aggression against Syria in recent months, targeting the country repeatedly amid its ongoing regional war against Hamas, Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthi militia. In April, an Israeli strike targeted an Iranian Embassy building in Damascus, provoking a major Iranian retaliation.
Israeli fighter jets struck a number of bridges in the province of Homs, central Syria, SANA reported on Monday.
Four bridges were damaged in the city of Al Qusayr, southwest of Homs, as the result of the strike, a correspondent told the Syrian news agency.
Syrian Foreign Minister Bassam Sabbagh told a meeting of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations that firm and immediate measures must be taken by the international community to stop Israeli aggression across the region.
“The Israeli occupation forces are intending to expand the scope of their aggression on countries of our region, by targeting brotherly Lebanon. This coincided with its launch of almost daily attacks on Syrian territory, targeting buildings and residential neighborhoods that include headquarters, diplomatic missions and offices of the United Nations, economic facilities and vital infrastructure, not to mention the occupying entity’s deliberate targeting of border crossings, roads and bridges connecting Syria and Lebanon, which are used by hundreds of thousands of people coming from Lebanon to escape the Israeli killing machine,” the Syrian top diplomat said.
“Syria renews its firm stance in support of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, returning to their homeland, establishing their independent state, and ending the Israeli occupation of all Arab lands occupied since June 1967, including the occupied Syrian Golan,” Sabbagh emphasized.
China Creates Coating Making Warplanes Invisible to Anti-Stealth Radars
Sputnik -25.11.2024
BEIJING – Chinese military scientists have developed a stealth material for aircraft and other defense equipment that minimizes their visibility for anti-stealth radars, Chinese media reported on Monday.
The South China Morning Post newspaper reported that the new material, unveiled by the National University of Defense Technology, can convert electromagnetic waves with wavelengths from 2.3 feet to 0.6 feet into heat, which effectively covers the operating bandwidths of most current anti-stealth radars, specifically the P-band and L-band.
The new material is lightweight, flexible and easy to produce in large quantities, making it suitable for covering aircraft or other weapon platforms requiring stealth capabilities, the newspaper said.
Scientists have said that the new material was cost-effective and could be used in various types of military equipment. They believe that this technology could become “the key for China to win future wars.”
China currently holds the majority of the world’s patents in metamaterials.
Right-Wing Candidate Georgescu Leads in Romania Presidential Election: Why is the West Trembling?
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 25.11.2024
Right-wing independent candidate Calin Georgescu has pulled off a shock victory in the first round of Romania’s presidential election.
Little-known candidate Calin Georgescu, who was shown running at around 5% in pre-election polls, upended all predictions and is now set to face off against center-right contender Elena Lasconi in the second round on December 8.
What Are His Views?
On NATO:
A professed champion of national sovereignty, Georgescu has often criticized what he called his country’s “subservience” to the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In interviews and public appearances he, has questioned the benefits of Romania’s membership in NATO, arguing that the alliance will not protect any of its members should they be attacked.
He criticized the presence of an American missile defense facility at a NATO-controlled base in the village of Deveselu, calling Romania’s agreement to host it a “diplomatic shame.” He has also called NATO’s ballistic missile defense shield in Romania a confrontational measure.
On Ukraine:
Georgescu has questioned military aid being pumped by Romania to Ukraine. The social media-savvy candidate recently launched a viral TikTok campaign calling for an end to supporting the Kiev regime that appeared to have struck a chord with voters. “Tonight, the Romanian people cried out for peace. And they shouted very loudly, extremely loudly”, Georgescu said after his win.
On Russia:
Georgescu has described Russian President Vladimir Putin as a genuinely great leader who loves his country in a 2020 interview. Romania’s best chance lay with “Russian wisdom,” media reports cite him as saying in another interview.
On Moldova:
Georgescu started out as a member of the right-wing Alliance for the Unity of Romanians (AUR) party, which advocates for the integration of Moldova into Romania, but eventually broke with it to campaign as an independent.
Georgescu’s success feeds into the barometer of right-wing political successes across Europe amid dissatisfaction with Brussels’ policy and eroding public support for Ukraine.
Similar sentiments fueled Ukraine critic Peter Pellegrini’s win in the presidential election in Slovakia this summer, and the success of the right-wing Freedom Party (FPO) in Austria’s parliamentary elections.
Will Armageddon Be Joe Biden’s Final Legacy?
By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | November 25, 2024
When the Soviet Union dissolved in late 1991, the world seemed poised for a new, more peaceful era no longer haunted by the fear of a nuclear Armageddon. The principal successor state from the wreckage of the USSR was a noncommunist Russia that was intent on becoming part of the democratic, capitalist West. President George H. W. Bush and his top advisers exercised considerable diplomatic skill in managing the twilight years and ultimate demise of the Soviet Union. Their core achievement was to gain Moscow’s assent to Germany’s reunification and membership in NATO. The implicit tradeoff (unfortunately, never put in writing) was that NATO would not expand beyond the eastern border of a newly united Germany.
The contrast between the benign end to the original Cold War and the current status of relations between the West (especially the United States) and Russia could not be greater or more alarming. NATO’s meddling in the armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia has reached the point of being an outright proxy war for the alliance. As NATO’s leader, the United States has pushed a series of extremely dangerous escalatory steps. The latest provocation is the decision by President Joe Biden’s administration authorizing Ukraine to use long-range U.S. Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) that are capable of striking at least 190 miles inside Russia. Moscow has responded by adopting a new nuclear doctrine warning that the use of such missiles by NATO’s Ukrainian proxy would mean that Moscow is officially at war with the U.S.-led alliance. Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin is bluffing, but the risk of a nuclear collision between NATO and Moscow now appears to be at unprecedented levels.
It is bitterly ironic that the decision to let Ukraine use American missiles that might trigger World War III has been made by the lamest of lame duck U.S. presidents. At the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour, the leaders of the Democratic Party pressured Joe Biden to withdraw from the presidential race. They did so because the evidence of his cognitive decline had become undeniable. However, his hand-picked successor, Kamala Harris, then proceeded to lose the presidential election to Republican nominee Donald Trump.
To say that the Biden administration has no mandate to make such a crucial decision involving war and peace would be a monumental understatement. In fairness, though, the current foreign policy crew is not solely responsible for fouling-up relations with Russia and provoking a new cold war with nuclear implications. That “achievement” has been a bipartisan effort taking place over a span of more than three decades.
Toward the end of George H. W. Bush’s administration, public opinion polls in Russia showed that nearly 80% of Russians held positive views of the United States. In the late stages of the Bill Clinton administration, nearly the same percentage held negative opinions.
It was hardly a surprising development. During his years in office, Clinton and his Russian-hating advisers (especially UN ambassador and later Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) antagonized Moscow on multiple occasions. Washington went out of its way to attack Russia’s long-standing religious and political clients, the Serbs, as the Yugoslav federation disintegrated. However, the Clinton administration’s decision to expand NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary struck the biggest blow to East-West relations.
Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush, continued and intensified the policy of provoking and antagonizing Russia. Subsequent rounds of NATO expansion brought U.S. military power to Russia’s immediate neighborhood by adding such new members as the three Baltic republics, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. Most provocative of all, Bush pushed to add Ukraine to the alliance. Although Germany and France temporarily blocked immediate moves to make Ukraine a member, Washington’s ultimate goal was quite clear.
A rising number and volume of warnings against making Ukraine a NATO asset also came from Putin and other officials. Washington and its key European allies ignored those warnings but it became clear in 2014 that the Kremlin was not bluffing. When President Barack Obama and key European leaders helped overthrow Ukraine’s generally pro-Russia president and install a regime subservient to NATO, Moscow struck back emphatically, seizing Ukraine’s strategic, but majority Russian populated, Crimean peninsula.
Relations between the West and Russia continued to deteriorate thereafter. In the autumn of 2021, the Kremlin proposed a new relationship with the West that amounted to Russia’s minimum demands. Those demands included a guaranteed neutral status for Ukraine—thus foreclosing the prospect of Kiev’s eventual membership in NATO. The Kremlin also sought the withdrawal of advanced U.S. weaponry from the easternmost members of NATO. It amounted to an ultimatum, and when the Biden administration treated Moscow’s demands with contempt, the Kremlin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. That offensive, combined with the decision by the United States and its allies to impose severe economic sanctions against Russia, ignited an ever-escalating military crisis.
It is uncertain whether President-elect Donald Trump intends to end the dangerous impasse with Moscow. Contrary to the partisan myth that Trump has been Putin’s puppet, his actual policies during his first term were consistently hardline. One can hope, though, that he has fully absorbed the lesson of what a disaster Washington’s love affair with Ukraine has become for both countries. Restoring cooperative bilateral relations with Russia is essential for global peace.
There is an alarming possibility, however, that Trump won’t get the opportunity, even if he wishes to back away from the beckoning abyss. The lame-duck Biden administration still holds power for nearly another two months, and that is more than enough time to plunge the country into nuclear war, if administration leaders are so inclined. The departing president’s conduct in recent weeks, especially authorizing Ukraine to attack Russia with U.S.-supplied, long-range missiles, is beyond reckless. Biden’s legacy is already bad, but it could become even worse.
Britain’s Kursk Invasion Backfires
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | November 24, 2024
British Challenger 2 tanks reached Ukraine with enormous fanfare, ahead of Kiev’s long-delayed, ultimately catastrophic 2023 “counteroffensive”. On top of encouraging other proxy war sponsors to provide Ukraine with armoured fighting vehicles, Western audiences were widely told the tank – hitherto marketed to international buyers as “indestructible” – made Kiev’s ultimate victory a fait accompli. As it was, Challenger 2 tanks deployed to Robotnye in September were almost instantly incinerated by Russian fire, then very quietly withdrawn from combat altogether.
Hence, many online commentators were surprised when footage of the Challenger 2 in action in Kursk began to circulate widely on August 13th. Furthermore, numerous mainstream outlets dramatically drew attention to the tank’s deployment. Several were explicitly briefed by British military sources that it marked the first time in history London’s tanks “have been used in combat on Russian territory.” Disquietingly, The Times now reveals this was a deliberate propaganda and lobbying strategy, spearheaded by Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Prior to the Challenger 2’s presence in Kursk breaking, Starmer and Defence Secretary John Healey had reportedly “been in talks about how far to go to confirm growing British involvement in the incursion towards Kursk.” Ultimately, they decided “to be more open about Britain’s role in a bid to persuade key allies to do more to help – and convince the public that Britain’s security and economic prosperity is affected by events on the fields of Ukraine.” A “senior Whitehall source” added:
“There won’t be shying away from the idea of British weapons being used in Russia as part of Ukraine’s defence. We don’t want any uncertainty or nervousness over Britain’s support at this critical moment and a half-hearted or uncertain response might have indicated that.”
In other words, London is taking the lead in marking itself out as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries – particularly the US – will follow suit. What’s more, The Times strongly hints that Kursk is to all intents and purposes a British invasion. The outlet records:
“Unseen by the world, British equipment, including drones, have played a central role in Ukraine’s new offensive and British personnel have been closely advising the Ukrainian military… on a scale matched by no other country.”
Britain’s grand plans don’t stop there. Healey and Foreign Secretary David Lammy “have set up a joint Ukraine unit,” divided between the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence. The pair “held a joint briefing, with officials, for a cross-party group of 60 MPs on Ukraine,” while “Starmer has also asked the National Security Council to draw up plans to provide Ukraine with a broader range of support.” On top of military assistance, “industrial, economic, and diplomatic support” are also being explored.
The Times adds that in coming weeks, “Healey will attend a new meeting of the Ukraine Defence Coordination Group,” an international alliance of 57 countries overseeing the Western weaponry flooding into Kiev. There, “Britain will press European allies to send more equipment and give Kyiv more leeway to use them in Russia.” The British Defence Ministry also reportedly “spoke last week to Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, and has been wooing Boris Pistorius, his German opposite number.”
Evidently, the new Labour government has an ambitious vision for the proxy war’s continuation. Yet, if the “counterinvasion” is anything to go by, it’s already dead in the water. As The Times notes, the imbroglio is primarily “designed to boost morale at home and shore up Zelensky’s position,” while relieving pressure on the collapsing Donbass frontline by forcing Russia to redirect forces to Kursk. Instead, Moscow “has capitalised on the absence of four crack Ukrainian regiments to press their attacks around Pokrovsk and Chasiv Yar.”
Similarly, commenting on Starmer’s wideranging efforts to compel overt Western action against Russia, a “defence expert” told The Times: “if it looks as if the Brits [are] too far ahead of their NATO allies, it might be counterproductive.” This analysis is prescient, for there are ample indications London’s latest attempt to ratchet tensions and drag the US and Europe ever-deeper into the proxy war quagmire has already been highly “counterproductive”, and boomeranged quite spectacularly. Indeed, it appears Washington has finally had enough of London’s escalatory connivances.
In repeated press conferences and media briefings since August 6th, US officials have firmly distanced themselves from the Kursk incursion, denying any involvement in its planning or execution, or even being forewarned by Kiev. Empire house journal Foreign Policy has reported that Ukraine’s swoop caught the Pentagon, State Department, and White House off-guard. The Biden administration is purportedly not only enormously unhappy “to have been kept out of the loop,” but “skeptical of the military logic” behind the “counterinvasion”.
On top being a clear suicide mission, the eagerly advertised presence of Western weapons and vehicles on Russian soil “has put the Biden administration in an extremely awkward position.” Washington has since the proxy war erupted been wary of provoking retaliations against Western countries and their overseas assets, and the conflict spilling outside Ukraine’s borders. Adding to US irritations, the British-directed Kursk misadventure also torpedoed ongoing efforts to secure an agreement to halt “strikes on energy and power infrastructure on both sides.”
This comes as Kiev prepares for a harrowing winter without heat or light, due to devastating Russian attacks on its national energy grid. Putin has moreover made clear that Ukrainian actions in Kursk mean there is no longer scope for a wider negotiated settlement at all. Which is to say Moscow will now only accept unconditional surrender. The US has also seemingly changed course as a result of the “counterinvasion”.
On August 16th, it was reported that Washington had prohibited Ukraine’s use of British-made, long-range Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory. Given securing wider Western acquiescence to such strikes is, per The Times, a core objective for Starmer, this can only be considered a harsh rebuke, before the Labour government’s escalatory lobbying efforts have even properly taken off. The Biden administration had in May granted permission for Kiev to conduct limited strikes in Russia, using guided munitions up to a 40-mile range.
Even that mild authorisation may be rescinded in due course. Berlin, which like Britain had initially proudly promoted the presence of its tanks in Kursk, is now decisively shifting away from the proxy war. On August 17th, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner announced a halt to any and all new military aid to Ukraine as part of a wider bid to slash federal government spending. The Wall Street Journal reporting three days earlier that Kiev was responsible for Nord Stream II’s destruction may be no coincidence.
Germany’s Bild newspaper: “In Russia, Ukraine advances with German tanks!”
The narrative of the Russo-German pipeline’s bombing detailed by the outlet was absurd in the extreme. Conveniently too, the WSJ acknowledged that admissions of “Ukrainian officials who participated in or are familiar with the plot” aside, “all arrangements” to strike Nord Stream “were made verbally, leaving no paper trail.” As such, the paper’s sources “believe it would be impossible to put any of the commanding officers on trial, because no evidence exists beyond conversations among top officials.”
Such an evidentiary deficit provides Berlin with an ideal pretext to step away from the proxy war, while insulating Kiev from any legal repercussions. The narrative of Ukraine’s unilateral culpability for the Nord Stream bombings also helpfully distracts from the attack’s most likely perpetrators. This journalist has exposed how a shadowy cabal of British intelligence operatives were the masterminds, and potential executors, of the October 2022 Kerch Bridge bombing.
Kerch Bridge in flames following its British-planned bombing
That escalatory incident, like Nord Stream’s destruction, was known about in advance, and apparently opposed, by the CIA. Chris Donnelly, the British military intelligence veteran who orchestrated the Kerch Bridge attack, has privately condemned Washington’s reluctance to embroil itself further in the proxy war, declaring “this US position must be challenged, firmly and at once.” In December that year, the BBC confirmed that British officials were worried about the Biden administration’s “innate caution”, and had “stiffened the US resolve at all levels”, via “pressure.”
The determination of Washington’s self-appointed “junior partner” to escalate the proxy conflict into all-out hot war between Russia and the West has only intensified under Starmer’s new Labour government. Yet, the Empire gives every appearance of refusing to take the bait, while seeking to curb London’s belligerent fantasies. This may be an encouraging sign that the proxy war is at last reaching its end. But we must remain vigilant. British intelligence is unlikely to allow the US to withdraw without a fight.
Russia: Comprehensive deal with Iran will include defense, security ties
Press TV – November 24, 2024
Russia’s deputy foreign minister says the treaty on a comprehensive strategic partnership between his country and Iran will include cooperation in the defense and security sectors.
Speaking to Russia’s TASS news agency on Sunday, Andrei Rudenko said he would not disclose the details of the agreement that is expected to be signed in the near future.
“I would only note [that] it will meet challenges and requirements of our time and cover almost all current and promising spheres of Russian-Iranian cooperation, including defense and security,” he added.
In 2001, Tehran and Moscow signed a long-term cooperation deal, officially known as the Treaty of the Foundation of Mutual Relations and the Principles of Cooperation. It was initially set for 10 years but was extended up until 2026.
Now, the two capitals are making final arrangements for the comprehensive partnership pact, which may determine their bilateral ties in all fields for the next 20 years.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has announced that his country will sign a strategic partnership agreement with Iran “in the near future.”
Rudenko emphasized that the nature of Iran-Russia interactions has notably changed over the past two decades.
“We are closely coordinating approaches with our Iranian friends and take necessary measures to strengthen peace and security” in the region, he added.
Last month, Iran’s Ambassador to Russia Kazem Jalali said the strategic partnership treaty would be signed during Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s visit to Moscow. The date of this visit has yet to be decided.
Iran and Russia are both subject to illegal Western sanctions. They have over the past years deepened their relations in various fields, including military and defense, and become close allies.
A defining moment in the Ukraine war
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | November 24, 2024
Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a statement on Thursday regarding the two attacks by Western long-range weapons on Russian territory on November 19 and 21 and Moscow’s reactive strike on a facility within Ukraine’s defence industrial complex in the city of Dnepropetrovsk with a hitherto unknown non-nuclear hypersonic ballistic missile named Oreshnik.
On Friday, at a meeting in the Kremlin with the military top brass, Putin revisited the topic where he clarified that Oreshnik is not really in “experimental” stage, as the Pentagon had determined, but its serial production has commenced.
And he added, “Given the particular strength of this weapon, its power, it will be put into service with the Strategic Missile Forces.” He then went on to reveal, “It is also important that along with the Oreshnik system, several similar systems are currently being tested in Russia. Based on the test results, these weapons will also go into production. In other words, we have a whole line of medium- and shorter-range systems.”
Putin reflected on the geopolitical backdrop: “The current military and political situation in the world is largely determined by the results of competition in the creation of new technologies, new weapons systems and economic development.”
Succinctly put, an escalatory move authorised by the US president Joe Biden has boomeranged. Did Biden bite more than he could chew? This is the first thing.
The US apparently decided that Putin’s “red lines” and Russia’s nuclear deterrence were the stuff of rhetoric. Washington was clueless about the existence of a wonder weapon like the Oreshnik in the Russian armoury. The shock and awe in the western capitals speaks for itself. Biden avoided commenting on the issue when asked by reporters.
The Oreshnik is not an upgrade of old Soviet-era systems but “relies entirely on contemporary cutting-edge innovations,” Putin stressed. Izvestia reported that Oreshnik is a new generation of Russian intermediate-range missiles with a range of 2,500-3,000km and potentially extending to 5,000km, but not intercontinental, equipped with multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRV) — ie., having separating warheads with individual guidance units. It has a speed between Mach 10 and Mach 11 (exceeding 12,000 kms per hour).
The Russian daily Readovka reported that with an estimated 1,500 kgs of combat payload, lifting to a maximum height of 12 km and moving at a speed of Mach 10, the Oreshnik launched from the Russian base at Kaliningrad would strike Warsaw in 1 minute 21 seconds; Berlin, 2 min 35 sec; Paris, 6 min 52 sec; and London, 6 min 56 sec.
In his statement on Thursday, Putin said, “there are no means of countering such weapons today. Missiles attack targets at a speed of Mach 10, which is 2.5 to 3 kilometres per second. Air defence systems currently available in the world and missile defence systems being created by the Americans in Europe cannot intercept such missiles. It is impossible.”
Indeed, a terrible beauty is born. For, Oreshnik is not just an effective hypersonic weapon and is neither a strategic weapon nor an intercontinental ballistic missile. But its striking power is such that when used en masse and in combination with other long-range precision systems, its effect and power is on par with strategic weapons. Yet, it is not a weapon of mass destruction — rather, it’s a high-precision weapon.
Serial production implies that dozens of Oreshnik are in the process of being deployed, which means that no US / NATO staff group and no Anglo-American target intelligence unit in bunkers in Kiev or Lvov is safe any longer.
Oreshnik is also a signal to the incoming US president Donald Trump who is ad nauseam calling for an immediate end-of-war settlement. Oreshnik, ironically, has been developed only as Moscow’s reaction to the hawkish decision by then US president Trump in 2019 to unilaterally withdraw from the 1987 Soviet-American treaty on intermediate range nuclear forces (INF). Hence this also signals that Moscow’s trust in Trump is near zero.
To drive home this point, on the very same day Oreshnik emerged out of its silo, Tass carried an unusual interview with a top Russian think tanker affiliated to the foreign ministry and Kremlin — Andrey Sushentsov, program director of the Valdai Discussion Club, dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s MGIMO International Relations Department, and member of the Scientific Council under the Russian Security Council.
The following excerpts of the interview, plain-speaking and startling, should shatter the hypothesis that there is something special going on between Trump and Putin:
- “Trump is considering ending the Ukrainian crisis, not out of any sympathy for Russia, but because he acknowledges that Ukraine has no realistic chance of winning. His goal is to preserve Ukraine as a tool for US interests, focusing on freezing the conflict rather than resolving it. Consequently, under Trump, the long-term strategy of countering Russia will persist. The US continues to benefit from the Ukrainian crisis, regardless of which administration is in power.”
- “The United States has regained its position as the European Union’s top trading partner for the first time in years. It is the Europeans who are bearing the financial burden of prolonging the Ukrainian crisis, while the US has no interest in resolving it. Instead, it is more beneficial for them to freeze the conflict, keeping Ukraine as a tool to weaken Russia and as a persistent hotspot in Europe to maintain their confrontational approach.”
- “Trump has made numerous statements that differ from the policies of Joe Biden’s administration. However, the US state system is an inertial structure that resists decisions it deems contrary to American interests, so not all of Trump’s ideas will come to fruition.”
- “Trump will have a two-year window before the midterm congressional elections, during which he will have a certain freedom to push his policies through the Senate and the House of Representatives. After that, his decisions could face resistance both domestically and from US allies.”
Make no mistake, Russia is under no illusions. Putin will not waver from the conditions he outlined in June for resolving the conflict: the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donbass and Novorossiya; Kiev’s commitment to abstain from joining NATO; the lifting of all Western sanctions against Russia; and the establishment of a non-aligned, nuclear-free Ukraine.
Clearly, this war will continue on its course till it reaches its only logical conclusion, which is Russian victory. Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev is spot on when he said in an interview with Al Arabiya yesterday that the use of Oreshnik missile “changes the course” of the Ukrainian conflict.
The Western capitals will have to reconcile with the reality that the scope for escalation of the war is ending. Make no mistake, if another ATAMCS strike inside Russia is attempted, it will have devastating consequences for the West.
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic put it nicely: “If you [NATO] think you can attack everything on Russian territory with Western logistics and weapons without getting a response, and that Putin won’t use whatever weapons he deems necessary, then you either don’t know him or you’re abnormal.”
The Pentagon is running out of missiles. After December 1, that will be a big problem.
Inside China Business | November 20, 2024
Protracted wars in the Middle East and Ukraine are draining the US arsenal of interceptor missiles. The problem is especially severe in Palestine and in the Red Sea, where dozens of missiles are launched monthly against incoming rockets and drones. Pentagon officials are urgently pushing weapons makers to produce more, but are bumping up against capacity and CAPEX constraints. In another blow, China just announced an export ban on dual-use metals that are critical to the manufacture of missiles and other aerospace applications in the defense sector. Magnesium and tungsten, in particular, are two key materials necessary for the production of missiles, but where China effectively has monopolized the refining and production. China’s export ban will take effect on 1 December.
Resources and links:
Wall Street Journal, Pentagon Runs Low on Air-Defense Missiles as Demand Surges https://www.wsj.com/politics/national…
Nikkei Asia, China to tighten export curbs on critical metals ahead of Trump’s return https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Sup…
Six Strategic Metals Widely Used in the Military Industry https://www.samaterials.com/content/s…
Magnesium in Defence https://www.magnium.com.au/defence-metal
Forbes, The Titanium Supply Chain For The Aerospace Industry Goes Through Russia https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyshi…
Ballistic vs. Cruise Missiles: What’s the Difference?
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 23.11.2024
Russia’s successful combat test of the Oreshnik intermediate-range missile garnered its share of attention and more than a little confusion as media and amateur observers alike began comparing the new ballistic weapon to other weapons in both Russia and NATO’s arsenals, including cruise missiles.
Sputnik sets the record straight by outlining the key differences between these two very distinct types of weapons:
Ballistic missiles
Powered by a single rocket or series of rockets operating in stages to propel them to the required trajectory, ballistic missiles ascend tens of kilometers into the atmosphere, shedding motors and thrusters along the way, with larger ones leaving the atmosphere altogether, after which their payload separates and begins its descent back down toward Earth, traveling in an arc.
Ballistic missiles typically have three flight phases, starting with the boost phase, followed by a midcourse phase – which starts when the rocket motor(s) stop(s) firing and the missile’s payload starts to coast, usually while continuing to ascend, and finally the terminal phase, during which the payload starts the final course toward its target(s).
Some also have a distinct fourth phase, which kicks off after the post-boost phase, during which the onboard multiple independent reentry vehicle (MIRV) bus makes changes to its trajectory, and decoys are released to confuse and saturate enemy missile defenses.
Some ballistic missiles can make changes to their trajectory, so long as onboard rocket fuel allows, but usually, any maneuverability attributed to these weapons is the result of their payloads.
Russia’s Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, for instance, is blasted into space by an ordinary ICBM, but becomes maneuverable after separating from its carrier. MIRV buses also often contain small rocket motors and inertial guidance, allowing alterations to its payload’s trajectory before individual warheads separate.
Cruise Missiles
Cruise missiles are jet engine-powered weapons that stay within the atmosphere throughout their flight. In fact, they often fly at extremely low altitudes, ‘hugging’ the ground as few as a few meters from the surface to avoid detection.
These weapons are designed for precision strikes against an array of ground and sea-based targets and, if fitted with nuclear warheads, can target large built-up areas or entire carrier strike groups (in the case of Russia’s P-800 Oniks, for example). Conventional cruise strikes can be calibrated to attack targets as small as individual buildings or bunkers.
Cruise missiles stay maneuverable through their approach to their targets, featuring GPS, inertial guidance, terrain mapping and/or other tools to guide them. Some designs allow human operators to manually guide missiles in the terminal phase.
Pros and Cons of Ballistic and Cruise
Cruise missiles are typically far cheaper (costing as little as 15% as a typical tactical ballistic missile), with their launch more difficult to detect, and the missiles boasting higher accuracy. However, unless they are nuclear armed, their firepower is typically lower, with the US AGM-86 ALCM air-launched cruise missile boasting the largest payload in this class of weapon – 1,362 kg, while most cruise missiles average about 500 kg.
Ballistic missiles are typically less accurate (with a circular error probable, or CEP, measured in the tens or even hundreds of meters, compared to meters for cruise missiles), but do have a number of distinct advantages – the most obvious of which is payload size (Russia’s RS-28 Sarmat, for example, has a 10,000 kg payload).
Ballistic missiles’ arcing approach also allows their payloads to accelerate to incredible speeds (often hypersonic), while cruise missiles typically stay subsonic or supersonic through their flight, which makes them easier to intercept, and reduces the sheer kinetic force with which they slam down onto their targets.
Featured Video
Inside America’s deadly war on suspected drug boats
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
There are ZERO Amish kids suffering from cancer, diabetes or autism – WHY IS THAT?
YourDestinationNow | July 8, 2023
The current population of Amish folks in America is quickly approaching 400,000, with the largest concentrations of 90,000 in Pennsylvania and 82,000 in Ohio. Amish have settled in as many as 32 US states, and have an average of 7 kids per family, so the population is growing rapidly. In a brand new, comprehensive study (as of June 2023), presented by Steve Kirsch to the Pennsylvania State Senate, it was calculated that for Amish children, who are strictly 100 percent not vaccinated (fully unvaccinated), typical chronic conditions barely exist, if any at all.
These chronic conditions, also called preventable diseases and disorders, that nearly many vaccinated children and swaths of Americans suffer from, include auto-immune disease, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, ADHD, arthritis, cancer, and of course… wait for it… autism (think ASD and Asperger’s Syndrome). … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Israel’s Rafael to produce missile parts at Volkswagen factory in Germany
- After historic German election, will the AfD rule Saxony-Anhalt?
- ‘Russophobia a national sport’ – Polish party rallies against push to war
- US Placing Missiles in Europe to Cancel Strategic Stability Talks Prerequisites – Russian MFA
- Analysts warn of ‘colonization’ as US ‘saturates’ Australia with 110 bases
- Inside America’s deadly war on suspected drug boats | Fault Lines Documentary
- Babies Whose Mothers Drank Fluoridated Water During Pregnancy Scored Lower in Problem-Solving
- Vaccination Data on Amish Children Screened for 2010 Autism Study Was Never Made Public
- CNAS Wonk Proposes Bombing China’s Artificial Intelligence
- Eight Arab and Muslim states reject Israeli displacement plans for Gaza
- If Americans Knew
- 50+ Rights Groups ‘Strongly Urge’ Congress to Reject US-Israeli Military Integration in NDAA
- Israel takes its war on Palestine into the AI age
- Israel’s military ‘justice’ system is working exactly as intended
- Who are the ‘Hilltop Girls’ behind Israel’s ‘soft settlement’ strategy?
- Gaza holds funeral for 100 remains, including 60 children – Daily Update
- Israeli settlers are a menace across West Bank – Daily Update
- US rejects Israel’s plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza: Daily Update
- ‘What About Gaza’s Amputees?’ Adidas Under Fire Over Israeli Soldier’s Disability-Inclusive Shoe Ad
- ‘They Keep Beating Me’: Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya Gives New Testimony from Israeli Prison
- Palestinian American returns to besieged West Bank home but Israeli settlers remain
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
- 2025 Study: ‘There Exists No Unequivocal Experimental Evidence For The CO2 Greenhouse Effect’
- 2026 Atlantic Cyclone Energy Index Running At 85% Below Normal!
- New Research Shows Soil Respiration And Temperature Drive CO2 Change, Not Humans
Aletho News 