Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Britain’s Kursk Invasion Backfires?

By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | August 21, 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2 tanks deployed to Robotnye in September were almost instantly incinerated by Russian fire, then very quietly withdrawn from combat altogether.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.

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.

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.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

US, UK, Poland Took Part in Preparing Ukraine’s Operation in Kursk – Russian Foreign Intel

Sputnik – 21.08.2024

On August 6, Ukrainian forces launched an incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, which was slammed by President Vladimir Putin as a large-scale provocation. The Kiev regime planned the attack with the participation of the US and NATO, Russian presidential aide Nikolai Patrushev earlier said.

Ukraine’s operation in Russia’s Kursk region was prepared with the participation of the US, UK, and Polish intelligence services, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said.

“According to available information, the operation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Kursk region was prepared with the participation of the US, British, and Polish intelligence services. The units involved in it underwent combat coordination in training centers in the UK and Germany. Military advisers from NATO countries are providing assistance in managing Ukraine’s units that have invaded Russian territory, and in using Western weapons and military equipment,” the agency told Russian media.

NATO countries are also providing the Ukrainian military with satellite reconnaissance data on the deployment of Russian troops in the area of ​​the operation, the SVR added.

As the situation on the front deteriorates for Ukrainian troops, Kiev’s Western handlers have been pushing it to move combat operations deep into Russian territory in recent months, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service said. One of the goals was to provoke an upsurge in anti-government sentiment and influence domestic policy in the country.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US PMC involved in Kursk invasion

By Lucas Leiroz | August 21, 2024

The US is directly involved in the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk – not only at the strategic level, but also at the tactical and operational sphere. Recent data confirm the participation of at least one US private military company (PMC), meaning that US troops are illegally operating within the 1991 Russian borders. This is likely to lead to a serious escalation of tensions between Moscow and Washington, with the Russian side already demanding formal explanations from US diplomats.

The presence of foreign mercenaries in Kursk is not new. The occurrence of foreigners among Ukrainian troops has been commonly reported, mainly Georgian, Polish and French citizens. However, so far, all reported mercenaries had been members of the Ukrainian Army’s “Foreign Legion”. It is now known that in addition to these individuals who have joined Kiev’s armed forces, there are also mercenary troops from at least one American PMC in Kursk, which represents a higher level of international aggression against Russia.

The American PMC Forward Observation Group (FOG) posted photos and videos on its Instagram showing some of its soldiers fighting on the Kursk front lines. In the photos, it is possible to see not only ordinary PMC members alongside Ukrainian soldiers, but also the founder of FOG himself, Derrick Bales – a well-known American mercenary who has participated in several conflicts. Bales is known for always using an M4A1 rifle in his operations, as well as for having a skull tattoo on his right arm. He has been in Ukraine since 2022, as FOG has been directly involved in training Ukrainian troops. However, this is the first time that a Western PMC has been reported inside the undisputed territory of Russia.

In fact, Western PMCs work together with Ukrainian troops quite often. However, the number of these groups has been decreasing over time. According to experts, Ukraine does not present desirable conditions for PMCs to accept contracts. Being a high-intensity conflict with a very high lethality rate, the Ukrainian scenario seems terrible for professional mercenaries, who see that it is clearly not worth fighting there.

Currently, most PMCs operating in Ukraine work only in activities that do not involve direct combat. Services such as logistics, intelligence, facility security and personnel training are some of their main activities. The fact that an American PMC is directly fighting on a highly lethal flank like the “Battle for Kursk” indicates that there may be direct intervention by the American state in the case – with Washington forcing the mercenaries to fight in Kursk, even though it does not seem like a profitable or interesting scenario.

Unlike classic mercenaries, who fought only for money and without any institutional loyalty, PMCs are a post-Cold War military phenomenon, formed from the reduction of personnel in regular armies’ special forces units. Despite fighting “for money”, these companies have the same mentality and ethics as the regular armed forces, since most of their members came from the ranks of state armies. These groups are loyal to their states and obey direct orders from their countries, being a kind of “semi-state force”. So, it is possible that FOG is following orders from the US state to fight in Kursk, even though the local military conditions did not make it worth the risk.

This possibility of direct American involvement at an institutional level has prompted the Russian Federation to ask Washington for clarification. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has summoned Washington’s charge d’affaires in Moscow to ask some questions about the direct involvement of American citizens in the hostilities in Kursk. The American responses are not yet clear, but an official statement on the matter is expected to be released soon.

Summoning diplomats for clarification is one of the most serious steps a country can take in the diplomatic sphere. This type of action usually precedes more serious moves, such as imposing sanctions, taking military action or cutting off diplomatic relations. It is unlikely that the Russians will take escalatory measures in retaliation against the US, since avoiding the escalation of tensions has been one of Moscow’s top priorities since the beginning of the special military operation. However, there will certainly be some effective response, despite the concern to avoid escalation.

Regardless of what is done in the diplomatic sphere, it is expected that the Russians will increase military action in Kursk, eliminating all foreigners involved. Mercenaries and PMCs are not protected by international law, which is why any military effort against these groups is absolutely legal.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Lithuania Begins Building Base to House German Soldiers

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | August 19, 2024

Vilnius started construction on a military base that would house over 4,000 German soldiers. The facility will be located just miles from the border shared with Belarus.

Lithuanian Defense Minister Raimundas Vaiksnoras described the construction as a “huge investment” that will cost over $1.1 billion. He said the German deployment represents “deterrence, to push the Russians out.” However, it is unclear where Lithuania plans to push Russia from as Moscow has not invaded the Baltic state.

At least two dozen German soldiers are already stationed in Lithuania. The German troop deployment, which is scheduled to surge to 4,800 troops by 2027, is Berlin’s first permanent garrison of soldiers deployed to Lithuania since World War 2. From 1941-1945, Nazi Germany occupied Lithuania. Under Hitler’s control, nearly Lithuania’s entire Jewish population was wiped out.

The deployment will provide a significant military surge to Lithuania, which has only 15,000 active duty soldiers. The base is located just 12 miles from the border with Belarus. Germany plans to deploy over 100 Leopard Tanks to the base.

Since the end of the Cold War, Washington has facilitated the expansion of the North Atlantic alliance up to the Russian border. Additionally, Brussels has increased military deployments to new members in Eastern Europe.

The Kremlin has consistently complained that the Eastward expansion of the bloc is a threat to Russian security. Russia has been invaded through its European borders multiple times. Prior to the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk, the last power which invaded Russia was Nazi Germany.

August 20, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Starmer calls for comprehensive assistance to Ukraine despite the decline of Britain

By Ahmed Adel – August 20, 2024

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer asked the country’s National Security Council to consider giving more support to Kiev, the British newspaper The Times reported on August 18. Starmer’s request comes as half of British citizens believe their country is heading in the wrong direction, according to a recently published survey.

“Starmer has also asked the National Security Council to draw up plans to provide Ukraine with a broader range of support,” The Times reported, adding that foreign policy adviser to the last three Tory prime ministers, John Bew, went last week to Kiev as part of this effort.

At the same time, a military source told the outlet that Starmer’s policy of supporting Ukraine would be comprehensive.

“It’s not just about the military support, but it’s about the industrial, economic, and diplomatic support,” the defence source said.

The Times added that a special group was created with the participation of the UK’s defence and foreign ministries to build a unified UK policy towards Ukraine.

This comes as the British newspaper The Independent reported on August 17 that the UK Ministry of Defense did not deny information that the Ukrainian Armed Forces had used British Challenger 2 tanks in the attack on the Kursk region, which Russia described as a terrorist act and called a provocation following the deaths of civilians.

The report quoted a Defense Ministry spokesman as saying that Kiev could use the supplied weapons in the attack on the Kursk region. However, this did not apply to the Storm Shadow cruise missiles, which London allowed to be used only inside “internationally recognised” Ukrainian territory.

In January 2023, the UK also announced the transfer of 14 Challenger 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine. At least two of them were destroyed by Russian troops in Kursk. It can be expected that Starmer’s new military package to Ukraine will face the same fate as the Challenger 2 battle tank – Russian forces destroying them.

Yet, despite British military equipment sent to Ukraine being destroyed effortlessly by Russian troops, in addition to the impossibility of Ukraine winning the war, Britain insists on maintaining a policy of trying to prolong the war despite massive domestic issues.

According to a survey by Ipsos published on August 19, 52% of citizens interviewed expressed a negative opinion about the direction the United Kingdom is taking, more than double the number who see the situation improving.

“22% said that they think things in Great Britain are heading in the right direction (-3 from Jul ’24), 52% wrong direction (+3), and 19% neither (N/C). This gives a net right direction of the country rating of -30, which is down from -24 last month,” Ipsos said of the survey results.

The poll found that the number of Britons with a favourable view of Keir Starmer has fallen to 38%, the same proportion as those without sympathy. Although Britons now view him with greater affinity, the article stresses that this is only the “honeymoon” period for the British leader.

Former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak only garnered the support of 20% of those interviewed, behind Nigel Farage, leader of the right-wing Reform UK party (25%), and Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats (22%). Respondents also ranked the Labour Party first, with 40% giving it a positive rating and 37% a negative rating. The Conservatives received 21% support, the Liberal Democrats 24%, and Reform UK 23%.

Britain’s economy has performed lacklustrely over the past decade. High living costs, elevated interest rates, and faltering productivity gains have particularly affected citizens, causing the British economy to enter recession in the second half of 2023 as households cut back on spending. Although the Bank of England earlier this month raised its growth forecast from 0.5% to 1.25% for 2024, it warned of a weaker medium-term outlook as high interest rates hit activity.

As Simon Pittaway, a senior economist at the Resolution Foundation, explained: “Britain’s medium-term record is far less impressive, and has been driven by a growing population rather than rising productivity. Without a return to productivity growth, living standards will continue to stagnate and Britain will continue to fall behind its peers.”

Yet, despite the grim economic situation, with most citizens believing the country is heading in the wrong direction and Starmer very far from enjoying popular support, the British prime minister has instead prioritised figuring out how to continue assisting Ukraine despite already providing support to the tune of £12 billion, rather than serving the interests of Britons and alleviating the growing poverty in the country.

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

August 20, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Zelensky lashes out at West

RT | August 20, 2024

The West should agree to Ukrainian requests for long-range weapons without concern for Russia’s potential reaction, Vladimir Zelensky has said. The Ukrainian leader claimed that Kiev’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk Region proves that Moscow has no “red lines.”

According to the Defense Ministry in Moscow, Russian forces have killed more than 3,400 Ukrainian troops and destroyed around 400 pieces of military hardware in Kiev’s ongoing cross-border attack. The assault began on August 6 and is the largest of its kind on Russian territory since hostilities erupted between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022.

Russia has alleged that Ukrainian troops have been using Western-supplied weapons in their operation – claims that have seemingly been supported by reports in the Western media. A number of Kiev’s backers have also publicly given it the green light to use weapons they have provided on Russian soil.

In an address to Ukrainian ambassadors on Monday, Zelensky urged them to “continue convincing our partners to support Ukraine – to the maximum” to make sure they are “in sync with us in their determination.”

“If our partners lifted all the current restrictions on the use of weapons on Russian territory, we would not need to physically enter particularly the Kursk region to protect our Ukrainian citizens in the border communities,” the Ukrainian leader insisted.

He went on to lament that “for now, we cannot use all the weapons at our disposal and eliminate Russian terrorists where they are.”

Zelensky also called on Kiev’s Western backers not to fear a potential escalation from Moscow. He cited Russia’s supposed inability to defend its territory after Kiev crossed the “strictest of all the red lines that Russia has.” According to the Ukrainian leader, this proves that all of Moscow’s other “red lines” are also “illusory.”

Last Friday, Zelensky took the UK to task for supposedly failing in its support. According to media reports, London has refused to allow Kiev to use Storm Shadow missiles in its offensive in Kursk.

Speaking the same day, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told journalists that “for the first time, Kursk Region was hit by Western-made rockets, most likely from an American HIMARS.”

On Monday, Moscow’s top diplomat, Sergey Lavrov, claimed that “Zelensky would never have decided [to attack Russian territory] if the United States had not instructed him to do this.”

August 20, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Germany about to decrease its aid to Kiev

By Lucas Leiroz | August 20, 2024

Support for Ukraine is increasingly showing signs of being reduced. The productive capacity of European countries no longer seems sufficient to meet Ukraine’s constant demand for weapons and military equipment, which is why a serious drop in supplies is likely to occur soon. Germany, which is currently experiencing an energy crisis and deindustrialization, seems to be one of the first countries to fail to fulfill its military aid agreements.

The German newspaper Bild recently reported that the “continuous supply” of weapons to the Kiev regime is at risk. The main reason for the production problems is the policy of budgetary restrictions. The article cites sources in the Ministry of Finance and communications between officials from different ministries and the German parliament. The sources state that there is no longer enough budget to continue supporting Ukraine, which is why a change in the military support policy is urgently needed.

According to the newspaper, Finance Minister Christian Lindner recently contacted Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock to discuss the issue. He emphasized the budget problems and the impossibility of continuing to finance arms production for Ukraine. According to Lindner, a solution could be found if the government submitted some kind of report justifying the need and urgency of providing new short-term funds for the military sector. However, since the government remains inactive, no special decision has been made by the Finance Ministry, which indicates that there will be a cut in military production soon.

There appears to be a conflict of interest between the ministries. Defense officials are unhappy with Lindner’s budget control and accuse him of “changing the rules of the game.” According to the defense industry, Lindner is responsible for destabilizing the budget for the military industry, thereby affecting the entire policy of supporting Ukraine. In fact, Lindner listed at least 30 German measures to support Kiev that “can no longer be carried out.” The Defense Ministry sees these initiatives as a sign that the Finance Ministry is simply no longer interested in continuing to fund pro-Ukrainian aid.

Earlier, the Defense Ministry had proposed a special package worth almost 4 billion euros for “unplanned spending” for Ukraine. The package included the urgent production of various equipment, such as artillery shells, drones, tanks and armored vehicles. However, within just three months, most of the package has already been spent and there is simply nothing left that can be produced with this funding, leaving few resources for the Finance Ministry to use in the assistance program.

Indeed, the officials responsible for finance are stating the obvious: there is no more money to finance the war. Meanwhile, the military, driven by anti-Russian paranoia and the fear that Germany will be the “next target”, claims that it must do whatever necessary to send even more weapons to Ukraine. In the midst of all this chaos, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other strategic sectors seem inert, not knowing what decision to make and unable to reach a consensus.

The crisis in Germany is nothing new. It had previously been reported that the country no longer had any funds to use in the war. Days before Bild published its article, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported that Berlin was about to end its support for Ukraine due to the absolute lack of money. At the time, sources close to Lindner said that there was no longer any chance of continuing the assistance.

“End of the event. The pot is empty (…) [Berlin has] reached a point where Germany can no longer make any promises to Ukraine,” an unnamed source told journalists at the time.

The defense sector’s complaints about the budget are also not new. In July, Pistorius had already expressed his indignation with Lindner’s management, stating that he had received a budget smaller than what had been requested to meet German military priorities. In practice, the economy and defense sectors are in constant conflict in German politics, and inter-ministerial dialogue is extremely difficult.

“I got significantly less than I registered for. That is annoying for me because I cannot initiate certain things at the speed that the historic turning point and threatening situation require,” Pistorius said at the time.

All this institutional chaos was to be expected, since Germany is maintaining a support program that does not correspond to the country’s social and economic reality. Going through a serious energy crisis and an accelerated process of deindustrialization, Berlin is simply not growing economically enough to pay for the billion-dollar aid packages to the Kiev regime.

At some point, Germany will have to choose between paying Ukraine’s bills or its own.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

August 20, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Lavrov accuses West of ‘childish babble’

RT | August 19, 2024

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky would not have attacked Russia’s Kursk Region unless he had direct orders from the US, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

Speaking to Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin on Monday, the foreign minister stated that throughout the Ukraine conflict, Washington’s attempts to deny responsibility for Kiev’s actions have “evolved” from claiming it has nothing to do with them to accusing Ukrainian military commanders of disobeying orders.

“Listen, this is childish babble,” Lavrov said. “Everyone understands perfectly well that Zelensky would never have decided on this if the United States had not instructed him to do this.”

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aide and former Security Council secretary, Nikolay Patrushev, also accused Washington of playing a role in Kiev’s incursion, stating in an interview with Izvestia that “the US leadership’s claims of non-involvement in Kiev’s actions in Kursk Region do not correspond to reality.”

“Without their participation and direct support, Kiev would not have ventured into Russian territory,” Patrushev said, adding that “the operation in Kursk Region was also planned with the involvement of NATO and Western special services.”

Kiev launched its incursion into Russia almost two weeks ago, reportedly deploying over 10,000 troops armed with Western-supplied heavy weapons. Zelensky has stated that the purpose of the attack is to establish a “buffer zone” in Russia and inflict military and economic damage on the country.

While Western officials have publicly expressed support for Ukraine’s incursion, none, including the US, have admitted to having prior knowledge. Washington has insisted that it was not informed or involved in the preparation of the cross-border attack.

Zelensky aide Mikhail Podoliak, however, has contradicted these claims, telling The Independent last week that Kiev had discussed the operation with partner forces, “just not on the public level.”

While Kiev’s forces continue to occupy several settlements in the border region, the Russian Defense Ministry has reported that the advance has been halted. Moscow has estimated that Kiev has lost more than 3,400 troops and around 400 armored vehicles in the operation.

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

NATO’s War on Russia

From covert war in 2014 to the invasion of Russia in 2024

By Glenn Diesen | August 19, 2024

The use of NATO weapons to attack Russia is a controversial topic due to the ambiguity about the role of NATO. The common argument by the Western political-media elites is that Ukraine was attacked in an unprovoked Russian invasion, and NATO has every right to assist Ukraine with weapons to defend itself. This is an appealing narrative that serves the purpose of manufacturing consent from the public to send weapons worth billions of dollars to fight Russia. If one accepts this narrative, it is even seen to be immoral to put restrictions on Ukraine in terms of where these weapons are used as the country is correctly fighting for its survival. The problem with this narrative is that NATO is not a passive non-participant in this war.

The war began in February 2014 when Western governments backed the coup in Ukraine that removed the democratically elected President of Ukraine and replaced him with a government hand-picked by Washington.[1] On the first day of the new Ukrainian government, a partnership was established between the CIA, MI6 and the intelligence services of the new government in Ukraine installed by the US.[2] This happened before there were any conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, and it resulted in 12 secret CIA bases along the Russian borders. Over the next 8 years, the US instigated tensions with Russia, armed Ukraine, and sabotaged the Minsk peace agreement to extend and weaken Russia.[3]

The US developing Ukraine as a proxy against Russia was the reason for the Russian invasion in 2022. As reported by the New York Times : “Toward the end of 2021, according to a senior European official, Mr. Putin was weighing whether to launch his full-scale invasion when he met with the head of one of Russia’s main spy services, who told him that the C.I.A., together with Britain’s MI6, were controlling Ukraine and turning it into a beachhead for operations against Moscow”.[4]

When Russia invaded in 2022, it contacted Ukraine on the first day after the war to start negotiations to impose a peace agreement that would restore Ukraine’s neutrality.[5] The US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement by promising Zelensky all the weapons he would need if he would walk away from the peace talks and fight. Both the Israeli and Turkish mediators confirmed that the US chose war as it saw an opportunity to fight Russia through a proxy and thus weaken a strategic rival. Numerous American leaders have since expressed that this is a great war as they get to weaken Russia without losing any American troops. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has dismissed diplomacy and insists that “Weapons are the way to peace”.

Niall Ferguson wrote in Bloomberg in March 2022 that US and UK officials had confirmed that the only acceptable outcome for the war was the military defeat of Russia and regime change in Moscow. The objective was for “the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin” as “the only end game now is the end of Putin regime”.[6] The US Helsinki Commission argued in March 2022 that peace must be achieved by “decolonising” Russia, the destruction of Russia by Balkanising it.[7] The President of Poland (Andrzej Duda) and the incoming Foreign Policy Chief of the EU (Kaja Kallas) have also defined victory in Ukraine in terms of breaking Russia into many small nations.

NATO is providing weapons, ammunition, training, war planning, intelligence, target selection, management of complex weapon systems, and mercenaries to fight Russia – all under the guise of “helping Ukraine” to defend itself. NATO has authorised the use of long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory and provides its support in the invasion of Russian territory. From Britain to Germany, the success of conquering Russian territory is openly used as an argument to send more weapons.

In this context, if we look at the actual objectives of the US and NATO, rather than the childish assertion that the US is merely attempting to protect democracy, then one can only conclude that NATO has gone to war against the world’s largest nuclear power.

Russia’s dilemma: Emboldening NATO or risking nuclear war

The insanity of NATO’s relentless escalations in the Ukraine proxy war rests on the narrative that Russia will not defend its red lines as it is deterred by NATO. This delusion exists because all Russian responses are presented as “unprovoked” and thus occur seemingly in a vacuum. Yet, when the Western government toppled the Ukrainian government in February 2014 and subsequently threatened the Russian naval base in Sevastopol, Russia responded by seizing Crimea. When Western governments sabotaged the Minsk agreement for 7 years and then refused to give Russia any security guarantees in December 2021, Russia responded by invading Ukraine in 2022. When NATO began to send weapons to Ukraine to fight Russia, Russia responded by annexing four oblasts – Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhiya, and Kherson.

How will Russia respond? Russia is faced with a dilemma: It has been restrained as retaliations could easily escalate into a NATO-Russia nuclear exchange, yet the failure to retaliate will only embolden NATO. Western media refers to the failure of Russia to respond as a reason for why NATO can continue to escalate, as Russia is not retaliating. Yet, with every step up the escalation ladder, the pressure mounts on Russia to restore its deterrent.

The retaliation will come, but Russia keeps its head cool to decide when, where and how it best serves Russian interests. The Western media is obsessed with the objective of humiliating Putin without considering the possible consequences. Anyone calling for a return to common sense is denounced as being soft on Russia, and the recognition of Russia’s nuclear deterrent is framed as accepting Russia’s “nuclear blackmail”. Consequently, warmongering is celebrated as morality while advocating for diplomacy is denounced as appeasement. In our narrative-driven media, even arguing that NATO has gone to war against Russia is deemed treasonous as it is depicted as “taking the side of Russia”.

The propaganda prevents us from asking the most important question: How exactly do we think this escalation will end? Irrespective of what narrative we have sold to our own public about defending democracy, from Moscow’s perspective, NATO has now placed itself in the same category as Napoleon and Hitler. Let’s pick up a history book and ask ourselves how Russia will likely respond: capitulation or a powerful response?

I was on the Indian TV channel WION discussing NATO weapons being used to target Russian territory.

[1] Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call – BBC News

[2] The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[3] Read the RAND report on how to overextend Russia: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

[4] The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[5] Address by the President to Ukrainians at the end of the first day of Russia’s attacks — Official website of the President of Ukraine

[6] Niall Ferguson: Putin and Biden Misunderstand History in Ukraine War – Bloomberg

[7] Decolonizing Russia: a Moral and Strategic Imperative – CSCE

August 19, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia to Respond Properly If Poland Attempts to Intercept Russian Missiles Over Ukraine

Sputnik – 19.08.2024

MOSCOW – Moscow will give a specific and adequate response if Poland attempts to intercept Russian missiles over Ukraine, Oleg Tyapkin, the director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Third European Department, said in an interview with Sputnik.

“If official Warsaw succumbs to an adventurous impulse and decides to attempt to intercept long-range weapons legally used by our armed forces to neutralize military threats emanating from Ukrainian territory to Russia, then the response to them will be adequate and quite specific. Russian diplomacy has repeatedly pointed out the risks that potential direct participation of Western states in military actions on the side of the Kiev regime entails,” the Russian diplomat said.

“There are no negotiations on this issue with anyone. Our position is well known to both Warsaw and NATO,” he added.

Earlier, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said that Warsaw was considering the possibility of shooting down Russian missiles over Ukraine.

Kiev previously called on Western countries to shoot down missiles over Ukraine from their territory. French media, citing Ukrainian officials, reported in late June that Kiev was pushing European allies to create a no-fly zone in western Ukraine by deploying air defense systems in Poland and Romania.

Russia launched a special military operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Russian President Vladimir Putin said its goal was “the protection of people who have been subjected to abuse and genocide by the Kiev regime for eight years.” He noted that the special operation was a forced measure, Russia “was left with no chance to act differently, the security risks were such that it was impossible to respond by other means.”

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

South Korea, US Begin Annual Major Joint Military Exercises

Sputnik – 18.08.2024

SEOUL – South Korea and the United States are beginning the annual major joint military exercises Ulchi Freedom Shield (UFS) to strengthen their joint defense readiness and ability to counter “threats from North Korea.”

The Yonhap agency previously reported citing the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) that the UFS exercises would be held from August 19-29, and would include a major command post exercise based on computer simulation, field training, and civil defense exercises.

The exercises are based on a full-scale war scenario, using various means, including land, sea, air, cyber, and space. It is reported that the exercises should further strengthen the potential and readiness of the South Korea-US alliance to respond to “any provocations by North Korea” and defend against weapons of mass destruction.

This year’s UFS will see allies train to counter threats in all domains, including North Korean missiles, GPS jamming and cyberattacks. The drills will also incorporate lessons from recent conflicts around the world.

The scale of the exercises will be similar to last year’s, with about 19,000 South Korean troops taking part. The training will include 48 field exercises, such as amphibious landings and live-fire drills, 10 more than last year. The number of brigade-level exercises will also increase, from four last year to 17 this year.

North Korea has denounced the joint South Korean-US drills as a simulation of an invasion of North Korea and a “nuclear war rehearsal.” The North Korean Foreign Ministry’s Institute for American Studies denounced on Sunday the UFS as “military exercises in preparation for aggression.” Seoul and Washington reject this, calling the exercises “defensive” in nature. Pyongyang considers these exercises to be “the most offensive and provocative military exercises in preparation for aggression in the world.” North Korea will continue to make decisive efforts to build up a powerful defense potential to reliably protect state sovereignty, security, interests and territorial integrity and will change the security situation on the Korean Peninsula and in the region in its favor, it said.

At the same time, the South expects the North to respond to the exercises. Last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Kim Myong-soo ordered the troops to immediately take retaliatory measures in the event of any provocations, saying that North Korea is likely to use the UFS exercises as a “pretext for provocation.”

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

German ministers told there’s no more money for Ukraine — FAZ

RT | August 17, 2024

Germany’s defense ministry has been urged to limit military assistance to Ukraine, as the country’s current budget plan is not capable of allocating funds for the purpose, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported on Saturday, citing a written request from Finance Minister Christian Lindner.

The letter, which was addressed to German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, specified that only military aid that has already been approved can be delivered to Kiev, while additional applications from the defense ministry should no longer be accepted, even if issued at the behest of Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

FAZ emphasized that the blocking of newly approved assistance is already in effect, adding that Berlin would halve its military aid to Ukraine next year. In 2027, the assistance is expected to decline to less than one tenth of its current volume.

In particular, €8 billion in aid to Ukraine has been scheduled for 2024, and the planned maximum of €4 billion for 2025 already exceeds available funds, the media outlet noted, adding that only €3 billion is planned for 2026, and €500 million each for 2027 and 2028.

“End of the event. The pot is empty,” an unnamed source in the federal government told FAZ, stressing that Berlin has “reached a point where Germany can no longer make any promises to Ukraine.”

The newspaper noted that the urge comes amid Lindner’s push for harsh austerity measures; these have already been imposed on all German ministries except defense. The finance minister has been resisting intense pressure from Scholz and Economy Minister Robert Habeck to suspend the country’s constitutional limit on debt to allow for the cost of providing military aid to Kiev amid the Ukrainian conflict.

Germany is the second biggest backer of Ukraine after the US. Berlin has provided and committed military aid of at least €28 billion ($30.3 billion) to Kiev in current and future pledges. This includes advanced military equipment such as Leopard 2 tanks, Marder infantry fighting vehicles, and US-made Patriot air-defense systems.

Lindner reportedly doesn’t expect the country’s assistance to Ukraine to drop, as the minister hopes to cover the expenses not with federal budget funds, but through the use of Russian central bank assets that were frozen by Kiev’s Western allies shortly after the conflict escalated.

Nearly $300 billion belonging to Russia’s central bank has been immobilized by the EU and G7 nations as part of Ukraine-related sanctions. In May, Brussels approved a plan to use the interest earned on the frozen assets to support Ukraine’s recovery and defense. Under the agreement, 90% of the proceeds are expected to go into an EU-run fund for Ukrainian military aid, with the other 10% allocated to supporting Kiev in other ways.

August 17, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »