Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The BRICS Summit Should Mark the End of Neocon Delusions

By Jeffrey D. Sachs | Common Dreams | November 2, 2024

The recent BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia should mark the end of the Neocon delusions encapsulated in the subtitle of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Global Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Since the 1990s, the goal of American foreign policy has been “primacy,” aka global hegemony. The U.S. methods of choice have been wars, regime change operations, and unilateral coercive measures (economic sanctions). Kazan brought together 35 countries with more than half the world population that reject the U.S. bullying and that are not cowed by U.S. claims of hegemony.

In the Kazan Declaration, the countries underscored “the emergence of new centres of power, policy decision-making and economic growth, which can pave the way for a more equitable, just, democratic and balanced multipolar world order.” They emphasized “the need to adapt the current architecture of international relations to better reflect the contemporary realities,” while declaring their “commitment to multilateralism and upholding the international law, including the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (UN) as its indispensable cornerstone.” They took particular aim at the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies, holding that “Such measures undermine the UN Charter, the multilateral trading system, the sustainable development and environmental agreements.”

Time has run out on the neocon delusions, and the U.S. wars of choice.

The neocon quest for global hegemony has deep historical roots in America’s belief in its exceptionalism. In 1630, John Winthrop invoked the Gospels in describing the Massachusetts Bay Colony as a “City on the Hill,” declaring grandiosely that “The eyes of all people are upon us.” In the 19th century, America was guided by Manifest Destiny, to conquer North America by displacing or exterminating the native peoples. In the course of World War II, Americans embraced the idea of the “American Century,” that after the war the U.S. would lead the world.

The U.S. delusions of grandeur were supercharged with the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. With America’s Cold War nemesis gone, the ascendant American neoconservatives conceived of a new world order in which the U.S. was the sole superpower and the policeman of the world. Their foreign policy instruments of choice were wars and regime-change operations to overthrow governments they disliked.

Following 9/11, the neocons planned to overthrow seven governments in the Islamic world, starting with Iraq, and then moving on to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. According to Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO, the neocons expected the U.S. to prevail in these wars in 5 years. Yet now, more than 20 years on, the neocon-instigated wars continue while the U.S. has achieved absolutely none of its hegemonic objectives.

The neocons reasoned back in the 1990s that no country or group of countries would ever dare to stand up to U.S. power. Brzezinski, for example, argued in The Grand Chessboard that Russia would have no choice but to submit to the U.S.-led expansion of NATO and the geopolitical dictates of the U.S. and Europe, since there was no realistic prospect of Russia successfully forming an anti-hegemonic coalition with China, Iran and others. As Brzezinski put it:

“Russia’s only real geostrategic option—the option that could give Russia a realistic international role and also maximize the opportunity of transforming and socially modernizing itself—is Europe. And not just any Europe, but the transatlantic Europe of the enlarging EU and NATO.” (emphasis added, Kindle edition, p. 118)

Brzezinski was decisively wrong, and his misjudgment helped to lead to the disaster of the war in Ukraine. Russia did not simply succumb to the U.S. plan to expand NATO to Ukraine, as Brzezinski assumed it would. Russia said a firm no, and was prepared to wage war to stop the U.S. plans. As a result of the neocon miscalculations vis-à-vis Ukraine, Russia is now prevailing on the battlefield, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are dead.

Nor—and this is the plain message from Kazan—did U.S. sanctions and diplomatic pressures isolate Russian in the least. In response to pervasive U.S. bullying, an anti-hegemonic counterweight has emerged. Simply put, the majority of the world does not want or accept U.S. hegemony, and is prepared to face it down rather than submit to its dictates. Nor does the U.S. anymore possess the economic, financial, or military power to enforce its will, if it ever did.

The countries that assembled in Kazan represent a clear majority of the world’s population. The nine BRICS members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as the original five, plus Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates), in addition to the delegations of 27 aspiring members, constitute 57 percent of the world’s population and 47 percent of the world’s output (measured at purchasing-power adjusted prices). The U.S., by contrast, constitutes 4.1 percent of the world population and 15 percent of world output. Add in the U.S. allies, and the population share of the U.S.-led alliance is around 15 percent of the global population.

The BRICS will gain in relative economic weight, technological prowess, and military strength in the years ahead. The combined GDP of the BRICS countries is growing at around 5 percent per annum, while the combined GDP of the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific is growing at around 2 percent per annum.

Even with their growing clout, however, the BRICS can’t replace the U.S. as a new global hegemon. They simply lack the military, financial, and technological power to defeat the U.S. or even to threaten its vital interests. The BRICS are in practice calling for a new and realistic multipolarity, not an alternative hegemony in which they are in charge.

American strategists should heed the ultimately positive message coming from Kazan. Not only has the neocon quest for global hegemony failed, it has been a costly disaster for the US and the world, leading to bloody and pointless wars, economic shocks, mass displacements of populations, and rising threats of nuclear confrontation. A more inclusive and equitable multipolar world order offers a promising path out of the current morass, one that can benefit the U.S. and its allies as well as the nations that met in Kazan.

The rise of the BRICS is therefore not merely a rebuke to the U.S., but also a potential opening for a far more peaceful and secure world order. The multipolar world order envisioned by the BRICS can be a boon for all countries, including the United States. Time has run out on the neocon delusions, and the U.S. wars of choice. The moment has arrived for a renewed diplomacy to end the conflicts raging around the world.

November 3, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Ynet: With 50,000 troops, Israel unable to ‘capture a single village’ in Lebanon

Press TV – November 2, 2024

The Israeli military has so far failed to “capture even a single village” in southern Lebanon despite deploying over 50,000 soldiers for the ground invasion of Lebanon, an Israeli paper has lamented.

“After a month of ground operations involving five divisions and reserve brigades—exceeding 50,000 troops, three times the force used in the July 2006 war—Israel has been unable to establish a presence in southern Lebanon,” Hebrew-language daily Yedioth Ahronoth reported.

“Despite support from firepower and air support, the Israeli military still hasn’t managed to capture a single village in southern Lebanon.”

The report attributed the failure of the Israeli forces to Hezbollah’s “effective tactical strategies,” which include multiple defensive lines equipped with munitions capable of accurately targeting Israeli armored vehicles, tanks, and soldiers.

Additionally, it noted the Israeli army’s difficulties in mapping Hezbollah’s positions and countering the threat posed by small, hard-to-detect drones.

Hezbollah issued a statement on Friday, saying that in the past 45 days, it had destroyed a large number of Israel’s military vehicles, including 42 Merkava tanks, 4 military bulldozers, 2 Hummer vehicles, 1 armored vehicle, and 1 troop carrier.

More than 95 Israeli officers and soldiers have been killed and 900 others wounded since the regime started its ground invasion against Lebanon, the statement added.

Resistance fighters also downed three Hermes-450 and two Hermes-900 drones.

In an interview, Colonel Jack Neriya, a former advisor to Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, explained that Hezbollah fighters are deliberately allowing Israeli forces to advance, only to trap them in ambushes. This tactic has created a dire situation for Israeli troops, including elite units like Golani and other commandos, he said.

Neriya also warned that the human cost of any advance for Israeli forces could be severe, potentially surpassing “Israel’s” total casualties since the late 1940s.

Since October 2023, Israel has killed over 2,700 people in Lebanon. Most of them have lost their lives in the past month amid the intensified airstrikes and a ground offensive.

November 2, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Biden regime violating US law through MENA troop deployments: House Democrats

Al Mayadeen | November 2, 2024

Five House Democrats warned US President Joe Biden that the deployment of American troops to aid “Israel’s” escalating aggression in the Middle East violates US law, reprimanding the Biden administration amid accusations that it was intentionally dismissing domestic law to support Israeli violence in the region.

In the letter, the Democrats, led by representatives Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush slammed the administration’s unilateral decision to share intelligence with the Israeli military and send troops to “Israel” and the Middle East, saying it constitutes direct engagement in the region’s conflicts.

Consequently, the Constitution and War Powers Resolution of 1973, which lists Congress as the sole power that could declare war and approve the deployment of soldiers, are thereby violated.

The letter stresses that US Congress did not authorize the deployment of troops in the region, adding that the Executive Branch cannot introduce US armed forces into conflicts in the absence of an imminent or actual attack on its sovereignty.

The Israeli expansion of the war throughout the Middle East, particularly in Palestine, Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran, was supported by the deployment of thousands of US soldiers in the region. The most recent batch was dispatched to “Israel” to assist with the installation of a $1 billion high-altitude anti-missile system. Additionally, US troops have supported Israeli forces in identifying alleged targets in Gaza.

The lawmakers further stated that the current and any future deployment of US Armed Forces in support of “Israel’s” expanding regional violence qualifies as “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution and is not in response to an imminent threat to the US. Therefore, these actions lack authorization and fall under Congress’s constitutional authority.

They urged the administration to clarify the extent of US military involvement in “Israel’s” actions and to justify recent strikes against the armed forces in Yemen, additionally highlighting that Congress has the power to withdraw unauthorized troops and halt their participation in the region.

“These destructive wars must end, as must any unauthorized U.S. involvement in them. The American public deserves a say on the issue of war. Thus, Congress’ involvement and debate are necessary,” the letter read.

US deploys B-52s and warships to ME

The United States announced, on Friday, that it would be deploying B-52 bombers, fighter jets, refueling aircraft, and Navy destroyers to the Middle East as part of a realignment of military resources while the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group gets ready to depart the region.

The Pentagon stated that these deployments would occur in the coming months and highlighted the “flexibility of the US military movements around the world.”

“Should Iran, its partners, or its proxies choose to target American personnel or interests in the region during this time, the United States will take every measure necessary to defend our people,” Pentagon spokesperson Air Force Major General Patrick Ryder said in a statement.

Over the past year, the United States has deployed as many as two aircraft carriers to the Middle East amid the ongoing Israeli aggression in Lebanon and Gaza.

November 2, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO trying to push Russia out of Black Sea – Putin aide

RT | November 2, 2024

Russia must work to strengthen its Navy to counteract NATO’s continued efforts to establish dominance in the Black Sea, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aide Nikolay Patrushev has said.

During a meeting with the command of the Russian Navy and the Black Sea Fleet, Patrushev, who serves as the chairman of the Maritime Collegium, pointed out that pushing Russia out of the Black Sea has long been one of the primary goals of Washington and its allies.

“Historical facts show that pushing Russia away from the Black Sea shores has traditionally been considered one of the key tasks in Anglo-Saxon politics. And today, the collective West, led by the United States, is hatching plans to establish its own long-term presence in the Black Sea and along its perimeter to the detriment of the legitimate interests of our country,” Patrushev said.

He added that the US and its NATO allies are currently “hatching plans” to expand their naval presence in the Black Sea through the use of Europe’s internal waterways for military purposes; in this case, to access it through the Danube.

“Reducing Russia’s role as a maritime power in the Black Sea region is one of the areas of action of unfriendly Western states in the context of their policy aimed at inflicting a strategic defeat on our country,” he said, noting that the increase of NATO’s presence is also a violation of the Montreux Convention, which limits the presence of military vessels in the straits between the Black and Mediterranean seas.

Patrushev also pointed out that according to Russia’s maritime doctrine, the Black Sea and the Azov Sea are regarded as key regions for the protection of the country’s national interests in the global ocean space.

He stressed that it was necessary to ensure “a balance of power” in the region and increase the universality of the Russian Navy and expand its range of its tasks to help protect national interests.

In July, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky had signed a decree outlining the country’s maritime security strategy, which included the establishment of a permanent NATO presence in the Black Sea and the organization of maritime patrols in the Azov-Black Sea basin in coordination with Kiev’s partner countries.

Moscow responded to the move by pointing out that a “concentrated presence” of NATO ships in the Black Sea represented a threat to Russia’s national security and that it would respond by taking measures to protect its interests in the region.

November 2, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO plotting against its own members to ‘help’ Ukraine

By Lucas Leiroz | November 1, 2024

NATO seems to be starting to plot against its own members. In a recent case, it was revealed that the NATO alliance launched a sabotage attempt against Hungary to circumvent the country’s authorities and try to send weapons to Ukraine. This situation clearly shows how Western countries are not safe within NATO itself, having their sovereignty threatened by the bloc’s war plans.

Viktor Orban’s presidential administration recently announced that the country’s intelligence service had thwarted a foreign operation to deliver Hungarian weapons to Kiev. According to the head of the presidential cabinet, Gergely Gulyas, there was an illegal deal between members of military companies in Hungary and foreign agents directly involved in financing Ukraine. The objective of such a criminal network would be to make Hungary finally “help” the Kiev neo-Nazi regime.

“Indeed, there were attempts to use the Hungarian military industry to send weapons to Ukraine, but our counterintelligence discovered and stopped them (…) Hungary will not deliver any of its weapons or ammunition to Ukraine,” Gulyas said.

As a reaction to Orban’s resistance, Westerners have attempted to use the Hungarian military-industrial complex as a platform for producing weapons for Ukraine. According to reports, these weapons, once manufactured in Hungary, would be purchased by NATO intermediaries as part of the aid program for Kiev. Then, upon receiving these weapons, the agents would ship them to the Ukrainian frontlines or to terrorists in Africa – thus serving Western interests in both cases.

Details of how Hungarian counterintelligence identified this threat and acted to neutralize it have not yet been shared. However, it seems clear that Budapest took tough measures against its own alleged Western “allies,” preventing them from establishing a black market for weapons in the country to supply Ukraine.

As well known, Viktor Orban’s stance has been in favor of peace and diplomacy since the beginning of the conflict. Instead of fomenting war and chaos by creating useless hostilities, the Hungarian government made the right decision: it ignored Russophobic policies, prioritized sovereignty and national interests, and refused to continue depending on NATO’s political, ideological and economic stance. Orban has repeatedly said that Hungary is in favor of a ceasefire and does not share any of the West’s most liberal agendas – both in geopolitical and cultural topics.

Orban is clearly not a “pro-Russian” politician. His goal has never been to align Hungary fully with Moscow, nor does he have any anti-Western goals. Orban simply does not want his country to suffer because of the anti-Russian madness of sending weapons to the Ukrainians, prolonging a war that is obviously damaging Europe. In the end, Orban is working to establish a new position among NATO countries, trying to remain in the alliance but without participating in the war with Russia.

However, NATO clearly has no respect for the sovereignty of any of its members. The Western alliance demands absolute alignment and political subservience as requirements for establishing cooperation projects. Western main powers, the US and the UK, do not seem interested in allowing any political freedom to their allies, demanding from them a stance of absolute support for anti-Russian military initiatives.

In fact, Orban is often criticized in the Western mainstream media for his efforts to end the war. Unfortunately, however, the Western siege against Budapest goes beyond propaganda. The alliance is beginning to mobilize its security apparatus to target its own members in a desperate attempt to dissuade them and ensure they are following the pro-Ukrainian war plans. Hungary has actually suffered an action that would be expected for NATO against any external, non-member country, but not against a European state integrated into the bloc, despite its distinct views on foreign policy.

Just as there was a plot to circumvent national norms, there is also a possibility of a plot to cause real damage or even eliminate Orban and other key figures in the Hungarian government. NATO has simply shown that Budapest is not immune to becoming a target of sabotage, ending once and for all any kind of trust between Hungarians and their other Western “partners.”

Without trust, there is no unity in a military alliance. Perhaps NATO is contributing to its own decline by promoting such acts of sabotage, since it is destroying the alliance’s credibility and image among the public.

Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies and military expert.

November 1, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

The US Secretary of Defense is Ready to Fight a Nuclear War over Korea

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | October 31, 2024

Few Americans today would try to justify the United States government taking part in the Korean War in the 1950s. Even most of those who would make such an attempt would ground their argument in asserting there was a special need back then, as part of the Cold War, to prevent the expansion of communism.

The Cold War is long over. So, why are still today tens of thousands of US soldiers in South Korea, and many more nearby, ready to resume fighting in the long paused Korean War at a moment’s notice? Inertia? Bloodlust? Reluctance of the military bureaucracy to give up any of its size and scope? The desire of the military-industrial complex to wring every possible dollar it can from the American people?

None of these reasons seems very persuasive. Instead of preparing to restart the war that wrought enormous death and destruction the first time around, US officials should be preparing for the US military to finally exit Korea.

Yet, there was US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on Wednesday not just saying he has declared to the South Korea defense minister “that the United States remains fully committed to the defense” of South Korea. Further, Austin pledged that the US government’s “extended deterrence commitment” to South Korea “remains ironclad” and that that commitment “is backed by the full range of America’s conventional, missile defense, nuclear and advanced non-nuclear capabilities.”

There you go, the US secretary of defense is threatening going nuclear in a war for which the now generally rejected reason for the US becoming involved in it disappeared decades ago. The defense secretary is mad for war. In this condition he reflects US government policy.

November 1, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Splurge On Defense Spending, Ukraine Aid: Digesting UK Labour Government’s New Budget

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 31.10.2024

UK new government is raising taxes by more than $50 billion amid a widening budget deficit, While PM Starmer last week allocated 120 million pounds to Ukraine for military spending.

UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves has delivered the new Labor government’s first budget.

What’s in it?

There will be an increase of around £2.9 billion ($3.76 billion) next year in the Ministry of Defense’s budget.

The UK will give Ukraine a new £2.26 billion ($2.9 billion) military loan, Reeves announced earlier in October. The loan is to be repaid using profits on illegally frozen Russian sovereign assets.

“Ensuring the UK comfortably exceeds our NATO commitments and providing guaranteed military support to Ukraine of £3 billion [$3.8 billion] per year, for as long as it takes,” Reeves told MPs.

Boosted military spending was slammed as “an insult to all those struggling during a cost-of-living crisis and diverts funds from underfunded public services” by Peace Pledge Union campaigner Geoff Tibbs.

“This government is addicted to war and yet again money is earmarked for weapons to continue wars in Ukraine and the Middle East,” said founding member of the Stop the War Coalition Lindsey German.

What Else Is in the Budget?

  • The budget will hit taxpayers with £40 billion (~$51.8 billion) in tax rises. The amount businesses will pay on their employees’ national insurance contributions will increase from 13.8% to 15% from April 2025. The rise in taxes is the largest since former PM John Major’s government in 1993.
  • Households won’t be entitled to the Winter Fuel Payment from winter 2024/2025 (unless receiving Pension Credit/other means-tested benefits).
  • Taxes on capital gains and inheritance are to be raised. The freeze on income tax thresholds will end in 2028/29 (to be later uprated in line with inflation).
  • Fiscal rules will be tweaked to allow more space for borrowing. A broader measure of government finances, known as “public sector net financial liabilities” (PSNFL), will reportedly include student loans and other financial assets.

What Has the Office for Budget Responsibility Said?

“This budget delivers one of the largest increases in spending, tax and borrowing of any single fiscal event in history,” OBR chair Richard Hughes said.

  • The UK budget deficit was £49 billion ($63.5 billion) in 2023/24, equivalent to 1.8% of GDP. Britain’s budget deficit is projected to be £26.2 billion ($33.9 billion) in the 2025/26 financial year.
  • The budget will push up inflation and interest rates, while the pace of economic growth will peak next year at 2% before falling back to around 1.5%.
  • Average interest rates on the stock of mortgages are expected to rise from around 3.7% in 2024 to a peak of 4.5% in 2027.
  • Inflation will remain above the Bank of England’s 2% target until 2029.
  • Budget policies will increase UK borrowing by £19.6 billion ($25.4 billion) this year and by an average of £32.3 billion ($41.9 billion) over the next five years.

Both Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have blamed the preceding Conservative government for all of the country’s economic woes. During the election campaign, Reeves claimed that if victorious, Labour would get the “worst economic inheritance since World War Two.” Last year, Reeves told the Financial Times : “Taxes are at a 70-year high — I don’t have plans to be a big tax-raising chancellor.”

October 31, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Kiev regime trying to interfere in Germany’s domestic politics

By Lucas Leiroz | October 30, 2024

Ukraine is apparently trying to interfere in the domestic politics of its European “partners.” Recently, the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany tried to pressure German political parties not to cooperate with parties or public figures who oppose the military aid program to Kiev. This shows how desperate the neo-Nazi regime is to prevent any decrease in its international support, as this would mean the end of its military capability.

Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, Aleksey Makeev, has recently launched a blackmail campaign against local political parties that advocate a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian conflict. Makeev has publicly stated that all leading German politicians should avoid any involvement in projects aimed at reducing or ending Germany’s participation in the war against the Russian Federation.

The statement came shortly after the establishment of the so-called “Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance” (BSW), a coalition of political parties and social movements opposed to German participation in the war. The group is being led by the well-known German left-wing leader Sahra Wagenknecht. According to Sahra, there needs to be “more diplomatic efforts,” and it is not right for Berlin to engage in military initiatives.

“We need more diplomatic efforts (…) There is a good peace plan by Brazil and China. I hope that Germany and the EU will support such initiatives (…) It is not about being a friend or enemy to Russia, but about peace in Europe and [ending] the war in Ukraine. Without peace, everything else is nothing (…) (Germany became) an internationally respected voice that mediates in conflicts and advocates diplomacy,” she said at the time.

Apparently, despite the hegemonic status of the anti-Russian lobby in Germany, the proposal has taken the attention of many local politicians and activists, which is why Ukraine decided to “react”. The Ukrainian ambassador announced that local “democratic parties” should avoid participating in such initiatives, considering “intolerable” any possibility of Berlin cooperating with a diplomatic solution project.

“If politicians from democratic parties need support in dealing with the intolerable ultimatums of non-democratic actors, particularly in foreign policy matters, I am ready to share my own experience of negotiating with Russia,” he said.

The ambassador’s words were just the continuation of a series of recent statements against any form of alliance with pro-peace activists in Germany. Previously, he had already said that no party should “give in” to the BSW. He called all German anti-war activists “populists”, suggesting that any peace initiatives are mere meaningless populist rhetoric.

“Anyone who adopts the slogans of the BSW will only lose themselves. Democratic parties must not allow populists at either the regional or the federal level to dissuade them from solidarity with Ukraine,” he said.

It is important to emphasize that the Ukrainian Embassy is not merely criticizing the initiative. Such an attitude would be natural for Kiev, since the regime is in the midst of an armed conflict with Moscow. But what is happening is actually deeper. The Ukrainian ambassador is simply demanding that German parties not take part in a movement that has emerged in Germany itself. In other words, he is trying to tell German politicians what to do in their own country.

It is not surprising that Ukraine is using its diplomatic apparatus to lobby for war. While this practice is wrong and reprehensible – since the very purpose of diplomacy is to avoid war – there is nothing really surprising in this case, considering that the Kiev regime is simply implementing the same practices that have already become commonplace among its Western allies and sponsors.

The Ukrainian action is motivated by desperation and fear. The Zionist lobby feels “threatened” by the BSW initiative. The coalition showed interesting electoral results in key German regions such as Brandenburg, Saxony and Thuringia, where it achieved around 15% of the vote – concluding the regional elections in third place. There has been a growth of anti-war sentiment in some cities in the former East Germany, where people usually have very critical views of Berlin’s foreign policy.

However, unlike its Western sponsors, Ukraine does not have enough power to profoundly influence the domestic politics of other countries. The lobby that the Ukrainian embassy is promoting is likely to fail, as popular dissatisfaction with the pro-war stance of the German government is growing. In the end, all Ukrainian blackmail efforts will prove useless, as it is inevitable that there will be a growth of anti-war initiatives in Germany – both among politicians and among ordinary people.

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Concerts, restaurants, nightlife – Kiev regime hunting for conscripts

By Ahmed Adel | October 30, 2024

Ukraine is struggling to recruit troops to reinforce its front lines amid thousands of casualties in nearly three years of conflict. Under these conditions, the Kiev regime is hunting for recruits in places that were once off-limit, such as “upscale venues,” whilst also becoming increasingly reliant on foreign mercenaries to perform special operations.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Kiev regime has expanded its search network for military recruits to include “upscale venues” and “nightlife spots,” which is creating more social tension.

Even as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky tries to secure more weapons and security guarantees from the US government, the “biggest immediate problem” in Ukraine is recruiting more soldiers, the US outlet said. To deal with this issue, the Kiev regime recently lowered the age of compulsory military service to 25 and imposed additional penalties for draft dodgers, seeking to bring more soldiers to the front lines in the face of advancing Russian forces.

However, the newspaper said that most of the men who wanted to join the Ukrainian armed forces had already done so, while others had fled the country or were in hiding to avoid being drafted. Some prominent figures, including state prosecutors, are also avoiding joining the military by claiming medical exemptions.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the military is stepping up its recruitment campaigns in public places in the capital and other major cities. Military agents check concert halls, grocery stores, and even luxury restaurants in the port city of Odessa.

Mathieu Boulègue, a researcher at the Transatlantic Defence and Security Programme at the Centre for European Political Analysis, believes “there is no easy solution” to Ukraine’s troop shortage.

“That is unfortunately a critical issue that you cannot solve by sending stuff over, short of sending Western troops,” the researcher told the American outlet.

Some Ukrainian officials, cited by the outlet, said they were building up reserves of conscripts to replace those who had lost their jobs. However, they warned that mobilising new troops would not be effective without “more Western supplies to arm new recruits properly.”

The deployment of new Ukrainian troops is not just a military problem for Kiev, the Wall Street Journal noted, but also a growing social and political issue for Zelensky.

“Among soldiers who have been serving on the front line for nearly three years, resentment is building against men avoiding military service,” while scandals continue to emerge involving officials who allegedly accept bribes to grant exemptions.

For this reason, the Kiev regime is increasingly reliant on foreign mercenaries to perform military operations since the citizenry does not provide enough soldiers. In effect, the presence of foreign mercenaries demonstrates the extreme shortage of experienced troops in Ukraine.

In the latest example, foreign mercenaries from the US, Canada and Poland, likely on a sabotage mission or raid, attempted to breach Russia’s Bryansk Oblast on October 27. The special operations mission the mercenaries were assigned required highly skilled operators capable of sabotage or reconnaissance, so given the lack of such people in the Ukrainian military, it is reasonable that they would turn to foreigners.

Emphasising this point is the fact a tattoo was discovered on the body of one of the eliminated foreigners, indicating that he was a member of the elite 75th Ranger Regiment of the US Army.

The discovery of the mercenary group makes a mockery of the West’s claim that soldiers from North Korea are fighting in Ukraine since it is Ukraine suffering from a shortage of troops and relying on foreigners. In fact, it is clear that the West planned the operation rather than Ukraine.

While South Korea and the Kiev regime spread fake news that North Korean troops are fighting in Ukraine, about 15,000 mercenaries from more than 100 countries have arrived in the country since February 2022 to join Ukrainian forces.

According to a Russian Defence Ministry report, Western secret services recruit mercenaries through the US private military companies Academi (formerly Blackwater), Cubic, Dark Horse Benefits, Dean Corporation, Forward Observations Group, Hyperion Services, and Sons of Liberty International, as well as the Polish ASBS Othago and the European Security Academy. At the same time, mercenaries are recruited by neo-Nazi and right-wing organisations from Germany, Italy, Portugal and other countries.

With Ukraine’s best troops dead, wounded or exhausted, the Kiev regime is now hunting for recruits all over the country, including in places that were once considered off-limits. This only deepens Kiev’s reliance on foreign mercenaries and, more importantly, demonstrates the hopeless position that the regime is in.

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

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Zelensky Requests Tomahawk Missiles as Part of Non-Nuclear Deterrence Package – Reports

Sputnik – 29.10.2024

The clause on a “non-nuclear deterrence package” that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky requested as part of his “victory plan” included long-range Tamahawk missiles, US media reported on Tuesday, citing US officials.

The anonymous US officials have expressed what the newspaper described as exasperation with Zelensky’s new plan, which they consider unrealistic and dependent almost entirely on Western aid.

One senior official addressed, in particular, the plan’s clause on a “non-nuclear deterrence package,” which has not been made public but reportedly includes a request for Tomahawk missiles. The official considers this request totally unfeasible, as cited in the report, as Tomahawk’s 1,500-mile range is more than seven times farther than that of the ATACMS missiles, which the US sent to Ukraine this year after long deliberations.

Moreover, the White House is hesitant to send Ukraine the missiles which it believes may serve a better purpose in the Middle East or Asia, as Kiev’s list of potential targets inside Russia requires far more missiles that Washington initially earmarked, the official was cited as saying.

Zelensky unveiled his “victory plan” in mid-October, insisting that it could help end the conflict in Ukraine no later than 2025. The document includes five clauses and three secret addendums. In particular, the Ukrainian leader proposes inviting Ukraine to NATO, lifting restrictions on strikes deep into Russian territory, and deploying a “comprehensive non-nuclear deterrence package” in Ukraine.

Zelensky’s plan drew criticism in the EU and NATO for outlining in detail the multiple obligations of Ukraine’s Western allies but not assigning any to Kiev itself. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed it as a set of incoherent slogans which pushed NATO into a direct conflict with Russia, while Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the real peace plan for Kiev would be to realize the futility of the Ukrainian policy. He said that Kiev should “wake up” and understand the reasons that led it to the conflict.

October 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

China demands that US stop militarizing space

RT | October 28, 2024

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has urged the US to stop the militarization of space and to refrain from actions that threaten global security. The warning comes days after Washington announced plans for the first delivery of satellite jammers.

Speaking at a press conference on Monday, the ministry’s spokesman Lin Jian said that Beijing insists on the peaceful use of what it called outer space and opposes the arms race and the placement of weapons there.

“China once again urges the US to stop spreading irresponsible remarks, stop expanding military build-up in outer space, and make due contribution to upholding the lasting peace and security in outer space,” Lin said, when asked to comment on China’s response to the potential threat to its satellites from US ground-based jammers.

The spokesman stressed that China is not planning to participate in a space race with any country and is not seeking space superiority. He also said that Washington openly defines space as a war zone, continues to expand its space capabilities and is working to establish a military alliance in outer space.

Last week Bloomberg reported, citing the US Space Force, that the first five of a planned 32 weapons meant to jam Chinese and Russian satellites in the early stage of a possible conflict could be declared operational between January and March 2025. The Counter Communications System known as Meadowlands is more than two years behind schedule.

Technological weaponry of this type is intended to cause temporary damage in a conflict “to counter the growing number of Chinese and Russian space systems,” the news agency noted.

The Pentagon has repeatedly accused China of amassing anti-satellite weapons, voicing concerns about the country’s focus on space-war capabilities. The Chinese government has denied the allegations, saying that Washington poses the greatest threat to security in space and is the main instigator behind the militarization of its various domains.

Washington has voiced similar allegations against Russia on multiple occasions, suggesting that Moscow has undisclosed anti-satellite capabilities that, it claims, are possibly nuclear in nature. The Kremlin has dismissed the insinuations as unfounded, saying that they are merely a smokescreen intended to distract from Washington’s own military activities in space.

October 28, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

Israel’s ‘zugzwang’ moment with Iran

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | October 28, 2024  

A senior US official told Washington Post that the toned-down early morning Israeli strike Saturday on military targets in Iran was a “proportional strike,” which “was moderate enough to quiet the conflict without provoking Iran into a counterattack.” 

However, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted in a speech on Sunday: “We hit hard Iran’s defence capabilities and its ability to produce missiles that are aimed at us. The attack in Iran was precise and powerful, and it achieved all its objectives.”

But within Israel itself, there is scepticism. Israel’s most popular news outlet Channel 12 called the operation insignificant and demonstrated Iran’s status as a major power in the region. Netanyahu has not released any reliable documentation to back up his claim, which he usually does. 

NourNews lampooned that Israeli psychological war against Iran has not worked. Israel hoped to stir up panic that there might be an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations but normal life continues in Iran. It appears that Israel was neither inclined to carry out an extensive attack nor was incapable of conducting such an operation without greater American involvement — or both. Iran’s attack on October 1 badly exposed the weakness of Israeli air defence system.  

So, the bottom line is that Israel may have succeeded in conducting a limited predawn operation against Iran without excessively increasing the chances of an all-out war.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on Sunday that the “evil committed by the Zionist regime two nights ago should neither be downplayed nor exaggerated”. Khamenei added: “Of course, our officials should be the ones to assess and precisely apprehend what needs to be done and do whatever is in the best interests of this country and nation. They [the enemy] must be made to realize who the Iranian people are and what the Iranian youth are like.”

Khamenei’s remark suggests that an immediate military response is not planned. Indeed, Tehran has been playing down the Israeli strike, saying it caused limited damage. 

The foreign ministry said in a statement on Saturday that given Iran’s “inherent right of legitimate defence” under UN Charter, “Tehran will utilise all material and spiritual capabilities of the Iranian nation to defend its security and vital interests, and firmly stand by its duties towards regional peace and security.” 

The statement drew attention to Israeli operations in Gaza and Lebanon, but, notably, kept silent on any Iranian response to Saturday’s air strike. 

Iran will no doubt weigh the unprecedented diplomatic support from the regional states. This is a moment that Tehran cherishes, as apparent in Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s words: “Since yesterday [Saturday] until now, we are regularly receiving messages from different countries, the statements they issued, the level of condemnation from different countries both in the region. It is really remarkable that it took place at this international level.”

Other statements at the military level played down the Israeli attack saying the air defences intercepted it successfully and only “some limited damage was caused in some areas, the dimensions of which are being investigated.” The public mood in Tehran is one of high expectations from the Pezeshkian government on the economic front. 

Javad Zarif, former foreign minister and current strategic adviser to the government, also made no direct threat of retaliation, saying, “The west should move away from its outdated and dangerous paradigm. It must condemn Israel’s recent acts of aggression and join Iran in efforts to end the apartheid, genocide and violence in Palestine and Gaza, and in Lebanon. Recognising Iran’s confident resolve for peace is essential; this unique opportunity should not be missed.” [Emphasis added.] 

The Israeli strike did not take Tehran by surprise. In a “scoop”, Axios reported that Israel sent a message to Iran on Friday ahead of its air strikes warning the latter not to respond in “an attempt to limit the ongoing exchange of attacks between Israel and Iran and prevent a wider escalation.”

The message from Tel Aviv conveyed through third parties “made it clear to the Iranians in advance what they [Israelis] are going to attack in general and what they are not going to attack.” 

Apparently, the US pressured Israel to calibrate its proposed attack as a “proportionate response”. This becomes hugely important in the downstream, as the Biden Administration’s efforts will continue to prevent conflict between Israel and Iran escalating into a confrontation. 

To be sure, Iran will press ahead on the diplomatic track. Interestingly, the Jerusalem Post newspaper highlighted that Araghchi’s hectic tours of regional capitals are “important because he is not only visiting countries that are close to Iran historically or where Iran has interests, such as Lebanon or Iraq; rather, he is doing outreach to countries that have peace with Israel and which are close to the West, such as Jordan and Egypt… 

“This shows how Iran is gaining influence in Jordan and Egypt. Egypt and Iran have been on a road to reconciliation, for instance. In addition, Iran and Saudi Arabia have reconciled with China’s backing. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince was also in Cairo this week, illustrating how a triangle of ties between Cairo and Tehran is emerging.” 

Meanwhile, Tehran will closely watch the November 5 presidential and Congressional elections in the US. In the event of a Kamala Harris presidency, the resumption of nuclear negotiations is highly likely. On the contrary, a Donald Trump presidency may presage a difficult 4-year period ahead, but here too, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proximity with Trump to calm down tensions between Washington and Tehran should be factored in.

A paradigm shift cannot be ruled out, either. Trump is a quintessential pragmatist who disregarded criticism to engage North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un in a dramatic turnaround, and is not known to be enamoured of Zionism.

Trump boasted on Wednesday of almost daily conversations with Netanyahu. “Bibi called me yesterday, called me the day before,” Trump said. Trump had already reported a telephone conversation with Netanyahu on Saturday, claiming that the latter “wants my view on things.” 

Conceivably, Trump’s repeated call for Israel to swiftly defeat Hamas and wrap up the war in Gaza, stems from the apprehension that otherwise, if he wins the upcoming November 5 election, a clash with Iran may become unavoidable. 

The US is a far superior military power compared to Iran. But this is a war of attrition that is being fought on multiple fronts. And there is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare. Trump abhors open-ended US military interventions. And Iranians are known to be highly nationalistic and subjugating them is impossible. 

A prolonged war can result in US retrenchment from West Asia and the destruction of Israel — and may jeopardise Trump’s mesmerising MAGA movement.  

Against this tumultuous backdrop, what are Israel’s options? There seems to be no way out of the war in West Asia but the catch is, it won’t be the sort of war Israel is hoping for, let alone can win. 

Seymour Hersh wrote in Substack on Tuesday, “I’ve heard nothing from contacts in Beirut close to Hezbollah — whose troops are putting up a stiff fight as they did in Hezbollah’s 2006 war against Israel — that suggests anything other than a long war ahead…” 

Israel is a small country and it keeps its head above water thanks to American money. It lacks the capacity to wage a war with Iran on its own steam. The Israeli planes reportedly flew to Iran through US-controlled air space in Syria and Iraq!

The situation is turning into a ‘zugzwang’ in real life for Israel. Anything that Israel does will only make the situation worse, and it doesn’t have a choice not to make a choice, either.

October 28, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »