Ukraine’s ‘Victory Plan’ Is Delusional
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | September 28, 2024
In the past two years the western establishment media has effectively obscured the reality on the ground in Ukraine. Only recently has it become clear to the public that the tales we’ve heard about Russia imploding due to “bad tactics” and “throwing bodies into the meat grinder” in exchange for irrelevant territory have all been a fantasy. The problem is, propagandists often end up believing their own propaganda and then they are caught completely by surprise down the road when reality slaps them in the face.
Russian offensive actions in the east have greatly accelerated and now in the south the vital city of Vuhledar is set to fall within a couple days (if it hasn’t already). Their attrition based strategy and artillery superiority have created a shield for small fast moving units to strike Ukraine’s trenches and fixed defenses, and their drone game has dramatically improved. This has led them to capture multiple towns and cities in the past three months, with their forces closing in on the key eastern operational base of Pokrovsk. If Pokrovsk falls, the entire east of Ukraine could easily fall.
Beyond the shift to attrition tactics, Russia is gaining territory quickly because Ukraine is low on manpower. No amount of NATO technology or weaponry is going to help this fundamental weakness. This is the reality in Ukraine; they are losing the war.
The western media is unable to gloss over the situation any longer, which means something dramatic will have to happen to change the course of the war in Ukraine’s favor. Their government is scrambling to initiate an October surprise in preparation for the US elections in November. The US runs NATO, and Ukraine is entirely dependent on US aid.
The notion of a Ukrainian “Victory Plan” is by itself questionable given the circumstances, but what is reportedly contained in Vladimir Zelensky’s strategy seems to be an over-optimistic wish list relying heavily on escalation between NATO and Russia. In other words, the only way Ukraine can “win” is for NATO to engage in open warfare with the East.
While the full plan hasn’t been divulged, senior U.S. officials who are familiar with its contents don’t see anything original or innovative in it. As one told The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 25, “I’m unimpressed, there’s not much new there.” From what we can grasp, the “victory plan” is less a “plan” and more a continuation of Zelensky’s lobbying campaign to keep U.S. arms flowing in perpetuity.
Zelensky is dead-set on getting permission to use US and European long range missile systems against targets deep within Russia. The problem, as Vladimir Putin rightly noted, is that these systems cannot hit such targets accurately without NATO satellite intel and acquisition. Meaning, the missiles must be guided by US and European military technicians and assets.
It is likely that the majority of Ukrainian long range drone strikes within Russia are already being aided by NATO intel, but the use of ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles far from Ukraine’s front line is another matter entirely. There’s no plausible deniability for NATO involvement. The use of these weapons within Russia would be akin to a declaration of war and would trigger escalation outside of Ukraine.
What would the consequences be? Not necessarily the use of nuclear weapons (though Putin did just change his bottom line on a nuclear response to include long range attacks using NATO weapons), but the spread of more advanced Russian armaments to countries like China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and even the Houthis in Yemen is a good bet. Meaning a more significant threat to NATO interests in Asia and the Middle East. The war would spread.
So far the Biden Administration has refrained from supporting the long range option, but has offered another $8 billion in support. Under a Trump presidency, the money train is likely to stop abruptly.
Zelensky has offered no practical measures for negotiations, arguing that concessions are off the table. Furthermore, he claims that peace is only possible once Ukraine has taken back all territory seized by Russia, including Crimea which was annexed in 2014. He then demanded that Russia pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction and that Putin and a multitude of other Russian officials be handed over to be tried for war crimes. This is never going to happen.
The core of Ukraine’s victory plan relies on long range strikes using NATO guided missiles and acceptance into NATO. Both factors at this stage would cause WWIII.
Ukraine’s chest beating is the national equivalent of “short man’s syndrome.” That said, Zelensky would not be making these kinds of demands if he was not being encouraged by someone behind the scenes. Many officials within the US and Europe have given Zelensky delusions of grandeur about his chances, perhaps because they want the war to grind on forever. These same officials have hinted consistently that they will not accept a Ukrainian loss.
Regardless of what side people think should win, the fact is that Russia is the inevitable victor according to all the evidence on hand. While the extent of Putin’s goals in the region are unknown, it’s unlikely that he intends to march beyond Ukraine. He may simply stop at the edge of the Donbas and annex the region like he did Crimea.
This may actually be the best case scenario for all parties involved. The longer the war goes on the greater the chances of a powderkeg moment and a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. Ukraine should not be talking about “victory”, that time has come and gone. They should be talking about peace.
What’s Wrong with Boris Johnson’s Plan to “Save” Ukraine?
Johnson’s “three-fold plan for Ukrainian victory”
By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – September 29, 2024
A September 21, 2024 article published in The Spectator written by former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson titled, “It’s time to let Ukraine join NATO,” attempts to formulate a theory of victory for Ukraine as war with Russia continues to grind on.
Johnson demands that the collective West “end the delays” and that the West “get it done and get it won.” By this, he means lifting all restrictions on the use of Western long-range weapons on pre-2014 Russian territory.
Next, he demands the US and Europe provide a “package of loans on the scale of Lend-Lease: half a trillion dollars,” or “even a trillion.” Johnson claims such support will send a message to the Kremlin that, “we are going to out-gun you financially and back Ukraine on a scale you cannot hope to match.”
Western personnel have already been operating in Ukraine since 2014 and have continued to do so throughout Russia’s Special Military Operation
Finally, he demands Ukraine be allowed membership into NATO immediately, even as the conflict rages on. In respect to NATO’s Article 5 regarding “collective defense,” Johnson proposes that:
… we could extend the Article 5 security guarantee to all the Ukrainian territory currently controlled by Ukraine (or at the end of this fighting season), while reaffirming the absolute right of the Ukrainians to the whole of their 1991 nation. We could protect most of Ukraine, while simultaneously supporting the Ukrainian right to recapture the rest.
While Johnson points out the political implications of this policy, meaning all of NATO would, “have to commit to the defence of that Ukrainian territory,” he falls far short of considering the practical implications.
NATO Intervention in Ukraine: Political vs. Practical Considerations
Far from a lack of political will or financial resources, the collective West has fallen short supplying Ukraine with the military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and ammunition required to match or exceed Russian military capabilities because its collective military industrial base itself is incapable of physically producing the quantities required, regardless of the money allotted to do so.
Military industrial production requires several fundamental factors in order to be expanded – financial resources being only one of many. Expanding production also requires the physical enlargement of existing facilities, the building of new facilities, the expansion of trained workforces which includes reforming and expanding primary, secondary, and specialized education, as well as the expansion of downstream suppliers and the acquisition of additional raw materials required for production across the entire industrial base.
Any one of these measures could take years to implement. Implementing them all would take longer still.
Then there is the very structure of the collective West’s military industrial base. Consisting of corporations prioritizing the maximization of profits, not performance, the collective West’s military industrial base has for years focused on low quantities of highly-sophisticated (and very expensive) weapons systems and munitions.
For the duration of the so-called “Global War on Terror” these weapon systems were adequate, if inefficient. They enabled US-led forces to roll over the antiquated, poorly-trained, poorly-equipped Iraqi army in 1991 and again in 2003, as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. Such weapon systems also proved effective in the destruction of Libya in 2011.
But as the global balance of military and economic power has shifted throughout the 21st century, limits to this military industrial approach became apparent. In 2006, Israel’s vast Western-backed military machine categorically failed in its invasion of southern Lebanon, confounded by Hezbollah leveraging modern anti-tank weapons.
The US intervention in Syria from 2011 to present day also revealed the growing limitations of expensive Western military hardware, with 100s of cruise missiles fired at targets across Syria with limited success due to vastly better air and missile defenses than previous US adversaries possessed.
The Western media now admits waning US military support for Ukraine stems from dwindling stockpiles and an inability to quickly expand production.
CNN in its September 17, 2024 article titled, “US military aid packages to Ukraine shrink amid concerns over Pentagon stockpiles,” would admit:
US military aid packages for Ukraine have been smaller in recent months, as the stockpiles of weapons and equipment that the Pentagon is willing to send Kyiv from its own inventory have dwindled. The shift comes amid concerns about US military readiness being impacted as US arms manufacturers play catchup to the huge demand created by the war against Russia.
Nothing took place between September 17, 2024 when CNN published this report and September 21, 2024 when The Spectator published Boris Johnson’s article to change this reality. Johnson simply chose to ignore it.
NATO committing to the defense of Ukrainian-held territory would require sufficient quantities of artillery, armor, air and missile defense systems, and trained manpower – all of which the collective West, not just Ukraine, has in short supply.
In many ways, the collective West is already waging war against Russian forces. Western personnel have already been operating in Ukraine since 2014 and have continued to do so throughout Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) from 2022 onward. Russia has not hesitated to target and destroy Western equipment or the Western personnel operating it, though Russia has managed escalation very carefully in the process.
Were NATO to more openly intervene in what is already a NATO proxy war against Russia, Russian forces would likely continue targeting all of Ukraine’s territory while continuing to manage escalation carefully. NATO itself could escalate, using its long-range missiles and air power against Russian forces both within Ukraine and within pre-2014 Russian borders, but this would present two major problems.
First, if the West is already out of long-range weapons to transfer to Ukraine, its stockpiles having dwindled to critical levels, and having failed to expand production to reconstitute to them should any contingency of any kind fully deplete them, a more direct role in Ukraine would consume what arms and ammunition the West has left with no means of replacing them in the near-term.
Second, whatever impact the collective West imagines using the remnants of its arms and ammunition on Russia directly will have, it will leave the West far short of any material capabilities to conduct large scale war anywhere else in the world, including in the Middle East against Iran and its allies and across the Asia-Pacific region against China – two areas of concern Johnson himself mentions in his article.
Boris Johnson claims:
If you are truly worried about ‘escalation’, then imagine what happens if Ukraine loses this war – because that is when things really would begin to escalate. Ukraine won’t lose but if it did, we would have the risk of escalation across the whole periphery of the former Soviet empire, including the border with Poland, wherever Putin thought that aggression would pay off.
We would probably see escalation in the South China seas and in the Middle East. We would see a general escalation of global tension and violence because a Ukrainian defeat, and a victory for Putin, would be not only a tragedy for a young, brave and beautiful country; it would mean the global collapse of western credibility.
What Johnson means by “western credibility,” is Western primacy. By “escalation in the South China seas and in the Middle East,” Johnson means regional players displacing unwarranted US-led occupation and interference. Johnson’s plan to commit the West’s waning military power to Ukraine means forfeiting the means to cling to primacy elsewhere around the globe.
Johnson’s plan to incorporate Ukraine into NATO would not be a master stroke up-ending Russia’s escalation dominance, it would be the forfeiture of NATO’s own escalatory leverage regarding Article 5. Success for NATO would depend entirely on Russia failing to call the West’s bluff and avoiding the targeting of Ukrainian territory once NATO intervenes directly.
A very similar strategy was used in Syria by the United States as a means to reverse the flagging fortunes of its proxies there. The US, instead, at most managed to create a stalemate. Over the past nearly 10 years the US has occupied eastern Syria, its position in Syria as well as in the rest of the region has waned.
Part of this stems from the US’ inability to field a large enough military force, armed with sufficient numbers of arms and munitions. US air and missile defense systems in particular are in short supply and have opened up US forces in Syria and Iraq to regular drone, rocket, and missile strikes, compromising US military supremacy in the region.
By stretching US and European military power out even thinner by committing large numbers of troops and equipment to a direct intervention in Ukraine only means accelerating the decline of US-led Western primacy around the globe even faster.
Johnson’s plan to “save” Ukraine is borne of desperation, predicated on either a poor understanding of the fundamental factors required for its success, or deliberately ignoring these factors.
It is also a plan born of a lack of imagination. For Boris Johnson and the Western special interests he represents, the only possible future for humanity is one dominated by the West, just as it has done for the past several centuries.
The ultimate irony, however, is Johnson’s mention of a “Soviet empire” he claims Russian President Vladimir Putin is intent on rebuilding. At one point, Johnson claims:
The message is: that’s it. It’s over. You don’t have an empire anymore. You don’t have a ‘near abroad’ or a ‘sphere of influence’. You don’t have the right to tell the Ukrainians what to do, any more than we British have the right to tell our former colonies what to do. It is time for Putin to understand that Russia can have a happy and glorious future, but that like Rome and like Britain, the Russians have decisively joined the ranks of the post-imperial powers, and a good thing, too.
Yet, the conflict in Ukraine stems directly from NATO expansion toward Russia’s borders. It was never a matter of Russia telling Ukraine what to do – it was always a matter of the US politically capturing Ukraine in 2014 and transforming it into a national security threat to Russia from 2014 onward.
Russia is responding to the expansion of a modern-day empire – not in any sort of effort to create its own empire. The empire Russia opposes in Ukraine [Zionist globalism] is the same empire Johnson fears will be challenged in the Middle East and the South China Sea should its proxy war fail in Ukraine. While Johnson accuses Russia of being out of touch with reality regarding imagined imperial ambitions in Moscow, his plan reflects very real delusions associated with a desperate desire to perpetuate the US-led “international order” the UK itself is so deeply invested in.
Boris Johnson’s attempt to build policy regarding the West’s proxy war in Ukraine without a sufficient foundation is a recipe for disaster – the same sort of disaster this proxy war in Ukraine has precipitated that Johnson’s desperate plans are meant to address in the first place.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.
Israel’s new quagmire: a ground invasion of Lebanon
By Mohamad Hasan Sweidan | The Cradle | September 28, 2024
On 26 September, the Israeli army announced the conclusion of a brigade exercise simulating a ground operation in Lebanon, several kilometers from the shared border. In the past two days, several Israeli military officials, including Chief of Staff Herzi Halevy and Northern Commander Uri Gordin, have spoken about the occupation army’s readiness to execute ground operations in Lebanon.
But how can Tel Aviv realistically conceive of launching ground troops into a country that has not once, but twice, managed to expel occupation forces, to engage in combat against an adversary – Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah – that is far better armed and organized than in years past?
Features of the Israeli strategy so far
Since the start of its recent escalation with Lebanon, Israel appears to be executing its war on five simultaneous tracks. First, it seeks to strike Hezbollah’s command and control system, mainly through targeted assassinations against key resistance military leaders, the most recent target being drone unit commander Abu Saleh Sorour.
Second is to directly strike Hezbollah’s military capabilities based on an existing bank of targets established by Tel Aviv: Last Monday, the Israelis announced that they had successfully struck 1,600 resistance military targets, including weapons depots, missile stores, and launching pads. Notably, they claimed the same kinds of successful strikes in the July 2006 war, which turned out to be grossly inaccurate.
Third, Israel aims to apply internal Lebanese pressure on Hezbollah by harming its constituents, supporters, and even detractors. Tel Aviv has intensified its bloody targeting of civilian populations and areas in the past two weeks, killing over 728 civilians, injuring thousands, and displacing nearly 390,000 people, according to official Lebanese government data.
Fourth, is an attempt to influence the broad, general Lebanese environment to turn against the resistance through systematic media campaigns – in cooperation with Lebanese media outlets and personalities who parrot Israel’s intimidation narratives in order to tame and curb Hezbollah’s actions. The fifth and final track, so far, is the growing threat and preparation for an Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon – albeit a limited one – with a goal to confirm Israeli field superiority by controlling Lebanese areas, even for short periods.
Hezbollah’s reactions?
Naturally, the resistance intends to thwart Israel’s strategies through a set of interconnected steps. After each assassination, Hezbollah confirms that its command and control system remains unaffected, then launches a controlled escalation to confirm its readiness in the face of enemy shocks. This was evident on 24 September, when Hezbollah launched a 300+ missile strike the day after Israel’s air campaign, essentially to confirm that its missile capabilities were locked and loaded, ready to go.
As in past Israeli confrontations with Hezbollah, the latter’s support base remains largely consistent and supportive of the resistance’s escalatory plans. Separating Hezbollah from its incubating environment is an Israeli strategy that has repeatedly failed, mainly because the resistance’s rank and file originate from this very society.
Finally, Israel’s goal of turning Lebanese public opinion against the resistance has not advanced, to date. Rather, Israeli aggressions have increased national cohesion, particularly after the occupation state’s pager terror attack, except in some limited cases.
The fifth track: ground invasion of Lebanon
In recent days, discussions about the possibility of an Israeli ground incursion into Lebanon have increased markedly. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has boasted that military operations against Lebanon will continue “at full strength to ensure Hezbollah is “significantly weakened,” and has rejected international calls for an immediate ceasefire.
The army’s chief of staff also instructed Israeli forces to prepare for a possible ground attack for the purpose of establishing an Israeli buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Operationally, the occupation army is preparing for this possibility by running training drills and summoning two reserve brigades to the northern front.
According to Western and Israeli sources, there are several scenarios for a possible Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon, with each scenario offering different strategic objectives and risks:
First, is a limited ground action inside Lebanese territory with the aim of striking specific Hezbollah targets near the border, such as missile launch sites, or clearing an area to prevent the resistance from carrying out attacks on Israel. This would be a short-term action used to pressure the party in ceasefire negotiations. At this point, if Tel Aviv chooses the option of ground action, this will be the most likely scenario.
Second, is a limited ground incursion to push resistance forces to retreat from the border, specifically to reduce the range of anti-tank guided missiles that Hezbollah possesses. Israeli military commanders have indicated this option would serve to create a “security zone” extending 8 to 10 kilometers inside Lebanese territory. Notably, this scenario increases the likelihood of prolonged fighting and higher Israeli human and military losses.
Third, is a complete ground invasion of Lebanon – the most extreme scenario – with the goal of destroying Hezbollah’s capabilities. Currently, this scenario remains highly unlikely due to its extremely high-risk profile – and given that Tel Aviv’s near-term goal is not to destroy Hezbollah but rather to alter the security challenges on its border with Lebanon.
Attack where?
An Israeli ground attack – limited or expansive – is expected to focus on specific geographic areas in Lebanon, mainly the south, where Tel Aviv wants its Hezbollah-free buffer zone, or the Bekaa region that flanks the Syrian border. Israel envisages a scenario similar to the status quo in southern Lebanon in the 1990s, in which it maintained a security zone to limit Hezbollah’s access to the border – before being purged by resistance commandos in 2000.
Conversely, a limited Israeli ground action in the Bekaa would be to impact and tighten Hezbollah’s logistical and weapons supply routes from Syria, either by cutting off land routes between Lebanon and Syria or by cutting supply lines between the Bekaa and the south. The groundwork there will be a continuation of Israeli air strikes in the Bekaa, which targeted four main border crossings with Syria – Al-Arrayedh, Mutariba, Saleh, and Qabsh.
Most western analysts are not optimistic about the Israeli army succeeding in executing ground operations in Lebanon, given Hezbollah’s enhanced and sophisticated capabilities to confront such an action. In a Washington Post article, writer Max Boot says this wild option “would be another quagmire for Israel.” From Tel Aviv’s perspective, the best-case scenario would be that its air campaign succeeds in halting the Lebanese support front for Gaza and allows displaced Israeli settlers to return to their homes in northern Israel.
But with no imminent resolution of its conflict with Lebanon likely – given Netanyahu’s refusal to entertain a northern ceasefire, let alone a Gaza one – the possibility of an Israeli ground action in Lebanon increases, despite the extraordinary risks for the occupation army. From its recent battle history with Lebanon’s resistance, in which Israel has lost face, Tel Aviv knows well that its air superiority is matched only by Hezbollah’s ground advantage.
Biden’s Last QUAD summit: All substance and no real Action
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – September 27, 2024
When Biden hosted the leaders of the Quadrilateral Security Group (QUAD) from India, Australia, and Japan in the US in 2021, they did not directly mention China. Still, the emphasis on “shared security and prosperity” was an unmistakable reference to a joint mechanism to counter Beijing’s influence in the Indo-Pacific, particularly.
One would have expected the Biden administration to leave a legacy of a significantly functional mechanism producing collective security and prosperity at the end of its era in 2024. But, as it turns out, QUAD remains where it was in 2021: a club that hosts little more than tea parties to mean anything. The club, as the Indian Prime Minister remarked after the latest summit, is “here to stay”. The question, however, is: will it, or can it, turn into more than a club for occasional gatherings to talk about abstract geopolitics? It is quite unlikely. Donald Trump’s victory will dampen it even further. If Harris wins, she is unlikely to introduce any major changes from the Biden administration, for obvious reasons (she is currently part of the same administration!).
The Last Summit: What is new?
The last summit is, therefore, no different from the earlier ones insofar as it offers little more than a set of “commitments”, and occasional references to “unity”, “democracy” and certain joint ventures, such as Maritime Initiative for Training in the Indo-Pacific (MAITRI). Apparently a new initiative, MAITRI is backed by little to nothing actionable and concrete. It aims to equip partner countries with “tools” that they will use “to monitor and secure their waters, enforce their laws, and deter unlawful behavior”. Who will fund this initiative? What counts as “unlawful behaviour” and what exact action will be taken against those involved in any unlawful activity are some of the ‘black holes’ that need massive filling before this initiative can qualify to acquire any geostrategic significance. There are other concerns too.
While the joint statement mentions China several times, it does not mention Russia at all. Although it refers to Ukraine, the fact that it does not refer to Russia is due to the nature of Indian ties with Moscow. What does this mean for the future of QUAD? No references to any threats other than those emerging from, or associated with, China leave QUAD a club squarely and singularly focused on China. Is this an advantage or a disadvantage?
The China Factor
Being squarely anti-China means QUAD can never sell itself to the wider region as a framework of security. Had QUAD been a general framework of security, it could have attracted several other countries from the region. However, it is unable to do this because a large number of countries in the region do not wish to gang up against China due to the nature of their ties with Beijing. For instance, there is probably not a single example where a country from this region, which is not a QUAD member, ever endorsed anything QUAD said or did. In other words, QUAD operates in a disconnected regional space as an abstract idea rather than as a force to be reckoned with.
This is despite the fact that the latest QUAD summit categorically said China is “testing us”. Conversely, QUAD is “testing” China, but China’s advantage is that it does not have many real regional rivals. That includes India too.
Now, PM Modi thinks that QUAD is here to stay, but the exact purpose it will serve for him is far from clear to other QUAD members. Consider the bilateral trade volume, for instance. It has already reached US$118 billion in 2024. Despite so-called “tensions”, the overall trade grew by 1.5 per cent in terms of year-on-year growth. More significantly, QUAD downplays the role – and the possibility – of regional countries utilising bilateral channels for dispute resolution. Is QAUD the only mechanism that, for instance, PM Modi might depend upon in the wake of another border clash with China?
Bilateralism Trumps QUAD’s Multilateralism
Let’s see what both India and China have done in the past two years. Instead of relying on QUAD, New Delhi happens to have preferred meetings and regular interaction with China at the Corps Commander level. According to data shared by India’s Ministry of Home Affairs, 21 meetings have been held until February 2024. None of these meetings either involved any third party, nor did New Delhi stress a multilateral approach for ‘effective’ dispute resolution. The Indian readout stressed the friendly and amicable nature of talks.
This is not the only mechanism. Since 2012, the Working Mechanism for Consultation & Coordination (WMCC) on India-China Border Affairs has been another key bilateral avenue of dispute resolution, and it has remained relevant despite the border clashes. On August 29, the WMCC held its 31st meeting. The meeting’s aim was “to narrow down the differences and find early resolution of the outstanding issues”.
Now, the emphasis on narrowing down existing differences not only signals success, but also the willingness to remain nonviolent in their approaches to conflict resolution. Nonviolence directly implies the irrelevance of the securitised approach of the QUAD vis-à-vis China’s position in the Indo-Pacific.
There is, in simple words, a lesson for countries in the region. Many countries in Southeast Asia, for instance, have concerns about China’s dominance in the South and East China seas. Should they opt for a military approach considering that India, a much bigger military power than any country in Southeast Asia, is itself following dialogue and diplomacy to resolve disputes? The lesson, in other words, is to emphasise bilateral approach and talk directly to China.
All of these factors combine to produce the utter inability of QUAD to evolve, since its establishment in 2004, as a significant military or economic alliance. Much to Washington’s disappointment, it still does not have a regional mechanism to ‘contain’ China.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
More Truths about the War in Ukraine – Part Twenty of the Anglo-American War on Russia
Tales of the American Empire • September 26, 2024
Part Eighteen of this series explained that most Americans do not understand the current war in Ukraine because they’ve been misinformed. The great Glen Greenwald provides a summary of this propaganda effort. Retired US Army intelligence officer Tony Shaffer states that some 15,000 Americans are in Ukraine to support the war and many have been killed. There are comments by the prime ministers of Hungary and Slovakia who don’t support the Anglo-American war in Ukraine. Finally, the myth that Vladimir Putin is a dictator is addressed.
_________________________________
Here is an example of how the deaths of American servicemen in Ukraine and Israel can be hidden.: “Third airman dies at Air Force base in five weeks”; Nicholas Slayton; Task and Purpose; August 31, 2024; https://taskandpurpose.com/news/airma…
Related Tales: “The Anglo-American War on Russia”; 
• The Anglo-American War on Russia
Israel secures $8.7bn military aid package from Washington
The Cradle | September 26, 2024
Israel said on 26 September it had secured an $8.7 billion aid package from the US government to support its ongoing military assaults on Lebanon and Gaza and to maintain a “qualitative military edge in the region,” Reuters reported on 26 September.
The package includes $3.5 billion for critical military purchases and $5.2 billion for air defense systems, including the Iron Dome anti-missile system, David’s Sling, and an advanced laser system.
US support for Israel’s missile defense systems is crucial to shield Israeli military installations and infrastructure from Hezbollah’s large missile and rocket stocks.
While Israeli warplanes have devastated south and east Lebanon with airstrikes since Monday, killing over 600 Lebanese and Syrians, Hezbollah has hit numerous targets in the vicinity of the city of the Israeli city of Haifa, as well as an Israeli intelligence base on the outskirts of Tel Avi in central Israel.
Israel also needs US munitions and financial support to continue its horrific bombing campaign of Gaza, which is nearing its twelfth month and has killed over 40,000 people and destroyed large swathes of the crowded strip.
The aid announcement came after a meeting at the Pentagon between Eyal Zamir, the director general of Israel’s defense ministry, and US defense officials, including acting Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Amanda Dory.
“This substantial investment will significantly strengthen critical systems such as Iron Dome and David’s Sling while supporting the continued development of an advanced high-powered laser defense system currently in its later stages of development,” Israel’s Defense Ministry said in a statement.
The deal illustrates the “strong and enduring strategic partnership between Israel and the United States and the ironclad commitment to Israel’s security,” the statement added.
Reuters reported in late June that Tel Aviv’s allies in Washington had sent more than 10,000 highly destructive 2,000-pound bombs and thousands of Hellfire missiles since the start of the war in Gaza last October.
The news agency added that Washington had transferred at least 14,000 of the MK-84 2,000-pound bombs, 6,500 500-pound bombs, 3,000 Hellfire precision-guided air-to-ground missiles, 1,000 bunker-buster bombs, 2,600 air-dropped small-diameter bombs, and other munitions.
Since 7 October of last year, news channels and social media sites have shown a steady stream of videos and images of Palestinian men, women, and children who have been torn apart by US bombs.
Biden issues $8bln military aid for Kiev, including 130km-range bombs
Vladimir Zelensky and Joe Biden at an event in New York on September 25, 2024. © Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images
Al Mayadeen | September 26, 2024
US President Joe Biden unveiled over $8 billion in military aid for Ukraine on Thursday, emphasizing that the support is aimed at helping Kiev “win [the] war” with Russia.
The announcement coincided with a visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the US. The Ukrainian president will meet with Democratic and Republican leaders at the Capitol prior to his meeting with Biden.
This assistance package includes the first delivery of a precision-guided glide bomb, known as the Joint Standoff Weapon, which has a range of up to 130 kilometers.
This would significantly boost Ukraine’s ability to carry out strikes further inside Russian territory, a move Moscow has warned could escalate the conflict and expand the war. It also suggests a shift in Washington’s policy, indicating unannounced approval for Kiev to utilize US-provided advanced weaponry to target areas deeper within Russia.
‘A global cryptocurrency network’
The bulk of the new aid, $5.5 billion, is to be allocated before Monday’s end of the US fiscal year, when the funding authority is set to expire. Another $2.4 billion is under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which allows the administration to buy weapons for Ukraine from companies – primarily American ones – rather than pull them from US stocks.
“That is why, today, I am announcing a surge in security assistance for Ukraine and a series of additional actions to help Ukraine win this war,” said Biden.
As part of his proposal, the President stated that the Defense Department will restore and deliver an additional Patriot air defense battery, along with extra Patriot missiles to Ukraine.
Biden also instructed the Pentagon to increase the training of Ukrainian F-16 pilots, with plans to train an additional 18 pilots in the coming year.
The United States, in collaboration with international partners, will take action to disrupt what President Biden described as “a global cryptocurrency network” used for Russian sanctions evasion and alleged money laundering.
Additionally, Biden announced that he will organize a leader-level summit of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Germany next month, aiming to unify the efforts of over 50 nations supporting Ukraine.
Firing Ukraine’s ambassador to the US
However, it remains uncertain how many Republicans will agree to meet with Zelensky, as criticism of Kiev grows among party leaders, including Donald Trump.
Trump has been vocal in his criticism of the Ukrainian President and has so far declined Zelenskiy’s request for a meeting.
During a campaign rally in North Carolina on Wednesday, Trump expressed strong disapproval of Zelensky, stating, “We continue to give billions of dollars to a man who refused to make a deal, Zelensky.”
Additionally, many Republicans in Congress were outraged by Zelensky’s recent visit to a munitions factory in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Biden’s hometown. The Republican-led House Oversight Committee has since launched an investigation into the Ukrainian President’s trip.
Trump also held President Biden and Democrat presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris accountable for allowing Russia’s war to take place.
Rep. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who is not expected to meet with Zelensky on Thursday, called on the Ukrainian President to sack his ambassador to Washington over the planning of the Scranton visit.
However, he reassured the Ukrainians that this diplomatic issue is not linked to the provision of military aid to Ukraine.
NATO Prepares for Mass Transport of Wounded Soldiers
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | September 25, 2024
As the North Atlantic alliance ramps up preparations for war with Russia, Brussels is considering how it might remove a large number of wounded NATO soldiers from the frontlines should conflict with Moscow breakout.
Lieutenant-General Alexander Sollfrank, the head of NATO’s logistics command, discussed the plans with Reuters. “The challenge will be to swiftly ensure high-quality care for, in the worst case, a great number of wounded,” he said.
Sollfrank believes that NATO will be unable to have air superiority over the frontlines in a conflict with Russia. He said the bloc is considering using hospital trains and buses to move the wounded soldiers. Sollfrank explained, “For planning reasons, all options to take a great number of wounded to medical installations need to be considered, which includes trains but potentially also buses.”
At the end of the Cold War, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, war between Russia and NATO was unthinkable. However, over the past three decades, the North Atlantic alliance has expanded up to Russia’s borders.
At the start of the Joe Biden administration, Washington and Brussels began treating Kiev as a de facto member of the alliance. The ties between Ukraine and NATO provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Throughout the war in Ukraine, the West has steadily escalated its support for Ukraine. The Kremlin has increasingly viewed itself in a direct conflict with the West.
President Biden is considering giving Ukraine the green light to conduct long-range missile attacks inside of Russia with American weapons. Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that if the White House approves the attack, it would mean direct war with NATO.
German Green Party in crisis – board resigns after election defeat
By Patrick Poppel | September 25, 2024
The Greens in Germany are drawing personal conclusions from a series of electoral defeats and are now restructuring the party leadership. The two chairmen Ricarda Lang and Omid Nouripour announced their withdrawal from the party in Berlin on Wednesday.
The Greens had suffered heavy losses in the last four elections (European elections and the regional elections in Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg). In Brandenburg they had more than halved their result. The party has left two regional parliaments.
Only in the state of Saxony did they narrowly manage to be represented in the state parliament again. “The election result on Sunday in Brandenburg is a testimony to the deepest crisis our party has faced in a decade,” said Nouripour. “It is not about the fate of one party alone.” It is about the fundamental question of whether in Germany, as “the country with the greatest responsibility in the European Union, it will be possible in the future to continue to make good politics for peace, for Freedom, for justice, for prosperity and for climate protection”.
“It takes new faces to lead the party out of this crisis,” Ms Lang said. “Now is not the time to be stuck to your own chair. Now is the time to take responsibility and we are taking that responsibility by enabling a new start,” she added.
Lang and Nouripour were elected chairmen at the end of January 2022. They are relatively popular in the party. Lang and Nouripour did not comment on their successor.
According to media reports, State Secretary for Economic Affairs Franziska Brantner and Bundestag member Felix Banaszak are in discussion. Brantner is a close confidante of Economics Minister Robert Habeck, who could lead the Greens into the next federal election as their candidate for chancellor.
Banaszak was formerly leader of the Green Party in North Rhine-Westphalia and is an important representative of the left wing. The Green Vice Chancellor and Economics Minister Robert Habeck called the party executive’s announcement a “great service to the party”.
CDU General Secretary Carsten Linnemann called on the government to hold early elections. “Our country will not be able to endure this government for another year!” Linnemann told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
There is no way around new elections. The resignation is a respectable step and the Greens have to fundamentally change their policies, said Linnemann. But how could a party that has become increasingly established in Germany over the last 80 years come to this disastrous point?
Of course, most of the Green Party’s voters are in western Germany and in the big cities. But even there the party faces competition from other left-wing groups. Despite the massive media debate on climate change, which is one of the Greens’ main issues, they suffered such a strong defeat.
Since the AFD (Alternative for Germany) can be seen as the clear winner of all these elections, the question naturally arises as to where the Green voters went. Green voters do not easily vote for a right-wing party. It is therefore very clear that the votes have gone from the political center to the right and the Greens have lost their quota to the center.
But what was the reason for these defeats? Maybe it wasn’t a lack of effort in the election campaign or the constant unprofessional appearances of the Green Foreign Minister. The reason for the problems and possible decline of this party is the increasingly visible distance from its roots. The Green Movement was known for its peace initiatives for decades. And the party has finally moved away from these ideals of peace in recent years.
The harsh words regarding arms deliveries to Ukraine particularly irritated many voters. The Greens used to be against wars and now they are marching at the forefront of escalating forces. Completely absurd political behavior when it comes to migration policy has also led many voters to make a different decision.
When it comes to energy policy, fewer and fewer people trust the Greens. The rise of the AFD and the decline of the Greens show us yet another aspect of German domestic politics. The real political center has clearly shifted to the right and Green voters have moved to the center. Since the consequences of the absurd migration policy and other mistakes will be visible for years to come, this shift from the center to the right will not end any time soon.
Patrick Poppel, expert at the Center for Geostrategic Studies (Belgrade).
Towards a Greater Middle Eastern War & Defeat in Ukraine
Colonel Douglas Macgregor, interviewed by Professor Glenn Diesen
Video at Odyssee
Glenn Diesen | September 24, 2024
I spoke with Colonel Douglas Macgregor about the deteriorating situation in the Middle East and Ukraine. Colonel Macgregor was a senior advisor to the Secretary of Defence under President Trump, he has written several books on military strategy, and is the CEO of Our Country Our Choice which seeks among other things to challenge the bipartisan support for the militarisation of US foreign policy
The war in Gaza has now spread into Lebanon and can seemingly no longer be contained, which threatens to pull in other actors in the region such as Iran. However, leaders in the region are already facing angry populations for failing to take a more hardline position against Israel and the US. Yemen is already striking ships passing through the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, while attacks have also increased on US occupation troops in Syria and Iraq. The US and Israel continue to play good cop / bad cop in which the US provides the weapons and intelligence for the onslaught, while simultaneously complaining they are not able to impose a ceasefire. Israel is in deep trouble as its military exhausts itself and there are no desirable paths to peace, which is why pulling the US into a wider war appears to be the sole solution.
In Ukraine, the situation is also deteriorating quickly as the army suffers from a shortage of manpower, armoured vehicles, ammunition, air defences, aircrafts, and a multitude of other areas. Furthermore, Ukraine’s electric grids are severely damaged, the economy falters, the public grows more unhappy with the aggressive “recruitment” of new soldiers, while political divisions are yet again emerging in Kiev. In the West, there are fewer and fewer weapons to be sent and the US is seemingly reluctant to become directly involved in deep strikes within Russian territory as it will trigger a NATO-Russia war with the possibility of a nuclear exchange. War fatigue is growing throughout the West, with the exception of the UK which remains gung-ho for more war. When the US sabotaged the Minsk agreement and the Istanbul peace agreement, the objective was to use Ukrainians as a proxy to bleed and exhaust Russia to knock it out from the ranks of great powers, and thereafter shift focus to breaking China and thus restoring US global primacy. Instead, we are seeing a Russian victory, a pending unmitigated disaster in the Middle East, while the global majority is constructing a post-American world with BRICS.
We have crossed the point of no return in terms of reaching a peace in Ukraine and the Middle East. The world is heading towards major wars – and the US is approaching this dangerous situation with empty slogans rather than a strategy.
Thirst for money enriches oligarchs, but bankrupts Europe
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 24, 2024
There are many reasons why Europe wants to prolong the war in Ukraine. Irrational liberal ideology and commitment to the project of a unipolar global order are undoubtedly the most important reasons. However, business and private profit cannot be ignored. According to many recent reports, there has been a huge increase in the profits of military-industrial companies in a number of Western countries, which explains the thirst for war of the pro-Ukrainian oligarchies.
One of the most notorious cases of this war profiteering is taking place in Germany. The military giant Rheinmettall is seeing its profits growing amid a wave of systematic support for the Kiev regime. By continuously and incessantly sending weapons, the German company has managed to escape a serious financial crisis and now has a chance to once again rank among the world’s leading defense companies.
Rheinmettal’s business was in a bad way. The company was on the verge of abandoning the military sector to focus on civilian production, since most of its profits were coming from the production of automobile parts. However, Germany’s participation in military assistance programs led the corporation to revitalize its production of weapons and ammunition, once again becoming a global giant in the sector.
Armored vehicles, tanks, ammunition, artillery pieces and air defense systems are some of the products in Rheinmettal’s current industrial catalog. After making adventures into industrial base projects on the Polish-Ukrainian border, the company is now working on opening a new factory in Saxony, where it expects to produce more than one hundred thousand artillery shells per year.
Obviously, the German state is interested in these profits. Recently, an action plan by the German government was announced to use part of the profits of Rheinmettal for reindustrialization projects – which seem more necessary now than ever, since Germany has been the country most affected by the anti-Russian madness. It only remains to be seen how this reindustrialization will be possible without Russian gas and cheap energy.
In short, Germany believes it is profiting from the war. But this calculation is wrong – as well as dangerous and irresponsible. The profits do not go to the German people, but to a small number of defense oligarchs who employ an absolute minority of German society. Furthermore, the real economic revival is minimal, since the constant demand for weapons requires a systematic production routine that hinders any research project in technological innovation. In other words, Rheinmetall – as well as the entire Western military-industrial complex – is doomed to continually produce the same type of equipment according to its current samples, without any relevant innovation.
Industry without innovation has little chance of long-term success. Western weapons, which have already proven to be largely unsuitable for the Ukrainian battlefield, are likely to become increasingly obsolete, and there will be no capacity for technological renewal, since, thanks to anti-Russian sanctions, the precarious European society is reaching a pre-industrial stage of development.
And, still on the subject of sanctions, it is important to emphasize that increased spending on the military industry could be a ticking time bomb for a country without reliable sources of cheap energy. After the blockade of Russian gas, Germany has been experiencing a period of profound energy instability, depending on unusual alternative sources to meet its needs – such as burning wood or buying American gas at exorbitant prices. This scenario is completely inconsistent with a situation of economic development and stability.
Germany will discover an old lesson in economics: the private profits of the oligarchies do not reflect a real situation of economic development and social well-being. Without solving the problems generated by sanctions – which obstruct technological innovation – and without relieving the pressure on the systematic production of weapons, not even constant demand will be able to save Germany and the whole of Europe from a deep crisis.
Despite the profits, aid to Ukraine remains an obstacle to European economic progress, pleasing only transnational oligarchies.
Featured Video
Inside America’s deadly war on suspected drug boats
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Germany’s gun grab? Saxony-Anhalt begins disarming AfD members
Remix News | January 6, 2025
Authorities in Germany have begun withdrawing gun ownership licenses from Alternative for Germany (AfD) members, who are deemed a “danger to public safety.”
So far, five AfD members have received a notice that their gun license would be revoked, while another member voluntarily returned his license after a revocation procedure was initiated. Another 51 cases are currently being examined by authorities, according to data released by the Saxony-Anhalt Interior Ministry in response to a request for information from the Left Party.
Hunters and sport shooters will also have their gun licenses canceled by authorities. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- US, South Korea and Japan Begin Joint War Games
- Israel’s Rafael to produce missile parts at Volkswagen factory in Germany
- After historic German election, will the AfD rule Saxony-Anhalt?
- ‘Russophobia a national sport’ – Polish party rallies against push to war
- US Placing Missiles in Europe to Cancel Strategic Stability Talks Prerequisites – Russian MFA
- Analysts warn of ‘colonization’ as US ‘saturates’ Australia with 110 bases
- Inside America’s deadly war on suspected drug boats | Fault Lines Documentary
- Babies Whose Mothers Drank Fluoridated Water During Pregnancy Scored Lower in Problem-Solving
- Vaccination Data on Amish Children Screened for 2010 Autism Study Was Never Made Public
- CNAS Wonk Proposes Bombing China’s Artificial Intelligence
- If Americans Knew
- ‘Guilt by association’: why seven international aid workers were killed in Israeli airstrike
- Anatomy of the Israel Lobby
- 50+ Rights Groups ‘Strongly Urge’ Congress to Reject US-Israeli Military Integration in NDAA
- Israel takes its war on Palestine into the AI age
- Israel’s military ‘justice’ system is working exactly as intended
- Who are the ‘Hilltop Girls’ behind Israel’s ‘soft settlement’ strategy?
- Gaza holds funeral for 100 remains, including 60 children – Daily Update
- Israeli settlers are a menace across West Bank – Daily Update
- US rejects Israel’s plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza: Daily Update
- ‘What About Gaza’s Amputees?’ Adidas Under Fire Over Israeli Soldier’s Disability-Inclusive Shoe Ad
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
- 2025 Study: ‘There Exists No Unequivocal Experimental Evidence For The CO2 Greenhouse Effect’
- 2026 Atlantic Cyclone Energy Index Running At 85% Below Normal!
- New Research Shows Soil Respiration And Temperature Drive CO2 Change, Not Humans
Aletho News 