Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Italy’s Salvini says ‘warmonger’ Macron ‘danger’ for Europe as Ukraine tension rises

Press TV – March 24, 2024

Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini says French President Emmanuel Macron is a “warmonger” and represents a “danger” for Europe by refusing to rule out sending Western ground troops to Ukraine.

Salvini’s remarks came on Saturday during a gathering in Rome of right-wing and nationalist European leaders to rally support ahead of EU parliamentary elections in June.

Salvini whose far-right League party is a member of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s coalition government, said that Macron’s suggestion last month that Western ground troops could be sent to Ukraine was “extremely dangerous, excessive and out of balance.”

“I think that President Macron, with his words, represents a danger for our country and our continent,” he said during his speech.

“The problem isn’t mums and dads but the warmongers like Macron who talk about war as if there were no problem now,” he added. “I don’t want to leave our children a continent ready to enter World War Three.”

In similar remarks, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani also said in mid-March that his country does not support deploying NATO troops in Ukraine, warning that the move could spark World War III.

The French president told a press conference he did not rule out sending troops last month, after a high-level meeting in Paris of mainly European partners to discuss what urgent steps could be taken to shore up Ukraine in the wake of Russia’s recent frontline advances.

Following his remarks he faced criticism from France’s Nato and EU partners and a warning of conflict from Russia.

Last week, Sergey Naryshkin, Russia’s foreign intelligence (SVR) top brass said any French military unit sent to Ukraine to help it fight Russia would be a “priority” target for the Russian army.

This warning came after Kremlin received information that Paris is preparing to dispatch a contingent of 2,000 troops to Ukraine to fight against Russia.

Naryshkin said that Macron is concealing the actual number of French soldiers who have lost their lives in Ukraine due to concerns over potential widespread demonstrations in France.

In response, the French army chief of staff, Pierre Schill has said France is ready to face whatever developments unfold internationally and is prepared for the “toughest engagements” to protect itself.

Ties between France and Russia have further deteriorated in recent weeks after Paris signed a bilateral security accord with Ukraine and vowed to send more long-range cruise missiles.

Earlier this month, Macron also said there are “no limits” to French support for Ukraine. He added that France “would be ready to make sure that Russia never wins that war.”

Russia launched what it calls “a special military operation” in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, over the perceived threat of the ex-Soviet republic joining NATO.

Since then, the United States and Ukraine’s other Western allies have sent Kiev tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons, including rocket systems, drones, armored vehicles, tanks, and communication systems.

Western countries have also imposed a slew of economic sanctions on Moscow. The Kremlin has said the sanctions and the Western military assistance will only prolong the war.

March 24, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Militaristic Revolution in the EU: Brussels Paves Legal Way for Warmongering

By Dmitry Babich – Sputnik – 23.03.2024

During the last few days, the European Union went through a real militaristic revolution. A special “legal task force” is working on allowing the use of EU funds for war.

The so-called European Peace Facility (EPF), officially stewarded by Josep Borrell, will get its money from the EU funds (and not individual states) after reporting the transfer of thousands of weapons systems to Kiev. EPF also reported having trained more than 40,000 Ukrainian military to use them.

The Financial Times chose a somewhat routinely sounding lead for its story on the EU’s decision to legally stop being an “oasis of peace”: “Brussels proposes ‘legal task force’ to explore ways to use the common budget for defense.”

The headline, however, was more disturbing: “EU looks to bypass treaty ban on buying arms to support Ukraine.”

The reality described in the FT’s story, however, is more dramatic than the headline and the lead taken together: the European Union, which was conceived as an entirely peaceful organization, becomes one of the world’s most implacable warring empires – by law. Very soon the EU’s Union Treaty will no longer have a provision prohibiting “any expenditure arising from operations having military or defense implications.” (Article 41, point 2 of the Treaty on European Union.) Or, at best, this provision will be made devoid of legal force by some new additions to the EU’s legislation.

FT reports, confirming its story by eyewitness accounts, that the European Commission is creating a “legal task force,” that would allow the EU to finance wars and military production by European money. In all likelihood, the first “beneficiary” of this financing will be NATO’s proxies in Ukraine, waging a war against Russia and Russians since 2014.

At a recent conference of the EU’s 27 members in mid-March, 2024, it was decided to create within the framework of the so-called European Peace Facility (EPF) a special fund for financing Ukrainian armed forces (Ukraine Assistance Fund). What the relation is between the word “peace” and the system of buying and transporting weapons to the zone of conflict, remains unclear.

Ukraine Assistance Fund (UAF) will be financed by donations from EU member states to the tune of €5 billion a year. At least €500 million from that sum will be spent on training Ukrainian servicemen to use the EPF-provided weapons. The weapons will mostly be European-made (such was the requirement of France), but not only. Weapons from “third countries” can be bought and sold, creating opportunities for the spread of dangerous weapons around the world.

Judging by the recent EU summit on Thursday, which discussed the ways of stealing “immobilized” Russia’s foreign assets and pouring its money into the UAF “for military support to Ukraine,” no law is an obstacle for the EU’s “legal task forces.”

Was such an evolution of the EU unexpected?

Not entirely. The EU’s quasi-pacifist image started to crumble not now, but back in the 1990s. It transpired back then that the real European Union went a long way from the lofty ideas of the EU’s founders. Only naïve people can trust the EU’s claims, that it is a purely “soft power-based institution.”

In 1995-1999 the EU’s member countries participated in military interventions against the former Yugoslav republics, later almost all EU members made their “military contributions” to the occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

However, as more and more “crusades” by individual Western countries or American-British alliances ended in defeats (one can cite Afghanistan in 2001-2021 or the French intervention in West Africa after the coup in Libya in 2011), the dreams about a “collective war chest” of the EU started to take shape.

In 2020 the so-called European Defense Fund (EDF) and later, in March 2021, the European Peace Facility (EPF) started operating at the EU level. Their aim was clear from the start: to collect money from member countries and to buy arms for this money. Later, these weapons will be used against “undemocratic” countries, whose leaders happen to be at odds with the EU and the US.

Real European pacifists immediately smelt the rat and protested both against EDF and especially against EPF, which after the escalation of the Ukrainian conflict became one of the main sponsors of Zelensky’s military machine. Back in 2021, 40 pro-peace NGOs, headed by the German group Brot für die Welt (Bread for the World) came out with a statement denouncing the EPF as an instrument “which brings arms into wrong hands” and “allows to use the EU money to train the military cadres for dictatorial regimes.”

Now, however, Brussels uses widespread anti-Russian prejudice in the EU, as well as constant reminders about the “threat from Putin” to justify the final destruction of the dream of “peaceful Europe,” which once inspired the pioneers of European integration. In comparison to 2021 critics are fewer and quieter. In this way, Russophobia was spiritually destructive for Europe, stealing its dream of “world peace.”

March 23, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Russia explains stance on US-proposed Palestine “cease fire” resolution

Explanation of vote by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at the UNSC vote on US-proposed draft resolution on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question

Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations | March 22, 2024

Before the vote:

Mr. President,

For six months now, the UN Security Council has been unable to adopt a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza. Time and again, the United States thwarted any attempt to do so by using a veto in cold blood as many as four times.

During that time, we have heard many different excuses from our American colleagues. For example, that it is premature to seek a ceasefire because it is necessary to give space “for Israel’s counter-terrorism efforts”; that the Council should not interfere with Washington’s “effective diplomacy on the ground”; that we should wait until Ramadan, when, they say, an agreement on a cessation of violence will definitely be made.

Now, six months later, when Gaza has been practically leveled with the ground, the US representative says without batting an eye that Washington finally starts to realize the need for a ceasefire.

This leisurely thinking process by Washington has cost the lives of 32,000 Palestinian civilians, two-thirds of them women and children.

And even now we see a typical hypocritical show, when in the wrapper of a “ceasefire” the United States is trying to sell to the members of the Security Council and the entire international community something else – a vague phrase about “defining the imperative of a ceasefire”. Such philosophy about moral imperatives looks naturally in the works of Immanuel Kant. But it is not enough to save the lives of Palestinian people. And that is not at all what the mandate of the UN Security Council suggests, which has a unique toolkit to demand a ceasefire and, if necessary, enforce it.

In an official interview to Al Hadath in Jeddah on 20 March, Secretary of State Blinken said, “Well, in fact, we actually have a resolution that we put forward right now that’s before the UNSC that does call for an immediate ceasefire tied to the release of hostages and we hope very much that countries will support that”. However, the US-proposed draft resolution does not make such call. It appears that either the US Permanent Representative to the United Nations or the US Secretary of State deliberately mislead the international community.

Colleagues,

From the very beginning, it was obvious that the “negotiations” on the draft resolution held by our American colleagues were only meant to delay time. All our comments and “red lines” were ignored, as well as the proposals of a number of other delegations. This was not a normal work on a document. It felt more like speaking into the void.

The US draft is a thoroughly politicized document, which only aims at pulling on voters’ heartstrings before the US elections by throwing them a “bone” in the form of at least some mention of a “ceasefire” in Gaza. The draft also seeks to consolidate US policy in the region through “terrorist labels” and to ensure impunity for Israel, whose criminal actions the draft gives no assessment to.

Let me also stress that the American draft contains a de facto green light for Israel to conduct a military operation in Rafah. At least, the sponsors have tried to make sure that nothing in their draft would prevent West Jerusalem from completing the deadly cleanup of southern Gaza.

That is actually what Washington wants. We already said that we will no longer pass meaningless resolutions that do not demand a ceasefire and lead us nowhere.

This draft must not pass with the majority of UNSC votes in order to send a message that Washington’s not even palliative but devious concepts are unacceptable. It will be extremely strange if those members of the Council (and they are the majority), who realize this and have been saying to us that the US draft is a flawed one, will now raise their hand in favor. If you do so, you will smear yourselves in disgrace.

Think what this will make you look in the eyes of the people of the Middle East and your own countries, if you support this hypocritical endeavor designed to disorient the international community and, in fact, undermine the authority of the Council by rendering it unable to influence the situation on the ground and making it “stay out of White House’s way”. Are you ready to play a part in this shameful show?

Russia will not do this. As a permanent member of the Security Council and one of the founders of the United Nations, we recognize the global historical responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and cannot allow the Council to become a tool of Washington’s destructive policy in the Middle East. If this resolution were adopted, it would definitively close the debate on the need for a ceasefire in Gaza, give Israel a free hand and condemn Gaza and its entire population to extermination or expulsion.

In our work, we are not guided by what pleases Washington or its satellites who are ready to cast a vote at the US behest, but by what is necessary for the Palestinians and what promotes peace.

We urge the members of the UN Security Council to prevent this and vote against the American draft resolution.

Mr. President,

In order for the UN Security Council to still be able to implement its mandate to maintain international peace and security, a number of non-permanent UNSC members have prepared an alternative draft resolution that spells out in black and white the requirements for both a ceasefire and the unconditional release of hostages. It is a balanced and depoliticized document.

We see no reason why members of the Security Council could refuse to support it, unless a ceasefire and the release of hostages are not part of their plans. This is an attempt to allow the Council to carry out the noble functions entrusted to it. We urge to not miss it.

Thank you.

After the vote:

Mr. President,

We have now listened to the hypocritical speeches of some Council members shedding crocodile tears over the Russian and Chinese vetoes. We have explained the reasons why we did not pass this resolution. It was not because it was put forward by the United States delegation, as the American Permanent Representative tried to assure us today. I told you – those of you who voted here today – that you would cover yourselves in disgrace by voting in favor of an American text that was unacceptable to you (including those of you who are now praising it).

Do you want me to say what really happened? Not hard to guess, the scenario is not complicated at all. Your American masters, in addition to “twisting the arms” of your leaders in the capitals, said, “Don’t you worry, Russia will veto anyways, so you won’t have to go against the American draft.” That’s it, that’s the whole scenario. So stop this hypocrisy about how upset you are that Russia and China vetoed the resolution. Once again, you have covered yourselves in disgrace today by voting in favor of a draft resolution that you did not and do not really support.

Thank you.

March 23, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine Brought Upon Itself Russia’s Retaliatory Strikes & ‘More Will Follow’

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 22.03.2024

Russia carried out strikes that paralyzed Ukraine’s power grid, targeted decision-making centers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, logistics bases, railway junctions and ammunition depots, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced on Friday. The MoD added that the attacks left Ukraine’s military production and repair facilities in disarray.

The Kiev regime brought upon itself Russia’s massive retaliatory strikes disrupting Ukraine’s energy facilities, the functioning of military-industrial enterprises.

Evgeny Mikhailov, political scientist, director of the Center for Strategic Studies of the South Caucasus, told Sputnik that “They forced us to take such serious preventive measures,” stressing that “this is not the last such strike, and more will follow.”

Two explosions were heard in the morning at the Dnepr Hydroelectric Power Plant in the Ukrainian-controlled city of Zaporozhye, Vladimir Rogov, head of the regional public movement “We Are Together with Russia,” told Sputnik.

Russia has carried out massive drone and rocket attacks targeting electrical power facilities across much of Ukraine.

The country’s Dnepr Hydroelectric Power Plant was knocked out of action due to significant damage after being hit eight times, Ukrainian prosecutor’s office said. The overnight strikes were “the largest attack on the Ukrainian energy sector in recent times.”

Between March 16 and 22, Russia carried out “49 retaliatory strikes using high-precision long-range air-launched weapons, including Kinzhal aeroballistic hypersonic missiles, other missile systems and unmanned aerial vehicles,” the Russian Ministry of Defense in a statement on Friday. Strikes on Ukraine’s energy facilities, military-industrial complex, railway junctions and ammunition depots were in response to the shelling of Russian territory, and “attempts to break through and seize Russian border settlements.”

“It is already clear now that after Dnepr Hydroelectric Power Plant was targeted, Kharkov is virtually without electricity, internet traffic has sharply decreased throughout Ukraine, internet communications have suffered, and there are power outages in many cities,” Mikhailov noted.

“Everything is interconnected. Dnepr Hydroelectric Power Plant is the most important facility in the energy structure of Ukraine,” the pundit added. “Our strike effectively put out of operation manufacturers of weapons and other goods necessary to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the fight against the Russian military. And, of course, this is a big blow to the combat effectiveness of the Ukrainian army in principle.”

Russia has demonstrated that it is capable of inflicting hefty blows on Ukraine’s infrastructure that cause significant losses and damage, said the expert.

“This was actually a response to the attack on our infrastructure facilities in the interior of the country, oil refineries, and shelling of peaceful cities,” Mikhailov explained. “The Ukrainian Armed Forces have crossed all ‘red lines,’ especially in recent months. Accordingly, nothing limits Russia from striking Kiev’s critical infrastructure facilities.”

The Russian strikes are part of the overall logical strategy of the national Armed Forces, agreed veteran Russian military expert Ivan Konovalov. The attacks are of a ‘combined’ nature, he noted: Russian forces are acting on the front line and targeting Ukraine’s energy systems deep in the rear.

“Strikes on the energy system and critical infrastructure always immediately affect the situation at the front,” Konovalov said.

The Ukrainian military-industrial complex has long ceased to exist, Konovalov noted, as it “was destroyed long before the start of Russia’s special military operation, when Kiev broke off cooperation ties with Russia in the field of military-technical cooperation.”

He stressed that any military-industrial enterprise on the territory of Ukraine is a legitimate target for Russia’s Armed Forces. And since some of Kiev’s Western patrons floated ideas of building weapons factories on Ukrainian soil, these strikes carried out by Russia could be seen as “a warning” that “they will all come under attack.”

“These blows will affect three main factors: the economy of Ukraine, the situation at the front, and the overall terrorist policy of Kiev,” Konovalov said.

Russia’s strikes came after a series of attempts by Ukrainian forces to break into the Russian border regions of Belgorod and Kursk were repulsed “thanks to the coordinated actions of the forces guarding the state border of the Russian Federation,” the Defense Ministry said.

A spate of Ukrainian drone attacks also targeted Russian oil refineries. Those acts triggered a flurry of concerns in Washington, Mikhailov believes, where they see that “Russia’s hands are no longer tied.”

March 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

France ‘Prepares for War’ and Threatens European Security Architecture

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 22, 2024

France continues to take steps towards militarization and escalating tensions with Russia. Amid discussions about whether or not to send French troops to Ukrainian territory, officials in Paris have made controversial statements about a supposed “preparation for war”, leading many analysts to believe that relations between France and Russia are close to a point-of-no-return — which could obviously have catastrophic consequences for the European continent and the entire world.

In a recent statement, Pierre Schill, commander of the French Army, stated that his troops are in combat readiness, capable of engaging in war at any time — if necessary. He believes that today’s France is severely threatened. In this sense, the country must be prepared to go to war against states that pose a danger to Paris.

At the same time, the government’s official speech continues to become increasingly aggressive towards the Russian Federation. French President Emmanuel Macron has advanced plans to increase his country’s interventionism in the Ukrainian conflict — and continues to refuse to rule out the hypothesis of direct intervention by French troops on the battlefield. In practice, France is simply advancing a plan that would certainly lead to direct war against Russia, which obviously means a high-risk global situation considering France’s NATO membership.

More than that, Russian intelligence recently discovered that around two thousand French soldiers are mobilized to be sent to Ukraine at any time. They are believed to be deployed in critical regions such as Odessa and the northern border, where the West fears the Russians will consolidate positions. Although it denies the information set out in the Russian report, the French government remains publicly willing to, “if necessary”, send troops to Ukraine, which is why tensions remain high.

Interestingly, the head of Ukrainian diplomacy, Dmitry Kuleba, stated that Russia misunderstood French plans. According to him, Macron ’s real intention is not to enter directly into the conflict, but only, “if necessary”, to allocate French instructors on Ukrainian soil so that they can train Kiev’s troops on the ground. In a scenario of military escalation and with logistical difficulties for Ukraine, some believe that this would be the best way to continue the current cooperation projects and training of Kiev’s forces by the West.

However, it is necessary to remember that at no point did Macron suggest that he was actually planning a mere sending of instructors. In his statements, the president actually said that he did not rule out the possibility of direct intervention in the war, making it clear that Paris could send troops to fight on the Ukrainian front line in the future. Furthermore, even if Macron said this incorrectly and his intention is only to send military trainers, this does not change the fact that Paris would, in practice, be going to war against Russia.

Western troops on Ukrainian soil are and will always be legitimate targets for Russian military forces. More than that, they are priority targets, as Moscow understands that these adversaries are the true strategists behind Ukrainian crimes. Several Western troops have already died in Ukraine — some of them acting as mercenaries, others as instructors or decision-makers. However, so far there is no official presence of these troops, which somehow still keeps tensions reasonably controlled.

From the moment a NATO country starts sending regular soldiers to Ukraine, even for mere instructional purposes, the crisis will escalate to an extremely serious, possibly irreversible, level. The official presence of Western troops in Ukraine would be a point of no return in ties between NATO and Russia, leading to an open WWIII — the consequences of which could be catastrophic.

There is also the risk that France and Europeans will simply be “abandoned” in this process. So far, the US, which is the leading country in NATO, has not shown any interest in direct intervention. For Washington, the most profitable scenario is the involvement of proxy agents in attritional conflicts that “wear down” Russia, without openly involving American troops. In this sense, it is very likely that, if France engages in an open war with Russia, there will be no direct American support for Paris and its European allies — after all, NATO’s collective defense obligations are not applicable when an alliance country begins hostilities against another state.

Indeed, Macron is acting in a totally risky and irresponsible way. In his selfish attempt to gain “leadership” among Europeans, the French president is leading the entire continent into an unprecedented security crisis.

March 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine Talks Haven’t Started Because of US Threats to Zelensky, Seymour Hersh Says

Sputnik – 22.03.2024

Negotiations on resolving the conflict in Ukraine could have started months ago, but US authorities threatened Vladimir Zelensky with withdrawal of non-military funding, US journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh said in an article on Substack.

“We were on the verge of a reasonable negotiation several months ago before Putin’s re-election and Zelensky’s military degradation. The US leaders got wind of the possibility and gave Zelensky the ultimatum-‘No negotiations or settlement or we won’t support your government with the $45 billion in non-military funds [that Ukraine is now receiving annually],'” the source told the journalist.

According to Hersh’s information, US intelligence community recognises that “Ukraine has little chance of winning…”

Hersh’s interlocutor also added that US President Joe Biden has staked on confronting the “Russian threat to NATO” and will not change his course under any circumstances, while the end is inevitable.

“There is no road to victory for Ukraine, and it will end with Putin as an historical icon in Russia…,” the source concluded.

In autumn 2022, Zelensky signed a decree according to which his country will not negotiate with Russia as long as it is led by Vladimir Putin. Russia, for its part, has repeatedly noted its readiness to discuss the settlement of the conflict through diplomatic means.

As Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov emphasised, the Russia does not see any prerequisites for a peaceful transition of the situation, and sovereignty over the new Russian regions and Crimea is not up for discussion.

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

‘France has no vital interests in Ukraine’ – Le Pen

RT | March 21, 2024

The conflict in Ukraine does not directly affect France’s key national interests, the former leader of the far-right National Rally party, Marine Le Pen, told the BFM TV broadcaster on Wednesday. Le Pen, who led the party for more than a decade argued that “France’s vital interests are not in question.”

The three-time presidential candidate also suggested that Russia does not pose a threat to European nations and that the best thing Kiev’s Western backers can do is ensure that it sits down at the negotiating table with Moscow as soon as possible.

According to the politician, “the only way to help Ukraine is to give it the means to enter into negotiations.”

Late last month, French President Emmanuel Macron said that, while there was no consensus among Kiev’s backers on a military deployment to Ukraine, “in terms of dynamics, we cannot exclude anything.” Numerous NATO allies were quick to reject his suggestion. However, reports have since appeared in the media, claiming that Paris may have been preparing for such a development for months.

Reports have also alleged that active-duty military personnel from NATO states are already operating in Ukraine in various capacities – something that Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski appeared to confirm on Wednesday.

Le Pen accused Macron of “playing politics with war,” suggesting that the head of state may not be fully aware of what is going on on the battlefield in Ukraine.

She also argued that Moscow was unlikely to attack European countries as it “does not have the military means to engage in a territorial war with the whole” of the continent.

Last week, French legislators voted in favor of a 10-year security pact with Ukraine, which was signed by Macron and his Ukrainian counterpart, Vladimir Zelensky, last month. National Rally abstained, with Le Pen accusing the head of state of “hijacking, exploiting and instrumentalizing a major international crisis for a short-term electoral agenda.”

She has consistently opposed plans to admit Ukraine into NATO and the EU, as well as economic sanctions on Russia, and the delivery of heavy weapons to Kiev.

On Tuesday, the head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergey Naryshkin, claimed that France was preparing to deploy as many as 2,000 troops to Ukraine.

Over the weekend, Russian President Vladimir Putin told his supporters that fighters from NATO states were already present in Ukraine. He also said a conflict between NATO and Russia could not be ruled out, but added that everyone probably understood the dire consequences of such a development.

March 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Western media ‘coverage’ of Russia is incredibly dangerous, and it’s getting worse

By Glenn Diesen | RT | March 20, 2024

Western media coverage of every Russian election is bad. But this time it was even worse than usual.

Instead of lashing out at the incompetence on display, it’s more constructive to explore why rational discussions about the country continue to appear impossible.

Not to mention the dire consequences of the ongoing self-delusion.

Reason versus conformity to the group

One of the first things we learn in sociology is that humans are in a constant battle between instincts and reason. Over tens of thousands of years, we have developed the instinct to organise in groups as a source of security. This is the result of evolutionary biology as survival demands that we organise into “us” versus “them”. In-group loyalty is augmented by assigning contrasting identities of the virtuous “us” versus the evil “other”, which helps stop an individual from straying too far from the pack.

Yet, human beings are also equipped with reason and thus the ability to assess objective reality independent of their immediate circle. In international relations, it’s imperative to place yourself in the shoes of the opponent. The rationality required to see the world through the perspective of the “other” is vital for reaching mutual understanding, reducing tensions, and pursuing a workable peace.

Every successful peace process and reconciliation in history – from Northern Ireland to negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa – has been based on this.

We expect journalists to be objective in their reporting of reality, which is especially important during war. But this seems to be almost impossible, especially during conflicts. When human beings experience external threats, their herd instincts are triggered as society demands group loyalty and we punish those who deviate. The political obedience demanded during war time usually results in the weakening of freedom of speech, the role of journalism, and democracy.

Why did Russians vote for Putin?

So, how can we understand the reasons for President Vladimir Putin’s immense popularity in Russia and his landslide victory?

If we use our reason and resist our tribal instincts, it should not be difficult to understand the popularity of Putin. While the 1990s was a golden period for the West, it was a nightmare for Russians. The economy collapsed and society disintegrated with truly horrific consequences.

The country’s security also collapsed, as NATO expansion meant there was no chance to agree an inclusive European security architecture. This had been outlined in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe in 1990 and the OSCE founding documents.

A weakened Russia meant that its interests could be ignored, and NATO was able to invade Moscow’s ally Yugoslavia, in violation of international law.

When Putin took over the presidency on 31 December 1999, it was commonplace in the West to predict that Russia would share the fate of the Soviet Union. That is eventual collapse.

However, Russia has instead become the largest economy in Europe (by PPP), its society has healed from the disastrous 1990s, its military might has been restored, and new international partners have been found in the East and Global South, as evidenced by the growing role of BRICS.

Furthermore, most Russians believe it’s not a good idea to have major disruptions to leadership in the middle of a NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine that is deemed an existential threat. Don’t change horses in midstream as the American proverb, often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, advises.

Speaking of the US, the late Mikhail Gorbachev – who was immensely popular there – did not shy away from criticising Putin, when he was still with us. However, he nevertheless argued that Putin “saved Russia from the beginning of a collapse”.

Today, any Western journalist repeating this would be immediately branded as a “Putinist” – implying a betrayal of the “us”. Western journalists cannot acknowledge the immense achievements of Russia since 1999 as it could be interpreted as lending legitimacy and signalling support for the “bad” side.

The price of self-delusion

Arguments are not judged by the extent they reflect an objective reality, rather they are assessed by how they are seen to express support or condemnation of Russia. Conformity to a narrative signals in-group loyalty, and the desire to deprive opponents of legitimacy limits what is allowed to be discussed.

Acknowledging Putin’s achievements over the past 25 years is treated as expressing support for him, which is tantamount to treason.

Meanwhile, journalists hardly ever discuss Moscow’s security concerns and the extent to which our competing interests can be harmonised. Instead, Russian policies are conveyed by referring to derogatory descriptions of Putin’s character.

As in our other wars, conflicts are explained by the presence of a bad man and if we could just make him go away, then the natural order of peace would be restored. Putin, the narrative contends, is our most recent reincarnation of Hitler and we constantly live in the 1940s where an adversary must be defeated and not appeased.

How can journalists then explain to their audience Putin’s popularity and the reasons for his huge personal vote when it is not allowed to say anything positive about the Russian president? Unable to live in reality and unable to place ourselves in the shoes of the opponent – how are we supposed to have sensible analysis and policies? As I always warned my students of international relations: Do not hate your rivals, it produces poor and dangerous analysis!

Making self-delusion virtuous comes at a high price. How can the West pursue diplomacy and work with Putin when he is presented as the embodiment of evil and an illegitimate leader? Even explaining Russian policies is condemned as legitimising Russian policies, which is deemed to be propaganda that must not be given a platform. People conform to the good versus evil mantra as it feels virtuous and patriotic to signal that they support the in-group and loathe the out-group. But how can we pursue our interests when we have committed ourselves to self-delusion and have banned reality from our analysis?

I have attempted to explain for two years why the anti-Russian sanctions were doomed to fail and why Russia will win the war, only to be told that it is Russian propaganda to undermine support for sanctions and to challenge the narrative of a pending Ukrainian victory. Reality be damned! Ignoring reality results in a distorted picture of Russia which predictably leads to miscalculations. How could Russia as a “gas station masquerading as a country” defeat the most draconian Western sanctions and see its economy not only survive, but by some measures even thrive? Why would Russians unite under an existential threat when we cannot acknowledge the role played by NATO in that regard?

Sigmund Freud explored the extent to which instinctive group psychology could diminish the rationality of the individual. Freud’s ideas were further developed by his nephew, Edward Bernays, who became the father of modern political propaganda. Over a century ago, Walter Lippman cautioned group psychology, managed with propaganda, as it came with a heavy price.  Yielding to the instinct of viewing conflict as a struggle between the virtuous “us” versus the evil “other” implies that peace requires defeating the adversary, while a workable solution becomes tantamount to appeasement.

What better explains the current failure of rational analysis and the resulting collapse of diplomacy?

Glenn Diesen is a Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal.

March 20, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

The Principled Cannot Convince the Irrational

By Kym Robinson | The Libertarian Institute | March 20, 2024

No matter how brutal an event, there will be those who can justify, rationalize, or spin a positive narrative. Real and imagined injustices inspire reactions that lead to more injustice, creating a spiral of revenge. Or a group can decide that it is superior, righteous by default, and has the right to claim territory in order to thrive. Outside observers can grapple with favoring one party over others, claiming that it was a “lesser evil.” Despite any pretense or deceptions, most violent actors do the irrationally vile for little reason other than self service or with inhuman distance. Trying to argue against such irrationality with reason and rationality can be a fool’s errand. Decency and moral dignity are seldom in consideration for those who would murder on a large scale. This is the prevailing predicament for those who oppose war and injustice with principles, trying to find compassion and empathy within those who appear callous, indifferent, or even deranged.

Despite this, we often argue and appeal with reason to those who may not see the world as we do. They may understand it differently, seeking a particular utopia or a piece of the imperial pie for themselves. They do not care about how many “eggs are broken” to achieve such an omelette. So how do we find common ground?

It seems that it is only after the fact that many of the killers and their masters come to understand the demented business that they made possible; rarely do many protest and object early on. It was only decades afterwards when Robert McNamara exhibited a degree of remorse, or years later when veterans may experience moral injury that leads them to challenge their original mission. Smedley Butler’s words are often cited by anti-imperialists, though he is an example of the cynical veteran, waiting until after he served his warmasters heroically for decades to write a book about his deeds which made their imperialism possible at all. George W. Bush paints portraits of his victims while in retirement, seemingly delusional with his legacy.

Those labelled conscientious objectors or “draft dodgers” tend to be viewed as cowards, ridiculed because they would not join the brave (nearly always men) who march into the meat grinder of war. In 1918, Reverend John Kovalsky and three other men were attacked by a mob of around three hundred in the town of Christopher, Illinois. The mob violently tarred and feathered the four men, and the reverend was forced to kiss the American flag because of disloyal language. Despite being fined by law enforcement, a mob saw it fit to humiliate and punish the men for disloyalty. The four disloyal men needed to show fidelity to a government that was waging war for human rights and free expression; because the four challenged the war and government with words, both the law and a mob punished them.

“The country was in peril; he was jeopardising his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.”- Joseph Heller, Catch 22

Such acts of mob violence are often looked back on as moments of group insanity. Yet time and time again the world over we see such displays of unreason and violence tear away individual rights. The mob could be heard squealing “Do the right thing” during the COVID madness, attacking those who breached curfew, who remained unmasked, or who refused a vaccination. The term Mass Formation Psychosis began floating around the internet whenever such critical dissent was not censored. In time of war it is also apparent, even if the war is not widely supported or understood. There will be elements that lean into the legitimacy of power and authority, even if they claim to be anti-power and against authority. There is nothing rational about such mobbery; it is crude and obscene, but seemingly ‘normal’ people can fall into such a frenzy.

Those who oppose the wars with consistency may notice the tourists of the cause who pick and choose their moments, depending on who is waging the war and whether it’s politically expedient or profitable to be for or against. The hypocrisy is only obvious to the principled because inconsistency can’t be used against those who lack any. They are political animals and opportunists who come and go as they please and will betray anyone. During the Cultural Revolution in China, millions of idiotically ideological youths did the deadly bidding of cunning political purists who were able to whip them into a frenzy. These mobs of youth would tear powerful party officials and elites from their positions of rule without fear, throwing China into a sort of civil war as irrationality purged the party and nation under the guise of some form of socialist purification. Millions died. As confusing as events were, and as uncertain as the victims were in the lead up of any “guilt,” the killers were certain (even if they were uncertain) as to why they should be certain at all. They killed regardless.

Now we see those who were against one war support another while wanting to prevent further war elsewhere, but are eager to make war in another spot. Outside of those who have particular geopolitical or strategic reasoning are those who claim to be antiwar in times when it suits them to claim as such. In arguing for a military action, they do not have to convince the principally antiwar; those with such consistent views are only useful when it suits them. They only need to convince themselves, their allies, and those who have no principles but think they do. Those that have no principles will reveal the truth when irrationality emerges, when with the pressure of crisis they can help fill the mob. Most can sit with a straight face and claim that they would not have been in the tarring mob in the town of Christopher, Illinois or a murderous goon in the Red Guard, yet most people have no proof otherwise in their life.

Principles only matter when they require courage. The political animal seldom has any courage or dignity; it’s how they survive and thrive. Those who lack principles may not have the ambitions of the political class but they certainly will follow them. That is how we have moments in history like the Cultural Revolution, wars that fell out of favor once attrition emerged, and the policies and mob mentality reaction to the COVID virus that infected the minds of too many. It’s in such moments that reason and rational discourse give way to emotions fuelled by lies, half truths, and fears. If you add in the bigotry of collectivism, then you have a tendency to err in the direction of a conclusion that generally leads to mass murder or injustice. Once the victims are buried, the mob and political animals move on, wiping the injustice and irrationality from their minds. From there it’s “ancient history” to be forgotten, time to let “bygones be bygones,” and so on; the lack of reflection satisfies the return to reason inside ones mind.

Albert Camus once said that “the purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself.” That may be true for those writers who seek to challenge said civilization and by presenting it with a mirror to see its self upon. There are also those who write with such splendid prose only to satiate putrid intentions or to cover up the true nature of that which they justify. The delicate balance between admission and omission which is crucial in persuasion and propaganda dangle with the words of writers. To lie when appropriate and reveal when necessary is their job. It’s a rational choice to deceive, an awareness that a bad thing is being hidden.

When the Nazi military found the remains of murdered Polish prisoners in Katyn, evidence that the Soviet government had slaughtered thousands of unarmed men, it was revealed as a crime. The Nazi government invited neutral officials and Allied prisoners to investigate. The Nazi officials understood that it was wrong and immoral to slaughter unarmed people. The Soviets denied it as Nazi propaganda, also aware that what they had done is widely considered “wrong.” Yet, both Nazi and Soviet governments committed such atrocities en masse, only to see and reveal the evil in the other. The need to be seen as good is more important to those who are the epitome of evil, rather than to be not-evil. That is the contradiction of human beings: despite being capable of such abhorrent evil, beneath that violence lurks the warm heart of complicated creatures, many capable of love and selective kindness. Nearly all are aware of what to conceal or be justified with deceit, usually that which is understood to be evil.

Samantha Power is the author of A Problem From Hell: American and the Age of Genocide, where she argues for liberal interventionism and promotes the United States as a force for good, a shield to protect the innocent and to stop mass murder. Power recently drew criticism from Agnieszka Sykes, who works under Power in the United States Agency for International Development, and said, “You wrote a book on genocide and you’re still working for the administration: You should resign and speak out.” It’s the principled appealing to the political. It’s not that Samantha Power is necessarily a hypocrite that can be reasoned with; she is political. What principles she may have written about only exist as a means to an end, or as a validation of power and empire. For those like Power, enabling and downplaying the Israeli Defense Forces slaughter of Palestinian civilians is simply politics. A recently released White House transcript shows that President Joe Biden and his White House are aware of “thousands and thousands of innocent women and children [that have been killed],” yet his support and arms for Israel continues. It’s unlikely Power or the others will resign.

In financial markets it is understood that there is a madness in crowds or “rational irrationality.” An individual’s level of behavior tends to be perfectly reasonable, but in the case of markets and the marketplace, chaos can arise. Clearly, such a maniacal mentality exists outside of finances and with the added problem of the sociopathic and mercenary mindset. On a personal level, most understand that it is all absurd. But when expanded into the mob or nation there is a sense of helplessness even while participating in the absurdity. Is it absurd if it’s common and normalized? Maybe in the end the absurd are those who see it for what it is: insanity. Maybe the abnormal are those who remain principled and the unprincipled and irrational are normal. It seems no amount of reasonable explanation or set of principles matters to them; irrationality could end life on Earth with those doing it certain of their reasons for doing so until it’s all done.

March 20, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Niger broke military pact with US after being ‘warned’ about Iran, Russia ties

Press TV – March 19, 2024

Niger’s junta decided to suspend a military agreement with the United States after a delegation of senior US military officials visited the Western African country and “expressed concerns” about its growing relations with Russia and Iran.

The Pentagon said on Monday that the officials traveled to the Nigerien capital Niamey last week to discuss the matter with the country’s military leadership, seeking clarification about the way ahead.

Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh asserted that the US government had “direct and frank” conversations in Niger, and was continuing to communicate with the country’s ruling military council – known as the National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP).

“The US delegation was there to raise a number of concerns. … We were troubled (about) the path that Niger is on. And so these were direct and frank conversations, to have those in person, to talk about our concerns and to also hear theirs.

“US officials expressed concern over Niger’s potential relationships with Russia and Iran,” Singh said.

Niger’s junta announced on Saturday that it had canceled a 2012 defense cooperation agreement with the US.

“The government of Niger, considering the aspirations and interests of its people, responsibly decides to denounce with immediate effect the agreement that permitted US military personnel and civilian employees from the American Department of Defense on Niger’s territory,” Nigerien government spokesman Amadou Abdramane said in a statement on national television.

The move followed a visit to Niamey by a delegation of senior US military officials led by Under Secretary of State for African Affairs Molly Phee.

Abdramane accused US officials of not following diplomatic protocol and not informing Niger about the composition of the delegation.

He added that Niger regretted the “intention of the American delegation to deny the sovereign Nigerien people the right of choosing their partners and partnerships capable of truly helping them fight against terrorism.”

High-level Russian military officials, including Deputy Defense Minister Yunus-bek Yevkurov, have visited Niger and met with the country’s military leadership.

The prime minister of the ruling junta, Ali Mahamane Lamine Zeine, visited Iran in January.

Foreign Minister of Niger, Bakary Yaou Sangare, visited Tehran in October 2023 to explore opportunities for strengthening political and economic ties, as well as boosting cooperation in scientific and technological sectors between the two countries.

Commending Iran’s skills in various economic, scientific, and technological sectors, the Nigerien diplomat underscored that Iran’s capabilities are well-matched to cater to Niger’s requirements in the energy and industrial domains.

March 19, 2024 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

NATO troops active in Ukraine – El Pais

RT | March 19, 2024

Active and former military personnel from NATO states have long been operating in Ukraine, overseeing Kiev’s use of Western-supplied weapons, El Pais reported on Monday.

The US-led military bloc has been involved “in virtually every possible aspect” of the hostilities aside from active combat operations, the Spanish newspaper claimed. That includes supplying weapons, providing targeting information, and training Ukrainian soldiers inside the country, El Pais reported, citing interviews conducted throughout the conflict.

Retired foreign military service members who have joined the Ukrainian armed forces as “volunteers” are also serving as de facto agents for their home nations, El Pais said. They provide “knowledge about the situation on the front, to identify the effectiveness of the weapons supplied and possible problems in their use, as well as to detect possible cases of corruption concerning the aid provided,” the outlet claimed.

The presence of current and former NATO troops has been tacitly admitted by officials, the Spanish newspaper reported. It described recent suggestions by French President Emmanuel Macron that Western nations could send soldiers to Ukraine as “taboo-breaking,” in the sense of proposing active combat roles for Western military personnel.

While a handful of Western leaders have backed Macron’s position that deployments to aid Kiev in the conflict with Russia cannot be ruled out, numerous officials – including NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg – have dismissed the idea.

Moscow perceives the Ukraine conflict as a US-led proxy war against Russia, in which Ukrainians serve as ‘cannon fodder’ for Western interests. It considers foreigners fighting for Kiev as “mercenaries” who are doing the bidding of Western governments.

“We hear both French and English speech there [in the Ukraine conflict]. There is nothing good in this, first of all for them, because they die there and in large numbers,” President Vladimir Putin said last week, commenting on Macron’s remarks on potential Western troop deployments.

Senior Russian officials have suggested that more complex weapon systems provided to Kiev are highly likely operated by NATO staff, as there was not sufficient time to train Ukrainians on how to handle them.

Last month, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz revealed the involvement of British and French forces in preparing Ukrainian missile launches, as he explained why Berlin would not supply similar weapons to Kiev.

March 19, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Russia Considers US Proposals to Start Arms Control Talks ‘Hypocrisy’

Sputnik – 18.03.2024

Moscow considers Washington’s proposals to hold arms control talks “hypocrisy,” the Russian Foreign Ministry told Sputnik on Monday.

“American officials are declaring their alleged desire to enter into arms control discussions with Russia without preconditions but they clearly did not bother to read the February 29 address of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Federal Assembly, which has our fundamental assessments of this kind of hypocrisy and demagogy amid Washington’s desire to inflict ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia,” the ministry said.

Earlier in the day, US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that the United States stands ready to engage in bilateral arms control talks with China and Russia without any preconditions.

“The United States is willing to engage in bilateral arms control discussions with Russia and China right now, without preconditions. All they have to do is say ‘yes’ and come to the table in good faith,” Thomas-Greenfield said during a UN Security Council meeting.

Russia’s policy has not changed, and the country is ready to discuss arms control altogether with focus on issues that directly involve Moscow’s security interests, the Russian Foreign Ministry added.

“In the meantime, we are invited to conduct dialogue exclusively on US terms and only on those issues that are of interest to Washington,” the ministry said.

Deputy Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Dmitry Polyanskiy in turn said that the strategic dialogue between Russia and the United States on arms control is only possible if the US and NATO revise their anti-Russian course.

“Any interaction will only be possible if the United States and NATO review their anti-Russian course and when they show that they are ready to participate in comprehensive dialogue taking into account all of our strategic stability factors and removing all of the concerns that we have,” Polyanskiy said at the UN Security Council meeting.

He stressed that the strategic dialogue between the US and the Russian Federation cannot be separated from the general and military context.

At the same time Russia stands ready to negotiate on the issue of nuclear disarmament with interested countries during the new Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) Review conference, Polyanskiy added.

“We expect that our Western colleagues will abandon their very dangerous and destructive course. We are open within the new NPT Review conference to a constructive dialogue with all countries interested in reaching a consensus understanding on how we can create preconditions for further nuclear disarmament,” he said.

March 18, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »