Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US Creating Logistic Centers in Black Sea to Speed Up Arms Supplies to Ukraine – Kremlin Aide

Sputnik – 25.07.2024

MOSCOW – The United States wants to create logistics centers in the Black Sea region to speed up arms supplies to Ukraine and deploy long-range weapons, Russian presidential aide Nikolai Patrushev said on Thursday.

“In the countries of the Black Sea region, the United States intends to create logistics centers to accelerate the supply of weapons to Ukraine, as well as to deploy modern long-range weapons,” Patrushev said.

At the Washington summit, NATO demonstrated plans to increase its military presence and intensify confrontation in the Black Sea, the official added.

There can be no talk of unhindered passage to the ports of the Sea of Azov by ships of Western countries supporting Kiev, the aide noted.

“Given the aggressive nature of Western countries that directly support the Kiev regime in conducting military and terrorist actions against Russia, currently any unhindered passage of their ships to the ports of Azov is out of the question,” he emphasized.

Last month, the countries that signed a joint communique following the Swiss-hosted summit on Ukraine have called for providing access to sea ports in the Black and Azov seas to ensure global food security.

The number of joint exercises between the Japanese navy and NATO countries and other military allies of Washington in 2024 has already increased 30 times compared to last year, Patrushev added.

July 25, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK chief of staff says West should be ready for war in three years

Al Mayadeen | July 23, 2024

The new chief of the British Army General Staff has warned that Britain must be ready to fight a war in three years and double the army’s lethality as threats from Russia, China, Iran, and the DPRK escalate.

General Sir Roly Walker, the head of the general staff, told reporters that the West was facing “an axis of upheaval” with rising military ambitions, warning that a conflict with one nation may lead to another detonation elsewhere.

He argued that the UK and its allies must prepare “to deter or fight a war in three years,” emphasizing the seriousness due to China’s “threat” to Taiwan, Iran’s nuclear goals, and Russia’s military buildup evidenced by the war in Ukraine.

Walker cited US reports claiming that China’s President Xi Jinping had directed military readiness for a potential Taiwan “invasion” by 2027, alongside concerns about Iran potentially violating nuclear agreements and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

In a subsequent speech, Walker stated that he had “a bold ambition” for the army to “double our fighting power in three years and triple by the end of the decade,” not with additional resources but by utilizing technology and techniques developed on Ukrainian battlefields, such as drones and AI.

He argued that Russia, China, Iran, and DPRK‘s independence was growing, citing that they are becoming more supportive of each other with weapons and intelligence.

Walker predicted that it would take “five years to grind their way through” to re-capture the eastern Donbass, costing 1.5 million fatalities, arguing that Russia could recover despite this and may emerge with “a sense of wanting retribution for the support that was given to Ukraine,” thus constituting a higher medium-term threat than previously thought.

As the Labour administration has only recently begun a strategic military review following the election, Walker asserted that Britain has an “absolute urgency to restore credible hard power in order to underwrite deterrence.”

July 24, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia responds to Zelensky proposal for talks

RT | July 24, 2024

Vladimir Zelensky’s signal that Ukraine is ready to resume peace talks with Moscow is not credible, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said.

In recent weeks, Zelensky has said that Kiev wants to end the conflict “as soon as possible,” preferably “by the end of this year.” He has also insisted on holding a second ‘peace summit’ to achieve that goal.

The previous such event, hosted by Switzerland last month, focused on several points of Kiev’s ‘peace formula’ – which demands that Russia withdraw its troops from all territory claimed by Ukraine. Moscow has dismissed the plan as detached from reality.

Commenting on the possibility of peace with Ukraine, Zakharova told reporters on Wednesday that “nobody trusts [Zelensky].”

“Everyone knows perfectly well that this is a man who can twist anything, who can lie, who can refuse everything,” she said.

She recalled that Ukraine and its Western backers have done nothing to rescind Zelensky’s presidential decree barring Kiev from any talks with the current leadership in Moscow. The Ukrainian leader approved the document in the fall of 2022 after four former Ukrainian regions voted overwhelmingly to join Russia.

Last week, however, Zelensky suggested that he saw “no difference” in whether he had to engage with Russian President Vladimir Putin, or someone else, to end the conflict.

“We hear a lot of words, but we don’t see actions at all,” Zakharova noted, suggesting that Zelensky’s statements are no more than another attempt to promote Kiev’s ‘peace formula’ and dupe countries around the world into supporting the initiative.

The spokeswoman also opined that Zelensky’s unexpected “flexibility” on peace talks could be linked to recent major shifts in the US political landscape. She was referring to a recent assassination attempt on Republican presential nominee Donald Trump and incumbent Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the race.

The GOP candidate has repeatedly vowed to end the conflict within 24 hours if elected and has criticized US support for Kiev.

Zakharova’s comments come after Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba told his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi that Kiev “is willing to engage in dialogue and negotiations with Russia,” which he said must be “rational” and aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described Kuleba’s words as being “in unison” with Russia’s stance. “The Russian side has never refused negotiations, [but] the details that we do not know yet are important here,” he added.

July 24, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

People must agree to give up freedoms for survival – Kiev’s ex-top general

Valery Zaluzhny. © Alexey Furman/Getty Images
RT | July 23, 2024

The Western nations should “wake up” to the threat of a potential major conflict they are facing, Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s former military commander-in-chief, told a British military conference on Monday. The governments should make sure their nations are ready to “mobilize” and sacrifice their liberties in the name of what he called “survival” if such a conflict does break out, said Zaluzhny, who in May became Kiev’s ambassador to London.

Readiness for a war “should be considered as a huge set of measures” that covers all fields of state activity, the former general told the Land Warfare Conference 2024 hosted by the Royal United Services Institute. “Modern wars… are total,” he said, adding that “they require efforts… of society as a whole.”

Waging a war means that a state has to use all its “resources,” including “economics, finance, population and allies,” Zaluzhny stated, in a speech that he published in full on social media. “Society must agree to temporarily give up a range of freedoms for the sake of survival.”

The ex-general also claimed that what he called “the war for freedom in one country” in an apparent reference to Kiev’s standoff against Moscow “should become the policy of survival” for other nations.

In his speech, Zaluzhny claimed that “the very existence of Russia is already a threat.” He also referred to Moscow as an “eternal enemy” engaged in “the primordial struggle” with Kiev.

The military commander-turned-envoy also stated that the ongoing conflict would determine the future of wars for decades to come and called it a “war of the transitional period” that would set new rules of warfare. He also repeatedly spoke about the growing role of technologies on the battlefield but did not mention any specific ones, except for unmanned systems.

According to Zaluzhny, Ukraine had “already invented a way to fight and win against stronger armies in the 21st century.” He still admitted that Kiev cannot “scale up” its supposedly innovative warfare solutions but its backers in the West “have resources but … no applied and practical field to test them.” The former general then called on the West to work “together” with Ukraine to “effectively use the resource.” A failure to do so would mean that “we will all die,” he claimed.

Zaluzhny, who had served as the country’s military commander-in-chief since 2021, was dismissed by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky in February after a massive counteroffensive that ended up in a major failure for Kiev. Some media reported at that time that Zelensky also viewed the veteran general as a political rival. In May, Zaluzhny was relieved from active service and appointed an ambassador to the UK.

July 23, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

What does the Pentagon really say about Russian air defenses?

By Drago Bosnic | July 23, 2024

The former Soviet Union placed a significant emphasis on air defenses as part of its military doctrine. Moscow’s top brass never counted on fighting a war with absolute air superiority, as is the case in the political West, particularly the United States. Thus, the USSR and later Russia designed and produced the best air defense systems in history. They are one of the key modern military capabilities that provide adequate protection for both ground units and stationary strategic assets. In recent decades, air defenses have become increasingly networked and multilayered, giving the defenders a plethora of options to shoot down hostile jets, missiles, drones, space-based assets, etc.

In our age, modern militaries have started relying on swarms of well-coordinated drones designed to saturate an area and overwhelm existing air defenses. Only a handful of countries have developed and battle-tested systems against these new offensive weapons. For well over half a century, Russia has been at the forefront of the development of various SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems and other types of air defenses. What started out as an effort to nullify Western long-range bomber advantage in the aftermath of the Second World War soon turned into a key area of defense strategy, to the point that it’s effectively impossible to imagine modern warfare without advanced SAM systems.

By the 1970s, air defenses were no longer only focused on enemy fighter jets or bombers, but also on ballistic missiles and even space assets, both civilian and military (although this divide seems to be blurring by the day, especially when taking into account projects such as the SpaceX’s “Starlink”). Since the start of the special military operation (SMO), Russia also deployed an increased number of short-range air defenses, particularly the now legendary “Pantsir” hybrid SAM-AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) system. These have the task of protecting crucial areas in major cities and industrial regions, particularly the capital city of Moscow, which is the very heartland of Russia and its statehood.

Russia’s capital is protected by one of the most extensive air defense networks in the world and it also includes systems capable of shooting down ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles), incoming MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) warheads, satellites and other space-based assets used by its adversaries. However, these are strategic air and missile defense systems that don’t make Moscow immune to sabotage attacks involving drones and drone swarms. This is precisely why short-range systems are crucial, as they provide affordable and easily deployable air defense assets that can cover the most important sections of any airspace.

A great example of this is the “Pantsir” SAM-AAA system, which has proven itself against a plethora of targets, shooting down thousands of drones, missiles, rockets and other weapons in the Middle East and Ukraine, where it was able to neutralize entire barrages of rockets and missiles fired by the overhyped HIMARS and M270/MARS systems, including the infamous ATACMS. By protecting and supporting longer-range assets, such as the “Buk” (particularly the latest M3 “Viking” variant with autonomous capabilities) and S-300/S-400 series of SAM systems, the “Pantsir” effectively saved hundreds of people during a recent NATO-orchestrated terrorist attack on Sevastopol.

Since last month, the Russian military shot down hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones, saving countless lives and preventing massive damage to its economy. Just over the weekend (July 20 and 21), at least eight kamikaze drones were intercepted, three of which over the Belgorod oblast (region), and five over the Black Sea. In addition, at least two US-made ATACMS were intercepted over Kherson. A week before (July 10 and 11), at least five drones were shot down over the Bryansk, Moscow, Tambov and Tula oblasts. In the last two days of June, Russian air defenses intercepted a large-scale drone attack that targeted six oblasts, neutralizing 36 drones in the process.

Approximately 10 days earlier, the Russian military intercepted over a dozen kamikaze drones that were flying toward several regions in western and southern Russia. However, less than a week before that, a massive drone strike involving at least 87 kamikaze drones was intercepted. Earlier that month, another large-scale drone attack was repelled after nearly 30 drones were shot down. This is only including the drones that are targeting civilian infrastructure, as the Russian military is intercepting many times closer to the frontline, as well as numerous NATO-sourced rockets and missiles that the Kiev regime forces are firing at Russian troops and assets.

All the while, the mainstream propaganda machine is claiming that around 60% of Russian missiles allegedly “fail”. However, the Pentagon is giving starkly different assessments. Namely, the US military privately gives completely opposite numbers, stressing that the Russian military’s air defenses have a staggering success rate of 97%. Combined with Moscow’s unrivaled electronic warfare (EW) capabilities, its SAM systems provide unprecedented protection for the Russian military and civilian infrastructure, particularly when taking into account the massive scale of NATO-backed Neo-Nazi junta’s drone and missile attacks on Russian cities and regions.

These world-class air defenses are enabling the Kremlin to cover its troops, which then use advanced long-range strike systems to hunt for various NATO-sourced rocket and missile launch platforms. And unlike the Kiev regime, which regularly lies about its air defense “successes”, including against hypersonic weapons, the Russian military regularly publishes verifiable data (including video footage) of the interceptions of various types of hostile precision-guided munitions (PGMs). This is precisely why even some NATO countries refuse to let go of their Russian-made SAM systems, including both Greece and Turkey, with the latter even sacrificing the troubled F-35 acquisition.

July 23, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

NATO Plans to Destabilize Asia

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – 23.07.2024 

NATO’s plans to establish a foothold in Asia to counter China better is nothing more than a sure recipe for disaster. Coming to Asia and beating war drums against a country that has not attacked anyone is akin to pushing it to take any and all necessary steps to protect its interests. NATO, thus, is pushing China to shun its regionally focused pacificism in favour of a more belligerent stance. A more aggressive China will, in NATO’s calculation, push Asian countries to move more towards the US out of their common fear of Beijing as the hegemon. However, Asian countries are not readily buying the US narrative. They remain sceptical, even as they are still committed to maintaining a balance between China and the US to avoid getting trapped in the ‘Cold War 2.0’.

NATO’s Intended Exploits in Asia

In recent years, NATO has upped the ante in Asia to establish its tentacles. The linchpin of this strategy is to hijack the Asian countries’ defence and military strategies and shape them in strictly Western ways. This will include, as in the West, military competition plus a shift away from deep economic ties with Beijing. Once accomplished, this will help isolate China globally. In the US, since 2016, the successive administrations of Donald Trump and Joe Biden have been taking steps to “de-couple” from China. The European Union, too, is now increasingly coming round to this idea of putting serious curbs on trade with China. A key reason for this is the inability of both the US and the EU to compete with Chinese products. Ultimately, they want Asia to ‘learn’ the same lesson.

This was precisely the idea that Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s existing Secretary General, sold in an article he wrote for Foreign Affairs in early July. Addressing the China-Russia ties and blaming China for the combined failure of the US, EU, and NATO to defeat Russia in Ukraine, Stoltenberg said “this shows that in today’s world, security is not a regional matter but a global one. Europe’s security affects Asia, and Asia’s security affects Europe … These are big challenges that call for bold decisions”.

The bold decision, as it stands, is to link Europe’s security with Asia unnecessarily and at any cost. This will help the West centralize Asia’s security narrative under a common framework, with Asian countries ultimately losing their agency and autonomy. At least this is the idea.

How China Sees it

China has already warned NATO not to create “chaos” in Asia.  “China urges NATO to … stop interfering in China’s internal politics and smearing China’s image and not create chaos in the Asia-Pacific after creating turmoil in Europe,” said Chinese spokesperson Lin Jian.

Still, NATO’s narrative could work against it, even as China will make sure to frame it in a way that could wean regional states away from it. For instance, as is already evident, China is projecting NATO’s narrative, with evidence, in terms of how the US – and the collective West – are actually pushing for confrontation even when Beijing does not have a history of engaging in aggression with its neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region.  No shots have yet been fired that could draw a global outcry, calling for military solidarities against Beijing.

There is, therefore, a high degree of exaggeration and propaganda. If the imperative is really to counter China, why are the US and NATO countries not putting a premier on building deep economic ties with Asian countries? The reason is that they don’t have any economic plan of such magnitude that can counter China.  Therefore, the West cannot help but offer military help. But this is a help that not many countries in Asia are even looking for. Defence cooperation with the US is one thing, but welcoming NATO, a typical military alliance, in their territories and developing a global military alliance is an entirely different thing.

How Asian Countries See It

For many countries in Asia, any step towards NATOizing their security is reminiscent of colonial and imperialist relations that defined these territories’ and peoples’ relations with the West for centuries. Therefore, they seem to put a very high premium on maintaining their strategic autonomy.

Ironically, the opposition to developing a fully-fledged alliance is visible even in such countries as the Philippines that are otherwise known for being ‘pro-US’. President Ferdinand Marcos has called on the region to reject a “Cold War mindset”. Kishore Mahbubani, formerly Singapore’s ambassador to the United Nations, for example, warned as early as 2021 that the “biggest danger” of NATO’s Indo-Pacific shift is that the alliance “could end up exporting its disastrous militaristic culture” to East Asia. Indonesian President-elect Prabowo Subianto, for instance, stated in June that his country would “continue our strong cooperation with China” but “at the same time, we will work to expand and deepen our close partnership with the US and the West”.

Let’s also not forget that this region also includes a critical mass of countries – such as Indonesia – that have a history of ‘non-alignment’. They refused to take sides during the Cold War, and they are again showing strong signs of maintaining a similar stance in the current scenario.

Still, these countries’ scepticism is intensified by NATO’s recent performances. It has thus far badly failed in Ukraine. It wreaked havoc in Libya and Afghanistan, ultimately failing in both cases to bring stability. Does it have a track record of fulfilling its promises and achieving its objectives? For countries in Asia, establishing an alliance with an organization with such a poor record is a poor trade – not only because it will not bring much benefit, but also because it might directly – and negatively – affect their flourishing economic ties with China.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

July 23, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

NATO States Embrace Conscription, Eyeing Future War with Russia

By Connor Freeman | The Libertarian Institute | July 22, 2024

As NATO escalates its proxy war in Ukraine and inches closer to fighting directly with Russia, the Washington-led bloc is embracing mandatory military service. Many European members of NATO have expanded or reintroduced conscription as part of large-scale preparations for such a war, CNN reports.

Already outpaced in terms of military industrial capacity by Russia, the alliance’s new battleplans will see an attempt to beef up weapons production and form 35-50 brigades of 3,000-7,000 battle ready troops.

Outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has insisted, “Today, we have 500,000 troops on high readiness, combat-ready battlegroups in the eastern part of the Alliance for the first time.” But the bloc is struggling to meet its goals of assembling 300,000 soldiers prepared to be activated within a month and another half a million in six months. There is also a question of whether the bloc can filed a military fit for a protracted war akin to the Ukraine conflict.

Following the end of the Cold War, several European states ceased conscripting their citizens. Although increasing numbers of NATO member countries have resorted to the draconian practice during recent years, especially in the Baltics and Scandinavia. Roughly a third of the NATO alliance practices some form of compulsory military service.

This year, for the first time since it was abolished in 2006, Latvia reimplemented its draft. Male citizens are subject to conscription within a year of turning 18 years old. Additionally, Norway has unveiled a long-term plan to increase its ranks of mandatorily conscripted troops, employees, and reservists by 20,000 as well as double the military budget. In 2015, Oslo became the first NATO government to establish a gender-neutral draft.

Lithuania brought back mandatory military service in 2015, each year drafting 3,500 to 4,000 men between the ages of 18-26 for a nine-month period. Although the Finnish Defense Forces employ only 13,000 people during peacetime, Helsinki claims it has the ability to activate over 900,000 reservists  with 280,000 combat-ready troops. Sweden conscripts both men and women, Stockholm drafted 7,000 its citizens and the military expects to conscript 8,000 next year. The Swedes have had conscription since 1901.

Citing the supposed Russian threat to Europe, Robert Hamilton, the head of Eurasia Research at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, said “It is tragically true that here we are, in 2024, and we are grappling with the questions of how to mobilize millions of people to be thrown into a meatgrinder of a war potentially.” For 30 years, Hamiliton served as a US Army officer. “Meatgrinder” is a term often used by frontline troops in Ukraine, particularly during the battle of Bakhmut where the average life span of such a soldier was only a few hours.

In the United Kingdom, conscription is currently being pushed by Conservative MPs. The 2025 National Defense Authorization Act, the annual military spending bill, may include provisions which inter alia will seek to automatically register all eligible men and women for Selective Service, a form of conscripted labor, which could inevitably include military service.

Former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe General Wesley Clark echoed Hamilton’s hawkish sentiments, emphasizing “whether this is a new Cold War or an emerging hot war is unclear.” He added that NATO “must rebuild our defenses,” including with mandatory military drafts.

“I think young people in Europe and the US will come to realize that this generation, like the generation that fought WWII, it didn’t ask to be the ‘Greatest Generation’ but the circumstances thrust that burden on them,” Clark added.

The risk of direct war with Russia is growing by the day amidst the Ukraine proxy war, as the alliance has largely approved NATO missiles to be used for attacks against the Russian mainland. The bloc will soon provide Kiev with F-16s and an explicit green light for the warplanes to carry out direct strikes against Russian territory as well. Without irony, Stoltenberg claimed this should not be viewed by Russia as an escalation.

As NATO considers increasing its nuclear weapons deployments, the US is also planning to deploy previously banned, medium-range, nuclear capable missiles in Germany which has caused Russia to hint it could similarly retaliate. Pointing to the massive US-led buildup for war with China, President Vladimir Putin accused NATO of creating major security threats for Russia in Asia.

NATO set its sights on China four years ago, identifying Beijing as a military threat to European security. China maintains a “no limits” partnership with Russia. “NATO is already ‘moving’ there (to Asia) as if to a permanent place of residence. This, of course, creates a threat to all countries in the region, including the Russian Federation. We are obliged to respond to this and will do it,” Putin vowed earlier this year. That same month, Stoltenberg cited China as a reason the bloc is considering an “adaptation” of its nuclear arsenal.

July 23, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

The West is Learning the Wrong Lessons about Airpower in Ukraine

By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – 23.07.2024

A recent article appearing in the US-based Business Insider titled, “Russia’s showing NATO its hand in the air war over Ukraine,” would provide a showcase of the deep deficit in military expertise driving increasingly unsustainable, unachievable foreign policy objectives. The article summarizes a number of interviews conducted with Western “airpower experts,” exhibiting a profound misunderstanding of modern military aviation, air defenses, and their role on and above the battlefield.

The article claims:

Russia botched the initial invasion by failing to establish air superiority from the start, and it has been unable to synchronize its air and ground forces.

This is based on the assumption that Russia could somehow establish air superiority over the battlefield and infers that had the United States and the rest of NATO been in Russia’s place, air superiority would have been established. But this is false.

Fundamental Misconceptions 

At the onset of the Russian Special Military Operation (SMO) Ukraine possessed a formidable Soviet-made integrated air defense network consisting of some of the most successful and effective air defense systems in the world. This included long-range air defense systems like the S-300 as well as mobile systems like Buk, Strela, and Osa, as well as a large number of Soviet-made man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS).

The United States and its allies have not operated in airspace as contested as Ukraine’s since the Vietnam War. Over the skies of Vietnam the US would lose over 10,000 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters to Soviet-made air defenses employed by Vietnam’s armed forces.

In subsequent conflicts, including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, US-led forces would face either no significant air defenses at all, or air defenses consisting of old equipment operated by poorly organized, poorly trained, and poorly motivated troops, as was the case in Iraq.

Amid the US proxy war against Damascus and the US occupation of eastern Syria, US military aviation has been confined by Syria’s relatively modern air defense network, forcing both US and Israeli warplanes to conduct the same types of stand-off strikes Russian military aviation is conducting in Ukraine.
The article would claim:

Russia has demonstrated that it’s unable to suppress or destroy enemy air defenses, fly effective counterair missions, or run complex composite air operations like those the US Air Force pulled off in the opening days of Desert Storm in 1991 and then in the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Beyond the factually incorrect nature of this statement, the obvious differences between Iraq and Ukraine appear entirely lost among the “airpower experts” interviewed by Business Insider.

The Business Insider, citing these same “airpower experts,” also claims:

On the battlefield, effective airpower should aid the advance of armored combat vehicles and infantry by striking an enemy’s strongpoints, as well as the reinforcements and supplies they depend on.

Because of the vast differences between previous US conflicts around the globe and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine now, the type of rapid maneuver warfare utilized by US-led forces in Iraq would not only be inappropriate in Ukraine, it would be disastrous. The 2023 Ukrainian offensive before which NATO trained, armed, and directed Ukrainian forces, ended in catastrophic failure, comprehensively defeated by Russian defenses utilizing land mines, artillery, multiple-launch rocket systems (MLRS), long-range ballistic missiles, a wide variety of drones, and both infantry and attack helicopters utilizing anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) – all elements absent among the armed forces of the various nations the US has invaded and occupied since Vietnam.

Because Ukraine also possesses significant defense capabilities, including well-protected fortifications, minefields, artillery, and FPV (first-person-view) drones, NATO-style maneuver warfare would likewise result in catastrophic failure for Russian forces.

Russia has instead adopted a strategy of attrition. Instead of overwhelming Ukrainian positions with rapid maneuver warfare, it is grinding them down with huge amounts of artillery, MLRS, missiles, drones, and military aviation carrying out stand-off strikes using a variety of glide bombs ranging from 250 to 3,000 kilograms. While progress is slower than NATO-style maneuver warfare, it has allowed Russia to avoid the staggering losses Ukraine suffered last year during its offensive.

Ukraine is a different kind of war; thus Russia utilizes a different approach to military aviation.

The conclusion that events unfolding in Ukraine demonstrate the capabilities of Russian military aviation have been “significantly overstated,” as one expert interviewed by Business Insider put it, is a dangerous misconception. US-NATO military aviation would (and already has in Syria) demonstrated it suffers from the same limitations in airspace as contested as Ukraine’s.

Admitted Russian Advantages  

Business Insider’s article concedes there are aspects of Russian military aviation that constitute success. It mentions Russia’s extensive use of stand-off weapons – both air-launched cruise missiles as well as glide bombs (just as the US and its allies are using in Syria to avoid Syrian air defenses). The article also acknowledges Russia’s significant air defense and electronic warfare capabilities, constructing an “umbrella” protecting Russian forces, infrastructure, bases, and civilian centers.

There is one significant difference, however, between Russian and Western stand-off capabilities. Russia’s military industrial base allows it to produce missiles and glide bombs in quantities the collective West cannot match. Russia’s air defense capabilities also exist on a scale the collective West is unable to replicate.

After first claiming Russia is, “unable to suppress or destroy enemy air defenses,” Business Insider eventually admits the depleted air defense arsenals of the collective West and the inability to replenish them in any meaningful manner precisely because Russia has been able to not only “suppress” and “destroy enemy air defenses,” but also because of Russia’s ability to saturate and deplete Ukraine’s supply of interceptor missiles.  

Claims in the article that Lockheed Martin is expanding Patriot missile production to 550 a year are made without explaining that Russia is firing 4,000+ missiles at targets across Ukraine over the same period of time, meaning that 550, 650, or even 750 interceptors manufactured a year represent an entirely inadequate quantity.

And despite this fact, the article would even claim:

In Ukraine, the world has seen that Western air defenses can shoot down incoming drones and missiles when they have sufficient coverage and enough ammo, and the performance has quelled doubts about the Patriot.

This is doubtful.

The US and its allies transferred Western air defense systems to Ukraine, in part, to protect Ukraine’s power grid. In April 2024, CNN would admit that up to 80% of Ukraine’s non-nuclear power production has been destroyed. This means that Ukraine has either run out of Patriot missile interceptors, or the interceptors they have are failing to protect Ukraine’s power grid. It should be noted that the efficacy of an air defense system lies now only in its ability to intercept incoming targets, but also to be produced in large enough quantities to continue intercepting incoming targets.

The high cost of the Patriot missile system inhibits larger-scale production to meet the requirements of a large-scale and/or protracted conflict, meaning that despite its supposed performance in combat, it is still a fundamentally ineffective means of air defense.

Even before Russia’s SMO began in February 2022, the previous month Saudi Arabia’s Patriot systems had exhausted their supply of interceptors amid its ongoing conflict with neighboring Yemen. The United States’ inability to increase production forced Saudi Arabia to “borrow” missiles from neighboring nations.

The limited number of Patriot systems and interceptors being manufactured represent a metric of the system’s overall “success” and, despite the Business Insider’s conclusion, should  continue to drive “doubts” regarding it.

NATO vs. Russia 

The Business Insider article admits that in a conflict between NATO and Russia, NATO military aviation would face serious challenges that simply did not exist in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and even Syria.

The article cites US Air Force (USAF) General David Allvin who noted, “in future fights, it may be possible for the US to achieve air superiority only in bursts — small windows in a specific time, place, and location where air defenses are missing, destroyed, or out of ammo.” 

USAF General James Hecker would tell Business Insider, “if we can’t get air superiority, we’re going to be doing the fight that’s going on in Russia and Ukraine right now, and we know how many casualties that are coming out of that fight.” 

Considering the advantages Russia also enjoys in land warfare capabilities, including the production of up to 3 times more artillery ammunition than the collective West, the outcome of that fight would likely mirror the same incremental defeat Ukraine itself is now suffering.

Western Failures in the Skies of Ukraine, a Microcosm of Wider, Irreversible Decline 

The same blind pursuit of profits and power that compelled the collective West to expand NATO up to Russia’s border in the first place, and deliberately create a national security threat forcing Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, has also created the crisis facing the collective West’s military industrial base making it impossible to achieve the geopolitical objectives this proxy war in Ukraine is a part of.

In order for the collective West to “succeed,” it should first reevaluate what it is even trying to achieve.

This blind pursuit of profits and power is not unlike a tropism in nature – like a tree, for example – reaching downward with its roots and upward with its branches and leaves to grow as large and as fast as possible. In the ideal environment, such a tropism can thrive. In times of drought, the means of sustaining the vast proportions that the tree took could jeopardize its own very survival.

Until the 21st century, the global “environment” was ideal for Western hegemony. The disparity in military and economic power between the West and the rest of the world favored the blind pursuit of profits and power, often in the form of empire. The West grew to gargantuan proportions. Today, the environment has changed – this disparity no longer exists – and now the West is collapsing under the unsustainable size of its own overreach.

While Western policymakers search for game-changing strategies and technologies to maintain generations of global primacy, the unsustainable nature of this pursuit becomes more precarious all while Russia, China, and the rest of the world continue to grow stronger relative to the collective West. Only a policy of shifting away from coercion and control over the rest of the world, toward constructive cooperation with the rest of the world, can avert the inevitable collapse all other stubborn empires have faced throughout history.

For the rest of the world, including Russia and its Chinese allies, the goal continues to be defending their individual and collective sovereignty from Western hegemony while carefully avoiding the triggering of a much larger conflict borne of Western desperation.

In the meantime, in the airspace above Ukraine, a microcosm of the wider failure of Western foreign policy continues to play out, not only lacking any possibility of reversing in Ukraine or its Western sponsors’ favor, but almost certainly to continue accelerating to their detriment.

July 23, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

France Unbowed Leader Melenchon Calls for Withdrawal From NATO

Sputnik – 21.07.2024

Jean-Luc Melenchon, founder of the left-wing France Unbowed party, told Spanish newspaper El Pais in an interview out Sunday that he would pull France out of NATO if elected the country’s president.

“I choose the logic of disarmament and appeasement … If I were at the Elysee Palace, I would certainly systematically and in an organized manner withdraw from the joint military command, from NATO. Especially during the war, to avoid seeing the country involved in this story,” Melenchon told the newspaper.

The politician said he wanted France out of NATO because the military alliance “sticks to the war logic.”

In late June, Florian Philippot, the leader of French euroskeptic party The Patriots, called for France’s withdrawal from NATO after Ukraine launched a deadly missile strike on a crowded beach in Crimea. He called this an escalation and accused NATO of seeking a total war. ​

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

Could Trump’s election end NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine against Russia?

Strategic Culture Foundation | July 19, 2024

The presidential nomination of Donald Trump and Senator JD Vance as his running mate raises the prospect of a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Ukraine. Both have been vociferous critics of the NATO proxy war and the arming of the Kiev regime. Vance has even proposed a peace settlement that is close to Moscow’s demands.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who is recently pushing peace diplomacy, has voiced optimism that the omens are good for a settlement later this year to the worst war in Europe since the Second World War – if Trump and Vance are elected.

Only days after Donald Trump narrowly survived an assassination attempt, he was officially nominated as the Republican presidential candidate amid ecstatic scenes at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.

After the tumult and drama over the last week – a long time in politics, as the saying goes – the Trump election campaign is in the driving seat. His vice presidential running mate is 39 years of age and gives the Republican Party a youthful zest. Both men are very much singing from the same hymn sheet regarding their “Make America Great Again” vision.

Trump has united the GOP under his leadership. All former party rivals lined up this week in Milwaukee to endorse the former real estate magnate in his bid to seek re-election to the White House in November. That helps to solidify his manifesto, which bodes well for diplomacy in Ukraine.

By contrast, the election campaign of Democrat incumbent President Joe Biden has run into a ditch. This week he was self-isolating in Delaware having reportedly incurred a third-time Covid infection. Biden increasingly looks toast. His apparent mental decline – the latest gaffe this week was not remembering the name of his Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, referring to him haltingly as “a black man” – has provoked a crisis in the Democratic Party and the largely favorable U.S. corporate news media. Senior figures including former President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are reportedly urging Biden to stand down and pass the torch to a younger candidate. Panic is in the air.

There are reports that Biden may throw in the towel within the next few days as the Democrats head into their National Convention to officially nominate their presidential candidate. The trouble for the Democrats is they do not have a viable alternative candidate at this late stage in the campaign – with less than four months to election day on November 7.

That means there is now a serious chance that Trump could return to the White House after he lost the election in 2020, which MAGA loyalists hotly disputed as “stolen”.

That election outcome turns attention to one issue in particular: the war in Ukraine. The conflict erupted in February 2022 and has cost the lives of over 500,000 Ukrainian soldiers. Under the Biden administration and aligned European NATO members, there is no sign of the war coming to an end. Biden and European allies have pledged to keep sending weapons to Ukraine and tens of billions of dollars to prop up a hopelessly corrupt NeoNazi regime in Kiev.

Trump and Vance have pitched a diametrically opposite policy on the U.S.-led NATO proxy war in Ukraine.

That stance is causing the Deep State and its military-industrial complex acute anxiety. The Ukraine war racket has been a bonanza that vested interests in the U.S. ruling class do not want to end. That tension provides a plausible explanation for the attempted assassination of Trump during an open-air rally at Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13. Salient questions remain about how the shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20-year-old student, gained access to such a high-security position to fire his rifle at Trump.

The Republican candidates have warned that the Ukraine conflict is in danger of spiraling into a nuclear world war. Trump has said that he would end the war immediately by cutting off the military aid spigot and forcing the Kiev regime to begin negotiations with Russia.

Tantalizingly, JD Vance (R-Ohio) has been even more explicit in proposing that the warring parties should accept the territorial gains made by Russia – including Crimea, Donbass, Zaporozhye and Kherson provinces – and that Ukraine must accept Moscow’s demand that it remain neutral and outside of the NATO alliance.

Such a position is a breath of fresh air for its rationality. Many respected American scholars and diplomats have also recommended this historically coherent position as a solution, including Professors John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs. At least Trump and Vance seem to be cognizant of this reality, unlike the Biden administration and the rest of the Democrat Party, along with the Western media establishment and European minions who insanely push a fraudulent war to the last Ukrainian.

Moreover, polls show that the majority of American citizens (and Europeans) would prefer to see a diplomatic solution to the worst war in Europe since 1945.

Hungary’s Orban has admirably advocated peaceful diplomacy and for his troubles, his government has been sanctioned by the European Union establishment. Slovakia’s Robert Fico has also called for an end to the war in Ukraine, which many believe led to an assassination attempt on his life in May.

The conflict in Ukraine is a senseless, bloody slaughter that should never have escalated if Russia’s peace proposals in December 2021 had been accepted instead of dismissed out of hand by the Biden administration and its NATO lackeys in Europe. Also, a peace deal was possible in April 2022 but again was scuppered by malicious U.S. and British intervention.

If an American presidential candidate is proposing a diplomatic end to the conflict then that should be welcomed. It seems that common sense is prevailing.

Having said that, however, there are caveats. The Trump-Vance rhetoric could be empty pre-election canvassing for votes.

Trump’s record is one of hyping expectations and not delivering. When he ran for the presidency in 2016, he promised to normalize relations with Russia – and did not deliver.

He also boasted about solving the conflict in the Middle East with a “deal of the century” – only to embolden Israeli aggression towards Palestinians and Iran.

A reality check is strongly advised on what Trump and Vance can achieve.

While both men express skepticism about “endless wars” and NATO, it should be borne in mind that the conflicts the U.S. empire is fueling have a systematic cause. The United States is desperately fighting to maintain its failing hegemony against the rise of a multipolar and more democratic global order.

Washington and its European vassals are unleashing wars as a matter of necessity for preserving their erstwhile global dominance. History teaches that wars are always the refuge of the Western imperialist ruling classes.

It is notable that while Trump and Vance talk about ending conflict in Ukraine, they are at the same time talking belligerently about confronting China and Iran.

Trump and the MAGA Republicans are deprecated by the U.S. establishment as being “isolationists” in their vision of pursuing “America First”.

But the notion of “isolationalism” is an oxymoron when one considers the objective reality of U.S. imperialism. Foreign wars are an insatiable appetite for Western dominance.

American relations with the rest of the world are all about power projection, dominance and ultimately using violence to assert its “might is right” presumed national privileges. That applies whether the incumbent in the White House is a Democrat or Republican.

Trump may sound more reasonable on the issue of conflict in Ukraine with Russia. That alone makes him a more plausible candidate compared with the reckless warmongering of Biden and the Democrat-Deep State nexus.

The war in Ukraine must be stopped as soon as possible and a more reasonable security arrangement for Europe must be negotiated as Russia has long been consistently advocating.

Any diplomatic opening towards achieving peace and ending the killing must be welcomed.

Trump and Vance might just deliver on ending the hostilities in Ukraine which in itself would be a huge step forward away from the abyss of all-out war with Russia. On that score alone, their election might bring about an improvement.

But alas there is a contradiction. Don’t expect world peace to break out in other parts of the globe, because U.S. imperialism is cranking up its war machine. Trump and Vance are hawkish in their policy towards China and Iran.

A comprehensive solution to ending U.S. aggression and militarism is not a change of personnel at the White House. A profound, systematic change in American politics and economics is required.

Is partial peace sufficient? Maybe it is for now.

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

Australia uses ‘illegal surveillance’ against pro-Palestinian student protesters: Activist

Press TV – July 20, 2024

Authorities at a top university in Australia have used illegal surveillance methods against pro-Palestinian demonstrators, who have for several months been protesting against Israel’s atrocities in the Gaza Strip.

Students at the University of Melbourne staged encampment protests and sit-in strikes to force the university to cut ties with weapons manufacturers, divest from Israeli firms, and “end its complicity in the genocide in Gaza,” said protest organizer Dana Alshaer.

Alshaer, one of the main organizers of UniMelb for Palestine, told Turkish news agency Anadolu that along with 20 other students, she is now facing “extremely baseless” allegations of misconduct from the university and the threat of expulsion.

“They targeted five main organizers of UniMelb for Palestine, and they also targeted some prominent students who have been very visibly present during rallies and protests on campus,” said Alshaer.

“In the misconduct allegations,” she said, “the university included CCTV footage and Wi-Fi location tracking as evidence … so there’s been a use of surveillance technologies against students.”

Alshaer said the university clarified in 2016 that “their Wi-Fi tracking cannot and will not be used to identify students.”

“However, what we saw in the misconduct allegations and documents that were sent to us is that Wi-Fi tracking has been used to track students.”

Alshaer also raised concern “over the university’s possible and potential use of facial recognition programs.”

She said the university is using these misconduct allegations as a punishment “for students who defied the university’s ties with weapons manufacturers … and challenged the university’s ongoing complicity in the genocide in Gaza.”

She said that that university “is punishing students for standing up against [Israel’s] genocide” in Gaza.

Alshaer said that after their month-long Gaza solidarity encampment protests, they managed to push the university to disclose in June its links with US weapons manufacturers Lockheed Martin, Boeing and BAE Systems, as well as over $15 million in research partnerships and investments with the US Department of Defense.

Despite being targeted by the university, she said, the students are determined to continue their activities for Palestine.

Pro-Palestine encampment protests that began at Columbia University in the United States in April and spread across campuses nationwide and worldwide, have faced harsh police crackdown and led to hundreds of arrests.

The protesters have been calling on universities to stop doing business with Israel or companies that support the regime’s atrocities in the Gaza Strip.

July 20, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism, Solidarity and Activism | , | Leave a comment

Retro Israel panel defies ‘America First’ foreign policy

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos | Responsible Statecraft | July 10, 2024

The National Conservatism Conference, which professes to represent a new conservatism to “understand that the past and future of conservatism are inextricably tied to the idea of the nation, to the principle of national independence, and to the revival of the unique national traditions that alone have the power to bind a people together and bring about their flourishing,” has a foreign policy problem.

On the one hand the organizers and proponents rail against a globalism dominated by supranational neo-liberal institutions, and progressive litmus tests and ideas, but on the other they want borderless solidarity with other like minded nationalists across the globe. And for some reason this precludes them from talking too much about the biggest U.S. foreign policy issue in years, the Ukraine war, for which there is no panel scheduled over the course of the event, Monday through today.

It also means talking about Israel from a predominantly Israeli nationalist perspective. And talking about the Gaza war purely in the frame of Islamic extremism and the “mullocracy” of Iran. In other words, this is only an American interest insofar as, according to the speakers on Tuesday, U.S. presidents are accused of going too easy on Iran, which in part led to the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel. And now Washington has to help fix it.

Moreover, American political elites have allowed the “Islamosupremacists” to influence college campuses and Democratic administrations and turn Americans (in this case, Democrats) against not just Israel, but all Jews.

As Ben Weingarten charged in the one Israel panel — “Islam, Israel & the West” — the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas have had a grip on Washington since the George W. Bush administration, where the then-president had the temerity to declare that “Islam is peace.”

If that sounds familiar it is because the same people in the room today, 20 years older and graying at the ears, said the same exact thing after 9/11. But the difference here is that Israel is fighting its own war and making it an American war on terrorism and Islam is not going to work this time. What this national conservatism conference was missing was a true conversation about what is in America’s interest as it pursues policies with Israel, Iran, and the greater Middle East.

Instead we got old chestnuts from Weingarten, an “investigative reporter” for the Federalist, talking about “the troubling views held by large percentages of American Muslims (who) are or subscribe to the same worldview as Islamic supremacists who seek to impose… a theopolitical, Sharia-based ideology on America, wholly antithetical to our constitutional republic; while leftists and Islamic supremacists are in some ways polar opposites, traditional patriotic Americans are the chief stumbling block to each side achieving its objectives.”

To him, American protests against Israel’s military operations in Gaza, which have resulted in at 38,000 (or more) dead, the vast majority of the population displaced and hungry, most of the Strip’s civilian infrastructure (homes, electricity, hospitals, schools) damaged if not destroyed by American-made bombs, is merely the “the predictable consequence of an unholy alliance between progressives and Islamic supremacists that has for several years been fundamentally transforming not only the Democratic Party but America.”

Eugene Kontorovich, an Israeli legal scholar who now teaches at George Mason University’s Anton Scalia Law School, spent his time on the panel railing against international institutions including the United Nations, which he said were dominated by anti-Jewish, pro-Islamist ideologues that were in essence working for Hamas. This conveniently renders, at least to his mind, International Criminal Court charges against Israel, including the deliberate starvation of the Palestinian population, absolutely meaningless (plus, as he has suggested, the U.S. military does it too, a favorite justification among Israeli military apologists since Oct. 7).

Instead he calls the Israel operation in Gaza “clearly the most restrained war in modern times, with the lowest proportion of civilian casualties of any war in modern times.” Again, no conversation about whether the current U.S.-backed strategy will actually protect Israel in the long-term or destroy it from within, or whether it is in America’s interest to push it along.

No doubt, the discussion appealed to the paranoia among this retro crowd that Islamists have more power than they actually have in Washington (which is why Netanyahu is getting a red carpet on Capitol Hill this month, weapons and money slushing to Tel Aviv, and votes sailing through Congress cutting off aid to Palestinians and the very institutions Kontorovich abhors?).

But the National Conservatism conference, founded by the Edmund Burke Foundation under the tutelage of Israeli nationalist Yoram Hazony, should not be confused with the America First foreign policy now being debated in conservative circles today. After three days of programming, that much is clear.

There were a few counterbalances — a thoughtful discussion about the future of NATO, which included realist Sumantra Maitra, and remarks from Elbridge Colby, a self-described conservative realist. During a plenary speech, he said U.S. foreign policy must be rooted in the goals of preserving fundamental American interests of freedom, security, and prosperity, and cast in the lens of prioritization and power balancing. While North Korea, Russia, and Iran pose threats, he contended, they are regional threats to traditional U.S. allies and partners but not existential threats to those aforementioned American core interests. Therefore, he said, they are not foreign policy or security priorities for which the U.S. needs to militarize.

He does suggest, however, that China is a threat to the U.S. economy and the security of our allies in the region, and that requires priority. “Strategy and conservative realism would call for balance of manifest strength in Asia, but also openness to a modus vivendi in China. We must be laser focused on the rightful conservative goal here, to preserve peace, if at all possible, but decent peace, one that ensures Americans are safe, free, and prosperous, and most high necessity prevents China from dominating Asians.”

While not all realists and restrainers agree with Colby’s China perspective here, his brief against the primacist foreign policy of the last 70 years sits well with a growing faction of conservative foreign policy (American interest-focused) today, much to the contrast of the Israel panel dominated by the throw-back ideological rhetoric of the past.

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft and Senior Advisor at the Quincy Institute.

July 20, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Islamophobia, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »