Nuland’s Resignation Related to Failure of US’ Anti-Russian Policy – Zakharova
RT | March 5, 2024
US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is poised to leave her post soon, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has announced. The senior official, widely regarded as a foreign policy hawk, played a key role in the Western-backed coup in Kiev in 2014.
In a statement on Tuesday, Blinken noted that his friend “Toria” has held most of the jobs at the State Department, from a consular officer to ambassador and deputy secretary, over her 35-year career. Her most recent posting was as undersecretary for political affairs. She was also Blinken’s acting deputy after the July 2023 retirement of Wendy Sherman, until Kurt Campbell was confirmed to the post last month.
“What makes Toria truly exceptional is the fierce passion she brings to fighting for what she believes in most: freedom, democracy, human rights, and America’s enduring capacity to inspire and promote those values around the world,” Blinken said.
He also noted that her “leadership on Ukraine” will be the subject of study “for years to come” by diplomats and students of foreign policy.
Nuland was directly involved in the Maidan uprising and the subsequent coup in Kiev. In December 2013, she visited Ukraine to hand out pastries to the armed protesters in Kiev’s central square. She was then recorded discussing how to “midwife this thing” with then-US ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, just days before the February 2014 coup.
She resigned from the State Department during the Trump administration, taking the helm of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) think-tank before joining the Albright Stonebridge Group and the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). She rejoined the government after President Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021.
In that capacity, she has worked on arming Ukraine and assembling a Western coalition that would supply Kiev with weapons and ammunition for the conflict with Russia. Last month, she pleaded to Congress to approve $61 billion in funding to Ukraine, arguing that most of it would be “going right back into the US economy,” to create jobs in the weapons industry.
Her most recent trip to Kiev involved intervening with President Vladimir Zelensky on behalf of General Valery Zaluzhny, though to no avail. Zaluzhny was subsequently fired.
In a CNN interview at the end of February, Nuland admitted the defeat of US policy towards Moscow, describing today’s Russia as “not the Russia that, frankly, we wanted.”
Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova attributed Nuland’s exit to “the failure of the anti-Russian course of the Biden administration.”
“Russophobia, proposed by Victoria Nuland as the main foreign policy concept of the United States, is dragging the Democrats to the bottom like a stone,” Zakharova said. Posting a photo of Nuland taken at an Orthodox church at some point, she said that if the US politician wanted to “go to a monastery to atone for your sins, we can put in a good word.”
Nuland is married to neoconservative stalwart Robert Kagan. Her sister-in-law Kimberley Kagan, married to Robert’s brother Fred, runs the Institute for the Study of War. Her temporary replacement at the State Department will be Under Secretary for Management John Bass.
Sending NATO soldiers to Ukraine is “apocalypse warning,” says Slovak prime minister
By Ahmed Adel | March 5, 2024
The Prime Minister of Slovakia, Robert Fico, said on March 2 in a video posted on social media that sending soldiers from the European Union and NATO to Ukraine could precipitate a global apocalypse. The social media post was made on the same day that the Slovakian foreign minister met with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov.
Fico also highlighted Ukraine’s inability to resolve the conflict despite the West’s substantial financial and military aid. He emphasised that an EU and NATO military presence in Ukraine could potentially alter the dynamics of the conflict and trigger catastrophic consequences.
“The West sees that, despite significant financial and military aid, Ukraine is incapable of resolving this armed conflict,” said the Slovak prime minister, adding: “The situation could change with the arrival of EU and NATO military personnel in Ukraine, but then there would be nothing left but to wait for the arrival of the global apocalypse.”
Fico highlighted the pressing need for modern air defence systems for Ukraine but warned that the West could not provide these systems without a commitment to maintaining and operating this equipment. He argued that sending Western military personnel would only worsen the conflict rather than resolve it.
French President Emmanuel Macron said on February 27 during a conference of European leaders that he does not rule out sending troops from Western allies to Ukraine and announced a coalition to deliver missiles to the Ukrainian Army.
“There’s no consensus today to send in an official, endorsed manner troops on the ground. But in terms of dynamics, nothing can be ruled out,” declared Macron.
However, several NATO members, including Slovakia, ruled out the possibility of on-the-ground support for Ukraine which has been in armed conflict for more than two years.
It is recalled that on February 26, Fico warned when speaking ahead of a meeting of EU and NATO national leaders in Paris that several EU and NATO members are considering military deployments to Ukraine. He cited a “restricted document” listing topics to be discussed in Paris that “sends shivers down your spine.”
“These topics,” the Slovak said, “imply that a number of NATO and EU member states are considering sending troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis. I can’t say for what purpose or what they would do there.”
According to Fico, “This [Paris] meeting is confirmation that the Ukraine strategy of the West has completely failed.”
Macron’s statement was intended to send a strong warning to the Kremlin, but it failed miserably since his comments revealed Western divisions and disagreements instead. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz led the group of European leaders who disagreed with Macron’s claim that NATO had not ruled out sending troops, whilst Washington abandoned Paris in the idea of sending troops and let the French president receive all the flak.
A survey of 12 European Union countries, commissioned by the European Council on Foreign Relations and published on February 21, reveals that only 10% of respondents believe Ukraine can defeat Russia. Furthermore, only 31% of respondents favoured Europe supporting Ukraine until it regained lost territory, while 41% favoured Europe pushing Ukraine to negotiate a peace agreement with Russia.
Unlike many of his European counterparts, Fico acknowledges the reality that Ukraine cannot win the war with Russia. For this reason, Fico sent Foreign Minister Juraj Blanar to hold talks with his Russian counterpart on March 2 on the sidelines of a diplomatic forum in Turkey, a rare high-level encounter between a European Union member state and the country Brussels has attempted to isolate.
The Slovakian prime minister highlighted that the meeting “was an example of our balanced and sovereign [foreign policy],” adding that Blanar and Lavrov spoke about the possibility of a Ukraine peace summit in Switzerland.
For his part, Blanar said in a statement that the war did not have a military solution and urged peace talks. The foreign minister added in the statement that he told Lavrov that Slovakia was against creating an “iron curtain” between Russia and the EU, and its position was based on respect for international law principles, such as territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Fico returned to power after winning an election in 2023 on promises to stop state military aid to Ukraine and has been critical of anti-Russia sanctions. The leftist populist leader also recently said the West’s approach to the Ukraine war is “an absolute failure,” which, as observed by the European Council on Foreign Relations survey, is what most EU citizens also believe. Fico joins Viktor Orban, prime minister of neighbouring Hungary, in resisting major pressure from Brussels and Washington to relent on their efforts to normalise with Moscow, and his actions once again demonstrate the fractures in the EU and NATO.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
German Military Leak Added Embarrassment to Berlin’s Silence on Nord Stream Sabotage
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 04.03.2024
Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has blamed Moscow for the leak, completely glossing over the fact that German military officers were discussing nothing short of an open attack on Russia, Sputnik’s commentators say.
The leaked conversation of German officers discussing attacks against Russian civilian infrastructure by German-made Taurus missiles has prompted a heated debate in Berlin. “It’s a hybrid disinformation attack — it’s about division, it’s about undermining our unity,” German Defense Minister Pistorius rushed to claim: “We mustn’t fall for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.” Earlier, Berlin stated it wouldn’t send Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine.
“I think in war narrative, control is obviously very important,” Glenn Diesen, professor of international relations at the University of South-Eastern Norway, told Sputnik. “And on this tape it was revealed that German generals were discussing attacks on Russia or more specifically, attacking the infrastructure of the Kerch Strait Bridge [also known as the Crimean Bridge]. And it also revealed that the Taurus missiles will be supplied to Ukraine, in which the Americans would assist in handling them or firing them, attacking Russia with them. So this is, of course, very problematic because it demonstrates NATO’s direct involvement in the war, that is direct attacks on Russia. This is not just weapons and intelligence anymore, but now also picking the targets and, indeed, even pulling the triggers.”
Nord Stream Sabotage and Crimean Bridge Attack Plot
By accusing Russia of launching a “disinformation” attack Germany appears to use the same playbook it used in the aftermath of the Nord Stream sabotage attack of September 26, 2022, when Russia was groundlessly blamed for destroying its own pipeline.
According to Diesen, it’s the US who is pulling the strings of the German government in both cases.
“Obviously, the United States has an interest in this,” the expert said, commenting on the scandal surrounding the possible delivery of Taurus missiles to the Kiev regime. “They’re not able to supply weapons of their own at the moment due to the Republican opposition. So they’re obviously looking for the Europeans to take a greater role in this proxy war against Russia. By comparison, Nord Stream was, I would say, even more awkward because keep in mind that before the Nord Stream pipelines were attacked, the US on numerous occasions told what they were planning to do. They threatened it very publicly, expressing their intention to attack the Nord Stream pipeline if Russia would invade Ukraine.”
In both cases, Washington and its allies in the German government feared that the incidents could create divisions within the West; so, the first instinct was to blame Russia, the professor pointed out. Likewise, in both cases nobody in the West seems willing to dig to the bottom of what happened: an investigation in the Nord Stream sabotage has yet to bear any fruit, while the German military chatter is being downplayed by Berlin and its allies.
“It’s the same pattern of behavior,” Gunnar Beck, AfD European Parliament MEP told Sputnik. “The German government is presented with clear evidence. And they deny it and they go on the attack against Russia. Who’s benefiting from this clearly [are the] fervently anti-Russian interest groups within the German government. I’d say the Greens in particular. But, broadly and in abstract terms, everyone in Germany who defines Germany’s national interest in terms of the interests of the collective West. It’s a majority of the German establishment.”
“The German generals appeared to be part of that camp of the German political establishment, which saw Germany as firmly anchored in the West. That applies to all political parties except my own,” the German politician continued.
“And, of course, the arms industry. Naturally, arms manufacturers in Germany are trying to profit from increased military spending on Ukraine.”
The Bundeswehr chatter clearly indicated that American and British military specialists have also been deployed in Ukraine and could be involved together with the French in the attacks on Russia’s Crimean infrastructure.
According to Beck, the attack on the Crimean Bridge is a symbolic matter for NATO: “That’s an important symbol of Crimea being an integral part of Russia,” he presumed.
“I think there are two objectives,” Diesen said, commenting on the matter. “The first would be, just in terms of the war, the Crimea can be seen as an important logistics hub. And in wars especially on this scale, we see that logistics are imperative in order to be able to bring weapons and supplies and move troops around. So being able to destroy this bridge would be an important way of limiting the logistics flexibility of the Russian army. But I think there’s also now a wider, larger strategic level in which there’s this historical desire, especially by the Americans and British, as the main naval powers over the past 200 years or 200-plus years, which has been to weaken Russia’s access to the seas. So, again, this has been a very old strategy, for centuries, which is, yeah, to limit Russia’s access to these oceans.”
German Public Don’t Want War With Russia
Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drew attention to the fact that Berlin is much more concerned about the leak taking place, rather than the fact that the German military was discussing in detail a potential sabotage attack on Russia’s Crimean Bridge.
“I think it’s an embarrassment for [Germans], obviously, because it’s been quite important for Germany,” said the Norwegian professor. “They’re trying to balance two positions. They want to be loyal NATO members, which supplies weapons in this proxy war against Russia. But at the same time, they’re very cautious not to be seen as being a participant of the war – this obviously failed. They’re now being caught red-handed, planning attacks on Russia, which makes them participants. I think this is merely an issue of controlling the narrative, which is to shift the focus on what this represents.”
For his part, Beck emphasized that while the German establishment has no scruples about sending more weapons to Ukraine and planning attacks on Russia’s civilian objects, the German public is not warmongering.
“So what this conversation – which is not even the German government – clearly shows is that the German military is planning an attack against Russia, which, according to every interpretation of international law, would make Germany a party in the military conflict in the Ukraine. That’s not what the vast majority of Germans want,” Beck emphasized.
The conflict in the Red Sea and the reaction of the world community
By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – 04.03.2024
During the discussion that took place on 14 February 2024 at the UN Security Council meeting, questions were raised about the unlawful shelling by the US and UK in Yemen in violation of all international laws and regulations. This serious issue was discussed in detail due to the violations of international law and human rights that accompany these shellings. The UNSC participants condemned these actions by the US and the UK as illegal and unacceptable. Despite demagogic statements about the fight against terrorism and alleged support for international security, such shelling by Western powers located tens of thousands of kilometres away from the Red Sea basin only exacerbates the humanitarian situation in Yemen and causes irreparable harm to the lives of civilians, including primarily children and women. At the meeting, the panellists rightly raised the need to put an urgent end to this shelling and to return to negotiations for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. It was noted that another wave of violence by Western countries would only exacerbate the situation in that poor Arab country and hinder the achievement of sustainable peace in the region.
Russia’s and China’s opinion
Russia and China have deemed the US and UK bombing of Yemeni territory illegal and contrary to the United Nations Charter, accusing them of illegally attacking Yemen, whose residents support the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip in the face of the Israeli regime’s bloodbath. Russia’s Deputy Ambassador to the UN Dmitry Polyansky and China’s representative to the UN Zhang Jun stressed that the UN Security Council has never authorised military action against Yemen. For his part, the UN special envoy for Yemen, Western representative Hans Grundberg, said that the US and UK attacks and the American declaration of the Ansar Allah resistance movement in Yemen as a “specially designated terrorist group” were merely “of concern.” And what exactly could this so-called envoy, who is entirely on Washington’s payroll and receives all instructions from White House officials, have said.
Mr Polansky correctly emphasised that the root cause of the current situation is Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, which have provoked angry reactions in West Asia, including from Yemenis. “An immediate ceasefire in Gaza will help stabilise the situation in the Red Sea, and de-escalation will in turn unblock the efforts of Special Envoy Grundberg,” he said. The Chinese envoy also expressed concern over the escalation of tensions in the Red Sea region, in particular “the continuation of military operations by certain countries” against Yemen. He called for an immediate halt to the Yemeni hostilities against merchant shipping and stressed the fact that the UN Security Council has not authorised the use of force against Yemen.
“At this critical moment, China hopes that all parties in Yemen will put the interests of the people first, show determination and resolutely push the political process forward to achieve final results,” Zhang Jun added. He also emphasised that “the most urgent task is to immediately promote a ceasefire in Gaza and take responsible measures to prevent further escalation in the region.”
Aggressive actions of the US and UK
For weeks, the United States and Britain have been waging a fierce bombing campaign on Yemeni territory. The reason is well known – this Arab country has boldly declared its open support for the Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip against the Israeli carnage since 7 October last year, in which some 30,000 civilians, especially the elderly, women and children, have already been killed. The US, being one of the leading superpowers and a global factor, has stated its brazen stance on the issue of shelling Yemen. They deny their direct involvement in the conflict, claiming that they are only supporting military assistance and supplies to Saudi Arabia, which in turn is conducting operations to defeat the Houthis. However, human rights advocates and humanitarian organisations have raised accusations of US involvement in human rights and civilian violations during these operations.
Despite strong condemnation of its brutal and aggressive actions, the United States has again “conducted five strikes in self-defence” against areas of Yemen controlled by the Houthi militia, the US Central Command said. It struck three mobile anti-ship cruise missiles, one unmanned underwater vessel and one unmanned surface vessel on 17 February, the statement said. “This is the first observed use of an unmanned aerial vehicle by the Houthis since the attacks began on 23 October,” CENTCOM said in a statement on its X website. Central Command said it had determined the missiles and ships posed “an immediate threat to U.S. Navy ships.” The Houthi attacks in the Red Sea area have been one of the signs of spreading conflict in the Middle East since war broke out between Israel and Hamas after 7 October.
Unlike the US, the UK, its closest ally and most likely a country once with a solid international reputation, chooses not to explicitly support Saudi Arabia, but also does not actively oppose it. Instead, London claims to be providing military assistance centred on training and advice to prepare the Saudi army for its tasks. In these statements, the British demagogically point to the importance of maintaining the stability of the region and fighting terrorism. However, in doing so, they forget to recall that it is they, together with their overseas partners, who are the main disturbers of peace and tranquillity and the main “creators” of the atmosphere of terrorism in the region.
Alongside these states, some delegates from US satellite countries expressed support for the US and UK, arguing that the shelling was in response to acts of terrorism and extremism that threaten world security. They emphasise the need for action to ensure the safety of their citizens and partners. The UN Security Council meeting was by all accounts very tense and controversial, reflecting the complexity of the situation in Yemen and the multifaceted challenges faced by the parties to the conflict. But it was nevertheless called for further discussion and for finding ways to end the violence and restore peace. In conclusion, the UN Security Council meeting emphasised that violators of international law and human rights, including the systematic shelling of Yemen, must be brought to justice and those responsible must be punished accordingly. The decision on further steps and investigations was postponed until all the arguments made during the discussion are recorded, and a relevant document is prepared for further voting.
Ways and means of resolving the conflict in the Red Sea
Human rights advocates and humanitarian organisations object to this position and allege US and UK complicity in human rights and civilian violations in Yemen. Critics also point out that US and UK military aid could be used to commit crimes against humanity and military operations could be disproportionate and indifferent to civilians. The need to resolve the conflict in Yemen is integral to upholding international law and protecting human rights. The world community must continue dialogue, find a political solution and provide humanitarian assistance to end the exclusively military approach and eliminate civilian suffering. So, the position of the US and UK on the shelling of Yemen is causing disagreement and concern among human rights supporters and humanitarian organisations. It is necessary to continue the international discussion in order to achieve peace and stability in the region, calling for respect for international law and the protection of human rights.
Yemen continues to actively target American and other ships that deliver supplies to Israel. The Yemenis’ main argument in favour of shelling ships delivering supplies to Israel is the destruction of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip. In their view, the situation in Palestine remains tense due to Israeli occupation and state policies, leading to regular conflict and violence. In turn, by supporting trade with Israel, American and other ships become indirect contributors to Palestinian suffering. Yemen’s weakened economy and infrastructure put the country in a difficult position. Regular new sanctions and the blockade of the country by international allies make Yemen’s economy extremely vulnerable. For Yemen, the shelling of ships delivering supplies to Israel may be an attempt to gain international attention and launch a dialogue on the Palestinian issue.
In today’s world, the Red Sea remains a key region of geopolitical importance. Along with issues of security and economic stability, emerging conflicts between states and factors in the region regularly attract international attention. However, there are different ways and factors that can play an important role in resolving and preventing conflicts in order to achieve peace and tranquility in the Red Sea.
Above all, the States in which the Red Sea is located must take an active part in finding a way to resolve conflicts peacefully. They should seek dialogue and international cooperation rather than the use of force and military action. Instead of creating tension and threatening security, states should seek common interests and co-operation in the fields of economy, trade, transport and combating international terrorism.
However, in addition to the active role of states, international organisations and forums can play an important role in resolving conflicts in the Red Sea. For example, the United Nations can mediate negotiations and facilitate agreements between states in the region. It can propose mechanisms and strategies to resolve disputes and support dialogue between parties. Also, regional international organisations such as the Arab League or the African Union can contribute to conflict resolution and stability in the Red Sea.
In addition, the role of civil society and non-governmental organisations should not be forgotten. They can play an important role in planting peace and tranquility in the region through engaging in diplomatic efforts, supporting dialogue between the parties and publicly highlighting conflicts. Civil society can give a voice to peace and help to shape public opinion in favour of the peaceful resolution of conflicts.
It is quite clear that conflicts in the Red Sea can and must be resolved in the interests of peace and tranquillity in the region. To that end, the active participation of States, international organisations, civil society and non-governmental organisations is essential. Only through cooperation and dialogue can sustainable peace and tranquillity in the Red Sea be achieved, which will benefit all States and peoples living in the region.
Victor MIKHIN is a Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.
Washington’s Wars Eroding its Global Clout
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – 04.03.2024
If war is politics by other means, Washington’s ongoing wars in the Middle East and Eastern Europe are meant to buttress its global influence on the one hand and undermine its competitors on the other. But the question is: how is this politics by other means working out for Washington? Not so good. Russia’s recent military victories in Ukraine and China’s expansive inroads into the Middle East alongside the growing anti-Americanism in the region (due to Washington’s support for Israel and its inability to prevent a genocide of the Palestinians) indicate an overall American inability to shape global geopolitics in unilateral ways to the exclusive advantage of Washington and its allies in Europe and elsewhere.
Russia’s recent military gains in Ukraine, for example, have very clearly established its military credentials as a power that has been able to withstand the combined military strength of the US and its European allies assembled in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). What does this mean for Washington’s policies in Central Asia? Most certainly, Washington cannot simply present Russia as a ‘weak’ military power that can be simply ‘isolated’. But more than that, Russia is utilising its victories over NATO in various ways.
For instance, when the NATO-backed Russia-Ukraine military conflict began, most reports in the mainstream US media began to spread false messaging about Central Asia potentially moving itself out of the so-called ‘Russian clout’. The US saw in it an opportunity to push itself into the region. But this has turned out to be a fiasco. When the US imposed sanctions on Russia, many Russian companies began to relocate their businesses to Central Asia, directly contributing to Central Asia’s impressive 4.8 percent growth rate in 2023. According to the findings of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the region is forecast to register an even more impressive level of growth at almost 5.7 percent in 2024-25.
In other words, thanks to Washington’s sanctions, the Russian political economy is now more deeply connected with Central Asia than it was before February 2022, which is also strengthening the Eurasian Economic Union. Now that this integration is working for the advantage of Central Asia means that the latter have little to no incentive to pay too much attention to Washington and/or the imperatives of moving decisively to Washington. It means that not only has the Biden administration’s policy of NATO expansion via Ukraine failed so far in Ukraine itself, but the ‘new’ Central Asia policy it inaugurated in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine conflict has also failed to make any impact on the ground. Russia defeated US design also by approaching relations with the Central Asian States in ways that gave them enough space to stay neutral in the conflict. While the West saw this neutrality as a sign of Russian weakness in the region and the Central Asian States’ growing assertiveness, it failed to read how this was part of Russia’s strategy to cultivate its ties in a more balanced way. This balance is also pretty evident in the ways Russia has not objected to, or even resisted, China’s growing footprint in the region, although reports in the Western media often see China’s role in Central Asia at the expense of Russia. But the West seems to have been misreading this region.
As far as Washington’s war in the Middle East is concerned, its military support for Israel plus its inability to stop genocide has eroded its credibility. Suppose Washington has been supporting Israel to maintain its dominance in the Middle East. In that case, Washington’s excessive support is now derailing its objectives, since the Middle East is now exercising a lot more strategic autonomy vis-à-vis Washington than was the case until a few years ago.
In the past few months, a flurry of Chinese activity indicates it much more clearly than anything else. China has convened leadership summits, met with Arab delegates, supported their stance vis-à-vis Israel, and held joint military exercises with one of the US’ most important allies in the region (Saudi Arabia). The UAE, otherwise a close US ally and one of the first states to sign the Abraham Accords to recognise Israel and establish diplomatic ties with it, actually withdrew from the US-led naval task force in May 2023, indicating policy and interest-based differences.
The UAE is also a country in the Middle East that has over 100,000 Chinese living there and involved in many businesses. But when it comes to the Middle East itself, and the fact that many countries in the region are involved in China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), we see the region’s trade with China registering an overall growth of almost 45 percent in 2021 and 27 percent in 2022.
Given the economic integration, the Middle East is turning out to be a region where Washington’s clout is receding fast, without any signs of recovery in the immediate future at least. Although US strikes in the Red Sea on the Houthis are meant to indicate Washington’s willingness to offer a security umbrella to the Gulf states (against Iran-backed groups), the region appears to be past the point where it must have the US on its side to ensure security. Gulf states’ perceptions of Iran as an enemy are changing, thanks to Beijing’s mediation.
As far as Washington’s support for Israel is concerned and as far as the threat of a wider war in the region it is posing, Gulf states are on the edge of a conflict that might directly undermine their modernization programmes – development projects that mainly involve China in various capacities.
Therefore, if Washington’s involvement in the Israel war was meant to bring back the era of US dominance, the exact opposite is happening, both in the Middle East and Central Asia, which happen to be two of the world’s most energy-rich regions.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
Putin’s nuclear warning is direct and explicit
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | MARCH 4, 2024
The spectre of Armageddon has been raised often enough during the 2-year old war in Ukraine that the reference to it in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s state of the union address on Thursday had a familiar ring about it. Therein lies the risk of misjudgement on the part of the western audience that Putin was only “crying wolf”.
Three things must be noted at the outset. First, Putin has been explicit and direct. He is giving advance notice that he is obliged to respond with nuclear capability if the Russian statehood is threatened. Eschewing innuendos or dark hints, Putin actually made a sombre declaration of epochal significance.
Second, Putin was addressing the Federal Assembly in front of the crème de la crème of the Russian elite and took the entire nation into confidence that the country may be pushed into a nuclear war for its self-preservation.
Third, a specific context is sailing into view precipitated by foolhardy, impetuous western statesmen who are desperate to stave off an impending defeat in the war, which they began in the first instance, with the stated intention to destroy Russia’s economy, create social and political instability that would lead to a regime change in the Kremlin.
In reality, the US Secretary Lloyd Austin’s prognosis on Thursday at a Congressional hearing in Washington that “NATO will be in a fight with Russia” if Ukraine was defeated is the manifestation of a predicament that the Biden Administration faces after having led Europe to the brink of an abysmal defeat in Ukraine engendering grave uncertainties regarding its economic recovery and de-industrialisation due to the blowback of sanctions against Russia.
Plainly put, what Austin meant was that if Ukraine loses, NATO will have to go against Russia, as otherwise the future credibility of the western alliance system will be in jeopardy. It’s a call to Europe to rally for a continental war.
What French President Emmanuel Macron stated earlier last week on Monday was also an articulation of that same mindset, when he caused a storm by hinting that sending ground troops to help Kyiv was a possibility.
To quote Macron, “There is no consensus today to send ground troops officially but … nothing is ruled out. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war. The defeat of Russia is indispensable to the security and stability of Europe.”
Macron was speaking after a summit of 20 European countries in Paris where a “restricted document” under discussion had implied “that a number of NATO and EU member states were considering sending troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis,” according to Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico.
Fico said the document “sends shivers down your spine.”
Fico’s disclosure would not have come as surprise for Moscow, which has now put on the public domain the transcript of a confidential conversation between two German generals back on February 19 discussing the scenario of a potential attack on the Crimean Bridge with Taurus missiles and possible combat deployment by Berlin in Ukraine belying all public denials by Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
Aptly enough, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the transcript “a screaming revelation.” Interestingly, the transcript reveals that American and British servicemen are already deployed in Ukraine — something Moscow has been alleging for months — and such other details too.
This is a moment of truth for Russia. After learning to live with the steady upgrade of western weaponry supplied to Ukraine, which now includes Patriot missiles and F-16 fighter jets, after having signalled vainly that any attack on Crimea or any attack on Russian territory would be regarded as a red line; after gingerly sidestepping the US-UK participation in operations to bring the war home to Russian territory — Macron’s belligerent statement last week has been the proverbial last straw for the Kremlin. It envisages western combat deployment to fight and kill Russian soldiers and conquer territories on behalf of Kiev.
At the speech on Thursday, which was almost entirely devoted to a hugely ambitious and forward-looking road map to address social and economic issues under the new normalcy Russia has achieved even under conditions of western sanctions, Putin held out a warning to the entire West by placing nuclear weapons on the table.
Putin underscored that any (further) crossing of the unwritten ground rules will be unacceptable — that while the US and its NATO allies provide military assistance to Ukraine but do not attack Russia’s soil and do not directly engage in combat, Russia would confine itself to using conventional weapons.
Quintessentially, the thrust of Putin’s remarks lies in his refusal to accept a fate for Russia in existential terms arranged by the West. The thinking behind it is not hard to comprehend. Simply put, Russia will not allow any attempt by the US and its allies to reshape the ground situation by impacting the front lines with NATO military personnel backed by advanced weaponry and satellite capabilities.
Putin has put the ball firmly in the Western court to decide whether NATO will risk a nuclear confrontation, which of course is not Russia’s choice.
The context in which all this is unfolding has been pithily framed by the leader of a NATO country, Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban, while addressing a forum of top diplomats in Antalya in the Turkish Riviera in the weekend when he stressed that “Europeans, along with the Ukrainians are losing the war and have no idea of how to find a way out of this situation.”
Orban said, “We, Europeans, are now in a difficult position,” adding that European countries took the conflict in Ukraine “as their own war” and realise belatedly that time is not on Ukraine’s side. “Time is on Russia’s side. That is why it is necessary to stop hostilities immediately.”
As he put it, “If you think that this is your war, but the enemy is stronger than you and has advantages on the battlefield, in this case, you are in the losers’ camp and it will not be an easy task to find a way out of this situation. Now, we Europeans, along with the Ukrainians, are losing the war and have no idea of how to find a way out of this situation, a way out of this conflict. This is a very serious problem.”
This is the crux of the matter. In the circumstances, the bottom line is that it will be catastrophic speciousness on the part of the western leadership and public opinion not to grasp the full import of Putin’s stark warning that Moscow means what it has been saying, namely, that it will regard any western combat deployment in Ukraine by NATO countries as an act of war.
To be sure, if Russia faces the risk of military defeat in Ukraine at the hands of NATO forces on combat deployment and Donbass and Novorossiya regions are at risk of being subjugated once again, that would threaten the stability and integrity of Russian statehood — and challenge the legitimacy of the Kremlin leadership itself — wherein the question of using nuclear weapons may become more open.
To drive home the point, Putin glanced through the Russian inventory that buttresses its nuclear superiority today, which the US cannot possibly match. And he further de-classified some top-secret information: “Efforts to develop several other new weapons systems continue, and we are expecting to hear even more about the achievements of our researchers and weapons manufacturers.”
Secrets and Lies. NATO’s Role in Ukraine Is as Sleazy as the EU’s
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 4, 2024
Did Jens Stoltenberg really say that he had recently given “permission” to Ukraine to use F-16 fighter jets there in the war against Russia? If so, we can add it to the list of bumbling, buffoonish Freudian slips that he has chalked up himself while in office. But it does at least give us a glimpse of how western elites are no longer bothering to even cover up the fact that the war in Ukraine has, in reality, very little to do with Ukraine but rather is a much bigger war fought by the West against Russia.
Yet the whole issue about F-16s in Ukraine will be shrouded in lies, doublespeak and fake news. The real story of these outdated fighter jets from the Netherlands – some might call a bribe to Biden to secure the Dutch prime minister as next NATO boss – will probably never be known. Journalists who even want to ask who will really fly these planes – Ukrainians or U.S. pilots – will never get a straight answer but be fobbed off with the normal NATO ‘secrets and lies’ which are what we have all come to understand is the normal modus operandi for this so-called defence organisation. Timing is critical. Does Ukraine have the 6 months minimum time that Ukrainian pilots will need just to fly them, following intensive training? It’s a good bet that we will see them operational by the end of the summer with contracted, retired U.S. air force pilots flying them though – probably not in dogfight scenarios as they are no match for the newer Su-35s which Russia has – used in air to ground attacks. Of course, such a shift in strategy will lead Russia to target Ukrainian airfields, which some analysts are reporting is already happening but in reality, like so many decisions taken by NATO, this is just the latest in a long line of miscalculations. These 20-year old planes are going to be a real prize for Russia to shoot out of the skies like ducks on a Sunday afternoon. Pity the pilots who will be in their cockpits as they are on a suicide mission.
The truth though will be very hard to get to with the F-16s. NATO will already have its fake news ready for the suppliant journalists ready to oblige.
It’s a similar story with a recent statement by Zelensky himself who claimed that something like 30,000 Ukrainians so far had died in battle. Did he forget a zero there reading from his notes? Did too much cocaine affect his vision? Was it a joke?
No, it was no joke. Just more fake news dutifully processed by corrupt western media who don’t have journalists among them even capable of questioning the statement.
However, the reason why the numbers of dead Ukrainian soldiers is such a polemic is interesting. You might be forgiven for thinking that if the real figure of at least 300,000 dead Ukrainians were to be admitted, that this would have a political consequence for Zelensky himself. And this would be true within a democratic context. But Zelensky has shut down all media that doesn’t replicate his propaganda, eliminated all opposition parties so it’s hardly likely anyone is going to question this ludicrous figure of 30,000 or so. In reality there is a much more salacious, if not mercurial reason why he needs to stick to this work of fiction: graft.
What is not at all reported, even alluded to, is the racket being run by senior army officers close to him who are drawing the salaries of dead soldiers – and how the West turns a blind eye, once again, to this particular scam involving millions of dollars of western aid. Recently the EU agreed to send to Kiev 12.5 billion euros a year in cash for public sector salaries. Given the racket going on over dead soldiers salaries, this makes Brussels complicit in money laundering. Would it be far fetched to assume that senior EU officials are receiving kickbacks, in return? Given Ursula von der Leyen’s murky dealings with Pfizer and the recent news that she is to evade any scrutiny for another 5 years in office, assuming her corrupt friends in the EU support her second term, it becomes clear what the EU and NATO’s objectives are in Ukraine of late: just keep the machine turning over and Zelensky in power. The Ukraine war is not a charitable case, as some western leaders would like you to believe. It is not even about protecting the so-called values of the west, as no one really believes the bullshit that Putin is going to invade other EU countries once his tanks reach Kiev after the country inevitably collapses when the army surrenders or occupies itself with a civil war. Ukraine war is a racket and NATO is part of it, as is the EU elite. No one works for nothing and we should be very suspicious about Boris Johnson turning up in Kiev to lend his support to Zelensky. Is he on the latter’s payroll for PR services? Probably. Will any journalists ask this or file ‘freedom of information’ requests to even clarify who paid for the trip (as anyone who knows Boris, knows he has no cash)? Of course not.
Germany willing to boost its participation in Ukrainian conflict
By Lucas Leiroz | March 4, 2024
The evidence points out that the West is preparing provocations of war against Russia. A new scandal involving a German attack plan against Russian civilian infrastructure is generating fear about the possibility of an open conflict between Russians and Germans in the near future.
Russian media recently published a leaked audio of a conversation between high-ranking German officials. The participants in the discussion were Brigadier General and head of the Air Force’s military operations and exercises department, Frank Grafe; the Air Force inspector, Ingo Gerhartz; and two officers from the German Space Command, Fenske and Frostedt. The topic of conversation was the development of a strategy for the supply and use of Taurus missiles in Ukraine.
Officers discussed the best way to use this equipment on the Ukrainian battlefield. According to them, the Kerch Bridge in Crimea would be an interesting target, although “difficult to hit”. They concluded in the conversation that Russian ammunition depots should be targeted and that if the French Dassault Rafale fighter is used together with the Taurus there will be more chances of a successful attack on Crimea.
In other words, high-ranking German military personnel were discussing how to attack demilitarized Russian territory and destroy civilian infrastructure. The case is therefore proof that Western agents participate directly in the planning and operation of terrorist attacks on peaceful Russian territory, confirming reports that had already been made previously on the topic.
Interestingly, while German officials were discussing a plan to attack Russia, Berlin’s Prime Minister Olaf Scholz publicly stated that the possibility of sending NATO troops to Ukraine was ruled out, suggesting there was no risk of direct war. Amid fears about a possible all-out conflict, Scholz appears to have tried to “relieve” tensions or simply “mislead” Russia and public opinion regarding the real plans of the Western alliance. However, the audio leakage made any attempt to control collective fear useless.
In response to the audio scandal, the German government was only concerned with increasing accusations against Russia, failing to provide any plausible explanation for the content. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius accused Moscow of waging “information warfare” against Germany and the West. He described the Russian media’s work in publishing the officers’ conversation as a “hybrid attack” and “disinformation” – and did not comment on the topic of the conversation, tacitly admitting that the German officials did discuss the possibility of an attack on Crimea.
In fact, the scandal occurs at a time when several Western leaders claim to be “preparing” their countries for direct war with Russia. Faced with the evident Ukrainian failure, Western European countries, deceived by the American narrative that Kiev is a “shield” against “Russian invasions”, begin to impose a regime of military preparation, believing that a conflict is inevitable.
Obviously, there is no Russian interest in engaging in a conflict with Europe. The special military operation in Ukraine is motivated by specific reasons related to Russia’s security concerns. Moscow for now has no such concerns with European countries. However, as Europe militarizes and increases its anti-Russian hostility, new concerns may arise, forcing Moscow to take self-defense measures. And in this sense, European countries could, through their own anti-Russian paranoia, foment a conflict in the future – creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.
The German case is particularly curious because Berlin’s subservience to the US and NATO is notorious, while anti-Russian hostility grows more and more. Moscow never showed aggressiveness against Germany, always willing to peacefully negotiate the reestablishment of diplomatic and economic ties. On the other hand, the US, UK and other NATO powers have always tried to coerce Germany to serve their interests – as, for example, through the terrorist attack against the Nord Stream.
Even in the face of successive humiliations imposed by its Western “partners”, Germany remains obedient to NATO, preserving an irrational anti-Russian hatred. Some experts believe that this is somehow related to a type of historical revanchism against Russia due to the Soviet victory against Nazism in the Second World War. As well known, Russophobia has always been a central aspect of Nazi ideology, which explains why Berlin, with its anti-Russian revanchist mentality, is willing to side with Ukrainian neo-Nazism against Moscow.
For their part, Russian authorities have already made it clear that they understand current European policies as preparation for a war. Moscow does not want the conflict to happen but subservience to NATO, anti-Russian hate and irrationality seem to be the main aspects of current European – especially German – foreign policy.
Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
Israel to get more ‘aggressive’ with Russia – MP
RT | March 4, 2024
An Israeli lawmaker has suggested that his government will take a harder line against Russia by boosting its support for Ukraine because it sees Moscow as somehow involved in the Hamas war against West Jerusalem.
“Israel will take a more aggressive stance against Russia,” MP Amir Weitmann told US media outlet Business Insider in an article published on Saturday. He added that amid its current battle with Hamas, his government doesn’t have munitions to spare, but if the war in Gaza ends before the conflict in Ukraine, “Israeli weapons would find their way” to Kiev.
Weitmann made his comments in response to plans by Israel – revealed on Wednesday at the UN – to provide an early warning system to help Kiev counter Russian airstrikes and drone attacks. The announcement by Gilad Erdan, Israel’s permanent representative to the UN, did not “come out of the blue,” the lawmaker said.
“Russia is heavily involved in what is happening in Israel,” Weitmann claimed, referring to the war with Hamas, which was triggered by surprise raids on southern Israeli villages on October 7. He offered no details on Moscow’s supposed role in the war and said it was not clear “at what level” Russia was involved.
Weitmann, who heads the libertarian faction of Israel’s ruling Likud Party, was less restrained during an RT interview in October. “Russia is supporting Nazi people who want to commit genocide on us, and Russia will pay the price,” he said. The MP added, “We will make sure that Ukraine wins. We will make sure that you pay the price for what you have done.”
Business Insider said Israel may have already “torched its relationship with Russia” by pledging to supply an early warning system to Ukraine. The system is similar to Israel’s Tzeva Adom radar, which quickly detects rocket launches and broadcasts alerts to endangered areas so civilians can take shelter.
After two years of walking a diplomatic “tightrope” over the Ukraine crisis, sending only humanitarian supplies to avoid provoking Russia, the decision to provide Kiev a radar system “signals a major about-turn in Israeli foreign policy,” Business Insider said. Israel will likely send “specialist soldiers” to help Ukrainians set up the system, the outlet noted.
Speaking at the UN on Wednesday, Erdan referred to the Ukrainians as “allies” and “friends in need.” He claimed that Israel has stood in “solidarity” with Ukraine since the conflict escalated in February 2022. “This is the moral thing to do, especially as a country that knows exactly how it feels to be aggressively invaded.”
German officers plot Taurus missile attack on the Crimea bridge
By Gilbert Doctorow | March 2, 2024
You very likely have not heard anything about the headlined news, but it is an item which has been widely discussed in official Russian media yesterday and today. RT took the lead in publicizing it and other news portals followed suit. Moreover, it was featured on yesterday’s Sixty Minutes news and analysis program of Russian state television.
The plans to destroy the bridge at Kerch have not been reported by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which yesterday was very heavily invested in covering the Navalny funeral in Moscow, but they are mentioned in the German publications Welt and Bild. The focus in these publications was on whether allegedly intercepted audio conversations of high level German officers are genuine and not AI faked. The verdict is that they are likely genuine. Meanwhile the German authorities have banned the X (Twitter) accounts which initially disseminated the recordings.
The essence of the scandal is that the officers were on 19 February discussing preparations for an attack on the bridge using Taurus long range cruise missiles launched from French-made Dassault Rafale jets. The participants in the intercepted conversations were the head for operations and exercises at the Air Forces Command of the Bundeswehr command Frank Grafe, Air Force Inspector Ingo Gerhartz and employees of the Air Operations Command within the Space Operations Center of the Bundeswehr Fenske and Frohstedte.
This news was commented upon by Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who called up the German press to show their independence and question German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock about this plot, which runs directly against what Chancellor Scholz was saying at the time about the inadmissibility of introducing the Taurus into the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
The transcript of the plotters is available here:
It makes for good weekend reading.
You will notice how these senior German officers are looking for solutions that do not cross the Chancellor’s red lines against appearing to collude with the Ukrainians and appearing to direct their targeting. Also note the hand-in-glove cooperation with the British, who have accumulated a lot of experience assisting the Ukrainian strikes behind Russian lines using their Storm Shadow missiles. Finally, see the remark that there are a great many individuals speaking with American accents who are assisting the Ukrainian military in operating the sophisticated weaponry being delivered to them while wearing civilian dress.
*****
Further, one might ask: what is the German government going to do about this seeming insubordination which could lead directly to Russia declaring war on Germany and taking us further down the road to WWIII. Logically, they should all be fired, at least suspended and a Bundestag investigation should be initiated. If Scholz cannot disown this plot then he is part of it.
Finally, I am obliged to mention that the release of this news by the Kremlin three days after the State of the Nation address by Vladimir Putin puts in an essential context the President’s remarks in that speech that the Russians have missiles capable of striking the territory of those who may attack their country and that this could lead to nuclear war and ‘the end of civilization.’ That last point is virtually the only element in his speech which attracted the interest of Western media. We now see that it did not come out of the blue, but was clear messaging to the Germans, to the United States that Russia knows the game they are preparing to strike the Kerch bridge and will respond with the full force of its arms.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024
Hezbollah detains Dutch armed group in Beirut suburb
The Cradle | March 2, 2024
Hezbollah security personnel arrested six Dutch nationals in the southern suburbs of Beirut last Wednesday, Al-Akhbar reported on 2 March.
The men were found in possession of military-grade weapons, ammunition, and equipment.
The Dutch government claimed the six men were part of a special group sent to evacuate its nationals if the war between Hezbollah and Israel expanded.
Hezbollah handed over the men to the Lebanese Intelligence Directorate, where they were interrogated and kept in detention until early Friday morning.
Sources speaking with Al-Akhbar said the six men claimed to be members of the Dutch military, simulating an evacuation attempt from inside the southern suburb. Contact with them was lost after they entered the southern suburb and were stopped by Hezbollah security personnel. Two employees of the Dutch embassy residing in the southern suburb allegedly participated in the failed simulation.
However, journalist Hasan Illaik of the Lebanese news outlet Al-Mahatta reported that the embassy employees were not Dutch nationals and that the “Dutch ambassador to Lebanon quickly arrived at the ministry to pressure their release, under the pretext that they had not committed any crime. This is, of course, untrue given that this is a major violation of the law and that it was a significant security threat.”
Illaik added that, “even more suspiciously, the armed group claimed to have carried out the operation without consulting their own embassy. It was also discovered that they launched their operation from Kaslik,” a coastal town north of Beirut, “rather than from the embassy or a place affiliated with the embassy.”
Neither the Lebanese military nor the Dutch government provided an official statement or explanation for the incident.
Al-Akhbar reported as well on 2 March that Hezbollah’s security service arrested a Spanish national in the Al-Kafaat area in the southern Beirut suburbs several days ago. The man was filming with his phone on the street, claiming he was lost and needed to send his location to friends to pick him up.
However, during the interrogation, it was discovered that his phone contained an advanced program preventing access to the stored data.
High-level officials from the Spanish embassy then intervened to win his release. It was later discovered that the man possessed a diplomatic passport.
The arrests of the Dutch and Spanish nationals came as part of a program of additional measures initiated by Hezbollah security officials in response to increased efforts by Israeli and other foreign intelligence agencies to collect information needed to assassinate Hezbollah cadres.
Israel assassinated prominent Hamas leader Saleh al-Arouri in an airstrike in the southern Beirut suburb of Dahiya in December and prominent Hezbollah commander Ali Hussein Burji in January in south Lebanon.
Since the outbreak of the war with Israel on 8 October, the embassies of several western countries, including Britain and Canada, have brought in special forces, ammunition, and advanced equipment under the pretext of evacuating their diplomats and nationals if the situation deteriorates.
Al-Akhbar reported in November that mysterious foreign military cargo flights, potentially carrying equipment for use against Hezbollah, were landing at the Beirut and Hamat airports.
Between the 14 and 20 November, nine planes from various NATO countries were recorded landing at Beirut and Hamat airports, including several flying from Tel Aviv, according to Intelsky, a website monitoring aircraft movement in the region.
Featured Video
Chinese jet fuel and the myth of energy independence
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Former Insiders Criticize Iran Policy as U.S. Hegemony
By GARETH PORTER | CounterPunch | February 27, 2013
“Going to Tehran” arguably represents the most important work on the subject of U.S.-Iran relations to be published thus far.
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett tackle not only U.S. policy toward Iran but the broader context of Middle East policy with a systematic analytical perspective informed by personal experience, as well as very extensive documentation.
More importantly, however, their exposé required a degree of courage that may be unparalleled in the writing of former U.S. national security officials about issues on which they worked. They have chosen not just to criticise U.S. policy toward Iran but to analyse that policy as a problem of U.S. hegemony. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran war will leave long-term ‘scar’ on Wall Street, investors warn
- How Iran decimated US power projection in West Asia: Military lessons of 40-day war
- Iran’s report details US-Israeli war crimes in targeting schools, hospitals, livelihoods
- NATO’s Slow Fracture: How Trump’s Iran War Exposed the Instrument of Hegemony
- Chinese jet fuel and the myth of energy independence
- Ukraine Sea Drone Fired From Libya Hit Russian Tanker in Mediterranean
- IRGC: Iranian forces launched no attacks during ceasefire hours
- Trump Administration Moves To Automate U.S. Military Draft Registration
- Spain orders reopening of Tehran embassy, condemns Israel’s carpet bombing of Lebanon
- Israel faces ‘unsustainable’ strategic crisis following 40-day war against Iran: Analyst
- If Americans Knew
- Israel killed at least 303 Lebanese yesterday – who were they? Daily Update
- Amnesty: Urgent – Protect Lebanese civilians from brutal escalation in Israeli attacks
- Is The War Against Iran Over?
- Inside the Israeli army’s propaganda wing
- Hundreds of Gaza Amputees Stranded in Legal Limbo
- The gallows law: Israel moves toward executing Palestinian children
- Tucker Carlson: The Path to Peace requires ending ‘special alliance’ with Israel
- This is ceasefire? Israel’s biggest massacre yet in Lebanon, another journalist killed in Gaza – Daily Update
- Tucker Carlson on Israel: This Is the Behavior of an Ally? Really?
- Gazans face a triple crisis: severe shortages of water and bread, healthcare in tatters
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
Aletho News 