Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

South Korea Carries Out Live-Fire Drills Near North’s Border First Time in 6 Years

Sputnik – 02.07.2024

South Korea carried out live-fire drills near the border with North for the first time in six years following the dissolution of an inter-Korean tension reduction pact which banned such exercises, the South Korean army said on Tuesday.

“The firing drills, the first such exercise to be conducted on land after exercises were normalized following the government’s complete suspension of the September 19 Military Agreement, focused on bolstering artillery readiness and response capabilities in the event of enemy provocations,” the army was quoted by Yonhap, as saying.

The drills took place at front-line ranges in the South Korean provinces of Gyeonggi and Gangwon in a 3-mile distance from Military Demarcation Line within the Demilitarized Zone between the two Koreas, Yonhap reported, citing the country’s military authorities.

The South Korean military reportedly fired 140 rounds using the K9 and K105A1 self-propelled howitzers in the course of the drills.

In early June, North Korea said it had sent 3,500 air balloons carrying 15 tonnes of trash south in response to a hike in cases of South Korean activists sending anti-Pyongyang leaflets into the North. In response, the South Korean government approved a motion to suspend the 2018 inter-Korean military pact, which allows Seoul to resume military exercises near the military demarcation line, propaganda broadcasting towards North Korean territory as well as other actions described as hostile in the pact.

The inter-Korean military agreement was signed at the summit between the leaders of the two countries in September 2018 with the aim of preventing military confrontation in the Korean Peninsula and establishing buffer zones along the Military Demarcation Line on land and the Northern Limit Line at sea.

July 2, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | | Leave a comment

Washington is Sprinting (Not Sleepwalking) Into War With China

By Joseph Solis-Mullen | The Libertarian Institute | July 2, 2024

The narrative that America is “sleepwalking” toward war with China is a dangerously misleading myth. Far from a somnambulant stumble, the United States is being deliberately led by national security and military elites into a conflict with China, with Congress eagerly tripping over itself to out-hawk each other. The motivation? A toxic blend of defense industry contributions and a misguided sense of geopolitical dominance.

Since becoming president, Joe Biden’s pronouncements have starkly reversed the longstanding U.S. policy of “Strategic Ambiguity” concerning Taiwan. Historically, this policy served to keep both China and Taiwan guessing about American intentions, thus maintaining a precarious balance and deterring rash actions from either side. However, Biden’s statements have ushered in an era of “Strategic Clarity,” unequivocally asserting that the United States would intervene militarily if China were to invade Taiwan. This stance is a profound shift, especially given that the U.S. has no treaty obligation to defend Taiwan, and Congress has not granted the president the authority to engage militarily in such a conflict—at least not yet.

Moreover, the presence of U.S. military personnel on Taiwan and on the Kinmen islands, the latter a mere few miles from the Chinese mainland, underscores this aggressive posture. This deployment is not a defensive measure but a provocative act, practically begging for a confrontation. It signals to China that the United States is not merely interested in protecting Taiwan’s sovereignty but is actively preparing for potential hostilities.

Escalated arms sales to Taiwan further exacerbate the situation. Washington’s increased military aid and sophisticated weaponry to Taipei are perceived by Beijing as an unmistakable threat, pushing the region closer to the brink of war. These actions are complemented by Washington’s broader strategy of economic warfare against China, including tariffs, sanctions, and efforts to decouple the two economies. This economic aggression, designed to weaken China’s global standing, only serves to heighten tensions and fuel the fire of conflict.

Washington’s belligerence extends beyond Taiwan, with the United States promising to intervene in various territorial disputes between China and its neighbors. The South China Sea is a hotbed of such conflicts, with the Philippines’ claims over certain shoals leading to live clashes in recent months. The U.S. backing of these claims, regardless of their merit, is a clear signal of its intent to challenge China’s regional influence aggressively.

Adding to this volatile mix, Kurt Campbell, the architect of Obama’s “Pivot to East Asia” policy, recently declared that the era of positive engagement with China is over. This “Pivot” was always a transparent move to begin containing China, but Campbell’s recent statements mark a shift toward outright confrontation. Both the former and current heads of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command have also in the past year bluntly stated that they are preparing for an immediate war with China, further illustrating the calculated and deliberate nature of Washington’s actions.

This orchestrated march toward conflict is not driven by some irrational fear or a defensive need to protect American interests. Instead, it is a strategic choice made by the U.S. leadership to assert dominance in the Asia-Pacific region. This approach disregards the catastrophic potential of such a conflict, which could easily escalate into a global disaster, if not total annihilation.

It is crucial to understand that this is not a one-sided issue where China is the sole aggressor. Unlike the U.S., China is not conducting military exercises in the Gulf of Mexico or deploying troops near American borders. Instead, it is the United States that is aggressively poking around the South China Sea and positioning itself as a hegemonic force in a region far from its shores.

Media portrayal of the situation as a sleepwalk toward war is not just inaccurate but dangerous. It obscures the calculated and provocative actions of the United States, misleading the public into believing that conflict is an inadvertent outcome rather than a deliberate strategy. The reality is that Washington is not passively drifting into war but sprinting headlong into it, driven by a blend of military ambition and geopolitical strategy.

In conclusion, the responsibility for the escalating tensions and the imminent threat of conflict with China lies squarely with Washington. The U.S. is actively choosing a path of confrontation, one that threatens not just regional stability but global peace—in a recent visit Xi Jinping said as much to the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, saying he felt Washington was trying to “goad” China into starting a war over Taiwan; it being a serious red line for Beijing, that may just be what happens (see: Ukraine).

It is imperative that Washington’s aggressive stance is recognized for what it is by the American public: a reckless and potentially world-destroying gamble that serves the interests of a few at the expense of many. Only by acknowledging this can we hope to steer away from the brink of disaster and seek a more peaceful and sustainable approach to international relations.

July 2, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

The Debate Should Be a Wake-Up Call For Americans

By Ron Paul | July 1, 2024

There were plenty of surprises in last week’s presidential debate. For one, Americans who rely on the mainstream media for their news learned that they had been lied to for the past three years about President Biden’s capability to do the job he was elected to do.

The realization that the media has been lying for years about Biden is a positive development, as, hopefully, thoughtful Americans might begin wondering what else the media has been lying about. For example, they will find out that the media has been lying to them for years about Russia and Ukraine and about the Middle East and elsewhere. They will find out that our hyper-interventionist foreign policy does not make us safer and more free, but the opposite.

Unfortunately for most Americans, foreign policy is something that happens “over there,” with few direct effects back home. Dumping nearly $200 billion into the lost cause called “Ukraine” may at most seem like an annoyance to many Americans, but it’s not like they are being snatched up by gangs of military recruiters and sent to the front line as is happening to Ukrainian men.

However, $200 billion is real money and the effect on our economy is also real. The bill will be paid by each American family indirectly through the inflation “tax.” Each dollar created out of thin air and spent on the Ukraine debacle devalues the rest of the dollars in circulation.

The danger posed by our foreign policy seemed to escape both candidates, who each tried to convince us they were “tougher” than the other. Despite Donald Trump’s sober and accurate warning that Joe Biden has taken us to the brink of World War III, his solution to the problem is doing more of the same. His stated foreign policy seems to be that were he in office the rest of the world would not dare do anything against his will.

He would have been so tough that Russian president Vladimir Putin would never have dared to invade Ukraine, he claimed. He would have been so tough that Hamas would never have dared attack Israel on October 7th. It’s only Joe Biden’s “weakness” that leads to these disastrous foreign policy outcomes.

But the world does not work that way. Decades of US sanctions placed on any country that fails to do what Washington demands have backfired and led to the emergence of a block of countries united in their resistance to American dictates. Being “tough” on less-powerful countries may work… until it doesn’t. That’s where we are today.

Neither candidate seems to realize that the world has changed.

I have always said that real strength in foreign policy comes from restraint. To prevent these bad outcomes everywhere, stop intervening everywhere. It is not “toughness” that would have prevented Russia from taking action against Ukraine. It is restraint. Not launching a coup in Ukraine in 2014 would have prevented the disastrous war in Ukraine. Just like not stirring up trouble in the South China Sea would prevent a war with China. Not continuing to occupy and intervene in the Middle East would prevent a major regional war which might include Iran and other big players in the region.

Restraint is the real toughness. Non-intervention is the only foreign policy that will keep us safe and free. We’ve tried it the other way and it does not work. Let’s try something different.

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

Destroying Ukraine with Idealism

Why Ukraine should not have the “right” to join NATO

BY GLENN DIESEN | JULY 2, 2024

Political realism is commonly and mistakenly portrayed as immoral because the principal focus is on the inescapable security competition and it thus rejects idealist efforts to transcend power politics. However, because states cannot break with security competition, morality for the realist entails acting in accordance with the balance of power logic as the foundation for stability and peace. Idealist efforts to break with power politics can then be defined as immoral by undermining the management of security competition as the foundation of peace. As Raymond Aron expressed in 1966: “The idealist, believing he has broken with power politics exaggerates its crimes”.[1]

Ukraine’s Sovereign Right to join NATO

The most appealing and dangerous idealist argument that destroyed Ukraine is that it has the right to join any military alliance it desires. It is a very attractive statement that can easily win support from the public as it affirms the freedom and sovereignty of Ukraine, and the alternative is seemingly that Russia should be allowed to dictate Ukraine’s policies.

However, arguing that Ukraine should be allowed to join any military alliance is an idealist argument as it appeals to how we would like the world to be, not how the world actually works. The principle that peace derives from expanding military alliances without taking into account the security interests of other great powers has never existed. States such as Ukraine that border a great power have every reason to express legitimate security concerns, but inviting a rival great power such as the US into its territory intensifies the security competition.

Is it moral to insist on how the world ought to be when war is the consequence of ignoring how the world actually works?

The alternative to expanding NATO is not to accept a Russian sphere of influence, which denotes a zone of exclusive influence. Peace derives from recognising a Russian sphere of interests, which is an area where Russian security interests must be recognised and incorporated rather than excluded. It did not use to be controversial to argue that Russian security interests must be taken into account when operating on its borders.

Mexico has plenty of freedoms in the international system, but it does not have the freedom to join a Chinese-led military alliance or host Chinese military bases. The idealist argument that Mexico can do as it pleases implies ignoring US security concerns, and the result would likely be the US destruction of Mexico. If Scotland secedes from the UK and then joins a Russian-led military alliance and hosts Russian missiles, would the English still champion the principle that it has no say? Idealists who sought to transcend power politics and create a more benign world would instead intensify the security competition and instigate wars.

The Morality of Opposing NATO Expansionism

To argue that NATO expansionism provoked Russia’s invasion is regularly condemned by idealists as immoral because it allegedly legitimises both power politics and the invasion. Is objective reality immoral if it contradicts the ideal world we would like to exist?

The former British ambassador to Russia, Roderic Lyne, warned in 2020 that it was a “massive mistake” to push for NATO membership for Ukraine: “If you want to start a war with Russia, that’s the best way of doing it”.[2] Angela Merkel acknowledged that Russia would interpret the possibility of Ukrainian NATO membership as a “declaration of war”.[3] CIA Director William Burns also warned against drawing Ukraine into NATO as Russia fears encirclement and will therefore be under enormous pressure to use military force: “Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face”.[4] The advisor to former French President Sarkozy argued that the US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership in November 2021 “convinced Russia that they must attack or be attacked”.[5] None of the aforementioned people sought to legitimise an invasion, rather they sought to avoid a war.

When great powers do not have a soft institutional veto, they use a hard military veto. The idealists insisting that Russia should not have a veto on NATO expansion pushed for the policies that predictably resulted in the destruction of a nation, the loss of territory, and hundreds of thousands of deaths. Why do the idealists get to present themselves as moral and “pro-Ukrainian”? Why are the realists who for more than a decade warned against NATO expansion immoral and “anti-Ukrainian”? Are these labels premised on the theoretical assumption of the idealists?

NATO as a Third Party?

Suggesting that Ukraine has the sovereign right to join NATO presents the military bloc as a passive third party that merely supports the democratic aspiration of Ukrainians. This narrative neglects that NATO did not have an obligation to offer future membership to Ukraine. Indeed, the Western countries signed several agreements with Moscow after the Cold War, such as the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, to collectively construct a Europe without dividing lines and based on indivisible security. NATO broke these agreements by pushing for expansion and refusing to offer Russia security guarantees to mitigate the security competition. By offering future membership to Ukraine, the NATO-Russia conflict became a Russia-Ukraine conflict as Russia had to prevent Ukraine from joining the military bloc and hosting the US military on its territory.

NATO’s support for Ukraine’s right to choose its own foreign policy is also dishonest as Ukraine had to be pulled into the orbit of the military bloc against its will. The Western public is rarely informed that every opinion poll between 1991 and 2014 demonstrates that only a very small minority of Ukrainians ever wanted to join the alliance. NATO recognised the lack of interest by the Ukrainian government and people as a problem to be overcome in a report from 2011: “The greatest challenge for Ukrainian-NATO relations lies in the perception of NATO among the Ukrainian people. NATO membership is not widely supported in the country, with some polls suggesting that popular support of it is less than 20%”.[6]

The solution was to push for a “democratic revolution” in 2014 that toppled the democratically elected government of Ukraine in violation of its constitution and without majority support from Ukrainians. The leaked Nuland-Pyatt phone call revealed that the US was planning a regime change, including who should be in the post-coup government, who had to stay out, and how to legitimise the coup.[7] After the coup, the US openly asserted its intrusive influence over the new government it had installed in Kiev. The general prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, complained that since 2014, “the most shocking thing is that all the [government] appointments were made in agreement with the United States” and Washington “believed that Ukraine was their fiefdom”.[8] A conflict with Russia could be manufactured that would create a demand for NATO.

What were the first decisions of the new government hand-picked by Washington? The first decree by the new Parliament was a call for repealing Russian as a regional language. The New York Times reports that on the first day following the coup, Ukraine’s new spy chief called the CIA and MI6 to establish a partnership for covert operations against Russia that eventually resulted in 12 secret CIA bases along the Russian border.[9] The conflict intensified as Russia responded by seizing Crimea and supporting a rebellion in Donbas, and NATO sabotaged the Minsk peace agreement that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians voted to have implemented. Preserving and intensifying the conflict gave Washington a dependent Ukrainian proxy that could be used against Russia. The same New York Times article mentioned above, also revealed that the covert war against Russia after the coup was a leading reason for Russia’s invasion:

“Toward the end of 2021, according to a senior European official, Mr. Putin was weighing whether to launch his full-scale invasion when he met with the head of one of Russia’s main spy services, who told him that the C.I.A., together with Britain’s MI6, were controlling Ukraine and turning it into a beachhead for operations against Moscow”.[10]

The Immorality of Peace vs Morality of War?

After Russia’s “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine, the idealists insist that Ukraine must become a member of NATO as soon as the war is over. It is intended as an appealing and moral statement to ensure that Ukraine will be protected and such a tragedy will not be repeated.

Yet, what does it communicate to Russia? Whatever territory Russia does not conquer will fall into the hands of NATO, which can then be used as a frontline against Russia. The threat of NATO expansion incentivises Russia to seize as much territory as possible and ensure what remains is a deeply dysfunctional rump state. The only thing that can bring peace to Ukraine and end the carnage is to restore its neutrality, yet the idealists denounce this as deeply immoral and thus unacceptable. To repeat Raymond Aron: “The idealist, believing he has broken with power politics exaggerates its crimes”.[11]

 

NATO allies divided on what happens after the Ukraine war : NPR

[1] Aron, R., 1966. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. Doubleday, Garden City, p.584.

[2] R. Lyne, ‘The UC Interview Series: Sir Roderic Lyne by Nikita Gryazin’, Oxford University Consortium, 18 December 2020.

[3] A. Walsh, ‘Angela Merkel opens up on Ukraine, Putin and her legacy’, Deutsche Welle, 7 June 2022.

[4] W.J. Burns, ‘Nyet means nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines’, Wikileaks, 1 February 2008.

[5] C. Caldwell, ‘The War in Ukraine May Be Impossible to Stop. And the U.S. Deserves Much of the Blame’, The New York Times, 31 May 2022.

[6] NATO, ‘‘Post-Orange Ukraine’: Internal dynamics and foreign policy priorities’, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, October 2011, p.11.

[7] BBC, ‘Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call’, BBC, 7 February 2014.

[8] M.M. Abrahms, ‘Does Ukraine Have Kompromat on Joe Biden?’, Newsweek, 8 August 2023.

[9] A. Entous and M. Schwirtz, 2024. ‘The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin’, The New York Times, 25 February 2024.

[10] A. Entous and M. Schwirtz, 2024. ‘The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin’, The New York Times, 25 February 2024.

[11] Aron, R., 1966. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. Doubleday, Garden City, p.584.

July 2, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

Orban pitches ‘quick ceasefire’ to Zelensky

RT | July 2, 2024

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has urged Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to halt military operations against Russia in order to reach a peace deal with Moscow. Orban has long maintained that the Ukraine conflict could spiral into a continent-wide war, and that restoring peace is his government’s foreign policy priority.

Orban arrived in Kiev on Tuesday for a surprise meeting with Zelensky, in his first visit to Ukraine in more than a decade. Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Orban said he had asked Zelensky “to think about whether it would be possible to take a break… to reach a ceasefire and start negotiations [with Russia], since a quick ceasefire could speed up these negotiations.”

Orban said that he was “very grateful to Zelensky for his honest answer in this regard.”

The Hungarian prime minister did not reveal Zelensky’s answer, although it is unlikely that the Ukrainian leader shared his enthusiasm for a truce. Despite mounting battlefield losses and protestations from some of his own aides, Zelensky has insisted since 2022 that he will return Ukraine’s former territories – including Crimea – by military force.

However, while Zelensky has not abandoned these goals, he stated last month that Ukraine “does not want to prolong the war,” and will “put a settlement plan on the table within a few months.” In follow-up comments last week, he said intermediaries such as Türkiye or the UN could help broker talks with Moscow.

Orban has pushed for such a plan since the outset of the conflict. Under his leadership, Hungary has refused to supply Kiev with weapons or allow Western arms into Ukraine via its soil. Budapest has also threatened to veto several of the EU’s 14 packages of sanctions on Moscow, agreeing to these measures only after securing concessions from Brussels, including a partial exemption from the EU’s bloc-wide oil embargo and a guarantee that its nuclear sector won’t be affected by future packages.

These positions have placed Orban at loggerheads with Zelensky and the EU leadership in Brussels. “The Brussels bureaucrats want this war, they see it as their own, and they want to defeat Russia,” he wrote in the Magyar Nemzet newspaper on Saturday.

Orban traveled to Kiev a day after Hungary assumed the European Council’s rotating presidency. “The goal of the Hungarian presidency is to contribute to solving the challenges facing the European Union. My first trip therefore led to Kiev,” Orban said in a statement on his Facebook page on Tuesday.

Aside from pushing Zelensky toward a ceasefire, Orban said he used the face-to-face meeting to lobby for the rights of Ukraine’s Hungarian minority in Transcarpathia, whom Budapest argues are treated as second-class citizens by Kiev. The pair also discussed trade, energy, and infrastructure cooperation.

“We are trying to close all previous disputes and focus on the future. We want to improve relations between our countries,” Orban told reporters.

July 2, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

NATO Faces ‘Key Weapons Gaps’ as Ukraine Eats its Way Into Stocks

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 02.07.2024

NATO allies intend to discuss speeding up the procurement of weapons at their upcoming summit in Washington, reported Semafor.

“Critical gaps” in the alliance’s military readiness need to be addressed, it quoted three European officials as saying, as the bloc continues to funnel weapons to the Kiev regime.

As NATO’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine grinds on, there’ve been growing reports that sending existing equipment to Kiev had “reduced” stockpiles in Europe itself. This prompted the alliance’s latest defense plan, that calls for measures to boost air and missile defense systems’ quantity and readiness, officials told the FT earlier.

Action is expected to be taken on a plan put forward by the NATO’s three Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, which have been at the forefront of anti-Russian hysteria throughout the Ukrainian crisis, along with Poland.

The Allied Capability Delivery Commitment (ACDC) was presented at a May meeting in Palanga, Lithuania, by the defense ministers of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. At the time, speaking at a press conference with Latvia’s Andris Spruds and Lithuania’s Laurynas Kasciunas, Estonia’s Minister of Defense Hanno Pevkur said the initiative required extra funds, and the 2 percent minimum spending level agreed at the 2023 summit was no longer “sufficient”.

In line with the five-year plan, the alliance would boost efforts to procure “air defense, long range fires, and ammunition,” Tuuli Duneton, Undersecretary for Defense Policy at the Estonian Ministry of Defense, told the outlet.

“Delivering these [weapons] faster than originally planned would require additional resources to be invested,” one European official was quoted as acknowledging.

He added that the plan had been agreed upon in principle at a June meeting of NATO’s defense ministers in Brussels.

As far as Washington is concerned, it “supports the intent of the proposal and is working with allies on how to incorporate it in summit deliverables,” a US State Department official was cited as saying. The underlying ideas of the proposal will be “embedded” in the Defense Industrial Pledge expected to be signed at the summit, a Latvian spokesperson told the publication.

The NATO summit in Washington D.C. will take place from July 9-11. It will commemorate the landmark 75th anniversary of the alliance, which was founded in 1949. The summit’s title is “Ukraine and transatlantic security.” NATO will not extend a formal invitation to Ukraine for membership during the gathering.

More defense spending and costly procurement face NATO allies as supporting the regime in Kiev continues to bleed their own stockpiles dry. The bloc’s European allies have only a small fraction of the air defense capabilities they would need if the proxy conflict in Ukraine expanded into a direct Russia-NATO confrontation, officials were cited as saying by the Financial Times.

At the same time, the Ukraine conflict has become a great boon for America’s own leading defense contractors, sending their stocks up and boosting their profits. However, as the US and Europe keep squandering taxpayer money on arms for Ukraine, Russia continues to effectively destroy this weaponry.

Russia has persistently cautioned Western countries against furnishing weapons to the Kiev regime, stating that this sort of assistance would only serve to prolong the conflict in Ukraine.

Furthermore, Moscow has repeatedly rejected Western claims about an alleged Russian threat as unsubstantiated. Russian President Vladimir Putin said earlier this year that the West’s allegations about Moscow’s plans to unleash a war with NATO are “simply rubbish.” He also slammed reports about Russia planning to attack Europe after the end of a special military operation in Ukraine as “complete nonsense and intimidation of Europeans to squeeze money out of them [for defense-related] purposes.”

July 2, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Zelensky Calls on World to ‘Force Putin to Make Peace’

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | July 1, 2024

In a series of posts on social media, President Volodymyr Zelensky demanded more weapons from his Western backers so Russia can be “forced” into a peace agreement. Advanced warplanes, long-range missiles, and air defenses were named on the Ukrainian leader’s wishlist.

In an X post, Zelensky acknowledged that Ukraine was struggling to combat Russian glide bombs, and Kiev needed a significant influx of arms. “Russian bombs remain Putin’s key capability to wage war. The sooner the world helps us neutralize Russia’s combat aviation launching these bombs and the sooner we can strike back with justified strikes,” he implored on Sunday. “The world possesses enough strength to force Russia to make peace.”

Zelensky has sought to impose peace on Russia that requires President Vladimir Putin to stand trial for war crimes and Moscow to withdraw to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders. Putin has offered Ukraine a deal that will require Kiev to recognize Russia’s claims to territory it has captured since 2022. Under Moscow’s proposal, Kiev would also have to agree to neutrality.

Washington and Kiev’s Western backers have firmly rejected any of Moscow’s offers for diplomacy and have pushed Ukraine to expel the invading Russian soldiers. However, as the conflict turned into a war of attrition, Russia gained the upper hand with a larger population and military-industrial base that outproduces Ukraine’s collective supporters.

In a separate post, Zelensky discussed his requests to a bipartisan group of American lawmakers. “We discussed key areas of further American assistance, including additional air defense systems. This is critically important, as the Patriot systems save lives and protect infrastructure,” he wrote.

Washington has struggled to provide Kiev with all the air defenses it has requested. Zelensky has only received a fraction of the Patriot systems he has demanded. Interceptors are in short supply with the White House recently announcing that it would give Ukraine priority for newly produced missiles.

On Monday, Zelensky made a third appeal for arms on X. “Life must prevail over the Russian war and all of Putin’s hostile ambitions. This is absolutely possible. But only if we sustain not just our courage but also the courage of our partners.” He continued, “Long-range weapons, fighter jets for Ukraine—of sufficient quality and quantity, and more air defense systems—are crucial factors affecting the entire course of this war.”

Zelensky said Ukraine needed to be able to “neutralize Russia’s combat aviation launching these bombs and… Russian military infrastructure and airfields.” While Washington and a number of other NATO countries have signed off on Kiev using their weapons to hit targets in Russia, Zelensky has asked the West to remove restrictions on where inside Russia the munitions can hit.

Additionally, Ukraine has used drones to hit Russian radar sites that are critical to Moscow’s ability to detect incoming nuclear weapons.

July 1, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Hundreds of Israeli Officers Request Discharge from Military Service as Gallant Highlights Need for Extra Troops

Al-Manar | July 1, 2024

Israeli Channel 12 reported that, in 2024, around 900 military officers requested to discharge from the army, adding that the annual average of those requests is less than 150.

The channel considered the sharp increase in the number of officers requesting discharge as a “crisis for the state, not just the army,” describing the situation as “worrying.”

Zionist Channel 12 explained that one of the most challenging issues now is keeping officers in important positions within the “army.” It noted that in recent months, it has become evident that officers are inclined to leave the “army” or are considering doing so.

Regarding the reasons for the increase in the number of officers requesting discharge, Zionist Channel 12 mentioned that October 7 was one of the main reasons, along with incentives and bonuses, as well as the de-legitimization campaigns against the “army” by some Israelis and certain politicians.

Haaretz newspaper indicated that dozens of reserve soldiers have announced that they will not rejoin the army even if they get punished.

Meanwhile, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant said the Israeli army needs 10,000 new soldiers immediately, 4,800 of which can be recruited from the ultra-Orthodox community, according to Israeli Channel 12.

This follows the Israeli High Court’s decision last week that ultra-Orthodox men can be drafted for military service, which sparked protests against conscription.

The Israeli media also reported that the occupation army is going to move into the third phase of its war on Gaza, which implies ground withdrawals in parallel with intensification of aerial attacks in order to avoid more of the losses inflicted by the Palestinian resistance.

July 1, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Top Shelf

American-made M-270 Multiple Launch Rocket System

French-made SCALP-EG Cruise Missile
By William Schryver – imetatronink – July 1, 2024

I grow weary of the increasingly pervasive myth that the US/NATO has sent to Ukraine nothing but its antiquated equipment and munitions.

SOME of the equipment sent has been older generation specimens. But ALMOST EVERYTHING sent is representative of what would constitute a large proportion of any US/NATO front-line combined arms army.

– Virtually ALL the artillery tubes sent to Ukraine, whether towed or self-propelled, are the same types NATO armies could presently field.

– Virtually ALL the armored vehicles, of all types, are the same types NATO armies would field in large numbers in a war against Russia.

– ALL the precision-guided strike munitions the US/NATO have fielded in Ukraine are the best available: Javelins, NLAWS, Excalibur, GMLRS and GLSDB for HIMARS, JDAMs, Switchblade, HARMS, Storm Shadow/SCALP, ATACMS, etc.

– ALL the air-defense systems fielded in Ukraine have been top-shelf front-line stuff: IRIS-T, NASAMS, Patriot, etc.

– Most, if not all, of the electronic warfare and counter-battery radars are “best available”.

– The ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) is not only “best available”, but it has been ubiquitous and uninterrupted.

I’m sure there must be some other examples I’m neglecting to cite.

When one examines in aggregate the implements of war the US/NATO have provided to Ukraine, the overwhelming majority consists of the very stuff every military in NATO would field in a war against Russia.

A very small proportion could be reasonably characterized as “antiquated storage-depot junk”.

It must also be recognized (as is now common knowledge) that effectively ALL the precision-guided strike munitions, air-defense systems, and theater ISR assets are being operated by “NATO-affiliated volunteers” – and, not rarely, active NATO personnel.

It is a demonstrable and incontrovertible fact that, in terms of what has been delivered to Ukraine, the US and its NATO underlings have, with very few exceptions, sent their “best stuff”.

And I challenge anyone to craft a persuasive argument built around the proposition that: “If the Americans sent their best stuff, it would dominate on the battlefield against the Russians.”

July 1, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia Threatens US Drones in Black Sea Aiding Attacks on Crimea

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | June 30, 2024

In response to Ukrainian attacks on the Crimean Peninsula, tensions between the US and Russia have significantly escalated, with Moscow threatening US drones operating over the Black Sea. The Kremlin says the drones are part of the Ukrainian operations in the region.

On Friday, the Russian Defense Ministry said there had been an uptick in American drone operations in the Black Sea “carrying out reconnaissance” of the Crimean Peninsula. The statement explained that the Russian military was instructed to prepare an “operational response” to the flights.

The remarks followed a Ukrainian attack using US cluster munitions that caused the death of four civilians and wounded hundreds of others. Moscow argues that Washington’s support for Kiev makes the US effectively a party to the conflict. “This demonstrates the increasing involvement of the United States and NATO countries in the conflict in Ukraine on the side of the Kiev regime,” the Defense Ministry said.

As Ukrainian forces have continued to lose territory to Russia on the battlefield, its Western backers have significantly stepped up support for Kiev. The US has allowed Ukraine to use its munitions to strike Russia, signed off on the transfer of F-16s to Ukraine, and sent Abrams Tanks to Ukraine, all actions the White House previously warned could risk provoking World War Three.

The Defense Ministry noted the Western escalations, including the drone flights, “increase the risk of a direct confrontation between the alliance and Russia.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov explained the Kremlin is still working on its response to the attack on Crimea. “The tragedy that occurred in Sevastopol will certainly not remain and does not remain without our response.” He added, “I think that the idea of certain permissible scenarios is also on the minds of many in the West. They should feel the extreme risks associated with such actions.”

June 30, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Russian Forces Use Underground Tunnel to Seize Major Ukrainian Stronghold in Donbass

Sputnik – 30.06.2024

Russian troops captured a major Ukrainian stronghold in the eastern part of Kirovo in Donbass, the Ministry of Defense said in a statement.

“The major Ukrainian stronghold on the eastern outskirts of the town of Kirovo was taken by assault units from the Veterans squad of the Tsentr Battlegroup using an underground tunnel,” the statement said.

The fighters secretly cleared and utilized a tunnel over three kilometers long along the Seversky Donets channel, then entered the rear of the fortified position, which featured long-term firing points and underground shelters.

“The soldiers established a supply route through the tunnel, providing the assault troops with ammunition, weapons, and food,” the ministry added.

The ministry emphasized that the surprise element allowed the unit to successfully take full control of the position. Some Ukrainian soldiers surrendered, while others abandoned their posts and retreated.

Earlier on Sunday, the ministry reported that the Tsentr Battlegroup’s units had liberated the settlement of Novoalexandrovka in the Donetsk People’s Republic, improved their tactical position, and inflicted losses on the formations of the 23rd, 47th Mechanized, 95th Air Assault, 59th Motorized Infantry Brigades and the 2nd Brigade of the Ukrainian National Guard in the areas of Toretsk, Kirovo, Mikhailovka, Novgorodskoye, Volch’ye, Shevchenko, Sokol, and Vishnevoye. The enemy suffered losses of up to 370 soldiers, eight vehicles, four howitzers, two anti-tank guns, and a counter-battery radar station.

June 30, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Bye, Sentinel? ‘Good Reasons’ to Shelve US Missile Program

By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 30.06.2024

The future of the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile has been up in the air since January 2024, when the US Air Force announced that the program had suffered “critical” cost and schedule overruns.

There are “pretty good chances” that the Pentagon will cancel the Sentinel nuclear missile program after its review, retired US Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, a former analyst for the US Department of Defense (DoD), told Sputnik commenting on a recent firing of a top official overseeing the program.

The project, which is “well over budget and far behind schedule,” is supposed “to deliver 400 ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles] at a taxpayer cost of $325 million each, and employs personnel mainly in Utah,” Kwiatkowski recalled.

The program could be put on hold for at least three reasons, she said.

  • “Utah Senators and the handful of Utah Congressmen are not in a powerful position to save the program.”
  • “The wide domestic publicity of the cost overruns and the recent firing of the program manager further reduces the political firepower” of the project.
  • “As the services realize that budget constraints on the DoD are coming, they are looking for public sacrifices in order to fund better liked and more politically profitable programs.”

Land or ground-based missiles in the nuclear triad, which includes ICBMs, bombers and submarines, “are deployed and funded largely based on the idea that they will never be used, or if they are used, no government would survive those launches intact,” the former DoD analyst noted.

These missiles “are expensive to build, test and maintain, they lack pizzazz and tend to remain in the budgetary background. I suspect that Northrup Grumman is hoping to shift some of the Sentinel budget onto the more glamorous, and more globally marketable, B2 fighter bomber replacement program, and I expect they have already greased the Congressional skids to do this,” she concluded.

The Sentinel program, which aims to develop brand-new missiles to replace the more than 50-year-old Minuteman III ICBMs, was projected to cost $62.3 billion in 2015. Five years later, when the contract was awarded to Northrop Grumman, the project’s price tag jumped to $96 billion. To date, it has ballooned to $131 billion, or 37% more than the previous estimate.

The program has also experienced delays caused by supply chain and workforce issues at the manufacturing company, according to Breaking Defense.
Under the Nunn-McCurdy Act of 1982, if the cost of a weapons project rises 25 percent or more above the baseline estimate, that constitutes a “critical” breach – the Pentagon must review the program.

June 30, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »