Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ongoing largest military exercises suggest NATO’s escalation toward potential conflict

By Mark Blacklock | Global Times | February 1, 2024

It would be misleading to call NATO’s ongoing exercise simply a war game because that evokes scenes of people in costume reenacting historic battles or modern armies charging about, field-testing their tactics and equipment. Exercise Steadfast Defender 2024 is far from harmless. It is very much a rehearsal, and – in a theater where war is already raging – possibly even a provocation. With the Russia-Ukraine conflict still ongoing, Steadfast Defender – NATO’s largest military venture since the Cold War – could be seen by Moscow as a deliberate poking of the Russian bear.

As the bloc’s 31 armies, along with another from membership contender Sweden, hurl 90,000 of their military personnel into a make-believe battle, Russia and Ukraine’s forces are engaged in a very real and deadly conflict on NATO’s doorstep. It is crucial for NATO to consider the risks of miscalculation and the resulting escalation to ensure that their simulated exercises do not inadvertently become entangled with the actual theatre of war next door, which would be too terrifying to think about.

Let’s not forget that while NATO is engaged in military exercises from Europe’s High North to Central and Eastern Europe until May 31, it is simultaneously deeply involved in the conflict with Russia through its proxy, Ukraine. Furthermore, the alliance’s own statements claim the drills are specifically to test its ability to “deploy forces rapidly from North America and other parts of the alliance to reinforce the defense of Europe.” In other words, the large-scale participation of 32 armies is a preparation for the potential scenario where proxy engagement escalates into open warfare with Russia.

It is a day that Western politicians and senior armed forces personnel increasingly seem to expect. In January, Britain’s defense secretary Grant Shapps ominously predicted that the UK could be at war with Russia, China, North Korea and Iran within five years. Then Britain’s top soldier, General Sir Patrick Sanders, chief of the General Staff, made a rallying cry last year, urging his troops to prepare to defeat Russia “in battle.”

The chair of NATO’s military committee, Dutch admiral Rob Bauer, said large numbers of civilians will need to be mobilized for a Russia conflict.

Sweden’s Military Commander-in-chief General Micael Byden stated that all Swedes should be mentally prepared for war. Germany’s Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said war with Russia could be possible in the next five to eight years. General Eirik Kristofferson, the head of Norway’s armed forces, warned: “The people of Norway should give thought to their readiness. We recommend being able to cope without outside help for three days.” Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas has cautioned that Europe has three to five years to prepare for any threat from Russia. All suggest that civilians will be central to any future war. The populations are being groomed. They are being told NATO is a defensive shield, when increasingly it looks like a brandished sword.

Talk of “three to five years” is significant, as that is the time it will take NATO’s nations to restore their equipment and ordnance stockpiles, after supplying so much to Ukraine.

The NATO countries are so deeply enmeshed in the Russia-Ukraine fighting that they have effectively become Kiev’s quartermaster. It is a role they have played with increasing enthusiasm – and increasing lethality. When the conflict began almost two years ago, there were diplomatic protests, many nations threw open their borders to refugees, but James Heappey, the UK’s minister for the armed forces, told the House of Commons: “British and NATO troops should not – must not – play an active role in Ukraine.”

Yet two years on, we are much closer to realizing what he said should never happen, with NATO’s generals and Europe’s politicians openly talking of war with Russia and prepping their populations for the worst.

Britain escalated its initial token military support of anti-tank missiles and modest kit like rations to include many thousands of missiles, air defense systems, and £25 million to pay armed forces’ salaries. Mission creep eventually saw more than 120 armored vehicles, anti-ship missile systems, and £1.3 billion of financial aid followed. Short and medium-range missiles soon became long-range missiles.

Then there were strike-capable and naval drones. Long-range artillery, cruise missiles, helicopters, a squadron of 14 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, and even ships were dispatched. Then, with the US’ blessing, the Netherlands and Denmark supplied F-16 fighter jets.

Crucially, the West’s war aims have also changed: the Tallinn Pledge committed some to not only defend Ukraine but also to remove the Russians from disputed territory. If they continue down this path, could this pledge, along with the Article 5 commitments of the recently-expanded NATO – with Finland now part of the family and Sweden awaiting only Hungary’s approval – unleash the dogs of war?

Under cover of the ongoing exercises, with officials and politicians talking almost casually about World War III, NATO is not merely playing at war but preparing for it, and perhaps, it could even provoke it. Exercise Steadfast Defender marks the point at which NATO transitions from the pretense of a defensive union into a warlike one. Is the world on the brink of no return? Is it a matter of “when” rather than “if”?

The author is a journalist and lecturer in Britain.

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

German Military’s Crimean Bridge Strike Talk: ‘NATO Has Found Itself in Hot Water’

By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 02.03.2024

The situation around the leaked conversation between high-ranking German army officers has once again refuted NATO’s allegations about the alliance’s non-interference in the Ukrainian conflict, experts told Sputnik.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has demanded an “immediate explanation” from Berlin on the audio recording released earlier this week by Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT and Rossiya Segodnya, Sputnik’s parent media group.

In it, German generals are heard discussing a potential attack on the Crimean Bridge with Taurus missiles.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stressed in a statement that attempts by German authorities “to dodge the question will be considered an admission of guilt.”

High-ranking German officers discussed launching strikes on “Russian civilian infrastructure either with the tacit official consent of Berlin or behind its back; both variants are the matter of serious concern,” military expert Robinson Farinazzo, a former Brazilian Navy officer, said in an interview with Sputnik.

“The authorities are either aware of everything or they knew nothing, which means it was the military’s conspiracy – something that should be punished accordingly, right down to an option of all those involved being brought to tribunal,” Farinazzo said.

“If Berlin was in the know, it can be likened to a declaration of war,” he insisted, urging Moscow and Berlin to use diplomatic channels to defuse tensions over this information “about aggressive intentions.”

According to the expert, “It’s hard to imagine what measures Moscow might take if it considers actions by the German officers a serious provocation.”

The former Brazilian naval officer also drew attention to German authorities keeping mum on the matter. Likewise, how the information comes amid disagreements among Western countries on additional military aid to the Kiev regime, including the possibility of providing Ukraine with the Taurus cruise missiles and sending NATO military units to the country.

In this vein, Farinazzo said he believes that further developments will depend on whether the US Congress will okay more supplies to Ukraine or not. Even if Congress gives the green light, this will only add to prolonging the conflict and will fail to change the situation on the battlefield in favor of Ukraine, per the expert.

“The West and high-ranking NATO officers have already realized the fact that Ukraine cannot win. A potential strike on the Crimean Bridge would be tangible from a psychological point of view, but it would hardly affect the course of the special military operation, since Russia instead can use railroad or sea transport,” Farinazzo said.

International relations expert Tito Livio Barcellos Pereira from the Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo, for his part said that the conversation once again raises doubts about the veracity of previous claims by Western authorities that NATO countries are not involved in the Ukraine conflict.

“NATO countries, which previously argued that they were not directly involved in the conflict and only limit themselves to sending aid to Kiev, have found themselves in hot water. Their claims are becoming less credible, while Russia’s arguments are sounding more convincing,” the expert underscored.

He noted that “in this situation, the leaders of Western states will probably have to explain themselves before lawmakers and the entire society of their countries, as well as before other NATO members, which have a more restrained stance.”

In Pereira’s opinion, the situation could lead to an even greater escalation of tensions between Russia and NATO, especially given that the alliance “does not want to hear the arguments by Moscow, which has repeatedly warned against the alliance’s infrastructure getting closer to Russian borders.”

“The German military’s recorded conversation once again confirms that the alliance continues to be involved in a [proxy] war with Russia,” Pereira concludes, berating Kiev and the West for deliberately sabotaging all alternative peace initiatives put forward by the Global South.

March 2, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Why the West can’t be trusted to observe its own ‘red lines’ in Ukraine

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 2, 2024

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz have disagreed publicly over how to support Ukraine – which has been ruthlessly deployed by the West as a geopolitical proxy – in its conflict with Russia. Macron used a special EU meeting he had convened, rumor has it directly inspired by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, to state, in effect, that sending Western combat troops into Ukraine was an option.

Of course, the West already has troops on the ground, including those flimsily camouflaged as volunteers and mercenaries, or otherwise participating in the conflict (for instance by planning and targeting), as a recent leak of US documents has confirmed. But an open intervention by ground forces would be a severe escalation, directly pitting Russia and NATO against each other, as Moscow has quickly pointed out, and making nuclear escalation a real possibility.

Russia has deliberately tolerated a certain degree of Western intervention, for its own pragmatic reasons: In essence, it seeks to win the war in Ukraine, while avoiding an open conflict with NATO. It is willing to pay the price of having to deal with some de facto Western military meddling, as long as it is confident it can defeat it on the Ukrainian battlefield. Indeed, the strategy has the added advantage that the West is bleeding its own resources, while the Russian military is receiving excellent hands-on training in how to neutralize Western hardware, including much-touted “miracle weapons.”

You do not have to believe Moscow’s words, but simply consult elementary logic to understand that there is an equally hard-headed limit to this kind of calculated tolerance. If the Russian leadership were to conclude that Western military forces in Ukraine were endangering its objectives (instead of merely making achieving them harder), it would raise the price for certain Western countries. (Selective treatment would be adopted to put under stress – quite possibly to breaking point – Western cohesion.)

Consider Germany, for instance: Berlin is by far Ukraine’s biggest bilateral financial supporter among EU states (at least in terms of commitments). Yet militarily, for now, Russia has been content with, in essence, shredding German Leopard tanks as they arrive on the battlefield. And, in a sense, punishing Germany’s meddling can safely be left to its own government: the country has already taken massive hits to its economy and international standing.

But if Berlin were to go even further, Moscow’s calculations would change. In that case, as little as German mass media allow German citizens to think about it, a “sobering” (to use a term from Russian doctrine) strike – initially probably non-nuclear – on German forces and territory is possible. The domestic consequences of such an attack are unpredictable. Germans might rally round the flag, or they might openly rebel against an already deeply unpopular government that has been sacrificing the national interest with unprecedented bluntness to Washington’s geopolitics.

If you think the above sounds a little far-fetched, I know of someone who clearly does not share your complacency: the German chancellor. Stung by Macron’s provocation, Scholz countered with telling alacrity. Within 24 hours after the surprise French move, he publicly ruled out the sending of “ground troops” by “European nations or NATO nations,” underlining that that this red line has always been agreed on.

In addition, the chancellor also chose exactly this moment to reaffirm that Germany will not deliver its Taurus cruise missiles to Kiev, as escalation that proponents have long demanded, including inside Germany. With, according to Scholz, the capability of striking Moscow, Berlin’s missiles in Ukrainian hands and Macron’s hypothetical ground forces have one thing in common: they come with a serious risk of spreading direct fighting beyond Ukraine, in particular to Western Europe and Germany.

In other words, the leaders of the two countries traditionally recognized as the core of the European Union have displayed profound disagreement on a key issue. Macron, it is true, often says more than he means or will care to remember. Scholz is an extreme opportunist, even by the standards of professional politics. In addition, clearly intentional indiscretions from the two men’s teams point to mutual and heartfelt antipathy, as Bloomberg has just reported. We could dismiss the spat between them as nothing but the result of incompatible political styles and personal animosity.

But that would be a grave mistake. In reality, their open discord is an important signal about the state of thinking, debate, and policy making within the EU, and, more broadly, NATO and the West. The real challenge is to decipher what this signal means.

Let’s start with something the two leaders will not openly admit but, it is virtually certain, share: The background to their quarrel is their fear that Ukraine and the West are not only losing the conflict, but more importantly in the information-streamlined West, that this defeat is about to become undeniably obvious. For instance, in the shape of further Russian advances, including strategic victories like the taking of Avdeevka and a partial or total collapse of Ukrainian defenses. Even the robustly bellicose Economist, for instance, is now admitting that Russia’s offensive is “heating up,” that the fall of Avdeevka has not made the Russian military pause, and that Ukrainians themselves are “becoming pessimistic.” Both Macron’s remarks and Scholz’s hasty disclaimer are indicators of a growing and well-founded pessimism, perhaps even incipient panic among Western elites.

Yet that does not tell us much about how these elites really intend to react to this losing game (assuming they know themselves, that is). In principle, there are two strategic options: raise the stakes (again) or cut your losses (finally). At this point, the “raise the stakes” faction is still dominating the policy debate. The negative response to Macron’s show-stealer move has overshadowed that the general trend of the NATO and EU strategy is still to add fresh resources to the fight, for instance by agreeing to source ammunition from outside the EU, a move long resisted by France. At least as far as the public is permitted to see, NATO and the EU are still run by sunk-cost-fallacy addicts: The more they have failed and lost already, the more they want to risk.

In reality, however, the option of deception and the temptation of self-deception (they easily blend into each other, an effect commonly known as “drinking your own Kool Aid” ) make things more complicated: Take, for instance, Russia’s evidence, in verbatim transcript detail, of high-ranking German military officers discussing – or was it “brainstorming” ? – how Ukraine could, after all, use Taurus missiles to attack the Kerch Strait Bridge that connects Crimea with the Russian mainland, while maintaining, in effect, plausible deniability. Scholz’s public statement that “German soldiers must at no point and in no place be linked” to Taurus attacks is proof that evading responsibility – or the impossibility to do so – are on his mind. As you would expect from a politician whose only strategy is finding the path of least resistance.

The muddled German response to this embarrassing intelligence fiasco (Why exactly was something so obviously sensitive discussed via hackable telecommunications instead of in a secure room, for instance?) only confirms that the Russian evidence is authentic. Instead of denying that the discussion took place, Germany has reacted – in typical authoritarian manner – by blocking social media accounts reporting it, and by trying to spin the conversation as nothing but a harmless thought experiment.

And yet, Scholz’s suspiciously elastic phrasing and the German officers’ discussion do not mean that such a course of naively transparent cheating will be adopted by Berlin. It may even have been a way of figuring out why that would not work.

Especially if this information is not entirely new, Russia’s choosing to publicize it now and perhaps even risking some (minor) intelligence disadvantage by revealing the extent of the German military’s penetration is, of course, also a signal to Germany’s leadership: Moscow will not play along with plausible deniability (a “don’t even try” message) and is deadly serious about this red line (a “we mean it” message). This as well may help focus minds in Berlin and make cheating less likely.

In any case, the evidence of German officers thinking about how to help attack Russia without leaving fingerprints does underline two things: Western public statements can easily be deliberate lies; and even when they are not, they are always open to radical revision. Indeed, Macron, too, alluded to that fact, pointing out that even if direct military intervention is not a consensus yet, it could become one in the future, just as other red lines have been crossed before.

In that light, Macron’s loose talk could be read as just another bluff – or, as they say in France, “strategic ambiguity” : a desperate attempt to strut so fiercely that Russia will not press its military advantage. If that was the French president’s intention, it has backfired spectacularly: Macron has provoked not only Germany but other, bigger Western players as well to clarify that they do not agree with him. Note to the Jupiterian self in the Élysée Palace: It’s not “ambiguous” when everyone who counts says “No way!”; it’s not very “strategic” either.

Yet it would be complacent to take solace from Macron’s current isolation. First, it is not complete: There are hardcore escalationists, such as the Estonian leader Kaja Kallas, in the EU and NATO who have praised  him precisely because they want to drag everyone else into a direct clash with Russia. It is good that these especially zealous warmongers do not have the upper hand for now. But they have not been defeated or even appropriately marginalized either, and they will not give up.

Second, a strategy of escalation and threats can get out of hand. Consider the too-little-known fact that, in the July Crisis of 1914, just before World War I started, even the German emperor Wilhelm II had moments where he privately felt that it could still be avoided. That, however, was after he and his government had personally done their worst to bring the big war about. Lesson: If you take too many risks, at some point you may no longer be able to dial down the escalation you have promoted yourself.

Third, and most fundamentally, while rationally applied dishonesty is not unusual in international politics, for an international system to produce stability, it must first produce predictability. That, in turn, requires that even deception is kept within tacitly agreed limits and is, to a degree, predictable (because of its underlying rationality). The problem with the post-Cold War West is that it has chosen to forget and flaunt this basic rule of global order. Its addiction to unreliability is so severe that signals of escalation are inherently more credible than signals of de-escalation, as long as there is no principal, general, and clearly recognizable change of approach.

Put differently, Macron’s current isolation does not count for much because its due-diligence interpretation from Moscow’s perspective has to be that he merely went a little too far too soon. Neither Scholz’s nor other Western disavowals make a difference. What would make a difference is a united and clear signal by the West that it is now ready for genuine negotiations and a real compromise settlement. For now, the opposite remains true.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul.

March 2, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Russia-Ukraine Peace Settlement Attempt ‘Sabotaged’ in March 2022 – Erdogan

Sputnik – 01.03.2024

ANTALYA, Turkiye – The attempt to reach a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in March 2022 was “sabotaged,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday.

“The Ukrainian crisis has moved into its third year. Here in Antalya, the Istanbul process was launched. At that time, hopes for peace reached a new level. But unfortunately, due to the lack of the necessary support, our efforts have failed. The historic opportunity to achieve peace, to save tens of thousands of lives from destruction and to save tens of thousands of lives was actually missed, or, more precisely, sabotaged,” Erdogan said at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum.

Moscow launched its special military operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Russian and Ukrainian delegations engaged in several rounds of peace talks, including in Turkiye in March 2022, in the early days of the conflict. In October 2022, Volodymyr Zelensky signed a decree stating that Kiev could not hold peace talks as long as President Vladimir Putin is in power in Russia.

In November 2023, Ukraine’s former chief negotiator with Russia, David Arakhamia, said then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson talked Kiev out of signing an agreement with Moscow to end the conflict in spring 2022. Johnson denies it.

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

Heavy losses inflict ‘dramatic manpower crisis’ on Israel

The Cradle | March 1, 2024

The Israeli military is demanding an addition of at least 7,000 soldiers to its forces due to a serious manpower crisis. 

The 7,000 are needed on top of the soldiers already enlisting, the Israeli army said on 1 March. 

“The army requires standards for another 7,500 officers and noncommissioned officers, while the Treasury currently approves only 2,500. These are unprecedented numbers, which indicate the shock that befell the IDF following almost 150 days of fighting, which began with heavy losses on 7 October,” Hebrew news site Ynet reported, citing the army’s General Staff. 

“The army is compiling the data that will explain how dramatic the manpower problem is,” it added. 

Just one day ago, Israel’s Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, called to end draft exemptions for members of the ultra-Orthodox community. Gallant said he would only support legislation allowing for continued exemptions if all members of the ruling coalition backed it. 

The minister asserted that “all parts of society” must “bear the burden” of service.

Gallant’s position could result in tension with ultra-Orthodox parties in the coalition, viewed as integral to the current government’s survival, according to Hebrew media. 

However, the army’s demand for a boost in manpower “has nothing to do with politics or the demand for equal burden: The situation is simply not good and does not match the threat map,” Ynet wrote. 

Israel is taking severe losses in its genocidal war in Gaza and its attempt to eradicate the Palestinian resistance. 

While Israel claims that Gaza’s southernmost city of Rafah is the final Hamas stronghold, the group’s military wing, along with several other factions, continue to fiercely confront Israeli troops across the strip. 

A source from within the resistance told Al-Mayadeen on Thursday that the Israeli army has been forced out of Gaza City’s Al-Zaytoun neighborhood, where it had been operating over the past eleven days in an attempt to clear out Hamas fighters. 

The source added that the neighborhood is a “graveyard” for Merkava tanks, and the “bloodied and torn” uniforms of Israeli soldiers are spread out across the battlefield. 

Clashes between the resistance and the army continued to rage on 1 March in several areas of Gaza, including the southern city of Khan Yunis and the Jabalia area in the northern strip. 

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

Transcript released of purported German discussion on attacking Crimean Bridge

RT | March 1, 2024

The full text of what is claimed to be a discussion by senior German military officers on how to attack the Crimean Bridge in Russia was published by RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan on Friday. She reported that Russian security officials had leaked the recording hours earlier and has pledged to release the original audio shortly.

Simonyan identified the officers as General Ingo Gerhartz, the German Air Force commander, and senior leaders responsible for mission planning. The alleged conversation took place on February 19, according to the source of the leak.

The transcript reveals the officials discussed the efficiency of the Franco-British cruise missile called Storm Shadow by the UK and SCALP by France. Both nations donated some of their stockpile to Ukraine.

Kiev has called on Germany to provide some of its Taurus missiles. The officers in the leaked recording debate whether the weapon system was adequate for hitting the Crimean Bridge in Russia, which connects eastern Crimea to Krasnodar Region across the Kerch Strait.

According to the transcript, the officers discussed how a successful attack on a key piece of Russian infrastructure would require additional satellite data, possible deployment of missiles from French Dassault Rafale fighter jets, and at least a month of preparation.

One participant observed that due to the size of the bridge, which is the longest in Europe, even 20 missiles may not be enough to cause significant damage. It is comparable to a runway in that regard, he noted.

“They want to destroy the bridge… because it has not only military strategic importance, but also political significance,” Gerhartz is quoted as saying, apparently referring to officials in Kiev. “It would be concerning if we have direct connection with the Ukrainian armed forces.”

The officers went on to discuss how close the German military should be working on the proposed operation so as not to cross the ‘red line’ of being involved directly. Secretly training Ukrainians in the use of German weapons and helping them plan the operation were deemed acceptable. Concerns about the press learning about such cooperation were also raised, the transcript reveals.

Senior officials in Berlin have repeatedly made public statements explaining their reservations about sending Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Chancellor Olaf Scholz said this week that the Germany’s military cannot do for Ukraine what “was done on the part of the British and French in terms of target-control and target-control assistance.” The remark was rebuked by London and Paris, for allegedly distracting public attention from German unwillingness to donate arms to Kiev.

According to the released text, a large segment of the conversation was about practical aspects of preparing Kiev’s forces for deploying Taurus missiles, from training its military personnel, to adapting hardpoints of Ukrainian military jets for Berlin’s weapons, to providing technical support remotely via a safe link. The officers were concerned that speeding up the proposed handover may result in civilians being killed “again” in a weapons mishap.

When assessing the intelligence necessary for targeting the missiles, Gerhartz allegedly mused that, to provide such information, there are plenty of “people in civilian clothes with American accents” in Kiev that would cover up for the Germans.

UPDATE:

Full Transcript of German Top Military Officials’ Leaked Plot to Attack Crimean Bridge

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

US Refuses to Discuss ‘Nuclear Arms in Outer Space’ Despite Russia’s Dialogue Efforts

By Andrei Dergalin – Sputnik – 29.02.2024

Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered his annual address to Russia’s parliament on February 29, offering his assessment of issues related to the country’s foreign and domestic policies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin broached the subject of the United States recently alleging without any proof that Russia plans to deploy some kind of nuclear weapons in space during his State of the Nation address on Thursday.

Having dismissed these unfounded allegations, Putin mentioned that Russia is yet to receive any serious proposals from the US to initiate bilateral contacts on strategic stability.

Commenting on the Russian president’s remarks, Dr. Marco Marsili, a researcher at Cà Foscari University of Venice, pointed out that the US and its European allies have consistently refused to negotiate “international legally-binding instruments” with Russia, despite the latter’s initiatives aimed at preventing possible deployment of nuclear armaments in space.

According to Dr. Marsili, who is also an associate fellow at the Center for Strategic Research (Cesran International) and who holds research positions in major civil and military institutions in Portugal, the UK and Italy, the US and its allies torpedoed the initiatives “to maintain their technical advantages from its missile defense program and other space weapons.”

“In his speech delivered today, President Putin opened once again to a frank and genuine negotiation with the US on the placement of nuclear arms in outer space but, so far, has not received any signal from the counterpart,” he said.

“Today, Russia is in a stronger position due to its technological advances in missile defense and has developed hypersonic capabilities, like the Avangard rocket cited by President Putin in his speech, which place the country far away from its Western competitors. Notwithstanding, President Putin is still seeking dialogue with the White House, but does not receive any response.”

Dr. Marsili also weighed in on Putin’s statement about the need for a new global financial architecture that would be free from political interference, with Marsili noting how the “global governance” that emerged in the aftermath of World War II “was shaped by Western nations.”

“This post-colonialist governance, including the Bretton Woods system, is challenged by emerging countries from Africa and Latin America. The Sino-Russian cooperation agreement about the Belt and Road Initiative, and regional agreements with CSI member states can boost the economic growth of the region,” he continued.

Regarding Putin’s remark on Russia’s prospects to become one of the world’s four largest economies soon, Dr. Marsili observed that the figures presented by the Russian president to the audience during the speech “demonstrate the foreseen growth of the Russian economy, despite international sanctions.”

“These figures are reliable because they are based on data provided by the economic outlook of the major international institutions such as the IMF, the OECD, and the World Bank,” he added. “As of today, Russia’s economy is already among the largest in the world by nominal GDP. A significant economic power, Russia is not only the largest country in the world, but also an energy superpower and one of the largest producers of rare-earth materials that are crucial for many technologic applications.”

Meanwhile, Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Center for European and International Studies at Russia’s Higher School of Economics, argued that one of the crucial themes of Putin’s address was the matter of Russia’s sovereignty.

“Without question, sovereignty was another crucial theme of Putin’s address and sovereignty could be considered as the ideology of Russian development in the observable future. The president emphasized the political, economic and technological sovereignty of Russia. Sovereignty is indeed a precondition of Russian not just development, but survival, and, of course, development,” he elaborated.

According to Suslov, “Western policies prove that the West uses and used the interdependence and Russian dependence on the Western technologies and markets as a weapon against Russia.”

Thus, in order to avoid such dependence in the future and to not exchange it for “a new dependence on the other countries,” Russia “needs to be sovereign in all crucial aspects of development – in technologies, in defense, in the main aspects of economic development and, of course, in the political sphere,” he postulated.

March 1, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Russia Reveals Ties With Germany, France at Unprecedented Low

Sputnik -29.02.2024

MOSCOW – The signing of a security agreement between Paris, Berlin, and Kiev does not affect relations with Russia, which are at rock bottom, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told Sputnik.

“Referring specifically to Russia-Germany and Russia-France relations, I would like to emphasize that, unfortunately, at this stage there is little that could affect them for the worse. They are already at an unprecedentedly low level,” she said.

According to Zakharova, “the former partners [Germany and France] have discarded the voluminous baggage of large-scale, mutually beneficial bilateral cooperation [with Russia] accumulated over several generations.”

“This is not our decision. For two years we have been watching how NATO countries, including Germany and France playing a particularly active role (with Berlin ranking second after the United States in terms of supplying arms and military equipment to the Kiev regime), have been pumping Ukraine with modern lethal systems, training soldiers, supplying intelligence, and contributing to the escalation of hostilities,” Zakharova noted.

“All this makes them direct accomplices in Ukraine’s deeds,” she emphasized.

The spokeswoman claimed “the elites of these countries still indulge themselves in illusions about the possibility of inflicting a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia and consider Vladimir Zelensky’s ‘peace formula’ ultimatum – which, we reiterate, is unacceptable to us – as the only basis for resolving the Ukrainian crisis.”

“In this context, the signing of new agreements is another – albeit symbolic – move in the West’s hybrid war with Russia, a confirmation of the focus on long-term confrontation with our country and an unwillingness to go down the path of political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict,” she concluded.

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

The CIA in Ukraine — The NY Times Gets a Guided Tour

By Patrick Lawrence | ScheerPost | February 29, 2024

If you have paid attention to what various polls and officials in the U.S. and elsewhere in the West have been doing and saying about Ukraine lately, you know the look and sound of desperation. You would be desperate, too, if you were making a case for a war Ukrainians are on the brink of losing and will never, brink or back-from-the-brink, have any chance of winning. Atop this, you want people who know better, including 70 percent of Americans according to a recent poll, to keep investing extravagant sums in this ruinous folly.

And here is what seems to me the true source of angst among these desperados: Having painted this war as a cosmic confrontation between the world’s democrats and the world’s authoritarians, the people who started it and want to prolong it have painted themselves into a corner. They cannot lose it. They cannot afford to lose a war they cannot win: This is what you see and hear from all those good-money-after-bad people still trying to persuade you that a bad war is a good war and that it is right that more lives and money should be pointlessly lost to it.

Everyone must act for the cause in these dire times. You have Chuck Schumer in Kyiv last week trying to show House Republicans that they should truly, really authorize the Biden regime to spend an additional $61 billion on its proxy war with Russia. “Everyone we saw, from Zelensky on down made this very point clear,” the Democratic senator from New York asserted in an interview with The New York Times. “If Ukraine gets the aid, they will win the war and beat Russia.”

Even at this late hour people still have the nerve to say such things.

You have European leaders gathering in Paris Monday to reassure one another of their unity behind the Kyiv regime—and where Emmanuel Macron refused to rule out sending NATO ground troops to the Ukrainian front. “Russia cannot and must not win this war,” the French president declared to his guests at the Elysée Palace.

Except that it can and, barring an act of God, it will.

Then you have Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s war-mongering sec-gen, telling Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty last week that it will be fine if Kyiv uses F–16s to attack Russian cities once they are operational this summer. The U.S.–made fighter jets, the munitions, the money—all of it is essential “to ensure Russia doesn’t make further gains.” Stephen Bryen, formerly a deputy undersecretary at the Defense Department, offered an excellent response to this over the weekend in his Weapons and Strategy newsletter: “Fire Jens Stoltenberg before it is too late.”

Good thought, but Stoltenberg, Washington’s longtime water-carrier in Brussels, is merely doing his job as assigned: Keep up the illusions as to Kyiv’s potency and along with it the Russophobia, the more primitive the better. You do not get fired for irresponsible rhetoric that risks something that might look a lot like World War III.

What would a propaganda blitz of this breadth and stupidity be without an entry from The New York Times ? Given the extent to which the Times has abandoned all professional principle in the service of the power it is supposed to report upon, you just knew it would have to get in on this one.

The Times has published very numerous pieces in recent weeks on the necessity of keeping the war going and the urgency of a House vote authorizing that $61 billion Biden’s national security people want to send Ukraine. But never mind all those daily stories. Last Sunday it came out with its big banana. “The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin” sprawls—lengthy text, numerous photographs. The latter show the usual wreckage—cars, apartment buildings, farmhouses, a snowy dirt road lined with landmines. But the story that goes with it is other than usual.

Somewhere in Washington, someone appears to have decided it was time to let the Central Intelligence Agency’s presence and programs in Ukraine be known. And someone in Langley, the CIA’s headquarters, seems to have decided this will be O.K., a useful thing to do. When I say the agency’s presence and programs, I mean some : We get a very partial picture of the CIA’s doings in Ukraine, as the lies of omission—not to mention the lies of commission—are numerous in this piece. But what the Times published last weekend, all 5,500 words of it, tells us more than had been previously made public.

Let us consider this unusually long takeout carefully for what it is and how it came to make page one of last Sunday’s editions.

In a recent commentary I reflected on the mess the Times landed in when it published a thoroughly discredited p.o.s.—and I leave readers to understand this newsroom expression—on the sexual violence Hamas militias allegedly committed last Oct. 7. I described a corrupt but routinized relationship between the organs of official power and the journalists charged with reporting on official power, likening it to a foie gras farmer feeding his geese: The Times’s journalists opened wide and swallowed. For appearances’ sake, they then set about dressing up what they ingested as independently reported work. This is the routine.

It is the same, yet more obviously, with this extended piece on the CIA’s activities in Ukraine. Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz tell the story of—this the subhead—“a secret intelligence partnership with Ukraine that is now critical for both countries in countering Russia.” They set the scene in a below-ground monitoring and communications center the CIA showed Ukrainian intel how to build beneath the wreckage of an army outpost destroyed in a Russian missile attack. They report on the archipelago of such places the agency paid for, designed, equipped, and now helps operate. Twelve of these, please note, are along Ukraine’s border with Russia.

Entous and Schwirtz, it is time to mention, are not based in Ukraine. They operate from Washington and New York respectively. This indicates clearly enough the genesis of “The Spy War.” There was no breaking down of doors involved here, no intrepid correspondents digging, no tramping around in Ukraine’s mud and cold, unguided. The CIA handed these two material according to what it wanted and did not want disclosed, and various officials associated with it made themselves available as “sources”—none of the American sources named, per usual.

Are we supposed to think these reporters found the underground bunker and all the other such installations by dint of their “investigation”—a term they have the gall to use as they describe what they did? And then they developed some kind of grand exposé of all the agency wanted to keep hidden? Is this it?

Sheer pretense, nothing more. Entous and Schwirtz opened wide and got fed. There appears to be nothing in what they wrote that was not effectively authorized, and we can probably do without “effectively.”

There is also the question of sources. Entous and Schwirtz say they conducted 200 interviews to get this piece done. If they did, and I will stay with my “if,” they do not seem to have been very good interviews to go by the published piece. And however many interviews they did, this must still be counted a one-source story, given that everyone quoted in it reflects the same perspective and so reinforces, more or less, what everyone else quoted has to say. The sources appear to have been handed to Entous and Schwirtz as was access to the underground bunker.

The narrative thread woven through the piece is interesting. It is all about the two-way, can’t-do-without-it cooperation between the CIA and Ukraine’s main intel services—the SBU (the domestic spy agency) and military intelligence, which goes by HUR. In this the piece reads like a difficult courtship that leads to a happy-at-last consummation. It took a long time for the Americans to trust the Ukrainians, we read, as they, the Americans, assumed the SBU was thick with Russian double agents. But the Ukrainian spooks enticed them with stacks and stacks of intelligence that seems to have astonished the CIA people on the ground and back in Langley.

So, a tale with two moving parts: The Americans helped the Ukrainians get their technology, methods, and all-around spookery up to snuff, and the Ukrainians made themselves indispensable to the Americans by providing wads of raw intel. Entous and Schwirtz describe this symbiosis as “one of Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today.” Here is how a former American official put it, as the Times quotes him or her:

The relationships only got stronger and stronger because both sides saw value in it, and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv—our station there, the operation out of Ukraine—became the best source of information, signals and everything else, on Russia. We couldn’t get enough of it.

As to omissions and commissions, there are things left out in this piece, events that are blurred, assertions that are simply untrue and proven to be so. What amazes me is how far back Entous and Schwirtz reach to dredge up all this stuff—even to the point they make fools of themselves and remind us of the Times’s dramatic loss of credibility since the current round of Russophobia took hold a decade ago.

Entous and Schwirtz begin their account of the CIA–SBU/HUR alliance in 2014, when the U.S. cultivated the coup in Kyiv that brought the present regime to power and ultimately led to Russia’s military intervention. But no mention of the U.S. role in it. They write, “The CIA’s partnership in Ukraine can be traced back to two phone calls on the night of Feb. 24, 2014, eight years to the day before Russia’s full-scale invasion.” Neat, granular, but absolutely false. The coup began  three days earlier, on Feb. 21, and as Vladimir Putin reminded Tucker Carlson during the latter’s Feb. 6 interview with the Russian president, it was the CIA that did the groundwork.

I confess a special affection for this one: “The Ukrainians also helped the Americans go after the Russian operatives who meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” Entous and Schwirtz write. And later in the piece, this:

In one joint operation, a[n] HUR team duped an officer from Russia’s military intelligence service into providing information that allowed the C.I.A. to connect Russia’s government to the so-called Fancy Bear hacking group, which had been linked to election interference efforts in a number of countries.

Wonderful. Extravagantly nostalgic for that twilight interim that began eight years ago, when nothing had to be true so long as it explained why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, and why Donald Trump is No. 1 among America’s “deplorables.”

I have never seen evidence of Russian government interference in another nation’s elections, including America’s in 2016, and I will say with confidence you haven’t, either. All that came to be associated with the Russiagate fable, starting with the never-happened hack of the Democratic Party’s mail, was long ago revealed to be concocted junk. As to “Fancy Bear,” and its cousin “Cozy Bear”—monikers almost certainly cooked up over a long, fun lunch in Langley—for the umpteenth time these are not groups of hackers or any other sort of human being: They are sets of digital tools available to anyone who wants to use them.

Sloppy, tiresome. But to a purpose. Why, then? What is the Times’s purpose in publishing this piece?

We can start, logically enough, with that desperation evident among those dedicated to prolonging the war. The outcome of the war, in my read and in the view of various military analysts, does not depend on the $61 billion in aid that now hangs in the balance. But the Biden regime seems to think it does, or pretends to think it does. The Times’s most immediate intent, so far as one can make out from the piece, is to add what degree of urgency it can to this question.

Entous and Schwirtz report that the people running Ukrainian intelligence are nervous that without a House vote releasing new funds “the CIA will abandon them.” Good enough that it boosts the case to cite nervous Ukrainians, but we should recognize that this is a misapprehension. The CIA has a very large budget entirely independent of what Congress votes one way or another. William Burns, the CIA director, traveled to Kyiv two weeks ago to reassure his counterparts that “the U.S. commitment will continue,” as Entous and Schwirtz quote him saying. This is perfectly true, assuming Burns referred to the agency’s commitment.

More broadly, the Times piece appears amid flagging enthusiasm for the Ukraine project. And it is in this circumstance that Entous and Schwirtz went long on the benefits accruing to the CIA in consequence of its presence on the ground in Ukraine. But read these two reporters carefully: They, or whoever put their piece in its final shape, make it clear that the agency’s operations on Ukrainian soil count first and most as a contribution to Washington’s long campaign to undermine the Russian Federation. This is not about Ukrainian democracy, that figment of neoliberal propagandists. It is about Cold War II, plain and simple. It is time to reinvigorate the old Russophobia, thus—and hence all the baloney about Russians corrupting elections and so on. It is all there for a reason.

To gather these thoughts and summarize, This piece is not journalism and should not be read as such. Neither do Entous and Schwirtz serve as journalists. They are clerks of the governing class pretending to be journalists while they post notices on a bulletin board that pretends to be a newspaper.

■

Let’s dolly out to put this piece in its historical context and consider the implications of its appearance in the once-but-fallen newspaper of record. Let’s think about the early 1970s, when it first began to emerge that the CIA had compromised the American media  and broadcasters.

Jack Anderson, the admirably iconoclastic columnist, lifted the lid on the agency’s infiltration of the media by way of a passing mention of a corrupted correspondent in 1973. A year later a former Los Angeles Times correspondent named Stuart Loory published the first extensive exploration of relations between the CIA and the media in the Columbia Journalism Review. Then, in 1976, the Church Committee opened its famous hearings in the Senate. It took up all sorts of agency malfeasance—assassinations, coups, illegal covert ops. Its intent was also to disrupt the agency’s misuse of American media and restore the latter to their independence and integrity.

The Church Committee is still widely remembered for getting its job done. But it never did. A year after Church produced its six-volume report, Rolling Stone published “The CIA and the Media,” Carl Bernstein’s well-known piece. Bernstein went considerably beyond the Church Committee, demonstrating that it pulled its punches rather than pull the plug on the CIA’s intrusions in the media. Faced with the prospect of forcing the CIA to sever all covert ties with the media, a senator Bernstein did not name remarked, “We just weren’t ready to take that step.”

We should read the Times’s piece on the righteousness of the CIA’s activities in Ukraine—bearing in mind the self-evident cooperation between the agency and the newspaper—with this history in mind.

America was just emerging from the disgraces of the McCarthyist period when Stuart Loory opened the door on this question, the Church Committee convened, and Carl Bernstein filled in the blanks. In and out of the profession there was disgust at the covert relationship between media and the spooks. Now look. What was then viewed as top-to-bottom objectionable is now routinized. It is “as usual.” In my read this is one consequence among many of the Russiagate years: They again plunged Americans and their mainstream media into the same paranoia that produced the corruptions of the 1950s and 1960s.

Alas, the scars of the swoon we call Russiagate are many and run deep.

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Hypersonic weapons promised six years ago now in service – Putin

RT | February 29, 2024

Moscow’s plans to deploy new, advanced weaponry, first revealed in 2018, have been realized or are in completion phases, Russian President Vladimir Putin said during a keynote speech on Thursday.

Russian troops have already used the Kinzhal and Tsirkon hypersonic missiles in combat, hitting high-value Ukrainian military targets, Putin said, in an address to the Federal Assembly.

The Avangard strategic hypersonic gliders and the Peresvet laser system are already in service, the Russian leader said. A hypersonic glider is a vehicle usually designed for delivering a nuclear device. It can travel through the atmosphere at high altitude and great speed, and can maneuver to avoid interception.

Moscow will soon release footage of heavy strategic intercontinental ballistic Sarmat missiles in their silos, the president promised. Trials of the nuclear-powered, unlimited-range cruise missile Burevestnik and of the nuclear-capable underwater drone Poseidon are close to completion, he added.

“Those systems have confirmed their high – unique, I might say without exaggeration – specifications,” Putin said of the weapon systems.

All of the new arms, with the exception of the Tsirkon missile, were first revealed by the Russian president during a March 2018 address to the Federal Assembly.

At the time Putin described them as a response to US attempts to disrupt the strategic balance with Russia in its favor. Speaking on Thursday, he said Moscow remained willing to negotiate on the issue with Washington, but stressed that the countries’ relationship has since seriously deteriorated.

”We are dealing with a state whose ruling elites are openly taking hostile actions against us,” he said. “Do they seriously intend to discuss strategic stability with us while trying to inflict ‘strategic defeat on the battlefield,’ as they put it themselves, on Russia?”

He described Washington’s diplomatic stance as “hypocritical” and just a means to deliver outcomes that “are beneficiary only to the US.”

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Biden regime admits Ukraine will lose more territory within next two months

By Ahmed Adel | February 29, 2024

Ukraine will lose additional territory in the coming months due to a lack of US military support, White House National Security Council strategic communications coordinator John Kirby lamented on February 27. This comes as Washington confirmed that US troops would not be sent to fight in Ukraine even if discussions were held with France over this possibility.

“If they continue to get no support from the United States, in a month or two, it is very likely that the Russians will achieve more territorial gains and have more success against Ukrainian frontlines,” Kirby told reporters, adding that this could occur in not only eastern Ukraine but also potentially in the south of the country.

In the same press conference, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre repeatedly emphasised that the situation is “dire” for Ukraine and recalled how the CIA Director “laid out the — the consequences, how dire they were” and “what was going on in the battle — in a battlefield, obviously, and how Ukraine was losing ground, which is important.”

On the same day, US President Joe Biden also said that the need to provide additional support to Ukraine is urgent. However, the Republicans have blocked any further funding for Ukraine unless Biden relents on his open border policy, something that he is seemingly unwilling to do.

The lack of weapons and admission that Russia is about to liberate more territory compounds Kiev’s frustrations, especially after Washington confirmed that American troops would not be sent to fight in Ukraine. According to a military source interviewed by the AFP news agency, the US spent weeks discussing plans to send troops with France but ultimately deemed the risk to be too high.

On February 26, French President Emmanuel Macron raised the idea of sending troops to Ukraine, a surprising statement since the deployment of fighters was never publicly discussed or expected. Since Macron’s alarming statement, numerous European countries have disassociated from the idea, including Germany, Poland, Spain, Greece, and the Czech Republic.

Now it was the White House’s turn to deny that US troops would be deployed in Ukraine. In a statement to the press, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller stated that “the US will not send troops to fight in Ukraine.”

According to a military source cited by AFP, NATO countries have been discussing for weeks the possibility of sending their own soldiers to support the Ukrainians, and the US was one of those who supported the idea.

Responding to Macron’s statement, the Kremlin said, “The very fact of discussing the possibility of sending certain contingents to Ukraine from NATO countries is a very important new element.” Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that if troops are sent, “we would need to talk not about the probability, but about the inevitability (of a direct conflict).”

Macron seemingly wants to start a Russia-NATO war, a war that would inevitably lead to nuclear strikes and with no winner, and for this reason, it is obvious why the French president became immediately isolated, so much so that even Washington cowered and distanced itself from the idea.

French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné attempted to soften the humiliating blow on February 28 by claiming that Macron had in mind sending troops for specific tasks such as helping with mine clearance, production of weapons on site, and cyber-defence.

“[This] could require a [military] presence on Ukrainian territory without crossing the threshold of fighting,” Sejourne told French lawmakers. “It’s not sending troops to wage war against Russia.”

This is an obvious cover story as Macron was almost immediately isolated, and as Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova highlighted, France’s allies neither understood nor supported the French president’s idea.

“This same statement shocked their NATO allies. A few hours later, a series of statements were made by the leadership of NATO countries, foreign ministers, and defence ministers, who said that they […] disassociate themselves from Macron’s statement. That they themselves do not plan any of this, they do not plan to send anyone and understand that this will already be a different story,” she said.

With the West failing to meet weapon supply promises made to Kiev, further US financing blocked in Congress, and, more importantly, the recent liberation of the fortress town of Avdeyevka, Ukraine will inevitably lose territory at a rapid rate. Given that the White House is openly admitting to this reality, one would expect the Kiev regime to search for an end to the conflict, yet it still chooses to pin its hopes on weapons that are not arriving on time or, more delusionally, that the West will finally directly intervene in the conflict.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Scholz slammed for revealing UK troop presence in Ukraine

RT | February 29, 2024

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has come under fire from the UK after he suggested that there were British troops operating in the Ukraine conflict. Explaining why Berlin would not supply Kiev with long-range Taurus missiles, Scholz said it would require German military personnel on the ground providing assistance.

He went on to say that Taurus “is a very long-range weapon, and what was done on the part of the British and French in terms of target-control and target-control assistance can’t be done in Germany.”

Commenting on Scholz’s remark, Tobias Ellwood, the former chair of the British Commons defense committee, said it was “a flagrant abuse of intelligence deliberately designed to distract from Germany’s reluctance to arm Ukraine with its own long-range missile system,” as quoted by The Telegraph. The British lawmaker was also sure that the statement would be “used by Russia to rachet up the escalator ladder.”

“German soldiers can at no point and in no place be linked with the targets that this system reaches,” Scholz insisted, even if operating from German soil, according to the DPA news agency.

The German chancellor stated that it would be “not very responsible” for his country to risk becoming a “party to the war.”

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the Financial Times quoted an anonymous senior European defense official as saying that “everyone knows there are Western special forces in Ukraine – they’ve just not acknowledged it officially.”

Addressing the press following a summit of Kiev’s backers in Paris on Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron noted that “in terms of dynamics, we cannot exclude anything,” referring to a potential ground deployment of Western militaries.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg however hastened to clarify that there were “no plans for NATO combat troops on the ground in Ukraine.” This was followed by similar assurances by the leaders of Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Finland.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned that such a development would mean that “we have to talk not about the probability, but rather the inevitability” of an all-out military confrontation between NATO and Russia.

February 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »