Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Who Is the Antiwar Candidate?

Fuggedaboutit!

BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • JANUARY 25, 2024

I sometimes wonder what the Founders, if they could return to life and see their creation, would think of today’s American Republic. President George W. Bush described the Constitution of the United States as “just a goddamned piece of paper” before he went on a rampage all over the world in what he called the “war on terror.” Of course, he had probably never even read the Constitution or the Federalist Papers and therefore did not understand how the Founders had deliberately made it difficult to go to war, which they regarded as the greatest evil confronting the new nation. Bush proceeded to push through other unconstitutional legislation including the so-called Patriot Act which empowered him to kill some hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings in places like Afghanistan and Iraq without declaring war on anyone after having produced fabricated information to justify the brutality.

But that was then and now is quite different and even worse, with a president who often appears to be lacking any brain cells holding hands behind his furrowed brow. The United States is currently at war in two countries, has illegal occupying military forces based in at least three more, and is quite possibly conniving at adding a few more enemies du jour, namely Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, China and Russia. All of this is being accomplished without declarations of war from Congress and without even compliance with the 1973 unconstitutional War Powers Act, which mandated that the president should be confronting an imminent threat to take such action. Joe Biden and his Secretary of State Antony Blinken have also twice sidestepped the requirement that Congress should approve all arms transfers to foreign nations by falsely claiming an “emergency” to ship $250 million of armaments to Israel, weapons that are being used to carry out a genocide against the Palestinians, making the US totally complicit in that war crime.

I have of course been following the Republican primaries as well as the flow of self-justifying verbiage otherwise known as lying coming out of the mouths of the Democratic Party incumbents, most notably the Zionist-Catholic Commander-in-Chief Joe Biden; his able sidekick Kamala “has anyone seen her lately” Harris; his Antony Blinken who goes to Israel to negotiate and the first thing he tells Bibi is that he is a Jew; his Director of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas who has forgotten that real countries have borders; and his Treasury Secretary Janice Yellen who is happy funding multiple wars simultaneously while running up the already unsustainable federal debt. Behind it all is the apparent belief that the United States should be empowered to tell the rest of the world how to behave. Oh, and the Democrats have decided to base their 2024 campaign on the highbrow principle of free abortions for everyone! Joe Biden’s confessor would like to hear that!

And then there is Congress, which is following the Senator John McCain principle that one should always embrace the possibility for a new war. Congressman Nancy Pelosi and Senator Schumer seem to love Ukraine and Israel so much that it leaves little time to do anything for their actual constituents. Schumer often reminds audiences that his surname is close to the Hebrew word for protector, making him “the Jewish state’s protector in the Senate.”

The problem is that America’s so-called government has been so corrupted by both money pouring in from defense contractors and Jewish/Israeli interests that they have lost sight of the people who have the misfortune of having voted the bastards into office. Opinion polls suggest that the public has gone off both the comedians running Ukraine and the Israeli baby killers in Gaza. The voters have also learned that they have little to no say regarding what the psychopaths in the White House and on Capitol Hill decide to do with their tax money and even their very lives.

Just to show how useless voting has become, it is interesting to look at the policies concerning war and peace that have been enunciated by current and recent presidential candidates to find out if anyone seriously wants to step on the brakes of the war machine. Bear in mind that the Neocons have come to control the foreign policies of both major parties which means that Israel will always come first in Washington while war will also be a constant element in America’s relationship with the world.

First comes Genocide Joe whose record speaks for itself. He managed to get out of Afghanistan by abandoning many billions of dollars-worth of military equipment and killing a bunch of American soldiers, but he quickly sought to make up for that by avoiding a negotiated end to the Ukraine-Russia conflict and giving Israel a free hand backed by money and weapons to undertake the slaughter in Gaza. He has made America accessory to both conflicts and has a hit list of other countries he might decide to weaken or attack to demonstrate that he is a strong leader. The possible victims include major nations like Iran, Russia and China. He is now attacking the Houthis in Yemen and has warned that if even a single American is killed at the illegal military bases in Iraq and Syria he might have to go to war with Iran, which he blamed for the incidents without providing any evidence. His Vice President is Kamala Harris, who is married to a Hollywood Jewish lawyer. She is, of course, little more than an affirmative action token in place, but makes noises indicating that she is fully on board with what is going on with Israel and Ukraine.

Trump the GOP nominee-apparent? He is completely ignorant on most issues including foreign policy and wars and he appoints reckless hawks and neocons like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton to senior positions. Christian Zionist Mike Pence, a dispensationalist who wants the world to end so he can be wafted up to heaven, was his Vice President. Trump is totally owned by the Israel Lobby operating through his son-in-law and his former Ambassador to Israel David Friedman. Friedman notably spent his time in the Jewish state supporting Israel rather than working on behalf of American citizens or US interests. Trump moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem in spite of international agreements making such a move illegal after receiving $100 million in political donations from Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. He also recognized Israel’s illegal annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights, allowed illegal settlement expansion, and gave Netanyahu a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians. Trump also ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, a senior Iranian official who was in Baghdad on a peace mission and staged missile attacks on Syria based on false intelligence. Trump gives lip service to ending “useless wars” but never did so in practice when he was in office. He is prone to throwing around threats and has declared recently that if an enemy in the Middle East spills a “’drop of American blood’ I will spill a ‘gallon of yours.’” This comes from a man who avoided the Vietnam War draft because he found a doctor who discovered that he suffered from “bone spurs.”

And then there is still standing the Republican contender Nikki Haley, former Governor of South Carolina and Donald Trump’s United Nations representative. She has been described as the female version of John McCain and she is a complete supporter of the carnage in Ukraine and is even more so a total Israel firster. She is a hawk across the board and it is believed that the bulk of her political financial support comes from Jewish sources that are tied to Israel. She has said that Israel should eliminate Hamas, which she considers to encompass all Palestinians, and that the US should not take in any Palestinian refugees. She also rejects the two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict because the Palestinians, who have rejected several two states solutions according to Nikki, want instead a one-state solution that would eliminate Israel. She also supports the war against Russia in Ukraine.

And then there is good old Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, who recently dropped out of the race. He might just be the most vicious Zionist of them all. He has led a number of delegations from Florida to Israel and was one of the first to respond to October 7th Gaza events by banning Palestinian groups at all state universities due to their alleged “antisemitism.” He did not ban or even criticize a single Jewish group for cheerleading the subsequent slaughter of the Palestinians and even opposes giving Palestinian refugees US visas because he claims they are all “antisemites.” He fully supports everything Israel is doing in Gaza and believes that Netanyahu should have a free hand to do whatever he wants to the Arabs. When DeSantis was a Congressman he notoriously refused to meet with survivors in his district from the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty which killed 34 American crewmen and injured more than 170. The Israelis sought to sink the ship and a cover-up of the incident ensued thanks to President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who declared that he would rather see the ship go to the bottom of the sea and all on board killed than embarrass his Israeli friends. LBJ also ordered the recall of a squadron of US jet fighters that were sent to help the Liberty.

Not much room left! Finally there is Robert F. Kennedy Jr (RFK Jr) who initially did a good job in fooling potential voters into thinking he was a man of peace, but he turned all John McCain after he blundered by praising Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters. Israel’s friends and partisans quickly informed him that Waters was on their enemies list because of his openly expressed support for the Palestinian cause. Kennedy immediately deleted his praise of Waters and declared him to be a “vicious anti-Semite.” He also claimed falsely that the Palestinian Authority has offered to pay a bounty to any Palestinians who “kill a Jew anywhere in the world” while also claiming that Palestinian children are all “being raised as serial killers. He approves of the demolitions of Palestinians’ homes and argues that in Gaza “Israel is doing more right now to protect human life” while he also praises the IDF’s “unique moral approach” to war.

Kennedy also issued a detailed statement online and has become one of the Jewish state’s most outspoken supporters. He posted on X: “This ignominious, unprovoked, and barbaric attack on Israel must be met with world condemnation and unequivocal support for the Jewish state’s right to self-defense. We must provide Israel with whatever it needs to defend itself — now. As President, I’ll make sure that our policy is unambiguous so that the enemies of Israel will think long and hard before attempting aggression of any kind. I applaud the strong statements of support from the Biden White House for Israel in her hour of need. However, the scale of these attacks means it is likely that Israel will need to wage a sustained military campaign to protect its citizens. Statements of support are fine, but we must follow through with unwavering, resolute, and practical action. America must stand by our ally throughout this operation and beyond as it exercises its sovereign right to self-defense.”

Kennedy’s inability to separate fact from fiction is evident in his referral to “Palestinian settlements within Israel,” when describing Palestinians living in what is left of their former land that is now under Israeli occupation and subject to constant settlement expansion, as though the Palestinians are the ones colonizing the Israelis. Kennedy is now running as an independent but has lost many of his staffers because of his position on Gaza. Many antiwar Americans were initially thrilled when Kennedy announced that he would be against Joe Biden in this year’s primaries and that he’d hired former Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, an antiwar progressive, to be his campaign manager. But Kucinich quit in the middle of October. In November, Kennedy’s field team, headed by former California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher’s wife Rhonda, also quit. In December, his foreign policy and veteran’s affairs adviser James R. Webb, Marine Corps veteran of Iraq War II and son of the former senator from Virginia, also submitted his resignation. Webb revealed that his resignation was in disgust over Kennedy’s stance on Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in the Gaza strip and Kennedys’ claim that “collective punishment” of civilians is justified.

One might add that there is another interesting more-or-less independent in the race, namely Jill Stein who will be seeking the nomination of the Green Party. She is a genuine antiwar person whom I have known for eight years and she has criticized the “endless war machine” as well as what is going on in Ukraine and in Gaza, where she has called for an immediate cease fire. Alas, she has no chance of getting more than a couple percentage points of the votes cast.

Other fringe candidates include Cornel West, an independent, and two Democrats who will continue to appear on the primary ballots going ahead. They are Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson. So, there you have it folks. To paraphrase the immortal Donald Trump, peace on earth is for losers!

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

January 26, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Why Russia is Winning the Drone War in Ukraine

By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – 24.01.2024 

Ukraine is losing the drone war. This isn’t a claim made by the Russian Ministry of Defense or by Russian state media, but rather the headline of an article appearing in Foreign Affairs magazine, written by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt who now heads a think tank, the Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP), advising the US government regarding artificial intelligence and other emerging technology.

The article titled, “Ukraine is Losing the Drone War – How Kyiv Can Close the Innovation Gap With Russia,” makes a wide range of claims, from repeating unlikely narratives regarding astronomically high Russian losses, to admissions regarding Russia’s many and multiplying advantages over both Ukraine and its Western supporters. Schmidt’s narrative is contradictory, and the article ultimately fails to deliver a coherent explanation as to how Ukraine can actually “close the innovation gap with Russia.”

It is a mystery as to why Schmidt is even writing this article in the first place, not being a journalist or a politician, but rather a leader of the US high-tech industry. But the article demonstrates how even at the highest levels of political and industrial leadership in the US, there lies a fundamental misunderstanding of not only the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, but of the fundamental premise upon which all American foreign policy is built.

Why Ukraine is Losing the Drone War, and will Continue Losing

Schmidt’s article lays out a distorted account of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, following familiar narratives found across the collective West’s media. This includes the notion that Ukraine initially “held the upper hand in drone warfare” and had managed to keep “Russian forces on the back foot.” Such conclusions are drawn by focusing solely on the trading of territory, and in particular, on Ukraine’s Kharkov and Kherson offensives in 2022.

However, because the Ukraine conflict is fundamentally a war of attrition, the true measure of Ukraine’s success or failure is measured in the loss of manpower and equipment versus its ability to regenerate forces, replace equipment, and replenish ammunition stockpiles. In all of these regards, Ukraine has been losing the war from the moment it began – some may even look back in hindsight and conclude the war was lost before it even began.

The collective West for decades developed a large, for-profit military industrial base. It focused on maximizing profits through the production of high-cost systems built in relatively small quantities, while eliminating extra manufacturing capacity for large-scale production that rarely if ever was necessary to sustain the West’s “small wars” following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russia, on the other hand, inherited the Soviet Union’s massive military industrial base, maintained certain aspects of it, modernized and expanded others, preparing for large-scale, high-intensity, protracted warfare within or along its borders.

From 2008, when US-armed and trained Georgian forces attacked Russian troops in the South Caucasus region, Moscow began preparing for a conflict by proxy with NATO it considered inevitable. From 2014, following the US overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government, it was almost certain that conflict by proxy with NATO would be fought in Ukraine.

From that point onward, Russia began building up the military industrial base required to fight and win a large-scale proxy war against a NATO-armed and trained Ukraine. Because Russia’s military industrial base consists of a large network of state-owned enterprises, a preference for purpose over profits prevailed.

Today, this fundamental reality is reflected in virtually every aspect of the fighting in Ukraine, from Russia’s advantage in quantity regarding low-tech artillery shells, to more advanced systems like main battle tanks, cruise missiles, and warplanes that both outnumber and outperform their NATO counterparts, to – perhaps especially – drones of all kinds.

Schmidt’s article admits that Russia is not only outproducing Ukraine in terms of drones, placing the number of drones produced monthly to around 100,000, but also admits Russia possesses drones Ukraine has no equivalent of. Schmidt singled out the Orlan reconnaissance drone and the Lancet kamikaze drone in particular.

Ukraine, however, has been provided with a large variety of drones produced across the collective West. It began the conflict with a number of much more sophisticated Bayraktar TB-2 drones manufactured by Türkiye. While these drones are formidable weapons, they are inappropriate for the battlefield in Ukraine, where they face Russia’s extensive integrated air defense network and Russia’s extensive array of electronic warfare (EW) capabilities.

Should drones equivalent to the Orlan and Lancet exist in sufficient numbers to provide to Ukraine, the inability to overcome Russia’s advantages in both air defenses and EW would still impair their use.

Schmidt, in fact, notes Russia’s EW capabilities as “superior,” capable of jamming and spoofing signals between Ukrainian drones and their operators. While Ukraine has been provided with EW capabilities as well, the collective West is admittedly years behind Russia in this field of expertise.

At one point, the article admits:

Most Western-supplied weapons have fared poorly against Russia’s antiaircraft systems and electronic attacks. When missiles and attack drones are aimed at Russian sites, they are often spoofed or shot down. U.S. weapons in particular can often be thwarted via GPS jamming.

While Schmidt spends the rest of the article discussing “winning the drone war,” he never actually articulates a coherent strategy in doing so.

He claims, “Ukraine will need to secure additional Western ammunition supplies,” without acknowledging the fact that such supplies do not exist, and will not any time in the foreseeable future because the production capacity to manufacture them in sufficient quantities does not exist.

Schmidt continues, suggesting, “Ukraine also needs antiaircraft and attack missiles to strike fast-moving airborne targets.” Just as with artillery shells, antiaircraft missiles were in short supply even before the conflict began in Ukraine, and have only dwindled further. If producing low-tech artillery shells in greater quantities will take the West years to do, producing more complex missile interceptors will take even longer.

Schmidt claims that, “Ukrainian startups are working around the clock to develop advanced drones that can resist spoofing and jamming.” Yet, this ignores the fact that many more Russians with far greater resources are working around the clock to develop better means of spoofing and jamming.

Ultimately, Schmidt’s “solution” to Ukraine’s losing drone war (and losing the war in general) is for “Kyiv’s allies” to sustain “financial and technical support.” He never explains how this can be done in a way matching or exceeding Russia’s own efforts to constantly expand its military industrial output in both quantity and quality. Russia began with and continues to maintain a headstart over Ukraine and its Western backers. Simply suggesting Ukraine needs more of everything doesn’t address the shortcomings that created these disadvantages in the first place, nor suggest any way of solving them.

Schmidt’s stated objective in the article is “neutralizing the advantages that Russia has gained.” The only actual way to achieve this would be to build a military industrial base capable of matching or exceeding Russia’s ability to research and develop new technology, and then mass produce and place this technology on the battlefield.

It would require the creation of massive state-owned enterprises able to subordinate profit to purpose, the creation of an education system able to supply a steady stream of the necessary human resources this expanded industry would require, and the ability to source raw materials and components from adjacent, likewise state-owned enterprises.

It would take years for the United States to complete such a transformation – years Ukraine doesn’t have. It would also require the political will to do so in the first place, which simply does not and will never exist because of the systemic composition of American political and industrial power.

America’s Tenuous Grasp on Reality, its Worst Enemy  

Eric Schmidt has a close relationship with both the leading edge of high-tech American industry and the US government itself. His think tank, SCSP, says on its official website that its purpose is:

To make recommendations to strengthen America’s long-term competitiveness as artificial intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies are reshaping our national security, economy, and society. We want to ensure that America is positioned and organized to win the techno-economic competition between now and 2030, the critical window for shaping the future.

SCSP sees 2025-2030 as a critical window in which the US must establish a clear lead over its “rivals” Russia and China. SCSP admits that the “margin for error is shrinking.”

Yet, Schmidt’s admission to Russia’s success in Ukraine and the advantages it holds over not only Ukraine but its Western supporters as well, seems to suggest that this critical window may have already closed.

The very premise that the United States can maintain techno-economic primacy over both Russia and China (and the rest of the world) is fundamentally flawed. All else built upon this flawed premise will find itself drifting further and further from the realm of practicality, and is reflected in a growing detachment from reality many Western leaders in politics and industry seem to exhibit, including Schmidt.

China alone has a larger population than the collective West. Its higher education system is larger than the United States’, graduating millions more each year in critical fields related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. China’s industrial base dwarfs the collective West’s, and continues to expand, while the West continues to overextend itself and contract.

Given these fundamental realities, how exactly would the United States still somehow match or exceed China’s technological development unless one assumes “Americans” are simply “better” than the Chinese, and despite all of China’s fundamental and growing advantages over the United States, it will still somehow fall short?

These same assumptions have been prevalent throughout commentary and analysis focused on the conflict in Ukraine. These assumptions have consistently been proven wrong, with disastrous consequences. Russia’s many fundamental advantages on the battlefield ahead of the vaunted 2023 Ukrainian offensive unequivocally guaranteed the offensive would fail. Yet, “intangible” factors were added into an equation assuming Western supremacy and Russian inferiority, to skew projections of the offensive’s success in Ukraine’s favor.

A similar formula is being applied to US competition with Russia and China, ignoring fundamental realities and applying “intangible” assumptions of Western superiority to sidestep the reality that China will irreversibly surpass not just the US, but the collective West.

This reality demands the US reevaluate its position and role within international relations, and begin a transition from a hegemon, into a constructive, cooperative partner with Russia, China, and the emerging multipolar world. But just as battlefield fundamentals in Ukraine ahead of the 2023 offensive demanded Kiev negotiate an end to the war in Russia’s favor, only to be ignored at catastrophic costs, these increasingly clear geopolitical fundamentals will be ignored by the political and industrial leadership of the West, by those like Schmidt, at catastrophic costs to the collective West.

It will be the multipolar world and the restraint and patience it has exhibited as well as the political maturity it exercises in developing and implementing policies, that will attempt to temper and manage these costs, both for the sake of global peace and stability, but also and most ironically, for the sake of the collective West itself.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer.

January 25, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Senate Looks to Fund Middle East Military Activity as CENTCOM Is ‘Running Out of Funds’

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | January 24, 2024

The Senate is planning to add money to upcoming legislation to fund President Joe Biden’s military buildup in the Middle East and war in Yemen. Senator Susan Collins says the legation should be a priority as US Central Command is quickly depleting its funds. Senator Jack Reed believes Congress will need to pass multiple rounds of funding to allow Biden to wage war across the Middle East.

Following the Hamas attack on southern Israel, Biden ordered thousands of troops and multiple aircraft carrier strike groups into the region. Politico reports the Department of Defense informed Congress the deployment of additional troops and warships to the Middle East over the past four months has cost $1.6 billion. The Pentagon estimates the cost will be $2.2 billion over the course of the year.

The cost estimates do not include the price of the interceptors and munitions used in fighting the Houthis. Congress has not authorized Biden’s war in Yemen or the military surge in the Middle East. A growing number of American lawmakers, including within Biden’s party, have voiced opposition to the White House waging a war in Yemen without Congressional authorization.

A Pentagon official said at some point, the holes in the Department of Defense budget will have to be filled by Congress. An official told Politico, “It will be, I think, a hole that we would want to be filled. It is a bill that will be due and we will have to pay for it within a limited amount of resources.”

The Senate is now preparing to fund the conflicts in the Middle East, but there are no plans to authorize the war. Politico reports Congress is considering several options for authorizing the war spending. The outlet explains, “Lawmakers are aware of the unplanned cost and are weighing how to pay for it. Options include adding it to the annual spending bill, adding it to the $111 billion emergency supplemental for Ukraine and Israel, or funding it through a stand-alone supplemental for war costs.”

The White House has been pushing Congress to pass a $111 billion bill that provides funding for the wars in Ukraine and Israel, the military buildup in the Asia-Pacific, and border security. The legislation has been delayed for several months over debate on immigration policy.

Sen. Collins, a Republican member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is urging the body to take action. “[US Central Command] needs [the funding] sooner. They’re fast running out of funds,” she said.

Senator Jack Reed believes Congress will have to pass multiple rounds of funding to fight wars in the Middle East. He said, “I sense, given the unexpected cost, that there will have to be a separate supplemental. These aren’t routine costs. They’re because of our reaction to the Houthi disruption, to Iranian malign behavior, etc. And I think that’s probably where we would go for it.”

Senators Dan Sullivan, Mitch McConnell, and Mark Kelley have all called for adding money to the supplemental war legislation to replace the interceptors and munitions used to fight the Houthis in Yemen.

January 24, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

UAE enlists Al-Qaeda, US mercenaries to operate in Yemen: Report

The Cradle | January 24, 2024

A BBC investigation released on 22 January reveals that the UAE hired Al-Qaeda militants to fight for the Southern Transitional Council (STC), the Emirati-backed government in Yemen. 

A whistleblower cited in the investigation provided the BBC with “a document with 11 names of former Al-Qaeda members now working in the STC,” among them former high-ranking operatives of the extremist group. 

Nasser al-Shiba, a former high-ranking Al-Qaeda member, is now the commander of the of the STC’s armed units, several sources told the BBC. 

These militants were hired to carry out political assassinations across Yemen at the behest of Abu Dhabi, according to the investigation. 

The BBC also points to a shadowy group of US mercenaries, known as Spear Operations Group, hired by the UAE to carry out assassinations. 

Isaac Gilmore, a former US navy seal who later became Spear’s chief operating officer, is “one of several Americans who say they were hired to carry out assassinations in Yemen by the UAE.”

“He refused to talk about anyone who was on the ‘kill list’ provided to Spear by the UAE — other than the target of their first mission: Ansaf Mayo, a Yemeni MP who is the leader of Islah in the southern port city of Aden.” 

Saudi and UAE-backed mercenary groups have run rampant across Yemen since the start of the war in the country nine years ago. Aside from assassinations, these mercenaries have also been implicated in a number of crimes, including the looting and illegal trading of Yemeni cultural heritage. 

Several ancient sites and museums have been looted and stripped of valuable artifacts by UAE-backed mercenary groups in Yemen. There are also accounts of underage girls being raped by militants of such groups. 

This is not the first time that UAE-backed armed groups in Yemen have been accused of working or coordinating with Al-Qaeda and ISIS. 

According to documents obtained by Yemen’s Al-Masirah media outlet in February last year, Takfiri militants affiliated with the UAE-backed mercenary group, the Giants Brigade, looted large amounts of oil from the reserves in the energy-rich province of Shabwah, south of the country.

“We have all the evidence of the UAE’s relationship with Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Yemen,” Saleh al-Jabwani, Saleh al-Jabwani, a minister in the former Saudi-backed government of Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi, said in 2019. 

The BBC investigation comes one month after UAE-backed mercenaries came under the spotlight once again, following reports that the US was working to recruit members of these mercenary groups to “distract” Ansarallah from its military operations against Israel. 

“The United States is moving to activate factions loyal to the UAE in Yemen to distract Sanaa from continuing to carry out more air and sea attacks against the Israeli entity,” the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar reported on 8 December. 

According to Hebrew media, the UAE-backed STC has approached Israel and offered to help protect Israeli shipping in the Red Sea from attacks by Yemen’s Ansarallah resistance movement and the armed forces of the government in Sanaa. 

Since November, Yemen’s Armed Forces and Ansarallah have seized one Israeli-linked vessel and have targeted over a dozen other ships, either owned by Israelis or Israeli firms or en route to Israeli ports. The Red Sea blockade by Yemen is in solidarity with the Palestinian resistance, which Sanaa has vowed to continue until the war and siege in Gaza ends. 

Yemeni armed forces have also launched drones and missiles towards Israel’s southern port city of Eilat. 

These attacks are garnering significant amounts of popular support for Ansarallah in Yemen. 

According to Yemeni officials and analysts who spoke with Responsible Statecraft on 24 January, elements of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Islah Party – which has, for the most part, been opposed to Ansarallah throughout the Yemen war – have been providing them with material support and have praised their pro-Palestine operations. 

January 24, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

China-led multipolarity has accelerated the decline of the American era, the war in Gaza may end it altogether.

By Mohamad Hasan Sweidan | The Cradle | January 24, 2024

What is unfolding today in West Asia — the Gaza war and its regional expansion — cannot be viewed separately from the international transformations that have grown in momentum over the past few years. Today, the transition to multipolarity is the underlying factor shaping the decisions and policies of most countries, particularly those of the great powers.

The timing of Israel’s devastating military assault on Gaza coincides with heightened US attention on its great power competition for Washington, this conflict has much wider geopolitical significance beyond West Asia. In this context, the US has assumed, and will continue to play, a pivotal role in Gaza and its environs, unlike its powerful peers in China and Russia.

According to statistics published by the China Society for Human Rights Studies, the US initiated 201 of the 248 armed conflicts that took place since the end of World War II, often engaging in these wars via US-led alliances and/or proxies.

For decades, Washington has led these conflicts by very ably forming, then leading, and directing broad alliances to achieve its political and military objectives. But that ability notably shifted in December 2023, signaling a sharp decline in this capability.

In response to Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned armed forces’ Red Sea blockade of Israeli-linked vessels, the US Department of Defense announced the formation of “Operation Guardian of Prosperity … to uphold the foundational principle of freedom of navigation” in those waters, initially consisting of a coalition of ten countries, most of them insignificant partners.

Protecting Israel or maintaining maritime dominance?

The coalition proved shaky from the get-go, with only the US and Britain actively involved in military strikes on Yemen. The reluctance of key European countries France, Spain, and Italy to join the naval alliance indicated a growing skepticism among the US’s traditional partners — both western and West Asian — about Washington’s commitment and capability to defend its allies in any impactful way.

Interestingly, more than eight further countries reportedly joined the coalition, but demanded anonymity, given the potential political fallout from associating with Washington and Tel Aviv.

Crucially, the Pentagon’s stated purpose of securing navigation in the Red Sea does not align with the actual threat presented, revealing ulterior motives behind US actions. The Yemenis have repeatedly confirmed that they only intend to inhibit the passage of Israeli-owned or destined vessels — and that all other ships are free to pass.

In short, the US/UK-led coalition is acting as a naval arm for Israeli military forces, seeking specifically to ensure unimpeded access for ships heading to Israeli ports via the Bab al-Mandab Strait. That’s not a position many other states will get behind if they want to maintain freedom of transport for their own shipping vessels.

Ultimately, the American show of force in these waterways seeks to consolidate US naval dominance, which war-torn Yemen, West Asia’s poorest country, has contested.

As outlined in the National Security Strategy for 2022:

The US “will not allow foreign or regional powers to jeopardize freedom of navigation through the Middle East’s (West Asia) waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al Mandab, nor tolerate efforts by any country to dominate another — or the region — through military buildups, incursions, or threats.”

According to media reports following massive US airstrikes against Iraqi targets on 23 January, Iraqi resistance factions will now also follow Yemen’s suit by implementing a blockade of Israeli ports in the Mediterranean Sea.

Current events are spiraling out of Washington’s control as onlookers increasingly question the utility and competence of US naval leadership in the world’s important waterways. Equally, there is recognition that other formidable forces and states have emerged, challenging US control over key global straits. In the words of British politician and writer Walter Raleigh, “Who rules the seas rules the world.” Under Sanaa’s watch, the US no longer can claim rule over the Red Sea or even its adjacent waterways.

Great power competition amid the Gaza war 

The current scenario in West Asia, particularly post-Al-Aqsa Flood and the Gaza war that followed, coincides with a shift in Washington’s focus toward competition with China and its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. As outlined in the US intelligence community’s annual threat assessment last year, this transition has already affected strategic goals, leading to a sharp decline in western support, especially from the US, for Ukraine. The Biden administration faced challenges in securing Congressional approval for a new aid package for Kiev, which directly competed for dollars against Tel Aviv’s military campaign in Gaza.

Despite assurances from western leaders during visits to Ukraine in October, their statements came without tangible material support, leaving President Volodymyr Zelensky in the proverbial dust. Quite unexpectedly, China has emerged as a potential peacemaker in this European conflict, with Kiev openly requesting Beijing’s involvement in mediation talks, and the US itself open to Chinese mediation to mitigate the escalation in West Asia.

The Chinese are well aware that there are no simple, face-saving exits for the US from the Gaza war it has championed and that the conflict’s metamorphosis into a regional one mires the US deeper into West Asia — and away from the Asia-Pacific.

Although China seeks to increase its presence in West Asia, it is very careful not to bog itself down in the region’s many issues. But Washington’s request that Beijing use its influence to sway Iran from conflict escalation makes clear that the US is no longer “the biggest power” in the region.

Why Israel opposes multipolarity

Following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, US financial and military support for Israel has reached a critical stage, presenting two options for Washington. The first involves imposing some control on Israeli actions, given that the war’s timing has been unfavorable to US strategic interests, particularly in a critical election year. The second option, favored by the Washington elite, is to continue its unwavering support to Tel Aviv, even at the risk of damage to its global image.

Sustained global outrage over the Gaza war, coupled with the landmark genocide case filed against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), shows that Washington’s ability to cover for Israel is diminishing rapidly. Again, this reflects the global shift in the balance of power toward multipolarity, which is marked by the widespread decline of American influence.

But the US support for the Gaza genocide has had dramatic domestic repercussions, too. Polls show a major shift in the attitudes of young Americans, especially university youth, who will make up the ranks of America’s future leaders.

A Harvard-Harris poll published on 17 January reveals that 46 percent of respondents aged 18-24 believe that Hamas’ actions on 7 October can be justified because of the injustice to which the Palestinians are subjected.  The same poll shows that 43 percent of the same group support Hamas in this war, and that 57 percent believe that Israel is carrying out massacres in Gaza. The most staggering poll result of all, though, has to be the one in December (conducted by the same pollsters) in which 51 percent of young Americans believe a final solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for Israel to end and be given to Hamas and the Palestinians.

While Israel remains a direct US interest in West Asia, Washington’s commitment to Tel Aviv’s security has already become a growing burden and increasingly difficult to justify. As the region’s Axis of Resistance expands its battle with Israel on new, multiple frontlines, the US will need to reallocate ever-expanding resources and focus on matching its international rivals in further-flung geographies.

Ukraine was a test run compared to this Gaza war and the immense, direct toll it is taking on US alliances, domestic politics, and the American image globally. For Israel, this presents an existential crisis beyond measure, as Washington is forced to compete with other great powers, none of whom are ideologically driven to support Zionism as part of their foreign policies.

January 24, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Public panic in Sweden over war with Russia as Turkey ratifies Stockholm’s bid to join NATO

Press TV – January 24, 2024

Turkey’s parliament has passed a bill on ratification of Sweden’s NATO membership after months of blocking accession, putting the Scandinavian country a “step closer” to becoming a full member of the US-led Western military alliance.

“Today we are one step closer to becoming a full member of NATO,” Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Tuesday.

The Turkish parliament’s decision will come into force after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan signs a corresponding decree, which will be published in the government’s official journal.

Hungary, whose prime minister Viktor Orban has friendly relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, remains the only NATO country that has not ratified Sweden’s bid to join.

Last week, the high levels of the Swedish government and defense forces issued a warning to prepare people for the possibility of a Russian attack on the country and asked citizens to be on alert for the possibility of a war, causing Swedes to panic and criticize the country’s leaders.

Taking notice of the call from officials, a multitude of people heeded this caution seriously, causing mass panic, and flocked their way to the market in order to procure fuel and bundles of indispensable and crucial provisions “crisis kit.”

Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia had no problems with Finland and Sweden and that their accession to NATO did not pose an immediate threat, but cautioned against the expansion of the Western military infrastructure in these territories.

“As for the expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance: yes, this is a problem that is being created, in my opinion, quite artificially in the foreign policy interests of the United States,” Putin was quoted as saying.

“Russia has no problems (with Sweden and Finland), but the expansion of military infrastructure on the territory of this region will certainly cause our response,” he said, stressing that the actions of the Scandinavian states could aggravate “an already difficult situation in the sphere of international security.”

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

Norway’s Top General Urges Defense Spending Hike Amid NATO Fearmongering

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 24.01.2024

The specter of a “Russian threat” ostensibly looming is being invoked in the West increasingly loudly as justification for ramping up military spending, with Norway’s top brass the latest to lap up this tenuous narrative.

Norway has only a small window of opportunity to ramp up its defense spending in the face of a “looming threat” of military conflict with Russia, the head of the Norwegian Armed Forces has warned.

Jumping on the bandwagon driving the cynical “Russian bogeyman” narrative, General Eirik Kristoffersen claimed in a recent interview that Norway needs to build up its defenses before it is too late.

“The current window of opportunity will remain open for a year or two, perhaps three, which is when we will have to invest even more in our defense,” General Kristoffersen said in an interview with the local outlet Dagbladet. He added:

“We do not know what will become of Russia in three years. We need to prepare a strong national defense to be able to meet an uncertain and unpredictable world.”

The Norwegian general lamented the fact that Moscow was reportedly building up its weapons stockpiles at a greater speed and efficiency than NATO allies had expected.

Currently, NATO member Norway lags behind the alliance’s defense spending requirement of two percent of GDP per year. While originally setting itself the timeline of achieving that goal by 2026, apparently the raucous peddling of the concocted “Russia threat” is forcing Norway’s generals to lose sleep over the ominous forebodings.

“This is a calculated risk. If the danger was imminent right now, then we could not have given so many weapons [to Ukraine]. But that is not the case,” Kristoffersen said, while adding that Ukraine needs to be supported for as long as it takes.

Norway’s chief of defense also went as far as to urge Norwegians to begin stockpiling food, saying that “What the Norwegian population should think about is their own preparedness.”

These remarks by Kristoffersen echo those of his Swedish colleague. Commander-in-Chief Mikael Byden told Swedes to “prepare themselves mentally” for an open conflict with Russia. Another warmonger, Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer, the NATO Military Committee chief, stated in Brussels last Thursday:

“We have to realize it’s not a given that we are in peace. And that’s why we [NATO forces] are preparing for a conflict with Russia.”

Boris Pistorius, the German defense minister, claimed earlier that Russia may choose to attack a NATO country within “five to eight years.”

While pumping Ukraine with billions’ worth of weapons for its proxy conflict with Russia, the US-dominated alliance has upped the Russia threat narrative in recent months. The rants have been particularly timed to the growing “Ukraine fatigue” and dwindling support for continuing to aid the Kiev regime. Pistorius’ comments echoed a report in the German daily newspaper Bild. Quoting a “confidential Bundeswehr document,” it claimed that a conflict between NATO and Russia could erupt as soon as the summer of 2025.

The Kremlin has dismissed the report as “fake news,” with spokesman Dmitry Peskov doubting Bild’s credibility. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova compared the leaked plan to a “powerful horoscope,” saying she wouldn’t be surprised if the scenario was provided to the German military by the Foreign Ministry and its notoriously Russophobic chief, Annalena Baerbock.

January 24, 2024 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Germany Can’t Afford Rearmament, Let Alone a ‘War’ With Russia

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 23.01.2024

Germany must take into account the possibility of a military conflict with Russia and prepare for it over the next three-five years, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told ZDF on January 22.

He insisted that the German Bundeswehr armed forces should become “a credible deterrent,” and that a German combat brigade would be deployed in the Baltics to become “fully combat-ready” by 2027.

In December, Pistorius signed an agreement for the permanent deployment of a Bundeswehr brigade to Lithuania and announced that the reintroduction of compulsory military service in Germany is now on the table.

Does Russia really present an imminent threat to German national security?

“If you ask me, and if you ask most people in my party, the answer is unequivocally no,” Gunnar Beck, Member of the European Parliament for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party who is currently Vice-President of the Identity & Democracy Group in the Parliament, told Sputnik. “Ever since 1990, at the end of the Soviet Union, the Russian government has gone out of its way to intensify economic relations between Russia and Germany. We had extremely favorable energy contracts with Russia. And Russia was a growing export market for our agricultural and industrial goods. It’s due to our government’s policy, vis-a-vis Ukraine conflict that relations with Russia are now almost at an all time low. So, on the one hand, I think, German policy and EU policy has been a provocation. Nonetheless, I think that the Russian reaction to the sanctions in particular has been tough, but at the same time measured. So in my view, Russia is no immediate security threat to Germany. Categorically not.”

Germany Cannot Afford Rearmament

Not only is Germany’s justification for rearmament in question but also the nation’s ability to afford it, according to Beck. German industry is in a dire state as a result of the government’s policies, he stressed.

“Germany currently finds itself in what is probably the most serious economic crisis since the Second World War,” Beck said. “The government’s policies (…) are affecting all leading branches of German industry, which is suffering from high inflation, lack of qualified labor, bureaucracy and high tax levels. As a result, our exports have declined significantly. So we are in crisis, and German industry, which has always been the backbone of German prosperity, in particular, is in crisis.”

He listed three major reasons for the new talk of militarization:

  • First, the German government’s energy and climate change policy;
  • Second, unprecedented migration into Germany from outside Europe of unskilled workers and the astronomical cost to German public finances;
  • Third, Germany’s policies on Ukraine and sanctions imposed on the Russian economy.

Berlin’s decision to follow Washington’s lead and slap sweeping sanctions on Russia has backfired on Germans on a much greater scale than on any of their Russian counterparts, according to the politician.

“In my view, Germany is in no fit state economically and financially to embark upon a massive rearmament program,” Beck said. “If the German government seriously did so, the consequence would be a further significant worsening of the economic crisis. The only way to finance such rearmament would be through a complete reversal of all the other policies and massive remigration of migrants from Germany. The government has given no indication that it is prepared to do so. In other words, I think these declarations are probably largely symbolic. Germany simply cannot afford it.”

Europeans Don’t Want to Fight Against Russia

The majority of Germans are not worried about a military threat from Russia, according to Beck, raising doubts as to whether Pistorius’ militarization plan would gain any popular traction in Germany and other European states.

“Diplomacy should be the West’s weapons of choice in its relations with Russia, not more armaments,” Geoffrey Roberts, emeritus professor of history at University College Cork, Ireland and a leading British scholar on Soviet diplomatic and military history, told Sputnik, stressing that Europeans have zero appetite for a major war with Russia.

“This bellicose rhetoric is part of a campaign by Western hardliners to further militarize Western states and societies, their aim being to prolong the Ukraine war for as long as possible and to create a permanent confrontation with Russia. Predictions of future war with Russia heighten existing tensions and solidify a mindset in which military power is seen as the solution to political problems,” Roberts continued.

Confrontation between Russia and NATO is fraught with serious risks and is “far more dangerous than anything that happened during the Cold war,” according to the professor.
“During the Soviet-Western Cold war there were many proxy wars and conflicts but nothing comparable in scope, scale and intensity to what is happening in Ukraine,” Roberts noted, referring to the West’s ongoing proxy conflict in Eastern Europe which involves NATO’s Special Forces, weapons, intelligence, military training and sabotage techniques.
“Western hardliners have whipped up an atmosphere of hysteria that could spread violence to other sections of the front-line between NATO and Russia. There is an urgent need for Western governments to heed popular calls for peace and a security settlement with Russia that will avert this new cold war – a conflict that could lead to catastrophe,” the professor concluded.

Moscow is closely observing the tone of European political discourse, warning against provocative rhetoric. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted on Tuesday that many other European countries than Germany have made statements about a “threat” posed by Russia. Earlier in January, Pistorius claimed that Russia could attack a NATO country “one day.”

“Now all European capitals are racing to declare an ephemeral danger that allegedly comes from Russia,” Peskov told reporters. He added that Europe has already invested heavily in the Ukraine conflict, but now see that their plan “failed” and the economic situation was “getting difficult.”

January 24, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Lavrov debunks US claim on Ukraine talks

RT | January 23, 2024

Moscow has never closed the door to dialogue to end the Ukraine conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday, reiterating that the country’s key goal remains stopping NATO’s unchecked expansion towards its borders.

In a rare interview with CBS News in New York, where he arrived to take part in UN meetings on Ukraine and the Middle East, Lavrov rejected a recent claim by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who alleged that Moscow has shown no “willingness… to engage, to negotiate in good faith” to end the conflict with Kiev.

“It’s not true,” Lavrov stressed, adding that Russia has always been ready to discuss “any serious proposal” that addresses the situation on the ground and the root causes of hostilities. Moscow is also willing to reach a solution “which would guarantee legitimate national interests of Russia and the Ukrainian people,” the diplomat stated.

Lavrov reiterated that Russia is prepared to listen to anyone interested in establishing “justice” in relations between Moscow and Kiev. He insisted, however, that this would require the West to stop its policy of “using Ukraine as an instrument of war against Russia.”

Lavrov recalled that Russia has long voiced concerns about NATO expansion. “The goal is very simple… we’ve been warning publicly since 2008… that NATO’s expansion against all promises [to Russia and the Soviet Union]… was going too far,” he said.

At a 2008 summit in Bucharest, NATO leaders declared that Ukraine would eventually become part of the alliance, sparking a backlash from Russia, which has traditionally viewed the US-led military bloc’s expansion towards its borders as an existential threat.

In December 2021, weeks before the start of the Ukraine conflict, Moscow submitted a draft of security guarantees to the US and NATO, demanding that the West ban Kiev’s accession to the bloc and retreat to its borders as of 1997. The overture, however, was rebuffed.

Officials from Moscow and Kiev said the two sides were close to reaching a peace deal early in the Ukraine conflict, with a key Russian demand being that the neighboring country recommit to neutral status and abandon its NATO ambitions. According to numerous reports, the process was derailed by then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who convinced Ukraine to continue fighting.

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

NATO’s Steadfast Defender Exercises Threaten Europe’s Security

Sputnik – 22.01.2024

Rather than try to de-escalate the already high tensions in Europe, the Western military bloc NATO proudly announced its intent to launch massive military exercises in the region involving around 90,000 troops.

Dubbed Steadfast Defender 2024, the exercises are going to be held as NATO becomes increasingly involved in the Ukrainian conflict, providing the regime in Kiev with weapons, mercenaries and intelligence to attack Russian territories and people.

As Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko has explained, these military exercises are “another element of the hybrid war unleashed by the West against Russia,” with any event of such magnitude increasing the risk of “military incidents” and further destabilizing security in the region.

There appear to be several goals that NATO seeks to accomplish through Steadfast Defender 2024, explained Mikael Valtersson, a former Swedish Armed Forces officer, defense politician and chief of staff with the Sweden Democrats party.

One of these goals is training NATO soldiers to “fight Russian forces,” Valtersson said, noting that while the exercises’ official narrative is about repelling an invasion, it seems more like preparation “for the eventuality of military missions into Ukraine, Belarus or Moldova.”

“Another purpose is to send a psychological message to assure the eastern NATO countries that NATO takes their security seriously,” he continued. “A third purpose is to tell Russia that NATO is ready and capable to act if they must.”

According to Valtersson, a lot of people in the West actually believe in a “possible Russian attack towards European NATO countries in a couple of years,” with this fear being further reinforced by “alarmist statements from leading Western politicians and military leaders.”

“This creates a Russophobic war mentality that easily might lead to escalation and the conflict they have predicted,” he remarked.

Valtersson also pointed out that, while usually conducting military exercises poses no security risks as such events are a “normal part of military life,” holding large-scale drills “near the borders of countries you perceive as enemies” may result in dangerous mistakes being made.

“When both sides are high-strung and look for potential aggressive behavior from the other side, one mistake could quickly lead to escalation. If you really want to de-escalate tensions, you should avoid large-scale exercises near the borders of your adversaries,” he said. “These kind of exercises do nothing to dampen tension between Russia and NATO. It is, in fact, rather a part of an ongoing escalation process, which is bad for the security of Europe.”

The emerging new Cold War “between the West and mainly China and Russia” and the West alienating many countries of the Global South by trying to force them to oppose Russia over the Ukrainian crisis may ultimately divide the world into two competing blocs, “the West and the rest,” Valtersson warned.

“The difference with the first Cold War will be that the non-Western bloc will be incredibly stronger in size, economy, population and even diversity than during the first Cold War,” Valtersson added. “This conflict could be easily avoided if the West had accepted that they can’t dominate the entire globe and that other major powers have their own spheres of interest.”

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

Faced with looming defeat in Ukraine, NATO wants WW3 to prevent it

By Drago Bosnic | January 22, 2024

Lasting nearly half a century, the (First) Cold War brought the world to the edge of a new abyss, one that would’ve made WW2 look like a bloodless skirmish in comparison. Despite not starting it, in order to prevent the total destruction of the world, Russia initiated its end. It willingly dismantled the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, renouncing immense power, a historically unprecedented move no other superpower in history ever made. And how did the political West see it? Merely as a sign of supposed “weakness”. Not only did the US-led belligerent power pole proclaim victory in the ideological struggle (Moscow renounced communism), but it also wanted a total defeat for Russia and its people. In the 30+ years, everything the United States and its vassals and satellite states did was in line with this goal. The world’s most aggressive military alliance expanded approximately 1000 km to the east.

It should be noted that this was done despite clear promises “not to move an inch” toward Russian borders. Even many Western politicians, experts and pundits expressed concern and protested NATO’s eastward expansion, warning that this would inevitably force Moscow to respond. However, leaked information suggests this is precisely what the political West wanted, as evidenced by revelations published by WikiLeaks. How do we know this is true? Well, its founder is suffering a horrible fate for publishing the secret data. And yet, despite the world knowing all this, NATO is determined not only to continue its aggression, but is also openly escalating it. Namely, on January 18, Dutch 4-star Admiral Rob Bauer, Chairman of NATO’s Military Committee, publicly stated that the belligerent thalassocractic alliance is preparing for war with Russia and that people in Europe should do so as well.

Bauer is one of the highest-ranking NATO officials and his announcement should be taken extremely seriously. Although he assessed that the coming conflict would happen in the next 20 years, the moves that the belligerent alliance is making indicate that such a conflict could come at any point. Following a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Bauer told reporters that Western governments should start preparing for war with Russia, including by training civilians how to act when it starts.

“We have to realize it’s not a given that we are in peace. And that’s why we are preparing for a conflict with Russia. […] But the discussion is much wider. It is also the industrial base and also the people that have to understand they play a role,” he said, adding: “It starts there. The realization that not everything is plannable and not everything is going to be hunky dory in the next 20 years.”

Apart from demanding everyone in Europe to get ready for war with a nuclear-armed superpower, Bauer pointed out the example of Sweden, a de facto NATO member for decades at this point. Namely, he praised Stockholm for enforcing ludicrous and pompously announced measures for a mythical Russian invasion, an eventuality that’s effectively beyond any real possibility. However, the Scandinavian country needs to justify its unpopular NATO membership somehow, so it’s putting up this laughable “show of force”.

“We need to be readier across the whole spectrum. You have to have a system in place to find more people if it comes to war, whether it does or not. Then you talk mobilization, reservists or conscription,” he said, adding: “You need to be able to fall back on an industrial base that is able to produce weapons and ammunition fast enough to be able to continue a conflict if you are in it.”

In line with Bauer’s announcement, NATO is to launch a massive military exercise, dubbed Steadfast Defender 2024. Scheduled to begin on January 31, it will include at least 90,000 troops, making it NATO’s largest military exercise since the end of the (First) Cold War. It should be noted that the belligerent alliance officially restarted the conflict in 2022, after decades of its crawling aggression pushed Russia to respond in Ukraine. This was done after numerous US-orchestrated destabilization projects in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere, all of which were aimed against Moscow. NATO itself is merely an extension of America’s strategy of the so-called “full spectrum dominance” and the same goes for the European Union which has repeatedly proven its subservience to US interests. To accomplish its strategic goals, Washington DC is ready to support all sorts of extremist ideologies and individuals.

Worse yet, in an attempt to defeat Russia, it has shown willingness to use banned weapons such as biological (including deadly pathogens) and AI-powered. The latter are particularly important as Americans are increasingly uninterested to serve in the US military, especially as the belligerent thalassocracy is adopting an extremist ultra-liberal ideology that’s simply repulsive to anyone remotely sane. America’s decline is unstoppable at this point, so its political elites are pushing the entire world into yet another abyss, one that it would likely never get out of. Washington DC’s virtually simultaneous aggression against several global and regional powers is making it nearly impossible to prevent such a horrible scenario. This includes pushing the world into a commodities crisis, which can also be interpreted as “preparing everyone” for war, as Bauer already stated. This is an important segment of America’s global strategy.

US actions in the Asia-Pacific, the Middle East and Latin America also indicate other countries will be targeted, including China, Iran and Venezuela. However, with its unrivaled strategic arsenal, new hypersonic weapons, as well as resurgent conventional military power, precisely Russia is NATO’s top rival. Unable to fight Moscow directly, the US-led belligerent alliance is using proxies and creating new ones to enforce its so-called “containment” strategy against the Kremlin. This includes the reactivation of the old members of its WWII-era geopolitical (and increasingly ideological) predecessor. Fully aware it can’t take the Eurasian giant head-on, to this end, the political West is stoking Russophobia everywhere it can, as it needs to create enemies on Russian borders. It’s important to note that the warmongers in Washington DC don’t care about the destructive consequences for Europe.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

January 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Lawmakers Push Funding to Replace Weapons Used in Yemen

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | January 21, 2024

As the White House has started an open-ended and unauthorized war in Yemen, some members of Congress are pushing for legislation that would provide funding to replace the munitions dropped on the Middle East’s poorest nation.

Politico reports, “As American warships burn through expensive missiles against Houthi targets in the Red Sea and Yemen, lawmakers, lobbyists, and the Navy are angling to use a multibillion-dollar national security supplemental to replenish the military’s inventory of munitions.”

In November, the Houthis announced that Yemeni forces would target Israeli-linked shipping in the Red Sea until Tel Aviv ends its military campaign in Gaza. Two weeks ago, President Joe Biden, without consulting Congress, authorized strikes on the Houthis.

In response, the Houthis began targeting American-linked shipping transiting the region. The White House is ordering attacks on Yemen nearly every day. However, the White House claims it is not at war with Yemen, and it does not need Congressional authorization for the operations.

Biden’s war in Yemen could drag on for some time. US officials told the Washington Post the administration has “no end date” and “little exit strategy” for its military operations in Yemen. President Biden has admitted that the strikes are not deterring the Houthi attacks.

Additionally, the US operations against Yemen are expensive. Washington has combated drone and missile attacks from Yemen on ships in the Red Sea by using expensive interceptors to down the inexpensive Houthi munitions. The White House has largely relied on ship-fired Tomahawks to hit targets in Yemen. Some lawmakers worry the operations against the Houthis will impact Wasington’s ability to dominate the globe.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said fighting in Yemen means Congress needs to add further spending for munitions to a supplemental military funding package. “As I’ve warned for weeks, using million-dollar missiles to defend against thousand-dollar drones strains an already insufficient inventory of long-range capabilities,” he added. “The supplemental is our chance to expand our capacity to meet the national security challenges we face.”

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) argued that additional missiles are needed to confront China. “We’re looking — one of the parts of the supplemental is to make sure we have the rounds we need, whether it’s [the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile] or possibly things like [the] Tomahawk that we have for the Western Pacific.” He continues, “And that is a capability we would need if we ever got in a conflict with China.”

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) said “a big plus up” in munitions funding is imperative for Tomahawks, Naval Strike Missiles, and Harpoons. He also explained that the weapons are needed for global dominance. “And those kinds of weapons systems are critical everywhere, Taiwan in particular,” the Senator said.

Politico notes that Pentagon officials and lobbyists for arms makers are also pushing for increased funding for munitions production in a supplemental defense spending bill.

January 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »