Singapore inadvertently reveals more about direct US involvement in Ukraine
By Drago Bosnic | March 7, 2024
It’s an axiom that the United States is deeply involved in the Ukrainian conflict. In fact, the warmongering elites in Washington DC initiated it a decade ago, just as they either started or are covertly behind virtually every single conflict in modern history. War is the only industry that still functions in America, which explains its obsession with death and destruction. And yet, we have reached the point when profit doesn’t really matter, as the consequences of direct confrontation with a country like Russia will most certainly nullify the very logic of profiteering. In other words, who stands to gain from blowing up the world? What’s the point of having money and power if all of it burns in a thermonuclear apocalypse that would be over in around 15-20 minutes? And yet, the political West keeps playing precisely with such a scenario.
Although arms shipments can certainly be considered direct involvement, Moscow chose not to use it to escalate the conflict. It should be noted that it certainly could, especially because NATO personnel are often operating these weapons. And yet, the US-led political West keeps pushing the boundaries toward ever more direct involvement, including with the usage of ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets against the Russian military. The battlefield data acquired by these platforms is then relayed to the Kiev regime forces which use it to attack not only Moscow’s troops, but also civilians in Donbass and former regions of southern Ukraine. The exact number of casualties is yet to be determined, but it’s most likely in the thousands. This is yet another proof that NATO only wants death and destruction.
This time, a rather unlikely source revealed the extent of US/NATO aggression in Europe. Namely, the Defense Ministry of Singapore recently reported that USAF F-35s have been actively engaged in covert missions in Ukraine, the goal of which is to effectively conduct SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) missions. In other words, American F-35s are flying around Ukraine and using their sensors to pinpoint the location of Russian SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems. Needless to say, these are then relayed to the Kiev regime forces, which use them to attack the Russian military or find ways to circumvent its air defenses. NATO certainly has extensive SEAD capabilities, as it’s been mastering them in various illegal invasions and its general aggression against the world, particularly in the last several decades.
“In recent activities, the United States has mobilized its F-35s to identify the deployment of Russian anti-aircraft missile systems within Ukraine. The gathered intelligence is subsequently disseminated to NATO countries,” Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen said at a session of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Procurement.
Hen’s statement came after the February 28 announcement that Singapore would acquire F-35A fighters in addition to the previously ordered F-35B variant. The main difference between the two is that the latter is a STOVL (short take-off, vertical landing) aircraft. The Pentagon didn’t even bother to deny the revelations, with one of its spokespeople declining to comment, insisting that “it’s not their place to speak for Singapore’s MOD [Ministry of Defence] or try to clarify [its] comments”. Rather interestingly, the spokesperson added that the US doesn’t fly F-35s in Ukraine. It should be noted that this isn’t a denial of their usage. Namely, the US fighter jet has a plethora of sensors that can be used outside of Ukrainian airspace. Hen’s revelations about this are part of the procurement process that aims to justify the F-35B’s enormous acquisition costs.
It’s still unclear if the statement by the Singaporean MoD is simply inadvertent or just a peculiar marketing strategy that the Pentagon wants to use to increase foreign sales. In addition, it’s not the first time F-35s are being used in this capacity. According to military sources, the jets were forward deployed to Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany since February 16, 2022, which was around a week before the special military operation (SMO). The USAF’s 388th Fighter Wing and its Reserve’s 419th Fighter Wing were the first units deployed to the region. Their primary mission was ELINT (electronic intelligence) gathering on Russian positions, with a particular focus on air defense systems. At the time, the Pentagon made similar statements about their supposed “non-involvement in Ukraine”, insisting they’re “merely observing”.
“We weren’t crossing the border. We’re not shooting anything or dropping anything. But the jet is always sensing, gathering information. And it was doing that very, very well… We had all hoped it was going to work like it’s supposed to, but then to see it actually perform very, very well in that role was great,” commander of the 388th Fighter Wing Colonel Craig Andrle said in an interview in early 2023, adding that they also faced issues with Russian EW (electronic warfare) systems: “We’re looking at an SA-20 [S-300PMU-1/2]. I know it’s an SA-20. Intel says there’s an SA-20 there, but now my jet doesn’t ID it as such, because that SA-20 is operating, potentially, in a war reserve mode that we haven’t seen before.”
This was also confirmed by the 388th Operations Group commander Colonel Brad Bashore, who also commented on collecting battlefield data on Russian SAM systems.
“We don’t have a ton of weapons where we can decimate the entire space. We’re sharing data and making sure that everybody has awareness — surface-to-air and air-to-air — of what’s out there in the environment,” Bashore said, adding: “They’re doing the same thing that we’re doing. We just looked at each other… No direct interaction and nothing that was unprofessional on either side.”
It should be noted that, while the F-35 is certainly an embarrassment for the US in terms of its flight performance and an absolutely atrocious track record, the jet is a potent ISR platform that can be used in various “non-kinetic” ways. ELINT is just one of them and it can certainly be beneficial to the Neo-Nazi junta forces that are having a lot of trouble with Russia’s second-to-none air defenses. However, this can lead to Moscow’s (rightful) anger and even a direct response, as pairing the F-35’s sensors with the strike capabilities of long-range weapons such as the ATACMS can be quite a challenge for the Russian military. And while it’s certainly not the end of the world for the Kremlin, the range of such missiles means that Russia needs to invest even more in SAM systems and other air defenses, as the Kiev regime has the habit of attacking civilian areas.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Here’s the worst part about the leaked German ‘Crimean Bridge attack’ call
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 6, 2024
Since Russia has revealed that on February 19 high-ranking Luftwaffe officers discussed – on a basically open conference platform – how German Taurus cruise missiles could strike Russian targets (let’s call it the ‘Taurus Huddle’), the public reaction in the West has taken two main forms: In Germany, the key register has been clumsy damage control; among Berlin’s allies, embarrassment has ensued, as well as barely concealed anger at multiple indiscretions – particularly regarding British and US covert operations in Ukraine.
The allies’ exasperation has come through in scathing headlines such as The Telegraph’s ‘Germany spills British military secrets … using off-the-shelf video phone technology in one of Berlin’s worst security breaches since the Cold War’. Berlin’s fumbling attempts to contain what chancellor Olaf Scholz has called “a very serious” matter have consisted of two insipid moves. First, make it all about Russia: “How wicked, they hacked us!”
Obviously, moralizing about routine eavesdropping among opponents comes across as rather silly from a government that does not mind blown-up pipelines and weaponized de-industrialization between “allies.” The rather whiny complaint also makes the German elite look even more sophomoric. Public Service Announcement for the all-new “Zeitenwende” Germany: Yes, states, especially states against which you are co-waging a proxy war, will gather intelligence on you. If your top brass is klutzy enough to spill the beans via eminently hackable online communications, you’ve only got yourself to blame.
In the same vein, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has called Russia’s exposure of Berlin’s shenanigans “a hybrid disinformation attack.” In reality, what inconveniences him is not “disinformation” but the opposite: facts that even Germany has had to acknowledge as authentic. Berlin’s reaction only shows that its and Kiev’s techniques of dodging responsibility are now converging: As it happens, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has already – prophylactically, so to speak – blamed any future Ukrainian rebellion against his literally catastrophic leadership on Russian “disinformation.” Between German Tweedle-Dee and Ukrainian Tweedle-Dum, the principle is the same: Mess up yourself, blame others (i.e. Russia).
Berlin’s second move to blow smoke over its fiasco is to avoid talking about its substance. Insofar as the content of the Taurus Huddle is even summarized, then only to, misleadingly, claim that it was all harmless routine: Planners will plan, you know; just some hypothetical brainstorming. Moreover, they were merely following orders by preparing a briefing for the minister. Again, Pistorius has taken the lead in the whitewash, declaring the officers were “only doing what they are there for.” That, actually, is a stunningly self-revealing statement: If the Taurus Huddle is really part of the ordinary “job” – as Pistorius also put it – of German officers now, everything is so much worse again.
To understand why, we must do what so many Germans love to skirt: Delve into the details of the scandal.
The basics are simple: The recording of the conversation is almost 40 minutes long; there were four participants. Two with high-ranking and important functions: The head of the German air force, Ingo Gerhartz, and the head of the Operations and Training Department, Frank Grafe. Both are generals. In addition, two experts of lower rank (Oberstleutnant) from the Air Operations Command at the Space Operations Center, called Fenske and Frohstedte (or possibly Frostedte), also took part. The discussion details the options for the use of Taurus missiles – formally by Ukrainians, but with irreplaceable German and potentially British and US input – against either the Kerch Strait Bridge or Russian munitions depots. Two participants tend to stress how feasible such operations would be (Fenske and Frohstedte), one – to his credit – is more ambivalent, pointing out obstacles and emphasizing that German involvement is hard to conceal (Grafe). Alarmingly, Gerhartz, head of the air force, can’t detect what he calls a “showstopper,” that is, a clear reason not to launch a covert missile attack on Russian targets via Ukraine.
In the original, the tone is informal and the language often slovenly: an odd hybrid German (a “Kauderwelsch,” as Germans used to say), frequently barely grammatical and saturated with comical calques from English (“to cheat” becomes “den Trick pullen”; an attack is “doable” as long as the Ukrainians are taught “das Ding zu schiessen,” for instance). Ernst Jünger’s high style this is not.
To get two diametrically opposed misinterpretations out of the way: The discussion does not amount to an explicit conspiracy. This is not a meeting of out-of-line officers openly discussing how to drag their political leadership into a covert cruise missile attack on Russia by using Ukrainian proxies. But that is also the best that can be said about the Taurus Huddle, which is a very low bar. Because – here’s the second popular misunderstanding we need to get rid of – this is not a normal meeting either. These are not, as Pistorius wants to pretend, politically disengaged staff officers dispassionately playing through military thought-experiments (as bad as that would be with this kind of scenario). In reality, the best single phrase to describe the essence of the affair is “gray zone.” Think of it as a messy mix between a rudimentary pretense of professional analysis and a massive dose of bias, politics, and indiscretion.
Perhaps the most striking single feature of the Taurus Huddle is that all participants take breathtaking cheating for granted. No one sees any problems except of a technical nature in the idea of a de facto German attack on Russia as long as German input can be concealed or denied. That is the spirit in which the officers mull over details such as transferring targeting information by either secure data line (oh, the irony…) or maybe personal courier through Poland. (Germans painting a big fat target on Poland for Russians? Qui mal y pense!) Or how the company producing the Taurus (MBDA) could serve as a cut-out to hide the military’s involvement. Their ideas are surprisingly crude, but what’s more important is the sheer criminal energy and boyish recklessness they betray.
In war, all is fair, some may say. But there are two flaws with that response: First, Germany is not, actually, at war with Russia – and the participants of the meeting are not assuming it will be (at least not to begin with, and “the day after” seems not to interest them). Hence, secondly, while deception is a traditional and, principally, legitimate element of warfare, what these officers consider normal is something else, namely replacing deception within a war by covert operations against a state Germany is not and would not be at war with. That is the domain of, perhaps, intelligence services and special forces (and it’s still not a good idea). There are very good constitutional reasons why officers of the traditional military are not even supposed to think of such methods as either admissible or (listen up, Boris Pistorius!) “their job.”
A high point of this attitude occurs when one of the Taurus Huddlers admits that with all the anticipated German training of Ukrainians to handle the German missiles in Ukraine, at least the “first missions” would have to “take place by us in support.” Those who do not know German well may misread this phrase – muddled in the original, not merely in this translation – as simply reiterating that the Ukrainians would need help. But that would be wrong: Read carefully in the context of the preceding discussion, it clearly is a euphemism for Germans actually carrying out at least planning and targeting for these attacks.
Another remarkable feature of the Taurus Huddle is the extreme nonchalance with which highly sensitive and damaging information regarding NATO allies and Ukraine is tossed about. We hardly learn anything surprising about deep British, US, and French involvement in attacks on Russian forces. What is shocking is the slapdash attitude with which German officers shoot off their mouths about these covert operations that are not even their own. As to Ukraine, its air force must have been thrilled to hear the Luftwaffe confirming how few planes of a certain type (“in the single digits”) it has left. It is certain that none of this was news to Russia. But I can imagine Russian officers shaking their heads in a mix of sorry disbelief and wry amusement about their German counterparts.
And last but not least, there is the fact that even moments of realism do not make the Taurus Huddlers stop and think. The meeting features the head of the air force, Gerhartz, himself acknowledging that even if the Taurus were brought into play, their numbers would be limited to a maximum of 100 missiles and that their use would not “change the war,” that is, in Kiev’s favor, of course. Grafe, meanwhile, the other Huddler with a general’s rank, stresses that the Kerch Strait Bridge is not an easy target and may well survive an attack. Futility all around; and admittedly so.
And yet, at the same time, none of them even raises the most serious risk that such an operation would involve. Grafe is worried the media could get wind of the German military’s underhanded methods. Yet that would be child’s play compared with the worst that could happen. Because a strategy of childish-cheating-with-Taurus could, actually, “change the war”: by making Russia give up its policy of turning a blind eye to most of Western de facto belligerency and, instead, start to retaliate, for instance, against Germany.
These are officers sworn to defend Germany. But their only genuine concern seems to be to figure out how to help Ukraine fight Russia, while the risks to which their schemes would expose Germany escape their attention. The first problem here is that, in practical terms, they seem to have lost any sense of the difference between their obligations to Germany and to Ukraine (or NATO, for that matter). The second one is that their defense minister, their chancellor, and much of the German public seem to be unable to make the distinction either. In that sense, the Taurus Huddle may feature in history as a triumph of Ukrainian policy, even if a futile one.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul.
German MP calls for attack on government buildings in Moscow
RT | March 6, 2024
Russia’s Ministry of Defense building or that of the country’s intelligence service in central Moscow are legitimate targets that should be attacked, the deputy chairman of the German parliament’s oversight committee, Roderich Kiesewetter, has stated.
He insisted that Ukraine should take the war to Russia.
“Ukraine should be given the opportunity to take the war to the Russian territory,” Kiesewetter said on Tuesday, live on the Lanz show on German TV, noting that Defense Minister Boris Pistorius had already called for that in April 2023.
“The only thing I will add from my side is that it is also necessary to attack the Russian Ministry of Defense or the intelligence service,” the MP said. “It is absolutely clear that this is not about civilian targets and not about the people, but about explaining to the Russian population that they are the aggressors,” he added.
When asked by the host of the show whether Kiesewetter thought that the attack on Moscow would be rational, the politician responded that those were Pistorius’ words.
“To attack Moscow with Taurus missiles?” the host asked. “No, Mr Lanz, now you are putting words into my mouth. No, if, within the framework of the agreement, we oblige Ukraine to use missiles only in the occupied territories, then they will act according to this principle,” Kiesewetter argued.
The calls for attack on Russian government buildings come amid the latest diplomatic row between Moscow and Berlin, following the leak of an audio recording in which German military officers discussed a potential attack on the Crimean Bridge.
Ukraine’s Defeat to Unmask Dirty Secrets of ‘Conflict-Loving’ Western Elites
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 06.03.2024
A series of leaks related to NATO military and intelligence operations in Ukraine demonstrate the West’s futile attempts to intimidate Russia into imploding as they once did with the USSR, Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel told Sputnik.
Germany’s “Luftwaffe” leak has triggered a heated debate in the Western mainstream press, with the Guardian warning that NATO is “growing reckless” over Ukraine. Additionally, Politico has acknowledged that the chatter from the Bundeswehr was not part of a Russian “disinformation” operation, but rather a source of “uncensored information”.
“The leak adds to piles of evidence and reasonable suspicions that US and allied governments/contractors/grantees have abandoned adherence to truth-seeking, in favor of shoving a global governance model by unelected bureaucrats upon the masses inside and outside their home countries,” Wall Street analyst and investigative journalist Charles Ortel told Sputnik.
“Ignoring inconvenient and hard truths about Russia now and concerning her history, Biden and the permanent class of conflict-lovers still seem to believe they can intimidate the Russian Federation into imploding as they once did with the Soviet Union,” he highlighted.
The release of a recording featuring German high-ranking officers discussing the possibility of sending Taurus missiles to Ukraine to destroy Russia’s Crimean Bridge occurred shortly after The New York Times published a story about a network of 12 secret bases run by the CIA in Ukraine since 2014.
Surprisingly, some CIA operatives couldn’t resist boasting about the operation right after the Russian special military operation began.
The Washington Post’s Dan Lamothe tweeted in April 2022 about a “bonanza of information” the American military had learned about Russia’s “tactics and procedures” since the beginning of its special military op in Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
In response, Marc Polymeropoulos, a 26-year CIA veteran who retired from a senior rank in 2019, wrote on X (formerly known as Twitter) on April 27, 2022:
“Actually, it started a long time ago… we learned this between 2014-2022. Not just now. It was an 8-year lab experiment on Russian TTPs [Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures]. On EW [electronic warfare]. On everything. This is why Ukrainians (with our advice/assist) are doing so well. Ask those in the IC [intelligence community] and UW [unconventional warfare] communities. We learned a sh*t ton.”
Nonetheless, despite learning “a sh*t ton” about Russia’s warfare strategy, the CIA has failed to prevent a string of defeats sustained by the Ukrainian military on the battlefield. Still, one should bear in mind that US IC agents could have been deployed with other missions rather than turning Ukraine into an impregnable fortress, according to Ortel.
What Dirty Secrets Are Western Leaders Hiding in Ukraine?
For instance, sensitive information about a network of US-funded biowarfare laboratories in Ukraine, uncovered by the Russian Ministry of Defense over the past two years, suggests that American politicians as well as military and intelligence operatives had been involved in potentially illegal activities and experiments in the Eastern European country which are strictly prohibited in the US.
“On Ukraine, one wonders what dirty work Ukrainian officials and contractors may have performed inside and outside Ukraine that could not readily be performed inside the United States,” the Wall Street analyst remarked.
“Because the Deep State over-classifies information and does not appear to be subject to meaningful oversight, we likely will not learn what specific factors brought the US and allied governments to prod so aggressively, painting the Russian Federation as an enemy, instead of welcoming Russia into a re-configured NATO as, apparently, Putin himself suggested. It seems to me that too many at the very top of Western governments see much more personal advantage in milking public sector expenditures for themselves fighting endless real and imagined conflicts than they see in crafting lasting peace and other solutions,” Ortel pointed out.
US Political Families Like the Bidens, Clintons and Others Cashed In On Ukraine
Furthermore, the Wall Street analyst pointed out that established US political dynasty families such as the Bidens and the Clintons pounced at the chance to profit off the situation in Ukraine. A specific example that Ortel discussed with Sputnik was the collaboration between Victor Pinchuk and his wife Olena with the Clinton Foundation to combat HIV/AIDS in Ukraine during the early 2000s. Ortel believes that the fight against AIDS served as a facade for money laundering activities.
“A laudable project conceptually, perhaps, this effort was never legitimately approved in the United States looking through the public record, but allowed the Clintons and their allies to unlock hundreds of millions in government grants and donations for which there has never been a legitimate accounting, just as Hillary Clinton needed a war chest to fund her Senate re-election campaign and her presidential ambitions,” the Wall Street analyst said.
Most recently, the Clinton Foundation announced a similarly questionable charity initiative together with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s wife Olena, Ortel noted, referring to corruption allegations haunting the Zelenskys.
In essence, Ortel believes that numerous Western players, including multinational companies, stand to lose a great deal in the event that Ukraine is defeated. Consequently, some Western leaders have even suggested the idea of deploying NATO military units to Ukraine.
US ‘Forever Wars’ Impoverishing Americans
No matter how hard the West tries to win its proxy war in Ukraine, the outcome of the conflict appears to be sealed, Ortel affirms. What’s more, the US has been repeatedly engaged in protracted overseas military conflicts, most of which had not ended on Washington’s terms.
“Especially in Vietnam, then afterwards in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, ‘policy-makers’ and ‘thought-leaders’ have failed to learn from their grievous mistakes,” the analyst said. “Instead of pursuing lasting peace or actually tackling vexing problems, many worship at the altar of perpetual wars, secure in the knowledge that industry patrons and egomaniacal billionaires will reward them richly along the way, and that they may never be punished for their misdeeds,” he noted.
Meanwhile, ordinary Americans have not reaped any “bonanzas” from this decades-long war economy; instead, they have witnessed their living standards decline, he pointed out.
“As the world enmeshed after 1988, profit margins across the private sector (in a true and consistent accounting) fell, as did per hour incomes, adjusted for taxes and inflation. Over the same period and accelerating now under the husk of President Biden, public sector bureaucrats at all levels learned they could appropriate humongous sums of money, and then direct vast portions to themselves through family members and other supporters, via ‘leaky’ foundations, large and small.”
Ortel believes that regardless of NATO increasingly beating the war drums over its proxy conflict in Ukraine, “support for more fighting in Ukraine and against Russia will ebb” both in the US and Europe. A potential harbinger of change is the decision by Maidan coup plotter, Victoria Nuland, to step down from her position as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, according to the analyst.
Germany and NATO Caught Red-Handed in War Planning
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 6, 2024
German military leaders may have bungled foolishly over their private discussions regarding operational plans against Russia. However, the security of their incompetent communication – while laughable – does not lessen the seriousness of what was being discussed.
Lt. General Ingo Gerhartz and his aides were earnestly weighing up the technical and propaganda means by which to strike Russia with long-range ballistic missiles. In short, a NATO member was caught red-handed hatching an act of war against Russia.
After Russian media published the audio of the conversation, the German reaction has been to dismiss it as a cerebral war-gaming exercise and as an attempt by Russian disinformation to undermine the government of Olaf Scholz.
This obfuscation by Berlin will not wash. The incontrovertible fact is that the German commanders were deliberating on how to “optimize” the Ukrainian offensive capability to hit Russian targets with the long-range German Taurus cruise missile. The weapon has supposedly not yet been supplied to the Ukrainian regime due to concerns among some German politicians that doing so would escalate the war with Russia. It is clear from the audio tape that the German military chiefs are frustrated by the politicians not ordering the supply of the Taurus.
Gerhartz, the head of the German air force, tells his subordinates in no uncertain terms: “We are now fighting a war that uses much more modern technology than our good old Luftwaffe.”
There you have it: the top German commander says unequivocally, “We are now fighting a war”.
He also goes on to disclose that the American, British, and French militaries are deeply involved in the logistics and planning of attacks by the Ukrainian forces.
We know from numerous other sources that the NATO militaries are involved on the ground in Ukraine fighting against Russian forces. American HIMARS and Patriot missile systems, and the British Storm Shadow and the French Scalp cruise missiles are operated with military expertise from these NATO members.
Still, what is highly damaging from the German military leak is the extent to which the commanders endeavor to conceal the involvement of Germany in a war with Russia. The tortuous conversation about how to avoid the imputation of the German military makes it clear that the German high command knows full well the gravity of what they are organizing. They are discussing the conduct of a covert war against Russia. This is tantamount to the crime of aggression and it runs the risk of starting a full-on war which would no doubt escalate into a nuclear conflagration.
At one point in the discussion with his interlocutors, Lt Gen. Gerhartz talks about the need to conceal direct military involvement by Germany in supplying the Taurus missiles to Ukraine.
He says: “I understand what you are talking about. Politicians may be concerned about the direct, closed connection between Büchel [German air base] and Ukraine, which could become direct participation in the Ukrainian conflict. But in this case, we can say that the exchange of information will take place through MBDA [the German manufacturer of Taurus], and we will send one or two of our specialists to Schrobenhausen. Of course, this is a trick, but from a political point of view, it may look different. If information is exchanged through the manufacturer, then this is not associated with us.”
This is self-incriminating evidence that the German high command is participating in a conspiracy to expand the war against Russia. The only reservation is not to be identified publicly in waging war acts. With utmost cynicism, the German military leaders are looking for a way to claim plausible denial after the crime.
Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of the National Security Council, called it correctly when he said of the leaked audio tapes that they show Germany is planning war against Russia.
Berlin dismissed Medvedev’s claim as “absurd”. Berlin is the one being absurd if it thinks that the conversation of its military leaders can be palmed off as simply idle banter and theoretical war gaming.
In the 38-minute discussion, the Luftwaffe commander and his underlings explicitly talk about supplying up to 100 Taurus missiles for Ukrainian regime forces to strike deep into Russia. The German top brass refer to the Taurus as a “super tool” and they specifically identify the destruction of an important bridge in the east, which is presumably the Kerch Bridge linking the Russian mainland to Crimea.
The German missile has a range of over 500 kilometers which is twice that of the British or French weapons.
It looks like the German military is taking on the task of leading deep strikes into Russia. London is reportedly urging Berlin to supply the Taurus missiles despite the embarrassment of the leaked private conversation.
This week it is reported that a railway bridge was destroyed in Russia’s southwest Samara province near the city of Chapaevsk. The location is further east than Moscow and is around 1,000 km from the NATO-backed Kiev regime’s front lines in Ukraine. The attack appears to have been a precision strike.
As the German commanders noted in their discussions, collapsing a bridge is one of the most difficult aerial operations that requires precision capability and sophisticated radar evasion. Their conversation took place on February 19. The leak was published last weekend. Media reports say the German government is opposed to signing off on supplying the missiles. But with so much going on behind the public’s back who knows if and when these weapons are released? Have they been already?
If it is confirmed that the bridge near Chapaevsk was hit by a missile then it would appear that the NATO war against Russia has reached a new ominous threshold.
Some Western media outlets commented that the Russian publication of the Luftwaffe audio tape last weekend was aimed at embarrassing the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz into definitely ruling out any supply of Taurus missiles to Ukraine. However, such speculation assumes that Scholz is in control of his military commanders. Most likely they don’t answer to him; they answer to the occupying power in Germany – the United States.
Cowardly warmongers vote for the German Green Party, and polling proves it
By John Cody | Remix News | March 6, 2024
The German Green Party was once known for its anti-NATO and pacifist stance during the party’s early days. However, it has since transformed into an Atlanticist arm known for its hawkish positions, calling for more weapons for Ukraine and a continued battle with Vladimir Putin.
However, this pro-war position is not out of step with the Green Party’s base, a base that is pretty revolting when the data is actually examined.
Two separate polls paint an unflattering picture of these voters.
According to a survey by ARD, 52 percent of German voters are against the delivery of the Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Germany’s parliament actually just voted against sending these missiles, but Germany continues to be under extreme pressure to deliver them. Chancellor Olaf Scholz has expressed fear of direct war with Russia if the missiles are delivered, as they can reach distances of up to 500 kilometers, which means they can also reach Russian territory. Only 36 percent of Germans are in favor of sending these missiles, and 12 percent did not have an answer.
However, the poll also looked at the different opinions of party supporters. The data shows that 68 percent of the Green party supporters are in favor of delivery and 23 percent are against it. This party had the highest number of supporters in favor of the missile deliveries, while AfD supporters were the most critical, with only 18 percent in favor.
Green party supporters are very gung ho about sending weapons to Ukraine and ensuring the conflict goes on against Russia, but while these voters want Ukrainians to continue dying and fighting against Russia by the thousands, these same voters are outright cowards themselves. That is not an opinion, but something they freely admit.
According to another poll conducted by Forsa for Stern magazine, only 9 percent of Green Party supporters say they would “definitely” defend Germany with weapons. In fact, Green Party supporters were the “least likely” of any party’s supporters to actually say they would defend Germany with weapons. Their willingness is far lower than AfD supporters, with 28 percent saying they would “definitely” defend Germany with arms.
In other words, while Green Party supporters are the most likely to say Germany should send Taurus missiles to Ukraine, and in general, are arguably the biggest advocates for continued war against Russia, they themselves are the least likely to want to take up arms to defend their own country.
It has to be said. These people are not just cowards, but elitist cowards, who want other people to fight their wars. Putin is a bogeyman to them who must be defeated, but instead of traveling to Ukraine to fight him themselves, they want to live their effete lifestyles, attending concerts, art galleries, climate protests; drinking organic fair trade coffee; and living in “Altbau” apartments in trendy neighborhoods.
The front is far away, and their lives are comfortable. They are among the wealthiest voters in all of Germany.
If Russia were to theoretically invade Germany, these would be the first people to flee to San Francisco, London, and Paris, leaving mostly AfD supporters, apparently, to man the frontlines. In their fever dreams, Putin is knocking at the doorstep, but the reality, thankfully, is that Russia will not invade Germany, and even if it did, it would have to go through Poland first. The Green Party supporters would have no compunction in sending waves of Poles up against the Russians either while making TikTok videos in support of the effort.
These people are not very reflective or handle cognitive dissonance well, so even if confronted with this data, most could not possibly internalize it. This is not to say that all Green Party voters are cowards or bad-intentioned, but the data does present a narrative that is worth contemplating. It has led some anti-war German columnists to call for reinstating mandatory military service, saying that paradoxically, a draft would put the wealthiest Germans and their children, back in the crosshairs of a potential war, and make them more hesitant about warmongering.
Nuland’s Resignation Related to Failure of US’ Anti-Russian Policy – Zakharova

RT | March 5, 2024
US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is poised to leave her post soon, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has announced. The senior official, widely regarded as a foreign policy hawk, played a key role in the Western-backed coup in Kiev in 2014.
In a statement on Tuesday, Blinken noted that his friend “Toria” has held most of the jobs at the State Department, from a consular officer to ambassador and deputy secretary, over her 35-year career. Her most recent posting was as undersecretary for political affairs. She was also Blinken’s acting deputy after the July 2023 retirement of Wendy Sherman, until Kurt Campbell was confirmed to the post last month.
“What makes Toria truly exceptional is the fierce passion she brings to fighting for what she believes in most: freedom, democracy, human rights, and America’s enduring capacity to inspire and promote those values around the world,” Blinken said.
He also noted that her “leadership on Ukraine” will be the subject of study “for years to come” by diplomats and students of foreign policy.
Nuland was directly involved in the Maidan uprising and the subsequent coup in Kiev. In December 2013, she visited Ukraine to hand out pastries to the armed protesters in Kiev’s central square. She was then recorded discussing how to “midwife this thing” with then-US ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, just days before the February 2014 coup.
She resigned from the State Department during the Trump administration, taking the helm of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) think-tank before joining the Albright Stonebridge Group and the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). She rejoined the government after President Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021.
In that capacity, she has worked on arming Ukraine and assembling a Western coalition that would supply Kiev with weapons and ammunition for the conflict with Russia. Last month, she pleaded to Congress to approve $61 billion in funding to Ukraine, arguing that most of it would be “going right back into the US economy,” to create jobs in the weapons industry.
Her most recent trip to Kiev involved intervening with President Vladimir Zelensky on behalf of General Valery Zaluzhny, though to no avail. Zaluzhny was subsequently fired.
In a CNN interview at the end of February, Nuland admitted the defeat of US policy towards Moscow, describing today’s Russia as “not the Russia that, frankly, we wanted.”
Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova attributed Nuland’s exit to “the failure of the anti-Russian course of the Biden administration.”
“Russophobia, proposed by Victoria Nuland as the main foreign policy concept of the United States, is dragging the Democrats to the bottom like a stone,” Zakharova said. Posting a photo of Nuland taken at an Orthodox church at some point, she said that if the US politician wanted to “go to a monastery to atone for your sins, we can put in a good word.”
Nuland is married to neoconservative stalwart Robert Kagan. Her sister-in-law Kimberley Kagan, married to Robert’s brother Fred, runs the Institute for the Study of War. Her temporary replacement at the State Department will be Under Secretary for Management John Bass.
Sending NATO soldiers to Ukraine is “apocalypse warning,” says Slovak prime minister
By Ahmed Adel | March 5, 2024
The Prime Minister of Slovakia, Robert Fico, said on March 2 in a video posted on social media that sending soldiers from the European Union and NATO to Ukraine could precipitate a global apocalypse. The social media post was made on the same day that the Slovakian foreign minister met with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov.
Fico also highlighted Ukraine’s inability to resolve the conflict despite the West’s substantial financial and military aid. He emphasised that an EU and NATO military presence in Ukraine could potentially alter the dynamics of the conflict and trigger catastrophic consequences.
“The West sees that, despite significant financial and military aid, Ukraine is incapable of resolving this armed conflict,” said the Slovak prime minister, adding: “The situation could change with the arrival of EU and NATO military personnel in Ukraine, but then there would be nothing left but to wait for the arrival of the global apocalypse.”
Fico highlighted the pressing need for modern air defence systems for Ukraine but warned that the West could not provide these systems without a commitment to maintaining and operating this equipment. He argued that sending Western military personnel would only worsen the conflict rather than resolve it.
French President Emmanuel Macron said on February 27 during a conference of European leaders that he does not rule out sending troops from Western allies to Ukraine and announced a coalition to deliver missiles to the Ukrainian Army.
“There’s no consensus today to send in an official, endorsed manner troops on the ground. But in terms of dynamics, nothing can be ruled out,” declared Macron.
However, several NATO members, including Slovakia, ruled out the possibility of on-the-ground support for Ukraine which has been in armed conflict for more than two years.
It is recalled that on February 26, Fico warned when speaking ahead of a meeting of EU and NATO national leaders in Paris that several EU and NATO members are considering military deployments to Ukraine. He cited a “restricted document” listing topics to be discussed in Paris that “sends shivers down your spine.”
“These topics,” the Slovak said, “imply that a number of NATO and EU member states are considering sending troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis. I can’t say for what purpose or what they would do there.”
According to Fico, “This [Paris] meeting is confirmation that the Ukraine strategy of the West has completely failed.”
Macron’s statement was intended to send a strong warning to the Kremlin, but it failed miserably since his comments revealed Western divisions and disagreements instead. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz led the group of European leaders who disagreed with Macron’s claim that NATO had not ruled out sending troops, whilst Washington abandoned Paris in the idea of sending troops and let the French president receive all the flak.
A survey of 12 European Union countries, commissioned by the European Council on Foreign Relations and published on February 21, reveals that only 10% of respondents believe Ukraine can defeat Russia. Furthermore, only 31% of respondents favoured Europe supporting Ukraine until it regained lost territory, while 41% favoured Europe pushing Ukraine to negotiate a peace agreement with Russia.
Unlike many of his European counterparts, Fico acknowledges the reality that Ukraine cannot win the war with Russia. For this reason, Fico sent Foreign Minister Juraj Blanar to hold talks with his Russian counterpart on March 2 on the sidelines of a diplomatic forum in Turkey, a rare high-level encounter between a European Union member state and the country Brussels has attempted to isolate.
The Slovakian prime minister highlighted that the meeting “was an example of our balanced and sovereign [foreign policy],” adding that Blanar and Lavrov spoke about the possibility of a Ukraine peace summit in Switzerland.
For his part, Blanar said in a statement that the war did not have a military solution and urged peace talks. The foreign minister added in the statement that he told Lavrov that Slovakia was against creating an “iron curtain” between Russia and the EU, and its position was based on respect for international law principles, such as territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Fico returned to power after winning an election in 2023 on promises to stop state military aid to Ukraine and has been critical of anti-Russia sanctions. The leftist populist leader also recently said the West’s approach to the Ukraine war is “an absolute failure,” which, as observed by the European Council on Foreign Relations survey, is what most EU citizens also believe. Fico joins Viktor Orban, prime minister of neighbouring Hungary, in resisting major pressure from Brussels and Washington to relent on their efforts to normalise with Moscow, and his actions once again demonstrate the fractures in the EU and NATO.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
German Military Leak Added Embarrassment to Berlin’s Silence on Nord Stream Sabotage
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 04.03.2024
Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has blamed Moscow for the leak, completely glossing over the fact that German military officers were discussing nothing short of an open attack on Russia, Sputnik’s commentators say.
The leaked conversation of German officers discussing attacks against Russian civilian infrastructure by German-made Taurus missiles has prompted a heated debate in Berlin. “It’s a hybrid disinformation attack — it’s about division, it’s about undermining our unity,” German Defense Minister Pistorius rushed to claim: “We mustn’t fall for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.” Earlier, Berlin stated it wouldn’t send Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine.
“I think in war narrative, control is obviously very important,” Glenn Diesen, professor of international relations at the University of South-Eastern Norway, told Sputnik. “And on this tape it was revealed that German generals were discussing attacks on Russia or more specifically, attacking the infrastructure of the Kerch Strait Bridge [also known as the Crimean Bridge]. And it also revealed that the Taurus missiles will be supplied to Ukraine, in which the Americans would assist in handling them or firing them, attacking Russia with them. So this is, of course, very problematic because it demonstrates NATO’s direct involvement in the war, that is direct attacks on Russia. This is not just weapons and intelligence anymore, but now also picking the targets and, indeed, even pulling the triggers.”
Nord Stream Sabotage and Crimean Bridge Attack Plot
By accusing Russia of launching a “disinformation” attack Germany appears to use the same playbook it used in the aftermath of the Nord Stream sabotage attack of September 26, 2022, when Russia was groundlessly blamed for destroying its own pipeline.
According to Diesen, it’s the US who is pulling the strings of the German government in both cases.
“Obviously, the United States has an interest in this,” the expert said, commenting on the scandal surrounding the possible delivery of Taurus missiles to the Kiev regime. “They’re not able to supply weapons of their own at the moment due to the Republican opposition. So they’re obviously looking for the Europeans to take a greater role in this proxy war against Russia. By comparison, Nord Stream was, I would say, even more awkward because keep in mind that before the Nord Stream pipelines were attacked, the US on numerous occasions told what they were planning to do. They threatened it very publicly, expressing their intention to attack the Nord Stream pipeline if Russia would invade Ukraine.”
In both cases, Washington and its allies in the German government feared that the incidents could create divisions within the West; so, the first instinct was to blame Russia, the professor pointed out. Likewise, in both cases nobody in the West seems willing to dig to the bottom of what happened: an investigation in the Nord Stream sabotage has yet to bear any fruit, while the German military chatter is being downplayed by Berlin and its allies.
“It’s the same pattern of behavior,” Gunnar Beck, AfD European Parliament MEP told Sputnik. “The German government is presented with clear evidence. And they deny it and they go on the attack against Russia. Who’s benefiting from this clearly [are the] fervently anti-Russian interest groups within the German government. I’d say the Greens in particular. But, broadly and in abstract terms, everyone in Germany who defines Germany’s national interest in terms of the interests of the collective West. It’s a majority of the German establishment.”
“The German generals appeared to be part of that camp of the German political establishment, which saw Germany as firmly anchored in the West. That applies to all political parties except my own,” the German politician continued.
“And, of course, the arms industry. Naturally, arms manufacturers in Germany are trying to profit from increased military spending on Ukraine.”
The Bundeswehr chatter clearly indicated that American and British military specialists have also been deployed in Ukraine and could be involved together with the French in the attacks on Russia’s Crimean infrastructure.
According to Beck, the attack on the Crimean Bridge is a symbolic matter for NATO: “That’s an important symbol of Crimea being an integral part of Russia,” he presumed.
“I think there are two objectives,” Diesen said, commenting on the matter. “The first would be, just in terms of the war, the Crimea can be seen as an important logistics hub. And in wars especially on this scale, we see that logistics are imperative in order to be able to bring weapons and supplies and move troops around. So being able to destroy this bridge would be an important way of limiting the logistics flexibility of the Russian army. But I think there’s also now a wider, larger strategic level in which there’s this historical desire, especially by the Americans and British, as the main naval powers over the past 200 years or 200-plus years, which has been to weaken Russia’s access to the seas. So, again, this has been a very old strategy, for centuries, which is, yeah, to limit Russia’s access to these oceans.”
German Public Don’t Want War With Russia
Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drew attention to the fact that Berlin is much more concerned about the leak taking place, rather than the fact that the German military was discussing in detail a potential sabotage attack on Russia’s Crimean Bridge.
“I think it’s an embarrassment for [Germans], obviously, because it’s been quite important for Germany,” said the Norwegian professor. “They’re trying to balance two positions. They want to be loyal NATO members, which supplies weapons in this proxy war against Russia. But at the same time, they’re very cautious not to be seen as being a participant of the war – this obviously failed. They’re now being caught red-handed, planning attacks on Russia, which makes them participants. I think this is merely an issue of controlling the narrative, which is to shift the focus on what this represents.”
For his part, Beck emphasized that while the German establishment has no scruples about sending more weapons to Ukraine and planning attacks on Russia’s civilian objects, the German public is not warmongering.
“So what this conversation – which is not even the German government – clearly shows is that the German military is planning an attack against Russia, which, according to every interpretation of international law, would make Germany a party in the military conflict in the Ukraine. That’s not what the vast majority of Germans want,” Beck emphasized.
The conflict in the Red Sea and the reaction of the world community
By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – 04.03.2024
During the discussion that took place on 14 February 2024 at the UN Security Council meeting, questions were raised about the unlawful shelling by the US and UK in Yemen in violation of all international laws and regulations. This serious issue was discussed in detail due to the violations of international law and human rights that accompany these shellings. The UNSC participants condemned these actions by the US and the UK as illegal and unacceptable. Despite demagogic statements about the fight against terrorism and alleged support for international security, such shelling by Western powers located tens of thousands of kilometres away from the Red Sea basin only exacerbates the humanitarian situation in Yemen and causes irreparable harm to the lives of civilians, including primarily children and women. At the meeting, the panellists rightly raised the need to put an urgent end to this shelling and to return to negotiations for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. It was noted that another wave of violence by Western countries would only exacerbate the situation in that poor Arab country and hinder the achievement of sustainable peace in the region.
Russia’s and China’s opinion
Russia and China have deemed the US and UK bombing of Yemeni territory illegal and contrary to the United Nations Charter, accusing them of illegally attacking Yemen, whose residents support the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip in the face of the Israeli regime’s bloodbath. Russia’s Deputy Ambassador to the UN Dmitry Polyansky and China’s representative to the UN Zhang Jun stressed that the UN Security Council has never authorised military action against Yemen. For his part, the UN special envoy for Yemen, Western representative Hans Grundberg, said that the US and UK attacks and the American declaration of the Ansar Allah resistance movement in Yemen as a “specially designated terrorist group” were merely “of concern.” And what exactly could this so-called envoy, who is entirely on Washington’s payroll and receives all instructions from White House officials, have said.
Mr Polansky correctly emphasised that the root cause of the current situation is Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, which have provoked angry reactions in West Asia, including from Yemenis. “An immediate ceasefire in Gaza will help stabilise the situation in the Red Sea, and de-escalation will in turn unblock the efforts of Special Envoy Grundberg,” he said. The Chinese envoy also expressed concern over the escalation of tensions in the Red Sea region, in particular “the continuation of military operations by certain countries” against Yemen. He called for an immediate halt to the Yemeni hostilities against merchant shipping and stressed the fact that the UN Security Council has not authorised the use of force against Yemen.
“At this critical moment, China hopes that all parties in Yemen will put the interests of the people first, show determination and resolutely push the political process forward to achieve final results,” Zhang Jun added. He also emphasised that “the most urgent task is to immediately promote a ceasefire in Gaza and take responsible measures to prevent further escalation in the region.”
Aggressive actions of the US and UK
For weeks, the United States and Britain have been waging a fierce bombing campaign on Yemeni territory. The reason is well known – this Arab country has boldly declared its open support for the Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip against the Israeli carnage since 7 October last year, in which some 30,000 civilians, especially the elderly, women and children, have already been killed. The US, being one of the leading superpowers and a global factor, has stated its brazen stance on the issue of shelling Yemen. They deny their direct involvement in the conflict, claiming that they are only supporting military assistance and supplies to Saudi Arabia, which in turn is conducting operations to defeat the Houthis. However, human rights advocates and humanitarian organisations have raised accusations of US involvement in human rights and civilian violations during these operations.
Despite strong condemnation of its brutal and aggressive actions, the United States has again “conducted five strikes in self-defence” against areas of Yemen controlled by the Houthi militia, the US Central Command said. It struck three mobile anti-ship cruise missiles, one unmanned underwater vessel and one unmanned surface vessel on 17 February, the statement said. “This is the first observed use of an unmanned aerial vehicle by the Houthis since the attacks began on 23 October,” CENTCOM said in a statement on its X website. Central Command said it had determined the missiles and ships posed “an immediate threat to U.S. Navy ships.” The Houthi attacks in the Red Sea area have been one of the signs of spreading conflict in the Middle East since war broke out between Israel and Hamas after 7 October.
Unlike the US, the UK, its closest ally and most likely a country once with a solid international reputation, chooses not to explicitly support Saudi Arabia, but also does not actively oppose it. Instead, London claims to be providing military assistance centred on training and advice to prepare the Saudi army for its tasks. In these statements, the British demagogically point to the importance of maintaining the stability of the region and fighting terrorism. However, in doing so, they forget to recall that it is they, together with their overseas partners, who are the main disturbers of peace and tranquillity and the main “creators” of the atmosphere of terrorism in the region.
Alongside these states, some delegates from US satellite countries expressed support for the US and UK, arguing that the shelling was in response to acts of terrorism and extremism that threaten world security. They emphasise the need for action to ensure the safety of their citizens and partners. The UN Security Council meeting was by all accounts very tense and controversial, reflecting the complexity of the situation in Yemen and the multifaceted challenges faced by the parties to the conflict. But it was nevertheless called for further discussion and for finding ways to end the violence and restore peace. In conclusion, the UN Security Council meeting emphasised that violators of international law and human rights, including the systematic shelling of Yemen, must be brought to justice and those responsible must be punished accordingly. The decision on further steps and investigations was postponed until all the arguments made during the discussion are recorded, and a relevant document is prepared for further voting.
Ways and means of resolving the conflict in the Red Sea
Human rights advocates and humanitarian organisations object to this position and allege US and UK complicity in human rights and civilian violations in Yemen. Critics also point out that US and UK military aid could be used to commit crimes against humanity and military operations could be disproportionate and indifferent to civilians. The need to resolve the conflict in Yemen is integral to upholding international law and protecting human rights. The world community must continue dialogue, find a political solution and provide humanitarian assistance to end the exclusively military approach and eliminate civilian suffering. So, the position of the US and UK on the shelling of Yemen is causing disagreement and concern among human rights supporters and humanitarian organisations. It is necessary to continue the international discussion in order to achieve peace and stability in the region, calling for respect for international law and the protection of human rights.
Yemen continues to actively target American and other ships that deliver supplies to Israel. The Yemenis’ main argument in favour of shelling ships delivering supplies to Israel is the destruction of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip. In their view, the situation in Palestine remains tense due to Israeli occupation and state policies, leading to regular conflict and violence. In turn, by supporting trade with Israel, American and other ships become indirect contributors to Palestinian suffering. Yemen’s weakened economy and infrastructure put the country in a difficult position. Regular new sanctions and the blockade of the country by international allies make Yemen’s economy extremely vulnerable. For Yemen, the shelling of ships delivering supplies to Israel may be an attempt to gain international attention and launch a dialogue on the Palestinian issue.
In today’s world, the Red Sea remains a key region of geopolitical importance. Along with issues of security and economic stability, emerging conflicts between states and factors in the region regularly attract international attention. However, there are different ways and factors that can play an important role in resolving and preventing conflicts in order to achieve peace and tranquility in the Red Sea.
Above all, the States in which the Red Sea is located must take an active part in finding a way to resolve conflicts peacefully. They should seek dialogue and international cooperation rather than the use of force and military action. Instead of creating tension and threatening security, states should seek common interests and co-operation in the fields of economy, trade, transport and combating international terrorism.
However, in addition to the active role of states, international organisations and forums can play an important role in resolving conflicts in the Red Sea. For example, the United Nations can mediate negotiations and facilitate agreements between states in the region. It can propose mechanisms and strategies to resolve disputes and support dialogue between parties. Also, regional international organisations such as the Arab League or the African Union can contribute to conflict resolution and stability in the Red Sea.
In addition, the role of civil society and non-governmental organisations should not be forgotten. They can play an important role in planting peace and tranquility in the region through engaging in diplomatic efforts, supporting dialogue between the parties and publicly highlighting conflicts. Civil society can give a voice to peace and help to shape public opinion in favour of the peaceful resolution of conflicts.
It is quite clear that conflicts in the Red Sea can and must be resolved in the interests of peace and tranquillity in the region. To that end, the active participation of States, international organisations, civil society and non-governmental organisations is essential. Only through cooperation and dialogue can sustainable peace and tranquillity in the Red Sea be achieved, which will benefit all States and peoples living in the region.
Victor MIKHIN is a Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.
Washington’s Wars Eroding its Global Clout
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – 04.03.2024
If war is politics by other means, Washington’s ongoing wars in the Middle East and Eastern Europe are meant to buttress its global influence on the one hand and undermine its competitors on the other. But the question is: how is this politics by other means working out for Washington? Not so good. Russia’s recent military victories in Ukraine and China’s expansive inroads into the Middle East alongside the growing anti-Americanism in the region (due to Washington’s support for Israel and its inability to prevent a genocide of the Palestinians) indicate an overall American inability to shape global geopolitics in unilateral ways to the exclusive advantage of Washington and its allies in Europe and elsewhere.
Russia’s recent military gains in Ukraine, for example, have very clearly established its military credentials as a power that has been able to withstand the combined military strength of the US and its European allies assembled in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). What does this mean for Washington’s policies in Central Asia? Most certainly, Washington cannot simply present Russia as a ‘weak’ military power that can be simply ‘isolated’. But more than that, Russia is utilising its victories over NATO in various ways.
For instance, when the NATO-backed Russia-Ukraine military conflict began, most reports in the mainstream US media began to spread false messaging about Central Asia potentially moving itself out of the so-called ‘Russian clout’. The US saw in it an opportunity to push itself into the region. But this has turned out to be a fiasco. When the US imposed sanctions on Russia, many Russian companies began to relocate their businesses to Central Asia, directly contributing to Central Asia’s impressive 4.8 percent growth rate in 2023. According to the findings of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the region is forecast to register an even more impressive level of growth at almost 5.7 percent in 2024-25.
In other words, thanks to Washington’s sanctions, the Russian political economy is now more deeply connected with Central Asia than it was before February 2022, which is also strengthening the Eurasian Economic Union. Now that this integration is working for the advantage of Central Asia means that the latter have little to no incentive to pay too much attention to Washington and/or the imperatives of moving decisively to Washington. It means that not only has the Biden administration’s policy of NATO expansion via Ukraine failed so far in Ukraine itself, but the ‘new’ Central Asia policy it inaugurated in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine conflict has also failed to make any impact on the ground. Russia defeated US design also by approaching relations with the Central Asian States in ways that gave them enough space to stay neutral in the conflict. While the West saw this neutrality as a sign of Russian weakness in the region and the Central Asian States’ growing assertiveness, it failed to read how this was part of Russia’s strategy to cultivate its ties in a more balanced way. This balance is also pretty evident in the ways Russia has not objected to, or even resisted, China’s growing footprint in the region, although reports in the Western media often see China’s role in Central Asia at the expense of Russia. But the West seems to have been misreading this region.
As far as Washington’s war in the Middle East is concerned, its military support for Israel plus its inability to stop genocide has eroded its credibility. Suppose Washington has been supporting Israel to maintain its dominance in the Middle East. In that case, Washington’s excessive support is now derailing its objectives, since the Middle East is now exercising a lot more strategic autonomy vis-à-vis Washington than was the case until a few years ago.
In the past few months, a flurry of Chinese activity indicates it much more clearly than anything else. China has convened leadership summits, met with Arab delegates, supported their stance vis-à-vis Israel, and held joint military exercises with one of the US’ most important allies in the region (Saudi Arabia). The UAE, otherwise a close US ally and one of the first states to sign the Abraham Accords to recognise Israel and establish diplomatic ties with it, actually withdrew from the US-led naval task force in May 2023, indicating policy and interest-based differences.
The UAE is also a country in the Middle East that has over 100,000 Chinese living there and involved in many businesses. But when it comes to the Middle East itself, and the fact that many countries in the region are involved in China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), we see the region’s trade with China registering an overall growth of almost 45 percent in 2021 and 27 percent in 2022.
Given the economic integration, the Middle East is turning out to be a region where Washington’s clout is receding fast, without any signs of recovery in the immediate future at least. Although US strikes in the Red Sea on the Houthis are meant to indicate Washington’s willingness to offer a security umbrella to the Gulf states (against Iran-backed groups), the region appears to be past the point where it must have the US on its side to ensure security. Gulf states’ perceptions of Iran as an enemy are changing, thanks to Beijing’s mediation.
As far as Washington’s support for Israel is concerned and as far as the threat of a wider war in the region it is posing, Gulf states are on the edge of a conflict that might directly undermine their modernization programmes – development projects that mainly involve China in various capacities.
Therefore, if Washington’s involvement in the Israel war was meant to bring back the era of US dominance, the exact opposite is happening, both in the Middle East and Central Asia, which happen to be two of the world’s most energy-rich regions.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
