US Refuses to Discuss ‘Nuclear Arms in Outer Space’ Despite Russia’s Dialogue Efforts
By Andrei Dergalin – Sputnik – 29.02.2024
Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered his annual address to Russia’s parliament on February 29, offering his assessment of issues related to the country’s foreign and domestic policies.
Russian President Vladimir Putin broached the subject of the United States recently alleging without any proof that Russia plans to deploy some kind of nuclear weapons in space during his State of the Nation address on Thursday.
Having dismissed these unfounded allegations, Putin mentioned that Russia is yet to receive any serious proposals from the US to initiate bilateral contacts on strategic stability.
Commenting on the Russian president’s remarks, Dr. Marco Marsili, a researcher at Cà Foscari University of Venice, pointed out that the US and its European allies have consistently refused to negotiate “international legally-binding instruments” with Russia, despite the latter’s initiatives aimed at preventing possible deployment of nuclear armaments in space.
According to Dr. Marsili, who is also an associate fellow at the Center for Strategic Research (Cesran International) and who holds research positions in major civil and military institutions in Portugal, the UK and Italy, the US and its allies torpedoed the initiatives “to maintain their technical advantages from its missile defense program and other space weapons.”
“In his speech delivered today, President Putin opened once again to a frank and genuine negotiation with the US on the placement of nuclear arms in outer space but, so far, has not received any signal from the counterpart,” he said.
“Today, Russia is in a stronger position due to its technological advances in missile defense and has developed hypersonic capabilities, like the Avangard rocket cited by President Putin in his speech, which place the country far away from its Western competitors. Notwithstanding, President Putin is still seeking dialogue with the White House, but does not receive any response.”
Dr. Marsili also weighed in on Putin’s statement about the need for a new global financial architecture that would be free from political interference, with Marsili noting how the “global governance” that emerged in the aftermath of World War II “was shaped by Western nations.”
“This post-colonialist governance, including the Bretton Woods system, is challenged by emerging countries from Africa and Latin America. The Sino-Russian cooperation agreement about the Belt and Road Initiative, and regional agreements with CSI member states can boost the economic growth of the region,” he continued.
Regarding Putin’s remark on Russia’s prospects to become one of the world’s four largest economies soon, Dr. Marsili observed that the figures presented by the Russian president to the audience during the speech “demonstrate the foreseen growth of the Russian economy, despite international sanctions.”
“These figures are reliable because they are based on data provided by the economic outlook of the major international institutions such as the IMF, the OECD, and the World Bank,” he added. “As of today, Russia’s economy is already among the largest in the world by nominal GDP. A significant economic power, Russia is not only the largest country in the world, but also an energy superpower and one of the largest producers of rare-earth materials that are crucial for many technologic applications.”
Meanwhile, Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Center for European and International Studies at Russia’s Higher School of Economics, argued that one of the crucial themes of Putin’s address was the matter of Russia’s sovereignty.
“Without question, sovereignty was another crucial theme of Putin’s address and sovereignty could be considered as the ideology of Russian development in the observable future. The president emphasized the political, economic and technological sovereignty of Russia. Sovereignty is indeed a precondition of Russian not just development, but survival, and, of course, development,” he elaborated.
According to Suslov, “Western policies prove that the West uses and used the interdependence and Russian dependence on the Western technologies and markets as a weapon against Russia.”
Thus, in order to avoid such dependence in the future and to not exchange it for “a new dependence on the other countries,” Russia “needs to be sovereign in all crucial aspects of development – in technologies, in defense, in the main aspects of economic development and, of course, in the political sphere,” he postulated.
Russia Reveals Ties With Germany, France at Unprecedented Low
Sputnik -29.02.2024
MOSCOW – The signing of a security agreement between Paris, Berlin, and Kiev does not affect relations with Russia, which are at rock bottom, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told Sputnik.
“Referring specifically to Russia-Germany and Russia-France relations, I would like to emphasize that, unfortunately, at this stage there is little that could affect them for the worse. They are already at an unprecedentedly low level,” she said.
According to Zakharova, “the former partners [Germany and France] have discarded the voluminous baggage of large-scale, mutually beneficial bilateral cooperation [with Russia] accumulated over several generations.”
“This is not our decision. For two years we have been watching how NATO countries, including Germany and France playing a particularly active role (with Berlin ranking second after the United States in terms of supplying arms and military equipment to the Kiev regime), have been pumping Ukraine with modern lethal systems, training soldiers, supplying intelligence, and contributing to the escalation of hostilities,” Zakharova noted.
“All this makes them direct accomplices in Ukraine’s deeds,” she emphasized.
The spokeswoman claimed “the elites of these countries still indulge themselves in illusions about the possibility of inflicting a ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia and consider Vladimir Zelensky’s ‘peace formula’ ultimatum – which, we reiterate, is unacceptable to us – as the only basis for resolving the Ukrainian crisis.”
“In this context, the signing of new agreements is another – albeit symbolic – move in the West’s hybrid war with Russia, a confirmation of the focus on long-term confrontation with our country and an unwillingness to go down the path of political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict,” she concluded.
The CIA in Ukraine — The NY Times Gets a Guided Tour
By Patrick Lawrence | ScheerPost | February 29, 2024
If you have paid attention to what various polls and officials in the U.S. and elsewhere in the West have been doing and saying about Ukraine lately, you know the look and sound of desperation. You would be desperate, too, if you were making a case for a war Ukrainians are on the brink of losing and will never, brink or back-from-the-brink, have any chance of winning. Atop this, you want people who know better, including 70 percent of Americans according to a recent poll, to keep investing extravagant sums in this ruinous folly.
And here is what seems to me the true source of angst among these desperados: Having painted this war as a cosmic confrontation between the world’s democrats and the world’s authoritarians, the people who started it and want to prolong it have painted themselves into a corner. They cannot lose it. They cannot afford to lose a war they cannot win: This is what you see and hear from all those good-money-after-bad people still trying to persuade you that a bad war is a good war and that it is right that more lives and money should be pointlessly lost to it.
Everyone must act for the cause in these dire times. You have Chuck Schumer in Kyiv last week trying to show House Republicans that they should truly, really authorize the Biden regime to spend an additional $61 billion on its proxy war with Russia. “Everyone we saw, from Zelensky on down made this very point clear,” the Democratic senator from New York asserted in an interview with The New York Times. “If Ukraine gets the aid, they will win the war and beat Russia.”
Even at this late hour people still have the nerve to say such things.
You have European leaders gathering in Paris Monday to reassure one another of their unity behind the Kyiv regime—and where Emmanuel Macron refused to rule out sending NATO ground troops to the Ukrainian front. “Russia cannot and must not win this war,” the French president declared to his guests at the Elysée Palace.
Except that it can and, barring an act of God, it will.
Then you have Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s war-mongering sec-gen, telling Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty last week that it will be fine if Kyiv uses F–16s to attack Russian cities once they are operational this summer. The U.S.–made fighter jets, the munitions, the money—all of it is essential “to ensure Russia doesn’t make further gains.” Stephen Bryen, formerly a deputy undersecretary at the Defense Department, offered an excellent response to this over the weekend in his Weapons and Strategy newsletter: “Fire Jens Stoltenberg before it is too late.”
Good thought, but Stoltenberg, Washington’s longtime water-carrier in Brussels, is merely doing his job as assigned: Keep up the illusions as to Kyiv’s potency and along with it the Russophobia, the more primitive the better. You do not get fired for irresponsible rhetoric that risks something that might look a lot like World War III.
What would a propaganda blitz of this breadth and stupidity be without an entry from The New York Times ? Given the extent to which the Times has abandoned all professional principle in the service of the power it is supposed to report upon, you just knew it would have to get in on this one.
The Times has published very numerous pieces in recent weeks on the necessity of keeping the war going and the urgency of a House vote authorizing that $61 billion Biden’s national security people want to send Ukraine. But never mind all those daily stories. Last Sunday it came out with its big banana. “The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin” sprawls—lengthy text, numerous photographs. The latter show the usual wreckage—cars, apartment buildings, farmhouses, a snowy dirt road lined with landmines. But the story that goes with it is other than usual.
Somewhere in Washington, someone appears to have decided it was time to let the Central Intelligence Agency’s presence and programs in Ukraine be known. And someone in Langley, the CIA’s headquarters, seems to have decided this will be O.K., a useful thing to do. When I say the agency’s presence and programs, I mean some : We get a very partial picture of the CIA’s doings in Ukraine, as the lies of omission—not to mention the lies of commission—are numerous in this piece. But what the Times published last weekend, all 5,500 words of it, tells us more than had been previously made public.
Let us consider this unusually long takeout carefully for what it is and how it came to make page one of last Sunday’s editions.
In a recent commentary I reflected on the mess the Times landed in when it published a thoroughly discredited p.o.s.—and I leave readers to understand this newsroom expression—on the sexual violence Hamas militias allegedly committed last Oct. 7. I described a corrupt but routinized relationship between the organs of official power and the journalists charged with reporting on official power, likening it to a foie gras farmer feeding his geese: The Times’s journalists opened wide and swallowed. For appearances’ sake, they then set about dressing up what they ingested as independently reported work. This is the routine.
It is the same, yet more obviously, with this extended piece on the CIA’s activities in Ukraine. Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz tell the story of—this the subhead—“a secret intelligence partnership with Ukraine that is now critical for both countries in countering Russia.” They set the scene in a below-ground monitoring and communications center the CIA showed Ukrainian intel how to build beneath the wreckage of an army outpost destroyed in a Russian missile attack. They report on the archipelago of such places the agency paid for, designed, equipped, and now helps operate. Twelve of these, please note, are along Ukraine’s border with Russia.
Entous and Schwirtz, it is time to mention, are not based in Ukraine. They operate from Washington and New York respectively. This indicates clearly enough the genesis of “The Spy War.” There was no breaking down of doors involved here, no intrepid correspondents digging, no tramping around in Ukraine’s mud and cold, unguided. The CIA handed these two material according to what it wanted and did not want disclosed, and various officials associated with it made themselves available as “sources”—none of the American sources named, per usual.
Are we supposed to think these reporters found the underground bunker and all the other such installations by dint of their “investigation”—a term they have the gall to use as they describe what they did? And then they developed some kind of grand exposé of all the agency wanted to keep hidden? Is this it?
Sheer pretense, nothing more. Entous and Schwirtz opened wide and got fed. There appears to be nothing in what they wrote that was not effectively authorized, and we can probably do without “effectively.”
There is also the question of sources. Entous and Schwirtz say they conducted 200 interviews to get this piece done. If they did, and I will stay with my “if,” they do not seem to have been very good interviews to go by the published piece. And however many interviews they did, this must still be counted a one-source story, given that everyone quoted in it reflects the same perspective and so reinforces, more or less, what everyone else quoted has to say. The sources appear to have been handed to Entous and Schwirtz as was access to the underground bunker.
The narrative thread woven through the piece is interesting. It is all about the two-way, can’t-do-without-it cooperation between the CIA and Ukraine’s main intel services—the SBU (the domestic spy agency) and military intelligence, which goes by HUR. In this the piece reads like a difficult courtship that leads to a happy-at-last consummation. It took a long time for the Americans to trust the Ukrainians, we read, as they, the Americans, assumed the SBU was thick with Russian double agents. But the Ukrainian spooks enticed them with stacks and stacks of intelligence that seems to have astonished the CIA people on the ground and back in Langley.
So, a tale with two moving parts: The Americans helped the Ukrainians get their technology, methods, and all-around spookery up to snuff, and the Ukrainians made themselves indispensable to the Americans by providing wads of raw intel. Entous and Schwirtz describe this symbiosis as “one of Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today.” Here is how a former American official put it, as the Times quotes him or her:
The relationships only got stronger and stronger because both sides saw value in it, and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv—our station there, the operation out of Ukraine—became the best source of information, signals and everything else, on Russia. We couldn’t get enough of it.
As to omissions and commissions, there are things left out in this piece, events that are blurred, assertions that are simply untrue and proven to be so. What amazes me is how far back Entous and Schwirtz reach to dredge up all this stuff—even to the point they make fools of themselves and remind us of the Times’s dramatic loss of credibility since the current round of Russophobia took hold a decade ago.
Entous and Schwirtz begin their account of the CIA–SBU/HUR alliance in 2014, when the U.S. cultivated the coup in Kyiv that brought the present regime to power and ultimately led to Russia’s military intervention. But no mention of the U.S. role in it. They write, “The CIA’s partnership in Ukraine can be traced back to two phone calls on the night of Feb. 24, 2014, eight years to the day before Russia’s full-scale invasion.” Neat, granular, but absolutely false. The coup began three days earlier, on Feb. 21, and as Vladimir Putin reminded Tucker Carlson during the latter’s Feb. 6 interview with the Russian president, it was the CIA that did the groundwork.
I confess a special affection for this one: “The Ukrainians also helped the Americans go after the Russian operatives who meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” Entous and Schwirtz write. And later in the piece, this:
In one joint operation, a[n] HUR team duped an officer from Russia’s military intelligence service into providing information that allowed the C.I.A. to connect Russia’s government to the so-called Fancy Bear hacking group, which had been linked to election interference efforts in a number of countries.
Wonderful. Extravagantly nostalgic for that twilight interim that began eight years ago, when nothing had to be true so long as it explained why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, and why Donald Trump is No. 1 among America’s “deplorables.”
I have never seen evidence of Russian government interference in another nation’s elections, including America’s in 2016, and I will say with confidence you haven’t, either. All that came to be associated with the Russiagate fable, starting with the never-happened hack of the Democratic Party’s mail, was long ago revealed to be concocted junk. As to “Fancy Bear,” and its cousin “Cozy Bear”—monikers almost certainly cooked up over a long, fun lunch in Langley—for the umpteenth time these are not groups of hackers or any other sort of human being: They are sets of digital tools available to anyone who wants to use them.
Sloppy, tiresome. But to a purpose. Why, then? What is the Times’s purpose in publishing this piece?
We can start, logically enough, with that desperation evident among those dedicated to prolonging the war. The outcome of the war, in my read and in the view of various military analysts, does not depend on the $61 billion in aid that now hangs in the balance. But the Biden regime seems to think it does, or pretends to think it does. The Times’s most immediate intent, so far as one can make out from the piece, is to add what degree of urgency it can to this question.
Entous and Schwirtz report that the people running Ukrainian intelligence are nervous that without a House vote releasing new funds “the CIA will abandon them.” Good enough that it boosts the case to cite nervous Ukrainians, but we should recognize that this is a misapprehension. The CIA has a very large budget entirely independent of what Congress votes one way or another. William Burns, the CIA director, traveled to Kyiv two weeks ago to reassure his counterparts that “the U.S. commitment will continue,” as Entous and Schwirtz quote him saying. This is perfectly true, assuming Burns referred to the agency’s commitment.
More broadly, the Times piece appears amid flagging enthusiasm for the Ukraine project. And it is in this circumstance that Entous and Schwirtz went long on the benefits accruing to the CIA in consequence of its presence on the ground in Ukraine. But read these two reporters carefully: They, or whoever put their piece in its final shape, make it clear that the agency’s operations on Ukrainian soil count first and most as a contribution to Washington’s long campaign to undermine the Russian Federation. This is not about Ukrainian democracy, that figment of neoliberal propagandists. It is about Cold War II, plain and simple. It is time to reinvigorate the old Russophobia, thus—and hence all the baloney about Russians corrupting elections and so on. It is all there for a reason.
To gather these thoughts and summarize, This piece is not journalism and should not be read as such. Neither do Entous and Schwirtz serve as journalists. They are clerks of the governing class pretending to be journalists while they post notices on a bulletin board that pretends to be a newspaper.
■
Let’s dolly out to put this piece in its historical context and consider the implications of its appearance in the once-but-fallen newspaper of record. Let’s think about the early 1970s, when it first began to emerge that the CIA had compromised the American media and broadcasters.
Jack Anderson, the admirably iconoclastic columnist, lifted the lid on the agency’s infiltration of the media by way of a passing mention of a corrupted correspondent in 1973. A year later a former Los Angeles Times correspondent named Stuart Loory published the first extensive exploration of relations between the CIA and the media in the Columbia Journalism Review. Then, in 1976, the Church Committee opened its famous hearings in the Senate. It took up all sorts of agency malfeasance—assassinations, coups, illegal covert ops. Its intent was also to disrupt the agency’s misuse of American media and restore the latter to their independence and integrity.
The Church Committee is still widely remembered for getting its job done. But it never did. A year after Church produced its six-volume report, Rolling Stone published “The CIA and the Media,” Carl Bernstein’s well-known piece. Bernstein went considerably beyond the Church Committee, demonstrating that it pulled its punches rather than pull the plug on the CIA’s intrusions in the media. Faced with the prospect of forcing the CIA to sever all covert ties with the media, a senator Bernstein did not name remarked, “We just weren’t ready to take that step.”
We should read the Times’s piece on the righteousness of the CIA’s activities in Ukraine—bearing in mind the self-evident cooperation between the agency and the newspaper—with this history in mind.
America was just emerging from the disgraces of the McCarthyist period when Stuart Loory opened the door on this question, the Church Committee convened, and Carl Bernstein filled in the blanks. In and out of the profession there was disgust at the covert relationship between media and the spooks. Now look. What was then viewed as top-to-bottom objectionable is now routinized. It is “as usual.” In my read this is one consequence among many of the Russiagate years: They again plunged Americans and their mainstream media into the same paranoia that produced the corruptions of the 1950s and 1960s.
Alas, the scars of the swoon we call Russiagate are many and run deep.
Hypersonic weapons promised six years ago now in service – Putin
RT | February 29, 2024
Moscow’s plans to deploy new, advanced weaponry, first revealed in 2018, have been realized or are in completion phases, Russian President Vladimir Putin said during a keynote speech on Thursday.
Russian troops have already used the Kinzhal and Tsirkon hypersonic missiles in combat, hitting high-value Ukrainian military targets, Putin said, in an address to the Federal Assembly.
The Avangard strategic hypersonic gliders and the Peresvet laser system are already in service, the Russian leader said. A hypersonic glider is a vehicle usually designed for delivering a nuclear device. It can travel through the atmosphere at high altitude and great speed, and can maneuver to avoid interception.
Moscow will soon release footage of heavy strategic intercontinental ballistic Sarmat missiles in their silos, the president promised. Trials of the nuclear-powered, unlimited-range cruise missile Burevestnik and of the nuclear-capable underwater drone Poseidon are close to completion, he added.
“Those systems have confirmed their high – unique, I might say without exaggeration – specifications,” Putin said of the weapon systems.
All of the new arms, with the exception of the Tsirkon missile, were first revealed by the Russian president during a March 2018 address to the Federal Assembly.
At the time Putin described them as a response to US attempts to disrupt the strategic balance with Russia in its favor. Speaking on Thursday, he said Moscow remained willing to negotiate on the issue with Washington, but stressed that the countries’ relationship has since seriously deteriorated.
”We are dealing with a state whose ruling elites are openly taking hostile actions against us,” he said. “Do they seriously intend to discuss strategic stability with us while trying to inflict ‘strategic defeat on the battlefield,’ as they put it themselves, on Russia?”
He described Washington’s diplomatic stance as “hypocritical” and just a means to deliver outcomes that “are beneficiary only to the US.”
Biden regime admits Ukraine will lose more territory within next two months
By Ahmed Adel | February 29, 2024
Ukraine will lose additional territory in the coming months due to a lack of US military support, White House National Security Council strategic communications coordinator John Kirby lamented on February 27. This comes as Washington confirmed that US troops would not be sent to fight in Ukraine even if discussions were held with France over this possibility.
“If they continue to get no support from the United States, in a month or two, it is very likely that the Russians will achieve more territorial gains and have more success against Ukrainian frontlines,” Kirby told reporters, adding that this could occur in not only eastern Ukraine but also potentially in the south of the country.
In the same press conference, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre repeatedly emphasised that the situation is “dire” for Ukraine and recalled how the CIA Director “laid out the — the consequences, how dire they were” and “what was going on in the battle — in a battlefield, obviously, and how Ukraine was losing ground, which is important.”
On the same day, US President Joe Biden also said that the need to provide additional support to Ukraine is urgent. However, the Republicans have blocked any further funding for Ukraine unless Biden relents on his open border policy, something that he is seemingly unwilling to do.
The lack of weapons and admission that Russia is about to liberate more territory compounds Kiev’s frustrations, especially after Washington confirmed that American troops would not be sent to fight in Ukraine. According to a military source interviewed by the AFP news agency, the US spent weeks discussing plans to send troops with France but ultimately deemed the risk to be too high.
On February 26, French President Emmanuel Macron raised the idea of sending troops to Ukraine, a surprising statement since the deployment of fighters was never publicly discussed or expected. Since Macron’s alarming statement, numerous European countries have disassociated from the idea, including Germany, Poland, Spain, Greece, and the Czech Republic.
Now it was the White House’s turn to deny that US troops would be deployed in Ukraine. In a statement to the press, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller stated that “the US will not send troops to fight in Ukraine.”
According to a military source cited by AFP, NATO countries have been discussing for weeks the possibility of sending their own soldiers to support the Ukrainians, and the US was one of those who supported the idea.
Responding to Macron’s statement, the Kremlin said, “The very fact of discussing the possibility of sending certain contingents to Ukraine from NATO countries is a very important new element.” Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that if troops are sent, “we would need to talk not about the probability, but about the inevitability (of a direct conflict).”
Macron seemingly wants to start a Russia-NATO war, a war that would inevitably lead to nuclear strikes and with no winner, and for this reason, it is obvious why the French president became immediately isolated, so much so that even Washington cowered and distanced itself from the idea.
French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné attempted to soften the humiliating blow on February 28 by claiming that Macron had in mind sending troops for specific tasks such as helping with mine clearance, production of weapons on site, and cyber-defence.
“[This] could require a [military] presence on Ukrainian territory without crossing the threshold of fighting,” Sejourne told French lawmakers. “It’s not sending troops to wage war against Russia.”
This is an obvious cover story as Macron was almost immediately isolated, and as Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova highlighted, France’s allies neither understood nor supported the French president’s idea.
“This same statement shocked their NATO allies. A few hours later, a series of statements were made by the leadership of NATO countries, foreign ministers, and defence ministers, who said that they […] disassociate themselves from Macron’s statement. That they themselves do not plan any of this, they do not plan to send anyone and understand that this will already be a different story,” she said.
With the West failing to meet weapon supply promises made to Kiev, further US financing blocked in Congress, and, more importantly, the recent liberation of the fortress town of Avdeyevka, Ukraine will inevitably lose territory at a rapid rate. Given that the White House is openly admitting to this reality, one would expect the Kiev regime to search for an end to the conflict, yet it still chooses to pin its hopes on weapons that are not arriving on time or, more delusionally, that the West will finally directly intervene in the conflict.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Scholz slammed for revealing UK troop presence in Ukraine
RT | February 29, 2024
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has come under fire from the UK after he suggested that there were British troops operating in the Ukraine conflict. Explaining why Berlin would not supply Kiev with long-range Taurus missiles, Scholz said it would require German military personnel on the ground providing assistance.
He went on to say that Taurus “is a very long-range weapon, and what was done on the part of the British and French in terms of target-control and target-control assistance can’t be done in Germany.”
Commenting on Scholz’s remark, Tobias Ellwood, the former chair of the British Commons defense committee, said it was “a flagrant abuse of intelligence deliberately designed to distract from Germany’s reluctance to arm Ukraine with its own long-range missile system,” as quoted by The Telegraph. The British lawmaker was also sure that the statement would be “used by Russia to rachet up the escalator ladder.”
“German soldiers can at no point and in no place be linked with the targets that this system reaches,” Scholz insisted, even if operating from German soil, according to the DPA news agency.
The German chancellor stated that it would be “not very responsible” for his country to risk becoming a “party to the war.”
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the Financial Times quoted an anonymous senior European defense official as saying that “everyone knows there are Western special forces in Ukraine – they’ve just not acknowledged it officially.”
Addressing the press following a summit of Kiev’s backers in Paris on Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron noted that “in terms of dynamics, we cannot exclude anything,” referring to a potential ground deployment of Western militaries.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg however hastened to clarify that there were “no plans for NATO combat troops on the ground in Ukraine.” This was followed by similar assurances by the leaders of Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Finland.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned that such a development would mean that “we have to talk not about the probability, but rather the inevitability” of an all-out military confrontation between NATO and Russia.
CIA behind Ukrainian disaster
Jason Freeman
By Lucas Leiroz | February 29, 2024
The disastrous actions of American intelligence in Ukraine have been a fact known by analysts since the beginning of the conflict. However, now the Americans themselves are admitting this. Being deceived by Russian pranksters, US mercenaries commented on the CIA’s tactical errors in Ukraine and how mistakes made by Washington’s intelligence and special forces are leading to Ukrainian citizens dying on the battlefield.
Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov – alias Vovan and Lexus – two Russian pranksters well known for their work of tricking Western public figures into leaking sensitive information, contacted Jason Freeman, an American mercenary living in Nikolaev. Freeman believed he was speaking directly to former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko. The pranksters claimed to be creating a private army commanded by the former president, contacting mercenaries to recruit and hire them.
During the conversation, Freeman gave some details about his work in Ukraine. Trying to show his skills as a combatant, he claimed to have killed 21 Russian soldiers and injured at least 13 others. However, Freeman also exposed the problems he faced on the battlefield. He admitted, for example, that his unit was entirely destroyed during the Battle for Artyomovsk (known in Ukraine as Bakhmut).
On the occasion, Freeman also criticized the work of the Ukrainian authorities, reporting problems with payment for soldiers and inefficiency of commanders. The most interesting fact, however, was his opinion on the presence of Western intelligence in the country. Unintentionally, he confirmed reports already made by several analysts about the participation of special agencies such as the CIA in the Ukrainian decision-making process. According to him, bad decisions made jointly by Americans and their proxy Ukrainians are leading to thousands of young, poorly trained soldiers dying in pointless clashes that could have been easily avoided.
“Young Ukrainians are dying because of bad orders or tactics. Most of those here are actually fresh meat,” Freeman said.
A second mercenary named Joshua Randsford was also contacted by the pranksters to be part of “Poroshenko’s army”. He commented something similar to Freeman, emphasizing the “lack of professionalism” of decision makers in Ukraine. According to him, Kiev’s troops are in a very difficult situation, with low morale among both ordinary soldiers and special and intelligence forces. The frequency of defeats on the battlefield severely impacted the Ukrainians, taking away their will to fight and their belief in victory.
Both mercenaries also blamed Ukrainian and American decision-makers for the failure of the summer counteroffensive in 2023. According to them, the fighting in the counterattack was a true “waste of lives”, with thousands of Ukrainians dying in clashes that did not bring any significant gain to Kiev. All these factors led to the current material, human and psychological crisis affecting the regime, with troops suffering from low morale.
It is curious to see how the personal opinion of the pro-Kiev fighters themselves absolutely contradicts the mainstream media’s narrative about the war. Those who know the reality of the battlefield are dissatisfied with the way American strategists manage the conflict. These fighters know that what is happening in Ukraine is a senseless massacre that could have been avoided if the war effort had actually been intended to “save Ukraine.” It is possible to see that the Western objective in the conflict is just to continue fighting the Russians, no matter how many Ukrainian lives are lost to make this happen.
In fact, the participation of American intelligence in Ukraine is not classified information anymore, as even large American newspapers have exposed this fact. The US appears increasingly less concerned with disguising its war intentions. The existence of an intelligence network in Ukraine is a vital part of the strategy of “fighting to the last Ukrainian”, because in this way Washington is able to coerce its proxies to continue fighting, regardless of losses, taking away from them the power to command their own citizens.
There is an interesting point to be analyzed: by having its participation in the war admitted, the US becomes co-author of all the crimes committed by the Ukrainians. Terrorist attacks, murder of civilians and incursions into Russia’s undisputed territory have been frequent since 2022. Russia does not react symmetrically, opting only to target military and infrastructure facilities. However, Moscow has already made it clear that any Western agent operating in decision-making centers on Ukrainian soil is a legitimate target. In this sense, it is possible that the Russians will begin to escalate their attacks against the American intelligence assets in Ukraine, if Ukrainian attacks on Russian civilians persist.
These data only show what the mainstream media tries to “refute”: the fact that the West is solely to blame for this conflict and the entire humanitarian tragedy in Ukraine. In this war, Kiev is just a proxy, having no real decision-making power. This is why it is necessary to understand the conflict as a proxy war waged by NATO against Russia through the Ukrainian regime.
Lucas Leiroz is a journalist and researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
Ukraine ‘Fiasco’ Likely Driving West to Seek Victory Against Houthis
Sputnik – 28.02.2024
Efforts of the US-led coalition to thwart Houthi attacks on Israeli-linked shipping in the Gulf of Aden have been recently backed by Germany which deployed one of its warships, frigate Hessen, to aid Washington’s effort.
The frigate’s deployment came as part of an “EU-wide operation that includes other countries as well,” said Nikolas Kosmatopoulos, assistant professor of public policy and international affairs at the American University of Beirut.
“I know that my country, Greece, also sent off frigates only a few days ago. So this is a major escalation. This is a very dangerous major escalation,” he told Sputnik. “[It is] A decision that’s made by the EU to interfere in the conflict that has been raging in the Sea of Aden and the coast of Yemen.”
According to Kosmatopoulos, this a “very worrisome development” as the European Union’s decision to join the US conflict with the Houthis leads to “extreme militarization of the waters” in the region, not to mention the EU becoming a “party to the regional war waging in Israel –Palestine.”
He also suggested that it is hard to tell whether the Hessen’s deployment came as a result of US pressure on Germany or as part of an EU effort to unblock the waterway in question.
On one hand, Kosmatopoulos noted, the US does seek to have other NATO members “share the burdens of the collective security under the NATO alliance,” including all of the associated costs and risks.
On the other hand, “the current European governance and current European leadership seems to be willingly going in this direction.”
“We saw it also in the case of the Ukraine-Russia conflict that it has been more or less unified front, consolidated front that makes it difficult to decide whether it’s just the US pressure or is also a collective decision of the West to close ranks and show strength in multiple fronts,” Kosmatopoulos said.
Regarding the reason why the US seeks to drag more of its NATO allies into the confrontation with the Houthis, the scholar postulated that Washington “wants to share the responsibility, wants to make others partake in this, wants them to dirty their hands and to show what they got,” just like they did by compelling European nations to back Kiev.
The ensuing escalation in the Middle East, he reasoned, “allows the US and its allies to ask for more and more intensive engagement that might also mean active military action against the Ansar Allah and Houthis in Yemen” as the West seeks to “reestablish its hegemony.”
“Perhaps the Ukraine fiasco made it necessary to have victory somewhere else,” Kosmatopoulos. “I hope that this is not understood as a zero-sum game in the Western elites. But it might look like that from the outset. So in that case, we’re in for a regional flare-up, if not – bigger than that. And this is an extremely worrisome development.”
Who’s Brain-Dead Now, Macron?
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 28, 2024
French President Emmanuel Macron wants to send NATO ground troops into Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Only a delusional fool could make such a crass proposal which goes to show that Macron is brain-dead. NATO troops deployed to fight Russian forces would mean an all-out war, which most likely would spiral into a nuclear conflagration.
Ironically, the French leader made headlines a while back when he labeled the US-led NATO alliance as being “brain-dead”. He’s now competing for the same epithet.
When Macron made those harsh remarks about NATO in an interview with the Economist in November 2019, some observers thought that he was being intelligently critical of the transatlantic military organization and how it was no longer fit for purpose in the modern age.
But, no, Macron wasn’t offering constructive criticism of NATO or American leadership. He was simply being a conceited charlatan, trying to promote himself as the “strong leader” of Europe and peddling his hobby horse of building up a European army by appearing to bad mouth NATO.
This week, the former Rothschild banker was at it again, indulging in his grandiose fantasies of leading the rest of Europe.
Macron hosted 25 European heads of state or government at the Conference in Support of Ukraine. In the grandeur of the Elysee Palace, he warned that Russia “must not win the war in Ukraine” otherwise, he claimed, the whole of Europe would succumb to Russian aggression.
This is reckless and dangerous fantasy by the French president indulging in the most unhinged Russophobia. Moscow has categorically stated that it has no interest in anything beyond denazifying the NATO-sponsored regime in Kiev and protecting its national security.
To offset such a purported nightmarish outcome of Russian tanks rolling over Europe, Macron told European leaders that they should not rule out deploying NATO ground troops to assist the Kiev regime.
“Nothing should be excluded. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war,” the French president said in front of approving European leaders.
Among the conference attendees were German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and British Foreign Minister David Cameron. Germany and France earlier this month signed bilateral security pacts with Ukraine, which could be invoked for sending military forces officially to prosecute the U.S.-led proxy war against Russia.
NATO officers in the guise of private mercenaries are already heavily participating in the Ukraine conflict against Russia. Last month, more than 60 French servicemen were killed in a Russian missile strike near the Ukrainian city of Kharkov.
French media reported of the event in Paris this week: “The conference [in Paris] signaled Macron’s eagerness to present himself as a European champion of Ukraine’s cause, amid growing fears that American support could wane in the coming months.”
As well as calling for the deployment of NATO troops, Macron also pledged to send more long-range missiles to the Kiev regime for “deep strikes” in Russia.
French cruise missiles have already been used to strike the Russian territory of Crimea. Now the French leader wants a NeoNazi regime to have the capability to hit deep into Russia. How much longer can Moscow tolerate this outrageous provocation without reciprocal strikes?
No doubt the French president sees an opportunity for self-aggrandizement. Macron is obsessed with notions of his self-importance and restoring France’s international image to some imaginary glorious past.
With the Americans squabbling in Congress about whether to send Ukraine another $60 billion in military aid and with the possible election of NATO-skeptic Donald Trump to the White House later this year, Macron sees an opening to show Western leadership by stepping up Europe’s support for Ukraine.
Macron’s egotism and delusions of grandeur are liable to start World War Three.
He is doing all this by telling blatant lies about the conflict in Ukraine.
Macron is indulging the Kiev puppet president Vladimir Zelensky in pretending that Ukraine has a chance of defeating Russia. Zelensky also addressed the conference in Paris via video link and made his tiresome appeal for more weapons. He asserted with barefaced lies that Ukrainian military deaths amounted to 31,000 troops since the conflict erupted two years ago. The most realistic figure is that over 400,000 and perhaps as many as 500,000 Ukrainian military have been killed by far superior Russian forces.
That’s the implicit admission made by Macron. Why would NATO troops be required in Ukraine if it was not for replacing Ukrainian ranks that have been devastated?
Macron justifies his lies by compounding the more outrageous lie that Russia is intent on invading other European nations once it defeats the Ukrainian army.
This bogeyman version of geopolitics ignores the reality that the United States and NATO fomented a proxy war against Russia using a NeoNazi regime.
Macron wants to start World War Three based on sheer lies and vanity. He’s not only brain-dead. He’s soul-dead too.
NATO’s Debate Over Whether To Conventionally Intervene In Ukraine Shows Its Desperation
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | FEBRUARY 27, 2024
French President Macron hosted over 20 fellow European leaders in Paris on Monday to discuss their next moves in Ukraine, including the possibility of a conventional NATO intervention, which he said they hadn’t ruled out for reasons of “strategic ambiguity” despite not reaching a consensus on this. His Polish counterpart Duda also confirmed that this subject was the most heated part of their discussions. The very fact that this scenario is being officially considered shows how desperate NATO has become.
Russia’s victory in Avdeevka, which was the natural result of it winning the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with NATO, prompted policymakers to contemplate what they’ll do in the event that it achieves a breakthrough across the Line of Contact (LOC) and starts steamrolling through the rest of Ukraine. They hadn’t previously considered this to be a serious possibility until last summer’s failed counteroffensive exposed the weakness of their military-industrial complex and tactical-strategic planning.
It’s now a credible scenario that’s reviving speculation about a Polish-led intervention aimed at drawing a red line in the sand for halting any potential Russian breakthrough before it gets too far. This would preserve the G7’s “sphere of (economic) influence” in Ukraine while preventing that former Soviet Republic’s collapse and thus averting another Afghan-like foreign policy disaster for the West. The problem, however, is that Poland also doesn’t want to be put up to this only to be hung out to dry.
Although Poland has comprehensively subordinated itself to Germany after the return of Berlin-backed Prime Minister Tusk to power late last year and envisages carving out its own “sphere of influence” in Western Ukraine, this doesn’t mean that it wants to lead a Western intervention there. The risk of World War III breaking out with Russia by miscalculation is much too high and Poland might fear that NATO won’t activate Article 5 if it clashes with Russia inside Ukraine in order to prevent that from happening.
These concerns could explain why there wasn’t any consensus during Monday’s meeting on this issue since other members wisely won’t want to take the chance of catalyzing an apocalyptic scenario, ergo the reason why the West might be plotting a false flag in Poland to blame on Russia and Belarus. President Lukashenko warned about that in late February, and if it comes to pass, then it could serve as the trigger for pushing Poland into leading a Western intervention in Ukraine without full NATO backing.
Warsaw could be misled to believe without any written guarantees that it has the bloc’s support and Article 5 would be activated if its forces clash with Russia’s there, but only to be hung out to dry if that happens so as to stave off World War III by miscalculation for the greater good. Nevertheless, it would still serve the purpose of drawing a red line in the sand that could halt Russia’s advance since NATO might escalate via brinksmanship afterwards by promising to activate Article 5 if the clashes continue.
Poland would also be left to pick up the tab in that event by having to pay the financial and physical costs of this de facto NATO intervention, thus representing an amoral form of “burden-sharing” that would fall solely on its taxpayers instead of the rest of the bloc’s. The farmers’ protests that are rocking that country right now could lead to a full-blown rebellion if that happens since others could join in, however, which the ruling liberal-globalists would prefer not to unfold since they fear that they’d risk losing power.
That’s why they’re reluctant to lead a Western intervention in Ukraine since there’s a high chance that it’ll backfire on them in particular and Poland’s national interests in general despite being to the benefit of Western hegemony as a whole. Whatever ends up happening, the takeaway from Monday’s meeting in Paris and the details that were revealed about their discussions is that NATO is planning for a possible Russian breakthrough across the LOC later this year but isn’t yet sure how to react if that happens.
Poland could either be pushed to preempt that voluntarily or after being manipulated by the false flag that President Lukashenko warned last week is being plotted, with the second option also potentially being employed right after any breakthrough. If this occurs before NATO’s “Steadfast Defender 2024” drills wrap up in June, then those of the bloc’s forces that are presently training in Poland for its largest continental exercises since the Old Cold War could play a pivotal support role or possibly join in as well.
Should a breakthrough occur after those war games end as part of the Russian offensive that Zelensky claimed is being planned for as early as May, however, then Poland probably couldn’t count on as much NATO support and would likely be pressured to go it alone (at least at first) with only vague promises. Another possibility is that the exercises are extended, whether in whole or in part, including through the semi-permanent stationing of some other NATO forces like Germany’s there until the offensive ends.
That might give Poland enough reassurance to take a leap of faith in plunging head-first into Ukraine with the expectation that the rest of NATO will follow even if they purposely lag behind in order to avoid World War III with Russia by miscalculation as was previously explained. It remains to be seen what’ll happen, but as Macron himself said, “we will do everything needed so Russia cannot win the war” and this therefore means that NATO will certainly intervene to some extent if Russia breaks through the LOC.
The bloc can’t afford another Afghan-like disaster, let alone on European soil in the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II, which is why it won’t sit idly on the sidelines as Ukraine collapses if there’s a credible chance of that happening and Russia steamrolling through the ruins. The only reason why they’re now planning for this is because Russia’s victory in the “race of logistics”/“war of logistics” makes it conceivable sometime later this year, though it of course can’t be taken for granted either.
Featured Video
Iran War Just Got Much Bigger / Matt Bracken & Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Germany’s gun grab? Saxony-Anhalt begins disarming AfD members
Remix News | January 6, 2025
Authorities in Germany have begun withdrawing gun ownership licenses from Alternative for Germany (AfD) members, who are deemed a “danger to public safety.”
So far, five AfD members have received a notice that their gun license would be revoked, while another member voluntarily returned his license after a revocation procedure was initiated. Another 51 cases are currently being examined by authorities, according to data released by the Saxony-Anhalt Interior Ministry in response to a request for information from the Left Party.
Hunters and sport shooters will also have their gun licenses canceled by authorities. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iran War Just Got Much Bigger / Matt Bracken & Lt Col Daniel Davis
- Qatar Warns of ‘Industrial Catastrophe’ If Strait of Hormuz Remains Closed
- Israeli Army Closes Tulkarem Zakat Committee Headquarters
- Blaming the Victim in the Gaza Genocide
- Yemeni drones reportedly struck Saudi oil, military sites
- It’s OK to fight for a foreign army (as long as they’re our friends)
- Lavrov: Russia, China keep no technological secrets from each other
- IRGC Navy seizes cutting-edge US unmanned submersible in Strait of Hormuz
- Massie And Burlison Introduce Bill To Defund Flock Surveillance Cameras
- US Warns UK Against Forcing Platforms to Promote Preferred News
- If Americans Knew
- Evangelical Zionist Huckabee attacks Jewish Ed Miliband, accuses UK government of ‘Jew hate’
- Macklemore Responds to Backlash Over “Free Palestine” Plea: “Wanting All Humans to Be Treated Equal Should Never Be Controversial”
- Massie, Kent join ex-officials lighting up Ron Paul ‘revolution’
- How the Oxford Union Censored author Susan Abulhawa
- The Keeper’s Daughter: In Defense of Rula Jebreal
- Gaza Education Crisis Deepens Amid Israeli Destruction, Violations
- Liberal Zionists Are Evil S***Bags
- Three Times in a Week: Israeli Settler Raids Into West Bank Village End With IDF Shooting Palestinians
- West Bank: UN rights report warns of forcible displacement from three refugee camps
- Severe medical shortages in Gaza lead to cancellation of heart surgeries – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
- 2025 Study: ‘There Exists No Unequivocal Experimental Evidence For The CO2 Greenhouse Effect’
- 2026 Atlantic Cyclone Energy Index Running At 85% Below Normal!
- New Research Shows Soil Respiration And Temperature Drive CO2 Change, Not Humans
Aletho News 