Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Time magazine begrudgingly admits “Ukraine Can’t Win the War”

By Ahmed Adel | February 27, 2024

The Ukrainian counteroffensive failed, and Russia’s liberation of Avdeyevka signalled a new reality that Volodymyr Zelensky was forced to recognise, the American magazine Time wrote on February 24. Yet, despite the acknowledgement of the impossibility of Ukraine’s victory growing day by day, the Kiev regime insists on begging for more weapons from Western countries.

“The long-awaited counteroffensive last year failed,” Anatol Lieven, director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in an editorial, adding that Washington’s rhetoric had changed accordingly.

“The Biden Administration’s strategy is now to sustain Ukrainian defence until after the US presidential elections, in the hope of wearing down Russian forces in a long war of attrition,” Lieven continued.

According to the author, the hope now is that Kiev’s forces will achieve the long-awaited breakthrough in 2025 or perhaps the following year, but “Russia will never agree at the negotiating table to surrender land that it has managed to hold on the battlefield.”

“Many Ukrainians in private were prepared to accept the loss of some territories as the price of peace if Ukraine failed to win them back on the battlefield and if the alternative was years of bloody war with little prospect of success. The Biden Administration needs to get America on board too,” he added.

However, Lieven explains that those who believe in Ukraine’s final victory “have engaged in hopes that range from the overly optimistic to the magical,” with an example being the delusional retired US Army General, Ben Hodges, who pushes the false idea “that Russia can be defeated, and even driven from Crimea, by long-range missile bombardment.”

It is obviously ludicrous to believe that a long-range missile bombardment will drive out Russian forces from liberated territories, including Crimea. This does not stop the likes of Hodges from selling this delusion, which also plays into the hands of the Kiev regime, which continues their humiliating begging for more weapons from the West.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba declared on the same day as the publication of the Time article that Kiev is “pressuring” its allies to obtain more weapons.

When asked on local television about Plan B if Ukraine stops receiving military aid from Washington, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, who is also a top regime propagandist, stressed that he is focusing on implementing Plan A.

“When a Plan B is created in times of war, you need to be sure that Plan B will not occur because, in a war, you have to always be focused on Plan A,” he stated, detailing that this plan consists of “maximum consideration of their interests.”

“We are not in a position to make concessions on military supplies,” Kuleba added.

In this context, the minister stated that if they do not receive projectiles from the US, “we will go around the world and bring projectiles from other parts of the world.”

It is recalled that Zelensky warned on February 23 that his country could only “defeat Russia” with military help from the US and that it would certainly fail without this financial help.

Meanwhile, Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine Oleksiy Danilov urged Western countries to hand over to the country’s Armed Forces all the weapons and military equipment they have because, in his opinion, in the future, “the bet will be on something else, the war will be completely different.”

“[This weaponry] will be scrap that they won’t need because there will be a completely different war,” he said.

The Kiev regime refuses to acknowledge that its professional armed forces no longer exist and that no amount of Western weaponry, if it even does arrive, can reverse the tide of Russia’s victory. Effectively, the regime continues to send thousands of Ukrainians to be slaughtered all because it holds onto the faux belief that the lost oblasts and Crimea can be recovered.

But as Lieven writes, “there is no realistic chance of total Ukrainian victory next year, or the year after that,” even if US military aid continues.

He concludes his article by stating: “The lost Ukrainian territories are lost, and NATO membership is pointless if the alliance is not prepared to send its own troops to fight for Ukraine against Russia. Above all, however painful a peace agreement would be today, it will be infinitely more so if the war continues and Ukraine is defeated.”

Lieven is not the sole voice, and there is a crescendo growing in the West affirming the reality that Ukraine cannot win the war, no matter how much support it receives short of direct intervention. It is unsurprising that this corresponds with Donald Trump’s growing popularity over Joe Biden, who claims he can quickly resolve the war in Ukraine in the run-in to the US elections in November. As the months pass and we approach the US elections, it can be expected that scepticism about Ukraine’s victory will increase, especially as Russia is expected to liberate more territories once the winter snow and early spring mud dissipate.

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

February 27, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Nuland accidentally reveals the true aim of the West in Ukraine

By Rachel Marsden | RT | February 27, 2024

US State Department fixture and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, aka “Regime Change Karen,” apparently woke up one day recently, took the safety off her nuclear-grade mouth, and inadvertently blew up the West’s Ukraine narrative.

Until now, Americans have been told that all the US taxpayer cash being earmarked for Ukrainian aid is to help actual Ukrainians. Anyone notice that the $75 billion American contribution isn’t getting the job done on the battlefield? Victory in military conflict isn’t supposed to look like defeat. Winning also isn’t defined as, “Well, on a long enough time axis, like infinity, our chance of defeat will eventually approach zero.” And the $178 billion in total from all allies combined doesn’t seem to be doing the trick, either. Short of starting a global war with weapons capable of extending the conflict beyond a regional one, it’s not like they’ve been holding back. The West is breaking the bank. All for some vague, future Ukrainian “victory” that they don’t seem to want to clearly define. We keep hearing that the support will last “as long as it takes.” For what exactly? By not clearly defining it, they can keep moving the goal posts.

But now here comes Regime Change Karen, dropping some truth bombs on CNN about Ukrainian aid. She started off with the usual talking point of doing “what we have always done, which is defend democracy and freedom around the world.” Conveniently, in places where they have controlling interests and want to keep them – or knock them out of a global competitor’s roster and into their own. “And by the way, we have to remember that the bulk of this money is going right back into the US to make those weapons,” Nuland said, pleading in favor of the latest Ukraine aid package that’s been getting the side eye from Republicans in Congress.

So there you have it, folks. Ukrainians are a convenient pretext to keep the tax cash flowing in the direction of the US military industrial complex. This gives a whole new perspective on “as long as it takes.” It’s just the usual endless war and profits repackaged as benevolence. But we’ve seen this before. It explains why war in Afghanistan was little more than a gateway to Iraq. And why the Global War on Terrorism never seems to end, and only ever mutates. Arguably the best one they’ve come up with so far is the need for military-grade panopticon-style surveillance, so the state can shadow-box permanently with ghosts while bamboozling the general public with murky cyber concepts that it can’t understand or conceptualize. When one conflict or threat dials down, another ramps up, boosted by fearmongering rhetoric couched in white-knighting. There’s never any endgame or exit ramp to any of these conflicts. And there clearly isn’t one for Ukraine, either.

Still, there’s a sense that the realities on the ground in Ukraine, which favor Russia, now likely mean that the conflict is closer to its end than to its beginning. Acknowledgements abound in the Western press. And that means there isn’t much time left for Europe to get aboard the tax cash laundering bandwagon and stuff its own military industrial complexes’ coffers like Washington has been doing from the get-go. Which would explain why a bunch of countries now seem to be rushing to give Ukraine years-long bilateral security “guarantees,” requiring more weapons for everyone. France, Germany, Canada, and Italy have all made the pledge. Plus Denmark, which also flat-out said that it would send all its artillery to Ukraine. If security for Europe is the goal, that sounds kind of like the opposite. Particularly when Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba told the EU that “Russia has gotten closer to your home” in the wake of the most recent defeat in Avdeevka. He sounds like one of those guys in TV ads trying to peddle burglar alarms. Seems like Russia only exists in the minds of the West these days to justify sending weapons to Ukraine to get blown up, while also justifying to taxpayers why they should continue funding this whole charade.

Meanwhile, the West’s drive towards peace seems to be taking the scenic route. “As we move forward, we continue our support to Ukraine in further developing President Zelensky’s Peace Formula,” G7 leaders said after a recent meeting with Zelensky in Kiev. Nice to see that he’s devoting all his time to this magic peace formula instead of running around extorting his friends for cash by threatening them with Putin.

It was already a pretty big hint of what’s really been going on when the EU decided to use the taxpayer-funded European Peace Facility to reimburse EU countries for the unloading of their mothballed, second-hand weapons into Ukraine, where Russia can then dispose of them before anyone could be accused of overcharging for clunkers. Now, with the clunker supply running dry, they just have to make more weapons. Maybe funneling cash into weapons for themselves will be the Hail Mary pass that saves their economies that they’ve tanked “for Ukraine”?

Thanks to Nuland’s nuking of any plausible deniability on Ukrainian “aid” not going to Washington, it’s now clear that Ukrainians continue to die so poor weapons makers don’t end up shaking tin cans on street corners. She has also removed any doubt about the ultimate US goal being Russian regime change, calling Putin’s leadership “not the Russia we wanted,” and sounding like someone who chronically sends back a meal to kitchens of a dining establishment. “We wanted a partner that was going to be Westernizing, that was going to be European. But that’s not what Putin has done,” she told CNN. That’s exactly what Putin has done, actually. It’s the West that’s moved away from itself and is becoming increasingly unrecognizable by its own citizens. Pretty sure that it goes beyond just wanting a country to be “European,” too. Because Germany’s European, and an ally, and Nuland wouldn’t shut up about how much she hated its Nord Stream gas supply — until it mysteriously went kaboom.

Regime Change Karen saying the quiet part out loud has decimated the Western establishment’s narrative so badly that it’s a miracle no one has yet accused her thermonuclear mouth of being an asset of Russia’s weapons program.

Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.

February 27, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Biden regime wants to put the US on permanent war footing

The new ‘defense industrial strategy’ is a boon for the arms makers, not so much for regular Americans

BY JULIA GLEDHILL | RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT | FEBRUARY 23, 2024

The White House is steering the United States into a budgetary ditch it may not be able to get out of.

The Biden administration is supersizing the defense industry to meet foreign arms obligations instead of making tradeoffs essential to any effective budget. Its new National Defense Industrial Strategy lays out a plan to “catalyze generational change” of the defense industrial base and to “meet the strategic moment” — one rhetorically dominated by competition with China, but punctuated by U.S. support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia and Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

Instead of reevaluating its maximalist national security strategy, the Biden administration is doubling down. It is proposing a generation of investment to expand an arms industry that, overall, fails to meet cost, schedule, and performance standards. And if its strategy is any indication, the administration has no vision for how to eventually reduce U.S. military industrial capacity.

When the Cold War ended, the national security budget shrank. Then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and deputy William Perry convened industry leaders to encourage their consolidation in a meeting that later became known as the “Last Supper.” Arms makers were to join forces or go out of business. So they ended up downsizing from over 50 prime contractors to just five. And while contractors needed to pare down their industrial capacity, unchecked consolidation created the monopolistic defense sector we have now — one that depends heavily on government contracts and enjoys significant freedom to set prices.

In the decades since, contractors have leveraged their growing economic power to pave inroads on Capitol Hill. They have solidified their economic influence to stave off the political potential for future national security cuts, regardless of their performance or the geopolitical environment.

Growing the military industrial base over the course of a generation would only further empower arms makers in our economy, deepening the ditch the United States has dug itself into for decades by continually increasing national security spending — and by doling about half of it out to contractors. The U.S. spends more on national security than the next 10 countries combined, outpacing China alone by over 30%.

Ironically, the administration acknowledges in the strategy that “America’s economic security and national security are mutually reinforcing,” stating that “the nation’s military strength depends in part on our overall economic strength.” The strategy further states that optimizing the nation’s defense needs typically requires tradeoffs between “cost, speed, and scale.” It doesn’t mention quality of industrial output — arguably the biggest tradeoff the U.S. government has made in military procurement.

Consider, for instance, the B-2 bomber, the F-35 fighter jet, the Littoral Combat Ship, the V-22 Osprey, and many other examples of acquisition failures that have spanned decades. More recently, the Government Accountability Office has reported that while the number of major defense acquisition programs has fallen, both costs and average delivery time have risen.

So what is the military really getting from more and more national security spending? Less for more: Fewer weapons than it asked for, usually late and over budget, and, much of the time, dysfunctional. Acquisition failures are a major reason the Congressional Budget Office projects that operations and maintenance spending will significantly exceed the rate of inflation for the next decade — a considerable budgeting issue for a military that seemingly has no plans to reduce either its force structure or its industrial capacity. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Biden’s new National Defense Industrial Strategy specifically states there is a need for the U.S. to “move aggressively toward innovative, next-generation capabilities while continuing to upgrade and produce, in significant volumes, conventional weapons systems already in the force.” Ironically, the military has spent over two decades developing the F-35, next-generation technology that the Pentagon still hasn’t greenlit for full-rate production.

Throwing more money at an industrial base comprised of businesses too big to fail won’t increase the quantity or quality of its output. But that’s exactly what the strategy urges. One of the priorities is to “institutionalize supply chain resilience.” It’s an important goal, but one the administration proposes the Pentagon tackle, in part by investing in “spare production capacity,” what the strategy defines as “excess capacity a company or organization maintains beyond its current production needs.”

But building factories to sit empty is not supply chain resilience. It’s wasting money on unnecessary infrastructure, creating a profit motive for arms makers to make more weapons. And for an industry constantly sounding the alarm about the need for consistent “demand signals” from Congress, the Pentagon’s plans to invest a generation of U.S. taxpayer money in “spare production capacity” sounds a lot like throwing the demand-supply principle out the window. In that case, the U.S. might as well consider nationalizing the defense industry, which already lacks competition and relies almost entirely on the government. Why not eliminate the profit motive? It’s not like making money drives contractors to produce quality products on time or within budget.

Besides supply chain resilience, another priority laid out in this strategy is “flexible acquisition.” The stated goal is to reduce costs and development times while increasing scalability. In pursuit of that goal, the administration proposes “a flexible requirements process” for multiyear contracts, and the expansion of multiyear contracting writ large. It reasons that as priorities shift in an “evolving threat environment,” so too should contractors’ deliverables. But pairing flexible requirements with an increasing number of multiyear contracts is a recipe for disaster.

Before Russia attacked Ukraine, multiyear contracts were relatively rare — limited to major aircraft and ships. The Congressional Research Service notes that estimated savings on these programs have historically fallen within the range of 5% — 10%. But those are estimates, and they may not apply to other munitions now produced under multiyear contracts. The report also confirms that actual savings are “difficult to observe,” in part because the Pentagon does not track the cost performance of multiyear contracts.

Just because multiyear contracting is more common doesn’t mean it’s cheaper. And while the Pentagon argues that multiyear contracts give contractors the so-called demand signal they need to ramp up production, contractors don’t usually spend their extra money on identifying efficiencies or making capital investments to increase output at a lower cost — and the Pentagon isn’t checking.

The strategy also proposes “aggressive expansion of production capacity.” It notes that during peacetime, weapons acquisition tends to focus on “greater efficiency, cost effectiveness, transparency, and accountability.” Taking caution not to assert that the United States is in wartime, the strategy contrasts peacetime acquisition policy with “today’s threat environment,” calling for “crisis period acquisition policy” that revitalizes the industrial base and shifts focus from efficiency and effectiveness to ensuring that military contractors are “better resourced.” But contractors don’t have a resource problem, and “crisis acquisition policy” puts the United States on a “permanent war footing.”

Lawmakers must challenge the administration’s maximalist national security strategy by interrogating its push to expand military industrial capacity so drastically. It’s critical that they do, not only because the U.S. is limited in what it can produce and provide to other countries but also because arms industry greed is boundless — and without off-ramps or constraints, the U.S. government may find in 20 or 30 years that it’s in a ditch it can’t get out of.

Julia Gledhill is an analyst in the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight. Before joining POGO, she was a foreign policy associate at the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

February 27, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

US Army calls Russia ‘the enemy’

RT | February 27, 2024

The US Army has branded Moscow the “enemy” while promoting a newly-published manual on the Russian military on social media.

The Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate’s (CADD) new 280-page manual gives a detailed overview of Russian military strategy and tactics, and tries to predict how the country would conduct itself in future conflicts. The CADD promoted the manual in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Monday, asking, “Do you know your enemy?”

The primary focus is on Moscow’s ground forces, which would be pitted against the US Army in a hypothetical direct war.

The document, known as ATP 7-100.1 and released last week, is part of a series that the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has been developing for years. Previous publications provided similar studies of the militaries of other potential near-peer and peer opponents: North Korea, China, and Iran. The materials are not classified and intended for professional US and allied military officers.

With Russia currently involved in the Ukraine conflict, US military researchers stressed that they are still examining data gathered there and would revise their instructions accordingly. They said it was “too early to assess the structure and equipping of any Russian unit for the next 5 to 10 years” with hostilities still ongoing.

Discussing Russia’s relations with the US and its NATO allies, the manual says they are defined “by a perpetual state of competition and self interest.” The country seeks recognition as a world power and it is “highly likely” that future Russian leaders will pursue policies similar to that of the current government “for the foreseeable future,” it said; Russia will “challenge the relative position of US influence in the global order while avoiding direct confrontation with the US military.”

The Russian leadership views NATO as an instrument of American geopolitical hegemony and has called its expansion in Europe a threat to national security. The Ukraine conflict, according to Moscow, is part of a wider US-led proxy war against Russia, in which Ukrainian troops are sacrificed in the name of containment.

”The core of the problem is not in Ukraine but in those who are trying to destroy Russia with Ukrainian hands,” President Vladimir Putin said last month while visiting a military hospital. “Even though they have been pursuing this goal of tackling Russia for ages, we will sooner tackle them.”

February 27, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Kremlin reacts to Macron’s remarks on NATO troops in Ukraine

RT | February 27, 2024

A direct conflict between Russia and NATO will likely become inevitable if member states of the US-led military bloc send troops to Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, after French President Emmanuel Macron raised the possibility.

Macron, whose government hosted a high-profile meeting of Ukraine backers on Monday, said EU members “will do everything necessary to prevent Russia from winning” – including deploying forces on the ground to support Kiev. Several governments have since ruled out sending troops to the front line.

Opponents of the proposal “have a sober assessment of the potential risks” of having NATO forces in Ukraine, Peskov told the media on Tuesday. That would be “absolutely against the interests of those nations” and their people, he warned.

Asked about the probability of a direct conflict with NATO if Western troops are sent to Ukraine, the Kremlin spokesman said, “in this case, we have to talk not about the probability, but rather the inevitability.”

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has spoken out against the idea. Participants of the meeting in Paris came to an agreement against it, he told a news conference on Tuesday.

At a joint press conference in Prague on Tuesday, Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala and his Polish counterpart, Donald Tusk, ruled out sending their citizens to fight in Ukraine. Senior officials in Hungary and Slovakia issued similar statements.

Macron said Western leaders could end up changing their minds in the future, similarly to how they did with military assistance – which in some cases initially involved items such as helmets to eventually donating lethal weaponry including tanks and fighter jets.

While there was no consensus over the proposal, the participants agreed to create a coalition to supply medium and long-range missiles to Kiev, the French president said.

Moscow considers the Ukraine conflict to be a US-orchestrated proxy war against Russia, and has repeatedly warned that by supplying increasingly sophisticated weapons to Kiev, NATO members are drawing closer to a direct confrontation.

February 27, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

By making war threats against China, Ukraine proves to be US vassal state

By Lucas Leiroz | February 27, 2024

The statement was made by deputy Aleksey Goncharenko during an interview with CNN on February 23. On the occasion, Goncharenko emphasized calls for the US to continue sending military aid, criticizing American politicians who are focused only on domestic issues and ignoring Ukraine. According to him, the US needs to “fulfill the promises” made to Kiev about permanent military support.

The legislator’s words, however, were not just about demands from the US. He also made it clear that his country is willing to cooperate militarily with the US in a broad and unrestricted manner – even willing to go to war with other states if Washington deems it necessary. In the interview, he stated that Kiev could fight directly against countries such as China, Iran and North Korea, with no fear regarding the consequences of a conflict of such scale. For him, Ukraine must be prepared to face any US adversary, showing “true friendship” between both countries.

“[If there’s a war, the US] will need people who will stand shoulder to shoulder with them (…) Ukrainians are ready… We are ready to stand with the United States shoulder-to-shoulder, either in trenches near Tehran, or in North Korea, or near Beijing. [There is] no difference (…) Because we appreciate your support,” he said during the interview.

Goncharenko also praised Ukraine’s combat potential, stating that Kiev has “the second strongest army in the free world” – after the US only. This alleged Ukrainian power is the reason why he considers Kiev a “valuable ally” of the US. Obviously, he did not show any data to prove this claim about his country’s military capacity. Kiev is currently severely weakened by the consequences of the conflict with Russia, definitely not being among the most powerful armies in the world.

As bold and controversial as Goncharenko’s statements are, they do not sound surprising considering the parliamentarian’s personal history. He is known for his unrealistic and bellicose positions. For example, he had previously made a declaration saying that Kiev should receive nuclear weapons in order to guarantee its “national security”. According to him, NATO should give Ukraine weapons of mass destruction to prevent a new conflict with Russia from happening in the future. In other words, instead of providing security guarantees to Moscow to prevent war, Goncharenko simply prefers to escalate tensions and create a scenario of possible nuclear confrontation.

“Once again I will say directly and openly: I support the return of nuclear weapons to Ukraine. And I believe that this is our only option for survival,” he said at the time.

In fact, extremist and bellicose statements have become commonplace in Ukraine. However, it is notorious how the regime’s officials no longer even disguise Kiev’s subservience to American interests. By stating that Ukraine is ready for war with China, Iran and North Korea, Goncharenko is not only threatening these countries, but also making it clear that Ukraine is willing to do whatever the US tells it to do, regardless of the national interests and well-being of the Ukrainian people.

Goncharenko is showing that his country is a vassal state, without sovereignty or decision-making power, being completely submissive to the American political will. In practice, this means that the Ukrainian people will never be safe under the Kiev regime, since at any time Ukrainian citizens could be sent to battlefields around the world to defend American interests. Indeed, Goncharenko is proving that the Kiev Junta sees the Ukrainians as mere NATO cannon fodder.

The deputy’s threats are especially controversial at a time when the US is in fact close to engaging in a real conflict situation with the multipolar powers. The crisis in the Middle East could lead to a war between the US and Iran, just as growing tensions in the Pacific could culminate in a military confrontation between Washington and Beijing – or Pyongyang. The possibility of such wars actually occurring makes Goncharenko’s threats a real problem, with the countries he mentioned in the interview having sufficient reasons to be cautious and take measures such as military preparation.

In addition to threatening other nations and demoralizing his own country, Goncharenko is also making Ukraine diplomatically isolated by proving the bellicosity of the neo-Nazi regime.

Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram.

February 27, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO troops in Ukraine can’t be ruled out – Macron

RT | February 26, 2024

French President Emmanual Macron has argued that deployments of troops to Ukraine by NATO members and other allies cannot be ruled out because Western powers must stop at nothing to ensure that Russia does not defeat Kiev’s forces.

“There’s no consensus today to send, in an official manner, troops on the ground,” Macron told reporters after hosting a meeting of European leaders on Monday in Paris. “But in terms of dynamics, we cannot exclude anything. We will do everything necessary to prevent Russia from winning this war.”

France hosted Monday’s summit of Ukraine backers to demonstrate steadfast support and European unity amid concerns that US aid to Kiev may stop, especially if Donald Trump wins this year’s presidential election. Macron said that while Ukraine’s European allies want to avoid escalating the conflict into a direct war with Russia, they agree that they must do more to ensure that Moscow doesn’t win.

“We have to take stock of the situation and realize our collective security is at stake,” the French leader said. “We have to ratchet up. Russia must not win, not only for Ukraine, but secondly, we are, by doing so, ensuring our collective security for today and for the future.”

Macron noted that the allies who say “never, ever” today about direct troop deployments to Ukraine are the same ones that previously ruled out escalations of military aid that were later granted, including long-range missiles and fighter jets. “Two years ago, a lot around this table said that we will offer helmets and sleeping bags, and now they’re saying we need to do more to get missiles and tanks to Ukraine. We have to be humble and realize that we’ve always been six to eight months late, so we’ll do what is needed to achieve our aim.”

There is broad consensus among the nations represented at Monday’s meeting that the allies must provide more aid to Ukraine and step up more quickly, Macron claimed. “We are not at war with the Russian people, but we cannot let them win in Ukraine,” he said, adding, “We are determined to do everything necessary for as long as necessary. That is the key takeaway from this evening.”

Washington ran out of money for Ukraine last month, after burning through $113 billion in congressionally approved aid packages. US President Joe Biden is seeking an additional $60 billion in Ukraine funding as part of an emergency spending bill that also includes aid for Israel and Taiwan. Conservative Republican lawmakers have balked at approving more aid for Ukraine, saying Biden is merely prolonging the conflict without changing its outcome. Trump has claimed he will end the crisis within 24 hours by forcing Ukrainian and Russian leaders to the negotiating table.

February 26, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

After Two Years, Neocons Desperate For More War in Ukraine

By Ron Paul | February 26, 2024

In a recent CNN interview, the normally very confident US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland sounded a little desperate. She was trying to make the case for Congress to pass another $61 billion dollars for the neocons’ proxy war project in Ukraine and she was throwing out the old slogans that the neocons use when they want funding for their latest war.

Asked by CNN whether she believes that Congress will eventually pass the bill, Nuland responded that she has confidence that, “we will do what we have always done, which is defend democracy and freedom around the world…”

What Nuland is attempting here is what the neocons always do. They try to wrap their terrible policies up in the American flag and sell it to the American people as something reflective of “our” values. If you oppose another neocon war, well then you are unpatriotic according to their trickery.

But Americans are waking up to the lies of the neocons and more and more are realizing that there is no “we” when the neocons are trying to sell another war. It is “them.” The “we” in the equation are the people who are being robbed to pay for what will inevitably be another neocon failure.

Does any American still believe that Washington was “defending democracy and freedom” when it used a pack of lies to get us into Iraq, where a country was destroyed and perhaps a million people were killed? How about when, after 20 years in Afghanistan, we managed to replace the Taliban… with the Taliban? And Syria and Libya and all the other interventions?

Was Washington “defending democracy” when Nuland and the rest of the neocons successfully overthrew a democratically elected government in Ukraine in 2014?

It’s getting harder and harder for the American people to choke down the war lies of the neocons. That is something that should make us feel optimistic. In the same interview, Nuland said she was confident that when House Members return to session next week, “after they’ve been out in their districts hearing from the American people,” they will vote to send the $61 billion to Ukraine.

Looking at public opinion polls, however, it is far more likely that any Member meeting with constituents during the break will hear the opposite. It is likely they will hear a demand that not another penny be spent on the brutal, futile, and disastrous Ukraine war. According to a Harris poll taken earlier this month, some 70 percent of Americans want talks to end the Ukraine war!

Americans no longer support the neocon war project in Ukraine. That is something to celebrate.

Perhaps in a last show of desperation, Victoria Nuland debuted another argument for keeping the war money flowing for Ukraine. She said, “we have to remember that the bulk of this money is going right back into this economy to make those weapons…”

Is this supposed to be attractive to the American people? The middle class and the poor are being destroyed by inflation and squeezed by a debased currency so that the wealthy, politically-connected weapons manufacturers can get even richer? Instead of money to rebuild this country and protect its borders, Americans should be thrilled to see their hard work go up in smoke, literally, in Ukraine?

February 26, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

NYTs Report: CIA OPS in Ukraine for a Decade

Turns out Russia had good reason for grave concern

BY JOHN LEAKE | COURAGEOUS DISCOURSE | FEBRUARY 26, 2024

The New York Times just reported that the CIA has been very active in conducting anti-Russian operations in Ukraine for over a decade, and is now playing an active role in combat operations against Russia.

To be sure, many analysts in the United States and Europe have known this for years, but the New York Times report confirms our worst suspicions. It seems to me that every sensible person who understands basic concepts of national security should now be asking himself: Why should Russia tolerate the CIA turning Ukraine into an arena for undermining Russian security? How would the United States government respond to Russian intelligence agencies setting up shop on the Mexican border to run operations against the United States? For my part, I’m surprised that Putin tolerated the CIA’s activities in Ukraine for as long as he did.

Now it seems to recent drone strikes on Russian assets are being assisted by the CIA, and the cat is out of the bag, putting the United States yet another step closer to a full blown military confrontation with Russia.

February 26, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Some EU, NATO States Ponder Possibility of Sending Military to Ukraine – Slovakia’s Fico

Sputnik – 26.02.2024

BRATISLAVA – Some EU and NATO countries are mulling over the possibility of sending their military to Ukraine on the basis of bilateral agreements, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on Monday.

Later in the day, Paris will host a meeting where members of the EU and NATO will discuss the situation in Ukraine.

“For me, today’s meeting [in Paris] is confirmation that the West’s strategy in Ukraine has failed, but I want to be constructively prepared for it … It follows from these arguments that a group of NATO and EU countries are considering [the option] to send their military to Ukraine on the basis of bilateral agreements,” Fico told reporters after a meeting of the government and the security council.

Possible deployment of the EU and NATO military to Ukraine will not allow them to achieve concessions from Russia, but will only lead to an escalation of the conflict, the prime minister said.

Slovakia is not planning to send its soldiers to Ukraine, Fico added.

February 26, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine ready for war with China – top MP

Kiev is a “valuable ally” of Washington, Aleksey Goncharenko said while demanding more funding

Ukrainian lawmaker Aleksey Goncharenko at a press conference on Capitol Hill on February 5, 2015 in Washington, DC. © AFP PHOTO/BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI
RT | February 24, 2024

Kiev is ready to assist the US in a war against any enemy, be it Iran, North Korea, or China, a senior Ukrainian MP has said, claiming that his country would prove to be a valuable military ally.

In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Friday, Aleksey Goncharenko doubled down on calls for the US to send Ukraine more military aid amid gridlock in Congress. “[The] United States of America told [us that] we will be with you ‘as long as it takes.’ Now it’s time to keep the promises.”

Goncharenko rebuked US politicians for focusing too much on the looming 2024 presidential election, saying Ukraine should not be a “victim” of this. He also claimed that supporting Ukraine serves Washington’s interests regardless of who wins the race for the White House.

In the event of a future war, the Americans “will need people who will stand shoulder to shoulder with them,” but not many nations would be willing to go all-in to support the US, the lawmaker said.

”Ukrainians are ready… We are ready to stand with the United States shoulder-to-shoulder, either in trenches near Tehran, or in North Korea, or near Beijing. No difference,” he stated. “Because we appreciate your support.”

Despite his plea for more Western military aid, Goncharenko argued that Ukraine has “the second strongest army in the free world” after the US, making it “a very valuable ally.”

“But today we need your support to defend our country,” he added, blaming gaps and delays in arms shipments for the loss of the strategic Donbass city of Avdeevka last week. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the Ukrainian retreat from the heavily fortified city, which was often used as a launching pad to target civilians in Donetsk, turned into a disorganized rout with heavy casualties.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that the capture of Avdeevka is “certainly a success,” adding that it needs to be advanced further.

Last year, Putin claimed that the Ukrainian government was defending the interests of other countries rather than its own, and that the West was using Kiev as “a battering ram” and a “testing ground” against Russia.

February 24, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

White House scrambles for legal loopholes in Yemen war

The Cradle | February 23, 2024

National security lawyers working for the Biden White House are seeking legal loopholes to justify the US war on Yemen, a new report from The New York Times (NYT) on 23 February details.

At question is the legality under US law of strikes carried out by the US Navy on Yemeni targets on three separate days starting in January and the detention of 14 Pakistani sailors the US accuses of transporting weapons to Yemen.

US involvement in Yemen began after Yemen’s Ansarallah-led government ordered its armed forces to target Israeli-linked commercial ships passing through the Bab al-Mandab Strait in the Red Sea in November.

Ansarallah is seeking to compel Israel to end its bombing campaign in Gaza, which has resulted in widespread killing and destruction. Israel has killed over 29,000 Palestinians – the majority of whom were women and children.

Rather than end its support for Israel’s campaign – which many view as genocide – the White House instead ordered the US Navy to protect Israeli ships passing through the Red Sea. This led to Yemeni forces attacking US and UK Naval ships.

The US has carried out 30 strikes in response. According to the national security lawyers, most of the strikes can be characterized as self-defense because they allegedly targeted sites from which missiles were about to be launched at US or UK ships. It has also become routine for the Navy to shoot down Yemeni attack drones in the Red Sea.

However, according to NYT, three major sets of US and UK strikes in Yemen were not in self-defense: on 11 January, 22 January, and 3 February. Those strikes were pre-emptive and targeted weapons bunkers, command hubs, and other targets, with authorization from President Joe Biden.

Because the strikes were not in self-defense, this means that the White House can engage in hostilities against Yemen for only 60 days before seeking congressional approval, per the 1973 War Powers Resolution. That 60-day clock would end on 12 March.

To continue the war on Yemen beyond that date, the White House will need to find a loophole in the resolution.

NYT writes that according to one US official, the text of the War Powers Resolution states that a president must have “introduced” US forces into conflict for the 60-day clock to apply. “It is not clear whether the law would apply to a situation in which the Navy was already in the Red Sea before hostilities arose, the official said.”

The White House also argues, in a contradictory fashion, that the strikes on Yemen are both too frequent to constitute being at war with Yemen and not frequent enough.

The US official said the strikes on Yemen “have been brief and infrequent, raising the possibility that they are too intermittent for the clock to apply.”

The same official at the same time pointed to operations “in which combat was more frequent or posed a greater threat to American forces,” which might provide a precedent for the current war on Yemen. These include the use of US Navy escorts for oil tankers in the Persian Gulf in 1987 under president Ronald Reagan, in which 37 Navy sailors were killed, as well as US strikes in Libya in 2011 under president Barack Obama to topple the government of Muammar Qaddafi. Congress did not approve the military operations in either case.

According to Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the George W. Bush administration, “The lawyers are taking advantage of a famously loophole-filled statute,” he said.

“The executive branch has been exploiting those loopholes for almost 50 years, creating many supporting precedents, and Congress has not stood on its prerogative to do anything about it.”

February 23, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »