Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Germany swims or sinks with NATO

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | FEBRUARY 17, 2024 

There couldn’t be a better metaphor than what a Chinese analyst used to characterise NATO while commenting on its secretary general Jens Stoltenberg’s recent remark that the West does not seek war with Russia but should still “prepare ourselves for a confrontation that could last decades.”

The Chinese commentator compared Stoltenberg to a firm of undertakers, “a store owner of coffin and casket, which makes no money in peacetime. As an undertaker, NATO needs conflict, bloodshed for earnings. So it spreads fear and panic in order to ensure its member countries continue to contribute military funding.”

Stoltenberg’s remark appeared in an interview with German newspaper Welt Am Sonntag on Feb. 10, soon after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s famous interview with Tucker Carlson where the Kremlin signalled that Russia did not refuse and is not refusing negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. Stoltenberg spoke for the Pentagon, no doubt. 

Moscow, having reached  an unassailable position in the war, is not interested in a full-scale war to realise its objectives, as eventually, the West will have to co-exist with Russia. Putin’s interview with Carlson was timed carefully — with hardly a fortnight left for the war to enter its third year. 

Putin’s “message” that Russia is open to dialogue caught Washington off guard. For one thing, the bandwidth of the Biden Administration is dominated by the Israel-Palestine crisis. On the other hand, the two-year anniversary of the war is marked by a signal battlefield victory by Russian forces in the strategic eastern town of Avdiivka, a gateway to Donetsk city, and effectively on the front line ever since 2014 when the conflict in Donbass started.

All attempts by Russian troops to liquidate the big Ukrainian base in Avdiivka threatening Donetsk city had failed so far. Avdiivka is key to Russia’s aim of securing full control of the two eastern Donbass provinces — Donetsk and Luhansk. Its capture not only boosts the Russian morale but also consolidates Donetsk as a major Russian logistics hub for further westerly operations in the direction of the Dniepr river.

In political terms, it underscores that all along the almost 1000-km frontline, Russian forces are presently advancing. The Ukrainian military suffered a rout in Avdiivka. 

Biden’s re-election bid will be bumpy if such distressing news keeps appearing from Ukraine highlighting the gravity of his foreign policy disaster, as NATO stares at another humiliating defeat after Afghanistan. Donald Trump is relentlessly challenging Biden on the issue of Russia-Ukraine and on NATO. Contrary to earlier prognosis, the US election has turned into one of the most influencing factors in the Ukraine conflict. 

The path in the US Congress towards a military aid package for Ukraine is uncertain. The main obstacle all along was the House of Representatives, where Republicans have a majority. Apart from the Republican Speaker of the House being not in any hurry to table the bill passed by the Senate, the Congress is also about to shift back towards domestic fiscal policies, so that the foreign aid bill might simply fall down the list of priorities in the legislative agenda.

Meanwhile, the hearing in the Supreme Court on Trump’s candidacy signals that the talk that he might be debarred from running for the presidency is only wishful thinking. That means, if Trump maintains his lead in the South Carolina primaries on 24th  February, the Republican race will be essentially over and he will be the party’s presumptive candidate. Trump has also widened his lead over Joe Biden in the polls.

The flow of finance to Ukraine is already ebbing and there is a pall of gloom among Ukraine’s cheerleaders in Europe after having discovered finally that Kiev is not winning the war. The West’s proxy war without a clearly set war goal means that there is no exit strategy, either.

A Trump victory would badly expose the European partners. Plugging the funding gap by Europe is going to be highly problematic. The US has so far committed €71.4 billion, more than half of it in the form of military aid. Number two is Germany with €21 billion, followed by the UK with €13.3 billion. Norway comes fourth. The paradox is, while the three largest European donors are all NATO members, it is only Germany who is a member of the European Union.

And Germany is not big enough to fill the gap left by the US on its own. But the biggest obstacle to a common European response is the lack of common ground between France and Germany. The special Franco-German relationship has largely become a historical artefact. The two EU giants are pursuing incompatible economic strategies — on fiscal policy and nuclear energy — and their economies are diverging, and so are their politics and defence strategies. 

Chancellor Olaf Scholz has reoriented German defence co-operation away from France and towards the US. The power struggle between the EU’s two biggest powers that had its origins in the lack of chemistry between French president Emmanuel Macron and Scholz has turned into an antagonism manifesting as two different visions of the world. 

Macron’s concept of “strategic autonomy”, which calls for Europe not to rely on outside powers in vital areas that could give them political leverage, is rubbing against Germany’s historical reliance on the American military umbrella (which France does not require.) 

After a meeting with Biden at the White House in Washington on February 9, Scholz said, “Let’s not beat about the bush: support from the United States is indispensable if Ukraine is to be capable of defending itself.” Scholz strongly advocated stepping up military aid to Ukraine, emphasising an imperative need to send out a “very clear signal” to Putin. 

As he put it, “We need to show that he (Putin) can’t count on our support waning.” Scholz added: “The support we provide will be on a big enough scale and it will last long enough.” By hyping up the war-like atmosphere, Germany seeks to maintain the relevance and financial stability of NATO through the conflict in Ukraine. 

Biden responded to Scholz purring like a cat showing pleasure. Biden will next host Poland’s President Andrzej Duda and Prime Minister Donald Tusk for a meeting in Washington on March 12. The US is re-energising its coalition with Germany and Poland for the next phase of Ukraine war. France stands outside looking in, while Britain lies in coma. 

Simply put, while Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s delusion is that he can win this war, NATO’s delusion is that it will do whatever it takes. But the undertaker’s money is running out and further business depends on prolonging the war. 

The veil has come off the western narrative — this war was never about Ukraine. The enemy image of Russia has become the cornerstone of NATO’s very existence and function.

Certainly, taking orders from an undertaker is not in Germany’s interests. The noted German editor Wolfgang Münchau wrote recently about “a general disorientation in Germany that accompanies the geopolitical and social change” manifesting in the faltering economy, the de-industrialisation that is happening and the absence of a post-industrial strategy for the country as such. 

Clearly, European interests lie in shouldering their own defence and making peace with Russia so as to focus attention on the economy. Germans themselves are conflicted over this war. Scholz is not a man of charisma or of big ideas, Münchau noted, and the German public no longer trusts him. But then, there is also “the deeper problem: it is not really Scholz. It is that Germany has become a lot harder to run.”  

February 17, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Germany and Ukraine sign ‘long term’ security deal

RT | February 16, 2024

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky have signed a security pact under which Berlin will supply Kiev with military and economic aid for another ten years.

Inked on Friday, the 10-page agreement commits Germany to providing “unwavering support for Ukraine for as long as it takes in order to help Ukraine defend itself” and restore its 1991 borders. In addition to retaking the regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye, this feat would also involve the seizure of Crimea from Russia, which some American officials and Kiev’s former military chief view as next to impossible.

On top of military aid, the plan binds Germany to training Ukrainian police officers, transferring weapons manufacturing technology, paying for green energy projects, and a range of other efforts to help the Ukrainian government “continue providing services to its people”

Speaking at a ceremony in Berlin, Zelensky said that the details of the agreement “are very specific and involve long-term support,” and that the pact proves that one day “Ukraine will be in NATO.”

Germany is Ukraine’s second-largest Western backer, behind only the US. To date, Berlin has given Kiev €22 billion ($23.7 billion) in assistance, including €17.7 billion in military aid, according to figures compiled by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. When aid transferred via the EU is included, Germany has handed over a total of €28 billion to Ukraine, Scholz said on Friday.

In addition to signing the decade-long pledge to Ukraine, Scholz announced a new package of military aid worth €1.1 billion. It will include 36 self-propelled howitzers, 120,000 artillery shells, and additional ammunition for Ukraine’s German-provided Iris-T air defense systems.

Germany’s outlay has hurt its own military readiness, with the New York Times reporting in November that training exercises are routinely canceled due to ammunition shortages, while German soldiers have yet to fire their latest howitzers, all of which have been sent to Ukraine.

Scholz’s decision to sanction Russian energy imports has also hammered the German economy, with industrial output falling by 2% last year, while the entire economy shrank by 0.3% in the same time period, according to the country’s Federal Statistical Office. One in three German manufacturers is currently considering moving abroad, Federation of German Industries (BDI) chief Siegfried Russwurm told Bild on Saturday, citing persistent inflation and high energy costs.

February 16, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

The Vladimir Putin Interview – Part Two

Part Two — Is Russia Angling for an Exit?

By William Schryver – imetatronink – February 15, 2024

In the immediate aftermath of Tucker Carlson’s interview of Vladimir Putin, Carlson recorded at least two brief segments during which he gave his impressions of the experience. I was exceedingly surprised that one of his foremost “takeaways” from the interview was that Putin had expressed a desire to enter into negotiations to bring the hostilities in Ukraine to an end; that Putin was, as it were, “angling for an exit” from the war.

This is a gross misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what Putin actually said — and the fact is that Putin, on multiple occasions, reiterated his posture on the question.

Tucker Carlson: Will there be talks? And why haven’t there been talks about resolving the conflict in Ukraine? Peace talks.

Putin’s reply came without hesitation:

Vladimir Putin: There have been. They reached a very high stage of coordination of positions in a complex process, but still they were almost finalized. But after we withdrew our troops from Kiev, as I have already said, the other side (Ukraine) threw away all these agreements and obeyed the instructions of … European countries and the United States to fight Russia to the bitter end.

A brief discussion ensued wherein Carlson suggested that the negotiations must take place between Russia and the United States, rather than between Russia and Ukraine, and he (Carlson) lamented that Putin had not even spoken with US President Joe Biden since the war commenced.

Tucker Carlson: … why don’t you just call Biden and say “let’s work this out”?

Vladimir Putin: What’s there to work out? It’s very simple. I repeat, we have contacts through various agencies. I will tell you what we are saying on this matter and what we are conveying to the US leadership: “If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks. That’s it. And then we can agree on some terms …”

What’s easier? Why would I call him? What should I talk to him about? Or beg him for what? “You’re going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine. Oh, I’m afraid, I’m afraid, please don’t.” What is there to talk about?

I don’t know how Putin could have been more clear about the Russian posture at this stage of the war [paraphrasing]: “If the United States desires for the war to end, the solution is simple: STOP FIGHTING US!”

Earlier in the interview, Carlson had asked Putin if Russia had now achieved its aims in the war. Putin explicitly replied in the negative.

What are Russia’s aims in this war? Well, they were explicitly articulated in Putin’s two landmark speeches delivered in February 2022.

In his February 21, 2022 speech, Putin meticulously recounted the relevant history of the region dating back multiple centuries, and focused specifically on the events that followed in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

In addition to Putin’s history lesson, he makes particular reference to a detailed proposal Russia delivered to the United States and its NATO allies in mid-December 2021 — a proposal that effectively amounted to a “final warning”; a last-ditch effort to avoid war in Ukraine.

Consider his words carefully, and particularly in light of how Russia has unswervingly adhered to the objectives Putin articulated in his February 24, 2022 speech.

Last December, we handed over to our Western partners a draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees, as well as a draft agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and NATO member states.

The United States and NATO responded with general statements. There were kernels of rationality in them as well, but they concerned matters of secondary importance and it all looked like an attempt to drag the issue out and to lead the discussion astray.

We responded to this accordingly and pointed out that we were ready to follow the path of negotiations, provided, however, that all issues are considered as a package that includes Russia’s core proposals which contain three key points. First, to prevent further NATO expansion. Second, to have the Alliance refrain from deploying assault weapon systems on Russian borders. And finally, rolling back the bloc’s military capability and infrastructure in Europe to where they were in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed.

Vladimir Putin, Address by the President of the Russian Federation, February 21, 2022

(emphasis added)

I submit we can confidently assume Putin was as deadly serious on February 21, 2022 as he was on February 24, 2022; that he was not bluffing; that he was resolved to “raise the stakes” commensurate to whatever was required to achieve the objectives he had so carefully articulated.

The Russian objectives, as delineated in February of 2022, were as follows:

  • To prevent further NATO expansion.
  • To compel the withdrawal of NATO military forces and infrastructure to their 1997 borders.
  • To demilitarize Ukraine.
  • To denazify Ukraine.
  • To restore to mother Russia the portions of the “Russian Nation” that had been previously severed from it as a result of the ill-considered decisions of Russian leadership over the course of the twentieth century.

As the war has continued, Russian territorial objectives have been further defined. In addition to the reassimilation of the Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions into Russia, it is now clear that the Russians are determined to reassimilate into the motherland the Kharkov region and all of the regions bordering the Black Sea coast, extending to the Danube River bordering Romania.

I was convinced as early as February 27, 2022 that it would become imperative for Russia to reassimilate at least the territory indicated on the map below:

Indeed, based on numerous repeated statements from various of the foremost Russian government leaders, including President Putin, it is increasingly evident that the imperatives of Russian “strategic depth” will not be satisfied short of reassimilating both the red and orange-shaded regions indicated on this map, and perhaps even the region shaded in yellow:

It is categorically false to believe Russia would be willing to “freeze” the conflict on the current line of contact, or even with the full annexation of the four regions that have already conducted referendums to rejoin Russia.

I submit that Vladimir Putin’s domestic popularity AND the support of his generals correlate closely to the perception that he will not waver from the objectives he set forth in the beginning. Indeed, it has only been the misplaced sense that he might stop short of achieving his stated objectives that has resulted in meaningful criticism arising from his domestic supporters — whether in government, the military, or the general public.

I further submit that it is precisely the burgeoning faith that Putin will resolutely pursue and achieve his stated objectives that has resulted in the unprecedented willingness of China, Iran, India, and other geostrategically important Eurasian and Global South nations to not only openly support Russia in this conflict, but to also, in many instances, openly defy imperial decrees forbidding military and commercial relations with Russia.

I am thoroughly convinced that a large proportion of the support Russia continues to command across the planet is directly correlated to a pervasive perception that the Russians “really meant it” when they solemnly, formally, and explicitly informed the United States and NATO that peace would henceforth be contingent on them “… rolling back the bloc’s military capability and infrastructure in Europe to where they were in 1997, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed.”

Near the end of the interview, Carlson once again returned to the topic of negotiations to end the conflict:

Tucker Carlson: … are you worried that what’s happening in Ukraine could lead to something much larger and much more horrible and how motivated are you just to call the US government and say “let’s come to terms”?

Vladimir Putin: I already said that we did not refuse to talk. We are willing to negotiate. It is the Western side [not willing to negotiate], and Ukraine is obviously a satellite state of the U.S. It is evident. I do not want you to take it as if I am looking for a strong word or an insult, but we both understand what is happening.

Putin then briefly referred to the massive amounts of money and weaponry the NATO nations have pumped into Ukraine, and made the point again that, if there was a desire for the war to end, NATO support for Ukraine must end first.

Tucker Carlson: … that is why I asked about dealing directly with the Biden administration, which is making these decisions, not president Zelensky of Ukraine.

Putin then proceeds to explain to Carlson the situation in terms that ought to have defied any misunderstanding. Indeed, this is arguably the single most important part of the entire interview. Pay close attention to how Putin frames the issue:

Vladimir Putin: Well, if the Zelensky administration in Ukraine refused to negotiate, I assume that they did it under the instruction from Washington. If Washington believes it to be the wrong decision, let it abandon it, let it find a delicate excuse so that no one is insulted, let it come up with a way out. It was not us who made this decision, it was them, so let them go back on it. … They did it so let them correct it themselves. We support this.

And yet, amazingly, the ill-prepared and slow-to-comprehend Tucker Carlson still does not grasp Putin’s meaning:

Tucker Carlson: So, I just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding what you are saying — and I don’t think that I am — I think you are saying you want a negotiated settlement to what’s happening in Ukraine.

Putin visibly sighs at this retort, and patiently attempts again to make Carlson understand. He reminds Carlson of how a tentative peace settlement had been reached in early 2022, but was then torpedoed by the west, who instead persuaded Ukraine to fight on, with the reassurance that NATO would continue to support them “for as long it takes”.

Vladimir Putin: … we prepared a huge document in Istanbul that was initialed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation. He affixed his signature to some of the provisions … [later] he himself said: “We were ready to sign it and the war would have been over long ago, eighteen months ago. However, Prime Minister Johnson came, talked us out of it and we missed that chance.”

Well, you missed it, you made a mistake … Why do we have to bother ourselves and correct somebody else’s mistakes?

I know one can say it is our mistake, it was us who intensified the situation and decided to put an end to the war that started in 2014 in Donbass, as I have already said, by means of weapons. Let me get back further in history, I already told you this, we were just discussing it. Let us go back to 1991 when we were promised that NATO would not be expanded, to 2008 when the doors to NATO opened, to the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine declaring Ukraine a neutral state. Let us go back to the fact that NATO and US military bases started to appear on the territory of Ukraine creating threats for us. Let us go back to the coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014. It is pointless though, isn’t it? We may go back and forth endlessly. But they stopped negotiations. Is it a mistake? Yes. Correct it. We are ready. What else is needed?

Tucker Carlson: Do you think it is too humiliating at this point for NATO to accept Russian control of what was two years ago Ukrainian territory?

Vladimir Putin: I said let them think how to do it with dignity. There are options if there is a will.

Up until now there has been the uproar and screaming about inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. Now they are apparently coming to realize that it is difficult to achieve, if possible at all. In my opinion, it is impossible by definition. It is never going to happen. It seems to me that now those who are in power in the West have come to realize this as well. If so, if the realization has set in, they have to think what to do next. We are ready for this dialogue.

That both Tucker Carlson and others have failed to correctly interpret Putin’s words is incomprehensible to me. So permit me to paraphrase them in language that is perhaps more understandable to the dimwitted and disingenuous people in the west who continue to misrepresent them:

“We offered them an early out, and they rejected it in favor of an appeal to arms in order to inflict what they imagined would be a severe strategic defeat against Russia on the field of battle. But their reach greatly exceeded their grasp. They cannot defeat us. Now let them seek a delicate exit from the mess they’ve gotten themselves into — but we will achieve our objectives.”

February 15, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US Militarizes Space While Using ‘Russia Threat’ as Smokescreen

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 15.02.2024

Mainstream media fuss over groundless accusations of Russia deploying nuclear weapons in space is gaining steam while diverting attention from Washington’s militarization of space, Dmitry Stefanovich, a research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, told Sputnik.

The mainstream US media claimed on February 14 that there is new intelligence that Russia has developed space-based nuclear weapon capabilities designed to undermine the US satellite network.

The intelligence was reportedly briefed to Congress and even key American allies with some lawmakers insisting that it was “very serious”.

Moscow has rejected the claims as yet another attempt by the US establishment to pass a $60 billion funding package for Ukraine, amid House unwillingness to send good money after bad to the corrupt Kiev regime.

Research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Dmitry Stefanovich, drew attention to the fact that the mainstream media’s comments are highly contradictory.

“Some say that something has already been deployed [in space], some say that something is planned to be deployed, some are talking about nuclear arms, and some are speculating about nuclear power equipment,” the researcher said, adding that the comments resemble nothing more than an exercise in smoke and mirrors.

On the other hand, one could hardly imagine that Moscow would resort to deploying nuclear arms in space given Moscow’s obligations as a signatory country and, moreover, as a depositary country of the Outer Space Treaty, the expert stressed.

The Outer Space Treaty outlines that “states shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner.” The Treaty was opened for signature by the three “depository governments” – the USSR (with Russia being its legal successor), the UK and the US – in January 1967. It entered into force in October 1967.

What’s more, the use of nuclear weapons in space would destroy spacecraft indiscriminately, knocking out American and Russian satellites alike, as well as those of third countries, Stefanovich pointed out.

“Starting to shoot down satellites all in a row is quite a serious escalation,” warned the researcher.

He likewise pointed out that in the event of a large-scale military confrontation, Moscow has conventional means to disrupt an adversary’s satellite constellations without needing to resort to nuclear arms.

“One can shoot down satellites with missiles,” Stefanovich said. “The S-500 missile defense system is capable of performing such tasks. There is no doubt that satellites in low orbit can be shot down from Earth. These tests were carried out by the Soviet Union, the US, China, and India. (…) One can jam or blind satellites. We know about the Peresvet complex, that it exists, and it presumably allows [Russia] to shield its [military positions] from observation.”

“Plus there are options with orbital interception. That is, there are so-called satellite inspectors that could provide tracking [of enemy spacecraft]; there are robotic arms that can theoretically grab satellites. (…) Plus, of course, returning to non-kinetic scenarios, these are different options using electronic warfare systems, as well as cyber impact systems,” the expert continued.

According to Stefanovich, Russia’s major aim is to prevent the militarization of space, whereas the US openly proclaims a goal of space dominance.

Thus, the US created the Space Force (USSF) in December 2019 – a new branch of the US Armed Forces. While announcing the establishment of the new Pentagon unit in June 2018, former US President Donald Trump specifically underlined the need to “have American dominance in space.”

Meanwhile, the US has itself shown it is willing and able to knock out satellites.

In early 2008, the Pentagon launched Operation Burnt Frost which used a navy-guided missile cruiser to launch an SM-3 missile into space which knocked down a non-functioning National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) satellite and showcased its capabilities in shooting down satellites.

Days before the Pentagon’s strike, China and Russia introduced a draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT) to the Conference on Disarmament (CD), the world’s permanent multilateral disarmament treaty negotiating body. However, the US dismissed the proposal, dubbing it “a diplomatic ploy by the two nations to gain a military advantage.”

“The militarization of space began, in fact, simultaneously with the beginning of the space age,” Stefanovich said. “Space has always had a military dimension. Now the problem we are trying to solve is to prevent weapons from being placed in space. Russia’s position is that we need a legally binding document to prevent the placement of weapons in space. We need to stop the arms race in outer space.”

“When it comes to the American potential, they have created a space force and a huge satellite constellation. The main threat here is not yet in strike systems, but in surveillance systems, both systems that allow, in fact, reconnaissance activities and target designation on Earth. This is a really serious problem,” the researcher concluded.

February 15, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

IRGC simulates destroying Israeli F-35 hangars with ballistic missiles

Press TV – February 14, 2024

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has simulated using ballistic missiles to destroy hangars housing the Israeli regime’s United States-procured F-35 warplanes.

The simulation took place during an exercise that was carried out by the Corps on Tuesday on the occasion of the National Guards Day, Iran’s Tasnim News Agency reported.

The drill saw the IRGC firing enhanced versions of its Emad and Qadr ballistic missiles against the F-35 hangars located inside a mock-up of the occupying regime’s Palmachim Airbase.

The ballistic missiles used during the drill boasted enhanced explosive nosecones as well as increased range and precision.

According to Tasnim, the enhanced version of the Emad liquid-fuel missiles struck the targets lying 1,700 kilometers (1056 miles) away with a margin of error of less than four meters.

Located 12 kilometers (seven miles) south of the city of Tel Aviv on the Mediterranean coast, Palmachim Airbase serves as the main facility housing the regime’s much-vaunted F-35 aircraft.

Speaking at the same airbase last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu allegedly threatened the Islamic Republic with military action.

The Islamic Republic has repeatedly warned that it would never initiate a military action against another party, but would respond decisively and with its utmost power in case it came under attack.

Earlier this month, a senior IRGC commander warned the Israeli regime that endangering the Islamic Republic’s interests anywhere in the world would not go unanswered.

Brigadier General Abbas Nilforoushan, the IRGC’s deputy commander for operations, said, “This fake regime knows very well that it has received the answer to its evils daily. Whenever we decide, we will not hesitate to protect our interests and the Islamic Revolution, respond to Israeli acts of mischief with great force, and preserve the blood of our martyrs.”

February 14, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

No chance of diplomatic solution to Ukraine conflict – FM Lavrov

RT | February 14, 2024

The West will not offer a realistic diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict because the US and its allies are still intent on inflicting a strategic defeat on Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday.

Briefing Russian MPs on his ministry’s work and the current international situation, Lavrov stated that Moscow is “at the advance guard in the fight for a better future,” adding that the Western-dominated system is giving way to a multipolar world.

The US and its allies, however, remain committed to waging a hybrid war against anyone that prioritizes national interests, as evidenced by the continued Ukraine conflict, Lavrov claimed.

There has been a shift in Western rhetoric due to Moscow’s battlefield successes, according to the minister, with officials now focusing on preventing a Russian victory rather than ensuring its defeat. Nonetheless, their core policy of trying to damage Russia remains the same, Lavrov said, meaning the conflict is unlikely to be resolved diplomatically.

“Considering that those who declared a war on us offer no serious proposals and are unwilling to respect our interests and the reality on the ground, getting an agreement at the negotiating table will certainly be impossible. No such scenario is foreseen,” the diplomat stated.

Lavrov insisted that the West had initiated the conflict through its continued quest for “global domination and exceptionalism.” Russia, meanwhile, is working with its allies to dismantle the current system, which it perceives as colonialist in nature, he told the lawmakers.

US President Joe Biden reiterated his Ukraine policy on Tuesday, urging the House of Representatives to adopt a Senate-approved foreign aid package including roughly $60 billion for Kiev. The money will mostly fund arms production in the US and will help Ukraine oppose the “vicious onslaught” by Russia, Biden claimed.

“The United States pulled together a coalition of nearly 50 nations to support Ukraine. We unified NATO; we expanded it. We can’t walk away now,” the leader declared.

If approved, the bill would raise the amount of military assistance provided to Ukraine by the US since the outbreak of hostilities in February 2022 to some $170 billion.

February 14, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Blood on BoJo’s Hands

Putin’s claim that Boris Johnson scuttled peace deal confirmed by witnesses

BY JOHN LEAKE | COURAGEOUS DISCOURSE | FEBRUARY 13, 2024

Former British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and the mainstream media are hotly denying Vladimir Putin’s claim (in his recent Tucker Carlson interview) that Johnson derailed a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine just a couple of months after the war commenced.

And yet, Putin was merely confirming the statement of David Arahamiya, leader of Ukraine’s ruling party, that was reported in Newsweek on November 27, 2023: Russia Offered to End War if Ukraine Dropped NATO Bid: Kyiv Official.

The German analyst and Former United Nations Assistant Secretary General, Michael von der Schulenberg, also published a reconstruction of these events on November 14, 2023, titled How The Chance Was Lost For A Peace Settlement Of The Ukraine War.

The totality of circumstances and the statements of Arahamiya and von der Schulenberg indicate that an Austrian-style neutrality deal could have prevented this war to begin with, and then—had it been embraced by the the USA and Britain—ended it just two months later.

Since Churchill delivered his June 4, 1940, “We shall fight on the beaches” speech, many postwar heads of state have apparently fantasized that their opponents on the international stage are “just like Hitler” and that there can be no negotiated settlement with them.

In BoJo’s case, this shallow, sophomoric notion has apparently resulted in the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainian and Russian soldiers.

February 14, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Joe Biden Acts Like the Defender of Gazans, But He is the Destroyer

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | February 13, 2024

This week President Joe Biden was again talking about his ideas of how the Israel government should exercise more restraint in its war in Gaza. But, he remains all talk and no action on this count.

It is tedious to repeatedly hear the man who is, in the absence of congressional action to provide special assistance to Israel for its war, unilaterally providing the key aid including weapons and intelligence for prosecuting Israel’s war continue to insist he supports restraint while the Israel government keeps pursuing relentless devastation.

Biden, in a Monday statement he made at the White House after meeting with Jordan King Abdullah, said the following regarding impending Israel military action:

As I said yesterday, our military operation in Rafah — their — the major military operation in Rafah should not proceed without a credible plan — a credible plan for ensuring the safety and support of more than one million people sheltering there. Many people there have been displaced — displaced multiple times, fleeing the violence to the north, and now they’re packed into Rafah — exposed and vulnerable. They need to be protected.

This schtick is way past its expiration date. The Israel war, now in its fifth month, continues to rack up destruction of life, health, and the physical manifestations of civilization in Gaza at an astounding pace, with the brunt of the suffering imposed on civilians. Israel is taking the actions. But, the US is the key accomplice to the atrocities because of the aid it provides.

This is Biden’s war as much as it is Israel’s war.

Biden is notoriously prone to make blunders in his public presentations. The blunder he made in his comment in his Monday White House statement is different than many. Biden quickly corrected his mention of “our military operation in Rafah” to clarify that the military operation is Israel’s. The slipup here was not that Biden had stated something false. Instead, it was that Biden had stated the truth that he and his administration are trying their best to hide.

February 13, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Does anybody still believe in Ukrainian victory?

By Uriel Araujo | February 12, 2024

While Moscow is making major investments in defense, Ukraine has stalled (in the battlefield) and so is the American aid package, writes Foreign Policy reporter Amy Mackinnon. “Ukraine will lose – on our present trajectory”, says Niall Ferguson, a senior fellow of the Centre for European Studies, Harvard, interviewed by John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia.

According to Ferguson, thus far the US-led West has given Kyiv enough weapons “not to lose, but not enough to win”. In addition, the United States’ “interest” is “clearly waning, particularly “among Republican voters and Republican politicians”, to the point that American aid to the Eastern European country “could be cut off if Donald Trump is reelected president in November 2024”. In this scenario, he says, it is hard to see how Ukraine could possibly win. Furthermore, he claims, the Ukrainians themselves admit that they have achieved a “stalemate” now, and in terms of resources it is “David versus Goliath,” with the latter being, more and more, “the likely favorite.” If Russia is, “to put it very, very modestly”, able to “retain control” of those parts of Ukraine it already does, that will be “the first big defeat of Cold War II, for the West.” Considering all the Western pro-Zelensky propaganda, all the “speeches”, “support” and “pledges” made, if Ukraine “loses”, the West’s credibility will be greatly undermined, Fergunson convincingly reasons.

Meanwhile, should an “all-out multifront assault on Israel” arise, in the Middle East, and the US fails to take meaningful action, then the expert argues, somewhat less convincingly, it would be “surprising” if Xi Jinping “didn’t take the opportunity to add Taiwan to the strategic mix” – and, in the scenario of a Chinese blockade of Taiwan, it would be “rather difficult to send another major naval expedition across the Pacific” because of the risk of US-China “hostilities” in this case, which then would mean a “much larger war than anything we’ve seen so far.” What Ferguson fails to acknowledge is that tensions with Taiwan arose after a series of American provocations, and that the current crisis in the Levant and the Red Sea is largely the result of the Western resolve to keep aiding and funding its Israeli ally even in face of the latter’s disastrous and globally condemned ethnic cleansing campaign in Palestine.

Back to the Ukrainian conflict’s prospects, Mark Episkopos, Eurasia Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, writes that, at this point, there is “no magic weapon left”, and that Kyiv’s “backers” (on “both sides of the Atlantic”) have “no realistic theory of victory” accounting for “the dire conditions” faced by Ukraine and thus fail to offer “a sustainable framework for war termination on the best possible terms for Kyiv and the West.” In the same spirit, James Stavridis, former  NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe sees no future for Ukraine other than a land-for-peace deal.

Back to the aforementioned Ferguson’s interview, the Scottish–American historian concludes, from an Anglo-Western perspective, that “this is a very dangerous moment in world history”, and “we’ve stumbled into it, partly by forgetting the lessons of Cold War I”, namely that one must have “credible deterrence.” Such deterrence, he laments, has been lost. As I’ve written, the West has no such deterrence against Iran in the Middle East either.

As is often the case, notwithstanding any criticism one may have of the Russian president and of his choices pertaining to Moscow’s campaign in Ukraine, there is something missing in the conversation about the crisis, namely any mention of the Western role in at least partly bringing it about by NATO expansion or, for that matter, any mention of the Western white-washing and support for far-right paramilitary nationalism in Ukraine – which is often neo-Fascist – since the Maidan Revolution, and the role this factor played in the Donbass war (going on since 2014); not to mention the issue of the civil rights of ethnic Russians, Russian-speaking and pro-Russian people in Ukraine since the aforementioned Maidan.

In any case, it is not just into Eastern Europe that Washington has “stumbled”. It is also “stuck”, as I wrote, in the Middle East, where it acts as an undecided declining superpower, “torn”, as it is, according to a recent The Economist piece, “between leaving and staying and cannot decide what to do with the forces it still has in the region.”

In September last year, Former US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates described his country as a “divided” and “dysfunctional superpower”, unable to deter both China and Russia. “Torn”, “stuck”, “divided” – undecidedness could really be a key word with regards to the existential crisis haunting American exceptionalism: Washington seems unable to decide, for example, as Jerry Hendrix (formerly an adviser to Pentagon senior officials) puts it, whether it wishes to maintain its declining naval hegemony, as a sea power, in Mackinder’s terms, or to keep engaging in land wars in Eurasia in its struggle for the “Heartland”. It cannot decide whether to pivot away from the Middle East towards the Indo-Pacific Region (IPR) or to “stay” in the Middle East region. It seems to want it both ways always, as materialized in the different versions of the “dual containment” formula – now applied to both Beijing and Moscow simultaneously.

Thus, going beyond the issue of Ukraine, it is about time to acknowledge that the declining American superpower is currently overburdened and overstretched, in Stephen Wertheim’s words; that its policy of “dual containment” makes the world a far less stable place; and that Washington therefore must exercise restraint.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

February 12, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Prepare for conflict with Russia in five years – German general

RT | February 11, 2024

Germany should beef up its military to prepare for a potential conflict with Russia in five years’ time, Bundeswehr General Carsten Breuer has argued. He called for a “change in mentality” within German society, insisting that the nation needs to build credible deterrence.

In an interview with Welt am Sonntag published on Sunday, Breuer warned that Germany does not have “endless time” to become war-capable, claiming that the potential of a military confrontation with Moscow is at its highest since the end of the Cold War.

“If I follow the analysts and see what military threat potential comes from Russia, then it means five to eight years of preparation time for us,” he predicted.

Breuer, who serves as the Bundeswehr’s inspector general, claimed that “this doesn’t mean that there will be a war then. But it’s possible.”

The general also did not rule out the reintroduction of some form of mandatory military service in Germany. Breuer noted that the issue is still being discussed, but cited the “Swedish model,” which envisages mandatory military training for most citizens, who then become reservists.

Breuer’s comments come after German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius stated in November that the country must become “war-capable.” He insisted again in January that Berlin and the whole of NATO should arm itself more actively to be able to “wage a war that is forced upon us.”

However, the German defense chief noted last month that “at the moment, I don’t see any danger of a Russian attack on NATO territory or on any NATO partner-country.”

Also speaking in January, British Defense Secretary Grant Shapps claimed that “in five years’ time, we could be looking at multiple theaters [of conflict] including Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.”

Elsewhere, Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billstrom stated last month that Stockholm “must be realistic and assume – and be prepared for – a drawn-out confrontation” with Moscow. Defense Minister Pal Jonson echoed that sentiment, saying that “war can also come to us.”

Commenting on claims that Russia might be planning an attack on NATO, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said in January that European officials were “inventing an external enemy” to divert attention from domestic problems.

Speaking at UN headquarters in New York the following day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stressed that “no one wants a big war,” especially Moscow.

President Vladimir Putin has also repeatedly dismissed such speculation as “complete nonsense,” insisting that Moscow has “no geopolitical, economic… or military interest” in starting a conflict with NATO.

February 11, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Tucker Carlson Interviews Vladimir Putin – Key Statements

BY JOHN LEAKE | COURAGEOUS DISCOURSE | FEBRUARY 9, 2024

The first thing that jumped out at me as I listened to the Tucker Carlson-Vladimir Putin interview is that Putin is 100 times more intellectually capable than President Joe Biden. No wonder Biden won’t take his call.

It says a lot that the terrible people who run the United States wanted to prevent Carlson from conducting the interview, and then to hinder it from being made available to the American public.

Many, including Carlson himself, expressed frustration that the Russian President began with a history lesson, going back to the founding of the Kievan Rus state in 882. I suspect this was Putin’s sly way of expressing a salient point that has long struck me about we Americans—namely, while our government is ever keen to send weapons and armies all over the world to police mankind, we find it onerous to sit through a 30-minute history lesson about the people and places we wish to control.

Russia is, in Churchill’s formulation, “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma,” and it has always been governed by an authoritarian state. Nevertheless, with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, there is plenty of evidence that Russia wished to cease living in a state of enmity with the United States.

To me, it seems clear it was the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex, and NOT Russia, that wished to maintain this state of enmity, for without it, there would be little justification for the U.S. government to spend hundreds of billions on weapons goodies such as the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II—a program that started in 1995 and (if DoD accountants are to be believed) has cost U.S. taxpayers about 500 billion.

With Bill Clinton’s NATO expansion in 1997, no less of a Cold War eminence than George Kennan characterized this decision as a Fateful Error that would likely result in precisely the instability and insecurity it was purportedly supposed to prevent.

From the beginning of the Russian crisis that developed in the autumn of 2021—shortly after the Biden Administrations’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan after a 20-year occupation that achieved nothing—I have suspected that administration and the terrible people who advise it did everything in their power to BAIT THE RUSSIAN BEAR into invading Ukraine.

The Administration did NOTHING to defuse the crisis, and it insulted the Russians by sending the imbecilic Kamala Harris to the Munich Security Conference on February 18, 2022. I suspect that an Austrian-style neutrality deal would have prevented the catastrophe that has apparently gotten hundreds of thousands killed. It has also seemed obvious to me that, since 2014, Ukraine has been the CIA’s favorite pet project.

To to this day, not a single person has been able to explain to me why Russia would consider tolerating Ukraine joining NATO. Since President Monroe outlined his foreign policy in 1823, the United States government has increasingly pursued a policy of zero tolerance of any foreign military alliances or installations in the entire Western Hemisphere.

And yet, this same United States government, which has invaded and bombed dozens of countries since 2001, claims it is perfectly reasonable to propose that Ukraine (whose northeastern border lies 370 miles from Moscow) join NATO. The distance from the Mexican border to Dallas is greater.

Key Putin statements in the interview are as follows:

  • On the negotiation process and its failure: “[Talks] reached a very high stage of coordination of positions in a complex process, but still they were almost finalized. But after we withdrew our troops from Kiev… the other side threw away all these agreements.”
  • On his last conversation with Joe Biden: “I talked to him before the special military operation, of course… I told him I believe that you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there, in Ukraine, by pushing Russia away.”
  • On the possibility of global conflict: “It goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of a global war and a global war will bring all humanity to the brink of destruction.”
  • On Russia’s territorial ambitions: “We simply don’t have any interest [in Poland, Latvia, or anywhere else]. It’s just threat mongering.”
  • Commenting on US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s remark that the US has to continue to fund Ukraine or US soldier citizens could wind up fighting there, Putin said:

    This was a provocation and a cheap provocation. Don’t you have anything better to do? You have issues on the border. Issues with migration, issues with the national debt. More than $33 trillion. Wouldn’t it be better to negotiate with Russia? Make an agreement. Already understanding the situation that is developing today, realizing that Russia will fight for its interests to the end. And realizing this, actually return to common sense, start respecting our country and its interests and look for certain solutions. It seems to me that this is much smarter and more rational. I do not understand why American soldiers should fight in Ukraine. There are mercenaries from the United States. The bigger number of mercenaries comes from Poland, with mercenaries from the United States in second place and mercenaries from Georgia in third place. Well, if somebody has the desire to send regular troops, that would certainly bring humanity to the brink of a very serious global conflict. This is obvious.

See complete interview on Tucker Carlson’s website:

February 9, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

In Carlson Interview, Putin Outlined ‘Concrete Conditions’ for Resolution of Ukrainian Crisis

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 09.02.2024

In his two-hour-long interview with Tucker Carlson, the Russian president listed Moscow’s conditions for bringing the two-year-old NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine to an end. Now, the ball is in the West’s court, according to Russian international affairs expert Dmitry Suslov.

President Putin has confirmed to Tucker Carlson that Russia favors a “negotiated settlement” to the crisis in Ukraine, saying that it will be up to Kiev and its Western partners whether or not to accept it.

“We prepared a huge document in Istanbul [during peace talks in the spring of 2022, ed.] that was initialed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation. He affixed his signature to some of the provisions, but not all of them. He put his signature and then said himself ‘we were ready to sign it and the war would have been over long ago, eighteen months ago. However, [then-UK] Prime Minister [Boris] Johnson came, talked us out of it and we missed that chance’,” Putin said, referring to Ukrainian top negotiator David Arakhamia’s bombshell comments late last year about London’s role in sabotaging the Russia-Ukraine peace talks.

“Well, you missed it, you made a mistake, let them go back to that, that’s all. Why do we have to bother ourselves and correct somebody else’s mistakes?” Putin added, hinting Moscow’s readiness to return to the Istanbul format, which reportedly included non-bloc status enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, security guarantees from world powers, restrictions on the size of the Ukrainian military, accepting Crimea and the Donbass’s status as part of Russia, etc.

Asked by Carlson whether Kiev’s NATO sponsors will be willing to accept a Russian victory in Ukraine, Putin said the alliance should “think how to do it with dignity,” noting that “there are options if there is a will.”

Unfortunately, Putin said, “up until now there has been uproar and screaming about ‘inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia’ on the battlefield. Now they are apparently coming to realize that it is difficult to achieve. If possible at all. In my opinion, it is impossible by definition, it is never going to happen.” In event case, Russia remains “ready for this dialogue,” Putin stressed.

“I think the most important message in Putin’s interview is that Russia is ready for for a political or diplomatic solution of the Ukraine conflict,” says Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Center for European and International Studies at Russia’s Higher School of Economics. “But it requires a political will from the United States,” the observer told Sputnik.

“Putin identified the concrete conditions on which Russia would be ready to end the conflict through diplomacy. And this is first, the recognition of the current territorial settlement. Putin bluntly said that it’s up for NATO to look for and to find a form which could be, I mean, not humiliating for them, but accepts the current territorial settlement,” the academic noted. “Putin bluntly again identified the Istanbul communique as the basis to which Russia could return. And that from the Russian perspective, the process could be resumed at any moment.”

“Thirdly, he identified in a very detailed way the condition of denazification and explained what it means, and also, mentioned that it was partly included into the Istanbul communique. So, I think that this is a very important message, that if the United States is ready for serious negotiation on the basis of these conditions, Russia would not hesitate to resume and to start those negotiations,” Suslov said.

Unfortunately, the observer noted, Putin has reason to be skeptical about Kiev’s Western sponsors’ sincerity, given the seemingly unchanging imperative of US geopolitical “hostility” against and “arrogance” toward Russia.

“Putin’s pessimism is explained by his personal experience in dealing with the United States, because [he] has been dealing with actually five American presidents since Bill Clinton. And no matter the personal relationships with those presidents, no matter the party orientation of those presidents, the fundamentals of the US foreign policy remained the same. And the reason is that the US foreign policy is run by foreign policy elites, not necessarily by the president himself. And this is likely to remain so,” Suslov said.

Nevertheless, the observer noted that if Donald Trump, who has expressed a desire to end the Ukrainian crisis and normalize relations with Russia, were to return to power and “bring fundamentally new representatives of the US elites to power…that situation could change.”

“But of course, in this interview Vladimir Putin could not say that he’s hopeful of such a scenario because he would have been immediately accused of interference into the US elections and identifying his preferences. And this is not in Russian interests,” Suslov summed up.

February 9, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »