A hard truth about the Russia-Ukraine conflict is finally dawning on the West
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | November 24, 2023
On November 16, the Wall Street Journal, one of the most prestigious and influential American media outlets, published an essay under the title “It’s Time to End Magical Thinking About Russia’s Defeat.”
The authors, Eugene Rumer and Andrew S. Weiss, are influential representatives of America’s national security and international relations establishment. After a career in government service, Rumer now directs the Russia and Eurasia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Weiss is Carnegie’s vice president for studies. This is an important text, and both its message and the timing of its publication matter.
The message is simple: “Putin” (by which they mean Russia) has “withstood the West’s best efforts” to roll back the military operation against Ukraine; Moscow’s political system has proven resilient and even become stronger; and “America and its allies” must now switch to a strategy of “containment.”
The timing is more complex. Clearly, the current Israeli war on Gaza – referred to as “tumult in the Middle East” – is one of three key factors. The other two are the approaching presidential elections in the US, and, of course, the failure of Ukraine’s summer counteroffensive, by now acknowledged even in gung-ho outlets such as the British Daily Telegraph.
In addition, America’s hold over the non-Western majority of humanity is continuing to decline. China, in particular, is successfully resisting Washington’s pressure. Domestically, President Joe Biden’s government faces tough headwinds from both the official Republican opposition and a growing movement in the American street, where widespread and deep dissatisfaction with politics and the economy is now combining with an unprecedented groundswell of protest against US complicity in Israel’s genocidal war on the Palestinians.
American polls are unambiguous. In September, even before the Middle East crisis, the Pew Research Center found that “Americans’ views of politics and elected officials” are now unusually and “unrelentingly negative, with little hope of improvement on the horizon.” By now, a majority of Americans also contradict the Biden administration – and the rest of almost the whole bipartisan political establishment – by wanting a cease fire in Gaza, while the number of those supporting Israel is decreasing quickly and significantly.
Against this background, this Wall Street Journal article clearly serves as an authoritative call for retrenchment. The object of this signal to retreat is the proxy war in Ukraine, that is, the single most aggressive, most risky, and most defeated US foreign policy strategy in the past two years (if we count from the moment Washington recklessly decided to stonewall Moscow’s clear warning as well as its urgent offer to find a grand bargain-style off-ramp in late 2021).
So far, so telling. But not surprising. For two reasons: the turn away from Ukraine is already fairly old non-news. Even mainstream media spotted the onset of a severe, probably terminal, bout of Ukraine fatigue well before the eruption of the fresh war in the Middle East. Secondly, the skeptical insights now given prominence in the Wall Street Journal as reasons to wrap up its proxy war investment in Ukraine are very old hat indeed. As a matter of fact, the most interesting question the essay – inadvertently – raises is what took you so long?
It would be tedious to address every point raised now in the Wall Street Journal. But since they all have in common that they have been predicted or were utterly predictable, a few highlights will do.
We learn, for instance, that the West’s attempts to isolate Russia have failed. Yet how hard was it to foresee that the Global South has no reason to follow the West except fear, and that fear is abating? And was it impossible to know in advance that China would answer “No, thank you very much,” when the US and the EU did two things at the same time: urge it to abandon Russia, which would have meant giving up Beijing’s single most important partnership, and signal that China would be next to be cut down to size? China, in essence, initially gestured a little in the direction of distancing itself from Russia, but the strategic fundamentals of the situation determined its real behavior and have become explicit by now. This outcome was predicted, not by every expert but by enough of them to matter.
We are also reminded that this is a war of attrition, i.e. one favoring Russia by its very nature. Even on CNN, we heard that much as early as April 2022, and the militantly Atlanticist Economist magazine admitted it in a backhanded way (using the euphemism “war of endurance”) in September.
Every war is a matter of competitive military performance. But in a war of attrition, three fundamental things matter the most: the size, productive and technological capacity, and resilience of the economy; the stability of the political system, including its real-life popularity and the elites’ legitimacy; and, of course, demography. The Wall Street Journal observes that Russia’s economy has “been buffeted but is not in tatters” (really understating its success, but let’s not quibble) and that its political system draws on “solid” popular support and elites that have neither rebelled nor deserted.
In the West at least, this was harder to predict. Not because of Russia being so difficult to decipher, but due to Western bias and groupthink, or, bluntly put, wishful thinking. Even before the post-February 2022 Ukraine war, Western politics, media, think tanks, and even academia have rewarded unrealistically pessimistic assessments of both Russia’s economy and political stability. Consider, as a pars pro toto, Western reactions to the Wagner rebellion in June. Quite a few of them predicted the imminent collapse of Russia into anarchy and civil war or, at least, a great and lasting domestic and international weakening of Russia. Yet none of this has come to pass.
The importance of this comprehensive, almost total failure of analysis and prediction lies in how typical it was, reflecting a dominant culture of politicized sloppiness vitiating Western thinking about Russia. A sloppiness that is all the more astonishing as precisely Moscow’s opponents cannot afford it without serious self-harm.
For self-harm is the main result. It is true that Russia has to bear some of the cost of Western shortsightedness. Obviously, Moscow as well would be better off if it could work with reasonable, if competitive, partners instead of irrationally hostile opponents who constantly underestimate Russia and overestimate themselves. Yet the West is suffering even more from its pattern of repetitive mistakes.
The costs of the proxy war in Ukraine demonstrate this fact, and not only in terms of arms and money, but of political prestige as well. Regarding the quantifiable costs, the US Congress, for instance, has approved $113 billion worth of aid for Ukraine since February 2022. Currently, a request for even more is turning into a major domestic headache for the Biden administration, and most likely, a defeat. The EU has shelled out almost €85 billion.
Of course, not all of these funds have really been appropriated, and much of them have really been fueling corruption in Ukraine or served the donors and especially their arms industries, as US politicians have repeatedly pointed out with proud cynicism. Yet the overall picture remains one of severe fiscal overstretch spent on a losing gamble. Add the self-inflicted losses that the EU’s economies in particular have incurred from their misconceived sanctions policy and the picture is grim. Add, moreover, how much the West will have to spend if it really wishes to finance the rebuilding of Ukraine, and the prospect turns catastrophic. Good luck, EU, with those membership plans.
In addition, intangibles matter as well. Clearly, “losing” Ukraine (which the West should not have tried to “own” in the first place) will reveal the bloc’s weakness more sharply than the failures in, for instance, Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Afghanistan. For two reasons. First, unlike these countries, Russia is a great power; that means it is in a position to exploit the Western setback. Moscow, put differently, is big enough to geopolitically counterattack.
Whether or when exactly it will do so, and what shape such a new “snapping back” of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s metaphorical “rubber band” will take this time, remains to be seen. What is clear is that such payback is a realistic possibility. Secondly, the West is committed as never before, substantially and rhetorically, when trying to use Ukraine to reduce Russia. Hence, failing to do so exposes Western limits as never before. Rumer and Weiss are not naïve. They cannot say it – and maybe they can’t even quite think it – but in their heart of hearts they know that packaging this defeat as a mere change of strategy to “containment” will not fool anyone who does not want to be fooled.
It is good to finally see some hard facts appear prominently in mainstream Western debates. But it is not enough. For one thing, the West has to ask itself painful questions why it has stayed so obsessively one-sided for so long. Otherwise, the same pattern will be repeated in starting and waging the next war, for instance, against China or Iran. Secondly, a shift to “containment” will not repair the damage but merely stretch it out. What the West really needs is a complete rethinking of not merely its methods but its aims.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
North Korea Scraps 2018 Military Pact with South After Seoul Walks Backs Commitments
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | November 23, 2023
Amid escalating tensions in the region, North Korea has withdrawn from a 2018 agreement with South Korea that reduced military tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Pyongyang took the step after Seoul announced it would resume surveillance operations along the DMZ.
The relationship between Pyongyang and Seoul has been in a downward spiral since President Joe Biden took office. Tensions between North and South Korea spiked last week when Pyongyang successfully placed a military satellite into orbit.
North Korean state media reported the satellite allowed Kim Jong Un to view images of a US military facility in Guam.
Seoul and its backers in Tokyo and Washington condemned the satellite launch, claiming it violated UN resolutions. Pyongyang insists that it is within North Korea’s rights as a sovereign country to have spaced-based surveillance technology.
In response to North Korea’s successful launch, South Korea walked back its commitments to a 2018 inter-Korean Comprehensive Military Agreement (CMA). The CMA reduced tensions on the Peninsula by limiting military activities.
South Korea announced it was breaking the CMA on Wednesday by resuming surveillance flights along the North Korean border. Seoul’s Defense Minister Shin Won-sik explained, “North Korea’s satellite launch is a clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions and a serious provocation against [South Korea] and the international community.” South Korean Ministry of National Defense Spokesman Heo Tae-keun stated, “North Korea’s behavior shows again that it has no will to comply with the agreement.”
The North Korean Defense Ministry said Pyongyang would completely vacate the agreement. “We will immediately restore all military measures that have been halted according to the North-South military agreement,” Pyongyang’s state media outlet, KCNA, reported.
“We will withdraw the military steps taken to prevent military tension and conflict in all spheres including ground, sea, and air, and deploy more powerful armed forces and new-type military hardware in the region along the Military Demarcation Line.”
The ministry’s statement continued that South Korea must “pay dearly for their irresponsible and grave political and military provocations that have pushed the present situation to an uncontrollable phase.”
After Biden took office, the US and South Korea resumed large-scale live-fire war games on the Korean Peninsula. Pyongyang views the operations as preparations for regime change in North Korea. The White House has further escalated tension by deploying multiple strategic weapons systems to South Korea and forming a trilateral military pact with Seoul and Tokyo that Pyongyang views as an Asian NATO.
EU must reconsider Ukraine policy – Orban
RT | November 22, 2023
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has demanded that the European Union re-examine its strategy of funding Ukraine’s battle with Russia, saying he would stand in the way of further aid unless the bloc’s leaders make sure their objectives are “realistically attainable” without continued US support.
Orban made his threat in a letter to European Council chief Charles Michel, saying that no discussion on funding for Ukraine, Kiev’s accession to the EU, or further sanctions against Russia can happen until a “strategic discussion” is held, Politico reported on Wednesday. According to the outlet, the letter called for such a review to take place when EU leaders meet in Brussels next month.
“The European Council should take stock of the implementation and effectiveness of our current policies towards Ukraine, including various assistance programs,” Orban wrote.
He added that with future aid from Kiev’s chief benefactor, the US, imperiled by partisan bickering in Washington, European leaders need to reassess whether they should stay the course.
“The European Council must have a frank and open discussion on the feasibility of the EU’s strategic objectives in Ukraine,” Orban wrote.
Do we still regard these objectives realistically attainable? Is this strategy sustainable without robust support from the United States? Can we take continuing support from the United States for granted? How do we conceive the security architecture of Europe after the war?
The European Council isn’t prepared to make key decisions on Ukraine policies – including security guarantees, further aid, Russia sanctions, and expansion of the EU – until member states reach a consensus on their strategy, according to Orban.
The Hungarian leader could use Budapest’s veto power as an EU member to block delivery of €50 billion ($54.4 billion) in economic aid pledged to help fund Ukraine’s government amid the conflict with Russia, as well as €500 million in military assistance. Orban could also stall the decision on opening formal negotiations with Kiev to join the EU.
Orban has repeatedly clashed with the EU on issues ranging from Russia sanctions to illegal immigration to LGBTQ propaganda. The EU is withholding €13 billion in funding to Hungary over the country’s alleged breaches of the bloc’s “rule-of-law” standards.
The Hungarian PM has called for a negotiated end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, rather than prolonging the crisis and risking further escalation. Last month, he likened the bloc’s domineering tactics to the Soviet Union, calling Brussels a “bad contemporary parody” of the USSR.
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto suggested on Saturday that some European leaders have lost touch with reality when it comes to the Ukraine crisis.
“Some people imagine themselves in Fortnite,” he said, referring to the popular video game. “They suffer from military psychosis and, for some reason, believe that arms shipments can bring peace.”
Mysterious military flights between Israel, Lebanon continue
The Cradle | November 21, 2023
Mysterious foreign military cargo flights, potentially carrying equipment for use against Hezbollah, continue to land at the Beirut and Hamat airports, Al-Akhbar reported on 21 November.
Between the 14 and 20 November, nine planes from various NATO countries were recorded landing at Beirut and Hamat airports, including several flying from Tel Aviv, according to Intelsky, a website monitoring aircraft movement in the region.
Sources speaking with Al-Akhbar said the cargo included devices used for jamming, which raises questions about the reason for their transport to Lebanon and whether they will be used to disrupt the communications network of Hezbollah in the event of an escalation of the fighting with Israel in Lebanon’s south.
Since the 7 October Hamas attack on settlements surrounding Gaza, in which 1,200 Israelis were killed and 240 more taken captive, Israel and Hezbollah have engaged in deadly tit-for-tat clashes on the Lebanese-Israel border area.
Hezbollah’s communication network played a key role during the July 2006 war against Israel, which later led to US pressure on the government of then-Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to call for dismantling the resistance group’s communications network in 2008.
The same sources speaking with Al-Akhbar confirmed that the security authorities at Beirut and Hamat airports do not seriously inspect the cargo of the planes that land, with Hamat Air Base lacking even a scanning device. The final destination of the cargo in Lebanon is also unknown.
Intelsky reported that the movement of foreign military aircraft is proceeding at a level that Lebanon had not witnessed in years. Between 8 October and 10 November, 32 planes landed, nine of which belonged to the US, Dutch, and British Air Forces and landed at the Hamat base, and 23 planes belonging to the US, French, Dutch, Spanish, Canadian, Italian, and Saudi armies landed at the base designated for military and diplomatic aircraft on the west side of Beirut Airport.
Although Lebanese law prohibits direct flights between Lebanon and Israel, Intelsky monitored three planes landing at Beirut Airport originating in Tel Aviv.
A British Royal Air Force Airbus A400M Atlas landed in Beirut on 14 November, coming from Tel Aviv. The plane carried out a “touch and go” operation (touching the runway and taking off directly without stopping) at a British military base in Cyprus to technically comply with Lebanese law banning direct flights from Israel.
After taking off from Beirut, the plane returned to Tel Aviv after carrying out another touch-and-go operation at the British base in Akrotiri, Cyprus.
On 16 November, a US Air Force Boeing C-17A Globemaster III also flew from Tel Aviv to Beirut. The Intelsky website recorded that the plane allegedly landed in Cyprus as well but disappeared from radars before landing and reappeared after the supposed take-off. The plane was absent from radars over Larnaca for 4 minutes at an altitude of 1,264 meters, suggesting it did not land in Cyprus.
On 21 November, a British Royal Air Force (Airbus A400M Atlas landed in Beirut after making only a camouflaged landing in Akrotiri, at an altitude of only 375 meters above the base, which means that the flight violated Lebanese law and was in effect a direct flight from Tel Aviv to Beirut.
It should be noted that daily flights between the Akrotiri base and Tel Aviv have been recorded since the outbreak of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation on 7 October.
Al-Akhbar notes these flights raise suspicions about whether these trips are part of a broader strategy related to the conflict with Israel and may be intended to enhance the military capabilities of some parties in the region working on behalf of Israel and NATO, or to provide them with logistical support that includes transporting necessary equipment and supplies.
The Israeli army has not commented on the flight, except for a statement issued on 10 November confirming that “part of the air traffic at the airport is a routine movement to transfer military aid to the Lebanese army.”
Hamas reaches agreement on prisoner swap, pause in fighting
Palestine Information Center – November 22, 2023
GAZA – The Hamas Movement announced at dawn Wednesday that it had reached an agreement with the Israeli occupation regime on a four-day humanitarian ceasefire following concentrated mediation efforts by Qatar and Egypt.
“Based on our responsibility towards our long-suffering and steadfast Palestinian people, and our tireless endeavor to strengthen the steadfastness of our heroic people in our proud Gaza, to assist them and heal their wounds … and after difficult and complex negotiations for several days, we announce — with help and blessing from Almighty Allah — that we have reached a humanitarian truce agreement (temporary ceasefire) for a period of four days, thanks to persistent and appreciated Qatari and Egyptian efforts,” the Movement stated.
In a statement published on its Telegram account, Hamas revealed the most prominent provisions of the agreement:
• A ceasefire from both sides, a cessation of all military actions by the occupation forces in all areas of the Gaza Strip and a freeze on the movement of its military vehicles that have infiltrated into the Gaza Strip.
• Hundreds of aid trucks carrying humanitarian, relief, medical and fuel supplies will be allowed into all areas of the Gaza Strip, with no exception, in the north and south.
• The release of 50 civilian women and children (under the age of 19) currently held in the Gaza Strip in exchange for the release of 150 Palestinian women and children (under the age of 19) from Israeli jails according to the time they have spent in jail.
• Air traffic will stop completely in southern Gaza during these four days and for daily six-hour periods in the north, from 10:00 a.m. until 04:00 p.m.
• During the ceasefire period, Israel commits not to target or arrest anyone in all areas of the Gaza Strip.
• The free movement of people from north to south along Salahuddin Street is guaranteed.
“As we announce the conclusion of this truce agreement, we affirm that our hands will remain on the trigger and our Brigades will remain on the lookout to defend our people.”
“The resistance has steered the negotiations while its position on the ground is steadfast and strong despite the occupation’s attempts to procrastinate in this regard.”
“The terms of the agreement has been formulated in accordance with the resistance’s vision that aims to serve our people and strengthen their steadfastness in the face of aggression, while it will always remain mindful of their sacrifices, suffering and concerns.”
US to continue supplying Israel with artillery shells, guided missiles
MEMO | November 22, 2023
The Pentagon said it continues to supply Israel with 155mm artillery shells, precision-guided munition, M and air defence systems, despite international concern over Israel’s disregard for civilian lives in Gaza.
In a statement issued yesterday, the Pentagon added that it “provides military aid to the [Israeli] forces from the American base’s stockpiles inside [Israel] and from other places.”
The administration of President Joe Biden has pledged $14.3 billion in military aid to Israel, in addition to the traditional annual aid of $3.4 billion. Unwavering military support to Israel is one of the rare issues that brings together Democrats and Republicans in the Congress and Senate.
A report by the Congressional Research Service revealed that since 7 October, the Biden administration has accelerated the provision of military and security aid to Israel, including “small diameter bombs (250 pounds), interceptor missiles, joint direct attack munitions, and 155mm artillery shells.”
More than 30 relief organisations have sent a letter to US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin urging him “not to send 155 mm shells in particular, as they are indiscriminate shells in nature which are being used in the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated areas in the world.”
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that some lawmakers are wondering whether the proposed $34 million worth of direct commercial sale of 24,000 assault rifles to Israel might end up in the hands of illegal settlers, wreaking havoc in the occupied West Bank.
For the 46th day in a row, the Israeli occupation forces, with support from the United States and mercenaries, have been launching a devastating aggression against the besieged Gaza Strip, killing at least 14,128 Palestinians, 5,840 of them children, with nearly 6,800 others still reported missing, in addition to over 30,000 wounded persons.
Germany Commits $1.4 Billion to Ukrainian War Effort
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | November 21, 2023
Berlin has pledged to send Kiev $1.4 billion in weapons to aid its war against Russia. The announcement of the German arms package comes as the White House is nearing depleting the funds allocated by Congress for Ukraine.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius rolled out the arms package on Tuesday in Kiev. Pistorius’s trip to Ukraine followed US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s visit to Kiev on Monday. Austin committed an additional $100 million in military aid to Ukraine.
According to Berlin, the German security assistance includes air defense interceptors, anti-tank mines, and artillery shells. “Altogether it is a package worth €1.3 billion, and I am quite sure this will help you and your fight against Russian aggression. We stand with Ukraine reliably,” Pistorius said. “We are talking about 20,000 additional shells.”
Artillery shells have been one of the highest-demand weapons for Ukraine since the start of the war. Washington has sent over 2 million 155 MM rounds since Russia invaded Ukraine last year. However, the White House’s ability to continue to arm Kiev may be waning. American weapons stockpiles have been nearing redline levels, and the Biden administration has nearly depleted the funds allocated by Congress to fight a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
Ukrainian forces have been firing 155 MM shells faster than the West can produce them. Kiev’s soldiers are currently firing about 240,000 rounds per month, a rate that far outpaces what the US and its Western allies can produce.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky explained Kiev’s stockpiles are dwindling. “Our supplies have decreased. It is life—and it is normal, as everyone is fighting for survival,” he said. Over the past six weeks, Israel has begun receiving shipments of 155 MM shells, adding pressure to the strained supply.
To make up for the shrinking stockpiles, the White House has sent cluster variants of artillery weapons to Kiev and Tel Aviv. The shipment violates US law. International treaties have banned cluster bombs because they continue killing civilians for years after the conflicts end.
There Could Have Been Peace: How the U.S. Ensured a Long War in Ukraine
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | November 20, 2023
On February 27, just the third day of their war, Russia and Ukraine announced direct negotiations in Belarus. Having already said that he was prepared to abandon Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky went into the negotiations “without preconditions.” That round of talks, having identified priority topics, led to a second round, again in Belarus.
But, though Ukraine was willing to discuss neutrality and “the end of this invasion,” the United States was not. On February 25, the same day Zelensky said he was “not afraid to talk to Russia” and that he was “not afraid to talk about neutral status,” State Department spokesman Ned Price was asked at a press conference, “What’s the U.S.—what’s your thinking about the efficacy of such a—of such talks?” Price responded, “Now we see Moscow suggesting that diplomacy take place at the barrel of a gun or as Moscow’s rockets, mortars, artillery target the Ukrainian people. This is not real diplomacy. Those are not the conditions for real diplomacy.” The United States said no, and the promising direct talks were not to be.
However, a few days later, Ukraine would attempt indirect, mediated talks. Zelensky would turn to then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennet to mediate. In a February 2, 2023 interview, Bennet revealed that “Zelensky initiated the request to contact Putin.” Bennett said, “Zelensky called me and asked me to contact Putin.”
Bennet accepted the request and a flurry of shuttle diplomacy began, first with a series of back-and-forth phone calls between Bennett and Putin and Bennett and Zelensky. On March 5, 2022, Bennet flew to Moscow at Putin’s invitation. The next day, Bennet flew to Berlin for meetings with German chancellor Olaf Scholz. On the following day, March 7, the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and France held a videoconference that, according to some reports, discussed the talks. On March 10, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov met Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, in Turkey. Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, who was present at the meeting, described their meeting as “civil.”
Bennet says that “everything [he] did was fully coordinated with Biden, Macron, Johnson, with Scholz and, obviously, Zelensky.” According to Bennet, Putin told him that “we can reach a ceasefire.” In order to make that happen, Bennet says that Putin and Zelensky both made “huge concessions.” When Bennett asked Putin if he was going to kill Zelensky, Putin answered, “I won’t kill Zelensky.” Putin also “renounced” Russia’s demanded “disarmament of Ukraine.” He also reportedly promised that there would be no regime change in Kiev and that Ukraine would remain sovereign. Putin then passed the message to Zelensky through Bennet that if you “Tell me you’re not joining NATO, I won’t invade.” Bennett says that “Zelensky relinquished joining NATO.”
It is key that in both the direct and mediated negotiations in the first weeks of the war, Ukraine was willing to give up NATO membership for a negotiated settlement with Russia.
In return for abandoning their NATO ambitions, Putin and Zelensky agreed that Ukraine would receive a strong, independent military capable of defending itself analogous to “the Israeli model.”
Bennett reports that “there was a good chance of reaching a ceasefire.” Sources “privy to details about the meeting” said that Zelensky deemed the proposal “difficult” but not “impossible” and that “the gaps between the sides are not great.” But, once again, it was not to be. Former UN Assistant Secretary-General in UN peace missions Michael von der Schulenburg says that “NATO had already decided at a special summit on March 24, 2022, not to support these peace negotiations.” Bennett agrees that the West made the decision “to keep striking Putin.” When Bennet’s interviewer asks him if he means that the West blocked the diplomatic settlement, Bennet simply replies, “They blocked it.”
In March and early April of 2022, there would be one final attempt at negotiations before the negotiating table would be abandoned for the battlefield. This time it was to be Turkey that would play the lead role as mediator. A supporting role was to be played by former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder who, like Bennet before him, was asked by Kiev to play a role in the mediation.
This final round of talks was the most promising. Putin has confirmed, as had already been reported, that Russia and Ukraine had “reached an agreement in Istanbul.” But Putin also revealed for the first time that the tentative agreement had been initialed by both sides. “I don’t remember his name and may be mistaken, but I think Mr. Arakhamia headed Ukraine’s negotiating team in Istanbul. He even initialed this document.” Russia, too, signed the document: “during the talks in Istanbul, we initialed this document. We argued for a long time, butted heads there and so on, but the document was very thick and it was initialed by Medinsky on our side and by the head of their negotiating team.”
Putin’s account is backed by Lavrov who said at a press conference that “we did hold talks in March and April 2022. We agreed on certain things; everything was already initialled.”
Putin went further than announcing the initialed document, on June 17, 2023, he dramatically held it up before a delegation of African leaders, showing it to the world for the first time. “We did not discuss with the Ukrainian side that this treaty would be classified, but we have never presented it, nor commented on it. This draft agreement was initialed by the head of the Kiev negotiation team. He put his signature there. Here it is.”
The draft agreement was the end product of a position paper presented by the Ukrainian delegation. The Istanbul Communiqué, dated March 29, 2022, agreed that Russia would withdraw to its prewar boundaries and Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership. Instead, Ukraine would receive security guarantees from a number of countries, possibly including Russia, China, the U.S., UK, France, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland and Israel. The final proposal of the communiqué proposes a possible meeting between Putin and Zelensky to sign the treaty.
On March 28, Putin reportedly went so far as to express a willingness to withdraw Russian troops from around Kiev. On March 29, the day the communiqué was initialled, the leaders of the U.S., UK, Germany, France and Italy spoke on the phone.
But, again, it was not to be. On April 5, The Washington Post reported that the West would “respect Kyiv’s decisions in any settlement to end the war with Russia, but with larger issues of global security at stake, there are limits to how many compromises some in NATO will support to win the peace.” The Post then spelled it out: “Even a Ukrainian vow not to join NATO—a concession that Zelensky has floated publicly—could be a concern to some neighbors. That leads to an awkward reality: For some in NATO, it’s better for the Ukrainians to keep fighting, and dying, than to achieve a peace that comes too early or at too high a cost to Kyiv and the rest of Europe.”
On April 9, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson rushed to Kiev to rein in Zelensky, insisting that Russian President Vladimir Putin “should be pressured, not negotiated with” and that, even if Ukraine was ready to sign some agreements with Russia, “the West was not.”
And that is just what happened. “We actually did this,” Putin told war correspondents at the Kremlin, “but they simply threw it away later and that’s it.” Talking to the African delegation, Putin said, “After we pulled our troops away from Kiev—as we had promised to do—the Kiev authorities… tossed [their commitments] into the dustbin of history. They abandoned everything.” But Putin did not primarily blame Ukraine. He implicitly blamed the United States, saying that when Ukraine’s interests “are not in sync” with U.S. interests, “ultimately it is about the United States’s interests. We know that they hold the key to solving issues.”
Lavrov says the same. In a September 28, 2023 interview, Lavrov said that “in April 2022… Ukraine proposed ceasing hostilities and settling the crisis based on providing reciprocal, reliable security guarantees.” He then clearly said, “But this proposal was recalled at the insistence of Washington and London.”
But it is not just Russia who says this: two well placed Turkish sources say the same. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu says that, because of the talks, “Turkey did not think that the Russia-Ukraine war would continue much longer.” But, he said, “There are countries within NATO who want the war to continue.” “Following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting,” he explained, “it was the impression that… there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue, let the war continue and Russia get weaker.”
And Numan Kurtulmus, the deputy chairman of Erdogan’s ruling party, told CNN TURK, “We know that our President is talking to the leaders of both countries. In certain matters, progress was made, reaching the final point, then suddenly we see that the war is accelerating…Someone is trying not to end the war. The United States sees the prolongation of the war as its interest… There are those who want this war to continue… Putin-Zelensky was going to sign, but someone didn’t want to.”
Schröder agrees. Describing the negotiations, he says that Ukraine “does not want NATO membership,” would accept “compromise” security guarantees, said that they would “reintroduce Russian in Donbass,” and “were ready to talk about Crimea.”
“But in the end nothing happened,” Schröder said. “My impression: Nothing could happen because everything else was decided in Washington.” Like the Russian and the Turkish sources, Schröder reports that “the Ukrainians did not agree to peace because they were not allowed to. They first had to ask the Americans about everything they discussed.”
Schröder adds one more significant detail. It is often reported that the massacre in Bucha played a pivotal souring role in the negotiations, contributing to their termination. Schröder challenges that account: “Nothing was known about Butscha during the talks with Umjerov on March 7th and 13th. I think the Americans didn’t want the compromise between Ukraine and Russia. The Americans believe they can keep the Russians down.”
In all three sets of negotiations, Ukraine renounced their aspirations to join NATO, and in all three, peace was possible but for the U.S. blocking it. Both the Bennet talks and the Istanbul talks were Ukrainian initiatives that put forward Ukrainian solutions. The United States was not supporting Ukraine at the negotiating table: they were overturning the table in order to use Ukrainian bodies to pursue American goals.
EU politicians have Ukraine ‘military psychosis’ – Hungarian FM
RT | November 19, 2023
Many high-ranking politicians from the European Union are out of touch with reality when it comes to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said on Saturday.
Unlike other EU countries, Hungary has refused to send weapons or other lethal aid to Ukraine, insisting that it is focused on finding a peaceful resolution to the hostilities.
“A significant part of the European political elite has practically lost common sense. Some people imagine themselves in Fortnite,” Szijjarto said at a political event in Budapest, referring to the popular multiplayer video game.
“They suffer from military psychosis, and, for some mysterious reason, believe that arms shipments can bring peace.”
“It is clear to us that we need peace instead of weapons. Whoever brings weapons into our neighborhood, prolongs the war. And the longer the war, the more people will die and greater destruction will occur,” the diplomat added.
Budapest has harshly criticized the European bloc’s sanctions on Russia over its actions in Ukraine. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has described the restrictions as a failure that have only exacerbated the energy crisis and the already high inflation rates across the continent.
Earlier this month, Orban said Kiev is “light years away” from joining the EU. Ukraine formally applied to become a member of the bloc in February 2022, hoping for an expedited admission process in light of Russia’s military operation.
Experts refute Australian charge claiming PLA destroyer’s use of sonar ‘unprofessional,’ question Australian frigate’s location, purpose
By Liu Xuanzun and Guo Yuandan | Global Times | November 19, 2023
Chinese experts on Sunday refuted accusations from Australia claiming that a Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) destroyer used sonar to force divers from an Australian frigate to exit the water, saying that the Australian statement is vague and one-sided, and aims to hype the “China threat” theory.
The HMAS Toowoomba, an Anzac-class frigate of the Royal Australian Navy, on Tuesday sailed in “international waters inside of Japan’s Exclusive Economic Zone” en route to commence a scheduled port visit during “operations in support of United Nations sanctions enforcement in the region” when it stopped to conduct diving operations in order to clear fishing nets that had become entangled around its propellers, the Australian defense department said in a press release on Saturday.
While diving operations were underway, a PLA Navy destroyer, the Sovremenny-class guided missile destroyer Ningbo (Hull 139), operating in the vicinity closed toward the HMAS Toowoomba, the Australian press release said.
According to the Australian press release, the two countries’ vessels were able to establish communications, before the Australian ship detected the Chinese ship operating its hull-mounted sonar “in a manner that posed a risk to the safety of the Australian divers who were forced to exit the water.”
The Australian press release is widely questioned by Chinese military experts, especially about the vague location given where the incident is supposed to have taken place.
Zhang Junshe, a Chinese naval expert, told the Global Times on Sunday that while Australia claimed the incident happened in Japan’s exclusive economic zone, it did not give the exact location.
If the incident took place in waters to the west of Japan, China and Japan have not carried out maritime delimitation in relevant waters, so Japan’s self-proclaimed exclusive economic zone could be well within waters administered by China, Zhang said.
Another Chinese military expert who requested anonymity told the Global Times on Sunday that Australia likely intentionally chose not to disclose the exact location because it has a guilty conscience.
“Did the incident take place near China’s Diaoyu Islands or the island of Taiwan? Or was it close to a PLA training exercise? If that is the case, it was obvious that the Australian warship provoked China in the first place,” the expert said.
Analysts pointed out that the Australian press release is one-sided as it failed to mention the Chinese input during the communications between the two countries’ ships.
Since the Australian side admitted that it had established communications with the Chinese side, it is very likely that the Chinese ship issued verbal warnings which the Australian ship had ignored, and the Chinese ship was forced to take the ensuing step which was to send a warning through sonar, the abovementioned anonymous expert said.
Some of the main purposes of a sonar system is to detect submarines and underwater terrains, similar to how a radar system is used to detect aircraft, the expert said, explaining that active sonar generates sound waves that vibrate underwater.
Pinging with sonar is also a means to communicate, and in this case, was likely used to warn the Australian operation, the expert said.
Australia claimed that the sonar pulses likely caused minor injuries to the Australian divers, but the wording is also very vague and has no proof, analysts said.
“Australia said it had fishing nets that had become entangled around its frigate’s propellers. It shows that such a close-in reconnaissance attempt not only posed threats to China’s national security, but also to the normal maritime work of fishing boats,” Zhang said.
In the recent period, countries like Australia and Canada have been repeatedly accusing Chinese warships and warplanes of “unsafe, unprofessional” interactions, as these forces from outside of the region conducted close-in reconnaissance operations on China’s doorstep in the name of UN sanctions enforcement, observers said.
Alert patrols by Chinese warplanes and warships on China’s doorstep are normal and should not have been hyped as “China threat,” Zhang said.
These countries should stop sending warships and warplanes from thousands of kilometers away to stir up troubles and flex their muscles on China’s doorstep, experts said.
The Greatest Threat to World Peace? A Review of Daniele Ganser’s ‘USA: The Ruthless Empire’
Review by Marilyn Langlois | November 10, 2023
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .
If you scoff at the notion that the US, a republic founded on principles of freedom and democracy, has morphed into a world empire, perpetrating assassinations, coups d’état, acts of terror and illegal warfare . . .
If you want to promote peace but haven’t yet explored deceptive events that precipitate US warmongering . . .
. . . here is a volume that will clear the air and paint an honest picture of the significant, not-so-rosy impact US foreign policy and actions have had in the world around us.
USA: The Ruthless Empire, by Swiss historian and peace researcher Daniele Ganser, is the newly published English language translation of his book Imperium USA, originally written in German and published in 2020. Here is a summary of key points — including some lesser-known ones — along with remedies for a more peaceful future, that are covered in the book.
Ganser takes us on a tour of meticulously documented historical events that would be shocking to anyone committed to fairness and basic human decency. His intention is to strengthen the peace movement, which encompasses people all over the world — including in the US — who reject war as well as the lies and propaganda used to initiate and perpetuate wars. Throughout the book, he emphasizes three key pillars to the peace movement: the United Nations ban on any kind of violence or aggression, mindfulness (allowing one to recognize and see through war propaganda and lies), and viewing all people as members of the human family.
Before delving into history, Ganser sets the stage in Chapter 1, “The USA Poses the Greatest Threat to World Peace.” He backs up this assertion with a dizzying array of figures about how many countries the US has bombed since 1945 (at least 23), how many military bases it has in foreign countries (more than 700), the US world record on military spending (now approaching $1 trillion annually), the number of US troops abroad (over 200,000), and the US status as the only country to have deployed nuclear weapons. He shares results of a Gallup poll of 67,000 people in 65 countries that asked, “Which country poses the greatest threat to world peace today?” to which 24% named the US, while between 5% and 9% named one of six other countries and less than 5% named one of twelve other countries.
Chapter 2, “The USA Is an Oligarchy,” spotlights an ominous manifestation of empire: the astronomical disparities in wealth and income (540 billionaires vs. over 100 million living in poverty, not to mention impacts around the world) resulting from an oligarchy of super-rich running the empire and manipulating information flows with little meaningful influence by voters.
Chapters 3 and 4 describe key precursors to empire both before and after the new US republic established its independence from Britain in the late 18th century — namely, the mass murder and displacement of Native Americans and the importation and exploitation of slave labor from Africa in much of the new nation.
Chapter 5 covers the overt launch of imperial actions in the mid and late 19th century, when the US initiated wars based on lies and often false flag incidents to annex half of Mexico and conquer former Spanish colonies either as outright possessions (Puerto Rico and Guam) or with nominal autonomy but under tight US control (Cuba and the Philippines). The Kingdom of Hawaii was captured and annexed under threat of violence.
Chapter 6, devoted to World War I, elaborates on how, even prior to the US entering combat in 1917, US-based war profiteers flourished. J.P. Morgan & Co. was financing England and France, and US corporations sold arms to Europe. Hence, vested US interests in intentionally prolonging the war cost millions of avoidable deaths. War propaganda thrived, with Germans — who had done nothing to the US — being severely vilified. Hamburgers became “Liberty Steak” and sauerkraut “Liberty Cabbage.” (Remember how in 2003, when France hesitated to join in the war on Iraq, the US Senate cafeteria sold “Freedom Fries”?) The Espionage Act was passed to prosecute pacifists (including Eugene Debs) and deny free speech — and is still being used today to persecute Julian Assange for exposing US war crimes in Iraq.
Chapter 7 scrutinizes the US role in World War II, unravelling its carefully cultivated image of fighting honorably on the side of righteousness, and exposes both belligerent proclivities and mixed loyalties. Ganser reminds us that US companies were allowed to sell oil to Nazi Germany both before and well into the war. Without that fuel supply, the Nazi threat may have dissipated prior to some of the worst atrocities being committed. Again, the war was unnecessarily prolonged.
Though officially allies of the Soviet Union, the US and Great Britain were pleased to see Hitler taking action against communist Russia, and they avoided opening a western front until mid-1944, when it looked like the Soviet Union (which lost 27 million citizens in World War II) would be the sole victor over the Nazis. Ganser unearthed this remarkable June 1941 quote by then-US Senator and later President Harry Truman: “If we see that Germany is winning the war we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany. And that way let them kill as many as possible, although I certainly don’t want Hitler to win in the end.” Divide et impera — divide and conquer.
Truman, as US president, ordered the first and only deployment of nuclear weapons in history so far, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and terrorizing many more at a time when Japan was already prepared to surrender. Ganser documents how, in order to gain popular support for the US entering the war, it intentionally goaded the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, providing the desired casus belli. The infamous December 7, 1941, attack was no surprise to President Franklin Roosevelt, who let it happen, sacrificing thousands of US servicemembers. As will become relevant to Chapter 12 on the September 11 attacks, Ganser notes that a Hollywood movie, “Pearl Harbor,” parroting the surprise attack myth, was released in May 2001, priming the public subliminally for what was to follow a few months later on September 11.
Chapter 8, “Covert Warfare,” tells us how the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Council were born in the post-war years. It includes a laundry list of how the US used them to perpetrate multiple coups d’état (Iran, Guatemala, Chile), assassinations (Lumumba in Congo, Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Diem in Vietnam, Che Guevarra in Bolivia), assassination attempts against Fidel Castro, and the failed invasion of Cuba in 1961. President Kennedy ultimately became so outraged by these illegal operations that he fired CIA director Allan Dulles.
Note that Ganser devoted an entire previous book, NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, to numerous additional covert operations involving the US, via NATO and the CIA, that are not covered in the present volume. These include false flag assassinations, bombing of civilians (blamed on communists), and fixing elections in much of Western Europe throughout the Cold War.
Chapter 9 focuses on the Kennedy assassination, summarizing evidence exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald and implicating Allan Dulles in a conspiracy to commit this heinous murder. After District Attorney Jim Garrison of New Orleans brought much of the evidence to light in 1967, questioning the validity of the Warren Commission Report (authored by Dulles), the CIA created and widely publicized the notion of “conspiracy theorist” as a derogatory term for anyone who challenged the official narrative. Interestingly, Ganser notes that in 1979 the US House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations “saw a high probability that two men had shot Kennedy. . . . The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.” This report was conveniently obscured by the media, and few are aware of it today.
Chapter 10, on the Vietnam War — which rapidly escalated after Kennedy’s murder — is a painful reminder to those readers who lived through it of the needless suffering inflicted on millions of Vietnamese and on tens of thousands of US soldiers and the peripheral damage to neighboring countries of Laos and Cambodia. The latter two countries were bombed by the US without provocation, inciting the brutality of Khmer Rouge communists, whom the US could demonize to deflect from its own role in the bloodshed. Ganser reminds us of the false flag Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 that was used to provoke a dramatic escalation of the war in Vietnam. While we were repeatedly warned of the propagandistic “domino theory,” there was in fact no chain reaction of neighboring countries turning communist after Vietnam prevailed and defeated the US in 1975 — hence all that death and destruction was in vain, other than benefitting war profiteers.
In Chapter 11 on the Iran-Contra Affair, Ganser elucidates another example of the US pitting two of its adversaries against each other when it supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq’s war against Iran while simultaneously and covertly selling weapons to Iran and secretly using the proceeds to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, who supported the dictatorial Somoza regime. Ganser further shows how the CIA hypocritically engaged secretly in the cocaine trade to finance its covert operations. How many people’s lives have been upended by those operations abroad and in drug-infested US cities?
In Chapters 12 and 13 on 9/11 and the War on Terror, respectively, the US empire ushers in the 21st century with an overwhelming display of shock and awe. The first sub-heading is prescient: “A New Pearl Harbor” refers to a prophetic statement in the year 2000 by the neocon Project for a New American Century, noting that it would be difficult to get the US population to accept massive military spending and upgrades for fighting multiple wars simultaneously “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Ganser offers three ways of evaluating the events of September 11, 2001: (1) Surprise attack catching everyone in the US, including top leadership and intelligence services, completely off guard; (2) LIHOP (let it happen on purpose), implying foreknowledge by key players of what was going to happen but intentionally failing to stop it; and (3) MIHOP (made it happen on purpose), involving direct complicity of certain players within the US military-intelligence apparatus and their agents. He disproves (1) and points to (2) and (3) as much more plausible, leaning toward (3).
Abundant research has been conducted debunking the official 9/11 story that 19 Muslim hijackers and a few men in a cave in Afghanistan were solely responsible for the death and destruction that day, and Ganser includes references to much of it in his footnotes. Bringing us to the present day, the author of this review refers readers to the International Center for 9/11 Justice for an up-to-date collection of relevant 9/11 research.
In this volume, Ganser touches on a handful of key anomalies: obvious fallacies of the official 9/11 Commission report authored by Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration insider; the utter failure of the multi-billion dollar US defense system to prevent an attack, including on its own heavily fortified headquarters; the millions in profits made by unnamed individuals who invested heavily in put options in the days before September 11, 2001 (betting that United and American airlines stocks would soon plummet), indicating specific foreknowledge; the clear evidence that World Trade Center Building 7 was destroyed later that day by controlled demolition and the refusal of US authorities or media to even entertain that possibility; and the evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the Twin Towers.
With the fall of the Soviet Union ten years before, the US empire had been searching for a new major enemy, and the crimes of 9/11 offered an “ideal” replacement: the never-ending and amorphous “War on Terror,” which could be and has been used to justify numerous military incursions and the proliferation of US bases anywhere “terrorists” are deemed to be lurking. Ganser details the US role in illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq (initiated by spreading lies about alleged weapons of mass destruction), and Syria, all of which left millions dead in their wake, not to mention the horrendous abuses of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers at Abu Ghraib.
On a note of optimism, Ganser points out how the blatant injustice of the wars in the Middle East — like the injustice of the Vietnam War before them — energized the peace movement in the US, prompting massive demonstrations and civil disobedience in opposition, indicating vast numbers who denounce war and empire and seek peaceful coexistence with all peoples. Beyond famous peace movement leaders like Jeannette Rankin, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi, he highlights the role of everyday citizens affirming their commitment to all people as members of the human family and rejecting attempts by the elites to divide and conquer. He also points out how the rise of alternative media has played a role in allowing for dissemination of information that counters the mainstream lies and war propaganda. The explosion of the internet and social media can be a two-edged sword, however, as Ganser points out in Chapter 14, “The Digital Empire,” with consolidation and monopolization of technology and information flows by such digital giants as Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia.
The 15th and final chapter, called “The Fight for Eurasia,” details the US role in the 2014 coup d’état in Ukraine — which was a catalyst for ensuing violence that has now escalated exponentially — as well as the relentless eastward expansion of NATO, contrary to US assurances in 1991 that this would not happen, which is another key causative factor in the havoc being wreaked there today. The original German edition was written two years prior to Russia’s 2022 “special military operation” in Ukraine. This new English edition does add a few paragraphs condemning Russia’s invasion as a violation of the UN Charter, while noting the provocations by NATO and Ukraine that fueled this proxy war between the US and Russia.
The book likewise does not include the up-to-the-minute status of the US relationship with China, but does note in the last chapter that China’s humiliation by the British Empire during the 19th century Opium Wars has prompted caution in its current relations with the West. We learn about China’s 2013 announcement of the “New Silk Road” in the form of a massive transcontinental infrastructure project also known as the Belt and Road Initiative, now well underway, designed not as an imperial land and resource grab but rather to mutually benefit all participating nations, allowing them to respect each other’s sovereignty and reducing tensions among them.
In his conclusion, Ganser notes that “the peace movement must trust that a world without war is possible.” He is “convinced that a fundamental exit from the spiral of violence is possible. The decisive factor is whether we really want inner and outer peace. If this will is strong enough, we can orient ourselves according to the following three principles: the human family, the UN ban on violence, and mindfulness.” These three principles, he notes, can be applied to overcome polarization, profiteering, and propaganda. A key tool of empire is dividing people into those who are favored and those who are demonized, pitting them against each other while enabling elites to generate profits for the few from the fighting of the many. Mindfulness can help people “wake up and quicky realize that war and lies always go hand in hand.” Those who practice mindfulness can no longer be so easily deceived by psychological operations.
In the words of President John F. Kennedy, invoked by Ganser in the introduction to the book, “Our problems are man-made. Therefore, they can be solved by men.”
USA: The Ruthless Empire, by Daniele Ganser
Skyhorse Publishing, 2023
ISBN: 97815107768
Marilyn Langlois is a volunteer community organizer and peace activist based in Richmond, California. She is a guest editorialist for TRANSCEND Media Service and a member of Daniele Ganser’s online peacemaker community. She serves on the board of the International Center for 9/11 Justice.
Featured Video
U.S. Defeated in Iran & Israel Will Not Survive
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Invisible harm from ionizing radiation
By Bjorn Hilt | International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War | December 8, 2015
Besides the terrible effects of the burst of light that causes eye damage, the heat that sets everything flammable on fire, the electromagnetic pulse that knocks out all electronic devices, and the blast that produces winds with ten times the force of a hurricane, demolishing everything, the detonation of nuclear weapons also leads to the emission of large amounts of ionizing radiation, which has serious deleterious effects on humans and many other species. Ionizing radiation is, in fact, a lurking danger as we cannot see it, we cannot smell it, we cannot hear it, and we cannot feel it immediately. But we certainly get harmed from it.
To reduce exposure to ionizing radiation and the risk of deleterious effects, we doctors usually warn our patients against having frequent examinations or procedures that involve x-rays. That is because x-rays are ionizing radiation that can harm your body in the same ways as radiation emitted by nuclear detonations. The main difference is that, for medical purposes, the radiation is applied in a controlled way.
The international standard unit for the dose of ionizing radiation is the Sievert. National guidelines in many countries warn against people having a cumulative dose of ionizing radiation exceeding 0.001 Sievert/year. The dose from a full body CT scan is 0.01 – 0.03 Sievert.
The ionizing radiation to which everybody in the vicinity of a nuclear detonation is exposed is so high and immediate that measuring in Sievert does not have much meaning. Such exposures are measured in Gray, where five Gray is reckoned to be lethal to 50% of those exposed (LD50). Even though these types of exposures are not directly comparable, for the common types of ionizing radiation, 1 Gray equals approximately 1.3 Sievert. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Douglas Macgregor: U.S. Defeated in Iran & Israel Will Not Survive
- 9/11 was an Inside/Outside Job
- Israeli military court sentences Palestinian journalist to 4 years for ‘incitement’
- Iran, Russia, China Demand Guarantees Against Further Attacks on Iranian Nuclear Sites
- How the Latest Iran Sanctions Could Impact Central Asia
- Pakistan threatens Yemeni strikes on KSA ‘could trigger’ Mecca defense pact
- Iran War Just Got Much Bigger / Matt Bracken & Lt Col Daniel Davis
- Qatar Warns of ‘Industrial Catastrophe’ If Strait of Hormuz Remains Closed
- Israeli Army Closes Tulkarem Zakat Committee Headquarters
- Blaming the Victim in the Gaza Genocide
- If Americans Knew
- ISRAELI MEDIA: Revealed: Netanyahu Received an Explicit Warning Days Before Oct. 7. He Didn’t Brief Israel’s Security Chiefs
- “Israel is a wonderful, safe place,” according to this totally objective expert
- The UK just announced it will comply with Int’l Court of Justice ruling from 2024. What does the ICJ ruling require states to do?
- Israel’s Quadcopter Drones Have Become a Weapon of Everyday Killing in Gaza
- Israel’s grip on American politics is finally being questioned
- Photos: Palestinians rebuild Gaza’s ruins with mud bricks, scrap
- Too many preemies in Gaza, no room in the NICU – Daily Update
- Front Row At the Revolution: Angry Americans are demanding liberation from the Israeli yoke
- Evangelical Zionist Huckabee attacks Jewish Ed Miliband, accuses UK government of ‘Jew hate’
- Macklemore Responds to Backlash Over “Free Palestine” Plea: “Wanting All Humans to Be Treated Equal Should Never Be Controversial”
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
- 2025 Study: ‘There Exists No Unequivocal Experimental Evidence For The CO2 Greenhouse Effect’
- 2026 Atlantic Cyclone Energy Index Running At 85% Below Normal!
- New Research Shows Soil Respiration And Temperature Drive CO2 Change, Not Humans
Aletho News 