Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

AfD politician speaks out against arming Ukraine

By Lucas Leiroz | June 19, 2023

Berlin is one of the biggest supporters of Kiev’s neo-Nazi regime, sending money and weapons in large sums so that the anti-Russian war machine remains active. However, not all German politicians seem to follow this bellicose mentality. In a recent speech in the German Parliament, an opposition deputy made clear his dissatisfaction with the current policy of sending weapons to Ukraine, showing that there is still a realistic and rational approach among local representatives.

The criticisms were made by Markus Frohnmaier, a deputy linked to the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. He questioned in his speech Germany’s real aims with its funding of Ukrainian activities. Frohnmaier classified Berlin’s policy as “carefree” and claimed that the people would be “fed up” with the irresponsible measures taken by the government. He also emphasized that Germans do not want to “pay for Kiev forever”.

The main targets of Frohnmaier’s criticism were German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Economic Affairs Minister Robert Habeck. The legislator even ironically questioned whether they were “Germans or Ukrainians”, in addition to mocking the names of the officials, mixing them with the names of Ukrainian political figures:

“Are you [Robert Habeck] the German or Ukrainian Minister of Economy? (…) This government, these Bandera-Baerbocks, these Volodymyr Habecks, these foreign administrators, they don’t give a damn about Germany”, he said.

Indeed, the parliamentarian’s targets are justified, considering the intensity with which both German officials work in defense of the interests of NATO and its proxy neo-Nazi regime. Annalena Baerbock has been one of the most prominent anti-Russian activists since the start of the special military operation, even going so far as to say that the European Union was “at war with Russia” during a speech in January. She has also been an emphatic instigator of war against Moscow, using her role as head of German diplomacy to encourage neutral countries to adopt anti-Russian measures, as seen in her recent visit to Brazil.

In the same vein, Robert Habeck’s administration has been disastrous. Prioritizing a liberal ideological agenda over the country’s strategic interests, Habeck has been one of those most responsible for the economic and energy crisis that hit Germany, in addition to being seen with strong opposition by the local population. He is, for example, the author of the unpopular proposal to replace oil and gas heating systems by green sources – a project that simultaneously meets the Western radical environmentalist plans and the anti-Russian agenda, as it endorses the end of energy cooperation between the two countries. A recent survey showed an 80% rejection to Habeck’s proposal among Germans, which shows how local people see his administration.

So, considering these facts, it is really justified for the AfD’s deputy to criticize the officials and denounce the government’s subservience to Ukrainian and Western interests. Germany has been one of the countries most affected by the diplomatic crisis that currently marks relations between Russia and the West, which is why it is urgent that there be a reconsideration of Berlin’s policy concerning its support for Ukraine.

One of the parties that has worked most in favor of these changes has been precisely the AfD. As well as Markus Frohnmaier, there are other party members who advocate a sovereign policy for Germany. As a party linked to the so-called “Eurosceptic movement”, the AfD strives to pressure the government to prioritize national interests over EU and US, which has driven a quest to improve ties with Russia.

For example, in September last year, the AfD sent a delegation of five affiliated politicians to visit Russia, including the four reintegrated regions, in a gesture of diplomatic goodwill in opposition to the hostility of the German state. As expected, these measures were enough for the mainstream media to describe the organization as “pro-Russia” and inaccurately accuse it of spreading “Kremlin propaganda“. The AfD is also often referred to as “right-wing extremist” because of its Eurosceptic stance, while ironically the Ukrainian neo-Nazism remains fully supported by the German government.

A curious fact is that this realistic and diplomatic approach that has been adopted by the AfD has contributed a lot to the increase in the party’s popularity. In a recent poll, the number of respondents saying that they would never vote for AfD dropped from 60% to 53.9%. The same survey also showed a drop in the preference for the Greens (a pro-government party to which both Baerbock and Habeck belong), who are in their worst position in the popularity ranking in five years. In practice, the numbers show that the more pro-war and anti-Russian politicians are, the less the German people support them.

In fact, despite popular support for rational and friendly relations with Russia, Berlin is strongly coerced by the US to act in a subservient way. The inertia of the country’s authorities in the face of evidence of American responsibility for the attack on the Nord Stream is a clear example of how Germany is currently not a truly sovereign state. However, the growth of a realistic and Eurosceptic mentality shows that changes can occur in the near future, generating hope for the local people.

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

June 19, 2023 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Putin’s shocking revelations show there can be no negotiations with Kiev

By Drago Bosnic | June 19, 2023

Respecting deals between countries or governments goes back millennia and includes civilizations such as Sumerians and Ancient Egyptians. This was always considered a sort of litmus test of a certain country’s or ruler’s reputation and it stuck for a very long time. In essence, this practice predates the very concept of international law and is in many ways its direct predecessor. However, it would seem certain countries haven’t really got the memo about how important respecting treaties is and what disastrous consequences may follow if one doesn’t.

On June 17, during a meeting with a number of African leaders and delegates who came to Moscow to offer a solution that would end the Ukrainian conflict, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a shocking revelation and even gave details of a March 2022 peace deal with the Kiev regime. The agreement, titled the “Treaty on the Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine” (negotiated with the mediation of the Turkish government), was actually signed by the Kiev regime. However, the Neo-Nazi junta decided to discontinue its compliance with the treaty as soon as Russia kept its own initial end of the bargain.

Apart from other, more technical details, the deal included a clause that was supposed to be one of the key points of the Ukrainian Constitution and that would guarantee the country’s permanent neutrality. The very fact that Russia was insisting on this makes the claims that Moscow allegedly wanted to “conquer Ukraine” a moot point. In return for neutrality, the Russian military was to pull out and effectively end the special military operation (SMO). To back up his claims, President Putin also presented the relevant documentation of the abortive peace deal to the African delegates.

“I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, with President Erdogan’s assistance, as you know, a string of talks between Russia and Ukraine took place in Turkey so as to work out both the confidence-building measures you mentioned, and to draw up the text of the agreement. 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 initiated by the head of the Kiev negotiation team. He put his signature there. Here it is,” Putin stated and then presented the documents.

The documents also revealed that apart from Russia, other guarantors of the agreement were the United States, the United Kingdom and France. The only non-Western guarantor was China. The deal also specified the future size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), as well as what types of weapons and equipment it would be allowed to field. Expectedly, numbers proposed by the two sides were vastly different, as Moscow suggested the AFU shouldn’t have more than 85,000 soldiers, while the National Guard should be limited to 15,000. On the other hand, the Kiev regime insisted that the number should be 250,000.

In terms of weapons and equipment, Russia proposed that the AFU should be capped at 342 MBTs (main battle tanks), 1029 armored vehicles, 96 MLRS (multiple launch rocket systems), 50 combat and 52 support aircraft. However, for its part, the Neo-Nazi junta insisted on having 800 MBTs, 2400 armored vehicles, 600 MLRS, 74 combat and 86 support aircraft. The agreement was also supposed to include limitations on the number of ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles), MANPADS (man-portable air defense systems), mid to long-range SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems and several other types of weapons and military equipment.

To show that its goal was never to “conquer Ukraine”, as well as to demonstrate its readiness to honor the peace treaty, Moscow even pulled out its troops from northern Ukraine, including from the outskirts of Kiev it reached in mere days. Obviously, the actual aim of the SMO was to conduct an operation similar to that in Georgia in 2008, when Tbilisi was forced to sign a peace deal after it foolishly attacked Russian peacekeepers in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, the Kiev regime withdrew from the talks immediately after the Russian military left northern Ukraine, clearly indicating that the Neo-Nazi junta never intended to honor the agreement.

“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,” Putin stated, adding: “Where are the guarantees that they will not walk away from agreements in the future? … However, even under such circumstances, we have never refused to conduct negotiations.”

Indeed, how is Russia to ever trust any official agreement signed by the Kiev regime when the latter repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to break any and every deal so far? Worse yet, the so-called “guarantors” from the political West have shown that they’re equally untrustworthy, as their (current and former) leaders have not only admitted, but are even openly boasting about “giving Ukraine time” by signing deals that they knew would be broken. This only reinforces the notion former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev (rightfully) insists on – negotiating deals with the political West and its vassals and satellite states only demonstrates weakness.

It should also be noted that thanks to this treachery, approximately 200,000 forcibly conscripted Ukrainians were sent to certain death, while at least twice as many have suffered permanent, life-altering injuries. Worse yet, these are not conclusive numbers, as there’s no indication that hostilities will end any time soon. Moscow clearly demonstrated that it didn’t want this, but it also showed what its armed forces are capable of. Either way, the political West awakened a sleeping giant that is extremely unlikely to go back to hibernation now that its opponents have shown their true colors.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

June 19, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

US Submarine That Crashed in South China Sea Two Years Ago Won’t Be Ready Until 2026

By Ian DeMartino – Sputnik – 17.06.2023

The US attack submarine that crashed traversing the South China Sea in 2021 will reportedly not be ready for redeployment until at least 2026.

The USS Connecticut won’t be repaired until 2026 and will cost $80 million, according to a recent US media report. The delay is due to US Navy shipyard backlogs filled with other repairs and routine maintenance that predate the USS Connecticut.

One of three Seawolf-class submarines, the nuclear-powered attack vessel is armed with tomahawk cruise missiles and torpedoes. Its crash in 2021 injured 11 of its crew and was not only embarrassing for the US military but also inflamed relations with China, which took issue with the US operating clandestine nuclear-powered attack subs so close to their shores.

China also accused the United States of being less than forthcoming with details about the crash, including the objectives assigned to the attack submarine.

“I want to stress that the root cause of the incident, which also poses a serious threat and significant risks to regional peace and stability, is the US’ constant stirring up of trouble in the South China Sea over a long period of time,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian shortly after the incident.

The US Navy took five days to make a statement on the accident and then gave no details on how the submarine crashed or what it hit. More than a month later, a US Navy investigation stated that the vessel had struck an underwater mountain. Senior members of the submarine’s command were relieved of duty due to a loss of confidence.

Roughly a month before the crash, the USS Connecticut crashed into a pier in San Diego, California. An investigation by the Navy determined the crash in the South China Sea was avoidable.

“A grounding at this speed and depth had the potential for more serious injuries, fatalities, and even loss of the ship,” the report said, continuing that it “resulted from an accumulation of errors and omissions in navigation planning, watchteam execution, and risk management that fell far below US Navy standards.”

The accident led the Navy to issue a temporary “stand down” order for its submarine force.

After the crash, the $3 billion submarine limped itself to a port in Guam. It arrived at Bremerton, Washington, in February 2022 for repairs, but its current status hasn’t been publicly disclosed.

A statement given to a US military news outlet last year said repairs were expected to start in February of this year and finish by no later than September 2025 and cost around $50 million, but the more recent report indicates that additional delays have occurred.

US Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) decried the long delay on Twitter. “It will have taken AT LEAST 5 YEARS of repairs for the USS Connecticut – one of our most formidable submarines – to return to the fleet,” he said. “This delay is a reminder of the kinds of monumental investments we need to make in maritime infrastructure.”

The US Navy’s official news portal reported in January that four of the six dry docks at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington, are temporarily closed due to concerns about their ability to withstand earthquakes.

The report stated that upgrades to the docks could take between 18 and 24 months.

June 17, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian Counteroffensive’s Second Week Ends in Failure

By Scott Ritter – Sputnik – 17.06.2023

Operation enters the second week of Ukraine’s long-awaited and highly touted counteroffensive, some basic conclusions can be drawn even though the fighting continues, and will continue to rage, for some time to come.

First and foremost, the counteroffensive gambit has failed. While there is still considerable combat strength left in the Ukrainian military, including more than 75% of the NATO-trained and -equipped 60,000-strong cohort Ukraine had assembled in the past eight months, fundamentally flawed assumptions about the quality of the force on which Ukraine and its NATO allies had placed their collective hopes for victory over Russia have been exposed. In short, Ukraine lacks the military capacity to overcome Russian defenses.

Ukraine’s most elite assault brigades, equipped with the latest Western military technology, failed to advance out of what Russian defensive doctrine calls the “cover” line of defense—the buffer that is designed to channel and disrupt an attacking force prior to reaching the “main” line of defense. Ukrainian casualties were extremely heavy, with Russia achieving a 10:1 kill ratio in terms of manpower, which is unsustainable from the Ukrainian perspective. The reasons for the Ukrainian failure are fundamental in nature, meaning that they cannot be overcome as things currently stand and, as such, the Ukrainian military has zero chance of success, no matter how hard they press subsequent attacks.

First and foremost is the quality of the Russian defenses, especially in terms of the barrier network (minefields, obstacles, and trenches) which, when combined with the tenacity of the Russian defender and the overwhelming superiority Russia enjoys in terms of fire support (both artillery and air-delivered), is the reason the Ukrainians are unable to advance beyond the “cover” layer of the Russian defenses. Ukrainian equipment and tactics are insufficient to the task of breaching the Russian obstacle barriers in any meaningful manner, dooming the attacking forces to be destroyed piecemeal by Russian artillery and air strikes, as well as local counterattacks mounted by Russian special forces.

Besides the poor tactics and equipment deficiencies (yes, the Leopard tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles were not the miracle weapons Ukraine and its Western supporters had hyped them up to be), the Ukrainians are paying the price for Russia’s impressive suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) campaign that has been ongoing for many weeks now.

Russian fixed-wing aircraft have been able to deliver precision-guided munitions with deadly effect to the assembly areas used by Ukraine to gather their attacking forces prior to committing them to the battlefield. It is estimated that between 25-30% of Ukraine’s casualties occur from these strikes. Russian helicopters can use their anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) with lethal effect on Ukrainian forces operating in the zone of contact, and Russian loitering munitions (i.e., “kamikaze drones”) have taken a heavy toll of Ukrainian forces as well. Unless Ukraine can reassert some semblance of air defense onto the battlefield, both in the rear areas as well as the frontlines, and sortie its own air power capable of challenging Russian air superiority over the battlefield, then no amount of courage and tactical innovation on the part of the Ukrainian ground forces will alter the deadly calculus of war that currently prevails today.

One of the many tragedies of the ongoing Ukrainian-Russian conflict is the fact that much of what Ukraine does on the battlefield is dictated not by military necessity, but rather political imperative. The recently concluded months-long Battle for Artemovsk (Bakhmut) is a case in point, where Ukrainian President Zelensky insisted on pouring manpower and equipment into a battle for a town that most military experts believed to hold minimal strategic military value. The geography, however, did not dictate the scope and scale of the battle, but rather the perception of Ukrainian defensive tenacity, and as a result between 60-75.000 Ukrainian soldiers lost their lives in what was a losing effort. Similarly, the Ukrainian army is being asked to make what amounts to a suicide attack against well-prepared Russian defenses under conditions which, as detailed earlier, can only result in a decisive Ukrainian defeat. This time, the culprit is Ukraine’s NATO allies who, on the eve of their annual summit, are desperate for any sign that the multi-billion-dollar investment they have collectively made in the Ukrainian military can pay even the most rudimentary dividends. For this reason, NATO will continue to pressure Ukraine to double down on defeat, pressing the Russians offensively even though any gains, if in fact any can be had, would be pyrrhic in nature and unsustainable over the long run.

The reality is that when NATO gathers in Vilnius on July 11, the Russians will be well into the process of destroying the third Ukrainian army built by NATO. The first was assembled during the buffer provided by the diplomatic “sham” of the Minsk Accords, from 2015-2022. Some 260,000 strong, this force was largely destroyed by June of 2022. The second army, consisting of some 80,000 newly trained and equipped Ukrainian soldiers backed by thousands of foreign mercenaries, the direct result of tens of billions of dollars of military aid provided by NATO, was able to launch the successful Ukrainian counterattack in the fall of 2022, before being decimated in the positional war that followed (including the Bakhmut slaughter).

The 60,000-strong 12-brigade Ukrainian counterattack force currently operating against the Russians, again the result of tens of billions of dollars in military equipment (including modern Western tanks, artillery, and infantry fighting vehicles), will most probably be destroyed, or facing imminent destruction, by the time the NATO summit convenes. The primary question facing NATO is does it have the political, economic, and military capacity to raise a fourth Ukrainian army, and after its demise, a fifth, sixth, and more?

NATO is politically committed to waging a proxy conflict with Russia “to the last Ukrainian.” This tragic reality means that, regardless of the battlefield reality that exists in Ukraine, NATO will continue to push Ukraine to sacrifice its manpower in a fruitless struggle against Russia for the simple fact that NATO is unwilling to willingly lose political face at home and abroad.

However, this political will does not automatically mean that NATO will be able to sustain this objective either economically or militarily.

While recent statements made by US General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicate that there are tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers in the US/NATO training “pipeline”, and that the US/NATO is assembling equipment sufficient to equip these soldiers, they will not be ready for combat for several months yet—long after the third Ukrainian army has met its fate on the field of battle.

Milley spoke of new air defense systems for Ukraine, and other NATO officials speak of the possibility of providing Ukraine with (old) F-16 aircraft. New air defense systems, however, cannot in and of themselves alter a military reality imposed by Russia on Ukraine through its strategic SEAD victory. Ukraine will simply continue a losing struggle against Russian air power. The same holds true of any F-16 fighters that might be provided to Ukraine—too little, too late, and in any event incapable of achieving a meaningful battlefield result.

In Vilnius, NATO will be confronted with the reality of its impotency as a military alliance when it comes to countering Russia in Ukraine. Any military analyst of any competence will know that, as things currently stand, Ukraine simply cannot prevail over Russia. NATO illusions of a “frozen conflict” that seem to drive their insane desire to arm Ukraine to infinity and beyond, moreover, are driven by fundamentally flawed assessments regarding Russian economic competence and capacity, Russian military proficiency, and the will of the Russian people to sustain this conflict.

Here is the root cause of NATO’s strategic failure in Ukraine—a complete lack of understanding about the reality of Russia today. Russia will be able to out-produce NATO from a standpoint of military technology until which time NATO nations fully transition into a wartime economy, something NATO nations neither have the political will nor economic means to accomplish.

The Russian military has largely overcome the deficiencies which plagued it in the initial phases of the Special Military Operation, and the Russia armed forces assembled in the Special Military Operation zone are highly trained, well-equipped, and properly trained for the tasks they have been assigned. Moreover, the Russian nation has rallied around the leadership of Russian President Vladimir Putin in an overwhelming fashion, united in the belief that the proxy war NATO is waging against Russia in Ukraine is existential in nature and, as such, one that Russia cannot lose.

NATO will not alter course in the immediate period following the Vilnius summit—there is simply too much political momentum in place to bring about any meaningful alteration of the current trajectory in Ukraine. But neither will NATO produce a winning formula in Ukraine. Rather, NATO will continue to pursue little more than a variation of an existing theme—to arm Ukraine so that it can fight as long as it is capable of sustaining the fight.

This short-sighted posture will result in the inevitable military collapse of Ukraine, probably sometime between late summer/early fall of this year. When this happens, NATO will be left scrambling to construct some sort of face-saving mechanism to salvage its weakened geopolitical position vis-à-vis Russia. What that will look like is unknown at this time. But one thing is for certain—because NATO refuses to consider an off-ramp from the Ukrainian conflict today, there will be no future for Ukraine tomorrow. NATO political pride will be the downfall and destruction of the Ukrainian nation, its military, and its people.

June 17, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US, Israel defense ministers discuss anti-Iran alliance

The Cradle | June 16, 2023

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant met with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on 15 June at the NATO summit in Brussels to discuss Iran and other important aspects of the US-Israel relationship, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Gallant discussed with Austin his claims that “Iran stimulates attacks against Israel using proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, and reiterated Israel’s right to self-defense,” the Israeli paper said.

Before departing for Belgium, Gallant said he would discuss with Austin “the implementation of the joint commitment of both our countries to make sure Iran will never possess nuclear military capabilities.”

Israeli threats against Iran have intensified in recent months amid unconfirmed reports that Washington is close to reaching an interim or partial nuclear deal with Tehran through indirect talks in Oman.

Israel opposes a US nuclear deal with Iran, while Iranian officials have made clear they will only accept a full return to the nuclear deal signed with the Obama administration in 2015. The Trump administration withdrew from the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), unilaterally in 2018. The JCPOA placed limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

Despite US negotiations with Iran, the US military has expanded military cooperation with Israel this year and carried out exercises viewed as veiled threats against Iran, such as the Juniper Oak exercise in January.

The exercise involved 7,900 personnel, 142 combat aircraft, twelve warships, and activities across all domains (sea, air, land, space, and cyber). The main goals of the exercise were to improve interoperability and to demonstrate the ability to surge forces into the region in the event of war with Iran.

Reports emerged that the exercise simulated strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, though US officials denied this.

In March, Austin met with Gallant in Israel. At the time, Austin said that although the Biden administration “continues to believe in diplomacy,” it would “not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.”

Despite ongoing political differences between the Biden administration and the Israeli government regarding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposed legislation to overhaul the Israeli judiciary, the military alliance between the two remains strong.

Austin said he “wanted to be here to make something very clear: America’s commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad, and it’s going to stay that way. As President [Joe] Biden said in his visit to Israel last year, ‘The connection between the Israeli people and the American people is bone deep.’ Israel is a major strategic partner for the US.”

June 16, 2023 Posted by | Islamophobia, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US imposes fresh sanctions on North Korea despite Treasury warning

Press TV – June 15, 2023

The United States has imposed fresh punitive measures on North Korea, targeting the country’s missile program despite a recent warning from the Treasury that sanctions are pushing many countries to seek alternatives to the dollar for settlements.

The US Treasury Department issued the punitive action on Thursday after South Korea earlier said its neighbor fired two short-range missiles, Reuters reported.

The South Korean military said North Korea fired two short-range missiles off its east coast on Thursday after Pyongyang warned of an “inevitable” response to the military drills staged by several thousand South Korean and US troops on the Korean Peninsula.

The Treasury in a statement said it imposed sanctions on two North Korean nationals, accusing them of being involved in the procurement of equipment and materials for the country’s ballistic missile program.

“The United States is committed to targeting the regime’s illicit procurement networks that feed its weapons programs,” said the Treasury’s Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Brian Nelson.

The sanctions also targeted a Beijing-based representative for the Second Academy of Natural Sciences, which the US claimed is responsible for research and development for North Korea’s advanced weapons systems. His wife was hit with sanctions as well.

The Treasury in the statement said North Korea continues to use a network of representatives abroad to import components necessary for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Earlier in the day, South Korean and US troops held joint live-fire exercises in the region. A total of 2,500 troops took part in the maneuvers in Pocheon, northeast of Seoul.

President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea personally watched the live-fire exercises. He said the drills were the largest of their kind ever held with the United States.

North Korea released a statement on Thursday, with a defense ministry spokesperson saying the exercises were “targeting the DPRK (North Korea) by massively mobilizing various types of offensive weapons and equipment.”

“Our response to this is inevitable,” said the statement, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

It said the drills were “escalating the military tension in the region.”

North Korea has been under harsh sanctions by the United States and the United Nations Security Council for years over its nuclear and ballistic-missile programs.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen admitted during her annual appearance on Tuesday before the House Financial Services Committee that US sanctions were pushing many countries to seek alternatives to the dollar for settlements.

Asked about the risk of de-dollarization, Yellen acknowledged that the use of the dollar in the global economy is diminishing.

“It’s not surprising that countries that are fearing they can be affected by our sanctions are looking for alternatives to the dollar. It’s something that we simply have to expect,” she stated.

June 16, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

New security deal grants US ‘unimpeded’ access to Papua New Guinea bases

Press TV – June 15, 2023

A recently inked defense agreement has granted the US military an “unimpeded access” to Papua New Guinea (PNG) military bases, as part of Washington’s push to increase its military footprints in the Pacific to counter the influence of China.

The full text of the 15-year agreement was tabled in Papua New Guinea’s parliament on Wednesday evening and obtained by AFP for the first time, elucidating the details that have been closely guarded since the pact was signed in May.

“The defense cooperation was drafted by the United States and Papua New Guinea as equals and sovereign partners,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in the signing ceremony last month.

With Papua New Guinea’s agreement, the United States will be able to station troops and vessels at six key ports and airports, including Lombrum Naval Base on Manus Island and facilities in the capital Port Moresby, PNG’s capital.

Access to Lombrum could be used to reinforce US facilities on Guam to the north, which could be a key base in the event of a conflict over Taiwan.

The agreement grants Washington “unimpeded access” to the sites to “pre-position equipment, supplies and materiel,” and have “exclusive use” of some base zones, where development and “construction activities” could be carried out.

Another contentious section of the agreement gives US authorities the “exclusive right to exercise criminal jurisdiction over US personnel.” however Papua New Guinea officials have denied this section in the contract.

Prime Minister James Marape has been forced to defend the deal against a wave of protests and criticism in the country’s universities, with some opponents questioning whether Papua New Guinea was signing away its sovereignty.

“We have allowed our military to be eroded in the last 48 years,” Marape said to the parliament on Wednesday evening. “Sovereignty is defined by the robustness and strength of your military.”

Former Prime Minister Peter O’Neill slammed the deal with the Americans and warned that the United States is only considering their own interests, which do not align with PNG’s security as it will become stuck in the middle of a war between two superpowers.

“America is doing it for the protection of its own national interest, we all understand the geopolitics happening within our region,” he said.

The Oceania country, which sits on an abundance of natural resources, is located in a key geopolitical zone near critical shipping routes and now is set at the center of a diplomatic tug-of-war between Washington and Beijing. PNG was the site of fierce battles during World War II.

China has repeatedly warned the US about hyper-militarizing the region and destabilizing its security, but Washington is still expanding in the Asia and Indo-Pacific region as part of its hostile agenda against Beijing.

Washington is trying to woo Pacific nations with an array of diplomatic and financial incentives in return for strategic support, after similar moves by Beijing.

Last month, when asked whether China’s defense pact with PNG’s neighboring Solomon Islands is a factor in renewing ties, US Secretary of State said that the agreement “is not about any other country.”

Moreover, the US State Department has promised to provide $45 million in new funds as it worked with PNG to strengthen economic and security cooperation, including protective equipment for the Papua New Guinea Defense Force (PNGDF), climate change mitigation, and tackling transnational crime and HIV/AIDS.

US President Joe Biden had been scheduled to pay an official visit to Papua New Guinea to sign the pact but his visit was canceled due to Washington’s debt crisis.

PNG, with a population of nearly 10 million people, is the most populous Pacific island nation, located just north of Australia.

June 15, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

America At War – Provoking The Consequences

By Christopher Black – New Eastern Outlook – 15.06.2023 

The United States of America is at war with Russia. There is not much point in using terms such as “proxy war” to describe the situation. If a belligerent in a war is acting as a proxy for another power and that power is not engaged directly in the war, the term can be useful. But when the power, for which the “proxy” engages in the war, is directly involved in the war itself, then it is a co-belligerent, a party to the war directly, not simply by proxy.

The issue is whether each state is pursuing its own interests and has its own independent means of doing so, or whether the interests and forces of the allied powers are subordinate to the interests and forces of a leader. In such a case, the enemy being attacked can regard all its opponents as a single entity.

In this regard, Clausewitz said that, “if you can vanquish all your enemies by defeating one of them, that defeat must be the main objective of the war. In this one enemy, we strike at the centre of gravity of the entire conflict.”

If we analyse the war in the Ukraine theatre of operations in these terms, it becomes clear that the Ukrainian military forces are in fact forces of the United States of America. They have been created, armed, trained, supplied, financed, and are directed and commanded by the Americans, for American interests. The government for whom they nominally fight is a puppet state, installed in power by the United States and its NATO allies in a coup d’etat in 2014. It has no independent interests outside of American ones, and no control over the war or the forces nominally under its command.

The United States of America is the leader of a hostile military alliance, the purpose of which, since its inception, has been to isolate, threaten, attack and destroy Russia, has conspired with its alliance for years to achieve this end, has spent vast resources to prepare the attack, and has, with malice and determination, sabotaged any proposals for peace. It insists on war. It is the centre of gravity of the entire conflict.

The American government claims that it is not engaged even in a proxy war with Russia, that they are merely assisting an independent nation suffering aggression from another, that this does not put them at war with Russia, a war which, they claim, they are trying to avoid despite their actions and daily propaganda.

But, like the British, and the rest, the truth is the United States of America is a party to the war directly, according to all accepted criteria under international law. It supplies money to conduct the war, tanks, armoured vehicles, aircraft, arms, ammunition, military provisions and other war materials, engages its own military forces-military advisors and combatants, provides military intelligence, obtained on a real-time basis from its spy networks, satellite observations and electronic data collection, engages in an intense propaganda war against Russia, has attempted, through “sanctions,” to impose a blockade on Russia and its economy and people, blew up the Nord Stream gas pipeline, sends, on a regular basis, senior government and military officials, including the American President, Congressional bigwigs and the leaders of other members of the military alliance, to meet with and direct the actions of their lieutenant Zelensky, and conducts constant military exercises further threatening attacks against Russia. The NATO Air Defender military exercises begin in Europe on June 12, the day I write this, involving hundreds of NATO aircraft.

Make no mistake. The United States of America is at war with Russia. No amount of rhetoric can hide that fact and what the consequences for the United States will be. To quote Clausewitz again,

“Danger is part of the friction of war. Without an accurate conception of danger, we cannot understand war.”

The problem is that the neither the Americans nor the other members of its unholy alliance, seem to realise the danger they are in, neither their leaders nor their citizens. Like the British, they suffer from the delusion that they are insulated from the consequences of their war, that they are invulnerable, that Russia will not dare to respond to the attacks upon its territory and people by attacking their territories. This shared delusion makes them ever more dangerous, since they think they can keep escalating their actions in the war without any limits. They cannot-not without consequences.

On June 8th Tass reported, following the statement by the former head of NATO, Fogh Rasmussen, that NATO countries may send their forces into the conflict directly, that Dmitry Medvedev stated,

“Fogh Rasmussen wasn’t a very smart man before. And now he has sunk into a doctrinaire’s dementia. In an interview with The Guardian, he stated that even if Banderavite Ukraine doesn’t receive an invitation to join NATO in Vilnius, the countries of the alliance will be able to send their troops there. Sort of on their own.”

“Well, have the people of these countries been asked? Who among them wants war with Russia? Do they really want hypersonic strikes on Europe? And what does Uncle Sam think about this? It would affect him too, wouldn’t it?”

Again, on June 1, TASS reported that Dmitry Medvedev stated, in connection with the attack on Russians in the Belgorod region by NATO-Ukrainian forces,

“The aim was simple – to cause damage, to harm to the civilian population somehow, And the fact that our enemy is already behaving as a terrorist characterizes in a very specific way both the Ukrainian regime and those who are behind it – first of all the Americans and the Europeans, who, in fact, have got on the warpath with us. Terrorist acts must entail the harshest retaliation possible.”

Medvedev’s views have been stated by other members of the government, by members of the Duma and by President Putin when he referred to Russian strikes on command and decision centres wherever they may be.

The Americans can whistle in the dark, lie to their people, try to fool the world, but what matters is what the Russian government thinks and knows, and it thinks, because it knows, that the United States of America is at war with Russia and seeks Russia’s complete defeat and subjugation. The campaign in Ukraine is just a phase of this war, is the current geographical space for this war, so for the United States and its allies to assume that they can carry out attacks on Russia and not suffer being dealt with in kind or worse, that war cannot be waged on their territories, is a serious mistake.

Indeed, on May 31, Dmitry Medvedev stated with respect to Britain,

“London is, in fact, waging an undeclared war on Moscow, which means that any British official can be viewed as a legitimate military target.

“Today, Great Britain is acting as an ally of Ukraine, by providing it with equipment and personnel as military assistance, that is de facto waging an undeclared war against Russia. Therefore, any of its officials, both military and civilian ones, who are making a contribution to the war effort, can be viewed as a legitimate military target,”

Medvedev was commenting on a remark by British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly who had justified the drone attacks on Moscow, saying that Ukraine had the right to attack targets on Russian territory for self-defense.

He added,

“Foolish officials in the UK, our eternal enemy, should remember that under universally recognized international law governing the conduct of war in modern conditions, including the Hague and Geneva Conventions with their additional protocols, their situation can also be qualified as being at war.”

The same analysis applies in spades to the United States of America.

An interesting comment in this regard was made by the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on June 3rd when, according to Tass, he stated in an interview on the Rossiya-1 TV channel, that,

“Ukraine has simply become a tool of the West’s ‘hybrid war’ against Russia, and therefore it is futile to deal with it in resolving the conflict. Now, Ukraine is actually a tool of conflict. The conflict has indeed become broader, as the collective West is waging a hybrid war against our country. It is futile to deal with this tool in order to resolve the conflict, and this must be understood too.”

All the rhetoric from NATO about whether or not Ukraine can become a member of NATO is just a smokescreen to hide from their people the fact that Ukraine is already de facto part of NATO. Whether or not the formalities of signing pieces of paper, of getting the approval of NATO states is followed through, is irrelevant.

Remember that on March 26, 2022, in Warsaw, President Biden stated,

“We have a sacred obligation under Article 5 to defend each and every inch of NATO territory with the full force of our collective power.”

He was referring not only to Poland but to Ukraine as well. What Russia feared is now the reality. Ukraine is de facto a NATO state. And all the rhetoric from the West and commentators about whether or not NATO will invoke Article 5 is another smokescreen designed to mask what is really happening, for NATO has already activated Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.

The talk about invoking it in the future is an attempt to hide NATO’s weakness, its defeats on the military, economic and political fronts, even as they throw one weapon system after another at Russia, and inject NATO forces into the fighting only to have their equipment and forces destroyed.

They have nothing left to throw at Russia that can defeat it. So, they pretend NATO is not yet really engaged. But these facts make the USA even more dangerous as it becomes clear that the combined West cannot defeat Russia, a nuclear power, using conventional means.

Remember also that the United States has a first strike nuclear arms policy, and they have already placed, in Romania and Poland, land-based versions of the Aegis Air Defence System, which can be used to launch nuclear-armed missiles at Russia. These systems have been tested. The one in Poland is reported to be fully operational as of June 30. The danger to Russia is immediate and existential. Those systems are one of the reasons Russia activated its military operations. Russia has further responded to this, and to the attacks on Russia, clearly planned and ordered by the US and UK, by placing tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus which are to be made operational after July 7, when the facilities to store and use them will be completed.

Those tactical nuclear weapons are designed for battlefield use. We hope it never comes to that, but Russia faces a direct threat from people bent on its destruction that think they are untouchable. So, Russia faces very difficult choices on what to do and how to prevent an escalation to all our nuclear war while ensuring its own security.

On May 23, during his visit to Laos, Deputy Head of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev issued a warning on the day Russian security forces destroyed the Ukrainian raiding force that attacked civilians in the Belgorod region.

“The North Atlantic alliance does not take the threat of nuclear war seriously enough, thus making a big mistake. NATO is not serious about this scenario. Otherwise, NATO would not have supplied such dangerous weapons to the Ukrainian regime. Apparently, they think that a nuclear conflict, or a nuclear apocalypse, is never ever possible. NATO is wrong, and at some point, events may take a completely unpredictable turn. The responsibility will be placed squarely on the North Atlantic Alliance,”

Medvedev pointed out that no one knows whether the point of no return has been passed,

“No one knows this. This is the main danger. Because as soon as they provide something, they say: let’s supply this, too. Long-range missiles or planes. Everything will be all right. But nothing will be fine. We will be able to cope with it. But only more and more serious types of weapons will be used. That’s what the current trend is.”

So, we come back to Clausewitz. The American government and people cannot understand the war they are engaged in unless they understand the danger, they are in. They have to understand their country is the centre of gravity in this war, whose defeat will mean the defeat of all its minions in NATO. The Russian people know the danger they are in. The Americans, through NATO, through their NATO puppets in Ukraine, have attacked Russians in Russia. It is logical to expect that Russia will decide to bring home to the Americans what war means, what danger they are in, and they do not need to use nuclear weapons to achieve this.

Russia can strike using its conventional hypersonic weapons as well, against which the USA has no defence whatsoever, as has been established with the destruction of the Patriot Air defence complexes in Ukraine which could not stop Russian missiles. They have no other air defence systems operational in the United States territory or on its naval forces that can stop them either. Russia has not decided to take this step yet. But it can and the Americans can do nothing about it except bluster about using nuclear weapons against Russia. But Russia took that possibility into account when the special military operation began.

The American people have not directly experienced war in their own territory for a long time. They have no idea what it is. They have no idea of the danger they are in so long as their government continues its aggressive policies, not only against Russia, but China as well. The American people, misled and misinformed, have no conception of the dangers of this war anymore than the British people and the peoples of the other NATO countries do. The American people must be warned. The United States of America is at war, and no amount of bluffing and lying can protect them from the consequences their government is provoking. To repeat what I said in my warning to the people of Britain, the consequences are predictable and they will be catastrophic.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events.

June 15, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

US sends more fighter jets to its Middle East

RT | June 15, 2023

The US military has sent additional fighter jets to the Middle East after accusing Russia of “increasingly unsafe” aircraft activity in the region, including during several incidents in Syria.

F-22 Raptors with the 94th Fighter Squadron have been deployed from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, according to Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees US military operations in the Middle East, Central Asia and parts of Africa.

The decision was part of a “multifaceted show of US support and capability in the wake of increasingly unsafe and unprofessional behavior by Russian aircraft,” CENTCOM said in a press release on Wednesday.

Pentagon officials have accused Moscow of reckless flights over US bases in Syria in recent weeks, with CENTCOM chief General Erik Kurilla claiming there has been a “significant spike” in “provocative” actions since March.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in April, Air Force Lieutenant General Alexus Grynkewich warned that the rise in tensions could lead to a “miscalculation” among Russian and American pilots operating in Syria, stating there were 60 separate incidents between March and April alone.

Moscow has similarly accused Washington of unprofessional behavior in Syria. Last month, Rear Admiral Oleg Gurinov, deputy head of the Russian Center for the Reconciliation of Warring Parties in Syria, said American warplanes continued to commit “gross violations” of deconfliction protocols.

“US Air Force pilots continue to activate weapons systems when approaching in the air with Russian Aerospace Forces aircraft performing planned flights in eastern Syria,” the official added.

The US currently maintains about 900 ground troops in Syria and operates a network of air bases around the region. The new aircraft deployment also comes after CENTCOM said it would strengthen the US “defense posture” in the Middle East with additional naval assets, vowing to carry out “heightened patrols” in the Persian Gulf in response to “destabilizing” actions by Tehran.

June 15, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US involvement prevents Ukraine peace – Hungary

RT | June 14, 2023

Near-term prospects for ending the Ukraine conflict are not looking good, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto told the Turkish Anadolu agency on Wednesday.

“Unfortunately, all developments are showing a totally different direction. The weapons deliveries, the very open reference to nuclear capacities, the offensives against each other from the two sides, the Ukrainian soldiers being trained in European countries, the very deep involvement of the Americans. So these are not heading toward peace for sure,” he said, during an interview in New York.

Szijjarto also pointed out that Ukraine is only able to fight Russia because of weapons supplied by the US, and that a long-term peace deal would depend on an agreement between Moscow and Washington.

Hungary has repeatedly called for a ceasefire in Ukraine and urged a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Budapest has also refused to allow the transit of Ukraine-bound NATO weapons across its territory, or training of Ukrainian soldiers on its soil.

Late on Tuesday, US Senator Jim Risch of Idaho blocked the sale of HIMARS rocket artillery to Hungary, citing Budapest’s delay in approving Sweden’s membership in the US-led military bloc. As the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Risch is able to hold up the weapons deal, worth an estimated $735 million and involving 24 HIMARS launchers and the ammunition for them.

Hungary is not opposed to Stockholm’s membership in principle, Szijjarto told Anadolu, but the parliament in Budapest is taking into consideration the “insults” and interference into the country’s internal affairs coming from Stockholm.

Multiple Swedish officials have accused Hungary of “backsliding” on democracy and the rule of law and accused PM Viktor Orban of acting like a “dictator,” as part of an EU campaign to compel obedience from Budapest.

“We never interfere in the domestic issues of other countries,” Szijjarto said. “Such accusations give a reason to put this issue on hold for a while.”

NATO is hoping to finalize Sweden’s membership ahead of next month’s summit in Vilnius, but even if Hungary succumbs to US pressure, that would still leave Türkiye as a holdout. Ankara has repeatedly said that Stockholm needs to do more to implement the agreement reached last year, involving the extradition of Kurdish activists accused of terrorism.

June 14, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

While the West Seeks Victory in Ukraine, the Global South Seeks Peace

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | June 14, 2023

There is a revealing difference between the peace proposals for the Russo-Ukrainian War that come from the Global South and peace proposals that come from the NATO-aligned West. For starters, no peace proposals have come from the West, while several have come from the Global South. But when the West talks of a negotiated settlement, they insist on Russia losing the war, granting the essential concessions first and only then negotiating the enforcement. The Global South just wants the killing to stop: first stop the war, then negotiate the settlement.

The West has made its position clear at every stage: don’t call for a ceasefire or negotiate during the war. First defeat Russia, then hold talks to impose a settlement. In the early days of the war, when Ukraine was willing to negotiate an end to the fighting, then-United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson was quick to scold Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky that Russian President Vladimir Putin “should be pressured, not negotiated with.” He added that, even if Ukraine was ready to sign some agreements with Russia, “the West was not.”

The West refuses to negotiate during the war. “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,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price explained. “Those are not the conditions for real diplomacy.” Don’t stop the war by negotiating peace, first win the war, then negotiate. “If President Putin is serious about diplomacy,” Price said, “he knows what he can do. He should immediately stop the bombing campaign against civilians [and] order the withdrawal of his forces from Ukraine.”

When China put forward a twelve point peace proposal, the United States dismissed points two through twelve and insisted that the proposal should “stop at point one.” Point one said that “[t]he sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively upheld.” The American script was clear: first Russia concedes and gives into Western demands, then discuss the peace proposal. “My first reaction to it,” U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan scoffed, “is that it could stop at point one, which is to respect the sovereignty of all nations.” Reading from the same script, Blinken quipped, “If they were serious about the first one, sovereignty, then this war could end tomorrow.”

It is a novel theory of diplomacy that you don’t negotiate with enemies at times of war. When else do you negotiate? Who else do you negotiate with? Is it diplomacy if it is just imposing the result you won by war?

When point three of the Chinese proposal suggested “ceasing hostilities,” the United States rejected it. The Chinese proposal says that “Conflict and war benefit no one,” and requests that “All parties should support Russia and Ukraine in working in the same direction and resuming direct dialogue as quickly as possible, so as to gradually deescalate the situation and ultimately reach a comprehensive ceasefire.” But the U.S. did not want to resume dialogue “as quickly as possible.” National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby explained that “a ceasefire, at this time, while that may sound good, we do not believe would have that effect,” it would not be “a step towards a just and durable peace.” He then clearly stated that “we don’t support calls for a ceasefire right now.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the peace proposal a “tactical move by Russia” that was “supported by China” and warned that “the world should not be fooled.”

The Global South sees diplomacy differently. Where the West wants to continue the fighting to allow talks, the Global South wants to stop the fighting to allow talks.

On May 16, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa announced that he had held phone calls with Putin and Zelensky, who both agreed to separately receive a delegation of African heads of state in their capitals to discuss a possible peace plan to end the war. Joining South Africa in the delegation will be Senegal, Uganda, Egypt, the Republic of the Congo, and Zambia. In opposition to Western demands that Russian troops withdraw from Ukrainian territory as a condition for talks to begin, the African heads of state “propose that Ukraine accept opening peace talks with Russia even as Russian troops remain on its soil.” Reversing the order of the West’s agenda, South African Presidency Spokesman Vincent Magwenya said, “First is the cessation of hostilities. Second is a framework for lasting peace.”

Brazil has also “pressed for a truce.” And on June 3, Indonesia offered a peace plan that, like those offered by China, Africa and Brazil, placed the ceasefire first on the agenda to allow for the talks that would follow. Indonesia’s proposal calls for a ceasefire first, then the creation of a de-militarized buffer zone, followed by referendums that would allow the people of the “disputed territories” to democratically determine the post war boundaries.

The West, once again, rejected the order of business on the agenda. “I will try to be polite,” Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov responded, “It sounds like a Russian plan…We don’t need these mediators suggesting such a strange plan.” Josep Borrell, the European Union high representative for foreign policy, asked that there be a “just peace,” not a “peace of surrender.”

But how is the Indonesian proposal “strange” or a “peace of surrender”? A senior Biden administration official told The Washington Post, “African leaders have made clear to White House and administration officials that they simply want an end to the war.” The official acknowledged that Africa and the United States “disagree on what tactics to use to get to a settlement…as the Africans oppose the idea of punishing Russia or insisting that Kyiv must agree to any resolution.” Africa stresses diplomacy first; the West stresses victory first. While “The Africans want to see a diplomatic solution to this conflict,” the West wants “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” according to the official.

The Global South wants a lasting end to what they see as a European war and the global hardships it causes. They do not seek to punish Russia and defend democracy partly because they do not believe this is a war for the triumph of democracy over autocracy or a Manichean war between good and evil. It is just a devastating war that needs to be stopped. Africa remembers Western colonialism and their sponsored coups. And Indonesia’s Defense Minister, Prabowo Subianto, upon introducing Indonesia’s peace proposal, reminded the West, “We in Asia have our share of conflict and war, maybe more disastrous, more bloody than what has been experienced in Ukraine…Ask Vietnam, ask Cambodia, ask Indonesians how many times we’ve been invaded.” He might have added to ask Indonesia about the half a million to a million Indonesians who were slaughtered with the complicity of the United States.

The Global South has a very different view than the West that gives shape to a very different view on how to end the war. Most obviously, while the West refuses to push the warring parties to negotiate an end to the war and has offered no peace proposals, the Global South is pushing hard for an end to the war and has offered several peace proposals. Unlike the West who favors winning the war before allowing diplomatic talks, the Global South favors a ceasefire that would stop the war as soon as possible in order to allow diplomatic talks.

June 14, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

How Will The US Respond After The Failure Of Kiev’s NATO-Backed Counteroffensive?

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | JUNE 14, 2023

Kiev’s NATO–backed counteroffensive has been disastrous, which even the Mainstream Media was forced to acknowledge after it became impossible to deny. CNN revealed that it already lost around 15% of its Bradley infantry fighting vehicles during the first week, while Forbes reported that about the same percentage of German Leopard tanks were destroyed as well as half of its “unique” breaching vehicles. Meanwhile, President Putin claimed that 25-30% of all their total foreign equipment was lost.

Biden’s re-election hinges on the success of the West’s most important military campaign since World War II, thus prompting the question of how the US will respond after its failure. The best-case scenario is that it’ll force Kiev to begin ceasefire talks with Russia aimed at reaching a Korean-like armistice, but that probably won’t happen until all other options are exhausted. These include expanding the conflict to Belarus, Moldova, and/or Russia’s pre-2014 borders and approving a Polish-led military intervention.

All of these options could lead to American-provoked nuclear brinksmanship with Russia, which is already being prepared for as evidenced by NATO’s largest-ever air drills that are presently occurring in Germany and the reported strengthening of its nuclear capabilities on the continent. There’s no chance of this dangerous gamble succeeding and Russia capitulating to blackmail, however, since it’s more than capable of guaranteeing that the West would be totally destroyed if it dared to use nukes first.

Russian subs prowl the oceans and are always ready to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike if the order is given. On the European front, Kaliningrad has been turned into a nuclear-equipped fortress, while tactical nukes are about to be deployed to nearby Belarus. Russian Kinzhal hypersonic missiles can pierce the US’ so-called “missiles defense shield” so there’s no hope of it preventing “mutually assured destruction” in the event that liberal–globalist warmongers decide to strike first.

These purely defensive capabilities should more than suffice for deterring the apocalypse, though it can’t be taken for granted that the US will react rationally after the failure of its proxy’s counteroffensive. Too much is riding on the impossible scenario of Kiev completely removing Russia from all the territory that it claims as its own for Washington to simply accept defeat. Its policymakers might therefore think that they should “escalate to de-escalate” out of desperation to achieve something that can be spun as a “victory”.

There’s no chance that Russia will ever make unilateral concessions on its objective national security interests, let alone in the face of nuclear blackmail, which is why the US’ liberal-globalist warmongers should banish the thought before they put humanity’s existence at risk. Whatever their reaction to the failure of Kiev’s counteroffensive will be, it must be guided by this fact and ideally de-escalate the NATO-Russian proxy war since it’s impossible to achieve anything from further escalating this conflict.

June 14, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »