Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

A New Era Of Mass Armies Approaches

BY IAN WELSH | SEPTEMBER 29, 2023

The army, or a part of it at the war college, has perked up and noticed some of the lessons of the Ukraine war, and that it’s a war that the US military could not fight. They’ve missed a lot of things, or felt they couldn’t/shouldn’t write about them, but they’ve figured some stuff out and written about them in a new report, “A Call to Action: Lessons from Ukraine for the Future Force” by Lieutenant Colonel Katie Crombe, and Professor John A. Nagle.

The entire thing is worth reading, but I’m going to pull out three of the main points. The first is that a volunteer US military can’t fight a real war.

The Russia-Ukraine War is exposing significant vulnerabilities in the Army’s strategic personnel depth and ability to withstand and replace casualties.11 Army theater medical planners may anticipate a sustained rate of roughly 3,600 casualties per day, ranging from those killed in action to those wounded in action or suffering disease or other non-battle injuries. With a 25 percent predicted replacement rate, the personnel system will require 800 new personnel each day. For context, the United States sustained about 50,000 casualties in two decades of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. In large-scale combat operations, the United States could experience that same number of casualties in two weeks. (emphasis mine)

Huh. Yeah, that seems bad. And it comes just as the US military is having trouble with volunteer recruitment, though even if wasn’t volunteer recruitment couldn’t keep up with the meat grinder of a real war.

The US Army is facing a dire combination of a recruiting shortfall and a shrinking Individual Ready Reserve. This recruiting shortfall, nearly 50 percent in the combat arms career management fields, is a longitudinal problem. Every infantry and armor soldier we do not recruit today is a strategic mobilization asset we will not have in 2031. The Individual Ready Reserve, which stood at 700,000 in 1973 and 450,000 in 1994, now stands at 76,000. These numbers cannot fill the existing gaps in the active force, let alone any casualty replacement or expansion during a large-scale combat operation. The implication is that the 1970s concept of an all-volunteer force has outlived its shelf life and does not align with the current operating environment. The technological revolution described below suggests this force has reached obsolescence. Large-scale combat operations troop requirements may well require a reconceptualization of the 1970s and 1980s volunteer force and a move toward partial conscription. (emphasis mine).

If the US expects to fight Russia, China, or even Iran, they’re going to face a real war.

The US has spent 20 years fighting with air, artillery and surveillance supremacy, with clear communications. American veterans who went to Ukraine were unprepared for a war where the other side has, if not supremacy, air and artillery superiority, and the Ukraine war has been a meatgrinder. Plus, the current command methods the army use don’t work in an environment like the Ukraine:

Twenty years of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operationsin the Middle East, largely enabled by air, signals, and electromagnetic dominance, generated chains of command reliant on perfect, uncontested communication lines and an extraordinary and accurate common operating picture of the battlefield broadcast in real time to co-located staff in large Joint Operations Centers. The Russia-Ukraine War makes it clear that the electromagnetic signature emitted from the command posts of the past 20 years cannot survive against the pace and precision of an adversary who possesses sensor-based technologies, electronic warfare, and unmanned aerial systems or has access to satellite imagery; this includes nearly every state or nonstate actor the United States might find itself fighting in the near future

Back in 2012 I wrote an article titled “Drones are not weapons of the powerful.” I posited that they’re cheap, easy to make and everyone would eventually get them. We’re pretty much there, in terms of large group actors (the step after that is individuals, leading to an era where even a single person or small group can launch significant attacks.).

The authors of the article agree:

These systems, coupled with emerging artificial intelligence platforms, dramatically accelerate the pace of modern war. Tools and tactics that were viewed as niche capabilities in previous conflicts are becoming primary weapons systems that require education and training to understand, exploit, and counter. Nonstate actors and less capable nation-states can now acquire and capitalize on technologies that bring David’s powers closer to Goliath’s.

There are issues the authors don’t deal with, the main one is “designed in California, built in China.” The US’s weapon building capacity is massively degraded. As one example, the Chinese can build 3 ships per one the US builds, and the ships are probably better.

Since WWII, in every war the US has fought, they’ve had air superiority or supremacy and more advanced weapons than the enemy. They’ve also had more “stuff”. But the WWII “arsenal of democracy” is dead, it doesn’t exist any more.

Another issue is that the US military has outsourced too much of its capabilities. The corporate mantra of “outsource everything except your core competency” doesn’t work in a real war. All support functions should be run by the military and soldiers. (I may write an article on that in the future.) Contractors are too expensive and unwilling to really risk their necks, and outsourcing maintainance to non-army technicians is a disaster.

The US retains one huge advantage, however, its continental position makes it hard to attack the mainland. But this is also a disadvantage if the US loses air and naval supremacy. America’s enemies can only be reached by air and sea, after all.

Anyway, one takeaway is that conscription is likely to come back. I assume they’ll first make a huge push to recruit immigrants, undocumented or not, but that isn’t going to be enough. Get ready and remember, Empires rarely fade, they go down in huge conflagarations. The British Empire’s end involved two world wars.

October 3, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Zelensky Should Have Stayed Home

BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • OCTOBER 3, 2023

Most Americans do not understand how the United Nations functions, or does not function as the case might be, preferring to think of it as some kind of debating society where the 193 member nations representing the world community can vent over issues that they rarely have control over. Nevertheless, in spite of the torrent of words and the lack of any real program, it is always interesting to watch and listen to the UN’s annual General Assembly meeting, which is held in New York during September. This year’s meeting was particularly interesting as it came complete with a major war blazing in Eastern Europe as well as political turmoil in Africa and rising tension with China. It also features the rumblings coming from a new emerging global economic movement, the so-called BRICS developing as a champion of a multipolar-world currency challenge to the US-European dollar dominated international monetary and banking system.

And with economic union, there is also some political realignment, with China strengthening its ties to the developing world and Russia entering into defense arrangements with Iran. President Xi Jinping and Russian president Vladimir Putin will be meeting in Beijing later this month to discuss common concerns. And, as usual, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu showed up to vent his hostility towards Iran with demands that that country’s alleged “nuclear program” be confronted militarily and the sooner the better, just as he has been claiming for the past twenty years.

Indeed, several back stories playing out during this year’s meeting made it more than usually interesting. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky had hoped to turn the gathering into an anti-Russian hate fest, but though there was much complaining about Moscow’s attack on Ukraine coming from the Baltic States and others, the ground continues to be shifting against Zelensky over concerns that the war has become an unwinnable money pit that could easily escalate into a nuclear exchange. Speaking before a UN Security Council session, Zelensky was reduced to harshly criticizing the UN itself for failing to prevent or resolve conflicts before calling for Moscow to be stripped of its veto power on the Security Council. Zelensky, his voice rising in anger, complained how “It is impossible to stop the war because all actions are vetoed by the aggressor.” Observers noted immediately that Zelensky’s complaint did not help his cause. While there have been calls for UN reforms in the past, including over the veto power, the existence of the veto for a limited number of post-1945 greater powers was the only reason the United Nations could be created in the first place at all.

Zelensky also did real damage to his position when he said that while the Ukrainian refugees in Europe have “behaved well . . . and are grateful” to those who have given them shelter, it would not be a “good story” for Europe if a Ukrainian defeat “were to drive the people into a corner.” It was reasonably enough seen by critics as nothing less than a threat of possible unrest producing domestic terrorism as well a possible internal insurrection uncontrollable by whatever Ukrainian government survives defeat. Such unrest might involve the millions Ukrainian refugees without houses and jobs already in place in other European nations if Zelensky is not given all the support which he apparently believes is his due.

Zelensky’s actual message to the General Assembly was not quite so incendiary and impulsive as his other interactions while on his visit, but he offered little new. He reportedly received an obligatory “warm welcome” from those in attendance, but “he delivered his address to a half-full house, with many delegations declining to appear and listen to what he had to say.” He warned those present that “The goal of the present war against Ukraine is to turn our land, our people, our lives, our resources into a weapon against you, against the international rules-based order. We have to stop it. We must act united to defeat the aggressor.” Zelensky did go overboard when he referred to Russia and Russians as “evil” and as “terrorists” and accused them of carrying out a “genocide” against Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov responded to comments made by both President Joe Biden and Zelensky by turning the argument around and observing that it is the US and its NATO “puppets” who already “are waging war against us.”

Zelensky’s frustrations spilled over in Washington on the following day where he met both with Biden and with some members of Congress and also dropped by the Pentagon and left flowers at the National 9/11 Pentagon Memorial in Arlington Virginia. His meeting at the White House with the president went relatively well with the announcement of a new aid package in the works including “significant air defense capabilities,” and, according to one report, even some of the much sought after ATACMS long range missile systems. Nevertheless, to his evident disappointment, Zelensky was not given a hero’s welcome like he received last year. He met privately with Kevin McCarthy, speaker of the House, and several other GOP hawks who will be instrumental in approving any aid, as well as with Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer who promised to be “in his corner.” McCarthy boldly asked what Zelensky needed to win the war and to provide lawmakers with “a vision of a plan for victory.”

Nevertheless, it seems that many conservative Republicans and some progressive Democrats are fed up with the war and are concerned over the lack of accountability combined with the all too evident level of corruption within the Ukrainian government. There are moves by some in the GOP to separate Ukraine funding from other defense appropriations, requiring a separate vote, and other proposals by the White House to guarantee the money even if the government shuts down. One wonders if anyone had the grit to ask Zelensky how many mansions he owns in Israel, Europe and the United States, but that is precisely the sort of story that is being increasingly written about Ukraine’s comedian turned war hero, demonstrating that the public and even the media have become tired of the charade. A continuing multi-billion-dollar cash flow, seen by Joe Biden as necessary to keep the war going until the 2024 election to vindicate his policy, is still likely but it is no longer a slam-dunk.

Two other media accounts also suggest that the dissatisfaction with Zelensky and the war is breaking through the self-imposed acceptable narrative on the war, that Vladimir Putin is an aggressor without any real provocation from Kiev, a despot and the human monster. One came surprisingly from the New York Times and is apparently a leak from the White House or Pentagon on a September 6th missile attack on the Ukrainian village of Kostiantynivka which killed at least 18. The attack was quickly labeled by Zelensky as a war crime carried out by Russian “terrorists” which was echoed by the US media but an investigation, presumably carried by the US military and intelligence using satellite and other technical methods, has now determined that the missile was fired by Ukraine. This is similar to the missile attack that struck Poland in November 2022, which also was blamed by Zelensky on Russia but turned out to be from Ukraine, both incidents reflecting just how willing Zelensky is to lie and cheat to get a NATO and US intervention in a full-scale war with Russia, which could easily go nuclear.

The other story tells how Poland will not be providing any more arms to Ukraine, in part because it is now building up its own defenses and also over Ukrainian attempts to flood the Polish agricultural market with cheap low quality grain that it cannot sell elsewhere. To describe the Polish action as disappointing to Zelensky would be an understatement, but it is one more indication that many former allies are now seeing Ukraine as a lost cause and are looking to their own national security and economic interests. Both of these stories were, incidentally, published while Zelensky was in the United States hat in hand, and it must be considered that the timing was deliberate to damage the Ukrainian president’s credibility to coincide with the UN General Assembly visit and the trip to Washington.

Zelensky’s journey to North America ended in Ottawa, where he apparently recouped some of his swagger during a speech to the Canadian government and parliament which resulted in standing ovations. Or so it seemed. The Canadians produced a 98 year old Hungarian veteran of the Second World War named Yaroslav Hunka who had fought against the Russians and emigrated to Canada after the war ended. He too was cheered by the assembled Canadian politicians. The intention was clearly to present a narrative of a brave Ukrainian who fought valiantly to free his country from Russian domination but it didn’t quite work out that way. To fight the Russians required being in Nazi Germany’s armed forces and it turned out that Hunka had served in the 14th Waffen-SS Grenadier Division, also known as the Galicia Division, a volunteer unit made up mostly of ethnic Ukrainians commanded by German officers that has been rightly or wrongly credited with a number of wartime atrocities against Russians, Poles and Jews. Soldiers in the division swore a personal loyalty oath to Adolf Hitler. The bad judgement shown by the Canadian government in producing Hunka without fully investigating his story subsequently produced a huge uproar in Canada, with the head of parliament resigning, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in deep political trouble and the Polish government demanding that Hunka be extradited to them for a war crimes trial. There has been some suspicion that Zelensky may have been instrumental in arranging the affair in expectation that it would strengthen Canadian support for his cause. Instead, it has accomplished the reverse and Zelensky returned home with little or nothing accomplished.

Zelensky must also confront back home a war that he is decisively losing and a country in ruins. And Joe Biden made clear in his speech addressing the UN General Assembly that negotiations with Russia to end the Ukraine fighting would not be considered. Joe included a pledge to support the conflict until it is Russia that is doing the surrendering: “The United States, together with our allies and partners around the world, will continue to stand with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity and their freedom… Russia alone bears responsibility for [the war]. Russia alone has the power to end this war immediately. And it is Russia alone that stands in the way of peace, because Russia’s price for peace is Ukraine’s capitulation, Ukraine’s territory, and Ukraine’s children.” In short, the speech was a lot like Joe Biden and the band of scoundrels and grifters that he has gathered around him in the White House, heavy on bellicosity but short on any serious planning or strategies to make the world and this country a better place. Joe would like to see the war continue to bring its eventual end a lot closer to the US elections, where he hopes to self-identify as a strong leader and a “winner” taking on America’s enemies. Good luck Joe.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

October 3, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

EU Incites Ukrainian Conflict and Stigmatizes Peace Talks – Hungarian Foreign Minister

Sputnik – 03.10.2023

BUDAPEST – The world outside Europe does not share its position on the Ukraine conflict and does not understand European double standards applied to conflicts in other parts of the planet, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said.

“I can say that the world outside Europe is already really looking forward to the end of this war, because they do not understand many things. They do not understand, for example, how it can be that when a war is not in Europe, the European Union, looking down with fantastic moral superiority, calls on the parties to peace, advocates negotiations and an immediate end to violence. However, when there is a war in Europe, the European Union incites the conflict and supplies weapons, and anyone who talks about peace is immediately stigmatized,” Szijjarto said in an interview on Monday.

He also said that other countries do not understand why Europe “has made this conflict global” and why people living in Asia, Africa and Latin America have to pay for it due to growing inflation, energy prices and unstable food supplies.

Szijjarto added that Hungary’s position on the issue is treated with “great respect” outside the EU, which he was witnessing more than once during the UN General Assembly.

Hungary has consistently opposed sanctions on Russian energy resources and sending weapons to Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian military operation in Ukraine in February 2022. The Hungarian parliament issued a decree banning the supply of weapons to Ukraine from the country’s territory. Szijjarto explained that Budapest seeks to secure the western Ukrainian region of Zakarpatye, where ethnic Hungarians live, since the supply of weapons through its territory would become a military target for Russia. The country’s leadership has repeatedly emphasized that Hungary stands for the earliest possible start of peace negotiations.

October 3, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Someone Wants ‘the War to Continue’

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | October 3, 2023

At times, Ukraine has been unwilling to negotiate an end to the ongoing war with Russia. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has gone so far as to issue a decree banning negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

At other times, Russia has given up on negotiating. In a press conference at the United Nations, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov lamented, if you insist “’on the battlefield’—well, let it be on the battlefield.”

And at times, Ukraine and Russia have been willing to negotiate with each other. The United States, though, has at no time been willing to negotiate. Instead, an administration that promised the world “a new era of relentless diplomacy” has delivered an unhappy pattern of obstructing negotiations.

As early as December 17, 2021, months before their invasion, Russia presented the United States with a proposal on mutual security guarantees that demanded NATO not expand into Ukraine. The proposal demanded that “The United States of America shall take measures to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and deny accession to the Alliance to the former USSR republics.” A month later, on January 26, the United States rejected Russia’s central demand and formally declined to negotiate, insisting instead on “the right of other states to choose or change security arrangements.”

Vladimir Putin remarked “that fundamental Russian concerns were ignored.” In the official Russian response on February 17, 2022, Russia said that the United States and NATO offered “no constructive answer” to Russia’s key demands. Four days later, on February 21, Sergey Lavrov said, “The assessment of this response shows that our Western colleagues are not prepared to take up our major proposals, primarily those on NATO’s eastward non-expansion. This demand was rejected with reference to the bloc’s so-called open-door policy and the freedom of each state to choose its own way of ensuring security.” Highlighting American stubbornness about negotiating, the veteran diplomat added the important detail that, “Neither the United States, nor the North Atlantic Alliance proposed an alternative to this key provision.”

On April 8, 2022, Derek Chollet, counselor to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, admited that the United States told Moscow that negotiating NATO expansion into Ukraine was never on the table.

Just last month on September 17, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made the stunning concession that, as Putin had always insisted, Russia “went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders,” and that Putin “sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.” Stoltenberg then repeated, “He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO… We rejected that.”

On February 27, 2022, only a month into the war, Russia and Ukraine announced that they would hold talks in Belarus. At the end of the talks, the two delegations returned home for consultations, having identified priority topics. A second round of talks took place in Belarus on March 3.

At a February 25 press conference, State Department spokesman Ned Price was asked what the U.S. position was on the upcoming “talks between Russia and Ukraine happening in Minsk,” the capital of Belarus. Price rejected negotiations, saying, “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.

Shortly after, on March 6, then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett made a surprise visit to Moscow to meet with Putin in an attempt at mediation. Bennett had a series of back and forth conversations with Putin and Zelensky before flying to Germany for meetings with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Bennett also had conversations with French President Emmanuel Macron, followed by then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and U.S. President Joe Biden.

Bennett said that “there was a good chance of reaching a ceasefire.” But Bennett also says the West made a different decision. “So, they blocked it?” his interviewer asked. “They blocked it,” Bennett replied.

From March 2022 into April, Turkey mediated talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul. The two sides reached a tentative agreement.

On June 13, Putin confirmed that “we reached an agreement in Istanbul,” and that it had reached the level of having been initialled by both sides. On September 9, Lavrov further confirmed that the agreement had been initialled: “[W]e did hold talks in March and April 2022,” Lavrov said, “We agreed on certain things; everything was already initialled.”

A face-to-face meeting between Putin and Zelensky was in the process of being set.

But on April 9, 2022, Boris Johnson rushed to Kiev and insisted to Zelensky that 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.”

The negotiations came to a sudden stop. On June 13, 2023, Putin said, “We actually did this but they simply threw it away later and that’s it.” On June 17, Putin told an African delegation that “the Kiev authorities… tossed [their commitments] into the dustbin of history. They abandoned everything.” Putin implicitly blamed the United States, saying that that when Ukraine’s interests “are not in sync” with American interests, “ultimately it is about the United States’s interests. We know that they hold the key to solving issues.” On September 23, 2023, Lavrov, too, said, “I think, someone in London or Washington did not want this war to end.”

On April 20, 2022, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said, “There are countries within NATO who want the war to continue.”

“Following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting,” Cavusoglu 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.” On November 18, 2022, Numan Kurtulmus, the deputy chairman of Erdogan’s ruling party, said. “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.”

No talks between Russia and Ukraine have been held since.

October 3, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

War Fatigue Complicates West’s Aid to Ukraine

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | OCTOBER 3, 2023 

A pall of gloom descended on Europe as the long-feared uncertainty set in over the weekend as to how long would the collective West underwrite the proxy war in Ukraine. To lift their sagging spirit, some European foreign ministers  impromptu took the train to Kiev to spend Monday with President Zelensky. It was an extraordinary sight of defiance of the call of destiny, as the war passed the 19-month mark.

A deal in Washington that averted government shutdown for now but cut funding for Kiev; the Polish election campaign in which the ruling Law and Justice party, until recently one of Ukraine’s staunchest supporters, has toyed with various measures such as questioning more arms deliveries and blocking agri-products from its neighbour in order to court voters; and, the stunning parliamentary election results in Slovakia catapulting a pro-Russian left-wing political party to power and signalling the first true political embodiment of “Ukraine fatigue” — suddenly, the West’s mantra of being by Ukraine’s side “for as long as it takes” feels seriously open to question. 

CNN exaggerated, perhaps, while commenting that the above developments “appear to have thrown Ukraine and its war with Russia under the bus” — but only by a bit. The politics of the Ukraine war has crossed an inflection point and is poised for bigger things in the critical months ahead.  

The White House has vowed to seek quick passage of a stand-alone Ukraine aid bill totalling $20.6 billion that the Biden administration has said is essential to fight Russia, but it will likely continue to face determined opposition, particularly from Republicans in Congress. At the root of it is the fierce polarisation in US politics, which now threatens to shake the balance of power in the Congress in a no-holds barred election year that looms ahead. 

This does not mean stopping the US aid to Ukraine. The administration has enough resources to support Kiev over the next month and a half and, above all, it is too far-fetched to expect any serious changes in the Ukrainian direction of US foreign policy before the 2024 election. But the salience lies somewhere else — namely, the topic of assistance to Ukraine is frothing in the cauldron of disputes between Republicans and Democrats and is becoming inseparable from the tendentious issues of social programmes that tear apart the American society and become fodder for its combative politicians. 

The Ukraine war has become a political football in the Beltway just over a year from the US presidential election, with questions mounting over aid approved by Congress that totals $100 billion so far, including $43 billion in weaponry. Simply put, for right–wing Republicans, financing Kiev is becoming a tool of political manipulation of the Biden Administration through which they hope to seize advantages and concessions. And Donald Trump is waiting in the wings. 

Meanwhile, there is a vicious sub-plot playing out within the Republican Party itself in a bid to unseat the Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy next week by hardline Republican Matt Gaetz, one of a core of hard-right members of the party implacably opposed to any more aid for Ukraine.

In order to survive, McCarthy has threatened to link aid for Ukraine to funding to stop immigrants crossing the Mexican border, a key Republican demand. “I’m going to make sure that the weapons are provided for Ukraine, but they’re not going to get some big package if the border is not secure,” McCarthy told CBS ominously.  

Most important, the wider signal to the world is damaging. European capitals are already nervously eyeing the possibility of a return to the White House by Trump. Josep Borrell, the European Union’s foreign policy chief and a major US partner in delivering aid to Ukraine, expressed surprise and regretted the US decision “deeply, thoroughly.”

Borrell said, “I have a hope that this will not be a definitive decision and Ukraine will continue having the support of the US.” Indeed, there is a wider problem — war fatigue among inflation-hit American voters.

In many ways, the victory of former Prime Minister Robert Fico’s left-wing populist Smer party in this weekend’s parliamentary election in Slovakia is also to be attributed to war fatigue. Fico has said no more weapons will go to Ukraine; questioned the logic of the EU’s Russia sanctions; praised Moscow; and blamed the NATO for causing the war, which he says, began after “Ukrainian Nazis and fascists started to murder Russian citizens in Donbas and Luhansk.” Economic anxieties further compound the societal Ukraine fatigue and the dramatic turn in Slovakian politics, which is likely to impact the West’s relations with Kiev. 

Within the EU, Hungary and Austria will now have an ally in Slovakia, a frontline state, advocating an immediate cessation of hostilities in Ukraine and peace negotiations. Fico himself is a close ally of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban — and they could be joined by Poland if the ruling Law and Justice Party secures a fresh mandate, which seems likely, in the parliamentary election on October 15.

All indications are that Poland is veering away from its long-standing pro-Ukraine position. Poland’s PM Mateusz Morawiecki said recently, “we are no longer transferring any weapons to Ukraine because we are now arming ourselves with the most advanced weapons.” 

Then, as the CNN wrote, “Beyond EU, within NATO there is an equivalent fear of the consequences of an expanding anti-Ukraine bloc… And both Hungary’s Orban and Slovakia’s Fico have declared themselves adamantly opposed to any move to welcome Ukraine into the alliance… The reality is the Ukraine counteroffensive, which will have to diminish with the advent of winter, has so far achieved little substantive progress on the battlefront. The arrival of newly-empowered anti-Ukraine parties in frontline states, together with waffling by leading Kremlin foes like the United States, all comprise a truly toxic mix.” 

Looking ahead, further erosion of support for the Ukraine war can be expected and even a possible collapse of support for Ukraine across the collective West cannot be ruled out in the months ahead, especially if the Kremlin leadership finally decides to give a knockout punch to Ukraine’s military and/or orders the Russian forces to cross the Dnieper and take over Kiev and Odessa.

Even otherwise, the crunch time comes with the elections to the European Parliament on 6-9 June 2024. There is a clear possibility of anti-Ukraine parties winning a substantial bloc of votes in the elections. If and when that happens, the invidious conspiracy mooted by Germany and France to abolish the rule of unanimity required for taking major EU decisions (eg., Russia sanctions and their six-monthly renewal) will flounder.

Both Orban and Fico have declared their opposition to Russian sanctions. Suffice to say, the politics of the Ukraine war and Russia sanctions is entering uncharted waters, as Hungary allied with Slovakia — and potentially with Poland — would be in a position to complicate pro-Ukraine, anti-Russian efforts by the rest of the EU.

In the art of politics, American politicans originally patented “filibuster”, a political procedure in which one or more members of a legislative body prolong debate on proposed legislation so as to delay or entirely prevent decision, and European politicians are now inventing their own variant of it.

Orban has been practising it for a decade already, and with growing dexterity, to push through his nationalistic programme of “sovereign democracy” in Hungary. That is where the weekend’s Slovakian election and Fico’s return to power has the potential to become a defining moment in the politics of Ukraine war.

October 3, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK’s former Defense Secretary wants more young Ukrainians on the battlefield

By Lucas Leiroz | October 3, 2023

Apparently, former British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is convinced that Ukraine is “winning”. In an opinion article published in The Telegraph, Wallace endorsed the “need” for Ukraine to mobilize even more young people to participate in hostilities, stating that this is the only way to “finish the job”, leading the country to definitively defeat Russian troops.

More than 83,000 Ukrainians died during Kiev’s efforts to launch a “counteroffensive,” but Ben Wallace is still certain that Ukraine is winning, albeit slowly. Wallace highly values the few meters gained by Kiev’s forces close to the Russian defense lines, saying this is a clear example of how the Ukrainians are surprising the West. For Ben, the “victory” of the counteroffensive is a proof that NATO “underestimated” Ukraine’s power.

“Slowly but surely, the Ukrainian armed forces are breaking through the Russian lines. Sometimes yard by yard, sometimes village by village, Ukraine has the momentum and is pressing forward. The men and women of the Ukrainian army are, once again, proving to us in Nato how much we have underestimated them. First, the Establishment doubted their ability to defend their nation from the initial Russian invasion (…) They failed to spot in the Ukrainians the same spirit we possessed in 1939. ” Wallace said.

Obviously, from a strategic point of view, Ben’s assessment is absolutely wrong. Ukraine is making a big mistake by exchanging soldiers’ lives for some small territorial gains. According to the elementary principles of military science, the lives of soldiers must be preserved first, because lost territories can be recovered later if there are troops to continue fighting – while, on the other hand, conquered territories cannot be controlled in the long term if there are no more soldiers to protect them.

With their forces devastated, more than 400 thousand dead and even mobilizing teenagers, women, sick people and the elderly, the Ukrainians do not seem to be acting correctly in trying to make their counteroffensive a “victorious” move. Given the tens of thousands of casualties suffered in recent months, the most correct thing to do would be to retreat, reduce the intensity of the hostilities and try to regain strength to, if possible, launch new offensives in the future – or simply surrender, since it is difficult for Ukraine to recover from its losses. However, Kiev is incapable of thinking about its own strategies, being just a proxy state that obeys orders from the West.

With his words, Ben only emphasizes that the West is really interested in forcing Ukraine to fight until the ultimate consequences. As a “solution” to the enormous human costs of the counteroffensive, the former secretary suggests that Kiev simply recruit even more young people, stopping any government’s concern (if there is any) with the survival of the population and focusing entirely on the war efforts to “win the war” against the Russians.

“Ukraine can also play its part. The average age of the soldiers at the front is over 40. I understand President Zelensky’s desire to preserve the young for the future, but the fact is that Russia is mobilising the whole country by stealth. Putin knows a pause will hand him time to build a new army. So just as Britain did in 1939 and 1941, perhaps it is time to reassess the scale of Ukraine’s mobilisation”, Ben said.

Another “argument” used by Wallace is that young soldiers tend to be more focused on improving their skills and achieving better results on the battlefield. As an example, he mentions, without citing any evidence to prove the allegations, the case of a supposed young Ukrainian who had shot down two Russian helicopters:

“They take UK equipment and achieve success rates far beyond expectations. I remember visiting a secret location abroad, but outside Ukraine, as we prepared Ukrainian soldiers on how to use StarStreak air-defence missiles. They had a week to train on a system we take months to master. A British sergeant pointed to a young Ukrainian, barely out of his teens. ‘He won’t let go of the simulator, and he won’t stop training until he never misses,’ he said. That young man went on to down two Russian attack helicopters.”

As can be seen, Wallace’s rhetoric is fallacious. Russia is not “mobilizing the entire country by stealth”. On the contrary, only a small percentage of the Russian military potential is being used to conduct the special operation in Ukraine, with virtually no effects of the conflict on the country – as can be seen from the fact that the Russian economy is growing significantly. In fact, Ukraine is the only side that is using total mobilization methods, destructively affecting its own population, in addition to facing an unprecedented social, economic and institutional crisis. Ben deliberately reverses the logic of the conflict analysis to mislead his readers.

Furthermore, the argument that young people “train more” and “learn more” is similarly fallacious and unfounded. In practice, young people are the ones who die most on the battlefield, as they are the most inexperienced and incapable of facing high-risk situations. Increasing the mobilization of young people will not bring any advantage to Kiev – it will only result in the extermination of Ukrainian citizens in a new “meat grinder”.

However, Ben Wallace certainly does not believe in his own words. He is known for being a NATO “hardliner” and it was under his administration that the UK took escalatory measures such as sending radioactive weapons and long-range missiles to the neo-Nazi regime. What Ben Wallace wants is simply to see the conflict reach its ultimate consequences – even if that means exterminating all Ukrainian youth.

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

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

October 3, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Russia raises military budget for 2024 by 70%: what does this mean?

By Gilbert Doctorow | September 30, 2023

It is always a pleasure to have an on-air chat with WION, the premier English-language global broadcaster of India. Yesterday was especially so when their program host posed a series of very relevant questions about the just announced Russian military budget for 2024 showing a 70% increase in spending over the current year. Naturally, one wonders about Russia’s intentions: how will these new funds be spent? On which weapons systems? What kind of message is Russia sending to the West by this increase? How will the increased military spending impact on social spending within Russia or, put another way, are guns and butter a sustainable political course?

In this introduction, I will not telescope my answers. I am hopeful that readers will watch the interview and follow the logic set out therein.

However, I can say here that I set out the key drivers for the increased spending. One is the latest Russian assumptions on when the war in Ukraine will end, on how it may escalate into a general Russia-NATO war as the Biden administration resists admitting defeat in Ukraine, which is possibly imminent, by expanding the conflict and introducing NATO forces on the ground. The second is the expenses related to the near doubling of the size of the Russian army now underway following the induction of 300,000 men one year ago by mobilization of reserves and the sign-up of more than 400,000 volunteers that we have seen since the start of this year.

As regards the other issues, such as the 6% of GDP that the new military budget represents, or the 2% overall budget deficit that Russia is now incurring, I explain in this interview why such figures cannot be commented upon as if in a vacuum but must be compared to what countries in the West are now experiencing, as well as to Russia’s own Soviet past.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023

October 3, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Video | , | Leave a comment

British Defense Sec ‘Mad’ to Suggest ‘Catastrophic’ Military Mission to Ukraine

By James Tweedie – Sputnik – 02.10.2023

The UK’s newly-appointed defense secretary was “mad” to suggest sending troops and ships to Ukraine, a military expert has said.

British Defense Secretary Grant Shapps told a newspaper over the weekend that UK soldiers could be sent to Ukraine to train conscripts to Volodymyr Zelenksy’s depleted army.

The defense secretary even hinted that Royal Navy ships could be sent to the Black Sea to escort Ukrainian merchant vessels following the breakdown of the grain export deal with Russia — in spite of Turkiye’s ban on military vessels of any other nation transiting the Bosphorpus straits to enter the land-bound sea.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak quickly slapped down Shapps in a TV interview on Sunday on the eve of his Conservative Party’s annual conference in Manchester, saying: “There are no British soldiers that will be sent to fight in the current conflict.”

Since 2022, the British Army has put tens of thousands of Ukrainian recruits through three-week crash courses on training grounds in the UK before they are sent to the frontlines.

Similarly, documents leaked from the US Department of Defense in April this year estimated that there were up to 50 SAS special forces operating covertly in Ukraine, but did not indicate what their mission might be.

Former British MP Matthew Gordon-Banks, a senior research fellow at the Armed Forces Defense Academy in Oxfordshire and Conservative partymate of Shapps, said Shapps’ comments to the media were a “complete PR disaster.”

“Shapps gave an interview, possibly over-stating his intentions as a new defense secretary ahead of a speech to the Conservative Party conference. The Telegraph wrote it up as a certainty,” Gordon-Banks told Sputnik. “I suspect it horrified the prime minister, security and intelligence sources and the wider government.”

The military expert said Shapps’ suggestion of sending British troops into the warzone was simply unthinkable.

“His idea was absolutely mad. Only this week, Russian leaders like [State Duma Chairman Vyacheslav] Volodin, [Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov and [Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry] Medvedev have made it clear about how the conflict in Ukraine will end and what they would see as unnecessary escalation by NATO,” Gordon-Banks said.

He noted that the article had quickly been taken down from the newspaper’s website — possibly at the insistence of the intelligence services.

“Such a deployment would be catastrophic in both diplomatic and military terms,” Gordon-Banks warned.

In an article in the same newspaper on Sunday, Shapps’ predecessor at the Ministry of Defense Ben Wallace claimed Ukraine was winning its summer offensive — already written off by some US generals and even British state broadcaster the BBC — despite only capturing a handful of villages after four months of fighting.

He also urged Kiev to begin conscripting teenage boys into its army in an attempt to stop Russia from bringing overwhelming force to bear.

“The average age of the soldiers at the front is over 40,” Wallace wrote. “I understand President Zelensky’s desire to preserve the young for the future, but the fact is that Russia is mobilizing the whole country by stealth,” he claimed.

The defense analyst said Kiev was already press-ganging youths to make up for the terrible casualties its army has suffered over the past year and a half.

“Ukraine has already lost three armies,” Gordon-Banks stressed. “They are now pulling 16- to 18-year-olds off the streets. 500,000 Ukrainians have already died fighting a senseless, unnecessary war and it is time for the West to move more quickly to end this conflict.”

October 2, 2023 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Losing a Plane? Try Losing a Nuke

By Kym Robinson | The Libertarian Institute | October 2, 2023

Recently, the U.S. Marine Corps lost (and later found) an F-35 aircraft. The circumstances are mostly undisclosed or rumor based, though that is to be expected in regards to such a sensitive matter. While it has become a comical example of incompetence, it’s not the worst thing that the U.S. military has lost.

They’ve also lost nuclear weapons… on a few occasions.

The U.S. term for it is “Broken Arrow.” There have officially been 32 reported incidents involving Broken Arrows. Lost ‘nukes’ outside of the United States are unknown, given that not all national governments are as open with information. The U.S. has admitted that six nuclear weapons remain lost. During the reign of the Soviet Union, it is possible that such weapons also went missing, especially in the chaotic years following the break up when ownership and security of the strategic arms repeatedly changed hands or remained in limbo.

Another concerning reality is that Soviet era “suitcase sized” nukes may also be unaccounted for. Retired Russian General Alexander Lebed has claimed that as many as one hundred such devices are likely missing. These one kiloton ‘mini nukes’ assigned to Spetznaz special forces are not only the perfect weapon of terror, but are small enough that they could be misplaced in a storage facility somewhere slowly “cooking” until the moment of accidental detonation. That is the real concern for all of the missing nukes. If the safety mechanisms on them fail or erode, they may someday detonate with random carnage. Given that all seem lost in remote locations, there is still a risk of harming the innocent, not to mention the environmental impact such an event would cause.

The first Broken Arrow occurred in February 1950, when a B-36 bomber, while experiencing mechanical issues, dropped an atomic bomb over the Pacific Ocean near Princess Royal Island. The Mark 4, 30-kiloton (Fat Man) bomb is still missing to this day. Four more accidents in 1950 occurred with U.S. bombers carrying nuclear weapons over American soil. Thankfully none of the accidents resulted in nuclear detonation.

In March 1956, a B-47 bomber crashed in the Mediterranean sea with two nuclear cores onboard. The bomber, its crew, and their nuclear devices remain missing. During a training mission in February 1958 another USAF B-47 bomber carrying a Mk 15 atomic bomb collided with an F-86 Sabre fighter jet. The bomb was dropped over Wassaw Sound before the crew could attempt an emergency landing. The crew survived, though that bomb remains missing also.

Such accidents and the potential for further Broken Arrows increased during Operation Chrome Dome, an ambitious readiness routine that kept U.S. nuclear bombers airborne 24hrs a day. Armed and constantly flying, at least a dozen strategic bombers remained capable of hitting the Soviet Union in response to any attack around the clock. In 1961, early into Chrome Dome, a B-52 crashed shortly after take off in North Carolina. One of its 24-megaton nuclear bombs remains missing. Another bomb from this incident that was recovered showed that three out of the four arming mechanisms had been activated; fortunately, there was no nuclear explosion from this mishap. The other missing bomb’s safety mechanism status remains unknown, along with its whereabouts.

It was not only the Strategic Air Command that lost nukes. The U.S. Navy had a Broken Arrow in December 1965, when an A-4 Skyhawk armed with a one-megaton thermonuclear bomb fell off the flight deck of the aircraft carrier, USS Ticonderoga. The Skyhawk, its aviator, and bomb remain missing around 500-miles from land beneath the waves of the Pacific Ocean. In the spring of 1968 the USS Scorpion sank 400 miles southwest of the Azores Islands, taking with it the lives of 99 crew members and a pair of nuclear tipped weapons. These nuclear weapons and their radioactive material remain deep under the ocean, and only time will tell what long term damage such weapons will cause.

An incident that was considered one of the worst nuclear accidents of its day occurred in January 1966 when a nuclear weapon splashed under the waves close to Spanish fishermen near the Alboran Sea, meanwhile three thermonuclear bombs crashed into the countryside outside the village of Palomares, spreading radioactive plutonium. The U.S. government conducted an extensive clean up, shipping thousands of tons of contaminated Spanish soil back to the United States. The area remains contaminated still to this day, and the missing bomb is somewhere under the water.

Other Broken Arrows are as follows: two bomber accidents in 1956, three in 1957, six in 1958, four in 1959, one in 1960, three in 1961, another in 1963, three more in 1964, up to three in 1965, another in 1966, three for 1968, one for 1969, one in 1975 and one in 1980. A further seven more accidents occurred up until 2000.

Each of these incidents involved American or Russian aircraft or submarines and some ended with a loss of life, but with the potential to cause a catastrophic mass death event. That’s not to mention the environmental damage that is likely being felt to this day. The safety protocols on these devices have been proven to be life saving, and clean up operations have been thorough or at least as best able to manage. That is when a clean up occurred at all or when any recovery was possible.

It is unknown what other nuclear armed governments have experienced and whether their weapons have undergone accidents and losses. Given the sheer number and regular movement of their arsenals, it stands to reason that the United States and Soviets would experience more accidents than other, smaller powers. We can assume these governments have better safety standards and training in regards to such weapons. It’s hard to imagine that Pakistan, North Korea, or even China would have the level of training and practice when it comes to handling such weapons compared to the United States. Then again, by having far less of them available, it stands to reason that they may be a little less reckless with the deployment of such weapons. Future accidents and losses involving nuclear weapons remains likely.

We are sliding into a world of frightened global environmental awareness, notably under the blanket of “climate action.” Governments across the planet are taking it upon themselves to tax and grow in the name of green policies. The truth of the matter is that government is not only wasteful and destructive (even when well meaning), but it’s also often incompetent and reckless. The placard of environmental protection is the fixture for future policies based on altruistic sloganeering. ‘Save the planet’ has become a mantra for public servants to spit out while they consume resources, blow the planet to pieces, and steer society into a path that in the years to come will be as dangerous to nature as current policies.

There was a time when the wider public and most conscientious activists were concerned by nuclear war and the catastrophic effects of just one bomb detonating, let alone numerous. It seems that with the climb into yet another cold war and the irrational desire for jingoism that the potential for nuclear Armageddon has been forgotten, or is at best a distant nightmare of a prior generation. The energy to save the planet is alive and well, but it has become hijacked by awareness advocates and big government careerists who wish to just paint the status quo green. Heightened tensions between powers capable of destroying the planet with nuclear weapons is dangerous, for both the obvious, direct implications of war but also because we may see a return to the Broken Arrows of the past. Losing an F-35 shows that there could again be the loss of a cheaper nuclear tipped system that may fall from or be lost with another aircraft. We know it’s possible because it’s already happened.

To imagine that the biggest government in the world has time and time again not only poisoned the planet with chemical defoliants, plumes of death from burn pits, scattered bombs over civilians, sprayed herbicides in the hopes of curbing drug production, pumped depleted uranium into each war zone it’s created, dropped mega litres of jet fuel into the ocean, ruined sea life with naval activities, and dropped numerous atom bombs all over the place… but as it turns out, has lost some too.

While it’s unlikely a third party will find them first, those unaccounted weapons of mass destruction linger as a potential danger that in time may leak or explode with catastrophe. No amount of benevolent prayers for a big government solution will every fix the culture of government itself.

Humanity and our planet deserve better than to be constantly left in the hands of central planners who rule with both cynicism and incompetence. Even well meaning reformers drown in such a work place. If another world war is not a bad enough prospect, losing the weapons intended to wage it certainly won’t save the world.

The missing F-35 was found after a few days. The nukes, if anyone in the government is even still looking, may turn up when we least expect it. Life on Earth is too precious to constantly be put at risk with such contemporary and political stupidity. How many of these regimes and administrations can the planet survive? The only green government is the one that does not exist. If you want to fix the planet then we need to get out of its way and let nature heal. And there is no tax for that; for the destroyers of the world, that’s precisely the problem.

October 2, 2023 Posted by | Environmentalism, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Slovakia elects party which promises to end Ukraine aid

RT | October 1, 2023

The Slovak Social Democracy (SMER-SD) party has won Saturday’s parliamentary election, with results from most districts giving it a 6 percentage point lead over its pro-Western rival, Progressive Slovakia.

The SMER-SD party is led by former prime minister Robert Fico, who has vowed to end military aid to Ukraine and publicly criticized the European Union’s sanctions on Russia as ineffective and harmful.

“We are a peaceful country,” Fico declared at a rally last week, adding that if his party wins it “will not send a single round [of ammunition] to Ukraine.”

The Progressive Slovakia party, a staunch supporter of EU policies, is the runner up with just over 17% of the vote, with 95% of ballots counted. Its 39-year-old leader Michal Simecka, a vice-president of the European Parliament, campaigned on promises to continue Slovakia’s support for Ukraine.

The pro-European HLAS (Voice) party, is polling third, just short of 15%. It’s leader Peter Pellegrini called it a victory and has not ruled out a possible coalition with Fico.

With no party set to win a majority of seats, Slovakia will need to form a coalition government. Other parties that made it over the threshold include the conservative Christian Democratic Movement (KDH), the liberal Freedom and Solidarity (SaS), as well as a conservative coalition of the Ordinary People and Independent Personalities (OL’aNO) with the Christian Union and For the People party.

The Slovak National Party also made it past the 5%  threshold. Leader Andrej Danko expressed willingness to join a coalition with Fico to “compete with liberalism,” while comparing Simecka to a “hurt puddle.”

The prospect of a Fico-led government has set alarm bells ringing in the EU, where officials in Brussels fear he could join Hungary in challenging the EU consensus on supporting Ukraine, and veto future military aid or vote against additional anti-Russia sanctions packages.

NATO member Slovakia has supplied Kiev with armored personnel carriers, howitzers, and its entire fleet of Soviet-era MiG-29 fighter jets.

However, Fico has made it clear that it would not unquestioningly follow the US lead if elected. Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service claimed last week that to prevent this from happening, Washington was willing to go to any lengths, including blackmail and bribery, to ensure a win for the incumbent Slovak government.

October 1, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Biden demands uninterrupted cash flow to Ukraine

RT | October 1, 2023

President Joe Biden has welcomed a bipartisan short-term budget deal that will keep the US government open for the next 45 days, but was disappointed that none of the billions of dollars in aid to Kiev that he had requested made it to the final bill.

“We cannot under any circumstances allow American support for Ukraine to be interrupted,” Biden said in a brief statement on Saturday night, shortly after Congress passed the measure.

Biden had requested an additional $24 billion for Ukraine, but critics argued that Washington has more important priorities and should have stronger safeguards against the misappropriation of the funds and supplies it sends to Kiev.

The US leader, however, blamed “extreme House Republicans” for causing a “manufactured crisis” and “demanding drastic cuts that would have been devastating for millions of Americans.”

“I fully expect the Speaker will keep his commitment to the people of Ukraine and secure passage of the support needed to help Ukraine at this critical moment,” the US president added.

Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had to rely on Democrats in order to pass the bill and avert a government shutdown, as 90 Republicans opposed any short-term funding measures, denying him the much-needed votes. As a part of the deal, McCarthy increased federal disaster assistance by $16 billion, but had to forgo the border security provisions sought by the GOP.

After no new aid to Ukraine made it to the final bill, the House Democratic leadership said in a statement on Saturday that they expect McCarthy to bring a separate Ukraine aid package to vote when the House returns.

The Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin also welcomed the bill passing, but called on the Congress to “live up to America’s commitment to provide urgently-needed assistance” to Kiev. “America must live up to its word and continue to lead,” he added in a statement published on Saturday.

October 1, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Rand Paul Issues Ultimatum: Withdraw Ukraine Billions Or Face Government Shutdown

By Steve Watson | Summit News | September 29, 2023

Senator Rand Paul declared that he will hold up a spending bill in the Senate and push toward a government shutdown unless $6 billion in aid to Ukraine is removed from the legislation.

Paul took to Twitter noting that he will only allow a vote on the spending stopgap before the Sept. 30 deadline for funding government if Senate leaders get rid of the massive amount of money earmarked for the war.

“If leadership insists on funding another country’s government at the expense of our own government, all blame rests with their intransigence,” Paul wrote.

Last week, Paul slammed the Ukrainian leadership as “corrupt” and blasting the visiting President Zelensky as “begging for more money.”

In the Senate, Paul asked “When will the aid requests end? When will the war end? Can someone explain what victory looks like?”

Paul also noted that Zelensky has cancelled Democracy in the country.

“They’ve cancelled the elections. What kind of democracy has no election?” he noted, adding “next year, Zelensky said he’s not going to have an election because it would be inconvenient during the war and would be expensive.”

He continued, “if you don’t have elections, who in the world will be supporting a country that’s not a democracy? They’ve banned the political parties, they’ve invaded churches, they’ve arrested priests. So, no, it isn’t a democracy. It’s a corrupt regime.”

Meanwhile, Democratic Presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned on Thursday that the “next step of Ukraine War escalation” is stationing United States military advisers on the ground.

“Have they forgotten how we got embroiled in Vietnam?” RFK Jr. noted, linking to a recent article in Foreign Affairs calling for on-the-ground training:

September 29, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »