Why are Ukrainian Flags Flying Over British Universities
Ukrainian flags over UK universities
Professor Dame Sally Mapstone
President
Universities UK
Woburn House
20 Tavistock Square
London WC1H 9HQ
11 September 2023
Dear Professor Mapstone
We have noted, with increasing concern, the practice of flying Ukraine flags above many universities across the United Kingdom. We are aware that UUK is a forum and does not direct the work of UK universities. Nevertheless, we wonder if the issue of Ukraine flag flying by UK universities has ever been discussed and, if it has not been discussed, if it should be.
In relation to this, we have several questions the first of which is ‘why?’ The conflict in Ukraine is not one in which our country is directly involved, although we are providing aid along with other western countries. However, we provide military aid to other regions of the world and have, until recently, been directly involved in military action in support of other countries. We do not recall at any time in our university careers having seen the flags of other nations being flown above any UK university. What is so unique about the conflict in Ukraine?
According to figures published by Clarivate in Research Professional News at the end of last year, there were 800 Ukrainian university students in the UK and over 3000 Russian students. Has anyone at UUK evaluated the consequences for the mental health and security of those Russian students? We are aware that not every Russian student will support their country’s military involvement in Ukraine; nevertheless, it could be alienating for them to see the Ukraine flag. How much more so for those Russian students who do support their country? It appears that they may have been judged and found guilty for merely being patriotic.
It is too easy to take sides, as many UK universities clearly have, in the conflict in Ukraine. That the immediate cause of the conflict is Russian’s invasion of a sovereign territory is indisputable. However, it also seems naïve, especially for seats of learning which exist to look beyond immediate facts, to analyse situations and to propose solutions, to make partisan displays of support.
As explained with meticulous supporting information in How The West Brought War to Ukraine by Benjamin Abelow, the roots of the conflict are deep. There are undeniably faults on both sides and some indisputably dangerous elements vying for position on both sides. Moreover, the west is not innocent in its ambitions regarding the region and courting NATO membership of Ukraine contrary to previous agreements with Russia about the status of countries on its borders, while ignoring overtures from Russia about NATO membership now seems very foolish. The presence of the Ukraine flag above UK universities defies these complexities.
We urge UUK to consider this matter and to urge its members to keep UK universities out of the conflict in Ukraine.
Yours sincerely
Professor Roger Watson
Honorary Professor
The University of Hull
Dr Niall McCrae
Workers of England Union
Is the ATACMS tactical missile already in Ukraine?
Russian response remains to be seen
BY STEPHEN BRYEN | ASIA TIMES | SEPTEMBER 23, 2023
Russian defense sources say that an ATACMS tactical ballistic missile was launched from Kulbakino Air Field in Ukraine. If the Russian report is correct then the Washington debate about sending tactical ATACMS missiles to Ukraine is fake, as they already are there.
The Russian report has not been confirmed. What is clear is that the Ukrainians used missiles to attack Sevastopol on September 21st, targeting Russia’s Black Sea headquarters. The historic HQ building was hit.
Reports say that President Biden told Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky that he agreed to send a “small number” of ATACMS missiles to Ukraine. Apparently Biden acted against Pentagon recommendations. Biden had been warned that ATACMS would be a war escalation. He was also told that there were not many ATACMS in inventory.
ATACMS has a range of around 300km. It is ground launched.
Kulbakino is the home of the 299th Ukrainian Tactical Air Brigade. It is located in Mykolaiv Oblast. It supports a number of aircraft – most importantly the Su-24M fighter-bomber, which has been modified to fire the Stormshadow cruise missile.
ATACMS is typically launched from the M270 MLRS (multiple-launch rocket system). It can also be launched from a HIMARS platform.
The M270 is a tracked, armored vehicle that supports launch tubes for missiles. It is based on the Bradley fighting vehicle chassis. It can fire one ATACMS missile and then the platform needs to be reloaded.
The M142 HIMARS is based on the Army’s MTV truck frame. Like the M270 MLRS, it can fire one ATACMS missile.
HIMARS already is in Ukraine so delivery of the missiles will not require any significant field modifications.
The US has only small stocks of HIMARS currently available. The US Marines, who operate HIMARS, need ATACMS in order to blunt any Chinese attack either on the Senkaku islands or aimed at Taiwan. The Marines have carried out joint exercises with Japan, where Japan test fired the M270 in a demonstration. However, with ATACMS in short supply, the Marines operated the vehicle but only simulated firing the missile.
Taiwan has also requested HIMARS from the United States, equipped with the accurate ATACMS system to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. Taiwan has ordered 28 launchers and 864 missiles. These are supposed to be delivered between 2024 and 2027. However, if Ukraine gets the supplies instead, Taiwan will be forced to wait even longer.
Because of Biden’s decision the Germans will not be able to hide behind the US as an excuse not to provide the German-Swedish Taurus KEPD 350. Taurus, a joint product of MBDA Deutschland and Saab Bofors, is a long range cruise missile with a range of 500 km. It is launched by aircraft. Most likely, if Taurus cruise missiles are delivered to Ukraine, they will be operated by Ukraine’s Su-24s, although these are also in short supply. The systems on the Su-25 in Ukraine probably are not modern enough to support the Taurus.
Taurus has a range of 500km after launch. It carries a 481 kg MEPHISTO (multi-effect penetrator highly sophisticated and target optimized) warhead.
ATACMS has different types of warheads and it is not clear what will be sent to Ukraine. Originally the missiles had cluster munition warheads, but later that was changed to so-called unitary warheads.
The Russians understand that both Taurus and ATACMS are threats to Russian territory, exposing its cities, air bases, nuclear power plants and defense installations to heavy attack.
Most of what Ukraine has so far launched into Russian territory have been small drones. While drones have done some damage, many of them have been shot down. Russia does have layered air defenses, although they do not appear to be well integrated, and there are considerable coverage gaps.
Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, interviewed by ABC News, was asked, “Are you OK if Ukraine uses those missiles [ATACMS] to strike deep into Russia?” He replied: “Their decision, not ours.” Blinken knows very well that Ukraine needs support from US overhead intelligence for long-range strikes, something the Russians also understand very well.
The Russians have made clear that delivering these missiles to Ukraine is a significant escalation by NATO and the United States. It remains to be seen exactly how and in what ways Russia will respond.
Senior Israel delegation visits Azerbaijan 2 days before clashes in Karabakh
MEMO | September 21, 2023
Director General of Israeli Defence Ministry, Eyal Zamir, visited Azerbaijan two days before clashes erupted with Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, Israeli media reported on Wednesday.
Members of the Israeli delegation met with their Azeri counterparts, including Defence Minister, Zakir Hasanov, The Times of Israel said, pointing out that the visit came amid stepped-up Israeli arms supplies to Azerbaijan.
At least 32 people had been killed in the region before the clashes stopped. Azerbaijan described its attacks as an “anti-terrorist operation”.
It said it would continue until the separatist government of Nagorno-Karabakh dismantles itself and “illegal Armenian military formations” surrender.
On Wednesday, the two sides announced a ceasefire.
Israel is expanding bilateral ties with Azerbaijan. In March, Azeri Foreign Minister, Jeyhun Bayramov, opened Baku’s first-ever embassy in Israel.
Israel is one of Azerbaijan’s leading arms suppliers. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Israel provided 69 per cent of Baku’s major arms imports in 2016-2020, accounting for 17 per cent of Israel’s arms exports over that period.
During the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Israel stepped up its weapons shipments to Azerbaijan, which emerged victorious in that war with Armenia.
Israel gets benefits from its relations with Azerbaijan through its location on Iran’s northern border and the fact that Israel buys over 30 per cent of its oil from Baku.
Almost Half of US’ F-35 Fleet Not Capable of Flying at Any Time – Watchdog
Sputnik – 22.09.2023
WASHINGTON – Almost half the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that are supposed to be operational are not capable of flying and it will cost $1.3 trillion to keep them operational, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in a new report.
“The F-35 fleet mission capable rate – the percentage of time the aircraft can perform one of its tasked missions – was about 55% in March 2023, far below program goals,” the report said on Thursday.
The GAO called this level of operational readiness “unacceptably low.”
“The program was behind schedule in establishing depot maintenance activities to conduct repairs. As a result, component repair times remained slow with over 10,000 waiting to be repaired – above desired levels,” the report said.
Organizational-level maintenance has also been affected by a lack of technical data and training, the report added.
It will cost $1.3 trillion to keep the full F-35 fleet operational and flying even if or when all the repair and maintenance bottlenecks, as well as ongoing development problems with the aircraft’s cannon, ejector seat, software and hardware are fixed, the report said.
However, despite the downfalls associated with the F-35 program, the report also determined that the Biden administration and the Department of Defense remain committed to a $1.7 trillion expenditure on buying a total of 2,500 F-35s for the US armed forces.
“In the coming decades, the Department of Defense plans to spend an estimated $1.7 trillion on nearly 2,500 F-35s,” the report stated, acknowledging that the majority of the funds will go to operating, maintaining, and repairing the aircraft.
The F-35 aircraft now represents a growing portion of the Defense Department’s tactical aviation fleet with about 450 of the aircraft fielded, the GAO said.
From the start of the F-35 program, officials have dealt with a variety of major setbacks with the fleet, ranging from costly fixes to sensitivities with overheating and lightning strikes.
More recently, the program made global headline news after a US Marine Corps F-35B crashed in South Carolina and sent authorities on a hunt after being unable to track the fighter once its pilot safely ejected.
One Western Official Finally Comes Clean About NATO Expansion
By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | September 21, 2023
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg likely surprised both factions in the ongoing debate about NATO expansion and its role in triggering the Russia-Ukraine War. He also undermined (perhaps fatally) the official cover story about the reasons for the Ukraine war. Since Russia’s February 2022 invasion, Western officials and their allies in the corporate media have insisted vehemently that the alliance’s addition of Eastern European nations after the Cold War and giving a pledge to Ukraine that it would become a member someday had nothing to do with Vladimir Putin’s decision to attack his neighbor. Indeed, anyone who argued otherwise risked being accused of echoing Russian propaganda and being “Putin’s puppet.”
Both the official explanation and the pervasive narrative regarding the war were unequivocal. Putin was power-hungry and unwilling to tolerate an independent, pro-Western Ukraine on Russia’s border. Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Steven Pifer’s interpretation was typical; “For the Kremlin, a democratic, Western-oriented, economically successful Ukraine poses a nightmare, because that Ukraine would cause Russians to question why they cannot have the same political voice and democratic rights that Ukrainians do.” Even when Pifer published his piece in July 2022, that explanation was extremely weak, given Ukraine’s own corruption and authoritarianism. Volodymyr Zelensky’s subsequent systematic assault on civil liberties makes the notion that Putin felt threatened by Ukraine as an irresistible democratic magnet patently absurd. Ukraine is not a democratic country by any reasonable definition of the term.
Nevertheless, other analysts made arguments similar to Pifer’s thesis. That Russian grievances over NATO helped spark the war “makes no sense,” wrote Rutgers professor Alexander Motyl. “NATO cannot have been the issue,” historian Timothy Snyder insists; Putin “simply wants to conquer Ukraine, and a reference to NATO was one form of rhetorical cover for his colonial venture.” Such comments matched the official positions that the U.S. and other NATO governments adopted. Interventionist opponent Caitlin Johnstone was accurate that “arguably the single most egregious display of war propaganda in the 21st century occurred last year, when the entire western political/media class began uniformly bleating the word ‘unprovoked’ in reference to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”
In a September 6, 2023 speech to the European Union Parliament, Secretary General Stoltenberg contradicted the entrenched official narrative, most likely inadvertently. “President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually 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 (sic) Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.”
Stoltenberg emphasized, “He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.” Consequently, “he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.” [Emphasis added]
Several scholars and former officials had warned for years that NATO’s expansion to Russia’s border would end badly, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine confirmed those predictions. George Kennan, the intellectual father of America’s containment policy during the Cold War, perceptively warned in a May 1998 New York Times interview about what the Senate’s ratification of NATO’s first round of expansion would set in motion. “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” Kennan stated. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake.”
NATO’s attempt to make Ukraine a full-fledged military asset was especially provocative. Kremlin leaders regarded Ukraine as not only being in Moscow’s rightful sphere of influence, but in Russia’s core security zone. Putin made that point clear on numerous occasions at least as far back as his speech to the Munich Security Conference in 2007. Instead of taking those warnings seriously, Western leaders blew through one red light after another. NATO’s leader, the United States, especially worked to forge ever-closer military ties with Ukraine. In essence, the Trump and Biden administrations began to treat Ukraine as a NATO member in all but name.
Extensive arms shipments to Kiev along with U.S. and NATO joint military exercises constituted the centerpiece of that policy. But that was not the extent of Washington’s provocations. Shortly after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the CIA initiated secret paramilitary training programs for Ukrainian special operations personnel in the United States and in Ukraine. Massive arms shipments to Kiev along with joint U.S. and NATO military exercises with Ukrainian forces constituted the centerpiece of that policy. Yahoo national security correspondent Dan Dorfman noted that “U.S. and Ukrainian intelligence have even participated in joint offensive cyber operations against Russian government targets, according to former officials.”
Such actions make a mockery of the argument that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked. That assertion is convenient propaganda, but it was always devoid of both facts and logic. Stoltenberg’s comments merely confirm what should have been obvious to both the foreign policy community and the news media from the beginning.
Meet Ukrainian Military’s American Spokesman
Transgendered Sarah Ashton-Cirillo advocates free speech and killing journalists
BY JOHN LEAKE | COURAGEOUS DISCOURSE | SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
As our world gets weirder by the second, it has become ever harder to know if what we are presented with is real. Every time someone sends a report or video that is purportedly a representation of factual reality, I try to evaluate if it’s indeed real or if it’s propaganda, black propaganda, satire, or the creation of a mentally ill person.
This morning I saw a story about an American transgendered woman named Sarah Ashton-Cirillo who claims to be a soldier and an official spokesman of the Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces. She is in the news because of a publicized spat she is having with Senator JD Vance of Ohio who has made an inquiry to determine is Sarah Ashton-Cirillo really is an official English language spokesman for the Ukrainian TDF. Spoiler Alert: She really is.
Vance became aware of Ashton-Cirillo after he saw a video of the spokesman announcing that journalists who disseminate Russian propaganda will be hunted down and killed. In this video, she proclaims:
Next week, the teeth of the Russian devils will gnash ever harder, and their rabid mouths will foam in uncontrollable frenzy as the world will see a favorite Kremlin propagandist pay for their crimes. This puppet of Putin is only the first. Russia’s war criminal propagandists will all be hunted down and justice will be served.

In response to Senator Vance’s query, Ashton-Cirillo posted yet another video in which she proclaims her support of the First Amendment, but hastens to add that reporting Russian propaganda is not protected by the First Amendment.

Who adjudicates what is Russian propaganda and what is merely critical reporting of the Ukrainian government and its U.S. government supporters?
The question touches on something I have frequently written about on this Substack—namely, the strange rise of ORTHODOXY in recent years. There are, we are told, certain major issues in which the ORTHODOX—that is, official U.S. government and MSM representations—cannot be questioned or criticized. Those who do question these orthodoxies will be censored, censured, or—if Ashton-Cirillo has her way—hunted down and killed.
The top four orthodoxies are what I call the Holy Quadripartitus of Piffle. They are:
1). COVID-19 vaccines are saving mankind. Anyone who questions the safety and efficacy of the vaccines is guilty of heresy.
2). The U.S. proxy war in Ukraine is a sacred mission and no negotiated settlement with Russia shall be countenanced. Anyone who criticizes the Ukrainian and U.S. governments, and any attempt to understand the war from the Russian point of view, is guilty of heresy.
3). Human induced climate change will soon destroy the earth if trillions aren’t spent to overhaul our entire energy policy. Anyone who questions this proposition is guilty of heresy.
4). The concept of biological sex is a mere “construct.” Skilled surgeons and endocrinologists can transform a boy into a girl or vice versa. Anyone who questions this assertion is guilty of heresy.
I reject the Holy Quadripartitus of Piffle as fanatical, obscurantist, mentally ill nonsense.
G7 believes Ukraine conflict will last until end of decade – Bloomberg
RT | September 20, 2023
The Russia-Ukraine conflict may extend for another six to seven years, according to a senior G7 official who spoke with Bloomberg. The official emphasized that Kiev’s allies will confront various challenges as they endeavor to sustain their support for Ukraine.
In an article released on Tuesday, multiple officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, indicated that the prolonged timeline resulted from Ukraine’s much-heralded counteroffensive progressing slowly, which has led to “tempered expectations.”
Continuing to provide military and financial aid to Kiev for such a long conflict “won’t be easy,” said Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky. “It’ll put a lot of pressure on societies, on governments, through different elections in Europe,” he added, stressing that there has to be a “midterm strategy of long-term support to Ukraine.”
One top European official informed Bloomberg that even with the support provided, Ukraine will likely grapple with challenges stemming from insufficient Western weapons supplies and the escalating toll of manpower losses.
Regardless of this dire outlook, Kiev and its allies remain opposed to negotiations and are unwilling to accept any resolution that does not include the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from territories Ukraine claims as its own, the officials told the outlet.
Kiev, for its part, has consistently emphasized its unwillingness to make any territorial concessions to Russia as part of potential peace agreements. In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky affirmed that despite the counteroffensive’s slow pace, Ukraine remains committed to it regardless of adverse weather conditions or other factors.
Ukraine initiated its offensive in June; however, territorial gains have proven elusive, with heavy casualties being the predominant outcome. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ukraine has incurred substantial losses during this push, including over 71,000 troops, 543 tanks, and nearly 18,000 armored vehicles.
Last year, four former Ukrainian territories – the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics and the Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions – voted to join Moscow after holding public referendums. Kiev and its allies have refused to recognize the votes, while Zelensky has signed a decree banning any negotiations with the current Russian leadership.
Moscow, meanwhile, has repeatedly said that it has not closed the door on negotiations with Kiev but has urged the Ukrainian leadership to recognize the “realities on the ground.”
Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh Agree on Ceasefire Through Coordination of Russian Peacekeepers – MoD
Sputnik – 20.09.2023
Azerbaijan and representatives of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh have agreed on a complete cessation of hostilities through the mediation of Russian peacekeepers, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Wednesday.
“Through the mediation of the command of the Russian peacekeeping contingent, an agreement was reached between the Azerbaijani side and representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh on a complete cessation of hostilities. The implementation of these agreements will be carried out in coordination with the command of the Russian peacekeeping contingent,” the ministry said in a statement.
The Russian peacekeeping contingent in Nagorno-Karabakh is in contact with both Yerevan and Baku, discussing the prevention of bloodshed in the region, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Wednesday.
“The command of the Russian peacekeeping contingent is in close contact at the appropriate level with the Azerbaijani and Armenian sides, representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh. The prevention of bloodshed, compliance with the norms of humanitarian law in relation to the civilian population, as well as ensuring the safety of the Russian peacekeeping contingent are discussed,” the ministry said in a statement.
Russian peacekeepers continue to perform their duties in Nagorno-Karabakh in aggravated conditions, the ministry said, adding that 2,261 civilians, including 1,049 children, are currently located in a base camp of peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh.
On Tuesday, Baku announced the launch of “local-level anti-terrorist activities” in Nagorno-Karabakh aimed at “restoring the constitutional order.” It also said Azerbaijani forces only targeted military objects in Nagorno-Karabakh, while Armenian state media reported multiple casualties among civilians as a result of Azerbaijani strikes. Yerevan described the operation as aggression and reiterated that it had no military presence in the disputed region.
In 1923, the region was granted the status of an autonomous area called the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) within the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic.
In 1988, a movement for reunification with Armenia began in Nagorno-Karabakh. On September 2, 1991, it declared independence from Azerbaijan and changed its name to the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. From 1992 to 1994, Azerbaijan attempted to regain control over the self-declared republic, resulting in full-scale military hostilities in which up to 30,000 people lost their lives.
In 1994, the parties agreed to a ceasefire, but the status of the republic remained undetermined. In late September 2020, hostilities resumed in Nagorno-Karabakh. On the night of November 10, Azerbaijan and Armenia, with Moscow’s support, reached a comprehensive ceasefire agreement, maintaining their respective positions and exchanging prisoners of war and the bodies of the deceased. Russian peacekeepers were deployed in the region, including the Lachin Corridor.
In 2022 with the mediation of Russia, the United States, and the European Union, Yerevan and Baku began discussing the terms of a future peace agreement. In late May of this year, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan declared that Yerevan was ready to recognize Azerbaijan’s sovereignty within its Soviet-era borders, including Karabakh.
In September 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin noted that the Armenian leadership had essentially recognized Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijani leader Ilham Aliyev said that Azerbaijan and Armenia could sign a peace agreement by the end of the year if Yerevan did not change its stance.
Lavrov’s claim that America is at war with Russia is no ‘exaggeration’
By Drago Bosnic | September 20, 2023
Since the start of Russia’s special military operation (SMO) against NATO’s crawling encroachment on its borders, the United States has been adamant that it’s “not a party to the conflict” and that it supposedly “doesn’t want escalation with Moscow“. However, time proved both of these statements to be patently false. According to the claims of the Neo-Nazi junta itself, the US controls the targeting of every long-range weapon deployed by the Kiev regime forces. On the other hand, the falsehood of the laughable claim that Washington DC “doesn’t want war” is painfully obvious to anyone remotely familiar with its neverending escalation aimed against Russia.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is certainly aware of all this, although basic diplomatic etiquette prevented him from stating the obvious in the past. And yet, after well over a year and a half of being exposed to the blatant hypocrisy of the political West, it seems that even the usually reserved Lavrov has stopped holding back, as trying to follow diplomatic protocols when dealing with someone who openly breaks them is simply futile and ultimately self-defeating. Namely, in recent remarks for the press, the Russian Foreign Minister said that the US is waging war against Russia. Strong statement, one might say, but who could possibly refute it given the ongoing events?
Even if we don’t count statements made by top-level US officials, including Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin’s admission that Washington DC wants to see a “strategic defeat” inflicted on Russia and President Joe Biden’s Freudian slip that “Putin cannot stay in power“, the evidence that supports Lavrov’s claim is simply overwhelming and we’re seeing it every single day. He also pointed out the fact that the US is not only transferring enormous amounts of so-called “lethal aid” to the Neo-Nazi junta (worth hundreds of billions at this point), but is actually controlling these weapons through direct decision-making while maintaining plausible deniability.
Lavrov himself also reiterated Austin’s admission that this is because the belligerent thalassocracy wants to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia. The statements about US belligerence were given while he was speaking on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum on the morning of September 17, where he pointed out that “no matter what it says, it [the US] controls this war, it supplies weapons, munitions, intelligence information, data from satellites, it is pursuing a war against us”. Lavrov also stated that Ukraine is simply being used as a springboard to achieve American strategic goals, as it was being prepared for the ongoing conflict years in advance.
“There is a real plot around the topic of the so-called (peace) negotiations, as well as attempts to turn everything upside down through pseudo diplomacy,” he said just two days prior, adding: “The West has been saying for months that this ‘peace formula’ is the only basis for negotiations. It starts from innocent topics … and then comes to the purpose for which it was concocted – inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia, to restore the borders of Ukraine as they were in 1991, court-martial the Russian leadership, force Russia to pay reparations, and then ‘mercifully’ agree to sign a peace agreement.”
Lavrov made the said comments on September 15, referring to the abortive Saudi-hosted “peace talks” and added that this pattern of double standards and hypocrisy is also used when dealing with most other countries.
“These are exactly the dirty methods that the West uses not only in relation to Ukraine but in many other areas of global politics,” he stated.
The recent direct endorsement US Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave for the Kiev regime’s long-range strikes on targets within Russia is yet another proof of Lavrov’s claims. Namely, during an interview with ABC News on September 10, Blinken stated that it was supposedly “up to Ukraine” whether or not it should target Russia proper with US-made long-range weapons. The idea that the Kiev regime could ever make such a decision on its own is beyond laughable, which means that it’s the belligerent thalassocracy itself that ordered the Neo-Nazi junta to target areas deeper within Russia in order to inflict maximum damage with minimal investment or risk for itself.
Blinken’s statement came only a day after ABC News reported that the US would provide the ATACMS to the Kiev regime. The range of these missiles, while hardly groundbreaking, is enough to jeopardize not only Russian supply lines, but also civilian infrastructure hundreds of kilometers behind the frontlines. And yet, this isn’t the only danger Lavrov pointed out thus far, as back in early June, he warned that nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets could lead to an uncontrollable escalation that Russia will certainly not tolerate. He stressed that Moscow would be forced to respond militarily, meaning that NATO would also be held directly responsible in that case.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
News relating to missiles used or about to be used in Ukraine and about “Russian” ICBMs in North Korea
By Gilbert Doctorow | September 17, 2023
It is widely expected that in the coming week American president Joe Biden will announce the decision to ship American medium range missiles ATACMS to Ukraine. Discussions of this subject have been widespread in both US and European media. The focus has been on the range of missiles and whether their delivery will enable Ukraine to attack across the border into the Russian Federation itself for the purpose of destroying supplies and command centers there. Of course, the issue is complicated by what is meant by RF territory. In the language of the West, all of the Ukrainian territory which has been captured by Russia since 2014 is considered to be fair game for military attack. From the perspective of Russia, any attacks on Crimea, in particular, may be justification for major escalation of the war into a direct fight with the NATO country or countries supplying the given missiles. That said, there is reason to believe that Storm Shadows were used to hit Sevastopol on 13 September, without any sign yet of Russia’s intention to escalate.
The advocates of shipping ATACMSs to Ukraine point out that its range, 190 miles or 300 km, is no greater than that of the Storm Shadow missiles which Britain and France have sent to Ukraine without prompting escalatory actions by Russia. However, that is to overlook the other side of the issue, namely the method of launch. Storm Shadow is an air to ground missile. It is launched from Soviet-era Ukrainian jet fighters which have been especially modified for this purpose. Since the Storm Shadow is devilishly difficult for any air defense system to destroy in flight, the Russians have focused attention on destroying Ukrainian planes that are part of the launch operation. Just this past week, on 11 September a Russian missile attack on the Dolgintsevo air base near Krivoy Rog in the Dnepropetrovsk region of Ukraine destroyed 5 Ukrainian fighters, two MiG-29s and three SU-25s. The MiGs are said to either carry the Storm Shadow or to provide cover for SU-24s which carry them.
The logic of supplying ATCSMs is precisely in the launch mode, not the attack radius of these missiles. They are ground to ground missiles which are launched from mobile platforms similar in principle to the multiple rocket launchers HIMARS. In that sense, they are more difficult to find and destroy than a jet fighter.
In the meantime, in Europe, German Chancellor Scholz has made it plain that he will not approve sending Germany’s long range missiles, the TAURUS, to Kiev until the United States makes a first move by shipping its own missiles. The TAURUS falls into the same launch category as the Storm Shadow; it is sent on its way to target by a jet fighter. Its distinction is only one of distance, at 500 km range. If Ukraine has a fast diminishing or fully destroyed air force, the TAURUS will not be of much use.
*****
Otherwise, over this past week, the interest of major Western media in missiles has focused on what North Korea owns and how it got them. The interest came about as journalists followed the course of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s tour of the Russian Far East.
It has occurred to our journalists that North Korea presently possesses ICBMs capable of reaching the North American heartland, and as they pored over the technical characteristics of these missiles they noted that one seems to be very close in design to Soviet era missiles that were once the mainstay of the Russian strategic arsenal. I am speaking of the Korean rebranded Topol-M.
It is not surprising, therefore, that some folks in the States are wondering how is it that the Russians were able to get away with supplying the designs of the Topol-M to Pongyang without the United States raising a hullaballoo.
The answer, my friends, is in the inconvenient fact that those responsible for providing North Korea with production plans and technology for manufacturing the Topol-M were not Russians; they were Ukrainians. This story is discussed in an article on a Russian news portal a couple of days ago. According to the authors, the Ukrainians sold to the North Koreans part of the technology but not all. For example, they held back the secrets of the solid fuel used in this missile, which the Koreans had to develop on their own. Moreover, for the guidance system, the Koreans were assisted or copied a system developed by the Chinese. What this tells us is that if the Koreans should agree with the Kremlin on the purchase of one or another missile-related technology, its integration into their own production will be done by the Koreans themselves. The same may be said of technologies for construction and operation of nuclear powered submarines which the North Koreans are said to be looking for abroad.
*****
Before closing, I use this opportunity to sum up the Russian visit of Comrade Kim after he spent that first day in talks with Vladimir Putin at the Vostochny Cosmodrome about which I wrote earlier in the week. His next stop was Komsomolsk on Amur, where he was shown the Yuri Gagarin factory complex producing Russian military and civilian aircraft, including the “Alligator” multifunctional attack helicopters that have been so effective in the Ukraine war against tanks, armored personnel carriers and other military hardware. The top Russian official with Kim for the day was Minister of Trade and Industry Denis Manturov.
From Komsomolsk, Kim went next to the Knevichi air base in the Amur region, where he was shown the massive turboprop Tupolev Tu-95 and the sleek Tu-160 “White Swan,” both mainstays of the nuclear triad as bombers and missile platforms. Considerable attention was given to an assortment of the most modern fighter jets in the Su family, as well as to MiGs equipped with the hypersonic Kinzhal missile. The Russian hosts were headed by Minister of Defense Shoigu.
Kim’s tour ended in Vladivostok where he was taken aboard the frigate Marshal Shaposhnikov of the Pacific fleet, which is typical of the latest Russian vessels in having an important complement of hypersonic missiles with 1500 km range as well as weaponry for anti-submarine warfare.
When in Vladivostik, Kim visited the Far Eastern Federal University on Russky Island in the Vladivostok harbor, where the Eastern Economic Forum had been held at the start of the week. Kim met with university students. Lastly, there was a typically Russian cultural note to round out Kim’s program: a performance of Swan Lake by the Vladivostok affiliate of the Mariinsky Theater (St Petersburg). I mention parenthetically, that the Russian Federation from coast to coast is looked after culturally by its musical and museum powerhouses: Moscow’s Bolshoi theater maintains a similar performance and training outpost in Kaliningrad.
