Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Russia issues space warning

RT | February 16, 2023

The US and its allies are exposing civilian space assets to potential attack by utilizing them for military purposes, a senior Russian diplomat has warned. The warning came after NATO unveiled plans for a space monitoring fleet that will use commercial and military satellites for its missions.

Konstantin Vorontsov, deputy director of the non-proliferation and weapons control directorate in the Russian Foreign Ministry, said on Thursday that the US is weaponizing space and blurring the boundaries between military and civilian infrastructure in orbit.

American use of spacecraft to benefit other nations on the battlefield “is in fact a form of participation in [conflicts] by proxy,” Vorontsov said, adding that “quasi-civilian space infrastructure” in particular could face “retaliation.”

“At the very least, such provocative use of civilian satellites is questionable under the [1967] Outer Space Treaty,” he stated.

Vorontsov’s warning came at a round table discussion in the Russian parliament which focused on the legacy of the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative, and how it influences current US military planning.

Ahead of the announcement of NATO’s new space project on Wednesday, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the US-led bloc will use commercial satellites as a military booster.

“This will improve our intelligence and surveillance, and support NATO missions and operations,” Stoltenberg said, adding that this would allow for “better navigation, communication, and early warning of missile launches.”

The NATO chief revealed the project as he reported on what the organization was doing to assist Ukrainian forces against Russia.

The fusion between civilian and military equipment in the Ukrainian conflict came to the forefront last week, when SpaceX announced that it was restricting the functionality of its Starlink space internet system, meaning Kiev’s troops could not use it to pilot drones.

CEO Elon Musk explained that Starlink was a commercial product not intended for military purposes, and that he did not want it to be used to escalate the hostilities, potentially unleashing a “third world war.”

The system remains available to the Ukrainian military for communication, even though SpaceX as a private company could simply switch off the terminals, he added.

February 16, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Wartime Parallels: Iraq and Covid

By Ramesh Thakur | Brownstone Institute | February 15, 2023

At the time of the Iraq war, I was a senior UN official yet publicly critical of the drive to war before and during the war, including in the pages of the esteemed International Herald Tribune. (The demise of that paper was a sad loss to the world of high quality international journalism.)

The resort to emotional blackmail by the warmongers, where critics of the impending war were tarred for standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Butcher of Baghdad, was instructive. Of course, very soon “We, the critics” were amply vindicated.

The whole episode left me with two conclusions. First, the resort to emotional arguments and moral blackmail generally implies that they have little reasoned argument and evidence to support their case and are deflecting to bluster instead. Second, whenever we are presented with excitable exclamation marks (Saddam Hussein already has weapons of mass destruction (WMD)! He can hit us with WMD in just 45 minutes! Coronavirus could be more cataclysmic than the Spanish flu! The sky is falling!), it is a very good idea to substitute sceptical question marks instead:

  • Why would Saddam do that?
  • Where is your evidence?
  • What is your end goal?
  • Are the proposed means proportionate to that goal?
  • What will be the human and economic cost?
  • How long will this take?
  • Will you recognize success?
  • What is your exit strategy?
  • What are the checks against mission creep?

Instead of such healthy scepticism to force a dose of reality and calm down the agitated excitement, the coronavirus panic has also shown a remarkable triumph of the Henny Penny (or Chicken Little) tunnel vision. Thinking back to that as the coronavirus madness took hold of the world in 2020, I was surprised at how close the fit was to the Iraq war analogy once I thought the whole thing through. The lockdown, mask and vaccine mandates in particular revealed seven disturbing echoes of the 2003 Iraq War syndrome.

The first parallel is with respect to threat inflation. In the “Foreword” to the “dodgy dossier” of September 2002, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote: Saddam Hussein’s “military planning allows for some of the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.” This turned out to be disinformation that was vital to rally the party, Parliament and the nation behind the decision to go to war.

British intelligence services had informed Blair in April 2002 (a year before the war) that Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons and any other WMD would be “very, very small.” The Chilcot Inquiry was told a decade later that Blair accepted this but converted to George W. Bush’s way of thinking after a subsequent visit to the US president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Similarly, to gain public backing for the degree of state intrusion into peoples’ private lives and control over nations’ economic activities without precedent even in wartime, the immediacy, gravity and magnitude of the coronavirus threat had to be made apocalyptic.

SARS-CoV-2 is not remotely as lethal as the Spanish flu of 1918–19 that killed the fit and young as virulently as the elderly and infirm. It infected 500 million people (one third of the world’s population) and killed 50 million, equivalent to around 250 million dead today. Our health systems are infinitely better than a century ago. Yet authorities did not close down whole societies and economies in 1918. In other deadly pandemic episodes also we suffered but endured.

To overcome these hesitations of history and experience, the threat from SARS-CoV-2 had to be inflated beyond all previous calamities in order to panic countries into drastic action. This was successfully done by Neil Ferguson’s catastrophist Imperial College London model of 16 March 2020 that is by now widely discredited. It deserves to acquire a notoriety equivalent to Iraq’s dodgy dossier and Ferguson’s mortality estimates should be judged to be the equivalent of Blair’s 45 minutes to Saddam’s WMD.

The second echo comes from the thinness of evidence. The infamous Downing Street Memorandum of 23 July 2002 made it clear that the US administration was determined to go to war and military action was inevitable. For their part, however, British officials did not believe there was sufficient legal justification: there was no recent evidence of Iraqi complicity with international terrorism, Saddam’s WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran, and he was not a threat to his neighbours. It was necessary to create the conditions that would make an invasion legal, hence “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” and the US “had already begun ‘spikes of activity’ to put pressure on the regime.”

With Covid-19, similarly, instead of evidence-based policy, many governments resorted to policy-based evidence to justify lockdowns, masks and vaccines.

The third similarity is in the denigration of critics who had the temerity to query the evidence. Those who questioned the lack of evidence to invade Iraq were demonized as apologists for the Butcher of Baghdad. Those who asked for evidence to justify the biggest expansion of state power in Western political history were shamed as wanting to kill granny. Most recently we learnt of how a unit of British intelligence kept tabs on the writings of journalists like Toby Young and Peter Hitchens because of their critical stance on government policies.

The fourth parallel is in the dismissal of collateral harm as exaggerated, speculative, without evidence, motivated, etc. Yet evidence continues to mount on the many different pathways through which the Grim Reaper claims his growing mass of victims from the panicked responses to Covid.

The fifth echo is in the lack of a clear exit strategy. Instead of a quick victory in Iraq followed by consolidated democratic regimes in a stable region and an orderly withdrawal, the US found itself stuck in a quagmire and eventually went back home an exhausted and vanquished conqueror. Almost all lockdown governments are now struggling with public justifications to declare victory and lift the lockdown. Modellers still want none of it and the apocalyptic warnings keep coming back, despite mounting evidence of a policy-invariant gradual decline in the spike in cases and deaths around the world. Covid is now endemic. The cognitive dissonance in Covid policy has been starkly evident in the continuation of the travel ban on unvaccinated visitors to the US well after authorities had been compelled to concede vaccines had no appreciable impact on infection and transmission.

Another resemblance is mission creep. One big reason for the self-created exit trap is that the original mission of flattening the curve so the health system could cope with a slowed spread of the virus, steadily morphed into the more ambitious but impossible mission of eliminating the virus. Or, to change metaphors, the goalposts didn’t just keep shifting. They were dug out and replanted in an entirely new paddock in an altogether different location.

Seventh and finally, like the US media in 2003, most mainstream media commentators across the democratic West abandoned critical inquisitiveness in 2020 to become cheerleaders for the “war on corona.” Except the censorship and suppression of dissenting voices seems to have been far, far worse in the last three years than was the case in 2003, with possibly illegal collusion between governments and Big Tech.

Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.

February 15, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Here’s why Ukraine’s Zelensky wants a long war with Russia

By Andrey Sushentsov | RT | February 15, 2023

It is unlikely that President Vladimir Zelensky expects to win militarily. But it seems that he genuinely believes that he will succeed in turning Ukraine into something like Israel – a paramilitary state living with a sense of constant military threat.

Ukraine doesn’t have the military or economic resources of its own to achieve victory, and the resources provided by the West will never be enough to inflict a final defeat on Russia. Zelensky’s calculation is likely based on the belief that by offering Ukraine as a tool for NATO to use against Russia, he will constantly mobilize Western support and thereby ensure his own survival, and that of his associates.

In the worst-case scenario, as he sees it, Zelensky is probably counting on emigrating to the West with his closest associates, where they will advocate a continued policy of Russian containment. But does he care about the interests of ordinary people in Ukraine?

The unprecedented hardships of war that the country now faces could have been significantly reduced if Zelensky had been willing to settle the crisis diplomatically. Russia has repeatedly taken diplomatic initiatives to resolve this conflict. In the first phase, for example, negotiations took place in Belarus and Turkey. However, under the influence of the US and the UK, Kiev has set a course to prolong the conflict, banking on Western military assistance to achieve its goals.

As Ukraine’s own military and economic resources have dried up, the country has become increasingly dependent on Western supplies, and has ultimately become a tool to fight Russia. Nevertheless, Kiev still has the opportunity to begin talks with Moscow.

Zelensky could take the initiative to negotiate a status quo that is still comfortable for Ukraine. Of course, as the Russian military campaign progresses, the situation will change in ways that are far from favorable to Kiev. And the solutions put forward by the Russian delegation at the beginning of the crisis will no longer be on the table. However, there is still the possibility of a sustainable peace, with reduced risks of escalation into Europe’s biggest military conflict since the Second World War and a nuclear catastrophe.

Zelensky could still claim the laurels of a peacemaker who sacrificed some of his personal ambition in the name of saving Ukrainian lives and ensuring a peaceful future for his country.

A truce would alleviate the economic difficulties of Kiev’s supporters in the West, and thus generate some gratitude. Ukraine would also save a considerable amount of its military resources. Peace would obviously limit them, as deliveries would dry up, but those resources in situ would still be at the disposal of the Ukrainian government.

Yet, Zelensky’s government acts as if it sees no value in preserving Ukrainian statehood. The administration is squandering citizens’ lives and the economic fabric of the country in the belief that this sacrifice is necessary to gain some possible, rather indefinite, advantage in the future. Instead of acting as a peacemaker, as someone who is prepared to make sacrifices to save the lives of his people, Zelensky acts like a gambler, while feeding the population military propaganda.

The unprecedented military, political and economic support Ukraine is receiving from abroad essentially covers up all of the mistakes by Zelensky’s government. A strategy which is based on the axiom “war will pay for everything”. At home, the militarist line has allowed the president to establish a political dictatorship and persecute his opponents in all spheres of state life, including religion. As a result, he has secured an unprecedented concentration of power in his hands and, for the first time in Ukrainian history, silenced all centers of opposition.

Zelensky need not worry about Ukraine’s economic well-being in the short term: the foreign economic aid being handed to the Ukrainian government will suffice. Meanwhile, Kiev is still actively betting that Russia’s $300 billion in foreign currency reserves, frozen in the West, will fall into its hands. What would amount to state-piracy would also allow it use the money as it sees fit.

As a result, Zelensky expects that even if he is defeated and loses part of his territory, he will remain in power as the military leader the West needs for the new Ukraine, which will be the main anti-Russian outpost on NATO’s eastern borders. One that will be armed to the teeth, saturated with Western economic aid and that will provide its citizens with an acceptable standard of living.

I believe that Zelensky is genuinely convinced he will succeed in turning Ukraine into something like Israel, a paramilitary state in a hostile environment, and living with a sense of constant military threat. I do not exclude the possibility that even in the worst-case scenario, where there is a complete collapse of his government, Zelensky expects to find himself and a group of his closest associates in exile in the West. Once there, they will actively advocate a continued policy of containment and defeat of Russia. History shows that this prospect has every chance of materializing.

Andrey Sushentsov is the Valdai Club program director.

February 15, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

GOP Hawks to Exploit Child Victims of War, In Bid to Boost Spending on Kiev’s Military Aid

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | February 14, 2023

Representative Michael McCaul plans to hold a series of hearings showing alleged atrocities committed by Russia. The Texas Republican hopes the testimony will push some of his GOP colleagues to commit to sending Kiev more military aid.

In an interview with the AP, the high-ranking Republican discussed how the images of atrocities committed against children is a powerful political tool. “I find that moves the dial, when they see these horrific killings of children,” McCaul said. He controls the influential House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Democrats in Congress have fully committed to providing military aid to Kiev. However, a growing number of Republicans have called for curtailing security assistance to Ukraine. McCaul said the hearings will be used to get his GOP colleagues on board with sending additional aid.

“I’m very much focused on the dissension within my own party on this,” the Congressman added.

Last week, Matt Gaetz (R-FL) introduced The Ukraine Fatigue Resolution. If passed, it would express that it is the sense of the House that “the US must end its military and financial aid to Ukraine” and urges “all combatants to reach a peace agreement.” The legislation has ten cosponsors, all Republicans.

Congress has already authorized over $100 billion in spending to aid Ukraine’s war effort. In December, President Joe Biden signed the Omnibus bill, which included $45 billion in aid to Kiev.

After Republicans captured control of the House in November, McCaul said he would push more aid for Ukraine through. At the time, he criticized Biden for not sending more advanced weapons to Kiev.

Gaetz says he introduced the resolution because America cannot send so much tax money to Kiev and escalating the military support for Ukraine risks starting WWIII. “President Joe Biden must have forgotten his prediction from March 2022, suggesting that arming Ukraine with military equipment will escalate the conflict to ‘World War III,’” He continued, “America is in a state of managed decline, and it will exacerbate if we continue to hemorrhage taxpayer dollars toward a foreign war.”

McCaul also favors providing Ukrainian forces with Army Tactical Missile System artillery munitions, which have a range of nearly 200 miles. He has expressed that he wants these weapons to be used in future assaults on Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. Such an escalation could swiftly lead to a nuclear exchange.

Using alleged atrocities against children to fuel hatred is not a new political stunt. In 1990, Nayirah al-Ṣabaḥ, the daughter of then-Kuwaiti Ambassador Saud Al-Sabah, claimed to have witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing babies. However, the testimony was fake but was used to rally Americans to support the Gulf War.

February 15, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Media Ignores Evidence That West Opposed Ukraine Peace Deal

BY NOAH CARL | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | FEBRUARY 14, 2023

As I noted in a previous article, the former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett revealed in a recent interview that in March of last year Western leaders blocked a draft peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

There seems to be some disagreement over exactly what he said, as the interview was in Hebrew. Based on the English subtitles on YouTube, I quoted him as saying, “They blocked it.” But others insist he said, “They broke off negotiations.” Either way, he clearly implied that the West stymied negotiations that might have led to a peace deal.

What’s more telling is the reason he gave as to why the West did so, namely “to keep smashing Putin”. This tallies closely with Roman Romanyuk’s account of why Western leaders opposed negotiations in April:

Behind this visit and Johnson’s words lies much more than a simple reluctance to engage in agreements with Russia. The collective West, which back in February suggested that Zelenskyi surrender and run away, now felt that Putin is actually not as all-powerful as they imagined him to be. Moreover, right now there was a chance to “press him”. And the West wants to use it.

As Caitlin Johnstone points out, it also lines up with what the Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on April 20th last year:

Following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, 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 gets weaker. They don’t care much about the situation in Ukraine.

So we now have a NATO Foreign Minister, a journalist with sources “close to Zelensky” and a former Israeli PM all saying that Western leaders opposed a peace deal because they wanted to “weaken”, “press” or “smash” Putin.

These seem like newsworthy revelations, don’t they? Not according to the mainstream media.

I checked whether the revelations have been mentioned by any of the following outlets: the BBC, CNN, the Times, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal. With the exception of one op-ed in the New York Times which quoted Cavusoglu’s statement, they’ve been completely ignored.

The point here isn’t that there definitely would have been a peace deal if not for the actions of Western leaders. We can’t know that. The point is: there’s credible evidence that Western leaders stymied negotiations which might have led to a peace deal because they wanted to weaken Russia.

With the exception of Tucker Carlson and a few lesser-known outlets, why hasn’t the media covered this? One of the current headlines on the BBC News homepage is ‘Rihanna reveals pregnancy at Super Bowl show’. Which is more newsworthy: Rihanna’s personal life, or the revelation that Western leaders may have sabotaged peace? I’m reminded of this meme:

A few days ago, in fact, a BBC Ukraine journalist got up and hugged Zelensky at a press conference. However much you support a particular cause, as a journalist you’re supposed to show a modicum of impartiality. Based on this incident, I wouldn’t expect any dramatic shifts in coverage.

February 15, 2023 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

So Much Hot Air: The (Fake) China Threat Strikes Again!

By Joseph Solis-Mullen | Ludwig von Mises Institute | February 11, 2023

Now that a few days have passed and the hysteria has come down slightly, perhaps a few sane thoughts might be added to what has otherwise been a microcosm of everything that is wrong with America’s warmongering media and political class.

As everyone is by now well aware, a data-gathering balloon of Chinese origin passed over the continental United States last week.

According to the Pentagon, it is not the first. They say China has launched some two dozen over the past five years, several of which passed over either Florida, Texas, or Guam during that time. Far from being cause for alarm, however, the Pentagon initially reported that the balloons’ “signals collection ability isn’t radically different from other systems available to the Chinese,” and did not pose “a significantly enhanced threat.”

In other words, though this particular balloon passed over several sensitive military installations in the central United States, the Chinese government likely did not learn anything of interest—if that was even their intention.

Beijing claimed it was an off-course weather balloon with “limited” maneuverability. With the incident described as an “accident” and a case of “force majeure,” the stage seemed set for a simple apology.

That was last Tuesday.

By Wednesday, with the fake China threat live on every channel, it was clear that deescalating the situation, as when a US spy plane collided with an intercepting Chinese jet over Chinese airspace in 2001, resulting in the death of the Chinese pilot, wasn’t on the table.

The media talked of little else the rest of the week, while Republicans, ignoring that the Pentagon had declined to shoot the balloon down over Idaho for fear of damage caused by falling debris, took to the lowest fear-mongering imaginable. Marco Rubio, Kevin McCarthy, J.D. Vance, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis—nobody could get out quickly or emphatically enough how much of a threat China was and how weak Joe Biden was for not acting completely belligerent.

About what might have been a surveillance balloon, and which in any case had no extraordinary capabilities and posed no threat.

But, of course, Biden caved—turning what could have been a minor incident into an escalating diplomatic spat at a moment when Sino-American relations have scarcely been worse.

Because Washington and Beijing do so much overhead surveillance of one another, this incident, intentional or not, could have gone on to form a platform for dialogue ahead of Antony Blinken’s (now cancelled) visit. Yet rather than taking the opportunity to discuss the important norms of overhead surveillance in the wake of the Open Skies Treaty, which Trump’s administration foolishly ripped up, the Biden administration caved to domestic political pressure, cancelling what would have been the first ever face-to-face meeting between Xi Jinping and a cabinet-level member of the Biden administration.

Biden’s final decision to shoot down the admittedly harmless balloon (leaving China to observe goings-on in the United States from their many equally effective low-orbiting surveillance satellites), squandered any potential opportunity for diplomatic settlement.

Indeed, after a muted week, Beijing responded to the final downing of the balloon by a missile off the Carolina coast by threatening to act accordingly under similar circumstances.

Obviously, there are a lot of questions, but even just considering what we know, it seems clear the reason-distorting impact of the fake China threat caused Washington to ignore better options in favor of one that would satiate a riled-up domestic audience.

Making matters worse, the Biden administration has attempted to spin the capture of what remained of the balloon as a major intelligence coup, while the US House followed up with a rare unanimous resolution condemning the “brazen violation” of US sovereignty. Never mind that Beijing maintains the balloon was a weather balloon thrown off course and that Xi has gestured at firing the head of China’s weather service. The Pentagon, too, changed its tune. As reported in the Washington Post, the balloon has transformed into “part of [a] vast aerial surveillance program” overnight.

These days, with every general or admiral with any stars taking a turn on Capitol Hill to issue breathless warnings about impending war with China over Taiwan, one is only surprised the Pentagon acted so reservedly earlier in the week. A libertarian-realist reading of the situation is that the Pentagon was quite content to see the admittedly harmless airship float in clear view over the country for a week in order to stoke the predictable mindless media frenzy.

Setting aside the question of why trillions of dollars in defense spending to protect against (much faster moving) incoming flying objects was inadequate to safely bring down a slow-moving hot air balloon over some of the least densely populated stretches of the industrialized world, would Beijing have welcomed the opportunity to close the matter with a formal apology had the Biden administration publicly ignored the hawks?

While the Wall Street Journal did (briefly) mention that the incident may have been a response to recent so-called freedom of navigation acts by the US Navy and its allies through disputed waters claimed by China, and indeed Xi has been under pressure from China’s own hawks over what they view as his timidity in response to high-level US delegations’ repeated visits to Taiwan, Xi has been recently preoccupied with trying to reassure and woo Western investors and businesses. With supply chain issues and extended arbitrary lockdowns having already prompted many multinational corporations to shift away from China, rapidly deteriorating relations between Washington and Beijing are prompting more moves.

Considering Xi’s need to address these concerns, to say nothing of managing his myriad domestic difficulties, it is hard to imagine, particularly given what has been stated publicly, that he purposefully ruined his own sit-down with Blinken. Again, it is possible that he did, or that rogue hawks within the Chinese establishment manufactured the incident in order to sabotage the meeting to prevent any potential détente. The observable facts just seem to mitigate the possibility.

We’ll never know. Beyond any potential retaliation on the part of Beijing for Washington’s response, what is most alarming about the situation is the ease with which such a level of public hysteria seized all levels of the corporate media and political elite.

Even worse to consider, is that the climate Washington wants?

Is it supposed to foster a thought climate more permissive of a military response to any potential move by Beijing against Taiwan?

The time to speak out against any potential changes to the status quo policy vis-à-vis Taiwan is now. Already the one-China policy has been seriously eroded without any public debate, and much more serious changes were nearly smuggled into one of the annual “must-pass” appropriations.

We have come to a dangerous place. It was by choice. We could and should choose otherwise.

Joseph Solis-Mullen can be contacted through his website http://www.jsmwritings.com or find him on Twitter @solis_mullen.

February 13, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Endgame for Ukraine: America vs America

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 13, 2023

Hysterics at the Chinese balloon overflying the U.S. – taken to volume 11 – through scrambling a hush-hush Raptor jet (F-22) to ‘pop’ it, and then bally-hooing the ‘pop’ as Raptor’s first ever ‘air-to-air kill’, may be a source for quiet derision around the world, yet paradoxically this seemingly trivial event may cast a long shadow over the U.S. war-timetable for Ukraine.

For it is the U.S. political calendar that may yet determine what happens next in Ukraine – from the western side.

Seemingly nothing important occurred – it was an instant of spy frenzy, leaving Biden’s ‘tough task’ unchanged: He needs to convince the American voter, facing collapsing standards of living, that they misread the ‘runes’; that rather than gloom, the economy – contrary to their lived experience – is ‘working well for them’.

Biden needs to perform this magic against polls that say only 16% of Americans feel better off since the start of his tenure, and 75% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters wish him to not stand in 2024. Significantly, this message is coming today from the Democratic-leaning media, suggesting thoughts of replacing him are already in circulation.

For now, Biden’s allies in the party establishment (the DNC) continue to clear the way for his candidature – postponing initial primaries (in which Biden could be expected to be trounced) for a later South Carolina primary election, where Black and Latino voters would reflect demographics in which Biden might (possibly) shine. It may work; it may not.

Simply put, against this highly sceptical Party backdrop, Biden will have to change American perceptions of the economy at a moment when many indicators signal further deterioration. It will be a ‘heavy lift’. The economic team, for sure, will be insisting: ‘Keep the focus on economic achievements! We don’t want distractions from any foreign policy débacles; We do not want the TV debates to centre on Balloons, or around Abrams tanks: ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’’.

The ‘Chinese balloon’ was popped, yes, but similarly popped was Team Biden’s hope to negotiate a limited understanding with a tetchy President Xi that could stop China tensions becoming a spoiler issue in the primary debates. The balloon incident obliged the U.S. to cancel Blinken’s appointment with Xi (even though such a meeting with the head of state would be a rare event).

The powerful ‘China hawk’ faction in the U.S. was ecstatic. The China balloon ‘kill’ inadvertently, and in an instant, elevated China to ‘Main Threat’. It was the chance for these hawks to ‘pivot’ foreign policy back from Ukraine and Russia – to fully focus on China.

They make the case that Ukraine was ‘eating’ too much of America’s arms inventory. It was leaving America vulnerable; already, it would take years for the U.S. to make up for this equipment loss by reinstating weapons supply-lines. And there is ‘no time to spare’. The military ‘deterrence fence’ around China has to be in place – ASAP.

Naturally, the tight neo-con circle around Biden – some of whom have invested in the ‘Destroy Russia’ project for decades – is not ready to ‘let go’ the Ukraine project, for China.

Yet, the Ukraine narrative ‘bubble’ has been punctured, and has been leaking helium for some time. The Beltway – and even the MSM narrative – has pirouetted from ‘Russia losing’ to an ‘Ukrainian defeat is inevitable’. Indeed, Kiev is defeated, and is hanging by the slenderest of threads.

Olexii Arestovich, Zelensky’s senior adviser and former ‘spin doctor’ in the Presidential office, speaking in late January this year, was candid in his assessment:

“If everyone thinks that we are guaranteed to win the war, then it is very unlikely. Since January 14, it has ceased to be like this. What do you think, that the assessment from the President of Poland, Duda, not only did he say this about the decisive months. That it is generally unknown whether Ukraine will survive …

“The war may not end as the Ukrainians expect, and as a result, Ukraine may not return all its territories, and the West is ready to follow such a scenario … What will happen to the society that raised its expectations too high, but will receive a conditional Minsk-3? This recoil of unfulfilled expectations will hit us so hard – morally and everything else – that we will simply be stunned.

“The way out of this war may not be at all what it seemed to us three months ago, after the success of the Kherson operation. And not because the insidious Americans do not give weapons or delay, but because success requires 400 thousand of perfectly trained soldiers with NATO weapons to grind it all up and liberate the territories. Do we have it? No. Will it be next year? Will not be. There will not be enough training facilities…

“We as a society are not ready for such an outcome. I decided to say it as the expectation of the Russian side. But the most unpleasant thing is that in the West they think the same way, and we are totally dependent on them. What should the West do? The scenario of two Koreas. Create South Korea with guarantees”, Arestovich said, adding that with this option, Ukraine can get a lot of bonuses.

Put bluntly, if Biden is to avoid a repeat of the humiliating Afghan débacle, America needs urgently to to move-on before the 2024 Presidential calendar kicks-off this summer – with Ukraine/Russia sucking all the oxygen out from the coming economic debates.

But that is not what is happening. Victoria Nuland – who has been ‘capo’ in Kiev for a decade – is overseeing a purge: Unreliables are ‘out’, and pro-American radical Ukrainian hawks are ‘in’. It is a make-over of the Kiev mafia, which leaves Zelensky without friends – and wholly dependent on Washington. It looks to be preparation for the U.S. to attempt a double-down in Ukraine.

Seymour Hersh’s detailed article on the backdrop to the Nordstream pipeline sabotage by the U.S., on which Hersh worked for many months (though his assertions have been denied by the White House), tells us something highly significant.

All the familiar, anti-Russia neo-cons (Nuland, Sullivan and Blinken) were part of the Nordstream sabotage plot – but the impulse for it came from Biden. He led it. And just to be plain, Biden is just as emotionally invested in Ukraine as his team mates; it is likely that he too cannot ‘let go’ in Ukraine.

BUT, doubling down now, in Ukraine, won’t work for Biden. It would be highly reckless (although the Nordstream plot was nothing, if not reckless).

Doubling-down will not bring his hoped-for ‘win’, because its logic is based on an egregious mis-analysis.

Olexii Arestovich, Zelensky’s former ‘spin doctor’ and adviser, has described the circumstance of the Russian SMO first entry into Ukraine: It was conceived as a bloodless mission and should have passed without casualties, he says. “They tried to wage a smart war… Such an elegant, beautiful, lightning-fast special operation, where polite people, without causing any damage to either a kitten or a child, eliminated the few who resisted. They didn’t want to kill anyone: Just sign the renunciation”.

The point here is that what occurred was political miscalculation by Moscow – and not military failure. The initial aim of the SMO didn’t work. No negotiations resulted. Yet from it flowed two major consequences: NATO controllers pounced on this interpretation to trumpet their pre-conceived bias that Russia was militarily weak, backward and stumbling. That misreading underlay how NATO perceived Russia would prosecute the war.

It was wholly incorrect. Russia is strong and has military predominance.

On the presumption of weakness, however, NATO switched plans from a planned guerrilla insurgency, to conventional war along the ‘Zelensky Defence Lines’ – thus opening the path for Russia’s artillery domination to attrit Ukraine’s forces to the point of entropy. It is an error that cannot be rectified. And to try it might just lead to WW3.

The Abrams M1 tank will not save Biden from débacle in the lead-up to the U.S. election debates:

“It was designed for the kind of tank-on-tank combat that hasn’t happened since WW2. It’s huge, expensive, full of sorts of electronics. And powered by a repurposed jet engine. It breaks down quickly and needs its own army of mechanics, runs out of gas quickly and at almost 70 tonnes, it is too heavy to cross most bridges and needs specialized bridge crossing equipment. And it sinks in the mud. The Saudis used Abrams tanks in Yemen – and lost 20 to the Houthis, not exactly the most sophisticated military force”.

So, how does this all pan out? Well, the fight is on – in Washington. The China hawks will try to wrench the U.S.’ full attention back to China. The Biden neo-cons may try for some escalatory tactic in Ukraine that makes war with Russia unstoppable.

However, the reality is that the Ukraine ‘Balloon’ is popped. Military and civilian circles in Washington know it. The ‘elephant in the room’ of inevitable Russian success is acknowledged (albeit, with the compulsion to avoid seeming ‘defeatist’ – that persists in certain quarters). They know too that the NATO (as ‘formidable force’) ‘balloon’ has popped. They know that the balloon of western industrial capacity to manufacture weapons – in sufficient quantity and over a long duration – has popped also.

The consequences are the risk of severe U.S. reputational damage, the longer the war persists. These circles do not want that. Perhaps they will conclude that Biden is not the man to lead the U.S. out of this blind alley – that he is the part of the problem, and not the solution. If so, he must be gone in good time for the Democrats to work out who they want to lead them into the 2024 Presidential election (no easy prospect).

They may sense too, that the 2024 campaign lines already are coalescing for the Republican Party, which has its own reading of the Ukraine débacle – ‘Let’s exit from Ukraine to confront China’ (with full bi-partisan support). This means firstly, that the thread of U.S. financial support for Ukraine – as Bill Burns (CIA chief) reportedly told Zelensky on his last visit – likely will taper this summer. And secondly, it hints that any bi-partisan support for further arming Kiev may be over by the time the primary season will be in full swing.

Bill Burns travelled (in secret) in mid-January to meet Zelensky. Was it to prepare Zelensky for a shift in the American stance? Burns, the long-standing U.S. quiet negotiator, is not party to the Nuland programme. The former said at Georgetown Universityin early February that “China remains the biggest geopolitical challenge the U.S. faces in the decades ahead, and the biggest priority for CIA”. His framing, ‘was not a bug, but the substance’ in his address.

Nuland may be planting U.S.-aligned hawks around Zelensky in order to continue the war, but there are other, wider interests within Washington. Financial circles are worried about a market collapse that could lead to the dollar haemorrhaging value. There are worries too, that the Ukraine war is contributing to a serious weakening of America’s standing in the world. And there are concerns that a reckless Team Biden could lose control and take the U.S. into a wider war with Russia.

In any event, time is short. The Election Calendar looms. Is Biden to be the Democratic candidate? Whether or not he will be a candidate in 2024 needs to be resolved before the early primaries to allow any successor to demonstrate his or her paces in good time.

February 13, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky left Europe without any fighter jets or further guarantees

By Ahmed Adel | February 13, 2023

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelens­ky was treated like a hero when visiting Brussels on February 9. Although he received endless adulation, his lobbying to EU leaders for further military support mostly fell on deaf ears despite making an impassioned, but disingenuous plea that Ukraine is defending Europe’s eastern borders.

Zelensky visited London and Paris on his second foreign trip since the war began almost a year ago and hoped to secure modern fighter jets and long-range missiles. He then brought his circus show to Brussels to address EU leaders and MEPs directly. Unsurprisingly, Zelensky received cheers and a standing ovation in the European Parliament, yet, made no progress in convincing Brussels to allow Ukraine an express membership into the EU.

“We are defending against the most anti-European force of the modern world — we are defending ourselves, we Ukrainians on the battlefield, along with you,” Zelensky told MEPs.

However, despite the contradictory rhetoric emanating from European leaders, they are also fully aware that Russia will never attack without provocation. It is for this reason that they can make a show for Zelensky in Brussels, but will never commit to the extent that Kiev demands.

Although French President Emmanuel Macron awarded Zelensky with the National Order of the Legion of Honour, he also made it clear that he would not supply fighter jets to Kiev in the near future. Even though Zelensky has forced the supply of fighter jets into discourse, European leaders, including Macron, are less than enthusiastic as they are fully aware it would take several years to train Ukrainian pilots to be competent enough with an unfamiliar fighter jet to have any chance against the Russian Air Force. In addition, they understand that Russia will respond appropriately too.

Ignoring this reality, European Parliamentary speaker Roberta Metsola, declared: “Ukraine is Europe and your nation’s future is in the European Union. States must consider, quickly, as a next step, providing long-range systems and the jets you need to protect the liberty too many have taken for granted.”

Unfortunately for the European Parliament, they wield very little influence on state policies and enforcing support for Ukraine. Rather, with Zelensky seen in Western European capitals begging for more weapons, the whole exercise is a tasteless theatre to discuss supposed value systems – values that tolerate rampant neo-Nazism in Ukraine.

In this way, Zelensky is nothing more than an actor in a show to present supposed European unity on Ukraine. The uncomfortable truth is that unity in the Western world is forced and mostly just exists at a political level. With support for Ukraine being mostly maintained by the political class, public dissatisfaction caused by economic difficulties from the sanctions against Russia is growing.

With dissatisfaction growing, Macron is desperately wanting the war to end and for a peace conference to be held – but on terms that do not correspond to the realities on the battlefield and with aims of making Russia the ultimate loser.

At the trilateral meeting held on February 8 in the Elysée Palace with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Zelensky, Macron presented a proposal for organising a peace conference but, as said, on terms where Russia is the ultimate loser. Macron sees Kiev’s ten-point plan as a “solid foundation on the way to a peace conference” despite confirmation that Kiev is categorically refusing to negotiate on Russia’s unification with Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye and Kherson.

In addition, a peace conference can only occur if Washington and London agree to one since they are the real masters behind the war. Although Macron has grandiose illusions of becoming a second Charles de Gaulle to lead an “autonomous Europe,” his endless failed attempts to form a European Army and the cancellation of military contracts with Australia shows that he is far from the global and historic figure that he wants to be remembered as. It also demonstrates that Western power is still firmly in Anglo hands.

Rather, Macron’s initiative is media propaganda because the two most powerful states in the EU, France and Germany, want to legitimise themselves in the media as contributors to the peace process. It cannot be forgotten that France and Germany already mediated the signing of the Minsk Accords and that former German chancellor Angela Merkel admitted that the aforementioned agreements allowed the Ukrainian military to become stronger as it bought time.

Therefore, French and German mediation in the current crisis cannot be trusted, and for this reason it is unlikely that Moscow will ever entertain a peace conference under such ludicrous terms. It was French and German inaction in enforcing the Minsk Accords that led to the current conflict, and now that Russia has acted on the only option that was left available, Macron has the audacity to request a peace conference on the terms that Russia backs away from all the progress it made.

As this is unrealistic, the song and dance must continue, and Zelensky will continue playing the part. But in the end, the level of support that Zelensky wants is evidently not coming to fruition, and will likely remain this way, rendering his tour of Europe to be mostly useless.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

February 13, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Stop arming Ukraine now, intelligence veterans warn Biden

By Serena Wylde | TCW Defending Freedom | February 13, 2023

Eighteen senior former intelligence professionals have signed an ‘alert memorandum’ to President Biden warning him what will follow his decision to send Abrams tanks to Ukraine.

Calling themselves Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, they informed him: ‘What your advisers should have told you is that none of the newly promised weaponry will stop Russia from defeating what’s left of the Ukrainian army. If you have been told otherwise, replace your intelligence and military advisers with competent professionals – the sooner the better.’

Two decades ago, before the US/UK attack on Iraq, some of the same signatories warned President George W Bush that ‘justification’ for such an attack was based on false intelligence. In their February 5, 2003 memorandum on Colin Powell’s speech, they alerted the then president to the unintended consequences of an attack on Iraq which were likely to be catastrophic. Then, as now, they urged the president to widen the circle of his advisers beyond those clearly bent on a war for which they saw no compelling reason. Five years later the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded: ‘In making the case for war, the [Bush] Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.’

The current Alert Memorandum goes on: ‘The issuances of your current intelligence advisers rival those of Bush’s and Cheney’s fixers in disingenuousness. Their statements run from dishonest to naïve. They betray a woeful lack of understanding of Russia’s strategic concerns and its determination to use its formidable military power to meet perceived external threats. The statements also reflect abysmal ignorance regarding how US behaviour has led willy-nilly to a profound shift in the world correlation of forces in favour of Russia and China – to include making them military allies in all but name.’

Even a casual observer of events in Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union is aware that Nato’s continuous eastwards push has been provocative because Vladimir Putin had made it abundantly clear that Nato expansion into Ukraine was a red line for Russia. Some will also know that in 2014 and 2015 Russia brokered two truces, called the Minsk Protocols I and II, in an attempt to end the slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine by the AFU (Armed Forces of Ukraine). These agreements were simply ignored. Fewer may know that on February 16, 2022, a week before Putin sent combat troops into Ukraine, the AFU began heavy bombardment of the area in Eastern Ukraine mainly occupied by ethnic Russians. Yet, just as the media echoed and reinforced the false claims of WMD in Iraq, so it pushes the myth that Putin launched an ‘unprovoked invasion’ of Ukraine.

Public opinion in the US is not totally fooled, however, as manifested by a new right-left coalition which is organising a protest march from the Lincoln Memorial to the White House next Sunday demanding ‘Not one more penny for war in Ukraine’.

The sponsoring organisations of this new movement are the People’s Party and the Libertarian Party. The former was formed in 2020, but the latter is the third-largest political party in the US by voter registration.

The key demands of the demonstration are:

·       Not one more penny for war in Ukraine

The Democrats and Republicans have armed Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in weapons and militarised aid. The war has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions.

·       Negotiate peace

The US government instigated the war in Ukraine with a coup of its democratically elected government in 2014, and sabotaged a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

·       Stop the war inflation

The US blew up the Russian gas pipeline to Europe to break up trade relations between Russia and Europe, starve the latter of energy and de-industrialise its countries.

·       Disband Nato

Nato expansion to Russia’s border provoked the war in Ukraine. Nato is a warmongering relic of the Cold War. Disband it like the Warsaw Pact.

February 12, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Solidarity and Activism | , | Leave a comment

Hungary slams EU push to arm Ukraine

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto © Michal Cizek / AFP
RT | February 12, 2023

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto speaks to journalists in Prague, Czech Republic, on August 30, 2022. © Michal Cizek / AFP
The European Union’s calls to keep supporting Ukraine with arms shipments will only prolong the conflict with Russia, the Hungarian foreign minister said on Sunday.

Speaking to radio Kossuth, Peter Szijjarto commented on recent remarks by the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, who pushed for fighter jets and long-range weapons to be sent to Kiev. According to the minister, EU lawmakers’ decisions on Ukraine “have generally caused damage to Europe,” and further weapons deliveries will only worsen the hostilities.

He went on to blast the EU legislature, claiming that its “credibility is practically zero.” Szijjarto pointed to a recent graft scandal as proof that the EU parliament is “one of the most corrupt organizations in the world.”

He was referring to the recent arrest of the parliament’s former vice president, Eva Kaili, who has been charged with taking bribes from Qatar in exchange for illegally lobbying the interests of the Gulf state.

Szijjarto noted that in Western countries, war rhetoric sounds “incomparably louder than the rhetoric of peace,” while nations outside “the transatlantic bubble” tend to prefer peace to a deadly conflict.

The minister went on to question the West’s anti-Russia sanctions. He argued that they have failed to force Moscow to end the conflict, while Europe’s economy has “faced incredible difficulties,” and that “the tenth sanctions package will only be suitable for causing further damage to us Europeans, similar to the previous nine ones.”

Since the start of large-scale hostilities in Ukraine almost a year ago, Hungary, which is heavily dependent on Russian energy, has been critical of Western sanctions against Moscow. It has also refused to support Kiev with weapons, or allow arms transfers across its border with Ukraine.

February 12, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

US defense official flags ‘no objections’ to Kiev attacking Crimea

RT | February 11, 2023

The US would have no objections to Ukrainian forces striking targets inside Crimea with American-supplied weapons, a senior defense official said on Friday.

Dr Celeste Wallander, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, was asked whether Washington supports Kiev in seizing Crimea, or at least in striking Russian targets there. The peninsula overwhelmingly voted to become part of Russia in 2014 following a Western-backed coup in Kiev.

Speaking at the Center for a New American Security, Wallander reiterated that the US “supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty over its internationally recognized borders, and that includes Crimea.” With this in mind, the official argued that Kiev “has the right to defend every inch of its territory.”

As long as Ukraine “identifies operational value in targeting Russian forces on Ukrainian territory… we don’t have objections and do not seek to limit Ukrainian military operations to achieve their objectives.”

She also commented on remarks made by Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, who warned in January that it would be “very difficult” for Ukraine “to militarily eject the Russian forces” from all the territories they currently control.

“I am not going to contradict general Milley, and I think he was giving a hard-headed assessment of the scale of the challenge,” she said.

In January, The New York Times reported, citing sources, that the administration of US President Joe Biden was warming to the prospect of helping Ukraine to target Crimea, “even if such a move increases the risk of escalation.”

On February 3, the US announced a new $2.17 billion security package for Ukraine which included ground-launched, small-diameter bombs (GLSDB) with a range of up to 150 kilometers (93 miles). While the Pentagon said that this long-range capability would enable Ukrainians “to take back their sovereign territory,” it declined to speculate about Kiev’s future potential operations.

Last week, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who now serves as Deputy Chair of the nation’s Security Council, warned that any attack on Crimea would be interpreted as an attack on the country itself. Kiev, he said, must understand that such moves would be “met with inevitable retaliation using weapons of any kind.”

February 11, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Former Acting US Defense Secretary: ‘Cut Military Spending’ by Half, Stop Hyping China Threat

By Wyatt Reed – Sputnik – 10.02.2023

As the Biden administration prepares to request congressional approval of the largest military budget in US history, Trump’s final pick for Pentagon chief has urged a “40-50%” reduction in spending on the armed forces, saying the Defense Department is “too big and bloated and wasteful.”

Former acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller has raised eyebrows by calling out the “military-industrial complex” by name, as well as urging policymakers to “dramatically” cut the Pentagon’s budget and to stop demonizing China.

“We have created an entire enterprise that focuses economically on creating crisis to justify outrageously high defense spending,” Miller lamented in an interview with CBS.

With the military-industrial complex having become a “hydra-headed monster” and with “virtually no brakes on the American war machine,” Miller told CBS that “you have to starve the beast to make people come out of their cubby holes and start thinking creatively.”

The former acting defense secretary has also condemned the frequent saber rattling that’s come to dominate popular American political discourse regarding the alleged military threat which US leaders claim emanates from China.

Miller argued that “by constantly harping on the fact that the Chinese are the greatest threat to America and what not,” Washington’s political class is giving China’s leadership the “opportunity” to “have an enemy that they can focus their people’s anger and attention on.”

In his new memoir, “Soldier Secretary,” Miller calls to cut Defense Department spending by 40% to 50% so that it would be closer to pre-9/11 spending levels, given that the US is “no longer waging wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Much of his frustration with the course of the US military appeared to stem from the double standards he says have been exposed in the wake of disastrous and bloody US invasions in the Middle East.

“The more I thought, the more I was horrified,” Miller writes. “We invaded a sovereign nation, killed and maimed a lot of Iraqis, and lost some of the greatest American patriots to ever live — all for a goddamned lie.”

What “really bothers me,” Miller said in an interview with The Hill this week, is how “our young soldiers see the hypocrisy” in the system.

“If they end up being late for work, they get in a lot of trouble,” he noted, adding that if a soldier were to “mess up a piece of paperwork for a supply request, there’s a possibility they can be kicked out of the service.”

And on the other side of the equation, “there’s the people who lose wars and end up advancing on to other positions of power and wealth,” Miller stated. “And that’s what really bugs me.”

It’s a theme the former acting secretary of defense returns to frequently in his new book.

“The recognition that so many sacrifices were ultimately made in the service of a lie, as in Iraq, or to further a delusion, as in the neoconservatives’ utopian fantasy of a democratic Middle East… It still makes my blood boil, and it probably will until the day I die,” he writes.

But despite the raw emotions on display in the memoir, Miller doesn’t express much optimism that lawmakers in Washington will heed his call for a more reasonable Pentagon budget.

“There’s no incentive to reduce military spending,” he told the Hill. “I think there’s whispers, but [we need] someone with the courage and experience to get in there and force it.”

February 11, 2023 Posted by | Book Review, Militarism | , | Leave a comment