Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Finland’s Military Spending Soars to Cold War Levels as It Joins NATO

By Igor Kuznetsov – Sputnik – 25.04.2023

Having formally joined NATO earlier this month, Finland has recorded its highest year-on-year spike in defense spending since 1962, the height of the Cold War.

Finland, which shares the longest border with Russia in Europe at 1,300 kilometers, recorded the most drastic spending boost in the EU (36 percent), underpinned by a number of costly purchases, such as a new fleet of 64 F-35 fighter jets from US weapons company Lockheed Martin. The 10-billion-euro procurement was billed as the single largest splurge in the Nordic country’s history.

During the late Cold War-era, Finland spent approximately 1.9 percent of its GDP on defense, yet saw its spending plummet in the subsequent years and reach its lowest in 2001 at 1.1 percent of GDP. Barely two years earlier, the defense expenditure still stood at a meager 1.3 percent of GDP. However, last year alone, Finland’s outgoing five-party government led by the Social Democrats agreed to add more than 2 billion euros ($2.2 billion) in defense spending, citing hostilities in Ukraine as a pretext.

In doing so, Finland notably eclipsed its fellow European nations, such as Lithuania, Sweden and Poland, which saw the next biggest spikes in their defense budgets at 27 percent, 12 percent and 11 percent, respectively.

As a new-fledged NATO member, Finland has emerged as one of the top military spenders in the alliance, spending about 2 percent of GDP. In 2022, only the US (3.5 percent of GDP), Poland (2.4 percent), Estonia (2.3 percent) and the UK (2.1 percent) spent more on defense per capita than Finland. Despite NATO’s spending goal of 2 percent, many nations fall well below this target. For instance, Finland’s neighbor Norway had a spending level of just 1.55 percent. Its neighbor Sweden, with which it filed a joint NATO bid only to part ways later on, has pledged to reach the bloc’s target of military spending “as soon as possible,” whereas Denmark seeks to reach NATO’s target within a decade, by 2033.

Meanwhile, global military expenditure rose to a record high last year amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which spurred European nations and, broadly, the West, into reaching spending levels unseen since the Cold War. European military spending alone shot up 13 percent last year.

According to an estimate by researchers from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), last year’s total global military spending rose by 3.7 percent in real terms to $2.24 trillion. SIPRI stressed that the hike rests on multi-year plans to boost spending from several governments, which is why it is reasonable to expect military expenditure in Central and Western Europe to keep rising in the years to come.

April 25, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

US Should Not Send More Aid to Fund ‘Proxy War’ in Ukraine – Congressman Gosar

Sputnik – 24.04.2023

WASHINGTON – The United States should not send additional assistance to fund a “proxy war” in Ukraine, and an audit must be conducted on US aid already provided to Kiev, Congressman Paul Gosar told Sputnik on Monday.

“Biden and Congress have already wasted nearly $200 billion American taxpayer dollars funding a proxy war in Ukraine. We should not send another dime to Ukraine and we should audit the money already sent there,” Gosar said in a statement.

The Republican lawmaker recently joined a group of other party lawmakers to introduce a resolution demanding an audit of the funds appropriated by Congress to Ukraine.
Gosar’s spokesperson told Sputnik that to-date the Biden administration has yet to provide Congress with copies of all documents and any financial statements detailing purchases, recipients, and government expenditures related to congressionally appropriated funds given to Ukraine.

US journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh recently told Russian media that countries in the West are aware of the fact that some of the weapons sent to Ukraine are ending up in illicit markets, but their media are deliberately silent about it.

Months after the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, there were concerns about reselling of advanced man-portable air defense missiles the West had sent to Ukraine, the journalist said, adding that US broadcaster CBS had wanted to publish a story about it but was forced to retract it.

Hersh also said, according to his source, that the CIA estimates Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has embezzled at least $400 million from US aid sent to Ukraine.

Western countries have been supplying military aid to Ukraine since the start of hostilities in February 2022. The aid evolved from lighter artillery munitions and training in 2022 to heavier weapons, including tanks, later that year and in 2023. For the past several months Ukraine has been pushing to be supplied with fighter jets. The Kremlin, in turn, has repeatedly warned against continued arms deliveries to Kiev.

April 24, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

South Koreans protest against US missile base

Frank Smith | Press TV | April 24, 2023

Seongju – South Koreans have been protesting against a US missile base south of the capital, Seoul. They want the base, and US troops, gone as tensions grow with the North on the Korean Peninsula.

Peace activists and local leaders in South Korea opposed to a US anti-ballistic missile base have been demonstrating outside the Presidential office in Seoul.

The system known as Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, was deployed in early 2017.

US officials say it protects against missiles fired from North Korea. Local residents argue it generates warlike tension and want it removed.

Anti-THAAD protestors have held a rally near the base in Seongju, 250 kilometers south of Seoul.

The government has indicated it would make the base permanent, and President Yoon Suk-yeol has suggested the country may get a second THAAD system.

“These villagers and their supporters recognize that hosting a missile base makes their home a prime target. Not only for North Korea, but also for China, as Thaad’s radar also reaches into Chinese territory.”

The THAAD base occupies a former mountain golf course and is near a Won Buddhist temple, whose monks also oppose the missile base.

Protests have disturbed the operation of the base with occasional blockades, as recent US-South Korean military discussions suggested routine and unfettered access had been lacking.

April 24, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Solidarity and Activism | | Leave a comment

EU navies to face off China over Taiwan

By Drago Bosnic | April 24, 2023

In yet another move set to cement the European Union’s status as a geopolitical pendant of the United States, its foreign policy chief Josep Borrell openly stated that he wants the armed forces (or, in this particular case, navies) of EU countries to patrol the increasingly contested Taiwan Strait to “help protect” Taiwan. Borrell gave a more detailed account of the plan for the first time in an opinion piece he authored for the French weekly Journal Du Dimanche. He insisted that the “peace and stability” of China’s breakaway island province is of “crucial importance” for the EU. Borrell also added that the island “concerns us economically, commercially and technologically” and reiterated the “urgency for the EU navies to ensure its protection”.

Borrell’s exact words were: “I call on [the EU] navies to patrol the Taiwan Strait to show Europe’s commitment to freedom of navigation in this absolutely crucial area.”

This comes mere days after a delegation from the US, including the bulk of its MIC (Military Industrial Complex) announced they would visit Taiwan and “discuss its defense“. Even more interestingly, Borrell mentioned “the economic, commercial and technological importance” of Taiwan, which falls perfectly in line with what a Republican congressman from Texas, Michael McCaul, recently said on air with Chuck Todd of NBC’s Meet the Press, when asked about why the US should “defend Taiwan”. McCaul bluntly stated that the US would go to war over China’s breakaway island province on the basis of “protecting the world’s semiconductor supply“, although he was quick to revert to the official narrative after Todd tried to clarify it.

However, Borrell’s comments are significantly more consequential, as McCaul, despite his extremely powerful position as the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, doesn’t directly shape US foreign policy. On the other hand, Borrell is one of the troubled bloc’s top officials and such statements will surely not be taken too kindly in Beijing. China has never meddled in the internal affairs of a single EU member state, in stark contrast to Brussels. For its part, the EU has directly meddled (and still does) in the questions of Hong Kong, Xinjiang and now Taiwan. All three areas are China’s provinces with varying degrees of autonomy and Beijing (rightfully) considers them to be a matter of its internal affairs.

Borrell’s controversial (at best) statements seem to be indicative of a major (and rapidly growing) divide between the EU as a (geo)political entity and its top member states. The EU’s head diplomat might have been seeking a counterargument to French President Emmanuel Macron’s recently revealed stance voiced earlier in the month that boils down to the EU essentially minding its own business, taking care of its own numerous issues and just leaving China alone. At the time, coming off a visit to Beijing where he met with the Chinese leadership, including President Xi Jinping himself, Macron had stressed that Europe must not be “a direct vassal” of US policy on Taiwan and that it has to achieve the goal of its own “strategic autonomy”.

“The paradox would be that, overcome with panic, we believe we are just America’s followers,” Macron stated, adding: “The question Europeans need to answer … is it in our interest to accelerate [a crisis] on Taiwan? No. The worst thing would be to think that we Europeans must become followers on this topic and take our cue from the US agenda and a Chinese overreaction… … If the tensions between the two superpowers heat up… … we won’t have the time nor the resources to finance our strategic autonomy and we will become vassals.”

The traditionally Russophobic Poland took this as a sign of “capitulating” to “Putin’s ally” China, as Warsaw is a staunch supporter of US interests in the EU. Recently, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki slammed Macron’s “controversial” comments on Beijing, made just after he met Xi Jinping. At the time, Morawiecki openly mocked the French President’s call for “strategic autonomy”. And while Macron’s stance can hardly ever be considered “pro-Chinese” (provided he even had honest intentions), still, even a semblance of anything that could remotely be seen as “anti-American” is virtual “heresy” in Warsaw. As previously mentioned, this only reinforces the notion of just how divided the EU is.

Obviously, as already stated, Borrell’s comments serve to counterbalance Macron’s stance, but the way in which the EU’s top diplomat chose to do that is as geopolitically unwise as it could possibly be. How is Beijing supposed to react to such rhetoric, particularly in light of US plans to deliver 400 anti-ship missiles to the government in Taipei and accelerate the delivery of over $19 billion worth of other weapons? And this is to say nothing of the effective forming of a “global NATO” or at the very least its Asia-Pacific version in the form of AUKUS, which at some point might even see more active participation of other US vassals and satellite states, including the EU itself. Coupled with NATO aggression against Russia, calling the foreign policy framework of the political West unwise can only be described as an understatement.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

April 24, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

A Senior Pentagon Official Strongly Implied Impending “Mission Creep” In Sudan

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | APRIL 23, 2023

The US evacuated a little less than 100 of its diplomats, their families, and a “small number” of other countries’ diplomats from the Sudanese capital of Khartoum on Saturday. The mission was launched from a base in nearby Djibouti, refueled in neighboring Ethiopia, and then spent less than an hour on the ground before departing that war-torn country. That could have closed the book on the US’ military involvement in Sudan had a senior Pentagon official not told reporters about what’s being planned next.

CNN reported that Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict Chris Maier said the following in a call with journalists sometime after the evacuation ended:

“In the coming days, we will continue to work with the State Department to help American citizens who may want to leave Sudan. One of those ways is to potentially make the overland routes out of Sudan potentially more viable.

[The Department of Defense] is at present considering action that may include use of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities to be able to observe routes and detect threats.

Secondly, the employment of naval assets outside the port of Sudan to potentially help Americans who arrive at the port, and third, the establishment at the US Africa Command in Stuttgart deconfliction cell focused particularly on the overland route.”

Instead of washing its hands of this “deep state” war that risks turning into a civil and even international war, the US is getting drawn into “mission creep” on the pretext of evacuating its remaining citizens.

CNN mentioned in their report that “Officials told staffers (from the State Department) that there could be an estimated 16,000 Americans in Sudan, most of whom are dual nationals.” This means that foreign-born US citizens who returned to their homeland for whatever reason are being exploited as the “justification” for redirecting intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities there, possibly deploying naval assets to its main port, and creating a “deconfliction cell” for managing events.

In simple English, the Pentagon will likely use a combination of drones, electronic means, and satellites to spy on the Sudanese Armed Forces’ (SAF) Rapid Support Forces (RSF) opponents, after which they’ll dispatch warships to Port Sudan that’ll be organized by AFRICOM’s newest (warfighting) “cell”. Those vessels can either carry armed aid (irrespective of whether it’s disguised as humanitarian aid) for the SAF and/or be capable of conducting their own offensive actions against the RSF under certain conditions.

The so-called “overland routes out of Sudan” that the Pentagon wants to “make… potentially more viable” could be sold to the public as a “humanitarian corridor” but will in reality function as a means for supplying the SAF. The “deconfliction” element of this equation purely refers to the contact that the US also has with the RSF, whom Undersecretary of State for Management John Bass said on Saturday “cooperated to the extent that they did not fire on our service members in the course of the operation.”

In the emerging context of “mission creep”, the Pentagon could simply warn the RSF not to impede the creation of these “overland routes out of Sudan” just like they stayed out of the way during Saturday’s evacuation under threat of being bombed on “humanitarian” pretexts if they don’t. The American public could easily be manipulated into supporting this action if they’re misled to believe that “Russian-/Wagner-backed insurgents/terrorists are holding approximately 16,000 US citizens hostage in Africa”.

Therein lies the importance of the latest narrative being pushed by the Mainstream Media (MSM) suggesting that this entire conflict is Russia’s fault, the false claims of which were reviewed and analyzed in this piece here. Basically, the US sees an opportunity to proverbially kill multiple birds with one stone on a Russophobic basis, which could ultimately result in them putting Moscow on the backfoot in Africa and securing a symbolic victory in this little-discussed but hugely significant New Cold War front.

Policymakers don’t truly care about those Americans that are stranded in Sudan, especially since the majority of them are thought to be dual nationals, but they see a chance to exploit the “humanitarian” optics as part of a larger power play against Russia. The first step was to safely evacuate US diplomats since it’s those citizens who lives are truly valued by the government after it invested a considerable sum in each of them over the course of their careers. Everyone else is expandable in their view.

Now that its “VIPs” are out of harm’s way, the US can up the ante in Sudan on a “humanitarian” pretext as part of its latest anti-Russian proxy war. There’s still the possibility that it’ll reconsider, but events are quickly moving in that direction as evidenced by what the earlier mentioned senior Pentagon official revealed to the media on Saturday about the US’ impending “mission creep”. If it goes ahead with this scenario, then precedent shows that Sudan might become the next Libya, or perhaps even worse.

April 23, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Beware Perfidious Albion as Britain Takes Lead Role in War Provocation

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 23, 2023

The much-vaunted Anglo-American “special relationship” is gaining a new dubious meaning as Britain emerges as an adept agent provocateur for inciting a wider NATO war against Russia.

Warmongering British lawmakers are this week demanding a more robust NATO response over an alleged “act of war” by Russia involving a Royal Air Force spy plane and a Russian fighter jet.

Recent documents leaked from the Pentagon have indicated that a British recon plane was nearly shot down by a Su-27 over the Black Sea. Following the incident last September, the British Ministry of Defense played down the encounter as a “technical malfunction”.

It appears now, however, that the British RC-135 spy plane was fired on by the Russian jet, but that the missile missed. It may have been a deliberate warning shot as the British surveillance aircraft is understood to have been near the Russian territory of Crimea. The British and the Americans are supplying the Kiev regime forces with targeting information. So Russia is arguably entitled to take defensive measures against belligerents, as it did when an American MQ Reaper drone was intercepted last month over the Black Sea. The U.S. has reportedly restricted its surveillance flights in the area since that incident.

Now that it is being reported that a Russian missile was fired, some British politicians are demanding a response to “an act of war”.

This particular incident may well blow over. But it raises concern that British forces are playing an incendiary role in the NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. With that country already pumped up with NATO weapons, and the Black Sea and Baltic region packed with NATO forces conducting massive war maneuvers over the next weeks and months, the danger is heightened for an accidental or even intended escalation. Given NATO’s common defense commitments, an incident involving one member of the military alliance would inevitably trigger the other 30 members into an all-out war-footing.

Britain’s treacherous role has recently taken on a routine, calculated character in Ukraine.

As NATO has stepped up arms supplies to Ukraine over the past year, it is London that seems to have upped the ante all the way. It was the British that broke the taboo over sending battlefield tanks when they announced earlier this year the supply of Challenger 2 tanks. That move then put the onus on Germany and the United States to accede to supplying the Leopard 2 and Abrams tanks.

The Brits then went a step further by announcing they would supply Ukrainian forces with depleted uranium artillery shells. Russia condemned that move for its known environmental contamination hazards as well as breaching the line for using radiological/nuclear weapons. Moscow and others contend that depleted uranium shells are a form of “dirty nuclear bomb”.

In any case, technical quibbling aside, the move to supply depleted uranium weapons by London is seen as a particularly gratuitous provocation toward Russia.

The recent Pentagon leaks, which appear to be authentic albeit distorted by U.S. media spin, also confirmed previous separate claims that NATO special forces are operating on the ground in Ukraine fighting against Russian military.

Significantly, it is the British who have deployed the biggest number of special forces compared with other NATO members. What these commandoes are doing in Ukraine is not clear. As the BBC reported:

“According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent of special forces in Ukraine (50), followed by fellow Nato states Latvia (17), France (15), the U.S. (14) and the Netherlands (1). The document does not say where the forces are located or what they are doing.”

Without a hint of irony, the BBC added: “UK special forces are made up of several elite military units with distinct areas of expertise, and are regarded to be among the most capable in the world.”

Distinct areas of expertise, most capable, indeed! That’s classic British euphemism for you.

It is alleged that British operatives have been helping Ukrainian artillery hit the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant – Europe’s largest civilian nuclear power plant – as a way to escalate the war.

It is also alleged by Moscow that it was members of the British Special Boat Service (SBS) that orchestrated the mass drone attack on Russian bases in Crimea last November. The air raid was thwarted by Russian defenses, but if it had succeeded the response from Russia would have been geopolitically explosive.

It should also be recalled that even before Russia launched its military intervention in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, there was a serious provocation involving a British warship in the Black Sea.

HMS Defender infringed on Russian territorial waters south of Crimea on June 23, 2021. After ignoring Russian verbal warnings, the British destroyer was fired on. A Russian Su-24 fighter jet dropped bombs in the ship’s path.

Similar to the more recent incident involving the Royal Air Force RC-135 spy plane, the British Ministry of Defense tried to play down the naval incident. But it later transpired from secret documents that London sought to deliberately provoke Russia in a show of support for Ukraine.

For the most part of the past century, the failed British empire was assigned the junior role as the butler to service the needs of the American empire. This special relationship involved London giving political and diplomatic cover for its American boss, as well as military services when required for one dirty war or another.

It is axiomatic that a dying empire is a dangerous beast, liable to lash out to salvage its waning power. The American empire has reached its death throes moment. But perhaps more dangerous than a dying imperial power is a dying imperial side-kick flunky.

Today, Britain is a broken-down impoverished de-industrialized wasteland whose shocking numbers of poor are like an army of living dead. It has long ago lost former colonies to parasite off. But there is one former colony – the United States – that might just be stupid enough to allow Perfidious Albion to manipulate a catastrophic war.

The tensions over the NATO proxy war in Ukraine with Russia are a powder-keg situation. And the British dirty-tricks brigade are the past masters that merit being closely watched.

April 23, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Will The Republic Of Korea Dispatch Lethal Aid To Ukraine?

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | APRIL 22, 2023

Republic of Korea (ROK) President Yoon Suk-yeol told Reuters on Wednesday that his country was considering the dispatch of lethal aid to Ukraine if the humanitarian situation descends into a deeper crisis as a result of alleged Russian war crimes. In his words, “If there is a situation the international community cannot condone, such as any large-scale attack on civilians, massacre or serious violation of the laws of war, it might be difficult for us to insist only on humanitarian or financial support.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned that “any weapons supplies would imply a certain involvement in this conflict.” That same day, former Russian President and incumbent Deputy Chair of the National Security Council Dmitry Medvedev wrote the following on social media: “I wonder what the residents of this nation would say when they see the newest example of Russian weapons in possession of their closest neighbors, our partners from the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea]?”

The ROK’s Yonhap News Agency then cited an unnamed senior presidential official on Thursday to report that “Decision on lethal aid to Ukraine depends on Russia’s actions”. According to their source, “The reason we are not taking such action voluntarily is because we want to simultaneously and in a balanced manner fulfill the task of stably maintaining and managing South Korea-Russia relations while actively joining the ranks of the international community in defending the freedom of the Ukrainian people.”

The larger context within which the latest ROK-Russian spat is playing out concerns President Yoon’s upcoming trip to the US next week, during which time it’s expected that US President Joe Biden will request that his country participate in some sort of arrangement for dispatching lethal aid to Ukraine. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg declared in mid-February that his US-led military bloc is in a so-called “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with Russia in Ukraine, and it’ll struggle to win without help.

Its members have already depleted a considerable amount of their stockpiles over the past 14 months, yet the conflict still continues raging on. Without maintaining the pace, scale, and scope of their lethal aid to Ukraine, that country might soon be at a major disadvantage vis-à-vis Russia, which could further delay its planned NATO-backed counteroffensive and possibly create the conditions for a ceasefire if Moscow is able to then consolidate its on-the-ground gains in the territories that Kiev claims as its own.

This explains the urgency with which the US is searching across the world for additional ammunition to arm Ukraine. Considering the ROK’s enormous shell stockpile that it’s built up over the decades in preparation of possibly fighting the DPRK once again, it makes sense why the US is approaching it. Nevertheless, Seoul’s compliance with Washington’s request could lead to Moscow arming Pyongyang with “the newest example of Russian weapons” exactly as Medvedev warned on social media.

For that reason, ROK officials remain divided on this ultra-sensitive issue as proven by the latest Pentagon leaks, yet they’ll ultimately have to do something since the resultant dilemma is unsustainable. President Yoon will probably be forced to make a choice during his upcoming trip to the US. On the one hand, directly arming Ukraine per the US’ wishes could prompt Russia to arm the DPRK, yet declining to dispatch lethal aid to that Eastern European country could lead to Seoul falling out of Washington’s favor.

Objectively speaking, the second scenario is much more aligned with the ROK’s national interests than the first, though President Yoon might end up trying to reach a so-called “compromise” under heavy US pressure. Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki proposed precisely that in an interview with the New York Times earlier this month where he suggested that Biden convince his ROK counterpart to indirectly supply Ukraine with much-needed artillery shells via Poland.

Poland and the ROK signed a $5.8 billion artillery and tank deal last summer, and the latter’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration’s (DAPA) technology control bureau already approved a license for the export of partially ROK-built Krab howitzers to Ukraine last year according Kim Hyoung-cheol. He’s the director of the Europe-Asia division of the International Cooperation Bureau and confirmed this fact when talking to Reuters last month.

The precedent is therefore established at least in principle for the ROK to ship shells to Poland prior to their re-export to Ukraine under US supervision, but the relevant license would obviously first have to be approved, which will likely be discussed during President Yoon’s upcoming meeting with Biden. If that happens, however, then Russia might react furiously and even possibly arm the DPRK because these shell shipments would be much more strategically significant in the present context than the Krabs were.

It was certainly an unfriendly move for the ROK to approve the export of those systems that it partially built, but that development’s importance in shaping the dynamics of the present conflict pales in comparison to what could occur if it facilitates the massive re-export of artillery shells at this time. Doing so would enable Ukraine to remain in the so-called “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with Russia, while declining to participate in this scheme could create the conditions for a ceasefire with time.

Assessed from this perspective, it can therefore be concluded that President Yoon’s decision could be a game-changer since his country can either contribute to perpetuating this conflict by keeping Ukraine in its aforesaid military-industrial competition with Russia or play a decisive role in drawing it to a close. He’s clearly under immense pressure from the US to do the first-mentioned so it would be an impressive display of strategic autonomy if the ROK ends up doing the second by refusing to send shells to Ukraine.

April 22, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Missile Buildup by US, Allies Aimed at Achieving Global Superiority Over Russia, China – Moscow

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 21.04.2023

Russia suspended its participation in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in late February in the wake of Ukrainian drone attacks on an airbase used by Russian strategic aviation. Before that, Washington unilaterally scrapped multiple agreements designed to ensure strategic stability, including the ABM and INF treaties.

The global arms race, including in the area of strategic missile weaponry, is spinning out of control, with the US and its allies seeking to achieve superiority over Russia and China, Russian Foreign Ministry Ambassador-at-Large Grigory Mashkov has said.

Mashkov, the former chairman of the Missile Technology Control Regime, a multilateral grouping of nations seeking to limit the proliferation of missiles and missile technology, warned in a Friday interview with Russian media that in today’s world, “in essence, we are witnessing a missile arms race with consequences that are very difficult to predict.”

“Tens of billions of dollars are being invested in improving missile technologies. This process is becoming uncontrollable,” the diplomat said.

At the same time, he noted, efforts are being made by some states to redistribute the strategic balance of power related to intercontinental ballistic missiles. “The buildup of weapons, primarily missiles, by the United States and its allies is aimed at achieving global superiority over potential rivals – China and Russia. Two vectors of a long-term military confrontation with a consolidated Western world have already clearly emerged – the European and the Asian,” Mashkov said.

“Strategic offensive weapons are being modernized at a rapid pace. The People’s Republic of China is actively building up its missile capabilities. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has recently broken into the club of ICBM powers. The ‘threshold’ countries – Israel, India, Pakistan – have not abandoned the idea of creating missiles with a range beyond 5,500 km,” Mashkov said.

According to the strategic weapons specialist, Moscow needs to be prepared for “any scenarios” after the expiration of the New START Treaty in 2026, including the possibility that a new agreement is not reached to replace it. “It cannot be ruled out that after the expiration of the New START Treaty in February 2026, a vacuum could form over the long term when it comes to international legal instruments designed to maintain stability.”

On top of that, Mashkov said, given the security challenges Russia is facing, Moscow has an obvious need to build up its missile potential, including tactical and intermediate-range weapons. The diplomat pointed out that in the wake of the US decision to rip up the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 2019, a logical question arose about “how far we have fallen behind other countries which possess this type of weapon over the 30 years of our participation in the treaty, and what needs to be done first and foremost to eliminate the imbalance that exists here.”

“There is an obvious need for Russia to build up its tactical missile potential and further increase the effectiveness of its use and stockpiling of missile weaponry in order to effectively respond to any challenges to national security, including in Kaliningrad, where NATO has set out to threaten Russian territory using American MLRS weapons,” Mashkov added.

The diplomat also warned that Moscow may have to rethink its voluntary commitment not to be the first to deploy medium and long-range missiles in western Russia, given the potential challenges to the country’s strategic security by the US and NATO. Russia, he noted, is also forced to “remain vigilant” on its eastern frontiers, given that it cannot be ruled out that the West will try to draw Russia into new conflicts against its will.

“Another area where questions arise relates to tactical missile systems, their preemptive and reactive potential for solving problems on the battlefield,” Mashkov said. “Therefore, it’s important to understand what kinds of threats are forming in this direction, how to counter them, as well as what we expect from our international partners in this regard, what kinds of compromises they may be prepared to make. It’s important to approach this not only from the perspective of resolving the current problems in Ukraine, but also ensuring long-term national security in the post-conflict period,” the diplomat said.

The past two decades have witnessed the dismantling of almost the entirety of the post-Cold War security architecture. In 2002, the Bush administration unilaterally scrapped the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty – a major weapons agreement restricting the number and types of anti-missile missile defenses the nuclear superpowers could develop. In 2019, the Trump administration pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which prohibited the creation of ground-based nuclear-capable missile systems in the 500-5,500 km range. In 2020, the US pulled out of the Treaty on Open Skies – a major post-Cold War agreement with Russia and nearly three dozen other countries which provided for military aerial surveillance flights over treaty party nations, and designed to facilitate confidence in one another’s peaceful intentions. All of this proceeded as NATO engaged in an eastward expansion, swallowing up every former member of the former Warsaw Pact, plus over half a dozen members of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and setting its sights on expanding into Ukraine and Georgia, which Moscow warned constituted its “red lines.”

Earlier this year, Russia suspended its participation in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (but committed to continue to abide by its limitations on missiles and nuclear weapons), citing Washington’s creation of new strategic weapons, as well as attacks by America’s client state – Kiev, on a base hosting elements of the aerial prong of Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent. Biden Secretary of State Antony Blinken called Moscow’s decision “really unfortunate and very irresponsible.”

April 21, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

NATO member questions Stoltenberg’s stance on Ukraine

RT | April 21, 2023

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has cast doubt on NATO’s purportedly universal support for accepting Ukraine into the US-led bloc.

Orban took to Twitter on Friday to share an article by Politico on NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s visit to Kiev, where he proclaimed Ukraine had a “rightful place” within the bloc.

Commenting on the article, Orban simply wrote: “What?!”

Stoltenberg made a surprise appearance in Kiev on Thursday, in a first visit to the country since the beginning of hostilities between Russia and Ukraine in February 2022.

During a joint press conference with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, Stoltenberg praised the continuous military aid flowing from NATO member states to Ukraine. He also insisted a multi-year support initiative for Kiev was “testament to NATO’s long-term commitment” to the country.

“Allies are now delivering more jets, tanks, and armored vehicles, and NATO’s Ukraine fund is providing urgent support… All of this is making a real difference on the battlefield today,” Stoltenberg asserted. He further claimed that Kiev has a “rightful” place within the bloc.

Ukraine’s rightful place is in the Euro-Atlantic family. Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. And over time, our support will help to make this possible.

However, the secretary-general failed to provide a specific timeframe for Ukraine’s potential accession into the alliance. Zelensky, for his part, urged Stoltenberg to “overcome the reluctance” of some NATO members to supply long-range rockets and modern fighter jets to Ukraine.

Hungary has repeatedly said it will not support Ukraine’s applications to either NATO or the EU. Budapest has refrained from providing military aid to Kiev, as well as refusing to allow such shipments to travel through its territory and onto Ukraine.

Budapest and Kiev have long been at odds over the latter’s attitude towards the ethnic Hungarian minority in Ukraine. Some 150,000 ethnic Hungarians live in modern Ukraine, primarily in the Transcarpathian region. Kiev’s efforts to crack down on Russian speakers following the 2014 Maidan coup have affected other minorities as well, including Hungarians. Kiev, meanwhile, has repeatedly accused Budapest of meddling in its internal affairs, particularly by granting citizenship to Ukraine’s ethnic Hungarians.

April 21, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Spain to send naval defense equipment to Kiev

By Lucas Leiroz | April 21, 2023

In a rather irresponsible and provocative way, the Spanish government has announced a new military aid package for the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, which includes naval defense equipment. As well known, naval defenses are items of high strategic relevance, and their supply represents a great advance in the level of co-participation in the conflict by the exporting country. In this sense, it is possible to say that Madrid is taking a dangerous step in NATO’s proxy war with Russia, generating high risks of escalation.

The announcement of the shipment of new Spanish arms to Ukraine was made on April 20 by the Minister of Defense Magarita Robles. According to the official, the new equipment aims to reinforce the Ukrainian armed forces in different sectors considered strategic, such as land, anti-aircraft and especially naval defenses. Robles claims that improving the Ukrainian situation on the naval battlefield is an essential step to ensure the stability of regional security, which would “justify” the need to send such weapons to the Ukrainian regime.

“The new shipments are aimed at reinforcing the Armed Forces of Ukraine in such areas as armored vehicles, means of ground troops protection, antiaircraft defenses and naval defenses. The latter is considered essential for the security of ‘the green sea route’ that allows the transportation of the Ukrainian grain via the Black Sea”, she said during a press conference.

It is curious to note that the minister used as an excuse for her country’s decision the supposed need to defend the Ukrainian positions in the Black Sea, protecting the flow of grains through a safe route. Obviously, the minister said this while absolutely ignoring the clear truth that the Ukrainian side is the only one that repeatedly provokes the Russian ships and ports in the region, preventing the effective working of the grain agreements and raising the risks of food insecurity.

Although details about which naval weapons would be sent to Kiev have not been clarified yet, it is important to remember that the announcement comes as a response to the request formally made by Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov on a recent visit to Madrid. At the time, Resnikov stated that Kiev would be interested in Spanish amphibious vehicles as well as in technical assistance from the country’s military, considering its experience in amphibian attacks.

So, it is possible to assume, analyzing the information available so far, that Kiev plans to carry out amphibious attacks against Russian cities in the Black Sea, which includes Crimea and other strategic regions. If this happens, the escalation of the conflict will be significantly high, as amphibious attacks are extremely dangerous and demand an extraordinary level of military mobilization. The Russian response to this type of incursion would be particularly strong, certainly causing even greater damage to the already weakened Ukrainian armed forces.

However, the Spanish anti-Russian audacity goes beyond this naval issue. Madrid is also sending to the neo-Nazi regime some Leopard 2A4 battle tanks as well as TAT vehicles and many other types of equipment. Also, in addition to weapons, the Spanish government has also promised to send an additional package of humanitarian and medical aid as soon as possible. What is possible to see is that Spain is really focused on increasing its participation in the conflict, fulfilling NATO’s requests for all members of the Atlantic alliance to advance their military agendas and remain in combat readiness.

In the same sense, the president of the Spanish Government, Pedro Sánchez, announced that he will visit Washington in May to talk with his American partners, the Ukrainian issue being a central topic on his agenda. The objective would be to discuss new ways in which Spain could contribute more actively to the war against Russia. In addition, some discussions related to Latin America, a region where the US seeks hegemony and with which Spain has historical ties, are also expected for the summit.

Indeed, there are not enough reasons to justify the Spanish desire for war. It is possible to understand the reasons why Ukraine wants to increase its cooperation with Spain. As a country with an extensive coastline and a military history marked by naval conflicts and amphibious attacks, Spain seems to become an interesting partner for Kiev to seek help in its war ambitions – not only in arms supply, but also in technical assistance. However, there simply seems to be no advantage for the Spanish government to adhere in depth to this type of partnership.

Being in western Europe, Madrid seems a long way from any direct effects of the conflict. Any kind of anti-Russian paranoia seems irrational in the Spanish case. Even if there is an eventual internationalization of the conflict in the near future, Spain will certainly not be the side most threatened by escalation. What appears, therefore, is that Madrid is making a kind of bet on military expansionism, seeking to increase its strategic relevance through active participation in NATO’s war against Russia.

This seems problematic and irresponsible from many points of view, since Madrid obviously does not have enough military capacity to reverse the battlefield scenario. Spanish help can only cause Kiev to carry out more dangerous provocations, which will be responded to in an intense way, accelerating the inevitable collapse of the Ukrainian forces. The best Madrid can do is avoid getting involved in irreversible conflicts and raise its own national defense capabilities, assuming skepticism about the “umbrella” promised by NATO.

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

You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

April 21, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US to double its ‘defense’ budget

By Drago Bosnic | April 21, 2023

Back in late March, top American General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the United States of America would be doubling its military budget in case the Kiev regime was defeated by Russia. At the time, Milley claimed that “not supporting Ukraine now would lead to a massive increase in future defense budgets”. He also added that “it would lead to a global conflict that has been avoided since World War II ended”.

“If that rules-based order, which is in its 80th year, if that goes out the window, then be very careful,” Milley said while testifying before the US Congress on March 23, further adding: “We’ll be doubling our defense budgets at that point because that will introduce not an era of great power competition. That’ll begin an era of great power conflict. And that’ll be extraordinarily dangerous for the whole world.”

Firstly, it should be noted that Milley’s remark about the so-called “rules-based (world) order” supposedly lasting 80 years is completely misplaced. The geopolitical situation in the last three decades has merely been a shadow of the post-WWII global order. With the US conducting virtually incessant aggression against the entire world, any notion that there are actual rules that equally apply to everyone is beyond laughable. However, his claim that Washington DC would need to double its “defense” spending is much more serious and consequential. Ironically, he’s threatening to do that while “warning” about a looming global conflict, one which is solely caused by the US itself, as it’s the only country on the planet with an openly stated strategy of “full spectrum dominance”.

Milley testified before the House Appropriations Committee-Defense on the next year’s DoD (Department of Defense) budget, alongside Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. The figure for the Pentagon officially stands at $842 billion, $69 billion more than the $773 billion the military requested for 2023. However, the total spending on national “defense”, including work on nuclear weapons (officially under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy), pushes that up to $886 billion. This is without including the so-called “aid” for the Kiev regime, which stood at approximately $113 billion at the beginning of 2023. However, the updated figure is now getting closer to $150 billion and there’s no indication that it will stop growing any time soon.

General Milley has repeatedly described the conflict in Ukraine as “an important national interest” and “fundamental to the United States, to Europe and to global security”. It could be argued that it’s neither of those things, as the world, the EU and the US itself all have more pressing concerns. Unfortunately, this notion is extremely unlikely to lead to any peaceful settlement, especially as the US Military Industrial Complex (MIC) keeps getting its windfall. While some members of Congress have consistently been skeptical about the “aid” for the Kiev regime, the majority still have a strong preference for the official narrative. The skeptics usually cite “the US and Kiev regime’s failure to more clearly define their strategic goals” as the primary reason for the lack of “more adamant support”.

This clearly indicates that the only “strategic goal” is to keep the war going for as long as possible, which also explains the repeated calls for the perpetual increase of the Pentagon’s budget. However, Milley’s call for doubling it is a major escalation and it’s unclear how exactly Washington DC is planning to achieve such a monumental task. Global military spending for 2022 was around $2.1 trillion, meaning that the US is already at over 40% of the world’s total with its current budget. Doubling it, even over the next several years (also taking into account other superpowers would certainly respond to it) could push that figure close to 60%. In terms of the US federal budget, it would also require further cuts to investment in healthcare, infrastructure, education, etc.

As the military currently spends approximately 15% of the entire US federal budget, obviously, doubling it would mean the percentage would go up to (or even over) 30%. Such figures are quite close to what the former Soviet Union was spending in terms of its overall budget, which was one of the major factors that contributed to its unfortunate dismantlement. On the other hand, it also forces others to drastically increase their own military spending. If China were to follow suit, its military budget would then be close to $500 billion, with Russia’s military budget approaching $200 billion. This would cause a military spending “death spiral” that would be extremely difficult (if possible at all) to control, leading the world into an unprecedented arms race.

However, this “new” Cold War could potentially be far more dangerous than the “old” one, as there would be approximately half a dozen superpowers and great powers competing for influence and a bigger geopolitical footprint. On the other hand, if the rest of the world refuses to respond in kind, such a massive increase in US military spending would only push the multipolar world into greater integration, as it would be the only way to counter US aggression without doubling their own military budgets. Either way, the US is left with a choice – further escalate, not only with Russia, but the rest of the world as well, or find an off-ramp. Otherwise, its inflation will surge so much that the “doubling” of the Pentagon’s budget will happen on its own.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

April 21, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

THE PLANNING OF THE UKRAINE INVASION FROM THE RUSSIAN POINT OF VIEW (MAYBE)

By Gaius Baltar | SONAR | April 19, 2023

Recently I heard an “expert” offer the opinion that Putin and the Russian Army had made a serious mistake when they organized the “special military operation” (SMO) in the Ukraine the way they did. It would have been far better to just send the army into Lugansk and Donetsk to defend them rather than make an ill-advised dash toward Kiev.

Instead of following this belated advice from that expert, the Russians chose to move fast into northern and southern Ukraine. Why did they do that? There are many theories; some good, some illogical, and some completely incoherent. I thought it might be a good idea to step back and look at the situation before the SMO from the Russian point of view. Russians tend to be practical and logical people and the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces probably more so than most. Their plan must have had logical reasons based on what they saw at the time. So, how did the Russians see the situation before the SMO, at the end of 2021? Let’s put ourselves in their shoes and come up with a theory. Note that this is not a theory of what did happen, only of what the Russians may have thought that might happen when they planned their SMO.

The defensive lines and the siege of the Donbass

The first thing the Russians must have noticed was the construction of the massive Ukrainian defensive lines around the Lugansk and Donetsk republics. The Ukraine Government had made no secret of their plan to capture the republics and the Ukrainian Army should have had an “offensive posture” rather than defensive. It makes perfect sense to construct defensive lines while planning an attack to prevent disruptive counterattacks, but the Ukrainian defenses went far beyond that. They were truly massive and built over a period of 8 years. We know how strong they were because it has taken the Russians more than a year to break through them.

The Russians must have taken a look at those defenses and reached the following conclusion: Their purpose is to contain the Russian Army if necessary – even if a large part of the Russian Army is used against them.

The second thing the Russians must have noticed was the absolute determination of the Ukrainians to attack the republics, even if this ensured a Russian response. We saw that determination when the Russian Government recognized their independence just before the war started. According to the OCSE artillery monitoring map, Ukrainian artillery attacks on the republics decreased right after the recognition of independence, but then increased again – most likely after having received orders from Kiev to keep going. At that point in time Russian involvement was ensured, but the Ukrainians still kept attacking the republics.

The Russians would have connected those two things; the determination to attack and the massive defenses. They must have come to the following conclusion: “They want us to attack through the Donbass, and then they are going to use those defensive lines to contain us. Why?”

The trap

Having observed all this the Russians must have started to think about the Ukrainian plans. They would have assumed that those plans were not just Ukrainian plans, but NATO plans as well. So, what were the Ukrainians and NATO planning?

The Russians must have made the following deduction: “The Ukrainians and NATO want us to attack through the Donbass and clash against those lines. Why would they want that? It must be because it is a precondition for some kind of plan on their part – some kind of larger plan. What is that larger plan?”

Then they must have thought about what it would take to confront the Ukrainian army in the Donbass and take on the defensive lines. What would that require? It would require a large force and a lot of time. That would mean that a considerable part of the Russian Army would be tied down there for quite some time. Was that perhaps the precondition for the larger Ukrainian/NATO plan? Was the whole thing perhaps about forcing the Russian Army to attack through the Donbass and taking on the defensive lines – specifically to tie it down – to keep it busy while the Ukrainians and NATO carried out the rest of their plan?

After having considered this, the Russians must have asked themselves the following question: “What do the Ukrainians and NATO want more than anything?” And since it’s actually the Americans and the British running the show: “What do the Americans and the British want more than anything?” The question isn’t hard to answer. What the Americans, the British, and the Ukrainians want more than anything is Crimea. Crimea is the key to “dominating” the Black Sea, and capturing it would be a dagger into the belly of Russia.

After having run through this logic, the Russians would have come to the conclusion that the Ukrainian attack on the Donbass republics and the defensive lines was a trap to tie them down. Then they started planning countermoves.

The Russian plan

The first thing the Russians may have thought about when planning the countermove was timing. How long after the war started would the Ukrainians move on the Crimean peninsula? They wouldn’t do it right away because they would want the Russian Army to be well and truly engaged in the Donbass before making a move. They would also not want to tip the Russians off by assembling a big force near Crimea before the Russians engaged the defensive lines in the Donbass. This would mean that the area north of Crimea, i.e. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, would be lightly defended for a while.

After having reached this conclusion, the Russians put together a plan to preempt the Ukrainian/NATO plan. The plan had one main objective and two secondary objectives.

Objective 1 (main objective): To capture Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts to create a buffer zone between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine. This objective had to be reached extremely fast while the area was still lightly defended. This operation was all-important at that point in time, far more important than anything happening in the Donbass or the Kiev area. Capturing Kherson was not enough to create the buffer zone because the Ukrainians had to be prevented from attacking the Crimean Bridge. The Zaporizhzhia coast line is only 150 kilometers from the bridge so Zaporizhzhia oblast had to be taken immediately as well.

Objective 2 (secondary objective): While a large part of the Ukrainian Army was positioned in the Donbass, there was still a large force kept back, possibly for the Crimean operation. This part of the Ukrainian army would have to be kept from engaging the Russian forces going after Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. The only way to do that was to threaten something that had to be defended at all cost, even at the cost of the Crimea plan. There was only one location the Ukrainians would defend at all cost outside the Donbass – Kiev itself. The Russians therefore decided to advance on Kiev in an extremely threatening manner. The forces they used were not sufficient to take Kiev outright but enough to hold the area north of the city and seriously threaten it. The Ukrainians would have no choice but to take the threat seriously and move forces toward Kiev, including the forces intended for the Crimean operation. This would prevent the Ukrainians from responding to the Russian occupation of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts.

Objective 3 (secondary objective): To force Ukraine to negotiate peace on Russian terms. The Russians most likely assumed that if the Kherson/ Zaporizhzhia buffer operation was successful the Ukrainians might want to negotiate. They would want to negotiate not only because Kiev was threatened, but primarily because their main objective, the capture of Crimea, had been thwarted. This part of the plan was partly successful because the Ukrainians were ready to sign a treaty before the Americans and the British intervened.

The conclusion from this (perhaps dubious) mind-reading of the Russian General Staff is that the main objectives of the initial Russian operation were Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, not Donbass, Kiev, or a treaty with the Ukrainians. When the negotiations fell through, the Russians moved back to their contingency plan with the main objective of destroying the Ukrainian Army.

It is important to keep in mind that this is not a theory intended to explain what happened. It is only a theory to explain the Russian plan based on what the Russians may have been thinking at the time. It’s highly speculative and perhaps wrong, but it explains a lot nevertheless – including Ukrainian and Western reactions to the Russian operation.

The Ukrainian plan

Let’s describe the theoretical Ukrainian/NATO plan before moving on. The plan, according to this hypothetical Russian pre-war theory, had three main objectives:

  1. To tie down the Russian Army in the Donbass using the massive defensive lines and a good part of the well-trained and well-equipped Ukrainian Army.
  2. To carry out a surprise attack on the Crimean peninsula, occupy it and turn the Black Sea into a NATO-controlled area – and putting massive pressure on Putin as a bonus. For this a significant part of the Ukrainian army was held back from the Donbass.
  3. To bog down and bleed the Russian Army in the Donbass with the goal of engineering a regime change in Russia. The sanctions blitz was planned as an integral part of that goal.

 

It’s April 2023 and so far none of these objectives have been achieved. Let’s assume that this theory is correct and this was actually the plan – and let’s look at what the Ukrainians and the West have been up to since it failed.  Again, this is highly speculative.

The obsession with the plan

If we look at what the Ukrainians and the West have been doing in this war, a pattern seems to emerge: They still seem to be carrying out the initial plan, even though it failed. Almost every decision they make seems to be in accordance with the plan, or more specifically, in accordance with a pathological denial of the failure of the plan. Let’s look at a few examples:

The obsession with Crimea: The Ukrainians and the West are still planning to take Crimea, even though it is impossible. Still, the capture of Crimea is alive in their minds and a realistic option. Zelensky even at one point said that the Ukraine had started the liberation of Crimea … “in their minds.” Occupying Crimea was a part of the plan and abandoning Crimea means that the plan has failed.

The attack on the Crimean Bridge: Destroying the bridge was a part of the plan, and even after the Crimea was out of Ukraine’s grasp and the Russians had secured a land corridor to Crimea, the bridge was still a priority. It had to be attacked because that was a part of the plan. Now that itch has been scratched and they have, so far, not had the need to try again.

The obsession with Bakhmut: The Ukrainian Army has probably lost close to 40,000 soldiers defending Soledar and Bakhmut. The enclosed area is a kill zone for Russian artillery which the Ukrainians supply with endless cannon fodder. Even the Americans have doubts that hanging on to the city is the right option and the Ukrainians may even be willing to sacrifice their spring offensive to hold on to it just a little bit longer. More and more military experts are shaking their heads and talk about Bakhmut as a Ukrainian obsession, which it is. Holding Bakhmut prevents the last part of the plan from failing, i.e. to hold the Russian army on the other side of the defensive lines. If the Russians break through, the plan will have failed completely. Therefore Bakhmut must be defended.

The obsession with the sanctions: One of the biggest shocks of the war was the failure of the Western economic sanctions. The response of the West to the failure has been interesting. They didn’t cancel the sanctions or freeze them or rethink them. Instead they keep on sanctioning everyone and everything even though it is clearly pointless and even counterproductive. The situation is becoming increasingly surreal but they can’t stop. If they stop, the plan will have failed.

The initial panic

There is one other issue which the failure of the Ukrainian/NATO plan may explain. Every significant person in the West expected the Russians to invade the Ukraine before it happened. This was, in fact, what many of them wanted. One would have expected them to show indignation, to condemn the brutish Russians, and so on and so forth. The initial reaction in the West went far beyond that. There was extreme anger, panic and hysteria. There were even threats of using nuclear weapons. I always thought these reactions were far more extreme than the Russian invasion warranted. Why completely lose your mind over something you knew was going to happen? I suspect all the anger, the panic and the threats were because the Russians thwarted the Western Crimea plan. They were going to trick the Russians but the Russians tricked them instead. The Westerners were humiliated and nothing motivates anger and threats of nukes more than humiliation.

The anger and obsession with the failed plan in the Ukraine and the West are without doubt the result of the psychology and personality of the incredibly uniform Western and Ukrainian leadership class. They don’t accept personal failure easily, or the intrusion of reality into their plans. But that is a matter for another essay, and a long one at that.

Finally, remember that this is all speculation – a thought exercise if you will – but who knows…

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »