RT | November 12, 2022
US and UK military forces have held a joint exercise to practice interoperability and test their latest gadgets and combat techniques on terrain similar to the “Ukrainian steppe,” reportedly including war-gaming on how they would “pacify” mobs of angry Russian-speaking civilians.
The ongoing drills are being held in California’s Mojave Desert as part of the Pentagon’s “Project Convergence”, which was expanded this year to include participation by allies Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK.
The troops, including an elite British infantry regiment, practiced “lessons learned” from the Russia-Ukraine conflict while training on open desert landscapes deemed “similar to the flat terrain of the Ukrainian steppe,” the UK’s Times newspaper said.
The drills took place at Fort Irwin, a sprawling US Army base that includes realistic-looking mock villages built with the help of Hollywood set designers. In years past, Arabic and Afghan speakers were hired and brought in from the Los Angeles area to play the part of civilians. This time around, with the Russia-Ukraine conflict raging in Eastern Europe, most of the civilians were played by Russian speakers.
“The fake civilians even have their own social media networks – “Fakebook” and “Twatter” – on which they whip up an unruly mob by reporting any examples of US troops behaving poorly,” the Times said. “The soldiers must then pacify the crowds.”
The exercise marked the first time that members of the UK’s new Ranger Regiment deployed alongside the US 75th Ranger Regiment, according to a UK government statement. It allowed troops to test advanced technology – such as artificial intelligence, robotics and new drones – while practicing information-sharing procedures with their allies.
For instance, swarms of drones identified targets and British rocket launchers fired at enemy positions spotted by US F-35 fighter jets, the Times said. UK defense procurement minister Alex Chalk said the exercise demonstrated the progress that the British Army is making as a “more lethal, agile and expeditionary force, through key collaboration with our longstanding international allies and partners.”
Russia isn’t alone in drawing the attention of Western military planners. The Pentagon has identified China as the top threat to US national security. An earlier stage of Project Convergence simulated a conflict breaking out on a Pacific island.
By Drago Bosnic | November 11, 2022
After Moscow was forced to intervene in Ukraine and launch its counteroffensive against NATO aggression, the political West got an unprecedented opportunity to probe the Russian military, test and observe its capabilities. All of this provides invaluable insight into the doctrine of the Eurasian giant’s armed forces, which would help NATO optimize its military power to match Russian capabilities. Naturally, this is nothing out of the ordinary in comparison to any other conflict in known history. However, both sides are working on misleading the other by either concealing their actual military strategy and doctrine or providing false information which could give them both tactical and strategic advantages in the future.
For its part, NATO is providing the Kiev regime with unprecedented ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) capabilities, which has been of prime importance for its forces. Without them, the Neo-Nazi junta troops would’ve had a much harder time against the Russian military. What’s more, NATO expected Russia to play all its cards (short of direct confrontation with the belligerent alliance) in tackling this issue, particularly by using its extensive experience and capabilities in electronic warfare. In doing so, Moscow would’ve gotten several months of key advantages over the Kiev regime forces, but it would also provide NATO with crucial data on how this spectrum of its battlefield capabilities worked. This would then be used by the belligerent alliance to gain an important insight and create counters, possibly tipping the strategic balance of power to its advantage.
It’s precisely this scenario that Russia is trying to avoid, which is why it decided to show only a fraction of its capabilities. This is certainly affecting the performance of the Russian military, but since the High Command sees the intervention against the Kiev regime forces as a local operation, this is considered a fair trade-off. Simply, letting NATO gain too much knowledge of the Russian military strategy and doctrine would be a much bigger problem in the long-term. What’s more, NATO’s overreliance on its ISR advantage might as well create a false sense of security and push its military planners into thinking that Russia doesn’t have counters to these capabilities. However, in a possible confrontation, Russia would certainly destroy much of NATO’s ISR assets, leaving the belligerent alliance with much less battlefield information to work with than it currently has access to.
Still, the present situation is providing NATO with a better opportunity to hurt Russia than engaging in a direct clash ever could. Apart from using the Kiev regime forces as cannon fodder, the political West is also conducting a full-spectrum war against Moscow, involving economic and financial sanctions, incessant information warfare, cyber operations, etc. The aim is to make Russia’s life as hard as it could possibly be, with hopes of eventually turning it into a giant North Korea. The end goal is clear – a coup which would bring a more “cooperative” government to power in Moscow. And this prospect isn’t even in the realm of conspiracy theories anymore as several high-ranking US officials said so themselves, including the US President Joe Biden.
At present, the Ukraine crisis is slowly entering a new phase. While the mainstream propaganda machine is portraying the Kiev regime forces as “making spectacular advances, liberating many towns and villages, and forcing Russian forces to retreat,” the political West is trying to bring the Kiev regime to the negotiating table and buy some more time before the winter season gets worse, giving Russia a significant strategic advantage as the European Union struggles with energy prices and supplies.
By maintaining the image of Neo-Nazi junta troops supposedly “winning” against the Russian military, the political West is trying to convince its populace that financing the Kiev regime is justified, despite the economic and financial fallout. For its part, Brussels is doing everything it can to reduce gas consumption as it can neither afford additional US LNG shipments, nor does it have the necessary storage capacity. The alternative – buying more Russian natural gas – is considered “geopolitically sensitive”.
In addition to conducting the economic siege of Russia, the political West also needs to find ways to continue supporting the ever-cash-hungry Kiev regime. The fallout of these policies has been affecting Western and other global economies for months, resulting in ever-growing unrest and frustration among hundreds of millions around the world, particularly in the EU, whose member states are now bearing the brunt of the suicidal anti-Russian policies.
The detached policymakers in the political West think that this strategy is working, while ignoring the consequences for their own citizens. Dissent is being suppressed by accusing anyone who questions these policies of being “pro-Russian”. Worse yet, refusing to openly support the Neo-Nazi junta in Kiev is now a mortal sin, regardless if the person in question is a public figure or a regular citizen.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
By Lucas Leiroz | November 11, 2022
A US special forces’ representative admitted that the US actions in the Arctic are a kind of provocation against Russia, revealing how Washington deliberately poses international security risks with its anti-Russian plans.
The irresponsible US attempts to “dissuade” Moscow and stop the alleged Russian “expansionist behavior” would be some of the reasons why Washington is deliberately initiating provocative military maneuvers in the Arctic Circle, according to Lawrence Melnicoff, commander of the European Special Operations Command. Melnicoff commented on NATO’s initiatives in Europe and the sending of troops to Norway, where military units are currently being trained for combat in arctic weather and conditions.
For him, this is part of a strategy focused on “provocation without escalation”, which Washington would be using against Russia. The commander believes that Russia has expansionist ambitions in the European space and that it may even already be planning attacks against targets in the US allied countries, which supposedly “justifies” NATO’s actions in the region to “complicate” Russian plans.
“We are intentionally trying to be provocative without being escalatory (…) We’re trying to deter Russian aggression, expansionist behavior, by showing enhanced capabilities of the allies (…) It complicates Russian decision-making because we know that they’re targeting very, very large specific aggregations of allied power, [such as] Ramstein Air Base, RAF Lakenheath, things like that (…) If worse comes to worst and somebody takes out these power hubs, we can forward-project precision artillery fire across the alliance with our partners”, he said during a recent interview to US media.
As expected, the officer did not mention any evidence of his claims about such Russian “expansionist” intentions. Arguing the existence of Russian plans to hit European targets is something particularly serious and that could never be said in the absence of clear and concrete evidence. In fact, Melnicoff’s statements appear to be just an attempt to make the destabilizing American action “acceptable” in the eyes of the public opinion, considering that the aggressiveness of NATO’s maneuvers has significantly intensified.
On 9 November, NATO forces carried out a military drill in northern Norway about 500km from Russia’s Murmansk region. A long-range missile was launched in mid-air from a C-130 strategic transport aircraft. The test was the first successful one of the so-called “Rapid Dragon”, a modern weapons system developed for C-130 and C-17 aircraft, making them capable of launching Lockheed Martin AGM-158 JASSM cruise missiles against targets in long distance.
Apparently, this new missile system is NATO’s current bet to improve its tactical capability in Arctic warfare. In recent years, the US intensification of activities in the North Pole has taken place alongside a real race by the military industrial complex to modernize US forces in that region. Historically, Russia is the military power with the greatest presence in the Arctic. China has also shown growing interest in the zone and has developed special forces to operate there. And it is precisely in this scenario that NATO tries at all costs to enhance its maneuvers.
In this regard, in October, the US government published its “National Strategy for the Arctic Region”, which sets out the terms for the next 10 years of US military policy for the North Pole. The document urges an even more significant boost in US maneuvers in the Arctic, with Washington definitely seeking a position of military dominance in the Arctic similar to that of Russia and China. For this, the US counts on the strong support of NATO partners – and it is precisely to encourage these partners to support US plans that it is “interesting” to spread unfounded alarmist narratives about the “Russian threat”, as Melnicoff is doing.
In fact, acting provocatively against Moscow only tends to make the American plans more difficult. In the midst of the global security crisis, Russia is unwilling to tolerate more threats in its strategic surroundings. If American provocations increase, the Russians, who already have military hegemony in the Arctic, will respond by intensifying activities in the north, which will make the American plans to elevate its relevance in the Arctic more complicated, leading the recently announced National Strategy to failure.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in social sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
Samizdat – 09.11.2022
The French government has increased the country’s military budget by more than 20% and will continue modernizing the army, French government spokesman Olivier Veran said on Wednesday.
“We have increased the military budget by over 20%, and we are doing everything to modernize our army,” Veran told French media.
The spokesman also said that the French authorities would soon review and adopt a law on military programming, providing for a further budget increase.
Veran rejected the statements suggesting that France weakens the capabilities of its own troops by sending military aid to Ukraine.
“When we supply weapons to our allies, we are not weakening our army, on the contrary, we are strengthening our forces within the European Union. We are not ‘undressing’ our army at all,” the spokesman added.
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | November 8, 2022
Given the mid-term elections, the anti-Russia paranoia of U.S. officials has been at a peak. The feds have been scouring the Internet to determine whether the Russians are improperly influencing American voters into supporting candidates who refuse to adopt the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s extreme anti-Russia animus. The idea is that American voters, given that they are mostly public-school graduates, have extremely pliant minds that are overly susceptible to being molded into being pro-communist or pro-Russia dupes.
For example, last July the Justice Department secured an indictment against a Russian citizen named Aleksandr Viktorovich Ionov who heads up an organization based in Moscow named Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia, which allegedly receives funds from the Russian government.
The charge? Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen declared, “Ionov allegedly orchestrated a brazen influence campaign, turning U.S. political groups and U.S. citizens into instruments of the Russian government.”
See what I mean? The minds of public-school educated Americans are so pliant and susceptible to propaganda that they have to be protected by their federal daddy from those evil Russkies who are trying to turn them to the dark side.
Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, reinforced what Olsen stated: “Secret foreign government efforts to influence American elections and political groups threaten our democracy by spreading misinformation and breeding distrust.” U.S. Attorney Roger B. Handberg for the Middle District of Florida weighed in on the matter: “The prosecution of this criminal conduct is essential to protecting the American public when foreign governments seek to inject themselves into the American political process.”
When I read such nonsensical statements from what are supposed to be intelligent people, I can’t help but wonder about two things:
One, how U.S. officials justify their massive interventions into the political processes of other countries. Hey, just for starters, let’s not forget their knowing, intentional, and deliberate destruction of the democratic systems of Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, not to mention their programs of state-sponsored regime-change assassinations, coups, sanctions, and embargoes.
Two, when we are discussing the extreme anti-Russia animus that has long driven the federal government, I can’t help but think about President Kennedy. He was determined to move America in a direction that was opposite to that of the Pentagon and the CIA. He was determined to bring an end to the extreme anti-Russia animus that the Pentagon and the CIA had inculcated in the American people.
I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Kennedy had survived the assassination attempt in Dallas and had run for reelection in 1964. Would the Pentagon and CIA have been targeting Russian citizens who were supporting Kennedy and opposing his GOP opponent, Barry Goldwater, whose mindset mirrored that of the Pentagon and the CIA?
I don’t think there is any doubt that they would have been doing that. They also would have been accusing Kennedy of having become a Russian dupe who was leading America to disaster. In fact, as I detail in my newest book, An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story, that’s precisely what they were saying about him before they assassinated him. Also, see FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne, who served on the Assassination Records Review Board.
The Pentagon’s and the CIA’s extreme anti-Russia animus that has held America in its grip for decades is a grave threat to the liberty and well-being of the American people, in part because it has, once again, brought us to the edge of life-destroying nuclear war. The sooner this paranoid nonsense is brought to an end, the better off the American people will be.
RT | November 7, 2022
One of the British Navy’s Vanguard-class nuclear submarines was forced to abort a “top secret mission” after it sustained fire damage, according to a Sunday article published by The Sun.
According to the outlet’s sources, it took the efforts of the entire 130-plus crew, including many who were off-duty, to put out an electrical fire aboard the HMS Victorious, which was carrying Trident 2 nuclear ICBMs at the time of the incident.
While the fire was reportedly contained relatively quickly, the emergency situation declared by the ship’s captain forced the ship to shoot to the surface at an undisclosed location in the North Atlantic to vent out toxic fumes.
A Navy source reportedly explained to The Sun that “every seagoing member of the Royal Navy is a qualified fire-fighter,” and that this ensured that British ships and submarines were able to quickly respond to such incidents without affecting operational outputs.
Nevertheless, the damage caused by the fire prompted the submarine’s captain to abandon an unspecified “top secret mission” and order the vessel to return to base at HMNB Clyde in Faslane, Scotland.
The Sun noted that the 30-year-old vessel, which cost over $3 billion, is one of the Royal Navy’s four non-stop nuclear deterrent patrols. A Royal Navy spokesperson told the paper that the incident has not affected the continuous at-sea deterrent, but declined to provide any further details on submarine operations.
BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • NOVEMBER 6, 2022
According to the New York Times those naughty Russians are at it again.
Today’s online lead story entitled “Russia Reactivates Its Trolls and Bots Ahead of Tuesday’s Midterms” with the subtitle “Researchers have identified a series of Russian information operations to influence American elections and, perhaps, erode support for Ukraine” marks a new low in what the Gray Lady, self-designated as one of America’s “newspapers of record,” prefers to call “journalism.” The author of the piece, clearly somewhat biased over Russia and Putin, is one “Steven Lee Myers [who] covers misinformation for The Times. He is also the author of ‘The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin.’”
Here is what it is all about: “The user on Gab who identifies as Nora Berka resurfaced in August after a yearlong silence on the social media platform, reposting a handful of messages with sharply conservative political themes before writing a stream of original vitriol. The posts mostly denigrated President Biden and other prominent Democrats, sometimes obscenely. They also lamented the use of taxpayer dollars to support Ukraine in its war against invading Russian forces, depicting Ukraine’s president as a caricature straight out of Russian propaganda.”
Per the Times, “The goal, as before, is to stoke anger among conservative voters and to undermine trust in the American electoral system. This time, it also appears intended to undermine the Biden administration’s extensive military assistance to Ukraine.”
Well, one might object that Ukraine’s president is indeed a figure tailor-made for ridicule as he used to play a piano with his penis, but that is perhaps a secondary issue. The more significant theme is that people who oppose the Ukraine war, for any number of reasons, and, particularly if they are conservatives, are becoming trolls for Russia in part due to the disinformation efforts and are being influenced by way of discussion fora like Gab. The targets “are generally US conservatives who are maybe more accepting of conspiratorial claims” according to one of the cybersecurity experts consulted by the author. The Times links Berka, who might indeed be a made-up identity “posing as an outraged American,” to the secretive Russian Internet Research Agency in St Petersburg which it claims was involved in interfering in both the 2016 and 2020 US elections.
The Times also names another site that it links to Russia, electiontruth.net “For its contact information, electiontruth.net lists a cafe inside a converted gas station in Cotter, Ark., a town of 900 people on a bend in the White River. The cafe has closed, however… No one at Election Truth responded to a request for comment submitted through the site.”
One might object that neither Berka nor electiontruth.net would appear to be a major disinformation threat sponsored by a foreign government intended to bring down the Republic. Nevertheless, the article clearly adheres to the view that anyone objecting to the continuing war in Ukraine is a Russian dupe. It cites Liz Cheney, who has called the few Republicans who want to cut funding for the war as “the Putin wing of the Republican Party,” and Myers observes that the disinformation unfortunately echoes “a theme that has gained some traction among Republican lawmakers and voters who have questioned the delivery of weapons and other military assistance.”
Another “expert” cited in the article, one Edward P. Perez, a board member with the OSET Institute, a self-described “nonpartisan election security organization,” called the Russian efforts “manufactured chaos” in the country’s body politic – in part because the divisions in American society are already such fertile soil for disinformation. “Since 2016, it appears that foreign states can afford to take some of the foot off the gas because they have already created such sufficient division that there are many domestic actors to carry the water of disinformation for them.”
Myers and his agenda driven quoted “experts” do not consider for a moment that there are a lot of good reasons for opposing US involvement in the fighting in Ukraine, many of which are rooted in a conservative view of what is America’s appropriate role in what is becoming a multipolar world. First, the United States has no national interest at stake that compels it to enter the fighting on behalf of Ukraine. Second, the war itself could have been averted if the United States and Europeans had been willing to address and negotiate Russian national security concerns in a serious way before the fighting broke out. Third, even now, a push by the US and its allies would likely bring the two sides to the negotiating table and a truce could be arranged. Fourth, the United States would in fact be playing a positive role if it would opt to do whatever it takes to end the slaughter taking place. Fifth and finally, expansion of a US direct role in the conflict could prove catastrophic if someone blinks and the war goes nuclear.
So, the compelling need for the continuation of an unnecessary war is the main point being made by Mr. Myers’ featured article, which clearly reflects the views of the New York Times editorial staff. And the enemy characteristically comes from within – Americans who oppose the involvement of the United States in the war against Russia and are accused of being little more than “domestic actors” who are peddling disinformation provided by the Kremlin. Given that this article has appeared two days before national elections, the intent is clear. The Russians are, per the Times, generating disinformation about Ukraine and Americans who go along with the lies are being manipulated. Moscow is again interfering in a US national election! Vote for the Democratic candidates as they will be the ones that can be relied upon to keep the war going! Three cheers for Joe Biden!
By Ahmed Adel | November 7, 2022
A draft defence cooperation agreement between Washington and Montevideo, which could allow the installation of US military bases in Uruguay, is once again being considered in the Uruguayan Parliament. Allowing US military bases would effectively damage the sovereignty of Uruguay, a country which currently maintains good relations with both Russia and China.
Senator Gustavo Penadés for Uruguay’s ruling centre-right National Party claimed that the project only involves “some type of investment in construction” and not the permanent presence of US forces in Uruguayan territory. For his part, the president of the Uruguayan Defence Commission and of the opposition centre-left Broad Front, León Lev, admitted that the project is “ambiguous” and will instigate “profound discussion” in Parliament.
The project is defined as “a complementary agreement” for “reciprocal provision” of “logistical support, supplies and services.” It says that Uruguay and the US express their “desire to improve the interoperability, preparation and efficiency of their respective military forces through greater logistical cooperation.” In addition, the purpose of the agreement is to “facilitate logistical support” between the two countries during “combined exercises, training, displacements, stopovers, operations or other cooperative activities.”
Effectively, it is very clear that the bilateral agreement will in fact enable US actions more than anything else. For example, the supply of services that can be provided to each other in reality only benefits the US as Uruguay does not have the capacity to do military missions or operations in North America like the US does in South America. It cannot be overlooked that the initiative is from the US and is drafted in the terms that it proposed.
The project was first discussed in 2012, during the government of José Pepe Mujica, but it did not have the support of parliament. Today, just like in 2012, if the parliament authorises it, it would mean a loss of Uruguayan sovereignty over a part of its territory.
According to Senator Penadés, there is no possibility of US bases in Uruguay and he believes that this interpretation of the agreement is incorrect. The legislator claimed that it is a “standard agreement” like the ones that have been signed between the US and other countries on defence cooperation. When asked what the project refers to when it says “operations in bases [and the construction corresponding to that support],” Penadés said it is about the “infrastructure” that is built in “cooperation,” such as, according to him, hospitals.
For his part, Lev affirmed that the project is “ambiguous” and will provoke “very deep discussion” in parliament.
“As it is ambiguous, it is going to give rise to at least a very deep discussion, I have no doubt. This is not going to be voted on tables and this discussion is going to take many months, if not years. But one can never anticipate,” he said, adding: “There are two main laws for the Government, such as the organic law of the Armed Forces and the retirement law. Parliament is not in a position to quickly study this project.”
Lev pointed out that, in general, agreements with foreign countries take months or years to approve.
“An issue of this nature, with the ambiguities, especially with this potential base, is going to generate a deep debate. The Uruguayan government does not propose the agreement, it makes a scheme with the US and proposes what Washington aspires to. But in politics one should never rush. One has to carefully analyse and see the actions of the political system,” Lev said.
The underlying issue is that the Uruguayan military’s limited defence budget means that it is reliant on the generosity of donor nations. In one example, the US State Department GPOI funds contributed $36 million since 2008 in equipment, training, and construction for the Uruguayan Armed Forces. This is evidently a paltry amount, but in the context of the Uruguayan military, which has a total budget of $1.16 billion, it is significant.
It is recalled that Daniel Castillos, Uruguay’s Ambassador to Moscow, announced in April that his country does not support the economic sanctions on Russia.
“Despite the current situation and criticism regarding [Russia’s] special military operation [in Ukraine], Uruguay has not imposed and does not support any economic and financial sanctions against Russia… and maintains an interest in strengthening trade and maintaining good relations,” he said, adding that it was “necessary” to cooperate with Russia.
For the US, it is important that initiatives like the defence cooperation agreement are signed with Uruguay so that the country can be brought under its sphere of influence. Uruguay currently has friendly relations with the US, Russia and China, but Washington hopes to upset this balance by slowly influencing the country, beginning with military bases. For now, although the US undoubtedly has ambitions for military bases in Uruguay, it appears unlikely to happen in the short and medium term.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Free West Media | November 6, 2022
The United Nations General Assembly was unequivocal: With 152 votes to 5, Israel’s nuclear arsenal was condemned by a vast majority of countries. Although Tel Aviv has never officially acknowledged its nuclear capability, experts believe it has at least 90 nuclear warheads, and perhaps many more.
On October 28, almost 80 percent of all UN member states adopted a resolution that called on Israel to give up its nuclear weapons, join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its nuclear facilities. The resolution, document A/C.1/77/L.2, was titled “The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East”.
It was adopted in the 25th plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly’s First Committee, which is focused on disarmament and international security.
The five countries that voted against the measure were the United States and Canada, the small island nations of Palau and Micronesia, and Israel itself. Some 24 members of the European Union, NATO allies, and India abstained.
The resolution urged Israel “not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope Agency safeguards as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region and as a step towards enhancing peace and security”.
It was introduced by Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt (on behalf of the Arab League), Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and the UN-recognized state of Palestine.
In 2019, the United States and Israel were the only countries that voted against UN General Assembly draft resolutions calling for establishing a nuclear weapons-free Middle East, preventing an arms race in outer space, and ending Washington’s illegal six-decade blockade of Cuba.
RT | November 5, 2022
Yahoo News has identified a major beneficiary of the Russia-Ukraine slugfest: the US military industrial complex, which is reaping a windfall even as the bloody conflict causes economic havoc, energy shortages and a looming food crisis around the world.
As the media outlet reported on Saturday, EU nations have committed to about $230 billion in new weapons purchases since the Russian military offensive against Kiev started in February. US defense contractors are poised to land the lion’s share of those orders, given their dominance as suppliers to European militaries, Yahoo added.
Many European nations turn to US arms makers for more than half of all their weapons purchases. Yahoo cited data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) to show examples of US dominance in European arsenals. For instance, US-made arms accounted for 95% of the weapons purchases by the Netherlands from 2017 to 2021. The ratios were 83% US weaponry for Norway, 77% for the UK, and 72% for Italy.
European weapons imports jumped 19% during the five-year period as then-President Donald Trump prodded his NATO allies to meet their obligations for defense spending. The Ukraine crisis is set to create an even bigger windfall, as President Joe Biden leads an international campaign to flood Ukraine with weapons and the conflict triggers accelerated steps by European nations to bolster their own defenses.
“This is certainly the biggest increase in defense spending in Europe since the end of the Cold War,” Ian Bond, director of foreign policy at the Center for European Reform, told Yahoo. The crisis in Eastern Europe dispelled the notion that war on the continent is no longer possible, he added. “They’re waking up to the fact that not only is it very possible, but it is happening, and it’s happening not that many miles away from them.”
Since Biden took office in January 2021, European countries entered at least the initial stage of negotiations for $33 billion in arms purchases, including $21 billion since February, Yahoo said, citing figures from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
US defense contractors will also benefit from Washington’s massive military aid to Kiev, as the Pentagon races to replenish stocks of artillery pieces, rocket launchers and other weapons. Biden has set aside more than $65 billion in military and economic aid for Ukraine since the conflict began.
Russia has warned that the influx of Western weapons will prolong the crisis while making the US and other NATO members de facto participants.
READ MORE:
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 