The Cradle | October 21, 2022
On 21 October, the Saudi-led coalition seized the oil tanker ‘Lady Sarah,’ preventing it from reaching Yemen’s port of Hodeidah despite its previous inspection in Djibouti and having permits from the UN Verification and Inspection Mechanism (UNIVM).
Yemeni officials revealed that three ships are currently detained by the coalition. Since the beginning of 2021, the Saudi-led coalition has impounded at least 13 ships near the Yemeni coast.
The official spokesperson for the Yemeni Petroleum Company (YPC), Issam Al-Mutawakel, said that Sanaa holds the UN partially responsible for the humanitarian and economic consequences of the coalition’s actions.
Just one week ago, delegations from Yemen and Saudi Arabia visited each other’s capitals to discuss a prisoner exchange deal, marking the first time a Saudi delegation arrived in Sanaa since the Ansarallah resistance group took control of the city in 2014 and ended the reign of the Saudi-backed president.
A delegation representing Ansarallah also visited Riyadh and toured the prisons that are holding Yemeni fighters.
“Our technical team was tasked with validating the names and condition of our prisoners ahead of a possible exchange deal,” said Abdul Qadir al-Murtada, head of the prisoners’ committee in Yemen’s National Salvation Government.
Murtada added that the Saudi delegation visited for a similar purpose and toured Sanaa’s prisons, meeting the Saudi army’s prisoners of war.
“We do not accept a situation where Yemeni people are caught between war and peace,” Yemeni Foreign Minister, Hisham Sharaf, said during a meeting with a UN representative on 11 October.
Oman has reportedly been making progress in mediating the dispute between Yemen and Saudi-led coalition to restart the UN-sponsored truce that expired earlier this month.
Citing well-informed sources in Sanaa, Arabic media reports say Omani officials have made inroads in settling several issues, particularly relating to the opening of Sanaa airport and the lifting of restrictions imposed on the port of Hodeidah.
However, issues remain over Sanaa’s demand that the country’s oil revenues be used to pay the salaries of state workers and the army. In this regard, the Saudi-appointed government in Aden has reportedly agreed to pay the pensions of military retirees exclusively, along with the salaries of all civil servants.
By Frank Smith | Press TV | October 21, 2022
South Korea and the US are holding more military exercises this week, with their troops staging a joint river-crossing drill on Wednesday.
The war games follow the joint drills Washington and Seoul conducted in August– the largest such exercises in 5 years. US officials claim the renewed military drills are defensive in nature.
North Korea views the recent drills as a rehearsal for the invasion of North Korea, and has responded by firing artillery and short range missiles into nearby waters surrounding the Korean Peninsula.
Activists have expressed concern over what they call cycles of dangerous exercises drills and military spending.
North Korea has this year conducted several ballistic missile tests, which it argues are efforts to deter the threat from the US and South Korea, as Seoul continues to upgrade its arsenal of submarines, ships, aircraft and missiles.
South Korea, Japan and the US, on the other hand, blame North Korea’s missile tests for the increased security risk on the Korean peninsula.
US officials have repeatedly claimed that they have reached out to North Korea for unconditional negotiations. But in the meantime, the US-South Korea alliance appears determined to increase military pressure against Pyongyang, with large-scale joint air force drills scheduled to begin on October 31st.
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | OCTOBER 21, 2022
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Oct 18, 2022 that evidence of military personnel of United States and other Western countries having their boots on the ground in Ukraine is mounting.
The most obvious explanation to the mysterious air dash of the UK Defence Minister Ben Wallace to Washington on Tuesday could be that he was canvassing for the support of the Biden Administration for his pitch to succeed Liz Truss as Britain’s next prime minister. But another plausible explanation can be that the secret, hurried trip marked a defining moment in the conflict in Ukraine, which is showing all signs of turning into a full-fledged war.
To be sure, the Biden team cannot but be worried that London is drifting into chaos and the Conservative Party’s faction leaders scurry around like headless chickens looking for a substitute Truss who stepped down on Thursday.
The British economy is disintegrating and the Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt anticipates that a cut on the defence budget is inevitable. That is to say, the Deep State’s fun and frolic in Kiev is no longer affordable. The UK is heading for hard times, the rubric of Global Britain looks delusional.
Enter President Biden. The reports from Moscow suggest that Russians have hard intelligence to the effect that Washington has demanded from President Zelensky some spectacular performance on the battlefield as the midterms in the US on November 8 is around the corner.
That adds to the enigmatic comment by a second defence minister in London James Heappey that the conversations that Wallace would be having in Washington were “beyond belief,” hinting that particularly sensitive and serious issues were on the agenda.
Indeed, after arrival in Washington, Wallace headed straight for the White House to meet up with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Biden’s point person for the Ukraine war. A White House readout said the two officials “exchanged views on shared national security interests, including Ukraine. They underscored their commitment to continue providing Ukraine with security assistance as it defends itself against Russian aggression.”
As British politics descends to skulduggery that will extend into months, the US will be a stakeholder. Historically, since the World War 2, Britain led the US from the rear in critical situations involving Russia.
Indeed, Biden issued a rare statement on Truss’ exit, which stated that the US and the UK “are strong Allies and enduring friends — and that fact will never change.” He thanked her “for her partnership on a range of issues including holding Russia accountable for its war against Ukraine.” Biden underscored that “We will continue our close cooperation with the U.K. government as we work together to meet the global challenges our nations face.”
Biden has sent a powerful message to Britain’s political class signalling that he expects them to come up with a new prime minister who will faithfully adhere to the compass set by Boris Johnson on Ukraine. In immediate terms, what does it signal for the Anglo-American project in Kherson? Will it go ahead? That is the big question.
The situation in Kherson is assuming the nature of a large-scale military confrontation, as Zelensky is throwing everything into it in an attempt to wrest control of the strategic Kherson city, which has been under Russian control since March, before the midterms in the US.
At a press conference in Moscow on Tuesday, Army general Sergei Surovikin, the newly-appointed theatre commander for Ukraine operations, conceded that there was a danger of the Ukrainian forces advancing toward Kherson city.
To quote the general, “A difficult situation has arisen. The enemy deliberately bombards infrastructure and residential buildings in Kherson. The Antonovsky Bridge and the dam of the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station were damaged by HIMARS missiles, traffic there was stopped.
“As a result, the supply of food in the city is difficult, there are certain problems with the water and electricity supply. All this greatly complicates the lives of citizens, but also poses a direct threat to their lives.
“The NATO leadership of the Ukrainian armed forces has long been demanding offensive operations against Kherson from the Kiev regime, regardless of casualties… We have data on the possibility that the regime in Kiev will use prohibited methods of war in the area of the city of Kherson — preparation for a big missile attack on the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric dam, massive and indiscriminate missile and artillery attacks on the city…
“In these circumstances, our top priority is to preserve the life and health of citizens. Therefore, the Russian army will first of all ensure the safe, already announced departure of the population according to the resettlement program being prepared by the Russian government. Our further plans and actions regarding the city of Kherson itself will depend on the current military-tactical situation. I repeat, it is already very difficult today. [Emphasis added.]
“In any case, as I said, we will start from the need to protect the lives of civilians and our military as much as possible. We will act consciously and in a timely manner, without excluding difficult decisions.” [Emphasis added.]
The full interview of Gen. Sergey Surovikin to Russian media is below:
The Kremlin thinking gets echoed in a public appeal by the head of the Kherson region Vladimir Saldo where he explained that the evacuation of civilians was not only for people’s safety but also for the operational freedom of the military:
“Dear compatriots, I want to say again that our army has very strong capabilities to repel any attack. But in order for our military to work quietly and not to think that civilians are behind their backs, you MUST get out of these neighbourhoods I mentioned and allow the military to do its job properly, with fewer casualties for the civilians. Our cause is just and we are sure we will win!”
The message here is that the Russian military is prepared to expand the scope of the conflict in Kherson, if need arises. There has been talk about a massive Russian offensive circa mid-November. The new security measures announced by Putin this week and the establishment of a special coordination council headed by Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin to support the needs of Russia’s Armed Forces imply that time is being put on a war footing.
Significantly, Gen. Surovikin said at one point in his press conference: “The enemy does not give up trying to attack the positions of the Russian troops. This concerns, first of all, the directions Kupyansk (Kharkov oblast), Krasnolimansky (Donetsk oblast) and Mykolaiv-Krivoy Rog (neighbouring Kherson oblast.) Our enemy is a criminal regime that is killing the citizens of Ukraine. We are one people with Ukrainians and we wish Ukraine to become a state independent of the West and NATO, friendly to Russia… [Emphasis added.]
“The Ukrainian regime is trying to break through our defences. To this end, the AFU is pulling all available reserves to the front lines. These are mainly territorial defense forces that have not completed full training. In fact, the Ukrainian leadership is condemning them to destruction.”
Then, he added, “We have a different strategy. The Commander-in-Chief [President Putin] has already talked about this. We don’t aim for high advance figures, we take care of every soldier and methodically “grind” the advancing enemy. This not only limits our losses, but also significantly reduces the number of civilian casualties.”
That is to say, specifically, the set parameters of the special military operations with focus on “demilitarisation” and “denazification” remain unchanged while also aiming at the replacement of Zelensky’s regime.
Russia will be keenly watching the profound political crisis developing in Europe, of which the paroxysms in Britain are an early harbinger, which could erode the rock-like UK support for Zelensky, as the western capability and interest to bankroll the Ukrainian economy and fuel the military conflict may also be on the wane.
Nonetheless, Surovikin did not take to hyperbole but instead chose to communicate directly, realistically. He echoed Putin’s priority to take all necessary measures and resources in accordance with the operational and tactical situation at the front with the supreme objective of saving the lives of Russian soldiers and local civilians.
The general conveyed the impression that the Russian command is ready for every development of the situation in Kherson — both tactical withdrawal and heavy city fighting.
In political terms, with the UK bogged down in a domestic quagmire, Biden has the option to shift to diplomacy. This is “Biden’s war” now. He is about to script his presidential legacy as the fifth of the 14 American presidents in office since World War II to “own” a war — after Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, George HW Bush and George W. Bush.
By Lucas Leiroz | October 18, 2022
Despite the fact that involvement in the conflict is not strategically interesting for Europe, EU leaders seem convinced that they must continue to support Kiev. In a new package of coercive measures against Moscow, the bloc’s ministers approved the creation of a military program to train Ukrainian soldiers. This kind of attitude reveals that the West is indeed willing to escalate the conflict, regardless of the disastrous economic and social consequences it will bring to Europe.
At a recent meeting in Luxembourg, the EU’s foreign ministers gave permission to start a military training program for 15,000 Ukrainian soldiers. The move is the main point of the so-called “Military Assistance Mission to Ukraine”, which is a European comprehensive package of aid to Kiev. In addition to the training, it was also promised to create a fund valued at 500 million euros to finance European aid to Ukraine. The objective is to make resources available so that no European State is financially harmed with the assistance it has provided to Kiev, thus enabling the extension of the support. More money is expected to be added to the fund in the future.
The exercises will take place within the territories of the European countries themselves. Vice Admiral Herve Blejean, Director of Military Planning Capability and Conduct (MPCC), has been designated as the Mission Commander. The training costs have been estimated at more than 100 million euros and will be funded entirely by the EU, although the project is open to participation by voluntary states outside Europe.
There is still no concrete data about the precise moment the instruction will start to be conducted. Some sources claim that this may start in November. The center of the operation is expected to be in Poland, considering the viability for the deployment of Ukrainian troops. However, a military post will also be allocated in Germany. The project has an initial term to last around two years, but it may be extended while the conflict in Ukraine remains active.
“The aim of the mission is to contribute to enhancing the military capability of Ukraine’s Armed Forces to effectively conduct military operations (…) In response to Ukraine’s request for military support, EUMAM (European Union Military Assistance Mission) Ukraine will provide individual, collective and specialised training to Ukraine’s Armed Forces, including to their Territorial Defence Forces, and coordination and synchronisation of member states’ activities supporting the delivery of training”, European Council’s spokespersons said during a press conference about the measure.
Also, Josep Borrell himself, who recently made threats about “annihilating the Russian Army”, as well commented on the case, stating: “The EU Military Assistance Mission is not just a training mission, it is [a] clear proof that the EU will stand by Ukraine for as long as is needed”. It is important to remember that Borrell, in addition to threatening Russia, recently made racist pronouncements, saying that Europe would be a “garden”, while the rest of the world was compared to a “jungle”. This kind of aggressive and xenophobic behavior has become commonplace among European leaders – and has been used as rhetoric to endorse the West’s proxy war against Russia.
As expected, the only country to criticize the measure and take a stand against EU involvement in such program was Hungary. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto was clear in his opinion against this kind of escalation in European participation. He stated that the Hungarian government did not vote in favor of the project and therefore will not participate in the mission in any way. Szijjarto also said that Hungary is in favor of new peace talks, not advocating for actions that worsen the conflict.
“It was decided today that … EU countries’ representatives will carry out training of Ukrainian military. I would like to say that Hungary did not vote for the initiative … We will not participate in the mission”, he said.
In fact, the Hungarian attitude should serve as an example for all European leaders. There is no strategic interest on the part of the EU to make this conflict last even longer, considering the numerous social and economic damages that Europeans are suffering. In this sense, increasing aid to Kiev sounds like a willingness by the EU to meet the interests of the US and NATO instead of the demands of the European people itself who are gradually intensifying the wave of mass protests for the end of anti-Russian sanctions.
In addition, it is necessary to take into account how outrageous it is to initiate military aid focused on training. This characterizes a much more direct military involvement in the conflict, which puts the EU in an even more troubled diplomatic situation with Russia. Directly training troops of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime sounds like a real provocation to Moscow and this will certainly contribute to further worsening the distance between Russia and the EU.
Indeed, apart from Kiev, the only side benefiting from this measure is Washington, which has an advantage in case of breaking ties between Russians and Europeans.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
Samizdat – 16.10.2022
In a speech on Thursday in which he compared the European Union to a paradise-like “garden” flanked by “jungles,” the EU high representative for foreign and security policy warned that Russia’s military would be destroyed if Moscow used nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
France would probably be at war with Russia if Josep Borrell was in charge of the nation’s foreign and security policy, National Rally Marine Le Pen has said.
“I believe that we must hold to the tools of diplomacy. Because when I hear the statements of the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell – if he made decisions for us, I think we would have already entered the war,” the French opposition leader said, speaking to BFM TV on Sunday.
Le Pen cautioned against crossing the line of assistance to Ukraine and becoming a direct participant in the conflict between Moscow and Kiev. “The French people don’t want this, I don’t want this,” she stressed. “Be careful not to take too big a step which would take us to war.”
The politician also expressed consternation that the term ‘peace’ “has practically disappeared from the lexicon of the participants” of the crisis, and called for negotiations, recalling her idea of Paris hosting a global peace conference.
Borrell warned Thursday that Russia’s army would be “annihilated” by NATO if Russia used nukes in Ukraine.
“There is the nuclear threat, and [Vladimir] Putin says he is not bluffing. Well, he cannot afford bluffing,” Borrell said at a European Diplomatic Academy event in Bruges. “It has to be clear that the people supporting Ukraine and the European Union and the member states, and the United States and NATO are not bluffing either. And any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer – not a nuclear answer but such a powerful answer from the military side – that the Russian army will be annihilated, and Putin should not be bluffing,” Borrell said.
Western officials and media have spent weeks discussing the escalating danger of a nuclear war after deliberately distorting comments made the Russian president last month about statements by senior NATO officials on the possibility or even admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction against Russia.
Russia’s nuclear doctrine expressly forbids the use of nuclear weapons unless WMDs are used against it first, or in the event of a conventional attack so severe that the country’s very existence is threatened. The US nuclear doctrine faces no such restrictions, and the Pentagon explicitly rejects ruling out the concept of a nuclear first strike.
France has committed hundreds of millions of euros-worth of military aid to Ukraine, including heavy towed and self-propelled artillery systems, armored personnel carriers and trucks, anti-tank and anti-air missile systems, radars, engineering equipment and small arms. Moscow has repeatedly called on Paris and other Western countries to halt weapons deliveries, pointing to the danger they pose in escalating the crisis and creating a multi-billion dollar weapons smuggling network.
French Armed Forces Minister Sebastien Lecornu announced Saturday that Paris will be providing general combat, logistics and equipment training for 2,000 Ukrainian troops, who will be assigned to French units for “several weeks.”
Samizdat – 16.10.2022
Sunday marks sixty years since the outbreak of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, a thirteen-day nuclear standoff between the United States and Soviet Union that was ultimately resolved through skillful diplomacy, the type of which some fear may be lacking to defuse current superpower tensions.
On October 16, 1962, US President John Kennedy was shown surveillance photos of what he called “unmistakable evidence” the Soviets were building installations for medium-range nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba, 90 miles off Florida’s coast. In consultations with senior officials, Kennedy was presented with two alternatives: a military invasion or a naval blockade.
The missile buildup came after Cuban President Fidel Castro asked Moscow for deterrence assistance in the wake of the US failed Bay of Pigs invasion in April of 1961.
October 22, the seventh day of the crisis, Kennedy announced the imposition of a naval “quarantine,” choosing to avoid the word “blockade” which could be considered an act of war. Blockades prevent all trade and travel whereas the quarantine only prohibited offensive military equipment.
This came after hours of difficult meetings between Kennedy and US security officials, many of whom pressed for more aggressive options.
Nevertheless, in the ensuing days, Castro mobilized Cuba’s army, the Soviet missiles were placed on ready to launch, and their ships were soon at the so-called quarantine line.
Meanwhile, American military forces were put on defense readiness condition 2, the highest in US history – just one away from DEFCON 1 – which signaled the outbreak of nuclear warfare.
Lack of Leadership & Critical Thinking
It was not until day eleven that back-channel talks began between presidential adviser Robert Kennedy and Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, which culminated in a deal that publicly called for the US to vow not to invade Cuba in exchange for Moscow dismantling the nuclear sites. However, the negotiators also struck a private agreement that the US would remove missiles from Turkey.
The crisis ended on October 28, when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev announced the dismantling of Soviet missile installations, while keeping the deal on Turkish missiles a secret. The solution allowed both sides to “save face,” and exhibited sophisticated diplomatic acumen on the part of both Kennedy and Khrushchev, the type of which experts fear is sorely lacking today in the face of rising nuclear tensions between the US and Russia.
Not to mention, the size and nature of present day arsenals are much different than they were sixty years ago, when the US had 3,500 nuclear warheads and the Soviets about 500. According to the Federation of American Scientists, the US currently has 5,428 nuclear warheads and Russia 5,977.
During a recent interview with CNN, President Joe Biden warned that miscalculations over the Ukraine conflict “could end in Armageddon,” just a week after suggesting the world was facing another Cuban Missile Crisis and wondered aloud about finding an “off ramp,” for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Historian Dan Lazare described the stark difference between the current approach with 1962.
“The maturity of people like Kennedy and Khrushchev can’t help but contrast with the recklessness, arrogance, and sheer stupidity of people like Biden,” Lazare told Sputnik. “Thanks to NATO’s drang nach osten, we are closer to nuclear war than we probably were in 1962. Yet negotiations are nowhere in sight. How the world has regressed in a mere 60 years.”
Unlike Biden’s declaration to find an “off-ramp,” for Putin, Lazare noted that Khrushchev and Kennedy were savvy enough to make the “behind-the-scenes” deal to remove missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets doing the same in Cuba.
Historian and political commentator Anton Chaitkin feels the existence of human civilization is now endangered due to Western power structures and intellectual deficits that have made a shift away from war escalation very difficult. A situation miles away from Kennedy’s quality of “truth-seeking” that he believes “saved humanity.”
“There is no thinking at the top,” Chaitkin said. “Any critical thought, like Kennedy’s process, could have wonderful consequences.”
Former UK ambassador Peter Ford fears the Cuban missile crisis will be seen as a reason not to panic, which is dangerous because the “hubristic” West does not have the same type of leadership, not to mention it is much easier to launch a nuclear war in the 21st century.
“Biden is no Kennedy,” Ford told Sputnik. “And in the 1960s tactical nukes did not exist. The potential threshold for going nuclear today is much lower.”
American University in Moscow President Professor Edward Lozansky said the current situation is much worse than in 1962 partly because Washington wrongly believes the worst-case scenario is that Russia would only use tactical nuclear weapons and only against Ukraine and other targets in Europe.
“This is a gross miscalculation since, according to Russian military doctrine, in case of the existential threat to [the] homeland Moscow will use the strategic nuclear weapons that will reach the US,” Lozansky warned. “It looks like Washington is totally ignoring this scenario and therefore does not even want to think about compromise with Putin, looking only for his total defeat.”
No Desire to Talk or De-Escalate
University of Louvain Professor of Philosophy Jean Bricmont is also worried about signs Washington does not even want a settlement.
“During the Cuban missile crisis, there was a desire on both sides to de-escalate. I see no such sign now, at least on the American side,” Bricmont told Sputnik. “They have been provoking Russia since the 1990’s by extending NATO eastwards and profiting from Yeltsin’s weakness to ‘loot’ Russia.”
Hence, he added, the situation seems totally blocked or rather drifting towards the apocalypse.
“Is there anybody to stop that madness?” Bricmont said. “We will see or die.”
University of Illinois Professor of Law Francis Boyle, who also observed the lack of Kennedy-style diplomatic skill in the White House, is concerned that so far the Biden administration has publicly ruled out direct negotiations with Moscow over Ukraine.
“Though there could be back-channel negotiations going on right now that I am not aware of,” Boyle added. “Let’s hope there are.”
Stephen Schlesinger, one of the premier historians of the UN, said a major difference in today’s crisis has been the failure of either side to leverage third parties, like the US and Soviets did with then-UN Secretary-General U Thant.
“In the Cuban missile crisis, the leaders of the USA and USSR were sober enough to use intermediaries – including U Thant – to communicate a desire for a settlement – while in today’s hostilities, Biden and Putin are simply not talking,” he said.
Meanwhile, the lack of opposition to the US support for Ukraine has been conspicuous other than disgruntlement expressed in a few polls, while antiwar progressives in Congress have even backed billions in military aid to Kiev.
“There are a few brave folks warning of the looming disaster but their voices are drowning in the ocean of ignorance,” Lozansky said.
Boyle said the situation is unlikely to get resolved unless the antiwar movement mobilizes.
“It is really up to the American peace movement to pressure the Biden administration to open direct negotiations over the Ukraine war with the Russian government before the war degenerates out of control as almost happened during the original Cuban Missile Crisis,” Boyle concluded.
By Gilbert Doctorow | October 15, 2022
Some readers have commented in direct emails to me that they have taken comfort from my writings insofar as I have been a moderate voice, avoiding alarmism over the often troublesome daily news in and around the Russian war with Ukraine, or more properly speaking today, Russia’s proxy war with NATO in and about Ukraine.
For this very reason, I hesitated whether to share with readers the deep pessimism that overcame me a couple of days ago over our chances of avoiding nuclear Armageddon. This followed my watching the latest Solovyov political talk show on Russian state television. I have used this show regularly as a litmus test of the mood of Russian social and political elites: that mood has turned black.
Whereas in the past, going back six months or more, I had reported on the open contempt which leading and highly responsible Russian academics from university circles and think tanks were showing for the American political leadership in their statements on the political talk shows, this contempt has moved into an actionable phase, by which I mean that serious, God-fearing Russians are so furious with the rubbish propaganda coming out of Washington, repeated with bullhorns in Europe that if given the chance they would personally “press the button” and unleash nuclear attacks on the United States and Britain, in that order notwithstanding the possibility, even probability of a return strike, which, however enfeebled, would be devastating to their own country. That is to say, deterrence as a policy is fast losing its psychological impact on the Russian side of the argument.
Whatever the words of the Biden Administration about nuclear war being ‘off the table,’ America’s aggressive and threatening behavior, including the ongoing ‘training in nuclear weapons’ currently going on in Europe under U.S. direction, has made rational and very serious Russians ready to give it a try.
One of the most sober-minded international affairs experts to appear on the Solovyov show, Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the Institute of the Near East think tank, contained his rage with some difficulty, saying only that while he had once held some sympathy for the United States, he would see its utter destruction now with little regret; he left no mention where his feet are pointed when he added that he could say no more on air for fear that he will be censored and his words removed from the video.
For these reasons, I have given to this essay addressed to the Collective West, and in particular to the fomenters of world disorder in Washington and London, a title that fits the current situation.
*****
As we have seen from even before the launch of the ‘special military operation,’ Russian talk programs identify by name individuals in the Biden team whose outstanding stupidity, obtuseness and rank ignorance they find unbearable, with the likes of Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan and Lloyd Austin among those coming in for special mention. We are left with the impression that when Biden calls in his advisers to the Oval Office, he, senile dimwit that he is, is the bright light in the room. The Russians conclude from this that they have no one to negotiate with.
Now the naming of idiots in high places carries over to all discussion of European Union and British leaders. The denunciation of incompetence, rank stupidity and, yes, neo-colonialist or fascist mindsets among European leaders was well reflected in the latest Solovyov show. The most discussed whipping boy was the EU’s commissioner on external action, Josep Borrell, who seems to be speaking to the world daily and acknowledges no limits on what he may proclaim, as if it were official EU policy in defense as well as diplomacy.
The Solovyov show put up on screen a brief video recording of Borrell expounding smugly on Europe’s privileged position as ‘a garden of liberal democracy, good economic prospects and social solidarity’ which is surrounded by ‘the jungle.’ That jungle reference fits in well, Solovyov remarked, with the colonialist mindset of Rudyard Kipling and is deeply offensive to the Rest of the World, of which Russia is a part. More to the point, Borrell was also notorious in Russia this past week for his statement that any use by Russia of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a massive non-nuclear attack from Europe which would ‘annihilate’ the Russian army. However, Borrell was not alone in the stocks: other European leaders who were decried for their stupid policies this past week included German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emanuel Macron.
So you have no bomb shelter? Then, as the Russians said decades ago, it is high time to throw a bed sheet over your shoulders and slowly walk to the nearest cemetery.
*****
One of the two latest fake news stories being disseminated simultaneously and ubiquitously in Western major media this past week is that Russia is considering using against Ukraine ‘tactical nuclear weapons,’ meaning warheads with a destructive force equivalent to the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombs mounted on cruise or medium range ballistic missiles. Our print and electronic media speculate on the numbers of warheads Russia currently possesses (2,000 or more), as if that would make any difference in an assault on Ukraine.
Rubbish say the Russians on Solovyov’s show: we have no need of nuclear arms to finish off the Ukrainians. The only nuclear forces we would deploy in the current situation are strategic arms, and they are directed against…. Washington with the help of the Sarmat and Poseidon delivery systems.
The other major fake news disseminated massively by Western media in recent days was the allegation that the Russians are seeking to freeze the Ukrainians to death by their strikes against power generation infrastructure. Images of Stalingrad were evoked by our broadcasters. A similar freeze is said to be inflicted on Western Europe by the cut-off of Russian energy supplies to the EU.
More rubbish say the panelists on the Solovyov program. The attack on the electricity grid in Ukraine is not directed against civilians per se; it is intended to halt rail deliveries of advanced weapons systems and munitions coming into Ukraine at the Polish border and being moved by train to the fronts in the east and south of the country. Without these inputs, the Ukrainian army will be kaput and the war can come to an early conclusion with the capitulation of Kiev. As regards the EU, whatever chill out may be coming this winter is due solely to the unprofessional and ignorant decisions of the Commission on imports of Russian hydrocarbons that have been blindly followed by the Member States without due consideration of consequences for their own populations.
*****
The Collective West speaks of ‘sham’ referendums in the four Ukrainian oblasts that have now been reintegrated into (or annexed by, depending on your politics) the Russian Federation. In this spirit, in the middle of the past week the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a U.S. sponsored resolution refusing to recognize the legality of this annexation. Among those who voted against Russia were such prominent ‘friendly states’ as Serbia and Hungary. One hundred forty states voted with the United States; four states, including the pariah regimes in Venezuela and North Korea, joined Russia in voting ‘nyet,’ and thirty-five states abstained.
The United States trumpeted this victory at the UN over the mischievous and rules-breaking Russians. EU chief of diplomacy Borrell was also gloating, though he expressed regret that 20% of the member states had not voted for the resolution.
The Russians, for their part, insist that this vote was a sham, given the carrots and sticks that U.S. and European diplomats used to get the results desired. Blackmail of all kinds was applied, say the Russians. Morever, the number of states in each tally tells only part of the story: among the 35 abstaining countries were India and China, which between them alone account for 35% of humanity.
Meanwhile, over in Europe, on the next day the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe meeting in Strasbourg adopted a resolution condemning Russia for its alleged aggression against Ukraine with a bill of particulars several pages long and including a call for the 46 member states to declare Russia a ‘terrorist state’ as Zelensky had requested of them. The vote as published was said to be 99 for the resolution, 1 opposed. No mention was made in the announcement of vote results that the actual number of deputies in PACE is 306. The point was not missed by the Solovyov panel, who here too cried ‘foul.’
Putting aside these two votes that garnered so much attention in the propagandistic Western media, there were other international developments bearing on the relative standing of Russia in the global community which Western media chose to ignore, but Russia media, featured prominently.
I think in particular of the three days of summitry in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan. The first of these gatherings brought together 27 heads of state from across Asia, running from Israel and Palestine, Qatar and the Emirates in the west to Korea in the east. Let us remember that a goodly number of the participants were from countries that voted against Russia in the UN General Assembly. Their presence in Astana gave the lie to the notion that they were expelling Russia from polite society.
The key personality at the meeting of 27 was clearly Vladimir Putin. Film footage on Russian television showed him in animated conversation with these leaders in group and bilateral formats. Of these the most significant was likely the face-to-face with Turkish president Erdogan, during which the two discussed immediate steps to implement the Russian proposal that a new pipeline be added to Turk Stream so as to greatly increase possibilities for delivering gas to Europe by this southern route through the Balkans. In this concept, Turkey will become a major gas hub, which represents fulfillment of a long-held dream by the Turkish leader.
In its capacity as hub, Turkey would be able to mix Russian gas with flows from Azerbaijan and possibly later from Turkmenistan, so that the product sold as a Turkish export would be bullet proof against American or European sanctions. The additional line could probably be laid down within a year, that is to say, more quickly than the problematic repairs to the damaged Nord Stream 1 pipelines.
The next day in Astana, another summit was held between leaders of the Community of Independent States. This reduced circle of members was also of great importance insofar as it confirms Russia’s standing as facilitator of diplomatic solutions between member states experiencing armed conflict with one another, the Azeris and Armenians being first in line. And the final summit, among the leaders of Central Asian republics with Russia had yet another important agenda: agreeing security measures to defend against spillover into their region of the developing civil war in Afghanistan, where the U.S. and Britain are aiding extremist groups seeking to overthrow Taliban rule. From the body language of leaders, it would seem that Putin’s ear was much in demand. Relations with Kazakhstan leader Tokaev appeared to be solid once again after a trying period of several months earlier in the year.
In considering the meaning of these gatherings, I think that a remark made several days ago on another Solovyov show and with regard to the decision of the Saudis and Gulf States to snub the insistent demands of Biden that oil production be raised: the decision to make common cause with Russia came not out of pity for the weak but out of Realism, namely the assessment that Russia will win the military contest with NATO/Ukraine. These rulers in Opec, like the rulers who came to Astana this past week, back winners not prospective losers.
If I may draw any positive conclusions from the otherwise bleak analysis in the foregoing, they are that Russia is successfully resisting massive U.S. and E.U. pressures, and that the world is realigning before our eyes in a more multi-polar and democratic direction. And yet, the fears of miscalculations on one side or another in this tense and unparalleled contest mean Armageddon constantly threatens in the background.
By Jordan Schachtel | The Dossier | October 12, 2022
The Biden Administration released its first National Security Strategy (NSS) document Wednesday, and it is exponentially more unhinged than any of its predecessors. The NSS was once understood as a serious document compiling a list of *actual* threats to the nation. It now resembles a hyper-political Blue Anon fundraising mailer.
Most of the items discussed in the supposed threat assessment have nothing to do with national security at all. And the things that are related to national security matters have major prioritization and politicization issues.
Biden Harris Administrations National Security Strategy 10
562KB ∙ PDF File
Prior to launching The Dossier, your humble correspondent was a somewhat seasoned national security correspondent. As a periodic consumer of these strategy documents, I can assure you that not even the Obama Administration inserted its political agenda as aggressively as the Biden regime is choosing to do this year.
A simple word search gives the reader a sense of the White House’s priorities.
Russia takes top billing. It is referred to 71 times, in the most hysterical way imaginable. According to Team Biden, Putin is a war criminal, whose armies entered Ukraine for no reason whatsoever other than to impose carnage upon Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Speaking of Ukraine, the memo discusses Ukraine 33 times.
China, on the other hand, only gets 14 mentions, and the CCP is likened to a friendly competitor, like a mere player on the other side of a chess game. Here’s a graph from the China section:
“While we have profound differences with the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Government, those differences are between governments and systems – not between our people. Ties of family and friendship continue to connect the American and the Chinese people. We deeply respect their achievements, their history, and their culture. Racism and hate have no place in a nation built by generations of immigrants to fulfill the promise of opportunity for all. And we intend to work together to solve issues that matter most to the people of both countries.”
Other than Putin, the number one “national security” priority of this administration is Climate Change, which is referenced 63 times in the National Security Strategy.Moreover, the importance of the energy “transition” away from reliable energy resources is referred to 11 times in the document.
Now, a progressive neoliberal administration’s threat assessment wouldn’t be complete without discussing “diversity” (16 mentions), “equity” (14 hits), and “inclusion,” (24 times) or what the wokes refer to as DEI.
The document concludes that the United States is “making meaningful progress on issues like climate change, global health, and food security to improve the lives not just of Americans but of people around the world.”
The NSS has been prepared periodically by the executive branch since the Reagan Administration, upon the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols act of 1986. The document is purposed with informing Congress and the public on the administration’s chief national security priorities, and how the White House intends to deal with them.
For this White House, the NSS reveals that its top priorities involve blaming Russia for everything, advancing the climate hoax, and facilitating the woke agenda globally through the U.S. military’s bloated bureaucracy and budget.
Samizdat | October 14, 2022
Elon Musk’s aerospace firm has asked the US military to pay for its Starlink satellite internet service in Ukraine, saying it is no longer able to foot the cost of operations, according to company documents obtained by CNN.
In a letter sent to the Pentagon last month, SpaceX outlined its financial difficulties and asked the government to begin funding Starlink services for Ukraine, claiming it will cost more than $120 million for the rest of 2022, and some $400 million over the next 12 months.
“We are not in a position to further donate terminals to Ukraine, or fund the existing terminals for an indefinite period of time,” SpaceX’s director of government sales said in the letter.
SpaceX has donated around 20,000 Starlink satellite units to Ukraine since the beginning of the conflict in late February, providing internet connection and military coordination in chaotic battlegrounds that would otherwise be cut off from the web. Ukrainian officials have hailed the system as “an essential part of critical infrastructure.”
Kiev has nonetheless urged the company to send thousands of additional Starlink terminals, with another letter obtained by CNN showing that a top Ukrainian general, Valery Zaluzhny, directly asked for 8,000 units back in July. An outside consultant for SpaceX later wrote that the firm “faces terribly difficult decisions here,” adding “I do not think they have the financial ability to provide any additional terminals or service as requested by General Zaluzhny.”
Musk has stated that SpaceX will have spent more than $100 million providing Starlink services to Ukraine by the end of the year. However the company’s letter to the Pentagon indicates that the “vast majority” of the 20,000 units furnished to Kiev have received “full or partial funding” from the American, British and Polish governments.
Other contributions come from NGOs and private fundraisers, though SpaceX has covered most of the service costs of around $4,500 per terminal each month.
More recently, SpaceX has come under fire for alleged Starlink outages across some regions of Ukraine, with the Financial Times relaying reports from Ukrainian soldiers of a “catastrophic” loss of communications last week.
The cause of the outages remains unclear, though Ukrainian officials insist the problems were not the result of a technical glitch or cyberattacks, instead suggesting “SpaceX-imposed geographical restrictions.” Service has since resumed in the affected areas, however.
Samizdat – October 12, 2022
US President Joe Biden says he has “no intention” of meeting with Vladimir Putin at the upcoming G20 summit in Bali to talk about Ukraine, unless the Russian leader approached him first to discuss issues like the release of WNBA star Brittney Griner who is currently imprisoned in Russia.
Speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper on Tuesday, Biden discussed the various issues plaguing Russian-US relations and condemned Putin’s alleged threat to use nuclear weapons in the military conflict with Ukraine.
When asked if he was willing to meet with the Russian leader at the G20 summit in November, Biden said: “Look, I have no intention of meeting with him. But for example, if he came to me at the G20 and said ‘I want to talk about the release of Griner,’ I’d meet with him. I mean, it would depend.”
Brittney Griner is a Women’s National Basketball Association star and Olympic gold medalist who was detained at a Moscow airport in February for possessing vape cartridges filled with cannabis oil. Griner pleaded guilty to the charges of drug possession and was sentenced to nine years in prison by a Russian court on August 4.
Biden went on to state that neither he, “nor is anyone else” prepared to negotiate with Russia about anything related to Ukraine and so a meeting between the two leaders would depend on “specifically what [Putin] wanted to talk about.”
“He’s acted brutally. I think he’s committed war crimes. And so, I don’t see any rationale to meet with him now,” the US leader said.
Biden and Putin have not spoken to each other directly since before Russia launched its military operation in Ukraine in late February. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov earlier said that the Kremlin would consider such a meeting, but has yet to receive a proposal from Washington.
By Lucas Leiroz | October 12, 2022
During a press conference on October 11, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov severely criticized the recent American speech insisting that Moscow had rejected peace proposals allegedly offered by the West. The minister stated that no serious proposal was made by Washington, therefore there was no Russian unwillingness to negotiate peace.
Lavrov claimed that the Americans indeed made some calls but did not show any concrete peace proposals during the talks. According to him, not even these calls were ignored, having Moscow responded, showing willingness to continue the dialogue in order to seek the formulation of a specific plan that benefits both sides. However, the West has shown itself to be uninterested in initiating conversations in this direction.
“This is a lie [that Russia refuses to negotiate]. We did not receive any serious proposals to enter into contact. There were some not very serious calls, to which we also did not respond negatively, but offered to formulate specific proposals, with which some people want to contact us through indirect contacts. And in this case, we did not receive more specific explanations from anyone”, he said.
The day before Lavrov’s interview, US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby had publicly reiterated that Moscow was not responding to US calls for negotiations. Earlier, some US officials and journalists had already said that there would be no further dialogue as the Russian government was not interested in any proposals. But Russia does not endorse this narrative and claims that no US proposal has been presented.
Journalists also asked Lavrov for his opinion on the possibility of resuming peace talks with Turkey as a mediator, given the recent rumors that Ankara is planning a new negotiation for the conflict. According to Lavrov, no Russian official has yet received any information about such an initiative, but he made clear the Russian willingness to negotiate if the proposals seem reasonable. He stated that the meeting between Putin and Erdogan in Astana would be a good opportunity to clarify this topic.
Regarding the Ukrainian decision to not continue any form of dialogue with Russia and veto peace talks, Lavrov stressed that it does not seem to be something really resolute. For him, Zelensky’s decisions could change at any time, depending on a series of factors, mainly his “mood”, considering the instability already demonstrated by Zelensky so far, and the orders he will receive from the West in the near future. For Lavrov, if the Western powers order Zelensky to start peace talks, he will simply accept and ask to talk to Moscow.
“I do not rule out that he, as he forbade himself [to talk with Russia], will then forget about it, depending on his mood when he gets up in the morning and what he does. Well, or he will receive an order from Washington, from London – he will say ‘Yes’ and figure out how to explain all this so as not to lose face”, Lavrov said.
The veto of peace negotiations is precisely a consequence of orders received by the West, which is the side most unwilling to negotiate and which most seeks to escalate the conflict. So, if the opinion of Western leaders on the direction of peace talks eventually changes, it is actually expected that Zelensky will rethink the veto and suddenly ask to talk to Moscow.
The narrative that “Moscow does not want to negotiate” has been spread precisely in order to justify new actions in support to Kiev and Western active participation in the conflict. On many occasions, the West has made it clear that the longer the fighting lasts, the more beneficial this will be to NATO’s interests, because, given the impossibility of defeating Russia militarily, what is sought is simply to prolong the situation of security instability in the Russian strategic environment.
Since February, the Russian side has been the only one to actively pursue peace talks. To stop the special military operation, Moscow makes it clear that it only expects a list of requirements to be met. These requirements include some Russian territorial and political goals, such as the self-determination of Russian-majority regions and the demilitarization of Kiev. For Moscow, this is not an “expansionist ambition”, as the West says, but a real necessity, since present-day Ukraine is a direct threat against the Russian state.
For peace to emerge in Ukraine, the West must “authorize” Kiev to act sovereignly and negotiate with Russia proposals that meet the demands made by Moscow. There is no way to negotiate peace without fulfilling these requirements and what prevents Ukrainians from following them is precisely the order they receive from Western leaders to continue fighting in a war in which they have no chance of winning.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
You can follow Lucas on Telegram.
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 