Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US nuclear sub pulls in for repairs after collision in South China Sea

RT | December 13, 2021

The US Navy submarine that stoked international tensions after colliding with an underwater mountain in the South China Sea pulled into the California coast on Sunday, bearing visible surface damage from the crash in October.

The USS Connecticut nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine arrived at San Diego Bay with significant damage to its bow. Defense news outlet The Drive reported that the Seawolf-class vessel was missing its entire bow sonar dome, which would have made the 6,200-mile (9,950-kilometer) journey across the Pacific “extremely unpleasant.”

According to the US Naval Institute (USNI), the “inoperable” sonar dome would have made it “unsafe” for the stricken submarine to make the transit underwater. The outlet also added that the ballast tanks and forward section of the vessel had been damaged as well.

Following an initial damage assessment at Guam, the ship was scheduled to undergo additional repairs at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility in Washington, the outlet reported – adding that it was unclear why the boat was directed to San Diego instead.

It is also not known how long the repairs will take – or how much they will cost. The Navy has not commented on potential repairs, but Naval News has suggested that a new sonar dome would need to be a “custom repair job” if the submarine is deemed “worthy and cost-effective.”

US Pacific Fleet Submarine Force spokesperson Commander Cindy Fields would only tell The Drive that the vessel is in port and “remains in a safe and stable condition.”

Nearly a dozen members of the crew were injured during the collision, though none of their injuries were thought to be life-threatening, the USNI reported, adding that the submarine’s nuclear reactor and propulsion systems had not been affected.

An investigation by the US Seventh Fleet, which operates in the western Pacific, stated that the vessel had struck an “uncharted seamount” but China criticized the “ambiguous” statement as not a sufficient explanation of the events during a period of escalating tensions.

Last month, Seventh Fleet commander Vice Admiral Karl Thomas fired the boat’s commanding officer, executive officer and chief sonar technician “due to loss of confidence.” Thomas had determined that the incident could have been prevented by “sound judgment, prudent decision-making and adherence to required procedures in navigation planning, watch team execution and risk management.”

December 13, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | | Leave a comment

US delivers rockets to Ukraine

By Layla Guest | RT | December 11, 2021

The Pentagon has disclosed details of the shipment of anti-tank missile systems and projectiles supplied to Kiev, as Moscow grows increasingly concerned about the prospect of a full-blown conflict in Ukraine’s Donbass region.

In a statement received by Russian news outlet TASS on Thursday, Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Anton Semelroth said that “the $60 million package… included 30 Javelin command and control launchers, as well as 180 missiles.” According to him, the rocket launchers were delivered to Ukraine on October 23.

“In 2021, the US allocated more than $450 million in aid to Ukraine for security tasks as part of our continued commitment to support the country’s ability to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the spokesman added.

Semelroth’s comments come amid warnings from Moscow over tensions in the war-torn region close to Russia’s borders. Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that “more and more forces and equipment are being accumulated on the line of contact in the Donbass, supported by an increasing number of Western instructors.”

At the end of November, the top diplomat said that claims Ukraine’s troops had deployed American-made Javelin rocket launchers were a matter of grave concern and could lead to a full-blown offensive in the war-torn region.

“In recent weeks, we have seen a stream of consciousness from the Ukrainian leadership – especially when it comes to the military – that is excessively inflamed and dangerous,” Lavrov said.

Just hours before, the head of Ukraine’s military intelligence service, Kirill Budanov, revealed that advanced US-made Javelin systems had been tested by Ukraine’s troops and were being used by soldiers in the Donbass.

Russia’s ambassador in Washington, Anatoly Antonov, warned the White House earlier in November that supplying Ukraine with deadly armaments could diminish hopes for peace in the region, stating that Moscow believes “another opportunity to encourage Kiev to stop the war has been missed.”

The conflict in eastern Ukraine began following the events of the 2014 Maidan, which eventually led to the ‘People’s Republics’ in Donetsk and Lugansk declaring their independence. However, neither Moscow nor Kiev officially recognize them, and the Kremlin has insisted that the onus is on Ukraine to strike a peace deal with the leaders of the breakaway regions.

December 11, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Did Vladimir Putin Call Off Invasion in Fear of This British Lady’s Tank Commanding Skills?

Anti-Empire | December 10, 2021

The moderately elevated Russian concentration of forces opposite of Ukraine remains in place, but further escalation seems to have been averted so far.

There could be two reasons for this. One is that President Joe Biden, the head of the American Empire, has told Putin that he will look into addressing Russia’s concerns and get back to him.

The other possibility is that the Kremlin took one look at Liz Truss’ tank commanding skills and decided the Russian military didn’t stand a chance.

Visiting Estonia and the eight hundred British troops there Truss took the opportunity to ride a British Challenger II tank.

This was likened to an episode in 1986 when Margaret Thatcher rode a Challenger I in West Germany. However, at the time, Thatcher was a Prime Minister and as such was the army’s boss. The photo-op may have been a little cringy, but it was just Thatcher mingling with a bureaucracy she had jurisdiction over.

Truss meanwhile is the Foreign Secretary in charge of the British Foreign Office alone. She is not in the chain of command and has no authority over the military.

Some would even say that having precisely your chief diplomat ride around in a tank is especially tacky.

This leads us to believe the only reason Truss was allowed to do such a thing is because she is secretly an insanely skilled tank commander.

Eastern Front tank commander

Perhaps the real reason we have not seen an escalation is that the Russians feared a Truss-led spoiling attack from Estonia if they started any funny business in the south. It’s a story as old as time. An evil dictator with a massive army launches an invasion only to be defeated by a middle-aged lady in a heavy cavalry charge. I think there’s a Sabaton song just about that.

Wisely Putin held back the armies of Mordor.

Putin can only wish his chief diplomat was an equally accomplished tank commander. Instead, Sergey Lavrov’s expertise encompasses diplomacy alone.

Sergey Lavrov has never been photographed riding a tank. Lame.

In fact, Truss’ intersectional expertise stretches out into the sea. There is reason to believe she is also an expert reserve Admiral:

That should keep the Chinese deterred as well!

December 10, 2021 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

The Omnipotent Power of the Pentagon

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | December 8, 2021

No matter how you feel about the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex, you can’t help but be impressed at how they are able to successfully plunder and loot American taxpayers, no matter how much needless death, suffering, and destruction they wreak on people around the world.

Think about it: They just exited Afghanistan after their 20-year failed war against the Taliban, a war that left thousands of American soldiers and countless Afghans dead and the entire country destroyed. On top of all that death and destruction was the total waste of hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money. It’s also worth mentioning that for those entire 20 years, they intentionally lied to the American people regarding progress in their undeclared forever war.

And what has been the result? They get rewarded! Congress is on the verge of giving them more taxpayer money than ever before! That’s impressive, even if in a negative way!

In other words, they are no longer wasting money in Afghanistan in the form of bombs, bullets, gasoline, oil, medicare care for wounded soldiers, etc. That’s got to mean that a lot of money is now being saved.

So, does Congress reduce the military’s budget by the amount of money that is no longer being wasted in Afghanistan? Are you kidding? Like I say, believe it or not, they are actually upping the amount of U.S. taxpayer money that they are allocating to these people! They are giving them more taxpayer money than when they were in Afghanistan wasting all that taxpayer money!

That is power, sheer power! How can anyone not be impressed by it, even if In a negative way?

The fact is that the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA own Congress, lock, stock, and barrel. Not only is Congress filled with national-security state assets, even those members of Congress who maintain the appearance of some degree of independence do not dare to buck the national-security establishment. They know that if they were to buck them, they would soon be targeted with extinction in the next election.

There is another factor that is impressive in a negative way — the ability of the Pentagon and the CIA to engender official enemies to scare Congress into granting the national-security establishment whatever it wants.

Just look how they have succeeded in converting their old Cold War enemies, China and Russia, into new big official enemies of the United States. After milking the “war on terrorism” racket for as much as they could for the past 20 years, they’re now circling back to milk their old Cold War racket against their old Cold War communist enemies.

What’s also fascinating is how they are able to engender these official enemies while convincing people that they are the innocent victims who are forced into defending America and the world from the barbarians at the gate.

Consider how they have done this with Russia. Their strategy has been absolutely brilliant, again in a negative way.

First, they tell Russia that NATO will not expand eastward after Russia called it quits on the Cold War racket. It was a lie. Instead, NATO began gobbling up former members of the Warsaw Pact, moving NATO’s forces and U.S. missiles inexorably closer to Russia’s borders.

When NATO threatened to absorb Ukraine, which would have given the Pentagon and the CIA control over Crimea and also enable the U.S. to station missiles right on Russia’s border, NATO officials and U.S. officials knew precisely that Russia would have to react.

When Russia did react in the predicable way, the U.S. response was brilliant, again in a negative way. Instead of NATO and the U.S. creating the crisis, it was Russia who was presented as the aggressor. NATO, Ukraine, and the U.S. were all seen as the victims of Russian aggression. The only thing that was missing was the threat of “godless communism,” which was the basis of their Cold War racket against Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union.

It’s been pretty much the same with China. While the U.S. government was mired down with its forever wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan, China was prospering and establishing friendly relations with countries all over the world. The U.S. Empire could not tolerate that. That’s when they launched their vicious trade war against China and began doing everything they could to destroy China’s economic prosperity. Among their favorite weapons was economic sanctions, a foreign-policy tool that targets the civilian population of a country as as way to achieve political ends.

Today, China is portrayed by the U.S. mainstream press as a grave threat to U.S. national security, just like it was during the Cold War racket. In one way, the situation with China is even better than with Russia. Given that China is still a communist regime, U.S. officials and their assets in the U.S. mainstream press can still use the “godless communism” angle that they did during the Cold War racket.

Since the Pentagon and the CIA are still killing people in the Middle East, the threat of anti-American terrorism continues to exist. Combine that with the scary notion that the Russians and Chinese Reds are coming to get us, and you have the perfect justification for the continuation and expansion of the U.S. national-security state and its deadly, destructive, and very expensive rackets.

December 8, 2021 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Putin Has Biden’s Attention, Now What?

By Marko Marjanović | Anti-Empire | December 7, 2021

With the US raising alarm about a supposed Russian military buildup opposite of Ukraine, and the Russians denying anything out of the ordinary is taking place it is tempting to conclude that this is just more of the typical NATO scaremongering about Russia. Trouble is that I don’t believe that. On the contrary, I believe that something very serious is afoot.

The reason I think so isn’t that I have been listening to the Americans, but that I have been listening to the Russians. For years and years, the Russians have been complaining about the march of American & vassal missiles, training programs, weapon stockpiles, and units eastward. They have been complaining for so long that the picture of Russia as being all talk and never following up with real-world measures has become a meme among the more cynical Russia watchers.

Then, all of a sudden two things happened:

A.) Any and all talk of taking Donbass by force suddenly stopped in Ukraine. Instead, Kiev seems genuinely terrified it will be routed by the Russian military and is promising numerous Russian casualties (but tellingly not defeat) in a high-stakes attempt to deter the Russians.

B.) Biden initiated security talks with Vladimir Putin days after regime press revealed that something about the Russian military posture sent Washington into panic mode.

That tells me that the Russians finally did something that got Washington’s full attention. I don’t know what they did. Maybe it was the buildup opposite of Ukraine, maybe it was something else that we’re not being told about. Maybe it doesn’t even matter that much.

What does matter is that the Russian expectations of anything coming out of the initial Biden-Putin talk are nil. That means the Russian pressure — whatever it is — will continue.

The Russians aren’t going to be bought out by talks. They held talks with Biden in the Spring, and these were followed up by more provocations in the Summer. Now they want real, tangible appeasement. They have spelled out as much.

Trouble is, between the characteristic fecklessness and cowardice of the White House (whoever it is occupied by), and the vested Cold War interests I have no idea how they get that.

Any American president who works out a deal with the Russians and removes a missile or two will be denounced as “weak” by all the other institutions of the American Empire which stand to lose from peace, and which together are more powerful than a weak-willed presidency.

In reality, it is just the opposite, it is precisely the weakness of American presidents which makes a good deal with Russia impossible. What is better for the American and, say, the Romanian people, having some US missiles in the land of Dracula, or peace in Europe? Obviously the latter. But any president who concedes as much will face resistance and sabotage by the Pentagon, the CIA, NATO, the posturing Congress, the liberal-interventionist State Department, the think tanks, and the media.

Honestly, I have no idea how Putin, Shoigu, and Lavrov get the security guarantees that they want out of this one. If they succeed they are infinitely better strategists than I.

Let’s say it has indeed been a buildup opposite of Ukraine that forced the Americans to the table, now what?

There is no doubt that if Moscow is willing to sustain the cost in lives and in sanctions (and in Ukrainian bitterness and enmity) that the Russian military can take most of Ukraine.

The Russian military is larger than the Ukrainian one and has more firepower per pound, The two also share a long flat border — there are no convenient bottlenecks. The Russians can force the Ukrainian military to stretch out over a long frontline, pin it down in place, then apply defeat in detail to sectors with maneuver and firepower one by one.

Kiev is just 400 kilometers from the Russian border, and the Americans have already said — in so many words — that direct US military intervention almost certainly isn’t on the cards.

Trouble is this. If the DC Empire and the Ukraine were one organic being then guaranteeing the Russians a missile status quo in return for the Russians not overruning Kiev would be an absolute bargain. Problem is that, not only are the Empire and the Ukraine not a single entity, but the American Empire itself is a hydra with many heads, most of which stand only to gain from a Russian war in the Ukraine.

The White House is the only imperial institution that stands something to lose, namely prestige for having failed to deter the Russians. However, it also stands to lose by being painted as appeasing Moscow so it’s something of a moot point.

In all other respects, the Empire and its institutions stand only to gain. NATO can get a huge lease on life, Pentagon could be looking at the return of full US divisions to Europe, and the European vassals would be more regimented behind the US than ever before. As the cherry on top Russia would be left with the odd problem of policing and rebuilding Ukraine — while under a total Western economic embargo. Perhaps the biggest “win” of all would be the endless opportunity for moral condemnation of Russia over its treatment of “subjugated” Malaya Rus’.

So again, I think Russia can relatively easily occupy land in Ukraine, I just don’t know how it can trade pieces of that land in return for NATO guarantees to stop carrying out provocations that are in its self-interest.

The problem is that Russia enjoying peace and stability on its borders is in Russia’s interest but it is not in NATO’s interest. Why do you think that Russia was willing to strong-arm Donbass into abiding by the Minsk Agreement but the West never applied pressure on Kiev to do the same? Because ultimately fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian and seeing the Russian-Ukrainian enmity deepen is the stuff of dreams for NATO.

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Putin to Biden: Finlandize Ukraine, or We Will

By Patrick J. Buchanan | December 7, 2021

Neocons and Republican hawks such as the late John McCain sought to bring Ukraine and two other ex-Soviet republics, Georgia and Moldova, into NATO. Putin, who served in the KGB in the late Soviet era and calls the breakup of the USSR the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century, is now saying: Enough is enough.

Either the U.S. and NATO provide us with “legal guarantees” that Ukraine will never join NATO or become a base for weapons that can threaten Russia — or we will go in and guarantee it ourselves.

This is the message Russian President Vladimir Putin is sending, backed by the 100,000 troops Russia has amassed on Ukraine’s borders.

At the Kremlin last week, Putin drew his red line:

“The threat on our western borders is … rising, as we have said multiple times. … In our dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on developing concrete agreements prohibiting any further eastward expansion of NATO and the placement there of weapons systems in the immediate vicinity of Russian territory.”

That comes close to an ultimatum. And NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg backhanded the President of Russia for issuing it:

“It’s only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. … Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence trying to control their neighbors.”

Yet, great powers have always established spheres of influence. Chinese President Xi Jinping claims virtually the entire South China Sea that is bordered by half a dozen nations. For 200 years, the United States has declared a Monroe Doctrine that puts our hemisphere off-limits to new colonizations.

Moreover, Putin wants to speak to the real decider of the question as to whether Ukraine joins NATO or receives weapons that can threaten Russia. And the decider is not Jens Stoltenberg but President Joe Biden.

In the missile crisis of 60 years ago, the U.S., with its “quarantine” of Cuba and strategic and tactical superiority in the Caribbean, forced Nikita Khrushchev to pull his intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which could reach Washington, off of Fidel Castro’s island.

If it did not do so, Moscow was led to understand, we would use our air and naval supremacy to destroy his missiles and send in the Marines to finish the job.

Accepting a counteroffer for the U.S. withdrawal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey, Khrushchev complied with President John F. Kennedy’s demand. Russia’s missiles came out. And Kennedy was seen as having won a Cold War victory.

Now it is we who are being told to comply with Russia’s demands in Ukraine, or Russia will go in to Ukraine and neutralize the threat itself.

The history?

When the Warsaw Pact collapsed and the USSR came apart three decades ago, Russia withdrew all of its military forces from Central and Eastern Europe. Moscow believed it had an agreed-upon understanding with the Americans.

Under the deal, the two Germanys would be reunited. Russian troops would be removed from East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. And there would be no NATO expansion into Eastern Europe.

If America made that commitment, it was a promise broken. For, within 20 years, NATO had brought every Warsaw Pact nation into the alliance along with the former Soviet republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Neocons and Republican hawks such as the late John McCain sought to bring Ukraine and two other ex-Soviet republics, Georgia and Moldova, into NATO.

Putin, who served in the KGB in the late Soviet era and calls the breakup of the USSR the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century, is now saying: Enough is enough.

Translation: “Thus far and no further! Ukraine is not going to be a member of NATO or a military ally and partner of the United States, nor a base for weapons that can strike Russia in minutes. For us, that crosses a red line. And if NATO proceeds with arming Ukraine for conflict with Russia, we reserve the right to act first. Finlandize Ukraine, or we will!”

The problem for Biden?

In Ukraine and in Georgia, as we saw in the 2008 war, Russia has the tactical and strategic superiority we had in 1962 in Cuba. Moreover, while Ukraine is vital to Russia, it has never been vital to us.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized Joseph Stalin’s USSR in 1933, Moscow was engaged in the forced collectivization of the farms of Ukraine, which had caused a famine and the deaths of millions. We Americans did nothing to stop it.

During the Cold War, America never insisted on the independence of Ukraine. Though we celebrated when the Baltic states and Ukraine broke free of Moscow, we never regarded their independence as vital interests for which America should be willing to go to war.

A U.S. war with Russia over Ukraine would be a disaster for all three nations. Nor could the U.S. indefinitely guarantee the independence of a country 5,000 miles away that shares not only a lengthy border with Mother Russia but also a history, language, religion, ethnicity and culture.

Forced to choose between accepting Russia’s demand that NATO stay out of Ukraine and Russia going in, the U.S. is not going to war.

Biden should tell Putin: The U.S. will not be issuing any NATO war guarantees to fight for Ukraine.

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia reveals what Putin asked of Biden

RT | December 7, 2021

In a “frank and businesslike” conversation Russian President Vladimir Putin asked his US counterpart Joe Biden for guarantees that NATO won’t expand further east or deploy offensive weapons to countries like Ukraine.

Moscow is “seriously interested” in obtaining “reliable and firm legal guarantees” excluding NATO’s further expansion eastward and deployment of “offensive strike weapons systems in countries adjacent to Russia,” the Kremlin said in a readout of Tuesday’s call between the two leaders.

Putin’s proposal came in response to Biden’s “concerns” about Russian troops allegedly threatening Ukraine and threats of US and allied sanctions against Russia, a subject that arose during the two-hour call. The Russian leader responded that it was NATO “making dangerous attempts to conquer Ukrainian territory” and “building up its military potential at our borders.”

When asked about this, Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan said that the US has made “no such commitments or concessions.”

Putin used specific examples to illustrate the “destructive” policy of Kiev, which he said was aimed at completely dismantling the Minsk agreements and the ‘Normandy format’ talks. He also expressed Moscow’s serious concerns about “provocative actions” by the government in Kiev against the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk, two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine.

Last week, before the date of the meeting was announced, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said that the situation in Europe would be at the top of the agenda for the two leaders to discuss. The diplomat stressed that “contact is badly needed; we have multiplying problems. There is no progression on bilateral affairs, which are more and more spiraling into a phase of acute crisis.”

The talks come amid heightened tensions between Washington and Moscow over the situation on the Russian-Ukrainian border, which the White House has signaled as a key area on which bilateral negotiations are needed.

American and Ukrainian officials have repeatedly accused Russia of plotting to invade its neighbor in recent weeks. Earlier this month, US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken implored Moscow to de-escalate its purported aggressions against Kiev, or face “severe consequences.”

Russia has repeatedly denied allegations put forward by Western officials and outlets that it will launch an offensive against Ukraine. Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov has blasted the accusations as groundless, dubbing them as “hysteria” whipped up in the Anglophone and Ukrainian media.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s hopes to be admitted to NATO and the potential eastwards expansion of the US-led military bloc have been a point of contention for Moscow. Ahead of the video conference, the Russian president announced that he will request discussions with NATO to ensure the US-led military bloc does not edge closer to his country’s frontiers. Speaking last week, Putin said that he will “insist on guarantees being set out to exclude the possibility of NATO moving any further to the east, and deploying threatening weapons close to Russian territory.”

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted the day before that “significant units and armaments from NATO countries, including American and British, are being moved closer to our borders.”

The pair last met in the Swiss city of Geneva in June. The meeting was hailed as productive by the two heads of state, covering topics such as nuclear proliferation and managing the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the Kremlin said that it will take a long time for constructive engagement to return and the two sides have recently accused each other of escalating military tensions in Eastern Europe.

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Palestine Action Activists Found NOT GUILTY After Defacing Israeli Arms Company In UK

Palestine Action | December 6, 2021

Three Palestine Action activists, dubbed the ‘Elbit Three’, have today been found not guilty of criminal damage charges in a trial taking place at Newcastle-under-Lyme Magistrates Court. The trial, which commenced on Friday 3rd December, saw Elbit Systems and the Crown Prosecution Service attempt to criminalise individuals who took a stand against the manufacture of drones and drone parts. The products manufactured at the site of the protest, the UAV Engines factory in Shenstone, Staffordshire, are key components for a range of Elbit’s combat drones, used extensively by Israel for bombardments of Gazan civilians.

Elbit Systems are Israel’s largest private arms company, supplying 85% of Israel’s drone fleet. Their Hermes drones, manufactured with UK-made components, are regularly deployed in bombardments of Gaza, with Elbit also supplying a range of surveillance equipment, armaments, and specialist military technologies for the Israeli military and police. Palestine Action have undertaken a campaign of sustained direct action against Elbit Systems – across their 10 sites in the UK – with this action in Shenstone having occured in January 2021, six months since Palestine Action launched. Despite many dozens of actions taken, and over £15,000,000 in damages caused (according to police), this is the first time that activists had faced trial, with all previous charges having been dropped in the run-up to trial dates.

The presiding judge, Judge Waites, stated that the Crown had failed to prove that convicting the defendents would be proportionate with their freedom to protest. He stated further points which included: Palestine is an important issue, the arms trade is an important issue, the defendants believed in what they were doing, and the location was specifically chosen. These are the points that Palestine Action has long stated: through targetted and deliberate direct action, individuals can make a measured impact on the lives of civilians in Palestine by disrupting and undermining Israel’s arms trade.

This verdict represents a serious defeat for Elbit Systems, who have long maintained that their business is lawful and that they are therefore to be protected from such actions. This belief has been shared by the British state: the police have offered a round-the-clock rapid response and extensive protection to Elbit’s death factories, and the CPS have attempted to prosecute those who take a stand against Elbit’s business of bloodshed.

The defence, represented by Palestinian barrister Mira Hammad and Richard Brigden of Garden Court North (instructed by Kelly’s solicitors), presented their case that the action taken was to prevent a greater crime. An activist involved in the trial elaborated, stating that the action was taken to shut down the factory for one day in an attempt to stem the flow of drones and stop the bombings. They stated that Elbit provide 85% of Israel’s drones, with Elbit describing themselves as the ‘backbone’ of the Israeli airforce, adding that there is extensive documentation of the drones being used for attacks on the civil population of Gaza. They stated that this is not only during intensive military excursions, but also for extrajudicial killings and indescriminate bombings – with Elbit drones being linked directly to the killing of four children playing on a beach in Gaza in 2014.

Another activist, Sarah, later stated that:

“Throwing this paint may not protect Gaza. What protects Gaza is stopping the bombing. Elbit produce weapons, tanks and drones used to commit crimes against humanity, and this is what is unlawful. Export licenses should not be granted while Elbit continue to violate human rights. In the face of these crimes, you have to do something. If you do nothing, then Elbit continues to make its smart weaponry which enables Israel to kill efficiently. Elbit has no business being allowed to be in the UK. It has no values that are shared with humanity”. Following this, a standing ovation was given from the public gallery.

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel wants US to adopt military-first option with Iran

MEMO | December 6, 2021

With the newly-resumed Iran nuclear deal negotiations in the balance in Vienna, a bellicose Israel is urging the US to take military action. Defence Minister Benny Gantz and Mossad chief David Barnea are expected to meet senior officials in the White House this week to make the case for a military-first agenda against Iran, Israel’s three main TV news broadcasts reported last night.

Gantz and Barnea will urge their American interlocutors to develop a military plan to strike Iran. The stalled negotiations in Vienna are seen by the Israelis as an opportunity to press the US to adopt a more aggressive policy towards the Islamic Republic. A list of targets is said to have been drawn up. This includes a potential attack against Iranian targets in Yemen. The aim of such a strike would be to convince the Iranians to soften their position at the talks about their nuclear programme.

Israel is expected to tell the Americans that it needs to continue its operations against Iran’s nuclear facilities. A recent example was the assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, last November using a remote-controlled machine gun and artificial intelligence.

The US, however, does not see eye to eye with Israel on this issue. It is said to have warned the occupation state that these strikes are counterproductive, with Iran building improved facilities after each setback.

“I call on every country negotiating with Iran in Vienna to take a strong line and make it clear to Iran that it cannot enrich uranium and negotiate at the same time,” said Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett yesterday. “Iran must begin to pay a price for its violations.”

Israel’s sabre rattling and its zeal for the military-first option has been highlighted further by the Spectator. “Mossad is [preparing] to strike at the heart of Iran’s nuclear programme,” according to a source in Israel cited by the British magazine. Describing Iran as an “octopus” the author of the article said that Israel would no longer go after the “tentacles” but instead “go for the head”.

Prior to the negotiations restarting last week, Iran’s top diplomat, Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, said that an agreement to revive his country’s nuclear deal with world powers was “within reach” but that this depended on the goodwill of the West.

In 2018, former US President Donald Trump walked away unilaterally from the deal painstakingly stitched together by his predecessor, Barack Obama. The move, regarded widely as reckless, was urged on by the then Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump’s rash decision backfired. Pro-Israel hawks now admit that it “was one of the dumbest, most poorly thought out and counterproductive US national security decisions of the post-Cold War era.”

December 6, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO’s Jens Stoltenberg needs to calm it down

By Daniel Larison | Responsible Statecraft | December 3, 2021

Twice in the last two weeks, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has made public comments that threaten to worsen already strained relations between Russia and the alliance.

Instead of calming things down, Stoltenberg has been carelessly ratcheting up tensions over nuclear weapons in Europe and the conflict in Ukraine. At exactly the moment when the U.S. and NATO need to be working to deescalate the situation with Russia over Ukraine, the top official in NATO has been throwing kerosene on the flames.

While he was urging the new German coalition government to continue hosting U.S. tactical nuclear weapons, Stoltenberg made the dangerous suggestion that the weapons could end up with NATO members to the east of Germany: “So, of course, Germany can, of course, decide whether there will be nuclear weapons in your country, but the alternative is that we easily end up with nuclear weapons in other countries in Europe, also to the east of Germany.” Raising the possibility of moving these weapons closer to Russia was bound to elicit a sharply negative reaction, and that is what happened.

Stoltenberg’s remarks prompted immediate outrage in Moscow, and it led the Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko to announce this week that Belarus would welcome Russian nuclear weapons to its territory in response to any NATO redeployment to the east. Stoltenberg’s warning may have been intended for Berlin, but it had its greatest and most destabilizing impact in Moscow and Minsk. At a time when the Russian government already perceives a growing threat coming from the West, talking about moving nuclear weapons into eastern Europe was a serious mistake.

It is worth noting that the continued presence of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe serves no real purpose. As Global Zero’s Derek Johnson has pointed out, these weapons are a relic of the Cold War and they were originally deployed to be used against countries that are now members of NATO. In any event, the new German government still supports nuclear sharing, so the weapons stored in Germany won’t be going anywhere in the near future. Nonetheless, conjuring up the specter of American nuclear weapons moving closer to Russia was enough to further sour relations. Coming on the heels of the breakdown in NATO-Russian relations that began with the expulsion of Russian diplomats in October, this could only serve to deepen mistrust between Russia and the alliance.

Stoltenberg also repeated the standard NATO line that Russia has no part in decisions about alliance expansion: “Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence trying to control their neighbors.” Since Russia has already demonstrated its ability to thwart at least one aspirant state’s ambitions to join the alliance, the Secretary-General’s platitudes seemed almost as if he were trying to dare Moscow into taking more aggressive action. The U.S. and NATO may not like it, and it may not be the way that we want things to be, but the fact is that Russia absolutely does have a veto in practice over which of its neighbors become members of an anti-Russian military alliance. We already know that the Russian government will exercise that veto. The Secretary-General’s saying that Russia has no say is practically an invitation to Putin to prove him wrong.

Whether NATO officials agree with the assessment or not, the Russian government views NATO as the principal military threat to their country. Given the Russian experience of suffering devastating attacks from the west several times over the last two hundred years, their leaders have naturally been wary of the eastward expansion of the alliance, and they have made it very clear that they consider further advances to be intolerable. NATO’s “open door” to Ukraine and Georgia may seem like so much boilerplate rhetoric to Western officials, but it needlessly antagonizes Russia while offering these countries false hope of alliance membership that will likely never materialize. Stoltenberg’s latest remarks will likely have the same effect of angering Russia while giving the Ukrainian government the mistaken impression that their future entry into the alliance is guaranteed. One could hardly ask for a message more likely to promote misunderstanding and miscalculation.

It is not a coincidence that heightened tensions between Russia and Ukraine have been preceded by Kyiv’s frequent agitation for a Membership Action Plan over the last year and the Biden administration’s endorsement of Ukraine and Georgia’s future alliance membership in recent months. The Biden administration’s professions of “ironclad” and “unwavering” commitment to Ukraine have similarly been as unhelpful as they are hard to believe. While these statements of support are meant to discourage Russia from taking aggressive actions, it is the close military relationship between Ukraine and Western governments that so alarms Russia and provokes the behavior that these statements are supposed to deter. The more that the U.S. and its allies emphasize their commitment to Ukraine, the more that Moscow is liable to perceive Ukraine’s cooperation with Western governments as a threat.

Stoltenberg’s statement that Russia “has no right to establish a sphere of influence” is true but also irrelevant to the issues at hand. No state has ever had a “right” to establish a sphere of influence, but many states, including the United States, have had them all the same. All states in theory have the right to conduct their foreign policy however they see fit, but if a country chooses to align itself with its neighbor’s major power rival then that neighbor is bound to view this choice as a potential threat to its own security. When that country then builds up a military relationship with that rival and its allies, that will seem to be an even greater threat. That is how the Russian government views the intensifying military cooperation between Ukraine and Western governments.

The way out of this deteriorating situation is to scale back the confrontational rhetoric, rescind the empty promises of future NATO membership, and recognize how U.S. and NATO actions have fed into Russian threat perceptions. Secretary-General Stoltenberg has chosen to go in the opposite direction. That will make it more difficult to defuse tensions with Russia.

Putin has called for “legal guarantees” that there will be no further eastward expansion of NATO, and this is a demand that the alliance could agree to without much difficulty. Closing the door to further NATO expansion would not resolve all problems with Russia, but it would remove a significant irritant from the relationship. It would also stop stringing the Ukrainian government along with a promise that was never going to be honored. Since NATO made that promise in Bucharest in 2008, it has been the cause of nothing but instability and trouble, and the alliance, the U.S., and all of Europe would be better off without it.

December 5, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Putin Wants Formal Security Guarantees From the Empire, No to Ukraine as a NATO Missile Silo

Ceremony for presenting foreign ambassadors’ letters of credence

The Kremlin | December 1, 2021

… “[W]e express our concern not only over the fact that the international community is acting separately and cannot unite to address truly important problems, but also over how some of our partners are behaving towards our country, towards Russia, trying to restrain our development in every possible way, to exert sanctions pressure and, moreover, to escalate tensions near our borders.

By the way, the threat on our western border is really growing, and we have mentioned it many times. It is enough to see how close NATO military infrastructure has moved to Russia’s borders. This is more than serious for us.

In this situation, we are taking appropriate military-technical measures. But, I repeat, we are not threatening anyone and it is at the very least irresponsible to accuse us of this, given the real state of affairs. This would mean laying the blame at the wrong door, as the Russian saying goes.

In my speech at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs I already stressed that the priority facing Russian diplomacy at this juncture is to try to ensure that Russia is granted reliable and long-term security guarantees.

While engaging in dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on the elaboration of concrete agreements that would rule out any further eastward expansion of NATO and the deployment of weapons systems posing a threat to us in close proximity to Russia’s territory. We suggest that substantive talks on this topic should be started.

I would like to note in particular that we need precisely legal, juridical guarantees,because our Western colleagues have failed to deliver on verbal commitments they made. Specifically, everyone is aware of the assurances they gave verbally that NATO would not expand to the east. But they did absolutely the opposite in reality. In effect, Russia’s legitimate security concerns were ignored and they continue to be ignored in the same manner even now.

We are not demanding any special terms for ourselves. We understand that any agreements must take into account the interests of both Russia and all other states in the Euro-Atlantic region. A calm and stable situation should be ensured for everyone and is needed by all without exception.

That said, I would like to stress that Russia is interested precisely in constructive collaboration and in equitable international cooperation, and this remains the central tenet of Russian foreign policy. I hope that you will convey this signal to the leaders of your states.” … Full address

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Space: The U.S. Has Questions for Russia, Which Has More for the U.S.

By Vladimir Kozin – Member, Russian Academy of Military Sciences, Moscow, November 22, 2021

On November 15, 2021, the Russian Ministry of Defense carried out the successful destruction of the discontinued and decommissioned national spacecraft named “Tselina-D”, which was put into orbit back in 1982. The head of the Russian Defense Ministry, Sergei Shoigu, confirmed that the Russian Aerospace Forces had indeed successfully destroyed this satellite with pinpoint accuracy.

The fragments formed after knocking down this spacecraft do not pose any threat to either orbital stations or other satellites, or generally speaking to the space activities of any state. This is well known to all space powers that have fairly effective national technical means of verification and control of outer space, including the USA.

After the destruction of the named satellite, its fragments moved along trajectories outside the orbits of other operating space vehicles, have been under constant observation and monitoring from the Russian side and are included in the main catalogue of the space activities.

Prediction of any possible dangerous situations calculated after each orbital movement over the Earth has been made in connection with the accompanied debris and newly discovered fragments after the destruction of the “Tselina-D” satellite with operating spacecraft and the International Space Station or ISS “Mir”. The Russian Ministry of Defense reported that the ISS orbit is 40-60 km below the fragments of the destroyed “Tselina-D” satellite and there is no threat to this station. According to the results of the calculation of any possible threats, there are no approaches to it in the near future.

Earlier, Anthony Blinken, the U.S. Secretary of State, said that Russia’s test of an anti-satellite system used in this case jeopardized the safety of space research.

Moscow corrected his untenable judgment. “This event was carried out in strict accordance with international law, including the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and was not directed against anyone,” the Russian Foreign Ministry official spokesperson said. Russian Foreign Ministry also repeated that the fragments formed as a result of the test do not pose a threat and do not interfere with the functioning of orbital stations, spacecraft, as well as the entire space activities in general.

Washington has clearly forgotten that Russia is not the first country to hold such actions. The United States, China, and India have the capabilities to destroy spacecraft in space, having previously successfully tested their own anti-satellite assets versus their own satellites.

Precedents of destruction

They were announced by the named states at the relevant time.

In January 2007, the PRC conducted a test of a ground-based anti-missile system, during which the old Chinese meteorological satellite “Fengyun” was destroyed. This test led to the formation of a large amount of space debris. It should be noted that on November 10 of this year, the ISS orbit was corrected in order to avoid the wreckage of this Chinese satellite.

In February 2008, with the interceptor missile of the United States sea-based missile defense system “Standard-3”, the American side destroyed its “USA-193” reconnaissance satellite that had lost control at an altitude of about 247 km. The launch of the interceptor missile was carried out from the Hawaiian Islands area from the U.S. Navy cruiser Lake Erie, equipped with the Aegis combat information and control system.

In March 2019, India also successfully tested an anti-satellite weapon. The defeat of the “Microsat” satellite was carried out by the upgraded “Pdv” interceptor.

Earlier, the USSR has called, and now Russia has been calling for space powers for decades to legally consolidate at the international level a ban on the militarization of outer space by preventing an arms race in it and refusing to deploy any strike weapons in it.

In 1977-1978, the Soviet Union held official negotiations with the United States on anti-satellite systems. But as soon as the American delegation heard about Moscow’s desire to identify potential types of hostile activities in space that should be banned, including similar systems in question, it initiatively interrupted them after the fourth round of talks and decided not to participate in such a negotiation process anymore.

A fundamentally important clarification: since that time, Washington has not held and does not intend to hold such negotiations with any state in the world.

Moreover, the updated draft of an international treaty on the prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space proposed by Moscow and Beijing is regularly blocked by Washington at the UN and at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Back in 2004, Russia unilaterally committed itself not to be the first to deploy weapons in space, and in 2005, a similar commitment was made by the Collective Security Treaty Organization member states involving a number of nations of the former USSR.

In total, since the beginning of the space age, which began with the launch of the first artificial satellite called “Sputnik” by the Soviet Union in October 1957, Moscow has jointly or independently put forward about 20 different initiatives in the international arena to prevent an arms race in outer space.

Alas, all of them were successfully blocked by the United States and its NATO partners. Anthony Blinken seems to have forgotten about it.

Washington also ignores the recognition of the American Center for Strategic and International Studies, located in the American capital, whose report in April 2018 recognized that “the United States remains a leader in the use of space for military purposes.”

Against this background, Russia is implementing a purposeful and adequate policy to strengthen the country’s defense capability, including in the space sphere, taking into account, among other things, many additional circumstances.

X-37B with specific tasks

What are they? Russia takes into account that the United States is taking concrete practical steps to steadily increase its combat strike space potential.

Work is actively underway to create a space-based missile defense network, develop and operate systems with ground-based, sea-based and air-based interceptor missiles, electronic warfare, directed energy weapons, including testing an unmanned reusable space shuttle X-37B, which has a spacious cargo compartment on board. It is claimed that such a platform is capable of carrying a payload of up to 900 kg.

It is currently carrying out its sixth long-duration orbital flight. His space brother, who made his fifth flight in space in 2017-2019, continuously flew in spacet for 780 days.

Officially, the United States claims that this unmanned spacecraft performs the tasks of running-in technologies of reusable space platforms. At the same time, initially, when the X-37B was first launched in 2010, it was indicated that its main function would be the delivery of certain “cargo” into orbit. Only it was not explained: what kind of cargo? However, all these messages are just a legend to cover up military tasks that this device has been performed in space.

On the basis of the existing military-strategic space doctrines, specific tasks are prescribed for the U.S. intelligence community and the Pentagon.

Among them are made as conducting operations in space, from space and through it to contain conflicts, and in case of failure of deterrence – to defeat any aggressor, as well as ensuring the protection and preservation of vital interests of the United States together with allies and partners. It is obvious that in order to carry out such operations, the Pentagon will need special reusable platforms in space, which indicates a promising process of its further militarization by the Pentagon without any restrictions.

According to some military experts, the plausible purpose of this device is to test technologies for a future space interception, which allows inspecting alien space objects and, if necessary, disabling them with anti-satellite systems with various functions, including with ‘hit-to-kill’ kinetic characteristics.

This is confirmed by the statement of the Secretary of the U.S. Air Force, Barbara Barrett, who in May 2020 told reporters that during the current sixth X-37B space mission, a number of experiments will be conducted to test the possibility of converting solar energy into radio frequency microwave radiation, which later can be transmitted to Earth in the form of electricity. It is very questionable explanation.

So, what has this device actually been doing and continues to do in space for so many years? Obviously, since this space platform was created by the Boeing Corporation with direct participation in its financing and development by the American Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA, and it is operated by the U.S. Air Force, the tasks of the X-37B are by no means related to the peaceful exploration of outer space.

Some experts believe that such devices can be used to deliver missile defense and anti-satellite systems. Yes, it is not excluded.

It is noteworthy that the operation of this American spacecraft for a long time has caused concern not only on the part of Russia and China, but also on the part of some U.S. allies in NATO regarding its possible role as a space weapon and a platform for delivering space strike weapons, including nuclear warheads to be housed in X-37B cargo compartment.

A special experiment

The X-37B can perform up to ten secret tasks.

One of them fulfilled recently should be mentioned in particular.

It is noteworthy that in the twenties of October 2021, the separation of a small spacecraft at high speed from the fuselage of this “shuttle”, which does not have the ability to conduct radar surveillance, was recorded from the X-37B that is currently moving in space, which indicates that the Pentagon is testing a new type of space-based weapon. It is obvious that this kind of activity of the United States is not compatible with the stated goals of the peaceful use of outer space.

The separation of the named space object was preceded by the maneuvering of the X-37 the day before.

From October 21 to 22, the separated space vehicle was located at a distance of less than 200 meters from the X-37B, which subsequently performed a maneuver to move away from the separated new spacecraft.

Based on the results of processing objective information, it was found that the spacecraft was stabilized, and no elements were found on its body characterizing the presence of antennas that could provide the possibility of conducting radar surveillance. At the same time, the facts of the approach of the separated new spacecraft with other space objects or the performance of orbital maneuvers have not been revealed.

Thus, according to the Russian side, the United States conducted an experiment to separate a small spacecraft with high speed from the X-37B, which indicates the testing of a new type of space-based weapon.

Such actions of the American side are assessed in Moscow as a threat to strategic stability and are incompatible with the stated goals of the peaceful use of outer space. Moreover, Washington intends to use outer space as an area for the potential deployment of space-to-space weapons against various objects in orbit, as well as in the form of space-to-surface weapons in the form of space-based strike weapons that can be used to attack from space various ground-based, air-air-based and sea-based targets located on the planet.

Current U.S. space policy

Since 1957, all American presidents, without exception, have been actively engaged in the militarization and weaponization of outer space. In recent years, the most notable breakthrough in this direction has been made by the ex-Republican President Donald Trump.

On March 23, 2018, he approved the updated National Space Strategy. On June 18 of the same year, he gave a specific instruction to the Pentagon to create a Space Force as a full-fledged sixth brunch of the country’s Armed Forces, while emphasizing the undesirability to have Russia and China as leading nations in space. On December 9, 2020, the White House additionally announced a new National Space Policy. On December 20, 2019, the beginning of the creation of the U.S. Space Force was announced.

In these military-strategic doctrines, three fundamental views of the American military-political leadership on the use of outer space for military purposes have been publicly announced.

First, it was proclaimed that the United States intended to single-handedly dominate in space.

Secondly, it was stated that they should maintain “peace from a position of strength” in outer space.

Thirdly, it was stated that space in Washington’s views is becoming a potential arena for military operations.

These military-strategic doctrines, according to Washington are as reactions to the “growing threat” in space stemming from Russia and China.

The Pentagon will develop four priority areas of space activities to achieve the stated goals while countering the identified threats, potentials and challenges: (1) ensuring integrated military dominance in space; (2) the integration of military space power into national, joint and combined combat operations; (3) the formation of a strategic environment in the interests of the United States, as well as (4) the development of cooperation in outer space with allies, partners, the military-industrial complex and other ministries and departments of the United States.

The space strategy and policy of the current American administration led by President Joseph Biden is not much different from the space line followed by President Donald Trump.

After Joseph Biden took office as president in January this year, the United States continued to develop several types of space strike weapons, including in accordance with twelve programs for the use of outer space for military purposes, when six of them provide for the creation of various types of such systems, and on the basis of six others that will control for the orbital space grouping on the ground.

The Pentagon’s intelligence and information assets in space continue to be updated in full, as well as the financing of military space programs. For the fiscal year 2021, allocations for these purposes are set at $15.5 billion.

Some pro-Western Russian experts are in favor of developing some compromise proposals with the U.S. side on military space issues on the grounds that the United States is not ready to negotiate on military space issues. Such ideas pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation, if accepted.

And here’s why.

Various actions carried out so far by Washington on the militarization and weaponization of outer space indicate that the current American military and political leadership does not consider space to be the universal heritage of mankind, for the regulation of activities in which, obviously, agreed international legal norms and rules of responsible behavior are to be adopted.

The United States has long seen a diametrically opposite perspective – the transformation of outer space into a zone of active hostilities.

In fact, the United States has already created an enlarged Space Force with ambitious offensive tasks.

At the same time, such force relies on the active-offensive doctrine of deterring any potential adversaries in outer space, borrowed from the American strategy of nuclear deterrence, which provides for the first preventive and preemptive nuclear strike.

If in 2012 Washington announced the creation of the “Chicago triad” – a combined combat mechanism in the form of a mix of nuclear missiles, anti-missile components and conventional strike weapons, then it is quite obvious that the United States is purposefully creating a multi-component “quattro” strike assets, when another essential military tool is added to the “Chicago triad” – that is space strike weapons.

It is obvious that during official consultations with the United States on the issues of strengthening strategic stability, it is impossible to ignore all factors and described circumstances that are related to outer space. It is necessary to avoid a selective, that is, a separate approach to solving the multifaceted problem of arms control – while downsizing one type of weapons, but giving a boost to the development  of other types of arms, that, at the initiative of the American side, is still in a deadlocked position.

November 26, 2021 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »