Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Scholz won’t congratulate Putin on election victory – Berlin

RT | March 18, 2024

The Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz will not send a message of congratulations to Russian President Vladimir Putin on his re-election victory, which Berlin has branded as “undemocratic,” government spokeswoman Christiane Hoffmann told a media briefing on Monday.

Putin won the ballot by a wide margin, receiving 87% of the votes, according to the Russian Central Election Commission. This year’s vote also saw the highest turnout in Russia’s modern history, which surpassed 74%.

Hoffmann claimed that the vote was not democratic and “no real opposing candidates were allowed.” She went so far as to brand Russia a “dictatorship” ruled “in an authoritarian manner” by Putin, and added that Scholz shares such an assessment.

Russia’s election saw four candidates present on the ballot. Apart from Putin, who ran as an independent with support from three political parties, all other candidates were nominated by major parliamentary opposition parties: the left-wing Communist Party of Russia, the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR) and the New People Party, which entered the State Duma in 2021.

Berlin decried an alleged “climate of intimidation” and a lack of “freedom of expression” in Russia, as it justified Scholz’s decision not to congratulate Putin on his landslide victory.

“We see this so-called election in Russia last weekend as neither free nor fair,” Hoffmann said, in a statement that was similar to one earlier offered by the US.

She called it “extremely problematic” that votes were also held in the four former Ukrainian territories – the two Donbass republics as well the Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions – which joined Russia following a series of referendums in autumn 2022 that Kiev and its Western backers have not recognized.

The Russian national election of 2024 prompted a flurry of critical statements in the West, which were dismissed by Moscow as expected but irrelevant. “This is not an opinion for us to heed,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists on Monday, referring to remarks made by Washington and other Western nations.

Earlier, Putin himself responded to Western criticism of the election results, calling them “predictable,” considering that those nations “are fighting against us, including with arms,” referring to the West’s constant stream of weapons deliveries to Ukraine.

March 18, 2024 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | | 2 Comments

Gaza Genocide Exposes Fraud of U.S.-led NATO’s Humanitarian Wars

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 17, 2024

Twenty-five years ago, the United States and the NATO military alliance launched an illegal war on former Yugoslavia.

It was a watershed event that led to a series of US-led NATO wars around the world over the next quarter century until today – all on the basis of some lofty principle about “defending” human rights or democracy.

In the former Yugoslavia, the 10-week aerial bombing campaign that began on March 24, 1999, caused hundreds of civilian deaths and destroyed the infrastructure of what was then a well-developed socialist country.

The rationale for the military intervention was declared to be a “humanitarian” one – allegedly to protect civilians in a civil war.

International lawyer and author Dan Kovalik says that the “humanitarian” pretext for the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was a sham.

The real objective, he says, was for the United States and its Western imperialist partners to create a precedent for systematically violating international law.

Kovalik is the author of the book ‘No More War: How the West Violates International Law by Using Humanitarian Intervention to Advance Economic and Strategic Interests’.

The NATO bombing of former Yugoslavia did not have legal authorization from the United Nations Security Council. It was a unilateral action more accurately defined as an illegal aggression – a war crime.

Kovalik notes that the historical period was a crucial one. During the 1990s, the United States was reconfiguring its imperial power in the post-Cold War era (1945-90). With the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, Washington was proclaimed to be the sole superpower. He says that the United States wanted to establish its prerogative in the post-Cold War world of using its military power and that of its NATO partners wherever and whenever it needed for the purpose of advancing its strategic interests.

The US-led aggression against Yugoslavia was thus an opening to a new world order for American and NATO military power to be used at will in total disregard of international law and the United Nations Charter that had been drawn up in 1945 to prevent the kind of aggression that Nazi Germany had waged.

In short, it was a reinvention of imperialism dressed in a cloak of virtue.

Following Yugoslavia, which was balkanized as a result of the NATO aggression, the United States and its military partners embarked on a 25-year orgy of illegal wars and covert interventions. Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and other places in the Middle East and Africa. Endless wars costing the Western public trillions of dollars and fomenting a litany of socio-economic problems from mass migration to mass poverty – all of these wars have been engaged in by successive US presidents, including Democrat incumbent Joe Biden and his Republican rival Donald Trump.

The current war in Ukraine – the biggest since World War Two – can be attributed to NATO’s relentless expansion towards Russia’s borders over the past 25 years. Washington and its Western partners claim to be defending democracy, human rights and international law in Ukraine against alleged Russian aggression. This Western narrative ignores the reality that the US and its NATO partners have militarized a NeoNazi regime in Ukraine for at least eight years before the current conflict erupted on February 24, 2022.

Daniel Kovalik concludes with a devastating argument: if the United States and its NATO allies are so concerned by humanitarian principles and democracy then why are they not intervening to stop the genocide in Gaza against Palestinians? Over 30,000 people – mainly women and children – have been killed by Israeli military offensive. Far from intervening to protect civilians from Israeli slaughter and starvation, the United States and its NATO partners are fully complicit in supporting Israeli war crimes – militarily, politically and diplomatically.

Western “humanitarian intervention” so readily embarked on elsewhere is exposed as a grotesque fraud to cover for US imperialist crimes.

March 18, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | 1 Comment

Stop sending weapons to Ukraine: Russian diplomat responds to Macron’s ceasefire plan

TASS | March 17, 2024

MOSCOW – French President Emmanuel Macron should stop sending weapons to Kiev and propose a ceasefire agreement to parties to the Middle East conflict, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told TASS.

Commenting on the latest initiative by the French leader who said he would ask Russia to observe a ceasefire in Ukraine during the Paris Olympics, the Russian diplomat said: “I come forward with a proposal in response to Macron’s: stop supplying weapons being used to kill [civilians] and also stop sponsoring terrorism.” “I also suggest that Macron come up with a similar proposal to the parties to the Middle East conflict. A lot probably depends on what France says there,” Zakharova maintained.

Earlier, Macron told an interviewer during a Ukrainian telethon that France will ask Russia to observe a ceasefire for the duration of the Olympic Games in Paris. When asked to comment on the potential participation of Russian athletes as neutrals, he said that, as the host country, France is sending a message of peace as it follows decisions made by the International Olympic Committee.

March 18, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

US ‘principal defendant’ for human rights abuse in world: Iran

Press TV – March 15, 2024

Iran has censured the United States’ use of human rights as an instrument, saying Washington is the main defendant of violations of rights in the world and in Israel’s months-long crimes against Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kan’ani made the statement in a post on his X social media account on Friday following a recent US-instructed report by the United Nations that accused the Islamic Republic of committing what it claimed to be “crimes against humanity” during foreign-backed riots in Iran in 2022.

The report came as the brutal war in the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank by the Israeli regime, which enjoys Washington’s untrammeled support, has lingered for more than five months with no end in sight.

“By preemptively activating their propaganda machine concerning human rights in Iran, American authorities will not be able to expunge the stain of oppression and the US complicity in the genocide and mass murders inflicted upon the oppressed Palestinian population in Gaza and the West Bank,” Kan’ani said.

“In the collective conscience of humanity and global public opinion, America stands as the principal defendant for the violation of various human rights and humanitarian laws, owing to its involvement in the provision of equipment and arms to the Zionist regime,” he added.

The spokesman also underlined that Washington’s move to airdrop humanitarian aid into Gaza would not compensate for its unflinching support to the occupying regime’s crimes in the besieged Palestinian territory.

“The ostentatious and hypocritical display by the United States regarding its endeavors to supply and deliver food to the Palestinians fails to mitigate the undeniable reality of its unwavering support for the war crimes committed by the Zionist regime,” Kan’ani said.

“The politicization and instrumentalization of human rights and international human rights mechanisms constitute an inherent aspect of American foreign policy reality.”

Since the start of Israel’s genocidal war following Operation al-Aqsa Storm by Gaza-based resistance movements on October 7, 2023, more than 31,300 Palestinians, including many women and children, have lost their lives.

The Israeli military offensive has left a trail of destruction in Gaza, leaving hospitals in ruins and displacing around half of its 2.4 million residents.

Tel Aviv has additionally enforced a comprehensive blockade on the territory, severing the supply of fuel, electricity, sustenance and water to the population of over two million Palestinians residing there.

March 15, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Amalek, Sudetenland, and Palestine

By Premysl Janyr | March 12, 2024

The curtain opened. In front of a dismayed world, a staging of genocide is taking place under the supervision, assistance and protection of the world hegemon.

No water, no food, no medicine, no fuel, no electricity! We are fighting the human beast. The whole nation is responsible, no one is innocent. Burn completely, no hope left. Destroy Gaza now! Now! Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 1948. Wipe them out, their families, their mothers and their children. These animals are no longer allowed to live.

It is Amalek, calling the Leader – a nation that stood in the way of the Jews during their emigration from Egypt. Now go and slay Amalek; like a sledgehammer you will destroy everything that belongs to him. You will not spare him, but you will kill man and woman, young man and infant, bull and sheep, camel and donkey, Jehovah commands King Samuel (1S 15,3). You will wipe out the memory of Amalek under heaven, do not forget it! (Deuteronomy 25:19)

This is the framework in which Israel’s campaign against Gaza begins in October. If we leave aside the immediate consequences – dead, human suffering, destroyed earth, the long-term consequence will be a fundamental break in the paradigms and clichés of the Western world. In their smug self-righteousness, Netanyahu and the Zionist politicians do not realize what a Pandora’s box they have opened.

Genocide

To avoid misunderstandings: genocide, according to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such:

  • killing members of such a group;
  • causing grievous bodily harm or mental disorder to members of such group;
  • the intentional placing of any group in such living conditions as to bring about its total or partial physical destruction;
  • measures aimed at preventing the birth of children in such a group;
  • forcibly transferring children from one group to another.

The International Court of Justice must review the evidence and hear the parties and witnesses before rendering and reasoning judgment. A non-participating observer does not have to wait. If he sees someone kill another, he doesn’t have to wait for an investigation, an accusation, an indictment, a retrial, witnesses, evidence, and a verdict to know that he is committing a crime.

At the same time, it must be remembered that the Convention was adopted in December 1948. Earlier cases may fulfill its factual essence, but – unlike the current one – they cannot be retroactively judged on its basis.

The term genocide is already terrifying because of its weight, most people – incorrectly – understand it in the spirit of the Old Testament as the complete extermination of the entire target group. However, this was never achieved – that is why the formulation was completely or partially destroyed. A somewhat milder synonym is ethnic cleansing , more accurately describing the goal: removing the target group from the given territory. By persuasion, coercion, terror, banishment, killing, whatever.

Historical examples and comparisons are provided. The first genocide of Palestinians – Nakba in Arabic (النكبة, catastrophe, despair) – took place after the declaration of the State of Israel in May 1948. Three quarters of a million Arabs expelled, 532 Arab towns and villages razed to the ground, an estimated 15,000 dead – also thanks to arms supplied by Czechoslovakia – is the trauma from which Palestinian identity is derived. It differs from the current genocide primarily in that it took place covertly. Israel has so far tried to cover up its tracks and denied that it ever happened. It is only now that they suddenly claim it as a model worthy of repetition and exceding.

In many ways, the genocide in Gaza resembles the post-war genocide of the Sudeten Germans: the size of the target group (2.3 or 3.2 million respectively), the intensity (around 25,000 dead in three months), the justification (revenge for an armed attack against the state, or for its destruction and occupation), collective punishment affecting mainly the innocent, rhetoric (Gallant: human beast, Beneš: human monster ), great power cover (USA, USSR), hidden personal motivation of the leaders (Netayahu’s avoidance of trial and prison, Beneš’s post-war presidency) , the intention of the booty (Palestinian land and natural gas fields, German possessions), the strategy (killing as a means of forcing them to leave) and the mass support of the population.

One difference is in the design. In the Czech case, the killing was not an officially announced program, but to a large extent the honest handiwork of ordinary citizens, so to speak. Two years later, it became the subject of an investigation. In the case of Gaza, the official program is officially announced and is carried out by a professional army killing industrially by the hundreds with bombs from above; honest manual labor is left only to the West Bank settlers. Another difference is in the outcome: Czechoslovakia was more successful in that Stalin secured the additional approval of the Potsdam Conference and the killing could end.

Genocide, however, primarily evokes reminiscences of the Nazi genocide of Jews, Gypsies and Slavs. It differs from the current one in several ways, not only in the monstrous number of victims.

Above all, it was perpetrated covertly and in secret, even shyly, in front of its own population. German politicians did not publicly shout out their targets, German soldiers did not boast of photos of torture and murder in the media, small children did not joyfully sing ” we will kill them all” on German radio , and there is no evidence that the Leader himself gave the order for it. Being shot or gassed was – if such a word can be used – more humane than the slow death of those buried under the rubble, from injuries, diseases and the unavailability of medical care, from starvation. The strategy was also the opposite: initially the Jews were forced to emigrate by coercion and repression, physical liquidation came only when there was nowhere else to go. It was only on the eastern front that it was justified by the fight against terrorists (guerrillas) and acquired a character similar to Gaza.

Most of all, the events in Gaza are reminiscent of the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto in the spring of 1943. Hundreds of thousands of Jews crowded into three square kilometers, in a hopeless situation, decided to fight desperately to the last man. They built a network of underground passages and bunkers, collected a meager arsenal of weapons, attacked police and SS units and forced them to retreat from the ghetto. A similarly brutal retaliation followed, artillery bombardment, flamethrowers, burning of houses block by block, flooding of underground passages, indiscriminate murder. Within a month, the ghetto was practically razed to the ground, 13,000 of its inhabitants perished and 50,000 of the survivors were deported to concentration camps.

The elimination of the inhabitants of Gaza by starvation may remind us of the Ukrainian Holodomor of 1932-33. However, it is wrongly labeled as genocide, there is a lack of definition of the target group and the intention of its destruction. Contrary to the Ukrainian narrative, it was not targeted against a specific ethnicity, and the motivation was not ethnic cleansing and looting, but the export of wheat despite a disastrous crop failure.

However, the most extensive genocide in history is the genocide of the indigenous population of both Americas. In South America in the 16th century is the spoils of gold and silver of Indian empires, in North America in the 19th century, territories of Indian tribes.

Gaza and Ukraine

If the war outcome of the Maidan putsch has already shaken many established clichés, after the massacres in Gaza there is practically nothing left of them.

Just a few months ago, the Russian annexation of Crimea and the Donbas republics was presented as the ultimate violation of international law, while the annexations – without referendums – of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, were generously overlooked. Today, in the face of undisguised expansionism and the intended annexation of all of Palestine, Israel’s borders have become the most pressing issue in international politics.

Just a few months ago, the Russian bombing of civilian infrastructure was considered a war crime – regardless of the fact that they were mostly targets of military importance and regardless of the war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan. Compared to the interruption of water, food, medicine, and energy supplies to the world’s largest concentration camp, with the systematic bombing of housing estates, hospitals, schools, universities, mosques, power plants, waterworks, and bakeries, this seems like the grossest hypocrisy today.

Just a few months ago, the media was filled with reports of Russian attacks against the civilian population – regardless of the fact that the ratio of thousands of civilian dead to hundreds of thousands of military dead is an unprecedented low in the history of world warfare. They disappeared. President Herzog abolished the distinction between civilians and terrorists. Compared to three times more civilian casualties in four months than in two years of the Ukrainian war, with hundreds of women and children killed per alleged terrorist, it is better not to mention Russian crimes.

The topic of the Ukrainian war did not disappear from the media only because of the failed offensive and the inevitable defeat of the West. First of all, they have run out of topics to disavow Russia – any accusations of any crimes only underline their multiple validity for Israel. There is a war between two armies going on in Ukraine, which at least the Russian side is conducting with maximum consideration for the civilian population. There is no war in Gaza, but a military massacre of the civilian population.

A certain similarity can be seen at most in the characters of Zelensky and Netanyahu. Both have dragged their country into wars they cannot win and whose outcome threatens the very existence of their states. Both of them have already been written off as politicians, and prolonging the war at any cost for them means postponing not only the end of their careers, but above all the post-war reckoning.

A similarity can also be seen in the likely future fate of both countries given their unwavering irrational belief in ultimate victory. For both, common sense would see ending the fighting, opening diplomatic negotiations, coming to terms with the loss of some territory, and accepting new neighbors – New Russia and Palestine – as the last realistic chance before destruction. For both of them, such an idea is absolutely unacceptable, so they have no choice but to enjoy their pride until the bitter end.

Gaza and Western Democracy

Just a few months ago, the cliché of the struggle of our Western democracy against a foreign (Russian) dictatorship, the struggle of Good against Evil, was prevalent. If we descend from the heights of transcendent metaphysics back to earth, we find that the highest imaginable Evil is crimes of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide. After several months of massacres, it is clear that their perpetrators are not strangers, but ourselves – whether Israel, which we rightfully count among ours, or the entire collective West, which actively supports or at least passively tolerates it. Even countries like the Czech Republic and Austria, which might be expected to show particular restraint in the matter of genocide, vote at the UN General Assembly – as the only EU members – to continue the genocide.

Just a few months ago, Israel was being touted as the only democracy in the Middle East—regardless of the fact that Western democracy itself had long since been emptied by oligarchy, totalitarian propaganda, censorship, and repression. If Ukrainian neo-Nazism could still be trivialized and silenced in the media, in the perspective of Israeli apartheid, the Nuremberg Laws, the denial of human rights and the right to life to the inferior non-Jewish population – Muslims as well as Christians – the content of the term Israeli democracy suddenly overlaps with Nazi ideology.

The West – this is Europe including its branches, the USA and Israel. Today it could be more aptly described as a caste of Israeli-American oligarchs who have colonized it for their own purposes. Unreserved support for Israeli genocide may appear to us as an incomprehensible anomaly in view of traditional European values ​​- the UN Charter and international law, peace and conflict prevention, resolution of disputes through action and not force, immutability of borders through violence, democracy, freedom, equality and human rights, social market economy , social security, elimination of poverty, human life as the highest value. It is as if in twenty years Europe has turned into the exact opposite of what shaped its identity at the end of the century and what citizens voted for in referenda.

Only in a longer-term perspective will we discover that the period of humanism in the second half of the 20th century was an anomaly, that it was only a temporary reaction to the trauma of two world wars. Since its birth in the 9th century, Europe has been the most aggressive, predatory and cruel civilization in history. The Inquisition, the Crusades, the Conquista, slavery, the East India Company, colonialism, pogroms, world wars, the Holocaust – these are not anomalies, they are a continuous European tradition. It was only from the 19th century that the European USA took over the initiative from it, and from the second half of the 20th century, the European Ashkenazis took over new territories and genocided their population.

Let’s also note that the conquests of previous empires were generally motivated by the expansion of the territory and its resources, including – or mainly – its inhabitants. After these, loyalty to the new ruler and tribute were required, but they were usually left with extensive autonomy. Violently subverting their social structures, religion, culture would be counterproductive – it would only reduce their economic contribution. Only the USA, Nazi Germany, Israel and (let’s not forget) Czechoslovakia are conquering exclusive Lebensraum for themselves , a living space , which, of course, must first be cleared of its current inhabitants .

For a Western reader, these remarks are probably heresy of the coarsest grain. Outside the circle of Western civilization – that is, in seven-eighths of the human world – this is the basic perspective in which the West is seen and judged. The genocide in Gaza and its Western support only confirms it. The continued clamor for democracyhuman rightsrule-based order can only further discredit the West. Respect and authority are gained by countries that are able to stand up to it and whose tradition is not burdened by conquests, colonialism and subversion, especially Russia, China, Iran.

Thus, Gaza gave another powerful impulse to the ongoing process of global polarization. In perspective, one can expect accelerated consolidation of the rising Global South in the new structures of BRICS+, SCO, EAEU and further decline in the influence, isolation and disintegration of the West. Desperate efforts following the example of Zelensky and Netanyahu, which cannot be avoided at all costs, can easily turn into a global nuclear conflict in Ukraine, the Middle East or the South China Sea.

Gaza and Israel

I still remember the enthusiasm and admiration for Israel at the time of the Six-Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973. With the Lebanon War and the massacre of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatil in 1982, sympathy began to quickly disappear – Israel must be like a rabid dog, declared Moshe Dayan, and so he began to appear. I remember the statement of an Israeli politician at the time after some other scandal in the sense that there will be an uproar about it for a few weeks and then it will be forgotten again. I think that’s how Israeli politicians have imagined it to this day. For a society whose thinkers have contributed a great deal to the knowledge of the human psyche, one can only marvel at such a level of ignorance.

It doesn’t work that way. The scream subsides, but the mental image is burdened with another negative emotion. They accumulate over a long period of time, even if they do not outwardly manifest themselves in shouting. The initial sympathy gradually turns into its opposite – we have all experienced such a process many times. Extremely negative events, such as an ongoing genocide, eliminate the remnants of latent sympathy for good.

Regardless of the current berserk mode of bloody unity, it is going on under the surface in Israel as well. The previous wave of resistance against Netanyahu’s attempt to introduce a dictatorship sensitized a critical view of one’s own history and its meaning. The campaign in Gaza pulled out of the hole of oblivion the circumstances of the establishment of the state, including the hitherto carefully concealed Nakba, terror, massacres such as Tantura, Deir Yassin and others. The process of coming to terms with its own history is just beginning in Israel, but the question is whether it will have enough opportunity and time to do so, whether the fanatical Deuteronomists, who understand the Torah literally as Jehovah’s order to kill others, will not expel all critical citizens from the land before the inventory.

It is said that states are maintained by the political forces by which and from which they were created, stated Masaryk. With a genocide that has no parallels in modern history in terms of its obviousness and cruelty, Israel has burned all bridges behind it. The return of the rabid dog to the international community is hardly imaginable. All that remains is to run forward: completing the purge in Gaza, extending it to the West Bank, eliminating Hezbollah and occupying Lebanon, attacking Iran.

But Israel does not have the means to do so. Even in the campaign in Gaza, it is completely dependent on weapons, ammunition, financial, intelligence and, in the future, military assistance from the USA and its veto in the Security Council.

But even the control of the US by the Israeli lobby is not a sustainable state. There, too, criticism of America’s participation in Israeli massacres is gaining unprecedented strength, not least in the Jewish community itself and the state administration. Nor can the US afford to become a permanently isolated outcast of the world, as the latest UN vote suggests. So far, American politicians are dependent on electoral votes, and they are rapidly polarizing under the reality of Gaza.

Despite the fact that the US is not even in a position to effectively intervene militarily in a volatile region without causing an uncontrollable explosion. An attack on Iran, in which the myopic sees its own perpetrator, would immediately result in a devastating storm on Israel and on forty American bases and the navy, caught in a regional trap, and the disruption of the vital oil trade by closing the Strait of Hormuz. A full invasion of Iran is hindered by the lack of financial, military and human resources, the reaction of the American population, Iran’s alliance with Russia and China, and practically zero chance of final victory.

The US can only watch helplessly at the tenacious resistance of Hamas, the binding of a large part of the IDF in the north by Hezbollah, the Houthi sanctions against Israeli shipping and even the attack – quite possibly under a false flag – on a base in Jordan with three dead. The toothless retaliatory bombing of Shiite terrorists is PR for the public and voters, but apart from the further consolidation of the Arab Axis of Resistance and the intensification of demands for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Syria, it has no real effect.

The future of Israel cannot be predicted. The only thing that is certain is that it will not exist in its current form for a long time. Several possible directions of development can only be imagined very broadly.

The first is the escalation that is currently looming: Israel will deliberately continue to drive Palestinians from Gaza into Egypt’s Sinai, domestic pressure will force Egypt to armed border protection, Hezbollah to intensify attacks from the north, Israel to attack Lebanon and other actors, including USA, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and various Muslim militias, to actively participate in the wider and regional conflict. Israel’s chances of surviving it are more than doubtful. Unless the fighting escalates into a devastating World War III, what is left of Israel will certainly be far from what it is today.

Another is what is referred to as the two-state solution: Israel within the 1967 borders and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. In addition to Israel’s radical rejection, which perhaps sufficient pressure from the world could eventually break, similar to South African apartheid in the 1980s, the biggest problem is the dense network of settlements built by the most fanatical Zionist extremists in the Palestinian territories. An attempt to subject them to Palestinian state jurisdiction would most likely lead to protracted civil war and Israeli-sponsored terrorism with the prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian war and again a latent escalation into a wider regional conflict.

The third option is Palestine/Israel from the river to the sea, i.e. the only state entity within the boundaries of the former British Mandate of Palestine. Paradoxically, the Palestinians and Benjamin Netanyahu subscribe to it, but with different ideas: Israel is Erez Israel, the only Jewish state gradually eliminating the share of its racially inferior fellow citizens. The Palestinian idea is a democratic state of equal citizens, where, of course, the Palestinian majority would have a decisive weight. If there is a real regional war, this is probably the most likely outcome.

The fourth possible variant is a gradual dampening of the current conflict without further major dramatic reversals, but not a return to  business as usual. The balance of power has irreversibly changed. Israel has lost both its nimbus of invincibility and the unconditional support of the West, which is also itself in a phase of decay. On the contrary, with its role as a common enemy, it consolidated the Islamic identity and self-confidence of Islam as, alongside the USA, China and Russia, another powerful pole in a multipolar world. Israel’s only chance of survival could be accommodation in the Islamic environment, but it has already burned all bridges for that.

Gaza and the Jews

Israel is a Jewish state.

If we were to take his self-declaration seriously, then the worst imaginable crimes against humanity up to genocide are committed by Jews. And if we were to follow the conclusions of its president, none of them is innocent.

I am afraid that many people already perceive it this way, not only in Islamic countries and in the Global South. As if Israel wanted to confirm all the centuries-old European anti-Jewish prejudices.

But it’s like all stereotypes: the differences within each group are greater than the differences between the groups. The most die-hard Zionists claim to be Jewish just as much as their staunchest opponents.

Jews are probably the most heterogeneous identity in the world. Those we meet in the West are generally Ashkenazi, culturally descended from Central Europeans who escaped Christianization by conversion to Judaism in the ninth century, much like the Iberian Sephardim, descended from those who escaped Islamization two hundred years earlier. The Jewish religion was chosen for the Turkic Khasars in the eighth century by King Bulan. The Jews – in the continuity of the ancient Hebrews – lived in part on the territory of Palestine even before the Ashkenazi invasion, in part merged with the Palestinian Arabs and in part lived in peace in the surrounding countries, mostly Islamic since the seventh century, from where they were forced to emigrate to Israel after 1948 as Mizrahim.

Over the centuries, however, they mixed with the local population and with Jews from other areas; the Central European Ashkenazis, for example, seamlessly follow the Eastern European Khazars. Seeing them as a biological race is misleading for several reasons. On the one hand, genetics has definitively disproved the idea of ​​race, and on the other hand, the derivation of biological origin in the horizons of millennia is a pure myth. Thousands of years ago, we each had one trillion ancestors. We are all multiple descendants of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Muhammad, Confucius, Genghis Khan, the ancestor of Bohemia and Charlemagne. What unites Jews of various origins, languages ​​and cultures is the mystique of their own uniqueness, the mystique of belonging to Jehovah’s chosen nation. Including secular Ashkenazim.

But not all Ashkenazim are Zionists. Zionism is the concept of the Jewish people formulated in 1896 by Theodor Herzel, demanding their own state in Argentina or Palestine. In the following year, the first Zionist Congress was held – incidentally, at the same time as the founding of the Czech National Social Party and the Bund, the party of the Russian Jewish proletariat, three concepts that authoritatively determined the following century. The Zionist colonization of Palestine begins especially after the adoption of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, in which Britain supports the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine – as a European enclave to control the Suez Canal.

It was clear from the beginning that the territory could only be acquired at the expense of its existing inhabitants. All the initial declarations about the peaceful coexistence of two equal nations – from Herzel to Žabotinsky – were hypocrisy in a situation where one group forcibly occupies the territory of another. Of course the native Arabs, Jews and Christians had to defend their land and property, of course the European colonization of Palestine – like all others – could only be accomplished by power, money, violence, weapons and terror.

Brutality, however, is nothing remarkable about the Ashkenazi colonization of Palestine, European colonizations from the New World through Africa to the Far East were similarly brutal. Its anachronism is remarkable. The European colonial system peaks at the end of the 19th century and ends no later than the Second World War, when the colonization of Palestine is just beginning. In addition to the British interest in controlling the Suez Canal, the main motive for European support is helplessness over hundreds of thousands of Jews freed from concentration camps, in which feelings of complicity for their suffering are mixed with resentment for their repatriation. Sacrificing the Palestinians as compensation for the victims of European genocide pushes the problem aside, away from Europe.

The status of victims of eternal anti-Semitismpogroms and the Holocaust, together with the trauma of European guilt, gives Israel and European Jews a de facto nimbus of exceptionalism – and impunity; it morally – and often legislatively – excludes any discussion and criticism a priori. Let us note its Ashkenazi origin: it is based on an exclusive European experience. There was no persecution of Jews (Gypsies, Gentiles, heretics, witches…) anywhere else, especially not in Islamic countries, nor elsewhere in Asia, America, or even in the European USA and Canada. And let’s add that the identity of the victim is always an aggressive identity.

Now the Ashkenazi Zionists are forcibly implanting their victim identity into the Islamic world, where Muslims, Jews and Christians have lived together in mutual respect and tolerance. With European arrogance, they also transfer their battle cry of eternal anti-Semitism to the Muslims who are resisting the occupation of their country, launch a hateful anti-Islamic campaign in the Christian West, and manipulate the US into military interventions against its Islamic rivals. It is a suicidal strategy: an alliance with Christian Europe, persecuting the Jews for millennia, against Islam, providing them with a safe home for millennia.

However, the genocide in Gaza is also shaking the European alliance and the protective walls of European historical myths and taboos. Never again holocaust! But which one, the one committed against the Jews, or the one committed by the Jews? The most powerful Ashkenazi weapon is losing its force after seventy years, on the contrary, a critical revision can be expected. In time, the criminalization of Holocaust denial will either have to be extended to genocide denial in general or be abandoned – after all, this is a question for historians and lawyers, not politicians.

Also, the impact of the second Ashkenazi weapon, anti-Semitism, suffered from inflationary use already before October 2023. However, it does not have much of a chance to convince that it is a worse crime than genocide. With Gaza, the question of what its users actually mean by Semitism becomes even more pressing. If he means robbery, terror, ethnic cleansing, mass murder and genocide, perhaps we are all anti-Semites.

Israel’s barbarism also re-examines the age-old problem of Jewish identity: what is it? Is it a biological race according to Torah, Halachah, Nuremberg Laws and Israeli Laws? Religion in the sense of Maimonides, Hasids, Haredim, Jews in Islamic countries and proselytes? Secular nationality according to Herzl, Weismann and the early Zionists? Cultural tradition – but which one, Saba Kadisha of Damascus, Moses Mendessohn of Germany, Ba’al Shem Tova of Poland? A caste superior to the rest of the world according to Ovad Yosef, Schlomo Aviner, Israel Ariel?

Since October, over half a million Jews who had somewhere to go have left Israel. This is almost as many as the number of Palestinians expelled during the Nakba of 1948. The outlook for others is all the more bleak because Israel has burned all the bridges behind it. There is nowhere left to go to.

March 12, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | 3 Comments

How NATO Helped Trigger the War in Ukraine and Then Did Nothing to Foil It

By Leo Ensel | In Depth News | January 18, 2024

Two years ago, in December 2021, Russia formulated its security interests in separate letters to NATO’s Secretary General Stoltenberg and to US President Biden in no uncertain terms. The West’s reaction: no response! There is much to suggest that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could have been prevented if the West had negotiated and ruled out the country’s membership of NATO, writes Dr Ensel.

OLDENBURG, Germany | 18 January 2024 (IDN) — Western reporting about the war in Ukraine has many remarkable blank spots about the events that led to the war. Hardly anybody in the West knows that Boris Yeltsin, who was otherwise very close to the West, threatened back in March 1997 the then US President Bill Clinton that if Ukraine joined NATO, it would cross a red line for Russia. This was at the time of NATO’s first eastward expansion and long before Vladimir Putin came to power. It shows that Western plans for NATO expansion into Ukraine dated back to the 1990’s and that Russia had vehemently opposed this for just as long.

The Minsk II agreement was, with the obvious acquiescence of the West, never implemented by the Ukrainian government. The constitutional reforms agreed on in Minsk to provide the Donetsk and Luhansk regions with a special status (like the South Tyrol solution) were ignored by the end of 2015. At the end of 2022, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed what ‘evil tongues’ had long suspected: The two Minsk Agreements were only to gain time to get the Ukrainian army in shape. Later, France’s former President François Hollande and Ukraine’s former President Petro Poroshenko confirmed this.

It is also little known in the West that in 2021—long before the Russian invasion—Ukraine intensified its attacks against rebel positions in Donetsk with Turkish Bayraktar TB2 combat drones that had “proven their worth in the Karabakh War 2020”. It was also negotiating with Turkey a license to produce them in Ukraine.

Virtually unknown among the Western public is also the fact that since mid-1990, the US armed forces conducted annual military manoeuvres with Ukrainian troops inside the territory of western Ukraine under the code name “Rapid Trident” (formerly named “Peace Shield”). The last US-Ukrainian manoeuvres took place in September -October 2021, together with forces from Bulgaria, Canada, Georgia, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Jordan, Moldova, Pakistan, and Poland. Since 1997, US naval manoeuvres code-named “Sea Breeze” have regularly taken place off the coast of Ukraine in the Black Sea. In the summer of 2021, these naval manoeuvres involved naval forces from 32 countries.

What would have been the reaction of the West if Russia, together with soldiers from Belarus, Serbia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and other countries, had conducted regular military exercises in Mexico and held annual naval maneuvers in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Florida?

Who knows that on March 24, 2021—exactly eleven months before the Russian invasion—Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed Decree No. 117 for a “Strategy for the de-occupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol”? It aimed to prepare all necessary military measures to “end the temporary occupation” of Crimea and the Donbas.

On August 30, 2021, the USA and Ukraine signed a treaty on military cooperation and, on November 10, 2021, concluded a treaty on “Strategic Partnership”. This treaty stated, among other things: “The United States intends to support Ukraine’s efforts to counter Russia’s armed aggression, including through the maintenance of sanctions and the application of other relevant measures, pending the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders.” Had the Ukraine, with US encouragement, prepared for war just months before Russia attacked?

And this was not all:

All this took place on the background of other activities that Russia must have seen as existential threats to its security. In 1999 and 2004, NATO expansion brought it directly to the Russian border when 14 Eastern European countries joined the military organization.

By 2001, the US Government under Bush Jr. began dismantling virtually all arms reduction treaties and confidence-building measures with Russia: In 2001, it cancelled the A-CFE Agreement on the Disarmament of Armed Forces and Weapons Systems in Europe and the ABM Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems; in 2019, it allowed the phasing out of INF Treaty prohibiting the production and deployment of land-based missiles and cruise missiles with a range of between 500 and 5.500 kilometres and in 2020 it cancelled the Open Skies Treaty, which was intended to create a ‘glasnost’ for both sides in the sense of confidence-building measures through overflight rights. In 2023, Russia responded by suspending the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last remaining treaty limiting U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals. The US had never ratified the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

NATO conducted its own wars of aggression, ignoring the UN Charter. In 1999, it attacked illegally the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and was forced to hand control of Kosovo, formally an autonomous province of Yugoslavia, to NATO forces. In 2003, the US attacked Iraq under false pretext and without a UN mandate. In 2011, it attacked Libya, also under false pretext, ignoring the limitations set in the UN mandate. In a highly “creative” interpretation of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations, it began to station NATO troops in countries bordering Russia in 2016. In 2016, the US Aegis Ashore Site became operational in Romania, and in 2023, the US Aegis Ashore Site in Poland became operational. They are all directed against Russia and designed to undermine Russia’s ability to respond to any nuclear attack.

What Russia proposed to NATO and the USA…

On December 17, 2021, Russia sent NATO and the USA a draft treaty to establish legally binding security guarantees for both sides. Are the proposals so absurd and unrealistic as claimed by the US and other NATO states? Was the West justified in ignoring Russia’s security concerns and in taking the position that “Ukraine’s NATO membership is not up for negotiations”? Had NATO fulfilled its obligation under the UN Charter to negotiate any conflict to find a diplomatic solution as and when it arises to prevent war?

In summary, the draft treaty addressed to NATO contained the following proposals:

  • Both sides should confirm not to regard each other as adversaries;
  • Return to the principles of “equal and indivisible security” (Paris Charter);
  • Renunciation of the use and threat of force;
  • Refraining from creating situations that one side could regard as a threat to its national security;
  • Restraint in military planning and exercises to avoid “dangerous brinkmanship”, especially in the Baltic Sea region and in the Black Sea;
  • Revitalization of the NATO-Russia Council and other bilateral and multilateral discussion formats;
  • Transparency in military exercises and manoeuvres;
  • Establishment of hotlines for emergency contacts (revitalization of the “red telephone”);
  • Withdrawal of Western armed forces and weapons systems to the level prior to NATO’s first eastward expansion;
  • No deployment of land-based short- and medium-range missiles in areas from which they could attack the territory of the other party;
  • No further expansion of NATO (in particular not to include Ukraine);
  • NATO to refrain from military activities on the territory of Ukraine and other states in Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia;
  • Establishment of a largely demilitarized corridor between NATO and Russia.

In summary, the draft treaty addressed to the USA also contained the following proposals:

  • Reaffirmation of the declaration that nuclear war can have no victor and that every effort must be made to avert this danger;
  • Renunciation of measures aimed at preparing for war against the other side on the territory of third countries;
  • Renunciation by the USA of establishing military bases and bilateral military cooperation in and with the states of the post-Soviet space that are not NATO members;
  • Both sides refrain from stationing armed forces and weapons systems outside their territories, which the other side might regard as a threat to its national security;
  • Refraining from flights of heavy bombers and the presence of surface combatants in regions from which they could strike targets in the territory of the other Party;
  • Refraining from stationing nuclear weapons outside its own territory and returning such weapons systems, and destroying the corresponding infrastructure to third countries;
  • There is no training of personnel in the use of nuclear weapons and no military exercises for their use in countries that do not possess them.

As always, the devil is in the details, and all proposals would have required intensive scrutiny by security policy and diplomatic experts. Moreover, the ‘package demands’ and the ultimate tone of the two letters were highly undiplomatic. Nonetheless, NATO and the USA should have taken the two proposed draft agreements seriously as a clear formulation of Russian security interests, examined them carefully and used them as a basis for negotiations aimed at significantly improving the security situation of all signatory states by finding a negotiated solution to the security concerns of Russia and Ukraine. This would have probably prevented the war, saved the lives and health of hundreds of thousands of mostly young men, and left Ukraine as a sovereign state intact.

… and how NATO responded

On January 7, 2022, an extraordinary digital conference call among all 30 NATO foreign ministers took place to work out a common NATO position on how to react to the Russian proposals. NATO’s response was disappointing: They decided not to negotiate any of the core issues raised by Russia.

At the subsequent press conference, Secretary General Stoltenberg—like US President Biden later—responded in the usual fashion: NATO would continue to support Ukraine and Georgia; and that every country, regardless of its size and the concern of its neighbours, had the right to choose its own alliances. However, by claiming that every member of the OSCE, regardless of its neighbours, has the right to become a NATO member, Stoltenberg and Biden contradicted the spirit of the 1990 OSCE “Charter of Paris” for a New Europe and the Istanbul Document of the 1999 OSCE Summit with its stated principles: “Each participating State has an equal right to security… They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”

Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, the former and well-informed ARD correspondent in Moscow, responding to such a claim, said the necessary things about the alleged general right to NATO membership: “All states have the right to apply to NATO for membership. But NATO has every right in the world to reject applicants if overriding political considerations speak against it!”

Adding further to the tensions, Stoltenberg took this opportunity to call on Finland and Sweden to join NATO blatantly—“the partners with whom we are working more and more closely. NATO’s door remains open!”

Six weeks later, Russia launched its military intervention into Ukraine.


Dr. Leo Ensel (“Look at the other side!”) is a conflict researcher and intercultural trainer focusing on the post-Soviet space and Central/Eastern Europe. He has published about “Fear and Nuclear Armament”, the social psychology of German reunification and studies on images of Germany in the post-Soviet space. In the new West-East conflict, his main concern is overcoming false narratives, de-escalation and the reconstruction of trust. The author attaches great importance to his independence. He feels exclusively committed to the topics mentioned and not to any national narrative.

March 10, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Fearful Electioneering Turbo Charges Western Warmongering

Strategic Culture Foundation | March 8, 2024

Western states are facing an acute political crisis whereby their established governing parties and leaders are fighting for survival amid a grave loss in legitimacy in the eyes of their electorates.

In the United States, incumbent President Joe Biden is vying for reelection in November with historically lowest poll numbers ever for an occupant of the White House.

Meanwhile, across the European Union, governing parties and leaders are braced for a drubbing from parliamentary elections in June.

The roots of this unprecedented loss of legitimacy among Western political establishments are manifold. But surely one cause is the rank hypocrisy of Western leaders that has now been laid bare. How can political figures expect to have any moral authority when they are seen to be inveterate liars and shamelessly corrupt?

Western governments and their servile media lecture about “democracy”, “human rights” and upholding “law and order”. They claim to be motivated by such principles in their support of Ukraine against alleged Russian aggression. Yet these same governments are complicit in the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza through their unwavering support for the Israeli regime.

Western leaders have been fatally exposed and compromised by the conflict in Ukraine and Gaza. The contradiction is terminal.

That’s not just because of the blatant double standards and duplicity. Western voters are increasingly disgusted by the relentless financial and military support funneled into Ukraine to prop up a scamming regime comprised of NeoNazi ideologues. Under Joe Biden and the incumbent European politicians, the West has flooded Ukraine with weapons and hundreds of billions of dollars in what is the biggest war racket ever.

This is while Western populations, workers, farmers, and businesses are hard-pressed with numerous social and economic burdens.

Western governing parties are rightly seen as elitist and serving powerful minority oligarchic interests such as the military-industrial-corporate-financial nexus. Their declared vows about democracy are a contemptible joke.

The war in Ukraine is increasingly understood by voters to be a disastrous proxy war of choice that was pushed by U.S. and Western imperial objectives to confront Russia.

Despite the squandering of public money to propagate the war, the U.S.-led NATO axis has lost its “great game”. The proxy war has devastated Ukraine, causing up to 500,000 military deaths in two years, as well as destabilizing the rest of Europe from increased migration, fiscal impact, deindustrialization, and the shattering of agricultural industries.

Western populations are furious with their political leaders for having inflicted such chaos and waste of resources – as well as wantonly provoking tensions in international relations with Russia. Western politicians have pushed the world to the brink of an all-out war between nuclear powers. All this crazed folly is based on utter lies and deception – as the horror of Gaza and Western complicity illustrates.

In this cauldron of electoral revolt, Western political leaders are only digging a deeper hole for their eventual collapse.

American President Joe Biden in his State of the Union address this week made a disingenuous pitch to voters. He portrayed the world as facing an existential crisis from Russian “tyranny” and simultaneously claimed the fate of US democracy was under threat from his election rival Donald Trump.

In a dangerous and desperate move, Biden is conflating Trump with alleged Russian aggression. The Democrat president is fighting for political survival against Republican presumptive nominee Trump primarily because Biden is so deeply unpopular among American citizens. To boost his election prospects, Biden is making out that the country is facing an “inflection point” that requires rejection of Trump because he is “bowing down” to Russia.

Trump and many within the Republican Party are opposed to continuing the proxy war in Ukraine, recognizing that it is futile.

Biden and the Democrats, who are more aligned with the U.S. foreign policy establishment, are therefore trying to make the election about an existential “defense of world democracy and peace”. Biden claimed in his State of the Union address that if the U.S. does not supply Ukraine with another $60 billion more in military aid then Russia will overrun the rest of Europe. Biden even invoked the memory of Roosevelt supposedly facing down Nazi Germany in 1941.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the same warmongering high-stakes ruse is being pushed by French President Emmanuel Macron. Macron is calling for the deployment of NATO ground troops in Ukraine to prevent a Russian victory and an alleged threat to the rest of Europe.

The French head of state has become almost hysterical in recent weeks with war talk. He told other French political leaders this week that there would be “no limits” to France’s support for Ukraine against Russia.

What’s lying behind Macron’s belligerent rhetoric are his fears of political defeat from opposition parties in the forthcoming EU parliamentary elections. It is not just Macron who is anxious. All incumbent European leaders are dreading an expected widespread revolt by the electorate.

That is why the French president and his ruling-class ilk like European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz are seeking to dominate the public narrative with war talk and the alleged danger of Russian expansionism.

The irony is that the more the Western establishments pursue militarism and war in Ukraine the worse their states become from economic mismanagement and the more their legitimacy sinks into the gutter. They are seen more and more as a warmongering clique that has not a shred of ethical concern because of their reckless warmongering in Ukraine and their despicable complicity in the genocide in Gaza.

Elections in Western states are over-rated. As the saying goes, if voting changed anything, it would have been banned years ago. The array of current opposition figures and parties facing incumbents is not going to deliver any solutions to the endemic problems of Western systemic failure. Nevertheless, the forthcoming U.S. presidential election and the European parliamentary ballots are shaping up to deliver grievous blows of repudiation to the political establishments.

To offset the political doomsday, charlatan Western leaders like Biden, Macron, Scholz, and Von der Leyen are doing their last-ditch best to talk up war with Russia and the “threat to democracy” as a way to burnish their electioneering efforts. But such cynicism is not turbocharging their prospects. It will backfire.

The U.S.-led NATO proxy war in Ukraine is facing a historic debacle from defeat. But that makes the desperate reaction by Western incumbents scurrying for political survival a dangerous time in the next few months.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

March 9, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What the Western Press Didn’t Say About the Leaked Luftwaffe Conversation

By Eduardo Vasco | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 8, 2024

On March 1, the editor-in-chief of the Rossiya Segodnya group, journalist Margarita Simonyan, revealed, on her Telegram channel, a 38-minute audio in which officers from the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) discussed the possibility of sending missiles long-range Taurus to Ukraine and whether they would be able to reach the Crimean bridge in the Kerch Strait, which connects the peninsula to the mainland and is Russian territory.

The Russian press, naturally, made much of the revelation. This forced the mainstream Western media – especially German ones – to report the leak. But whoever thought that a miracle would happen, that is, that the Western press would finally raise the issue of NATO’s military threats against Russia… well, those people are simply very naive.

The Western mass media, as always, tried to manipulate the news and hide the main issue.

The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, The Guardian, Die Welt and Der Spiegel published 39 articles on the topic on their respective websites between the time the news was revealed and the evening of March 6th (when I write these lines).

The two North American newspapers did not want to highlight the matter. The Post published two reports and the Times only one. The three expressed concern about the fragility of German intelligence security systems in the face of Russian espionage.

The Europeans, as has been the case for some time, carried much more propaganda against Russia. The BBC published four articles, all referring to the failure to protect Luftwaffe communications. The Guardian published five articles. The majority warns of the Germans’ failure and treats the Russians as great, threatening villains. However, it is necessary to make an honorable mention of Simon Jenkins’ column, the only one who was allowed to say that the leaked conversations demonstrate that NATO is threatening Russia with an escalation in the conflict.

As we all know, this drop of water in the middle of the ocean has no chance of counterbalancing the flood of war propaganda and fake news from the British press against Russia. Newspaper owners only allow freedom of expression when it is harmless – and try to isolate minimally independent opinions.

Now let’s talk about German newspaper coverage. Die Welt published 18 pieces about the leak scandal, and treated it as such. Of course, the main reason for the scandal was – for German war propagandists – the interception and dissemination of the conversation, not its content.

The entire reportage of Die Welt revolves around failures in the security system of the German armed forces and Russian espionage. The possibility of Olaf Scholz sending the Taurus to Zelensky is briefly discussed and it is even stated that Germany is putting its Western allies in danger by allowing the interception of conversations that may mention confidential and compromising information – such as the participation of British soldiers in Ukraine, as mentioned in the conversation in question.

A single Die Welt report presents a “dissident” opinion, which is not “Russian propaganda”: the brief speech of a member of the AfD – who, however, is branded a Russian agent by the German state and its agents, such as the press.

The article signed by Pavel Lokshin has the following title: “Kremlin is using Taurus leaks to threaten war against Germany”. Of course, it was the Russians who considered blowing up a bridge in German territory, right?

In turn, Der Spiegel, in its nine articles on the case, reproduces the same speech as Die Welt about the failures in German security and the danger of Russian espionage. It also disqualifies the Kremlin’s claims that the conversation is clear proof of NATO’s direct involvement in the war in Ukraine and how much this threatens Russian national security.

Christina Hebel’s analysis is the only piece in these two German outlets that takes the accusations of the Russian government and German involvement in the war more seriously, but it would be an exaggeration to say that this publication would be in the sphere of journalism.

In short, the coverage of these newspapers – and the coverage of other mass media outlets in the West is no different – is absolutely biased and manipulated. In fact, as always happens, they reverse roles: Germany, which threatened to blow up a bridge in Russia, is the victim, while Russia is the villain!

If at least one of these newspapers really were a journalistic tool, and not a propaganda tool, it should publish an article with a title like “German officers considered blowing up bridge in Russia” or “Audios reveal discussion of attack on Russia with German weapons”.

After all, which is more serious: the leak of the audio by Russian intelligence or the discussion among senior German officials about a military attack on Russia? No honest person would choose the first option. But we are not dealing with honest people when we talk about “journalism” in Europe and the United States.

I can’t help but wonder: what if it were the other way around? What if a conversation between Russian officials discussing the explosion of a bridge in Germany had been revealed? Would Western press coverage also treat the leak as something more serious than threats of military attack?

Of course not! If it were Russia considering attacking Germany, there would not be 39 articles in these vehicles, but rather 3,900. Russia would be portrayed as a threat to human civilization (more so than it is portrayed today), chaos would be wreaked in German and Western society, and the drums of war against Russia would be beaten at the top of their lungs. Meetings would be urgently called at the UN Security Council, unilateral sanctions would increase absurdly, all the lackey governments of the USA and the European Union would speak out publicly condemning Vladimir Putin’s madness.

They are real hypocrites. Against Russia, anything goes.

And, although the majority of these media outlets are private, they all act as government bodies, under the strict control of their respective States, as true spokespeople for those in power. But Russia is the one who controls the press, Russia is the one spreading propaganda and Russia is the one disinforming, right?

The leaked audio proves that the war in Ukraine is not a war between Russia and Ukraine, but rather a war between Russia and NATO. The Western press strengthens this claim by propagandizing war against Russia and encouraging attacks against Russia.

The press, according to Western discourse, would be a protector of the public interest against the discretion of those in power. That’s idle talk. The press, in fact, even private companies, are tools of these same rulers to control and oppress the governed.

A growing number of Germans oppose the shipment of weapons to Ukraine and Germany’s participation in a war against Russia, but they are systematically deceived and betrayed by their government and the mass media.

March 9, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , | 1 Comment

The ICC: A Tool of Western Aggression

By Christopher Black – New Eastern Outlook – 09.03.2024 

The new charges made by the International Criminal Court against two Russian military officers, Sergey Kobylash, commander of the Russian Aerospace Forces’ Long-Range Aviation, and Russian Black Sea Fleet Commander Viktor Sokolov, reinforces the role of the ICC as a tool of Western propaganda and aggression and makes a mockery of its claimed role as an international court.

Mr. Khan, the latest iteration of ICC prosecutor, is a British lawyer who apparently never learned about the role of justice when he attended law school. His March 5th statement claims that the ICC has jurisdiction over Ukraine and Russia and that the officers charged directed attacks on civilian infrastructure, all of which is false. His political bias is established with the following statement,

“In our application for these warrants, my Office again underlined that these acts were carried out in the context of the acts of aggression committed by Russian military forces against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, which began in 2014.”

That statement is a bald-faced lie. It was not Russia that committed aggression against Ukraine in 2014. It was the United States, Britain, Canada, Germany, France and the other NATO allies who committed aggression against Ukraine and its people by staging a coup d’état in 2014; overthrowing the elected government and installing in its place a NATO puppet regime riddled with Nazis. That alone should shock the world. Yet in the West, nothing is said about it.  Many do not even know it took place. The facts have been suppressed and distorted by the propaganda they concocted to cover their crime of aggression, so they have labelled the brave resistance to the NATO-Nazi coup by the citizens of Ukraine located in the eastern provinces, as “Russian” aggression. Only a charlatan, having regard of all the facts, could come to that conclusion. It is the war begun by the Kiev regime against the Ukrainian people that Russia was finally forced to step in order to stop it.

But Mr. Khan seems undismayed that he will be labelled a charlatan, since this is the second set of charges he has filed against Russians, the first set being against President Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, Russian Ombudswoman for Children’s Rights, some months ago.

The rapidity with which Mr. Khan has acted against Russia stands in stark contrast to the complete refusal by the ICC to lay charges against Israeli leaders and military officers for the genocide they are committing against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, despite the fact on November 17, 2023 Mr. Khan, on receipt of referrals from South Africa and other states that Israel was committing war crimes, and crimes against humanity in the Occupied territories, as far back as 2006, stated that his office was investigating the matter. Yet, despite the International Court of Justice ruling that there is plausible evidence that Israel is committing genocide, despite the referrals from other nation states since then, as well as many individual complaints by world citizens and groups demanding charges be laid, he has done absolutely nothing. In effect, by his refusal to charge Israel leaders and officials, he aids and abets their actions by granting them immunity from prosecution.

Yet, in the case of Russia, over which the ICC has no jurisdiction, he acts with the utmost speed, ever ready to please his masters in the West, who need something, anything to pull the wool over the eyes of their citizens in the face of the great defeat they are suffering in their war against Russia in Ukraine. He is always ready to oblige them.

The fundamental problem of the ICC is that it is not a world court. It only claims to be, while representing the interests of the nations that promoted it, even the USA, which refuses to subject its citizens to its jurisdiction. It is a “court” to be used for western interests, no other. It was not created by a world government. It was created by a treaty drafted by representatives of a group of nations referred to as the Assembly of States Parties. The process of drafting the treaty was long and complex; however, it is necessary to point out that it is recognised that no single nation could purport to create such a court claiming to have international jurisdiction, and what a single nation cannot do, no group of nations, however composed, has the authority to create such an entity either.

The claim of the ICC to universal jurisdiction is a consequence of its ability to assume jurisdiction even in matters concerning individuals who are citizens of nation states that are not parties to the treaty. We have seen this with the charges laid against Russians for crimes allegedly committed in Ukraine. Neither Russia nor Ukraine is a Party to the Treaty of Rome, and therefore the ICC has no jurisdiction over the citizens of either state. However, the Ukrainian government, established by the NATO coup-d’état of 2014, invoked the Acceptance of Jurisdiction clause in the ICC Statute to afford the ICC with jurisdiction over Russia. Article 12 of the Statute states,

“Article 12

Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction

3. If the acceptance of a State, which is not a Party to this Statute, is required under paragraph 2, that State may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question. The accepting State shall cooperate with the Court without any delay or exception in accordance with Part 9.”

This has two effects. Firstly, the phrase “crime in question” means that, in the case of Ukraine, for example, the ICC accepted a letter from the regime installed by the coup-d’état, granting the ICC limited jurisdiction-only over the alleged crime that was referred to the ICC by Ukraine. The crimes of Ukraine in the conflict, committed for ten years against the peoples of the Donbass and against civilians in Russia, are conveniently ignored. The Kiev regime states the ICC has no jurisdiction to consider them, and the ICC accepts this farce.

The result of accepting a letter of limited jurisdiction, that is a letter purporting to grant jurisdiction to the ICC over Russian “crimes,” while refusing to grant the ICC jurisdiction over Ukrainian crimes, is the selective prosecution of citizens of one state while granting immunity from prosecution of the other state. This is a legal and moral absurdity. The very idea of justice, in the sense of equality before the law, is negated, but more, it affords the Ukrainian regime an immunity from prosecution which provides encouragement to commit further crimes of its own on its claimed territories and in Russia. Once again, as in the Israeli case, we see that the ICC is acting as an enabler of war crimes instead of bringing to justice those committing them.

On May 21, 2023, the Russians charged the prosecutor and judges of the ICC for crimes involved in the issuance of the ICC warrants against Russians. The Russian Investigative Committee stated that,

“The ICC prosecutor is charged under part 2 of article 299, part 1 of article 30, and part of article 360 of the Russian Criminal Court (criminal prosecution of a person known to be innocent, as well as preparation for an attack on a representative of a foreign state enjoying international protection in order to complicate international relations). The judge is charged under part 2 of article 301, part 1 of article 30, and part 2 of article 360 of the Russian Criminal Court (knowingly illegal detention and preparation for an attack on a representative of a foreign state enjoying international protection in order to complicate international relations).”

“Both have been put on a wanted list.”

We can expect further charges to be laid against Mr. Khan and the judges concerned.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events.

March 9, 2024 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , | 1 Comment

The special military operation, Avdeyevka, and Gaza

By Yuriy Zinin – New Eastern Outlook – 09.03.2024 

The name Avdeyevka, which is known to few in the Arab world, has featured prominently in the Middle Eastern media in recent weeks. Media commentators have examined the battle to liberate this city, its significance, and discussed the opinions of political analysts and observers on the future course of military operations in the conflict, including its international impact.

A number of military observers quoted in the media have referred to this event as “a turning point in the course of the war,” similar in significance to the conquest of Bakhmut by Russian forces last year, with both cities being of similar strategic and symbolic value.

For example, Rizk Al-Hawalda, a retired brigadier general and military expert from Jordan, believes that the capture of Avdeyevka will allow Russian forces to further strengthen their position in Ukraine, and increase their combat capability to defend the territories under their control.  For the Ukrainian forces, however, the capture means that their ability to retake what they have lost has been thwarted, leaving them to face the fact that this land has now become Russian territory, and that this loss is irreversible.

Other authors believe that the capture of this city will allow Russian forces to control the space around Donetsk and create logistical corridors to expand the scope of their operations.

The Egyptian Al Qahera News edition sees the capture of Avdeyevka as an “important victory” achieved by Russian troops just before the second anniversary of the start of the special military operation. They outnumber the enemy on the battlefield, both in terms of troop numbers and equipment, giving them an advantage when attacking Ukrainian formations, which are short on weapons and soldiers amid cracks in the West’s military support for Kiev.

These changes are also evident in the range of media responses from the Middle East. In general, they adopt a balanced tone when discussing the results of fighting after two years of the special military operation, and the political and economic consequences of the combat.

For example, the influential Saudi newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat opines that Washington and its allies have miscalculated. It is referring to the West’s imposition of anti-Russian sanctions, its attempts to undermine Russia’s economy, deprive it of revenues from hydrocarbon exports, and isolate it in the international arena, etc.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s calculations, it suggests, are based on common sense and are absolutely correct. He has carefully avoided the traps laid out for him and been able, with skill and step by step, to dismantle the economic blockade declared against his country, and the authors also admire the undeniable victories of Russian troops on the military frontlines.

A number of other Arab publications take a similar line. A review of the events in Ukraine, as they see it, teaches a number of lessons. One is that a state’s policy should not be based on promises of support from outside, and should be founded first and foremost on its own interests. Now, the West’s promises of support have failed.  The former media rhetoric that Ukraine is bulwark for Europe is on the wane.

Europeans are suffering from interruptions to the supply of Russian gas, supply chain disruption, inflation and interest rate hikes, etc. The European countries see resolving their own economic crises as their priority, and do not wish to suffer because of Ukraine. In short, the credibility of the Western coalition supporting Ukraine has fallen, and, as the present author notes, it looks as if Ukraine will have to go into the third year of the war alone.

Significantly, such assessments are increasingly being reflected in public opinion in the Middle East. Recently, Akhbar Al Aan, a leading news platform in Dubai (UAE) conducted a poll among its readers about Western military aid for Ukraine. To the question: would this help rescue Kiev, 85% of respondents answered “no” and just 15% answered “yes”.

Today, a number of political observers in the Middle East are drawing parallels between the conflict in Ukraine and the war in Gaza and reaching their own conclusions. In particular, they note the similarity of behavior styles of the leaders of the two countries: Volodymyr Zelensky and Benjamin Netanyahu. They conclude that both are characterized by a pathological desire to deny reality and are stubbornly following their chosen courses, despite the obvious failures of their strategies….

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky showed no sympathy for the Palestinian victims of the war in Gaza. He did not hesitate for a second, but supported the Israeli war machine, Akhbar Al Aan claims.

Other authors criticize the “blindness” of those countries that oppose Russia’s “invasion” of Ukraine but are unable to see what Israel has been doing in the Gaza Strip since October 2023.

In their view, one of the lessons of the Gaza conflict involves the issue of trust in the West. It promotes and continues to proclaim its values and principles as universal, applying to all people regardless of religion, race or nationality. But these trumpeted values have not been applied in Gaza.

Many political observers share this view. The disillusionment with Western values that has emerged in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Gaza Strip has left a deep wound in the hearts and minds of Arab elites who had placed their hopes in an engagement with Western civilization. This will push the Arab nations’ Islamic civilization, and the civilization of the Global South in general, further away from the West, Arab media commentators predict.

Yuri Zinin, senior researcher at the Center for Middle East and Africa Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO).

March 9, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | 1 Comment

Cowardly warmongers vote for the German Green Party, and polling proves it

By John Cody | Remix News | March 6, 2024

The German Green Party was once known for its anti-NATO and pacifist stance during the party’s early days. However, it has since transformed into an Atlanticist arm known for its hawkish positions, calling for more weapons for Ukraine and a continued battle with Vladimir Putin.

However, this pro-war position is not out of step with the Green Party’s base, a base that is pretty revolting when the data is actually examined.

Two separate polls paint an unflattering picture of these voters.

According to a survey by ARD, 52 percent of German voters are against the delivery of the Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Germany’s parliament actually just voted against sending these missiles, but Germany continues to be under extreme pressure to deliver them. Chancellor Olaf Scholz has expressed fear of direct war with Russia if the missiles are delivered, as they can reach distances of up to 500 kilometers, which means they can also reach Russian territory. Only 36 percent of Germans are in favor of sending these missiles, and 12 percent did not have an answer.

However, the poll also looked at the different opinions of party supporters. The data shows that 68 percent of the Green party supporters are in favor of delivery and 23 percent are against it. This party had the highest number of supporters in favor of the missile deliveries, while AfD supporters were the most critical, with only 18 percent in favor.

Green party supporters are very gung ho about sending weapons to Ukraine and ensuring the conflict goes on against Russia, but while these voters want Ukrainians to continue dying and fighting against Russia by the thousands, these same voters are outright cowards themselves. That is not an opinion, but something they freely admit.

According to another poll conducted by Forsa for Stern magazine, only 9 percent of Green Party supporters say they would “definitely” defend Germany with weapons. In fact, Green Party supporters were the “least likely” of any party’s supporters to actually say they would defend Germany with weapons. Their willingness is far lower than AfD supporters, with 28 percent saying they would “definitely” defend Germany with arms.

In other words, while Green Party supporters are the most likely to say Germany should send Taurus missiles to Ukraine, and in general, are arguably the biggest advocates for continued war against Russia, they themselves are the least likely to want to take up arms to defend their own country.

It has to be said. These people are not just cowards, but elitist cowards, who want other people to fight their wars. Putin is a bogeyman to them who must be defeated, but instead of traveling to Ukraine to fight him themselves, they want to live their effete lifestyles, attending concerts, art galleries, climate protests; drinking organic fair trade coffee; and living in “Altbau” apartments in trendy neighborhoods.

The front is far away, and their lives are comfortable. They are among the wealthiest voters in all of Germany.

If Russia were to theoretically invade Germany, these would be the first people to flee to San Francisco, London, and Paris, leaving mostly AfD supporters, apparently, to man the frontlines. In their fever dreams, Putin is knocking at the doorstep, but the reality, thankfully, is that Russia will not invade Germany, and even if it did, it would have to go through Poland first. The Green Party supporters would have no compunction in sending waves of Poles up against the Russians either while making TikTok videos in support of the effort.

These people are not very reflective or handle cognitive dissonance well, so even if confronted with this data, most could not possibly internalize it. This is not to say that all Green Party voters are cowards or bad-intentioned, but the data does present a narrative that is worth contemplating. It has led some anti-war German columnists to call for reinstating mandatory military service, saying that paradoxically, a draft would put the wealthiest Germans and their children, back in the crosshairs of a potential war, and make them more hesitant about warmongering.

March 6, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

ICC issues arrest warrants for top Russian military commanders

RT | March 5, 2024

The Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) on Tuesday issued arrest warrants for Lieutenant-General Sergey Kobylash and Admiral Viktor Sokolov, accusing the two top Russian military commanders of committing war crimes amid the Ukrainian conflict.

The two top officers, serving as the commanders of Russia’s Long-Range Aviation and Black Sea Fleet respectively, are accused of committing “the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects,” causing “excessive incidental harm to civilians,” as well as perpetrating a “crime against humanity,” the ICC said in a press release.

The alleged crimes are said to have taken place during a campaign of missile strikes “against the Ukrainian electric infrastructure from at least 10 October 2022 until at least 9 March 2023,” the court claimed.

The Hague-based tribunal has repeatedly taken hostile steps against Moscow amid the Ukraine conflict, most notably by issuing an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin last spring. Putin is accused of “unlawful deportation” of Ukrainian children to Russia.

Moscow has rebuffed the ICC claims, stating that the children in question were merely evacuated form the warzone, and could be returned to Ukraine should their legal guardians request it. Russia has also taken retaliatory steps against the ICC itself, launching a criminal case against the court’s principal prosecutor and judges, ultimately issuing arrest warrants against them.

Like many other countries, including the US, Moscow does not recognize the authority of the Hague-based tribunal and its actions have no legal validity in Russia. The body has been repeatedly accused of being Eurocentric and biased towards the West.

March 5, 2024 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , | 1 Comment