German MP calls for attack on government buildings in Moscow
RT | March 6, 2024
Russia’s Ministry of Defense building or that of the country’s intelligence service in central Moscow are legitimate targets that should be attacked, the deputy chairman of the German parliament’s oversight committee, Roderich Kiesewetter, has stated.
He insisted that Ukraine should take the war to Russia.
“Ukraine should be given the opportunity to take the war to the Russian territory,” Kiesewetter said on Tuesday, live on the Lanz show on German TV, noting that Defense Minister Boris Pistorius had already called for that in April 2023.
“The only thing I will add from my side is that it is also necessary to attack the Russian Ministry of Defense or the intelligence service,” the MP said. “It is absolutely clear that this is not about civilian targets and not about the people, but about explaining to the Russian population that they are the aggressors,” he added.
When asked by the host of the show whether Kiesewetter thought that the attack on Moscow would be rational, the politician responded that those were Pistorius’ words.
“To attack Moscow with Taurus missiles?” the host asked. “No, Mr Lanz, now you are putting words into my mouth. No, if, within the framework of the agreement, we oblige Ukraine to use missiles only in the occupied territories, then they will act according to this principle,” Kiesewetter argued.
The calls for attack on Russian government buildings come amid the latest diplomatic row between Moscow and Berlin, following the leak of an audio recording in which German military officers discussed a potential attack on the Crimean Bridge.
Ukraine’s Defeat to Unmask Dirty Secrets of ‘Conflict-Loving’ Western Elites
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 06.03.2024
A series of leaks related to NATO military and intelligence operations in Ukraine demonstrate the West’s futile attempts to intimidate Russia into imploding as they once did with the USSR, Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel told Sputnik.
Germany’s “Luftwaffe” leak has triggered a heated debate in the Western mainstream press, with the Guardian warning that NATO is “growing reckless” over Ukraine. Additionally, Politico has acknowledged that the chatter from the Bundeswehr was not part of a Russian “disinformation” operation, but rather a source of “uncensored information”.
“The leak adds to piles of evidence and reasonable suspicions that US and allied governments/contractors/grantees have abandoned adherence to truth-seeking, in favor of shoving a global governance model by unelected bureaucrats upon the masses inside and outside their home countries,” Wall Street analyst and investigative journalist Charles Ortel told Sputnik.
“Ignoring inconvenient and hard truths about Russia now and concerning her history, Biden and the permanent class of conflict-lovers still seem to believe they can intimidate the Russian Federation into imploding as they once did with the Soviet Union,” he highlighted.
The release of a recording featuring German high-ranking officers discussing the possibility of sending Taurus missiles to Ukraine to destroy Russia’s Crimean Bridge occurred shortly after The New York Times published a story about a network of 12 secret bases run by the CIA in Ukraine since 2014.
Surprisingly, some CIA operatives couldn’t resist boasting about the operation right after the Russian special military operation began.
The Washington Post’s Dan Lamothe tweeted in April 2022 about a “bonanza of information” the American military had learned about Russia’s “tactics and procedures” since the beginning of its special military op in Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
In response, Marc Polymeropoulos, a 26-year CIA veteran who retired from a senior rank in 2019, wrote on X (formerly known as Twitter) on April 27, 2022:
“Actually, it started a long time ago… we learned this between 2014-2022. Not just now. It was an 8-year lab experiment on Russian TTPs [Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures]. On EW [electronic warfare]. On everything. This is why Ukrainians (with our advice/assist) are doing so well. Ask those in the IC [intelligence community] and UW [unconventional warfare] communities. We learned a sh*t ton.”
Nonetheless, despite learning “a sh*t ton” about Russia’s warfare strategy, the CIA has failed to prevent a string of defeats sustained by the Ukrainian military on the battlefield. Still, one should bear in mind that US IC agents could have been deployed with other missions rather than turning Ukraine into an impregnable fortress, according to Ortel.
What Dirty Secrets Are Western Leaders Hiding in Ukraine?
For instance, sensitive information about a network of US-funded biowarfare laboratories in Ukraine, uncovered by the Russian Ministry of Defense over the past two years, suggests that American politicians as well as military and intelligence operatives had been involved in potentially illegal activities and experiments in the Eastern European country which are strictly prohibited in the US.
“On Ukraine, one wonders what dirty work Ukrainian officials and contractors may have performed inside and outside Ukraine that could not readily be performed inside the United States,” the Wall Street analyst remarked.
“Because the Deep State over-classifies information and does not appear to be subject to meaningful oversight, we likely will not learn what specific factors brought the US and allied governments to prod so aggressively, painting the Russian Federation as an enemy, instead of welcoming Russia into a re-configured NATO as, apparently, Putin himself suggested. It seems to me that too many at the very top of Western governments see much more personal advantage in milking public sector expenditures for themselves fighting endless real and imagined conflicts than they see in crafting lasting peace and other solutions,” Ortel pointed out.
US Political Families Like the Bidens, Clintons and Others Cashed In On Ukraine
Furthermore, the Wall Street analyst pointed out that established US political dynasty families such as the Bidens and the Clintons pounced at the chance to profit off the situation in Ukraine. A specific example that Ortel discussed with Sputnik was the collaboration between Victor Pinchuk and his wife Olena with the Clinton Foundation to combat HIV/AIDS in Ukraine during the early 2000s. Ortel believes that the fight against AIDS served as a facade for money laundering activities.
“A laudable project conceptually, perhaps, this effort was never legitimately approved in the United States looking through the public record, but allowed the Clintons and their allies to unlock hundreds of millions in government grants and donations for which there has never been a legitimate accounting, just as Hillary Clinton needed a war chest to fund her Senate re-election campaign and her presidential ambitions,” the Wall Street analyst said.
Most recently, the Clinton Foundation announced a similarly questionable charity initiative together with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s wife Olena, Ortel noted, referring to corruption allegations haunting the Zelenskys.
In essence, Ortel believes that numerous Western players, including multinational companies, stand to lose a great deal in the event that Ukraine is defeated. Consequently, some Western leaders have even suggested the idea of deploying NATO military units to Ukraine.
US ‘Forever Wars’ Impoverishing Americans
No matter how hard the West tries to win its proxy war in Ukraine, the outcome of the conflict appears to be sealed, Ortel affirms. What’s more, the US has been repeatedly engaged in protracted overseas military conflicts, most of which had not ended on Washington’s terms.
“Especially in Vietnam, then afterwards in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, ‘policy-makers’ and ‘thought-leaders’ have failed to learn from their grievous mistakes,” the analyst said. “Instead of pursuing lasting peace or actually tackling vexing problems, many worship at the altar of perpetual wars, secure in the knowledge that industry patrons and egomaniacal billionaires will reward them richly along the way, and that they may never be punished for their misdeeds,” he noted.
Meanwhile, ordinary Americans have not reaped any “bonanzas” from this decades-long war economy; instead, they have witnessed their living standards decline, he pointed out.
“As the world enmeshed after 1988, profit margins across the private sector (in a true and consistent accounting) fell, as did per hour incomes, adjusted for taxes and inflation. Over the same period and accelerating now under the husk of President Biden, public sector bureaucrats at all levels learned they could appropriate humongous sums of money, and then direct vast portions to themselves through family members and other supporters, via ‘leaky’ foundations, large and small.”
Ortel believes that regardless of NATO increasingly beating the war drums over its proxy conflict in Ukraine, “support for more fighting in Ukraine and against Russia will ebb” both in the US and Europe. A potential harbinger of change is the decision by Maidan coup plotter, Victoria Nuland, to step down from her position as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, according to the analyst.
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.
Europe is Fearful and Desperate
By Alastair Crooke | Al Mayadeen English | March 4, 2024
A leading Establishment newspaper in Europe says that “what is driving European politics at present – is fear”. The headlines ring out with apprehension: “Germany’s élites run scared, as Putin rains down death on Ukraine”. The British Prime Minister calls an emergency press conference to warns of ‘democracy at risk’ from ‘extremism’ on the eve of a by-election win by George Galloway, an articulate, if somewhat unruly, ‘thorn’ in the side of conventional politics (but hardly any ‘extremist’).
In the US too the liberal sphere is in meltdown over the publication of a just-released book: White Rural Rage: The Threat To American Democracy, in which “rural whites are [described as] the most racist; xenophobic; anti-immigrant; anti-gay; and conspiracy-minded, anti-democratic” demography in America. They “don’t believe in an independent press or free speech”, and are “most likely to accept or excuse violence”.
Of course, the fear is being — in the first instance — diverted outwards towards the claim that this is somehow Russia’s ‘doing’ — a looming ‘menace’ further stoked by claims of President Putin’s ‘imperial aspirations’, way beyond Ukraine. There is however (to invert the usual MSM meme), absolutely no evidence for these claims (from anything Putin has said over the years).
What is spooking the West more immediately is the cascading defeats inflicted on Ukrainian forces, after the Avdeevka rout. The new Ukrainian commander, General Syrski, in the wake of the flight, announced a retreat to new defence lines, but as some had predicted, it turned out that the ‘more favourable lines’ Syrski promoted did not exist.
Ukrainian photographers Konstantin and Vlada Liberov who document the war from the ground demanded from Syrski: “So what is the next “fortetsia” – Pokrovsk? Or just Konstantinovka?”
“Where is this second line of defence?” Yuri Butusov, editor-in-chief of Censor— following his trip to this area – asks: “There are no words. Gap: here in Kiev – the supreme commander-in-chief says one thing, but at the front something completely different is happening. I want to say that no field lines of fortifications have been built beyond Avdeevka so far. I saw Russian drones attacking our soldiers in their burrows – in the middle of a field”.
There are no constructed defence lines – only hurried improvisations – whilst Ukraine resorts to simply throwing its reserves at the deficiency – so to prop up the incremental retreat. Did NATO leaders not spot this defence-line lacuna? Apparently not …
And so one leg to the current panic is just this: The EU has heavily over-invested in its Ukraine project, and now sees it fast crumbling. Hence President Macron’s hasty summons of EU states (at 24 hours’ notice) to the Elysée Palace to hear him warn that the situation on the ground in Ukraine was so critical, and the stakes for Europe so high, that: “We’re at a critical point in the conflict where we need to take the initiative: We’re determined to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes”.
What Macron in fact proposed however, shocked the gathered leaders. He advocated committing detachments of European special forces to Ukraine, not so much directly to fight the Russian forces, but to act as vulnerable strategic ‘tripwire’ deterrents to Russia – which, were they attacked, would ‘trip’ a full-throated NATO retaliation down onto the head of Russia.
These tripwire forces, Macron claimed, would form strategic deterrents to Moscow’s military room for manoeuvre — oases of ‘untouchable’ NATO, scattered through Ukraine. His colleagues, horrified, demurred; they saw the emplaced tripwires as the conveyor belt leading to WWIII: ‘Madness’, and ‘no thank you’.
The ‘other leg’ to European desperation was given away by PM Sunak’s rush to the microphone in the wake of the Rochdale by-election outcome to warn that democracy is in peril from extremism.
One commentator opined: ‘Rishi Sunak was right’: “This is not politics, not even of the radical kind … It is inchoate, incoherent rage which is ready to make common cause with anyone else, who is enraged even on contradictory grounds”.
If this reaction sounds a bit over the top – just because George Galloway overwhelmingly won in Rochdale – let us ‘join up the dots’ for you:
The same commentator (Janet Daley in the Telegraph ) avers: “To bring this right up to date, we now have an entity called the Workers Party – a name that summons up traditional Left-wing dedication to the interests of working class people – winning a by-election in Rochdale by somehow conflating the Palestinian cause in Gaza with local working class needs”.
Ouch! That is what hurts. Echoes here from the Michigan primary in the US, where a coalition of pro-Palestinian groups who had set a modest target of 10,000 ‘uncommitted’ votes — Trump’s margin of victory in Michigan in 2016 — to send a message to President Biden that voter frustration over the Gaza war could cost him dearly in the November election. In the event, however, the pro-Palestinian support blew past the 10,000 target and clocked in at nearly 101,400 votes.
Message sent — and as the electoral desperation in Democratic circles, indicates, ‘message received’.
Just to be plain: Events in Gaza and in Ukraine are unravelling long-standing political power control structures in the EU, in Europe and in the US. This is why there is panic and double-down.
Latest European Propaganda: Russia Is Flooding Europe With Illegal Migrants
By Robert Bridge | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 5, 2024
Western media is in full-blown hysteria mode, asserting that Vladimir Putin is ‘weaponising’ the flow of migrants in an effort to destabilize upcoming European elections.
Right up there with ridiculous claims of “little green men” and “tractor protests from Moscow,” Europe is now accusing Russia of fielding paramilitary forces and private mercenaries for the purpose of directing waves of migrants from Africa across the Mediterranean Sea and into the heart of Europe, an apparent effort to ratchet up the spring fever just in time for general elections across the continent.
With no loss of irony, Western propagandists are disseminating allegations that the Kremlin is in the process of agitating those African nations that for so long suffered from European colonial rule, namely Burkina Faso, Mali, Sudan, Ghana, Central African Republic and Libya, a formerly highly developed country that was destroyed by a U.S.-led attack in 2011.
The Telegraph would have its British readers believe it has “seen” intelligence documents detailing plans for “Russian agents” to create a “15,000-man strong border police force” comprising former militias in Libya to control the flow of migrants. Anyone hoping to review something like photographic evidence of this massive army would be advised not to hold their breath. Apparently, the thousands of Russian recruits are so technologically advanced they are invisible to spy satellites.
While it stands to reason that millions of desperate refugees from these turbulent nations would seek shelter in Europe, or possibly even in the United States, risking a trans-Atlantic journey to reach the wide-open U.S.-Mexican border, Brussels simply hopes to deflect attention away from its immigration failures onto Moscow, a sham that is transparent to anyone with even a half-functioning brain.
Let’s not forget that we’ve heard such allegations before.
Without so much as a single apprehended trespasser, Moscow was accused of trying to foment a refugee crisis by transferring asylum seekers to its border with Finland, thus prompting the new NATO lackey to close its land crossings with Russia in contravention of all diplomatic norms. The truth of the matter is that Helsinki was aggravating Russophobia to make the bitter pill of increased spending on Western-made (read: American) armaments go down smoother for Nordic voters.
Belarus, Russia’s closest ally, has also been accused – once again, without a shred of evidence – of sending immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa to its borders with Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.
The latest wave of Russophobia to strike the European capitals comes at a time when migration is set to be a key issue in general elections on the continent, as well as in the UK, where the drumbeat about Russian-sponsored migrant invasion parties resonates the loudest.
An unidentified security source reportedly told the Telegraph : “If you can control the migrant routes into Europe then you can effectively control elections, because you can restrict or flood a certain area with migrants in order to influence public opinion at a crucial time.”
“A failure to control the number of migrants coming to the UK is already seen as a major weakness for Rishi Sunak who is struggling to push through a scheme to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda to stop the flow of small boats across the Channel,” the British daily continued.
Sunak made “stopping the boats” one of his top priorities as Prime Minister, though a survey of British sentiment earlier this year showed that three-quarters of voters believe the pledge has not gone well.
Since June 2023, over 52,000 illegal migrants were recorded as entering the UK, up 17 percent on the previous year. Data released last month revealed that the number of illegal migrants granted asylum in the UK hit a record high in 2023 as border guards waved through thousands of applications “in an attempt to clear a huge post-pandemic backlog.” What is even more laughable, albeit totally predictable, is that the people doing the “waving through” were British border officials, not secret “Russian agents.”
With EU elections in June, the European parliament looks set to shift hard to the right, with migration already proving to be a key issue for voters. Who best to blame for this approaching debacle? Certainly not Angela Merkel, who is personally responsible for much of the mess. Once again, Russia serves as a convenient bogeyman for the blockheaded decision-making processes coming out of the EU, and we’ve heard such accusations before.
In February 2016, one year after Merkel opened the floodgates to some 2 million migrants, many of them Muslims from Syria, U.S. General Philip Breedlove, Head of NATO forces in Europe, blamed Russia for working to exacerbate the refugee flows in a dastardly ploy to destabilize and destroy the EU. In a testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, he said, “Together, Russia and the Assad regime are deliberately weaponizing migration from Syria. In an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.”
Nearly a decade later, the same reckless utterances are being made, although this time around the European public, more skeptical about ‘Russia the enemy’ narrative following the Nord Stream fallout, is prepared to express its anger at the ballot box come June during elections for European Parliament. Far-right populist parties are polling well in several EU countries, notably in Austria, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. This terrifies Brussels, as the threat of a right-wing takeover appears imminent, and Europe has only itself to blame for that.
Nuland’s Resignation Related to Failure of US’ Anti-Russian Policy – Zakharova

RT | March 5, 2024
US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is poised to leave her post soon, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has announced. The senior official, widely regarded as a foreign policy hawk, played a key role in the Western-backed coup in Kiev in 2014.
In a statement on Tuesday, Blinken noted that his friend “Toria” has held most of the jobs at the State Department, from a consular officer to ambassador and deputy secretary, over her 35-year career. Her most recent posting was as undersecretary for political affairs. She was also Blinken’s acting deputy after the July 2023 retirement of Wendy Sherman, until Kurt Campbell was confirmed to the post last month.
“What makes Toria truly exceptional is the fierce passion she brings to fighting for what she believes in most: freedom, democracy, human rights, and America’s enduring capacity to inspire and promote those values around the world,” Blinken said.
He also noted that her “leadership on Ukraine” will be the subject of study “for years to come” by diplomats and students of foreign policy.
Nuland was directly involved in the Maidan uprising and the subsequent coup in Kiev. In December 2013, she visited Ukraine to hand out pastries to the armed protesters in Kiev’s central square. She was then recorded discussing how to “midwife this thing” with then-US ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, just days before the February 2014 coup.
She resigned from the State Department during the Trump administration, taking the helm of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) think-tank before joining the Albright Stonebridge Group and the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). She rejoined the government after President Joe Biden’s inauguration in 2021.
In that capacity, she has worked on arming Ukraine and assembling a Western coalition that would supply Kiev with weapons and ammunition for the conflict with Russia. Last month, she pleaded to Congress to approve $61 billion in funding to Ukraine, arguing that most of it would be “going right back into the US economy,” to create jobs in the weapons industry.
Her most recent trip to Kiev involved intervening with President Vladimir Zelensky on behalf of General Valery Zaluzhny, though to no avail. Zaluzhny was subsequently fired.
In a CNN interview at the end of February, Nuland admitted the defeat of US policy towards Moscow, describing today’s Russia as “not the Russia that, frankly, we wanted.”
Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova attributed Nuland’s exit to “the failure of the anti-Russian course of the Biden administration.”
“Russophobia, proposed by Victoria Nuland as the main foreign policy concept of the United States, is dragging the Democrats to the bottom like a stone,” Zakharova said. Posting a photo of Nuland taken at an Orthodox church at some point, she said that if the US politician wanted to “go to a monastery to atone for your sins, we can put in a good word.”
Nuland is married to neoconservative stalwart Robert Kagan. Her sister-in-law Kimberley Kagan, married to Robert’s brother Fred, runs the Institute for the Study of War. Her temporary replacement at the State Department will be Under Secretary for Management John Bass.
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.
Germany willing to boost its participation in Ukrainian conflict
By Lucas Leiroz | March 4, 2024
The evidence points out that the West is preparing provocations of war against Russia. A new scandal involving a German attack plan against Russian civilian infrastructure is generating fear about the possibility of an open conflict between Russians and Germans in the near future.
Russian media recently published a leaked audio of a conversation between high-ranking German officials. The participants in the discussion were Brigadier General and head of the Air Force’s military operations and exercises department, Frank Grafe; the Air Force inspector, Ingo Gerhartz; and two officers from the German Space Command, Fenske and Frostedt. The topic of conversation was the development of a strategy for the supply and use of Taurus missiles in Ukraine.
Officers discussed the best way to use this equipment on the Ukrainian battlefield. According to them, the Kerch Bridge in Crimea would be an interesting target, although “difficult to hit”. They concluded in the conversation that Russian ammunition depots should be targeted and that if the French Dassault Rafale fighter is used together with the Taurus there will be more chances of a successful attack on Crimea.
In other words, high-ranking German military personnel were discussing how to attack demilitarized Russian territory and destroy civilian infrastructure. The case is therefore proof that Western agents participate directly in the planning and operation of terrorist attacks on peaceful Russian territory, confirming reports that had already been made previously on the topic.
Interestingly, while German officials were discussing a plan to attack Russia, Berlin’s Prime Minister Olaf Scholz publicly stated that the possibility of sending NATO troops to Ukraine was ruled out, suggesting there was no risk of direct war. Amid fears about a possible all-out conflict, Scholz appears to have tried to “relieve” tensions or simply “mislead” Russia and public opinion regarding the real plans of the Western alliance. However, the audio leakage made any attempt to control collective fear useless.
In response to the audio scandal, the German government was only concerned with increasing accusations against Russia, failing to provide any plausible explanation for the content. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius accused Moscow of waging “information warfare” against Germany and the West. He described the Russian media’s work in publishing the officers’ conversation as a “hybrid attack” and “disinformation” – and did not comment on the topic of the conversation, tacitly admitting that the German officials did discuss the possibility of an attack on Crimea.
In fact, the scandal occurs at a time when several Western leaders claim to be “preparing” their countries for direct war with Russia. Faced with the evident Ukrainian failure, Western European countries, deceived by the American narrative that Kiev is a “shield” against “Russian invasions”, begin to impose a regime of military preparation, believing that a conflict is inevitable.
Obviously, there is no Russian interest in engaging in a conflict with Europe. The special military operation in Ukraine is motivated by specific reasons related to Russia’s security concerns. Moscow for now has no such concerns with European countries. However, as Europe militarizes and increases its anti-Russian hostility, new concerns may arise, forcing Moscow to take self-defense measures. And in this sense, European countries could, through their own anti-Russian paranoia, foment a conflict in the future – creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.
The German case is particularly curious because Berlin’s subservience to the US and NATO is notorious, while anti-Russian hostility grows more and more. Moscow never showed aggressiveness against Germany, always willing to peacefully negotiate the reestablishment of diplomatic and economic ties. On the other hand, the US, UK and other NATO powers have always tried to coerce Germany to serve their interests – as, for example, through the terrorist attack against the Nord Stream.
Even in the face of successive humiliations imposed by its Western “partners”, Germany remains obedient to NATO, preserving an irrational anti-Russian hatred. Some experts believe that this is somehow related to a type of historical revanchism against Russia due to the Soviet victory against Nazism in the Second World War. As well known, Russophobia has always been a central aspect of Nazi ideology, which explains why Berlin, with its anti-Russian revanchist mentality, is willing to side with Ukrainian neo-Nazism against Moscow.
For their part, Russian authorities have already made it clear that they understand current European policies as preparation for a war. Moscow does not want the conflict to happen but subservience to NATO, anti-Russian hate and irrationality seem to be the main aspects of current European – especially German – foreign policy.
Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
Israel to get more ‘aggressive’ with Russia – MP
RT | March 4, 2024
An Israeli lawmaker has suggested that his government will take a harder line against Russia by boosting its support for Ukraine because it sees Moscow as somehow involved in the Hamas war against West Jerusalem.
“Israel will take a more aggressive stance against Russia,” MP Amir Weitmann told US media outlet Business Insider in an article published on Saturday. He added that amid its current battle with Hamas, his government doesn’t have munitions to spare, but if the war in Gaza ends before the conflict in Ukraine, “Israeli weapons would find their way” to Kiev.
Weitmann made his comments in response to plans by Israel – revealed on Wednesday at the UN – to provide an early warning system to help Kiev counter Russian airstrikes and drone attacks. The announcement by Gilad Erdan, Israel’s permanent representative to the UN, did not “come out of the blue,” the lawmaker said.
“Russia is heavily involved in what is happening in Israel,” Weitmann claimed, referring to the war with Hamas, which was triggered by surprise raids on southern Israeli villages on October 7. He offered no details on Moscow’s supposed role in the war and said it was not clear “at what level” Russia was involved.
Weitmann, who heads the libertarian faction of Israel’s ruling Likud Party, was less restrained during an RT interview in October. “Russia is supporting Nazi people who want to commit genocide on us, and Russia will pay the price,” he said. The MP added, “We will make sure that Ukraine wins. We will make sure that you pay the price for what you have done.”
Business Insider said Israel may have already “torched its relationship with Russia” by pledging to supply an early warning system to Ukraine. The system is similar to Israel’s Tzeva Adom radar, which quickly detects rocket launches and broadcasts alerts to endangered areas so civilians can take shelter.
After two years of walking a diplomatic “tightrope” over the Ukraine crisis, sending only humanitarian supplies to avoid provoking Russia, the decision to provide Kiev a radar system “signals a major about-turn in Israeli foreign policy,” Business Insider said. Israel will likely send “specialist soldiers” to help Ukrainians set up the system, the outlet noted.
Speaking at the UN on Wednesday, Erdan referred to the Ukrainians as “allies” and “friends in need.” He claimed that Israel has stood in “solidarity” with Ukraine since the conflict escalated in February 2022. “This is the moral thing to do, especially as a country that knows exactly how it feels to be aggressively invaded.”
EU tells citizens to further reduce gas consumption

Greenpeace activists put giant sticker on European Union Commission HQ in Brussels, March 1, 2023 © Thierry Monasse / Getty Images
RT | February 28, 2024
EU residents must maintain the reduced natural gas consumption levels imposed in the wake of sanctions targeting Russia’s energy sector, according to a draft proposal from the European Council published on Tuesday.
The proposal states that usage levels at least 15% below average demand (measured between April 2017 and March 2022) should be maintained on a voluntary basis for another year. This is despite claiming that the reductions undertaken up to now – or an even more severe rate of 18% – had successfully achieved many of the original proposal’s goals.
Despite diversified supply, lower, more stable prices and higher storage reserves “benefiting the competitiveness of the EU economy,” the Council claims cutbacks must continue for another year. The proposal also notes that such a restriction would also push the EU towards Net Zero carbon emissions.
Should EU residents or their leaders become unwilling to cut back on their fossil fuel consumption, the resolution allows the “voluntary” cutbacks to be mandated, eliminating any risk of scuttling the concept entirely with one or two holdout countries.
Brussels recently confirmed that a five-year pipeline gas transit agreement via Ukraine with Russia’s Gazprom would not be renewed when it expires at the end of March.
Despite passing 13 sanctions packages since 2022 in an effort to punish Russia for its military operation, the EU still bought nearly €30 billion in oil, petroleum products and natural gas from the country last year.
At the same time, Germany, traditionally the EU’s strongest economy, is in crisis, with 15% of its companies in distress, consultants Alvarez & Marsal reported earlier this month. Many analysts blame high energy costs and predict the worst is yet to come, with a real estate crisis looming as companies that can no longer afford to pay for their office space are defaulting, among other secondary effects.
The CIA in Ukraine — The NY Times Gets a Guided Tour
By Patrick Lawrence | ScheerPost | February 29, 2024
If you have paid attention to what various polls and officials in the U.S. and elsewhere in the West have been doing and saying about Ukraine lately, you know the look and sound of desperation. You would be desperate, too, if you were making a case for a war Ukrainians are on the brink of losing and will never, brink or back-from-the-brink, have any chance of winning. Atop this, you want people who know better, including 70 percent of Americans according to a recent poll, to keep investing extravagant sums in this ruinous folly.
And here is what seems to me the true source of angst among these desperados: Having painted this war as a cosmic confrontation between the world’s democrats and the world’s authoritarians, the people who started it and want to prolong it have painted themselves into a corner. They cannot lose it. They cannot afford to lose a war they cannot win: This is what you see and hear from all those good-money-after-bad people still trying to persuade you that a bad war is a good war and that it is right that more lives and money should be pointlessly lost to it.
Everyone must act for the cause in these dire times. You have Chuck Schumer in Kyiv last week trying to show House Republicans that they should truly, really authorize the Biden regime to spend an additional $61 billion on its proxy war with Russia. “Everyone we saw, from Zelensky on down made this very point clear,” the Democratic senator from New York asserted in an interview with The New York Times. “If Ukraine gets the aid, they will win the war and beat Russia.”
Even at this late hour people still have the nerve to say such things.
You have European leaders gathering in Paris Monday to reassure one another of their unity behind the Kyiv regime—and where Emmanuel Macron refused to rule out sending NATO ground troops to the Ukrainian front. “Russia cannot and must not win this war,” the French president declared to his guests at the Elysée Palace.
Except that it can and, barring an act of God, it will.
Then you have Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s war-mongering sec-gen, telling Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty last week that it will be fine if Kyiv uses F–16s to attack Russian cities once they are operational this summer. The U.S.–made fighter jets, the munitions, the money—all of it is essential “to ensure Russia doesn’t make further gains.” Stephen Bryen, formerly a deputy undersecretary at the Defense Department, offered an excellent response to this over the weekend in his Weapons and Strategy newsletter: “Fire Jens Stoltenberg before it is too late.”
Good thought, but Stoltenberg, Washington’s longtime water-carrier in Brussels, is merely doing his job as assigned: Keep up the illusions as to Kyiv’s potency and along with it the Russophobia, the more primitive the better. You do not get fired for irresponsible rhetoric that risks something that might look a lot like World War III.
What would a propaganda blitz of this breadth and stupidity be without an entry from The New York Times ? Given the extent to which the Times has abandoned all professional principle in the service of the power it is supposed to report upon, you just knew it would have to get in on this one.
The Times has published very numerous pieces in recent weeks on the necessity of keeping the war going and the urgency of a House vote authorizing that $61 billion Biden’s national security people want to send Ukraine. But never mind all those daily stories. Last Sunday it came out with its big banana. “The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin” sprawls—lengthy text, numerous photographs. The latter show the usual wreckage—cars, apartment buildings, farmhouses, a snowy dirt road lined with landmines. But the story that goes with it is other than usual.
Somewhere in Washington, someone appears to have decided it was time to let the Central Intelligence Agency’s presence and programs in Ukraine be known. And someone in Langley, the CIA’s headquarters, seems to have decided this will be O.K., a useful thing to do. When I say the agency’s presence and programs, I mean some : We get a very partial picture of the CIA’s doings in Ukraine, as the lies of omission—not to mention the lies of commission—are numerous in this piece. But what the Times published last weekend, all 5,500 words of it, tells us more than had been previously made public.
Let us consider this unusually long takeout carefully for what it is and how it came to make page one of last Sunday’s editions.
In a recent commentary I reflected on the mess the Times landed in when it published a thoroughly discredited p.o.s.—and I leave readers to understand this newsroom expression—on the sexual violence Hamas militias allegedly committed last Oct. 7. I described a corrupt but routinized relationship between the organs of official power and the journalists charged with reporting on official power, likening it to a foie gras farmer feeding his geese: The Times’s journalists opened wide and swallowed. For appearances’ sake, they then set about dressing up what they ingested as independently reported work. This is the routine.
It is the same, yet more obviously, with this extended piece on the CIA’s activities in Ukraine. Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz tell the story of—this the subhead—“a secret intelligence partnership with Ukraine that is now critical for both countries in countering Russia.” They set the scene in a below-ground monitoring and communications center the CIA showed Ukrainian intel how to build beneath the wreckage of an army outpost destroyed in a Russian missile attack. They report on the archipelago of such places the agency paid for, designed, equipped, and now helps operate. Twelve of these, please note, are along Ukraine’s border with Russia.
Entous and Schwirtz, it is time to mention, are not based in Ukraine. They operate from Washington and New York respectively. This indicates clearly enough the genesis of “The Spy War.” There was no breaking down of doors involved here, no intrepid correspondents digging, no tramping around in Ukraine’s mud and cold, unguided. The CIA handed these two material according to what it wanted and did not want disclosed, and various officials associated with it made themselves available as “sources”—none of the American sources named, per usual.
Are we supposed to think these reporters found the underground bunker and all the other such installations by dint of their “investigation”—a term they have the gall to use as they describe what they did? And then they developed some kind of grand exposé of all the agency wanted to keep hidden? Is this it?
Sheer pretense, nothing more. Entous and Schwirtz opened wide and got fed. There appears to be nothing in what they wrote that was not effectively authorized, and we can probably do without “effectively.”
There is also the question of sources. Entous and Schwirtz say they conducted 200 interviews to get this piece done. If they did, and I will stay with my “if,” they do not seem to have been very good interviews to go by the published piece. And however many interviews they did, this must still be counted a one-source story, given that everyone quoted in it reflects the same perspective and so reinforces, more or less, what everyone else quoted has to say. The sources appear to have been handed to Entous and Schwirtz as was access to the underground bunker.
The narrative thread woven through the piece is interesting. It is all about the two-way, can’t-do-without-it cooperation between the CIA and Ukraine’s main intel services—the SBU (the domestic spy agency) and military intelligence, which goes by HUR. In this the piece reads like a difficult courtship that leads to a happy-at-last consummation. It took a long time for the Americans to trust the Ukrainians, we read, as they, the Americans, assumed the SBU was thick with Russian double agents. But the Ukrainian spooks enticed them with stacks and stacks of intelligence that seems to have astonished the CIA people on the ground and back in Langley.
So, a tale with two moving parts: The Americans helped the Ukrainians get their technology, methods, and all-around spookery up to snuff, and the Ukrainians made themselves indispensable to the Americans by providing wads of raw intel. Entous and Schwirtz describe this symbiosis as “one of Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today.” Here is how a former American official put it, as the Times quotes him or her:
The relationships only got stronger and stronger because both sides saw value in it, and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv—our station there, the operation out of Ukraine—became the best source of information, signals and everything else, on Russia. We couldn’t get enough of it.
As to omissions and commissions, there are things left out in this piece, events that are blurred, assertions that are simply untrue and proven to be so. What amazes me is how far back Entous and Schwirtz reach to dredge up all this stuff—even to the point they make fools of themselves and remind us of the Times’s dramatic loss of credibility since the current round of Russophobia took hold a decade ago.
Entous and Schwirtz begin their account of the CIA–SBU/HUR alliance in 2014, when the U.S. cultivated the coup in Kyiv that brought the present regime to power and ultimately led to Russia’s military intervention. But no mention of the U.S. role in it. They write, “The CIA’s partnership in Ukraine can be traced back to two phone calls on the night of Feb. 24, 2014, eight years to the day before Russia’s full-scale invasion.” Neat, granular, but absolutely false. The coup began three days earlier, on Feb. 21, and as Vladimir Putin reminded Tucker Carlson during the latter’s Feb. 6 interview with the Russian president, it was the CIA that did the groundwork.
I confess a special affection for this one: “The Ukrainians also helped the Americans go after the Russian operatives who meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” Entous and Schwirtz write. And later in the piece, this:
In one joint operation, a[n] HUR team duped an officer from Russia’s military intelligence service into providing information that allowed the C.I.A. to connect Russia’s government to the so-called Fancy Bear hacking group, which had been linked to election interference efforts in a number of countries.
Wonderful. Extravagantly nostalgic for that twilight interim that began eight years ago, when nothing had to be true so long as it explained why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, and why Donald Trump is No. 1 among America’s “deplorables.”
I have never seen evidence of Russian government interference in another nation’s elections, including America’s in 2016, and I will say with confidence you haven’t, either. All that came to be associated with the Russiagate fable, starting with the never-happened hack of the Democratic Party’s mail, was long ago revealed to be concocted junk. As to “Fancy Bear,” and its cousin “Cozy Bear”—monikers almost certainly cooked up over a long, fun lunch in Langley—for the umpteenth time these are not groups of hackers or any other sort of human being: They are sets of digital tools available to anyone who wants to use them.
Sloppy, tiresome. But to a purpose. Why, then? What is the Times’s purpose in publishing this piece?
We can start, logically enough, with that desperation evident among those dedicated to prolonging the war. The outcome of the war, in my read and in the view of various military analysts, does not depend on the $61 billion in aid that now hangs in the balance. But the Biden regime seems to think it does, or pretends to think it does. The Times’s most immediate intent, so far as one can make out from the piece, is to add what degree of urgency it can to this question.
Entous and Schwirtz report that the people running Ukrainian intelligence are nervous that without a House vote releasing new funds “the CIA will abandon them.” Good enough that it boosts the case to cite nervous Ukrainians, but we should recognize that this is a misapprehension. The CIA has a very large budget entirely independent of what Congress votes one way or another. William Burns, the CIA director, traveled to Kyiv two weeks ago to reassure his counterparts that “the U.S. commitment will continue,” as Entous and Schwirtz quote him saying. This is perfectly true, assuming Burns referred to the agency’s commitment.
More broadly, the Times piece appears amid flagging enthusiasm for the Ukraine project. And it is in this circumstance that Entous and Schwirtz went long on the benefits accruing to the CIA in consequence of its presence on the ground in Ukraine. But read these two reporters carefully: They, or whoever put their piece in its final shape, make it clear that the agency’s operations on Ukrainian soil count first and most as a contribution to Washington’s long campaign to undermine the Russian Federation. This is not about Ukrainian democracy, that figment of neoliberal propagandists. It is about Cold War II, plain and simple. It is time to reinvigorate the old Russophobia, thus—and hence all the baloney about Russians corrupting elections and so on. It is all there for a reason.
To gather these thoughts and summarize, This piece is not journalism and should not be read as such. Neither do Entous and Schwirtz serve as journalists. They are clerks of the governing class pretending to be journalists while they post notices on a bulletin board that pretends to be a newspaper.
■
Let’s dolly out to put this piece in its historical context and consider the implications of its appearance in the once-but-fallen newspaper of record. Let’s think about the early 1970s, when it first began to emerge that the CIA had compromised the American media and broadcasters.
Jack Anderson, the admirably iconoclastic columnist, lifted the lid on the agency’s infiltration of the media by way of a passing mention of a corrupted correspondent in 1973. A year later a former Los Angeles Times correspondent named Stuart Loory published the first extensive exploration of relations between the CIA and the media in the Columbia Journalism Review. Then, in 1976, the Church Committee opened its famous hearings in the Senate. It took up all sorts of agency malfeasance—assassinations, coups, illegal covert ops. Its intent was also to disrupt the agency’s misuse of American media and restore the latter to their independence and integrity.
The Church Committee is still widely remembered for getting its job done. But it never did. A year after Church produced its six-volume report, Rolling Stone published “The CIA and the Media,” Carl Bernstein’s well-known piece. Bernstein went considerably beyond the Church Committee, demonstrating that it pulled its punches rather than pull the plug on the CIA’s intrusions in the media. Faced with the prospect of forcing the CIA to sever all covert ties with the media, a senator Bernstein did not name remarked, “We just weren’t ready to take that step.”
We should read the Times’s piece on the righteousness of the CIA’s activities in Ukraine—bearing in mind the self-evident cooperation between the agency and the newspaper—with this history in mind.
America was just emerging from the disgraces of the McCarthyist period when Stuart Loory opened the door on this question, the Church Committee convened, and Carl Bernstein filled in the blanks. In and out of the profession there was disgust at the covert relationship between media and the spooks. Now look. What was then viewed as top-to-bottom objectionable is now routinized. It is “as usual.” In my read this is one consequence among many of the Russiagate years: They again plunged Americans and their mainstream media into the same paranoia that produced the corruptions of the 1950s and 1960s.
Alas, the scars of the swoon we call Russiagate are many and run deep.
