A new multipolar security system based on ‘Pax Rossiya’
Strategic Culture Foundation | June 21, 2024
For several years now, Russia, China and other members of the expanding BRICS alliance have been formulating progressive trade and financial relations of the emerging multipolar world order. That order is based on mutual respect and partnership grounded in international law and the UN Charter.
The BRICS concept is rightly the zeitgeist of our time. It is rallying more nations to its fold especially those of the so-called Global South which for decades have been subjected to the unilateralism of Western hegemony.
The trouble is that for a new world order based on equality and fairness to succeed in practice, it needs to be secure from arbitrary military aggression and imperialist tyranny. In other words, a new security architecture is required to underpin the development of a multipolar world.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been advocating for a new indivisible international security system. This week saw the plan for a new security arrangement put into action.
The Russian leader embarked on state visits to North Korea and Vietnam during which he signed new strategic partnership and defense accords.
Ahead of his trip to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Putin outlined the integrated vision thus: “We are also ready for close cooperation to make international relations more democratic and stable… To do this, we will develop alternative mechanisms of trade and mutual settlements that are not controlled by the West, and jointly resist illegitimate unilateral restrictions. And at the same time – to build an architecture of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia.”
The concept of indivisible security is by no means limited to Eurasia. Russia has signaled the same principles apply to Latin America, Africa and indeed every other corner of the world.
During Putin’s meetings with Chairman Kim Jong Un of the DPRK and President Lo Tam of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the strategic partnerships agreed were not merely about military defense and security. They involved comprehensive partnerships for the development of trade, transport, technology, education, science and medicine.
Nevertheless, it was clear that the commitment to strategic partnership was underpinned by new mutual defense accords. This was most explicit in the treaty signed with the DPRK which furnished “mutual assistance in the event of aggression against one of the parties”.
This is a game-changer. It totally upends the geopolitical calculations of the United States and its NATO partners who have been unilaterally expanding military force and provocations in Eurasia and elsewhere.
U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has ramped up aggression in the Asia-Pacific against China and North Korea with impunity. Under his watch, the US has increasingly moved nuclear forces into the region to intimidate not only Beijing and Pyongyang but also Moscow. The Biden administration has been assiduous in forming hostile military formations in the region with its NATO partners, including Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.
Year after year, the United States has built up weapon systems in Taiwan to provoke China and on the Korean Peninsula to threaten North Korea.
This unilateral aggression and “might is right” arrogance underpin the notion of Pax Americana that prevailed for decades after the Second World War. That notion was always a cruel euphemism for American imperialist violence to impose its economic and political interests. The Korean and Vietnam Wars in which millions of civilians were annihilated were the real-world grim translations of Pax Americana and its fraudulent “rules-based order”.
Geopolitical perceptions have dramatically changed in a few short years. The U.S. and its Western partners – a global minority – have come to be seen by most people of the world as rogue states that have trashed international law through illegal wars and unilateral bullying with economic sanctions. The U.S. dollar and Washington’s relentless debt spending are seen as instruments of imperialist looting.
The BRICS multipolar world order is a welcome alternative to the mayhem of the Western-dominated system. The principles of fairness and cooperation are laudable and necessary to implement. But such principles must be reinforced with military defense and security for all. This is far from the one-sided “defense and security” of the United States and its NATO partners, which in reality is an Orwellian cover for aggression.
The defense commitments given by Russia to the DPRK this week can be seen as long overdue. One may wonder how the U.S. and its allies got away with threatening the people of North Korea for so long and denying Pyongyang the sovereign right to self-defense. Admittedly, Russia did previously support UN sanctions on North Korea over its missile program. That’s over.
The U.S.-led proxy war in Ukraine against Russia that erupted in February 2022 was a wake-up call for Moscow and many people around the world.
Patently, the Western hegemonic system will stop at nothing to assert its neocolonialist privileges, even to the point of antagonizing a nuclear world war.
There is only one language that the U.S. and its minions understand – and that is the threat of devastating countervailing force.
Washington and its NATO lackeys think they can put missiles in Ukraine to hit Russia or in South Korea and Japan to hit North Korea – at no cost to their own security. Well, now, they might want to think again. There’s a new sheriff in town, as this week’s developments show.
A new global security system is being incarnate. Russia’s vision of indivisible, mutual security is shared by China and many other nations because it is fully compliant with international law and nations’ sovereignty.
Russia, China and other supporters of a multipolar world are not preemptively threatening anyone. But it takes the guarantee of unassailable nuclear powers, Russia and China, to make a new security system viable by restoring the deterrence towards the rogue states of the United States and NATO accomplices.
The defense accords between Russia, the DPRK and Vietnam are installments of the new security architecture that is needed in Eurasia and globally. The has-been American hegemon has been served notice that from now on its presumption of belligerence with impunity, to destroy nations, and to have a license to murder en masse is null and void.
Welcome to the new multipolar order and Pax Rossiya. All are welcome – except hegemonic rogue states.
Outgoing Stoltenberg is still laying mines for the world
Global Times | June 19, 2024
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is about to leave his post, and the upcoming NATO summit to be held in the US next month will be his farewell tour, if nothing else. In the past two days, Stoltenberg went to Washington to warm up for the upcoming summit, at the same time showing off some of his own “achievements” to leave some political legacy for the past nine years in his post as NATO Secretary General. He touted that 23 of the 32-member bloc have met the target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense, while revealing that NATO is discussing the deployment of more nuclear weapons. Stoltenberg’s remarks, which make the world feel great concerns and threats, are said with easiness and even great excitement. The NATO chief also continued to threaten China, saying that China cannot “have it both ways” between the West and Russia and that if it does not change course, “there should be consequences.”
In his nine years in office, the world saw the prolonged Syrian civil war, and the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as well as the Israel-Palestine conflict. The role of NATO, a product of the Cold War and the world’s largest military bloc, in the conflicts of such magnitude, is dishonorable. The Ukraine crisis, in particular, caused by the bloc’s eastward expansion, plunged Ukraine into war, further tore Europe apart, and brought NATO back to life. Even within the US and Europe, there has been harsh criticism and warnings about this.
Yet, Stoltenberg is not satisfied, as he continued to call on the West to supply more weapons to Ukraine on Monday in Washington, claiming it is the “path to peace.” Even he cannot justify it, admitting that this “may seem like a paradox.” This is Stoltenberg’s way of covering up his attempts at war and culpability, as well as the way of NATO as a whole: to create conflicts in the name of preventing crises and to exacerbate catastrophes in the name of managing crises. As one Western scholar summarized, invasion has been hailed as “humanitarian intervention,” coup d’état as “democratic revolution,” regime subversion as “democracy promotion,” gunboat diplomacy as “freedom of navigation,” military bloc expansion as “European integration,” and domination as “negotiation from a position of strength.”
Under Stoltenberg’s leadership, NATO has also been attempting to interfere in the Asia-Pacific region, aligning with the strategic direction of the US, and promoting “NATO’s Asia-Pacificization.” Although such attempts have encountered resistance from the majority of countries in the Asia-Pacific region, and thus remain limited to a small circle of US allies, regional countries must not be negligent. The desire of regional countries to maintain the regional peace and development does not mean that NATO has no intention of creating discord. NATO’s own history has proved that it strengthens its functions through crisis creation. Since it now intends to enhance its presence and functions on a global scale, it inevitably has to create larger crises.
On this point, insightful individuals internationally, including those in Western countries, have long provided incisive summaries. Organizations like NATO have interfered in nearly all wars and conflicts since its foundation, consistently exporting war and only bringing more problems. In the cycle of seeking enemies, creating crises, and extending its existence, NATO aims to make China the latest target. In recent years, NATO summit declarations have increasingly mentioned China, and provocative actions against China have become more frequent. Particularly, Stoltenberg himself has repeatedly issued threats this year, demanding that China must choose sides between the West and Russia. In February alone, he created a notable scene during his US visit by making seven provocative statements about China in six days. His speeches are filled with confrontational language and echoes of the Cold War. Given that some political elites in the US and Europe frequently champion moral causes such as “opposing coercion” and “defending peace,” they should feel embarrassed by Stoltenberg’s remarks.
Stoltenberg’s strenuous efforts to perform and use various occasions to promote the “China threat” narrative indirectly indicate that this task is difficult. China consistently participates in international affairs as a responsible major power, pursuing peace and bringing opportunities. Even within NATO, China is one of the main trading partners for the majority of its 32 member countries. This is one of the reasons why NATO labels China as a “systemic challenge.” For a war-dependent entity like NATO, a China that follows a path of peaceful development naturally becomes a “challenge.”
This year also marks NATO’s 75th anniversary. Stoltenberg’s warmongering rhetoric is the best commentary on the role NATO has played over the past 75 years. If Stoltenberg leaves any legacy during his term, it is conflict and war. People should be particularly wary of Stoltenberg’s promotion of the “threat narrative.” History has repeatedly shown that such rhetoric always runs counter to peace, development, and prosperity. The louder NATO’s voice becomes, the more vigilant peace-loving people should remain.
NATO chief says China should be punished
RT | June 18, 2024
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has called for making China pay a price for allegedly propping up Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine, saying Beijing is “fueling” the conflict by supplying microelectronics and other key components to Moscow.
“The reality is that China is fueling the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II,” Stoltenberg said on Monday in a speech at the Wilson Center in Washington. “At the same time, it wants to maintain good relations with the West. Well, Beijing cannot have it both ways. At some point, unless China changes course, allies need to impose a cost.”
Stoltenberg has repeatedly attacked China since the Ukraine crisis began in February 2022, arguing that Beijing was enabling Russia to fight against Kiev, a “European friend” of NATO. He has made such comments even as NATO states prolonged the conflict by providing hundreds of billions of dollars’ in economic and military aid to Ukraine.
Monday’s rebuke marked some of his most pointed criticism yet, suggesting that NATO may ramp up sanctions against China. He also called out North Korea and Iran for being supportive of Russia’s defense-industrial complex.
Stoltenberg reiterated an assertion that NATO – a military bloc originally formed against the Soviet Union – needs to get more involved in the Indo-Pacific to counter the “growing alignment between Russia and its authoritarian friends in Asia.” He noted that he invited the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand to next month’s NATO summit in Washington to work together on upholding the “international rules-based order.”
China is providing Russia with semiconductors and other key technologies with military applications, including parts needed to make missiles and tanks, Stoltenberg said. He added that Beijing also has supplied Russia with improved satellite and imaging capabilities. “All of this enables Moscow to inflict more death and destruction on Ukraine, bolster Russia’s defense-industrial base, and evade the impact of sanctions and export controls.”
The NATO chief also spoke of his China concerns in an interview with the BBC on Monday. Asked about what the Western military bloc might do about the issue, he said there was an “ongoing conversation” about possible sanctions. “At some stage, we should consider some kind of economic cost if China doesn’t change their behavior,” he said.
Beijing has repeatedly defied demands from the US and other NATO nations to join in sanctioning and isolating Russia. Chinese leaders have pushed a peace plan to end the fighting and have pointed out that Russia’s legitimate security concerns cannot be ignored.
Earlier this year, the Chinese Foreign Ministry denounced NATO as a “walking war machine that causes chaos wherever it goes.” Beijing has accused NATO of meddling in Asian affairs, saying the bloc is a “terrible monster” and has extended a “black hand” toward the region.
Repeated Western narratives of China’s nuclear ‘threat’ are what lead to a dangerous world
Global Times | June 17, 2024
In an interview with The Telegraph published on Sunday, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg claimed that the bloc is in talks of taking missiles out of storage and placing them on standby in the face of a growing threat from Russia and China. While giving a stark warning about the threat from China, he said a world where countries like China have nuclear weapons, and NATO does not, is “a more dangerous world.”
What truly constitutes a dangerous world is the world’s largest war machine hyping a nuclear war that could bring devastating consequences to mankind. Stoltenberg is telling the world that NATO would go beyond being just a conventional combat force, and become a nuclear alliance. He is trying to create an opinion condition favorable for NATO and the US to strengthen their nuclear-sharing capability. At a pre-ministerial press conference of NATO on June 12, Stoltenberg stated that the US is modernizing its nuclear weapons in Europe.
It is worth noting that the warnings of Stoltenberg came against the backdrop of the ongoing Ukraine crisis. The just concluded two-day peace summit in Switzerland did not achieve much to solve the crisis. The US-led West has no will to end the conflict as soon as possible. Instead, it sent out a nuclear deterrence against Russia, which is nothing but adding oil to the fire, according to Zhang Junshe, a Chinese military expert.
Zhang believes that the fundamental reason that the NATO chief made the irresponsible remarks is to coordinate US strategies to suppress its adversaries.
“The Cold War bloc aims to expand its role to the world, including the Asia-Pacific. It acts as a pawn of Washington to contain Russia in Europe and contain China in Asia,” said Zhang.
On June 7, Pranay Vaddi, a senior White House aide, said that the US may have to deploy more strategic nuclear weapons in coming years to deter growing threats from Russia, China and other adversaries.
Coincidentally or not, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) on Sunday launched its annual assessment of the state of armaments, disarmament and international security, in which it said that China is amid a “significant” expansion of its nuclear capabilities and may have as many intercontinental ballistic missiles as the US or Russia by 2030. The Stockholm-based watchdog also claimed that China is believed to have some warheads on high operational alert for the first time.
Reading through SIPRI’s report, one can feel a strong intention of thwarting China’s development of nuclear weapons, despite the fact that the US has 10 times as many nuclear warheads as China. The report has quickly raised the eyebrows of major Western media outlets which rush to report on China’s “fast-growing” nuclear stockpile.
The fact that nuclear arsenals are being strengthened around the world is the result of global conflicts such as the ones in Ukraine and Gaza and the suppression of Western countries against non-Western countries. “The SIPRI’s report and Western media’s narrative of China’s ‘fast-growing’ nuclear stockpile are deliberate suppression of China and a kind of nuclear blackmail,” Cui Heng, a research fellow from the Center for Russian Studies of East China Normal University, told the Global Times.
Now, the US has ripped off its veil of decency when dealing with China. The competition between China and the US will feature bilateral relations in the long run. Both sides strive to build “guardrails” to prevent relations from going off the track. However, China needs to show its strength. Strength can be best reflected by the nuclear weapons China owns. Nuclear power is the foundation of national security when China faces an increasingly hostile US with 10 times of nuclear warheads that China has.
Zhang, the military expert, noted that China’s expansion of its nuclear arsenal is imperative. It will help not only to effectively get by the West’s nuclear blackmail and threat, but also safeguard the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and break through the shackles and obstacles created by the West during the process of China’s development.
China is a nuclear power that formally maintains a no-first-use policy. Its nuclear policy is fundamentally different from that of the US and NATO. If the US and NATO do not want to live in a dangerous world, they should start by changing their own perception of China.
US Boosted Nuclear Arms Spending by 18% in 2023, Record Among Nuclear States – Report
Sputnik – 17.06.2024
The United States last year increased spending on nuclear weapons by 18%, which is the highest rate among all nine countries possessing nuclear weapons, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) said on Monday.
US alone spends on nukes more than all other nuclear-armed states, the report read.
“[In 2023] Every country increased the amount it spent on nuclear weapons. The United States had the biggest increase, at nearly 18%. The United States spent more than all the other nuclear-armed states combined, at $51.5 billion. China surpassed Russia as the second-highest spender at $11.9 billion, and Russia came in third, spending $8.3 billion,” the ICAN said in a report, adding that the United Kingdom also significantly increased its nuclear spending for the second year in a row.
In 2023, the US, the UK, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia spent a total of $91.4 billion developing their nuclear arsenals, which is $10.8 billion or 13.4% more than in 2022, the ICAN also said.
“In 2023, twenty companies working on nuclear weapons development and maintenance earned at least $31 billion for this work. There are at least $335 billion in outstanding nuclear weapons contracts to these companies, some of which have continued for more than a decade. In 2023, at least $7.9 billion in new nuclear weapon contracts were awarded,” the report read.
ICAN, a coalition of civil society organizations in over 100 countries, was founded in Melbourne, Australia in 2007. The coalition promotes adherence to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. In 2017, it received the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts.
Earlier, experts explained to Sputnik that recent Minuteman III launches are a regular audit of the strategic forces rather than nuclear saber-rattling.
US using Ukraine conflict as pretext to impose sanctions – China
RT | June 13, 2024
The US is using the Ukraine crisis as an opportunity to impose sanctions while continuing to pump Kiev with weapons, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said on Thursday.
Lin made the remarks after the US State Department and Treasury Department announced a new round of curbs on Wednesday targeting 300 additional individuals and entities in Russia and other countries, including China, Türkiye, and the UAE. In particular, Washington has sanctioned China-based companies which are selling semiconductors to Moscow.
According to the Treasury Department, the latest measures target more than $100 million in trade between Russia and foreign partners suspected of enabling Moscow to evade Western embargoes.
The Chinese diplomat called Washington “extremely hypocritical and overbearing” for supplying Ukraine with weapons while pushing for peace.
“We urge the United States to immediately stop abusing illegal unilateral sanctions, and focus on ceasefires, stop wars, restore peace, and play a constructive role,” he said at a regular news briefing.
Beijing had previously accused the US and its allies, which together supply the bulk of Kiev’s military equipment, of hypocrisy, stating that Western powers should work on bringing Russia and Ukraine to the negotiation table, instead of “shifting the blame” onto China for the continued hostilities.
Earlier this week, China said it remains firmly opposed to the sanctions, noting it would safeguard the rights and interests of its companies and citizens. Beijing has urged Washington to stop smearing China and “lift illegal unilateral sanctions” on its businesses.
Beijing has adhered to a policy of neutrality with regards to the Ukraine conflict, and has firmly rebuffed Western calls to impose sanctions on Russia, opting instead to boost trade with its neighbor. This has led to accusations from the UK and its NATO allies that Beijing is fueling Russia’s military effort by supplying it with dual-use components that can be utilized in weapons production.
Among the latest steps, the US Treasury said it was raising “the risk of secondary sanctions for foreign financial institutions that deal with Russia’s war economy,” effectively threatening them with losing access to the American financial system.
The Chinese foreign ministry has repeatedly stressed that economic and trade cooperation between China and Russia “will not be disrupted by any third party.”
Annual trade between the bordering countries surpassed $240 billion last year, according to official data.
Has Israel considered a loss to Hezbollah?
By Ali Rizk | The Cradle | June 11, 2024
As the war in Gaza lags on, cross-border exchanges on the Lebanese–Israeli front have intensified. Fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military has taken a heavy toll on both sides. The Lebanese resistance movement has lost over 300 fighters, with Israeli shelling resulting in the displacement of tens of thousands of Lebanese residents of the country’s southern villages.
Israel has not fared much better, with at least sixty thousand northern settlers forced to flee their homes. While the occupation army has confirmed the death of around a dozen of its soldiers in the exchanges with Hezbollah, the real number is estimated to be much higher.
In March, The Cradle gained intel that over 230 Israeli troops had been killed in combat since 8 October 2023.
The rising threat of a large-scale war
While the northern conflict currently remains within the boundaries of ‘controlled escalation,’ the prospects of a full-blown war between Hezbollah and Israel may be steadily increasing. Far-right members of the Israeli government, who are key to keeping Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition intact, have become noticeably more vocal in supporting escalation on the Lebanese front.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has called for launching an attack on Beirut, describing it as “the capital of terrorism.” Given these stances, it cannot be entirely dismissed that Netanyahu may opt to escalate against Lebanon.
Indeed, recent statements by the Israeli prime minister suggest that some form of wider escalation on the northern front may be in the making.
Speaking during a visit to the headquarters of the Israeli military’s Northern Command, Netanyahu referred to “surprising plans” being devised to deal with Hezbollah, aiming to “restore security to the north and to restore residents safely to their homes” without going into further detail.
Amid these developments, the Israeli military recently completed a drill that simulated a ground incursion into Lebanon.
A large-scale Israeli offensive on Lebanon in the near future would also be consistent with earlier assessments made by US officials, who, in late February, predicted a possible ground incursion into Lebanon by the late spring or early summer.
Hezbollah’s increasing capabilities
Hezbollah’s challenge to Israel appears to be on the rise, reflecting a failure of Tel Aviv’s current strategy of relying on precision surgical strikes. According to the Israeli institute Alma, which monitors developments on the Lebanese–Israeli front, 325 cross-border attacks were carried out by Hezbollah in May, the highest number of monthly attacks on this front since 7 October.
The resistance movement’s operations have also become more sophisticated, revealing capabilities it has introduced for the first time. Hezbollah managed to destroy an advanced surveillance balloon used to detect incoming attacks in an operation conducted via a kamikaze drone.
It has also upgraded its drone capabilities, recently launching a twin-kamikaze drone attack on the northern town of Hurfeish and conducting its first-ever air raid through an armed UAV equipped with S5 rockets. The operation targeted Israeli soldiers in the settlement of Metula and was the first time in which an Arab force had launched an airstrike on Israel.
Most recently, Hezbollah released footage on 6 June showing a guided missile attack on an Iron Dome platform in Israel’s Ramot Naftali barracks in the Galilee.
What to expect in a full-scale war
The increased sophistication of Hezbollah’s operations can also be seen as fueling Tel Aviv’s urgency to take decisive action against the resistance group. This was expressed by former Israeli war cabinet minister Benny Gantz, who described the Lebanese front as the most significant and pressing operative front in the current conflict, warning that the “moment of truth” was now close.
However, what the Lebanese movement has demonstrated since 7 October also serves as a warning of what awaits the occupation state if an all-out war were to erupt.
The Israeli military is expected to employ methods similar to 2006 in that it would carry out destructive air raids on ‘Hezbollah strongholds’ in southern Lebanon, Beirut, and the Bekaa region.
Speaking to The Cradle, retired Lebanese Brigadier General Elias Farhat explains:
There is no such thing as a limited full-scale war. A full-scale war will have to include all of Hezbollah’s strongholds.
However, any Israeli onslaught on par or exceeding what happened in 2006 is almost certainly going to be met, this time, with a much harsher response from Hezbollah.
The Lebanese movement has amassed a far larger rocket and missile arsenal, with estimates pointing to over 150,000 of these weapons now in its possession. Given this military build-up, Hezbollah is widely recognized today as the world’s heaviest armed non-state actor.
Perhaps even more importantly, its arsenal includes precision missiles such as the Fateh 110, enabling it to aim at strategic Israeli installations that could cause immense damage. Against this backdrop, Israeli experts have warned of a MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) scenario in the event of a full-scale war with Hezbollah.
It is also possible the Lebanese movement possesses military capabilities that could undermine Israel’s air power advantage. The group has already demonstrated its air defense capability against Israeli drones, having succeeded in shooting down several ‘Hermes’ UAVs in the current round of hostilities.
The bigger danger to Israel, however, would be Hezbollah’s possession of air defenses capable of shooting down not only drones but Israeli warplanes. Given the strengthening of military ties between Russia and Iran, the possibility of Hezbollah accessing Moscow’s enhanced anti-aircraft technology is increased.
The resistance movement has already announced that it launched surface-to-air missiles at Israeli warplanes that had broken the sound barrier and had hence forced the aircraft to retreat.
This marks the first development of its kind in the history of warfare between Hezbollah and Israel and could merely be a warning shot for what could transpire in the event of an all-out war.
That Hezbollah would unveil such weapons in a full-scale conflict is consistent with its strategy of saving its best for such confrontations. In 2006, it surprised the Israeli military by striking a warship in a missile attack.
Israel would also likely face superior offensive ground operations in a full-scale war with Hezbollah. The Lebanese movement gained valuable experience in such operations while fighting extremist groups in Syria.
As Hussein Ibish of the Arab Gulf States Institute recounts to The Cradle:
“The combination of Hezbollah ground fighters and Russian air and signals intelligence dominance was the ‘A-Team’ on behalf of the Assad [government] in the Syrian war.”
Given this experience and its ability to launch airstrikes via UAVs, Hezbollah likely retains the capacity to launch offensive infantry operations – importantly, with air cover.
Manpower and tactical advantages
Hezbollah will also likely enjoy an advantage in terms of reliable, tested, and highly motivated manpower. Due to its close ties with allied resistance factions in Iraq and Yemen, fighters from these countries are likely to come to Hezbollah’s aid in a full-scale conflict with Israel.
The Lebanese movement’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah alluded to this factor in a 2017 speech. Israel, by contrast, appears to be suffering from a shortage of manpower in its military ranks, not to mention tanking troop and commander morale, highlighted on Sunday by yet another high-level military resignation, this time Gaza Division Commander Brigadier-General Avi Rosenfeld.
Israeli defenses are also unlikely to succeed when facing large barrages of Hezbollah missiles and drones. Unlike Iran’s retaliatory attack on 13 April, where the US and allies shot down a large fraction of the incoming drones and missiles, similar-style attacks launched by Hezbollah would be far more difficult to deal with.
The closer geographical distance means much less time to intercept and shoot down such attacks. Hezbollah, which relies heavily on the element of surprise in its military tactics, will also certainly not telegraph its attacks beforehand as Iran did. As a result, Israel would likely remain exposed to immense attacks through surface-to-surface missiles, kamikaze drones, and airstrikes via UAVs.
Moreover, the Lebanese resistance has spent many months tirelessly disabling Israel’s “eyes and ears” in the north, reportedly destroying over 1,650 pieces of intelligence, surveillance, and target acquisition (ISR) equipment since the conflict’s onset.
Israel is increasingly operating blindly in that vital northern theater, allowing Hezbollah to repeatedly and successfully strike at qualitative targets, penetrate more deeply into the occupation state, and employ more advanced weaponry.
The US response
While it is likely that the US will rush to defend its Israeli ally, the bigger question is how far it is willing to go. As indicated above, defensive measures are unlikely to significantly undermine the severity of Hezbollah’s cross-border missile and drone operations.
Judging from its approach following the Iranian attack on Israel, Washington is unlikely to go beyond defensive support. Following Operation True Promise, the White House reportedly informed Tel Aviv that it would have no part in any offensive action against Tehran, effectively leaving its Israeli ally with little choice but to settle for a far less proportionate response to Iran’s significant military operation.
Given how that situation unfolded, it would be a risky gamble for Israel to pin its hopes on its US security guarantor assuming an offensive role in a major war with Hezbollah. Tensions are also rising between the US and rival superpowers, reinforcing this dynamic.
Speaking to The Cradle, Steven Simon, Senior Director for the Middle East and North Africa in the US National Security Council during the Obama administration, emphasizes that “a direct combat role beyond air defenses (in a full-scale war between Hezbollah and Israel) is highly unlikely.” This is especially the case, he adds, “given tensions with Russia and China.”
Nawaf al-Musawi, Hezbollah’s Resource and Border Affairs official and one of the movement’s strategic thinkers, offers this prediction:
The Israeli occupation needs weapons from Washington for any war it wishes to wage against Lebanon. After any war with Lebanon, the region will not be the same as it was before. The next war with Israel will be the final war.
China Intercepts Dutch Chopper Near Shanghai, Lambasts Netherlands for Provocation
By Sergey Lebedev – Sputnik – 11.06.2024
People’s Liberation Army fighter jets escorted a Dutch helicopter that violated Chinese airspace under the auspice of a UN mission. Beijing warned the Netherlands to avoid such incidents in the future.
The Dutch military has created a dangerous situation in the East China Sea after using a UN mission as a cover, Chinese Ministry of Defense representative Zhang Xiaogang has said.
He added that Beijing urges the Netherlands to limit any activities of their armed forces in the region and vowed decisive counter-measures in response to provocations near China’s territory.
The statement came in response to Amsterdam saying that one People’s Liberation Army helicopter and two fighter jets had approached a helicopter assigned to a Dutch frigate in the East China Sea.
The Dutch claimed that the incident happened in international airspace and that the vessel was overseeing the implementation of a UN Security Council resolution on North Korea sanctions. Beijing debunked these claims, explaining that the helicopter assigned to the Tromp-class frigate of the Royal Netherlands Navy entered its airspace east of Shanghai.
The command of the People’s Liberation Army had to use its fighter jets to expel the helicopter from the area after warning its crew.
“[These steps] were legal and purposeful, everything was done professionally and according to standards. It is the Netherlands not China who created the dangerous situation,” Zhang underlined.
He added that the Netherlands had used the UN mission as a pretext for power projection in regions that are under the jurisdiction of other countries.
“Dutch statements and activities have a malevolent nature, we condemn them and we’ve sent a demarche,” he stressed, adding that China will take decisive countermeasures on any future violations or provocations.
American mainstream expert calls for global war in three continents
By Uriel Araujo | June 7, 2024
Is a “Three-Theater” war scenario both feasible and desirable for the US? Some think so. American analysts within the Establishment are in fact calling for war “in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.” This is what Thomas G. Mahnken (both a Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies professor and the CEO of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) is urging Washington to do, in his most recent Foreign Affairs piece.
For Mahnken, Washington is “currently involved in two wars—Ukraine’s in Europe and Israel’s in the Middle East”, while also “facing the prospect of a third over Taiwan or South Korea in East Asia.” Moreover, “all three theaters are vital to US interests, and they are all intertwined.” Deprioritizing Europe and disengaging from the Middle East can only weaken American security, he argues: “The U.S. military drawdown in the Middle East, for instance, has created a vacuum that Tehran has filled eagerly.” Of course, such reasoning can only make sense if American “security” is equated with Washington’s unipolarity.
US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, during his recent speech at Shangri-la Dialogue (in Singapore), made it a point to stress that “despite historic clashes in Europe and the Middle East… the Indo-Pacific has remained our priority theater of operations.” According to Austin, the US is a Pacific nation (with a capital P, and with no pun intended, presumably), and added that “the US can be secure only if Asia is secure. That’s why… [we have] long maintained our presence in this region. And that’s why we continue to make the investments necessary to meet our commitments to our allies and partners.” As for the relationship with China, the Secretary was more ambiguous, claiming that “a fight with China is neither imminent nor unavoidable.”
While Lloyd Austin seems to differ from Mahnken (on emphasis), there is not necessarily a dilemma there. I’ve often described Washington’s ambitions as being all about having the cake and eating it too. Jerry Hendrix (retired Navy captain, formerly an adviser to Pentagon senior officials, and currently a senior fellow with the Sagamore Institute) has written that, in Mackinder terms (classic Geopolitics), the US has embarked on a quest for the “Heartland”, and this contradicts its true “sea power” nature. This is so because Washington, in recent times, has been “burdened” by mostly “land-based actions in Iraq and Afghanistan fought primarily by a large standing army operating far from home”.
Rather than doing that, Hendrix urges the Atlantic superpower to, once again, “think and act like a seapower state”, that is, with a focus on deriving its might from “seaborne trade”, employing “instruments of sea power” to advance its interests. The expert describes the post-World War II period as an exceptional “free sea” period, marked by a “secure environment” which has supposedly allowed free trade to flourish in a globalized planet – this being the rather gleeful manner in which he describes the US-led world order, in spite of the fact that Washington has always weaponized protectionism.
In any case, as Hendrix notes, the American superpower acts both as a “continental power” and as a “sea power”. I’ve described its foreign policy as resembling the swing of a pendulum. Give or take, all Great Powers engage to some extent in proxy conflicts amid their geoeconomic and geopolitical disputes with other powers. In terms of regional disputes, whether one likes or not Moscow’s foreign policy today, one can at least concede that historically Russia and neighboring Ukraine have an intertwined and complicated shared history, and the same applies to China-Taiwan relations. But America is something quite different. To keep things in perspective, one should keep in mind, for example, that, amazingly, the only place in the entire world China has an overseas military base is Djibouti, in the Horn of Africa. In contrast, depending on how one counts it, Washington, in 2015, had about 800 military bases in over 70 countries.
Moreover, the US has in fact invaded 84 out of the 194 nation-states recognized by the United Nations, and has been militarily involved with no less than 191 of those, according to Christopher Kelly and Stuart Laycock, the authors of “America Invades: How We’ve Invaded or been Militarily Involved with almost Every Country on Earth”. The hard truth is that the United States of America is the only nation today (and arguably ever) to potentially engage in warfare across three continents – a scenario, keep in mind, that is cheered by prominent mainstream American commentators and scholars.
Other analysts, such as Andrea Rizzi, writing for El Pais, have described the possibility of war fronts in the Middle East, Europe and the Asia-Pacific becoming connected as a “nightmare” scenario – although not so convincingly, in Rizzi’s case, who seems to believe the political West has necessarily something to do with “democracy”, a historically controversial premise to say the least. Rizzi, however, makes the very valid point that “in geopolitics — and in life — high-stress situations lead to a greater margin for unforeseen events, errors in calculation and communication, uncontrolled actions by minority factions and escalations that are unintended, at least by the key players.” Even the main actors have an interest in keeping stability, at some point someone (or one’s proxies) may indeed make “a daring movie”, in Rizzi’s words, and thus bring about an escalation and unpredictable outcomes.
A series of Ukrainian and Western actions arguably represented precisely such a red-line crossing, in Moscow’s perspective. While some worry about the same thing happening in the Pacific, thus inadvertently igniting yet another war, others call for and crave for precisely such a war – not just in the Indo-Pacific region, but also in Europe and the Middle East, simultaneously. It is hard to describe such a call in any way other than as a will to set the world on fire – after all, one cannot literally desire war between Great Powers in three continents and not expect everything else that often comes with it (call it apocalypse in disguise, if you will).
Unbelievably, such bellicose calls, rather than being confined to the hate speech of extreme and fringe individuals and organizations, pass as reasonable and mainstream discourse, produced as it is, by respectable experts with impeccable credentials. And, mind you, Foreign Affairs will even publish it. It is no wonder: Washington foreign policy itself is, after all, largely built on the premise of American unipolarity and global war if need be.
Potential US Tactical Nuke Deployment in Asia-Pacific Could Bring Catastrophic Fallout – Expert
Sputnik – 06.06.2024
The director of the Knowfar Institute for Strategic and Defense Studies, Li Jian, provided insight regarding the potential deployment of US tactical nuclear weapons in the western Pacific Ocean in an interview with Sputnik.
“The question of US nuclear weapon deployment has a long history,” Jian told Sputnik, highlighting advancements in US tactical nuclear capabilities, such as the B61-12 bomb, and the completion of testing for various aircraft models.
“Since the US Department of Defense purchased 400 B61-12 tactical nuclear bombs, there needs to be somewhere to deploy them,” Jian emphasized.
The expert outlined potential deployment sites in the western Pacific, including military bases in South Korea, Japan, Okinawa, the Philippines, and Diego Garcia island.
“If tactical nuclear weapons are deployed directly in South Korea, this would become a direct factor of strategic containment against Russia’s Far East, Northern China, and North Korea,” the expert warned.
Addressing concerns in Northeast Asia, Jian questions the likelihood of deployment in South Korea over Okinawa due to prevalent anti-war and anti-nuclear sentiments among the Japanese, particularly island locals. He cautioned that such actions could disrupt the regional strategic balance, exacerbate arms races, and impede nuclear non-proliferation efforts.
US Senator Roger Wicker, the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, released a report on May 29 urging a significant increase in US military preparedness, particularly against nations like North Korea and China.
Titled “Peace Through Strength,” the report suggests exploring new strategies, including a “nuclear sharing agreement in the Indo-Pacific and re-deployment of US tactical nuclear weapons in the Korean Peninsula.” This call comes in the wake of the US Army’s deployment of the Mid-Range Capability, also known as the Typhon Weapon System, to Northern Luzon, Philippines, for the Salaknib 24 exercises in April.
Featured Video
Houthis Keep Advancing as the Red Sea Crisis Deepens
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
15 Saudi ‘hijackers’ were CIA agents working for US: Scholar
Press TV – April 13, 2016
Fifteen of the 9/11 “hijackers” from Saudi Arabia were CIA agents working for the United States government, which was seeking to destroy the Middle East for Israel and to double the American military budget, says Dr. Kevin Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003…. continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Russia Just Struck the Eyes of NATO’s War Machine in Ukraine
- Russia summons UK charge d’affaires over Kiev drone support
- NATO member warns bloc seeking pretext for war with Russia
- Macgregor: We Haven’t Seen the Worst of the Iran War Yet
- ‘We are not like everyone else’ laws that bind other nations do not apply to Israel, says Likud lawmaker
- Report: Saudi Arabia seeks allies’ assistance as missiles deplete amid war on Yemen
- Fuel Crisis Deepens: Pakistan Warns Tanker Attack in Red Sea Would Be an ‘Act of War’
- ‘Bucha massacre’ a false flag orchestrated by UK – Moscow
- China Rejects Outside Pressure on Trade Ties After New US Russia Sanctions Bill
- Houthis Keep Advancing as the Red Sea Crisis Deepens
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
Aletho News 