Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Germany faces political upheaval after historic AfD win

By Dénes Albert | Remix News | September 3, 2024

While the Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the big winner in Sunday’s German state elections, but it is unlikely to change the course of Germany on the national level over the short-term, even if the AfD’s policies could gain ground locally. Still, there are reasons to believe we could see long-term changes on the horizon.

While the AfD is still contained behind the firewall, the results in Thuringia and Saxony effectively “toppled” the governing coalition, and alongside the AfD, a new party, the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) has also become visible on the political scene.

Bence Bauer, director of the Hungarian-German Institute, explained this by saying that both the AfD and BSW agreed on most of the three major issues. These are the migration issue, Germany’s misguided Ukraine and arms transfer policy, and the economic policy vis-à-vis the German government.

With the German government in a very bad position, the AfD and BSW parties were able to ride the social discontent very well, to formulate an alternative.

“This is especially a great success for Sahra Wagenknecht, whose party is eight months old,” Bence Bauer stressed.

Based on initial statements, she would be willing to cooperate with the CDU, but Sahra Wagenknecht is demanding a very high price.

“It’s essentially about changing the CDU’s war policy,” said Samuel Ágoston Mráz, head of the Nézőpont Institute. However, he added, it could be a ploy on her part, as she has no intention for the CDU to actually accept her proposal. In short, it may not be an acceptable demand from the CDU just to form a state government.

Wagenknecht knows that the CDU is looking to 2025, and the east is not their top priority. After all, a Thuringia of only 2 million in a Germany of 80 million cannot be so important that it jeopardizes its showing next year in federal elections.

Another reason to not ultimately strike a deal with BSW is the fact that if BSW gets into government at the state level, this party could take root in the German system. Sahra Wagenknecht is now in two state parliaments, and if she gets into government, that will give her great potential for growth.

“I expect a protracted government formation,” added Mraz Ágoston Samuel. In this context, he recalled the claims that “the German economy will be ruined if the AFD comes close to power.” That is why Samuel believes the “firewall” will remain in place against the AfD.

“There will certainly be protracted coalition talks, I agree that the firewall will remain,” said Zoltán Kiszelly, director of political analysis at the Századvég Centre for Public Policy Studies. As he told our paper, the recent state elections in Germany seemed to be dominated by national issues, showing how dissatisfied voters are with the government. Of the mainstream parties, the CDU has held up best, but it remains to be seen what kind of alliances they will find.

September 3, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Anti-Establishment Parties Have Triumphed in Germany’s Regional Elections

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 02.09.2024

The Eurosceptic party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), won a regional ballot for the first time, surpassing Scholz’s ruling coalition.

AfD secured 32.8% in Thuringia, leading the race, followed by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) with 23.6%, according to exit polls.

In Saxony, the Eurosceptic party garnered 30.6%, losing to the CDU by a narrow margin.

The Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) claimed third place in both races, with 15.8% in Thuringia and 11.8% in Saxony.

Scholz’s “traffic-light” coalition of Social Democrats (SPD), the Greens, and the Free Democrats (FDP) performed poorly. The FDP failed to reach the 5% threshold required to enter either regional legislature, and the Greens did not make it into the parliament in Thuringia.

SPD received 6.1% and 7.3% in Thuringia and Saxony, respectively.

“We are ready to take on government responsibility,” AfD leader in Thuringia, Bjorn Hocke, declared, celebrating what he called a “historic victory.”

Omid Nouripour, co-leader of the Greens, lamented the outcome and described it as “a profound turning point” in German history.

The AfD’s victory sparked a heated debate, with mainstream Western media warning that Germany’s political center is “crumbling” ahead of the next federal election in September 2025. Some outlets noted that Scholz have been “humbled” by the German right-wing party.

Others highlighted the rise of anti-establishment parties in Germany, acknowledging that both AfD and BSW, which advocate halting arms supplies to Ukraine, and imposing immigration controls, have performed notably well.

September 2, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Democracy kaput: Germans want peace with Russia, but their rulers only answer to Washington and Kiev

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | August 27, 2024

Since the beginning of the Ukraine Crisis in 2013/14, German governments, first under former chancellor Angela Merkel, then under her pathetic successor Olaf Scholz, have totally failed to help find a solution through compromise. This is no minor matter, and history won’t look kindly on Germany. Representing a traditionally significant if declining and now self-diminishing power in Europe, Berlin could have made a difference – quite conceivably one that would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Yet things are what they are. Initially, under the thoroughly opportunistic yet usually intelligent Merkel, this German failure was mostly due to subservience to the US but practiced in Berlin’s then signature style of evasive shiftiness. Yes, Merkel helped Kiev sabotage the 2015 Minsk II agreement, which could have avoided large-scale war between Russia and Ukraine. But she did that on the sly and only admitted it retrospectively, when criticized for having been “soft” on Russia. “No, I wasn’t!” she, in essence retorted, “I did my part and lied like a street grifter!” What can one say? Ideas of personal dignity differ across cultures.

Under her successor, the merely opportunistic Scholz, Berlin’s approaches have reverted to a certain elementary simplicity. The so-called “Zeitenwende” (epochal turn) he announced two years ago with traditional German modesty means that his coalition government has obeyed Washington in an unprecedentedly self-harming manner. Accepting sabotage of vital infrastructure – Nord Stream – and the systematic demolishing of the German economy by America’s beggar-thy-vassal policy, Scholz has grinned submissively, while not just sacrificing national interests but taking a flamethrower to them.

At the same time – and with a certain consistency one may also observe in committed masochists – this government of death wish loyalty has also ruined Germany’s relationship with Russia with Teutonic furor and thoroughness. All to pander to a Ukrainian regime that now stands accused of blowing up Nord Stream. That accusation makes no sense. Kiev loves to do its worst, true. But it could not have done it without the US. And yet the accusation is the new party line handed down via the Wall Street Journal. It serves as yet another test of how much public humiliation Berlin will take. Answer: there’s no limit.

But Berlin is not Germany. A government so bizarrely out of touch with its own country and its interests is unlikely to represent its citizens well. For some of its members that is even a point of pride. Foreign minister and geometry expert Annalena “360 degrees” Baerbock has long declared that she doesn’t care what her voters want but only about what the Zelensky regime demands. Baerbock, then, must have been positively delighted by the results of a recent and solid opinion poll.

Conducted by the topnotch INSA pollster, the new poll proves that many Germans do not see foreign policy – especially with respect to Russia and Ukraine – the way their current, immensely unpopular and massively failing (as even the Economist admits) rulers do. Consider some highlights: Asked if they are in favor or against peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, 68% of respondents were in favor.

And 65% consider it a “good” or “very good” idea to offer Moscow a quid pro quo, in which Russia would agree to a ceasefire and negotiations, while the West would stop supplying Ukraine with weapons. It’s another matter that Moscow would be unlikely to accept such a deal; those times are over. But Germans outside the Berlin elite clearly prefer winding down the war in lieu of the forever-war scenario that NATO and EU officially promote.

A clear plurality of respondents, 46%, believe that their government has failed to engage in enough diplomacy to protect Germany from the risk of war. Only 26% feel that Berlin has done enough. Yet there is no duty more elementary for rulers than doing everything possible to protect citizens from the threat of war. They cannot always succeed. But those widely seen as not having tried hard enough lose their legitimacy. That much we have known, at the latest since English political philosopher and arch-realist Thomas Hobbes published his “Leviathan” in the seventeenth century.

Legitimacy may sound abstract. Let’s talk about elections then, especially as three important regional elections are coming up. In the länder (states) of Saxony, Thuringia, and Brandenburg, all in Germany’s East, the Berlin coalition parties are staring at serious, even devastating losses to be inflicted by two surging newcomers, the very rightwing AfD and the leftwing yet culturally conservative BSW, named after its leader Sarah Wagenknecht.

Could the decline of the coalition parties have something to do with their resolute detachment from many voters’ wishes and fears over foreign policy? Absolutely. Asked in the INSA poll if a party’s demanding or failing to demand peace negotiations for the Russia-Ukraine War is a decisive factor in casting their vote, 43% of respondents answered in the affirmative. The same share said “no.” But leaving almost half the electorate with a strong sense that you don’t care about what they care about – especially in matters of life and death, i.e. war and peace – is never a winning strategy.

It is true that the question focused specifically on an election at the federal level; that is, for Germany as a whole. Regional politics, you might be tempted to think, has different priorities. You’d be so wrong, though. For one thing, Germans love to use their many regional elections as a way to punish the federal government. Voters do not make a neat separation between voting locally and dishing out the pain centrally. On the contrary.

Second, the results of regional elections, therefore, constantly affect Berlin politics, at this point right into the sick heart of a coalition that is terminal already. Third, regional elections in what used to be East Germany before the West German takeover in 1990 are even more neuralgic, because as a rule, voters there tend to be especially skeptical about Berlin’s by now abject subservience to the US and self-defeating if neo-traditional Russophobia.

Germany’s current mainstream media, think tanks, and academic cadres – such as conformist historians Jan Behrends and Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk – love to caricature, belittle, and patronize those Germans in the East of the country as in essence backward and brainwashed by Russians. (By the way, if you think that sounds weirdly familiar, that’s how Ukraine got its local civil war going in 2014.) Yet the Soviets/Russians haven’t had a say in eastern Germany for over a third of a century now. While Washington, of course, has maintained its propaganda grip. Maybe the proud domestic kulturträger (culture bearers) of NATO “value” Germany, and who love to look down on their eastern compatriots, should face their own lack of intellectual, political, and ethical independence instead. Where the fear of freedom cripples thought (while boosting careers), a little Kantian reliance on one’s own judgment might help.

In any case, belittling Germans in the East will make them only more determined, and rightly so, to vote their probably freer minds. And what freer minds in Germany see is a government that serves not their country but the US and Ukraine. That is a recipe for richly deserved defeat.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

August 27, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

Germany: Upcoming state elections to bring major political shift

By Dénes Albert | Remix News | August 26, 2024

On Sept. 1, two key East German states, Saxony and Thuringia, will hold landmark elections: The Alternative for Germany (AfD) looks unstoppable and the popularity of the left-wing Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) is soaring.

The whole of Germany is watching anxiously as local people decide their future on Sept. 1. In the former East Germany, there is a growing discontent with the policies and actions of the federal coalition government, which, according to opinion polls, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) is now without doubt the strongest party in Saxony and Thuringia, followed by the Christian Democrats (CDU), while the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), which was formed in the winter, is in third place and starting to catch up with 15 to 20 percent.

The right-wing AfD, which is calling for more action against illegal immigration, and the similarly oppositional but left-wing BSW are not only united by a general dissatisfaction with the CDU; both parties are opposed to further support for Ukraine and call for peace as soon as possible.

A poll in January this year already showed that if the elections in Saxony had taken place then, the radical anti-immigration AfD would almost certainly have won the most votes, 37 percent, followed by the CDU with around 30 percent, while the Social Democrats would not even have been elected to the state parliament.

The latest figures show a slight difference, but this does not mean that Michael Kretschmer, who currently leads the CDU-SPD-Green coalition in Saxony, can sit back comfortably. Opinion polls show them with a lead of just 4 percent, while the AfD is a close second with 30 percent.

And the serious terrorist attack in Solingen on Friday and the steady increase in other migrant-related crimes are probably not a reflection on the Kretschmer’s side either.

In Thuringia, where the CDU is in government with the Greens, the AfD is confidently in the lead with 30 percent, with only 21 percent supporting the CDU and 3 percent the Greens.

August 26, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Debate: Is A Demonstration Project Really Necessary?

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | August 17, 2024

My repeated calls for a Demonstration Project of a zero-emissions electrical grid have led to a spirited debate among knowledgeable commenters. While most back my position, some say that a Demonstration Project is really not necessary and would be a waste of effort.

The gist of the argument of those disputing the necessity of a Demonstration Project is that it is so obvious that a zero-emissions grid powered predominantly by wind and solar generation cannot be achieved that the expense and effort of building an actual physical facility cannot be justified. Before the building of a physical demonstration project there would inevitably be an engineering feasibility study, and such a feasibility study would not get through its first day before everybody involved realized that this could never work. All it would take would be a few back-of-the-envelope calculations using basic arithmetic and the whole endeavor would be sunk.

Regular commenter Richard Greene leads the forces arguing against a demonstration project. From a comment by Richard on my August 10 post:

A good demonstration project that included manufacturing and farming is very likely not needed. A real local utility Nut Zero grid engineering plan on paper would have grid engineers laughing hysterically. The money allocated for backup batteries would be nowhere close to paying for the battery GWh capacity needed. Backup natural gas power plants could do the job, but gas backup is not wanted. . . . 100% wind and solar can never work due to compound energy droughts, wind drought and solar droughts (batteries are far too expensive).

Representative of the pro-demonstration project side is a comment from “dm” on the August 13 post. Excerpt:

Because many people doubt paper analyses, lived experience is a necessary teacher. Thus, demonstration projects are NEEDED to prove the folly of “sustainable” electricity grids. Furthermore, the demonstration projects MUST be in regions heavily populated with nut zero enthusiasts, and ALL costs MUST be paid SOLELY by households, businesses, institutions … located within the demonstration areas.

My natural sympathies here would lie with Richard’s side of this debate. How can spending what would likely be billions of dollars of public money be justified when calculations that I have made or verified myself show that the project will never come close to success?

But then we must look at what is happening in large states and countries that are proceeding toward the stated goal of a zero-emissions grid without ever having had a working demonstration project. In some of these cases (Germany, UK) the wasted resources are now into the trillions, not billions. And at some point the whole effort will inevitably be ended with some kind of hard-to-predict catastrophe (long blackouts? multiplication of consumer costs by a factor of ten or more?). By then, many of the working resources that have made the grid function will have been destroyed and will have to be re-created, at a cost of further trillions.

Consider the case of Germany. Germany is a very substantial country (80+ million people, making it twice the size of California and four times the size of New York), with the world’s fourth largest GDP at over $4 trillion annually. Germany was one of the first to start down the road to a zero-emissions grid back in the 1990s, and formally adopted its “Energiewende” fourteen years ago in 2010. Germany has proceeded farther than any other large country in converting its electricity generation to wind and solar.

And yet, as I look around for information on Germany’s progress toward zero-emissions electricity, I can’t find any concern or recognition that this might not be doable in the end. Perhaps that exists in German language sources that I can’t read. But from anything I can find, it looks like Germany is forging ahead in the blind faith that if only they build enough wind turbines and solar panels at some point they will have the zero-emissions electricity that they crave.

Go to the website of the Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environmental Agency) for the latest information. At least on the electricity front, you will not find any indication that there may be problems in achieving the zero-emissions utopian future:

The “Energiewende” – Germany’s transition towards a secure, environmentally friendly, and economically successful energy future – includes a large-scale restructuring of the energy supply system towards the use of renewable energy in all sectors. . . . [T]he switch towards renewables in the electricity sector has been very successful so far. . . . While in the year 2000 renewables accounted for 6.3 percent of electricity demand only, its [sic] share has been growing significantly over the past years, exceeding 10 percent in the year 2005 and 25 per cent in the year 2013. In 2023 renewable energy sources provided 272 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity and account for 51.8 percent of German electricity demand. With wind power being by far the most important energy source in the German electricity mix.

Some 30+ years into this process, and they’re only up to barely over 50% of their electricity from “renewables.” And while they may claim that “wind power [is] by far the most important source in the German electricity mix,” in fact when you get a breakdown you find that wind and solar together provided well less than 50%. According to solar advocates Fraunhofer Institute here, in 2023 “biomass” provided some 42.3 TWh of Germany’s electricity (about 8%), hydro provided 19.5 TWh (about 4%), and “waste non-renewable” (I think that means burning garbage) provided 4.5 TWh (about 1%). That leaves under 40% for wind and solar.

If they keep building solar and wind facilities, and expect batteries to be the backup, has anybody calculated how much battery storage they will need? Not that I can find. Here is a website of a company called Fluence, which is an affiliate of German industrial giant Siemens. They excitedly predict a rapid expansion of grid storage in Germany:

Storage capacity will grow 40-fold to 57 GWh by 2030.

Wow, a 40-fold increase! It may sound like a lot. But Germany’s average electricity demand is about 50 GW, so the 57 GWh of battery storage in 2030 will come to about 1 hour’s worth. Competent calculations of the amount of energy storage needed to back up a predominantly wind/solar grid run in the range of around 500 to 1000 hours.

Here from another website is a chart of the growth of energy storage in Germany up to this year.

Look at that acceleration! But the 10 GWh of storage that they currently have will last no more than about 10 minutes when the wind and sun quit producing on a calm night.

In short, this large and seemingly sophisticated country is completely delusional, with no sane voices anywhere to be heard. A demonstration project that fails spectacularly is the only thing with any hope of saving them.

August 25, 2024 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Why Ukraine is being blamed for Nord Stream

The ‘official’ investigation was always a sham

By Malcom Kyeyune | Unherd | August 21, 2024

To understand the truth about the Nord Stream pipeline, one needs to master a certain form of “Kremlinology”. Everything about it is designed to obfuscate, every strand shrouded in prevarication and deceit.

From the start, the investigation was a textbook cover-up. The Swedish government rushed to secure evidence, citing their putative rights under international law, consciously boxing out any sort of independent, UN-backed inspection. Of course, after gathering all the evidence, the Swedish authorities studiously did exactly nothing, only to then belatedly admit that it actually had no legal right to monopolise the information in the first place.

The Germans, for their part, were also supremely uninterested in figuring out who pulled off the worst act of industrial sabotage in living memory against their country. In fact, over the course of a year-long non-investigation, we’ve mostly been treated to leaks and off-the-record statements indicating that nobody really wants to know who blew up the pipeline. The rationale here is bluntly obvious: it would be awfully inconvenient if Germany, and the West, learned the true answer.

Thus, the recent revelation that the true mastermind behind the ongoing deindustrialisation of Germany was none other than a Ukrainian by the name of “Volodymyr Z.” must have come as an unwelcome surprise. For not only is the idea that the authorities have suddenly cracked open the Nord Stream case not credible in the slightest, but the sloppy way in which the entire country of Ukraine is now being fingered is likely not an accident. Indeed, at the same time as the ghost of Nord Stream has risen from the grave, the German government announced its plans to halve its budget for Ukraine aid: whatever is already in the pipeline will be sent over, but no new grants of equipment are forthcoming. The German government is hunkering down for increased austerity, and so it is cutting Ukraine loose.

“The German government is hunkering down for increased austerity, and so it is cutting Ukraine loose.”

Germany, of course, is hardly alone. Even if there were enough money to go around, Europe is increasingly not just deindustrialising but demilitarising. Its stores of ammunition and vehicles are increasingly empty, and the idea of military rearmament — that is, creating entirely new military factories and supply chains — at a time when factories are closing down across the continent due to energy shortages and lack of funding is a non-starter. Neither France, the United Kingdom nor even the United States are in a position to maintain the flow of arms to Ukraine. This is a particular concern inside Washington DC, where planners are now trying to juggle the prospect of managing three theatres of war at the same time — in Ukraine, the Middle East and the Pacific — even though US military production is arguably insufficient to comfortably handle one.

And so, in an effort to save face in this impossible situation, Ukraine is now being held solely responsible for doing something it either did not do at all, or only did with the permission, knowledge, and/or support of the broader West. This speaks to the adolescent dynamic that now governs Western foreign policy in a multipolar world: when our impotence is revealed, find someone to blame.

The war in Ukraine, after all, was already supposed to be won, and Russia was supposed to be a rickety gas station incapable of matching the West either economically or militarily. Yet here we are: our own economies are deindustrialising, our military factories have proven completely incapable of handling the strain of a real conflict, and the Americans themselves are now openly admitting that the Russian military remains in a significantly stronger position. Meanwhile, Germany’s economic model is broken, and as its economy falls, it will drag many countries such as Sweden with it, given how dependent they are on exporting to German industrial firms.

10 years ago, during the 2014 Maidan protests, the realist John Mearsheimer caused a lot of controversy when he began warning that the collective West was leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and that our actions would lead to the destruction of the country. Well, here we are. At present, our only saving grace is the continuing offensive in Kursk — a bold offensive that will surely be remembered as a symptom of Ukraine’s increasing desperation.

Indeed, a far better guide of things to come can be found in the fingering of “Volodymyr Z.” as the true culprit behind the Nord Stream sabotage. Here, rather than accept responsibility for the fact that Ukraine was goaded into a war it could not win — mainly because the West vastly overestimated its own ability to fight a real war over the long haul — European geopolitical discourse will take a sharp turn towards a peculiar sort of victim-blaming. No doubt it will be “discovered” that parts of Ukraine’s military consisted of very unsavoury characters waving around Nazi Germany-style emblems, just as it will be “discovered” that journalists have been persecuted by oligarchs and criminals in Kyiv, or that money given by the West has been stolen, and that arms sent have been sold for profit to criminal cartels around the world.

All of these developments will duly be “discovered” by a Western political class that will completely refuse to accept any responsibility for them. Far easier, it seems, to calm one’s nerves with a distorting myth: it’s the Ukrainians’ fault that their country is destroyed; our choices had nothing to do with it; and besides, they were bad people who tricked us!

August 25, 2024 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Berlin’s Brave New World: Secret Police Powers Spark Fear of Orwellian Overreach

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | August 22, 2024

In Germany, the current authorities seem willing to dramatically depart from what have until now been Western democratic traditions, where law enforcement must have a crime to investigate, and a warrant to do so before it engages in searches and surveillance.

However, the government in Berlin plans to allow the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) the legal right to enter homes secretly (including for the purpose of installing spyware on people’s phones and computers.) In addition, BKA would be given the power to, also secretly, search homes.

The draft, seen by the German press, was cooked up at the Federal Ministry of the Interior and was explained by a spokesman as a needed reform of the BKA law in order to prevent “the dangers of international terrorism” and chose to single out “Islamist terrorism” as an example.

The promise here is that the BKA would use the new rights only to fight what they choose to consider terrorist activity, along with “a high bar” in place determining which case qualifies for this kind of treatment.

Judging by the statement of the same spokesman, German law enforcement now clearly doesn’t have “appropriate powers” to tackle the problem, hence the necessity to reform the law.

As for any details that would further clarify the situation, the Interior Ministry would not provide them as the planned reform is “still at a very early stage of internal government coordination.”

Among the early critics of this is the German Journalists’ Association, whose chairman Mika Beuster said that “secret break-ins are reminiscent of the methods of police states, not of liberal democracies.”

Meanwhile, such a shift in the way terrorist threat is investigated has the opposition – notably the rising Alternative for Germany (AfD), suspect that this will be used as yet another tool to go after political opponents.

AfD, and even media outlets supportive of its policies, have recently faced an unprecedented crackdown, led by Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser.

And now, the draft amendment of the law, also coming from her office, is dismissed by AfD MP Beatrix Von Storch as appearing to use the fight against terrorism as the pretext – “and the reason is more likely to be that she intends to further intimidate and monitor citizens and, last but not least, to persecute any government critics.”

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Rising anger in Germany in response to Nord Stream “revelations”

What role did the German authorities have in the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline?

By Maike Gosch | August 19, 2024

Last week, a number of reports and articles about the Nord Stream pipeline explosion shook the media landscape and citizens in Germany and around the world. After a long period of astonishing silence surrounding this monstrous event, things now seem to be moving. Are we slowly getting closer to the truth in this affair? In any case, the reactions from all sides were fierce and showed once again just how divided the political landscape is in Germany and Europe.

After the news first made the rounds in several German media outlets on August 14, 2024 that German investigators had identified a Ukrainian diving instructor (funnily enough named Volodymyr Z.) who allegedly blew up Nord Stream and then unfortunately escaped arrest due to a lack of cooperation from Polish authorities, further explosive revelations from the Wall Street Journal followed on the same day.

According to the WSJ article, the attack was led by the then-Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian armed forces and current Ukrainian ambassador to the UK, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, with president Zelenskyy having initially given the operation the green light. Then the Dutch military intelligence service MIVD found out about it, informed the CIA and the latter in turn urged president Zelensky to stop the operation. He then ordered Zaluzhnyi to abort the operation, but the general ignored the order and went ahead with the plan. According to the WSJ, just days after the attack, which occurred on September 26, 2022, the CIA gave the German Foreign Ministry a detailed account of how the covert operation went down. The Ukrainian government has rejected this account.

Much of this report seems implausible, so I consider the article to be more of a “limited hangout” than a clarification of this terrorist attack on our industrial infrastructure.

“Limited hangout” is a term from the intelligence world for a common ploy used by intelligence professionals: when the truth is beginning to emerge or the public is becoming too suspicious and impatient, and they can no longer remain silent or rely on a contrived cover story to deceive the public, part of the truth is admitted — sometimes even voluntarily — while still withholding the essential and truly risky facts in the case. The public is supposed to be distracted from and engaged with the disclosed information, so that the pressure it exerts eases (at least for a while).

One day later, on August 15, 2024, the German newspaper Die Welt published an interview with the former head of the BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst or Federal Intelligence Service of Germany), August Hanning, which also caused quite a stir. Mr. Hanning says that the attack, if it was carried out by the Ukrainian side, could only have been possible with strong logistical support from Poland and that for him there must obviously have been an agreement between the highest leaders in Ukraine and Poland, naming president Zelenskyy and president Duda.

These statements sound more plausible, but it is surprising that Mr. Hanning begins by saying that only Ukraine and Poland had an interest in and the means of blowing up the pipelines, and that he doesn’t mention other possible perpetrators, such as the US, but also Great Britain or the Scandinavian neighbouring states. Interestingly, however, he takes a very clear stance on the classification of the attacks and comes to a very different conclusion from most voices in the German political landscape, which we will get to below:

There has been considerable damage to the pipelines. […] I once spoke to external experts from the operators and they put it at up to 20 to 30 billion euros. The huge damage caused by state terrorism must be clearly stated and I also expect the German government to make it clear that compensation must be demanded. Also from the operators. I believe that huge damage has been caused by the activities of Ukrainian and Polish government agencies.

This astonishing accumulation of news within a few days around the investigation, which has been ongoing for two years without any results so far, has led some to suspect that this is a controlled action directed against Zelenskyy and part of the public’s preparation for him losing the support of the West and being replaced.

“Thank you, Ukraine!”

The reactions to this explosive news were not long in coming and proved once again what a divided information landscape we find ourselves in.

The German conservative newspaper FAZ led the way. In an article that directly followed the WSJ’s “revelations”, Reinhard Müller explained that the pipeline had been a legitimate military target (according to the headline); the text formulates it somewhat more cautiously: “could be considered a legitimate target”. His arguments: it is owned by a Russian state-owned company and also contributed to Moscow’s war of aggression against Ukraine. He also makes an argument oft-heard from German commentators whose loyalties clearly lie with Ukraine: at the time the pipeline was blown up, it was no longer serving Germany’s energy supply. Of course, this raises the question: if it no longer served Germany’s (and Europe’s, for that matter) energy supply, how could it have contributed to Moscow’s war of aggression? But let’s leave that aside for the moment. And we will come to the ownership structure later in the text.

He is also of the opinion that if the Ukrainian president or another commander commissioned it, it could also be seen as an act of defense permissible under international law. Müller takes the opportunity, while he’s on the subject of steep theses on international law, to take a similarly idiosyncratic swipe at the German government’s critics of its stance in the Gaza war:

Here, Ukraine, with its back to the wall, gives little cause for concern in terms of the selection of targets, the treatment of prisoners of war and also the prosecution of war crimes and international observation. In such extreme situations, the value of the Western community’s value-based approach is proven. The end does not justify every means — this also applies to Israel, which is also in a struggle for survival. The commitment to human rights, even in the fight against those who do not care about them, makes the decisive difference. Any far-sighted government should also recognise that this is in its own best interests. Only those who fight under the flag of humanity will be able to live in peace with their neighbors at all times in the long term.

So again, because this may be misleading, his statement is: Ukraine and Israel respect human rights, unlike their opponents, and thus fight under the flag of humanity and now the Western community’s value-based approach shows its worth in that we support them in this noble fight (also against our own industrial infrastructure), because (only) in this way can we live in peace with our neighbors in the long term. I would like to award the prize for the most absurd take to Mr. Müller.

But please read the article in its entirety yourself, which also claims that all allies have a duty (!) to rush to the aid of the invaded Ukraine at any time, including with their own soldiers. In legal terms, one would speak of a “minority opinion”; I would like to use stronger words, but I’m trying to control myself so as not to further the division here.

A few days later, the FAZ reported that Germany would be cutting back on military aid for Ukraine and that, according to the German government’s current budgetary planning, no new money would be made available for this with immediate effect.

What initially appeared to be a possible reaction to the revelations and a concession to the large part of the population that is critical of the German government’s NATO course (because of the upcoming elections in some German states?), turns out on closer inspection to be a less major change in policy. This year everything will continue unchanged, next year military support is to be halved and then in 2027 it will shrink to less than a tenth of the current amount. However, most geopolitical analysts expect the war to end by 2025 at the latest. And after that, according to Christian Lindner’s plans, the support will no longer come from the federal budget, but will be financed from the proceeds (interest) of the Russian central bank assets frozen by the G7 states.

There were also comments from abroad that caused an uproar. Polish prime minister Donald Tusk, for example, commented the revelations in a tweet as follows:

To all the initiators and patrons of Nord Stream 1 and 2. The only thing you should do today about it is apologise and keep quiet.

The tweet went viral and has been viewed 2.6 million times so far, which is no wonder as it was provocative to the max and triggered correspondingly emotional reactions. So not only should we silently accept the blowing up of the pipelines; we should also be ashamed to have built and supported them in the first place.

But what seems like pure election advertising for the AfD and Sahra Wagenknecht’s new party, BSW, may also have other economic and geopolitical backgrounds:

Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, we have been wondering about the increasingly aggressive and militant rhetoric against Germany from our neighboring country and cannot shake off the feeling that the new favourite child of the US and Great Britain is finally trying to get back at its neighbour, which is often perceived as overpowering, with borrowed courage.

In general, Poland plays an interesting role in the whole Nord Stream pipeline affair, a role that has received very little attention to date. This is because Poland (not just Ukraine) also lost both leverage/pressure and considerable transit income through the construction and commissioning of the pipelines, which allowed Russian natural gas to be supplied directly to Germany and the rest of Europe. And they worked together with the US, Denmark and Norway on an alternative to gas supplies from Russia and also wanted to get back into the game as a transit country for gas supplies from other countries of origin to Germany and Europe. However, as long as Nord Stream 1 and then Nord Stream 2 were available, the economic prospects for these plans were poor. It is a strange coincidence that the Baltic Pipe, a natural gas pipeline from Denmark to Poland, was opened on September 27, 2022 (only one day after the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up).

But back to Germany, where other politicians and journalists made it clear that even a possible terrorist attack by Ukraine would not change their “Nibelungentreue” — a German expression meaning absolute loyalty. CDU politician Roderich Kiesewetter initially explained in a video interview with Die Welt that the operation of Nord Stream 1 and 2 did not generate any income for Russia, as no gas was flowing through them at the time of the attack (I assume in order to substantiate his otherwise unfounded suspicions of Russia as the perpetrator, more on that later).

He may be hoping for a poor memory on the part of the audience here, but I think most Germans who have studied the topic still have a good memory of the situation in the autumn of 2022 and know very well that Russia had only halted gas supplies through Nord Stream 1 for a short time due to problems with the sanctions and turbine maintenance. This may also have been an attempt by Russia to mitigate or avert the sanctions in exchange for the resumption of gas supplies, or it may have been an attempt by Russia to force the certification and opening of Nord Stream 2, which was ready for use at that time.

In any case, it is clear that Russia was expressly willing and also able to start supplying gas via Nord Stream 2 at any time and that this was blocked by the German government for political reasons (keyword: certification procedure) and that the pressure from the population in this direction grew considerably, especially in the period shortly before the blast (keyword: hot autumn, we remember).

Mr. Kiesewetter omits these connections here in order to give the impression that the pipelines were actually already irrelevant at the time of the blast, which unfortunately — in the interest of truth — many other commentators also claim. As with so many issues these days, one would like to see neutral fact checks, which unfortunately we rarely get.

When Mr. Kiesewetter goes on to say that many elements of the article do not seem very credible, I even agree with him, but then he tries several times in the course of the interview to cast suspicion on Russia and talk about a “false flag” operation, albeit without any indications, arguments or evidence, so who is the conspiracy theorist now?

In addition, he then says that no German property was damaged because the attack took place in international waters. The location of the attack is obviously irrelevant to the ownership status, but Mr. Kiesewetter certainly knows that. And Nord Stream 2 is indeed owned by Nord Stream 2 AG, which is wholly owned by Gazprom, which in turn is a state-owned company. However, Germany has invested around 3.9 billion euros in goods and services in Nord Stream 2. And the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which was also damaged, is held by Nord Stream AG, of which only 51 percent is owned by Gazprom through its subsidiary Gazprom International Projects North 1 LLC, while the other 49 percent is held by German, Dutch and French companies from the energy infrastructure sector.

In this respect, both German and European property was destroyed. Furthermore, the ownership structure under civil law is not the decisive factor in classifying the destruction of important energy infrastructure as a threat to national security, as the issue is how important it is for Germany’s economy and population, and not who owns the pipelines under civil law. Of course, Mr. Kiesewetter knows all about that too, he is an experienced politician who has been in the political business for a long time. Finally, the sentence that caused the most uproar:

Besides, Ukraine is the attacked (sic!), the security of Ukraine, whether they destroyed it or not, is in our interest.

So, in plain language: Ukraine’s security is in our (i.e., Germany’s) interest, even if it jeopardises our security with such a massive attack.

Finally, Julian Röpcke, full-time editor at the Bild newspaper, in his spare time apparently something of a war correspondent for the Ukrainian army and, according to his own description, an “arms delivery ultra”: he reposted his own tweet from November 2023 (i.e., shortly after the attack) with the note “Due to current events”, in which he praised the destruction of the pipelines:

Just to make this clear again: If Ukraine attacked Nord Stream: thank you very much. It was a Russian infrastructure project that made us dependent on their gas. Thanks a lot for ending that dependency, no matter who did it.

In other words: “Thank you, Ukraine!” (paraphrasing the famous tweet by Polish politician Radek Sikorski, shortly after the attack itself).

Moving the goalpost

What the reactions also reveal is an exciting shift in terms and evaluations among representatives and supporters of the German government’s and the EU’s current Ukraine policy. When the rather unlikely thesis of Russia being the perpetrator was initially put forward, Ursula von der Leyen, for example, was still saying:

Any deliberate disruption of active European energy infrastructure is unacceptable & will lead to the strongest possible response.

In short, right after the attack, it was clear to everyone and was not disputed by anyone (except perhaps by the German Greens, but that is such an extreme position that I am leaving it out here) that this was a massive terrorist attack against the energy infrastructure of Russia, Germany and also Europe, which was supplied with energy via these pipelines. It was also largely undisputed that this constituted a “casus belli” under international law, i.e., it was tantamount to a declaration of war and should actually trigger a NATO defense case under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

But that’s yesterday news. Now that there is evidence that Ukraine was at least complicit in this act, the supporters sound very different: the pipelines were irrelevant (so why were they blown up at all?), the demolition was justified and Germany should be ashamed of having built them in the first place.

Storm of outrage

From other quarters, there was a lot of outrage about the news. Alice Weidel from the German right-wing AfD-Party commented the news as follows:

The economic damage to our country caused by the blasting of #Nordstream allegedly ordered by #Zelenskyy — and not #Putin, as we were led to believe — should be “billed” to #Ukraine. Any “aid payments” that burden the German taxpayer should be stopped.

Sahra Wagenknecht of the left-wing BSW (Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht or Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance) wrote):

Should German authorities have known in advance about the attack plan on Nord Stream 1 and 2, then we would have a scandal of the century in German politics.

Many private commentators were equally stunned:

Nobody deserves a government that allows critical infrastructure to be blown away with complete equanimity.

For some, angry comments were not enough and they wanted to see action. Opposition Cologne-based lawyer Markus Haintz, for example, filed charges against Kiesewetter with the Ellwangen public prosecutor’s office due to his comments regarding the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines in the Die Welt interview.

Laughter through the tears

Fortunately for the soul, there were also many funny and satirical reactions. Berlin-based AI artist and satirist Snicklink posted this video. But other X users also had fun with pictures and photos making fun of the — from their point of view — implausible descriptions in the WSJ article.

What’s next?

So far (at the time of writing this article) no German government representative has commented on the WSJ investigation or the Die Welt interview, which is incredible in itself. I assume there were some emergency meetings on the weekend where the line of communication is being discussed and we can expect a statement soon. We can look forward to seeing how they position themselves here.

Sahra Wagenknecht is now calling for a committee of inquiry in the German Parliament to investigate the role of the German government in connection with the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines.

This seems urgently needed — because that would be the appropriate forum to shed light on all these issues. For as interesting and sometimes entertaining as the reactions and discussions in the regular and social media are, such a state affair cannot be solved by swarm intelligence.

This article first appeared in German on Nachdenkseiten.

August 22, 2024 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

Iran Shuts Down German Soft Power Tool Institute in Tehran in Apparent Tit-for-Tat Move

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 21.08.2024

Diplomatic relations between Iran and Germany have worsened progressively over the past five years thanks to Berlin’s growing propensity to walk lockstep with Washington on an array of issues, from the Iran nuclear deal to attempts to meddle in Iran’s internal affairs, and an effort to chide Tehran for its retaliatory strikes on Israel in April.

The German Foreign Ministry summoned Iran’s ambassador on Tuesday after the Islamic Republic shuttered two branches of German Language Institute of Tehran (formerly the Goethe Institute), which receive funding from the German government and operate under the auspices of the German Embassy.

Iran’s judiciary said it moved to close the “illegal centers” for “breaching” local laws, “committing various illegal actions and extensive financial violations.”

The German Foreign Office slammed the move, saying it was “in no way justifiable,” and that that the institute “is a popular and recognized meeting place where people put a lot of effort into learning languages under difficult circumstances.” The institute’s work is “intended to strengthen the connection between the people of Iran and Germany,” the Foreign Office assured.

The language centers’ closure comes a month after Berlin raided and shut down Islamic Center Hamburg, a Shia Islamic cultural center accused by Berlin of “promoting extremism and radical Islamic ideology,” “spreading aggressive antisemitism,” and providing support for Lebanese political and militia movement Hezbollah, which German authorities deem a “terrorist organization.”

German police also raided 53 affiliated properties across eight German states, banning affiliates in Berlin, Munich and Frankfurt, confiscating assets and shutting down four separate mosques.

German harassment and monitoring of Islamic Center Hamburg goes back to the 1990s. In 2022, its deputy director was expelled from Germany over alleged communications with Hezbollah. In 2023, after the start of the Gaza war, Greens politician Jennifer Jasberg demanded the center’s closure, saying she did not want Hamburg to serve as “a breeding ground for hatred against Israel.”

Iranian authorities blasted Islamic Center Hamburg’s closure as an act of Islamophobia, a boon for terrorism and a move “reminiscent of the racist policies of the Nazi regime.” Iranian acting foreign minister Ali Baqeri slammed the measure as an “unjustified move” that “flouts all principles of freedom of religion and thought.”

Iranian authorities said their investigation into the German Language Institute is ongoing, and indicated that other German state-affiliated entities are being looked at.

While it paints itself as “autonomous and politically independent” and engaged only in the exchange of culture and language, Germany’s Goethe institute has been characterized by some as a tool of soft power for Berlin. Russia froze Goethe Institute bank accounts in Russia in 2023 in a tit-for-tat move after Berlin moved to block the accounts of the Russian House of Science and Art in Berlin several months prior. Moscow said it would unblock the accounts “only after the complete and unconditional unfreezing of the bank accounts” of the Russian center.

The Goethe center was opened in Iran in 1958 under the auspices of the West German government, but saw its activities restricted after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and banned completely in 1987. The institute was reopened in 1995 under the German Language Institute moniker.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Islamophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia Denies Germany Sharing Information on Nord Stream Attacks

Sputnik– 21.08.2024

MOSCOW – The German Foreign Ministry’s statements that Berlin is sharing information with Moscow on the Nord Stream terrorist attacks are a lie, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday.

Oleg Tyapkin, the director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Third European Department, said in an interview with Sputnik that Russia had officially filed a claim against Germany regarding the investigation into the Nord Stream bombing and is seeking to hold talks on Germany fulfilling its international obligations in the fight against terrorism. On Monday, German Foreign Ministry spokesperson Sebastian Fischer said that Berlin is exchanging data with Russia on the Nord Stream bombings, but is not providing information on the interim results of the investigation.

“They [the German authorities] do not provide the facts they have on this investigation to the Russian side, although they are obliged to do so. Russia insists on holding official bilateral consultations in accordance with the current regulations. They, by the way, are prescribed in the UN anti-terrorist conventions,” Zakharova told a briefing, adding that these statement on the exchange of information “are a lie.”

Germany responds to all Russia’s inquiries regarding the Nord Stream attacks with empty formal replies, the diplomat said, adding that not a single such document contains factual information.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , | Leave a comment

Britain’s Kursk Invasion Backfires?

By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | August 21, 2024

British Challenger 2 tanks reached Ukraine with enormous fanfare, ahead of Kiev’s long-delayed, ultimately catastrophic 2023 “counteroffensive”. On top of encouraging other proxy war sponsors to provide Ukraine with armoured fighting vehicles, Western audiences were widely told the tank – hitherto marketed to international buyers as “indestructible” – made Kiev’s ultimate victory a fait accompli. As it was, Challenger 2 tanks deployed to Robotnye in September were almost instantly incinerated by Russian fire, then very quietly withdrawn from combat altogether.

Hence, many online commentators were surprised when footage of the Challenger 2 in action in Kursk began to circulate widely on August 13th. Furthermore, numerous mainstream outlets dramatically drew attention to the tank’s deployment. Several were explicitly briefed by British military sources that it marked the first time in history London’s tanks “have been used in combat on Russian territory.” Disquietingly, The Times now reveals this was a deliberate propaganda and lobbying strategy, spearheaded by Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Prior to the Challenger 2’s presence in Kursk breaking, Starmer and Defence Secretary John Healey had reportedly “been in talks about how far to go to confirm growing British involvement in the incursion towards Kursk.” Ultimately, they decided “to be more open about Britain’s role in a bid to persuade key allies to do more to help – and convince the public that Britain’s security and economic prosperity is affected by events on the fields of Ukraine.” A “senior Whitehall source” added:

“There won’t be shying away from the idea of British weapons being used in Russia as part of Ukraine’s defence. We don’t want any uncertainty or nervousness over Britain’s support at this critical moment and a half-hearted or uncertain response might have indicated that.”

In other words, London is taking the lead in marking itself out as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries – particularly the US – will follow suit. What’s more The Times strongly hints that Kursk is to all intents and purposes a British invasion. The outlet records:

“Unseen by the world, British equipment, including drones, have played a central role in Ukraine’s new offensive and British personnel have been closely advising the Ukrainian military… on a scale matched by no other country.”

Britain’s grand plans don’t stop there. Healey and Foreign Secretary David Lammy “have set up a joint Ukraine unit,” divided between the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence. The pair “held a joint briefing, with officials, for a cross-party group of 60 MPs on Ukraine,” while “Starmer has also asked the National Security Council to draw up plans to provide Ukraine with a broader range of support.” On top of military assistance, “industrial, economic, and diplomatic support” are also being explored.

The Times adds that in coming weeks, “Healey will attend a new meeting of the Ukraine Defence Coordination Group,” an international alliance of 57 countries overseeing the Western weaponry flooding into Kiev. There, “Britain will press European allies to send more equipment and give Kyiv more leeway to use them in Russia.” The British Defence Ministry also reportedly “spoke last week to Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, and has been wooing Boris Pistorius, his German opposite number.”

Evidently, the new Labour government has an ambitious vision for the proxy war’s continuation. Yet, if the “counterinvasion” is anything to go by, it’s already dead in the water. As The Times notes, the imbroglio is primarily “designed to boost morale at home and shore up Zelensky’s position,” while relieving pressure on the collapsing Donbass frontline by forcing Russia to redirect forces to Kursk. Instead, Moscow “has capitalised on the absence of four crack Ukrainian regiments to press their attacks around Pokrovsk and Chasiv Yar.”

Similarly, commenting on Starmer’s wideranging efforts to compel overt Western action against Russia, a “defence expert” told The Times: “if it looks as if the Brits [are] too far ahead of their NATO allies, it might be counterproductive.” This analysis is prescient, for there are ample indications London’s latest attempt to ratchet tensions and drag the US and Europe ever-deeper into the proxy war quagmire has already been highly “counterproductive”, and boomeranged quite spectacularly. Indeed, it appears Washington has finally had enough of London’s escalatory connivances.

In repeated press conferences and media briefings since August 6th, US officials have firmly distanced themselves from the Kursk incursion, denying any involvement in its planning or execution, or even being forewarned by Kiev. Empire house journal Foreign Policy has reported that Ukraine’s swoop caught the Pentagon, State Department, and White House off-guard. The Biden administration is purportedly not only enormously unhappy “to have been kept out of the loop,” but “skeptical of the military logic” behind the “counterinvasion”.

On top being a clear suicide mission, the eagerly advertised presence of Western weapons and vehicles on Russian soil “has put the Biden administration in an extremely awkward position.” Washington has since the proxy war erupted been wary of provoking retaliations against Western countries and their overseas assets, and the conflict spilling outside Ukraine’s borders. Adding to US irritations, the British-directed Kursk misadventure also torpedoed ongoing efforts to secure an agreement to halt “strikes on energy and power infrastructure on both sides.”

This comes as Kiev prepares for a harrowing winter without heat or light, due to devastating Russian attacks on its national energy grid. Putin has moreover made clear that Ukrainian actions in Kursk mean there is no longer scope for a wider negotiated settlement at all. Which is to say Moscow will now only accept unconditional surrender. The US has also seemingly changed course as a result of the “counterinvasion”.

On August 16th, it was reported that Washington had prohibited Ukraine’s use of British-made, long-range Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory. Given securing wider Western acquiescence to such strikes is, per The Times, a core objective for Starmer, this can only be considered a harsh rebuke, before the Labour government’s escalatory lobbying efforts have even properly taken off. The Biden administration had in May granted permission for Kiev to conduct limited strikes in Russia, using guided munitions up to a 40-mile range.

Even that mild authorisation may be rescinded in due course. Berlin, which like Britain had initially proudly promoted the presence of its tanks in Kursk, is now decisively shifting away from the proxy war. On August 17th, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner announced a halt to any and all new military aid to Ukraine as part of a wider bid to slash federal government spending. The Wall Street Journal reporting three days earlier that Kiev was responsible for Nord Stream II’s destruction may be no coincidence.

The narrative of the Russo-German pipeline’s bombing detailed by the outlet was absurd in the extreme. Conveniently too, the WSJ acknowledged that admissions of “Ukrainian officials who participated in or are familiar with the plot” aside, “all arrangements” to strike Nord Stream “were made verbally, leaving no paper trail.” As such, the paper’s sources “believe it would be impossible to put any of the commanding officers on trial, because no evidence exists beyond conversations among top officials.”

Such an evidentiary deficit provides Berlin with an ideal pretext to step away from the proxy war, while insulating Kiev from any legal repercussions. The narrative of Ukraine’s unilateral culpability for the Nord Stream bombings also helpfully distracts from the attack’s most likely perpetrators. This journalist has exposed how a shadowy cabal of British intelligence operatives were the masterminds, and potential executors, of the October 2022 Kerch Bridge bombing.

That escalatory incident, like Nord Stream’s destruction, was known about in advance, and apparently opposed, by the CIA. Chris Donnelly, the British military intelligence veteran who orchestrated the Kerch Bridge attack, has privately condemned Washington’s reluctance to embroil itself further in the proxy war, declaring “this US position must be challenged, firmly and at once.” In December that year, the BBC confirmed that British officials were worried about the Biden administration’s “innate caution”, and had “stiffened the US resolve at all levels”, via “pressure.”

The determination of Washington’s self-appointed “junior partner” to escalate the proxy conflict into all-out hot war between Russia and the West has only intensified under Starmer’s new Labour government. Yet, the Empire gives every appearance of refusing to take the bait, while seeking to curb London’s belligerent fantasies. This may be an encouraging sign that the proxy war is at last reaching its end. But we must remain vigilant. British intelligence is unlikely to allow the US to withdraw without a fight.

August 21, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Lithuania Begins Building Base to House German Soldiers

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | August 19, 2024

Vilnius started construction on a military base that would house over 4,000 German soldiers. The facility will be located just miles from the border shared with Belarus.

Lithuanian Defense Minister Raimundas Vaiksnoras described the construction as a “huge investment” that will cost over $1.1 billion. He said the German deployment represents “deterrence, to push the Russians out.” However, it is unclear where Lithuania plans to push Russia from as Moscow has not invaded the Baltic state.

At least two dozen German soldiers are already stationed in Lithuania. The German troop deployment, which is scheduled to surge to 4,800 troops by 2027, is Berlin’s first permanent garrison of soldiers deployed to Lithuania since World War 2. From 1941-1945, Nazi Germany occupied Lithuania. Under Hitler’s control, nearly Lithuania’s entire Jewish population was wiped out.

The deployment will provide a significant military surge to Lithuania, which has only 15,000 active duty soldiers. The base is located just 12 miles from the border with Belarus. Germany plans to deploy over 100 Leopard Tanks to the base.

Since the end of the Cold War, Washington has facilitated the expansion of the North Atlantic alliance up to the Russian border. Additionally, Brussels has increased military deployments to new members in Eastern Europe.

The Kremlin has consistently complained that the Eastward expansion of the bloc is a threat to Russian security. Russia has been invaded through its European borders multiple times. Prior to the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk, the last power which invaded Russia was Nazi Germany.

August 20, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »