Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Russia blames UK FM for elevated nuclear alert

The British foreign secretary made “unacceptable” statements on “clashes” between NATO and Russia

RT | February 28, 2022

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday that Russian President Vladimir Putin placed Russia’s deterrence forces – including nuclear weapons – on high alert in response to statements by British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss on potential conflict between NATO and Moscow.

“Statements were made by various representatives at various levels on possible altercations or even collisions and clashes between NATO and Russia,” Peskov told reporters. “We believe that such statements are absolutely unacceptable. I would not call the authors of these statements by name, although it was the British foreign minister.”

Speaking to Sky News on Sunday, Truss said that “if we don’t stop Putin in Ukraine, we are going to see others under threat: the Baltics, Poland, Moldova, and it could end up in a conflict with NATO. We do not want to go there.” Truss did not specify how the UK could “stop” Russia in Ukraine, although the British government has already sent anti-tank weapons and other “lethal aid” to Kiev.

However, a Foreign Office source told the BBC on Monday: “I don’t think anything Liz has said warrants that sort of rhetoric or escalation,” adding that Truss has always spoken of NATO – which was formed with the explicit goal of opposing the Soviet Union – as a “defensive alliance.”

While Putin’s announcement does not signal any intent to use nuclear weapons, it has been received in the West as a reminder of the importance Moscow places on Ukraine, and its determination to keep the country out of NATO. Since the end of the Cold War, successive Russian leaders have consistently opposed the eastward expansion of the alliance, and Moscow considers the idea of a NATO-armed Ukraine on its borders an existential security threat.

In Washington, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki condemned Putin’s decision to raise the alert level, accusing the Russian president of “manufacturing threats that don’t exist in order to justify further aggression.”

Meanwhile in Ukraine, Russia’s operation is still underway, and fighting has taken place in the cities of Kharkov, Mariupol, and on the outskirts of Kiev. Tentative negotiations between Ukrainian and Russian officials took place in Belarus on Monday.

February 28, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine-Russia negotiations have reached ‘certain decisions’

Ceasefire talks hosted by Belarus adjourn for consultations

RT | February 28, 2022

Moscow and Kiev have found certain things that could be agreed on during the ceasefire talks hosted by Belarus and will return for consultations before the next round, both delegations told reporters after the talks ended on Monday.

The main purpose of the talks was to discuss a ceasefire in Ukraine, said Mykhailo Podolyak, adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The two sides have identified a number of priority topics, on which “certain solutions have been outlined,” he added.

The two delegations found points on which common positions could be reached, confirmed Vladimir Medinsky, aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Monday’s talks, which lasted for nearly five hours, took place in Belarus near the Russian and the Ukrainian borders. The next round will take place on the border between Belarus and Poland in the coming days, Medinsky said.

Ukraine’s delegation was led by Defense Minister Alexey Reznikov, and its main demand was an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of all Russian troops from the country.

Zelensky said on Sunday he didn’t really believe the negotiations would succeed, but thought they were “a chance, however small, to de-escalate the situation.”

While the talks were ongoing, Zelensky sent a formal request for Ukraine’s EU membership to Brussels. Meanwhile, Russia has put its nuclear deterrent forces on highest alert amid NATO moves to send weapons to Kiev.

Moscow ordered military forces into Ukraine on Thursday, saying Kiev needs to be “demilitarized” and “denazified” to protect the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, as well as Russia itself. Ukraine and its Western supporters accused Russia of “unprovoked” aggression. The UK, US, EU and several other countries have imposed sweeping sanctions targeting not just the Russian economy, but Putin and other high Russian officials personally.

February 28, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

It All Comes Back to NATO

By Ron Paul | February 28, 2022

When the Bush Administration announced in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would be eligible for NATO membership, I knew it was a terrible idea. Nearly two decades after the end of both the Warsaw Pact and the Cold War, expanding NATO made no sense. NATO itself made no sense.

Explaining my “no” vote on a bill to endorse the expansion, I said at the time:

NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary… This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution.

Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts unrelated to our national interest…

Unfortunately, as we have seen this past week, my fears have come true. One does not need to approve of Russia’s military actions to analyze its stated motivation: NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line it was not willing to see crossed. As we find ourselves at risk of a terrible escalation, we should remind ourselves that it didn’t have to happen this way. There was no advantage to the United States to expand and threaten to expand NATO to Russia’s doorstep. There is no way to argue that we are any safer for it.

NATO itself was a huge mistake.

When in 1949 the US Senate initially voted on the NATO treaty, Sen. Roberg Taft – known as “Mr. Republican” – gave an excellent speech on why he voted against creating NATO.

Explaining his “no” vote, Taft said:

… the treaty is a part of a much larger program by which we arm all these nations against Russia… A joint military program has already been made… It thus becomes an offensive and defensive military alliance against Russia. I believe our foreign policy should be aimed primarily at security and peace, and I believe such an alliance is more likely to produce war than peace.

Taft continued:

If we undertake to arm all the nations around Russia…and Russia sees itself ringed about gradually by so-called defensive arms from Norway and Denmark to Turkey and Greece, it may form a different opinion. It may decide that the arming of western Europe, regardless of its present purpose, looks to an attack upon Russia. Its view may be unreasonable, and I think it is. But from the Russian standpoint it may not seem unreasonable. They may well decide that if war is the certain result, that war might better occur now rather than after the arming of Europe is completed…

How right he was.

NATO went off the rails long before 2008, however. The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949 and by the start of the Korean War just over a year later, NATO was very much involved in the military operation of the war in Asia, not Europe!

NATO’s purpose was stated to “guarantee the safety and freedom of its members by political and military means.” It is a job not well done!

I believe as strongly today as I did back in my 2008 House Floor speech that, “NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.” In the meantime, expansion should be off the table. The risks do not outweigh the benefits!

Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute

February 28, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

UKRAINE: Hysterical Western Reaction, Retaliation – May Lead to Wider War

By Peter Ford | 21st Century Wire | February 26, 2022

Russophobe, germophobe, it’s all the same.

I simplify. But it’s striking how the loudest Russophobic voices include all the same voices which were similarly hysterical about Covid – the mainstream media, the Labour Party, and the liberal elite (which includes much of the Conservative Party), while the few voices calling for even a modicum of restraint or understanding of Russia include anti-lockdown Farage (on GB News) and Trump, both of the Right. Piers Corbyn and Jeremy Corbyn, virtually alone on the Left have spoken up, while Starmer has forced 11 of his MPs who signed a Stop The War statement to withdraw their signatures.

The Labour Party in fact has tried to outflank the Tories on the Right, demanding the silencing of RT, the Russian broadcaster.

The Ukraine crisis rubs home the same messages we received loud and clear during the Great Covid Hysteria: Left and Right are meaningless now, the default option for any untoward contingency arising is to go to panic stations, muzzle any dissent, and bring in restrictions/interventions/sanctions without a thought about the side effects, or even direct consequences.

Just as Covid lockdowns were imposed regardless of wrecking society and economy, so the West is now imposing drastic sanctions on Russia without anybody even asking the question: well, might not Russia retaliate, with cyber attacks for example? It’s not appeasement to pause to consider if our moves might backfire, that’s just plain prudence and a sense of responsibility. And what about gas and petrol prices? Collapsing stock markets? Sterling, anyone?

Nor is it appeasement to appreciate that the problem didn’t begin just yesterday, that the West was asking for trouble sooner or later when it incorporated much of the former Soviet Union into its own sphere of influence (NATO membership), and started to establish forward military positions in Ukraine even though formally Ukraine was not a member of NATO. We poke the Russian bear and then cry in horror when it responds by showing its claws.

Grabbing other people’s land is always wrong. But tell that to the Americans, who have endorsed Israel’s annexation of Palestinian and Syrian territory without even a semblance of support from the inhabitants. The Americans have also stationed military forces in North East Syria, denying access to the region’s oil by the Syrian government, pretexting a pseudo-mission of ‘keeping ISIS out’ – when ISIS no longer poses any real threat. Tell NATO ally Turkey which mounted a similar ‘peacekeeping’ mission across its border into North West Syria, killing hundreds of Syrian government forces in the process and sustaining in control a local jihadi regime. Nobody in NATO breathes a word against any of this.

It’s not all bad news. The aggravation of the already dire energy situation is creating a new equation: people are realising you can have zero emissions, or you can be warm.

However, looking at the downside, the conflict over Ukraine could harm the cause of freedom supporters if the perception grows that we are siding with the nation’s enemies. Some might even say that our support for peace is toxic. But what is there to lose? We are demonised, harassed and persecuted already. And nobody else is interested in making peace, only in pouring fuel on the flames with arms supplies and punishing Russia with backfiring sanctions.

Putin may be making the same calculation, that he has nothing to lose. The West spurned feelers he put out about a neutral status for Ukraine, application of the Minsk accords on a settlement for the Eastern areas, and revival of arms limitation treaties. Why not go the whole hog and practise the same regime change tactics the West used or tried to use in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria?

Peter Ford is a global affair analyst and former British Ambassador to Syria (2003-2006) and Bahrain (1999-2002).

February 26, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s hybrid war is mutating

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | FEBRUARY 25, 2022

The first signs of the dual track in Russia’s hybrid war in Ukraine have surfaced. By Thursday evening, the Kremlin held out an olive branch to the Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky.

Succinctly put, President Vladimir Putin expressed his preparedness to engage in discussions with his Ukrainian counterpart with a focus on obtaining a guarantee of neutral status for Ukraine and the promise of no offensive weapons on its territory. 

The Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said without elaborating, “The president formulated his vision of what we would expect from Ukraine in order for the so-called ‘red-line’ problems to be resolved. This is neutral status, and this is a refusal to deploy weapons.” 

Putin had made it clear in a nation-wide address Thursday morning announcing the launch of the military operation that the Russian objective narrowed down to “demilitarisation” and “denazification” of Ukraine. The latter refers to the ascendant neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine who have been acting as a state within the state and perpetrated atrocities against the ethnic Russian population. 

The Kremlin offer didn’t come out of the blue. A group of Ukrainian MPs also came out yesterday with an appeal calling on Zelensky, in an open letter, to start negotiations with Moscow. Interestingly, the group is led by Vadim Novinsky – a Ukrainian billionaire and one of the co-leaders of the Opposition Bloc, an association of over dozen political parties. The group also proposed direct consultations between the parliaments of the two countries. 

But what lends enchantment to the view is that Zelensky on his own also requested French President Emmanuel Macron to convey a message to Putin directly. Macron has since disclosed that he has had “a quick, direct and frank conversation on a request from President Zelensky.”

Macron said the aim of the conversation was a request from Kiev “to end hostilities as soon as possible.” The Kremlin confirms that Putin held a “frank” conversation with Macron. 

Macron’s role is important, since it was he who first floated with Putin the idea, in the course of a conversation recently, that one way out of the impasse could be that Kiev unilaterally gave up any intention to join the NATO. Subsequently, in an interaction with the Russian media at the Kremlin on Tuesday, Putin also mentioned this idea. 

Zelensky himself said (after Macron’s conversation with Putin) in an emotional video address to the nation after midnight Thursday, “We have been left alone to defend our state. Who is ready to fight alongside us? I don’t see anyone. Who is ready to give Ukraine a guarantee of NATO membership? Everyone is afraid.” He went on to disclose that he had heard from Moscow that ”they want to talk about Ukraine’s neutral status.” 

Quite obviously, Zelensky realises by now that the cavalry is not coming from Washington or Brussels to salvage his government. In fact, Zelensky’s request to Macron followed the repeated categorical affirmations by US President Biden that there is no question of American intervention in Ukraine or of US troops engaging Russian military. 

Meanwhile, Russian Defence Ministry highlighted on Thursday that Moscow’s strategy will be to hit military targets and avoid civilian casualty. Ukraine’s air defence system has been rendered non-functional. Moscow is encouraging Ukrainian soldiers to surrender or simply return to their families, the intention being to minimise any fighting. 

All this suggests that a political track is on standby. The Russian game plan is to force Zelensky to see the writing on the wall. Ukraine’s capitulation is a matter of days only. This hybrid war would have the following elements: 

  • Russia will no doubt systematically vanquish the neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine (especially within the military such as the Azov Brigade) who have Russian blood on their hands. These elements so far acted with impunity because of covert western support for their anti-Russian disposition.
  • Russia estimates, rightly so, that any crackdown on the neo-Nazi elements will only strengthen Zelensky’s hands. Lacking a power base of his own, he has been a hostage of extreme nationalists. 
  • On the other hand, Western powers have retrenched in panic from Kiev, and an embittered Zelensky is left to fend for himself. But, paradoxically, this also makes Zelensky a reasonable interlocutor, liberated from the US’ vice-like grip.
  • Zelensky has been acting under immense external pressure and fear of extreme nationalists who enjoy “street power.”(The coup in February 2014, scuttling an orderly constitutional transition from President Viktor Yanukovich, was organised by the ultra-nationalists with overt US support.) 
  • Zelensky’s massive mandate (over 73% of votes) in the 2019 election was largely due to whole-hearted support from Russian voters who were attracted to his platform of dialogue with Russia and the promise of a negotiated settlement in Donbass with Moscow’s help. But in the event, he became a captive of extreme nationalists and a victim of western manipulation. 
  • Nevertheless, Zelensky has been sporadically signalling to Moscow his desire for an exit route, sensing he was on a road to nowhere. Lately, he voiced dissatisfaction over the war hysteria in Washington. At least during one telephone conversation with Biden recently, they had a heated exchange, according to the CNN. 

Russia’s tentative offer appears to be that Ukraine could opt for a status of neutrality on the lines of Austria and Finland with a self-imposed ban on its NATO membership. Conceivably, Zelensky would be open to such an idea. Now, what is there in it for him? 

First, Russia will forthwith call off or at least suspend the military operation. That will strengthen Zelensky’s standing. Second, Russia’s direct involvement holds the key to easing of tensions in the Donbass. Moscow had been dodging such a role.

Third, Zelensky could resume his links with the pro-Russian constituency in Ukraine, which was his mainstay of support in the 2019 election. This would have implications for his bid for a second term in the 2023 election. 

Fourth, Russia enjoys extensive networking within Ukraine, which has a chaotic political environment driven by corruption and venality, oligarchs and mafia and so on. Russia still wields influence with the power brokers who have at one time or another enjoyed Moscow’s patronage. Thus, Zelensky would see that Russian help can also heal Ukraine’s fragmented political economy.

As for Russia, out of the conditions for security guarantee that it had projected to the US in mid-December, where Moscow drew a blank, Putin may succeed in reaching his objectives at least partially if Ukraine were to turn its back on NATO membership and terminate western military deployments on its soil. 

Given the profound civilisational links between Russia and Ukraine, enduring people-to-people relations and family kinships, there is a reservoir of opinion in Ukraine favouring improvement of relations with Russia. Ukraine’s economy is also closely aligned with Russia — even today, Russia is Ukraine’s number one export market. Russia has been a generous donor too. The transit fee for transportation of pipeline gas to Europe alone exceeded 1 billion dollars annually! 

Russia’s main gain will be that in geopolitical terms, Ukraine regains its sovereignty and ceases to be a de facto American colony. Russia calculates that a neutral Ukraine will de facto take the Ukraine matrix to its priori history before the 2014 coup. 

What is of crucial importance will be that Zelensky is somehow enabled to navigate his path toward dialogue with Putin. The good part is that Russian military operations will throw radical nationalists into disarray, and, secondly, it is improbable that Biden is raring to resume the shenanigans in Ukraine. American politics is increasingly riveted on the mid-term in November and public disfavours Washington taking sides between Ukraine and Russia. 

Will the US acquiesce with the nascent processes? There is hope that  Macron can mediate. Conceivably, he is in touch with Biden. 

February 25, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Counter-sanctions against West to hit its ‘weak spots’– Moscow

RT | February 25, 2022

Moscow will respond to sanctions imposed by the US and its allies over Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, the head of the Russian Senate, Valentina Matviyenko, told journalists during her visit to Tajikistan on Friday.

“As for the reciprocal sanctions … they are ready,” Matviyenko said, adding that Russia’s response would not mirror the restrictions imposed by Washington and its allies but would instead hit the western nations where it hurts.

“We are well aware of the West’s weak spots and we have drafted an entire package … a series of potential sanctions to be used against those nations that announced sanctions against Russia,” the Senate head has said, adding that “the West has many soft spots.”

The official has not elaborated on any details of the drafted sanction proposals. She only said that the measures would be designed so as not to hurt Russia itself. The Russian government has taken “all the threats stemming from sanctions” into account and developed “safety mechanisms.”

Matviyenko has also said that Russia will remain a reliable gas supplier for Europe despite measures taken by the US and Germany against the Russian-backed Nord Stream 2 pipeline project. Berlin decided to put an immediate halt to the certification of the project even before Russia launched its operation in Ukraine. The decision was taken following the official recognition by Moscow of the two breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk Republics earlier this week.

The Russian Senate head’s words also come after US President Joe Biden imposed “long-term impact” sanctions against Russia over its military operation in Ukraine on Thursday. The measures targeted Russia’s banking sector, as well as the nation’s ability to do business in dollars, pounds, or yen. The restrictions did not involve cutting Russia off from the SWIFT system, though.

Later on Thursday, the EU followed suit by also targeting “70% of the Russian banking market, but also key state-owned companies, including the field of defense,” as the EU Commission head, Ursula von der Leyen, put in her statement.

February 25, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , | Leave a comment

How Many Chicken Hawks Are in Ukraine?

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | February 24, 2022

How many American chicken hawks are in Ukraine? I could be wrong but my hunch is zero. That’s right: Not one single American chicken hawk is over there helping the Ukrainians to defend their country against Russia’s attack. They are all sitting here at home, safely ensconced in their living rooms or offices.

How many American chicken hawks are there? That’s, of course, impossible to say. But you can find lots of them in Congress and in the executive branch. You can also find them on the commentary pages of America’s mainstream newspapers.

Oh, yes, they are exclaiming against the horrors of the invasion. They are expressing their deepest sympathies with the people of Ukraine. They are calling on President Biden to impose maximum sanctions on Russia. But they are all still here at home rather than over there helping the Ukrainian people in their hour of need.

It would not have been difficult during the past month to catch a flight to Europe and make one’s way to Ukraine. Chicken hawks could have gone over as a gigantic group and offered their services to the Ukrainian military or just to the government. But no, the chicken hawks have chosen to remain here at home.

The New York Times reports, “Ukraine’s defense minister, Oleksiy Reznikov, called on all Ukrainian civilians to join the fight and enlist with territorial defense units.”

Such being the case, I will guarantee you that Reznikov and the Ukranian people would welcome the personal assistance and support of American chicken hawks. Alas, they choose to remain here at home.

Why won’t America’s chicken hawks travel to Ukraine and offer a helping hand to the Ukranian people?

Three possible reasons come to mind.

One is that they’re simply scared. Going into battle against the Russian army is no doubt a frightening prospect for many American chicken hawks.

Another possible reason is that the chicken hawks simply place a higher value on their comfortable lives here at home than they place on risking their lives in a very uncomfortable situation in Ukraine.

A third possibility — the one I think is the most likely — is that deep down they know that it’s the Pentagon that has manipulated and designed this crisis by placing Russia in a position of having to make a difficult choice: (1) Let NATO absorb Ukraine, which would enable the Pentagon to establish military bases, missiles, troops, tanks, and weaponry on Russia’s border or (2) Invade Ukraine and take over the reins of power, which would thereby prevent the Pentagon from establishing its bases, missiles, troops, tanks, and weaponry on Russia’s border. (See my article “The Evil and Malevolence of the Pentagon’s Brilliant Strategy in Ukraine.”)

Given that it was the Pentagon that designed and precipitated this crisis, it would stand to reason that American chickenhawks might be reluctant to risk their lives by traveling to Ukraine and helping people resist the Russian invasion.

Interestingly, the New York Times reports that at least one Ukrainian understands fully the role that the Pentagon and NATO have played in designing and precipitating this crisis. A woman named Lyubov Vasilyevna, 75, stated, “It’s our scoundrels in Ukraine who listen to NATO and the Pentagon, which are pushing them into war.”

My hunch is that there are lots of other Ukrainians who understand this truth. My hunch also is that even though they would never say it publicly, as Lyubov Vasilyevna has, lots of American chicken hawks know this truth as well.

It is important that we keep in mind that none of this had to be. When the Soviet Union unilaterally dismantled itself and ended the Cold War, it was clear that Russia wanted nothing more than establishing peaceful and friendly relations with the West.

But the U.S. national-security establishment would have nothing to do with that plan. Rather than dismantling NATO, the Pentagon decided to keep that Cold War dinosaur in existence. Even worse, the Pentagon had NATO begin moving eastward toward Russia by absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact.

Anyone could see where this scheme was headed. Once NATO signaled that it intended to absorb Ukraine, Russia drew the line. It was not about to permit an aggressive regime like the U.S. government (e.g., the Pentagon’s brutal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan) to establish military bases, offensive missiles, tanks, troops, and weaponry on Russia’s border, any more than the Pentagon would permit Russia (or China or North Korea) to do the same thing in Cuba.

And so now the Pentagon has succeeded in converting Russia into a new (and old) official enemy. With its evil machinations and scheming, it has also now cost the lives of countless Ukrainians.

No wonder not one single American chicken hawk is in Ukraine helping the Ukrainian people.

February 24, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

China points finger over Ukraine offensive

RT | February 24, 2022

China has blamed the US for creating the tensions which led to Thursday’s Russian attack on Ukraine. Beijing further called on the international community to avoid “stoking panic” over the situation.

During a press briefing, China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said the key question was the role played by the Americans, whom she branded “the [main] culprit of current tensions.”

“If someone keeps pouring oil on the flames while accusing others of not doing their best to put out the fire, such kind of behavior is clearly irresponsible and immoral,” Hua said. China objects to “any action that hypes up war,” she added.

Chunying accused the US of hypocrisy, asking whether Washington had respected the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and Afghanistan, where she said it had “wantonly killed innocent people.” She called on the US to “take these questions seriously and abandon double standards.”

Describing the unfolding events as “complex,” the spokeswoman confirmed that Beijing was not providing military support to Russia, and said China was not “jumping to any conclusions” over the situation.

She called on all sides to “work for peace instead of increasing tensions” or “stoking panic.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a military attack on Ukraine on Thursday, which he said was aimed at demilitarizing and “denazifying” the country. He accused the West of flooding Ukraine with advanced weaponry and ramping up the NATO presence in the country, arguing that the Russian “special operation” was necessary to protect the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, which Moscow has recognized as sovereign states.

Russia’s military action has prompted an international outcry and threats of new, large-scale sanctions. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced on Thursday that Kiev had cut diplomatic ties with Moscow.

February 24, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

PUTIN STATEMENT FOLLOWING SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING ON DONBASS RECOGNITION

RT | February 21, 2022

Putin makes a statement following the Security Council meeting on Donbass recognition

————————————————————————————————–
Freedom over censorship, truth over narrative.
Follow us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@rt.news
Follow us on Telegram: t.me/rtnews

February 24, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Putin crosses the Rubicon. What next?

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | FEBRUARY 23, 2022

Russia’s recognition of the ‘people’s republics’ of Luhansk and Donetsk in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbass on Monday is a watershed event. In a manner of speaking, by this decision President Vladimir Putin crossed the Rubicon. But a tumultuous period lies ahead.

Moscow followed up by putting the legal underpinnings in place “to deploy troops to these regions,” concluding agreements on friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance between Russia and the two Donbass republics, and, obtaining the authorisation by Russia’s Federation Council, or upper parliament house, for the use of armed forces outside Russia (as required under the constitution.) 

The resolution by Federation Council, which was unanimously supported by all the 153 senators at an extraordinary session on Tuesday and coming into immediate effect, says: 

“The Federation Council rules to give its consent to the Russian president for the use of armed forces outside Russia on the basis of generally recognised principles and norms of international law. The strength of army units, areas of deployment, tasks and the duration of their stay outside Russia are determined by the Russian president in compliance with the Russian constitution.”

Notably, this authorisation is not Donbass-specific, nor is there any timeline set here. It is also not conditional. Simply put, discretion lies with Putin entirely to make decisions. 

Putin’s national address to the Russian people on Monday, which has been amplified further by him in comments to the Russian media on Tuesday, throws light on the “potential future steps.” What emerges from the national address are three things.

First, Moscow views the post-2014 political developments in Ukraine as having been engineered to create an anti-Russian regime in Kiev with hostile intentions, nurtured by the West. This regime is hopelessly compromised to the West and Ukraine has been turned into an American colony. 

Second, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) has made deep inroads into Ukraine’s political and defence system. “The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads.”

Third, NATO is about to grant membership to Ukraine. That will increase the level of military threats to Russia dramatically, considering that American strategic planning documents allow preemptive strike at enemy missile systems. Putin said, “ballistic missiles from Kharkov will take seven to eight minutes; and hypersonic assault weapons, four to five minutes. It is like a knife to the throat.”   

Much of this has been said before by Russian leaders but never in such details. Besides, Putin was directly addressing the Russian public and expecting their backing for his decision on Lugansk and Donetsk (which will undoubtedly be a very popular move) and thereby seeking legitimacy for his future course of action. Clearly, the western assessment that Russian public disapproves of any intervention in Ukraine is proven wrong.

For the international audience, Putin’s interaction with the media on Tuesday may be of greater interest. Putin has dropped an important hint that Moscow no longer considers the Minsk Agreements to be pertinent, as the Ukrainian leadership had publicly declared that they were not going to abide by these agreements. 

A second point is about the borders of Lugansk and Donetsk. This is a complex issue and the germane seeds of future course of events, perhaps, lie here. This needs some explaining.

The borders of the breakaway regions underwent significant changes when war erupted between the government forces and the separatist forces. in particular, in  May 2014, the government forces captured the strategic port of Mariupol (on the Sea of Azov) which used to be part of Donetsk from the separatists. 

Putin said on Tuesday that Russian constitution stipulates the borders of Donetsk and Lugansk regions “at the time when they were part of Ukraine.” This is a carefully worded formulation. At issue is Donetsk’s claim to Mariupol, which is a major port for the industrialised rust belt region of Donbass for export of coal, iron ore, etc.

Indeed, retaking Mariupol and the coastal region could give a direct land route from mainland Russia to the Crimean peninsula, which is otherwise accessible only via  a 19-km long rail-road sea bridge built in 2018.

Also, if Donetsk regains the lost territory, Ukraine will have no access to the Sea of Azov, which would strengthen Russia’s primacy in the Black Sea and enhance the security of its Black Sea Fleet. By the way, Crimea would also get assured supply of fresh water, since Kiev had shut off water from the so-called North Crimean Canal in 2014.

Putin said Russia’s expectation is that all disputes will be resolved during talks between the current Kiev authorities and the leaders of these republics, but he also acknowledged that “at this point in time, we realise that it is impossible to do so, since hostilities are still ongoing and, moreover, they are showing signs of escalating.” 

From the remarks, it seems highly likely that conflict will erupt over Mariupol, as Donetsk forces, emboldened by Russian support, are sure to make a determined pitch to retake the port city and the adjacent coastal region, which have a big Russian population too. Of course, Russia is obliged to assist the Donetsk forces militarily if need arises. 

Putin floated an idea that the vexed question of Ukraine’s membership can be addressed in such a way that the West does not “lose face”. He suggested that Kiev could instead “refuse to join NATO. In effect, in so doing, they would translate the idea of neutrality into life.” 

This is a tantalising thought that has been aired previously also. But Putin linked this to “the demilitarisation, to a certain extent, of today’s Ukraine” — that is to say, the West should not “pump the current Kiev authorities full of modern types of weapons.” 

Lastly, Putin drew a red line on any attempt by Ukraine to develop nuclear weapons. He said: “Ever since Soviet times, Ukraine has had fairly broad nuclear competencies… They only lack one thing – uranium enrichment systems. But this is a matter of technology, it is not unsolvable for Ukraine, it can be remedied quite easily.

“As to delivery vehicles,.. they have old Soviet-made Tochka-U missiles with a range of 100 plus kilometres, 110 kilometres. This is also not a problem in view of the competencies, say, at Yuzhmash, which used to manufacture intercontinental ballistic missiles for the Soviet Union.” 

Putin seemed disinterested to have any direct interaction with the authorities in Kiev. In fact, Russian diplomats in the embassy in Kiev and the consulates in Lvov, Kharkiv and Odessa are being evacuated.

Putin is looking beyond the current regime in Kiev. Of course, if the Western military assistance to Kiev continues in any form, Washington knows that Russia will regard it as a hostile act and there will be severe consequences. Putin has made it clear that he is prepared to use force to counter any further western encroachments into Ukraine to challenge Russia’s security.  

In these circumstances, the question of the return of military detachments of NATO to Ukraine in the garb of ‘advisors’ or ‘trainers’ also does not arise. That being so, the big question is: How long could Zelensky and his government hold out in Kiev? The countdown may have begun. 

Putin remarked derisively that Zelensky may simply choose to leave Kiev for the US, Paris or Berlin. In a TV interview yesterday, Foreign Minister Lavrov called Zelensky “an unstable, dependent man, directly dependent on his American curators.” But what can the curators do to prop up Zelensky at such a critical stage? The elites in Kiev are known to have big bank accounts in the West.  

Putin spoke with a lot of bitterness. At one point, he directly threatened the extreme nationalists who seized power in the 2014 coup and let loose a wave of violence and systematic persecution against ethnic Russians.

Putin said, “The criminals who committed that atrocity have never been punished, and no one is even looking for them. But we know their names and we will do everything to punish them, find them and bring them to justice.” Putin seems to anticipate a new regime in Kiev. 

February 23, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

NATO is trying to create irresolvable confrontation with Russia – Lavrov

By Ailis Halligan | RT | February 21, 2022

The West is attempting to incite an unavoidable confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Monday.

Speaking to his Syrian counterpart, Faisal Mekdad, Lavrov lamented that Russia is unable to focus its efforts on its relationship with the Middle Eastern country, blaming Western attempts to fan the flames of conflict in Ukraine, allegedly with the goal of encouraging war between Russia and NATO.

“The situation in the world is developing rapidly. This also applies to northern Africa and the Middle East, including Syria,” Lavrov said. “Unfortunately, our efforts with you … are affected by the atmosphere that is now being escalated our Western colleagues.”

According to Lavrov, the “Western alliance” is trying to create an “almost insurmountable confrontation” with Russia.

According to the foreign minister, Moscow wants to focus its efforts on working towards a ceasefire and political settlement in Syria.

The Russian presence in the country, at the invitation of President Bashar Assad, has been ongoing since 2015, and is aimed at aiding Damascus’ fight against extremist Islamist terrorism.

The minister also stressed that NATO attempts to spoil Russia’s reputation due to its presence in Syria would be fruitless.

“We certainly will not allow such attempts to undermine our ability to achieve concrete results,” he noted, stressing that Russia would work to strengthen Syria’s “sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence.”

In response, Mekdad revealed Syria’s support and gratitude for Russia’s efforts and echoed Lavrov’s attack on NATO.

“The campaign of hypocrisy, lies, and deception waged by the West is the same as the campaign it launched against Syria,” Mekdad said.

Lavrov is due to meet with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Europe on Thursday to discuss options for diffusing rapidly growing tensions surrounding Ukraine. Many NATO members, including the US, have made allegations that Russia is preparing for an imminent invasion of its neighbor. The Kremlin has denied this.

February 21, 2022 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO did promise Moscow it wouldn’t expand: former German defense official

RT | February 19, 2022

Despite their denials, Western leaders did make a promise to the USSR that NATO would not expand to Central and Eastern Europe when Moscow agreed to Germany’s reunification, Willy Wimmer, a former vice president of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), has claimed in an interview with RT on Saturday.

The veteran politician, who served as parliamentary secretary to Germany’s defense minister between 1985 and 1992, said that he personally witnessed this promise when he “sent Chancellor Helmut Kohl the statement on the Bundeswehr in NATO and NATO in Europe, which was completely incorporated into the treaties on reunification.”

Berlin’s decision at that time “not to station NATO troops on the territory of the former East Germany and to stop NATO near the Oder” was part of this promise, Wimmer added.

The bloc has long denied such a promise had ever been made, insisting it has always had an ‘open door policy.’ However, a document recently published by Germany’s Der Spiegel weekly purportedly shows that the pledge was made, supporting Moscow’s claims the commitments were later broken.

The minutes of a March 6, 1991 meeting in Bonn between the political directors of the foreign ministries of the US, UK, France, and Germany on German reunification appear to show that the Western nations made it “clear” to the still-existing Soviet Union that NATO would not expand further to the east.

Wimmer believes that the promises made by the Western leaders in the early 1990s were eventually dashed by the US ambitions formulated in the infamous 1992 ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine’.

The ‘doctrine’ was in fact a Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–1999 fiscal years that was leaked to the New York Times at that time and sparked a wave of criticism even in the US itself. The document outlined the policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military actions designed to suppress potential threats and prevent any supposedly authoritarian states from becoming superpowers. The official text of the guidance was then changed following the uproar but many tenets of the ‘doctrine’ still found their way into the former US President George W. Bush’s foreign policy.

Since that time, the US and its allies have been on the “wrong track” as they have been virtually doing everything to create a fairly “justified” impression in Moscow that the Western nations seek to “kick Russia out of Europe, to build a new wall between the Baltic and the Black Sea” and eventually to “destroy” Russia instead of cooperating with it, Wimmer pointed out.

The root of all the current security problems in Europe lies within America’s policy of continuously antagonizing Russia, according to Wimmer. “All the misery we are dealing with started with the United States conducting the policy aimed at kicking Russia out of Europe for the last 20 or almost 30 years,” he said.

As long as the US continues to “do everything to achieve this goal” both through NATO and bilateral agreements, Europe’s security problems can hardly be resolved, Wimmer warned, adding that it was Washington that should fundamentally change its ways.

The former OSCE vice president also echoed Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, describing the present state of relations between Russia and the West as a conversation between “a mute” and a “deaf.” Moscow’s top diplomat made similar remarks earlier in February following talks with British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss.

The US and its partners in Europe have been “certainly deaf” for decades since they “drew no conclusions” from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s landmark speech at the Munich Security Conference back in 2007, when he showed quite clearly “where the problems lie on the Euro-Asian continent,” Wimmer said.

At that time, the Russian leader warned that US unilateral hegemonism and “uncontained” use of force in international relations erode the global security system and weaken international law. It was also one of the first times he mentioned NATO’s promise to Russia not to expand to the east.

February 19, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »