Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Prepare for war – NATO chief

RT | January 15, 2025

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has called on members of the US-led military bloc to adopt a “wartime mindset” and significantly increase defense spending, citing supposed threats from Russia and other nations.

The bloc’s “future security is at stake,” Rutte claimed in his opening remarks at a meeting of the Military Committee in Chiefs of Defense in Brussels on Wednesday. He accused Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran of attempting to “weaken our democracies and chip away at our freedom.”

“To prevent war, we need to prepare for it. It is time to shift to a wartime mindset,” Rutte asserted, urging NATO states to fund “more and better defense capabilities.”

Rutte noted that while NATO members have increased defense investments and intensified military exercises these efforts are “not sufficient to deal with the dangers coming our way in the next four to five years.”

Rutte also prioritized backing Ukraine to “change the trajectory of the war,” in a tacit recognition of Kiev’s reversals on the conflict front line.

Moscow has repeatedly denied assertions that it represents a threat to any NATO member states and has instead accused the US-led bloc of waging a proxy war against Russia and encroaching on its territory.

Last month, President Vladimir Putin said that practically all NATO states are currently at war with Russia. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also noted on Tuesday that history appears to be repeating itself, suggesting that there were “obvious parallels” between Moscow’s current confrontation with NATO and the attempts of Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler to take over Russia after subjugating dozens of European countries.

On Tuesday, Rutte announced that NATO would bolster its presence in the Baltic Sea – a strategic area for Russian naval operations and energy exports – by launching a new mission under the pretext of protecting undersea infrastructure.

The NATO chief revealed that this presence will involve frigates, maritime patrol aircraft, and a “small fleet of naval drones” that are expected to provide “enhanced surveillance and deterrence.”

The announcement follows an incident involving a Cook Islands-registered oil tanker, the Eagle S, which allegedly damaged the Estlink 2 power cable connecting Finland and Estonia last month. The EU has warned that it could impose sanctions on Moscow over what EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has described as the “deliberate destruction of Europe’s critical infrastructure” using a “shadow fleet” of tankers, which supposedly includes the Eagle S.

While the tanker has been detained by Finnish authorities, no conclusive evidence has been presented regarding its involvement in the alleged sabotage.

Moscow has not commented on the incident.

January 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

Why NATO’s Plan to Conscript Ukraine’s Youth Will Likely Fail

By Professor Glenn Diesen | January 14, 2025

NATO continues to pressure Ukraine to lower its conscription age to 18 as the huge casualties by Ukraine have resulted in a lack of manpower. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken is pressuring Ukraine into “getting younger people into the fight”, while NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has been more cautious in his language by arguing “We need probably more people to move to the front line”.[1] The incoming Trump administration also appears to take the same line, as Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Walz argued that lowering the conscription age could “generate hundreds of thousands of new soldiers”.[2]

While there is seemingly bipartisan support in the US for sacrificing Ukraine’s youth, the plan is deeply flawed. The Ukrainians are overwhelmingly in favour of immediate negotiations, the Ukrainian government resists the pressure from NATO, and there is very little chance that the new recruits will significantly improve the situation.

Bring Russia to the negotiation table & negotiate from a position of strength

NATO’s argument is seemingly reasonable: More Ukrainian soldiers are necessary to pressure Russia to the negotiation table and to negotiate from a position of strength.

The need to pressure Russia to the negotiation table is based on lies, as Russia has been open to negotiations over the past three years. NATO has rejected negotiations and even basic diplomacy with Russia for three years that may have prevented escalation and possibly led to peace. Russia contacted Ukraine already on the first day after the Russian invasion, to negotiate a peace agreement based on putting an end to NATO expansion. President Zelensky confirmed on 25 February 2022: “Today we heard from Moscow that they still want to talk. They want to talk about Ukraine’s neutral status”.[3] The US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement to pursue a long war. In March 2022, Zelensky confirmed in an interview with the Economist: “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives”.[4] By rejecting any diplomacy and negotiations, NATO made it a war of attrition as Russia was left with the dilemma of either continuing the fight or capitulating.

The need to negotiate from a position of strength is a reasonable objective, yet there are reasons to doubt NATO’s sincerity. Is NATO attempting to strengthen Ukraine’s position in negotiations or to keep the war going? On 27 February 2022, the same day that Russia and Ukraine announced peace talks, the EU approved 450 million Euros in military aid to Ukraine, which reduced the incentives for Kiev to negotiate with Moscow.[5] The consistent argument has been that Ukraine must negotiate from a position of strength, yet it has been three years of intensive war and NATO countries still react with panic as Trump prepares to start negotiations to end the war.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, recognised in November 2022 that the Ukrainians were in an ideal situation to start negotiations after successes on the battlefield. Milley recognised that a military victory was impossible to achieve and that this was therefore the optimal time to negotiate.[6] Fearing that its long war would end, the Biden administration quickly intervened and Milley had to walk back his comments.

What will NATO and Ukraine achieve with their strengthened position at the negotiation table? Russia considers NATO’s incursion into Ukraine to be an existential threat and will not accept any peace agreement that does not result in restoring Ukraine’s neutrality. Both the Israeli and Turkish mediators during the peace negotiations in 2022 recognised that Russia was prepared to compromise on anything, besides the issue of NATO expansion. NATO’s continuous promise of membership for Ukraine in the military bloc after the war is over has made a peaceful settlement impossible and thus cemented the conditions for a long war. Strengthening Ukraine’s army will not soften Russia’s position.

What is the likely outcome?

Forcing hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians into the army will undoubtedly slow down the Russian advances, although it cannot stop or reverse the Russian military. The Ukrainian army has been exhausted, and a new army cannot simply be built from scratch. The losses on the battlefield and lies from their government have diminished morale, which will not be improved by sending less experienced young men into a battlefield dominated by Russia.

Trump will likely be able to pressure Zelensky to lower the conscription age, yet this will be incredibly unpopular among the Ukrainian population. The overwhelming majority of Ukrainians want negotiations to start immediately, not to sacrifice their youth in a lost war. Newsweek reports that “Over 6 million Ukrainians of conscription age haven’t complied with legislation introduced last year to boost dwindling troop numbers fighting Russia”. The public wants an end to the war, not to send their teenagers to die.

Conscription of Ukraine’s youth will cause great social upheaval in a society that is already fed up with watching their men being snatched from the streets and thrown into vans by “recruiters”. These young men are also important for the workforce to keep the economy going, which will be lost if they are conscripted or go into hiding. Once the war is finally over, these young men are indispensable to rebuilding Ukraine which is already facing a demographic crisis.

Ukraine cannot survive more “help”

Between 1991 and 2014, the US attempted to help Ukraine into NATO despite that only 20% of Ukrainians desired membership in the military alliance during this time. In 2014, NATO helped Ukrainians topple their government in an unconstitutional coup without majority support from Ukrainians. Rather than implementing the Minsk peace agreement, NATO helped Ukraine build a large army so it could instead change realities on the ground. When 73% of Ukrainians voted for Zelensky’s peace platform in 2019, NATO helped Ukraine avoid “capitulation” by pressuring Zelensky to reverse his position. In 2021, NATO helped Ukraine by refusing to give any security guarantees to Russia, even as Biden and Stoltenberg recognised that Russia would invade without security guarantees. In 2022, the US and UK helped Ukraine by pressuring Kiev to abandon a peace agreement in which the Russians committed to pulling troops back in return for neutrality. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have been killed, large parts of its territory have been lost and the nation may not survive – NATO is now attempting to help yet again by pressuring war-weary Ukrainians to also sacrifice their youth. Irrespective of any new soldiers entering the war, the position of Ukraine will only continue to get worse.

If NATO really wants to help Ukraine and strengthen its position at the negotiation table, NATO should offer Russia what it wants the most – a pan-European security agreement based on indivisible security that replaces the zero-sum bloc politics. This is the best option for the West, Russia and Ukraine.

[1] A. Medhani, ‘White House pressing Ukraine to draft 18-year-olds so it has enough troops to battle Russia’, AP News, 28 November 2024.

[2] B. Gaddy, ‘Rep. Waltz: Negotiations to release Hamas hostages are underway’, ABC News, 12 January 2025

[3] V. Zelensky, ‘Address by the President to Ukrainians at the end of the first day of Russia’s attacks’, President of Ukraine: Official website, 25 February 2022.

[4] The Economist. ‘Volodymyr Zelensky on why Ukraine must defeat Putin’ The Economist, 27 March 2022.

[5] J. Deutsch and L. Pronina, ‘EU Approves 450 Million Euros of Arms Supplies for Ukraine’, Bloomberg, 27 February 2022.

[6] O. Libermann, ‘Top US general argues Ukraine may be in a position of strength to negotiate Russian withdrawal’, CNN, 16 November 2022.

January 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s Geoeconomic Shift from Greater Europe to Greater Eurasia

By Professor Glenn Diesen | January 13, 2025

Liberal theory suggests that economic interdependence creates peace as both sides gain economically from peaceful relations. However, liberal theory is deeply flawed as it assumes states prioritise absolute gain (both sides gain, and it does not matter who gains the most). Due to the security competition in the international system, states must focus on relative gain (who gains more). As Friedrich List recognised: “As long as the division of the human race into independent nations exists, political economy will as often be at variance with cosmopolitan principles”.[1]

In all interdependent relationships, one side is always more dependent than the other. Asymmetrical interdependence empowers the less dependent state to set favourable economic conditions and obtain political concessions from a more dependent one. For example, the EU and Moldova are interdependent, but the asymmetrical interdependence results in the EU preserving its autonomy and gaining influence.

The “balance of dependence” refers to a geoeconomic understanding of the realist balance of power. In an asymmetrical interdependent partnership, the more powerful and less reliant side can extract political power. The more dependent side therefore has systemic incentives to restore a balance of dependence by enhancing strategic autonomy and diversifying economic partnerships to reduce reliance on the more powerful actor.

Geoeconomic rivalry entails competing for power by skewing the symmetry within interdependent economic partnerships to enhance both influence and autonomy. In other words, to make oneself less reliant on others while increasing the dependence by others. Diversifying economic partnerships can reduce one’s own reliance on a state or region, while asserting control over strategic markets diminishes the capacity of other states to diversify and lessen their dependence.

The Geoeconomic Foundation for Western Dominance

The centuries-long geoeconomic dominance of the West is the product of asymmetrical interdependence by dominating new technologies, strategic markets, transportation corridors and financial institutions.

Following the disintegration of the Mongol Empire, the land-based transportation corridors of the ancient Silk Road that had fuelled trade and growth vanished. Subsequently, Western maritime powers rose to prominence from the early 1500s by asserting control over the main maritime transportation corridors and establishing “Trading-Post empires”. Leading naval powers, such as Britain, have therefore historically been more inclined towards free trade as they had more to gain and risked less by controlling the trade routes. The maritime strategies of Alfred Thayer Mahan in the late 1800s were founded on this strategic reasoning, as controlling the oceans and Eurasian continent from the periphery laid the basis for US military and economic power.

The advancements in the Industrial Revolution created an even more favourable balance of dependence in favour of the West. Adam Smith noted that the discovery of America and the East Indies were the “two greatest and most important events recorded in the history of mankind”.[2] However, he also recognised that the extreme concentration of power in Europe created an exploitative and destructive relationship:

“To the natives however, both of the East and West Indies, all the commercial benefits which can have resulted from those events have been sunk and lost in the dreadful misfortunes which they have occasioned. These misfortunes, however, seem to have arisen rather from accident than from anything in the nature of those events themselves. At the particular time when these discoveries were made, the superiority of force happened to be so great on the side of the Europeans that they were enabled to commit with impunity every sort of injustice in those remote countries”.[3]

Samuel Huntington similarly wrote:

“For four hundred years, intercivilizational relations consisted of the subordination of other societies to Western civilization… The immediate source of Western expansion, however, was technological: the invention of the means of ocean navigation for reaching distant peoples and the development of the military capabilities for conquering those peoples… The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do”.[4]

Following the Second World War, the US became the dominant power due to military power, but also geoeconomic power consisting of its large share in the global GDP, technological superiority, industrial dominance, the Bretton Woods institutions, control over strategic markets/resources, and control over key transportation corridors.

From Gorbachev’s Common European Home to “Greater Europe”

Following the demise of communism, Russia aimed to integrate with the West to form a “Greater Europe”, based on the ideas of Gorbachev’s concept of a Common European Home. Economic development and prosperity required integration with the West as the main economic centre in the international system.

However, the Americans and Europeans had no incentives to accept a Greater Europe. The West aimed to construct a new Europe without Russia, which required reviving bloc politics. The ultimatum to Russia was to either accept a subordinated position as the permanent apprentice of the West or be isolated and thus become economically underdeveloped and irrelevant. The West supported only European institutions such as NATO and the EU that incrementally augmented the collective bargaining power of the West to maximise asymmetrical interdependence with Russia. Making Russia obey the European institutions where Russia does not have a seat at the table is possible under extreme asymmetrical interdependence. Cooperation then entails unilateral concessions and Russia would have to accept decisions by the West.

The alienation of Russia would not matter if it kept getting weaker. William Perry, the US Defence Secretary between 1994 and 1997, recognised that his colleagues in the Clinton Administration were aware that NATO expansionism and the exclusion of Russia from Europe fuelled anger:

“It wasn’t that we listened to their [Russia’s] argument and said [we] don’t agree with that argument… Basically the people I was arguing with when I tried to put the Russian point… the response that I got was really: ‘Who cares what they think? They’re a third-rate power.’ And of course that point of view got across to the Russians as well. That was when we started sliding down that path”.[5]

The dream of a Greater Europe failed due to Russia’s inability to create a balance of dependence within Europe. Moscow’s Greater Europe initiative aimed to obtain a proportional representation at the European table. Instead, the unfavourably asymmetrical partnerships with the West that followed enabled Western unilateralism veiled as multilateralism, in which the West could maximise both its autonomy and influence.

“Cooperation” was subsequently conceptualised by the West within a teacher-student/subject-object format, in which the West would be a “socialiser” and Russia would have to accept unilateral concessions. Russia’s decline would be managed as expanding the EU and NATO sphere of influence in the east gradually diminished the role of Russia in Europe. “European integration” became a zero-sum geostrategic project, and states in the shared neighbourhood were presented with a “civilizational choice” of aligning either with Russia or the West.

Moscow’s “Greater Europe” project was always destined to fail. The “leaning-to-one-side” policy by Yeltsin was not rewarded and reciprocated by the West, rather it made Russia vulnerable and exposed. Russia neglected its partners in the east, which deprived Russia of the bargaining power required to negotiate a more favourable format for Europe. Brzezinski noted that cooperation with the West was “Russia’s only choice – even if tactical”, and it “provided the West with a strategic opportunity. It created the preconditions for the progressive geopolitical expansion of the Western community deeper and deeper into Eurasia”.[6]

Putin Reforms the Greater Europe Initiative

Yeltsin conceded by the end of the 1990s that the “leaning-to-one-side” policy had been exploited by the West and called for diversifying Russia’s economic partnerships by becoming a Eurasian power. However, there were no powers in the East with the intentions or capabilities to challenge Western dominance. Putin attempted to revive the Greater Europe Initiative by ending the era of unilateral concessions and instead strengthening Russia’s negotiation power. Russia would not integrate into the West through unilateral concession, but integrate with the West as an equal.

Moscow began to embrace economic statecraft as the principal tool for restoring Russian power, and pursue incremental integration with the West. Re-nationalising energy resources ensured that the strategic industries of Russia worked in the interest of the state rather than oligarchs, who were courted by the West and tended to use these industries to impose their control on the state. However, the West resisted energy dependence on Russia as it risked creating more symmetry in relations and even giving Russia a voice in Europe. The narrative of the Russian “energy-weapon” was born as Europeans were told to reduce all dependence on Russia as the requirement for a more obedient Kremlin.

The Greater Eurasia Initiative

Russia’s Greater Europe Initiative eventually died when the West supported the coup in Kiev in 2014 to pull Ukraine into the Euro-Atlantic orbit. By making Ukraine a frontline instead of a bridge, it was evident that any incremental integration with Europe had been a utopian dream. Furthermore, the anti-Russian sanctions made it necessary for Russia to diversify its economic connectivity. Rather than seeking to resolve the Ukraine crisis by implementing the Minsk peace agreement, NATO began to build a Ukrainian army to change realities on the ground. Russia began to prepare for a future clash by making its economy sanctions-proof.

With the rise of Asia, Russia found a solution. Russia began to diversify away from excessive reliance on the West and embrace the new Greater Eurasia Initiative. Instead of being isolated at the periphery of Europe, Russia acquired economic strength and influence by developing new strategic industries, transportation corridors and international financial institutions in cooperation with countries in the East. While Russia is met with hostility in the stagnant West, it was embraced in the more dynamic East. Not only have the ambitions of Gorbachev’s Common European Home been abandoned, but the 300-year-long Western-centric policy since Peter the Great has also ended.

A strategic partnership with China is indispensable to construct a Greater Eurasia. Yet, Russia has learned the lessons from the failure of Greater Europe by avoiding excessive dependence on an economically stronger China. The asymmetrical interdependence that emerges in the framework of such a partnership enables China to extract political concessions, which would make it untenable for Russia in the long term. Moscow seeks a balance of dependence in its strategic partnership with Beijing, which entails diversifying economic partnerships across Greater Eurasia. As China does not seek a hegemonic role in Greater Eurasia, it has welcomed Russia’s efforts to diversify its economic partnerships.

Under the Greater Europe Initiative, the Europeans had access to cheap Russian energy and enjoyed a huge Russian market for exports of manufactured goods. Furthermore, Russia’s geoeconomic strategy to integrate with the West resulted in preferential treatment for Western corporations. Under Greater Eurasia, Europe will undergo deindustrialization as the cheap Russian energy and market opportunities go to Asia, which also enhances the competitiveness of Asia vis-a-vis Europe. The Europeans continue setting their own house on fire with reckless sanctions, in the hope that it will also hurt the Russian economy. However, while Europe cannot diversify away from Russia, Russia can diversify away from Europe.

Ideally, Europe would be one of Russia’s many economic partners in the Greater Eurasia Initiative. The revival of militarised dividing lines on the European continent makes the Europeans excessively reliant on the US and Russia becomes too dependent on China. Therefore, there are strong systemic incentives to restore some economic connectivity between the Europeans and Russians after the Ukraine War, although it will be within a Greater Eurasian format as Greater Europe can no longer be revived.

[1] List, F. 1827. Outlines of American Political Economy, in a Series of Letters. Samuel Parker, Philadelphia.

[2] A. Smith, An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations, Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1863, p.282

[3] J. Borger, ‘Russian hostility ‘partly caused by west’, claims former US defence head’, The Guardian, 9 March 2016.

[4] S.P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1996, p.51.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Z. Brzezinski. The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. Basic Books, New York. 2009. P. 102.

The article is based on excerpts from my previous article with the same title: Glenn Diesen, ‘Russia, China and the “Balance of Dependence” in Greater Eurasia’, Valdai Dicussion Club, March 2017

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

The United States Always Knew NATO Expansion Would Lead to War

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | January 13, 2025

The present severed from the past is easily misunderstood. In discussions of the Russia-Ukraine war, not enough is made of the historical fact that, at the end of the Cold War, the newly independent Ukraine promised not to join NATO, and NATO promised not to expand to Ukraine.

Not enough is made of the fact that Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, “External and Internal Security,” says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs…” That promise was later enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, which committed Ukraine to neutrality and prohibited it from joining any military alliance; that included NATO.

Nor is enough made of the fact that in 1990 and 1991, the George H.W. Bush administration gave assurances to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev—assurances that arguably reached the level of a deal—that NATO would not expand east of Germany, including to Ukraine.

But even less is made of what the Bill Clinton administration later promised Russian President Boris Yeltsin, nor what the United States already knew at the time of where plans of NATO expansion to Ukraine would lead.

Recently declassified documents clearly show that, between 1993 and 2000, the U.S. already knew that a cornered Boris Yeltsin was distraught about NATO expansion and about the West’s broken promise, that expansion to Ukraine was a red line, and that if Russia ever enforced that red line, the U.S. would respond forcefully.

Though the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were invited to begin accession talks in 1997 and joined NATO in 1999, a secret October 1994 policy paper, written by National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and entitled “Moving Toward NATO Expansion,” makes it clear that the decision to expand NATO had already been made by that time. The paper explicitly keeps “the membership door open for Ukraine.”

Interestingly, though Russia is always publicly painted as a predatorial nation with imperial ambitions, a confidential 1993 cable states that most Eastern European states seek NATO membership “not [because they] feel militarily threatened by Russia” but because they believe “that NATO membership can help stave off the return of authoritarian forces” in their own countries. Though the cable makes the exception that Ukraine and the Baltic states may feel threatened by Russia.

By September 1994, Clinton had explicitly told Yeltsin that NATO would expand. While visiting Yeltsin in the hospital on December 16, 1994, Vice President Al Gore clarifies that “What Clinton told you in September was that eventually NATO will expand.”

But Gore promised Yeltsin that “the process will be gradual and open and we will consult carefully with you.” He added, “The process will be conducted in parallel with a deepening of the U.S.-Russia partnership and your partnership with NATO.”

Though less than a week later, a secret NSC memorandum clarifies that Russia will not be given “a veto or right of prior consultation over NATO decisions,” this promise of a deepening “institutionalized relationship between NATO and Russia—possibly in the form of a Treaty (“alliance with the Alliance”) or Charter” that will be established in parallel with NATO expansion is repeatedly mentioned. A secret memorandum written by Anthony Lake to Clinton on July 17, 1995 identifies “plans to develop a formalized NATO-Russia relationship in parallel with enlargement.” The spirit of this promise would be broken.

Importantly, it is evident that the Clinton administration was very aware of Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion and of their feeling of betrayal. Knowing that expansion is an impossible sell in Russia, Gore promised Yeltsin that expansion wouldn’t occur before 1996 because “[w]e understand you have parliamentary elections in mid-1995 and it would be hard for you if we moved forward then.”

In the July 17, 1995 memorandum, Lake informed Clinton of a “hardening Russian opposition to NATO expansion.” In a section called “Intensifying Russian Opposition,” Lake said that “opposition to NATO enlargement appears to be hardening across the political spectrum among the Russian political elite.” He reported that key Russian officials insist “that NATO enlargement and NATO-Russia cooperation are incompatible.” He recognized that Yeltsin had “approved…a strategy for delaying and possibly derailing NATO enlargement.” Lake forecast little hope of the position softening because “Russia’s opposition is deep and profound.”

Though much has been made of William Burns’ important 2008 warning that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” it was not the first such warning.

In a 1991 appeal cited in M.E. Sarotte’s Not One Inch, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Robert Strauss warned that “the most revolutionary event of 1991 for Russia may not be the collapse of Communism, but the loss of something Russians of all political stripes think of as part of their own body politic, and near to the heart at that: Ukraine.” An internal 1991 draft paper recommended leaving “the possibility of Ukraine joining the NATO liaison program” for “a later time.” Sarotte reports that Richard Holbrooke, who aggressively pushed expansion, called NATO in a briefing paper “an Alliance [Ukraine] can probably never enter.”

A secret/sensitive memorandum dated July 29, 1996 clearly states that Russia sought to “draw red lines around certain countries (e.g. the Baltics and Ukraine) to prevent their ever being considered for NATO membership.”

The declassified documents make it clear that, at the time of the decision to expand NATO east toward Russia, the Clinton administration knew that Russia vehemently opposed expansion and especially expansion to Ukraine. They also knew that crossing that red line could lead to trouble.

The July 29, 1996 memo shows, not only knowledge of Russian opposition, but understanding of it: “From a Russian perspective, they cannot (and probably should not ever want to) endorse formally NATO enlargement.”

An August 23, 1996 draft memorandum written by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot says, “The Russians are saying that they will not ‘negotiate’ on the issue of Baltic and Ukrainian eventual membership in NATO.” Using the language of conflict for, perhaps, the first time, Talbot says that “[t]his has the distinctly ominous implication of a warning to us…”

Remarkably, having recognized that Russia had drawn a red line at NATO expansion to Ukraine, the United States proceeded to invert that red line: “An important part of our job will be to make sure our red lines stick—and that the Russians’ <sic> don’t cross ours (i.e., trying to label UNACCEPTABLE Ukrainian and Baltic membership.”

Enlarging on the new language of conflict, the memo then says that if Russia’s “nasty implication [of a warning] becomes explicit, we should slam back hard…” This is the most prescient line in the declassified documents, forecasting a “hard” American response if Russia asserts its red line at NATO expansion to Ukraine.

And it is clear that the Clinton administration had no illusions about Russia’s serious concerns or about their resentment of Bill Clinton’s breaking the promise that was made to them at the end of the Cold War. In a memorandum to Strobe Talbot, Dennis Ross said that the Russians “see NATO expansion” as their being “humiliated,” but “worse,” that it confirms that “they will face potential threats closer to their borders.” Ross added that the Russians “feel they were snookered at the time of German unification” by the breaking of “[Secretary of State James] Baker’s promises on not extending NATO military presence into what was East Germany” which was “part of a perceived commitment not to expand the Alliance eastward.”

In an important meeting between Clinton and Yeltsin in Helsinki on March 21, 1997, Yeltsin’s frustration and anger are made clear. Discussing the NATO-Russia Founding Act, Yeltsin makes sure that Clinton knows that Russia’s “position has not changed. It remains a mistake for NATO to move eastward.” He then says, “But I need to take steps to alleviate the negative consequences of this for Russia. I am prepared to enter into an agreement with NATO not because I want to but because it is a forced step.”

Yeltsin then personally told Clinton, “But one thing is very important: enlargement should also not embrace the former Soviet republics. I cannot sign any agreement without such language. Especially Ukraine.”

Yeltsin implored Clinton that “[d]ecisions by NATO are not to be taken without taking into account the concerns or opinions of Russia.” He also demanded that “nuclear and conventional arms cannot move eastward into new member to the borders of Russia.” Clinton then promised Yeltsin “to make sure that we take account of Russia’s concerns as we move forward.” Another broken promise.

Interestingly, as an indication that the United States recognizes that objections to NATO expansion are not just Vladimir Putin’s objections but Russia’s, in a November 16, 2000 meeting, Talbot suggests that “the next round of NATO enlargement might be easier under Putin than it had been under Yeltsin.”

Reuniting the present with the context of its past is crucial—not for condoning Russia’s war against Ukraine, but for understanding it. More importantly, it will be crucial when it finally comes to resolving and ending it.

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

In Huge Protest, Romanians Rail Against Do-Over Election Targeting Populist NATO Skeptic

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | January 13, 2025

Upwards of 100,000 Romanians of various political stripes took to the streets on Sunday to express outrage over the voiding of a presidential election that seemed poised to put a NATO and Ukraine War skeptic in power. George Simion, leader of the right-wing Alliance for the Unity of Romanians, summed up the intent of the demonstrations his party organized:

“We are protesting against the coup d’état that took place on Dec. 6. We are sorry to discover so late that we were living in a lie and that we were led by people who claimed to be democrats, but are not at all. We demand a return to democracy through the resumption of elections, starting with the second round.”

In November, Romania held the first balloting in its two-round election. It resulted in Europe’s latest instance in which a populist, nationalist, right-wing candidate posted a result that far exceeded what polls indicated he was capable of. In a 13-contender field, that candidate, Calin Georgescu, led the pack with 23%, setting him up to advance to the second and final round against reformist Elena Lasconi of the Save Romania Union party.

However, just two days before that second round was to take place on Dec. 8, Romania’s constitutional court annulled the election, and ordered a complete do-over of both rounds. Their justification: Supposed Russian meddling manifested in manipulated votes, campaign irregularities and secret spending. The ruling came after incumbent President Klaus Iohannis reportedly shared intelligence claiming Russia organized thousands of social media accounts to boost Georgescu’s campaign.

“You petty politicians, with your ungrateful and immature games, you won’t even know what hit you in this global storm,” said Georgescue in a social media post in which he promoted the protest and compared Romanian leaders and judges with former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, who’s on trial on corruption charges. “You are so small that you aren’t even able to understand anything. Nothing you do will make a difference anymore. The inevitable, is inevitable.”

On Sunday, crowds — estimated in size from tens of thousands to more than 100,000 — marched through the streets of Bucharest, with Reuters reporting that many left-wingers joined the protest. The slogans on their signs included “We Want Free Elections,” “Bring Back The Second Round,” “Freedom,” and “Democracy Is Not Optional.” In a country that is among the most religiously observant in Europe, many carried Christian Orthodox icons. According to video posted to social media, protesters also vented their aggravation with establishment media:

Social media was the principal catalyst of 62-year-old Georgescu’s success. He didn’t run as a member of any political party, but his TikTok account racked up 1.6 million likes for content showing him going to church, running, practicing judo, and being interviewed by podcasters.

Iohannis’ term was supposed to end on Dec. 21, but he’s now slated to remain in power until the do-over election is complete. The dates are not yet official, but, last week, leaders of the ruling coalition government said they’d agreed on holding the two rounds on May 4 and May 18.

Georgescu’s views are anathema to the European establishment. He’s pledged to restore Romanian sovereignty and put an end to what he characterizes as subservience to NATO and the EU. He has taken a hard line against the presence of NATO’s missile defense system that’s based in Deveselu, southern Romania, calling it a “shame of diplomacy” that is more confrontational than peace-promoting.

He’s also pushed for Romania to pursue a non-interventionist policy in the Ukraine war, and said US arms-makers were manipulating the conflict. Since Russia’s invasion, Romania has facilitated Ukrainian grain exports and furnished military assistance including the donation of a Patriot missile battery. In addition to his broad theme of restoring Romanian sovereignty, Georgescu also ran on countering price inflation, addressing Romania’s worst-in-EU poverty rate, supporting farmers and decreasing the country’s reliance on imports.

However, now it is the sovereignty of the Romanian people themselves that is in peril. As a flag-wrapped economist named Cornelia told Reuters on Sunday: “At this rate we won’t be voting anymore, they will impose a leader like in the old days.”

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Brussels bureaucrat threatens Germany, shows EU effectively a dictatorship

By Drago Bosnic | January 13, 2025

For decades, the European Union was known for its chest-thumping about “freedom, democracy and the rule of law”. The troubled bloc also claimed that it was purely an “economic project” and that it “had nothing to do” with NATO, geopolitics, military, etc. However, in the last two years, all those masks have fallen, showing that the EU is nothing more than a geopolitical pendant of the world’s most vile racketeering cartel.

The troubled bloc’s close coordination with NATO shows that there’s virtually no difference between the two. One of the most glaring examples of this is the “enforcement of democracy” in various member states (and not just member states, as evidenced by Western meddling in Georgia), extremely reminiscent of the way the United States and later NATO did in the immediate aftermath of WWII and later years.

The latest in the long line of these “democratic interventions” happened in Romania, when its election results were annulled after the “wrong” candidate won. In that specific case, sovereigntist Calin Georgescu “made the mistake” of not wanting his country and people to be used as cannon fodder in NATO’s crawling aggression on Russia, so the Romanian Constitutional Court, supposedly “unbiased and independent”, ruled out that his victory was “unconstitutional”. The explanation for this was “vague”, to put it mildly, as the “democratic” enforcers simply used the good old “evil Russian election meddling” mantra. All of us “conspiracy theorists” pointed out that this was ridiculous, but we still had no irrefutable evidence. Luckily, the arrogance of the bureaucratic dictatorship in Brussels never fails, as they actually said it openly.

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental element in Europe. If they don’t, there are fines and the possibility of a ban. Now we are equipped, and we have to enforce this law to protect our democracies in Europe. For now, let’s keep calm and enforce our laws in Europe, when there is a risk that they will be bypassed and if they are not enforced, they can lead to interference. We did it in Romania, and if necessary, we will have to do it in Germany as well,” former French EU Commissioner Thierry Breton stated on live TV, threatening to “enforce democracy” in Germany just like the bloc did in Romania.

Breton’s admission may sound shocking to those who don’t understand how the EU and NATO function. However, this is nothing strange to anyone remotely aware of the state of Western “democracies”. Considering the Nazi origins of both organizations, this is hardly surprising. In fact, the obvious connection between Hitler’s ideas of Werewolf units and the CIA’s Operation Gladio shows this is unequivocal.

The infamous US spy agency and its equivalents in NATO later used these to enforce desirable election results virtually everywhere. Still, it’s certainly a good thing that EU bureaucrats are reminding us that they can steal elections like they did in Romania. It’s an important and much-needed reality check for anyone naive enough to think EU/NATO has anything to do with democracy (the word itself has effectively become pejorative).

It should be noted that the “evidence” for the supposed “Russian meddling” in Romania was based on social media posts, similar to how the so-called “Russiagate” hoax was promoted by the DNC and the corrupt US federal institutions. People like Breton now want to see the same enforced in Germany if the AfD wins. Ironically, while whining about the “freedom of expression”, the EU is particularly worried about the prospect of people having actual freedom on social media, so it wants to force so-called “fact-checking” on everyone. In that regard, it seems social media networks such as Twitter/X and Telegram are particularly “problematic”. Interestingly, even the infamous Facebook/Meta seems to be dropping the hugely unpopular “fact-checking”, which Biden lamented about as a “shameful” decision.

Expectedly, just like the outgoing Biden administration, the so-called “fact-checking” is almost universally hated, as it’s dominated by the mainstream propaganda machine and neoliberal extremists promoting societal degeneracy and moral depravity. Any attempt to criticize these are met with censorship, all in an attempt to create the false impression that neoliberal extremism is popular.

Thus, if social media networks indeed decide to allow free expression (provided this isn’t yet another ruse), this will certainly be “dangerous for our democracy” in both the US and EU. Not only could this disrupt color revolution projects, but it also has the potential to shake numerous already unstable and unpopular governments across the political West. Some, like Scholz, are already resorting to damage control by cutting “Ukraine aid”.

Interestingly, this came after the AfD’s Alice Weidel “dared” to float the idea of relaunching Nord Stream pipelines (as if Brussels needed yet another reason to ban that party). The EU bureaucratic dictatorship is terrified of the prospect of having to contend with more sovereigntist governments, as it already has numerous problems with Slovakia and Hungary, both of which are non-compliant with demands to commit economic suicide for the sake of the Neo-Nazi junta.

Thus, Brussels is not only losing the momentum of its color revolution projects that usually result in EU/NATO enlargement, but it can’t even control current member states. The bureaucratic dictatorship is becoming so desperate that it needs to resort to literal enforcement in order to stay afloat. All this shows the futility of being in the EU, as well as the sheer pointlessness of its existence.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

January 13, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | Leave a comment

AfD delegates reject motion condemning Putin

RT | January 12, 2025

The right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has overwhelmingly voted against including in its 2025 election manifesto a condemnation of Russian President Vladimir Putin for the conflict in Ukraine.

The delegates gathered for a conference in Riesa, Saxony on Saturday to decide on the platform for the snap parliamentary elections, which will be held next month.

Albrecht Glaser, a member of the Bundestag, proposed to accuse Russia of failing to protect civilians in Ukraine and to state that “AfD condemns the behavior of President Putin and once again calls on all warring parties to propose an immediate ceasefire and hold peace talks.”

According to news channel N-tv, 69% of the delegates voted to reject the motion. The draft program approved by the party leadership only briefly mentions the conflict, saying that “the war in Ukraine has disturbed the European peaceful order,” the news agency Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported.

The draft reportedly says that AfD “sees Ukraine’s future as a neutral state outside of NATO and the EU,” and calls for the restoration of “undisturbed trade” with Russia.

Known for its anti-immigration stance, AfD is the second-most popular party in Germany, according to the polls. The party has been often accused of parroting Russian narratives about the conflict, given that its position on Ukraine mostly aligns with Moscow’s demands to Kiev.

The party has rejected the “pro-Russian” label, insisting that continuing military support for Kiev and sanctions on Russian trade and energy exports are against Germany’s national security.

During her recent conversation with tech billionaire Elon Musk, AfD co-leader Alice Weidel argued that the EU has abandoned diplomatic efforts in favor of dangerous confrontation with Russia. The conflict could “escalate big time towards a nuclear exchange,” she warned.

Early elections were called after Germany’s ruling three-party coalition collapsed in late 2024 due to disagreements over the budget.

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Swiss People’s Party Demands Resignation: Defense Minister Under Fire for Security Policy Failures

Sputnik – 12.01.2025

According to the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), Switzerland is incapable of guaranteeing internal and external security because of its arms deliveries to Ukraine and its rapprochement with NATO.

The Swiss People’s Party, Switzerland’s largest political force, has called on the head of the country’s Defense Ministry, Viola Amherd, to resign over her failed security policy.

“The fact that Switzerland can no longer guarantee its internal and external security is the result of political mistakes – and a consequence of wrong appointments,” a statement read.

Viola Amherd is also blamed for the country’s rapprochement with NATO.

“Those who are gradually tying Switzerland to NATO are accepting that young Swiss are dying abroad and that Switzerland is being dragged into foreign conflicts,” the Swiss People’s Party said.

According to the SVP, Amherd prefers to deal with gender issues in the armed forces rather than military equipment.

“She allows weapons ordered for Switzerland to be delivered to Ukraine. These are the wrong priorities, Federal Councillor,” the SVP said in a statement.

In late October 2024, Amherd said that Bern should ease restrictions on the re-export of Swiss weapons because of the country’s arms business. She cited the fact that the Netherlands had already decided to stop buying weapons from the nation because of the current ban on re-exports, and that Germany could follow suit.

Russia believes that arms supplies to Ukraine hinder a settlement and directly involve NATO countries in the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine would be a legitimate target for Russia. According to Lavrov, the United States and NATO are directly involved in the conflict, not only by supplying weapons, but also by training personnel in the UK, Germany, Italy, and other countries. The Kremlin stated that the West pumping Ukraine with weapons does not contribute to negotiations and would have a negative effect.

January 12, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Multipolar world’s tech edge grows, leaves political West trailing behind

By Drago Bosnic – January 10, 2025

The end of last year saw some pretty incredible breakthroughs in military technologies, the most impressive among which is the first “Oreshnik” strike, demonstrating Russia’s growing dominance in hypersonic weapons. Apart from the “Oreshnik”, Moscow also started the large-scale deployment of its unrivaled S-500 SAM/ABM (surface-to-air missile/anti-ballistic missile) systems that can track and down all sorts of targets (including hypersonic). Multiple sources are also reporting that the Eurasian giant is speeding up its “sixth generation” program, with both the Sukhoi and MiG developing their own designs. In the meantime, existing and proven Russian fighter jets, such as the Su-30 (multirole), Su-34 (strike fighter), Su-35S (air superiority) and Su-57S (next-generation multirole) are not only conducting regular missions, but in the case of the Su-35 are also helping countries like Iran maintain security amid constant US/NATO threats.

Then we have China, which presented not one, but two working “sixth-generation” jet prototypes, named Chengdu J-36 and Shenyang J-50 by the media, respectively. The two aircraft show what can only be described as a quantum leap for Beijing, which is now ahead of Washington DC in jet technologies, an unimaginable prospect until just a few years ago. In fact, this was such a shock for the US-led political West that the mainstream propaganda machine is now openly engaging in a rather pathetic denial, claiming that the Pentagon supposedly “flew its own prototype years ago”, something for which there’s zero evidence. However, this development sent Lockheed Martin’s stocks crashing as concerns for the troubled F-35’s future in the USAF started emerging. However, to make matters worse for Washington DC, there are also reliable reports that China also flew the H-20, its first stealthy strategic bomber.

In addition to this aircraft, which the Pentagon expects to enter service in the next five years, Beijing also inducted a number of other weapon systems, including the KJ-3000 AEW&C (airborne early warning and control) aircraft and Type 076 carrier (named “Sichuan”). What’s more, China is also helping several other countries to strengthen their armed forces in the wake of the US-led aggression against the world. This includes Algeria, which got a license to locally produce the Chinese Type 056 corvettes, as well as Serbia, whose HQ-22 SAM systems acquired from Beijing just became fully operational. Thus, just like in the case of Russian Su-35 fighter jets for Iran, these Chinese systems will help others maintain security and sovereignty, which is greatly contributing to global peace by deterring war criminal organizations such as NATO, by far the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel.

To that end, North Korea is also updating its already impressive arsenal, including the “Hwasong-16B” IRBM (intermediate-range ballistic missile) armed with an HGV (hypersonic glide vehicle). The weapon was test launched on January 6, demonstrating that Pyongyang is still ahead of the US in hypersonic technologies. Just like in the case of Chinese next-generation jets, the mainstream propaganda machine is also engaging its coping mechanisms with ludicrous claims that the Pentagon will “soon outpace” Russia and China in hypersonics, a laughable (and extremely unlikely) prospect given just how far behind the US is. In the meantime, North Korean Russian-derived ATGM (anti-tank guided missile) systems, specifically the “Bulsae-4”, are obliterating Western weapons in NATO-occupied Ukraine, which is yet another embarrassment and humiliation for the political West which regularly mocks Pyongyang.

India is also upgrading its armed forces with Russian missile technologies, specifically the “BrahMos” supersonic cruise missile which is set to be updated and deployed on a ground-based launcher. The weapon is based on the Russian P-800 “Onyx” supersonic cruise missile, one of the deadliest in its class, as proven by its superb performance during the special military operation (SMO). Inspired by Chinese advances, Delhi is also expected to invest heavily in next-generation aircraft, likely in cooperation with Moscow, while supporting and helping its domestic military industry. This also includes hypersonic technologies, based on both Russian and homegrown designs.

All these developments stand in stark contrast to America’s growing technological ineptitude. It turns out that its much-touted ABM systems aren’t exactly working as marketed.

Namely, military sources report that the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system deployed in Israel failed to intercept Houthi missiles fired from Yemen. In addition, the Pentagon is reconsidering the future of its V-22 “Osprey” tiltrotor aircraft amid numerous crashes and operational faults. However, such failures don’t seem to deter the US and its vassals and satellite states from engaging in threats of more aggression against the world. There are numerous reports that Washington DC is preparing to attack Iran, with both the outgoing Biden and upcoming Trump administrations poised to do so regardless of their supposed differences in foreign policy approach. What’s more, there’s talk of the US annexing not just Canada, but also Greenland and even attacking Panama. What started out as a “joke” turned out to be anything but, once again confirming America’s aggressive nature.

Such developments demonstrate that expecting groundbreaking changes in American foreign policy is overoptimistic, to put it mildly. The outgoing Biden administration is making sure that some of the worst people on the planet, including unrepentant war criminals such as Hilary Clinton and Victoria Nuland still have major influence in US politics even after Trump takes office.

Namely, Clinton was recently awarded the so-called “Presidential Medal of Freedom”, along with the no less infamous George Soros. Individuals like Clinton, Nuland, Soros, etc. are extremely dangerous for sovereigntist nations and the multipolar world as a whole. Their activities, much akin to political (and, in many cases, literal) terrorism, aim to destabilize non-compliant countries that want to break free from the political West’s extremely malignant influence. All this makes the development of adequate defenses all the more important.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

January 10, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO pledges $2 billion in military aid for Ukraine at Ramstein meeting

By Ahmed Adel | January 10, 2025

Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin said in Germany that participants in the Ukraine Defense Contact Group had approved a plan for eight areas of military cooperation with Kiev until 2027. Austin’s announcement was followed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s claim that he had secured an additional $2 billion in military assistance to help continue the futile war effort against Russia.

As Zelensky said after the meeting in Ramstein, home to a NATO Airpower headquarters, 34 countries had pledged support in different aspects to continue the 34-month-old war, including covered air defence, information technology, demining, naval forces, air forces and artillery.

“We had a very good meeting, a very good result. There was $2 billion in additional packages of support to Ukraine,” he said in a video posted on the Telegram account. “Earlier today, a meeting of the coalition leaders’ group was held with the participation of representatives of 15 countries. They approved a plan for ‘coalitions of opportunity’ until 2027. This way, partner countries can continue to provide assistance to Ukraine on the battlefield.”

As revealed in a joint statement released by the Pentagon ahead of the Ramstein meeting, the Western allies and Kiev intended to define how to meet Ukraine’s goals and military needs in the short and long term through contributions, procurement, investments, and efforts to expand defence capabilities.

In this regard, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated ahead of the session’s start that the Atlantic Alliance should do everything in its power to allow Ukraine to continue fighting.

“We need to do everything possible to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs, in terms of training and equipment, to prevail in this fight,” Rutte stressed.

According to him, it is also important to demonstrate at the session the involvement of all NATO countries in providing support to Kiev.

“The global context is that we have to bring Ukraine in the best possible position. That one day, when talks would start, at the initiative of Ukraine, on how to resolve this conflict, that they are in the best possible position to do that. And then when these talks end, it will be looked at, in a sense, whether there’s a good deal or not […] The whole world is watching. So, we have to make sure that Ukraine is in the best possible position. And we should not forget that there is this geopolitical context at stake here,” said the NATO Secretary General.

For his part, Zelensky, during his address at the session, asked the allies for air defence systems and the deployment of a Western military contingent.

“Last year, France came up with the idea of ​​deploying a contingent of partners in Ukraine to bring peace closer […] That is why our goal is to find as many instruments as possible to force Russia to peace. I believe that such a deployment of partners’ contingents is one of the best instruments. Let’s be more practical in making this possible,” he said.

According to him, representatives of Great Britain have also spoken out in favour of deploying a foreign contingent in Ukraine. Zelensky did not mention any specific names or positions.

It is recalled that on February 26, 2024, after an international meeting on support for Ukraine held in Paris, Macron said he did not rule out the possibility of European troops being deployed in Ukraine. Then, three days later, during the grand opening of the Olympic Village, Macron emphasized that his position on the possibility of sending Western troops to Ukraine was balanced and well-thought-out. Nonetheless, nearly a year later, nothing has progressed from Macron’s suggestion, and it is unlikely that the British will act alone or convince partners to embark on such a reckless initiative.

Although Zelensky urged his Western allies to “not to drop the ball” and to continue providing long-term military support to his embattled country, he acknowledged that “a new chapter starts for Europe” once Donald Trump returns to the White House on January 20.

Zelensky securing only $2 billion in military aid once again demonstrates how Western support for Ukraine is waning, despite the rhetoric at the Ramstein meeting of supporting the country until victory over Russia is achieved.

Realistically, $2 billion will make absolutely no difference to Ukraine’s war effort, especially as Russia continues its slow but methodical advance across the front, with Ukrainian forces unable to mount any serious defence, making the whole meeting at Ramstein nothing more than performative that has achieved nothing substantial.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

January 10, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Europe isn’t the real threat to Ukraine peace but UK

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | January 7, 2025 

The Biden Administration has not given up on Ukraine war. A meeting of the Ramstein Format Meeting is scheduled to take place in Germany on Thursday, chaired by the outgoing US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, to address Ukraine’s defence needs, which the Ukrainian President Zelensky will also address. 

Meanwhile, Kiev typically launched an attack in the Kursk region on the eve of the Ramstein Format event as the “curtain-raiser”. The operation, although played up in the British press, is spearheaded by just 2 tanks and fifteen armoured carriers and will no doubt be crushed by the Russian drones and its highly lethal Ka high-performance combat helicopters with day and night capability, high survivability and fire power. 

Typically, Zelensky won’t give up on any occasion for grandstanding in front of the Western audience. He hopes to display on Thursday that there is still some spunk left in the Ukrainian armed forces. Tragically, he is sacrificing a few dozen Ukrainian soldiers in this melodrama which may distract some attention from the front-line as Russian forces have entered Chasiv Yar and reached the suburbs of Pokrovsk in an operation to surround that city. 

With the fall of Chasiv Yar and Pokorovsk, the Battle of Donbass is nearing home stretch. It sets the stage for a massive Russian push to the Dnieper River if the Kremlin is left with no other option but to end the war on its terms. (See a recent article on the future map of Ukraine by the top Moscow strategic analyst Dmitry Trenin titled What Ukraine should look like after Russia’s victory.)

Indeed, the hopes of Donald Trump bringing the war to an end in the first day of his presidency on January 20 have withered away. The Ramstein meeting is a defiant act by Zelensky and his European associates, as Trump is set to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin soon.  

On December 18, Zelensky met in Brussels with NATO chief Mark Rutte and huddled with several European leaders to discuss war strategy. His European interlocutors are also seeking to develop their own plans if Trump, who has pledged to bring a swift end to the war, pulls the plug on the Kiev regime or forces it to make concessions. 

The key topic of the Brussels meeting was security guarantees, Zelensky’s office said. Zelensky highlighted his “detailed one-on-one discussion” with French President Emmanuel Macron that focused on priorities to further strengthen Ukraine’s position “regarding the presence of forces in Ukraine that could contribute to stabilising the path to peace.”

Prior to the Brussels meeting, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told reporters that the priority was to secure the “sovereignty of Ukraine and that it will not be forced to submit to a dictated peace.” But, he cautioned, any discussion of boots on the ground would be premature. 

Rutte himself counselled that Kiev’s allies should focus on ramping up arms supplies to ensure Ukraine is in a position of strength. Rutte estimated that Ukraine needs 19 additional  air-defence systems to protect the country’s energy infrastructure. 

Interestingly, Rutte announced that the proposed new NATO command in the German city of Wiesbaden is now “up and running” which will henceforth coordinate Western military aid for Ukraine as well as provide training for Ukraine’s military. Trump is unlikely to preserve the Ramstein Format. 

Simply put, Europe, including the U.K., lack the capacity to replace the US military assistance to Ukraine. For the EU to replace the US, it would need to double its military aid to Ukraine. But the current political situation in Europe, along with the real military capabilities of individual European countries, makes this an impossible objective. (See an analysis, here, by Samantha de Bendern at the Chatham House.) 

Germany, Europe’s largest military donor to Ukraine, has plunged into political chaos with the collapse of the Scholz-led coalition. Macron, a staunch defender of Ukraine, has lost control over France’s domestic politics since the June parliamentary elections, where he lost his majority. Elsewhere in Europe, political parties on the far right and far left, with pro-Russian sympathies, are rising.  

Europeans are running around like headless chickens. The surprise visit of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to Florida to meet Trump and watch a movie with him at this critical juncture of the Ukraine war shows that the smart lady has no confidence in the likes of Macron. 

Meloni has a warm equation with Trump’s close aide Elon Musk and is seeking to strengthen business ties with the US. “This is very exciting. I’m here with a fantastic woman, the prime minister of Italy,” Trump told the Mar-a-Lago crowd and added expansively, “She’s really taken Europe by storm.” 

Italy, an important NATO power that overlooks the Mediterranean is a vociferous supporter of trans-atlanticism, and pursues a nuanced policy on the Ukraine war that may be of use to Trump to build bridges with Europe. Meloni is positioning herself. 

Italy resolutely condemned the Russian annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s subsequent involvement in Eastern Ukraine and joined the EU sanctions against Russia. It demonstrated its military support for Ukraine with significant military aid packages within the framework of an agreement on security cooperation (under a previous government headed by Prime Minister Mario Draghi). 

That said, Rome has often sought to balance EU responses with its national interests towards Russia. Thus, Meloni’s foreign minister reaffirmed recently, even as Biden authorised Ukraine to deploy long-range American missiles against military targets inside Russia, “Our position on Ukraine’s use of (Italian) weapons has not changed. They can only be used within Ukrainian territory.” 

In the final analysis, it is the course of the war that will decide the terms of peace in Ukraine. Europe’s swing toward right-wing governments — Austria is the latest example — may help Russia. However, the crux of the matter is that so long as the spy agencies of Britain and US work in tandem to manipulate the governments in power in White Hall — Labour and Conservative alike — the Trump administration has a serious problem on its hands. 

Of course, Trump is well aware of the UK’s pivotal role in hatching the “Russia collusion” plot, which hobbled his presidency. Downsizing Britain’s role can be a game changer for peace in Ukraine. 

But the MI6’s capacity to influence the Kiev regime is not to be underestimated. Former UK prime minister Boris Johnson played a seminal role in torpedoing the Russia-Ukraine deal negotiated at the peace talks hosted by Turkey in March-April 2022 just weeks into the conflict. Even if Trump strikes a deal with Putin, which in itself is highly problematic as things stand, London is sure to undermine it one way or another at the first available opportunity, given its Russophobic obsession with inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.  

Possibly, Trump is savouring Elon Musk’s relentless assault on the British government. “America should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government,” Musk wrote on X. But British politicians have the skin of rhino. Sir Keir Starmer is giving as good as he gets. Trump’s challenge lies in mothballing the special relationship with the UK.

January 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Over 2,600 UK Troops to Take Part in Exercises on NATO’s Eastern Flank

Sputnik – 04.01.2025

More than 2,600 UK troops and 730 vehicles will take part in exercises on NATO’s eastern flank, the country’s Defense Ministry said in a statement.

“Leading from the front, the UK is providing the largest contribution of forces with over 2600 personnel, and 730 vehicles deploying to NATO’s eastern flank,” the ministry said.

According to the statement, the UK’s 1st Division will command all of NATO’s land forces during Exercise Steadfast Dart 25 in Bulgaria and Romania to practice the deployment of the new Allied Reaction Force, which can “rapidly reinforce” NATO’s eastern flank.

Russia has pointed to NATO’s unprecedented activity near its western borders. The alliance is expanding its initiatives and says this is being done to contain “Russian aggression.” The Kremlin has noted that Moscow is not threatening anyone, but will not ignore actions that are potentially dangerous to its interests.

January 4, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »