Russia’s Demands in Peace Negotiations
Dmitri Polyanskiy, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen on the Duran
Glenn Diesen | December 7, 2024
We had a conversation with Dmitri Polyanskiy, the First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations. Polyanskiy shared the Russian perspective on recent escalations with NATO and the requirements for a peaceful settlement.
As Ukrainian frontlines are collapsing, the US can either escalate or start negotiations. The decision by the Biden administration to attack Russia with long-range ATACMS crossed Russia’s red lines, and the response was the Oreshnik missile. The Oreshnik missile was intended as a warning shot by not attaching a warhead. Russia demands an end to NATO expansion, territorial concessions, and restoring minority rights in Ukraine.
View video at Odysee
Romania makes dangerous step to prevent victory of anti-war presidential candidate
By Lucas Leiroz – December 9, 2024
Western narratives about “democracy” and “electoral transparency” seem to be mere rhetoric – conveniently used against enemies and ignored when Western countries violate such “rules”. Recently, Romania illegally and unjustifiably annulled the results of its presidential elections just to prevent an anti-EU candidate from winning. This case clearly shows how European countries are willing to take any kind of action to prevent political changes that favor multipolarity.
The Romanian Constitutional Court illegally interfered in the country’s electoral process by annulling the results of the first round of the presidential elections. Thus, independent candidate Calin Georgescu, who surprisingly won the race against his EU-backed opponents, was harmed for maintaining a critical stance of opposition against Romania’s alignment with the West.
Georgescu is accused of receiving Russian support in his electoral campaign. He is a well-known critic of NATO and the EU, and is absolutely against Romania’s involvement in the conflict with Russia. He promises to reverse the Romanian government’s aid measures to Ukraine, and maintains a strong position against the EU-sponsored “woke” cultural agenda. As a religious nationalist, he also wants to establish peaceful ties with Russia to pacify relations between the countries with Orthodox Christian majorities, which has made him particularly popular among the Romanian people, who remain largely Christian despite Western cultural pressure.
For this reason, Georgescu is called “pro-Russian” and his opponents invent unsubstantiated narratives against him, claiming that Moscow finances his political projects and his electoral campaign. Russian authorities have already spoken out on the case, denying any connection, but that was not enough to stop Romanian judges from nullifying his first-round election victory, labeling him a “foreign agent.”
Georgescu won nearly 23% of the vote in the first round. He was scheduled to face leftist-liberal candidate Elena Lasconi, who won 19% of the vote, in a runoff election. Instead of respecting the will of the people, the Constitutional Court, which is certainly controlled by pro-NATO and pro-EU judges, simply nullified the electoral process and set a new election day for a later date.
The right-wing candidate reacted to the decision by saying that the judges made a coup d’etat. According to him, democracy and the rule of law have been suspended in Romania, and there is no longer any respect for the country’s legal order. Georgescu described the Romanian judicial system as corrupt, strongly condemning the unfair accusations made against him.
“Essentially, this is a formalized coup d’etat. The rule of law is in an induced coma, and justice subordinated to political orders has practically lost its essence. It is no longer justice, it obeys the orders (…) The corrupt system in Romania showed its true face by making a pact with the devil,” he said.
In fact, no evidence has been provided to justify the claim that Georgescu is supported by Russia. If such support existed, it would certainly be easy to provide personal data to prove it, but nothing has been done, which indicates that the allegations are completely baseless. This shows that for the Romanian electoral legal system, a fair lawsuit is not important, and any maneuver to prevent a dissident candidate from coming to power is valid.
Even if Georgescu did receive support from Moscow, this should not be a problem, since it is common for candidates to be supported by foreign countries – as in Romania itself, where Georgescu’s opponents are largely supported by the EU. In a truly democratic system, all candidates should be free to make their own choices regarding international and diplomatic alliances. However, it seems that Romania is not really a democracy.
To prevent the rise of an anti-NATO political wave, the Atlantic alliance is encouraging the rise of authoritarian regimes in Europe. NATO knows that the war against Russia is unpopular and that ordinary citizens want support for Ukraine to end. Therefore, only dictatorships can sustain the alliance’s war efforts – which is why, for example, Macron recently banned the French parliament and now Romania has annulled its presidential elections.
It is important to emphasize that Romania is an important logistical hub for supporting Ukraine, in addition to exerting direct influence over Moldova, a NATO proxy country with an ethnic Romanian majority. Losing a presence in Romania would be negative for NATO and the EU, which explains their desperation to prevent Georgescu’s victory.
It remains to be seen how long Western countries will continue to be able to violate the will of their own people without suffering serious consequences and deep crises of legitimacy.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
Belarus to Host Russia’s Oreshnik in Response to US Missiles in Germany
Sputnik – December 7, 2024
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to deploy the latest Russian weapons, including the Oreshnik system, on Belarusian soil on Friday following a meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State.
“The decision to deploy the Oreshnik system on the territory of the Republic of Belarus was made in response to the actions taken by the United States and Germany regarding the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe. The Americans and Germans have repeatedly stated this before,” the Belarusian Ministry of Defense’s Telegram channel quoted
Here are some official statements of the sides at the time.
- Washington and Berlin: “The US will begin episodic deployments of the long-range firing capabilities of its multi-domain task force in Germany in 2026. These will include SM-6, Tomahawk, and developmental hypersonic weapons, which have significantly longer range than current land-based fires in Europe.”
- US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan: “What we are deploying to Germany is a defensive capability, like many other defensive capabilities we’ve deployed across the alliance, across the decades.”
- German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: This is a “very good decision” which is “exactly in line” with the German government’s security strategy. “The decision has been in the works for a long time and is not a real surprise for anyone involved in security and peace policy.”
- German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius: Germany needs a longer-term plan for investment in “appropriate long-range defense systems” to protect itself and Europe.
- Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov: The move is “a very serious threat” to Russia, which would “take thoughtful, coordinated and effective measures to contain NATO.”
- Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov: “Without nerves and emotions, we will develop, first of all, a military response” to the move, which is “just another link in the chain of a course of escalation”.
In response, the Russian leader agreed, stating that the deployment of Oreshnik in Belarus was possible in the second half of 2025.
Romanian presidential frontrunner claims he’s victim of coup d’etat
RT | December 7, 2024
The invalidation of Romania’s presidential election results by the country’s top court is a formalized coup d’etat, according to independent candidate Calin Georgescu, who clinched a surprise win in the first round last month.
Georgescu outperformed the other candidates in the first round of the election with 22.94%, beating out liberal leftist candidate Elena Lasconi, who received 19.18%, and the country’s Social Democrat Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu, who finished third with 19.15%.
On Friday, Romania’s Constitutional Court dismissed Georgescu’s victory, citing a clause in the nation’s laws that emphasizes the need to ensure the correctness and legality of the election. The judiciary body announced that the whole process would be resumed later.
“Essentially, this is a formalized coup d’etat. The rule of law is in an induced coma, and justice subordinated to political orders has practically lost its essence. It is no longer justice, it obeys the orders,” Georgescu, a known critic of Romania’s pro-NATO and pro-Ukraine policy, said on Friday, as cited by Realitatea TV.
The politician also stressed that the court’s decision represents more than a legal controversy, adding that “the corrupt system in Romania showed its true face by making a pact with the devil.”
Georgescu also said that the power of the people is the basis for a democratic state, and the authorities are obliged to respect the results of the national vote. He stated that the current Romanian government is afraid of losing power and facing revelations.
Earlier this week, Western media outlets reported that declassified information from Romania’s intelligence agencies had revealed that the sudden rise of Georgescu in the first round of the election was “not a natural outcome.” According to the claims, his win emerged thanks to a coordinated social media effort, most likely orchestrated by a “state actor” meddling in the candidate’s mostly Tik-Tok-based campaign, helping to get his message out to the voters.
The annulment came amid accusations that Moscow had assisted Georgescu’s campaign, which Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has dismissed as “absolutely groundless.” She said that Romanian elections are carried out in a climate of “an unprecedented surge of anti-Russian hysteria” that is set “to influence the consciousness and will of the country’s citizens.”
Washington, meanwhile, has praised the move. On Friday, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said that the US reaffirms its “confidence in Romania’s democratic institutions and processes, including investigations into foreign malign influence.”
Erdogan’s Idlib shock shadows “Kursk”
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 6, 2024
‘Doomsters’ is an occasional Russian expression used to categorise commentators that only see the ‘dark side to events’ (a vice quite prevalent during the Soviet era). Marat Khairullin, a highly respected Russian military analyst, says, “Today, a network of mercenary war bloggers has begun another round of moaning – this time about Syria, where apparently everything is lost for Russia”.
“Many see the events in Syria (and some add Georgia to the mix) as attempts to open additional fronts against our country. Perhaps that’s true. But in that case, it’s more appropriate to draw direct parallels with the reckless attack on Kursk, which left the Ukrainian armed forces in an almost hopeless position”.
Khairullin views the activation of this jihadist insurgency in Syria as a similarly ‘desperate’ act. The background is that the Syria-Russia-Iran coalition had – through the Astana negotiations – “cornered the remaining Syrian terrorists into a 6,000 sq. km enclave. Without delving into the details, it was a process reminiscent of the [Ukrainian] Minsk Agreements—both sides were utterly exhausted and thus agreed to a ceasefire. Importantly, all sides understood this was only a temporary truce; the contradictions were so profound that no one expected the conflict to end”.
Aleppo fell quickly these past days, as “one division of the Syrian National Army outright defected to the Islamists (read: Americans)”. The defection was a set up. Northern Aleppo was occupied by the Syrian National Army, fully controlled, armed and funded by Turkey, which dominates northern Aleppo.
The key, Khairullin says, is this crucial point: The land is flat criss-crossed by few roads:
“ … whomsoever controls the airspace controls the country. Last year, Russia formed a new aerial unit called the Special Air Corps, reportedly tailored for overseas operations. It consists of four aviation regiments, including a regiment of Su-35s. Currently, just two Su-35s are overseeing the entirety of Syria’s territory. Imagine the impact when 24 such aircraft are deployed. And Russia is fully capable of such a deployment”.
The second crucial point is that “Iran and Russia have drawn closer. At the start of the Syrian war, relations between the two were decidedly ‘neutral-hostile’. By late 2024 however, we now see a very strong alliance. Israel and the U.S., by violating the peace agreements through this Turkish insurrection, have provoked a renewed Iranian presence in Syria: Iran has begun to expand beyond its bases, redeploying additional forces into the country. This gives Assad and his allies a direct pretext to expel the American and Turkish proxies from Aleppo and Idlib. This isn’t speculation — it’s straightforward arithmetic”.
Syria, however, is a key component to the Israeli-American plan to remake the Middle East. Syria is both the supply-line for Hizbullah, as well as a hub of resistance to Israel’s “Greater Israel Project”. Now that the permanent ‘Anglo’ Security State unreservedly is backing Israel’s ambition to assert regional hegemony, the West has okayed Erdogan’s jihadist insurrection against President Assad. The aim is to split Iran from its allies, weaken Assad and to prepare for the putative Iran overthrow. Reportedly, the Turkish initiative was hurriedly brought forward, to fit with Israel’s ceasefire plan.
Khairullin’s point is that this Syria ‘ploy’ is akin to Ukraine’s “reckless attack on Kursk”, which diverted Ukrainian élite forces from the beleaguered Contact Line, and then marooned these forces in an almost hopeless position in Kursk. Instead of weakening Moscow (as intended), ‘Kursk’ inverted NATO’s original objective – by becoming opportunity to eradicate a major portion of Ukraine’s élite forces.
In Idlib, the Islamists (HTS), writes Khairullin, “had gained dominance – imposing a strict Wahhabi regime and infiltrating the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army. Both groups are patchwork organizations, with various factions fighting over money, border crossings, drugs, and smuggling. Essentially, it’s a cauldron—not very combat-effective but highly greedy”.
“Our Aerospace Forces obliterated all command centres (bunkers) of Tahrir al-Sham … and there is a strong likelihood that the entire leadership of the group has been decapitated”, notes Khairullin.
The Syrian Army’s main forces are advancing toward Aleppo; meanwhile, the Russian Air Force is bombing relentlessly; its Navy held a large drill off the Syria coast on 3 December with test launches of hypersonic and Kalibr cruise missiles; and Wagner and the Iraqi Hash’ad forces (Iraqi PM forces that are now part of the Iraqi army) are grouping on the ground in support of the Syrian Army.
Israeli Intelligence Chief’s lately have begun to scent problems with this ‘clever initiative’ that dovetails so exactly with Israel’s pause in the Lebanon fighting; With the supply route from Syria cut, Israel then – in theory – would be in a position to commence ‘Part Two’ of its attempted onslaught on Hizbullah.
But wait … Israeli Channel 12 reports the possibility that events in Syria are creating threats against Israel “where Israel would be required to act”.
Shades of ‘Kursk’ – rather than Hizbullah being weakened, Israel adds to its military commitments? Erdogan too, may have wrong-footed himself with this gamble. He has infuriated Moscow and Tehran, and is being flailed at home for siding with the U.S. and America against the Palestinians. Further, he has drawn no Arab support (apart from a Qatari studied ambivalence).
Yes, Erdogan has cards to play in the relationship with Putin (control of naval access to the Black Sea, tourism and energy), but Russia is an ascendant great power and can afford to play some hardball in negotiations with a weakened Erdogan. Iran also has cards to play: ‘You, Erdogan, equipped the jihadists with Ukrainian drones; We can deliver the same to the Kurdish Workers Party’.
In the background is the bellicose language emerging from Team Trump, some of whom take harshly aggressive and hardline positions. These Israel-Firster and hawkish appointees by Trump likely emit their bluster as much to project an image of Trumpist strength to the American public, as to project a substantive project.
Trump is known for waving a big stick – and when he has played that tune for a little while, he slips in from behind, to complete a deal.
So we have had (from Trump): “If the hostages are not released prior to January 20, 2025, the date that I proudly assume Office as President of the United States, there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East”.
In the ‘Middle East’? To whom exactly is this addressed? And what does it suggest? (No mention of the thousands of Palestinian detainees and prisoners held by Israel)? Sounds more like Trump has sipped at the Israeli Kool-Aid: ‘All problems derive from Iran’; Israel is the innocent adrift a sea of regional malignity.
Trump’s disciples believe Trump will impose his will to achieve ‘quiet’ in the Middle East – and impose on Putin an end to the Ukraine War. They are convinced Trump can ‘cut a deal’ in the form of an offer to Putin that he cannot refuse. (For, ‘the current ‘owners of the world’ are never going to let China/Russia just waltz in, form BRICS and assume the position of World Hegemon’).
It is a return to the old formula of Zbig Brzezenski: Promise Putin normalisation with U.S. (and Europe) and full sanctions relief, and pull Russia back into the western sphere – severed from a besieged China and Iran (with BRICS scattered to the wind under threat of sanctions).
It fails, however, to take account of how much the world has transitioned in the intervening years since ‘Trump One’. Bluster simply doesn’t carry the effect it used to: America isn’t what it was; nor is it obeyed as it once was.
Does Trump understand this accelerating global metamorphosis (as Will Schryver puts it), that “the only deal to be made with Russia is that of agreeing to the terms Russia dictates”:
“That’s what happens in the real world when you win a big war. And make no mistake, in this war, the Ukrainians have been slaughtered, the U.S./NATO has been humiliated, and the Russians are emerging from it indisputably triumphant, and more powerful on the world stage than they have been since the peak of Soviet strength decades ago”.
In other words, ‘big stick; quick deal’ may not answer to the new world of today.
Putin, in response to a questioner at Astana on 29 November, repeated an earlier warning:
“Let me underscore the key point: the essence of our proposal [on Ukraine, given at the Russian Foreign Ministry] is not a temporary truce or ceasefire, as the West might prefer – to allow the Kiev regime to recover, rearm, and prepare for a new offensive. I repeat: we are not discussing freezing the conflict, but its definitive resolution”.
What Putin is saying – very politely – to the West is that: You still ‘don’t get it’. To seek a deal on Ukraine is to treat the symptom and to ignore a cure. The West has its policy back-to-front, in other words. Putin is clear: A definitive solution would be to delineate the frontier between Atlanticist security ‘interest’ and the security interests of the ‘World Island’ (in Mackinder’s terminology): i.e. to settle the security architecture between the ‘Heartland and the Rim-land’. Once that is done, Ukraine falls naturally into its place. It’s at the end of the agenda, not first.
One highly-regarded foreign policy sage, Professor Sergei Karaganov, explains (original only in Russian):
“Our [Russian] goal is to facilitate the U.S.’s incipient retreat, as peaceably as possible, from the position of global hegemon (which it can no longer afford) to the position of a normal great power. And to expel Europe from being any international actor. Let it stew in its own juices … The conclusion is obvious. We must end the current phase of direct military conflict with the West, but not the broader confrontation with it. Trump will offer to ease pressure on Russia (which he cannot guarantee) in exchange for Russia refraining from a close alliance with China. The Trump administration will propose a deal, alternating threats with promises … but the U.S. already understands that it cannot win. America will remain an unreliable partner for the foreseeable future. Fundamental normalization of our relations with the U.S. should not be expected in the coming decade. Trump’s hands are tied by the Russophobia fanned by liberals for years. The inertia of the Cold War is still quite strong, and so are anti-Russian feelings among most Trumpists”.
“The foremost goal of the current war should be the decisive defeat in Ukraine of Europe’s rising revanchism. This is a war to ward off World War III and to prevent the restoration of the Western yoke. The initial negotiating position is obvious, it has been stated and should not be changed: NATO’s return to its 1997 borders. Beyond that, various options are possible. Naturally, Trump will try to up the ante. So, we should act pre-emptively”, Professor Karaganov advises.
Recall too, that Trump is, at heart, a sworn disciple of the cult of American primacy; American greatness. “He will act accordingly … The Russians will dictate the terms of surrender in this [Ukraine] war because their strength affords them that privilege, and there is nothing the U.S. and its impotent European vassals can do to alter that reality. That said, a decisive strategic defeat is going to be a very bitter pill to swallow for this second Trump administration. Hopefully they won’t opt to set the world on fire in a fit of humiliated madness”.
The elitist tyranny of “Western democracy” is exposed and crumbling
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 6, 2024
The charade of Western democracy is rapidly unraveling as so-called leaders and their dutiful media show themselves to be brazenly unaccountable to citizens while pursuing elitist, criminal interests.
Biden using presidential powers to pardon his drug-addict felonious son – after promising he wouldn’t. Western media claims that the upsurge in conflict in Syria is a “civil war” and not due to NATO-backed terrorist proxies. Western support for genocide in Gaza and a fascist Israeli leader who is mass murdering his way to avoid court prosecution for years of corruption. Western support for a money-laundering NeoNazi regime in Kiev whose proxy war against Russia could spiral into nuclear annihilation. Western sponsoring of anti-government violence in Georgia after pro-EU groups lost an election there. The pro-West South Korean leader declaring police state powers to avoid prosecution for corruption.
That’s just a quick sample of something more ample in the West’s decaying image.
The visit to China this week by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock was another revealing fiasco. The obsessively anti-Russia Baerbock landed in Beijing not to prioritize improving trade relations with the European Union’s biggest global partner but rather to browbeat China with tedious allegations that it was helping Russia’s war effort in Ukraine.
What’s more important? Getting along with China to bolster trade and jobs for millions of Germans and Europeans, or gratuitously grandstand over a wanton proxy war in Ukraine?
Understandably, the Chinese authorities were not pleased by Baerbock’s insolence and gave her short shrift. She was snubbed by China’s foreign minister Wang Yi not affording a customary joint press conference after more than three hours of discussions. In a separate statement, China again rejected claims that it was aiding Russia militarily in Ukraine.
So here we have Germany’s top diplomat who is soon out of a job because her coalition government has collapsed and is facing new elections – but she flies to Beijing on taxpayer money to aggravate relations with China, whose annual trade with the EU amounts to over $700 billion.
At her solo press conference in Beijing, Baerbock doubled down in her arrogance, accusing China of jeopardizing peace and security in Europe because it supports Russia.
She claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin was dragging Asia into the war with Ukraine.
The double-think is astounding. Germany, the European Union, NATO, and the United States have done everything to drag the whole world into a war because of its reckless proxy machinations in Ukraine against Russia. The utter failure of that gamble has cost European and American taxpayers a combined $200 billion and could frighteningly escalate into a nuclear conflagration.
Baerbock turned reality on its head when she accused Russia of pulling Asia into the war in Ukraine. It is the United States, NATO, and European Atlanticist leaders who are expanding the proxy war to other regions, including the Middle East and Asia.
Western so-called democracies and NATO are supporting the upsurge in violence in Syria by terrorist militias under the banner of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an internationally proscribed terror organization affiliated with Al Qaeda. Ukrainian military personnel and Turkey (which means NATO personnel) are reliably reported to be assisting the militants in Syria with drone technology.
Evidently, the U.S.-led NATO proxy war in Ukraine is going badly as Russian forces steadily advance against the crumbling Kiev regime. Flaring up the dormant NATO proxy war in Syria is a desperate measure to divert Russian forces to assist its ally, President Bashar al-Assad.
The lame-duck U.S. President Joe Biden is desperately throwing billions of dollars to prop up the Kiev regime before he leaves the White House next month. This is despite Americans voting him out of office partly because they are disgusted by his failed warmongering in Ukraine.
This is the same president who this week pardoned his son’s criminal convictions and spared him from several years in jail.
How much more evidence is needed to show that Western democracies have descended into oligarchies run by elitist politicians who consider themselves above the law and have nothing but contempt for representing ordinary citizens’ interests?
The entire European Union has been captured by Atlanticist elites who have imposed policies that serve hegemonic Western interests and not the interests of ordinary citizens. That’s a definition of treason.
France’s President Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz and European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen are some of the other bought-and-paid-for politicians who embody the Atlanticist tyranny. Former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who is now NATO secretary-general (sinecures and pay-offs are us), and Polish Premier Donald Tusk are other examples. The feeble Danish, Finnish, Swedish and Baltic leaders are also part of the U.S. vassals club.
Imbued with elitist ideology and deep-seated Russophobia, seduced by bribery, or coerced by the CIA blackmail, all these political prostitutes have been played to betray the interests of European citizens and to make life for the masses incredibly harsh. Russian energy has been cut off leaving European economies shattered. Germany is the most salient case in point where its vital auto industries are collapsing due to higher energy costs.
Another absurd elitist puppet is Kaja Kallas, the former Estonian Premier, who is now the European Union’s foreign minister, taking over from that other Atlanticist tool, Josep Borrell. On her first day in office this week, Kallas visited Kiev to pledge more financial and military aid for the corrupt NeoNazi regime. That’s right. She goes to a NeoNazi regime whose expired president canceled elections, imprisons opposition politicians, censors critical, independent media, and forces military conscription on citizens who want the conflict with Russia to end. Don’t you think Kallas would have been better visiting the EU’s biggest trade partner, China, to repair relations?
While in Kiev, Kallas coordinated with Germany’s Baerbock in Beijing by repeating baseless condemnation of China for its strategic partnership with Russia.
Kallas accused China of prolonging the war in Ukraine simply by maintaining trade relations with Russia, buying Russian gas, and so on.
This politician from a tiny Baltic state of less than 1.5 million people is now running the foreign policy of the EU whose total population is 450 million.
Kallas, who is obsessed with the Russophobia typical of the Atlanticist elites, has threatened to impose higher trade tariffs on China over tenuous allegations of supporting Russia.
The EU has already shot itself in both feet from slavishly following the U.S. imperialist agenda to “strategically defeat” Russia. Now, these same elitist politicians want to compound their treasonous betrayal of European interests by destroying relations with China.
However, the crass servility to an Atlanticist ideology of bankrupt democratic pretensions is rebounding with self-destruction. Western governments (in reality, regimes) and their discredited elitist charlatans are being run out of office due to growing popular disgust over lies and contradictions.
Every Western state is being shaken to its core as more of its people see rank corruption and deception that for decades masqueraded as “democracy”.
Western ‘democracy’ is like a vampire. It sucked the blood of too many people for too many years – all with impunity under the cloak of being virtuous. But in the light of truth, it is decaying and crumbling.
What Makes Romania So Important For US’ Anti-Russia Strategy?
Sputnik – 06.12.2024
The first round of Romania’s presidential election saw candidate Calin Georgescu, who is critical of NATO, gain significant support, prompting a swift response from the US with veiled threats.
Why is Romania so crucial to US interests that it would threaten to withhold security cooperation and investments over political shifts?
– A former member of the Warsaw Pact, Romania is now a part of NATO’s eastern flank and stands at the forefront of the bloc’s efforts to threaten Russia.
– Romania’s Black Sea coast make it a convenient route for shipping weapons to Kiev.
– NATO military infrastructure in Romania serves as a springboard to launch drones – such as the MQ-9 Reaper, for example – to spy from neutral airspace over the Black Sea on Russia’s activities and to potentially coordinate Ukrainian attacks against Russian territory.
– Its status as a Black Sea country helps NATO justify its naval presence in that particular part of the globe.
– Romania’s border with Moldova allows NATO to threaten Transnistria, a breakaway Moldovan enclave locked between Moldova and Ukraine, where a contingent of Russian peacekeepers is stationed.
– The Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base located near Constanta is currently undergoing expansion and is expected to become NATO’s largest military base in Europe. This expansion threatens to turn Romania into an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” of sorts that sits right on Russia’s doorstep.
– The Deveselu Military Base near Caracal hosts the US Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense system, whose Mk 41 launchers may be used to lob missiles (such as, for example, Tomahawk cruise missiles) at Russia.
Latest ‘Zircon’ test reaffirms Russian hypersonic dominance
By Drago Bosnic | December 6, 2024
On December 3, the Russian military demonstrated the true design of its 3M22 “Zircon” hypersonic missile for the first time. The footage shows the weapon being launched from the 3S14 UKSK vertical launch system (VLS). The launch platform was the Russian Navy’s “Admiral Gorshkov”, a frigate that regularly causes panic in NATO headquarters due to its long-range anti-ship and land-attack capabilities.
The first confirmed combat deployment of the “Zircon” occurred in January last year, although it’s very likely it was already used in 2022. In combination with high maneuverability, the missile’s maximum speed of Mach 9 (approximately 11,000 km/h) makes it effectively impossible to intercept, especially at very low altitudes, giving enemy forces mere seconds to react.
Information on the maximum range varies significantly, but informed military sources speculate it depends on the “Zircon’s” flight profile. According to Army Recognition, when flying low, it can reach up to 500 km, which is in line with basic physics, as the atmosphere is much denser at such altitudes. However, Russian tests have confirmed ranges of up to 1,500-2,000 km, as flying higher greatly extends the missile’s reach.
The “Zircon” is a two-stage weapon, with the first being a solid-fuel booster, while a scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) engine takes over after the missile has accelerated enough to enable its functioning (ramjets and scramjets can usually operate only after a certain velocity has been attained). It’s the world’s first and only operational weapon of this type.
The political West is particularly terrified of the “Zircon’s” multipurpose capabilities, as it can be launched by various platforms, be it submarines, surface combatants and/or land-based platforms. The missile is also nuclear-capable, meaning that it can be used on a strategic level, although its conventional capabilities are no less concerning to NATO, as its sheer speed and kinetic energy are unmatched by anything the world’s most vile racketeering cartel can deploy. As per usual, in order to somehow mask its inferiority (measured in decades at this point) in hypersonic technologies, the political West usually resorts to propaganda to denigrate the “Zircon”, primarily by pushing the laughable narrative that the Neo-Nazi junta shot down a third of all “Zircons” fired by the Russian military.
However, not a single remotely informed military source takes such claims seriously. On the contrary, even Western ones admit that “no known technology has been proven to consistently counter hypersonic threats, meaning adversaries could not intercept the Zircon in real-time, mainly when launched from long distances”, as the aforementioned Army Recognition report posits. The publication also admits that “for the United States and NATO, the Zircon represents a new generation of missile technology that could shift the balance of power, particularly in naval operations”, as its “extreme speed and the variety of launch platforms it can be deployed from increase its threat to naval assets such as aircraft carriers and destroyers” and that this “could severely limit Western operational reach”.
This is certainly true and confirms that NATO militaries are extremely worried about the possibility of such missiles proliferating to sovereigntist nations, a development that could severely limit the political West’s ability to conduct unprovoked aggression against the world. It should be noted that the United States, NATO and its other vassals and satellite states are mostly thalassocracies that focus on naval power projection, particularly on massive capital ships (such as aircraft carriers). These large and slow-moving targets are effectively sitting ducks for the Russian Navy which is focusing on deploying much smaller surface combatants such as frigates and corvettes that could carry the “Zircon”. Such vessels are far more affordable, while the missile itself gives them a strategic reach.
This asymmetric advantage is very difficult to match, particularly as the political West is decades behind in hypersonic propulsion technologies. Worse yet, any large-scale deployment of a land-based variant of the “Zircon” would also greatly diminish NATO’s land warfare capabilities, as the missile could easily target both high-value assets and large troop concentrations.
Its sophisticated guidance systems ensure pinpoint precision even at hypersonic speeds, making such strikes particularly deadly for high-tech opponents. The “Zircon” uses a combination of INS (inertial navigation system) and radar homing to achieve this. As the missile flies at 11,000 km/h, the air pressure in front of it forms a plasma cloud, absorbing radio waves and making it effectively invisible to radar.
This phenomenon, colloquially known as plasma stealth, and its sea-skimming capability, make intercepting an incoming “Zircon” effectively impossible. One downside of plasma stealth is that it greatly diminishes the ability to communicate with the missile, which is one of the many reasons why nobody in the political West has been able to develop a working hypersonic weapon. However, Russian scientists found a way to circumvent this, giving Moscow an unprecedented technological edge, as the “Zircon” is capable of information exchange during flight, allowing it to receive constant updates and adjustments in real-time. This doesn’t only ensure pinpoint precision, but it also enables timely retargeting, confirming the claim that the missile can engage moving targets.
The KRN, a Belgrade-based military think tank that gave several fascinating interviews to InfoBRICS, posited that the “Zircon” can be used by existing land-based platforms of the Russian military, specifically the K300P “Bastion-P” coastal defense system. I’m also a long-time member of this organization and we’ve suggested this was the case years ago. The genius of Russian military specialists becomes all the more apparent when one realizes that the “Zircon” was made to fit not just into the previously mentioned 3S14 VLS, but also the K300P. Back in 2023, along with my KRN colleagues, I had the chance to analyze the size of the P-800 “Oniks” supersonic cruise missile and determined that these missiles fit into identical launchers, both on naval vessels and land-based platforms.
This greatly enhances the “Zircon’s” already impressive versatility, making it a highly flexible weapon with a simultaneous tactical, operational and strategic impact. In addition to the aforementioned naval role, it can also be used in strikes on land-based critical military infrastructure such as command centers, airbases, SAM (surface-to-air missile) and ABM (anti-ballistic missile) systems, army bases and numerous other strategic targets.
It greatly complements Russia’s existing hypersonic weapons arsenal, including the “Iskander-M”, “Kinzhal” and the latest “Oreshnik” missile systems. It fits perfectly into Moscow’s non-nuclear (and nuclear) deterrence policies and has already been used in response to NATO-backed terrorist attacks, giving the perpetrators mere minutes (or seconds in some cases).
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Nuclear conflict risk, Ukraine and Syria escalation: Lavrov’s interview with Tucker Carlson
TNC | December 5, 2024
View at Bitchute
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has given an exclusive interview to conservative American journalist Tucker Carlson this week. The two talked about a wide range of topics of international concern, primarily the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the state of US-Russia relations. Here’s the full text of the conversation.
Carlson:
Minister Lavrov, thank you for doing this. Do you believe the United States and Russia are at war with each other right now?
Lavrov:
I wouldn’t say so. And in any case, this is not what we want. We would like to have normal relations with all our neighbors, of course, but generally with all countries, especially with a great country like the United States. And President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly expressed his respect for the American people, for American history, for American achievements in the world, and we don’t see any reason why Russia and the United States cannot cooperate for the sake of the universe.
Carlson:
But the United States is funding a conflict that you’re involved in, of course, and now is allowing attacks on Russia itself. So that doesn’t constitute war?
Lavrov:
Well, we officially are not at war. But what is going on in Ukraine is what some people call a hybrid war. I would call it a hybrid war as well, but it is obvious that the Ukrainians would not be able to do what they’re doing with long-range modern weapons without the direct participation of American servicemen. And this is dangerous, no doubt about this.
We don’t want to aggravate the situation, but since ATACMS and other long-range weapons are being used against mainland Russia as it were, we are sending signals. We hope that the last one, a couple of weeks ago, the signal with the new weapon system called Oreshnik, was taken seriously.
However, we also know that some officials in the Pentagon and in other places, including NATO, started saying in the last few days something like that NATO is a defensive alliance, but sometimes you can strike first because the attack is the best defense. Some others in STRATCOM, Thomas Buchanan is his name, representative of STRATCOM, said something which allows for an eventuality of exchange of limited nuclear strikes.
And these kinds of threats are really worrying. Because if they are following the logic which some Westerners have been pronouncing lately, that don’t believe that Russia has red lines, they announced their red lines, these red lines are being moved again and again. This is a very serious mistake. That’s what I would like to say in response to this question.
It is not us who started the war. Putin repeatedly said that we started the special military operation in order to end the war which the Kiev regime was conducting against its own people in parts of Donbass. And just in his latest statement, President Putin clearly indicated that we are ready for any eventuality. But we strongly prefer a peaceful solution through negotiations on the basis of respecting the legitimate security interest of Russia, and on the basis of respecting the people who live in Ukraine, who still live in Ukraine, being Russians. Their basic human rights, language rights, religious rights, have been exterminated by a series of legislation passed by the Ukrainian parliament. They started long before the special military operation. Since 2017, legislation was passed prohibiting Russian education in Russian, prohibiting Russian media operating in Ukraine, then prohibiting Ukrainian media working in the Russian language, and the latest, of course there were also steps to cancel any cultural events in Russian. Russian books were thrown out of libraries and exterminated. The latest was the law prohibiting the canonic Orthodox Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
You know, it’s very interesting when people in the West say we want this conflict to be resolved on the basis of the UN Charter and respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and Russia must withdraw. The Secretary General of the United Nations says similar things. Recently his representative repeated that the conflict must be resolved on the basis of international law, the UN Charter and General Assembly resolutions, while respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It’s a misnomer, because if you want to respect the United Nations Charter, you have to respect it in its entirety. The United Nations Charter, among other things, says that all countries must respect the equality of states and the right of people to self-determination. And they also mentioned the United Nations General Assembly resolutions, and this is clear that what they mean is the series of resolutions which they passed after the beginning of this special military operation which demand the condemnation of Russia, that Russia get out of Ukraine; territory in its 1991 borders. But there are other United Nations General Assembly resolutions which were not voted on, but which were consensual, and among them is a declaration on principles of relations between states on the basis of the Charter. And it clearly says, by consensus, everybody must respect the territorial integrity of states whose governments respect the right of people for self-determination, and because of that represent the entire population living on a given territory.
To argue that the people who came to power through military coup d’état in February 2014 represented Crimeans or the citizens of eastern and southern Ukraine is absolutely useless. It is obvious that Crimeans rejected the coup. They said, leave us alone, we don’t want to have anything with you. So we did: Donbass and Crimeans held referendums, and they rejoined Russia. Donbass was declared by the putschists who came to power a ‘terrorist group’. They were shelled, attacked by artillery. The war started, which was stopped in February 2015.
The Minsk agreements were signed. We were very sincerely interested in closing this drama by seeing the Minsk agreements implemented fully. It was sabotaged by the government which was established after the coup d’état in Ukraine. There was a demand that they enter into a direct dialogue with the people who did not accept the coup. There was a demand that they promote economic relations with that part of Ukraine. And so on and so forth. None of this was done.
The people in Kiev were saying we would never talk to them directly. And this is in spite of the fact that the demand to talk to them directly was endorsed by the [UN] Security Council. The putschists said they are terrorists, we would be fighting them, and they would be dying in cellars because we are stronger.
Had the coup in February 2014 not happened and the deal which was reached the day before between the then president and the opposition [been] implemented, Ukraine would have stayed in one piece by now, with Crimea in it. It’s absolutely clear. They did not deliver on the deal. Instead they staged the coup. The deal, by the way, provided for the creation of a government of national unity in February 2014, and holding early elections, which the then president would have lost. Everybody knew that. But they were impatient and took the government buildings the next morning. They went to this Maidan Square and announced that they had created the government of the winners. Compare the government of national unity to prepare for elections and the government of the winners.
How can the people whom they, in their view, defeated, how can they pretend that they respect the authorities in Kiev? You know, the right to self-determination is the international legal basis for the decolonization process which took place in Africa on the basis of this charter principle, the right to self-determination. The people in the colonies, they never treated their colonial powers, colonial masters, as somebody who represents them, as somebody whom they want to see in the structures which govern those lands. By the same token, the people in the east and south of Ukraine, people in Donbass and Novorossiya, they don’t consider the Zelensky regime as something which represents their interests. How can they do that when their culture, their language, their traditions, their religion, all this was prohibited?
The last point is that if we speak about the UN Charter, resolutions, international law, the very first article of the UN Charter, which the West never, never recalls in the Ukrainian context, says, “Respect human rights of everybody, irrespective of race, gender, language, or religion.”
Take any conflict. The United States, UK, Brussels, they would interfere, saying, “Oh, human rights have been grossly violated. We must restore the human rights in such and such territory.” On Ukraine, never, ever have they mumbled the words “human rights,” seeing these human rights for the Russian and Russian-speaking population being totally exterminated by law. So when people say, “Let’s resolve the conflict on the basis of the Charter,” – yes. But don’t forget that the Charter is not only about territorial integrity. And territorial integrity must be respected only if the governments are legitimate and if they respect the rights of their own people.
Carlson:
I want to go back to what you said a moment ago about the introduction or the unveiling of the hypersonic weapons system that you said was a signal to the West. What signal exactly? I think many Americans are not even aware that this happened. What message were you sending by showing it to the world?
Lavrov:
Well, the message is that you, I mean the United States, and the allies of the United States who also provide these long-range weapons to the Kiev regime, they must understand that we would be ready to use any means not to allow them to succeed in what they call the strategic defeat of Russia.
They fight for keeping the hegemony over the world on any country, any region, any continent. We fight for our legitimate security interests. They say, for example, 1991 borders. Lindsey Graham, who visited some time ago Vladimir Zelensky for another talk; he bluntly, in his presence, said that Ukraine is very rich with rare earth metals and they cannot leave this richness to the Russians. We must take it. We fight.
So they fight for a regime which is ready to sell or to give to the West all the natural and human resources. We fight for the people who have been living on these lands, whose ancestors were actually developing those lands, building cities, building factories for centuries and centuries. We care about people, not about natural resources which somebody in the United States would like to keep and to have Ukrainians just as servants sitting on these natural resources.
So, the message which we wanted to send by testing in real action this hypersonic system is that we will be ready to do anything to defend our legitimate interests.
We hate even to think about war with the United States, which will take nuclear character. Our military doctrine says that the most important thing is to avoid a nuclear war. And it was us, by the way, who initiated in January 2022 the message, the joint statement by the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council saying that we will do anything to avoid confrontation between us, acknowledging and respecting each other’s security interests and concerns. This was our initiative.
And the security interests of Russia were totally ignored when they rejected at about the same time the proposal to conclude a treaty on security guarantees for Russia, for Ukraine in the context of coexistence and in a context where Ukraine would not ever be a member of NATO or any other military bloc. These security interests of Russia were presented to the West, to NATO and to the United States in December 2021. We discussed them several times, including during my meeting with Antony Blinken in Geneva in January 2022. And this was rejected.
So we would certainly like to avoid any misunderstanding. And since the people, some people in Washington and some people in London, in Brussels, seemed to be not very capable of understanding, we will send additional messages if they don’t draw the necessary conclusions.
Carlson:
The fact that we’re having a conversation about a potential nuclear exchange and it’s real… thought I’d never see.
And it raises the question, how much back-channel dialogue is there between Russia and the United States? Has there been for the last two and a half years? Is there any conversation ongoing?
Lavrov:
There are several channels, but mostly on the exchange of people who serve [prison] terms in Russia and in the United States. There were several swaps.
There are also channels which are not advertised or publicized, but basically the Americans send through these channels the same message which they send publicly. You have to stop, you have to accept the way which will be based on the Ukrainian needs and position. They support this absolutely pointless ‘peace formula’ by Vladimir Zelensky, which was additioned recently by [his] ‘victory plan’. They held several series of meetings, Copenhagen format, Burgenstock. And they brag that [in the] first half of next year they will convene another conference and they will graciously invite Russia that time. And then Russia would be presented an ultimatum.
All this is seriously repeated through various confidential channels. Now we hear something different, including Vladimir Zelensky’s statements that we can stop now at the line of engagement, line of contact. The Ukrainian government will be admitted to NATO, but NATO guarantees at this stage would cover only the territory controlled by the government, and the rest would be subject to negotiations. But the end result of these negotiations must be the total withdrawal of Russia from Ukrainian soil. Leaving Russian people to the Nazi regime, which exterminated all the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking citizens of their own country.
Carlson:
If I could just go back to the question of nuclear exchange. So there is no mechanism by which the leaders of Russia and the United States can speak to each other to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that could kill hundreds of millions of people.
Lavrov:
No. We have this channel which is automatically engaged when a ballistic missile launch is taking place.
As regards this Oreshnik hypersonic mid-range ballistic missile. 30 minutes in advance, the system sent the message to the United States. They knew that this was the case and that they don’t mistake it for anything bigger and really dangerous.
Carlson:
I think the system sounds very dangerous.
Lavrov:
Well, it was a test launch, you know.
Carlson:
Yes. Oh, you’re speaking of the test, okay. But I just wonder how worried you are that, considering there doesn’t seem to be a lot of conversation between the two countries. Both sides are speaking about exterminating the other’s populations. That this could somehow get out of control in a very short period and no one could stop it. It seems incredibly reckless.
Lavrov:
No, we are not talking about exterminating anybody’s population. We did not start this war. We have been, for years and years and years, sending warnings that pushing NATO closer and closer to our borders is going to create a problem.
In 2007, Putin started to explain [this] to the people who seemed to be overtaken by the ‘end of history’ and being dominant, no challenge, and so on and so forth.
And of course, when the coup took place, the Americans did not hide that they were behind it. There is a conversation between Victoria Nuland and the then-American ambassador in Kiev when they discuss personalities to be included in the new government after the coup. The figure of $5 billion spent on Ukraine after independence was mentioned as the guarantee that everything would be like the Americans want.
So we don’t have any intention to exterminate Ukrainian people. They are brothers and sisters to the Russian people.
Carlson:
How many have died so far, do you think, on both sides?
Lavrov:
It is not disclosed by the Ukrainians. Vladimir Zelensky was saying that it is much less than 80,000 persons on the Ukrainian side.
But there is one very reliable figure. In Palestine during one year after the Israelis started their operation in response to this terrorist attack, which we condemned. And this operation, of course, acquired the proportion of collective punishment, which is against international humanitarian law as well. So during one year after the operation started in Palestine, the number of Palestinian civilians killed is estimated at 45,000. This is almost twice as many as the number of civilians on both sides of Ukrainian conflict who died during ten years after the coup. One year and ten years. So it is a tragedy in Ukraine. It’s a disaster in Palestine, but we never, ever had as our goal killing people.
And the Ukrainian regime did. The head of the office of Vladimir Zelensky once said that we will make sure that cities like Kharkov, Nikolaev will forget what Russian means at all. Another guy in his office stated that Ukrainians must exterminate Russians through law or, if necessary, physically. Ukrainian former ambassador to Kazakhstan Pyotr Vrublevsky became famous when giving an interview and looking into the camera (being recorded and broadcast) he said: “Our main task is to kill as many Russians as we can so that our children have less things to do”. And statements like this are all over the vocabulary of the regime.
Carlson:
How many Russians in Russia have been killed since February of 2022?
Lavrov:
It’s not for me to disclose this information. In the time of military operations special rules exist. Our ministry of defense follows these rules.
But there is a very interesting fact that when Vladimir Zelensky was playing not in international arena, but at his comedy club or whatever it is called, he was (there are videos from that period) bluntly defending the Russian language. He was saying: “What is wrong with Russian language? I speak Russian. Russians are our neighbors. Russian is one of our languages”. And get lost, he said, to those who wanted to attack the Russian language and Russian culture. When Vladimir Zelensky became president, he changed very fast.
Before the military operation, in September 2021, he was interviewed, and at that time he was conducting war against Donbass in violation of the Minsk agreements. And the interviewer asked him what he thought about the people on the other side of the line of contact. He answered very thoughtfully there are people and there are species. And if you, living in Ukraine, feel associated with the Russian culture, my advice to you, for the sake of your kids, for the sake of your grandkids, get out to Russia.
And if this guy wants to bring Russians and people of Russian culture back under his territorial integrity, I mean, it shows that he’s not adequate.
Carlson:
So, what are the terms under which Russia would cease hostilities? What are you asking for?
Lavrov:
Ten years ago, in February 2014, we were asking only for the deal between the president and the opposition to have government of national unity, to hold early elections, to be implemented. The deal was signed. And we were asking for the implementation of this deal. They were absolutely impatient and aggressive. And they were, of course, pushed, I have no slightest doubt, by the Americans, because if Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador agreed the composition of the government, why wait for five months to hold early elections?
The next time we were in favor of something was when the Minsk Agreements were signed. I was there. The negotiations lasted for 17 hours (well, Crimea was lost by that time because of referendum). And nobody, including my colleague John Kerry, meeting with us, nobody in the West was worried about the issue of Crimea. Everybody was concentrated on Donbass. And the Minsk Agreements provided for territorial integrity of Ukraine, minus Crimea (this was not even raised) and a special status for a very tiny part of Donbass, not for the entire Donbass, not for Novorossiya at all. Part of Donbass, under these Minsk Agreements, endorsed by the Security Council, should have the right to speak Russian language, to teach Russian language, to study in Russian, to have local law enforcement (like in the states of U.S.), to be consulted when judges and prosecutors are appointed by the central authority, and to have some facilitated economic connections with neighboring regions of Russia. That’s it. Something which President Macron promised to give to Corsica and still is considering how to do this.
And when these agreements were sabotaged all along by Pyotr Poroshenko and then by Vladimir Zelensky. Both of them, by the way, came to presidency, running on the promise of peace. And both of them lied. So when these Minsk Agreements were sabotaged to the extent that we saw the attempts to take this tiny part of Donbass by force, and we, as President Putin explained, at that time, we suggested these security arrangements to NATO and the United States, which was rejected. And when the Plan B was launched by Ukraine and its sponsors, trying to take this part of Donbass by force, it was then that we launched the special military operation.
Had they implemented the Minsk Agreements Ukraine would be one piece, minus Crimea. But even then, when Ukrainians, after we started the operation, suggested to negotiate, we agreed, there were several rounds in Belarus, and one later they moved to Istanbul. And in Istanbul, Ukrainian delegation put a paper on the table saying: “Those are the principles on which we are ready to agree.” And we accepted those principles.
Carlson:
The Minsk Principles?
Lavrov:
No. The Istanbul Principles. It was April 2022.
Carlson:
Right.
Lavrov:
Which was: no NATO, but security guarantees to Ukraine, collectively provided with the participation of Russia. And these security guarantees would not cover Crimea or the east of Ukraine. It was their proposal. And it was initialed. And the head of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, who is now the chair of the Vladimir Zelensky faction in the parliament, he recently (a few months ago) in an interview, confirmed that this was the case. And on the basis of these principles, we were ready to draft a treaty.
But then this gentleman who headed the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul said that Boris Johnson visited and told them to continue to fight. Then there was…
Carlson:
But Boris Johnson, on behalf of…
Lavrov:
He said no. But the guy who initialed the paper, he said it was Boris Johnson. Other people say it was President Putin who ruined the deal because of the massacre in Bucha. But they never mentioned any more massacre in Bucha. I do. And we do.
In a sense, they are on the defensive. Several times in the United Nations Security Council, sitting at the table with Antonio Guterres, I (last year and this year) at the General Assembly, I raised the issue of Bucha and said, guys, it is strange that you are silent about Bucha because you were very vocal when BBC team found itself on the street where the bodies were located. I inquired, can we get the names of the persons whose bodies were broadcast by BBC? Total silence. I addressed Antonio Guterres personally in the presence of the Security Council members. He did not respond. Then at my press conference in New York after the end of the General Assembly last September, I asked all the correspondents: guys, you are journalists. Maybe you’re not an investigative journalists but journalists normally are interested to get the truth. And Bucha thing, which was played all over the media outlets condemning Russia, is not of any interest to anyone – politicians, UN officials. And now even journalists. I asked when I talked to them in September, please, as professional people, try to get the names of those whose bodies were shown in Bucha. No answer.
Just like we don’t have any answer to the question, where is the results of medical analysis of Alexey Navalny, who died recently, but who was treated in Germany in the fall of 2020. When he felt bad on a plane over Russia, the plane landed. He was treated by the Russian doctors in Siberia. Then the Germans wanted to take him. We immediately allowed the plane to come. They took him. In less than 24 hours, he was in Germany. And then the Germans continued to say that we poisoned him. And now the analysis confirmed that he was poisoned. We asked for the test results to be given to us. They said, no, we give it to the organization on chemical weapons. We went to this organization, we are members, and we said, can you show to us, because this is our citizen, we are accused of having poisoned him. They said that the Germans told us not to give it to you. They found nothing in the civilian hospital, and the announcement that he was poisoned was made after he was treated in the military Bundeswehr hospital. So it seems that this secret is not going…
Carlson:
So how did Navalny die?
Lavrov:
Well, he died serving the term in Russia. As far as it was reported, every now and then he felt not well. Which was another reason why we continued to ask the Germans: can you show us the results which you found? Because we did not find what they found. And what they did to him, I don’t know.
Carlson:
What the Germans did to him?
Lavrov:
Yeah, because they don’t explain to anybody, including us. Or maybe they explain to the Americans. Maybe this is credible.
But they never told us how they treated him, what they found, and what methods they were using.
Carlson:
How do you think he died?
Lavrov:
I am not a doctor. But for anybody to guess, even for the doctors to try to guess, they need to have information. And if the person was taken to Germany to be treated after he had been poisoned, the results of the tests cannot be secret.
We still cannot get anything credible on the fate of Skripals – Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The information is not provided to us. He is our citizen, she is our citizen. We have all the rights and the conventions which the UK is party to, to get information.
Carlson:
Why do you think that Boris Johnson, former Prime Minister of the UK, would have stopped the peace process in Istanbul? On whose behalf was he doing that?
Lavrov:
Well, I met with him a couple of times, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he was motivated by some immediate desire or by some long-term strategy. He is not very predictable.
Carlson:
But do you think he was acting on behalf of the US government, on behalf of the Biden administration, or he was doing this independently.
Lavrov:
I don’t know. And I wouldn’t guess. The fact that the Americans and the Brits are leading in this “situation” is obvious.
Now it is becoming also clear that there is a fatigue in some capitals, and there are talks every now and then that the Americans would like to leave it with the Europeans and to concentrate on something more important. I wouldn’t guess.
We would be judging by specific steps. It’s obvious, though, that the Biden administration would like to leave a legacy to the Trump administration as bad as they can.
And similar to what Barack Obama did to Donald Trump during his first term. Then late December 2016, President Obama expelled Russian diplomats. Just very late December. 120 persons with family members. Did it on purpose. Demanded them leave on the day when there was no direct flight from Washington to Moscow. So they had to move to New York by buses with all their luggage, with children, and so on and so forth.
And at the same time, President Obama announced the arrest of pieces of diplomatic property of Russia. And we still never were able to come and see what is the state of this Russian property.
Carlson:
What was the property?
Lavrov:
Diplomatic. They never allowed us to come and see it though under all conventions. They just say that these pieces we don’t consider as being covered by diplomatic immunity, which is a unilateral decision, never substantiated by any international court.
Carlson:
So you believe the Biden administration is doing something similar again to the incoming Trump administration.
Lavrov:
Because that episode with the expulsion and the seizure of property certainly did not create the promising ground for beginning of our relations with the Trump administration. So I think they’re doing the same.
Carlson:
But this time President Trump was elected on the explicit promise to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. So I mean, he said that in appearance after appearance. So given that, there is hope for a resolution, it sounds like. What are the terms to which you’d agree?
Lavrov:
Well, the terms, I basically alluded to them. When President Putin spoke in this Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the 14th of June he once again reiterated that we were ready to negotiate on the basis of the principles which were agreed in Istanbul and rejected by Boris Johnson, according to the statement of the head of the Ukrainian delegation.
The key principle is non-bloc status of Ukraine. And we would be ready to be part of the group of countries who would provide collective security guarantees to Ukraine.
Carlson:
But no NATO?
Lavrov:
No NATO. Absolutely. No military bases, no military exercises on the Ukrainian soil with participation of foreign troops. And this is something which he reiterated. But of course, he said, it was April 2022, now some time has passed, and the realities on the ground would have to be taken into account and accepted.
The realities on the ground are not only the line of contact, but also the changes in the Russian Constitution after referendum was held in Donetsk, Lugansk republics and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. And they are now part of the Russian Federation, according to the Constitution. And this is a reality.
And of course, we cannot tolerate a deal which would keep the legislation which are prohibiting Russian language, Russian media, Russian culture, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, because it is a violation of the obligations of Ukraine under the UN Charter, and something must be done about it. And the fact that the West (since this russophobic legislative offensive started in 2017) was totally silent and it is silent until now, of course we would have to pay attention to this in a very special way.
Carlson:
Would sanctions against Russia be a condition?
Lavrov:
You know, I would say probably many people in Russia would like to make it a condition. But the more we live under sanctions, the more we understand that it is better to rely on yourself, and to develop mechanisms, platforms for cooperation with ‘normal’ countries who are not unfriendly to you, and don’t mix economic interests and policies and especially politics. And we learned a lot after the sanctions started.
The sanctions started under President Obama. They continued in a very big way under the first term of Donald Trump. And these sanctions under the Biden administration are absolutely unprecedented.
But what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, you know. They would never kill us, so they are making us stronger.
Carlson:
And driving Russia east. And so the vision that I think same policymakers in Washington had 20 years ago is why not to bring Russia into a Western bloc, sort of as a balance against the rising east. But it doesn’t seem like that. Do you think that’s still possible?
Lavrov:
I don’t think so. When recently President Putin was speaking at Valdai Club to politologists and experts, he said we would never be back at the situation of early 2022. That’s when he realized (for himself, apparently, not only he, but he spoke publicly about this) that all attempts to be on equal terms with the West have failed.
It started after the demise of the Soviet Union. There was euphoria, we are now part of the ‘liberal world’, democratic world, ‘end of history’. But very soon it became clear to most of the Russians that in the 1990s we were treated as – at best as junior partner, maybe not even as a partner, – but as a place where the West can organize things like it wants, striking deals with oligarchs, buying resources and assets. And then probably the Americans decided that Russia is in their pocket. Boris Yeltsin, Bill Clinton, buddies, laughing, joking.
But even at the end of Boris Yeltsin’s term, he started to contemplate that this was not something he wanted for Russia. And I think this was very obvious when he appointed Vladimir Putin prime minister, and then left earlier, and blessed Vladimir Putin as his successor for the elections which were coming and which Putin won.
But when Vladimir Putin became president, he was very much open to cooperation with the West. And he mentions about this quite regularly when he speaks with interviewers or at some international events.
I was present when he met with George Bush Jr., with Barack Obama. Well, after the meeting of NATO in Bucharest, which was followed by NATO-Russia summit meeting in 2008, when they announced that Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO. And then they tried to sell it to us. We asked: why? There was lunch and President Putin asked what was the reason for this? Good question. And they said this is something which is not obligatory. How come?
Well, to start the process of joining NATO, you need a formal invitation. And this is a slogan – Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO. But this slogan became obsession for some people in Tbilisi first, when Mikhail Saakashvili lost his senses and started the war against his own people under the protection of OSCE mission with the Russian peacekeepers on the ground. And the fact that he launched this was confirmed by the European Union investigation, which they launched and which concluded that he gave the order to start.
And for Ukrainians, it took a bit longer. They were cultivating this pro-Western mood. Well, pro-Western is not bad, basically. Pro-Eastern is also not bad. What is bad is that you tell people, either/or, either you go with me or you’re my enemy.
What happened before the coup in Ukraine? In 2013, the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych negotiated with the European Union some association agreement which would nullify tariffs on most of the Ukrainian goods to the European Union and the other way around. And at some point, when he was meeting with Russian counterparts, we told him, Ukraine was part of the free trade area of the Commonwealth of Independent States. No tariffs for everybody. And we, Russia, negotiated agreement with World Trade Organization for some 17 years, mostly because we bargained with European Union. And we achieved some protection for many of our sectors, agriculture and some others. We explained to the Ukrainians that if you go zero in your trade with European Union, we would have to protect our customs border with Ukraine. Otherwise the zero tariff European goods would flood and would be hurting our industries, which we tried to protect and agreed for some protection. And we suggested to the European Union: guys, Ukraine is our common neighbor. You want to have better trade with Ukraine. We want the same. Ukraine want to have markets both in Europe and in Russia. Why don’t we sit three of us and discuss it like grownups? The head of the European Commission was the Portuguese José Manuel Barroso. He responded it’s none of your business what we do with Ukraine.
And then the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych convened his experts. And they said, yes, it would be not very good if we have opened the border with European Union, but the customs border with Russia would be closed. And they would be checking, you know, what is coming. So that the Russian market is not affected.
So he announced in November 2013 that he cannot sign the deal immediately, and he asked the European Union to postpone it for until next year. That was the trigger for Maidan, which was immediately thrown up and ended by the coup.
So my point is that this either/or. Actually, the first coup took place in 2004, when after second round of elections, the same Viktor Yanukovych won presidency. The West raised hell and put pressure on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to rule that there must be a third round. The Constitution of Ukraine says there may be only two rounds. But the Constitutional Court, under the pressure of the West, violated the Constitution for the first time then. And pro-Western candidate was chosen. At that time, when all this was taking place and boiling, the European leaders were publicly saying Ukrainian people must decide: are they with us or with Russia?
Carlson:
But it is the way that big countries behave. I mean, there are certain orbits, and now it’s BRICS versus NATO, US versus China. And it sounds like you’re saying the Russian-Chinese alliance is permanent.
Lavrov:
Well, we are neighbors. And of course geography is very important.
Carlson:
But you’re also neighbors with Western Europe. And you’re part of it, in effect.
Lavrov:
Through Ukraine the Western Europe wants to come to our borders.
And there were plans that were discussed almost openly to put British naval bases on the Sea of Azov. Crimea was eyed. Dreaming about creating NATO base in Crimea and so on and so forth.
Look, we have been very friendly with Finland, for example. Overnight, the Finns came back to the early years of preparation for World War II when they were best allies of Hitler. And all this neutrality, all this friendship, going to sauna together, playing hockey together, all this disappeared overnight. So maybe this was deep in their hearts, and the neutrality was burdening them, and niceties were burdening for them. I don’t know.
Carlson:
They’re mad about the ‘winter war’. That’s totally possible.
Can you negotiate with Zelensky? You’ve pointed out that he has exceeded his term. He’s not democratically elected president of Ukraine anymore. So do you consider him a suitable partner for negotiations?
Lavrov:
President Putin addressed many times this issue as well. In September 2022, during the first year of the special military operation, Vladimir Zelensky, in his conviction that he would be dictating the terms of the situation also to the West, he signed a decree prohibiting any negotiations with Putin’s government.
During public events after that episode, President Vladimir Putin is asked why Russia is not ready for negotiations. He said, don’t turn it upside down. We are ready for negotiations, provided it will be based on the balance of interest, tomorrow. But Vladimir Zelensky signed this decree prohibiting negotiations. For starters, why don’t you tell him to cancel it publicly? This will be a signal that he wants negotiations. Instead, Vladimir Zelensky invented his ‘peace formula’. Lately, it was complemented by a ‘victory plan’. They keep saying, we know what they say when they meet with European Union ambassadors and in other formats, they say no deal unless the deal is on our terms.
I mentioned to you that they are planning now the second summit on the basis of this peace formula, and they don’t shy away from saying, we will invite Russia to put in front of it the deal which we agreed already with the West.
When our Western colleagues sometimes say nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine in effect, this implies that anything about Russia without Russia. Because they discuss what kind of conditions we must accept.
By the way, recently they already violated, tacitly, the concept nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. There are passes, there are messages. They know our position. We are not playing double game. What President Putin announced is the goal of our operation. It’s fair. It’s fully in line with the United Nations Charter. First of all, the rights: language rights, minority rights, national minority rights, religious rights, and it’s fully in line with OSCE principles.
There is an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe which is still alive. And well, several summits of this organization clearly stated that security must be indivisible, that nobody should expand his security at the expense of security of others, and that, most important, no organization in Euro-Atlantic space shall claim dominance. This was last time it was confirmed by OSCE in 2010.
NATO was doing exactly the opposite. So we have legitimacy in our position. No NATO on our doorsteps because OSCE agreed that this should not be the case if it hurts us. And please restore the rights of Russians.
Carlson:
Who do you think has been making foreign policy decisions in the United States? This is a question in the United States. Who is making these decisions?
Lavrov:
I wouldn’t guess. I haven’t seen Antony Blinken for years. When it was the last time? Two years ago, I think, at the G20 summit. Was it in Rome or somewhere? In the margins. I was representing President Putin there. His assistant came up to me during a meeting and said that Antony wants to talk just for ten minutes. I left the room. We shook hands, and he said something about the need to de-escalate and so on and so forth. I hope he’s not going to be angry with me since I am disclosing this. But we were meeting in front of many people present in the room, and I said, “We don’t want to escalate. You want to inflict strategic defeat upon Russia.” He said, “No. It is not strategic defeat globally. It is only in Ukraine.”
Carlson:
You’ve not spoken to him since?
Lavrov:
No.
Carlson:
Have you spoken to any officials in the Biden administration since then?
Lavrov:
I don’t want to ruin their career.
Carlson:
But have you had meaningful conversations?
Lavrov:
No. Not at all.
When I met in international events one or another person whom I know, an American, some of them say hello, some of them exchange a few words, but I never impose myself.
It’s becoming contagious when somebody sees an American talking to me or a European talking to me. Europeans are running away when they see me. During the last G20 meeting, it was ridiculous. Grown-up people, mature people. They behave like kids. So childish. Unbelievable.
Carlson:
So, you said that when in 2016, in December, the final moments of the Biden administration, Biden made the relationship between the United States and Russia more difficult.
Lavrov:
Obama. Biden was vice-president.
Carlson:
Exactly. I’m so sorry.
The Obama administration left a bunch of bombs, basically, for the incoming Trump administration.
In the last month since the election, you have all sorts of things going on politically in bordering states in this region. In Georgia, in Belarus, in Romania, and then, of course, most dramatically in Syria, you have turmoil.
Does this seem like part of an effort by the United States to make the resolution more difficult?
Lavrov:
There is nothing new, frankly. Because the US, historically, in foreign policy, was motivated by making some trouble and then to see if they can fish in the muddy water.
Iraqi aggression, Libyan adventure – ruining the state, basically. Fleeing from Afghanistan. Now trying to get back through the back door, using the United Nations to organize some ‘event’ where the US can be present, in spite of the fact that they left Afghanistan in very bad shape and arrested money and don’t want to give it back.
I think this is, if you analyze the American foreign policy steps, adventures, most of them are the right word – the pattern. They create some trouble, and then they see how to use it.
When the OSCE monitors elections, when it used to monitor elections in Russia, they would always be very negative, and in other countries as well, Belarus, Kazakhstan. This time, in Georgia, the monitoring mission of OSCE presented a positive report. And it is being ignored.
So when you need endorsement of the procedures, you do it when you like the results of the election. If you don’t like the results of elections, you ignore it.
It’s like when the United States and other Western countries recognized unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo, they said this is the self-determination being implemented. There was no referendum in Kosovo – unilateral declaration of independence. By the way, after that the Serbs approached International Court of Justice, which ruled that (well, normally they are not very specific in their judgment, but they ruled) that when part of a territory declares independence, it is not necessarily to be agreed with the central authorities.
And when a few years later, Crimeans were holding referendum with invitation of many international observers, not from international organizations, but from parliamentarians in Europe, in Asia, in post-Soviet space, they said, no, we cannot accept this because this is violation of territorial integrity.
You know, you pick and choose. The UN Charter is not a menu. You have to respect it in all its entirety.
Carlson:
So who’s paying the rebels who’ve taken parts of Aleppo? Is the Assad government in danger of falling? What is happening exactly, in your view, in Syria?
Lavrov:
Well, we had a deal when this crisis started. We organized the Astana process (Russia, Türkiye and Iran). We meet regularly. Another meeting is being planned before the end of the year or early next year, to discuss the situation on the ground.
The rules of the game are to help Syrians to come to terms with each other and to prevent separatist threats from getting strong. That’s what the Americans are doing in the east of Syria when they groom some Kurdish separatists using the profits from oil and grain sold, the resources which they occupy.
This Astana format is a useful combination of players, if you wish. We are very much concerned. And when this happened, with Aleppo and surroundings, I had a conversation with the Turkish minister of foreign affairs and with Iranian colleague. We agreed to try to meet this week. Hopefully in Doha at the margins of this international conference. We would like to discuss the need to come back to strict implementation of the deals on Idlib area, because Idlib de-escalation zone was the place from where the terrorists moved to take Aleppo. The arrangements reached in 2019 and 2020 provided for our Turkish friends to control the situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone and to separate the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (former Nusra) from the opposition, which is non-terrorist and which cooperates with Türkiye.
And another deal was the opening of M5 route from Damascus to Aleppo, which is also now taken completely by the terrorists. So we, as ministers of foreign affairs, would discuss the situation, hopefully, this coming Friday. And the military of all three countries and the security people are in contact with each other.
Carlson:
But the Islamist groups, the terrorists you just described, who is backing them?
Lavrov:
Well, we have some information. We would like to discuss with all our partners in this process the way to cut the channels of financing and arming them.
The information which is being floated and it’s in the public domain mentions among others the Americans, the Brits. Some people say that Israel is interested in making this situation aggravated. So that Gaza is not under very close scrutiny. It’s a complicated game. Many actors are involved. I hope that the context which we are planning for this week will help stabilize the situation.
Carlson:
What do you think of Donald Trump?
Lavrov:
I met him several times when he was having meetings with President Putin and when he received me twice in the Oval Office when I was visiting for bilateral talks.
Well, I think he’s a very strong person. A person who wants results. Who doesn’t like procrastination on anything. This is my impression. He’s very friendly in discussions. But this does not mean that he’s pro-Russian as some people try to present him. The amount of sanctions we received under the Trump administration was very big.
We respect any choice which is made by the people when they vote. We respect the choice of American people. As President Putin said, we are and we have been open all along to the contacts with the current administration. We hope that when Donald Trump is inaugurated, we will understand. The ball, as President Putin said, is on their side. We never severed our contacts, our ties in the economy, trade, security, anything.
Carlson:
My final question is: how sincerely worried are you about an escalation in conflict between Russia and the United States, knowing what you do?
Lavrov:
Well, we started with this question, more or less.
Carlson:
It seems the central question.
Lavrov:
Yes. The Europeans whisper to each other that it is not for Vladimir Zelensky to dictate the terms of the deal – it’s for the US and Russia.
I don’t think we should be presenting our relations as two guys decide for everybody. Not at all. It is not our style.
We prefer the manners which dominate in BRICS, in Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where the UN Charter principle of sovereign equality of states is really embodied.
The US is not used to respect sovereign equality of states. When the US says we cannot allow Russia to win on Ukraine because this would undermine our rules-based world order. And rules-based world order is American domination.
Now, by the way, NATO, at least under Biden administration, is eyeing the entire Eurasian continent, Indo-Pacific strategies, South China Sea, East China Sea, is already on NATO agenda. NATO is moving infrastructure there. AUKUS, building ‘quartet’ Indo-Pacific Four as they call it (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea). US, South Korea, and Japan are building military alliance with some nuclear components. And Jens Stoltenberg, the former Secretary General of NATO, last year after the summit he said that the Atlantic security is indivisible from Indo-Pacific security. When he was asked does it mean that you go beyond territorial defense, he answered – no, it doesn’t go beyond territorial defense, but to defend our territory, we need to be present there. This element of preemption is more and more present.
We don’t want war with anybody. And as I said, five nuclear states declared at the top level in January 2022 that we don’t want confrontation with each other and that we shall respect each other’s security interests and concerns. And it also stated nuclear war can never be won, and therefore nuclear war is not possible.
And the same was reiterated bilaterally between Russia and the United States, Putin-Biden, when they met in 2021 in Geneva in June. Basically, they reproduced the statement by Reagan-Gorbachev of 1987 ‘no nuclear war’. And this is absolutely in our vital interest, and we hope that this is also in vital interest of the United States.
I say so because some time ago John Kirby, who is the White House communications coordinator, was answering questions about escalation and about possibility of nuclear weapons being employed. And he said, “Oh, no, we don’t want escalation because then if there is some nuclear element, then our European allies would suffer.” So even mentally, he excludes that the United States can suffer. And this is something which makes the situation a bit risky. It might – if this mentality prevails, then some reckless steps would be taken, and this is bad.
Carlson:
What you’re saying is American policy makers imagine there could be a nuclear exchange that doesn’t directly affect the United States, and you’re saying that’s not true.
Lavrov:
That’s what I said, yes. But professionals in deterrence, nuclear deterrence policy, they know very well that it’s a very dangerous game. And to speak about limited exchange of nuclear strikes is an invitation to disaster, which we don’t want to have.
Why Biden Allowed Ukraine to Fire US missiles into Russia
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – December 5, 2024
Washington’s (and London’s) decision to allow Ukraine to fire their missiles into Russia is a clear escalation, but the timing explains most of the puzzle underlying this decision.
It is not just Biden being reckless. It is not simply madness, either. It is politics with a touch of global geopolitics.
The Biden administration, having lost both presidential and congressional elections to the Republicans, appears to be following a scorched-earth policy. Before Trump is sworn in, and before he can move towards a negotiated resolution of the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) military conflict in 2025, the outgoing administration seems willing to make issues much more complicated – and deadly – than they currently are. At the heart of these calculated escalations is the American “deep state” unhappy with Trump’s success and the prospects of him pulling NATO back from Ukraine, thus undoing American hegemony. Trump claimed, during his campaign, that he will end wars. The American “deep state” does not want to let him do this – at least, not easily.
The Timing
For a long time, the Biden administration resisted allowing Ukraine to fire US missiles into Russian territory. This firing represents a “new phase” in the ongoing conflict for Moscow. There is potentially no other way for Moscow to see things. A pro-Democrats response is that the decision was motivated by the Biden administration’s desire to strengthen Ukraine’s position vis-à-vis Russia in the wake of upcoming possible negotiations. However, if this truly was the main intention, why did the Biden administration not reach the same conclusion during the peak time of the presidency, i.e., a year earlier, for instance? The Biden administration could have done the same escalation, hoping that this would push Russia to come to the negotiating table. Except, the Biden administration did not make such a decision for one chief reason.
They understood Moscow’s response would be deadlier, which would escalate the war more than Washington and NATO could handle. A deadly escalation, the Biden administration maintained, could cost them the elections. Now that they have already lost the elections – and there is nothing they can do about it now – they are escalating the war deliberately to scuttle the Trump administration. If the war escalates, it will make it harder for the Trump administration to negotiate with Russia. It will also make it harder for the Trump administration to negotiate with US allies in Europe as well. The more complicated the issue becomes, the more time it will take to find a resolution. Overall, this will give the Democrats a political opportunity to shift the blame to the Trump administration for its failure to quickly end conflicts. For the Democrats, this could be one of the key points they could raise in the midterm elections.
A key official of the Biden administration indirectly acknowledged the politics driving the decision. Matthew Miller, State Department spokesperson, defended the decision during a press briefing saying that the “American people elected Joe Biden to a four-year term, not to a term of three years and 10 months, and we will use every day of our term to pursue the foreign policy interests that, we believe, are in the interests of the American people.” One caveat is that the only interest that matters here is that of the Democrats.
The Reactions
The Trump administration understands this politics. In a post on X, Donald Trump Jr said the change was aimed at getting “World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives”. Trump’s pick for national security adviser, US Representative Mike Waltz, called it “another step up the escalation ladder … and nobody knows where this is going,” he said on Fox News. Former Trump cabinet member Richard Grenell also accused Biden of moving to “escalate the war in Ukraine during the transition period”. “This is as if he is launching a whole new war. Everything has changed now. All previous calculations are null and void,” he added.
This reaction makes sense because Ukraine has received only a few dozen of the ATACMS systems. If the Biden administration really wanted to strengthen Ukraine’s position, a first step would have been to ensure sufficient supplies of this system. If Ukraine is likely to fire up its entire stockpile too quickly to make any meaningful impact, the only sense this escalation makes is that it makes a negotiated end of the conflict much more complicated. Anymore escalation before Trump assumes control in January – and this escalation is very much possible – means the conflict will continue to rage in the months to come.
The End Game
Most people understand that the Trump administration would bring the conflict to an end. For one thing, Trump does not intend to use military conflicts to advance US foreign policy interests. Secondly, Trump has the “America First” policy at the heart of his politics. People who understand how misfit military conflicts are within the Trump camp include not only the Democrats but also Ukraine’s own president, who went on record two weeks ago to say that the conflict will end “sooner” now that Trump has won.
For the anti-Russia camp within the American “deep state”, this expectation is deeply unsettling. It would mean NATO will not be able to expand into Europe any further. NATO’s failure will create fresh openings for European states to chart their own foreign policy courses, including relations with Russia. In fact, this is already happening. When the German chancellor recently spoke with the Russian President, he did not do so to merely talk about the possibility of ending the conflict, but also to get a sense of their post-conflict bilateral relations. More importantly, Germany initiated the call. There is, thus, a possibility of Germany resuming gas supplies from Russia. Indeed, both leaders discussed the possibility of “cooperation” on energy trade.
In Washington, the fear is that this one call is going to encourage other European leaders to pick up their phones and talk to Vladimir Putin. It means Washington will lose control of the situation. These people in Washington do not want to let that happen; hence, a key geopolitical reason to escalate the conflict is to scuttle the end gam, which is very much on the horizon already.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
NATO discussing ceasefire move for Ukraine – Bloomberg
RT | December 5, 2024
Ukraine’s Western backers are shifting from attempting to push for a military victory against Russia towards trying to help Kiev achieve the best position to negotiate a ceasefire, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter.
The report comes as Russian forces advance in Donbass at a rate unseen since 2022, while recapturing ground from Ukrainian forces entrenched in Russia’s Kursk Region.
Russian President Vladimir Putin “has shown no willingness to discuss a ceasefire,” and with US President-elect Donald Trump less than two months away from taking office, Kiev’s NATO allies are attempting to steel themselves “as morale starts to fade,” Bloomberg wrote.
While Trump’s plan for Ukraine is unclear, he was elected on promises of curtailing American spending on the conflict and focusing on internal US issues.
Gathering in Brussels this week, foreign ministers from NATO nations discussed how to supply Kiev with more weapons, anonymous sources told Bloomberg, noting that any plans are still private and incomplete. They have also reportedly begun to look at different ways to end the conflict, including discussing which security guarantees could protect Ukraine without antagonizing Putin.
“Those discussions come amid recognition that the situation in Ukraine is unsustainable and negotiations should begin soon,” Bloomberg reported, citing a senior Western diplomat.
One idea floated was to create a demilitarized zone, with European troops responsible for its security, the outlet cited a senior NATO diplomat as saying.
Additionally, even if the US maintains course on future military aid, contrary to Trump’s reelection campaign rhetoric, mounting losses will force Ukraine into talks by next year, Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at Rand, told Bloomberg.
“Ukraine lacks the manpower to stop the Russian offensive, and the West has little left to give in terms of existing stocks of weapons,” he said.
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky previously insisted that Kiev is not interested in joining NATO if it excludes Russian territories that were part of Ukraine before 2014.
However, Zelensky told Kyodo News on Monday that Kiev could agree to a ceasefire with Moscow without these territories if NATO membership is guaranteed.
Ukraine’s aim of joining the US-led military bloc has been underscored by Putin as one of the core reasons for the conflict. Russia’s terms are that Ukraine adopt a neutral, non-bloc status, remain free of nuclear weapons, demilitarize and undergo denazification, the Russian leader has said.
Why Ukrainian Soldiers Are Deserting
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | December 4, 2024
A November 29 article in the Los Angeles Times stated that the Ukrainian military is facing a big problem with desertions:
Desertion is starving the Ukrainian army of desperately needed manpower and crippling its battle plans at a crucial time in its war against Russia’s invasion, which could put Ukraine at a clear disadvantage in any future cease-fire talks… Tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops, tired and bereft, have walked away from combat and front-line positions to slide into anonymity, according to soldiers, lawyers and Ukrainian officials. Entire units have abandoned their posts, leaving defensive lines vulnerable and accelerating territorial losses, according to military commanders and soldiers. Some take medical leave and never return, haunted by the traumas of war and demoralized by bleak prospects for victory. Others clash with commanders and refuse to carry out orders, sometimes in the middle of firefights.
The explanation for the desertions turns on what Ukrainian soldiers have been fighting, killing, and dying for ever since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ever since the start of the war, U.S. officials, the U.S. mainstream press, and Ukrainian officials have steadfastly maintained that the war is about “freedom.” They say that Russia engaged in an “unprovoked” attack on Ukraine with the aim of conquering and subjugating the country and enslaving the Ukrainian people. From there, we’ve been told, Russia’s aim is to head west, conquer Europe, cross the English Channel and take England, cross the Atlantic and conquer South America, Central America, and Mexico, and then, ultimately, invade and conquer the United States.
The scenario is essentially a replay of the old Cold War racket, where Americans were told that there was an international communist conspiracy to take over the world, one that was centered in Moscow, Russia — yes, that Russia — the same one that is now supposedly doing the same thing today except for the communist part.
The big problem is that the official narrative of why Russia invaded Ukraine was a lie from the get-go. The war between Russia and Ukraine has never been about freedom. It was always about NATO, the military alliance that played a central role in the old Cold War racket. Specifically, it was about the Ukrainian government’s wish to join this old Cold War dinosaur at the behest of the U.S. government.
Is joining NATO worth dying for? Not for me — and obviously not for the large number of Ukrainian soldiers who are now deserting.
For a while, the Ukrainian people bought into the lie that was being fed to them by their own government and by U.S. officials. In the early days of the war, Ukrainians were rushing to join the military to fight for their “freedom.” But over time, many Ukrainians have come to the realization that the war never had anything to do with freedom. It was always about the “right” of the Ukrainian government to join NATO, which is something that is very different from freedom.
There is another important aspect to this phenomenon: the central responsibility that the U.S. government has for this massive disaster. It was the U.S. government, especially the Pentagon, that led the way toward the expansion of NATO eastward, with the aim of ultimately absorbing Ukraine, which would enable the Pentagon to install its bases, tanks, troops, and nuclear missiles along Russia’s border. Throughout that move eastward, Russia continued beseeching U.S. officials to stop and instead to comply with their repeated promises to not expand NATO an inch eastward after the ostensible end of the Cold War.
But the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — i.e., the U.S. national-security establishment — insisted on breaking those repeated promises. Ending the Cold War was the last thing they wanted to do. It had been too big a cash cow for them. They were not about to let it go without a fight. They knew that by expanding eastward toward Russia, in violation of their repeated promises they had made to Russia not to do that, they could succeed in provoking Russia into invading Ukraine. It was an ingenious — and diabolical — strategy, one that got them what they wanted — a renewed Cold War plus a hot war in which the U.S. government is using the Ukrainian people as its sacrificial puppets — and getting Russia and the United States ever closer to the prospect of all-out nuclear war.
We also mustn’t ignore the role of the U.S. mainstream press has played in this deadly, destructive, or sordid affair. Whenever critics point out the U.S. scheme that successfully provoked Russia into invading Ukraine, the U.S. mainstream press dutifully describes the criticism as repeating “Russian talking points,” implying that the criticisms cannot possibly be true.
While Ukrainians are now deserting the military, U.S. officials are exhorting their Ukrainian counterparts to crack down on their people. According to that L.A. Times article, “The U.S. urges Ukraine to draft more troops, and allow for conscription of those as young as 18.” Undoubtedly, U.S. officials are advocating the adoption of such coercive measures in the name of “freedom.”
Featured Video
US Middle East Policy: The Growing Propensity for Genocide
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The New Baghdad Pact
By Dr Bouthaina Shaaban | February 23, 2017
A recently declassified CIA document prepared in 1983, and released on 20 January 2017, shows that the United States had at the time encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack Syria, which would have led to a vicious conflict between the two countries, thus draining their resources.
The report, which was then prepared by CIA officer Graham Fuller, indicates that the US tried adamantly to convince Saddam to attack Syria under any pretense available, in order to get the two most powerful countries in the Arab East to destroy each other, turning their attention away from the Arab-Israeli conflict. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The Gratitude of the Captured
- Hezbollah denies involvement in deadly attack on UNIFIL in south Lebanon
- The prospect of an expanded and far more violent war
- Canada’s Carney Revives Online Censorship Bill
- Israeli soldiers kill UNICEF truck drivers delivering water to Gaza families
- Iran defends limits on Strait of Hormuz passage
- ‘We warned you’: Hormuz Strait back to pervious state amid US blockade
- Iran rejects uranium transfer, warns of response to naval blockade
- US Middle East Policy: The Growing Propensity for Genocide
- Daniel Davis: Iran Reopens the Strait of Hormuz
- If Americans Knew
- Israel relegates another population to life in tents – Daily Update
- Senate again fails to block weapons to Israel
- Think the Iran war is a disaster? Blame these DC think tanks first.
- Number of Palestinian Prisoners Rises By 83% Since October 2023
- With multiple “ceasefires” in place, Israel keeps on killing in Gaza and Lebanon – Daily Update
- Mearsheimer: Israel Owns Trump
- Mark Levin and Jonathan Pollard Push for Nuking Iran
- TCN: America Enables Israel’s Crimes
- Israel’s Next Leader Will Be Just Like Bibi – but Without the Corruption
- Born into war, raised across borders: The story of Gaza’s premature babies separated from their parents amid Israel’s genocide
- No Tricks Zone
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
Aletho News 