Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

U.S. mercenaries killed in Russia, West goes hysterical on dubious North Korea claim

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 29, 2024

“It’s a grave escalation in this war and a threat to global peace,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen this week.

It certainly is an alarming development that American, Canadian and Polish mercenaries were killed in action on Russian soil this week. The members of a recon and sabotage unit were eliminated by Russian forces as they crossed into Russia’s Bryansk region from Ukraine.

But von der Leyen and other Western leaders said nothing about that. They were hyperventilating instead over ropey claims about North Korean troops sent to Russia.

Credible Russian security footage showed the dead men lying beside supplies of heavy weapons, including Semtex explosives and anti-tank grenade launchers, “enough to blow up a small city,” it was reported. One of the casualties bore the tattoo of the U.S. 75th Ranger Regiment, an elite airborne special forces unit. It is unclear if the American soldier was a former member of the U.S. Army who had joined a private mercenary contractor or if he was redeployed from army ranks to fight in Ukraine against Russia.

Either way, the presence of military combatants from the United States and other NATO states on Russian territory is stark evidence that the NATO powers are directly involved in the Ukrainian proxy war against Russia.

Washington and Brussels have maintained the tenuous fiction that they “only” supply weapons to Ukraine but that NATO is not a participant in a conflict with nuclear-powered Russia.

That fiction has always been an insult to common sense. NATO countries have been actively involved in recruiting foreign mercenaries to go fight in Ukraine. Russia estimates that 15,000-18,000 militants have traveled to deploy with the Armed Forces of Ukraine since the conflict erupted in February 2022. Large numbers have been killed or taken prisoner.

Mercenaries have been identified from the U.S., Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Poland, the Baltics, and Georgia, as well as jihadists from Syria trained by American occupation forces at bases such as Al Tanf. It is estimated that foreign fighters from over 100 countries have ended up in Ukraine, aiding the NATO-sponsored Kiev regime.

Some of them are no doubt “soldiers of fortune” making a payday. Others would have to be NATO servicemen because the operation of technical weapons such as HIMARS artillery and so on must involve NATO handling expertise.

The desperate incursion into Russia’s Kursk region that began on August 6 was thought to have included many foreign mercenaries. One American private military contractor identified was the Forward Observation Group.

The Western media have largely ignored or obscured the reports of NATO connections to the ground fighting. Not surprising given the propaganda function of Western “news” media in what is information warfare.

Meanwhile, this week, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte announced concern that North Korean troops were fighting in the Kursk region. This was the first time that NATO had officially made the claim. For weeks there have been speculation and rumours about North Korean troops joining Russian forces.

The U.S. and European media ran headlines implying that the NATO claims were fact.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated: “North Korean soldiers are deployed to support Russia’s war of aggression. It’s a grave escalation in this war and a threat to global peace.”

Healthy skepticism is warranted. NATO’s Rutte did not provide any evidence to support his claim. He simply referred to his discussions with South Korean military intelligence officials.

The Ukrainian de facto dictator Vladimir Zelensky (he canceled elections months ago) has for months been pushing claims that thousands of North Korean troops are joining Russia’s ranks in Ukraine.

It seems significant that Zelensky met with South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol last year at the G7 summit in Hiroshima. It was their first meeting. Immediately after that encounter, South Korea pledged more military and financial aid to Ukraine. Zelensky’s wife also made suspicious trips to South Korea to attend “media events”.

President Yoon’s approval rating among the South Korean public has hit rock bottom over a range of grievances, including soaring cost of living. Yoon is a hawk on relations with North Korea. Pyongyang has slammed Seoul for deliberately antagonizing tensions.

Under President Yoon, South Korea has become a major weapons exporter, having sold an estimated $20 billion worth of arms over the last two years. South Korea is warning that it will increase military supplies to Ukraine on the back of claims that North Korean troops are being deployed in Russia.

There seems to be a lot of dramatizing about the purported North Korean contingency. The Kiev regime is amplifying claims as a way to get the United States and NATO more involved in the proxy war. The White House has expressed concerns about the claims of Pyongyang’s alleged participation. For President Yoon, Ukraine represents opportunities to boost his flagging poll numbers and economic gains from increased weapons exports.

The Western media are wishfully claiming that the deployment of North Korean troops is a sign of desperation by Russian President Vladimir Putin over supposed military losses in Ukraine.

That contention does not make sense. Russian forces are rapidly advancing to fully take control of the Donbass region in Ukraine. The NATO-backed side is losing territory at the fastest rate in more than two years of conflict. The idea that Russia needs North Korean military help is implausible, if not absurd.

Moscow signed a mutual defense pact with Pyongyang earlier this year. If North Korean soldiers are deployed to Russia, perhaps for training, that is entirely a legal and sovereign matter between consenting parties.

It is not Russia that is being “desperate”. The deployment of American and other NATO mercenaries to Ukraine is a real sign of desperation that the Kiev regime has run out of cannon fodder and is engaging in cross-border provocations.

Of course, NATO and Western leaders would prefer to fantasize about North Korea than to admit the truth of their “grave escalation” on Russia’s borders and reckless threat to world peace.

October 30, 2024 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky Requests Tomahawk Missiles as Part of Non-Nuclear Deterrence Package – Reports

Sputnik – 29.10.2024

The clause on a “non-nuclear deterrence package” that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky requested as part of his “victory plan” included long-range Tamahawk missiles, US media reported on Tuesday, citing US officials.

The anonymous US officials have expressed what the newspaper described as exasperation with Zelensky’s new plan, which they consider unrealistic and dependent almost entirely on Western aid.

One senior official addressed, in particular, the plan’s clause on a “non-nuclear deterrence package,” which has not been made public but reportedly includes a request for Tomahawk missiles. The official considers this request totally unfeasible, as cited in the report, as Tomahawk’s 1,500-mile range is more than seven times farther than that of the ATACMS missiles, which the US sent to Ukraine this year after long deliberations.

Moreover, the White House is hesitant to send Ukraine the missiles which it believes may serve a better purpose in the Middle East or Asia, as Kiev’s list of potential targets inside Russia requires far more missiles that Washington initially earmarked, the official was cited as saying.

Zelensky unveiled his “victory plan” in mid-October, insisting that it could help end the conflict in Ukraine no later than 2025. The document includes five clauses and three secret addendums. In particular, the Ukrainian leader proposes inviting Ukraine to NATO, lifting restrictions on strikes deep into Russian territory, and deploying a “comprehensive non-nuclear deterrence package” in Ukraine.

Zelensky’s plan drew criticism in the EU and NATO for outlining in detail the multiple obligations of Ukraine’s Western allies but not assigning any to Kiev itself. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed it as a set of incoherent slogans which pushed NATO into a direct conflict with Russia, while Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the real peace plan for Kiev would be to realize the futility of the Ukrainian policy. He said that Kiev should “wake up” and understand the reasons that led it to the conflict.

October 29, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

I don’t want war with Russia, China – Vance

RT | October 28, 2024

The US is not at war with Russia and should not seek one, Republican vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance has said.

The senator from Ohio was asked during his appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday whether he saw the Russian leader “as an ally or an enemy.” Putin is “clearly an adversary, he is a competitor,” but Washington needs to be “smart about diplomacy too,” Vance responded.

”Just because we don’t like somebody doesn’t mean that we can’t occasionally engage in conversations with them,” he suggested.

Host Kristen Welker pushed him further on whether he would directly refer to Putin as an enemy.

”We are not at war with him. And I don’t want to be at war with Vladimir Putin’s Russia,” the senator said. “I think that we should try to pursue avenues of peace.”

The same logic applies to China, Vance said, adding that he perceives it as a greater threat to American interests than Russia. The US may not like having to talk to its rivals, but in the case of the Ukraine conflict, resolving it will require negotiations, the senator pointed out.

When asked whether former President Donald Trump would take the US out of NATO, Vance assured that he wouldn’t. If his running mate returns to office, the country will honor its commitment to the organization, but the bloc “is not just a welfare client, it should be a real alliance,” he said. Vance was referring to Trump’s criticism of insufficient defense spending by its European members.

Moscow has identified NATO’s enlargement in Europe as a threat to its national security and a key reason for the deterioration of relations with the West. Russian officials have for decades declared that the US-led military bloc’s increasing involvement in Ukraine since the 2014 armed coup in Kiev and its promise to bring the country into the fold have contributed in a major way to setting off the ongoing hostilities.

The current US Democrat administration has pledged to stand by Kiev “for as long as it takes” to defeat Russia and has pushed other nations to do the same. Despite the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on weapons and aid for Ukraine, Kiev’s troops are currently retreating along many parts of the front. Trump has claimed while campaigning that he would end the hostilities in 24 hours, if elected.

October 28, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Kims Are Coming!

By Daniel McAdams | Ron Paul Institute | October 26, 2024

After a few cat and mouse days of Defense Secretary Lloyd “Raytheon” Austin’s denials, the Pentagon finally yesterday affirmed that there was evidence of a North Korean military presence in Russia. Asked what they were doing in Russia, Austin replied, “What exactly they are doing? Left to be seen. These are things that we need to sort out.”

For days, South Korea (no conflict of interest there) and Ukraine (nor there) had been claiming that thousands of North Korean soldiers had swooped in to rescue a beaten and bloodied Russian army from certain defeat at the hands of Ukraine (which has lost nearly a million men at arms in the nearly three year war). As the Russian army accelerates its pace, burning through the last fortified towns in eastern Ukraine, the mainstream media continues – with a few reluctant but panicked exceptions – to push the “Russia is losing” narrative.

The added twist of thousands of “evil communists” from North Korea screaming across the Russian tundra (on horseback, no doubt) promises to add new plot lines to the drama concocted by the mainstream media and most of Washington, and indeed the usual suspects are biting furiously at the bait.

Take US House Intelligence Committee Chairman Michael Turner. He is so outraged that there might be members of the North Korean military in Russia that he actually sent a letter to President Biden calling for war. “If North Korean military forces join Russia’s war against Ukraine,” Fox News reported him to say, “the US should consider the possibility of direct military action.”

Against whom? We are already involved in a proxy war with Russia through Ukraine. We are already directly involved in Israel’s seven-front war against its neighbors and Iran. Who does Chairman Turner think we should attack if North Korean troops are present in Russia? Russia? North Korea? China? All of them?

North Korea and Russia have just signed a treaty whereby their two militaries will more closely collaborate and even come to each other’s aid if one is threatened. While such an agreement may give Turner and the other neocons the vapors, it is nothing different than the mutual defense treaty the US has with its NATO partners and with many others on a bipartisan basis.

Treaties for me but not for thee? Is that the name of the “rules-based international order” game?

The hypocrisy runs even deeper. It is well-known and widely reported that NATO countries are training Ukrainian troops not only in NATO countries but inside Ukraine itself. So it’s absolutely fine for the US and its NATO partners to insert troops inside Ukraine to train its military to kill more Russians and to even operate sophisticated weapons systems inside Ukraine that the Ukrainian military could never operate on its own, but if Russia strikes up a deal with North Korea where the two armies can train together inside Russia, it’s a “red line” (as Chairman Turner wrote) that demands that we start WWIII.

It seems we are not sending our best and brightest to Congress.

What we are witnessing is the birth of a new narrative after some 500 Ukraine narratives have already collapsed under the weight of their own contradictions. Remember the two years of “Russia is losing” narrative? Well just this week NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Christopher Cavoli, said in an interview with the German Spiegel magazine that Russia would emerge from this conflict actually STRONGER than when it entered!

But of course they are losing…

So what to do? Just as the Hollywood writers do once a sit-com has run too many seasons and is playing itself out, plot-wise, insert a new character. Insert a new twist, to bamboozle the viewers and give them a new reason to keep watching the program. It’s funny but not funny, because the future of the world hangs in the balance. Just like the film “Idiocracy” has become a documentary in our absurd times, so has “Wag the Dog.” The military industrial complex with its Hollywood-like allies producing endless narratives to keep the gravy train rolling…

P.S. if anyone believes this whole insane and hysterical anti-North Korea narrative is not political…well I have a bridge in Brazoria, TX, to sell you…

This article first appeared as an exclusive for Ron Paul Institute subscribers. Subscribe for free here.

October 27, 2024 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran ‘strongly rejects’ any involvement in threats on European soil: Embassy

Press TV – October 26, 2024

Iran’s embassy in Brussels has vehemently dismissed baseless accusations and fabricated claims about Tehran’s alleged involvement in threats on European soil, saying the Islamic Republic stands at the forefront of the fight against terrorism.

The embassy issued a statement on Saturday in response to allegations leveled against Iran by EU Commissioner for Equality Helena Dalli at the European Parliament plenary on Tuesday.

During the session, Dalli expressed growing concern about Iran’s alleged hybrid threats on European soil, claiming, “There are credible reports about: the role of Iranian state bodies in planning and aiding recent attacks in a number of Member States; about threats to members of the Iranian diaspora in Europe, and about cyber actions, or influence campaigns trying to create divisions in our societies.”

She also repeated allegations about Iran’s continued support for Russia in the war against Ukraine “through the provision of weapons, such as drones and, more recently, missiles.”

In its statement, the Iranian embassy said the Islamic Republic is a victim of terrorism itself and stands at the forefront of combating terrorism, particularly against the Daesh terrorist group.

“Iran strongly rejects any allegations regarding the alleged involvement of Iranian-affiliated institutions in so-called threats on European soil,” it added.

The statement also rejected the unfounded claims about Iran’s shipment of ballistic missiles to Russia for use in the conflict in Ukraine.

“Iran reiterated its neutrality policy towards this conflict and its support for resolving disputes through peaceful means and diplomacy,” the embassy said.

Instead of debating on fabricated illusory threats, the European Parliament member states are better off focusing on the most urgent and imminent threat to international peace and security as the result of the Israeli regime’s ongoing genocide and aggression in Gaza and Lebanon as well as its warmongering across West Asia.

Israeli crimes have brought about catastrophic consequences for civilians, human rights, and regional and international peace and stability, it emphasized.

“The EU Member States are expected to exercise maximum vigilance in the face of Iranophobic campaigns in Europe orchestrated by third parties, particularly the Israeli regime, whose aim is to destroy relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Europe,” the embassy said.

It urged the EU states to act responsibly and refrain from any measure that would make the long-standing relationship between Iran and Europe further adversely impacted.

Russia launched what it called a special military operation in Ukraine in February 2022 partly to prevent NATO’s eastward expansion after warning that the US-led military alliance was following an “aggressive line” against Moscow.

Iran has maintained its policy of impartiality toward the conflict. However, the US and its Western allies have claimed that Iran is supplying ballistic missiles to Russia for direct use in the Ukraine war.

Iran has repeatedly rejected the unfounded accusations, saying the Western countries are escalating the war through the supply of advanced weaponry to Kiev.

Russia has also warned that the flow of Western arms to Ukraine is prolonging the conflict.

October 26, 2024 Posted by | Deception | , , , , | Leave a comment

How Europe’s New Political Class Began Rejecting Reality

By Glenn Diesen | October 26, 2024

Russia considers NATO’s incursion into Ukraine to be an existential threat, and NATO has openly stated its intention to make Ukraine a member state after the war. Without a political settlement that restores Ukraine’s neutrality, Russia will therefore likely annex the strategic territories it cannot accept ending up under NATO control and then turn what remains of Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state. As the war is being lost, the rational policy for the Europeans would therefore be to offer an agreement based on ending NATO’s eastward expansion to save Ukrainian lives, territory and the nation itself. Yet, no European leader has been able to even suggest such a solution publicly. Why?

Present the average European politician, journalist or academic with the following thought experiment: If you were an advisor to the Kremlin, what would be your advice to Russia if there are no negotiations to resolve the Ukraine War? Most would feel morally compelled to give ridiculous answers such as advising the Kremlin to capitulate and withdraw, even if Russia is on the cusp of victory. Any impulse to adhere to reason and address Russia’s security concerns would likely be deterred by the threat of being shamed for “legitimising” Russia’s invasion.

What explains the decline of strategic thinking, pragmatism and rationality in European politics?

Europe’s Reality as a Social Construction

The political class that emerged in Europe after the Cold War have become excessively ideological and committed to narratives to socially construct new realities. The Europeans embrace of postmodernism entails questioning the existence of objective reality as our understanding of reality is shaped by language, culture and unique historical perspectives. The postmodernists therefore often seek to change narratives and language as a source of political power. If reality is a social construction, then the grand narratives can be more important than facts. Indeed, ideological narratives must be defended from inconvenient facts.

The European project had the benign intentions of creating a common liberal democratic European identity that would transcend the divisive national rivalry and power politics of the past. The relevance of objective reality is contested, and narratives about reality are believed to reflect power structures that can be dismantled and reorganised.

The prevalence of constructivism and focus on “speech acts” in the EU has led to the belief that even using realist analysis and discussing competing national interests entail legitimising realpolitik and thus socially constructing a more dangerous reality. Speech acts refer to the use of language as a source of power by constructing political realities and influencing outcomes. By reducing the focus on security competition in the international system, it is assumed that power politics can be mitigated.

Is it possible to socially construct a new reality? Do we transcend security competition by not addressing it or do we neglect the responsible management of security competition. Can we transcend national rivalries by focusing on common values or does the neglect of national interests result in decline?

Socially Constructing a New Europe

The concept of the “rhetorical trap” explains how the EU reached a consensus to offer membership to Central and Eastern European states when it was not in the self-interest of all EU member states to do so. The rhetorical trap was set by first having member states accept the ideological premise that the legitimacy of the EU project was based on the integration of liberal democratic states. By appealing to the values and norms as the foundation of the EU, a rhetorical trap was set as the sense of moral obligation shamed EU member states from vetoing the enlargement process. The use of language and framing could thus influence European states to not act in their own interests as they were shamed into compliance.

Schimmelfennig, who introduced the concept of the rhetorical trap, argues that “politics is a struggle over legitimacy, and this struggle is fought out with rhetorical arguments”.[1] The rhetorical trap simplifies a complex issue into a binary choice of either supporting the enlargement process or betraying liberal democratic ideals. The moral framing shuts down important discussions about the potential downsides of accepting new members and how to address these challenges in the best way. Dissent could be crushed as framing the issue as a moral imperative meant that those who even questioned the moral framing could be accused of undermining the sacred values that uphold the legitimacy of the entire European project.

The concept of “Euro-speak” entails using emotional rhetoric to legitimise an EU-centric understanding of Europe that de-legitimises alternative concepts of Europe. Centralising decision-making and transferring power from elected parliaments to Brussels is typically referred to as “European integration”, “more Europe”, or “ever-closer Union”. Neighbouring non-member states that adhere to the EU’s external governance are making the “European choice”, confirming their “European perspective”, and embracing “shared values”. Dissent can be delegitimised as “populism”, “nationalism”, “Euro-phobia” and “anti-Europeanism”, which undermines the “common voice”, “solidarity” and the “European dream”.

The language has also changed in terms of how the West asserts power in the world. Torture is “enhanced interrogation techniques”, gunboat diplomacy is “freedom of navigation”, dominance is “negotiations from a position of strength”, subversion is “democracy promotion”, coup is “democratic revolution”, invasion is “humanitarian intervention”, secession is “self-determination”, propaganda is “public diplomacy”, censorship is “content moderation”, and the more recent example of China’s competitive advantage that is labelled “over-capacity”. George Orwell’s concept of Newspeak entailed constraining language to the point it became impossible to express dissent.

NATO and the EU: Redividing Europe or “European Integration”

Western leaders initially recognised that abandoning an inclusive pan-European security architecture by expanding NATO and the EU would likely provoke another Cold War. The predictable consequence of constructing a new Europe without Russia would be to redivide the continent and then fight over where the new dividing lines should be drawn.

President Bill Clinton cautioned in January 1994 that NATO expansion risked to “draw a new line between East and West that could create a self-fulfilling prophecy of future confrontation”.[2] Clinton’s Secretary of Defence, William Perry, even considered resigning in opposition to expanding NATO. Perry noted that most people in the administration knew the betrayal would create conflicts with Russia, yet they believed it did not matter as Russia was weak.[3] George Kennan, Jack Matlock and a multitude of American political leaders also framed it as a betrayal against Russia and warned against redividing Europe. These concerns were also shared by many European leaders.

What happened to the discourse and warnings about instigating another Cold War? The narrative of the EU and NATO as a “force for good” that advance liberal democratic values had to be defended against the “outdated” narrative of power politics. Russian criticism of reviving the zero-sum security architecture of bloc politics was presented as evidence of Russia’s “zero-sum mentality”. Russia’s inability to recognise that NATO and the EU were positive-sum actors that transcend power politics allegedly revealed Russia’s inability to overcome the dangerous mindset of realpolitik, which was caused by Russia’s enduring authoritarianism and great power ambitions. The EU was merely constructing a “ring of friends”, while Russia allegedly demanded “spheres of influence”.

Russia was presented with the dilemma of either embracing the role of an apprentice aiming to join the civilised world by accepting NATO’s dominant role as a force for good, or Russia could resist NATO’s expansionism and “out-of-area missions” but then be treated as a dangerous force to be contained. Either way, Russia would not have a seat at the table in Europe. Liberal democratic tropes justified why the largest state in Europe should eventually be the only state without representation.

The expansion of NATO and the EU as exclusive blocs also imposes an “us-or-them” dilemma on the deeply divided societies in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Yet, rather than recognising the predictable destabilisation of divided societies in a divided Europe, it is presented as positive-sum “European integration” despite the implicit decoupling from Russia. Societies prioritising closer relations with Russia rather than NATO and the EU are delegitimised for rejecting democracy while their leaders are dismissed as authoritarian “Putinists” who deprive their people of their European dream.

The moral framing of the world convinced European leaders to support a coup to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit. It was common knowledge that only a small minority of Ukrainians desired NATO membership and that it would likely trigger a war, yet liberal democratic rhetoric still convinced European leaders to ignore reality and support disastrous policies. Common sense could be shamed.

Western political leaders, journalists and academics seeking to mitigate the security competition by addressing Russia’s legitimate security concerns are similarly accused of carrying water for Putin, repeating Kremlin talking points, “legitimising” Russian policies, and undermining liberal democracy. With the binary moral framing of good versus evil, intellectual pluralism and dissent are castigated as immoral.

Besides being plagued by war, Europe is also undergoing economic decline. The Europeans are buying Russian energy through India as an intermediary as they are morally obliged to follow failed sanctions. The virtue-signalling contributes to European industries becoming less competitive. The de-industrialisation of Europe is also caused by the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, yet the event that is destroying decades of industrial development is memory-holed as the only two suspects are the US and Ukraine. Furthermore, the US offers subsidies to the subsequent uncompetitive European industries if they relocate across the Atlantic. In the absence of acceptable narratives, the Europeans simply keep silent and do not defend their national interests. The narrative of liberal democracies united by values rather than divided by competing interests must be defended from inconvenient facts.

Diplomacy, Neutrality & the Virtue of War

Diplomacy does not conform with the constructivist effort to socially construct a new reality. The point of departure in international security is the security competition in which efforts to increase the security of a state can decrease the security of another. Diplomacy entails enhancing mutual understanding and pursuing compromise to mitigate the security competition.

The social constructivists often consider diplomacy to be problematic as it “legitimises” the security competition that recognises NATO can undermine legitimate Russian security interests. Furthermore, it risks legitimising the opponent and creating a moral equivalency between Western states and Russia. The European elites believe that [they can] legitimise outdated and dangerous concepts of power politics by engaging in mutual understanding. The absurd conviction that negotiation is “appeasement” has become normalised in Europe.

Diplomacy therefore has been reimagined as a relationship between a subject and an object, between a teacher and a student. In this relationship, NATO and the EU consider their role as “socialising” other states. As a civilising teacher, the Enlightened West uses diplomacy as a pedagogic instrument in which states are “punished” or “rewarded” by their preparedness to accept unilateral concessions. While diplomacy historically has been imperative during times of crisis, the European elites believe they must instead punish “bad behaviour” by suspending diplomacy once a crisis breaks out. Meeting with opponents during crises runs the risk of legitimising them.

Neutrality was until recently considered a moral stance that mitigates security competition and enables a state to serve as a mediator rather than becoming entangled and escalating conflicts. In a struggle between good and evil, neutrality is also deemed to be immoral. The belt of neutral states that existed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries has now been dismantled and even war becomes a virtuous defence of moral principles.

How to Restore Rationality & Correct the Post-Cold War Mistakes?

The failure to establish a mutually acceptable post-Cold War settlement that would remove the dividing lines in Europe and enhance indivisible security has resulted in a predictable catastrophe. Yet, course correction requires nothing less than reconsidering the policies of the past 30 years and the concept of Europe at a moment when animosity is rampant on both sides. The European project was envisioned as the embodiment of Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis and an entire political class has based their legitimacy on conforming to the idea that developing a Europe without Russia was a recipe for peace and stability.

Does Europe have the rationality, political imagination and courage to critically assess its own mistakes and contribution to the current crisis, or will all criticism continue to be denounced as a threat to liberal democracy?

[1] Schimmelfennig, Frank, 2003. The EU, NATO and the integration of Europe: Rules and rhetoric, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, page 208.

[2] B. Clinton, ‘Remarks to Multinational Audience of Future Leaders of Europe’, US Diplomatic Mission to Germany, 9 January 1994.

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

October 26, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

To Be America’s Friend …

By Premysl Janyr | October 26, 2024

“It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”

Henry Kissinger’s much-quoted statement after the American friend, dictator Nguyễn Văn Thiệu, took power in Vietnam in 1963 and shot the previous American friend, dictator Ngô Ðình Diệm, was reported by William F. Buckley Jr. When the Americans fled Vietnam headlong a decade later, they left their friends in the care of the communist Việt Cộng.

Meanwhile, Kissinger’s statement could be confirmed by a respectable line of other American friends, haphazardly Reza Shah Pahlavi, expelled from Iran in 1979, Saddam Hussein, executed in 2006, Afghan Mujahideen, recruited in 1978 to fight the USSR and then as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda prominent US enemies, Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, incited to rise against Saddam in 1991 and left to his retaliation, Mikheil Saakashvili, in 2008 incited to attack Russian regions of Georgia, today in a Georgian prison, Afghan friends, after fleeing in 2020 left in the care of the Taliban. And of course: Russia after 1992 and China in the new century. And: Ukraine and Europe since 2014.

“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests,” Kissinger explained.

Ukrainian friend

Recently, I have come across a number of reflections from analysts and commentators expressing wonder at how unreasonable the US government is in encouraging Ukraine to further escalate a lost war. It is a natural curiosity, for a normal person who is repulsed by killing, tries to resolve disputes through negotiations, and sees war as the ultimate tragedy.

In September 2014 I wondered as well:

Any reasonable person would expect that if Ukraine has strong ties to both the EU and the Eurasian Union, it can play a useful role as a bridge between them. They would expect the conflict between the government and the protesters to end with a round table agreement. When it had already bloody escalated, they would have expected that the EU, Russia and the US would jointly enforce the agreement between Yanukovych and the opposition against armed fighters and that the shooting would be investigated by an international commission. When the coup government took power, they would expect pressure to be exerted on it not to provoke Russian-speaking Ukrainians with hostile actions. When the anti-coup federalists in the east refused to recognize the coup government, they would have expected the international community to push for the federalization of the country and the creation of a government with a share of both parts in order to preserve its integrity. As the Kiev government had already sent an army against the anti-coup federalists, they would have expected the international community to at least prevent massacres of the civilian population by artillery, rocket fire and aerial bombardment.

I also had a possible explanation:

However, if the task was to “force Russia to decide whether to intervene”, the entire Ukrainian development suddenly appears completely understandable and logical. Its strategy was outlined already in March by George Friedman: it will be fought on the battlefields of Ukraine and Moldova by an alliance of Visegrad battlegroups led by Poland, Romania and Azerbaijan.

The strategy wasn’t fulfilled in 2014. Russia decided not to intervene, the Visegrad battlegroups showed no interest, and the anti-coup federalists not only defended themselves, but inflicted a significant defeat on the Ukrainian army. America’s friend needed more thorough preparation.

The faked Minsk II agreement gave it eight years. During that time, anti-Russian hatred was whipped up, the country committed itself to its tradition of pro-Nazi war against Russia, and the army was trained for it and armed with the most modern technology. All that remained was to overcome Russian hesitancy to intervene.

Promises of admission to NATO, spectacular war preparations, plans to install medium-range missiles, the prospect of arming with nuclear weapons, terror against the Donbas population and the planned offensive to break its resistance finally convinced Russia of the necessity of at least a special military operation with the aim of ousting Zelensky’s government and replacing it with a more accommodating one in the manner of Prague 1968. However, the landing was already expected at the airport in Hostomel and the special military operation turned into an open war.

And again, one can wonder:

Why did the West stubbornly insist on expanding NATO to Ukraine when all the experts warned that it would inevitably lead to war? Against what Russian attack were they arming Ukraine when Russia refrained from intervening in 2014, when it would have had the best conditions for it? Why did they convince Ukraine not to respect the Minsk agreements, when they were the only guarantee of peace and – except for Crimea – its territorial integrity? Why did no one mention the protection of ethnic minorities when the Kyiv government ostracized the Russian-speaking population? Why didn’t anyone speak about the ongoing shelling of Donbas cities? Why did the West refuse to even consider the Russian proposal for a European security architecture? Why did they encourage Zelensky toward further and further provocations with strategic partnerships, ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons? Why did they prevent him from concluding the Istanbul peace agreement in March 2022, a month after the fighting began?

And again, a plausible explanation can be offered, which makes the entire Ukrainian development suddenly appear completely understandable and logical:

The brief was to “force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” The Russo-Ukrainian war is not an accident of the reckless policy of the West, but its carefully prepared goal.

A specific feature of American political culture is the public availability of information. There is no need to speculate, interpret and theorize.

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union,” reads the Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992. “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire,” writes Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997. “The West wants to finish the job begun with the fall of the Berlin Wall and continue Europe’s march to the east… The great prize is Ukraine,” Washington Post writes in 2004.

“Yats[eniuk] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience,” claimed Victoria Nuland while designing a new Ukrainian government on February 6, 2014.

“The [Donbas] settlements shall be liberated one by one, with armor going in first and wiping out the remaining pockets of resistance,” instructed the RAND Corporation in order to provoke Russian intervention and, after failing that, in April 2019 it developed a detailed scenario “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia.”

In June 2022, the American Helsinki Commission convened a conference on “Decolonizing (fragmentation) Russia.”

“Ukraine has trillions of dollars worth of critical minerals in their country. Vladimir Putin cannot be allowed to access that money,” Senator Lindsey Graham explained.

But first, friend Zelensky has to be convinced. The Russian army is equipped with outdated weapons and suffers from a lack of ammunition, low morale and poor command. Against the Ukrainian army, with modern arms and trained according to NATO guidelines, it has no chance, they lied to him. Ukraine is a bright beacon of Western democracy against Putin’s dark Eastern dictatorship, they flattered him. When Russia attacks, we will impose unprecedented economic sanctions against it, its economy will collapse, hunger will drive people into the streets, and Putin’s regime will be overthrown, they fantasized. And in particular, they promised military aid in a form that convinced him that NATO armies would rush to his aid.

Sobering up came immediately. Like Saakashvili before him, he quickly found out that “We are defending our state alone, the most powerful forces of the world are watching from afar,” that “NATO is afraid of a confrontation with Russia”. Too late. Requests for the establishment of a no-fly zone remained unheeded, requests for tanks, missiles and planes were half-heard with long reluctance only when the situation became critical, not even a desperate attempt to fire a missile at Poland and pass it off as a Russian attack on a NATO state was taken. Zelensky only receives promises of help for as long as it takes. “We have never spent money so well,” Lindsey Graham assures him, “Russians are dying”.

However, after the failed summer offensive of 2023, the money channel is also closing. America’s self-sacrificing friend Ukraine, with hundreds of thousands dead and tens of millions of refugees, faces financial, economic, military, geographic, demographic and political collapse. They won’t even allow part of Ukraine’s astronomical debts to be forgiven. Instead, Western corporations are buying up its remaining assets – agricultural, mineral and industrial – on the cheap.

Russian friend

In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz could have only one new rival in mind, posing a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union: the connection of Europe with Russia, especially German technology and capital with Russian natural resources, the Common European House from Lisbon to Vladivostok. And finally, Europe itself on the path to integration. China, America’s friend then, was not considered as a rival yet.

However, the way to prevent the emergence of a European-Russian rival is clear: divide et impera. To enrage them against each other, to weaken both and to induce a war between them. America has systematically devoted itself to this for thirty years. The nagging questions are answered.

The first decade was spent in the spirit of all-embracing friendship between the US, Russia and European countries, confirmed by the Malta Summit in 1989. American advisers rushed to help the Russian friend with neoliberal economic reforms, advantageously bought up Russian assets, liquidated its nuclear weapons, took away its experts and fissile material, established contacts with the new Russian oligarchs. Financial loans were rejected; the goal was to weaken Russia. Friend Russia sank to the brink of collapse.

Europe, economically consolidated and united by the values of peaceful coexistence, the rule of law, the social market and human rights, was a different issue. The path led in a detour, from the East, through New Europe, the post-communist states, with whose new elites the Americans had close relations since the days of dissent. It was no more difficult to introduce radical neoliberal reforms in countries disoriented by disintegration and profitably privatize their state assets than in Russia, but their role did not end there. In 1993, at the time of Russia’s deepest decline, Václav Havel and Lech Walęsa suddenly began to fear “Russian expansionism” and, “in order to preserve peace in Europe,” insisted on admission to NATO.

This is the key moment. For the first time, it was said that Russia is a threat to Europe and that NATO should expand to the East.

The first three countries are accepted in 1999 at the same time as the outbreak of the first international war in Europe since 1945 and the first combat engagement of NATO in its history, the bombing of Yugoslavia, Russia’s closest ally. Viktor Orbán prevented further escalation by rejecting the demand that Hungary invade Yugoslavia.

European friend

In the following years, the US achieved four key goals in Europe: to portray Russia as a dangerous enemy and isolate it from Europe, to expand NATO to its borders, to subjugate European political elites unconditionally, and finally to weaken Europe.

The last one was initiated by President Trump in 2017 with sanctions against the supply of cheap Russian gas, a symbol of European-Russian integration, with the aim of replacing it with expensive American gas. This is followed by measures against European trade surpluses and tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars. Significant are the references to Europe’s inability to defend itself against Russian aggression and its dependence on American intelligence and defense. They demand an increase in the military spending of NATO states to 2% of GDP, or more billions of European taxes for the US arms industry.

The 2020-2021 Covid operation was not targeted specifically against Europe, but it contributed to its weakening no less than other measures. In addition to the additional billions of dollars of European taxpayers transferred to pharmaceutical companies for absurdly high prices orders for ineffective vaccines, and in addition to the economic collapse due to lockdowns, it further deepened the decay of the already broken cohesion of European communities, increased the tension between establishments and citizens, and helped destroy democracy through censorship and repression.

With the rise of Joe Biden, Victoria Nuland and Antony Blinken, the architects of the Ukrainian-Russian war, the weakening of the European friend takes a turn. European politicians are pressured to agree to the termination of the Nord Stream and the introduction of “unprecedented sanctions” against Russia in the event of “aggression against Ukraine”, which even Zelensky himself does not believe in at the time. But Biden knows that he will eventually force Russia to intervene.

The Russian invasion unleashes a fanatical anti-Russian campaign. With outrageous rhetoric unheard since the 1950s, an orgy of unprecedented sanctions, the termination of the Nord Stream project sealed by its sabotage, the seizure of bank reserves and the disconnection of Russia from the banking system, and the boycott of Russian culture, sports, vodka and cats, the rift between Europe and Russia is complete.

Let’s not be fooled by the rhetoric. Nominally, the aim of the sanctions is to weaken Russia, but their – intended – parallel effect is to weaken Europe. Anti-Russian hysteria masks the demagogic arguments about “dependence on Russian gas” and the “financing of Russian aggression” as a pretext to replace cheap Russian resources, to which it owes its economic rise, with overpriced American ones. The sanctions affect more or less all European trade with Russia. Imports from Russia fell by 85% from early 2022 to May 2023, exports by 65%. Unlike Russia, which was able to compensate for the shortfall in Asia, Europe does not have a comparable replacement.

The pressure to disengage from trade with China, justified by alleged security risks and trade sanctions, pursues the same goal. However, unlike Russia, China is the EU’s largest trading partner with a 21% share of imports, larger than the US (12%) one, so the pressure rather encouraged latent reservations towards the US and resulted in only a vague formulation of prospective “risk reduction”.

The main drain on the European economy is, of course, Ukraine.

Arms deliveries have emptied European military warehouses, which will need to be replenished with state-of-the-art American technology. Not only to supplement, but also to increase thoroughly, because “after the victory in Ukraine, Russia plans to invade other European states”.

And let’s not overlook the differences. While European weapons for Ukraine are a taxpayer-funded gift, American ones are subject to a lend-lease agreement. Ukraine will pay them back for decades – by cheaply selling off land and raw materials to BlackRock and other American corporations.

The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, provides $783 billion in subsidies to US-based businesses. This, in addition to the significant difference in energy prices, is another effective incentive for European companies to relocate to the US.

An overlooked financial drain are the consequences of American aggression paid for by European taxes. Refugees from countries ravaged by American aggression at the beginning of the century already meant a considerable burden for Europe. Illegal trafficking structures, establishing with them, quickly compensated for the drop in demand in West Asia with inexhaustible resources in Africa, especially after the destruction of Libya, which until then had functioned as a filter. The Ukrainian war then drove out millions of others, to whom Europe provides above-standard conditions for political reasons. Even more serious than the economic costs themselves are the social, political and cultural consequences, the polarization and disintegration of the European value system.

Even in 2011, GDP per capita in the EU was slightly higher than in the US ($15,800/$14,700 USD). Twelve years later, it is a third lower ($18,350/$27,400). Europe is in a phase of deindustrialization, which the crisis of the automobile industry due to cheap Chinese competition will significantly accelerate. While the USA has greatly strengthened its economy through the war, its European friend is facing a long-term economic and political decline.

Israeli friend

The relationship between the US and Israel, as observers note, has no parallels in history. It appears as if little Israel is the despotic ruler of the superpower USA. It collects an annual tribute from them, sends their army against its rivals, uses their veto in the Security Council to ensure its own impunity, has them finance the genocide of the Palestinians, drains their weapons potential, forces them to violate their own laws prohibiting the supply of arms to states developing nuclear weapons and is obstructing American humanitarian aid. In order to stifle criticism, it will abolish their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and lead the US into international isolation.

At the same time, Israel has no mercy for its vassal. In 1967, it stole material for the development of the atomic bomb from the US, and there are indications of Israeli participation in the assassination of JF Kennedy, who wanted to prevent the nuclear armament of Israel. In the same year, Israel tried to sink the American ship Liberty and blame it on Egypt to get the US military to fight its war. Israel maintains an extensive espionage network in the US, steals their know-how without scruples and occasionally even sells it on. Very strong indications point to its involvement in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, with the intention of pushing the US into wars against its rivals. For years, it has been trying to provoke the US into war against the last of them, Iran, and after October 7, 2023, into a war against the Axis of Resistance. Israel infiltrated and paralyzed US intelligence services to make investigations of Israeli activities impossible, forged pretexts for war actions, and distorted information provided to the public and government administration.

It could be described as an example of a fatal friendship with Israel, but the reality is more complex. Some observers believe that it is the US, on the contrary, that is ruthlessly using Israel – down to the last Israeli – as a battering ram to control Arab oil resources. Its fate would thus follow the fate of Ukraine and other American friends.

However, it is more likely that both countries are controlled by the same globalist cartel, called in the US the Israel Lobby. Its members operate in the public only partially, but they own a significant part of the American media and allocate funds to the election campaigns of more or less all senators and members of the House of Representatives. Some of them have dual nationalities, but the preferred identity is Greater Israel (Eretz Israel). It is not only made up of Jewish Zionists, its larger part is made up of Christian Zionists with a broad background in evangelical communities. And to be consistent, it is not the only one, it seamlessly blends with other cartels, such as the military-industrial, banking, pharmaceutical ones. Thus, their members jointly created a new aristocratic social class of the type of Mussolini’s ”fascio”, which holds the US, Israel and other Western countries under tight control.

Since October, over half a million Jews who had somewhere to go have left Israel. This is almost as many as the number of Palestinians expelled during the Nakba of 1948. The outlook for others is all the more bleak because Israel has burned all the bridges behind it. There is nowhere left to go to.

Facit

One of the hallmarks of psychopathic individuals — and communities — is a headlong fixation on an immediate goal with no plans for what then and what if it doesn’t work out, with complete ignorance of background, context, side effects, and consequences.

Current conflicts illustrate the characteristic. “Mission accomplished,” cheered GW Bush after the defeat of Saddam Hussain. His uncompromising threats to North Korea led to the emergence of another nuclear power. The result of Israeli aggression was the creation of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Axis of Resistance. The consequence of mobbing Iran is that it has become the undisputed leading power in West Asia. Unprecedented sanctions catapulted Russia to the world’s fourth largest economy in purchasing power parity. The identification of Russia and China as the biggest threats has created the BRICS+ bloc the most economically and politically significant global actor. The confiscation of Russian assets and the cutting off of Russia from the international banking system led to the gradual decline of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and a prospective non-dollar banking system. The unscrupulous arming and support of Ukraine and Israel brought both countries to the brink of extinction. And the quest for totalitarian control of their own society brings even the US itself to the brink of collapse.

The domination of European countries by international power cartels under American domination threatens even Europe with the prospect of war and long-term decline. Logical starting points – gradually detaching from the sinking American Titanic, returning to a Europe of peaceful coexistence, the rule of law, the social market and human rights, and a reorientation towards multipolar politics and economics – run into internal and external obstacles.

Of the internal ones, it is primarily the infiltration of European politics by personalities dependent – pragmatically, career-wise, through corruption, compromise, threats – on power cartels. The role of the fifth column is played by the post-communists, especially the Baltic countries, over which they took control without resistance immediately after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. However, the attraction of global dominance is not alien to the European cultural tradition of exceptionalism, wars, colonialism and conquest. Finally, decades of ideological indoctrination have shaped the attitudes and, in particular, the fanatical aversion of a significant portion of the European population in favor of Western anti-Russian, anti-Islamic, and anti-Chinese narratives.

The external obstacles are mainly the expected reactions of powerful cartels to the threat of loss of influence. A small sample are the reactions of the European bureaucracy to the dissenting positions of Hungary, Slovakia, or Poland. A more massive movement away from the US is likely to be met – if they are still capable – with the full weight of US resources – from political pressure and economic sanctions to the mobilization of hidden structures to color revolutions and false flag actions.

The whole world, and Europe in particular, is currently in a stage that will decide the developments of the coming decades. Western dominance is being eroded faster and faster by desperate attempts to maintain it. At the same time, it must be admitted that European attitudes can only influence the speed, but not the direction. The only thing it can influence is its own future: Europe as an insignificant relic of bygone times or as an equal partner in a multipolar world.

The weeks and months after November 5th will tell us more.

October 26, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia Changes Nuclear Doctrine & Prepares for War

Sergey Karaganov, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

By Glenn Diesen | October 23, 2024

I had a conversation with Professor Sergey Karaganov and Alexander Mercouris about Russia changing its nuclear doctrine. Karaganov was an advisor to Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin. He has been the main proponent of lowering Russia’s nuclear threshold. Putin had previously told Karaganov that Russia was not prepared to change the nuclear doctrine, however Putin has reversed his position and is now changing the nuclear doctrine according to Karaganov’s recommendations.

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent and can therefore be a source of stability and peace by making war between the great powers unacceptable. The irony of the nuclear deterrent is that the immensely destructive power of nuclear weapons, possibly ending human civilisation, can reduce the credibility that an opponent would use them. The nuclear peace therefore requires communicating a credible readiness to destroy the world.

NATO’s escalations in the Ukraine War have convinced the Kremlin that its nuclear deterrent has been severely weakened and must be restored. For example, Biden initially warned against sending F-16s as it would likely trigger World War 3, but then decided later to approve supplying F-16s to Ukraine while NATO countries dismissed Russia’s nuclear deterrence as unacceptable “nuclear blackmail”. On the third year of the war, Ukraine invaded Kursk with NATO weapons and likely US intelligence – which was met with Western support and exuberance.

The dilemma for how Russia can respond has been: 1) retaliate against NATO and risk uncontrolled escalation possibly resulting in nuclear war, or 2) do not to retaliate but then embolden NATO to escalate further and thus risk nuclear war. The plan by the US and UK to supply Ukraine with long-range precision missiles became the final straw for Moscow. This would be considered a direct attack on Russia since these missiles would need to be operated by American or British soldiers and guided by their satellites.

The changes primarily entail 1) allowing the use of nuclear weapons if attacked by a non-nuclear state supported by a nuclear state (to address war through proxy), 2) placing Belarus under the Russian nuclear umbrella to address the possibility of a NATO nuclear attack on Belarus as a step up the escalation ladder. Obama’s national-security team secretly staged a war game in 2016 in which it was recommended to respond to a Russian use of nuclear weapon with a NATO nuclear attack on Belarus – “a nation that had played no role whatsoever in the invasion of the NATO ally but had the misfortune of being a Russian ally”.

Changing the nuclear doctrine does not suggest Russia is planning a nuclear strike as there are still further steps on the escalation ladder:

  • Confront and destroy NATO reconnaissance drones over the Black Sea that provide targets to Ukraine
  • Use conventional weapons to attack NATO’s military targets that are used to put a blockade on Kaliningrad (if the decision is made)
  • Destroy NATO satellites used to guide missiles that attack Russian territory
  • Destroy NATO’s critical infrastructure such as underwater cables or through cyber attacks
  • Destroy Ukrainian warplanes stationed in Poland and Romania
  • Destroy military logistics centres on NATO territory for weapons being sent to Ukraine
  • Attacks on US military bases abroad, either through proxies or direct attacks

However, once any of these retaliatory actions are taken against NATO, both sides could lose control of the situation and rapidly head up the escalation ladder.

The Duran | October 21, 2024

October 25, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , | Leave a comment

NATO Shreds German Reunification Pact With Moscow With New Baltic Naval HQ

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 22.10.2024

The Western alliance spurned Russian aspirations for improved relations and the creation of a Europe-wide security architecture after the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, swallowing up all of Moscow’s former Warsaw Pact allies and seven former Soviet and Yugoslav republics, and sparking a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

German defense chief Boris Pistorius presided over the unveiling a new NATO naval HQ in Rostock, northeastern Germany on Monday, with the facility not only threatening to exacerbate tensions with Russia, but violating a key deal on the non-deployment of alliance forces in the territory of the former East Germany.

The Commander Task Force Baltic HQ “will play a crucial role in the preparation of military situation reports and in responding to regional challenges, including the protection of NATO member states’ interests against aggressive actions, particularly given the proximity of Russia,” Pistorius said.

“The Baltic Sea has always been at the crossroads of Europe’s history and it is much more than just a waterway. It is a vital corridor for trade, military mobility, and energy security. It is a strategic area of great geopolitical importance and a frontline in our collective defense against evolving threats,” Pistorius said, going on to accuse Russia of “challenging” regional security “on almost a daily basis.”

The HQ will be commanded by a German, with Polish and Swedish officers serving as deputies. Formal goals of the base, manned by 60 personnel (expandable to 240 in a pinch), include improving interoperability, planning joint drills and overseeing regional military deployments.

The facility also happens to be illegal. In 1990, during talks on German reunification, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev approved Bonn’s annexation of East Germany on the condition that NATO troops not be stationed in the Federal Republic’s new territories.

Article 5, Paragraph 3 of the pact, formally called the Two-Plus-Four Treaty, states that “Foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons or their carriers shall not be stationed in or transferred to this part of Germany.”

On Tuesday, Germany’s ambassador to Russia was summoned and slapped with a protest in connection with the Rostock HQ, with the Foreign Ministry emphasizing that the hostile move will not be left without a response.

“The ambassador was informed that this step by Germany’s ruling circles constituted a continuation of the creeping revision of the results of the Second World War, and the militarization of Germany. It was also a gross violation of the spirit and letter of the Two-Plus-Four Treaty… We demanded immediate and comprehensive explanations from Berlin,” the Ministry said in a statement.

“Washington, Brussels and Berlin must be aware that the expansion of NATO’s military infrastructure into the territory of the former GDR will have the most negative consequences, and will not remain without an appropriate response from the Russian side,” the Ministry added.

October 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky admits capitulation but calls for escalation

By Ahmed Adel | October 18, 2024

The “Victory Plan” presented by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is an acknowledgment of capitulation because it is obvious that, even in his estimation, without the massive involvement of NATO countries in the conflict, the Ukrainian army will not be able to hold back Russian forces in the foreseeable future.

Zelensky presented his Victory Plan to the Ukrainian parliament on October 16 and the European Council on October 17. The plan consists of five points and three secret amendments. In addition to admitting defeat, Zelensky’s Victory Plan also reveals a desire for maximum escalation of the conflict, where, of course, the main burden should be borne by NATO countries and not Ukrainian forces.

The Ukrainian president thinks that escalating what led to the suffering of his citizens and destroyed the economy will lead to Ukraine’s victory.

At the same time, his Victory Plan could be used to pressure Biden or his successor to make decisions about striking deep into the Russian Federation without, supposedly, provoking Moscow to react excessively. Nonetheless, the Kremlin has already said Russia will respond to any attacks.

The Victory Plan truly hinges on US support and not European. Therefore, bodies such as the Council of Europe only serve to give the Biden administration legitimacy when ​​he puts pressure on some parts of the American establishment that are clearly resisting further support for Ukraine.

The first point of Zelensky’s Victory Plan is geopolitical and concerns Ukraine’s immediate invitation to NATO. The other points concern the Ukrainian military and its allies destroying Russia’s aviation, deploying a non-nuclear strategic containment package on its territory, strengthening sanctions on Russia, and allowing Ukrainian soldiers to replace part of the American contingent in Europe in the post-war period.

According to the latest available data, 84% of Ukrainians want their country to be a member of NATO. Despite the widespread support for joining the alliance and although NATO has declared Ukraine’s membership path irreversible, it cannot be completed during the war, and the alliance declined to present a timeline. In effect, NATO has categorically ruled out membership until the war is over, which already makes Zelensky’s Victory Plan detached from reality since the very first point of the plan to defeat Russia is to join the bloc.

For this reason, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova condemned Zelensky’s Victory Plan as nothing more than a collection of “incoherent slogans.”

“This is, of course, no plan at all. It is a collection of incoherent slogans. It is blood foam at the mouth of a neo-Nazi murderer,” the spokeswoman stated during a briefing on October 16.

She also criticised Zelensky’s intention to damage the Russian air force with the assistance of his allies, saying, “He is pushing NATO to a direct conflict with our country and again insists on getting permission to use long-range weapons on Russian territory, knowing perfectly well, at least those who wrote him these speeches, realised what it would lead to because the corresponding statements by the Russian leadership were made just a week ago.”

“Taken as a sum, all these points and secret sub-clauses are not Zelensky’s plan of victory but a plan to bring misfortune upon Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. This aims to keep the money flowing and present his terrorist capabilities. I think that today Zelensky definitively proved to everyone that he hates Ukrainians to the extent that can be characterised as Ukrainophobia,” Zakharova added.

Since Zelensky evidently does not have any plans to begin serious negotiations, as seen by his Victory Plan, any negotiations conducted in the short term can be used by the West and the Kiev regime to freeze the conflict in Ukraine, replenish their capabilities and launch new attacks against Russia.

According to Western media, including The Washington Post, Zelensky has shown himself more open to holding talks with Russia amid Ukraine’s weakening positions. At the same time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that no adequate proposals had yet been received regarding the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, apart from the hype in the Western media.

Zelensky’s masters in the West are beginning to see that they are not able to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia and are beginning to ask for negotiations. For the moment, they are resorting to negotiation chatter, as mentioned, to try to freeze the conflict and build up forces. In this context, the only way to end the conflict is the complete defeat of Ukraine, peace on Moscow’s terms, and the strategic retreat of the West from Russia’s borders.

The Victory Plan has certainly dominated headlines and occupied the attention of many world leaders, but Kiev has no way of enforcing it, especially since, from the very first point, it ensures failure, considering NATO has been very clear on Ukraine’s membership path, which cannot progress until the war is already over.

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

October 18, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Germany Finally Maxed Out Its Military Support For Ukraine

By Andrew Korybko | October 15, 2024

Bild cited internal Defense Ministry documents to report that Germany finally maxed out its military support for Ukraine and won’t give any more heavy equipment, which comes around six weeks after the Polish Defense Minister effectively said the same thing about his country’s support. The Federal Cabinet detailed “The arms and military equipment Germany is sending to Ukraine” last month, which they said totals €28 billion in assistance that’s either already been provided or committed for future years.

Poland and Germany have done much more for Ukraine in this regard than most countries so the fact that they’ve already maxed out their support suggests that the West as a whole might soon seriously consider freezing the conflict. After all, Russia is already far ahead of NATO in the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition”, with even Sky News candidly reporting earlier this year that Russia is producing three times as many shells as NATO at one-quarter of the price.

This was followed last month by CNN sharing a glimpse of just how bad everything has become for Ukraine, which coincides with growing interest among the Western public and even some of their elite in cutting their side’s losses by exploring a political solution to the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine. “Russia’s Capture Of Pokrovsk Could Reshape The Conflict’s Dynamics” whenever it comes to pass so it naturally follows that they’d either want to preempt that or find a way to freeze the conflict afterwards.

The challenge though is that Russia won’t consider a ceasefire so long as Ukraine continues to occupy Kursk and Donbass, neither of which Kiev is willing to withdraw from as a “goodwill gesture”, thus risking the scenario that the front lines collapse due to the combination of attrition and Russia’s new tactics. In that case, Russia might try to expel Ukraine from the remainder of Zaporozhye Region east of the Dnieper, including its namesake city of an estimated 750,000 people.

There’s also the chance that Russia moves into eastern Dnipropetrovsk (“Dnipro”) Region despite having no claims to it either to coerce Ukraine into withdrawing from eastern Zaporozhye and its namesake capital and/or to push the Line of Contact (LOC) as far as possible before freezing it. This tactic could also enable Russia to open up a southern front in Kharkov Region to complement the eastern and northern ones. The worst-case scenario for Ukraine is simultaneous attacks along these three axes.

With Poland and Germany having already practically tapped out, unless they dig into the rest of their reserves that they’ve thus far preserved to meet their minimum national security requirements, this sequence of events is certainly possible. It could only be preempted by a comparatively more generous ceasefire proposal from the West that piques the Kremlin’s interest, Russian self-restraint, or Ukraine and/or the West “escalating to de-escalate”.

The first could see the West pressure Ukraine into withdrawing from eastern Zaporozhye Region, the second could be due to Russia not wanting to risk overextending its military logistics, and the third could involve a nuclear provocation, the formal deployment of NATO to Ukraine, and/or an attack on Belarus. Relevant factors include the timing of any potential Russian breakthrough and the outcome of the US elections, both of which could influence Ukraine and/or the West, perhaps even in different ways.

All that can be said for sure is that Ukraine can’t depend on more military aid after Germany just joined Poland in dropping out of the “war of attrition”. Unless they dig into their reserves or others step up (if they even have much left to give), then something game-changing might soon happen, though whether it’s positive or negative remains to be seen. Russia will either decisively win, be offered a more generous ceasefire that it’ll accept for pragmatic reasons, or its enemies will dangerously “escalate to de-escalate”.

October 17, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Zelensky presents ‘victory plan’

RT | October 16, 2024

Vladimir Zelensky presented his much-hyped “victory plan” to the Ukrainian parliament on Wednesday, suggesting it could help bring the conflict with Russia to a close as early as next year. However, he stressed that this outcome is possible only if Kiev rules out any compromises with Russia and receives full support from the West.

In his speech, Zelensky lamented that “victory has become an inconvenient word” for some people, adding, however, that he was certain that his “victory plan” would help end the conflict. “This plan can be implemented. It depends on the partners. I emphasize: on partners. It doesn’t exactly depend on Russia,” Zelensky said, accusing Moscow of not wanting peace.

“If you start moving with this idea, with this particular victory plan…, there may be a deal to end the war no later than next year,” he added, rejecting a freeze of the conflict and any “trade” of territories.

Zelensky said the plan consists of eight points, three of which are classified. First and foremost, the Ukrainian leader demanded that Kiev receive an invitation to immediately join NATO, a move the bloc has been reluctant to entertain, citing fears of being dragged into the conflict with Russia.

Second, he also stressed the need to strengthen Ukraine’s defense capabilities, including by lifting Western restrictions on the use of foreign-made long-range weapons for strikes against Russia, and also called for continued incursions into the neighboring country’s territory.

For the third point, Zelensky proposed to the West that Ukraine “deploy a comprehensive non-nuclear strategic deterrence package on its own land” to keep Russia at bay.

Fourth, he suggested that Ukraine sign with its backers “a special agreement on the joint protection of available critical resources” on its territory. These resources “will strengthen… either Russia and its allies, or Ukraine and the democratic world,” he said.

Finally, Zelensky said Ukraine could share its real-life battlefield experience with the West to “strengthen NATO’s defense and ensure security in Europe.”

Prior to Zelensky’s speech, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov suggested that his plan was just another facet of the US-dictated policy of fighting Russia “to the last Ukrainian.” Peace, he added, can only be achieved if Kiev understands “the futility of the current policy and the need to sober up and realize the reasons that led to the conflict over Ukraine.”

President Vladimir Putin has said that one of the main reasons for the conflict was Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and Kiev’s “genocide” of the people in Donbass, which is now part of Russia.

October 16, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »