RT | May 28, 2024
The West needs to understand that long-range strikes on Russian territory with their weapons would represent an escalation with “serious consequences,” Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.
Speaking to reporters at the end of his two-day visit to Uzbekistan, Putin addressed the recent Ukrainian demands for NATO to permit the use of their weapons in attacks on Russia and the comments by the US-led bloc’s head, Jens Stoltenberg, appearing to endorse this.
“To be honest, I don’t know what the NATO secretary-general is saying,” Putin told reporters, adding that Stoltenberg “did not suffer from any dementia” when he worked constructively with Russia as the prime minister of Norway (2005-2013).
“This constant escalation can lead to serious consequences. If these serious consequences occur in Europe, how will the US behave, bearing in mind our parity in the field of strategic weapons? Hard to say. Do they want global conflict?”
Putin explained that long-range precision strikes require space reconnaissance assets – which Ukraine does not have, but the US does – and that their targeting is already done by “highly qualified specialists” from the West, without Ukrainian participation.
“So, these representatives of NATO countries, especially in Europe, especially in small countries, must be aware of what they are playing with,” the Russian president said, noting that a lot of these countries have “a small territory and a very dense population.”
Putin reminded reporters that their colleagues in the West never reported on the Ukrainian attacks on Belgorod and other Russian regions along the border, only about the Russian advance on Kharkov.
“What caused this? They did, with their own hands. Well, then, they will reap what they have sown. The same thing can happen if long-range precision weapons are used,” the Russian president added.
Asked if Russia was refusing to negotiate with Ukraine, Putin told reporters that such claims by the West were baffling.
“We don’t refuse!” he said. “I’ve said it a thousand times, it’s like they don’t have ears!”
The Ukrainian side initialed an agreement with Russia in March 2022, then publicly reneged and refused to negotiate any further, Putin explained. He described Kiev’s current “peace conference” effort in Switzerland as an attempt to get some kind of international buy-in for their entirely unrealistic “peace platform,” which isn’t working out.
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 28, 2024
Incredibly, the world is being pushed to the abyss of nuclear war by nonentity Western numbskulls who are not even elected.
Jens Stoltenberg, the civilian head of the NATO military bloc, is the latest blockhead to advocate for the United States to permit the targeting of Russia with long-range weapons.
The Norwegian figurehead, we are led to believe, made the conceptual breakthrough (how much was he paid and by whom or what was the blackmail used?) by telling the Economist magazine that the Ukrainian regime should henceforth be officially allowed to use NATO missiles to hit Russia.
However, with the logical skills of a hacked-up chopping block, Stoltenberg claimed that such a move would not lead to an escalation in war between Russia and NATO because the weapons were not being fired from NATO countries.
So Stoltenberg thinks it’s somehow feasible to turn Ukraine into a silo for launching ballistic missiles at Moscow and yet for Russia not to perceive NATO nations as a legitimate target?
As if to further reassure, he added: “We don’t have any intention to send NATO ground troops into Ukraine because our purpose… has been two-fold, to support Ukraine as we do, but also to ensure that we don’t escalate this into a full-scale conflict.”
The barefaced cheek of Stoltenberg and other Western figures is that, in their arrogant mindsets, what’s going on is not escalation because they say it is not escalation. It’s like hitting someone with a punch in the face and then having the brass neck to tell the person you didn’t hit them because you said so.
The former Norwegian prime minister, who is soon to leave his NATO job to take up a plum post as a central banker, is the latest Western voice to up the ante in the U.S.-led proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken – a wannabe rock guitarist who hasn’t a clue what he is singing about – has also joined the list of gung-ho politicians urging for Ukraine to be given a license to strike Russian territory with long-range NATO-supplied weapons.
Britain’s Foreign Minister Lord David Cameron, the Eton-educated dimwit, has decided that Ukraine has “every right” to use British-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles to hit targets inside pre-war Russian borders.
Other political figures de facto egging on nuclear war are U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a religious fanatic who believes God is an anticommunist, as well as Victoria Nuland, the former American diplomat who midwifed the 2014 coup in Kiev that ushered in the current NeoNazi regime.
All of them are urging the Biden administration to abandon official restrictions on the Ukrainian proxy regime using Western missiles to hit Russia.
Ukraine’s puppet president Vladimir Zelensky, who cancelled elections but continues to hold office, has remonstrated with his Western handlers to be given a free hand to strike deep into Russia.
The distinction of “official permission” is a cynical sleight of hand. The Ukrainian side with NATO logistics and weapons has already been targeting inside Russia.
Oil infrastructure and military bases inside Russia’s pre-war borders have been frequently hit with missiles and drones. It is inconceivable that such targeting could be achieved without NATO’s involvement, including boots-on-the-ground advisors.
Nevertheless, the rhetorical difference is significant. For the Biden administration to officially give the green light for such attacks would mark a grave and explicit escalation – and one that Russia could not afford to ignore.
Russia has already warned that NATO weapons hitting its territory would result in retaliation beyond Ukraine. That could mean a Russian air strike on NATO members.
This week Moscow began exercises for deploying tactical nuclear weapons. Russia’s publicly avowed nuclear doctrine defines the permissibility of using such weapons with the criterion of the Russian nation facing a strategic threat, even if that threat is posed by enemies using conventional arms.
The West and its Ukrainian proxy are pushing at that catastrophic threshold. In the past week, one of Russia’s early warning ballistic radar systems in southwest Krasnodar region was reportedly hit by a drone attack. One purpose of the raid was to disable Russia’s ability to intercept the long-range ATACMS conventional warheads that the U.S. is ready to supply Ukraine. Another much more sinister interpretation is the West is probing the capability of Russia’s nuclear defenses.
When this proxy war erupted more than two years ago with Russia’s intervention in Ukraine after eight years of relentless NATO arming and provocation of the NeoNazi regime, there were anxious elite discussions among NATO members about whether to send “lethal weapons” and not just helmets, night-vision goggles, and radios.
Two years on, the NATO deliberation has shifted beyond sending tanks, F-16s fighter jets, and cruise missiles, and is now taking an official position endorsing the deep-striking of Russia with ballistic warheads.
Incredibly, the people continually pushing the envelope are a minuscule minority in Western societies who are not even elected – Stoltenberg, Blinken, Cameron, Nuland, among others. These ventriloquist dolls are doing the bidding of the masters of war, the military-industrial complex, and the banking elite.
The elite warmongers argue that Ukraine has its hands tied behind its back because it can’t bombard Russia at will. In reality, the country with its hands tied is Russia. It has to listen to the likes of Stoltenberg and his ilk advocating for strikes on Russia from NATO’s firing positions in Ukraine – and yet Russia is somehow supposedly not permitted to retaliate against NATO.
Surely, a fatal red line is imminent. Insanity rules among the Western elites as the world is pushed towards the abyss.
The world’s majority needs to issue arrest warrants for these privileged criminals… before it’s too late.
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | MAY 26, 2024
Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski revealed in his latest interview with The Guardian that “The Americans have told the Russians that if you explode a nuke, even if it doesn’t kill anybody, we will hit all your targets [positions] in Ukraine with conventional weapons, we’ll destroy all of them. I think that’s a credible threat.” If true, and there’s no reason to suspect that he simply made that up, then this amounts to the US playing a dangerous game of nuclear chicken with Russia.
As was explained in this analysis here about why Russia is presently undertaking tactical nuclear weapons exercises, it hopes to deter NATO from a conventional military intervention in Ukraine, barring which it wants to signal that it could resort to these arms if those forces cross the Dnieper. From Russia’s perspective, the reportedly 100,000-strong force that NATO is preparing to invade Ukraine if its “red lines” are crossed could pose a threat to its territorial integrity if they attack its newly unified regions.
So long as they stay on the western side of the Dnieper, then there’d be no reason for Russia to countenance using tactical nuclear weapons, but they could realistically be employed in the event that they cross the river and credibly appear to be approaching that country’s new borders. In that scenario, Russia would have reason to drop them on the invading forces as a last resort out of self-defense to preemptively neutralize this threat in accordance with its nuclear doctrine.
Having brought the reader up to speed about the context within which Sikorski shared the US’ planned response to Russia potentially exploding nukes in Ukraine, it should now be easier to understand why this amounts to a dangerous game of nuclear chicken. Essentially, the US wants Russia to stand down from its signaled intent of possibly using tactical nuclear weapons if NATO’s reportedly 100,000-strong invasion force crosses the Dnieper, which could occur if Russia achieves a military breakthrough.
If this sequence of events unfolds – the front lines collapse, NATO conventionally intervenes in Ukraine, its reportedly 100,000-strong invasion force crosses the Dnieper, Russia drops tactical nukes on them, and then the US hits all of its forces in the newly unified regions – then World War III would break out. There’s no way that Russia would sit back and let the US directly attack any target within its borders since it’ll either respond in a tit-for-tat fashion or jump to the chase by launching a nuclear first strike.
The only way to avoid this worst-case scenario is for NATO to eschew its invasion plans under any circumstances, including a potential Russian military breakthrough. If they still go through with them, however, then they should keep their forces on the western side of the Dnieper and ideally rely on a neutral mediator like India to convey to Russia that they don’t intend to cross even if they approach it. Anything less is a dangerous game of nuclear chicken that could literally provoke the apocalypse.
By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 27.05.2024
No one will sign up to be part of a deal on Kiev-Washington arms co-production, given Russian precision strikes on Ukrainian military infrastructure amid its proxy war with NATO, former US State Department counterterrorism analyst Scott Bennett told Sputnik.
The US State Department recently announced a $2 billion package for Kiev aimed at creating the so-called Ukraine Defense Enterprise Program (UDEP) fund.
In particular, the fund could be used to “strategically weaken Russia by transitioning partners away from Russian systems and supporting [foreign military financing] loans to partners and allies,” an unnamed State Department official was cited by the Defense One news outlet as saying.
“Without any doubt, the US funding package for Ukraine – intended to be used to stimulate Europe’s arms industry, fund US-Ukraine arms co-production, and lure countries away from the Russian arms market – will fail in all of its objectives,” former US State Department counterterrorism analyst Scott Bennett said in an interview with Sputnik.
He explained that “the US-Ukrainian arms development scheme will ultimately fail because the entire nation of Ukraine is now devolving into a failed state.”
Another aspect pertains to the fact that Ukraine “has no personnel able to create weapons anymore, and no ability to establish such an enterprise on its soil, as Russia would immediately target and destroy any such facilities before they could produce or deploy any weapons to be used against Russian soldiers,” per Bennett.
“The Ukrainians know this, and therefore no one would ‘willingly’ sign up to be part of any facility in Ukraine that does such activities because it would just be a matter of time before the building disappeared in a mountain of rubble,” the ex-State Department analyst pointed out.
When asked what specific types of arms or ammunition the US could co-produce with Ukraine, Bennett said that “these type of guerilla terrorist weapons might include drones, sea, air, and land bombs.”
He didn’t rule out that investor nations involved in the UDEP project “would most likely be Britain, France, Germany, and the Baltic nations.”
Touching upon the issue of the weapons market, Bennett said the US “has been on a conveyor belt of producing weapons for the shallow purpose of enriching politicians and the military-industrial complex, and not for military efficiency purposes.” Per him, “This is a lethal flaw, and an impediment which the rest of the world sees and therefore consciously and unconsciously views US-NATO weapons on a lower level than the Russian weapons.”
Bennett referred to Russian weapons as something “designed to defeat the US-NATO Ukrainian military,” which he said is viewed as “the main destabilizer of the world.”
So, he went on to say, “It is logical to assume that Russian weapons will be valued and sought after as the natural antidote or best defense against future Western Empirical operations — which they openly boast is coming with fatalistic and narcissistic indifference.”
As such, the US-Ukrainian arms development scheme “will once again confirm to the American and European peoples — currently held hostage by their governments — that the real enemy of Western peoples are the tyrants in their own government who are using the war to bleed money from citizens and construct an endless excuse for absolute authoritarian political control using endless fear and ‘rumors of war’,” the ex-State Department analyst concluded.
Sputnik – 26.05.2024
BUDAPEST – Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Sunday that he had never seen greater irresponsibility than Europe getting involved in the conflict in Ukraine without calculating what it would cost.
“Europe is becoming so involved in the war that it does not even have an estimate of the scale of the costs and means necessary to achieve its military objective. I have never seen anything more irresponsible in my life,” Orban said in an interview with the Patriota YouTube channel.
He added that, in his opinion, NATO wanted to become a party to the conflict in Ukraine and “the chances that the alliance can be kept from doing so are limited.”
Budapest is against having decisions on the service of Hungarian citizens made “in Brussels or Germany,” Orban emphasized.
“We don’t want anyone else to be able to make decisions about conscription and sending our young men of draft age anywhere. We have to forget about a European army with compulsory conscription, this is a crazy idea,” the prime minister stressed.
Earlier in May, Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s Party, the largest one in the European Parliament, suggested reinstating compulsory military service across the entire European Union.
If Weber’s idea was implemented, “Hungarian families would be told from Brussels or Germany that their children would be compulsorily conscripted into the European army and told where they would go,” Orban added.
In the years to come, current events may be seen as a prelude to World War III or even its first episode if Brussels’ militarism is not countered, the Hungarian prime minister warned.
“Perhaps in 10 years the current processes will be called a prelude to World War III. It cannot be ruled out that if things go badly and we fail to control the military psychosis developed in Brussels, the history of these years will also be an episode of the first years of the big world war,” Orban said in an interview with the YouTube channel Patrióta.
Although European politicians see nuclear weapons as a deterrent, unforeseen worst-case scenarios could come to life, the Hungarian prime minister emphasized.
“In my opinion, European politicians think of the nuclear bomb as a tactical deterrence tool and not as something that should really be used, but what they don’t consider at the beginning of a war can still happen at the end, thus worst-case scenarios can come to life,” Orban explained.
Previously, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said in an interview with The Guardian newspaper that the United States threatened Moscow with the “destruction” of Russian forces in the special military operation zone if Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitriy Medvedev said Poland should understand that an American strike on Russian troops would mean the beginning of a world war.
By Sergey Lebedev – Sputnik – 26.05.2024
NATO’s chief Jens Stoltenberg earlier urged Western nations to lift restrictions on allowing Ukraine to conduct attacks deep into Russia using Western weapons.
The Italian government has slammed NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s plea to lift restrictions on the use of Western weapons supplied to Kiev regime.
“We will not send a single Italian soldier to Ukraine, and the military equipment that Italy sends should be used on the territory of Ukraine,” Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani was quoted as saying by the Adnkronos news agency on Saturday.
He added that Italy “must always work for peace and lower the tone.” While Italy is a part of NATO, “every decision must be made collectively,” he pointed out.
Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Lega party Matteo Salvini voiced the same position, stressing that no one seeks a “prelude to a Third World War”.
“Italy is not at war with anyone, and while it was right to assist Ukraine militarily, lifting the ban on Kiev to strike military targets in Russia is out of the question. Similarly, I reiterate that Lega opposes sending even a single soldier to fight in Ukraine. We seek peace, not a prelude to a Third World War,” he underscored.
Earlier, NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg urged partners to formally allow Kiev to use Western-supplied long-range missile systems to strike deep into Russian territory.
Russian officials repeatedly warned against military supplies to the Kiev regime, stressing that this move only fuels the conflict with no chance of affecting the ultimate course of the special operation.
Moscow’s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stressed that everyone who goes “to the so-called ‘peaceful conference’ in Switzerland” on Ukraine should be well aware of Stoltenberg’s recent words.
Russian parliamentary representative from the Crimea region in turn dubbed Stoltenberg’s words an “obsession with war” and “desire to harm Russia at any cost with no regard to catastrophic consequences for the population of Western nations.”
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 25.05.2024
Western-peddled fears of an alleged potential threat posed to NATO by Moscow have become the norm amid the alliance’s relentless expansion closer to Russia’s borders and hiked up military spending benefiting the military-industrial complex.
NATO is increasingly crying wolf over an archipelago in the Baltic Sea as part of its “Russian threat” propaganda.
The Åland Islands have been dubbed the “Achilles’ heel” of the alliance’s newest member — Finland — Bloomberg reported.
The self-governing, demilitarised Swedish-speaking region of Finland sits at the crossroads of major trade routes worth an estimated $160 billion annually. Key energy and communication infrastructure, undersea electricity and internet cables are located in the area.
But what has NATO stymied is the fact that “Russia is tasked with enforcing an accord that has banned any military presence on its shores for over a century,” the news site pointed out.
Now the Nordic country is a NATO member, warmongering hawks see the archipelago as a huge blind spot, “giving Moscow an open field should it ever decide to invade.”
“If you have all the Åland Islands, you can block maritime traffic both to the Gulf of Bothnia and to the Gulf of Finland… Then we are pretty screwed,” claimed Pekka Toveri, a former major general in Finland’s armed forces.
The Agreement between the-then Soviet Union and Finland on the Åland Islands was signed in 1940 following the end of the Winter War. The Finnish side pledged “to demilitarise the Åland Islands, not to fortify them, and not to put them at the disposal of the armed forces of foreign states.” A Soviet Consulate was established in Åland’s capital, Mariehamn.
According to Toveri, the Russian consulate on the Åland Islands needs to be shut down, and Finnish forces must begin training there.
The member of parliament for the center-right National Coalition Party added that archipelago is more important to Finland than Gotland Island is to Sweden. As with Gotland, control of Åland is perceived as key to military dominance in Baltic waters.
In the summer of 2022, Sweden hosted NATO’s BALTOPS 22 exercises on Gotland Island. After Stockholm joined NATO, abandoning long-standing neutrality, Sweden’s prime minister Ulf Kristersson expressed openness to “reinforcing” Gotland’s defenses, in a nod to NATO plans for the Baltic. Sweden’s plans to create a NATO base on the island of Gotland were slammed as provocative by the Russian Foreign Ministry.
After a recdnt review of the Åland islands’ status, the Finnish government saw no need to make any changes. That stance is backed by recent polls among Åland’s residents.
Bloomberg acknowledged that shredding any international demilitarization agreements would be a time-consuming feat, and is unlikely to happen, “for now.”
Developments around both Gotland and the Åland Islands fit the ongoing “Russia threat” narrative NATO has been pushing — while continuing its eastward expansion.
At the Antalya Diplomacy Forum held in Turkey earlier this year, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took Finland and Sweden to task for abandoning their longstanding neutrality to join NATO.
He said that their decision marked the end of “decades of good neighborliness.” Lavrov also warned that Russia would respond by taking additional measures “appropriate to the threats that could appear on the territory of Finland and Sweden.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin recently scotched those claims, highlighting NATO’s hostile posture towards Moscow.
“They’re trying to intimidate their own population with an imaginary Russian threat. This is an obvious fact,” Putin noted in his interview with Tucker Carlson, adding that “smart people understand perfectly well that this is a fake.”
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 24.05.2024
The Russian military possesses perhaps the most comprehensive, multilayered and multi-domain electronic warfare capabilities in the world, using an array of short, medium, long and ultra-long range systems to effect throughout the course of the proxy war with NATO in Ukraine.
The Russian military continues to ramp up its ability to disrupt the Starlink internet capabilities Ukraine’s troops use to coordinate their forces, collect intel and launch drone attacks on Russian frontline positions, causing mass “outages” in the Kharkov area of the front and playing a role in the rapid pace of Russia’s recent advances.
That’s according to Ukrainian officials, soldiers and electronic warfare specialists queried by the New York Times to find out why Russia’s EW operations had slowed frontline troops’ ability to communicate using Starlink internet to a crawl, forcing troops to resort to simple text messages.
NYT warned that if Russia’s massed efforts to disrupt Starlink “continue to succeed, it could mark a tactical shift in the conflict, highlighting Ukraine’s vulnerability and dependence on the service provided by Mr. Musk’s company,” while raising “broader questions about Starlink’s reliability against a technically sophisticated adversary.”
“We’re losing the electronic warfare fight,” a deputy commander from the Ukrainian 92ndAssault Brigade’s drone battalion told the newspaper. “One day before the attacks, it just shut down. It became super, super slow,” he complained.
A Ukrainian drone operator confirmed the connectivity issues. “During the first hours the front line was very dynamic. The enemy was moving. And we were moving as well. We needed to be to be fast in communicating,” the soldier said, complaining that the loss of Starlink connectivity “made everything more complicated” and “time consuming.”
Starlink, which operates by beaming internet down to portable Earth-based terminals using vast constellations of satellites, has been in Russia’s crosshairs since the early months of the Ukrainian crisis.
Sputnik has detailed the technical minutiae of some of the tools Russia has at its disposal to jam Starlink’s operations in Ukraine without breaking international law – including the use of ground-based radars to detect the operation of and pinpoint the location of Starlink terminals, and jamming signal transmission directly. The Borshchevik is one such system.
Ukrainian Minister of Digital Transformation Mykhailo Fedorov told the NYT that Russia’s latest attacks against Starlink appeared to be using more advanced technology, saying the Russians were “testing different mechanisms to disrupt the quality of Starlink connections because it’s so important for us.”
Fedorov did not elaborate on the nature of these “powerful” Russian EW systems, but said Kiev has maintained constant communication with Starlink to try to resolve the problems.
Experts from NATO countries aren’t entirely certain what’s causing the signal loss – improved and more precise Russian jamming equipment, or a new breed of special electronic warfare weapons mounted on drones to confuse the GPS signals. NYT also didn’t rule out that “solar storms” may be responsible for random outages.
Russia has demonstrated a mounting technological advantage over Ukraine in recent months, blasting through heavily fortified defensive lines in the Donbass – which Ukraine’s military had spent nearly a decade building up with NATO’s help, and advancing rapidly in the Kharkov region to create a “sanitary zone” after repeated Ukrainian attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure, including the border city of Belgorod.
Retired US Army Lieutenant General and former spec ops commander Mike Nagata warned last week that America was “falling behind” its adversaries in electronic warfare despite its best efforts.
“The gap between where the United States should be and where we are, in my judgement, continues to expand not everywhere, but in far too many places,” Nagata said at a Special Operations Forces Week conference in Tampa, Florida.
The former commander’s assessment was echoed by Hudson Institute senior fellow Daniel Patt in recent Congressional testimony. Patt warned in March that Russian EW systems had resulted in a dramatic drop in the effectiveness of some US GPS-guided munitions sent to Ukraine from 70 percent to as low as six percent.
Over the past two years, Russia has fine-tuned its electronic warfare capabilities to jam NATO artillery shells and JDAMs, heavy and long-range strike drones, and missiles. An informed source told Sputnik last October that Russia’s EW troops were preparing equipment to suppress F-16s when they arrive in Ukraine.
Electronic warfare has been a traditional Russian strong suit going back to Soviet days, when doctrines emphasized the “total integration of electronic warfare and physical destruction resources” on the battlefield.
Sputnik – 24.05.2024
It is unlikely that Russia will attack a NATO country and talks about the “Russian threat” are nothing but a maneuver of the West to prepare for a war, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Friday.
“The likelihood that someone — we are not just talking about Russia, but about anyone — today will decide to attack a NATO country is extremely small. NATO is a defensive alliance and will not tolerate military actions that violate the sovereignty of any NATO country … Therefore, I interpret these references to the ‘Russian threat’ rather as maneuvers by the West and Europe to prepare for entry into war,” Orban told the Kossuth radio broadcaster.
Statements by Western politicians and media reports indicate that Europe is preparing for a war with Russia, the prime minister added.
“Before the two world wars, the media spent quite a long time preparing for entry into the war. I think that what is happening today in Brussels and Washington, but rather in Brussels than in Washington, is a kind of preparation of sentiment for a possible direct conflict. We can calmly say that preparations are underway for Europe to enter the war, this is happening in the media and in the statements of politicians,” Orban said.
Sputnik – 23.05.2024
CHISINAU – Half of Modova’s residents consider the government’s policy toward the autonomous region of Gagauzia wrong, while more than half do not trust NATO, Moldovan social research company IMAS found in a fresh survey published on Wednesday.
Asked what they thought of the policy of the ruling Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS) toward Gagauzia, 50% or respondents said it was wrong, 29% said it was right and 21% said they could not answer the question.
Respondents were also asked to evaluate their level of trust in various international institutions, including the World Health Organization, NATO, the European Parliament, the European Union, World Bank, the UN and others. Speaking of NATO, 18% said they had “little” trust, 42% said they had “no to very little” trust, 21% said they trusted the military alliance and only 9% said they trusted it a lot. Additionally, 2% of Moldovans said they they’d never heard of NATO and 8% said they could not give an answer.
The poll was conducted among 1,088 people from May 2-19 with a maximum margin of error of 3%. Its results were broadcast live on the Realitatea website.
Gagauzia, where most people speak Russian as well as Gagauz, a Turkic language, declared independence from Soviet Moldova in 1990 but was integrated into the newly-established Republic of Moldova in 1994. The Gagauz people are Orthodox Christians of Turkic origin. Gagauzia has traditionally favored rapprochement with Russia, while Chisinau has set a course toward European integration.
According to the country’s constitution, Moldova has neutral status, but from 1994 it has been cooperating with NATO, and with the accession to power of PAS, which is informally led by President Maia Sandu, military exercises involving the US, the UK, German and Romanian military have become more frequent. Sandu has told local media that Moldova should continue discussing rapprochement with NATO, as this allegedly helps strengthen the country’s defense capabilities.
By Sergey Poletaev | RT | May 22, 2024
In our last article, we analyzed Kiev’s military prospects in light of its new mobilization law. Here we consider the West’s options in the proxy war it’s using the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) to fight.
Western officials have been talking about sending troops to Ukraine since the beginning of the year. French President Emmanuel Macron said that he is ready to consider “any scenario,” including a ground operation. Government officials in Estonia and Lithuania (including Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte) were quick to support him. And the Leader of the House Democratic Caucus Hakeem Jeffries became the first US politician who didn’t exclude the possibility of sending troops.
Formally, Ukraine hasn’t requested Western troops – Kiev has only demanded more weapons. But now, the New York Times reports that Kiev has officially asked the US and NATO to send military instructors to train 150,000 recruits on its territory, closer to the front line. Though the US has refused to comply with the request, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Charles Q. Brown Jr, has said that a NATO deployment of trainers appears inevitable, and that “we’ll get there eventually, over time.”
The subject of sending troops to Ukraine comes up quite often but, so far, Western countries have steered clear. Why? Is a full-fledged NATO intervention in Ukraine possible and what would happen if it took place? And how else might the West turn the course of the conflict in its favor?
A larger-than-life bet
Western doctrine in regard to Russia was defined even before the start of the full-scale conflict: the idea was to fight Russia “with the hands of” Ukraine and on Ukrainian territory. The goal was to force Russia to play by Western rules (ideally, by defeating it on the battlefield) and reassert the US-led bloc’s shaky global hegemony. But, at the same time, officials wanted to minimize their own risks and avoid being drawn into a direct military confrontation that could result in a nuclear war.
The second staple of this doctrine – a total trade war – has not yielded the desired results. In 2022, it became clear that the West overestimated the degree of its control not only over the international financial system, but even over its own financial flows. Despite certain losses and additional costs, Russia has been able to replace old trade ties with new ones and to do so with a minimal loss of revenue. The severe sanctions imposed by the West on its own companies turned out to be quite useless, since for the most part Russia continues to receive the latest Western products and technologies.
As for the idea of defeating Russia on the battlefield, the turning point occurred in the summer of 2023. After the failure of Ukraine’s counteroffensive, it became clear that the AFU would not be able to impose peace on its own terms. The problem is that in the conflict with Russia, the West has gone ‘all in’ and any military outcome that could be regarded as beneficial for Moscow – even negotiations on an equal footing – would now be regarded as a defeat. The whole world would realize that they can stand up to the hegemon and not just avoid becoming an outcast, but even gain some benefits. The West cannot allow this, since it could cause a chain reaction on a global scale.
Two options
By the beginning of 2024, Western countries faced a dilemma: In the current proxy war it was clear that they were losing and Ukraine was getting weaker, while Russia was growing stronger. Western leaders realized that the situation will continue to get worse until the middle or end of 2025 – by which time their own military production should gain momentum and Moscow may begin to experience a shortage of volunteers at the front. In other words, the worst-case scenario meant that Russia would be able to conduct at least three more successful military campaigns (summer and winter ‘24, and summer ‘25) with superior military forces.
The logic of the conflict is pushing the West towards the choice that we wrote about back in May 2022 – either intervening directly and fighting Russia on its own, or starting serious negotiations with Russia on the topic of Ukraine’s NATO membership and, more broadly, security in Eastern Europe.
Paradoxically, though, the West has chosen a third option: doing nothing. And it’s not just because of inertia, but also down to the weakening position of globalist elites, who have many unsuccessful ‘crusades for democracy’ behind them, from Vietnam to Afghanistan.
As of now, the AFU is growing weaker, the scale of the hostilities is growing, and the chances of the West directly entering the war, with potentially catastrophic consequences, are increasing every day. In the fall of 2022, before the limited mobilization in Russia, 10-15 NATO brigades could have turned Ukraine’s notable but rather meaningless victories near Kharkov and Kherson into a strategic success – for example, they could’ve ensured a breakthrough to the Azov Sea and a subsequent blockade of Crimea – but now it would take a lot more effort to simply support the front.
Fooling the system
The reason for the West’s indecisiveness is clear: it fears an escalation of the conflict. Russia is the world’s largest nuclear power and President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that he will not tolerate a widespread NATO intervention, which will result in a nuclear war.
Moscow’s warnings have challenged Western countries, headed by the US, to find ways “to intervene without intervening” and to enable Ukraine to win (or at least save face) without directly defeating Russia. In short, Western countries are forced to walk the thin line between defeat and nuclear war, without a clear end goal in sight.
After the failure to cut open a land corridor to Crimea, the West has not been able to find an alternative military strategy. Moreover, it has no idea how to get out of the war of attrition which, even in the case of a positional deadlock and a ‘static’ front, will result in Ukraine’s defeat, since an opponent that is many times weaker (Ukraine’s current population is at least five times less than that of Russia) will inevitably lose. We see plenty of such examples in history.
In this situation, the only thing that Western strategists have managed to come up with is to continue supporting the AFU and “increase costs” for Russia in the hope that Putin will get tired of fighting. Of course, no one in the West takes Ukraine’s suffering into account. It takes for granted the fact that Ukrainians will continue to die en masse just so that the West can save face. Neither do they care about Ukraine’s demographic and social collapse (unprecedented in post-WWII Europe) or the destruction of its infrastructure, which will prevent not only a normal economy but even normal life in these territories for many decades. Such issues are simply ignored or considered collateral damage.
The West may not explicitly state its strategy in regard to Russia, but it is clearly expressed in various publications and statements: the goal is to support the AFU at the front and at the same time move the conflict deeper into Russian territory in the hope that Putin will beg for mercy before Ukraine collapses.
It is unlikely that Western leaders still hope to see a victory for Kiev on the battlefield. The more likely goal now is either the “Korean scenario” where no one wins and Ukraine is kept as Russia’s opponent, or the “Palestinian scenario,” ie, eternal war on Ukraine’s former territory. What is clear is that the West will do anything it can to avoid holding serious negotiations with Russia.
War of the cities
Despite the growing escalation and the West’s increasing involvement in the conflict, one red line still exists: Ukraine is not allowed to hit Russia’s”old” territories – ie, those territories which the West recognizes as part of Russia – with Western missiles.
However, the ways in which Ukraine (with the West’s approval) circumvents this ban resemble the methods of an ingenious lawyer who finds the most unexpected loopholes in laws. For example, if “territory” is interpreted as “land” then air targets are not considered “territory” and Ukraine may hit air targets in internationally recognized Russian airspace; if a long-range drone has Western components and Western targeting, but was assembled in Ukraine, this also doesn’t count; and if Western weapons are used under a false flag (for example, by the Ukraine-based paramilitary group Russian Volunteer Corps) – this is fine, too. Of course, there are many such examples.
Why so? It is unknown whether any clear agreements regarding this issue exist but, in any case, Moscow has clearly stated that any obvious attacks on its “old” territories will allow Russia to retaliate and hit Western cities directly – not through proxies.
In military terms, the AFU will hardly benefit from such an escalation. Firstly, by resorting to such strikes, the Ukrainian army won’t change the strategic situation at the front, just as bombing Russia’s “new territories” and Crimea with all sorts of weapons hasn’t helped.
Secondly, the supply of Western missiles is not enough to overload Russian missile defense systems and achieve real military goals. Even though occasional missiles hit its territory, Moscow has adapted to the situation, takes measures to prevent future attacks, and carries out retaliatory strikes.
In other words, by striking Russian cities, (an unheard-of idea even in the most intense years of the Cold War), the West will not achieve anything but will only face increased risks and an escalation which it wishes to avoid.
However, it is possible that the desperate situation at the front and the need for some kind of propaganda success will sooner or later force the West to take such a step – and perhaps this may happen very soon. So far, this seems to be the most likely scenario that may lead to an escalation of the conflict beyond the zone of the Ukrainian “sandbox.”
Boots on the ground
And what about sending troops to Ukraine – will the West actually do it? This is unlikely. As pointed out already, in the past two years the scale of the conflict has changed and, in order to achieve success, NATO would now need to send dozens of brigades to Ukraine (at least 100,000-150,000 people), several hundred aircraft, and launch huge cruise missile attacks (hundreds of volleys per day).
Finally, even though such efforts might stabilize the situation at the front and save the AFU (supposing that the Kremlin does not declare a greater or even full mobilization in response), it would not guarantee Russia’s defeat but would only bring nuclear war closer.
In a direct intervention, NATO ground forces (just like Ukrainian ones today) will eventually face a shortage of ammunition and, in the air, NATO forces will suffer damage from Russian missile defense systems and will be exposed to attacks (currently, NATO reconnaissance operates over the Black Sea without any obstacles). Moreover, conflict with China also looms on the horizon and, if NATO empties its arsenals in Ukraine, China may either watch the situation unfold or offer Russia direct assistance.
As a result, NATO countries would find themselves in a positional conflict with heavy losses and unclear goals. Eventually, though, this may help to resolve the contradictions between Russia and the West, since, like a stubborn child, the US-led bloc may feel it has to try all means of resistance before giving in.
Another option for the West would be to move troops to Ukraine “symbolically”– for example, to send one or two brigades that would serve as instructors for AFU recruits (though it must be said that, two years into the war, the veterans on both sides of the front line are the ones who should teach the rest of the world, including NATO, how to fight), or just maintain aircraft.
Of course, it goes without saying that any third-country troops stationed in Ukraine will become a military target for Russia.
***
In conclusion, we may say that the Western doctrine – ie, the combination of a total trade war and a proxy war – has failed to bring about victory and has put its “client” (Ukraine) at risk of a major defeat. The West is still afraid to get directly involved in the conflict, even when it comes to striking “old” Russian territories or operating missile defense systems under its own flag, not to mention directly sending troops.
At the same time, the West avoids serious negotiations with Russia and prefers to go with the flow, consoling itself with the idea that Russia will eventually get burned by growing costs and retreat.
Meanwhile, Moscow is adapting to the situation, rebuilding its economy, trade relations, and society in order to live and successfully develop in the reality of a long conflict. The West’s strategy (or rather, the absence of such) has been clearly unsuccessful – especially considering the current level of involvement in the conflict, Ukraine may exhaust its forces long before Russia experiences any major inconvenience at the front.
Sergey Poletaev is an information analyst and publicist, co-founder and editor of the Vatfor project.
RT | May 17, 2024
US policies are directly responsible for the Ukraine crisis, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said on Friday, reacting to the latest accusations from Washington of Beijing’s supposed complicity in the conflict.
On Thursday, US State Department spokesman Vedant Patel claimed that China can’t enjoy strong relations with Europe and the collective West while “continuing to fuel the biggest threat to European security” by “fueling Russia’s defense-industrial base.”
In turn, Wang urged the US to “stop shifting the blame on China [and] not try to drive a wedge between China and Europe.”
“This is a reflection of the Cold War mentality that still dominates US thinking, which bears unshirkable responsibility for the eruption and escalation of the Ukraine crisis,” he stated. The spokesman argued that Washington is clearly “looking for enemies instead of seeking peace” in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
He further urged US authorities to stop “fueling the flame” with unfounded accusations and instead “start making real contribution to finding a political solution” to the crisis.
“China is not the creator of or a party to the Ukraine Crisis. We have been on the side of peace and dialogue and committed to promoting peace talks. We actively support putting in place a balanced, effective and sustainable European security architecture,” Wang stated.
Beijing has maintained a policy of neutrality on the Ukraine conflict and has rejected Western pressure to place sanctions on Russia, instead continuing to bolster economic ties with Moscow and expanding mutual trade. Consequently, Washington and its NATO allies have accused China of fueling Russia’s military effort by supporting its weapons manufacturing through the sale of dual-use components. The US has repeatedly threatened to place more sanctions on China if it does not stop these exports.
China staunchly denies the allegations, with officials repeatedly stating that the country is not selling weapons to either Russia or Ukraine. In an earlier statement, Wang accused the US of hypocrisy for providing billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine while “unreasonably” criticizing the “normal” trade and economic relations between Russia and China.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is currently on an official visit in China, where he has met with President Xi Jinping. In a joint statement on Thursday, the two leaders expressed firm commitment to continue bolstering ties between their respective countries. They also reiterated their stance on the Ukraine conflict, stating that it “must be resolved by political means.”
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 