What caused the US to fall?
By Vladimir Mashin – New Eastern Outlook – 22.03.2024
Europeans and Americans alike are tired of the war in Ukraine. Clear-headed people in the West realise that Russia cannot be defeated: the bravura statements of some officials can hardly hide the obvious truth that the Kiev regime is doomed. More and more observers are coming to the conclusion that the American elite is waging war to “fend off the challenge to its own hegemony”.
In these circumstances, the new book “Defeat of the West” by Emmanuel Todd, a well-known French political scientist and anthropologist, is attracting a lot of attention in the West. According to the historian, the West made a fatal miscalculation when it decided to expand NATO under Presidents B. Clinton and G. Bush: the American elite was drugged by the ideology of “democracy promotion and official demonisation of Russia”. The American ruling elites not only endangered the whole world, but also created great dangers for America’s existence as a single state.
By imposing unprecedented sanctions on Moscow, the United States overestimated its capabilities and failed to rally the major states of the global South to its side. Moreover, the manufacturing base of the United States and its European allies has proved insufficient to supply Ukraine with the equipment (especially artillery) needed to stabilise, let alone win, the war. The United States no longer has the means to fulfil its foreign policy promises.
The United States makes fewer cars than it did in the 1980s and grows less wheat.
But the most important factor explaining today’s problems is the moral and cultural decline of the West – according to Todd, “Too many people want to run things and boss them around. They want to be politicians, artists, managers. And that doesn’t always require learning intellectually challenging things: ultimately, educational progress has led to educational decline because it has led to the disappearance of the values that favour education”.
The US produces fewer engineers than Russia, not only per capita, but also in absolute numbers: the country is experiencing an “internal brain drain” as its young people move from demanding, high-skill, high-value-added professions to law, finance and various occupations that betray the value of the economy and, in some cases, may even destroy it.
According to Todd, the West’s decision to outsource its industrial base is more than bad policy; it is evidence of a project to exploit the rest of the world.
Nor have the Americans succeeded in spreading the federal values they proclaim to be universal. As the United States has modernised, it has come to espouse a model of sex and gender that does not fit well with the models of traditional cultures such as Indian, Islamic and Russian.
Todd believes that many of these values are “deeply negative”. The West does not value the lives of its young. (In 1976, Todd used infant mortality statistics to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union).
Today, Biden’s America has a higher infant mortality rate (5.4 per 1,000) than today’s Russia, and three times that of Japan.
Todd is struck by the inability of the Western elite to distinguish facts from wishes. Newspapers constantly report that President Putin is a threat to the Western order, but the greater threat to the Western order is the arrogance of those who run it.
According to the historian, it sometimes seems that in the United States there are no national principles, only partisan ones, and “each side is convinced that the other is trying not just to run the government but to take over the state”.
Similar assessments can often be heard in the American press. For example, in a commentary on Biden’s speech to the US Congress on 7 March, the well-known columnist Robin Givhan said: “The real audience is not in the parliament, but in the cheap seats outside: in cities where homeless encampments and busloads of desperate migrants are at once enraging and heartbreaking; in towns where fear and confusion drive people to try to rewrite history or hide it from future generations; and in picturesque communities where people want to hold back change because the unknown future seems far more frightening than the sclerotic present. The American people are confused. After all, they elected this dysfunctional Congress.
Ukraine Brought Upon Itself Russia’s Retaliatory Strikes & ‘More Will Follow’
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 22.03.2024
Russia carried out strikes that paralyzed Ukraine’s power grid, targeted decision-making centers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, logistics bases, railway junctions and ammunition depots, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced on Friday. The MoD added that the attacks left Ukraine’s military production and repair facilities in disarray.
The Kiev regime brought upon itself Russia’s massive retaliatory strikes disrupting Ukraine’s energy facilities, the functioning of military-industrial enterprises.
Evgeny Mikhailov, political scientist, director of the Center for Strategic Studies of the South Caucasus, told Sputnik that “They forced us to take such serious preventive measures,” stressing that “this is not the last such strike, and more will follow.”
Two explosions were heard in the morning at the Dnepr Hydroelectric Power Plant in the Ukrainian-controlled city of Zaporozhye, Vladimir Rogov, head of the regional public movement “We Are Together with Russia,” told Sputnik.
Russia has carried out massive drone and rocket attacks targeting electrical power facilities across much of Ukraine.
The country’s Dnepr Hydroelectric Power Plant was knocked out of action due to significant damage after being hit eight times, Ukrainian prosecutor’s office said. The overnight strikes were “the largest attack on the Ukrainian energy sector in recent times.”
Between March 16 and 22, Russia carried out “49 retaliatory strikes using high-precision long-range air-launched weapons, including Kinzhal aeroballistic hypersonic missiles, other missile systems and unmanned aerial vehicles,” the Russian Ministry of Defense in a statement on Friday. Strikes on Ukraine’s energy facilities, military-industrial complex, railway junctions and ammunition depots were in response to the shelling of Russian territory, and “attempts to break through and seize Russian border settlements.”
“It is already clear now that after Dnepr Hydroelectric Power Plant was targeted, Kharkov is virtually without electricity, internet traffic has sharply decreased throughout Ukraine, internet communications have suffered, and there are power outages in many cities,” Mikhailov noted.
“Everything is interconnected. Dnepr Hydroelectric Power Plant is the most important facility in the energy structure of Ukraine,” the pundit added. “Our strike effectively put out of operation manufacturers of weapons and other goods necessary to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the fight against the Russian military. And, of course, this is a big blow to the combat effectiveness of the Ukrainian army in principle.”
Russia has demonstrated that it is capable of inflicting hefty blows on Ukraine’s infrastructure that cause significant losses and damage, said the expert.
“This was actually a response to the attack on our infrastructure facilities in the interior of the country, oil refineries, and shelling of peaceful cities,” Mikhailov explained. “The Ukrainian Armed Forces have crossed all ‘red lines,’ especially in recent months. Accordingly, nothing limits Russia from striking Kiev’s critical infrastructure facilities.”
The Russian strikes are part of the overall logical strategy of the national Armed Forces, agreed veteran Russian military expert Ivan Konovalov. The attacks are of a ‘combined’ nature, he noted: Russian forces are acting on the front line and targeting Ukraine’s energy systems deep in the rear.
“Strikes on the energy system and critical infrastructure always immediately affect the situation at the front,” Konovalov said.
The Ukrainian military-industrial complex has long ceased to exist, Konovalov noted, as it “was destroyed long before the start of Russia’s special military operation, when Kiev broke off cooperation ties with Russia in the field of military-technical cooperation.”
He stressed that any military-industrial enterprise on the territory of Ukraine is a legitimate target for Russia’s Armed Forces. And since some of Kiev’s Western patrons floated ideas of building weapons factories on Ukrainian soil, these strikes carried out by Russia could be seen as “a warning” that “they will all come under attack.”
“These blows will affect three main factors: the economy of Ukraine, the situation at the front, and the overall terrorist policy of Kiev,” Konovalov said.
Russia’s strikes came after a series of attempts by Ukrainian forces to break into the Russian border regions of Belgorod and Kursk were repulsed “thanks to the coordinated actions of the forces guarding the state border of the Russian Federation,” the Defense Ministry said.
A spate of Ukrainian drone attacks also targeted Russian oil refineries. Those acts triggered a flurry of concerns in Washington, Mikhailov believes, where they see that “Russia’s hands are no longer tied.”
France ‘Prepares for War’ and Threatens European Security Architecture
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 22, 2024
France continues to take steps towards militarization and escalating tensions with Russia. Amid discussions about whether or not to send French troops to Ukrainian territory, officials in Paris have made controversial statements about a supposed “preparation for war”, leading many analysts to believe that relations between France and Russia are close to a point-of-no-return — which could obviously have catastrophic consequences for the European continent and the entire world.
In a recent statement, Pierre Schill, commander of the French Army, stated that his troops are in combat readiness, capable of engaging in war at any time — if necessary. He believes that today’s France is severely threatened. In this sense, the country must be prepared to go to war against states that pose a danger to Paris.
At the same time, the government’s official speech continues to become increasingly aggressive towards the Russian Federation. French President Emmanuel Macron has advanced plans to increase his country’s interventionism in the Ukrainian conflict — and continues to refuse to rule out the hypothesis of direct intervention by French troops on the battlefield. In practice, France is simply advancing a plan that would certainly lead to direct war against Russia, which obviously means a high-risk global situation considering France’s NATO membership.
More than that, Russian intelligence recently discovered that around two thousand French soldiers are mobilized to be sent to Ukraine at any time. They are believed to be deployed in critical regions such as Odessa and the northern border, where the West fears the Russians will consolidate positions. Although it denies the information set out in the Russian report, the French government remains publicly willing to, “if necessary”, send troops to Ukraine, which is why tensions remain high.
Interestingly, the head of Ukrainian diplomacy, Dmitry Kuleba, stated that Russia misunderstood French plans. According to him, Macron ’s real intention is not to enter directly into the conflict, but only, “if necessary”, to allocate French instructors on Ukrainian soil so that they can train Kiev’s troops on the ground. In a scenario of military escalation and with logistical difficulties for Ukraine, some believe that this would be the best way to continue the current cooperation projects and training of Kiev’s forces by the West.
However, it is necessary to remember that at no point did Macron suggest that he was actually planning a mere sending of instructors. In his statements, the president actually said that he did not rule out the possibility of direct intervention in the war, making it clear that Paris could send troops to fight on the Ukrainian front line in the future. Furthermore, even if Macron said this incorrectly and his intention is only to send military trainers, this does not change the fact that Paris would, in practice, be going to war against Russia.
Western troops on Ukrainian soil are and will always be legitimate targets for Russian military forces. More than that, they are priority targets, as Moscow understands that these adversaries are the true strategists behind Ukrainian crimes. Several Western troops have already died in Ukraine — some of them acting as mercenaries, others as instructors or decision-makers. However, so far there is no official presence of these troops, which somehow still keeps tensions reasonably controlled.
From the moment a NATO country starts sending regular soldiers to Ukraine, even for mere instructional purposes, the crisis will escalate to an extremely serious, possibly irreversible, level. The official presence of Western troops in Ukraine would be a point of no return in ties between NATO and Russia, leading to an open WWIII — the consequences of which could be catastrophic.
There is also the risk that France and Europeans will simply be “abandoned” in this process. So far, the US, which is the leading country in NATO, has not shown any interest in direct intervention. For Washington, the most profitable scenario is the involvement of proxy agents in attritional conflicts that “wear down” Russia, without openly involving American troops. In this sense, it is very likely that, if France engages in an open war with Russia, there will be no direct American support for Paris and its European allies — after all, NATO’s collective defense obligations are not applicable when an alliance country begins hostilities against another state.
Indeed, Macron is acting in a totally risky and irresponsible way. In his selfish attempt to gain “leadership” among Europeans, the French president is leading the entire continent into an unprecedented security crisis.
Why Slovak Wildcard Robert Fico Could Bring EU House of Cards Crashing Down
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 21.03.2024
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has found himself in the crosshairs of Eurocrats worried that he may become the next Viktor Orban -a thorn in Brussels’ backside rejecting EU directives on everything from Ukraine to criminal justice reform. Sputnik asked Slovak politician Peter Marcek what it is about Fico that’s so unnerving to the establishment.
Slovaks will go to the polls Saturday for the first round of a highly anticipated presidential election, six months after a snap parliamentary vote in September saw veteran Direction – Social Democracy leader Robert Fico’s return to the prime minister’s chair.
While Slovakia’s presidency carries a largely symbolic function, the president does have the power to appoint key figures, including the prosecutor general, and can help the government in times of crisis, making the post an important one.
The latest polling shows Peter Pellegrini, a Fico ally from the offshoot Voice – Social Democracy party, and independent former ambassador to the United States Ivan Korcok running neck and neck with between 34 and 38 percent support each, guaranteeing a runoff between them in the second round of voting April 6.
Thelooming vote has spawned a spate of articles in European legacy media bashing Fico and his party, attacking him as a left wing populist analogue of Hungarian right wing populist Viktor Orban and the Fidesz party, and fearmongering about Slovak “democracy’s future,” Pellegrini’s supposed “Russia tilt,” and Bratislava’s alleged “democratic backsliding.”
All these reports have one thing in common: dread at the prospect that Fico and his allies will pursue an independent foreign and domestic policy which threatens the interests of Brussels and the United States.
Headache for Brussels
From Ukraine arms aid (which Fico halted last October) to Kiev’s NATO membership bid (which he has promised to block), to Bratislava’s defense pact with Washington (whose terms Fico has expressed dissatisfaction with) to the launch of an independent inquiry into the EU’s authoritarian pandemic policy, to criminal code reforms slammed by Brussels, Fico has already proven a major “headache” for the West. And that’s just for openers.
“Robert Fico has been in office for only four months, but he has begun to implement the right policies. He has begun to pursue policies for his people, for his country,” Peter Marcek, a former Slovak lawmaker, businessman and the chairman of the Slavic Unity party, told Sputnik.
“He refused to support Ukraine, stopped the supply of weapons to Ukraine, agreeing only to humanitarian assistance and saying that Slovakia would only provide such aid. Fico also doesn’t agree with many of the economic laws adopted by the European Union – which are adopted to benefit the EU itself, rather than its members,” the politician said.
Fico has already managed to get into trouble with the bloc in the course of his short time in office, Marcek said, pointing to Brussels’ threats to cancel the transfer of €1 billion in funds to Bratislava over the prime minister’s legal reform agenda. “They must give this money to Slovakia because it belongs to us. If they don’t… they will make people even more against the European Union. Fico has said that if they behave like this, the result can be only one thing – that Slovakia will exit the European Union, because economically our standard of living is getting worse and worse.”
“When sanctions were introduced against Russia, it did not kill the Russian economy, maybe only creating problems at the very start, but Russia was able to find other markets. We bought oil and gas from Russia at reasonable prices, now we pay the Americans four times more. Our standard of living has dropped significantly,” Marcek explained.
“If the European Union continues its current policy, we will soon leave it. Things simply cannot continue like this, and I think everyone sees it. For example, we have to pay €22,000 for each migrant that we did not accept into our country. What if they tell us that our quota for migrants is 300,000 people? Do the math: that’s 300,000 x €22,000. Instead of allocating this money to pensioners, children, families, will we give it to migrants? Why should we accept immigrants from Africa when we were never colonizers?” the politician asked.
Brussels’ self-serving policies have people from across the EU up in arms, Marcek said, pointing to the rising popularity of both right and left populist, Eurosceptic forces across Europe, and the “major farmer protests” in Austria, France, Germany and even Spain.
Amid the chaos, the EU will have to change its policy, “or the EU will collapse.” It’s as simple as that, the observer believes.
Marcek expects elections to the European Parliament in June to bring a new crop of leaders who seek greater national autonomy against EU institutions which don’t benefit their countries.
As for Slovakia’s upcoming presidential vote, Marceck says Pellegrini will be likely to defeat “pro-American Korcok,” and replace the current president, Zuzana Caputova, who “has created many problems for the government” and prevented its normal functioning. “She is a president that was installed by the US embassy,” the politician summed up.
Ukraine Talks Haven’t Started Because of US Threats to Zelensky, Seymour Hersh Says
Sputnik – 22.03.2024
Negotiations on resolving the conflict in Ukraine could have started months ago, but US authorities threatened Vladimir Zelensky with withdrawal of non-military funding, US journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh said in an article on Substack.
“We were on the verge of a reasonable negotiation several months ago before Putin’s re-election and Zelensky’s military degradation. The US leaders got wind of the possibility and gave Zelensky the ultimatum-‘No negotiations or settlement or we won’t support your government with the $45 billion in non-military funds [that Ukraine is now receiving annually],'” the source told the journalist.
According to Hersh’s information, US intelligence community recognises that “Ukraine has little chance of winning…”
Hersh’s interlocutor also added that US President Joe Biden has staked on confronting the “Russian threat to NATO” and will not change his course under any circumstances, while the end is inevitable.
“There is no road to victory for Ukraine, and it will end with Putin as an historical icon in Russia…,” the source concluded.
In autumn 2022, Zelensky signed a decree according to which his country will not negotiate with Russia as long as it is led by Vladimir Putin. Russia, for its part, has repeatedly noted its readiness to discuss the settlement of the conflict through diplomatic means.
As Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov emphasised, the Russia does not see any prerequisites for a peaceful transition of the situation, and sovereignty over the new Russian regions and Crimea is not up for discussion.
Western media ‘coverage’ of Russia is incredibly dangerous, and it’s getting worse
By Glenn Diesen | RT | March 20, 2024
Western media coverage of every Russian election is bad. But this time it was even worse than usual.
Instead of lashing out at the incompetence on display, it’s more constructive to explore why rational discussions about the country continue to appear impossible.
Not to mention the dire consequences of the ongoing self-delusion.
Reason versus conformity to the group
One of the first things we learn in sociology is that humans are in a constant battle between instincts and reason. Over tens of thousands of years, we have developed the instinct to organise in groups as a source of security. This is the result of evolutionary biology as survival demands that we organise into “us” versus “them”. In-group loyalty is augmented by assigning contrasting identities of the virtuous “us” versus the evil “other”, which helps stop an individual from straying too far from the pack.
Yet, human beings are also equipped with reason and thus the ability to assess objective reality independent of their immediate circle. In international relations, it’s imperative to place yourself in the shoes of the opponent. The rationality required to see the world through the perspective of the “other” is vital for reaching mutual understanding, reducing tensions, and pursuing a workable peace.
Every successful peace process and reconciliation in history – from Northern Ireland to negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa – has been based on this.
We expect journalists to be objective in their reporting of reality, which is especially important during war. But this seems to be almost impossible, especially during conflicts. When human beings experience external threats, their herd instincts are triggered as society demands group loyalty and we punish those who deviate. The political obedience demanded during war time usually results in the weakening of freedom of speech, the role of journalism, and democracy.
Why did Russians vote for Putin?
So, how can we understand the reasons for President Vladimir Putin’s immense popularity in Russia and his landslide victory?
If we use our reason and resist our tribal instincts, it should not be difficult to understand the popularity of Putin. While the 1990s was a golden period for the West, it was a nightmare for Russians. The economy collapsed and society disintegrated with truly horrific consequences.
The country’s security also collapsed, as NATO expansion meant there was no chance to agree an inclusive European security architecture. This had been outlined in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe in 1990 and the OSCE founding documents.
A weakened Russia meant that its interests could be ignored, and NATO was able to invade Moscow’s ally Yugoslavia, in violation of international law.
When Putin took over the presidency on 31 December 1999, it was commonplace in the West to predict that Russia would share the fate of the Soviet Union. That is eventual collapse.
However, Russia has instead become the largest economy in Europe (by PPP), its society has healed from the disastrous 1990s, its military might has been restored, and new international partners have been found in the East and Global South, as evidenced by the growing role of BRICS.
Furthermore, most Russians believe it’s not a good idea to have major disruptions to leadership in the middle of a NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine that is deemed an existential threat. Don’t change horses in midstream as the American proverb, often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, advises.
Speaking of the US, the late Mikhail Gorbachev – who was immensely popular there – did not shy away from criticising Putin, when he was still with us. However, he nevertheless argued that Putin “saved Russia from the beginning of a collapse”.
Today, any Western journalist repeating this would be immediately branded as a “Putinist” – implying a betrayal of the “us”. Western journalists cannot acknowledge the immense achievements of Russia since 1999 as it could be interpreted as lending legitimacy and signalling support for the “bad” side.
The price of self-delusion
Arguments are not judged by the extent they reflect an objective reality, rather they are assessed by how they are seen to express support or condemnation of Russia. Conformity to a narrative signals in-group loyalty, and the desire to deprive opponents of legitimacy limits what is allowed to be discussed.
Acknowledging Putin’s achievements over the past 25 years is treated as expressing support for him, which is tantamount to treason.
Meanwhile, journalists hardly ever discuss Moscow’s security concerns and the extent to which our competing interests can be harmonised. Instead, Russian policies are conveyed by referring to derogatory descriptions of Putin’s character.
As in our other wars, conflicts are explained by the presence of a bad man and if we could just make him go away, then the natural order of peace would be restored. Putin, the narrative contends, is our most recent reincarnation of Hitler and we constantly live in the 1940s where an adversary must be defeated and not appeased.
How can journalists then explain to their audience Putin’s popularity and the reasons for his huge personal vote when it is not allowed to say anything positive about the Russian president? Unable to live in reality and unable to place ourselves in the shoes of the opponent – how are we supposed to have sensible analysis and policies? As I always warned my students of international relations: Do not hate your rivals, it produces poor and dangerous analysis!
Making self-delusion virtuous comes at a high price. How can the West pursue diplomacy and work with Putin when he is presented as the embodiment of evil and an illegitimate leader? Even explaining Russian policies is condemned as legitimising Russian policies, which is deemed to be propaganda that must not be given a platform. People conform to the good versus evil mantra as it feels virtuous and patriotic to signal that they support the in-group and loathe the out-group. But how can we pursue our interests when we have committed ourselves to self-delusion and have banned reality from our analysis?
I have attempted to explain for two years why the anti-Russian sanctions were doomed to fail and why Russia will win the war, only to be told that it is Russian propaganda to undermine support for sanctions and to challenge the narrative of a pending Ukrainian victory. Reality be damned! Ignoring reality results in a distorted picture of Russia which predictably leads to miscalculations. How could Russia as a “gas station masquerading as a country” defeat the most draconian Western sanctions and see its economy not only survive, but by some measures even thrive? Why would Russians unite under an existential threat when we cannot acknowledge the role played by NATO in that regard?
Sigmund Freud explored the extent to which instinctive group psychology could diminish the rationality of the individual. Freud’s ideas were further developed by his nephew, Edward Bernays, who became the father of modern political propaganda. Over a century ago, Walter Lippman cautioned group psychology, managed with propaganda, as it came with a heavy price. Yielding to the instinct of viewing conflict as a struggle between the virtuous “us” versus the evil “other” implies that peace requires defeating the adversary, while a workable solution becomes tantamount to appeasement.
What better explains the current failure of rational analysis and the resulting collapse of diplomacy?
Glenn Diesen is a Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal.
NATO troops active in Ukraine – El Pais
RT | March 19, 2024
Active and former military personnel from NATO states have long been operating in Ukraine, overseeing Kiev’s use of Western-supplied weapons, El Pais reported on Monday.
The US-led military bloc has been involved “in virtually every possible aspect” of the hostilities aside from active combat operations, the Spanish newspaper claimed. That includes supplying weapons, providing targeting information, and training Ukrainian soldiers inside the country, El Pais reported, citing interviews conducted throughout the conflict.
Retired foreign military service members who have joined the Ukrainian armed forces as “volunteers” are also serving as de facto agents for their home nations, El Pais said. They provide “knowledge about the situation on the front, to identify the effectiveness of the weapons supplied and possible problems in their use, as well as to detect possible cases of corruption concerning the aid provided,” the outlet claimed.
The presence of current and former NATO troops has been tacitly admitted by officials, the Spanish newspaper reported. It described recent suggestions by French President Emmanuel Macron that Western nations could send soldiers to Ukraine as “taboo-breaking,” in the sense of proposing active combat roles for Western military personnel.
While a handful of Western leaders have backed Macron’s position that deployments to aid Kiev in the conflict with Russia cannot be ruled out, numerous officials – including NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg – have dismissed the idea.
Moscow perceives the Ukraine conflict as a US-led proxy war against Russia, in which Ukrainians serve as ‘cannon fodder’ for Western interests. It considers foreigners fighting for Kiev as “mercenaries” who are doing the bidding of Western governments.
“We hear both French and English speech there [in the Ukraine conflict]. There is nothing good in this, first of all for them, because they die there and in large numbers,” President Vladimir Putin said last week, commenting on Macron’s remarks on potential Western troop deployments.
Senior Russian officials have suggested that more complex weapon systems provided to Kiev are highly likely operated by NATO staff, as there was not sufficient time to train Ukrainians on how to handle them.
Last month, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz revealed the involvement of British and French forces in preparing Ukrainian missile launches, as he explained why Berlin would not supply similar weapons to Kiev.
Russia Considers US Proposals to Start Arms Control Talks ‘Hypocrisy’
Sputnik – 18.03.2024
Moscow considers Washington’s proposals to hold arms control talks “hypocrisy,” the Russian Foreign Ministry told Sputnik on Monday.
“American officials are declaring their alleged desire to enter into arms control discussions with Russia without preconditions but they clearly did not bother to read the February 29 address of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Federal Assembly, which has our fundamental assessments of this kind of hypocrisy and demagogy amid Washington’s desire to inflict ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia,” the ministry said.
Earlier in the day, US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that the United States stands ready to engage in bilateral arms control talks with China and Russia without any preconditions.
“The United States is willing to engage in bilateral arms control discussions with Russia and China right now, without preconditions. All they have to do is say ‘yes’ and come to the table in good faith,” Thomas-Greenfield said during a UN Security Council meeting.
Russia’s policy has not changed, and the country is ready to discuss arms control altogether with focus on issues that directly involve Moscow’s security interests, the Russian Foreign Ministry added.
“In the meantime, we are invited to conduct dialogue exclusively on US terms and only on those issues that are of interest to Washington,” the ministry said.
Deputy Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Dmitry Polyanskiy in turn said that the strategic dialogue between Russia and the United States on arms control is only possible if the US and NATO revise their anti-Russian course.
“Any interaction will only be possible if the United States and NATO review their anti-Russian course and when they show that they are ready to participate in comprehensive dialogue taking into account all of our strategic stability factors and removing all of the concerns that we have,” Polyanskiy said at the UN Security Council meeting.
He stressed that the strategic dialogue between the US and the Russian Federation cannot be separated from the general and military context.
At the same time Russia stands ready to negotiate on the issue of nuclear disarmament with interested countries during the new Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) Review conference, Polyanskiy added.
“We expect that our Western colleagues will abandon their very dangerous and destructive course. We are open within the new NPT Review conference to a constructive dialogue with all countries interested in reaching a consensus understanding on how we can create preconditions for further nuclear disarmament,” he said.
Gaza Genocide Exposes Fraud of U.S.-led NATO’s Humanitarian Wars
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 17, 2024
Twenty-five years ago, the United States and the NATO military alliance launched an illegal war on former Yugoslavia.
It was a watershed event that led to a series of US-led NATO wars around the world over the next quarter century until today – all on the basis of some lofty principle about “defending” human rights or democracy.
In the former Yugoslavia, the 10-week aerial bombing campaign that began on March 24, 1999, caused hundreds of civilian deaths and destroyed the infrastructure of what was then a well-developed socialist country.
The rationale for the military intervention was declared to be a “humanitarian” one – allegedly to protect civilians in a civil war.
International lawyer and author Dan Kovalik says that the “humanitarian” pretext for the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was a sham.
The real objective, he says, was for the United States and its Western imperialist partners to create a precedent for systematically violating international law.
Kovalik is the author of the book ‘No More War: How the West Violates International Law by Using Humanitarian Intervention to Advance Economic and Strategic Interests’.
The NATO bombing of former Yugoslavia did not have legal authorization from the United Nations Security Council. It was a unilateral action more accurately defined as an illegal aggression – a war crime.
Kovalik notes that the historical period was a crucial one. During the 1990s, the United States was reconfiguring its imperial power in the post-Cold War era (1945-90). With the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, Washington was proclaimed to be the sole superpower. He says that the United States wanted to establish its prerogative in the post-Cold War world of using its military power and that of its NATO partners wherever and whenever it needed for the purpose of advancing its strategic interests.
The US-led aggression against Yugoslavia was thus an opening to a new world order for American and NATO military power to be used at will in total disregard of international law and the United Nations Charter that had been drawn up in 1945 to prevent the kind of aggression that Nazi Germany had waged.
In short, it was a reinvention of imperialism dressed in a cloak of virtue.
Following Yugoslavia, which was balkanized as a result of the NATO aggression, the United States and its military partners embarked on a 25-year orgy of illegal wars and covert interventions. Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and other places in the Middle East and Africa. Endless wars costing the Western public trillions of dollars and fomenting a litany of socio-economic problems from mass migration to mass poverty – all of these wars have been engaged in by successive US presidents, including Democrat incumbent Joe Biden and his Republican rival Donald Trump.
The current war in Ukraine – the biggest since World War Two – can be attributed to NATO’s relentless expansion towards Russia’s borders over the past 25 years. Washington and its Western partners claim to be defending democracy, human rights and international law in Ukraine against alleged Russian aggression. This Western narrative ignores the reality that the US and its NATO partners have militarized a NeoNazi regime in Ukraine for at least eight years before the current conflict erupted on February 24, 2022.
Daniel Kovalik concludes with a devastating argument: if the United States and its NATO allies are so concerned by humanitarian principles and democracy then why are they not intervening to stop the genocide in Gaza against Palestinians? Over 30,000 people – mainly women and children – have been killed by Israeli military offensive. Far from intervening to protect civilians from Israeli slaughter and starvation, the United States and its NATO partners are fully complicit in supporting Israeli war crimes – militarily, politically and diplomatically.
Western “humanitarian intervention” so readily embarked on elsewhere is exposed as a grotesque fraud to cover for US imperialist crimes.
Why is the West Suddenly Revealing Its Troop Presence in Ukraine?
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | March 18, 2024
It has long been an open secret that the West has been providing Ukraine with funding, weapons, training, maintenance, targeting intelligence, and intelligence on the position of Russian forces and vulnerabilities, and even war-gaming. They have provided Ukraine with everything but the bodies. President Joe Biden has long insisted that American troops “are not and will not be engaged in a conflict with Russia in Ukraine.” The West has long denied that it is directly involved in the war or that they have troops in Ukraine.
And that is mostly true. It is Ukrainian soldiers that are being injured and killed in the hundreds of thousands. But it is not entirely true.
After two years of steadfast denial, there has been, over just a couple of weeks in February and March, a flurry of admissions and revelations that there are NATO troops in Ukraine. The question is, why? What is the motivation behind this sudden trove of revelations?
The flurry was kicked off by the release of a transcript of an intercepted February 19 conversation between senior German air force officials that revealed that the United Kingdom has people on the ground in Ukraine. Discussing how German Taurus long-range missiles could be operated in Ukraine, one official says that the Germans “know how the English do it…They have several people on-site.” The conversation between the German officials also appears to implicate the United States. One official says, “It’s known that there are numerous people there in civilian attire who speak with an American accent.”
On February 26, a New York Times report revealed who those civilians may be. More than 200 current and former officials leaked to the Times that “scores” of CIA officers are in Ukraine where they “help the Ukrainians” by providing “intelligence for targeted missile strikes” and “intelligence support for lethal operations against Russian forces on Ukrainian soil.”
On February 26, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz broadened the list to include France. Scholz defended his decision not to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine by saying that it would require the presence of Germans in Ukraine to match their British and French counterparts. He explained, “What is being done in the way of target control and accompanying target control on the part of the British and the French can’t be done in Germany.”
And on March 8, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski stunningly confirmed that “NATO military personnel are already present in Ukraine.” Critical of Scholz, he differentiated himself by not revealing which NATO countries are already in Ukraine. “NATO soldiers are already present in Ukraine. And I would like to thank the ambassadors of those countries who have taken that risk. These countries know who they are, but I can’t disclose them. Contrary to other politicians, I will not list those countries.”
France and Britain reportedly responded with outrage at the intercepted air force conversation. And they were just as furious with Scholz for his revelation. Former UK Defense Minister Ben Wallace said that “Scholz’s behaviour has showed that as far as the security of Europe goes he is the wrong man, in the wrong job at the wrong time.” Alicia Kearns, chair of the British Parliament’s foreign affairs committee, called Scholz’s comment “wrong, irresponsible and a slap in the face to allies.” One Berlin-based diplomat reportedly says that “Macron and Scholz aren’t even talking to each other.”
But despite the anger at being called out, neither the British nor the French denied Scholz’s revelation. Despite Kearns’ comment that Scholz is “wrong,” the British Prime Minister’s office confirmed that they do have boots on the ground: “Beyond the small number of personnel we do have in the country supporting the armed forces of Ukraine, we haven’t got any plans for large-scale deployment.”
The French responded by saying that if they don’t have troops in Ukraine, perhaps they should; not exactly an angry rebuke of Scholz. French President Emmanuel Macron said, “There’s no consensus today to send in an official, endorsed manner troops on the ground. But in terms of dynamics, nothing can be ruled out.” Though Scholz immediately replied that the consensus was “that there will be no ground troops, no soldiers on Ukrainian soil who are sent there by European states or NATO states,” Macron pointed out, “Many of the people who say ‘never, never’ today were the same people who said never, never tanks; never, never planes; never, never long-range missiles…I remind you that two years ago, many around this table said: ‘We will offer sleeping bags and helmets.’”
In just a couple of weeks, American and German leaks placed U.S. troops in Ukraine, Germany placed France and Britain in Ukraine, the British confirmed they were in Ukraine, Poland confirmed that NATO troops were in Ukraine, and France suggested that, if they’re not, perhaps they should be. What is the motivation behind this sudden chorus of confessions?
There are at least four—and probably a lot more—possibilities. All of them are just speculation.
The least scary is that, recognizing that the West has lost the war in Ukraine and that, after encouraging Ukraine to reject a diplomatic solution in favor of pressing the fight with the promise of Western weapons and support for as long as it takes, the leading supporters of Ukraine are trying to establish the case that they did everything they could: even putting troops on the ground in Ukraine.
The second least scary is that the leaks and revelations are meant to pressure the United States and some European countries to send more financial aid and weapons packages to Ukraine. The belief might be that the they would find that option more palatable than crossing their own red line and sending troops into Ukraine.
The third least scary is that the West is trying to create a perception in Russia of strategic ambiguity. The French newspaper Le Monde reports, “Macron’s office explained that the aim is to restore the West’s ‘strategic ambiguity.’ After the failure of the Ukrainian 2023 counter-offensive, the French president believes that promising tens of billions of euros in aid and delivering—delayed—military equipment to Kyiv is no longer enough. Especially if Putin is convinced that the West has permanently ruled out mobilizing its forces.”
The scariest possibility that was suggested to me is that the West is serious both about NATO troops already being in Ukraine and about the possibility of sending more NATO troops not being ruled out. The leaks and revelations are intended to lay the groundwork for sending more troops. The idea is to sell the idea of sending more troops by desensitizing reluctant Western partners to the risk by pointing out that the risk has already been taken. They might even add that Russia knows it and hasn’t escalated and drawn the West into a NATO-Russia war.
If true, that is a dangerous and difficult to calculate risk. How many troops could be sent before triggering a Russian response? Hopefully, the United States, Germany and others, including Spain, Greece, and Slovakia are sincere in their insistence that no (more?) NATO troops will be sent to Ukraine. One German source told Le Monde that Macron “said that there was no consensus on the subject, but that’s not true: The truth is that France was isolated because most participants expressed their clear refusal.”
Latvia urging UK to ‘prepare for war’ with Russia
By Lucas Leiroz | March 18, 2024
The Baltic countries continue their “preparation for war with Russia.” Now, as if it were not enough to engage in a suicidal militarization campaign, Latvia is also demanding that the main NATO countries, such as the UK, also begin adopting radical measures to prepare for the “inevitable” confrontation with Moscow. The main Latvian criticism of the British concerns the military service, with the Baltic country asking the UK to immediately resume conscription policies to increase the size of its forces.
Latvia’s foreign minister, Krisjanis Karins, stated that all NATO countries should follow the Latvian example when it comes to military preparation. According to him, it is necessary to implement special militarization measures and improve defense capacity in the face of the supposed “Russian threat”, which is why Western countries should unite in a common military policy. Karins believes that not all NATO states are efficiently engaged in this military preparation process. In this regard, he criticizes even the stance of key countries in the bloc, such as the UK.
Karins was asked by a journalist from The Telegraph about whether London should adopt mandatory military service for its citizens. He resolutely responded that Latvia “strongly recommends” such an attitude. According to Karins, Latvia is developing a system called “total defense”, in which all the country’s efforts are directed towards expanding military capacity. Efforts include all sectors of civil society, thus requiring a system of total mobilization within which mandatory military service is vital.
“We would strongly recommend this. We are developing and fleshing out a system of what we call a total defense involving all parts of civil society,” he said.
Recently, advancing its militarization policies, Latvia reintroduced military conscription. The measure was justified by the supposed need to expand the “active and ready reserve”, given the apparent “imminence” of an armed conflict. Under current Latvian law, all male citizens between 18 and 27 must complete at least one year of military service – including Latvians living abroad. Karins praises this model and calls on the entire West to adopt it, jointly engaging in “total defense”.
Furthermore, Karins also stated that a growth in defense spending is “inevitable”, thus asking London to reach the minimum target of 3% of GDP with military affairs. The top Latvian diplomat also praised the Finnish recruitment system. According to him, Finland has a small active army, but an extremely strong and “well-trained” reserve, making it possible to immediately enlist citizens for war, if necessary. Karins states that Latvia was inspired by the Finnish model and that all countries should do the same.
In fact, discussions about increasing militarization in the UK are already growing rapidly. Recently, British defense minister Grant Shapps called on the country to prepare for a situation of conflict on multiple fronts in the next five years. According to Shapps, tensions will worsen in the near future, and the UK needs to be prepared to face countries like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.
“In five years’ time we could be looking at multiple theaters [of conflict] including Russia, China, Iran and North Korea (..) Ask yourself, looking at today’s conflicts across the world, is it more likely that that number grows or reduces? I suspect we all know the answer. It’s likely to grow, so 2024 must mark an inflection point,” he said at the time.
In the same vein, the UK’s Chief of the General Staff, Patrick Sanders, has constantly made controversial statements praising anti-Russian warmongering mentality and encouraging his country towards militarization. According to him, the conflict in Ukraine creates an “imperative” for the reconstruction of the British army. Sanders believes that London needs to be able to fight a protracted war on European soil.
“There is now a burning imperative to forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle (…) We are the generation that must prepare the Army to fight in Europe once again,” Sanders said. He also recently called on the UK to adopt a system of broad militarization, training “citizen soldiers“. The aim would be to create a strong reserve army among the common people of the country. Indeed, what Sanders calls a “citizen army” is in practice just a disguised model of total mobilization.
As we can see, Latvia’s bellicose ideas may receive broad domestic support in the UK. Currently, the British army has only 75,983 soldiers. Jointly, the army, navy and air force have 184,865 active-duty personnel. The numbers are the lowest in the country since the Napoleonic Wars, which has “worried” pro-war militants. In practice, Western officials and decision-makers have been constantly deceived by their own propaganda, which is why many people actually believe in the “necessity” of fighting Russia.
The main problem is that these measures confront the reality of Western countries. In the UK, there is currently a serious economic crisis, with the country falling into recession and criticism of the government increasing sharply. Engaging in a process of militarization would be, in addition to dangerous and unnecessary, a truly “suicidal” measure for the national economy. It remains to be seen whether this reality will be admitted by the local government or whether irrational pro-war tendencies will prevail in the country.
Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
The big lie behind the Western narrative on Russia is leading us to World War III
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 15, 2024
The current situation in the conflict between Ukraine – serving (while being demolished) as a proxy for the West – and Russia, can be sketched in three broad strokes.
First, Russia now clearly has the upper hand on the battlefield and could potentially accelerate its recent advances to achieve an overall military victory soon. The West is being compelled to recognize this fact: as Foreign Affairs put it, in an article titled “Time is Running Out in Ukraine,” Kiev and its Western supporters “are at a critical decision point and face a fundamental question: How can further Russian advances… be stopped, and then reversed?” Just disregard the bit of wishful thinking thrown in at the end to sweeten the bitter pill of reality. The key point is the acknowledgment that it is crunch time for the West and Ukraine – in a bad way.
Second, notwithstanding the above, Ukraine is not yet ready to ask for negotiations to end the war on terms acceptable to Russia, which would be less than easy for Kiev. (Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, reiterated in an important recent interview that Moscow remains principally open to talks, not on the basis of “wishful thinking” but, instead, proceeding from the realities “on the ground.”)
The Kiev regime’s inflexibility is little wonder. Since he jettisoned a virtually complete – and favorable – peace deal in the spring of 2022, President Vladimir Zelensky has gambled everything on an always improbable victory. For him personally, as well as his core team (at least), there is no way to survive – politically or physically – the catastrophic defeat they have brought on their country by leasing it out as a pawn to the Washington neocon strategy.
The Pope, despite the phony brouhaha he triggered in Kiev and the West, was right: a responsible Ukrainian leadership ought to negotiate. But that’s not the leadership Ukraine has. Not yet at least.
Third, the West’s strategy is getting harder to decipher because, in essence, the West cannot figure out how to adjust to the failure of its initial plans for this war. Russia has not been isolated; its military has become stronger, not weaker – and the same is true of its economy, including its arms industry.
And last but not least, the Russian political system’s popular legitimacy and effective control has neither collapsed nor even frayed. As, again, even Foreign Affairs admits, “Putin would likely win a fair election in 2024.” That’s more than could be said for, say, Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak, Olaf Scholz, or Emmanuel Macron (as for Zelensky, he has simply canceled the election).
In other words, the West is facing not only Ukraine’s probable defeat, but also its own strategic failure. The situation, while not a direct military rout (as in Afghanistan in 2021) amounts to a severe political setback.
In fact, this looming Western failure is a historic debacle in the making. Unlike with Afghanistan, the West will not be able to simply walk away from the mess it has made in Ukraine. This time, the geopolitical blowback will be fierce and the costs very high. Instead of isolating Russia, the West has isolated itself, and by losing, it will show itself weakened.
It is one thing to have to finally, belatedly accepted that the deceptive “unipolar” moment of the 1990s has been over for a long time. It is much worse to gratuitously enter the new multipolar order with a stunning, avoidable self-demotion. Yet that is what the EU/NATO-West has managed to fabricate from its needless over-extension in Ukraine. Hubris there has been galore, the fall now is only a matter of time – and not much time at that.
Regarding EU-Europe in particular, on one thing French President Emmanuel Macron is half right. Russia’s victory “would reduce Europe’s credibility to zero.” Except, of course, a mind of greater Cartesian precision would have detected that Moscow’s victory will merely be the last stage in a longer process.
The deeper causes of EU/NATO-Europe’s loss of global standing are threefold. First, its own wanton decision to seek confrontation instead of a clearly feasible compromise and cooperation with Russia (why exactly is a neutral Ukraine impossible to live with again?) Second, the American strategy of systematically diminishing EU/NATO-Europe with a short-sighted policy of late-imperial client cannibalization which takes the shape of aggressive deindustrialization and a “Europeanization” of the war in Ukraine. And third, the European clients’ grotesque acquiescence to the above.
That is the background to a recent wave of mystifying signals coming out of Western, especially EU/NATO elites: First, we have had a wave of scare propaganda to accompany the biggest NATO maneuvers since the end of the Cold War. Next Macron publicly declared and has kept reiterating that the open – not in covert-but-obvious mode, as now – deployment of Western ground troops in Ukraine is an option. He added a cheap demagogic note by calling on Europeans not to be “cowards,” by which he means that they should be ready to follow, in effect, his orders and fight Russia, clearly including inside and on behalf of Ukraine. Never mind that the latter is a not an official member of either NATO or the EU as well as a highly corrupt and anything but democratic state.
In response, a divergence has surfaced inside EU/NATO Europe: The German government has been most outspoken in contradicting Macron. Not only Chancellor Scholz rushed to distance himself. A clearly outraged Boris Pistorius – Berlin’s hapless minister of defense, recently tripped up by his own generals’ stupendously careless indiscretion over the Taurus missiles – has grumbled that there is no need for “talk about boots on the ground or having more courage or less courage.” Perhaps more surprisingly, Poland, the Czech Republic as well as NATO figurehead Jens Stoltenberg (i.e., the US) have been quick to state that they are, in effect, not ready to support Macron’s initiative. The French public, by the way, is not showing any enthusiasm for a Napoleonic escalation either. A Le Figaro poll shows 68 percent against openly sending ground troops to Ukraine.
On the other side, Macron has found some support. He is not entirely isolated, which helps explain why he has dug in his heels: Zelensky does not count in this respect. His bias is obvious, and his usual delusions notwithstanding he is not calling the shots on the matter. The Baltic states, however, while military micro-dwarfs, are, unfortunately, in a position to exert some influence inside the EU and NATO. And true to form, they have sided with the French president, with Estonia and Lithuania taking the lead.
It remains impossible to be certain what we are looking at. To get the most far-fetched hypothesis out of the way first: is this a coordinated bluff with a twist? A complicated Western attempt at playing good-cop bad-cop against Russia, with Macron launching the threats and others signaling that Moscow could find them less extreme, at a diplomatic price, of course? Hardly. For one thing, that scheme would be so hare-brained, even the current West is unlikely to try. No, the crack opening up in Western unity is real.
Regarding Macron himself, too-clever-by-half, counter-productive cunning is his style. We cannot know what exactly he is trying to do; and he may not know himself. In essence, there are two possibilities. Either the French president now is a hard-core escalationist determined to widen the war into an open clash between Russia and NATO, or he is a high-risk gambler who is engaged in a bluff to achieve three purposes. Frighten Moscow into abstaining from pushing its military advantage in Ukraine (a hopeless idea); score nationalist “grandeur” points domestically in France (which is failing already); and increase his weight inside EU/NATO-Europe by “merely” posturing as, once again, a new “Churchill” – whom Macron himself has made sure to allude to, in all his modesty. (And some of his fans, including Zelensky, a grizzled veteran of Churchill live action role play, have already made that de rigueur if stale comparison.)
While we cannot entirely unriddle the moody sphinx of the Elysée or, for that matter, the murky dealings of EU/NATO-European elites, we can say two things. First, whatever Macron thinks he is doing, it is extremely dangerous. Russia would treat EU/NATO-state troops in Ukraine as targets – and it won’t matter one wit if they turn up labeled “NATO” or under national flags “only.” Russia has also reiterated that it considers its vital interests affected in Ukraine and that if its leadership perceives a vital threat to Russia, nuclear weapons are an option. The warning could not be clearer.
Second, here is the core Western problem that is now – due to Russia undeniably winning the war – becoming acute: Western elites are split between “pragmatists” and “extremists.” The pragmatists are as Russophobic and strategically misguided as the extremists, but they do shy away from World War Three. Yet these pragmatists, who seek to resist hard-core escalationists and rein in at least high-risk gamblers, are brought up short against a crippling contradiction in their own position and messaging: As of now, they still share the same delusional narrative with the extremists. Both groupings keep reiterating that Russia plans to attack all of EU/NATO-Europe once it defeats Ukraine and that, therefore, stopping Russia in Ukraine is, literally, vital (or in Macron’s somewhat Sartrean terms “existential”) to the West.
That narrative is absurd. Reality works exactly the other way around: The most certain way to get into a war with Russia is to send troops to Ukraine openly. And what is existential for EU/NATO-Europe is to finally liberate itself from American “leadership.” During the Cold War, a case could be made that (then Western) Europe needed the US. After the Cold War, though, that was no longer the case. In response, Washington has implemented a consistent, multi-administration, bipartisan, if often crude, strategy of avoiding what should have been inevitable: the emancipation of Europe from American dominance.
Both the eastward expansion of NATO, programmed – and predicted – to cause a massive conflict with Russia and the current proxy war in Ukraine, obstinately provoked by Washington over decades, are part of that strategy to – to paraphrase a famous saying about NATO – “keep Europe down.” And the European elites have played along as if there’s no tomorrow, which, for them, there really may not be.
We are at a potential breaking-point, a crisis of that long-term trajectory. If the pragmatists in EU/NATO-Europe really want to contain the extremists, who play with triggering an open war between Russia and NATO that would devastate at least Europe, then they must now come clean and, finally, abandon the common, ideological, and entirely unrealistic narrative about an existential threat from Moscow.
As long as the pragmatists dare not challenge the escalationists on how to principally understand the causes of the current catastrophe, the extremists will always have the advantage of consistency: Their policies are foolish, wastefully unnecessary, and extremely risky. And yet, they follow from what the West has made itself believe. It is high time to break that spell of self-hypnosis, and face facts.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
Featured Video
The Truth About the Trump Shootings with Ken Silva
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Geopolitics behind the War in Yemen (I)
By Mahdi Darius NAZEMROAYA | Strategic Culture Foundation | 30.03.2015
The United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia became very uneasy when the Yemenese or Yemenite movement of the Houthi or Ansarallah (meaning the supporters of God in Arabic) gained control of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa/Sana, in September 2014. The US-supported Yemenite President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi was humiliatingly forced to share power with the Houthis and the coalition of northern Yemenese tribes that had helped them enter Sana. Al-Hadi declared that negotiations for a Yemeni national unity government would take place and his allies the US and Saudi Arabia tried to use a new national dialogue and mediated talks to co-opt and pacify the Houthis.
The truth has been turned on its head about the war in Yemen. The war and ousting of President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi in Yemen are not the results of «Houthi coup» in Yemen. It is the opposite. Al-Hadi was ousted, because with Saudi and US support he tried to backtrack on the power sharing agreements he had made and return Yemen to authoritarian rule. The ousting of President Al-Hadi by the Houthis and their political allies was an unexpected reaction to the takeover Al-Hadi was planning with Washington and the House of Saudi. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- IRGC air defenses destroy another US MQ-1 drone over Strait of Hormuz
- Imran Khan’s entire immediate family detained in Pakistan ahead of mass protest demanding his release
- EU nation detains former presidential frontrunner
- Leaked: Britain’s Sham Conviction Of Hashim Thaci
- Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Strike Imminent – Toward Total War in the Middle East
- Russia Voted Under Fire. Washington Is Loading the Tankers.
- 12 Things Your Oncologist Was Trained Not to Tell You
- Anthrax Attacks Paved Way for COVID-Era ‘Junk Drugs and Vaccines’
- How Real Is the Impact of Western Sanctions on Israel?
- France, You Are Guilty: How Paris Turned Western Sahara into the Maghreb’s Powder Keg
- If Americans Knew
- This isn’t sci-fi, AI is already killing people
- ‘The Most Brutal Thing’: Investigation Reveals Execution of Elderly Woman in Rafah
- Inside Israel’s ‘soft’ ethnic cleansing plan for Gaza through the eyes of its victims
- New online database tracks pro-Israel political donations in the United States
- Israeli president pardons soldier convicted for killing wounded Palestinian
- Singer Ed Sheeran says his ‘heart broken’ by Gaza devastation, addresses Macklemore controversy
- Israel Has Imprisoned Female Journalist Bushra Al-Tawil Without Trial Or Charge In Solitary Confinement For Past Month
- Israel poised to teach West Bank a lesson after one Israeli killed – Daily Update
- Salah Sarsour’s Legal Team Says DHS Has Not Met Its Burden to Prove He Is Deportable
- An analysis of tax forms by The Intercept show Kraft’s charity and LLC have donated to Friends of the IDF and AIPAC’s super PAC.
- No Tricks Zone
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
Aletho News 