Trump a ‘threat’ to UK – ex-MI6 chief
RT | January 15, 2024
Former US President Donald Trump’s potential reelection could be “problematic” for British national security due to his stance on NATO, former head of the MI6 intelligence service has warned.
Richard Dearlove, who led MI6 from 1999 to 2004, was discussing potential threats to the UK in 2024 in an interview with Sky News on Sunday, during which he pointed to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the “long-term behavior of China,” before moving to the US presidential race.
“You have to add a political threat, which I am worried about, which is Trump’s reelection… which I think for the UK’s national security is problematic,” Dearlove said. If Trump, given his critical attitude towards NATO, “acts hastily and damages the Atlantic alliance, that is a big deal for the UK,” he warned.
“We’ve put all our eggs in defense terms in the NATO basket. If Trump really is serious about, as it were, changing the balance, I mean the American nuclear umbrella for Europe is, in my view, essential to Europe’s security and defense,” the former spymaster said.
During his time in the White House, Trump disparaged NATO, calling it “obsolete,” and questioned the bloc’s relevance in the modern world. He also cast doubt on Washington’s commitment to defend its allies and argued that other NATO members were not contributing enough.
“Look, NATO has taken advantage of our country. The European countries took advantage,” the former president recently told Fox News, adding that his attitude towards NATO depends on whether “they treat us properly.”
Despite several court cases against him, Trump remains the frontrunner for the Republican Party nomination as presidential candidate. A recent Morning Consult poll indicates that he is leading with 69% support, while the nearest rival is trailing far behind.
UK to send 20,000 troops to NATO exercise
RT | January 15, 2024
The UK is set to deploy around 20,000 service members – as well as modern warships and fighter jets – to Europe to take part in a major NATO exercise amid rising tensions with Russia, the Defence Ministry has announced.
In a statement on Monday, the ministry, citing excerpts from a speech to be delivered by Defence Secretary Grant Shapps, said that some 16,000 army troops – along with tanks, artillery, and helicopters – will join other bloc members on the continent to participate in Exercise Steadfast Defender 24, scheduled to take place in the first half of this year.
The effort will be supported by eight warships and submarines, as well as 2,000 Royal Navy sailors. The UK will also deploy a number of aircraft, including F35B Lightning fighters and Poseidon P8 surveillance aircraft, the ministry said.
Meanwhile, Shapps is expected to call the drill “one of NATO’s largest deployments since the end of the Cold War,” adding that the UK and its allies have found themselves “in a new era” and “must be prepared to deter our enemies,” according to the statement. The statement specifically referred to the threat from the Russian “menace.”
NATO began reinforcing its military footprint in Europe first after a Western-backed coup in Kiev triggered hostilities in Donbass, which is now part of Russia. However, the most drastic build-up occurred after Russia launched its military campaign against Ukraine in February 2022. In June of the same year, the US-led military bloc agreed to put 300,000 troops on high alert, up from 40,000, to deter Moscow.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously said that Moscow has no plans to attack NATO, arguing that there was “no geopolitical, economic … or military interest” in waging war against the bloc. Still, Moscow has also repeatedly warned that the alliance’s military activities close to its border warrant additional security measures. Putin has also said that Ukraine’s desire to join NATO was one of the key reasons for the current conflict.
Scholz pushes fake Russian threats to distract Germans from economic problems
By Ahmed Adel | January 15, 2024
Germany is preparing for a war between NATO and Russia, which, according to the scenario of the German Defence Ministry, could begin in the European summer of 2025 after the defeat of the Ukrainian Army, reported Bild with reference to a secret document of the Bundeswehr. This is evidently a desperate attempt by the German chancellor to distract citizens from their economic woes.
According to the newspaper, citing a classified German military document, the escalation could begin as early as next month with the start of an active Russian offensive against the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
According to Bild, the German military considers the Suwałki Gap between Belarus and the Russian region of Kaliningrad to be the most likely site of confrontation. A situation could escalate in October if Russia deploys troops and medium-range missiles to Kaliningrad, and from December 2024, an artificially induced “border conflict” and “clashes with numerous casualties” could unfold as Russia would take advantage of political chaos in the US following the presidential election.
“The actions of Russia and the West are described precisely, indicating the location and month, and will culminate in the deployment of hundreds of thousands of NATO troops and the imminent start of war in the summer of 2025,” writes the article.
However, the article’s authors leave open the question of how this hypothetical escalation will end.
This is, of course, a ridiculous suggestion by the German Defence Ministry, especially as Moscow has repeatedly stressed that it does not want conflict with NATO or anything beyond its special military operation in Ukraine. Rather, this is an attempt by Chancellor Olaf Scholz to instil an unjustified fear in German society as his popularity continues to plummet in the context of a stuttering economy and continued failed policies.
More than 70% of Germans are dissatisfied with Scholz, according to a survey carried out by the INSA Institute for Bild. Specifically, 72% of voters do not approve of his performance, which is three percentage points more than at the beginning of December. Only one in five, 20%, think that Scholz has done a good job.
According to the researchers, 76% of those surveyed are generally dissatisfied with what the federal government does, whilst only 17% of citizens are satisfied. It is the worst indicator of the ruling coalition since it was formed in December 2021, Bild noted.
In 2023, the Scholz-led government faced numerous economic and leadership challenges that undermined public trust. Persistent inflationary pressures, exacerbated by fiscal policy, undermined household budgets, which caused widespread discontent. The lack of strategic direction and perceived indecision on critical issues, such as energy policy following the adoption of sanctions against Russia, further fuelled scepticism among voters. The leadership crisis, characterised by internal conflicts and disagreements, damaged the effectiveness and cohesion of the German government.
What especially frustrates Germans is the fact that sanctions were imposed on Russia, which has become the fifth-largest economy in the world by volume, whilst Germany is in recession. With a public budget deficit estimated at around 60 billion euros, the very model of the German economy appears to be threatened.
Germany is officially in recession and is expected to have ended 2023 with a drop in GDP of around 0.3%, according to a forecast from the European Commission. This is one of the worst economic results in the bloc, given that the growth forecast for the entire European Union in 2023 is 0.6%. Among the causes is the energy crisis that has hit Germany harder than the rest of the European bloc, mainly because the Germans slashed their supply of Russian energy after the start of the special military operation in February 2022.
Furthermore, with the increase in energy prices resulting from sanctions against Russia, Germany has also suffered an increase in general price inflation in the economy, forcing the European Central Bank to raise interest rates, thus affecting the population’s purchasing power and impacting consumption. Consequently, German companies have not only lost international competitiveness with the application of sanctions against the Russians, but now the country runs the risk of entering a process of deindustrialisation.
Under these conditions, the extreme right is experiencing a resurgence. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has hit an all-time high approval rating of 24% and has the potential to gain a few more percentile points with the immense failure of the ruling coalition.
What is undeniable is the fact that Germany is experiencing a rapid decline, all spurred on by the reckless policies of Scholz that prioritised American interests instead of German, and he is now resorting to a fake Russian threat in a desperate attempt to distract citizens from their social and economic problems that he is responsible for.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
State Dept Shakedown: US Slaps ‘Ultimatum’ on Greece in Bid to ‘Extort’ More Ukraine Aid
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 10.01.2024
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Greece on January 6 as part of his latest diplomatic push over the spiraling Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The top US diplomat jumped at the opportunity to wring a promise from Athens to fork out more aid for Ukraine.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken presented Greece’s Prime Minister a humiliating “ultimatum” when he visited Athens recently, Greek media outlets claim.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis was reportedly given just a few days to decide on a shipment of new weapons systems to the regime in Kiev. Blinken had made a stopover in Greece during his shuttle diplomacy trip linked to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, driven by fears of greater regional spillover. But amid the growing difficulty of wrestling more aid packages to Kiev amid ‘Ukraine fatigue’ prompted the US top diplomat to stoop to “extortion,” wrote the outlets.
As it is, Greece, a NATO member and US ally, was one of the first to send military aid to Ukraine. “Greece has already given everything, it has breached national defense, especially on the islands, in order to support Ukraine with defense material,” wrote the publications.
“What exactly does Blinken want us to send to [Ukraine’s President] Zelensky, who is collapsing on all fronts?.. It goes without saying that if Mitsotakis succumbs to the blackmail, it will cause unimaginable damage to our national interests,” Greek media warned.
Greece is one of the countries that rushed to provide military and financial assistance to Ukraine in order to impose the tyranny of Kiev on the Russian-speaking population of the Donbass, the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) has stated.
Last year, Greek Defense Minister Nikos Panagiotopoulos boasted about the transfer of an “incredible amount” of weapons to the Zelensky regime. In August, Athens opted to join a coalition of countries training Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16 fighter jets.
Back in August, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated at an Athens press conference with Mitsotakis that the sides had also adopted a joint declaration in which Mitsotakis committed Greece to continuing military support for Ukraine. Moreover, Athens vowed to support Kiev’s aspirations to join NATO.
In response, Greece’s largest opposition party, the Coalition of the Radical Left – Progressive Alliance (SYRIZA) slammed the moves, saying that they amount to Greece’s “direct military involvement” in the Ukraine conflict.
Moscow has repeatedly condemned the supply of weapons to Ukraine by Western countries and accused the US-led West of trying to prolong the conflict. In early June 2023, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov reiterated that the goals of the military operation would be achieved despite shipments of foreign weapons to Kiev, which would undoubtedly cause Ukraine “more suffering.”
West got Ukraine ‘painfully wrong’ – EU state’s PM
RT | January 10, 2024
Funding and arming Ukraine is a “futile waste of human resources and money” that will serve only to fill Ukrainian cemeteries with “thousands of dead soldiers,” Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico wrote in an op-ed on Tuesday. Fico’s article was a rebuttal to his country’s president, who has urged him to send weapons to Kiev.
Following his party’s electoral victory in September, Fico immediately cut off Slovakia’s military aid to Ukraine and vowed to block Kiev’s accession to NATO. Slovak President Zuzana Caputova, however, has called for Ukraine to be given “the means needed to defend itself,” while pro-Western pundits in Slovakia have accused Fico of cozying up to the Kremlin.
“I will no longer be subject to stupid liberal and progressive demagoguery,” Fico wrote in Slovakia’s Pravda newspaper. “It is literally shocking to see how the West has repeatedly made mistakes in assessing the situation in Russia.”
Despite pumping Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and sanctioning Moscow’s economy, “Russia completely controls the occupied territories militarily, Ukraine is not capable of any meaningful military counter-offensive, [and] it has become completely dependent on financial aid from the West with unforeseeable consequences for Ukrainians in the years to come,” he explained.
“The position of the Ukrainian president is shaken, while the Russian president increases and strengthens his political support,” Fico continued, pointing out that “neither the Russian economy nor the Russian currency collapsed, [and] anti-Russian sanctions have increased the internal self-sufficiency of this huge country.”
Should the West continue along the path desired by Caputova, “in two or three years we will still be where we are now,” Fico predicted. “The EU alone will be perhaps 50 billion euros lighter, and in Ukraine, cemeteries will be full with thousands more dead soldiers.”
Fico’s Slovak Social Democracy (SMER-SD) faction currently leads a three-party coalition government, while Caputova is the co-founder of the Progressive Slovakia party. Caputova’s role as president is largely ceremonial, and Fico claimed in his op-ed that she is “impatiently waiting” for the end of her term this year so that she can re-enter parliamentary politics.
Fico has labeled Caputova an “American agent” on several occasions. After consulting the American Embassy in Bratislava last summer, Caputova sued Fico over the remarks, Slovakia’s SITA news agency reported.
Wall Street Journal Sets Standard for Irresponsible Journalism in Ukraine
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | January 10, 2024
Recently, The Wall Street Journal joined the flood of American mainstream media outlets, including The New York Times, Politico and several others, in preparing the American public for a Russian victory.
After nearly two years, over $113 billion of U.S. taxpayers’ money spent at horrendous cost in life and limb has put Ukraine in a worse bargaining position than they were at the start of the war. As many as 50,000 Ukrainians are now amputees. And though statistics on Ukrainian casualties are a tightly sealed state secret, the most plausible sources suggest casualties and fatalities as staggering as 400,000-500,000. These numbers fit with internal Ukrainian communications that suggest that maintaining their numbers on the field would require replacing 20,000 soldiers a month. The same figure has been given in a New York Times article that quoted a former battalion commander who “estimated that Ukraine will need to enlist 20,000 soldiers a month through next year to sustain its army, both replacing the dead and wounded.” 20,000 over an approximately two year war puts the figure well over 400,000. Most recently, Yuriy Lutsenko, the former prosecutor general and ex-head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, has said that 500,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or seriously wounded. Interestingly, it is Moscow that provides the most conservative figures. Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu recently said that Ukraine has lost over 215,000 soldiers in 2023 with over 383,000 killed or wounded since the war began.
The 400,000-500,000 figure for Ukrainian soldiers lost to the battlefield by casualties and deaths also matches the 450,000-500,000 number that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says the military has requested in a new mobilization. In another sign of a battle between Zelensky and Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces Valery Zaluzhny, after Zelensky assigned responsibility to the military for requesting the unpopular draft, Zaluzhny placed the responsibility back on the government, denying that the military had ever formally requested the mobilization or provided the number.
The Wall Street Journal laid the psychological groundwork preparing the American public for defeat in Ukraine, despite the loss of Ukrainian lives and American dollars, with the line “Even if aid for Ukraine is renewed, it is essential to consider a realistic ending for the war.” It goes on to say that, though “Ukraine’s insistence on regaining all the territory Russia has seized since 2014 is understandable…events over the past year have made it clear that this goal can’t be achieved anytime soon.” The article concludes with the prescription that “Western leaders should explore” negotiations to end the fighting, calling it “a bitter pill” but “the only realistic path to a lasting peace in Europe.”
But it is in two short paragraphs near the end of the article that The Wall Street Journal does its readers a disservice by leaving out more information than it gives them, challenging the standards for responsible journalism.
The first of the two paragraphs state, “Recent reports, which Mr. Putin hasn’t denied, suggest that he is ready to agree to a cease-fire along the current battle lines. Although he is unwilling to retreat, these reports indicate that he had shelved his aim to dominate all of Ukraine.”
Though The Wall Street Journal is free to speculate that Vladimir Putin aimed to “dominate all of Ukraine,” it is also obliged to clarify that there is nothing on the documented historical record to indicate that Putin ever had dominating all of Ukraine as an objective. Scholar John Mearsheimer has pointed out, “There is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of greater Russia when he sent his troops into Ukraine on February 24th.” That has also never been one of Putin’s stated goals of the military operation. His list of goals has consistently been that Ukraine cannot join NATO, that NATO won’t turn Ukraine into a heavily armed anti-Russian country on its border, and that the rights of ethnic Russian Ukrainians be protected. Russia has clearly stated that it “support[s] Ukraine’s territorial integrity” if Ukraine returns to the promise of permanent neutrality upon which Russia first recognized Ukrainian independence in 1991.
In the next paragraph, the article insists that “there are good reasons to be skeptical” that Putin is serious about negotiating a peace that would abandon his ambition to dominate Ukraine. But, though the author has the right to be skeptical, he needs to set out what those “good reasons” are because, once again, they ignore the historical record.
An overwhelming host of people who were present at the Istanbul talks have testified to just how close Russia and Ukraine came to a negotiated peace in the early days of the war. But in questioning Putin’s seriousness about negotiating a peace, The Wall Street Journal ignores reporting that came out several days before its own reporting that former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Oleksandr Chalyi, who was a member of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, says that Putin was very serious about negotiating.
After reminding his audience at a debate in Geneva that he was actually there, Chalyi says that during the Istanbul talks “in March and April,” they “concluded [the] so called Istanbul Communique. And we were very close in the middle of April, in the end of April to finalize our war with some peaceful settlement.” Chalyi reports that Putin personally decided to accept the text of the Communique and that Putin “demonstrated a genuine effort to find a realistic compromise and achieve peace.”
The Journal article then goes to claim that Putin’s Ukraine ambitions are merely part of a larger “plan to reconstitute the Soviet empire.” As evidence, the writer cites Putin’s 2005 statement that the collapse of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.”
Putin did say that. But like other quotations made by Putin, it is employed misleadingly by omitting its context. First of all, he did not call it “the greatest” catastrophe but “a major” disaster. But the catastrophe after the fall he is referring to is not the absence of the Soviet Union but, primarily, the economic hardship that followed in the wake of its break up. He bemoaned that “individual savings were depreciated” and oligarchs “served exclusively their own corporate interests.” He remembered that “mass poverty began to be seen as the norm.”
The misleading strategy employed here is similar to the one frequently employed when Putin is quoted as having said, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart,” without adding that his next words were, “Whoever wants it back has no brain.” The first part refers to the same events Putin bemoans in the statement quoted in the Journal article; the second part entirely changes the claimed meaning by restoring the first to its context.
The Wall Street Journal article seems to be part of a media psychological campaign to prepare Americans for a Russian victory in Ukraine despite the massive expense in American aid, American weapons, and Ukrainian lives. But it could better prepare them for the inevitable negotiations that it predicts by honestly preparing them with the truth about the causes of the war and about the demonstrated possibility of negotiations, an understanding of which will be necessary if those negotiations are to succeed.
London, Paris and Kiev break arms control regime with recent cruise missile deliveries
By Drago Bosnic | January 10, 2024
On January 9, Avia.pro reported that the Kiev regime is expecting a “significant strengthening of their arsenal thanks to supplies from France”. Citing Le Figaro as its primary source, the report claims that France plans to send at least 85 SCALP-EG air-launched, long-range cruise missiles. The missiles are the French iteration of the “Storm Shadow”, a UK design that has been used by the Neo-Nazi junta since at least May last year. Various sources indicate that there are approximately 50 French-made SCALP-EG missiles in its arsenal, while it’s extremely likely there are even more of the UK-made “Storm Shadow” ones. The Kiev regime itself has been bragging about the supposed effectiveness of these weapons, although the Russian military is claiming it has managed to adapt most of its air defenses to both versions of the missile.
However, while it’s certainly true that Moscow has superb air defenses and the world’s most advanced SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems, the Neo-Nazi junta is boasting about having the non-export version of the “Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG” missiles. Namely, the United Kingdom, France, Ukraine and over 30 other countries are members of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), a multilateral export control regime that limits the proliferation of missiles and related technologies that could ease their development and manufacturing. MTCR came into force in 1987, when the political West was terrified of the prospect of having second-to-none Soviet missile technologies proliferate to other countries. This would’ve made it impossible for the belligerent power pole to conduct its endless wars of aggression.
And indeed, if Serbia/former Yugoslavia, as well as countless other countries in the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere had access to such technologies, it’s highly unlikely that the likes of NATO would’ve had the chance to invade as easily as it did. Officially, the MTCR seeks to limit the export of missiles and weapons that would be capable of delivering a warhead of at least 500 kg to a range of at least 300 km. This also refers to any hardware, software and other technologies that could aid in the development of such weapon systems. However, in essence, the MTCR is only disguised as an arms control agreement that supposedly seeks to “ensure peace”. In reality, the political West honors such agreements only when it suits it geopolitically and militarily, after which it’s rejected as allegedly “unnecessary”.
Both the United States and NATO as a whole have a history of unilaterally breaking international arms control treaties that prevent large-scale conflicts. The MTCR is no different in this regard, as it already served its purpose, so now it’s more of an obstacle than a geopolitical asset. By delivering the non-export version of the “Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG” missiles, the political West continues to probe the Russian military. This move will certainly result in a significant strengthening of the Neo-Nazi junta’s long-range strike capabilities. By creating an additional threat to Russian military infrastructure in the regions around Ukraine, NATO is seeking to disrupt the special military operation (SMO) as much as possible. Officially, this is done with minimal direct participation in order to avoid implicating the political West.
However, in reality, military specialists from various NATO member states have been in Ukraine for years, making sure that the Kiev regime forces can stay as functional as possible against a technologically superior opponent. This is an obvious red line for Moscow and there are a number of ways in which it can respond to such escalation. Admittedly, there’s very little Russia can do to prevent the delivery of such weapons to the Neo-Nazi junta. On the other hand, although the Kiev regime is desperate to keep the global spotlight on itself only, Ukraine is certainly not the world’s sole geopolitical hotspot. There are numerous other places where the Western neocolonialist system can be damaged beyond repair or even destroyed entirely. Russia could simply use NATO’s MTCR violations to arm its allies around the world.
By delivering weapons previously banned by the MTCR, Moscow would not only strengthen the standing of its many partners, particularly the new members of the growing BRICS+ framework, but it would also hurt the political West’s neocolonialist ambitions and, by extension, its extremely exploitative economic system. This is particularly true in Africa, where countries like France and the UK are still maintaining their (neo)colonial empires through all sorts of direct and indirect meddling. By limiting their space for geopolitical maneuver, Moscow could make it impossible to maintain these leftover (neo)colonialist structures and hurt the long-term interests of NATO’s foremost powers. This is perhaps best seen in countries like Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, among others in Africa, as well as Latin America and South Asia.
It should be noted that the UK and France are not the only Western countries that are violating or close to violating the MTCR. Although they’re the most prominent ones, as the delivery and integration of “Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG” missiles on the Neo-Nazi junta’s Soviet-era Su-24M tactical bombers has proven to be a major contributing factor to the escalation of the conflict, other NATO/EU members are increasingly involved in similar moves.
What’s more, when the political West talks about sending certain weapons, it usually means they’ve already been delivered. The Kiev regime has been pushing for the deliveries of a similar German-Swedish weapon, the 500 km range “Taurus” missile. Although Berlin’s official position is that it supposedly “doesn’t want the conflict to escalate”, its resurgent “Drang nach Osten” ambitions speak for themselves.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
DPR Head Explains Why Russia Only Hits Military Targets in Ukraine

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 07.01.2024
The Ukrainian military has been launching daily attacks on Donetsk throughout the winter holidays. Three hospital patients were wounded during shelling of the city on Orthodox Christmas Eve. Before that, a Ukrainian attack on New Year’s Eve left four dead and 13 more injured.
Russia’s Armed Forces hit only military targets in Ukraine as part of the ongoing special operation, Denis Pushilin, the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) told Sputnik.
This is what sets Russia apart from the regime in Kiev that targets civilians in Belgorod and Donetsk during its recent attacks, Pushilin said.
“We, like no one else since 2014, have a certain moral right to act emotionally and deal straight from the shoulder, but that is not who we are. And this is what sets us apart. If we were to employ the methods used by our enemy, how would we then be any better than our enemy, what are we fighting against then?” Pushilin asked rhetorically.
The so-called Euromaidan protests in Ukraine’s capital culminated in the February 2014 coup d’etat that brought radical pro-EU and pro-NATO politicians to power and plunged Ukraine into crisis, leading to the current conflagration.
The DPR head emphasized that Moscow would never stoop to attacks targeting the civilian population – an approach that has become a trademark of the regime led by President Volodymyr Zelensky.
“We would never be able to forgive ourselves if at some point we were able to speed up victory by resorting to carpet bombing and shelling the civilian population,” Pushilin said.
Dwelling on Moscow’s response to the constant shelling of Russian frontline towns by Ukraine’s Armed Forces, the DPR head emphasized: “Gritting our teeth and losing loved ones, we have been dealing with this since 2014, but it has not eroded our humanity. Losing humanity here could have much more serious consequences for our country. This is exactly what our president is talking about – the need to remain human.”
French Politician Calls for NATO’s Destruction ‘For World Peace’
Sputnik – 06.01.2024
While many NATO member states continue antagonizing Russia by massing troops on its borders and prolonging the Ukrainian conflict through arms supplies to the Kiev regime, calls to disband the military bloc begin to come from the NATO countries themselves.
French politician and The Patriots party founder Florian Philippot has called for the NATO alliance to by disbanded for the sake of peace.
Phillipot accused “NATO hawks” and their “puppet” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of trying to “impoverish us and send hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to certain and unnecessary death.”
Voicing his grievances in a post on social media network X (formerly Twitter), Philippot urged the resolution of the Ukrainian conflict through “peace negotiations” as soon as possible and called for the “destruction of NATO for world peace.”
He also pointed to the recent revelations of retired French Air Force General Bruno Clermont, who admitted that Russia commands “considerable” air superiority in the Ukrainian conflict. Philippot noted that those who had made similar remarks over the past two years were ridiculed.
Philippot has long been a critic of his country’s support to the regime in Kiev, arguing in November that “France must not allow itself to be duped by being the last country ‘at war’ against Russia.”
The politician’s remarks came amid media speculation that Ukraine’s Western sponsors are growing weary of Kiev’s military blunders and inability to meet the goals of NATO’s proxy war against Russia.
Ukraine De Facto Became NATO’s Testing Ground for Digital Warfare Against Russia – Moscow
Sputnik – 05.01.2024
MOSCOW – Artur Lyukmanov, the director of the Department of International Information Security of the Russian Foreign Ministry shared with Sputnik key insights into the US-backed cyber war against Russia being waged from Ukrainian territory.
Ukraine has de facto become a NATO ground for testing methods of fighting Russia in the digital space, Artur Lyukmanov, the director of the Department of International Information Security of the Russian Foreign Ministry, has told Sputnik.
“Indeed, in the past two years, the domestic information infrastructure has become the target of regular computer attacks. Most of them are carried out from the territory [of Ukraine] or in the interests of [Ukrainian President] Volodymyr Zelensky’s regime,” Lyukmanov said.
He added that “the Kiev authorities, who in the West pose themselves as victims of ‘Russian cyber aggression,’ boast of sabotage against Russia using information and communication technologies.”
In November 2023 alone, the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry claimed responsibility for several cyberattacks on Russian information resources, Lyukmanov said.
“This country has de facto become a NATO testing ground for the methods of warfare in the digital space,” Lyukmanov said, adding that “the entire information security sector of Ukraine has been handed over to the external management of Western curators.”
Ukrainian “Army” of IT-Scammers Threatens Europe
Russia has repeatedly warned Western countries that Ukraine’s US-backed “IT army” would become a problem for Europeans, and this is what exactly has happened as there are more than 1,000 “call centers” in Ukraine that are engaged in the extortion of money, Artur Lyukmanov, the director of the Department of International Information Security of the Russian Foreign Ministry, has told Sputnik.
“As for the ‘IT army,’ we are talking, in fact, about a bunch of hackers and telephone fraud, who are mainly engaged in trivial theft. According to our data, there are more than 1,000 ‘call centers’ on the territory of Ukraine engaged in the extortion of money. We have repeatedly warned Western countries that the “IT army” created in spite of Russia and supported by the United States would sooner or later become a problem for ordinary Europeans. After all, this is what exactly has happened,” Lyukmanov said.
The Russian official recalled that Hungarian authorities said in November 2023 that most of the funds stolen in Hungary “as a result of crimes using information and communication technologies and telephone fraud end up in Ukraine,” adding that “the geography and scale of criminal activity of these ‘fighters for independence’ is much wider and is not limited to Europe.”
Western Information Security Funds Embezzled
Anglo-Saxon countries send their special services’ cyber units to Ukraine to train their hackers engaged in activities against Russia, and the majority of Western funds provided to Ukraine for information security are being embezzled, Artur Lyukmanov, the director of the Department of International Information Security of the Russian Foreign Ministry, has told Sputnik.
Lyukmanov said Ukraine’s entire information security sector has been handed over to the external management of Western curators.
“Cyber units of special services and armed forces of Anglo-Saxon countries are sent there [to Ukraine] to train and coordinate hackers engaged in activities against Russia. Substantial technical and financial assistance is provided for this, which, of course, is mostly embezzled. We have no doubts that a significant portion of the budget of the US Cyber Command, which has bloated to a record $13.5 billion, will be spent at the Ukraine direction,” Lyukmanov said.
Western War Machine is in Panic Mode
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – 01.01.2024
The sheer inability of the collective West to force Russia into submission in Ukraine plus the fast-changing global opinion about the West in the context of the latter’s support for Israel’s brutal war on the Gazans has put the so-called ‘liberal-democratic’ world into a panic mode. The White House has already said that it will run out of money to fund Ukraine into 2024 unless the US Congress gives approval for more funding. This has led the Western war machine – primarily led by the US – to anticipate a possible defeat. “There is no guarantee of success with us, but they are certain to fail without us”, a senior US military official told CNN recently. Without the military support, US officials now estimate, Ukraine would fall by the summer of 2024. But, in Western calculations, Ukraine’s fall does not just mean Russia’s victory; it also implies a possible collapse of NATO and the eventual downfall of the Western-dominated global political, economic, and security order.
A recent piece in the Wall Street Journal said,
“Even more important, Russia’s success in Ukraine would increase a threat to NATO’s Eastern flank—in particular the Baltic states and Poland. Outside of Europe it would embolden Moscow’s allies Iran and North Korea and provide a template for China for the military solution of the Taiwan dispute. In all those cases, the U.S. and NATO troops could find themselves in the midst of a military conflict of the sort that Ukraine fights today without direct involvement of NATO”.
Such prospects are causing severe problems. Germany, for instance, is considering shelving voluntary force and making a return to conscription. “I believe that a nation that needs to become more resilient in times like these will have a higher level of awareness if it is mixed through with soldiers,” said Jan Christian Kaack, the chief of the German Navy. This is in addition to the fact that the German army is too small to defend itself against any threat; hence, the renewed emphasis on conscription.
But Germany is not an exceptional case. In fact, it mirrors developments in the rest of Europe. The UK, otherwise known to possess one of the best fighting forces in the world, is running into some problems of a fundamental nature. The Sky News reported earlier in the year that, a senior US general “privately told Defence Secretary Ben Wallace the British Army is no longer regarded as a top-level fighting force”. It was further reported that the “The armed forces would run out of ammunition in a few days if called upon to fight” and that “The UK lacks the ability to defend its skies against the level of missile and drone strikes that Ukraine is enduring”.
On top of it is the fact that the Russian military position in Ukraine remains strong, making it a lot harder for the West to provide enough funding. The Biden administration is facing its own challenges vis-à-vis more funding for Ukraine. As far as Europe is concerned, a recent report showed that pledges for funding made in August 2023 fell by almost 90 percent compared to the same period last year.
This is war fatigue that is being compounded by a well-sustained Russian resolve to achieve its objectives. For the West, Vladimir Putin remains “stubborn”. As Putin recently reiterated, “There will be peace when we achieve our goals… Now let’s return to these goals – they have not changed. I would like to remind you how we formulated them: denazification, demilitarisation, and a neutral status for Ukraine.”
Speaking from a position of strength – and keeping in mind the war fatigue in the West – Putin further said that Russian forces are “improving their position almost along the entire line of contact. Almost all of them are engaged in active combat. And the position of our troops is improving along [the entire line of contact.]”. This being the case, Putin conveyed no ideas of making a compromise with the West over Ukraine. Speaking from the Russian perspective, it would make no sense to offer negotiations and, thus, turn Russian tactical victories into unsustainable settlements.
Clearly, Russia has no intention of withdrawing from its victories, which is why there is a panic, especially in Europe. If Russia continues to win and the US funding stalls, Europe will be left to fend for itself. Germany’s defence minister minced no words to express this fear last Saturday when he said that the US “was losing interest in European affairs and that security tensions in the Pacific would likely leave the European Union having to fend for itself”, adding that “One can assume that the USA will be more involved in the Pacific region in the next decade than it is today – regardless of who becomes the next president,” he said. His conclusion is: “This means that we Europeans must increase our commitment to ensure security on our continent.”
In a nutshell, for the US, if the war in Ukraine was to unify the West, it is beginning to have an exactly opposite effect. There lies a very strong reason for the US to reconsider its strategy. This reconsideration can go in two directions. First, the US can withdraw from its obsession with expanding NATO to include Ukraine. Second, the US can make one last push and make Ukraine fight for as long as it can, hoping that this might break Russia. The Biden administration favours the second option, which is why it is pushing for the US$61 billion aid package. But will a Republican victory allow this to happen? A Republican victory could not only end support for Ukraine but also leave Europe in a total lurch. Tough times ahead.
Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.
Putin lifts the fog of war in Ukraine

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | DECEMBER 29, 2023
Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine is entering a new phase. President Vladimir Putin lifted the fog of war and hinted at what can be expected going forward in a landmark speech at the National Defence Control Centre while addressing a meeting of the Russian Defence Ministry Board on December 19.
Russia has gained the upper hand in the proxy war while the United States is struggling to recreate a new narrative. For Putin, this is a moment of triumph where he has no reason to take advantage of the fog of war in Ukraine, whereas, for President Biden, the fog of war continues to serve a useful purpose of dissimulation in the crucial election ahead where he seeks a second term.
Putin’s speech exuded a buoyant mood. The Russian economy has not only regained its pre-2022 momentum but is accelerating toward a 3.5% growth rate by the yearend, marked by rising incomes and purchasing power for millions of its citizens and an increase in living standards. Unemployment is at an all-time low and Russia has beaten back the Western sanctions and the attempts to isolate it in the international arena.
The leitmotif of Putin’s speech is that this is a war that Russia never sought but was imposed on it by the US. Putin had listed last year in February five clear-cut objectives of the Russian military operation — security of the Russian population; de-nazification of Ukraine; demilitarisation of Ukraine; striving for a friendly regime in Kiev; and, non-admission of Ukraine into NATO. These are of course interlocked objectives. The US and its allies know it but continue to pretend otherwise. Their focus in the proxy war has been a military victory and regime change in Russia.
Putin’s message is that any new Western narrative on the war is doomed to meet the same fate as the previous one unless there is realism that Russia cannot be militarily defeated and its legitimate interests are recognised.
The heart of the matter is that the West all along perceived Ukraine as a geopolitical project targeting Russia. Today, even with defeat staring at its face, the West’s priority lies in forcing Russia to agree to a ceasefire on the basis of the existing line of contact without any geopolitical or strategic obligations on the part of Washington or the transatlantic alliance — which, de facto, would mean leaving the door for the rearmament of the battered Ukrainian military and for Kiev’s accession to NATO through the back door.
Suffice to say, the discredited agenda of using Ukraine as a pawn to pursue the West’s anti-Russian policy is still very much around. But Moscow will not fall for the US’ trap a second time, risking another war that may erupt at a time that suits NATO.
Unsurprisingly, Putin’s speech paid great attention to revving up Russia’s defence industry to meet any military exigencies that might arise. But towards the end of his speech, Putin also dwelt on Russia’s politico-military options under the circumstances.
On the military side, clearly, Russia will press forward the attritional war to its logical end of pushing the Ukrainian military into a strategic dead-end, which would mean seeking tactical improvements along the frontline, undermining Ukraine’s economic potential, inflicting military losses, and boosting Russia’s own defence industry on a scale that tips the balance of forces to weigh against any military adventures by NATO.
In the final analysis, Putin asserted, Russia is determined to reclaim the “vast historical territories, Russian territories, along with the population” that the Bolsheviks transferred to Ukraine during the Soviet era. However, he drew an important distinction as regards the “western lands” of Ukraine (west of Dnieper) that are a legacy of World War II over which there could be territorial claims from Poland, Hungary and Romania, which at least in the case of Poland is also linked to the transfer of “eastern German lands, the Danzig Corridor, and Danzig itself” following the defeat of the Third Reich.
Putin took note that “people who live there (western Ukraine) – many of them, at least, I know this for sure, 100 percent – they want to return to their historical homeland. The countries that lost these territories, primarily Poland, dream of having them back.”
That said, interestingly, Putin simply washed his hands of any territorial disputes that may arise between Ukraine and its eastern neighbours (all of whom are NATO countries.) Looking ahead, this is going to be a can of worms for the US. Recently, Russia’s intelligence chief Sergey Naryshkin used a powerful metaphor, warning that the US may face a “second Vietnam” in Ukraine that will come to haunt it for a long time.
The bottom line, as Putin framed it, is as follows: “History will put everything in its place. We (Moscow) will not interfere, but we will not give up what is ours. Everyone should be aware of this –- those in Ukraine who are aggressively disposed towards Russia, and in Europe, and in the United States. If they want to negotiate, let them do so. But we will do it only based on our interests.”
Putin concluded saying that if the final arbiter is military prowess, that explains why Russia is focusing on a “strong, reliable, well-equipped, and properly motivated Armed Forces” backed by a strong economy and “the support of the multi-ethnic people of Russia.”
There is a strong likelihood of Russian military operations moving further westward toward the Dnieper in the coming months, well beyond the four new territories that joined the Russian Federation last year — Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhia, and Kherson. In the absence of any negotiated settlement, Russia may choose to unilaterally “liberate” those southern regions of Ukraine that were historically part of Russia, which would presumably include Odessa and the entire Black Sea coast, or Kharkov to the north of the Donbass region.
Russia is expecting that the combat capabilities of the Ukrainian forces will sharply diminish in the near future and the army faces difficulty already to get new recruits. That is to say, through the year ahead, the balance of forces at the front will shift due to the Ukrainian military’s heavy losses and the drop in Western aid, and, at some point, Ukraine’s defences will begin to crumble.
Russia’s recent gains in military operations — eg., Soledar, Artyomovsk (Bakhmut), Avdeevka, Maryinka, etc. — already testify to a shift in the balance of forces between the two armies. This shift will further accelerate as Russia’s military-industrial complex is functioning optimally and Russia is massively deploying new types of weapons, such as gliding aviation bombs, which have altered the role of the Russian Air Force in the conflict.
Dozens of heavy aerial bombs are dropped every single day and similarly, there is increase in the use of modern barrage ammunition and some other systems, including precision-guided munitions. T-90M tanks and new types of light armoured vehicles have also appeared on the battlefield.
In comparison, Ukraine faces a decrease in arms supplies due to limited production capacities in the West where sustainable production growth on an industrial scale is not attainable in the near term. Meanwhile, the Middle East crisis and the tensions around Taiwan become major distractions for the US.
All these factors taken into account, a decisive shift in the balance of forces against Ukraine is entirely conceivable by the end of next year, leading to an end of the conflict on Russia’s terms.
