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.
Russian Forces Wipe Out First French-Donated Crotale NG Missile System in Ukraine
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 25.12.2023
In the course of the ongoing special military operation in Ukraine, the Russian Armed Forces have been successfully delivering high-precision strikes targeting foreign equipment and ammunition provided to the Kiev regime by Washington and its NATO allies, obliterating the much-touted sophisticated weaponry.
Russia’s Armed Forces operating in the special military operation zone have destroyed several Norwegian-made NASAMS (National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System) and one French Crotale NG short-range air defense system that the Kiev regime received from its Western patrons, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Sunday. The NATO-donated weapons systems were stationed at the Starokonstantinov Airfield in the Khmelnitsky region.
This is believed to be the first recorded instance of a Crotale NG being obliterated in combat, and serves as further proof that NATO’s state-of-the-art equipment is fair game for Russia’s military.
The Russian military carried out a coordinated assault that involved tactical aircraft, missile troops, artillery units, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Besides neutralizing the air defense systems, the attack inflicted damage on the Kiev regime’s aircraft equipment, flight navigation sysems, and aviation ammunition stored at the airfields in Kanatovo, Kirovograd region, and Dnepr, Dnepropetrovsk region. Furthermore, military personnel and equipment of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was destroyed in 127 districts.
The strategic impact of Russian strikes on Ukraine’s air defense capabilities is expected to be significant, Army Recognition, an online Western military outlet, acknowledged, commenting the MoD announcement. It clarified that the destruction of enemy air defense capabilities enables Russia’s military to gain even greater control over the airspace. While reducing the risk to their own aircraft, it boosts their ability to carry out air operations such as strategic bombing, providing close air support to ground forces, and conducting reconnaissance missions.
As part of NATO’s ongoing proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, France has supplied Ukraine with two Crotale NG air defense batteries, the military outlet underscored.
The French Crotale NG (New Generation) missile system is a modernized version of the Crotale air defense system designed for short-to-medium range air defense. Equipped with the VT1 missile with an engagement range of around 11 kilometers (6.8 miles), it is touted as providing effective defense against aircraft, helicopters, various precision-guided weapons, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The system can engage targets at altitudes up to 6,000 meters.
As far as NASAMS are concerned, a number of countries have delivered these systems to Ukraine. Thus, Belgium has purportedly contributed an undisclosed number of AIM-120 NASAMS missiles, Lithuania has delivered two launchers, while Canada has supplied Kiev with one NASAMS air defense battery along with AIM-120 missiles.
The NASAMS utilizes the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), capable of engaging targets at distances of up to 25 kilometers. This renders the NASAMS effective for medium-range air defense scenarios.
The United States reportedly sent eight NASAMS batteries as part of its billions’ worth of military assistance to Ukraine, while the UK has donated NASAMS missiles.
Despite the vast amounts of military aid being provided by the West, Ukraine’s much-hyped 2023 counteroffensive that began in June of this year failed to produce any tangible battlefield results. As the country’s military losses have mounted, public support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also waned in recent months.
Political developments have suggested that support for Ukraine is dwindling in the United States as well, where President Joe Biden’s massive funding package for Kiev has stalled in Congress. Republicans have insisted on incorporating funding for border security. In Europe, “Ukraine fatigue” is also gaining momentum, as EU states face depleted stocks from funneling military aid to Kiev, and repercussions from self-harming anti-Russia sanctions.
Since Western countries ramped up military support for the Kiev regime, Moscow officials have consistently warned that such moves do not bode well for Ukraine, and only prolong the conflict. NATO weaponry, no matter how sophisticated, will eventually be destroyed, the Kremlin underscored, and vehicles carrying supplied weapons are a legitimate target for the Russian army.
The Anglo-American War on Russia – Part Twelve (NATO Wants War)
Tales of the American Empire | December 21, 2023
The American empire is expanding to rule the world with the help of its NATO vassal states. In 2008, American President George Bush announced that NATO wanted to add Ukraine to NATO, even though most Ukrainians opposed the idea. Russia announced this would be unacceptable while Germany and France said now is not the time to add Ukraine.
NATO now has 31 members who all must approve of new members, so it’s politically impossible to add Ukraine to NATO while it fights with Russia. However, the United States had already made Ukraine de facto member and wanted a war to occur.
Ukraine never implemented the 2015 Minsk peace accords nor the 2019 Steinmeier Formula agreement and continued random tank and artillery fire into rebel held cities, killing some 14,000 ethnic Russians since 2015. On the eve of the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine, the buildup of Russian troops on the eastern border of the Donbas was heavily reported. Unreported was the buildup of Ukrainian troops on the Donbas’ western border that preceded it. Ukraine had massed 60,000 troops along its border with Donbas rebels.
As Ukraine slowly loses its war with Russia, many fear NATO will intervene militarily. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenburg has spent years selling the dangerous idea of adding Ukraine to NATO. This led to disaster, yet Stoltenburg still promotes this insane idea that would lead to a world war.
_________________________________
“German agency suspends certification for NordStream 2”; DW; November 11, 2021; https://www.dw.com/en/german-agency-s…
Related Tale: “The American Colony Called Germany”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adfyC…
“Germany’s Economy is in Freefall”; Remix; September 2023; https://www.bitchute.com/video/bo10lE…
“Address by the President of the Russian Federation”; Vladimir Putin; The Kremlin; February 21, 2022; http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president…
Related Tales: “The Anglo-American War on Russia”; https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
Attacking Yemen Is a Waste of Time, Money and Resources
By Declan Hayes | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 22, 2023
What to do with a problem like Yemen and its 2,000 km (1,200 mile) long Red Sea coastline? And indeed with Eritrea, Djibouti and Somali, all three of which share maritime borders with Yemen.
The issue is that Yemen’s Houthi have decided that all ships using the Red Sea that have any connection, near or far, with Israel, are legitimate targets for its batteries of missiles some of which, as previously discussed, are almost unstoppable ballistic missiles.
The problem is how to sail Israeli and other targeted ships through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and thence onwards to pay the $500,000-$1,000,000 toll to sail through Egypt’s Suez Canal. This problem is compounded by (Russia’s) dark and grey fleets, which transfer embargoed oil, being allowed free passage and the Chinese, which have a major naval base in nearby Djibouti, playing schlump about the whole matter. NATO’s problem is how to deal with the Houthi, whilst also marginalising China, Iran and Russia, all three of which have very big dogs in this very important fight.
Although diplomacy would seem an obvious candidate to help resolve matters NATO, in its wisdom, long ago discarded that card and China is, in any event, playing a totally different and far more incendiary global game.
On top of all that, NATO’s major shipping lines have their own profiteering demands, which further complicate matters. In essence, those major companies want NATO to escort all its ships, and not just those flying NATO flags, in convoy through the Red Sea. Although that would benefit them, NATO is primarily obliged to protect its own fleet and not the 40% of the world’s ships that fly the flags of open registry countries like Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands or, heaven forbid, that transport dark or grey cargo on behalf of Russia and its partners. And, if that were not enough, many non-eligible ships carry military ordnance for NATO and, most likely, Israel as well.
Even if NATO were, like Tom Hanks in Greyhound, to convoy some or all of those ships through the Red Sea, there is no guarantee that they would not be hit there or further up the chain, say in the Suez Canal itself. Although convoys are a risk those large shipping companies should probably run, their extreme risk aversion means they instead prefer to detour past the entire African continent and thereby weaken NATO’s already weak supply chains by needlessly extending them. NATO’s shipping companies are divided on how best to respond and, of course, a house divided cannot stand.
The second and third options are to plonk NATO armadas off the Yemeni coast, to send marines and French legionaries ashore and to bomb the living shit out of the Yemeni, to poke the Houthi hornet’s nest, in other words and make them bleed, something they are long inured to.
Although these are scenarios NATO’s High Command has yet to fully war game out, retired US Vice Admiral James Stavridris, who now fronts the Carlyle Group, summarises the main issues in this revealing article, where he points to the domino effect on global supply chains, where combatting swarms of cheap Houthi (and, later Iranian?) drones is a very expensive proposition and where alternative options to obliterate the Houthi threat are haram.
These other options include arming merchant shipping with appropriate weaponry, a solution that would be unacceptable to any neutral port the ships might like to dock in. Stavridris’ solution, unsurprisingly for NATO’s former military commander, is to bomb the living shit out of Yemen, “to carry out offensive strikes against targets ashore, perhaps using Tomahawk missiles and attack aircraft from the carrier USS Eisenhower, now patrolling the Gulf of Oman.”
All well and good but the Houthi are mobile and they have a lot of real estate to play about in, not only in Yemen itself but in contiguous countries. And that is before we consider Iran’s plans to have giant flotillas of small but highly armed speedboats causing mayhem in nearby waters, should the need arise. You can swat all the Houthi and Iranian mosquitoes you like but you will still get badly bitten.
Stavridris is undeterred by any of that. He believes that if saturation bombing does not work, “it would be entirely appropriate to strike the sponsor — Iran — especially its maritime infrastructure in the north Indian Ocean and the Gulf. This could include oil and gas platforms, port facilities and patrol vessels of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”
All of which makes eminent sense if the problem is a solitary nail and NATO’s navy is, as it always seems to be, a hammer capable of hammering down only one defenceless group of people at a time.
The issue here is that the Houthi, perhaps in cahoots with Iran, have shown that global supply lines are easily interdicted and Stavridis, Hanks and their Hollywood armadas notwithstanding, NATO and its merchant marine fleet can no longer ride roughshod over even marginal players like the Houthi, Hezbollah and Hamas, never mind Russia and, with regards to Asian waters, China, whose Fishing Militia has helped inspire Iran to form its own Maritime Militia of some 55,000 voluntary forces with 33,000 vessels.
And then there is NATO’s very odd toehold of Djibouti, which is home to military bases belonging to Germany, Spain, Italy, France, the United States, Britain, China, and Saudi Arabia, with Russia and India also being eager to set up shop there. Not only does Djibouti depend on the rents from these bases to stay afloat but Djibouti’s growing national debt is such that she can have no independent diplomatic leverage. Djibouti’s increased debt to China, which promised to make it another Dubai, means that it is a “black box” of a looming danger in the region – a danger that arises from the competition over military bases that goes much beyond the Houthi’s pinpricks.
If the Houthi were not already sufficiently riled up, NATO’s plans to build a Ben Gurion Canal from the Gulf of Aqaba via a flattened Gaza to the Mediterranean is sure to really get up their noses. Leaving all other considerations aside, Aqaba is best known in the West from Lawrence of Arabia, where Hollywood heart throb Peter O’Toole led Arab tribesmen to a famous victory over the Turks embedded there, even though that assault put the infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement to carve up Ottoman Arabia in jeopardy.
Though the consequences of the Sykes Picot Agreement and the related Balfour Declaration still have the noses of the Houthi and very many others out of joint, it seems NATO is prepared to play this game through to the end not only in the Gulf of Suez, the Gulf of Aqaba and the other West Asian choke points the Houthi and their allies have a presence in but much further afield to the Strait of Malacca and the Taiwan Strait as well. And, though the hammer happy US Vice Admiral James Stavridris no doubt has a solution for them factored around Tomahawk missiles, US marines and French paratroopers, one can only surmise that NATO’s adventurism in the Red Sea is the latest of several nails it is hammering into its own coffin.
Time to admit US and NATO bit off more than they can chew in Ukraine proxy war
Thousands of Ukrainians die on the battlefield as the war with Russia continues, but Washington and London are unwilling to admit defeat
By Oscar van Heerden | news 24 | September 29, 2023
How many Ukrainians must die before the US and its Western allies grow a conscience?
It’s wrong what they are doing to the Ukrainian people, and all this under the guise that the protracted war with Russia is what the Ukrainians want. Ukrainians, I’m sure, did not sign up for a war of attrition with Russia where hundreds of thousands of mainly Ukrainian men are injured and/or dying. The fact that everyone on both sides of the war chooses to remain numb to the figures of the dead suggests that the numbers are very high.
Why, then, is the Ukrainian government forcing young and old men on the streets of Kyiv to enlist and go to the front lines to be butchered by Russian forces? Why is the Ukrainian government, led by President Volodymyr Zelensky, requesting European governments to send Ukrainian men, who are legal immigrants and refugees in such countries, back to Ukraine against their will so they may be enlisted to go to the front lines of this war?
According to the website visitukraine.today, a new procedure for keeping military records of men was approved in Ukraine.
“One of the clauses of the resolution obliges foreign embassies to inform Ukrainian citizens abroad about the start of new conscription and to facilitate their return home if mobilisation is taking place in the motherland. After the changes in the legislation, they began to discuss the possible deportation of Ukrainians from the EU,” the website states.
Ukrainians are dying terribly in this war, and no one seems to care.
No one wants to stop the war
Apportioning blame to Russia is one way of dealing with this conflict, but the reality is that no one seems to want to put a stop to it.
If indeed Zelensky cared about his fellow citizens’ welfare and lives, surely by now he would have realised that this war is going nowhere, that the much-touted counter-offensive has failed, and that by starting negotiations with the Russians he can end this carnage once and for all.
However, under martial law, he has passed legislation making it illegal to negotiate peace with Russia while Vladimir Putin remains Russia’s president.
It’s a cop-out position to state that Russia can at any time stop this war if it withdraws all its troops from Ukrainian land. Why would Russia do that when it claims to be winning the war? And why would it do that if it started this conflict because of NATO’s expansion and when it claimed the people of the Donbas region were being persecuted by their own government while the rest of Europe did nothing? Not even the UN-adopted “responsibility to protect” is being invoked…
We’ve seen how the West can be trusted regarding agreements and negotiations. Former German chancellor Angela Merkel admitted last year in an interview with Germany’s Zeit magazine that the Minsk agreements were an attempt to “give Ukraine time” to build up its defences. We’ve seen that even when negotiations were concluded and signed in Turkey just weeks before the war broke out, it was not honoured by the Zelensky government.
So, tell me, why would Russia want to now, yet again, put its trust in the “collective West” and agree to what exactly? Whichever way you slice this matter, the truth is that Russia has been begging NATO not to expand eastwards for decades. To justify NATO’s continuous existence, it must, one, have a common enemy and why not the old foe, the Soviet Union, in its reincarnation? Two, it must continue expanding to enlarge and encircle the so-called enemy, Russia.
Zelensky’s US trip
Russia was weak in the early 1990s and hence expansion could not be stopped. Ten eastern European countries were allowed into NATO, most of them bordering Russia, and then a second expansion took place. Russia did nothing but complain, and it was clear what the intention was. Russia could see it too, and it prepared because it knew that the final straw would be Ukraine.
Strategically, with regard to Black Sea access, Ukraine joining NATO would pose a direct threat to the sovereignty and national security of Russia. The 2014 popular uprising that saw former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich forced from office was the starting block towards conflict, which saw Russia annexing Crimea because of its strategic location. The rest is history, meaning we all know what has happened since then and here we are today – witnessing an ongoing war of attrition, with both sides doing everything they can to win.
Earlier this week, Zelensky took a wartime trip to the US to appear before the UN General Assembly. He also visited Canada.
House of Representatives Speaker Kevin McCarthy refused to allow Zelensky to address the joint sitting of the House as was the case in the past, citing time constraints. it appears McCarthy is walking a thin line within his party as many Republicans and some Democrats are not eager and downright hostile to any suggestion of additional aid for Zelensky’s government, asking questions about the accountability of previous billions sent to Ukraine.
Weapons systems, artillery and ammunitions all came to nought even though the American people and European parliaments were all promised that the counter-offensive would deliver victory, or at the very least significant advances by the Ukrainians.
Earlier this year, The Washington Post reported that Zelensky was more than happy to use risky military actions such as occupying Russian villages to gain leverage over Moscow; bombing a pipeline that transfers Russian oil to Hungary, a NATO member; and privately pining for long-range missiles to hit targets inside Russia’s borders. This is contained in classified US intelligence documents detailing Zelensky’s internal communications with top aides and military leaders. The authenticity of the materials has not been disputed.
The one man standing and supporting Zelensky is US President Joe Biden.
Why, you might wonder. Well, it’s because of the upcoming presidential election in 2024. Biden must be seen as strong and resolute with regard to this war. Being seen as faltering in this regard will not bode well for him and the Democratic Party.
The reality is that Biden, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, French Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz all realise that their chosen actor, Zelensky, who was once compared with Winston Churchill nogal, is a failure; a walking disaster going around with a begging bowl for a war that seems unwinnable.
Clampdown
“Fighting for freedom” and “sovereignty” are being bandied around, but these are elements that were elusive in Ukraine even before this war. In fact, before the war, there was a clampdown on all alternative voices and media outlets in the country.
According to Reuters, the Ukrainian government in 2021 restricted media and the freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, violating international law. Eleven opposition parties were suspended during the period of martial law due to alleged links to Russia and now Zelensky has indefinitely postponed the next general election, where, in my opinion, he knows he will certainly be voted out for failing his people.
The harsh sanctions against Russia have not worked. In fact, the Russian economy is growing, unlike most European economies that are going into recession. Russia’s oil and gas sales are through the roof, and everyone is buying despite sanctions, including European countries themselves. Liquified gas sales to Europe have been up by 35% over the past few months.
Why not acknowledge the obvious – the US and NATO bit off more than they can chew. Zelensky’s kicking and screaming over the past few days did have at least some success. A few Abrams tanks from the US have arrived, combat-ready. I fear what we will see over the next few weeks is footage of these very sophisticated tanks burning on the battlefield just like all the other impressive equipment received from Ukraine’s sponsors. Ukrainian troops are only receiving weeks of training for intricate weapons systems instead of the months that are required to make them field-ready.
But it seems peace efforts from African leaders, Chinese leaders and even the Pope all fall on deaf ears. By all accounts, Washington and London want this war to continue.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was quick to issue an arrest warrant for a particular atrocity against Putin, but is conspicuously silent when it comes to alleged atrocities by Zelensky, Biden, Sunak and others.
The US sent controversial cluster munitions and depleted uranium shells to Ukraine, yet ICC chief prosecutor Karim Asad Ahmad Khan remains silent. Surely, double-standards are at play?
This is yet another reminder to us in the global south that the rules which govern the world order were not written by us. This war must stop … It’s terrible what is happening to our fellow brothers and sisters in both Ukraine and Russia.
Oscar van Heerden is a senior research fellow for African diplomacy and leadership at the University of Johannesburg.
Empty Quiver
By William Schryver – imetatronink – December 21, 2023
As the sun sets here at the Winter Solstice of 2023, I would like to draw attention yet again to what, in my estimation, is one of the most strategically significant battlefield humiliations inflicted upon NATO over the course of the Ukraine War: the progressively comprehensive defeat of their precision-guided strike missile inventory — ATACMS, HARMS, JDAMS, GMLRS fired from HIMARS, cruise missiles (Storm Shadow and SCALP).
The Russians have demonstrated that they can routinely shoot down ANY species of strike missile the US/NATO can field against them — not all of them all of the time, but most of them most of the time.
And they get better and better at it as time goes on.
Indeed, over the past few months it is increasingly becoming “all of them most of the time”.
As Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu reported earlier this week:
“We are using air defence systems in a comprehensive manner during the special military operation. This significantly improved their responsiveness and strike range. Over the last six months, we have shot down 1,062 of NATO’s HIMARS rockets, short-range and cruise missiles, and guided bombs.”
No other military on the planet has previously attested this level of capability. The US does not have it, and is at least a decade away from developing it.
And, it is important to bear in mind that the precision-guided systems the US and its NATO allies have provided for Ukraine are representative of the best their own militaries could deploy in a conflict with Russia.
The current front-line inventory of US tactical ballistic missiles and sea- and air-launched cruise missiles would present no greater technical challenge for Russian air defenses than what they have already seen and defeated in the Ukraine War.
The significance of this battlefield development defies exaggeration. It alters the war-fighting calculus that has been assumed for many decades.
Against Russia at least, the Pentagon must know that the success of a large conventional strike missile package is far from assured. There is no doubt some damaging hits would be inflicted, but Russian retaliatory capacity would not be appreciably affected, and the subsequent Russian counterstrike against NATO targets would be devastating — for the simple reason that US/NATO air defenses are not even remotely as effective as their Russian counterparts. In fact, they are rookie league in comparison. They would be as utterly befuddled as was the Patriot system in Kiev the night the Russians launched a very modest attack against it.
It would also be logical to assume that China, if not as fully proficient as Russia in every respect, is very likely not far behind.
It is also increasingly apparent that Iran has made great strides in the same direction.
As I have noted repeatedly in recent months: for the declining empire and its decrepit vassals, there are no easy wars left to fight.
Ukraine joins NATO’s Arctic projects against Russia
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | DECEMBER 19, 2023
In a plea earlier this month to Republicans not to block further military aid to Ukraine, US President Joe Biden warned that if Russia is victorious, then President Vladimir Putin will not stop and will attack a NATO country. Biden’s remark has drawn a sharp rebuke from Putin when he said, “This is absolutely absurd. I believe that President Biden is aware of this, this is merely a figure of speech to support his incorrect strategy against Russia.”
Putin added that Russia has no interest in fighting with NATO countries, as they “have no territorial claims against each other” and Russia does not want to “sour relations with them.” Moscow senses that a new US narrative is struggling to be born out of the debris of the old narrative on Ukraine war.
To jog memory, on 24 February, during a White House press conference on the first day of Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, Biden said western sanctions were designed not to prevent invasion but to punish Russia after invading “so the people of Russia know what he (Putin) has brought on them. That is what this is all about.”
A month later, on 26 March Biden, speaking in Warsaw, blurted out, “For God’s sake, this man (Putin) cannot remain in power.” These and similar remarks that followed, especially from Britain, reflected a US strategy for regime change in Moscow, with Ukraine as the pivot.
This strategy dates back to the 1990s and was actually at the core of the expansion of NATO along Russia’s borders, from the Baltics to Bulgaria. The Syrian conflict and covert activities of US NGOs to foment unrest in Russia were offshoots of the strategy. At least since 2015 after the coup in Kiev, CIA was overseeing a secret intensive training programme for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel. Succinctly put, the US set a trap for Russia to get it bogged down in a long insurgency, the presumption being the longer the Ukrainians can sustain the insurgency and keep Russian military bogged down, the more likely is the end of the Putin regime.
The crux of the matter today is that Russia defeated the US strategy and not only seized the initiative in the war but also rubbished the sanctions regime. The dilemma in the Beltway narrows down to how to keep Russia as an external enemy so that the West’s often fractious member states will continue to rally under US leadership.
What comes to mind is a sardonic remark by Soviet Academician Georgy Arbatov who was advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev, to an elite group of senior US officials even as the curtain was coming down on the Cold War in 1987: “We are going to do a terrible thing to you -– we are going to deprive you of an enemy.”
Unless black humour in this cardinal truth is properly understood, the entire US strategy since the 1990s to rebuff the efforts of Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, and early Putin to establish non-adversarial relations with the West cannot be grasped.
Put differently, if the US’ post-cold war Russia strategy has not worked, it is because of a fundamental contradiction: on the one hand, Washington needs Russia as an enemy to provide internal unity within the western alliance, while on the other hand, it also needs Russia as a cooperative, subservient junior partner in the struggle against China.
The US hopes to draw down in Ukraine and stave off defeat by leaving behind a “frozen conflict” which it’s free to revisit later at a time of its choice, but in the meanwhile, is increasingly eyeing the Arctic lately as the new theatre to entrap Russia in a quagmire. The induction of Finland into NATO (and Sweden to follow) means that the unfinished business of Ukraine’s membership, which Russia thwarted, can be fulfilled by other means.
After meeting Biden at the White House last Tuesday, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky headed for Oslo on October 13 on a fateful visit to forge his country’s partnership in NATO projects to counter Russia in the Arctic. In Oslo, Zelensky participated in a summit of the 5 Nordic countries to discuss “issues of cooperation in the field of defence and security.” The summit took place against the backdrop of the US reaching agreements with Finland and Sweden on the use of their military infrastructure by the Pentagon.
The big picture is that the US is encouraging Nordic countries to get Ukraine to participate in strengthening NATO’s Arctic borders. One may wonder what is the “additionality” that a decrepit military like Ukraine’s can bring into NATO. Herein hangs a tale. Simply put, although Ukraine has no direct access to the Arctic, it can potentially bring in an impressive capability to undertake subversive activities inside Russian territory in a hybrid war against Russia.
In a strange coincidence, the Pentagon recently prepared the Starlink satellite system for use in the Arctic, which was used by Ukrainian military for staging attacks on the Crimean Bridge, Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and strategic assets on Russian territory. The US’ agreement with Finland and Sweden would give the Pentagon access to a string of naval and air bases and airfields as well as training and testing grounds along the Russian border.
Several hundred thousand Ukrainian citizens are presently domiciled in the Nordic countries who are open to recruitment for “an entire army of saboteurs like the one that Germany collected during the war between Finland and the USSR in 1939-1940 on the islands of Lake Ladoga,” as a Russian military expert told Nezavisimaya Gazeta recently.
Russia’s naval chief Admiral Nikolai Evmenov also pointed out recently that “the strengthening of the military presence of the united NATO armed forces in the Arctic is already an established fact, which indicates the bloc’s transition to practical actions to form military force instruments to deter Russia in the region.” In fact, Russia’s Northern Fleet is forming a marine brigade tasked with the fight against saboteurs to ensure the safety of the new Northern Sea Route, coastal military and industrial infrastructure in the Arctic.
Suffice to say, no matter Ukraine’s defeat in the US’ proxy war with Russia, Zelensky’s use for the US’ geo-strategy remains. From Oslo, Zelensky made an unannounced visit on December 14 to a US Army base in Germany. Analysts who see Zelensky as a spent force had better revise their opinion — that is, unless the power struggle in Kiev exacerbates and Zelensky gets overthrown in a coup or a colour revolution, which seems improbable so long as Biden is in the White House and Hunter Biden is on trial.
The bottom line is that Biden’s new narrative demonising Russia for planning an attack on NATO can be seen from multiple angles. At the most obvious level, it aims to hustle the Congress on the pending bill for $61 billion military aid to Ukraine. Of course, it also distracts attention from the defeat in the war. But, most important, the new narrative is intended to rally the US’ transatlantic allies who are increasingly disillusioned with the outcome of the war and nervous that US involvement in Europe may dwindle as it turns to Indo-Pacific.
When Putin reacts harshly that Biden’s new narrative is “absurd”, he is absolutely right insofar as Russia’s focus is on things far more important than waging a senseless continental war in Europe. After all, it was one of the founding fathers of the USA, James Monroe who said that a king without power is an absurdity.
NATO troops directly involved in Ukraine conflict – Russia
RT | December 19, 2023
Several NATO member states have boots on the ground in the Ukraine conflict, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has claimed. He alleged that Western military personnel are operating certain weapons systems, and that hundreds of satellites belonging to the US-led military bloc are providing Kiev with surveillance.
Speaking at a meeting of Defense Ministry officials on Tuesday, where President Vladimir Putin was also present, Shoigu stated that “NATO service members are directly operating air defense systems, tactical ballistic missiles, and multiple launch rocket systems” in Ukraine. He cited radio intercepts featuring English and Polish speakers. According to the minister, Western officers are also playing an active role in preparing Ukrainian military operations as well as training troops, both in their home countries and in Ukraine.
Russian officials have repeatedly warned that ever-deepening Western involvement in the conflict unnecessarily increases the chances of a direct military confrontation between NATO and Moscow.
The Russian defense chief went on to claim that more than 5,000 foreign fighters have been killed since hostilities broke out in February 2022, with 1,427 Polish, 466 US, and 344 UK nationals among them.
“Working in the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ interest are 410 NATO military and dual-purpose space devices,” Shoigu estimated.
He also lauded Russia’s defense industry for ramping up production in the past 18 months and helping prevent ammunition shortages on the front lines. “Despite the sanctions, we are manufacturing more high-tech weaponry than NATO countries,” Shoigu continued.
The minister concluded by stating that “as of today, the Russian army is the best-prepared and most combat-ready in the world, armed with cutting-edge weapons tested in combat.”
Putin insisted at the same meeting that the West’s efforts to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia have failed.
Speaking to the Ukrainian branch of US state-run broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) on Friday, Kiev’s former ambassador to the UK, Vadim Prystaiko, claimed that Britain is developing plans to potentially deploy troops to Ukraine.
The diplomat, who was fired after criticizing Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, went on to suggest that while Western officials will deny any such plans, foreign deployments are still possible under certain circumstances.
Finland’s new ‘defense’ deal with US eerily reminds of similar one with Nazi Germany
By Drago Bosnic | December 18, 2023
Ever since NATO formally (re)started the (New) Cold War, it has been expanding its military presence all across Europe, effectively escalating its crawling aggression on the continent. The obvious target – Russia. The belligerent alliance is determined to create a new “frontline” on Moscow’s western borders, this time by drastically increasing American military presence in Finland. Namely, last week, Helsinki announced that it will sign a bilateral “defense” cooperation agreement with the United States, allowing the latter to station troops and store weapons in Finland. During a news conference in Helsinki on December 14, the Nordic country’s Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen stated that Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen will sign the so-called Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) on December 18 (today).
“The pact is very significant for Finland’s defense and security,” Häkkänen was quoted by Euronews, adding: “It bears a very strong message in this time. The United States is committed to our defense.”
The DCA will allow American troops to access 15 military areas and facilities in the entirety of Finland, ranging from a key southern naval base and inland air bases to a vast remote army training area in Lapland in the north. Interestingly, Finnish officials admitted that American troops are allowed a permanent presence and regular exercises in the country, but they insist that “there are no plans to establish permanent US military bases in Finland”. These two claims are extremely contradictory, not to mention the fact that such deployments contribute nothing to Finnish security. On the contrary, this can only attract the attention of Russia, which otherwise would’ve never considered Finland a threat. The Nordic country of 5,6 million shares a 1,340-kilometer border with Russia, nearly tripling the line of direct NATO-Russia contact.
Along with the Baltic states, it’s also the European Union’s external border with Russia. The troubled bloc itself is militarizing and effectively unifying with NATO, cementing Europe’s position as a mere pendant of America’s geopolitical strategy of so-called “containment”. Other countries on the continent have similar bilateral agreements with the US, including the neighboring Sweden, while Denmark (already a NATO member) is very likely to do the same. The obvious question arises, why are Finland and Sweden doing this? Will they feel safer with American and other NATO troops stationed in their military facilities? It’s quite obvious that the belligerent alliance has always been an auxiliary extension of the Pentagon and this has been the case since NATO’s unfortunate inception 74 years ago, as well as its subsequent expansion.
Thus, an increase in American military presence in Finland should always be observed from the perspective of US expansionism, as the world’s most aggressive country keeps moving its “defense” infrastructure ever closer to the borders of its geopolitical adversaries. This has been the case in the (First) Cold War and it’s no different nowadays when Washington DC is pushing one European country after another into a broader anti-Russian coalition that now includes the entire EU. The US is also trying to do the same by constituting a near carbon copy of NATO in the Pacific in a virtually identical step, only aimed against China. The formal admission of Finland back in April and the current military expansion are just steps toward the so-called “globalization” of NATO, a terrifying prospect for the security of the world.
It could be argued that Finland was never truly neutral, not even during the (First) Cold War and particularly not since it entered the EU. It has always been packed with US/NATO intelligence assets, although this has escalated significantly in the last several decades. Since then, the country has essentially become a NATO member in all but name. Helsinki directly broke from its formal neutrality when it decided to acquire F-35 fighter jets from the US in late 2021. The Pentagon has direct access to everything the F-35’s sensors can detect, meaning that Finland would be sharing key military data with the US regardless of whether it was a NATO member or not. On the other hand, as I argued back in early April, being a direct member means that the Nordic country is virtually guaranteed to see the deployment of American offensive weapons.
The details of the latest “defense” deal are yet to be revealed, but it can only be expected that it will involve much more than simple infantry deployments. For Russia, this is particularly concerning, as Finland and Estonia, now both NATO members, are in close proximity to St. Petersburg, its second most important city. The stationing of any US offensive weapons such as cruise missiles and nuclear-capable fighter jets would deeply destabilize the otherwise largely stable region. There’s also a quite eerie historical dimension in all this. Namely, Helsinki is essentially repeating the same mistake it made over 80 years ago when it joined the Axis led by Nazi Germany. Now when it’s among “old friends” once again, maybe the Nordic country should dust off the history books and pay very close attention to how this ended the last time.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

