Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US has to ‘understand responsibility’ for Ukraine conflict – Kremlin

RT | December 15, 2023

The US has to review its current position on both the Ukraine conflict and relations with Russia if it wants to restore dialogue with Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told NBC in an interview published on Friday. Russia is ready to work with any American administration but would very much prefer a “more constructive” approach from Washington, he added.

The interview was published just a day after President Vladimir Putin accused the US and its allies of orchestrating the ongoing conflict between Moscow and Kiev and essentially disrupting Russia’s years-long efforts to build normal relations with Ukraine. He also questioned the prospect of restoring relations between Russia and the West, saying that between NATO’s encroachment towards Russia’s borders and the role the US and its allies are playing in the standoff between the two neighbors, Moscow can hardly trust the Western nations.

Putin would be ready to work with “anyone who will understand that from now on you have to be more careful with Russia and you have to take into account its concerns,” Peskov told NBC’s Keir Simmons in Moscow, adding that the Russian leader would like to see a US president who is “more constructive” toward Russia and values dialogue more.

The Kremlin spokesman also criticized America’s current role in the Ukraine conflict by saying that Washington only throws taxpayer money “into the wind” and is unnecessarily prolonging the hostilities by sending conflicting signals to Kiev, which end up just leading to more Ukrainian deaths.

A much-touted Ukrainian counteroffensive has largely failed to bring about any notable changes to the front lines over some six months of the operation. According to Russian Defense Ministry estimates, Ukraine has lost over 125,000 troops and 16,000 pieces of heavy equipment in failed attempts to advance over the past half year.

“You have to understand your responsibility for this,” Peskov said. “You are telling them [Ukrainians] — go and die,” he continued, adding that “you know pretty well that they cannot win” but still offer Kiev more money and armaments.

Russia has repeatedly stated it was ready for peace talks with Kiev as long as “the reality on the ground” is taken into account. In the autumn of 2022, four former Ukrainian territories, including the two Donbass republics, joined Russia following a series of referendums.

Kiev declared the referendums “sham” and has been pushing for its own “peace formula” under which Russia would withdraw its troops not only from the four regions but from Crimea as well before any talks could even commence. Moscow dismissed Ukraine’s demands as being detached from reality.

“America is strongly involved in this conflict,” the Kremlin spokesman told NBC, adding that the standoff between the two neighbors is in fact a “hybrid war” against Russia launched by Washington. Such confrontational tactics have been detrimental to global security, Peskov warned, adding that the world is “less safe than it used to be’’ before dialogue between Moscow and Washington was “shut down.”

Contacts between the two nations were reduced to minimum after Russia launched its military operation in February 2022. The US and its allies openly supported Kiev in the conflict and slapped Moscow with an unprecedented number of sanctions. Western nations then also started supplying arms to Ukrainian forces.

The ties have not been severed entirely, though. On Thursday, Putin revealed that dialogue between the two nations continues, particularly about the Americans accused of espionage in Russia. When asked during his marathon press conference about US nationals Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich, the president said that Russia was willing to exchange them but wanted to reach a deal with Washington that would be “mutually acceptable.”

December 15, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Russian Airborne Forces Ex-Commander: NATO Counteroffensive Plan Bad, New Ukraine Strategy Worse

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 14.12.2023

The Russian Armed Forces have shifted to the offensive in the special military operation zone and are making progress along the entire contact line, President Vladimir Putin said during his annual press conference.

Russia’s 617,000-strong military contingent is presently improving its positions along the almost 2,000 kilometer-long contact line, President Putin told attendees at his annual press conference. What’s behind the development?

The failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive has exposed the ineffectiveness of NATO’s strategic planning and outdated doctrines, says retired Colonel General Georgy Shpak, ex-commander of the Russian Airborne Forces.

“[NATO] placed its bet on Ukraine making it carry out a counteroffensive,” Shpak told Sputnik. “They organized and planned it. But the counteroffensive failed, because the [Russian military] foresaw [their steps], built good defenses worthy of the Russian army and withstood numerous attacks.”

“Now we have moved on to the second stage of this operation: to disable as much [Ukrainian] equipment and personnel as possible. This second stage is essentially coming to an end, because the Ukrainian army is exhausted, they lack manpower, their reserves are depleted, their money has run out, almost all of their equipment has been knocked out. This is the result of the work of American and British [military] advisers,” the retired colonel general continued.

NATO war planners failed to calculate the effects of many key factors, according to the military expert.

“They did not take into account current modern conditions, the huge number of [Russian] aerial vehicles that are designed for reconnaissance, observation, adjustment, and strikes. They didn’t take this into account. They hoped that if they struck in several directions, our defenses would crack, but we held the line.”

Shpak was also highly sceptical of NATO’s 2024 strategy for Ukraine, which envisages digging in and building up forces for a possible new offensive.

“I would say that it is even worse than their counter-offensive,” the general said. “Not a single defensive structure can withstand strikes of modern powerful weapons. Furthermore, it’s impossible to build reinforced concrete fortifications which are over 1,000 kilometers long and 20-30 meters deep, with enormous coverage. This is all nonsense. It’s impossible to build something like that. There will still be gaps here and there, failures here and there.”

“This is all theory. For me, as a military man, it’s just like a children’s fairy tale, not a thought-out plan. They have abruptly shifted from a counteroffensive to an all-out defense. I believe this will lead to their defeat,” Shpak added.

December 14, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine’s Botched Counteroffensive Ignites New ‘Mantras’ in US – Lavrov

Sputnik – 13.12.2023

With Ukraine’s counteroffensive obviously failing, the United States has taken up a new rallying cry, which is to prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin from winning in Ukraine so that “NATO is not conquered,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

“After the collapse of the so-called counteroffensive, [people] in Washington stopped talking about Russia’s strategic defeat on the battlefield and, during Zelensky’s latest visit, activated a new mantra: ‘don’t let Putin win in Ukraine’, otherwise all of NATO will be conquered and then America won’t sit through it,” Lavrov said during the “government hour” in the Federation Council, upper house of the Russian parliament.

“We are ready for such a challenge and will continue to firmly defend our truth,” Lavrov emphasized.

The top Russian diplomat also noted that “it is not easy for our ill-wishers to come to grips with the fact that the bet on the sanctions blitzkrieg against the Russian economy has completely failed.”

“Therefore, those who launched the hybrid war against us won’t admit their mistakes, they are trying to use more and more illegitimate tools to wear down Russia, as they say, relishing the dream of eliminating our country as an independent geopolitical value,” the Russian diplomacy chief explained.

December 13, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Mainstream propaganda machine doubles down on ‘Russia losing’ fantasies

By Drago Bosnic | December 13, 2023

Even before the start of the special military operation (SMO), the mainstream media had been running several propaganda narratives, almost simultaneously. Shortly before the SMO and in the first few days, there was the claim that Russia would take Kiev in three days and most of Ukraine in a week. However, as this didn’t happen (nor was it ever planned to unfold this way in the Kremlin), the mainstream propaganda machine went full afterburner in the opposite direction. Now, Moscow was suddenly losing, the Kiev regime forces are unbeatable, the Russians are suffering from extremely low morale due to massive losses, they’re running out of missiles, shells, fuel and so on, and so forth.

These ludicrous myths never stopped and continued until the failure of the much-touted counteroffensive. That was when many in the political West adopted a somewhat less propagandistic tone and tried mixing in some “realism”. However, this didn’t have the desired effect on the populace in Western Europe and North America. Thus, there’s a slow return to the most ridiculous propaganda one could possibly imagine. For instance, the Wall Street Journal claims that the Neo-Nazi junta will be “able to seize the initiative on the battlefield in 2025 if it can hold out against Russia until the end of next year”. This narrative is being pushed despite the fact that the United States, its primary backer, is about to stop the money flow.

The report initially doesn’t come off as propagandistic as one would expect, but towards the end, the authors still tried pushing debunked propaganda narratives. There are several instances of somewhat unexpected admissions, such as the obvious failure of the Kiev regime’s counteroffensive, as well as the dwindling financial support from the political West. The report also touched upon the growing divisions within the Neo-Nazi junta and the fact that its battered military will need time to recover. However, in a response to the WSJ, its Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba challenged this with a claim that “any pause in the fighting now would allow Russia to regroup and prepare for large-scale offensive operations”.

Kuleba even stated that the Kiev regime forces are preparing fresh brigades for “new counteroffensive and defensive operations”. The WSJ supported the idea and even went as far as to claim that “2024 will be the year of the recovery [for the Neo-Nazi junta troops]”. However, the authors admit that this comes with an important caveat, as the Kiev regime and its NATO overlords will need to “work through their current adversities and continue delivering supplies to troops, an emerging best-case scenario among Western strategists is that next year becomes a year of rebuilding for Kiev’s military“, adding that “the hope would be that a limited number of Ukrainian soldiers can hold Russian forces at bay”.

This would supposedly “allow NATO countries time to train fresh Ukrainian troops, expand armament production and restock Ukraine’s arsenals”. As indicated during a recent NATO meeting, the political West hopes that Russia’s incremental offensive operations will fail, “resulting in a depletion of its manpower and munitions, potentially offering Ukraine better prospects to retake the battlefield initiative in the spring of 2025, if it gets through next year”. However, the WSJ concluded the report with a not-so-optimistic remark of a Ukrainian infantry sergeant who said that when he talks to people at home he tells them that “everything is going well” and doesn’t describe what he sees or feels, which isn’t so upbeat.

“What is the point?”, the WSJ quoted the Ukrainian sergeant.

While the WSJ certainly is part of the mainstream, it’s still a bit more reputable than many other outlets of America’s massive propaganda machine. For instance, the infamous CNN is beating its own records in laughable claims by publishing that “Russia has lost a staggering 87% of the total number of active-duty ground troops it had prior to launching its invasion of Ukraine and two-thirds of its pre-invasion tanks”. Of course, this information came from “a source familiar with a declassified US intelligence assessment provided to Congress”. The assessment was sent on December 11, as the Republican-dominated Congress was in the middle of effectively canceling the “Ukraine aid”.

The “intelligence” assessment supposedly found that “the war has sharply set back 15 years of Russian effort to modernize its ground force”. Then came the numbers game, where CNN claims that “of the 360,000 troops that entered Ukraine, including contract and conscript personnel, Russia has lost 315,000 on the battlefield, 2,200 of 3,500 tanks and 4,400 of 13,600 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers have also been destroyed, a 32% loss rate”. CNN says it reached out to the Russian Embassy for comment, which is yet to respond. The most likely scenario is that His Excellency Ambassador Anatoly Antonov is still laughing uncontrollably after reading all this. And he certainly isn’t the only one.

“The idea that Ukraine was going to throw Russia back to the 1991 borders was preposterous,” Sen. J.D. Vance, a Republican from Ohio, said on CNN’s State of the Union on December 10, adding: “So what we’re saying to the president and really to the entire world is, you need to articulate what the ambition is. What is $61 billion going to accomplish that $100 billion hasn’t?”

Even CNN had to admit that “Ukraine remains deeply vulnerable”, as its “highly anticipated counteroffensive stagnated through the fall”, and that “US officials believe that Kiev is unlikely to make any major gains over the coming months”. As for the alleged “staggering losses” of the Russian military, the truth is that Moscow hasn’t been this strong militarily since at least the 1980s. In addition, the Kremlin is effectively returning to a Soviet superpower level with its latest military strategy shift. The very idea that Russia lost well over 300,000 soldiers is beyond ludicrous, as the country would be littered with new military cemeteries in virtually every major settlement. On the contrary, it’s precisely Ukraine that looks like that thanks to the NATO-backed Neo-Nazi junta.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

December 13, 2023 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s goal “conquering Ukraine”, say Western media. Not so, say experts

By Uriel Araujo | December 12, 2023

The Ukrainian former defense minister Oleksii Reznikov recently stated that the Kremlin’s goal is to “destroy” Ukraine completely, “assimilating” its citizens into the Russian Federation. Such wild claims have not been much challenged by journalists and opinion-makers in the West. After all, according to Western media Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “plan” is and has always been “to conquer” Ukraine all along. This pervasive Western narrative, also pushed by Kyiv, far from being a kind of self-evident truth, is challenged by voices within the US Establishment such as Jeffrey Sachs and by many respected scholars in the West, including some who are very critical of Moscow. Such a one-sized narrative in fact removes any context regarding the current crisis and completely ignores Russian perspective, goals, and security concerns.

Although a harsh critic of Russia’s ongoing military campaign in Ukraine, Wolfgang Richter (a Senior Associate in the International Security Division at the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik – SWP) acknowledged, for example, in a 2022 article that in December 2021, Moscow had “made clear in two draft treaties” what it was after: “preventing a further expansion of NATO to the east and obtaining binding assurances to this end.” The Alliance and Washington, however, according to Richter, “were not prepared to revise the principles of the European security order” and thus Moscow obviously “did not accept this and resorted to the use of force.”

According to this expert, although the US is “far from the theater of conflict in Europe”, French and British nuclear weapons and “the deployment of US sub-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe and NATO’s conventional forces on Russia’s borders” are indeed a security risk in the European continent from Moscow’s perspective. This is so, he argues, quite convincingly, because Russia understands that a future threat could arise from the new American intermediate-range weapons in the continent, which could even reach Russian strategic targets (in the European part of the country) “should Washington and NATO partners decide to deploy them.” Moreover, NATO’s enlargement “has created more potential deployment areas in Central and Eastern Europe.” The Kremlin sees the Atlantic Alliance today, after all, as merely an American tool to advance its geopolitical interests (to the detriment of Russian security).

Sometimes, critics claim that the fact that Moscow cooperated in varying degrees with NATO from the nineties to around 2010 “proves” that Russian claims about NATO’s enlargement should not be taken seriously. This fact, if anything, corroborates Moscow’s arguments.

In his 2018 associated professorship habilitation thesis, Sao Paulo University History Professor Angelo de Oliveira Segrillo describes Putin as a moderate (albeit ambiguously) “Westernist”, rather than an Eurasianist, citing as evidence for it the Russian President’s well know admiration for Peter the Great. Segrillo argues that Putin was never a radical Westernist such as Boris Yeltsin, but rather a pragmatic and moderate one, while also being a gosudarstvennik, that is, someone who advocates for a strong State, in line with Russia’s political tradition. The Brazilian professor thus compares Putin to the French leader Charles de Gaulle, who often opposed Washington and NATO not simply out of an “anti-Western stance” but as someone who is in a position of defending the national interests of one’s own country.

Alas, whether the aforementioned thesis is fully accurate or not, that being something which interests mostly historians and biographers anyway, one can in any case argue that far from being staunchly “anti-Western” due to the supposed personal inclinations of the President (as Western propaganda would have it), the Kremlin in fact has had to take a defensive and counter-offensive approach towards the US-led West over the latter’s many provocations and developments which, from a Russian perspective, constituted crossing red lines.

In the NATO-Russia Founding Act of May 1997, NATO in fact pledged to limit the number of stationed troops, promising not to bring about any “additional permanent stationing of sub­stantial combat forces”, while  claiming it had no plan to deploy nuclear weapons in the accession countries. Such agreements eroded over several episodes, as Richter demonstrates. Countries that did not belong to the CFE started joining the Alliance in 2004 and, to make matters worse, Washington in 2007 established a permanent military presence on the Black Sea. The US had withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 which for the Kremlin was a threat to strategic stability, a perception enhanced by Washington’s 2007 bilateral agreements with the Czech and Poland to deploy missile defense systems in these countries (allegedly to counter an Iranian “threat”).

NATO’s war against Serbia in 1999 (denounced by Russia) had of course already violated the ban on the use of force, and the 1997 and 1999 agreements. Moreover, the brutal invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 demonstrated America’s capacity and willingness to break international law, by relying on a “coalition of the willing” of new Eastern European partners and allies (even without NATO consensus). One could also cite Western recognition of Kosovo’s (unilateral) declaration of independence and the 2008 offer of the prospect of joining NATO to Ukraine and Georgia which, according to Richter, was “the breaking point in NATO’s relations with Russia.”

The 2014 Crimea referendum and the Donbass War might have been the culmination of the erosion of an already declining European security order, argues Richter but such erosion “had already begun in 2002 with the growing potential for conflict between Washington and Moscow”, George W. Bush having played an important role in this.

Which brings us to the current situation. For American political scientist John Mearsheimer, if Kyiv and Moscow had reached a deal, which could have happened if it were not for Western interference, Ukraine today would control a greater share of territory. As he writes, “Russia and Ukraine were involved in serious negotiations to end the war in Ukraine right after it started on 24 February 2022”. Regarding that, he adds: “everyone involved in the negotiations understood that Ukraine’s relationship with NATO was Russia’s core concern… if Putin was bent on conquering all of Ukraine, he would not have agreed to these talks.” The main issue was NATO.

To sum it up, although at times Russia considered the possibility of engaging in further dialogue and cooperation with NATO, there have always  been tensions about the Atlantic Alliance’s expansion, and Moscow security concerns pertaining to it, far from being a mere excuse, are in fact well-founded.

December 12, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

US Ruling Class Fears Trump Would Withdraw from NATO

Sputnik – 11.12.2023

The New York Times – generally considered a mouthpiece for US militarism and ruling class interests – published an article Saturday agonizing over the possibility that former President Trump would withdraw from NATO in a second term.

The report, although rife with opinion and speculation, was published as a news item in the Saturday edition of the controversial newspaper.

“For 74 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been America’s most important military alliance,” read the article. The authors went on to suggest there is “enormous uncertainty and anxiety” throughout Europe and among “American supporters of the country’s traditional foreign-policy role” (which has resulted in the death of at least 4.5 million since 2001).

“There is great fear in Europe that a second Trump presidency would result in an actual pullout of the United States from NATO,” said James G. Stavridis, a former NATO supreme allied commander. “That would be an enormous strategic and historic failure on the part of our nation.”

Despite NATO’s ostensible existence as an “alliance” between the United States and European countries Stavridis, like every other NATO supreme commander, is American.

Benjamin Norton, the founder and editor-in-chief of Geopolitical Economy Report, has derisively labeled the alliance as the “Nazi Arming and Training Organization” for their support of Nazi elements. Historically, the alliance elevated former German Nazis to key positions of power throughout the Cold War and supported terrorism, assassinations, psychological warfare, and false flag operations through a covert effort known as Operation Gladio.

The strategy was duplicated in Latin America where the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) utilized and provided safe haven for former Nazis like Klaus Barbie.

Despite ostensibly existing as an anticommunist alliance, NATO remained hostile to Russia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and continued expanding east in violation of the agreement with the country during the final days of the Cold War. Recently the US government-backed Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe laid bare the country’s intention to balkanize Russia in a conference advocating for “decolonization” even as the United States continues to support the “colonization” of the Gaza Strip.

Recently the consequences of US hegemony in Europe have been made clear as Germany endures a deep economic crisis brought about by the country’s participation in US-led sanctions on Russia.

December 11, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

What Would Happen If the US Stopped Supporting Ukraine?

By Connor O’Keeffe – Mises Wire – 12/06/2023

Over the weekend, border-policy negotiations between Senate Democrats and Republicans fell apart. The talks were meant to firm up Republican support for the president’s massive $105 billion military support proposal ahead of Wednesday’s vote by including additional funds for border security in the spending package. Now, with no imminent approval of further aid to Ukraine, hawks in government and the media are trying to stoke panic about what will happen if Kyiv is cut off from US support.

In a letter to Congress Monday, White House budget director Shalanda Young told Congress the funds will dry up by the end of the year:

I want to be clear: without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from U.S. military stocks. There is no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment. We are out of money—and nearly out of time.

Young goes on to forecast disaster for Ukraine if more money isn’t allocated. But is that really accurate? Are the Ukrainian people doomed if Washington stops funding the war?

If we’re going to understand what might happen in the absence of US involvement in Ukraine, we must first understand Washington’s actual effect on the war, the true nature of which has been laid out brilliantly in a series of recent columns by Ted Snider.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began with a bombardment of cruise missiles on February 24, 2022. Later that day, infantry and armored divisions rolled in from Russia, Belarus, and Crimea while paratroopers dropped in around the capital city of Kyiv.

Days later, as the shock and confusion of the initial offensive began to dissipate, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky attempted to set up indirect talks with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Zelensky called then–Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett and asked him to contact Putin and to serve as a mediator. Bennett agreed.

Over the next week, Bennett had a series of phone calls with Putin before traveling to Moscow and Berlin to help organize diplomatic communication channels. His effort culminated in a March 10 meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministers in Turkey.

In the series of talks that followed, Bennett described both sides as making “huge concessions” in pursuit of a ceasefire.

But Kyiv’s Western backers were resistant to the truce. At a special summit on March 24, NATO decided not to support or approve the peace negotiations. Still, Zelensky and Putin kept at it. And on March 29, the two sides reached an agreement.

According to a draft unsealed this past June, Russia had agreed to pull its forces back to prewar boundaries. In exchange, Ukraine had agreed it would not seek NATO membership.

So why didn’t it happen? Well, it may have started to. In early April, Russia withdrew its forces from northern Ukraine, around Kyiv—an action Putin later said was related to the Istanbul agreement.

But then, according to Bennett, former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, Turkish foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, and the leader of the Ukrainian delegation to the talks, David Arakhamia, the West pressured Zelensky to abandon negotiations and fight.

Assuming the best intentions, it’s possible officials in Washington and Brussels believed the Ukrainians could win enough battles to improve their leverage in future negotiations. But that is not what happened.

Instead, Washington bankrolled a horrifying twenty-one-month war of attrition that has cost the people of Ukraine greatly in land, lives, and limbs. After talks broke down, Russia laid permanent claim to tens of thousands of square miles of Ukrainian territory that it had earlier agreed to relinquish.

Last summer, Ukrainian forces began attempting to retake this land by force in the so-called counteroffensive. But they have since lost more territory than they have gained. Ukraine keeps its casualty count classified, but by the end of August US estimates had put it north of two hundred thousand. And it has likely climbed substantially with the ongoing struggle to break through heavy Russian minefields.

As their supply of military-aged men has dwindled, the average age of a Ukrainian soldier has climbed to forty-three. And now there is a push within the Ukrainian government to lower the draft age to begin conscripting those who have so far been too young to be eligible.

The Ukrainian people are being put through hell. And now even senior Ukrainian military officials admit there is no military path out.

If the purpose of stifling the Istanbul agreement was to help the Ukrainians gain more leverage, the West must admit failure before Ukraine loses even more.

And if Washington’s intentions were more nefarious—as comments from officials like Mitch McConnell, who have framed the war as an easy way to burden Russia without spilling American blood, suggest—that’s all the more reason to call off this horrific project.

That brings us back to the original question. What would happen if the United States stopped supporting Ukraine? We already know. Ukraine and Russia would work toward a deal. It won’t go as well for Ukraine as it did almost two years ago when they were stronger. But it’s not a path to fear. Because the alternative is that the White House gets its way and this brutal, unnecessary war carries on. And that’s so much worse.

December 7, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Moscow rejects US narrative on aid for Kiev

RT | December 7, 2023

Claims in Washington that Russian President Vladimir Putin may attack NATO, unless Congress allocates tens of billions of dollars in additional Ukraine funding are “bogeyman stories,” Moscow’s ambassador in the US capital Anatoly Antonov said on Wednesday.

White House officials, including President Joe Biden, have claimed that by withholding aid from Kiev, American lawmakers were increasing the risk of a direct US-Russia war.

“If Putin takes Ukraine, he won’t stop there,” Biden said in an address on Wednesday, in which he made a last-ditch appeal to lawmakers to appropriate over $110 billion in assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

Touting the scenario of a Russian attack on NATO, Biden stressed that then American troops will have to get involved directly. The Russian leadership has not expressed an intention to “take Ukraine,” let alone invade any NATO member.

Antonov dismissed the narrative, accusing those who repeat it of “myth-making and [the] propagation of dangerous lies” about his nation.

“In an attempt to ‘add fuel’ to the fire of the Ukrainian proxy war, [US] authorities have finally lost touch with reality,” he claimed in remarks posted by the embassy.

“Washington and [the] insatiable US military-industrial complex are direct beneficiaries of the bloodshed in Ukraine,” Antonov added.

In his pitch to Congress, Biden claimed that the Russian leader’s ambition was to “dominate Ukraine” and warned that “the entire world is watching” Washington’s actions. America is “the reason Putin has not totally overrun Ukraine and moved beyond that,” he claimed.

Moscow has cited NATO’s expansion in Europe and the pledge that Ukraine will eventually join the US-led military bloc among the causes of the crisis. It was willing to seal a truce with Kiev in the early phase of the conflict in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality.

However, Russia’s opponent ditched a proposed peace agreement and opted for continued hostilities, after then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson told the country to “just make war,” according to David Arakhamia, who headed the Ukrainian delegation at the Türkiye-mediated negotiations.

Biden accused Republican opponents of his request of being willing to “literally kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield” and “give Putin the greatest gift he could hope for and abandon our global leadership not just to Ukraine.”

Nevertheless, Republican senators voted unanimously against the aid, which was bundled in a spending package, later in the day. The GOP legislators insisted that the White House and Democratic lawmakers make concessions on immigration reform and border security before they were willing to approve additional tens of billions of aid to Kiev.

December 7, 2023 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

Peace Talks With Russia? UK & US Seeking Quick Face-Saving Exit From Ukraine Debacle – CIA Vet

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 05.12.2023

There is a rumor in British diplomatic circles about forcing Ukraine to negotiate a way out of the conflict with Russia, per the UK podcast Politics at Jack and Sam’s. Could the reported chatter be real, and if so, what’s behind it?

The Western press is citing Ukrainian politicians expressing criticism with regard to President Volodymyr Zelensky’s failed counteroffensive, with British observers suggesting that the Kiev regime could soon be forced to sit down with Russia and hold talks. As it recently turned out, it was then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson who encouraged Zelensky to tear up the preliminary peace agreement with Moscow in 2022. Is London’s position on Ukraine changing?

“Well, their opinion is going to have to change, because the events on the ground are going to dictate it, with Ukraine losing militarily and neither the US nor the UK being in a position to supply any kind of significant weaponry,” retired CIA intelligence officer and State Department official Larry Johnson told Sputnik. “And even if they did, who’s going to use it? That’s Ukraine’s fundamental problem right now – it’s a lack of manpower. And over the last couple of weeks, we’ve seen more and more stories, more independent evidence that Ukraine has just suffered massive losses, both killed and wounded, that are incapable of returning to the fight. So, I think this flood of information will keep pouring out. And each day it’s going to add to the problems that Zelensky faces in trying to hang on to power.”

This is not the first time the rumor of potential Russo-Ukrainian negotiations has made its way to the press. In late November, the German newspaper Bild alleged a plot between Washington and Berlin to twist Zelensky’s arm into holding talks with Russia by substantially diminishing military aid to Kiev. According to the German publication, there is also a plan B envisaging a frozen conflict that would solidify a new “quasi-border” between Ukraine and Russia along the contact line.

Per Johnson, even if the West is ready for negotiations over Ukraine, they should bear in mind that nobody in Russia would allow them to fool Moscow after the derailed Istanbul talks of March 2022 and the Bucha hoax widely circulated by the Western press. However, it’s still unclear what the US and its NATO allies really want: a sustainable peace, or merely a frozen conflict.

“Well, again, this is the problem,” the former CIA analyst pointed out. “There has been no negotiation of any substance between the United States and Russia for now more than two years. The last time Putin entered into negotiations to negotiate a peace – that was a year ago, in April. And the West, Biden, Boris Johnson, they sabotaged it. They destroyed it. They made sure that the Ukrainians knew that they were not to agree to any deal. And that’s how they treat it. My own perception is that the Russians are still smarting over that betrayal, because they legitimately thought they had an agreement in place. And then within days, as they’re pulling back their forces from north of Kiev, the tank forces, the United States and the United Kingdom launched this propaganda campaign, accusing Russia of war crimes in Bucha. It was a blatant lie, it wasn’t true. But again, the truth didn’t matter anymore.”

Meanwhile, The Economist, a British magazine, has drawn attention to the fact that Zelensky’s approval rating is in free fall after the botched counteroffensive attempt, while Ukrainian Armed Forces Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhny commands 70% support. Per the media, the two are at odds, as Zelensky apparently fears that Zaluzhny may be picked as his successor.

“Well, the Americans are trying to figure out how to get rid of Zelensky,” Johnson said. “And I think this is just a natural outgrowth of the various plotting and scheming. I think part of it is wishful thinking on the part of Americans. They launched this war as a proxy war against Russia, fully expecting Ukraine to defeat Russia. It was going to cause the collapse of Vladimir Putin and could ultimately lead to the breakup of Russia. And instead, it’s not turned out that way at all. It has completely backfired.”

“So what you’re getting now are these, let’s call them crazy ideas. People keep thinking that, ‘Okay, we can engineer this in such a way that maybe we will replace Zelensky with Zaluzhny.’ [… ] But these are the kinds of rumors that are circulating. What’s clear is that Zelensky does not have a secure hold on the presidency in Ukraine. And right now, there is a meeting underway in Washington with, I guess, the next in line for the presidency, probably because Zelensky himself didn’t feel secure leaving Ukraine right now to go beg for more money. And so he’s sticking close to home in order to just, I think, try to preserve his position.”

December 5, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO chief admits Ukrainian failure

By Lucas Leiroz | December 4, 2023

Increasingly, military leaders are admitting Ukraine’s inability to carry out the fight under its current military circumstances. In a recent statement, the head of the alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, stated that the West needs to be prepared to receive “bad news” from Ukraine, belatedly recognizing the reality that many analysts had already reported before.

Stoltenberg made pessimistic comments, lamenting Ukraine’s poor military progress. According to him, Moscow has a great advantage in the conflict, in addition to accumulating a large number of weapons for the military scenario in the winter. The secretary stated that the Russian defense industry is producing weapons “on war footing”, operating in an accelerated manner in order to achieve the country’s military results.

He also said that the front lines have remained almost unchanged in recent months, but that it is necessary to be prepared for bad news regarding Ukrainian positions. However, for him, support for Ukraine is vital and must be maintained, even if expectations are negative.

“We have to be prepared for bad news. Wars move in phases, but we must stand by Ukraine in good and in bad times alike”, he said.

Another interesting topic commented on by Stoltenberg was the inability of Western countries to produce enough weapons to support Ukraine. He admitted that the West is weakened industrially, unable to meet Ukrainian demands.

He compared the capabilities of Russian and European industrial production and concluded that Moscow is working better in this sector, which explains some difficulties of the Ukrainian military in achieving good results on the battlefield. In addition, the secretary stated that the Russians plan to continue attacking Ukrainian energy infrastructure in order to harm the country’s ability to produce weapons and equipment domestically during the winter.

“I think one of the main problems that we must address is the fragmentation of the European defense industry. We are not capable of working so closely together as we should (…) Russia has amassed a large missile stockpile ahead of winter, and we see new attempts to strike Ukraine’s power grid and energy infrastructure”, he added.

In fact, Stoltenberg’s words come at a serious moment, in which the vulnerability of Ukraine can no longer be hidden. The country is suffering many losses since its failed “counteroffensive” attempt. Also, the mainstream media is running out of arguments to disguise the defeat of the Kiev regime, which makes the speeches of Western propagandists become more realistic.

In addition, there is another important factor to understand this process, which is the escalation in Palestine. With Israel suffering from various problems on the battlefield and in need of broad Western support, NATO needs to take the focus of public opinion away from Ukraine and begin to justify a policy of support for the Zionist state. For this reason, it is already becoming commonplace for Western leaders and media to be realistic about the Ukrainian situation. The objective is to explain that this war is impossible to be won, having no longer any need to maintain unrestricted support.

In other words, Western officials and journalists are preparing public opinion for the unavoidable defeat of the neo-Nazi regime and trying to focus on Israel as a new “emergency.” In addition, excuses such as “low industrial production” or “Russian attacks on infrastructure” are inappropriately used to try to justify Ukraine’s situation. But, indeed, the real reason is simply Russian military superiority.

In fact, the West has proven unable to produce weapons fast enough to defend Ukraine. In the same sense, Moscow has launched several heavy artillery and aviation strikes against Ukrainian critical infrastructure. But these are only a few factors that do not fully explain the outcome of the war. Kiev’s failure is mainly due to the factor that the Russians are militarily much superior and have a more efficient military strategy. Even at times when Kiev was receiving large amounts of weapons from NATO on a daily basis the regime’s forces were not able to achieve positive results because the Russians always had a greater military power and a more appropriate strategy. So, Stoltenberg does not explain the real reasons for the defeat by talking only about industrial production.

Finally, it must be emphasized how admitting defeat is also a moral blow against the West. NATO is clearly demoralized due to the frustration in Ukraine. The pro-Kiev propaganda machine has not been able to substantiate any of its narratives, having now to admit that its predictions were wrong. It is very likely that the mainstream media and Western officials will lose their credibility, with public opinion simply ceasing to believe what is said by them.

Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.

December 4, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Canada pushing unwinnable war harms Ukrainians

By Yves Engler | December 1, 2023

The Liberals and elements of the dominant media are criticizing the Conservatives for their insufficient commitment to Ukraine. But it’s those who have promoted the NATO proxy war that have damaged the country.

The prime minister and Liberal ministers have denounced the Conservatives for not voting for the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal. They are seeking to paint Pierre Poilievre as not serious or influenced by Donald Trump, which may be true. Trudeau stated, “the real story is the rise of a right-wing, American MAGA-influenced thinking that has made Canadian Conservatives — who used to be among the strongest defenders of Ukraine, I’ll admit it — turn their backs on something Ukraine needs in its hour of need.”

The Conservatives countered days of criticism by seeking to amend a foreign affairs committee report on Ukraine to add a call for Canada to send more arms.

Irrespective of the merits of the trade deal, the notion that NATO proxy warriors are ‘supporting’ Ukraine simply doesn’t hold up. With Washington, Ottawa has pushed a client state to fight a horrific and ever more obviously unwinnable war, as a series of recent revelations underscore.

As Reuters reports the Ukrainian military is having increasing difficulty finding fighters with many seeking increasingly elaborate ways of bypassing conscription. As a result, they’ve largely run out of new men, which is forcing troops to stay at the front for longer periods. Morale is collapsing.

As recently confirmed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation in Ukraine-Russia peace talks this could have been avoided if the US and UK hadn’t scuttled a deal in the spring of 2022. David Arakhamia, who is now parliamentary leader of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party, said Russia was prepared to end the war if Ukraine agreed to neutrality, but UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Zelensky not to sign the peace deal. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Vladimir Putin and others have echoed this account of the initial peace negotiations.

Arakhamia’s revelations confirm that Ukraine is a Western client state. Last week marked the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the Maidan protests that greatly exacerbated Ukraine’s subordination to the West. An elected, if corrupt, president that drew support largely from the Russian speaking east and south of the ‘cleft country’ was deposed in a violent foreign-promoted insurrection. Recent revelations from the trial of the Maidan Massacre confirm that far right forces shot Maidan protesters. University of Ottawa professor Ivan Katchanovski noted, “Maidan massacre trial verdict confirms that Maidan snipers massacred many Maidan protesters and police and shot at ARD and BBC TV journalists.” The massacre led to the ouster of elected president Viktor Yanukovych.

Canada played a significant part in stoking opposition to Yanukovych who promoted Ukrainian neutrality. Immediately after he won an election, which Canadian observers found to be fair, Ottawa began to undermine him. Canadian officials’ criticism of Yanukovych grew and early in the three-month Maidan protest movement, foreign minister John Baird visited Maidan square with Ukrainian Canadian Congress head Paul Grod to support the demonstrators. At the height of the protests opposition forces, including the far-right C14, used the Canadian Embassy in Kyiv, which was immediately adjacent to Maidan square, as a staging ground for a week in their bid to topple Yanukovych. After Yanukovych was ousted, Baird immediately “welcomed the appointment of a new government”, saying, “the appointment of a legitimate government is a vital step forward in restoring democracy and normalcy to Ukraine.” But the country’s constitutional provisions dealing with impeachment or replacing a president were flagrantly violated.

The coup spurred right-wing violence, Russia’s intervention in Crimea and a war that left 14,000 dead in the east. The smoldering conflict contributed to Russia’s February 2022 invasion, which contravenes international law but was provoked by NATO’s efforts to turn Ukraine into a Western bulwark on Russia’s border.

Ten days ago, defence minister Bill Blair declared that Canada would support Ukraine “for as long as it takes, with whatever it takes.” Last week Ottawa announced another $60 million in arms, including over 10,000 assault guns and 9 million rounds of ammunition, for Ukraine.

Even if NATO maintains the political support for continuing to pump in weapons, there’s little chance Ukraine will regain most of the territory it has lost. There’s a greater chance it will lose more territory.

The country would have been far better off to accept the deal offered a month into the invasion (or adhere to the Minsk II agreement prior to the invasion). But the Anglosphere prioritized weakening Russia so they bolstered ultra-nationalist Ukrainian forces wanting to fight. Tens of thousands of dead later Ukraine has little prospect of garnering the deal that was previously on offer. It is also far more dependent on outside forces.

For Ukrainians the situation is a disaster. As an Economist headline recently admitted. “Putin seems to be winning the war in Ukraine—for now”.

December 1, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Kiev’s counteroffensive casualties top 125,000 – Moscow

RT | December 1, 2023

In the six months since Kiev launched its push against Russian defensive lines, it has lost over 125,000 troops and 16,000 heavy weapons, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu estimated during a ministerial meeting on Friday.

The Ukrainian government and its Western backers had high expectations for the operation, for which the former’s army was provided with main battle tanks and other advanced arms. Ukrainian officials predicted that the push would help their country reclaim territory lost since major hostilities started in February 2022, and potentially launch an incursion into Crimea, which had broken away from Kiev in the wake of the 2014 armed coup.

“Total mobilization in Ukraine, delivery of Western arms and deployment of strategic reserves by the Ukrainian command have not changed the situation on the battlefield,” the Russian minister reported. “Those desperate actions simply increased the losses of the Ukrainian armed forces.”

As such, Kiev’s military has been “significantly degraded” while Russian forces are “taking a more advantageous position and widening the zone under their control on all fronts,” Shoigu added.

Last week, Shoigu put Ukrainian casualties in November at 13,700, which pushed the Russian estimate of total Ukrainien losses in the counteroffensive over the 100,000 benchmark.

The most senior Ukrainian general, Valery Zaluzhny, reported in early November that the frontline situation had devolved into a “stalemate” and that Kiev’s side was unlikely to achieve a breakthrough unless some surprise technological development gave it a decisive edge over Moscow. His assessment has been rejected by officials, with President Vladimir Zelensky maintaining that Ukrainians are still making progress.

On Friday, the Associated Press published an interview with the Ukrainian leader, in which he said, “Look, we are not backing down, I am satisfied.” He blamed a shortage of Western weapons for the underwhelming results of the Ukrainian operation and declared that a “new phase” in the hostilities was beginning this winter.

December 1, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »